Experience rewards for greatly mixed party levels

[Junkheap]

We had the same problems in one of our campaigns. My cleric(18th lvl)was at least 2 lvls higher than the closest party member and around 4 higher than the others. This was mainly due to heart of nightfang spire(whatever its called). I was the only cleric and still am, but they needed me alive and NOT drained more than they needed it.

The way we do it right now is we use the DMG version. I dont fine either version really fair(FRCS or DMG). In DMG version, my cleric gets a whole lot more than he should. In the FRCS, he get a whole less than he should.

It should always be based on a party of 4. The only reason the party is usually surviving the harder battles is because the higher lvl party member is using way more resources to save the partys butt than he does with a party of the same lvl.

An example would be a marilith agains the above party or a 18th lvl ceric, 16th lvl barb, 16th lvl thief and 15 lvl sor(prestige classes mixed in for all). The party has a way better chance of surviving with the cleric being that high, than if he was 16th lvl. Whether it be during battle spells, buff spells, damage spells, or pretty much raise deads or heals. It is for sure a higher lvl character would use more resources to help the weaker.

In the above situation the DMG would probably give too much XP, but it is more fair than the FRCS where he gets short changed for doing a lot of the work. Kinda miss the 2e(or mostly every other video game rpg other than nwn) where the monster xp is set. Prob is that this doesn't work in 3e.

Mind you, it also makes a lot more difference if spell casters were the highest lvl in the party than fighters. I don't think adding 2 more lvls of fighter would amount to a comparable effort a mage/sorceror/cleric has to put up.

Geez...i hope you guys undestand my gibberish.

 

[Kalendraf]

It looks like the FRCS system is making a bigger mess than the DMG system does. Higher level characters will likely be doing a lion's share of the work here, so they should be either the same or more than those lower in level.

One method that we used to use back in 1E/2E was adding up the total levels and dividing up the exp by that number, and then weighting the awards by level. So if you had levels 4,5,6,7 in the party, you divided the total exp by 22 and then gave the 4th level character 4 shares, the 5th level character 5 shares and so forth. Unfortunately, this system only works in the situation where the encounter experience is a fixed amount. Here in 3E, that number is a variable based on the character's level.

Here's a possible solution to it:
1) Find experience on table based on highest character's level
2) Tally levels and divide encounter experience by this total.
3) Award shares of experience weighted per level.

The highest level character should represent the most experienced, and therefore the one providing the most knowledge and help in defeating this foe. Thus, that character would have the greatest impact on the experience to be gained from this fight.

Using this method, for my groups encounter with the Roc, this would have still indexed the table at 3600 exp. The total levels would be 66, so each share would be 54.54. 8th level characters would gain 436 exp, while the 1st level guards only gain 55 each. This is very comparable to what I came up with using a much more abstract method.

In the example of the 1st and 11th level characters in a party. The 2200 exp would be divided by 12, making each share be worth 183.33 exp. The 1st level character would get 183 exp, while the 11th level character would get 2017. Again, since the high level character is likely doing a bulk of the work here, this makes sense. Eventually, the 1st level character will make 2nd level, and then 3rd level and so forth, eventually catching up, but the 11th level character won't be unfairly rewarded or penalized for dragging him along. I'd have to work out the details, but I think they would tend to level up to 2nd and 12th about the same time, and from there on, the lower level character should start catching up even faster. He'd be getting 2/14's of the exp with a 2nd + 12th level character, and even if they continue to levelup at nearly the same time X / (X + (X + 10)) will still approach 1/2 for higher values of X.

I think I've convinced myself to use this method...

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

But, it's terrible for this example since the 5 main characters probably did the lion share of the work and are getting no experience for it, whereas the low level character probably did next to nothing and are getting a boatload:

Character #1 - 8th level 133
Character #2 - 8th level 133
Character #3 - 8th level 133
Character #4 - 8th level 133
Character #5 - 7th level 156
19 level 1 guards 267 each
2 level 2 guards 267 each
1 level 4 guard 237

Whoah! Don't start giving out XP to nameless NPC!

Personnaly I'd just divide the XP by 5 but I'd reduce the XP award by a certain factor based on how much work the guards did during the fight.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Kalendraf's approach is remarkably clever, I must say. I would do things differently...

IMHO, you should think about NPCs as just one of many factors that influence the overall "encounter level", and forget about dividing out xp for NPCs.

If four PCs fight a Roc alone, that might be EL 9.

If four PCs fight a Roc with the help of 20 1st level warriors, that might be EL 8 or 7.

Otherwise you will get weird metagame incentives for, say, a paladin who believes in teaching the virtue of bravery telling all the villagers to hide while he takes care of the bandits alone. It can be bad for roleplaying.

Some amount of chatting up NPCs and enlisting their aid is good roleplaying and should be rewarded, not punished.

 

[KarinsDad]

Whoah! Don't start giving out XP to nameless NPC!

Actually, I like to give out experience to NPCs, abet named ones.

