Level Independent XP Awards

[Wulf Ratbane]

No DM with any amount of competence will EVER form a 1/1/1/20 party for any reason

Some folks like to use the Leadership feat.

Some folks also like to abuse the Leadership feat by taking their lowest level cohorts along with them on dangerous adventures and telling them to stand aside while they slay golems and the cohorts mysteriously gain a level.

YMMV.


Wulf

 

[Anubis]

Some folks like to use the Leadership feat.

Some folks also like to abuse the Leadership feat by taking their lowest level cohorts along with them on dangerous adventures and telling them to stand aside while they slay golems and the cohorts mysteriously gain a level.

YMMV.


Wulf

1) Followers aren't adventurers and don't gain XP with the party. They're more akin to soldiers or "guys who carry stuff around" and don't participate in the fighting at those levels. Ever.

2) You can only have one cohort, and the Level 20 character would have to be a pretty bad leader to have a Level 1 cohort.

3) What's the difference between that and the party's Level 20 wizard mysteriously gaining a level after standing aside while the big bad fighter kills golems without any help?

When are you gonna stop trying to proof me wrong and just give it up and admit that I actually came up with the best idea here?

 

[Cheiromancer]

I think that similar ideas were floating around before that post of yours. See post 19 of this thread and post 680 of http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=66470&page=34&pp=20 to see early examples of the notion that xp has to be proportional to the square of the CR. And I believe we still disagree as to what the (CR^2) is to be divided by. Your idea about power level factors is both creative and quite workable, but I don't agree that the power factor idea is the best idea reported in this thread. I personally think the CR^2 idea is best, and it comes from UK's tables, not from either of us. After that, I think the next best idea is the notion of defining the party's power the same way as the monsters'- by summing the square of the characters' CRs.

Incidentally, what makes you say that the (X/Y) formula doesn't follow the 13.3333 encounters/level rule? A CR "N" encounter which is overcome by 4 Nth level characters earns (N^2)*300/(4*N^2) = 75 xp per character level. Since each character has N character levels, that's N*75 xp each. Each character needs N*1000 xp to go up a level, so the party needs (N*1000)/(N*75) = 13.3333 such encounters for everyone to go up. Which is just what is supposed to happen.

Your comments about the wizard's relative impotence vs the golems is well taken. However he may still buff himself and the fighter, teleport the two of them to safety, cast rope trick so they can camp safely, and so on. And he can be worth his weight in gold in other encounters; on average he will be at least as useful as the fighter. A rogue can be very useful with traps and locks and when flanking; a cleric is very good fighting the undead and healing the party. There are encounters where some characters shine, and others where those same characters are useless. But it pretty much averages out. A 1st level character, on the other hand, is pretty much useless to a 20th level character no matter what the circumstances.

But you are right that a 20/1/1/1 party is pretty weird, and maybe we should put it aside. That aside, doesn't it strike you as pretty neat how the sum of the square of the CRs appears twice in the X/Y formula- once for the monsters, and once for the characters?

If you want low level characters to level up faster, use a more even division, such as the (X/Y)*N formula. X is 300 times the sum of the square of the CRs of the monsters, Y is the sum of the square of the CRs of the characters, and N is the average level of the party. (X/Y)*N is the xp each character gets. Give the bulk of the story awards to the lower level characters and pretty soon everyone will be the same level.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

When are you gonna stop trying to proof me wrong and just give it up and admit that I actually came up with the best idea here?

Nobody is trying to prove you wrong.

You just seem to fail to grasp the concept that there are many folks who think XP should be awarded individually and not divided across the party.

If you insist on making it an issue of right and wrong, your formula is wrong because it forces group XP awards and does not allow for individual awards. The X/Y formula is more facile and more adaptable for either group awards or individual awards.

That's just the way it is, laid out in opinion and fact.


Wulf

 

[Anubis]

I personally think the CR^2 idea is best, and it comes from UK's tables, not from either of us.

The problem is that UK's tables are wrong, so basing anything on them is a mistake. My formula is intended to correct said mistakes. UK's tables were thrown together using the EL adaptation idea, and obviously we can't award XP based on EL because it doesn't take individual levels into consideration.

Nobody is trying to prove you wrong.

You just seem to fail to grasp the concept that there are many folks who think XP should be awarded individually and not divided across the party.

If you insist on making it an issue of right and wrong, your formula is wrong because it forces group XP awards and does not allow for individual awards. The X/Y formula is more facile and more adaptable for either group awards or individual awards.

That's just the way it is, laid out in opinion and fact.


Wulf

First off, my system does give indicidual awards, but not group awards, which is how characters can catch up. If it was group-based, they'd all always gain the same XP.

