Too much experience

[Elvencloud]

Does anyone else feel that experience comes too quickly or too little of it is required for level up? I almost had two levels tonight (understandably that the players were level one...)
Fights involved (they were gladiators, if you will)- 15 savages (treated as goblins), A dire wolf (toned down) and two normal wolves, and a battle with a level three ranger, level two sorcerer, and level two rogue. [after level two].
After the battles, they fought a ghoul, a ghast, and six zombies to escape.
Total experience for the four party members=2K+.
Does that sound right?

[The Boz]

Yeah, it sounds right. They are level 1.

[Godskook]

1.How many players?

2.OMG that's high CR encounters. Did they get any battles with a EL less than their ECL +2?

[Yora]

15 goblins = 1,500 XP
1 lesser dire wolf = 200 - 300 XP
2 wolves = 600 XP
3rd level NPC = 900 XP
2 2nd level NPCs = 1,200 XP
1 Ghoul = 300 XP
1 Ghast = 600 XP
6 Zombies = 900 XP

Total = 6,300 XP

The calculation is correct. But the question is, why you cramped so many enemies into a single session?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Ya it seems pretty normal to me.

1. That's just how the game is set up. As silly as it may sound doing the suggested encounters per day with minimal downtime a party will level weekly in their time. This can feel quite silly so even if you are runninhe change in a kick down the doors hack and slash game you should toss in some significant downtime just for verisimilitude, because going from fresh out of boot camp to legendary epic here on 5 months is just ludicrous.

2. Gladiatorial game? First session? Wall to wall combat, like ok you go back to your cell eat sleep everyone gets a clw and you can upgrade to a spear. Next fight? Ya that will level you damned quick. It's up to you whether this is acceptable or not, for me it's fine because it's low levels and it's high stakes life or death combat. Plenty of real world accounts attest to green troops becoming hardened troops after just a few battles.

[hewhosaysfish]

1. That's just how the game is set up. As silly as it may sound doing the suggested encounters per day with minimal downtime a party will level weekly in their time. This can feel quite silly so even if you are runninhe change in a kick down the doors hack and slash game you should toss in some significant downtime just for verisimilitude, because going from fresh out of boot camp to legendary epic here on 5 months is just ludicrous.

What's ludicrous implausible is not that a bunch of rookies can become "legendary epic" heroes after facing 4 enounters per day, every day, for just over 2 months.

What's ludicrous is that fighting

13 Lizardfolk (CR1)
13 Chokers (CR2)
13 Ogres (CR3)
13 Tigers (CR4)
13 Wraiths (CR5)
13 Ettins (CR6)
13 Chimeras (CR7)
13 Stone Giants (CR8)
13 Vrocks (CR9)
13 Clay Golems (CR10)
13 Elder Elementals (CR11)
13 Krakens (CR12)
13 Ice Devils (CR13)
13 Trumpet Archons (CR14)
13 Mummy Lords (CR15)
13 Old Black Dragons (CR16)
13 Mariliths (CR17)
13 Eighteenth Level Bards (CR18)
13 Very Old Blue Dragons (CR19)*

or the equivalent**

is considered to be nothing exceptional and not as suitable material for a (if you'll pardon the expression) legendary epic.
The average party of PCs in D&D even given copious down-time still manage to lead a very busy life.

*Numbers based on the vague recollection from the DMG that it takes 13-1/3 encounters of Cr equal to your level before you level up, then this would be a slight underestimate of the number of critters you would hav eto fight (one at a time) to level a 4-man party from 1 to 20.
A total of 247 fights, at 4 per day would mean you finish partway through day 62.

Technically, around 266-2/3 fights would be required, taking 66-2/3 days. I just rounded down to 13 fights per level because I couldn't be bothered trying to figure out which levels would have 13 and which would have 14.

**And, yes, I do realise that the a campaign of exactly 13 identical encounters per level of precisely the "recommended" Challenge Rating would incredibly rigid, boring, unimaginative and unrealistic.

