A Different Experience: A variation on the D&D 3.x Experience Points System
Introduction
I recently reformulated the way I calculate experience in my D&D 3.5 campaign. [Actually, what happened was that my computer’s power supply failed and I had nothing better to do with my time for a few hours. But anyway…] It took about a page and a half of 4 x 5½-inch notepaper, and consisted of 25 expressions and observations. When I showed it to others, they were mystified; it may as well have been written in Ancient Greek for all the meaning they took from it. So I set about re-creating the logic that had been distilled into those 21 statements.
The results aren’t for everyone, I’m the first to admit. They make sense to me, others may not find them so useful. But when the work was complete, I thought others might be interested; so I’m presenting them here as a Blog Post. Unfortunately, D&D 4th ed is completely different from 3.x Ed in this respect. (At least this observes the truism that nothing is completely understood until after it becomes outdated!) But for those who still use D&D 3.0 and 3.5, an alternative and mathematically-precise system for calculating XP awards might just hold value, so here it is.
This analysis was carried out to place XP awards in my D&D campaigns on a mathematically-defined basis and to achieve specific goals for the Xp awards system:
- The system should be mathematically precise for any combination of party member character levels and encounter constituant CRs
- The system should award bonus XP to party members of lower levels on the basis that they would have learnt more from the battle
- The system should award reduced XP to NPCs relative to PCs
- The system should award reduced XP to other participants [animals, intelligent swords, etc] relative to NPCs
- System should award XP for non-combat encounters on a consistant basis with respect to combat encounters.
Party CR
By definition in the DMG it requires aprox 13 encounters of equivalent level to that of the party for each member to gain a level. What does “of equivalent level” actually mean? Assuming that it means an equal number of opponants, each of the same level as their counterpart within the party, we have a working definition, but not yet a functional one. The DMG also gives guidelines for determining a single number to reflect the capability level of any given opponant mix, in the form of a table. When that table is dissassembled, it becomes clear that the equiavelence of an encounter can be summed up as:
1. (2 x N) @ A = N @ (A+2) where N is the number of creatures of a given CR, and A=the CR of those creatures.
Thus an encounter with two creatures of CR 5 is the same thing as one encounter of CR 7. Mathematically, this is an exponential relationship in factors of root 2, so the following can also be stated:
2. N @ (A+1) = [sqr(2) x N] @ A.
These two calculations permit any combination of encounter CRs to be reduced to a single numeric variable by reducing the constituant CRs to a common base, totalling them, and then reconverting the total to an exact EL.
This permits a functional definition of “equivalent level”:
3. An encounter is of “equivalent level” if the total EL is equal to the total of the Party CRs expressed as an EL.
Base XP Award
Because this system awards bonus XP for skill rolls, ideas, roleplaying, etc in non-combat situations, whereas the base system does not, it seemed appropriate that the base award be reduced. As an initial value, a ratio of 16 encounters of equivalent CR to 1 level advancement has been chosen. This fraction can be altered as desired.
This means, in turn, that the experience earned for a single encounter of equivalent CR is equal to 1/16th of the XP difference between the current Character level and that of Character Level +1. Analysis of the table in Chapter three of the PHB shows that this, in turn, is equal to 1000/16 x (CR+1), or aprox 62.5 x (CR+1). This value is termed E1:
4. E1 = 62½ x (EL+1), where the EL is equal to the Party CR.
However it will actually be the case, more often than not, that the party will be confronted by encounters of an EL that does not precisely match the Party CR. It might be higher, or it might be lower. Using the principles stated in the DMG, and the analysis above, it can be determined that the actual XP award for a given EL, relative to the Party CR, is
5. E2 = E1 x 1.4^D1,
where D1 = EL – Party CR.
Negative ELs and CRs Less Than 1
6. A CR of ½ is assumed to be equivalent to a CR of -1 for the purposes of XP calculation.
7. A CR of ¼ is assumed to be equivalent to a CR of -2 for the purposes of XP calculation.
8. A CR of 1/10 is assumed to be equivalent to a CR of -3 for the purposes of XP calculation.
Party Size Adjustment
At first glance, it should make no difference how many characters make up the party. They have the same number of hit points, just spread amongst more characters. They have a smaller chance to perform a successful attack, but they have more attempts to do so because the party as a whole will get more actions in a turn than if they were fewer in number but of higher levels. They have less effect when successful, but this is balanced by…. nothing? Their opponants, being of higher level in comparison, get fewer attacks but they have a greater chance of success; and when they do succeed, they will do more damage….?
Clearly, there needs to be an adjustment for the number of participants in a battle. The problem is quantifying that adjustment, as it would seem to be different based on the CR value of individual participants. Perhaps this modifier should be determined as an individual adjustment to the amount of XP received?
According to the DMG, the theoretical basis of the XP tables provided assumes a party consisting of 4 characters of equal level. Using (1), it is clear that this gives a theoretical “quarter opponant” of the encounter taking place a level of EL-4. Thus, individual awards for each party member can be determined as:
9. E3 = 62½ x (EL-3) x 1.4 ^ (D2-3)
where D2 = (EL-4) – Individual Char Level
and where D2 >=0, or,
10. E3 = -62½ x (EL-3) x 1.4 ^ (3-D2)
where D2 = (EL-4) – Individual Char Level
and where D2 <0.
Member Level Bonuses
This seems to automatically achieve the second objective of the system, awarding more XP to characters of lower level, but it does NOT do so for the reason that (in theory) they would have learnt more from the encounter, it does so simply because it takes greater contributions from multiple characters of lower levels to achieve the same effect net effect in a battle. Furthermore, the ability to learn is often considered an attribute of INT, but basing the bonus on that stat would unfairly reward Mages and other characters whose class requires a high INT and penalise other classes.
Since there is no fundamental value on which to base these that is not inherantly unfair to one class or another, the only solution is an arbitrary and abstract one based on a relative value. Fortunately, on this basis, we have the ideal value already determined in D2:
11. D2 : bonus
-5 or worse : x 1/2, then x 1/3, x 1/4, etc.
-4 : -40%
-3 : -20%
-2 : -10%
-1 : -5%
+0 : +0%
+1 : +5%
+2 : +10%
+3 : +20%
+4 : +40%
+5 or more : x2, then x3, x4, x5, x6, etc.
Thus, for an EL 10 encounter, the basis of D2 is EL 10-4=6. A character of Character Level 5 would have a relative D2 of +1, and would receive +5% to his XP award. A first level character in the same party would receive x2 XP. An eighth level character would have a D2 of -2, and would receive -10% XP.
Significant Opposition / Weak Opposition
These are relatively straightforward, using this system: the GM can simply lower or raise the CRs of individual creatures, or of the party members, or both, to allow for relative strengths. As a rule of thumb:
12. Especially costly combat for PCs: EL+1
Especially easy combat for PCs: EL-1
Opposition has especially strong tactical position at start of combat: EL+1
Opposition has especially weak tactical position at start of combat: EL-1
Opposition has significantly greater resources (magic etc) relative to the PCs: EL+1
PCs have significantly greater resources (magic etc) relative to the enemy: EL-1
Non-PC Adjustments:
When I run combat for a party consisting of both PCs and NPCs, I let the PCs make the major decisions. The NPCs will act according to their natures and classes, unless told not to (a fighter will still attack, but won’t put any real thought into which opponant [attacking the closest or biggest or whatever], or – if he’s the thinking/tactical type – will hold his action until after all the other characters have acted so that he can pick his target appropriately; and so on). This lets me run the battle more easily and ensures the PCs a starring role. As a result of this relative lack of ‘initiative’, it does not seem fair for the NPCs to get the same rewards as the PCs.
