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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4080045" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, to a certain extent you are right.  The math doesn't work.Earlier editions got away with it because a monsters XP was actually only a small portion of the total XP needed to gain a level.  The bigger portion came from treasure, which at least in 1st edition you where encouraged to scale with the risk.  That is, for example, if the 1st level characters got 20 gp, after beating 10 kobolds, and recieved 20xp for bringing the treasure out, the same treasure for the same encounters was only worth 2xp for 10th level characters.  The kobolds were worth the same, but being only worth 6-9 XP each and higher level characters needing 10's or 100's of thousands of XP, the problem mostly was ignorable.  To the extent that it wasn't, 1st edition DM's generally would have put a kibosh on any XP farming by fiat ruling.  (The 'No, you don't get XP for killing a duck' rule.)I think 4E edition will mostly get away with it because 4E doesn't encourage sandbox style play, and hense if the players probably never (or at least not regularly) encounter foes wildly beneath thier ability who present little reasonable challenge. To be fair, I think your complaint against 4E is minor.  Any area of the 4E rules that I could easily deal with by making a house rule counts as a minor flaw as far as I'm concerned.  Non-scaling XP can be easily dealt with by a minor change in the rules if you think its impacting your campaign.  For most DM's I doubt it will.</blockquote>

Verification