XP vs. Full Levels issues

[Jacque]

Hey all,

This is not a discussion about giving XP ad hoc or just giving full levels. It's a rule-mechanic advice I'm seeking for my campaign.

I'm the DM of a 3.5 tabletop group. My game has a main storyline and a lot of sidequests and personal quests. So far, we've played with that the players just get a level when they reach a certain part (you could call it a checkpoint) in the main storyline. We like the (epic) storytelling of the game and the main plot is the main story. Also, its a lot easier for me this way instead of calculating xp for each encounter. As you can imagine, sometimes there's lots of encounters before they get a level and sometimes there's relatively few.

Now my problem is as following: One of my characters wants to take a crafting feat. Upon hearing this one of the other players mentioned LA buyoff for his +2 LA race. Both of which are designed for the xp awarding system.

I tried suggesting that the crafter could always be one level behind the rest and in return he can craft all he want without worrying about xp. We both came to the conclusion that, that solution would be a harsh penalty for the character (who of course is a spellcaster).

Now I'm pondering letting him be a level behind for (gaming session x 100xp he crafts for), and so far this is my best solution.

I don't know much about how LA buyoff works so I still don't know what solution to use there.

Does anyone in the Playground have any advice?

[Drachasor]

He's a spellcaster. If he doesn't suck it isn't a harsh penalty.

[Jacque]

He's playing a level 7 LE dwarven fighter 2/cleric 4/White Fist 1 so only 4 of his levels are actually spellcasting levels. He hasn't chosen the persist metamagic route so he's nowhere a tier 1 build, but instead in perfect line with the bard, barbarian and the +2 LA cleric.

[Drachasor]

LA Buyoff: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/reducingLevelAdjustments.htm

I'd just let him craft without worrying about XP as long as he has the money. As for the buyoff, simulate it with him being behind in level for a couple sessions and then ignore it after that.

[Coidzor]

Now my problem is as following: One of my characters wants to take a crafting feat. Upon hearing this one of the other players mentioned LA buyoff for his +2 LA race. Both of which are designed for the xp awarding system.

One thing you can do is take some notes from the craft points system. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/craftPoints.htm)

Possibly combining this partially with the artificer's craft reserve & the ability to take points from extant magical items and re-render it into other items.

Depending upon how long these sidequests take in terms of time/sessions, you may also consider some rate of refresh other than leveling if you're continuing their gold intake while they're off sidequesting but not leveling. Then again, it may entirely even out with the way levels can bunch up on you that you seemed to indicate...

And if he's going to be crafting for the whole party, might as well take a look at this PHB 2Web Enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a) for spreading the expenditure around. ...My stance on the method is to say screw the item and the feat and just make it part of the creation process. The spell is essentially a nothing for the cleric as it is...


Now I'm pondering letting him be a level behind for (gaming session x 100xp he crafts for), and so far this is my best solution.

How often do you guys have gaming sessions?

[Drachasor]

How often do you guys have gaming sessions?

I think the real question is: how often do they level?

[Jacque]

Haven't read through your links yet, Coidzor, but I'll take a look at them right after this post.

We play for 4 hours thursday evening every week. 5 - 6 times a year we also play about 10 hours a saturday or sunday. Our campaign usually spands more than a year and it usually takes at least 2 months (8+ sessions) before they level up.

[Jacque]

As an example of sidequest, I'm running them through the Age of Worms storyline from Dragon Magazine/Paizo which has loads of encounters but never awards them xp.

[Drachasor]

I'd ignore item creation XP (and possibly the feats). As long as their WBL in items is about right, it doesn't really matter. Keep on eye on that and let the players know that is what matters.

As for EL buyoff, I say just have him level up 3 times over the next 2 level ups (he's losing an EL so he has to catch up). Maybe have him catch up 3 sessions late or so on the last level up. It probably doesn't matter that much either, really.

Or you could calculate how quickly he'd catch up based on his lower level...that seems like a lot of needless work.

[Jacque]

With all your input, I've considered adding a rule saying that he can disenchant a magic item and gain 1xp per 10g the item costed to create. This xp is a separate pool of xp which can only be used to craft new magic items. Thus disenchanting a +1 weapon will net him 100xp (enough to craft 2½ +1 weapons).