However, not all GMs agree with this practice. That’s fine; the system so far has made no distinction between PCs and NPCs, so its easy to treat NPCs as PCs if that practice suits your campaign. There are arguments in favor of this interpretation as well, relating to keeping the game balance between NPCs and PCs. To implement this more standard arrangement, simply ignore steps 13 and 14, below.
It is also my practice to award animals XP so that they can learn and become more effective. This is just a quick and dirty method of simulating these things; each level brings an extra HD, better saves, etc, as though they had progressed on the appropriate character chart. This subsystem was originally created to give familiars a chance to survive and to have an impact as their owners gained levels, and the opposition became more lethal.
Furthermore, some magic items in my campaigns gain XP, increasing the magical bonus they confer over time. However, if the item ever goes to a new owner, the item starts again at 1st level with 0 XP. This represents a stronger bonding between the character and his equipment, as it becomes more focussed.
13. NPCs receive 1/2 the XP they would have received as a PC. This includes any characters whose player does not attend the game session.
14. Anything else which earns XP earns 1/4 the award they would have received as a PC.
1/4 was chosen for the magic items, animals, etc because it means that they will go above +5 at about the same time that their owners achieve epic levels. In a campaign not intended to reach epic levels (I don’t run any at the moment), I would limit them to +5 in bonuses, and perhaps make the ratio 1/3 instead of 1/4. ensuring that the PCs have time to enjoy their plus-five item for a while when they achieve the pinnacle of their powers. This is also a good rule of thumb for the power levels of treasure awarded, by the way!
1/2 was chosen because it’s twice as much as the animals get, and thus seems a reasonable number – and it’s easy to calculate.
Low/High Treasure Adjustments
It is assumed that each xp is matched by 10 GP of value in treasure. If this is not the case (and it rarely is!), the difference is divided by the number of characters and applied as a bonus or penalty AFTER all other adjustments. Animals and items are excluded from the ‘number of characters’ for this purpose, but Familiars and similar creatures are INcluded. Thus, in a low-magic campaign, where both sides have little in the way of magical goodies, the EL doesn’t change but the XP awarded increases significantly. If a low-magic party comes up against a high-magic opposition, the EL increases, but the party may get most of it’s reward as goodies after the battle.
15. Bonus XP = [TOTAL XP Awarded – Treasure (GP/10) ] / Number Elegible Characters
The resulting bonus xp is awarded to each character. However, if the bulk of the treasure comes in one or two discrete items, it may be better to reduce their bonuses and spread the balance amongst the characters who did not receive the items. Each item should be handled seperately. Where this is the case, the provisions of the section below on Uneven Distribution Of Treasure also come into effect.
Too Much Booty
It is possible – in fact, quite easy at low levels – to have the treasure be too high for the battle, resulting in the “Bonus” actually being a reduction in the XP awarded. This can cause problems in two ways: first, with a negative value so high that a character actually “loses” XP from the battle (in theory) and second, because sometimes the treasure is not evenly distributed, which advantages one character and penalises the others in calculations for future encounters. It is necessary to address both of these issues before proceeding further.
“Negative XP” from the battle: Deferred Penalties for Treasure
15a. Characters should always earn at least 1/2 the base xp reward (5) from a battle. This is designated the “Protected” XP award – because it’s protected from the effects of a negative bonus. This rule ensures that characters always get something for their trouble. However, by removing some of the xp from the calculation, it increases the likelyhood that a negative xp modifier will be greater than the allowed margin. When this happens, some of the xp “bonus” can be deferred to future battles. The “Treasure Penalty” first wipes out the Member Level Bonuses, then the Party Size Adjustments, and then up to half the base xp awarded. This should absorb the bulk of the penalty.
15b. When some penalty is deferred, it is simply added to that character’s next allotment of Bonus XP from Treasure. I should also comment on one aspect of this rule: why not track the ‘unpaid penalty’ at a party level, which would be much simpler for the DM than tracking it by character? The answer is that this unfairly penalises those low-level characters who earn enough xp from the encounter to fully pay off their “xp penalty”, in effect spreading the penalty of the high-level characters who don’t do so onto them when they have already paid their share.
But this is a contentious issue; it can be argued that because the High-level charaters increase the overall EL of the party, they permit the GM to increase the level of opposition, and hence the XP award for ALL party members. The low-level characters are, according to this line of arguement, riding on the coat-tails of the high-level members of the party, and this ‘burdon-sharing’ is a fair way for them to pay for that ride. This is a perfectly valid arguement, in my opinion; and one that deserves some consideration. Implementing this rule requires an alternative version of rule 15b.
15b(alternative): Total penalties deferred are added to the GP value of the next treasure bonus to be awarded.
For me, the big difference comes down to whether or not the highest-level member of the party is a PC or an NPC, especially one that’s been hired specifically for the purpose of “backstopping” the PCs if they bite off more than they can chew. If the highest level member of the party is a PC, then it’s not right that the low-level PCs ‘subsidise’ that character’s involvement, and I would use rule 15b as stated above. But when circumstances add a high-level NPC to the party, especially one that they aren’t paying for in gold, the value that they get from his presence should penalise them somewhat, in which case, the alternative form of 15b should be used.
Uneven Distribution Of Treasure
It will often be the case that much of the value of a treasure will be in the form of Magic Items, which can’t easily be distributed through the party. One person gets the big item, in fact (sometimes) one character will get the bulk of the items simply because his character class enables him to make use of such items. The disposition of treasure is completely up to the players, the GM should have no say in it beyond giving voice to the attitudes of any NPCs in the party. What we are concerned with here is the impact that uneven distribution should have on XP earnings.
What is the effect of a +1 item, in terms of character capability? Well, when a character gains a level, he gains +1 to hit. When he improves his STR (usually), his damage goes up, something that can be done every 4 levels. But the character gains other things with each of those levels: hit points, possibly an increase in the number of attacks that can be made, improved saves, skill points, one in four (or more) will give the character an additional feat, and probably one or more class abilities, none of which come with the +1 item. So a +1 longsword (or whatever) adds a fraction of 1 level, and a fraction of 4 levels. Assuming that each element of the level gain is to be equally-valued (any alternative just gets us in deeper trouble), let’s total up the total number of improvements that a character will get from a single generic level.
Single Generic Level:
- HP
- Skills
- Saves
- BAB
- Total improvements = 4 per level.
plus, 4 generic levels:
- stat increase
- 4 in 5: number of attacks increase by 1, or 4 in 5 spell advancements and +1/2 of number attacks increse
- 2 feats or 1 feat and 1 in 5 spell advancement
- x class abilities (usually 2 in 4, but may be higher or lower. Assume that more frequent class abilties implies weaker individual class abilities, or the class is unbalanced.
- Total improvements = 1 + 4/5 + 1 + 2 = 4.8 per 4 levels.
So the total value of a +1 item is 1 of 4 single level improvements, plus 1 of 4.8 four-level improvements, or
1/4 + 4 x 1/4.8 = 1.08333 levels worth of gain. Call it 1 level worth of improvement.