You are forgetting one very important detail. UK's CR/EL system is designed to merely fix the incorrect ratings of monsters and their relative challenge levels, NOT change the overall system.

The core rules go by a certain system, that system being that XP is given so that several things can happen: a) characters that have lower levels can catch up eventually, b) 13-1/3 encounters of a given CR will gain a level, and c) the amount that a character does in said encounter does not matter.

This is the most fair system because sometimes certain characters simply can't do anything. This forms the core of the system. That part simply can't and should not be changed from the core rules. My system takes that into account. My system most certainly is adaptable just as well as any other, and it has the added bonus of being more accurate. You personally may not prefer that, but that's a moot point because the way I propose follows the core rules most closely. My proposal doesn't change the intent of the core rules and allows all the same things to take place. On this matter, the core rules should not be tampered with because it forms the basis of the whole system. Without that, you'd have to change, well, everything. (Unearthed Arcana proves that with their alternative system.)

So you see, while a select few players may agree with your analysis, the greater majority of DMs out there tend to follow the core rules and just need a better way to gauge encounters, hence the CR/EL system. With that, we need to make said numbers compatible with the core rules for gaining power, hence my proposal which does precisely that. You can play your way, but these need to be easily usable and applicable to the majority, not your minority. I truly believe most people agree with the power-gaining aspects of the core rules, as they should because they are proven to work. That is why my proposal is right, not wrong.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

[snip]

Very politely stated.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Wulf

 

[Cheiromancer]

Anubis,

On post 21 of this thread you stated

CR*2 = EL+4

So I broke that down. The EL part had to go, but the XP gains at each increment had to stay. Here is how I went:

CR*2 = EL+4 = XP*4

The formula that xp is proportional to the square of the CR follows logically from these formulas. What I am curious about is where you got those formulas from. For in post 65 (above) you state

The problem is that UK's tables are wrong, so basing anything on them is a mistake.

So where did you get those formulas from? From table 2-6 in the DMG? I hope you are not saying that the WotC method is superior to UK's method! If you did get them from UK's tables, then you can't really mean that basing anything on those tables is a mistake.

As long as we are talking about the core rules, let's discuss this statement of yours:

The core rules go by a certain system, that system being that XP is given so that several things can happen: a) characters that have lower levels can catch up eventually, b) 13-1/3 encounters of a given CR will gain a level, and c) the amount that a character does in said encounter does not matter.

Now "b" is straight from the "Behind the Curtain" sidebar on page 41 of the DMG; I accept it without qualification. As I demonstrate in post 63, it is true for this system as well (which I think could be called the "Chi Rho" system). Assertion "c" is mostly true, but it does say on page 37 of the DMG that "Characters who died before the encounter took place, or did not participate for some other reason, earn nothing, even if they are raised or healed later on." So there's an exception for characters who do not participate in an encounter. They might be present, but if they are dead or unconcious (or paralyzed, or bound and gagged, or asleep,...) they don't get xp. If they participate, though, they get an equal share.

My system doesn't accept that characters automatically get an equal share, and neither does the GT system. Low level characters normally get less xp. But the reasoning for that has been discussed elsewhere, as is the option that awards equal xp to each character. (Multiply the xp/level award by the average level)

Later on that same page it says "Divide the base XP award by the number of characters in the party. This is the amount of XP that one character receives for helping defeat that monster." This seems to contradict "a" since the core rules don't give more xp to the lower level characters, and so they cannot catch up. It also suggests that a character who did not help (at least a little) to defeat a monster will not get xp from the encounter. I think that this really only refers to characters who are helpless, though.

Still, I don't see support in the core rules for your position that lower level characters "can catch up eventually." Would you care to point out the passage which states that lower level members of a party would get more xp from an encounter than the higher level characters of the same party?

If not, then there are some interesting consequences of this statement of yours, which refers to your three assertions about the core rules system quoted above.

This is the most fair system because sometimes certain characters simply can't do anything. This forms the core of the system. That part simply can't and should not be changed from the core rules. My system takes that into account. My system most certainly is adaptable just as well as any other, and it has the added bonus of being more accurate. You personally may not prefer that, but that's a moot point because the way I propose follows the core rules most closely. My proposal doesn't change the intent of the core rules and allows all the same things to take place. On this matter, the core rules should not be tampered with because it forms the basis of the whole system. Without that, you'd have to change, well, everything.

The core rules don't award xp to "characters who simply can't do anything" which your system does. The core rules don't award more xp to lower level characters in a party with higher level characters, as your system does. In other words you *do* change the intent of the core rules, and the way you propose *does not* follow the core rules most closely. You have in fact tampered with the core rules. And so, according to you, you'll have to change "well, everything."