[Bhaakon]

I imagine that most high-level NPCs got there predominately on quest experience, which is why they're so poorly optimized for combat. The D&D equivalent of fed ex delivery boys must all be epic level.

[Elvencloud]

First, it was a ten hour session. :P
Second, it was a "fight for your freedom" sort of thing. Not a dungeon crawl, so they just left the gladiator rings...
After fighting the dire wolves, they woke up the next morning to everyone else dead, and a mysterious fog rolled in- where the undead were. They were at full power for each of these fights.

[HalfDragonCube]

First, it was a ten hour session. :P
Second, it was a "fight for your freedom" sort of thing. Not a dungeon crawl, so they just left the gladiator rings...
After fighting the dire wolves, they woke up the next morning to everyone else dead, and a mysterious fog rolled in- where the undead were. They were at full power for each of these fights.

Ten. Hours.

That might explain why you went up two levels.

[Techsmart]

After a 10 hour session, I would slap my DM silly if we didn't go from level 1 to near level 3.
I have had times where it felt like we were leveling very quickly. In a dungeon I went through the other week, we were level 4 going through a juvenile dragon, buncha archons, and the 5 level 5 paladins all in a row (some other baddies too, but those were the highlights). Granted, that was a good bit of EL +X (especially the paladins), but the experience put us from low lvl 4 to middle lvl 6.
By the way, stinking cloud+small room = sad paladins.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, if I didn't level after ten hours of non-stop combat, I'd feel cheated.

Especially if the pile of bodies looked like that.

Now, sure...pacing is a part of it. Some groups move through challenges more rapidly than others...they'll level up faster. Meh. That's fine. Keeps people engaged.

[under_score]

I find that multi-leveling happens even more at high levels. With a well-built party (of casters, of course) most CRs just don't even matter any more. The last session in the game I'm running, I think everyone leveled twice, except one player leveled thrice. This was from 3 encounters.

It's for this reason that I'm considering changing xp for my next major campaign. Either leveling by DM fiat or halving the amount of xp gained or something.

(Or making sure the players aren't so far above the level of power they should have).

[Sir_Wulf]

If that seems too fast for you, you might want to look at the alternate experience charts offered in Pathfinder. They have a slower and a faster track for character advancement.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement

[Amphetryon]

I find that multi-leveling happens even more at high levels. With a well-built party (of casters, of course) most CRs just don't even matter any more. The last session in the game I'm running, I think everyone leveled twice, except one player leveled thrice. This was from 3 encounters.

It's for this reason that I'm considering changing xp for my next major campaign. Either leveling by DM fiat or halving the amount of xp gained or something.

(Or making sure the players aren't so far above the level of power they should have).Two to three levels in 3 encounters is... impressive.

What's the party's level and composition? What were they fighting to gain that much XP that fast?

[under_score]

What's the party's level and composition? What were they fighting to gain that much XP that fast?

At the start of the session they were:

-A human Psion/Metamind at 19th level
-A catfolk (thank you reincarnation) Monk/Swordsage/Shadow Sun Ninja/Fist of the Forrest at 18th or 19th level (can't recall)
-A human Dread Necromancer at 19th level, and with plenty of max hp undead giants
-A bone creature shifter Beguiler/Swiftblade/Daggerspell Mage at 16th level, ECL 18 (I gave bone creature a +2 LA since it really should have one)
-A warforged Artificer at 19th level

They fought 6 Frost Giant Hulking Hurler/Master Throwers (CR 17) and 2 Frost Giant Clerics (CR 22). This would have been a bad fight if the undead didn't soak up a bunch of damage (I'm a friendly DM and had the giants attack the huge undead first as they had no reasonable way to know the PCs were actually more powerful).

Then delved underground to face 2 Shadows of the Void (CR 26) and 2 Winterwights (CR 23). This provided almost no challenge to them.

Then, after accidentally awakening a rajah, some Lords of Dust showed up to chat with them and then decided to kill them. This cadre consisted of 2 Mariliths (CR 17), 2 Ak'chazar Rakshasas (CR 15), and 1 souped up Nazathrune Rakshasa (CR 25). This fight would have been worse if I hadn't let them ready actions while the rakshasas were gloating.