This gives us a basis for a ruling, based on the value of a +1 in the DMG. Everything in it can be related to the value of a +1 weapon by comparing the GP values. A quick glance at table 7-9 shows that the formula for value of plusses is
value = 2000 x (plus) x (plus).
15c. V1 = sqr [Value of magic item / 2000] = value in +1s.
This gives an adjustment to a character’s level based on the amount of magic items they have in excess of the usual. The adjustment is added to a character’s level for the purposes of calculating the experience they receive. If you over-power a party with too much treasure, the members who receive that treasure effectively take a CR “hit” on encounters.
XP for Non-combat encounters:
The average character who is good at something will have +2 or better in stat bonus to the relevant skill. This will increase by +1 every 5 levels, on average. They can also be assumed to allocate a skill rank into the ability for every character level (at least). It is thus a simple matter to assign an EL to any situation based on the DC to be overcome during the encounter. There are times when this can be determined in advance (traps, etc), and times when it can’t (interaction with NPCs/roleplaying). Note that roleplaying awards are optional, and up to the DM to award or modify based on circumstances at the time. I’ve even given roleplaying bonuses in combat if they seemed appropriate!
16. Base = 2 + int (char level / 5)
17. Encounter EL = ½(DC – base)
18. XP awarded = 1/10 x normal XP award.
XP for Skill Use:
There are two occasions when these awards are appropriate. One is when a character uses a skill in such a way that it solves a problem in a surprising or unexpected way. The other is when the character uses a skill to advance the plot in some significant way WITHOUT using the die roll to take the place of roleplaying.
19. Encounter EL = ½(Actual Die Roll)
20. XP awarded = 1/20th x normal XP award.
21. Maximum award = 5 x total rolled.
Note that this award completely disregards character levels, skill levels, and DCs required. That’s because the only way to rationally construct a system that takes account of these variables is to base the system on the margin of success, but players don’t always know the DC required and I don’t always want to take the time to perform the subtraction of total minus DC in my head. I’ve tried it, and it just bogs things down too much. This method is far simpler in game play; I can just draw up a rough table showing the PCs and jot down the actual rolls they make that qualify for the award, then perform all the calculations when time permits.
EXAMPLE OF USE:
A party consists of a 4th-level character, a 6th-level character, two 7th-level characters, and an 8th-level character.
They confront an enemy consisting of one CR8 creature, two CR6 creatures, two CR5 creatures, and fourteen CR½ creatures.
The enemy has marginally more magic at their disposal, and a distinct tactical advantage, and for a while look dominant, but the party eventually score a decisive victory through superior strategy and teamwork. How much experience should be awarded?
Step 1: Determine party CR:
One 8th-level character: 1 @ 8th = 2 @ 6th = 4 @ 4th, which is the lowest level within the party.
Two 7th-level characters: 2 @ 7th = 4 @ 5th = 4 x 1.4 @ 4th = 5.6 @ 4th.
One 6th-level character: 1 @ 6th = 2 @ 4th.
One 4th-level character: 1 @ 4th = 1 @ 4th.
TOTAL: 4 + 5.6 + 2 + 1
= 12.6 @ 4th
= 6.3 @ 6th
= 3.15 @ 8th
= 1.65 @ 10th
= 1.65 / 1.4 @ 11th
= 1.18 @ 11th level
= aprox 11th. So the party is equivalent to one 11th level character.
Step 2: Determine EL:
1 CR8 creature: 1 @ CR8 = 2 @ CR6 = 4 @ CR4 = 8 @ CR2 = 16 @ CR0.
2 CR6 creatures: 2 @ CR6 = 4 @ CR4 = 8 @ CR2 = 16 @ CR0.
2 CR5 creatures: 2 @ CR5 = 4 @ CR3 = 8 @ CR1 = 8 x 1.4 @ CR0 = 11.2 @ CR0.
14 CR½ creatures: 14 @ CR-1 = 7 @ CR1 = 7 x 1.4 @ CR0 = 10 @ CR0.
TOTAL: 16 + 16 + 11.2 + 10
= 53.2 @ CR0
= 26.6 @ CR2
= 13.3 @ CR4
= 6.65 @ CR6
= 3.325 @ CR8
= 1.6625 @ CR10
= 1.6625/1.4 @ CR11 = aprox EL11.
Allow +1 for the initial tactical position, gives EL12.
Step 3: Base XP:
D1 = 12 – 11 = 1.
Base XP = 62.5 x (12+1) x 1.4^1 = 62.5 x 13 x 1.4 = 1137.5; round up to 1,138 each.
Step 4: Individual Bonuses:
8th-level character:
D2 = EL – 4 – Char Level = 12 – 4 – 8 = 0. D2 = 0 , so use (9):
E3 = 62.5 x (12-3) x 1.4^0 = 62.5 x 9 x 1 = 562.5, round up to 563.
Member Level Bonuses increase the base award by 0%, so the 8th level character receives 1138+563 = 1701.
It would take 5.3 such encounters for the character to go from exactly 8th level to 9th level.
7th-level characters:
D2 = EL – 4 – Char Level = 12 – 4 – 7 = 1. D2 > 0 , so use (9):
E3 = 62.5 x (12-3) x 1.4^1 = 62.5 x 9 x 1.4 = 787.5, round up to 788.
Member Level Bonuses increase the base award by 5%, so the 7th level characters receive (1138+5%) +788 = 1194.9 + 788 = 1982.9, round up to 1983XP.
It would take 4.04 such encounters for the characters to go from exactly 7th level to 8th level.
6th-level character:
D2 = EL – 4 – Char Level = 12 – 4 – 6 = 2. D2 > 0 , so use (9):
E3 = 62.5 x (12-3) x 1.4^2 = 62.5 x 9 x 2 = 1125.
Member Level Bonuses increase the total awarded by 10%, so the 6th level character receives (1138+10%) +1125 = 1251.8 + 1125 = 2376.8, round up to 2377.
It would take 2.95 such encounters for the character to go from exactly 6th level to 7th level.
4th-level character:
D2 = EL – 4 – Char Level = 12 – 4 – 4 = 4. D2 > 0 , so use (9):
E3 = 62.5 x (12-3) x 1.4^4 = 62.5 x 9 x 4 = 2250.
Member Level Bonuses increase the total awarded by 40%, so the 4th level character receives (1138+40%) +2250 = 1593.2 + 2250 = 3843.2, round up to 3844.
It would take only 1.3 such encounters for the character to go from exactly 4th level to 5th level, so there is a very good chance that this encounter was enough for him to gain a level and close in on his colleagues!
That’s if they are all PCs. But what if the 6th level character and the 4th level character were both NPCs? Answer – they get exactly half of the XP, ie 2377/2=1188.5 (round to 1189) and 3844/2=1922 xp, respectively. Observe that the NPC factor is continually slowing their progress, producing “slippage” in character level relative to the PCs, but the greater this slippage becomes, the more bonus xp they receive for being of a lower level. There is very little difference between what the 7th level PC and the 4th level NPC received – but it takes a lot less XP (ie, fewer encounters) for the 4th level character to gain a level and reduce the slippage. These twin mechanisms combine to always keep NPCs weaker than their PC counterparts in a party, while not handicapping them to the point of helplessness; and also mean that any low-level characters that join the party will quickly close up ground on the party.