 

[Anubis]

Anubis,

On post 21 of this thread you stated



The formula that xp is proportional to the square of the CR follows logically from these formulas. What I am curious about is where you got those formulas from. For in post 65 (above) you state



So where did you get those formulas from? From table 2-6 in the DMG? I hope you are not saying that the WotC method is superior to UK's method! If you did get them from UK's tables, then you can't really mean that basing anything on those tables is a mistake.

UK's XP tables are wrong, not the CR tables. CR*2 = EL+4 is based on the CR tables. The XP tables are what need to be corrected and thus you can't base anything on what those tables give you. The formula is independent of XP entirely. That's why it works perfectly, it actually uses the actual numbers without mixing it up.

As long as we are talking about the core rules, let's discuss this statement of yours:



Now "b" is straight from the "Behind the Curtain" sidebar on page 41 of the DMG; I accept it without qualification. As I demonstrate in post 63, it is true for this system as well (which I think could be called the "Chi Rho" system). Assertion "c" is mostly true, but it does say on page 37 of the DMG that "Characters who died before the encounter took place, or did not participate for some other reason, earn nothing, even if they are raised or healed later on." So there's an exception for characters who do not participate in an encounter. They might be present, but if they are dead or unconcious (or paralyzed, or bound and gagged, or asleep,...) they don't get xp. If they participate, though, they get an equal share.

My system doesn't accept that characters automatically get an equal share, and neither does the GT system. Low level characters normally get less xp. But the reasoning for that has been discussed elsewhere, as is the option that awards equal xp to each character. (Multiply the xp/level award by the average level)

Later on that same page it says "Divide the base XP award by the number of characters in the party. This is the amount of XP that one character receives for helping defeat that monster." This seems to contradict "a" since the core rules don't give more xp to the lower level characters, and so they cannot catch up. It also suggests that a character who did not help (at least a little) to defeat a monster will not get xp from the encounter. I think that this really only refers to characters who are helpless, though.

Still, I don't see support in the core rules for your position that lower level characters "can catch up eventually." Would you care to point out the passage which states that lower level members of a party would get more xp from an encounter than the higher level characters of the same party?

Gladly. To get XP, you cross-reference each character's level with the CR, then divide by the number of party members. Check out the numbered checklist on page 37. Let's go through this process using the pure core rules, their CR numbers and XP tables included. Here it is as per the checklist.

1. Find the levels. Let's assume 6, 7, 8, 9.

2. Find each single monster's CR. Let's assume a single creature of CR 9.

3. Use the table and cross-reference the levels to the CRs. Cross-referencing 6, 7, 8, 9 with CR 9, we get 5400, 4200, 3600, 2700.

4. Divide those numbers by the number of party members. Due to four members, we get 1350, 1050, 900, 675.

5. Add up the XP values for each defeated creature. Since there was only one, we get the same numbers as before.

6. Repeat for each character, which we did along the way to keep it all together.

As you can see, the lower-level characters gain more XP, thus allowing them to catch up. This is a change in 3.5 from 3.0, one that many seem to overlook for whatever reason, like because they didn't expect that part to change in the first place. In 3.0, it was a single value based on average party level, divided evenly. In 3.5, XP is award per person.

If not, then there are some interesting consequences of this statement of yours, which refers to your three assertions about the core rules system quoted above.

I hope that answered your question.

The core rules don't award xp to "characters who simply can't do anything" which your system does.

No it doesn't. My system uses all the same assumptions as the core rules. If the character participates in any way, he gets XP. There may be differences of opinion as to what participation is, but generally speaking, I consider the party as participants, even if they can't do anything. If they "experience" the encounter, I consider them to have participated. Watching is not enough, but THAT part is subject to DM opinion.

My formula simply says divide XP by Power Factor. Power Factor is adjusted for the number of party members. If, for instance, a character is dead before an encounter begins, you reduce all the Power Factors. Say we have a party of four, all Level 15. All four have Power Factor 60
If one dies and THEN the party gets into an encounter, the three remaining have Power Factor 45 each. If one dies DURING the encounter, though, he or she still gains the experience, which should (this is only my personal preference, of course) be applied BEFORE reducing the level for raising seeing as the "encounter" came before the "death".

My formula works perfectly, but it's up to the DM to decide who participates. Power Factor is adjusted accordingly. That's why it's level multiplied by number of party members. I suppose "participants" would be better than "party members", but to me, they're usually one and the same. I try not to complicate my campaign. YMMV. The formula works the same in any situation.