It has the extra advantage of giving the players one more option than just vendoring their unsuited spoils. I know that it effectively just means that he spends more gold to avoid paying the xp cost.

I'm not too fond of giving LA characters additional levels. To represent the harsh setting that we play in, and to make the tier 1 spellcasters a bit less powerful, we have the house rules that all full spellcasters have to take at least two levels in a non-spellcaster class. I know that it effectively just postpones the mid levels where they're closed to balanced with the rest of the classes, and it doesn't make much of a difference in the higher levels. Fortunately, my group focuses on internal balance in the group. Alternatively they could pick a LA race to offset the rule, but the rule seems avoided if you use EL buyoff.

[Coidzor]

I'm not too fond of giving LA characters additional levels. To represent the harsh setting that we play in, and to make the tier 1 spellcasters a bit less powerful, we have the house rules that all full spellcasters have to take at least two levels in a non-spellcaster class. I know that it effectively just postpones the mid levels where they're closed to balanced with the rest of the classes, and it doesn't make much of a difference in the higher levels. Fortunately, my group focuses on internal balance in the group. Alternatively they could pick a LA race to offset the rule, but the rule seems avoided if you use EL buyoff.

So you realize it's pointless and unneeded but you do it anyway? :smallconfused:

[137beth]

LA buyoff is easy, as it is actually works the same without xp: reduce the character's LA by 1, which reduces their ECL by 1.

For crafting, I'd just eliminate the xp cost. Possibly you could increase the gold cost to compensate.

[mootoall]

Crafting: Go the way of PF, and do away with XP costs. It isn't an effective limiting factor, and it's, frankly, annoying. If you want to use your disenchanting method, I'd recomment 1 XP/5 gp, the going rate for XP to gp in the SRD. As far as LA, you said it yourself- you used it to slow/weaken caster level gain. Don't let them buy it off, unless they replace it with RHD or non-casting levels.

[Douglas]

LA buyoff is easy, as it is actually works the same without xp: reduce the character's LA by 1, which reduces their ECL by 1.
For the actual moment of buying off the LA, yes. For the benefits of doing so, no. The benefits of buying of LA are A) faster XP gain, and B) less XP required for next levelup. Neither of these can easily be translated into a system that deals only with whole levels.

[noparlpf]

My group doesn't use XP "because it's too complicated", so we just level up when the DM thinks we should. (Though my first time as a DM I used XP without difficulty. I like numbers.)
What we do when we don't use XP is usually to say 1 XP = 2 GP. That ends up being much cheaper than the 1 XP = 5 GP that NPC casters are supposed to charge you for spells or items with XP components, but it's more expensive than just pretending the XP components aren't there.

I personally like XP better. It makes spells, crafting, and LA buyoff a lot simpler than when you have to come up with your own way of doing these things.

[Jacque]

So you realize it's pointless and unneeded but you do it anyway? :smallconfused:

Much of the justification comes from flavor. It is a gritty, low-magic and dark setting where spellcasters do wisely in getting at least basic training with weapons and armor as well as starting out with a reasonable amount of hitpoints. More battleclerics instead of holier than thou clerics and such. Also, it decreases the amount of world-changing spellcasters so there's fewer of the really powerful ones.

[sreservoir]

Much of the justification comes from flavor. It is a gritty, low-magic and dark setting where spellcasters do wisely in getting at least basic training with weapons and armor as well as starting out with a reasonable amount of hitpoints. More battleclerics instead of holier than thou clerics and such. Also, it decreases the amount of world-changing spellcasters so there's fewer of the really powerful ones.

clerics do have basic combat training. they do have simple weapon and heavy armor prof, after all.

and it penalizes 9/18 casters more than 9/17 casters.

[Jacque]

clerics do have basic combat training. they do have simple weapon and heavy armor prof, after all.

and it penalizes 9/18 casters more than 9/17 casters.

I guess its a matter of perspective. In the grand scheme of our setting (which is Sword & Sorcery's Scarred Lands) the basic combat training the cleric recieves isn't enough. I should add that it's a house rule and not an official rule from any of the setting books.