Step 5: Treasure Adjustments:
‘The enemy has marginally more magic at their disposal’ according to the encounter recap, but this is a relative assessment, comparing enemy with party; it tells us nothing with respect to the amount of loot the enemy actually have. According to tables in the DMG, the following would be reasonable for the encounter:
- Coins: 13000 cp, 6000 sp, 3570 gp, 100 pp = 5300 gp value
- 10 gems: 7 gp, 12 gp, 40 gp, 50 gp, 90gp, 100 gp, 300 gp, 600 gp, 1200gp, 3000 gp (total value = 5399gp)
- 4 mundane items : masterwork greatsword (350gp); masterwork Dwarven Waraxe (330gp); full plate armour (1500 gp); Healer’s Kit (50gp) (total = 2230gp)
- minor magic item: Arcane scroll, 2 spells: both 1st lvl spells, caster level 3: Protection from Good, Sleep (value 150gp)
- minor magic item: Divine scroll, 3 spells: 1st @ 5th: Enduring Elements, 1st @ 5th: Obscuring Mist, 2nd @ 5th: Enthrall (1000gp)
- minor magic item: Potion Enlarge Person (250 gp)
- minor magic item: Ring Counterspells (4000gp)
- medium magic item: Studded Leather Armour +1 (1175 gp)
- medium magic item: Bastard Sword Flaming Ghost Touch +2 (32335 gp)
- Grand Total: 51839gp
It is clear even from a passing glance that the Ring of Counterspells and the Bastard Sword are the picks of the treasure pile when it comes to magic. Between them, they account for just over 70% of the total value.
From (15): Bonus XP = (1701 + 1983 + 1983 + 1189 + 1922 – 5183.9) / 5 = (8778 – 5183.9) / 5 = 3594.1 / 5 = 718.82 each. Call it 719 xp.
However, the ring is worth 4000gp, or (4000/10) = 400 xp alone. One character gets that 400 xp worth of treasure, so the others should get the xp that goes with it. In other words, whoever gets the ring gets -400 to their xp bonus, and the other 4 characters get +100 each.
Similarly, the sword is worth 32,335gp, or 3233.5 xp. Call it 3234. One character gets that 3234 xp worth of treasure, so they should forego that much xp bonus and the others get 1/4 of that value extra, each, or +809 xp.
Let’s assume that the sword goes to the 2nd 7th level character, and the ring to the 8th level character, in which case:
8th-level character:
1701 xp + 719 – 400 (ring) + 809 (sword) = 2829 xp.
1st 7th-level character:
1983 xp + 719 + 100 (ring) + 809 (sword) = 3611 xp.
2nd 7th-level character:
1983 xp + 719 + 100 (ring) – 3234 (sword) = -432 xp.
half of 1138 xp is protected, ie the character gets 569 xp. This leaves a deficit of -432-569 = -1001 xp. This will be subtracted from future xp bonuses until paid off.
6th-level character:
1189 xp + 719 + 100 (ring) + 809 (sword) = 2817 xp.
4th-level character:
1922 xp + 719 + 100 (ring) + 809 (sword) = 3550 xp.
Step 6: Future CR Adjustments:
Until the deficit of character 3 is paid off, both characters 1 and 3 (who received a significant share of the treasure) receive an EL adjustment.
Character 1, 8th level:
From 15c: V1 = sqr [4000 / 2000] = sqr(2) = 1.4. The character is treated as having +1 level for the purposes of xp calculation until the deficit is paid.
Character 3, 7th level:
From 15c: V1 = sqr [32335 / 2000] = sqr(16.1675) = 4.02088. (This should not be a surprise to anyone who has examined the DMG table for melee weapon values). The character will be treated as having +4 levels for the purposes of xp calculation until the deficit is paid.
Step 7: Recalculate Party CR for planning future encounters:
Technically, this doesn’t have to be done now. But I find that it’s helpful to do it while the procedure is at hand. Before this can be done, the DM needs to know who has gone up a level. Based on the final xp awards, lets assume that characters 2, 4, and 5 all gain levels. So we now have:
Two 8th-level characters: 2 @ 8th = 4 @ 6th = 4 x 1.4 @ 5th, = 5.6 @ 5th.
Two 7th-level character: 2 @ 7th = 4 @ 5th.
One 5th-level character: 1 @ 5th = 1 @ 5th.
TOTAL: 5.6 + 4 + 1
= 10.6 @ 5th
= 5.3 @ 7th
= 2.65 @ 9th
= 1.325 @ 11th
= 1.325 / 1.4 @ 12th
= 0.95 @ 12th
= aprox 12th. So the party is considered equivalent to a 12th level character, one better than before.
This contrasts strongly with the values for xp calculation from the next encounter:
One “9th”-level character: 1 @ 9th = 2 @ 7th = 4 @ 5th, which is now the lowest level within the party.
One 8th-level character: 1 @ 8th = 2 @ 6th = 2 x 1.4 @ 5th = 2.8 @ 5th.
One “11th”=level character: 1 @ 11th = 2 @ 9th = 4 @ 7th = 8 @ 5th.
One 7th-level character: 1 @ 7th = 2 @ 5th.
One 5th-level character: 1 @ 5th = 1 @ 5th.
TOTAL: 4 + 2.8 + 8 + 2 + 1
= 17.8 @ 5th
= 8.9 @ 7th
= 4.45 @ 9th
= 2.225 @ 11th
= 1.1125 @ 13th
= aprox 13th. This means that base xp will be reduced, and bonus xp will be increased for most characters. The character who gets the least bonus xp will be the character with the deficit, even before that is taken into account. Most parties, under this circumstance, will make sure that any “tasty” items will find their way into the hands of the characters who missed out on the powerful goodies this time around, even without this xp prod to share the spoils; that will give the character with the deficit an extra xp bonus to help eradicate the deficit – assuming there’s something nice in the next treasure!
Real-Life Shorthand
Note that in actual play, I would not spell it out the way I have above, and would not show the workings; my calculations would be abbreviated, and would look more like the example to the left.
That’s about half-a-page of handwritten working. I would expect to use more space than that tracking hit point loss, Initiative, and spell effects during the combat!
Conclusion
So, there it is. In comparison to the rather unwieldy table arrangements in the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG, this is a simple and more useful alternative – at least for me.
It also has a huge side benefit in terms of balancing opposition levels with the party. If I know the effective level of the party, I can determine what size of encounter should give them difficulty. Since I adopted this system of matching enemy EL to party EL, the players have noticed a dramatic improvement in the encounters that I run for them (from their own statements). They no longer take even apprantly one-sided battles for granted, because they can never be sure of what’s lurking in the shadows – but they know that either I’m wasting everyone’s time with a fight they will inevitably win, or I’m setting them up for a sucker-punch, possibly drawing them into a weakened tactical position for a nastier opponant to come.
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
That is pretty stunning. But just what was unwieldy about the D&D 3.5 tables? The size or complexity of them didn’t seem terrible to me.
Wyatt’s last blog post..Cutting The Ritual Tax
June 18th, 2009 at 1:05 am
You should make a program of this that just asks the dm simple questions so that the computer can do the math for you. I can see where you’re going with this but it is far too complex for most dms.
kaeosdad’s last blog post..Meme: Add some Character to your Cities
June 18th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Wow, that looks like a lot of work. If you enjoy it, cool. I would not. I recently started to guestimate XP. When I compared it to XP by the book for an adventure recently, I ended up within 10% of the by-the-book method. So that would be the first question to ask: Does your method diverge significantly from guestimation? If not, just guestimate XP and if you really feel like it, look over your calculations every 10th session or so.
