[UA] Weird Alternate XP System Stuff

[evildm]

I was looking over Unearthed Arcana, wondering which variants I'd like to make use of for my upcoming Warcraft campaign, and I noticed something odd about the alternate XP system. Why, exactly, do they have an alternate XP table if the awards are proporionately the same as XP awards were before? Just to test my theory, I whipped up a spreadsheet to determine exact percentages and whatnot between the two systems, and if anything the new one seems to have some trouble staying consistent towards the later levels.

For instance, in the original XP system, if a group of 4 characters beats a creature of their CR, they invariably get 7.5% of the XP they need to ascend in level. But in the new system, past 10th level, it varies between 7% and 8% (1 extra or 1 less encounter needed to go up a level, sometimes). It's really not a major deal, or anything, but if the awards are proportionately the same to what a character needs to ascend a level in BOTH systems, why not just use the previous one (ie: each monster's XP value is equal to their CR and what a party of their equivalent level would get)?

It just strikes me as needless complication, unless there's something I'm missing.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

With the new system, you don't have to determine the XP you get from the monster based on your level (a little less fuss), and you can tweak better (you can't make a creature that's a little too powerful for CR 5 CR 5.5 or something, but you can just dish out 500 instead of 400 XP)

But personally, I lake the 3e system better.

 

[James McMurray]

My group has been using the new system for two weeks now. From a DM perspective its a whole heck of a lot less work. I don't have to are hat level different party members are and then figure out XP seperately for each different level in the party.

From the players' perspective, it makes XP costing spells a much better proposition. Just before we switched the party fought the Tarrasque. The cleric hd to use Miracle to keep it dead, and he ended up losing XP in the deal. Under the new system, it would have cost 50,000xp for the miracl, but he would have earned 310,000.

 

[evildm]

I suppose I wasn't as clear as I should've been, and for that I'm sorry.

What I'm rambling about above isn't the fact that XP awards are static, but the fact that the awards differ numerically from their original counterparts. Proportionately, you can get the same result as the new static XP system, if you use the old XP tables. To determine XP awards by CR, just match up the monster's CR with the average group level that it matches (ie: CR 10 creature's XP is equal to what a level 10 group would earn from it: 3000xp).

What I don't get is why they have a seperate XP table and awards for something that can be achieved without the needless complication.

I think the idea that XP costs for spells/magic items being cheaper would make sense, but if it's enough of an issue for a group, then why not just lower the costs of these things across the board in the first place?

Personally, I like the idea of a static XP awards system, simply because of the less overhead. I like the idea of proportionate XP as well, but the less I have to calculate, the better.

Just to further clarify here:

In the new static XP system, as presented in UA, a character (regardless of level) kills a CR 10 creature. They earn 9600xp which is 28% of what a character needs to get to 11th level.

In the old system XP awards made static, a character (again, regardless of level) kills a CR 10 creature. They earn 3000xp which is 30% of what a character needs to get to 11th level.

This is what I'm asking: If the numbers come out as being proportionately the same in either system, then why use new XP awards and tables, when the old tables can be used for static XP awards?

 

[James McMurray]

Because nobody wants to hae to calculate them all themselves, so WotC did it for us. It looks like they rounded a bit to make the numbers cleaner. I haven't done the math, but if you use you version vs. the new version for an ECL 20 party killing a CR 9 creature, do you get the same percentages?

My DMG is away from me at the moment, so I can only do the varint portion of it. A character in that 4 person party would earn 1,800xp (7200/4). That's 0.18% of a level. How much XP would it be in the base system, and what percentage is it of the 20,000 needed for the next level?

I don't think that XP costs for spells being effectively cheaper was a goal of the system, more like a side effect.

 

[evildm]

Because nobody wants to hae to calculate them all themselves, so WotC did it for us. It looks like they rounded a bit to make the numbers cleaner. I haven't done the math, but if you use you version vs. the new version for an ECL 20 party killing a CR 9 creature, do you get the same percentages?

My DMG is away from me at the moment, so I can only do the varint portion of it. A character in that 4 person party would earn 1,800xp (7200/4). That's 0.18% of a level. How much XP would it be in the base system, and what percentage is it of the 20,000 needed for the next level?

I don't think that XP costs for spells being effectively cheaper was a goal of the system, more like a side effect.

Alrighty, 4-member level 20 group vs CR9 creature.

Old system made static
CR 9 creature: 2700xp
XP a party member gets from the encounter: 675xp
XP required for that character to attain level 21: 20000xp
Percentage of XP required to rise in level: 3.38%

New static system
CR 9 creature: 7200xp
XP a party member gets from the encounter: 1800xp
XP required for that character to attain level 21: 1000000xp
Percentage of XP required to rise in level: 0.18%

I see what you mean now. At higher levels, the lower CR monsters become worth even less to a group. But the percentage difference is quite small, I feel. Wouldn't it be simpler to just build a table of static XP awards for monsters using the bolded values on table 2-6 in the DMG and let players use the XP tables from the PHB? I find it somewhat impractical to have to reference UA to find XP tables, and to have to calculate out the XP tables for epic levels.

 

[James McMurray]

You don't have to, its already been done for you.

http://www.colugo.org/james/viewtopic.php?t=14

 

[James McMurray]

I'd also be interested in seeing the percentage differences for CR 1-5 creatures. Its incredibly easy for a 20th level party to find and wipe out tribes of CR 1-3 humanoids (300 per tribe). If it turns out that every two tribes is worth a level (instead of needing 11 tribes for a level with the UA system).

 

[DarkMaster]

Let's get back to the old 1st and 2nd XP system using the fighter table as reference for all level. Oh and let's add every gp found give 1 XP.

I actually really enjoyed the 2nd edition XP system where player were getting XP accordingly to their class. Wizard was gaining more casting spell (combat or not), thief using their skill. It was also rewardind smart player more than now. It was much less combat oriented. The current system forces combat or agressive interaction otherwise nobody goes up.

But this has nothing to do with the current thread

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The current system forces combat or agressive interaction otherwise nobody goes up.

Doesn't really say that. You can talk yourself past the guards, or sneak past, and get XP for it. Also, traps give CR.