You can delay leveling up!!!

[RoboEmperor]

All credit goes to Crake for finding it.
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040810a

XP Cost (XP): When you cast a spell with an XP cost, you pay that cost when you cast the spell, even if the spell fails for some reason, and your experience total is immediately reduced. According to the rules, you can never spend so much experience that you lose a level -- though you can delay gaining a level and instead keep your experience points available for spellcasting (or item creation). If you do so, you always can change your mind. That is, you can gain a new level any time you have enough experience to do so, even after delaying awhile. For example, suppose you're a 9th-level cleric, which gives you access to the commune spell, which has an XP cost of 100 XP. Your current XP total is 45,052. You have enough experience to become a 10th-level character, but if you do you won't be able to cast your commune spell because doing so would reduce your experience total to 44,952 and you'd drop back to 9th level. You can choose to delay becoming a 10th-level character until your experience total is 45,100 gp or more. Once you pass that milestone, you can add a character level. Once you make the decision to add the level, however, you're bound to the rule preventing you from spending so much XP that you lose a level.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041207a

According to the rules, you can never spend so much experience that you lose a level -- though you can delay gaining a level and instead keep your experience points available for item creation (or spellcasting). If you do so, you always can change your mind. That is, you can gain a new level anytime you have enough experience to do so, even after delaying awhile. See Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions for information on delaying level advancement.

This needs to be said out loud. You can delay leveling up so you can craft really XP expensive items like a +5 Tome. You can delay leveling up so you can meet PrC and Feat prerequisites through temporary means and then level up.

Go now and Spread the word! A lot of optimization shenanigans should open up for you!

[HouseRules]

Just remember to not get permanent level lost, or your saved experience is lost.

[Crake]

Just remember to not get permanent level lost, or your saved experience is lost.

Veerryyy valid point. Best not die while you're trying this either, or else you'll be crying like a baby.

[noob]

Veerryyy valid point. Best not die while you're trying this either, or else you'll be crying like a baby.

It is true delaying level up is rather unsafe unless you have a bottle of xp.

[Troacctid]

Just so you don't get too excited, Skip's column isn't RAW, it's an interpretation of RAW (with DM advice mixed in). It should be taken as the secondary source it is: as analysis of the text, rather than as part of the text itself. Just like you or I might write, actually—the column's relationship to RAW is approximately the same as the Simple RAW Thread's.

[HouseRules]

Given that Skip Williams is one of the primary authors of the PHB, this means, it is RAI.

[Crake]

Just so you don't get too excited, Skip's column isn't RAW, it's an interpretation of RAW (with DM advice mixed in). It should be taken as the secondary source it is: as analysis of the text, rather than as part of the text itself. Just like you or I might write, actually—the column's relationship to RAW is approximately the same as the Simple RAW Thread's.

Well, I mean, I'll take the game designer's interpretation of the text he quite possibly wrote over the interpretation of someone else. Personally, I already saw it that way anyway, though I'm like 99% sure it was because I read that article ages ago, which probably explains why I found it again so easily.

[Arcanist]

Given that Skip Williams is one of the primary authors of the PHB, this means, it is RAI.

Which means it's about as valid as a random forum go'er telling you what their house rules for their home game are. Short of it appearing in an errata of the PHB (it doesn't), it's just a house rule suggested at the behest of the Game Designer and not an official rule. If Skip Williams wanted the game to operate like that, he should have published this as an errata instead of as an opinion piece, or formally requested it be included in the Rules Compendium (of which he is notedly absent from mind you). I'd have to do a read through of the Sage Advice column (Also managed by Skip Williams), but I also sincerely doubt it would exactly be relevant either. It's still a house rule.

BUT! It's a House rule I generally allow so it's whatever.

[RoboEmperor]

Which means it's about as valid as a random forum go'er telling you what their house rules for their home game are. Short of it appearing in an errata of the PHB (it doesn't), it's just a house rule suggested at the behest of the Game Designer and not an official rule. If Skip Williams wanted the game to operate like that, he should have published this as an errata instead of as an opinion piece, or formally requested it be included in the Rules Compendium (of which he is notedly absent from mind you). I'd have to do a read through of the Sage Advice column (Also managed by Skip Williams), but I also sincerely doubt it would exactly be relevant either. It's still a house rule.

BUT! It's a House rule I generally allow so it's whatever.

If you want RAW, there's the leveling up requiring training showing that leveling up is delayed.
Ghostwalk says players should rest for 8 hours to level up so they can choose whether to level up as a ghost or receive a raise dead and level up as a human.
All this guy is doing is elaborating on the rules, which is written in layman not lawyerese.

[Arcanist]

If you want RAW, there's the leveling up requiring training showing that leveling up is delayed.

I tried to find a citation for this, but only found a reference in the PHB aptly named "Training and Practice"


Training and Practice: Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. If, for some reason, a character can’t practice or train for an extended time, the DM may reduce XP awards or even cause the character to lose experience points.

Which is really cute, but it doesn't say anything about delaying a level, only that the DM can reduce how much XP you gain, or cause you to lose experience for not studying, or training or whatever. Interprete it however you would like, it does not lend credance that delaying a level is RAW legal.