Alex Schröder’s last blog post..Adversity Spilling Out Of The Game
June 18th, 2009 at 7:14 am
My god, man! Where do you possibly find the time to prep for the game, run it, calculate the XP and still have a real life? Don’t get me wrong, I think this is a fascinating look at appropriate rewards based on a PC’s contribution to the adventure, but I can’t imagine any DMs (other than you) would even consider using something this complicated. Unless you design a simple, straight-forward computer interface as kaeosdad suggests above.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:31 am
@Wyatt: the fact that the tables are scattered throughout the rulebooks instead of being in one place, are incomplete, sometimes inconsistant, and don’t go far enough, was more than enough reason to expand the rules as given. What’s more, there’s a big difference between what the rules description says the tables are supposed to deliver and what they actually deliver – the text says one thing, the tables another. Which left the choice of spending a lot of time building up expanded tables, or of distilling the tables that were there down to a couple of simple formulas – which is what I did. Bear in mind that the xp tables given in the DMG are encapsulated in the first 3 formulas given – everything else is an extension of the system.
@kaeosdad: I agree completely. I’d be surprised if this system suited more than 1 GM in, say, ten or twenty. That said, the calculations are easier than they seem, and I can do them by hand in a minute or two – less time, in fact, than it used to take to try and work things out using the official tables. I’d be more than happy to see a quick program or spreadsheet that lets GMs input the information quickly and does the work for them, but developing one is beyond both my ability in modern programming languages and beyond what time I have available. I could do one in no time flat for the C-64 or C-128, but that doesn’t help people much. I could do one almost as quickly using Focus or COBOL, or even a couple of mainframe-based programing languages from the early 80s – but that’s not much help, either. If anyone’s interested in undertaking such a project, everything they need is spelt out in the blog post.
@Alex: I’m afraid my players wouldn’t stand for me guestimating xp. They already construct byzantine conspiracy theories to explain why they consistantly end up two or three points short of a level; my only defence has been to offer to let them check my calculations. Since (for the most part) they aren’t as facile with numbers as I am, and don’t understand the system (due to lack of effort on their part), they pass on the opportunity. But the answer to your question is yes, the results can be counterintuitive, especially given the (optional) refinements added to the system – extra xp for lower-level party members, treating NPCs differently, allowing for treasure (or lack thereof), etc. Only when you sit down and analyze the reasons for the results coming out the way they do does it all make perfect sense.
@Ameron: I don’t find it difficult. It takes more time to work out the initiative sequence for a major battle than it does to work out the experience! I’ll describe my full game-prep process some other time – it’s worth a blog post of it’s own – but in a nutshell, I’ll do a 1-line synopsis of what I expect to happen in each scenario of the campaign when designing it, I’ll list what I need to do for the next session immediatly after one is complete (each campaign is played once a month or so, which is how I can run 6 of them at once), I’ll spend odd minutes here and there throwing together a few notes and doing any other prep needed over the next 3 weeks, then put it all together over the course of the week before we play. I often won’t write the final scenario for the day’s play until the evening beforehand. XP is calculated immediatly after each encounter. All told, I probably spend about 2 hours a night working on game prep – which leaves plenty of time to do other things. I could probably do less – I have a rep in my circle of friends of having more complete and comprehensive game prep than most GMs would dream of. Scenarios may be 10-20 printed pages long, with maps and illustrations – some drawn by hand, some done on the computer, and some downloaded for the purpose. Plus I do game supplements to flesh out the background. But I enjoy it (most of the time). As for a computer interface, see my reply to Kaeosdad!
June 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Updated the post to correct a minor error and clarify a couple of points that were poorly phrased.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Mike, that is, bar none, the single most geeky thing on the internet. :) Well done!
Me + Math = my head exploding
Kudos to you for having the tenacity to create something so unified and complete.
Rafe’s last blog post..In a Wicked Age
June 18th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Thanks, Rafe. It’s telling that when I introduced the subject to my players, I started by telling them about the failed power supply and that it had left me with a couple of hours with nothing to do. The immediate response was, “This means trouble….” (in a lightheated way, of course!)
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I posted two complimentary comments for you earlier so I guess it’s OK for me to make this one complaining about badwrongfun.
It takes more time to work out the initiative sequence for a major battle than it does to work out the experience!
You must be using some crazy customized initiative equation then too, because regular initiative sequence consists of rolling 8 d20s and putting the initiative cards in proper order — it takes well under a minute.
This equation is just anathema to me — I want the game to be more like something a human can handle, not more like something that takes a computer to figure out. You and I don’t even share the slightest conception of what qualifies as “simple.” In fact, your rule #12 all by itself strikes me as unnecessary, not-worth-the-time complexity.
I have no problem with DMs who get enjoyment out of perfectionizing little details that no one will ever notice, I just think their tone when talking about it should be more like “this is fun for me” and less like “I think everyone will like this!”
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
If I know the effective level of the party, I can determine what size of encounter should give them difficulty. Since I adopted this system of matching enemy EL to party EL, the players have noticed a dramatic improvement in the encounters that I run for them
I should say that I would like to see a post explaining how to get this effect — something the players actually do notice. Because I would have trouble balancing for a party of a 4, 6, two 7s and an 8. Although my first inclination would be to use an actually computerized, rather than handwritten equation. A calculator here says the effective party level is 7.3, so your system gets very different results from the system in the DMG. (The calculator agrees the monster difficulty level is 11.) Maybe your players just like more difficult encounters, and that’s what’s working for them?
Of course, after all this you have to fudge for class levels not being worth a full CR, solo monsters being weaker, etc. Making the whole precision in stage one just something that gets rounded away.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Hey, I appreciate anyone taking the time to comment, let alone so extensively, Noumenon. The post was something that I thought people might be interested in, especially the fact that you can replace the core xp tables from the DMG with the first three calculations, and tweak the calculations to suit yourself. And, as I said in the post, I find it quicker and easier to use this system than to use the tables in the DMG – others might not find them as cumbersome as I do.
No, I’m using standard initiative rules. Which means that for each ceature type encountered, you have to roll a d20, look up and add a modifer, record a total, integrate the PCs results into a list, then get them all in correct order (in a duplicate list). It takes 3-5 minutes, sometimes more, for two reasons: first, table space is at a premium, so we don’t use initiative cards, I do it all with a written list; and second, I usually roll initiative seperately for each creature encountered. So if there are twenty creatures encountered (a war band or hunting pack or whatever) that means 20 init rolls.
It’s fairly easy to use the system to balance encounters using the calculation method, so much so that it’s not worth an additional post. There are essentially 4 steps:
1. Know the Party EL value.
2. Pick a total EL for the encounter – 1 or 2 less than that of the party for an easy fight, 1 or 2 more for a hard one, the same for a standard encounter. For ‘wilderness encounters’ where there has beeen no sorting, I’ll use a random value + half the lowest level of the party – for the 4,6,7,7,8 party mentioned, I would use 2d6+2.
3. Determine the creature type that’s been encountered. The CR of the creature and the target EL of the encounter will give you a rough idea in just a couple of seconds as to how many creatures of that CR are needed to reach that EL. I usually go for a little under half that number, then give character levels or other monster progression to one or two of the opposition to make up the difference.
