Is D&D getting too powerful?
- Thread starter trentonjoe
- Start date
ajanders
Explorer
CR's and XP and rarity
You're entirely correct, and I apologize for not speaking very clearly. Let me try and be more comprehensive.
Characters derive experience points from significant challenges. Even first level fighters gain no xp for successfully tying their shoes.
(My half orc barbarian, on the other hand...but that's a different story
)
These challenges can be fighting opponents (creatures of a certain CR, whether NPC's or monsters), handling traps or obstacles, resolving story challenges, and then other things like roleplaying generally handled on a DM by DM basis, not in the ruleset.
Higher level opponents, whether ancient red dragons or 16th level sorcerors, are very rare and may take some finding.
High CR traps are likely also very rare, just because of the effort involved. A CR 5 pit trap, for example, has to be 100 feet deep. How often is someone going to dig one of those? (Even if you put skeletons or golems inside it to raise the CR, I still find it hard to believe you'd see more than one of those in your average dungeon.) Even natural obstacles are limited in scope: I'll grant that scaling Mount Everest is probably a CR 20 challenge, but there's only one of those in the world.
Story goals, now, are where people can run into trouble. I would submit that a story goal (negotiating a peace treaty, driving off the orc tribe, or whatever) only gets a CR and gives experience if it involves a chance of harm to the party and a significant expenditure of resources. As the party gains in power, it starts to be harder for them to find story goals that are a significant challenge.
A first level thief may get story goal points for climbing a 30 foot tree and rescuing a kitten. Kittens and 30 foot trees are pretty common.
A 15th level thief may have to climb a three mile high tree and rescue the Celestial Kitten of Cuddliness, incidentally saving it from the dog servants of Graz'zt.
This is obviously not the sort of thing that happens every day: there's probably only one three mile high tree in the world and Celestial Kittens generally manage to do their own climbing.
I submit, therefore, that story goals also generally follow the same diminishing returns curve that combat encounters do.
You're entirely correct, and I apologize for not speaking very clearly. Let me try and be more comprehensive.
Characters derive experience points from significant challenges. Even first level fighters gain no xp for successfully tying their shoes.
(My half orc barbarian, on the other hand...but that's a different story
)These challenges can be fighting opponents (creatures of a certain CR, whether NPC's or monsters), handling traps or obstacles, resolving story challenges, and then other things like roleplaying generally handled on a DM by DM basis, not in the ruleset.
Higher level opponents, whether ancient red dragons or 16th level sorcerors, are very rare and may take some finding.
High CR traps are likely also very rare, just because of the effort involved. A CR 5 pit trap, for example, has to be 100 feet deep. How often is someone going to dig one of those? (Even if you put skeletons or golems inside it to raise the CR, I still find it hard to believe you'd see more than one of those in your average dungeon.) Even natural obstacles are limited in scope: I'll grant that scaling Mount Everest is probably a CR 20 challenge, but there's only one of those in the world.
Story goals, now, are where people can run into trouble. I would submit that a story goal (negotiating a peace treaty, driving off the orc tribe, or whatever) only gets a CR and gives experience if it involves a chance of harm to the party and a significant expenditure of resources. As the party gains in power, it starts to be harder for them to find story goals that are a significant challenge.
A first level thief may get story goal points for climbing a 30 foot tree and rescuing a kitten. Kittens and 30 foot trees are pretty common.
A 15th level thief may have to climb a three mile high tree and rescue the Celestial Kitten of Cuddliness, incidentally saving it from the dog servants of Graz'zt.
This is obviously not the sort of thing that happens every day: there's probably only one three mile high tree in the world and Celestial Kittens generally manage to do their own climbing.
I submit, therefore, that story goals also generally follow the same diminishing returns curve that combat encounters do.
I have a very good fix for the XP system.
Kick the whole ECL/CR/XP system right out the door. Decide as the DM when you want the characters to level up, either by events in the story or by a certain number of sessions. Give appropriate XP.
Not only is this a *LOT* less math, it helps fix some of the overly mechanical outlook of players. Might as well avoid a fight as start one, XP will be the same.
Kick the whole ECL/CR/XP system right out the door. Decide as the DM when you want the characters to level up, either by events in the story or by a certain number of sessions. Give appropriate XP.
Not only is this a *LOT* less math, it helps fix some of the overly mechanical outlook of players. Might as well avoid a fight as start one, XP will be the same.
Gothmog
First Post
Maddman75 (and others) you might be interested in the XP system I have been using the last 2 years of my 3E games:
Story-based XP gain instead of based on killing/overcoming monsters. My house rules are below:
What I'm going to suggest is going to sound extreme- stop giving XP awards for killing monsters, period. Instead, give XP for accomplishing goals during the adventure, good roleplaying, innovative problem solving, etc. I have been doing this for about two years in my campaign, and the difference in play styles is dramatic- this results in less random violence on the part of the PCs, and encourages roleplaying. The system I use is:
1. First, find out how many XP it will take for a character to reach the next level. Example: going from 4th to 5th level would require 4000 XP.