[Redland Jack]

Yeah, 3.5 seems to increase levels way too fast to me. However, that might be because my mind is still oriented to 2nd edition, where an orc was worth something along the lines of 15xp and the amount of experience needed to level up progressed at a geometric instead of an arithmetic rate.

[Angry Bob]

I just got done with a seven-hour session. My PCs went from lvl 12 to lvl 16. This is because I do not adjust the XP in proportion to their munchkinry.

They powered through the dungeon to the CR 21 fight that they only barely won, leveled twice, and then butchered the rest of the dungeon, including the CR 23 fight, easily.

CR 21 fight: And Oculus Demon and a Wall of Kniferape (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10846873&postcount=37)(Except this one had Bard list Mind Fog built in, jacking up its size and CL)

Cr 23 fight: A 20 HD beholderkin Director, four medusa scout 9s, one "Greater Medusa(Tauric Medusa/10 HD Constrictor)" Warblade 7, one Greater Medusa Sorcerer 7 optimized for hiding and grappling.

There were other, smaller fights, but none of them were of note, really. Excpet the 30 HD Balhannoth that only lost because I forgot it had DR.

[ScIaDrd]

If that seems too fast for you, you might want to look at the alternate experience charts offered in Pathfinder. They have a slower and a faster track for character advancement.


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement

Wait, wait wait!
Is this legit? (as in, not license breaking and/or illegal?)
If the answer to all of the above is yes, then I´m the happiest gamer in the country.:smallbiggrin: I got me an exp/advancement table! Wohoo! And for free, too! Thank you so much!

That leads me to an another question Would it be safe the assume that the PF Exp rewards-per-encounter/CR are a much more closely guarded ( license protected) secret? Well, no matter, because to my best knowledge, there is nothing in either 3.5e or PF Licenses that prevents me from tinkering with the 3.5 rewards chart, until it starts making sense :smallamused:. Or is there?

And to get back on topic, to my untrained eye these fights looked quite taxing to the party , not individually, but in sequence (the fist chain of gobo 'thugs' and wolves and stuff). But anyway, in a 10 hour session they definitely deserved it. If for nothing, then for their ability as players to stay alert and keep thinking a successfully strategizing all the time. My Respect to both them and you as the DM, as that must have been one awesome session. Bravo!

[CTrees]

PF is pretty darned open. Except for fluff and pictures, I'm not aware of anything in core PF that's not available free on d20pfsrd.org - and what's more, they're uploading the additional stuff at a pretty rapid pace (Bestiary 2, PF Psionics, Inner Sea Campaign setting classes/equipment/feats/etc.). So yeah, the xp chart is legit, and the CR related stuff is there, as well (xp rewards is under Gamemastering, items and cash is... here and there, I forget).

[McSmack]

Wait, wait wait!
Is this legit? (as in, not license breaking and/or illegal?)
If the answer to all of the above is yes, then I´m the happiest gamer in the country.:smallbiggrin: I got me an exp/advancement table! Wohoo! And for free, too! Thank you so much!

That leads me to an another question Would it be safe the assume that the PF Exp rewards-per-encounter/CR are a much more closely guarded ( license protected) secret? Well, no matter, because to my best knowledge, there is nothing in either 3.5e or PF Licenses that prevents me from tinkering with the 3.5 rewards chart, until it starts making sense :smallamused:. Or is there?

IIRC PF does things a bit differently. The amount of XP you dish out is listed in the monster stat block. This amount doesn't vary based on the party's level like it does in 3.5. This makes keeping track of and calculating XP a lot easier.

Though honestly I find it better just to do away with XP all together and just have everyone level up when they reach certain plot points. Or when I'm feeling light and fluffy (often due to someone buying me pizza.)

Back to the OP, given what you fought, I'm not surprised by you gaining two levels. The first two or three levels usually go pretty quick. Most sessions I've played in have featured anywhere from 1 to 5 combats per session.