4. Once these levels are determined, I finalise the number of “stock standard” creatures are in the encounter. And the result comes out right, every time.
With a mixed group of creatures, I’ll pick the number of higher CR creatures that I want, then calculate the number of lower-CR creatures needed to reach the EL. It doesn’t matter what the mix is, you can get the numbers right.
I don’t count class levels as being worth less than a full CR, nor do I treat solo monsters as weaker. Obviously, they are, but when balanced, the threat level comes out right; that sort of fudging is taken care of when assessing how difficult the combat actually was for how much xp to hand out. Which also covers things like encounters that happen to target a vulnerable point of the party, or that happen to target one of their strong points, etc.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Y’know, I wasn’t paying close attention, but it is a handy tip that one CR 6 equals √2 CR 5’s.
I do have a nice shorthand way of doing this, which I’m sure you won’t take up but here it is: You just add up the numbers on page 38 of the DMG until you get to the CR you want.
Like if a CR 8 encounter for your party is worth 2400 XP, you can just add up lower CRs till you get to 2400 XP. Four CR 4s at 600 XP each, for example, or three CR 5s at 800 XP each. It ends up working out exactly the same as the big complicated table on page 49. Now that’s simple.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:35 am
That’s exactly the sort of observation that led to my developing this system. I also noticed that it didn’t always work at low CRs, which is part of what I meant when I described the system as inconsistant. I think they may have fixed that in 3.5, I havn’t checked it.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:56 am
I’ve never had an opportunity to try it with say, twenty CR 1/10, because Goodman Games doesn’t make encounters like that and the DMG discourages it too. As does the existence of Fireball. I’d like to try it though.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I’ve never quite taken things to that extreme, either. But I did hit a duo of near-epic characters with 512 CR4 creatures (“lava ants”) at one point (Think Army Ants but they live in a volcano and only emerge when it erupts; resistant to fire & heat attacks, they swim in the lava streams, emerging to rampage and gather food, leaving the lava flow to cover their tracks). I needed a 20 to hit, the PCs needed a 1 to miss, but they could only take out a handful of them at a time. In the course of the battle, I knocked every member of the party down enough in hit points that a single additional success would have killed the target, and I still had just over 100 ants up and running. Do you think I could get that final hit? Not a chance!… it took about 45 minutes (real time) for the PCs to wipe out the opposition. They still remember that fight, 6 years later! (It was one of the first run using the ELs Match system, and not all of the bugs were out of it at the time.) (For the record, the EL is 22, and the PCs had an EL of 21). [PS: I rolled each ant’s attack every time, in front of the players! They were really sweating those last hundred or so rolls…]
October 19th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Funny when written like this I can not understand anything of what you say. Math is a language of complete mystery to me.
1/gryphon + Math = Me = < twice as dumb as the average cat
I can, and do, use a home written XP calculator, a trusty excel spread sheet. Which does make things really simple. THough it is getting a polish oon (I learned some new tricks recently)
To keep things simple, and to me that is the only way forward, I ahve to do things in simple stages.
Firstly I calculate the CR of each encounter seperately before hand, modifying it up or down as the situation requires. I don't add a bit or take a bit off as the game seems to like doing. I just increase or decrease the CR.
Equally I do not use the two CR 5 = 7 etc. pattern of increasing CR difficulty myself.
Two critters or/and encounter/environment CR are equal to the average of the two levels plus 1 (minimum of the max CR of either critter or encounter). (Traps or Environmental difficulty having a CR which can easily affect an encounter)
To go to +2 on CR you need double the number, so 2=+1, 4=+2, 8=+3 and so on.
CR of an encounter with a CR 4 & CR 2 is 4
CR of an encounter with a CR 4 & CR 4 is 5
CR of an encounter with say 16-23x CR 4 is 8
In the mention above of 512 CR4 is 13. The epics should have utterly minced them (although the environment does make it possible 1 more difficult).
Hells bells my little group of level 13 looneys used a couple of iterations of(cone of cold) in a similar situation and totally desimated the opposition. Killing one of their number as the cone intersected wit a lava flow.[boom]
I find this a LOT easier to plot into an excell spready than the origional methodology
I allocate XP to NPC as per the book but that is really easy to do as well.
I determine the party level modified for the kit they have.
I determine the total XP to allocate to the party. (NPC and 'resting' PC's/absent players count at 50%, if take part in the encounter if not they get none).
The total is then split up based on 1/Level.
Job done.
This method, while fair, is slow, it takes about three levels or more to catch up one level difference.
I am sorry but your whole approach seems over complex to me. I want this to be easy; CR for encounter, recorded against CR of party. Calculated at the end of the adventure.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:10 am
That’s fair enough comment, Gryphon. I’ve said before, and will say again, that while my approach works for me, it’s not for everyone. Thanks for sharing your alternative approach.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Hey, what works is all that matters.
If the players have confidence in their GM it doesn’t really matter if it is a math solution or one that consults the bones.
August 21st, 2010 at 4:30 am
Hello, just had a look at your system and I’ll admit it appeals greatly to my nature. But I just can’t figure out what you mean by “N @ (A+1) = [sqr(2) x N] @ A.” – The @ symbol isn’t really associated with math for me.
I hope, although I’m writing more than 6 months too late, that you will answer :s
August 21st, 2010 at 9:26 am
Try reading it like this: Number of opponants at (CR plus 1) equals the square root of 2 times that number of opponants at CR.
So, for example:
2 enemies of CR 3 is worth the same experience as 1.414 x 2 opponants of CR 2 = 2.828 opponants of CR 2 – usually rounded to 3.
5 enemies of CR 4 is worth the same experience as 1.414 x 5 opponants of CR 3 = 7.07 opponants of CR 3 – usually rounded to 7.
5 enemies of CR 4 is also worth 5 / 1.414 opponants of CR 5 = 3.536 opponants of CR 5 – usually 3 of CR 5 and one of CR 3.
So, if you have a party of 5 characters of 4th level, a ‘fair fight’ is 5 monsters of CR 4, or 3 monsters of CR 5 and one of CR 3, or 7 of CR 3.
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:05 am
Alright, I think I got it now. Thanks for the fast reply. We just started a new campaign using this XP system and a new loot system, this system works quite well, so far.
The CR seems to fit about right, with even as little a difference as 1 CR can make the fight seem ridiculously easy or very hard, at low levels atleast.
September 9th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Hi! I realize that this was all posted a while back, but I still have some questions and comments to make.
First of all, I’d like to say I really like what I’ve used of the system so far! I’m a math geek, but even I made a funny face and scratched my head when I first looked at this. I had to scroll down and read your response to Revara’s comment and analyze how you calculated your example to truly understand not only the math, but the potential of this system! The fact that you can convert CR up or down by multiplying or dividing by the root of two cut down my preparation time by a LOT, and it allowed for mixing of individual CR’s while keeping track of it all. In fact, I can scribble it out on paper without a calculator faster than I could look up the old way on the tables! I also appreciate the treasure rules you added, because I hardly ever hand out appropriate treasure for a campaign–I tend to keep things low-magic.
Something I noticed though, is that you hand out exp based solely on the enemy EL and do not divide by the number of characters in the party, which comes out with very interesting results. (Yes I do know you have your Party Size Adjustment, but that’s a bonus rather than a penalty.) I’m not complaining, I’m just pointing out that this gives different results: I.e., exp is directly proportional to size of combat, unlike the original rules.
