Level Independent XP Awards

[BryonD]

Hmm... Yes. This of course is the core method. I don't know what you mean by "Goes back to..." as this is the goal I've always shot for.

Instead of multiplying the relative XP award by the character level, I suppose you could devise an alternate method to multiply it by the monster CR. That would scale it up proportionately.

Wulf

Yeah, I knew that. I just got confused thinking back over it.

The value of EL, to me, was a guide to the danger of a given encounter.
Taking on 2 ogres at once is more dangerous overall than fighting one, regrouping, and then fighting another. Thus, I am of the opinion that fighting them both at once should be worth more XP than fighting them individually.

Obviously the core system does not work that way and the system at hand models on that basis. I just got caught up thinking "EL" in conjunction with my own personal preferences.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yeah, I knew that. I just got confused thinking back over it.

I admit you got me scared for a moment. Should have heard me go, "...wulf!...."

The value of EL, to me, was a guide to the danger of a given encounter. Taking on 2 ogres at once is more dangerous overall than fighting one, regrouping, and then fighting another. Thus, I am of the opinion that fighting them both at once should be worth more XP than fighting them individually.

I am confident there's an easy way you could tie XP awards to the "Difficulty of the Encounter" as opposed to "The Difficulty of the Monster For Party Y."

The problem with such a method is that nobody has tested it, so it's hard to say if you've got the formula right or not. I feel fairly confident, however, that doubling the number of creatures should not double their individual XP award nor quadruple the total Encounter XP award. IE, an evenly matched Moderate creature worth 300 XP alone (300 XP total) should not be worth 600 XP each (1200 XP total) when encountered in a pair.

There's a simple formula out there for you, I'm sure; I just don't have any interest in straying from the core assumptions.

 

[BryonD]

I admit you got me scared for a moment. Should have heard me go, "...wulf!...."

Sorry. I've been studying the trees to much and completely forgot which forest I was in.

I am confident there's an easy way you could tie XP awards to the "Difficulty of the Encounter" as opposed to "The Difficulty of the Monster For Party Y."

There is. I have used since I started running 3E (and before really...)

Look at what the challenge amount is officially. Look at my players and their characters. See how they did compared to my expectations. Assign XP.

I have found an amazing formula for this, but there is not room in this margin for me to write it out.

The problem with such a method is that nobody has tested it, so it's hard to say if you've got the formula right or not. I feel fairly confident, however, that doubling the number of creatures should not double their individual XP award nor quadruple the total Encounter XP award. IE, an evenly matched Moderate creature worth 300 XP alone (300 XP total) should not be worth 600 XP each (1200 XP total) when encountered in a pair.

There's a simple formula out there for you, I'm sure; I just don't have any interest in straying from the core assumptions.

I certainly do not think the answer is a doubling of value or anything close to that. But two 300 XP creatures working together may be worth 650.

Not trying to start a debate on that anyway. Not worth the effort. The D20 way is per monster and errors in that are real, but ultimately beneath any threshold of making the game more or less fun. So furgetabbodit.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I have found an amazing formula for this, but there is not room in this margin for me to write it out.

Thank-you Fermat!

The issue of simulataneous vs successive encounters is a tricky one. If a fighter were going to fight 3 hill giants, it is usually better for him to fight them one at a time, rather than have them all gang up on him. If it takes him 5 rounds to kill each giant, then he has a total of 15 rounds of attacks on him if he fights them one at a time. If they all gang up on him, that number of attacks will be made on him while he is killing the first giant. And so a simultaneous encounter is much harder in these circumstances.

However if instead of hill giants the fighter were to face goblins, he might enjoy the chance to use his cleave and great cleave skills. And a wizard might prefer to have the giants or goblins all in fireball range (and cone of cold, and horrid wilting, and...) at the same time, and a cleric might prefer to have all hostiles dealt with within the duration of one casting of his buff spells. Sometimes opponents are easier to deal with simultaneously than successively. And sometimes it is the party's choice of battlefield and tactics that determines what kind of encounter it will be.

There is also a kind of synergy between attackers- think of an iron golem controlled by a Red Dragon. The dragon's fire breath heals the golem, so together they are more challenging (and should be worth more) than they are separately. On the other hand, it is presumed that the reason that monsters who fight together work well together, and there is some synergy; that is certainly true of a successful adventuring party. So arguably you could dock xp for an encounter where the monsters don't synergize well.

Look at what the challenge amount is officially. Look at my players and their characters. See how they did compared to my expectations. Assign XP.

If you have a way of gauging how much of a party's resources has been used up in an encounter, you can assign xp on that basis. If it used up 1/4 of their resources, it was a moderate encounter. The problem with this approach is that it encourages poor play and the squandering of resources: a clever party who overcomes an obstacle with nary a skirmish would get no xp, while a blundering party whose poor tactics almost causes a TPK gets xp as if it were an overwhelming encounter.