On the whole I've always found the 3.5 XP/CR system icky and convoluted. I shouldn't need college level algebra in order to hand out rewards to my party. I think PF did a good job of making the system simpler and easier to use, and their idea of adjusting the XP per level chart instead of every monster's XP reward was frickin' brilliant. If you think your DM might be interested, have him check it out. It's easily convertible to 3.5 and it will save your DM some headaches.:smallsmile:

[Ashiel]

Yeah, 3.5 seems to increase levels way too fast to me. However, that might be because my mind is still oriented to 2nd edition, where an orc was worth something along the lines of 15xp and the amount of experience needed to level up progressed at a geometric instead of an arithmetic rate.

3E XP progression was intended to go at the same speed as 2E modules and what did, and to my understanding does a good job of doing so.

However, the main reason (to my knowledge) that people think of 1E and 2E being so slow on leveling is because many groups ignored a very critical rule in terms of leveling speed. In previous editions GP = XP. Wasn't it like every 1 GP you got also was 1 XP?

So when you slew that red dragon and he was only worth about 3000 XP, but he had some 50,000 gold pieces?

You got 53,000 XP. :smallbiggrin:

[Redland Jack]

3E XP progression was intended to go at the same speed as 2E modules and what did, and to my understanding does a good job of doing so.

However, the main reason (to my knowledge) that people think of 1E and 2E being so slow on leveling is because many groups ignored a very critical rule in terms of leveling speed. In previous editions GP = XP. Wasn't it like every 1 GP you got also was 1 XP?

So when you slew that red dragon and he was only worth about 3000 XP, but he had some 50,000 gold pieces?

You got 53,000 XP. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, in the old 'Gold Box' games, the main source of gaining levels (in the early stages) was definitely treasure = xp (you might have also gained xp for the value of magic items, though I could be wrong about that). I can't recall if the treasure value was significant later in the games, though it might have been (I.e., you kill 80 storm giants, and each one has 2000 pp, which you end up just throwing away!)

On the other hand, my recollection of 2nd edition, was that you didn't get treasure as rapidly as you do in 3.5. From what I can tell, the current guideline is something along the lines of you're supposed to get (expected value of) 300gp for overcoming a CR1 combat, whereas in 2nd edition you'd receive about 85cp for the same combat.

[Bovine Colonel]

If that seems too fast for you, you might want to look at the alternate experience charts offered in Pathfinder. They have a slower and a faster track for character advancement.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement

Actually, unless I read something critically wrong, that's a slower track and an even slower track.

[Taelas]

That's because it's from Pathfinder. As was mentioned earlier, in Pathfinder you get a set amount of XP for killing a creature, regardless of your own level (as in 2E).

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, in the old 'Gold Box' games, the main source of gaining levels (in the early stages) was definitely treasure = xp (you might have also gained xp for the value of magic items, though I could be wrong about that). I can't recall if the treasure value was significant later in the games, though it might have been (I.e., you kill 80 storm giants, and each one has 2000 pp, which you end up just throwing away!)

On the other hand, my recollection of 2nd edition, was that you didn't get treasure as rapidly as you do in 3.5. From what I can tell, the current guideline is something along the lines of you're supposed to get (expected value of) 300gp for overcoming a CR1 combat, whereas in 2nd edition you'd receive about 85cp for the same combat.

In addition you would receive bonus XP for doing things that made sense for the class. Fighters would get additional XP based on the HD of the creatures they slay (on top of the XP the creature was worth). Clerics would get XP for successfully using turn undead and the like. Most people forget this stuff which can really slow a game down. Plus due to the near complete lack of help designing encounters you could be facing lots of low XP monsters when really you should be doing more.

[ffone]

I actually dig the 3.5 XP system...it's totally formula-driven (except for some parts of the rows for levels 1-3, IIRC) and has cute mathematical rules like "two CR Xs = one CR X+2".