We all enjoy playing Warhammer and that gritty-sque world but we dislike most of the systems.

I don't quite understand your bracket references to spellcasters. But if it helps clarify anything I can mention that the rule only applies to wizards, sorcerers, druids, and classes with similar spell progressions.

Edit: Ah, you must refer to when they get their 9th level spells. It's possible it penalizes one class more than another but it works fine in our group. Besides, we have no wizards or sorcerers - only a PF bard.

[137beth]

For the actual moment of buying off the LA, yes. For the benefits of doing so, no. The benefits of buying of LA are A) faster XP gain, and B) less XP required for next levelup. Neither of these can easily be translated into a system that deals only with whole levels.

Go a few encounters with that character being 1 ECL lower than the party. Then, after having been a level lower, he advances a level, while the rest of the party does not. Everyone is once again the same ECL. This has the same effect as if you were using xp, but without the record keeping.

[Jacque]

Go a few encounters with that character being 1 ECL lower than the party. Then, after having been a level lower, he advances a level, while the rest of the party does not. Everyone is once again the same ECL. This has the same effect as if you were using xp, but without the record keeping.

What's stopping all my other players from picking a +LA race? It seems to me if the only disadvantage is a few encounters with a lower level, picking a +LA race is vastly superior.

[Coidzor]

What's stopping all my other players from picking a +LA race? It seems to me if the only disadvantage is a few encounters with a lower level, picking a +LA race is vastly superior.

If everyone picks a +LA race then there's no real balance concerns there.

It's more than 'a few' encounters, for one thing, even adapting it to your XP-less methodology.

For another, no, there's no especial reason to discourage them from doing that. If you have thematic concerns, ostensibly you'd have enough rapport that this wouldn't be a real issue.

[Drachasor]

What's stopping all my other players from picking a +LA race? It seems to me if the only disadvantage is a few encounters with a lower level, picking a +LA race is vastly superior.

Well, it would be a few encounters after the buyoff level. At that point, the benefits of +LA don't matter so much. That's the theory.

Another thing you could add to that is let everyone who didn't pick an LA to start with, get an equivalent +1 LA ability at the break-off point.

[137beth]

What's stopping all my other players from picking a +LA race? It seems to me if the only disadvantage is a few encounters with a lower level, picking a +LA race is vastly superior.

???They don't get to do a level buyoff at level 1. If they start with +4 level adjustment, they have to wait until level 12 before their first buyoff, at which point the rest of the party will be 16th level. That's a lot more than a few encounters, that's most of the game. Then they have to go another 9 levels with +3 LA, and they will in fact never get their LA down to 0.
If they start with +3 LA, they will have to go until ECL 12 (character level 9) before reducing it, then go until ECL 17 before reducing it again, and finally wait until ECL 19, nearly the end of the game, before the final reduction. That is not "a few encounters with a lower level".

[Doug Lampert]

What's stopping all my other players from picking a +LA race? It seems to me if the only disadvantage is a few encounters with a lower level, picking a +LA race is vastly superior.

Congradulations, you have just summarized why I think buyoff is a bad, bad idea.

In 3.0 when it first came out, being what's now a LA race just cost a flat initial XP penalty, and XP was awarded on APL rather than character level, so the character with a +4 race stayed 10,000 XP behind the entire campaign. The effect wasn't that different from buyoff for a low LA race.

The system was obviously broken. Seriously. Grossly.

I mean, the half-celestial one of my players brought in was sick. It was useless for an encounter or two, but early on leveled after almost every encounter, and the stat mods and flight and other stuff were gifts that kept on giving.

It was bad, so bad the player agreed that character was broken. So bad they threw that out and put in LA as soon as they could. They also adjusted XP awards to go by character level so anyone who fell behind would catch up.

Then, as an optional rule buyoff was added in as a way of putting back in the problems of the 3.0 method, but delayed by a couple of levels because there were limits to how fast you could buy-off.

The excuse of buyoff advocates is that it's slower, but those ability bonuses would have been good in high epic! I'm just not seeing why this is ever ballanced. But it's still a popular rule, so it must work for some people.

DougL

[Coidzor]

The excuse of buyoff advocates is that it's slower, but those ability bonuses would have been good in high epic!