Ghostwalk says players should rest for 8 hours to level up so they can choose whether to level up as a ghost or receive a raise dead and level up as a human.


For the purpose of character advancement in the Ghostwalk campaign, characters should not gain levels during the course of an adventure until they have rested for 8 hours. This allows a ghost character to decide if she wants to rest as a ghost and gain a level in the eidolon class or recieve a raise dead spell and then rest, applying her new level to a character class of her choice.

Which is great for Ghostwalk characters and characters who play as Ghost. For anyone else that doesn't play a Ghost, it doesn't apply so I have no idea why you are even bringing it up.

[Crake]

Which means it's about as valid as a random forum go'er telling you what their house rules for their home game are. Short of it appearing in an errata of the PHB (it doesn't), it's just a house rule suggested at the behest of the Game Designer and not an official rule. If Skip Williams wanted the game to operate like that, he should have published this as an errata instead of as an opinion piece, or formally requested it be included in the Rules Compendium (of which he is notedly absent from mind you). I'd have to do a read through of the Sage Advice column (Also managed by Skip Williams), but I also sincerely doubt it would exactly be relevant either. It's still a house rule.

BUT! It's a House rule I generally allow so it's whatever.

It's not a house rule, it's the authors interpretation of this rule, found on page 88 of the player's handbook:


XP Cost: Power and energy that the spellcaster would normally have is expended when making a magic item. The XP cost equals 1/25 the cost of the item in gold pieces (see the Dungeon Master’s Guide for item costs). A character cannot spend so much XP on an item that he or she loses a level. However, upon gaining enough XP to attain a new level, he or she can immediately expend XP on creating an item rather than keeping the XP to advance a level.

[AmeVulpes]

It's not a house rule, it's the authors interpretation of this rule, found on page 88 of the player's handbook:


XP Cost: Power and energy that the spellcaster would normally have is expended when making a magic item. The XP cost equals 1/25 the cost of the item in gold pieces (see the Dungeon Master’s Guide for item costs). A character cannot spend so much XP on an item that he or she loses a level. However, upon gaining enough XP to attain a new level, he or she can immediately expend XP on creating an item rather than keeping the XP to advance a level.

This means we have to define "immediately" in a useful way. Upon slaying that exact kobold, do you have to pull a workshop out of your portable hole and make said item in the dungeon? Impractical.

Or just at your soonest opportunity? This is my definite pick.

At either rate, I don't believe that this rule, in a vacuum as written, allows you to delay crafting (thus not immediate) to go gain more XP. Good or bad, this interpretation seems to go against rule-as-written.

[HouseRules]

The argument is on that word "immediately". Crake believes immediately could be delay, and I say immediately cannot be delay.

[Crake]

As I said in the other thread, either it basically works the way skip wrote in the article, or it doesn't work at all, since 9/10 when you level up you're not meeting appropriate crafting conditions.

I think the issue is honestly more arising from the stance that "when you get enough xp you level up" as an absolute statement, which clearly skip disagrees with, and I'll take the game designer's opinion over a forum-goer's opinion every time.

[AmeVulpes]

I think the issue is honestly more arising from the stance that "when you get enough xp you level up" as an absolute statement, which clearly skip disagrees with, and I'll take the game designer's opinion over a forum-goer's opinion every time.

That's fine, and reasonable. I agree, even. However, I don't necessarily take the game designer's opinion over the rule he wrote (or helped write, I don't know and don't care to check).

The rule is the rule, an opinion is an opinion, to me. The title of the tread is misleading on a RAW basis, in my opinion, and the suggested RAI is a revision, rather than an interpretation, also in my opinion.

I'd also like to say that I allow players to tank XP for crafting instead of leveling up, at their option, without any time constraint. I consider this a houseruled revision.

[Arcanist]

It's not a house rule, it's the authors interpretation of this rule, found on page 88 of the player's handbook

Emphasis mine. RAI, regardless of the source, no matter how plentiful, is not RAW nor will it ever be RAW. This is just not something you can change without a house rule.

Even worse, however you neglected to mention that this explicitly deals with item creation (and Spell casting as they use the same language), which at minimum takes 1 day to perform (unless it's Spellcasting). I sincerely doubt any reasonable interpretation (which again, isn't RAW) would view a whole 24 hour period, or even a business day, as "immediate" no matter how generous we're being.

I'm not going to presume you believe anything Crake, but even you have to admit that this is reaching.


As I said in the other thread, either it basically works the way skip wrote in the article, or it doesn't work at all, since 9/10 when you level up you're not meeting appropriate crafting conditions.

I think the issue is honestly more arising from the stance that "when you get enough xp you level up" as an absolute statement, which clearly skip disagrees with, and I'll take the game designer's opinion over a forum-goer's opinion every time.

You are entitled to house rule whatever you want. I even agree that this is an excellent house rule and should have been a feature of the core game. However it isn't.

[HouseRules]

A character can advance only one level at a time. If, for some extraordinary reason, a character’s XP reward from a single adventure would be enough to advance two or more levels at once, he or she instead advances one level and gains just enough XP to be 1 XP short of the next level. Any excess experience points are not retained.