XP depending on your level has one subtle but clever side effect: it allows the XP tables to look like they just scale in a 'triangular' fashion, which keeps the math more tractable than if it were exponential like 2e....but b/c you level up only half as fast for defeating a given CR for every 2 levels higher you are, it's 'actually' still exponential. (If it takes 13 1/3 CR 1 orcs to get you from level 1 to 2, it will take twice that many to get you from 3 to 4, and four times that many to go from 5 to 6...of course, hopefully you'll be fighting fewer stronger enemies by then.)

The primary difference between that and having actual exponential XP tables with fixed monster XP payouts is the effects of item crafting, XP burning spells, etc. and the (for better or worse) "XP is a river" effect.

[Ernir]

On the whole I've always found the 3.5 XP/CR system icky and convoluted. I shouldn't need college level algebra in order to hand out rewards to my party. I think PF did a good job of making the system simpler and easier to use, and their idea of adjusting the XP per level chart instead of every monster's XP reward was frickin' brilliant. If you think your DM might be interested, have him check it out. It's easily convertible to 3.5 and it will save your DM some headaches.:smallsmile:
I actually dig the 3.5 XP system...it's totally formula-driven (except for some parts of the rows for levels 1-3, IIRC) and has cute mathematical rules like "two CR Xs = one CR X+2".

Hahaha, the XP system is actually one of the few things in 3.5 I think is actually good when it comes to mathematics.

[Zaq]

Our group shifted to E6 a few months ago, and since then we've been trying to actually keep track of XP (instead of just leveling up when it feels right, as we had been doing). We've learned that the rules are terrified of encounters with more than one creature in them. Even things with CRs 2 or 3 below your ECL give you hilarious levels of XP when you group a few of 'em together (and I mean just somewhere in the 2 to 4 range . . . you know, backup mooks). Pun-Pun forbid that you actually have more than one "big" enemy. By the book, we should have gone from level 4 to level 6 in about two, MAYBE three (not particularly grueling) in-game days. Yeah.

[Ashiel]

In addition you would receive bonus XP for doing things that made sense for the class. Fighters would get additional XP based on the HD of the creatures they slay (on top of the XP the creature was worth). Clerics would get XP for successfully using turn undead and the like. Most people forget this stuff which can really slow a game down. Plus due to the near complete lack of help designing encounters you could be facing lots of low XP monsters when really you should be doing more.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. You also got a +% bonus to experience points if your key ability score was at least X high. So Fighters with a strength of 15 or better would get +10% experience or something.

So when the Fighter and his party killed the 4000 XP dragon, and looted the 40,000 gold pieces for his horde (and yeah, magic item values counted, I believe), then the fighter would get an extra +1,100 XP for just being stronger than most guys.

[ffone]

Oh yeah, that reminds me. You also got a +% bonus to experience points if your key ability score was at least X high. So Fighters with a strength of 15 or better would get +10% experience or something.

So when the Fighter and his party killed the 4000 XP dragon, and looted the 40,000 gold pieces for his horde (and yeah, magic item values counted, I believe), then the fighter would get an extra +1,100 XP for just being stronger than most guys.

lulz, "Fighter A, you're better than Fighter B....so now you should get even more betterer".

Combined with rolling for stats, which (I believe?) was the norm way back when...and how, high stakes rolls!

[Sir_Wulf]

When generating experience rewards, you can be more arbitrary and base them on the description of the typical fight as described in the 3.5 DMG:

EL = Level = About 5 fights to exhaust the party
ranging to...
EL = Level+3 = The party wins, but they're completely done for the day and may have a fatality.
EL = Level+4 = They're lucky to survive (50% survival chance)

If your maxed-out PCs effortlessly stroll through an encounter, they only get experience for an encounter of their level (or even level-2), regardless of what the exp. chart would normally award.

[under_score]

When generating experience rewards, you can be more arbitrary and base them on the description of the typical fight as described in the 3.5 DMG:

EL = Level = About 5 fights to exhaust the party
ranging to...
EL = Level+3 = The party wins, but they're completely done for the day and may have a fatality.
EL = Level+4 = They're lucky to survive (50% survival chance)

If your maxed-out PCs effortlessly stroll through an encounter, they only get experience for an encounter of their level (or even level-2), regardless of what the exp. chart would normally award.