The core rules don't award more xp to lower level characters in a party with higher level characters, as your system does. In other words you *do* change the intent of the core rules, and the way you propose *does not* follow the core rules most closely. You have in fact tampered with the core rules. And so, according to you, you'll have to change "well, everything."

Actually, I hope my demonstration above showed that this statement, is incorrect. It's simply a change in 3.5; my formula follows 3.5 and is inapplicable with 3.0 core rules by that designation. (It still works, but it doesn't follow the 3.0 core rules. Obviously no formula can follow both because the core rules changed in the revision. Nonetheless, my formula follows the revision.)

Any more questions? I will gladly answer any, although I would prefer that people actually trust that I've studied this thoroughly so we can implement my formula (hopefully in the Immortal's Handbook).

 

[Anubis]

Just on another note, would it satisfy you if I changed it to the following:

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

It's only a syntax change to me, but you guys seem to get overly technical with me. Then again, I should know that already with you, Cheiromancer; I swear you must be a living robot or computer sometimes.

Does this syntax change satisfy you all?

 

[Cheiromancer]

I imagine everyone knows the dangers of proof-reading your own work- you can read it a hundred times, and instead of seeing what is really there, you read what you expect to be there. After reading these last two posts I went and looked again at the relevant section of the 3.5 DMG. And what do you know- I finally read what was really there, as opposed to what I had expected to be there!

It turns out that what I thought was the "core rules" method of assigning xp *was* the core rules method... in version 3.0. The 3.5 system in fact does exactly what Anubis says it does. But I had somehow failed to notice that, and simply read it as saying what it had said in 3.5. It is as embarassing as having an egregious typo pointed out to you in work that you had gone over, so you thought, with a fine-toothed comb.

So I humbly retract my statement above, that Anubis' method does not correspond to the core rules. I was mistaken about the core rules were, and was still back in 3.0 land. And so I would encourage anyone delving into the mysteries of CRs, ELs and XP assignment to brush up on the changes between the relevant sections of the 3.0 and 3.5 DMGs.

The method that Anubis proposes is the closest fit to what is in the 3.5 DMG. The "even division" variant of my method is closer to 3.0; a variant of the Grim Tales method will also do this. The standard variant of my method corresponds most closely to Grim Tales' preferred method. Anubis (and 3.5) gives more xp to lower leveled characters; one variant of my method gives equal xp, but Grim Tales (and the usual method I expound) both cause all characters in a party to level at the same rate; it thus gives more xp to higher level characters.

Anubis,

There is one ambiguity in the way you describe your method: the fact that there is a different power factor for each character in a party. It would be very easy for someone to misunderstand your explanation, and decide that "LV" must be the average level of the party, and multiply *that* by the number of participants. It will just strike people as logical that if the "power factor" depends on the number of participants of a group, it must be a property of the group.

You have to make it clear that the power factor is a property of characters, not the group, and that each character's power factor is based not only on that character's level, but also on the size of the total party.

This last bit is a little hard to wrap one's mind around. Intuitively you'd think that if each character has their own power factor, that power factor should depend only on facts about that character- facts about the size and composition of the party should be irrelevant.

To make it easier for someone to grasp at the first reading, I therefore think you should break down the process as follows:

Determine the Base XP of the encounter using the usual formula, and then divide it evenly among the participants. Then have each player divide their share of the Base XP by their character's level to determine how much XP that character gets.

i.e. instead of

(Base XP)/(LV*Participants)

Have

((Base XP)/Participants)/LV

Instead of a multiplication and a division, it is two divisions. Since multiplying and dividing are of equal difficulty, it doesn't make it any harder. In fact it is a little easier to divide by a small number than by a large one. Instead of having the players do both operations, they just have to do one: the DM looks up the base XP for the encounter, and divides it by the number of participants. Each player then divides that number by their character's CL. Or the DM does this part, too. He shouts out "the 6th level characters get ...., the 7th level characters get... and the 8th level character gets..."

If you need terms for each of the parts, call them

Base XP = (CR^2)*300
Group XP = Base XP / Participants
Individual XP = Group XP / LV

Intuitively the Base XP is what the monster is worth- it's also what a 1st level character would get if he defeated that monster single-handedly. The Group XP recognizes that more than one person is involved; it is what each member of a group of 1st level characters would get if that group was the same size as the character's own group. Finally, the Individual XP recognizes that a particular character might not be 1st level, and calculates what XP a character of that level should get.

For templated characters you'll have to use CR instead of character level. A 15th level rogue who is also a werewolf (CR +3) divides by 18, and needs 18,000 xp to advance a level. This is also different from Grim Tales. I don't know what the standard rules say anymore about LAs, but I think this is what your rules would have to do to make sense.

How does that sound?