Discussing with the players what was learned from the encounter, or what the group could have been done better, is a way of deciding how to adjudicate the quality of their play. This is a good way of handling xp, but formulas and tables can't capture it.

BTW, what was it that you said that scared Wulf?

 

[Zoatebix]

I can't get enough of these threads... I've subscribed here, too...

 

[Anubis]

Cheiromancer, you're making things way more complicated than they're supposed to be. I cut the whole thing down to a single line, and you've added more to it. In addition, from the sounds of it, you've taken away the most important aspect of the system, that being that people that are behind are supposed to be able to catch up.

The system is designed to give more XP to those in more danger in an encounter, not based on how much said character did. It's NEVER been designed that way. If that were the case, only rogues would get XP for traps (which isn't the case) and wizards would almost never gain much XP at low levels (when they can't do much of anything). The system is designed so that higher levels mean less XP unless the power of the opponent also goes up. No encounter should EVER give more XP to those with higher levels under ANY circumstance.

My formula addresses all of this and answers everything perfectly. Why tinker with it more? Basically, once something works, that's when you're supposed to stop messing with it. My system is FLAWLESS. Your simplifying my equation mathematically (without changing it, back then) simplified it to make it usable.

Power Factor = LV*#Members
Base XP = (CR^2)*300
XP = Base XP / Power Factor

Unless you can find an actual flaw in that, then there is no reason to discuss the issue further as the answer has been found. Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you find something that works with no problem whatsoever, isn't work supposed to stop on it with a "Mission Accomplished" sign?

Anyway, UK, this is the formula that's proposed to be changed in the Immortal's Handbook. Thoroughly tested and shown to be defect-free, it's the only system out there that works without ANY fuss and also adhere's to the 13-1/3 encounters at every conceivable level, including Levels 41+ (where every other suggestion breaks down fast) and even at Levels 5000+ (which will never be played at, but no can be if one wanted).

I honestly see no reason why there's continuing discussion on a resolved matter. By the way, for those reading, I apologize if I sound rude. I just am impatient, that's all, and I mean no personal slight toward any of you whatsoever. Just wanted to make that clear, seeing as I realize I can sound like an ass sometimes.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In addition, from the sounds of it, you've taken away the most important aspect of the system, that being that people that are behind are supposed to be able to catch up.

Because some folks consider that a flaw, not a design goal; is now and always has been. You may decide that it's not a flaw when the character levels are 7/8/8/9 (and many folks will agree with you, including myself) but it's definitely a flaw, as has been pointed out, when the character levels are 1/1/1/20.

This would be an instance where your method does NOT scale across all levels, and this is why it is insufficient to many GMs.

This isn't a matter for mathematical debate; it's a GMing/playing preference. It's a matter of opinion, and folks simply don't share your opinion.

Wulf

 

[Anubis]

Because some folks consider that a flaw, not a design goal; is now and always has been. You may decide that it's not a flaw when the character levels are 7/8/8/9 (and many folks will agree with you, including myself) but it's definitely a flaw, as has been pointed out, when the character levels are 1/1/1/20.

This would be an instance where your method does NOT scale across all levels, and this is why it is insufficient to many GMs.

This isn't a matter for mathematical debate; it's a GMing/playing preference. It's a matter of opinion, and folks simply don't share your opinion.

Wulf

It's not a flaw. 3.5 has ALWAYS been designed to allow weaker characters to catch up. So it has indeed been a goal. In addition, you MUST (I can't stress this enough) consider fairness and balance. Allowing characters to get too far behind makes them useless or makes them at the very least feel insignificant or like they're not pulling their load. So no, it's not a flaw. Those who think it is don't understand the system.

Besides, think LOGICALLY. Logically speaking, those who are less experienced have "more to learn" than those who are more experienced. That means my system also has the benefit of being more realistic. It's the best of all worlds!

Either way, the new rules are designed to be perfectly balanced whether people "prefer" them or not. Since UK is going for accuracy, however, that means there is no problem. Mine is, overall, the most accurate, whether people like weaker character catching up or not.

You may decide that it's not a flaw when the character levels are 7/8/8/9 (and many folks will agree with you, including myself) but it's definitely a flaw, as has been pointed out, when the character levels are 1/1/1/20.

It is? How has that been "pointed out"? It still works perfectly. If such a party fought a CR 20 creature (worth 120,000 XP), the Level 20 character would earn 1500 XP and the Level 1 characters would each earn 1000 (the level maximum). The one "supposed" flaw is easily dealt with using the other section of my proposal; remember, the most XP any one character can get per encounter is their level multiplied by 1000. Level 1 characters can earn, at most, 1000 XP. That part is, of course, optional, but it hammers out the only supposed flaw (which isn't even a flaw, really). Honestly, using that example is the old "using an dumb example to intentionally break the rules", and that can happen to ANY system; realistically, a Level 20 character will never be in a party with three Level 1 characters, and even if he is, either the weaker character will get killed instantly or the Level 20 character won't be getting any XP whatsoever, which is as it should be anyway if a DM is stupid enough to form such a party.