I've thought about doing this, but I think my players would feel severely cheated. It suggests that if they want more xp, they should work harder for their victories, use poor strategies, and otherwise make the encounter more difficult for themselves.

And if, for some reason, you didn't tell your players this was how you were running things, then when they find out they'd be really upset. And, I think, justly.

[Ashiel]

lulz, "Fighter A, you're better than Fighter B....so now you should get even more betterer".

Combined with rolling for stats, which (I believe?) was the norm way back when...and how, high stakes rolls!

Yeah, pretty much. :smallwink:

That's why I prefer 3.x/PF/d20. :smallbiggrin:

[Sir_Wulf]

I didn't think to mention that there's an easier way:

Once upon a time, I'd calculate up experience points after every game session, carefully figuring out roleplaying and quest bonuses, bonuses for different classes' goals (this was back in the era of 2nd edition AD&D), etc. After many years, I've decided that's too much like work.

My current system is to give one level every 12 challenging encounters (6 encounters for first level PCs). There are some encounters that pose no serious threat to the party: Those don't count toward level advancement. Other fights are so brutal that they count as 1 1/2 or even 2 encounters.

It's simple, we can all easily keep it straight, and it takes virtually no time to track. Those who prefer faster advancement can reduce the number of encounters needed to level.

[Elvencloud]

Since I'm the dm, I'm gonna call that we slow down leveling a little. I want them to enjoy each combat and have to think tactically. Each level is just gonna pass by, and their not going to appreciate getting that new spell level, etc.
I think I'll use one of the PF ones, or perhaps I slow down the xp chart a bit. I want the next session to be a little more roleplay oriented, so it'll be fun.

[ffone]

Related question: I commonly see people (such as a few posts above) talk about things like

Roleplaying XP
XP for doing class-y things (like the cleric healing random commoners)
solo sidequest XP

How does one do this without:

- Encouraging metagaming? (People often say they use roleplaying XP to *discourage* metagaming, but I can't help but think RP XP would cause most players to think about how to 'play for it' rather than roleplay what they genuinely think is their best or preferred roleplaying)

- Balancing things for classes? (Fighters don't have as much to do out of combt as rogues or clerics...so do you give them more XO *for* combat?)

...of course, some people may consider those 'features, not bugs' (they think certain personality types or classes should get more XP) in which case I'd be curious about when, how and why you think disparate XP is desirable.

[Divide by Zero]

I usually just wing it with noncombat XP. Of course, I also wing it with combat XP, so maybe that's just me.

[DarkEternal]

Am I the only one that gives out levels without calculating actual XP? I give it out when I think the party deserfved it(counting in roleplaying experience-Quest experience and battle experience so some people level faster then others)? I never liked the sterile counting of each beastie is worth that and that, but rather levelled the party based on their actions and how they affected the campaign they are in.

[Divide by Zero]

Am I the only one that gives out levels without calculating actual XP? I give it out when I think the party deserfved it(counting in roleplaying experience-Quest experience and battle experience so some people level faster then others)? I never liked the sterile counting of each beastie is worth that and that, but rather levelled the party based on their actions and how they affected the campaign they are in.

Unless you change all the spells with XP requirements, item crafting, and so on, don't you need to track it to an extent? I agree with you on the second part, but I still give it out as XP rather than just straight levels.

[Cog]

Unless you change all the spells with XP requirements, item crafting, and so on...
Nobody in my group ever actually uses any of those, so we get away with just leveling by fiat as well.

[MeeposFire]

Unless you change all the spells with XP requirements, item crafting, and so on, don't you need to track it to an extent? I agree with you on the second part, but I still give it out as XP rather than just straight levels.

Oddly if you game the system you can use XP using spells to actually get ahead of the XP game. This is one of the ways the XP system gets a little messed up.