2. Before running the adventure, designate a number of minor, lesser, and major goals the PCs are looking to accomplish. For example, the characters have been hired to investigate the disappearance of the inhabitants of a small town, find them if possible, return them alive, and remove the threat that caused their disappearance in the first place.
A minor goal is something that the PCs need to do in order to get to the heart of the adventure: in this case, investigate the town looking for clues, and following a disguised trail that leads from town to an isolated forest. Finding and disabling a trap that guards the corridor into a cave where the track leads would also be a minor goal. Typically I give 2-5% of the XP needed to get to the next level for accomplishing a minor goal. So for our 4th level party, it would be 80-200 XP each, depending on the difficulty of the task.
A lesser goal would be something the PCs do in the course of accomplishing the reason for the adventure. In this case, finding the missing townspeople being held in a cave by bugbear guards, and eliminating the bugbear threat and their aboleth master are both lesser goals. Lesser goals should net the PCs 7-10% of the XP nedded for the next level. In this situation presented above, there were two lesser goals, each worth 280-400 XP each.
Finally, a greater goal would be the main reason the PCs went on the adventure in the first place. In the example, bringing as many townspeople back alive as possible is the major goal. Major goals should net the PCs 15-20% of the XP needed for the next level, or in this case 600-800 XP each.
There can be multiple minor and lesser goals in an adventure, but there should usually only be one greater goal. You should adjust the XP recieved in each goal to match the difficulty the PCs had in overcoming it. Also, the more goals you have, the less XP you should dole out for each goal.
3. Roleplaying XP- I usually give 0-15% of the XP needed for the next level for good roleplaying, staying in character, and innovative problem solving. In this case, something around 0-600 XP for each character, which is nothing to scoff at.
Using this system, characters will advance at roughly the same rate for each level, even if there are characters of differing levels in the party. It takes 3-4 adventures for characters to advance a level with this system. The 4th level party mentioned above would get around 1600-1800 XP each for the adventure. And the big bonus is you don't have to mess with that wonky CR/XP chart.
Story-based XP gain instead of based on killing/overcoming monsters. My house rules are below:
What I'm going to suggest is going to sound extreme- stop giving XP awards for killing monsters, period. Instead, give XP for accomplishing goals during the adventure, good roleplaying, innovative problem solving, etc. I have been doing this for about two years in my campaign, and the difference in play styles is dramatic- this results in less random violence on the part of the PCs, and encourages roleplaying. The system I use is:
1. First, find out how many XP it will take for a character to reach the next level. Example: going from 4th to 5th level would require 4000 XP.
2. Before running the adventure, designate a number of minor, lesser, and major goals the PCs are looking to accomplish. For example, the characters have been hired to investigate the disappearance of the inhabitants of a small town, find them if possible, return them alive, and remove the threat that caused their disappearance in the first place.
A minor goal is something that the PCs need to do in order to get to the heart of the adventure: in this case, investigate the town looking for clues, and following a disguised trail that leads from town to an isolated forest. Finding and disabling a trap that guards the corridor into a cave where the track leads would also be a minor goal. Typically I give 2-5% of the XP needed to get to the next level for accomplishing a minor goal. So for our 4th level party, it would be 80-200 XP each, depending on the difficulty of the task.
A lesser goal would be something the PCs do in the course of accomplishing the reason for the adventure. In this case, finding the missing townspeople being held in a cave by bugbear guards, and eliminating the bugbear threat and their aboleth master are both lesser goals. Lesser goals should net the PCs 7-10% of the XP nedded for the next level. In this situation presented above, there were two lesser goals, each worth 280-400 XP each.
Finally, a greater goal would be the main reason the PCs went on the adventure in the first place. In the example, bringing as many townspeople back alive as possible is the major goal. Major goals should net the PCs 15-20% of the XP needed for the next level, or in this case 600-800 XP each.
There can be multiple minor and lesser goals in an adventure, but there should usually only be one greater goal. You should adjust the XP recieved in each goal to match the difficulty the PCs had in overcoming it. Also, the more goals you have, the less XP you should dole out for each goal.
3. Roleplaying XP- I usually give 0-15% of the XP needed for the next level for good roleplaying, staying in character, and innovative problem solving. In this case, something around 0-600 XP for each character, which is nothing to scoff at.
Using this system, characters will advance at roughly the same rate for each level, even if there are characters of differing levels in the party. It takes 3-4 adventures for characters to advance a level with this system. The 4th level party mentioned above would get around 1600-1800 XP each for the adventure. And the big bonus is you don't have to mess with that wonky CR/XP chart.
Bendris Noulg
First Post
Hey, now, don't be harsh on the guy. Sure, the DMG says that this form of Experience is possible, but it only describes it in the most general of terms, giving numbers that could really be no more than ad hoc decisions. That he's taken a few of these suggestions and quantified them into a complete whole (which even works for his group!) may not be "cutting edge", but it's a bit more ambitious than a lot of other people are willing to get.Psion said:Gee, that's so cutting edge, they have methods for doing it in the DMG.
