Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the_bruiser" data-source="post: 1685024" data-attributes="member: 6126">I played in a campaign with a similar rule, and in my 12+ years of roleplaying this is the only semi-bitter argument I ever remember having with a DM - I'm generally of the mindset that we're here to have fun, and just take the DM's word as gospel, but this rule seems patently unfair to me.  Let's say I've been playing in a campaign for a year.  I've 'earned' my character levels as a player.  My guy dies.  If the current lowest-level character is 9th, then I bring him in a new character at 8th level.  But if I were some random person who'd never played in the campaign before I'd come in at 9th?  Like I said, to me it doesn't seem fair.  I view EXP as consisting of two parts:  (i) 'Earned' EXP as a player, and (ii) 'Learned' EXP as a character.  So part (ii) goes away when you start a new character, but (i) should NEVER in my mind be negative (which it implicitly is in this system).  So as not to complain blindly without a proposal, let me tell you our current system.  Players present earn 100% of 'base' EXP for their characters, +/- bonuses/penalties.   Players not present (including the billions of people on the earth who've never played in our campaign) earn 50% of base.  When a player has to switch characters, he/she loses half the incremental exp he's earned over the 50% base for those who weren't there.  So if someone were at 90% and got a new character, he'd come in at 70% of total exp awarded, while a new player's character would come in at 50%.  YMMV.edit: subscribed to thread</blockquote>

Verification