For example, if you had two 1st lvl characters duel each other, the winner (even if he recieved no treasure) recieves less exp than what the book would award (unless I’m miscalculating). On the opposite end of the spectrum, if you put a 1st lvl PC with a band of lvl 1 Warrior NPC’s, say ten of them, and pit them all up against an equal EL, you would be awarding a lot of exp to the PC not only because the combat itself had a higher EL, but because it is much much more than what the book estimated (In fact, the book estimated it to be LESS than the 1v1 duel earlier, when in fact your version pretty much gave a lvl up). But, you say, what does it matter if the results are skewed that direction? I have two reprecussions, one more dangerous than the other, but easily corrected.
1) Treasure. If the exp is more or less than what is predicted by the DMG, then you cannot use the DMG to produce treasure and expect correct results. This is because that 1v1 duel would probably give you more treasure than exp, and that (relatively massive) skirmish would give you only a fraction of the expected treasure if you simply took 10x the exp as the norm. This is because if the DMG expects the exp to be less, it gives less treasure, and if it expects exp to be more, it gives more treasure. When you change one and not the other, and provide a bonus relying on the relationship between the two, things get a little disproportionate. You can correct this by looking on the “expected” treasure chart and finding the closest entry and then roll up random treasure for that EL simply enough. But you don’t have to–you can play with it as it is and only use EL’s closer to the party EL, but either way, if your players figure out this oddity, then you come to…
2) Larger combat is encouraged. This means that a metagaming PC with a little wits can subtly hire a small army and march around with his “300 bodyguards.” The natural response is either to take away the army or pit the PC against another army. The first one is difficult to accomplish–a whole other discussion, perhaps–but the better option. If you start increasing the EL of the enemies to match, then the PC keeps getting TONS of exp from each encounter. Now, if you go by the strict rules of “1 lvl up per encounter cap” this keeps a lvl 1 from shooting to lvl 7 in one massive seige, but it means that a powerful lvl 24 PC who is willing to pay his mercs ALL of the treasure from the encounter, earning him even more exp, can essentially farm exp by hiring massive amounts of NPC’s and standing in the middle of the fight. No more worrying about exp components for spells, eh? Just enchant an army to do your will, or better yet, create the zombie apocolypse Necromancer style!
I know I’m taking “Worst case scenerios” and possibly blowing things out of the possible proportion, and if you keep things to a simple “You are adventuring with your three close friends. That’s it” then you don’t have to worry about it. However, because larger combat IS more rewarding,it makes familiars, animal companions, feats like Leadership, and anything else that increases the party EL at all much more valuable.
I hope I’m not ranting too much–I really do like the system! I just want some feedback and other opinions on what I’ve come up with. Who knows, I could have easily missed a step and everything I’ve said is nonsense because my calculations are wrong!
September 9th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Always happy to hear that people are still getting something out of an older post, Imyea, and always happy to talk to a reader about one.
Yes, there are a couple of flaws with the system that I presented back then.
Where the system works, once you grasp it (as you have done), it works well – better and more accurate and wider-ranging than the book, especially if your campaign is to go into epic levels.
One use that I have found that isn’t in the writeup is to use the combined EL of the enemies to determine the amount of treasure, treating them as a single higher-level encounter and then dividing the treasure amongst the enemies. This means that the resulting treasure-load is commensurate with the party’s level and not with the level of individual creatures encountered. Or you can mix-and-match, giving two lots of treasure two ERs below the total indicated. This means that you can control the relative usefulness of items looted, and either encourage a larger and more diverse collection of smaller goodies or a smaller group of more powerful rewards – and either way, the PCs will earn what they get. The compromise point can be varied to suit the GM and the situation, something I find very useful.
On to the other “worst case scenarios” that you have raised: Armies. This system is not meant to accommodate armies, it’s for personal combats; I did another article – in fact, it had to be a series of them – on handling large scale combats called “This means War!”. But, if I were confronted by a PC-raised army, I would subtract from the xp award given to the PCs the xp award that was being distributed to the soldiers in their army. The fighting troops thus get the majority of the xp and the generals the leftovers.
For example, let’s say that there’s an army of 181 second-level characters. That makes them equivalent to a single 18th level character. Let’s oppose them with 4 PCs of level 6 and 181 first-level soldiers. The army are equivalent to one character of level 16 and the 4 PCs are equivalent to a single tenth-level character. More usefully, the PCs army is equivalent to 32 characters of their own (6th) level, for a total of 36 @ 6th – roughly the same as a single 16th-level character. You would expect there to be a substantial award for this battle, and for the PCs to do rather well out of it, even though they are letting the army do most of the fighting for them. I would work out the xp award for a level 16 party (PCs plus army) confronting a level 18 enemy and subtract from that the xp award for a level 16 party (the army) confronting that level – leaving nothing for the PCs. Bonus XP are a different story; Each PC’s share of the fight is one 36th of the total enemy, or just over 5 enemies of CR 2. Which works out to 1 enemy of CR 7 – so they would get a reasonable share of bonus XP, but not the huge payday they were expecting.
And that’s before I tack on any penalties for trying to rort the system!
September 10th, 2011 at 6:32 am
Ah! The missing final step does indeed make a huge difference! And the results turn out to be what I expected in the first place–the reward for the skirmish turns out to be less than the duel and is less than what the book estimated by about the same ratio that the duel is! This makes sense, because you did say you were lowering the exp from combat. I’m pretty sure that will fix most of my problems! (Good thing my campaign hasn’t started yet!)
Also, is the missing final step applied to the total experience or just the base experience? I would assume total, but I assumed that the % bonus from number 11 applied to total, and you only applied it to the base in your example.
As for the treasure, it is dissapointing that it didn’t work out well. I honestly thought that was one of the better aspects of the system. Where exactly did the issue come up?
And yes, always penalize rorting the system–or simply metagaming for that matter. I also thought of another solution: Casualties. If the PC ever gets really annoying with his 300 CR1/2 bodyguards that he replenishes on a regular basis, you can just have them encounter a single wizard of the same EL. I think the massive area damage would teach the PC pretty quickly. Even so, simply dividing exp by the number of people in the party solves most of the PC army problems… most.
The whole reason I kept bringing up the skirmish idea was because in my next campaign (a one-on-one game) I am planning an early lvl battle between the PC and the army she joined and the enemy army. I actually have a lot of very low people on either side, so people are going to be dropping each round like flies on both sides–I’m trying to introduce the horrors of war to an otherwise innocent character–and I was wondering about something: lets say only the PC and three soldiers survive the skirmish; do I give exp as if the dead people on her side were a part of the party, or do I give it only as if the survivors were? My instincts say the first, but I can’t find anything to say so (or not) in the DMG at first glance through.
September 10th, 2011 at 7:41 am
It has to be applied as the very last step before announcing the xp rewards. I made an attempt to work it on just the base, which in theory would mean fewer calculations, but it doesn’t work out properly, because it doesn’t reduce the bonus xp if you work it that way.
Unfortunately, I never found the time to dig into the system and work out where the error lay. The logic seems correct at each step, so I can only assume that the problem is somewhere in my translation of principles into mechanics.