Do you people ever read your books? FYI the DMG is the blue one.
Now the question I do have (for Madman and folks that handle Experience in a similar manner) is if you provide enough "between experience" to allow for Magic Item Creation or anything else that might cost Experience Points? Or do you folks find another cost to fulfill these requirements?
A'koss
Explorer
I handle experience the same way Gothmog and Madman do and I while I can't speak for them, I don't allow for any 'tweener XP. As it's a story based award, XP is only given after you accomplish specific adventure goals (which happen regularly enough anyway). I haven't actually found this to be an issue in play, you're not usually crafting major items in the middle of an adventure anyway.
P.S. Gothmog's got a good thread which touches upon this topic in the House Rules forum. http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46892
Cheers,
A'koss.
Bendris Noulg
First Post
Ah, yes... I keep meaning to go to that thread...
Thanks!
Thanks!
William Ronald
Explorer
While I agree that characters in D&D 3.0 are more powerful in general than those of previous editions, the system is more flexible as a whole.
DMs can more easily create alternate experience point systems.
Well spoken and passionately spoken. I can at least follow how something works even if I don't always agree with how something works in 3E.
Multiclassing made little sense, as I could not think of a reason why a human could not multi class but an elf could. I do agree that some of the combinations in previous editions did lose something. It remains to be seen how D&D 3.5 will address that issue.
Level limits and class/race restrictions are something that I disliked from 1st edition. So, why would a character who lives for centuries and is capable of learning like a human being be unable to equal a human being's achievement in magics.
Similar, the races are now more balanced as a whole. I regularly see more non human characters than I did in the past. (Elves have been balanced much better than in 2nd Edition, but the art work could be better.)
Skills, feats, and the multiclassing rules now make it easier to further define characters. I have found it easier to make different character concepts with the current rules than the kits of 2nd Edition. (The kits often "balanced" a mechanical in game bonus with a "role playing" penalty. This did not often work as the designers thought, from my perspective.)
The experience point tables from 2nd Edition did not always make sense. Thieves getting credit for gaining gold did not make sense if other characters could not gain experience points by doing such things as casting spells.
So, I find D&D 3.0 easier to adapt and adjust. I do have a few grumbles, such as the strong reliance on magic items as opposed to more internal abilities. (Possibly the non spell casters could have gained abilities or feats to help better balance them against spell casters.) However, there is more of a sense that DMs and players have choices. I prefer choices to a set of rules that are dictated to me and were often limiting.
No game is perfect, but I consider the current edition an improvement over past ones in many ways. (I doubt WotC will want to introduce 4th Edition any time soon,as there would be a bit of an uproar from gamers having just bought the 3.5 books or downloaded the revised SRD.)
In the end, I think any game is what we make of it.
(If anyone wants to talk about confusing rules, just remember the 1st edition rules for grappling, wrestling, and pummeling and then recall the psionics attack resolution system in the DMG. Now, THOSE rules were confusing and a true horror to follow.)
DMs can more easily create alternate experience point systems.
Well spoken and passionately spoken. I can at least follow how something works even if I don't always agree with how something works in 3E.
Multiclassing made little sense, as I could not think of a reason why a human could not multi class but an elf could. I do agree that some of the combinations in previous editions did lose something. It remains to be seen how D&D 3.5 will address that issue.
Level limits and class/race restrictions are something that I disliked from 1st edition. So, why would a character who lives for centuries and is capable of learning like a human being be unable to equal a human being's achievement in magics.
Similar, the races are now more balanced as a whole. I regularly see more non human characters than I did in the past. (Elves have been balanced much better than in 2nd Edition, but the art work could be better.)
Skills, feats, and the multiclassing rules now make it easier to further define characters. I have found it easier to make different character concepts with the current rules than the kits of 2nd Edition. (The kits often "balanced" a mechanical in game bonus with a "role playing" penalty. This did not often work as the designers thought, from my perspective.)
The experience point tables from 2nd Edition did not always make sense. Thieves getting credit for gaining gold did not make sense if other characters could not gain experience points by doing such things as casting spells.
So, I find D&D 3.0 easier to adapt and adjust. I do have a few grumbles, such as the strong reliance on magic items as opposed to more internal abilities. (Possibly the non spell casters could have gained abilities or feats to help better balance them against spell casters.) However, there is more of a sense that DMs and players have choices. I prefer choices to a set of rules that are dictated to me and were often limiting.
No game is perfect, but I consider the current edition an improvement over past ones in many ways. (I doubt WotC will want to introduce 4th Edition any time soon,as there would be a bit of an uproar from gamers having just bought the 3.5 books or downloaded the revised SRD.)
In the end, I think any game is what we make of it.
(If anyone wants to talk about confusing rules, just remember the 1st edition rules for grappling, wrestling, and pummeling and then recall the psionics attack resolution system in the DMG. Now, THOSE rules were confusing and a true horror to follow.)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
