Silly RAW Question: Spending XP now for XP-cost events in character's history?

[The Souljourner]

Use my excuse, Amy... say you made the item just before you leveled once, and in the next fight got enough XP to exactly cover the difference, due to being a level lower. Perfectly reasonable, and in fact, it's a strategy that could even reasonably be carried out by a PC. Heck, I may have my next PC try something like that out. I was thinking of being an artificer or battlesmith or some such anyway...

-The Souljourner

 

[Hypersmurf]

Use my excuse, Amy... say you made the item just before you leveled once, and in the next fight got enough XP to exactly cover the difference, due to being a level lower. Perfectly reasonable, and in fact, it's a strategy that could even reasonably be carried out by a PC.

It's one of the stock lines in the "Wizards are broken!" argument that crops up... oh, daily, I suppose... on the WotC boards.

The wizards can have double the net worth of the other characters, apparently, because they craft all their items for half price - plus permanent spells, inherent bonuses from Wish, etc - and the XP is effectively 'free' as long as they stay a level behind.

Or so the argument goes.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

There's a lot of "subtle issues" for which the 3.0 rules are a lot more clear-cut than 3.5. (Seems to happen a lot with between-editions cluttering up of the ruleset.) It's one of the reasons my group sticks with 3.0.

In the 3.0 DMG, you should definitely assign a reasonable XP value, not just a PC level, for exactly this purpose. XP and gold for created magic items are absolutely charged against that. 3.0 DMG p. 42-43.

 

[UltimaGabe]

I think I'm missing something. How, exactly, is a person getting MORE experience just because they're a lower level?

By the rules, as far as I've ever seen it, everybody receives the same amount of XP, even if they're completely different levels- it just affects the party's average level when determining experience gained. In the end, though, you're still always 1 XP behind. However, at higher levels, that 1 xp is less of a different than it was at 1st level.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By the rules, as far as I've ever seen it, everybody receives the same amount of XP, even if they're completely different levels- it just affects the party's average level when determining experience gained.

That's the 3E system. The 3.5 system is different.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

I believe the expression I have seen is, 'the level gravy train' and is used as a reason that certain combos are broken.

right... lol

Anyway though, I see no reason why a scroll created X levels ago, and is not part of current wealth, would matter at all.

You are supposed to have a certain amount of monetary gear amount, the exp you get can be used to burn partially instead of money.

If you are not gaining an actual item at reduced cost then i see absolutely no reason to have to give up exp. None

 

[Timeboxer]

But when it comes to things that cost XP, I'd charge XP. If a 19th level wizard wants a +3 inherent bonus to Intelligence at start of play, he can pay for it with 82500gp of his budget (Tome +3), or 15000XP from his total (3 wishes), or some combination of the two. But I wouldn't let him pay the 82500gp and then write in his back story that he cast Wish to do it.

See my previous post about having previously used the item -- it's not in my possession and there's no way in which I can ever possibly make use of it now or in future, unlike the continuing +3 enhancement bonus to Intelligence.

However, I understand why a GM might want to do it that way, especially with that example. But I'm not really convinced that this cannot and should not be done, at least in part because I don't entirely buy the idea that XP should never be tradeable with gp in this fashion.

Try this: Two players create two wizards who are fraternal twins. They decide to create a magic item shop -- the Twins' Scribing Shop. And the two scribe uncountable amounts of scrolls for their customers as a living. However, they've developed an odd tradition, which is that whenever one creates a magic item, the other always creates a magic item of the exact same type, so that they pay the same cost in terms of XP and gp. They also have never and would never create a magic item without the other creating an identical magic item.

Time passes and they adventure. They each decide to take different prestige classes -- he decides to take one with the prerequisite of taking Augment Summoning, while she decides to take one with the prerequisite, "The candidate must have created at least one magic item, whether of a permanent nature or not.", on the basis that she's made scrolls for a living with her brother in general, and in particular on the first Scroll of Magic Missile she ever scribed (and used), at the same time as her brother's own (independent) scribing (also used). They adventure for awhile, still working for their shop, and then join the party, at which point the game begins. The GM has allotted exactly 105,000 XP to each character.

So: Who loses XP -- the female twin, or both twins? Exactly how much XP is lost -- 1 XP for the used Scroll of Magic Missile, or some other arbitrary amount?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The GM has allotted exactly 105,000 XP to each character.

So: Who loses XP -- the female twin, or both twins? Exactly how much XP is lost -- 1 XP for the used Scroll of Magic Missile, or some other arbitrary amount?

Did the DM allocate 105,000XP as the total XP they've earned in their career, or as their current total?

If he gave them 105,000 because that's how much the other characters - the fighter, the rogue, etc already in the party have - then the XP they spent on scribing scrolls should be deducted from that.

The PrC has a mechanical requirement, that should be reflected in the mechanics of the character.

If a third triplet joined the party at the same time, who had done everything the other two triplets had done except for spending XP on scribing scrolls, would you not expect him to have more XP?

-Hyp.

 

[UltimaGabe]

So: Who loses XP -- the female twin, or both twins? Exactly how much XP is lost -- 1 XP for the used Scroll of Magic Missile, or some other arbitrary amount?

In this case, they both lose XP, but they both lose the exact same amount. The exact amount, however, is arbitrary, and up to the DM to take away how much XP they used up during their business days, and as compensation, how much extra GP they should have to begin with, since they both sold their magic items.

In either case, they'd both have the same amount of XP and GP.

 

[Timeboxer]

My main point with the example is that it seems like it would be unfair to penalize someone who wants to have made and sold magic items for a living (even if they now no longer do so) by taking away their XP -- for one thing, you have to figure out some sort of formula to determine exactly how much XP this would be, and so forth, and this seems too arbitrary to be worthwhile, especially when 1 XP which might bring you up a level is at stake. And having made and used a Scroll of Magic Missile in his childhood isn't going to help him now.

But if it's unfair to penalize the male twin, it should be unfair to penalize the female twin, because she did the exact same thing as he did. Certainly it benefits her by giving her a historical prerequisite, but if she gets penalized, so should he, and it seems inconsistent that if she weren't there, he wouldn't be.

And if it is fair to penalize both of them, would they even have extra gp at all? Why wouldn't it be possible to consider those sales part of what make up their Wealth by Level, rather than anything "extra"? What if, rather than selling the scrolls, they used them -- in other words, they acted like regular wizards, except for scribing together? Would you then say that when you give your wizards their allotment of experience, and they use it, then it follows that they have never created a magic item before?

Why does this apply only to XP and not gp? If it does apply to gp, then would a character who used to own a family estate valued at, say, 100,000 gp, but watched it burn down before his very eyes, start 100,000 gp short just because this was in his backstory?

And if a third triplet came in, well, as Souljourner pointed out, at a certain point they may end up having more experience than the third, if they planned it out right...

So this is not exactly cut and dry. Which is my point, and which is why I think that having the allotted XP and gp as a measure of the character's current state is a simpler and more reasonable idea.

Edit: And just to add in the last subtlety -- certainly it's one thing for the GM to say, "Well, you scribed a bunch of scrolls in your history, so I'm giving you less XP." Then arbitrary is fine, and this is well within the GM's right. But to say, "I'm giving you this much XP and your scribing a bunch of scrolls in your history must be paid from this pool now" is an entirely different matter.