Nonetheless, using my rules IN THEIR ENTIRETY is a flawless solution. I propose it be added to the Immortal's Handbook in place of UK's current system because the current system simply doesn't work AT ALL once you get to Level 9 (under his, a Level 9 character gets more from an encounter than a Level 8 character gets from the same encounter, which is about as bad a flaw as you can get and is quite obvious). Like the entire Immortal's Handbook, however, it's all optional. The design goal is and always has been accuracy. With my system, there is 100% accuracy. Unless THAT point can be disputed, there really is no reason to continue the discussion, honestly.

I'm trying to be helpful and add to this great product by helping eliminate the biggest design flaw (the XP awards). Unless you got some other idea that works at any and all levels and adheres strictly to the 13-1/3 rule, let's please just end the debate now. I see no point of continuing when the answer has been found.

 

[Cheiromancer]

The example of the 20th level character with three 1st level companions is an extreme example; when systems break down, they often break down at the extremes. If they function there, they function anywhere. If there is a problem, though, the problem will probably be present for similar (but less extreme) cases; eg for a 10th level character with three 7th level companions.

In the 20/1/1/1 case, why should the high level character get only 25% of the experience he would if he were alone? The encounter is almost as difficult for him as it was before (the halflings are little help), so he should learn almost as much as before, so he should get almost as much xp.

In the X/Y formula, he gets (X/400)*20 xp when alone, and (X/403)*20 xp when he is with the halflings. The encounter is slightly less difficult, so he gets slightly less xp. Just like it should be.

(Recall that X is the sum of the squares of the CRs of the opponents times 300, and Y is the sum of the squares of the CRs of the party members)

 

[Anubis]

The example of the 20th level character with three 1st level companions is an extreme example; when systems break down, they often break down at the extremes. If they function there, they function anywhere. If there is a problem, though, the problem will probably be present for similar (but less extreme) cases; eg for a 10th level character with three 7th level companions.

In the 20/1/1/1 case, why should the high level character get only 25% of the experience he would if he were alone? The encounter is almost as difficult for him as it was before (the halflings are little help), so he should learn almost as much as before, so he should get almost as much xp.

In the X/Y formula, he gets (X/400)*20 xp when alone, and (X/403)*20 xp when he is with the halflings. The encounter is slightly less difficult, so he gets slightly less xp. Just like it should be.

(Recall that X is the sum of the squares of the CRs of the opponents times 300, and Y is the sum of the squares of the CRs of the party members)

The reason yours doesn't work is simple: it breaks the 13-1/3 encounters rule. That is the core of D&D experience, and is pretty much the one point that simple can't be changed under any circumstance for any reason. Break that and the entire system breaks down.

In all honesty, your reasoning for the 1/1/1/20 may sound good on the surface, but since it flubs up the math on so many levels and breaks the 13-1/3 rule, it's not usable. The D&D system's core is designed around a balanced party. It does not take into account whether one person does more or not, nor should it. To demonstrate that point, simply use a CR 20 golem (for the example, it doesn't matter which golem, but let's assume stone golem for simplicity) and then replace one of those Level 1 characters with a Level 20 wizard who has no spells memorized that can do anything whatsoever to it (a safe assumption considering the spells that effect it as they are rarely used and there are better spells to memorize, as the wizard IMC has shown; my wizard IMC has never once memorized the spells that can work on a stone golem). It's now 1/1/20/20, yet one character is most likely STILL doing ALL the work (the Level 20 wizard can't do a damn thing to a stone golem if we're assuming a normal wizard; most wizards don't do much of anything in melee combat nor do they carry adamantine weapons, so he's able to do about as much damage as a Level 1 fighter could in reality). So the same problem persists, yet even your formula gives less XP. Hell, an even better example is any colossus from the ELH; spellcasters can't really touch them in any way, shape, or form due to their extensive impassable antimagic field.

As you can see, trying to show flaws by using an inherently flawed argument (that people should gain XP based on how much they do) simply doesn't work. The key of the system is that lower level characters learn more from particular encounters regardless of how much they do. That's why the whole party gets XP from traps defeated (instead of just the rogue) and it's how wizard's gain probably 75% of their XP at low levels (before they can do much of anything). More than anything, that particular aspect you're criticizing is one of the balancing factors of the game.

You can't balance things using extreme examples. Going outside what would ever happen in the game distorts the reality of the situation. No DM with any amount of competence will EVER form a 1/1/1/20 party for any reason save for small storyline purposes, and those would be storyline-driven and thus inapplicable in a system discussion because that is as rare as the Tarrasque.

[On a personal note, I most likely wouldn't even count the Level 1 characters in such a fight, but YMMV.]