The world outside the dungeon

It's that "adjust down a bit if it was a cakewalk" which actually was more involved than you make it look.

What you were meant to do was multiply the value by the ratio of the total party levels divided by the total monster HD, as adjusted for special abilities. (you added one to the HD total for each special ability, exceptional ability or hit point bonus).

So, a 4+1 HD ogre counted as 5 HD, a 6+3 HD mummy as a 12 HD creature.
You have it backwards: you divide the total monster "levels" by the total party levels. If the result is 1 or higher, then full ExP. If lower, the calculated ExP total gets reduced by the same ratio.

More often than not, the resulting adjustment is relatively trivial...trivial enough to not even bother with it. And if the party's superiority is that significant, you'll notice this during the battle itself and can adjust on the fly - a simple note "2/3 ExP this battle" for later reference will do.

And with that said, if the party's superiority is that great then giving full ExP for the encounter isn't going to mean a thing anyway. I mean, really: if you need 100,000 ExP to get to your next level, who cares if you get 22 or 44 for taking down a couple of Kobolds; or 100 vs. 200 for taking out a 22 h.p. Ogre. Again, it comes down to "why bother?".
So, if three 5th level PCs took out 3 Ogres, they'd get full XP; if 6 5th level PCs took out the same ogres, it'd be half XP.
Oddly enough, in this particular example the problem neatly solves itself.

Let's say (for ease of arithmetic) those Ogres each had 22 h.p. Appendix E shows an Ogre being worth 90 + 5/h.p., so these'd be 200 each; 3 of 'em makes 600.

Three characters take 'em down, each gets 200. 6 characters take 'em down, the ExP get divided more ways, so each gets only 100; i.e. precisely half of what each member of the smaller party got. I don't see the point in going through the motions just so I can reduce the 100 a bit further.

Now, note the difference with 3e. Above, the base calculation was dead easy: add and divide. Doesn't matter what levels the individual party members are; even if you do the adjustment it's still going to apply equally to all. But in 3e you need to do a different base calculation for each different level represented in the party. And this was 3e, not 3.5; my 3e DM took this straight out of the book back in 2001 and spent years swearing at it.

Lan-"henches and hirelings are for these purposes ignored"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Now, note the difference with 3e. Above, the base calculation was dead easy: add and divide. Doesn't matter what levels the individual party members are; even if you do the adjustment it's still going to apply equally to all. But in 3e you need to do a different base calculation for each different level represented in the party. And this was 3e, not 3.5; my 3e DM took this straight out of the book back in 2001 and spent years swearing at it.

He was doing it wrong then - 3e RAW said to average the party level for purpose of XP calculation. Only with 3.5 did the RAW say to make an individual calculation for each PC level represented.

I agree that with 1e there was really no need to reduce monster XP for easy fights, since the amount of XP generated would be trivial anyway. Adjusting treasure XP for 'easy money' was an issue, though. I never did, but that could lead to some over-fast levelling.

As far as what the best approach for 3e 'should' be, I like Bullgrit's suggestion of using the award where PC level = monster CR. It does raise the risk of giving out far too much XP for easy fights though - frankly I've never been too happy at giving out 150 XP for a CR 1/2, 5 hit point hobgoblin or 300 XP for a CR 1, 11 hp gnoll. Giving that out to high level PCs would be even worse. Plus, the 3.5 variable award system does allow lower level PCs to catch up over time. Frankly the whole 3e XP system is a bit of a mess IMO and giving out arbitrary/ad hoc XP awards (double awards to lower level PCs you want to catch up) might well be the best approach.
 

BTW it occurs to me that my 4e XP rule - "Double XP for all PCs below the highest level PC in the party" - explains why the Fellowship of the Ring were so unhappy to see Gandalf go off that bridge in Moria. :)
 

Lanefan said:
Three characters take 'em down, each gets 200. 6 characters take 'em down, the ExP get divided more ways, so each gets only 100; i.e. precisely half of what each member of the smaller party got. I don't see the point in going through the motions just so I can reduce the 100 a bit further.
By the book, shouldn't the 6 PCs get 50 xp each (600 total xp, halfed for the level of challenge rule, divided by 6 PCs). So double the number of PCs end up getting a quarter of the xp each.

"I don't see the point in going through the motions just so I can reduce the 100 a bit further." See, this is the point. You consider the AD&D1 xp award RAW more complicated than necessary, so you house rule out (ignore) the parts you don't like. But for some reason, you don't do this for D&D3, and then you complain about it.

Bullgrit
 


Mark, I think that your system for XP over time should be called "Interest: The Compounding".


Or "Campaign: The Slogging" :D if people get it in their head that every moment of the life of any character needs to be played out at the table. This harkens back to more traditional D&D campaigns where characters would take time to properly heal, would train to gain some new technique, and would travel for some months to cross a huge ocean. In the right hands, these become the truly epic campaigns that span time, and even whole lives. But in this type of campaign, players have to come to grips with the idea that they don't need to interupt every bit of GM/DM exposition for fear of missing a chance to snatch every bauble and we don't need characters to slay every single rat in every sewer from their hometown to the capitol and all points beyond. In this type of campaign, players need to be disabused of the paradigm that there can be meaningful experience gleaned from 24/7 slaying and the hoarding of coins, and persuaded to understand that a differently-paced campaign than the frenetic insomnafests that are only governed by the rules mechanics of resource replenishment can be as satisfying or even moreso.
 

Or "Campaign: The Slogging" :D if people get it in their head that every moment of the life of any character needs to be played out at the table. This harkens back to more traditional D&D campaigns where characters would take time to properly heal, would train to gain some new technique, and would travel for some months to cross a huge ocean. In the right hands, these become the truly epic campaigns that span time, and even whole lives. But in this type of campaign, players have to come to grips with the idea that they don't need to interupt every bit of GM/DM exposition for fear of missing a chance to snatch every bauble and we don't need characters to slay every single rat in every sewer from their hometown to the capitol and all points beyond. In this type of campaign, players need to be disabused of the paradigm that there can be meaningful experience gleaned from 24/7 slaying and the hoarding of coins, and persuaded to understand that a differently-paced campaign than the frenetic insomnafests that are only governed by the rules mechanics of resource replenishment can be as satisfying or even moreso.

This is crazy talk!! How can players ever hope to have any waking thought about anything other than hitting level cap until they actually hit level cap!!

It is universal common knowledge that the campaign doesn't really begin until max level. :p
 

Would a game without XP or level advancements be in theory ageless then? How do you feel a game without those game mechanics would affect a campaigns-length or longevity?
 

As far as what the best approach for 3e 'should' be, I like Bullgrit's suggestion of using the award where PC level = monster CR. It does raise the risk of giving out far too much XP for easy fights though - frankly I've never been too happy at giving out 150 XP for a CR 1/2, 5 hit point hobgoblin or 300 XP for a CR 1, 11 hp gnoll. Giving that out to high level PCs would be even worse. Plus, the 3.5 variable award system does allow lower level PCs to catch up over time. Frankly the whole 3e XP system is a bit of a mess IMO and giving out arbitrary/ad hoc XP awards (double awards to lower level PCs you want to catch up) might well be the best approach.

My issue with the variable XP awards (in addition to complexity) was how they removed the real force of the XP cost for crafting as a result. I am happy to conclude that XP for crafting wasn't the best design decision but this type of patched system doesn't help, either.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top