In terms of casualties, if there’s a principle concerning this in the DMG I was never able to find it. Most players are of the opinion that the reward should be divided amongst the survivors, for obvious reasons. Some GMs that I know – in the absence of a rule to the contrary – indulge this arguement. So far as I am concerned, though, if the casualties took part in the battle, they earned their share of the XP by doing so and then they died.
From the description of your forthcoming campaign, you should definitely check out “This means war!”.
Mike recently posted..Theme vs Style vs Genre: Crafting Anniversary Special Adventures
September 24th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I like the ideas you are trying to do here, but the more I use it, the more issues I come across.
For instance, as it is written, #10 doesn’t seem to work right. If D2 is negative, then 3-D2 is a large positive number. E.g, if we had a 1st lvl character kill a EL 1/4 monster we get 312.5 x 1.4^(3-(-2-4-1), which is 312.5 x 1.4^10! That’s 9039 exp! Even with the 1/4 penalty from #11, it’s a whopping amount for such an easy encounter. I think what you meant to do is have it be 1.4^(3-absolutevalue(D2)–i.e., 1.4^(3+D2) since D2 is always negative for #10–because those numbers seem to work out better.
Even with that correction, there are other things that seem a little odd. In both #’s 9 and 10, an EL3 creature gives absolutely no exp for the E3 portion of the exp calculation, though EL2 and EL4 both give exp, almost making EL3 encounters the worst to fight in terms of rewards vs risk.
I think you summed up most of the issues I have with your system in your statement, “[…] I can only assume that the problem is somewhere in my translation of principles into mechanics.” Everything you say makes sense on paper, but I can’t get certain things to work.
Essentially, out of your article, I think #’s 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are all keepers. 1, 2, and 3 have drastically reduced my prep time; 11 is viable and I see no problem in implimenting it. 12 is common sense, but its nice to have it out there as a house rule, and 13/14 helps with keeping PC’s in the spotlight (Although in solo campaigns, I often assign psuedo-PC’s to accompany the PC and give them full exp–the PC is usually going to outshine them anyways, given that the campaign is about the PC and I usually give them abilities that would be balance-breaking in a normal game).
I also think #15 is salvagable, but we need to throw out the idea that you get extra exp for passing on loot–monks with a vow of poverty would get twice the exp from every encounter (If I read it right) simply by denying themselves loot, leveling their character faster than the other PC’s and arguably breaking balance. While I agree that every experience point should be balanced by 10gp, giving an extra exp because you didn’t get the gp just doesn’t balance Types of character power. It’s like saying for every ten calories you eat of vegetables, you can eat a calorie of fatty foods (I know that’s not the ratio, but bear with me). If you said, “well, I didn’t get a chance to eat my vegetables today, so I’ll just make up the lost calories by eating 1/10 of what I would have eaten as vegetables as chocolate instead!” people would look at you like you were crazy! It’s just not a balanced diet!
In the same way, a character’s power is augmented by wealth, yes, and there is supposed to be that 1/10 ratio for the game balance to work as expected, but the two shouldn’t be convertable. What I think should happen, is that if a character doesn’t get the gp expected regularly enough, it should be recorded on their sheet as a “GP Defeciency” or something. The DM keeps tabs on where people’s deficiencies are, and when the PC’s save the town or something, the mayor rewards them with a magical item that just so happens to be roughly the amount of gp you haven’t recieved yet. On the other hand, if the party gets more gp than expected, then it takes away from that defeciency pool. If there is uneven distribution of gold (probably from a magic item) the PC’s should just redistribute the gold so that everyone gets an even share. If this can’t be done (or if the DM is just hiding the price of the object for plot reasons or some such) then the PC’s deficiencies should vary from each other to represent this, and perhaps the king awards three magic rings to four PC’s… and the one that got the awesome sword just has to skip out on the loot. Hopefully, a crafty DM can keep their defeciencies as even as possible, but if the loot is truly and completely random, then it can make things hard.
I’m sure there’s some error in my interpretation, too, but it would be interesting to playtest. Usually, I don’t hand out as much gp from encounters as the book says I should. Why would that wild, peaceful woodland creature carry 900 platinum on them? For PC’s to loot of course! No, it makes more sense to repay the PC’s later for what they didn’t get now.
Hope this makes sense, and again, I REALLY like what you are trying to do here, but I can’t make (all of) it work in practice.
September 25th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Having checked it over, Imyea, All I can say is “well spotted” – there is indeed an error (actually two of them) that had gone unnoticed in step 10. The perils of copy and paste!
Try:
10. E3 = -62½ x (EL-3) x 1.4 ^ (3+D2)
where D2 = (EL-4) – Individual Char Level
and where D2 <0.
Using your example of a level 1 character confronting a single EL 1/4 creature (which usually come in larger groups, but never mind that):
D2 = EL-4-1 = -2-4-1 = -7
E3 = -62½ x ([-2]-3) x 1.4 ^ (3+[-7])
= -62.5 x -6 x [1.4 ^ -4]
= -62.5 x -6 x 0.26
= 97.5 = 98 xp.
Strange that I didn’t catch that when I was working the examples.
The other issue you raise is with #15, reducing xp for treasure. In order for a monk or paladin or other such class to comply with a vow of poverty, they must tythe their share of treasure received to their church or other such organisation, as dictated by the class. That doesn’t mean they can abstain from receiving more than their immediate needs and give the remainder to the other party members. In order to give their excess up, they first have to recieve it from the party loot. It follows that they don’t get extra xp for maintaining their vows; instead, they get a reduced xp payout for their share of the loot the same as any other character class. Once they have it in their posession, they can do what they want with it, even tythe it – or refuse to tythe it and accept the consequences.
Finally, I want to comment on the “wild woodland creature with 900gp” – quite often, creature designers will think of one specific kind of treasure which they associate with the creature; then this will be generalised in editing and discussion. An example might be bull elephants, which come with a substantial amount of ivory each. Ivory is considered a type of “gem” under the rules (or it used to be) so the treasure table for that general category gets pointed at in the stat block – leading to elephants with diamonds and rubies and whatnot. Plainly ridiculous, but the original intention was absolutely correct.
From that 900gp, I would subtract the value of the hide, the value of the carcass as meat, the value of any bones or horns OR the value of the head if stuffed and mounted, the value of any collectibles the creature swallows and/or creates, etc etc etc, and then be left with the true value of any valuables that might be found in the vicinity. If the total comes to less than zero, then I assume that I have overestimated the value of one of these subitems, and reduce it accordingly. That usually accommodates the “900gp”, or equivalent value, nicely. Sometimes, though, it doesn’t; rather than reduce the GP value of the treasure, though, you can get creative. Suppose the creature requires water with certain mineral salts regularly in order to survive; and that those salts can only be found in streams that are carrying flecks of gold, too few to make mining or panning profitable. These can then build up as nugget-like deposits within the creature, or gold plate it’s skull, or any of a dozen other things.
None of this is treasure handed to the PCs on a silver platter; they have to work for all of it, and if they try to claim all of it from every encounter they will quickly overburden themselves. They will curse your name even as the laud the realism of the campaign!
Mike recently posted..We have a winner! – The Assassin’s Amulet Cover Contest
August 16th, 2016 at 12:56 am
[…] rewards, indeed the system seems to encourage it (one of the reasons I House-ruled it way back in A Different Experience: A variation on the D&D 3.x Experience Points System. While some GMs learn to “live” with the resulting Monty Haul catastrophes, most […]