Uh... No. High Epic is the realm of chaingating solars, unkillable wizards on their demiplanes, and a generally tedious exercise of rocket tag. :smallconfused:

The ability modifiers of a half-celestial are a drop in a bucket there.

[Doug Lampert]

Uh... No. High Epic is the realm of chaingating solars, unkillable wizards on their demiplanes, and a generally tedious exercise of rocket tag. :smallconfused:

The ability modifiers of a half-celestial are a drop in a bucket there.

It's an extra spell at the highest level you can cast (level 15 or so by that time), a + to your spellcraft that stacks with EVERYTHING, and +to con is always good.

For LA buyoff to make sense it would have to be worth the same as a default PHB race, it isn't. The added abilities are ALWAYS good. Each +2 to your casting ability is two epic feats worth of good.

[candycorn]

It's an extra spell at the highest level you can cast (level 15 or so by that time), a + to your spellcraft that stacks with EVERYTHING, and +to con is always good.

For LA buyoff to make sense it would have to be worth the same as a default PHB race, it isn't. The added abilities are ALWAYS good. Each +2 to your casting ability is two epic feats worth of good.

Note: +8 to a stat is roughly equal to +1 slot of your highest level spell.

Let's look at it:

{table]Int | L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 | L6 | L7 | L8 | L9
28 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
36 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
44 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3
50 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3[/table]
Note, 28 to 36? +8, highest level spell goes up by 1.
Same with 36 to 44.
But 44 to 50 is only +6. And note, you don't get an additional level 9 spell.

In other words? Is that stat boost worth a level 8 spell, a level 9 spell, and whatever PrC bonuses you're getting?

Not usually.

[Xtomjames]

Oy...where do I start?

In a no XP setting the first thing I would suggest (unrelated to the problems at hand) is increase the rate of leveling, especially with the number of encounters you've suggested they face. Taking 8+ sessions to gain a level is ridiculously slow. On average by the XP system if the encounters are at the correct CR a party of four players should level in no fewer than 6 encounters and no more than 10 with an average of 4 encounters a game session.

Two: LA buy out is more or less pointless in a game that doesn't use XP. Because you are arbitrarily defining when levels are gained for the entire group at these checkpoints the player would be behind in a level (or two or how many LA points are bought off) in comparison to the rest of the group.His ECL also has no actual factor unless you're making his ECL the limit of the rest of the player's class levels and if the character has HD from the LA. Something that could be done to remedy this is give a side quest or personal quest to this character (if he really wants to do the LA buy off) to bring him or her back up to the same level as the rest of the players.

Three: Crafting can be easily fixed by going to the Pathfinder system as has already been said, or you could give the person taking the crafting feat a crafting pool similar to the Artificer for XP which might work out better. Just treat the level in which he gets the craft feat as the first level XP pool that the Artificer gets. The reason why I suggest this is because while the Pathfinder system is good, the cost to actually craft things is exuberantly high by comparison to D&D 3.5 and the starting wealth is a bit different when comparing PF to 3.5. Thus crafting something as simple as a scroll of cure light wounds would be very detrimental to a 3.5 character using the PF rules for crafting.

[Fitz10019]

You could cap the Crafting as a percentage of his XP. He can craft up to 15% of his total XP, +5% for each additional crafting feat he takes. That gives a reasonable limit on how much he can craft.

The drawback is bookkeeping -- he'd have to keep a log of everything he's crafted.

[Jacque]

In a no XP setting the first thing I would suggest (unrelated to the problems at hand) is increase the rate of leveling, especially with the number of encounters you've suggested they face. Taking 8+ sessions to gain a level is ridiculously slow. On average by the XP system if the encounters are at the correct CR a party of four players should level in no fewer than 6 encounters and no more than 10 with an average of 4 encounters a game session.

This seems to me to be a question of preferences. I will try to explain our slow pace anyway.

Making level ups more rare gives it a greater sense of achievement. It is the ultimate reward I can give my players and I therefor save it for the storyline highlights.
My players are also given a better opportunity to use their new abilities before a new level grants them better abilities.
Finally, it gives time to build up the climax in the story. The current BBEG is a governor and I want him to be able to challenge them in this low-fantasy world instead of them just teleporting in and dealing with him.