[Quietus]

Related question: I commonly see people (such as a few posts above) talk about things like

Roleplaying XP
XP for doing class-y things (like the cleric healing random commoners)
solo sidequest XP

How does one do this without:

- Encouraging metagaming? (People often say they use roleplaying XP to *discourage* metagaming, but I can't help but think RP XP would cause most players to think about how to 'play for it' rather than roleplay what they genuinely think is their best or preferred roleplaying)

- Balancing things for classes? (Fighters don't have as much to do out of combt as rogues or clerics...so do you give them more XO *for* combat?)

...of course, some people may consider those 'features, not bugs' (they think certain personality types or classes should get more XP) in which case I'd be curious about when, how and why you think disparate XP is desirable.

In terms of Roleplay XP, I base that strictly on non-mechanical stuff. Sure, the face-bard may have been the key player in that encounter with the ornery guild mage, and was the one to roll the appropriate skill checks, but the Wizard showed interest in the guild mage's library, and the grumpy fighter grumbled and took offense when it was suggested he was "lesser" for being mundane. Did the players contribute to the roleplay encounter? Yes? Then they get roleplay exp for it. Did they roll dice or provide any mechanical difference in the encounter? No? Doesn't matter, if their players pitched in with the roleplay.

[Tyndmyr]

Unless you change all the spells with XP requirements, item crafting, and so on, don't you need to track it to an extent? I agree with you on the second part, but I still give it out as XP rather than just straight levels.

Yup. Playing in a campaign currently where the DM prefers this method. It has rather a lot of consequences.

We ended up playing that all xp costs are replaced by xp * 5 cost in gold pieces. This still has a few interesting repercussions.

[LordBlades]

If your maxed-out PCs effortlessly stroll through an encounter, they only get experience for an encounter of their level (or even level-2), regardless of what the exp. chart would normally award.

IMHO punishing the players for playing smart is a bad idea. Being competent is something that should bring you an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Not to mention you can metagame such an approach to hell and back. You would soon see wizards using crossbows and taking reserve feats, limiting themselves to a couple of d6 here and there to make stuff look challenging only to unload his whole arsenal of BFC spells in a round or two once **** hits the fan.

[MeeposFire]

Roleplaying XP worked a lot better when the XP tables are large so that adding small amounts of bonus XP stuff like it was in 2e. 3e tables are so small that even small amounts can add up fast. Not saying you can't do it of course but the roleplaying XP is more significant if you use it in 3e. Also since XP tables were different for each class in 2e it made it easier to hide any difference iin the amount of bonus XP that each character received (it is hard to tell the mage got more XP than the thief when the thief still levels up faster).

[Tyndmyr]

IMHO punishing the players for playing smart is a bad idea. Being competent is something that should bring you an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Not to mention you can metagame such an approach to hell and back. You would soon see wizards using crossbows and taking reserve feats, limiting themselves to a couple of d6 here and there to make stuff look challenging only to unload his whole arsenal of BFC spells in a round or two once **** hits the fan.

Yeah, I've actually done that in such situations. If you're gonna level at a given time anyway, no point risking stuff to make it happen sooner.

Instead, things like gold become important. You never, ever blow gold on temporary power boosts and the like.

[Kol Korran]

hhhhmmmm... with some groups and some players i played the consensus was:
"you level up after doing something spectacular". usually at accomplishing certain goals and such, but also for doing very clever things or such. there should be a feeling of accomplishment.

i use a similar system, since some of my players love tracking XP- it gives them a sense of progression. i award XP according to accomplishments as well, but they can take whatever route they want to obtain them.

my players usually level about once every 2 sessions.

[DarkEternal]

Unless you change all the spells with XP requirements, item crafting, and so on, don't you need to track it to an extent? I agree with you on the second part, but I still give it out as XP rather than just straight levels.

Not really. If a wizard uses a spell with a hefty XP component such as Gate, then it would just mean he'd level later then the rest of the party after such actions, maybe not in the same session with the others, but in the next or or something like that. Same with multiclassed characters who didn't multiclass into a favored class and things like that.

[Ormur]

I actually like the pace of XP gain in D&D very much, although we tend to fight encounters that are of a higher-than-suggested challenge rating more often than not. We certainly don't have 13 encounters, more like two or three very challenging ones. More than one encounter a day is also an exception.