The problem here, though, was that the low level guys standing around (even if they were attacking) got more experience then the ones doing the real work.

Personnaly I'd just divide the XP by 5 but I'd reduce the XP award by a certain factor based on how much work the guards did during the fight.

Agreed. That's probably best.

RC also likes that method.

 

[Celebrim]

If the Roc had won, how much experience would it have recieved?

I don't say this because I'm particularly interested in giving Rocs xp, though, if it had been Orcs I probably would have been. I mention it because if you figure out what the CR of the encounter is from the Roc's perspective, I'd think that you'd see that the Roc was at a terrible disadvantage. If that is so, then I still contend that the effective character level of the party is above the highest level of character in the party and the total amount of experience to be awarded (much less the share) should go down.

For instance, suppose 12 1st level fighters defeat a single hill giant, and in another encounter 120 1st level fighters defeat a hill giant. I think that it is clear that the survivors of the second fight deserve a good deal less than 1/10th the xp that the survivors of the 1st fight recieve because they were individually in far less danger and individually contributed less to the outcome.

With this in mind the method I currently use shares a lot in common with both Kalendraf's method (in that I use weighted shares), and Ridley's Cohort's method (in that I change the indice) only I change the (effective) level of the party and not the (effective) difficulty of the encounter.

RC: "If four PCs fight a Roc alone, that might be EL 9.

If four PCs fight a Roc with the help of 20 1st level warriors, that might be EL 8 or 7.

Otherwise you will get weird metagame incentives for, say, a paladin who believes in teaching the virtue of bravery telling all the villagers to hide while he takes care of the bandits alone. It can be bad for roleplaying."

Errr... yeah, but since by decreasing the EL of the fight you are negatively impacting the experience that the Paladin will recieve (just as by any other method we've discussed whether or not the peasants get a share) you still might get weird metagaming if you tolerate that sort of thing. I personally find that PC's like it when reoccuring friends and allies recieve experience, especially if they enjoy (as they usually do) a leadership position with these NPC's and can expect to order them about to some degree. NPC's then become valuable even to power gamers, and they are more likely to tolerate the burden of role playing with them to keep them loyal and amendable to PC suggestion.

 

[Numion]

It looks like the FRCS system is making a bigger mess than the DMG system does. Higher level characters will likely be doing a lion's share of the work here, so they should be either the same or more than those lower in level.

All the characters in the group are making the most use of their abilities, or at least trying to. In sense, the higher level characters aren't doing any more than the lower level dudes - who are in greater mortal danger.

I've run two campaigns to 16+ levels, one with the DMG method and one with the FRCS method, and I must say that the FRCS method is better. IMHO, YMMV, of course

With the FRCS I like the fact that lower level PCs catch up quite easily. No one likes to play less effective chars than others in the group.

 

[KarinsDad]

With the FRCS I like the fact that lower level PCs catch up quite easily. No one likes to play less effective chars than others in the group.

What is your experience with this? How quickly does it take to catch up an entire level for example?

Like I said, I've been using the FRCS method since day one and I know mathematically that they will catch up to the same level eventually (in fact, over and over again since the originally higher level characters pop into the next higher level quicker, etc.), but I'm wondering if you've ever experienced a lower level character catching up and passing higher level characters due to individual experience.

Or because they eventually get real close where character A has just make level X and character B is just a hair shy of X, but then they have a big encounter, character B gets a lot more experience than A and passes him.

It's hard to tell in my game since I have a 75% experience rule for characters whose players could not make the game (we play all of the characters, even if any players are not there). So, over time, characters can move all over the place in experience with respect to one another, depending on real world situation.

 

[Junkheap]

Like i used in my example before, i really dislike the FRCS method when the levels are not the same. It is really unfair to the higher classes, especially when they are spell casters. I am in one campaign right now and i know this for a fact. I have to cast more spells and worry about a lot more because they are lower level. In the campaign we talked about, we have played all the WOTC adventures and right now we are at the last one(bastion of broken sould). Let me tell you that i pretty much HAVE to cast everything at my disposal to save the partys behind. I should NOT recieve less for it(FRCS), but i should not receive what the DMG gives either.

If i was a fighter, i would be going up anyway, but 2 or 3 levels for a fighter at that point in his career does not make a difference. A cleric or a mage without access to 9th lvl spells makes a LOT of difference. I memorize 2 miracles, so that i can pretty much be ready for any situation. The lower level characters benefit because they know i can do this.

In my experience, a character that is higher lvl has to play differently and more defensively due to the characters around him. He cant do as much as he should(can't take as much chances and MUST go for the sure shot), and he can't stand by idly and do nothing.

KALENDRAF: I really like your method......i will probably use/suggest it next game.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Or because they eventually get real close where character A has just make level X and character B is just a hair shy of X, but then they have a big encounter, character B gets a lot more experience than A and passes him.

Yes, it happened to me once. The easy solution was simply to cap the XP of characters B to the total XP of character A after the latest payoff. At that point you could say that character B had literraly caught up with character A.