And as a last note I want to mention that we rarely have more than 1 encounter per session. The Age of Worms storyline is an exception but even in this adventure I remove a lot of the pointless encounters.

[Rossebay]

*snip*

For the LA buyoff, give him something like 1.25 levels per level everyone else gets after doing his buyoff. That way, in 4 levels he'll be 1 behind, and 4 after that he won't be behind at all.
If 1.25 sounds low, 1.333 or 1.5 levels should also do the trick, depending on how you think he'd use it to his advantage.

Giving any sort of 'infinite crafting' in the same game session as you make someone stick with their level adjustment could end up being broken. People tend to dislike others doing more than them or being favored in the party more than them. If the kid gets to craft everything he wants as long as he has the gold, and LA 2 cleric kid over here is just being, well, a cleric, then he's missing out.

But it all depends on how your party deals with slight imbalances and such.

[Coidzor]

It is the ultimate reward I can give my players and I therefor save it for the storyline highlights.

Well, that's your problem right there.

[Xtomjames]

This seems to me to be a question of preferences. I will try to explain our slow pace anyway.

Making level ups more rare gives it a greater sense of achievement. It is the ultimate reward I can give my players and I therefor save it for the storyline highlights.
My players are also given a better opportunity to use their new abilities before a new level grants them better abilities.
Finally, it gives time to build up the climax in the story. The current BBEG is a governor and I want him to be able to challenge them in this low-fantasy world instead of them just teleporting in and dealing with him.

And as a last note I want to mention that we rarely have more than 1 encounter per session. The Age of Worms storyline is an exception but even in this adventure I remove a lot of the pointless encounters.

I understand that, on the flip side by removing XP, you're removing an essential reward, thus this can slow the feeling of accomplishment in game and slow leveling can also make the game dull. While I also understand the point of removing pointless encounters, one encounter a session is rather tedious (unless your campaign sessions tend to go like the game I was in where we'd barely get through one discussion and plan before the game session is up).

Regardless, at least on the LA buy out it's nigh pointless in a non-xp setting and an increased rate of leveling would diminish the need to do so.

That all said, I hope your game goes well and you figure out everything.

[Drachasor]

Overall, I think this is pretty simple, like I said before.

One +2 LA race? When he buys off one of his LA, let everyone else pick abilities that match +1 LA, once their levels equalize. When he buys off the other, do that again.

Early LA gives bonuses to him, but holds him back a level, buying off later is balanced by everyone getting equivalent powers later.

[Jacque]

Thank you everyone for your inputs. So far I've made the following changes to my game and waiting for response from my players. This means, as everything else, that nothing is set in stone.

The characters can craft whatever they want but they will gain one negative level for sessions times 100xp they craft for. Other players can contribute with xp. A character with a craft feat can also disenchant appropriate magic items and obtain 1/5 of the crafting cost as xp.

If this doesn't work out then I'm willing to consider giving a batch of bonus xp each time a crafting feat is taken and/or a percentage of current xp each time a character gains a level.

The setting is low-fantasy and the WBL is much lower than a standard game. I think these rules fit well in the setting. It also brings an additional aspect to loot distribution instead of just vendoring all they don't need.

I have rejected my cleric player's request to use the LA buyoff rules. I fear that once we reach higher levels (or even now where the LA +1 buyoff is "free"), I will get another exotic race into my game each time a character dies or is retired. It doesn't fit well in our setting. It also kind of nullifies our rule of requiring two non-spellcasting levels if you play one of the full spell-progression classes.



On a slight derail of the main topic but yet very interesting to me is the effect of full levels awarding contra ad hoc xp. I've always felt giving out xp was annoying bookkeeping but I could imagine it feels more like a reward for the players. I still want to control their level ups though, but perhaps awarding xp after a concluded adventure/sidequest is a better solution (so still not based on encounters but still often enough so they get the feeling of being rewarded).

1 encounter per session is about right for us. I rarely (never say never) place an encounter just for the sake of the encounter. It needs to either threaten them or have some contribution to the story. The concept of placing tedious encounters just to wear down the party's resources is annoying.