You implied that a character could retained more xp than PHB allows Crake.


There are two definitions of day in the game. (1) a specific portion of the day that is dawn, morning, noon, afternoon, dusk, etc. required to prepare divine spells, and (2) the immediate 8 hours before you prepare your spells for wizards.

[AmeVulpes]

Even worse, however you neglected to mention that this explicitly deals with item creation (and Spell casting as they use the same language), which at minimum takes 1 day to perform (unless it's Spellcasting). I sincerely doubt any reasonable interpretation (which again, isn't RAW) would view a whole 24 hour period, or even a business day, as "immediate" no matter how generous we're being.

I would say, even in the worst case, that "immediate" could include starting immediately. However, by that strict reading, an understandable ruling (in the absence of anything contradictory) would be that the XP is spent at the start of crafting. Thus, immediately.

This goes back to killing the exact kobold out of a horde and immediately pulling your workshop out of a portable hole. Silly.

[HouseRules]

You either craft immediately, or have enough xp to level up, and level up rule means, you level up or lose xp until you are 1 xp short of level up if you fail training.


I would say, even in the worst case, that "immediate" could include starting immediately. However, by that strict reading, an understandable ruling (in the absence of anything contradictory) would be that the XP is spent at the start of crafting. Thus, immediately.

This goes back to killing the exact kobold out of a horde and immediately pulling your workshop out of a portable hole. Silly.

It is a question of when is XP awarded, and that is up to the DM. XP could be awarded by (1) encounters (new school), (2) sessions (default), or (3) adventures (old school).

[Arcanist]

You either craft immediately, or have enough xp to level up, and level up rule means, you level up or lose xp until you are 1 xp short of level up if you fail training.

I mean, you can always just NOT be anywhere near leveling, but have enough XP to craft an item and spend the XP like normal. At least on paper? XP is a river that will happily adjust to you being a lower level than the rest of your party to help catch up.

[HouseRules]

The other thread is about RoboEmperor wanting to make an item that requires 35,000 XP at ECL 9 which is not possible. At ECL 9, the most XP you could accrue is 9000 + 9999 (1 short of 2 levels as indicated by PHB)= 18,999 XP and any excess is lost.

[AmeVulpes]

It is a question of when is XP awarded, and that is up to the DM. XP could be awarded by (1) encounters (new school), (2) sessions (default), or (3) adventures (old school).

Fair point. I award XP on an encounter basis, so it was my natural, faulty assumption that it is done this way in general. Still, the reading of "immediately" is restricting, but not entirely prohibiting.


The other thread is about RoboEmperor wanting to make an item that requires 35,000 XP at ECL 9 which is not possible. At ECL 9, the most XP you could accrue is 9000 + 9999 (1 short of 2 levels as indicated by PHB)= 18,999 XP and any excess is lost.
Ah, well, the size of one's XP 'tank' is quite a different idea. I'm fairly sure you are objectively correct on that point.

[HouseRules]

I mean, you can always just NOT be anywhere near leveling, but have enough XP to craft an item and spend the XP like normal. At least on paper? XP is a river that will happily adjust to you being a lower level than the rest of your party to help catch up.

We are discussing having more xp than enough to level up. Anything else is not relevant to this thread, though it is tangent to the thread.

[HouseRules]

Fair point. I award XP on an encounter basis, so it was my natural, faulty assumption that it is done this way in general. Still, the reading of "immediately" is restricting, but not entirely prohibiting.


Ah, well, the size of one's XP 'tank' is quite a different idea. I'm fairly sure you are objectively correct on that point.

Crake uses the RAI rules that allow you to accrue potentially Millions of XP without issues.

Edit: I prefer to award XP on the Adventure basis, so it could be over a game year for players to even get xp.
A Joke: The Hobbit took over a year.
Lord of the Rings have a 15 year time skip between Frodo getting the ring and start of his 18 month journey.

[Thurbane]

Which means it's about as valid as a random forum go'er telling you what their house rules for their home game are.

Err...no?


Well, I mean, I'll take the game designer's interpretation of the text he quite possibly wrote over the interpretation of someone else.

Seconded!

That's why I don't get the general contempt for the official FAQ. Sure, they make some blatant errors, but it still carries more weight than some random dude on the internet who feels like they know better than the designers...

[HouseRules]

But you guys are saying that the FAQ carries more weight than the Rules in the Rule Books.

[AmeVulpes]

But you guys are saying that the FAQ carries more weight than the Rules in the Rule Books.

I'd say this is a valid thing to do, but making a thread called, say, "You can delay leveling up!!!" is a bit off point considering that many value rules over anyone's opinion, FAQ included.

[HouseRules]

For some players RAI carries more weight than RAW. In fact, most people just back and forth between RAI and RAW when one favors them, instead of showing the two sides and saying the validity of two possible results.

[AmeVulpes]

For some players RAI carries more weight than RAW. In fact, most people just back and forth between RAI and RAW when one favors them, instead of showing the two sides and saying the validity of two possible results.

Well, sometimes the rules are stupid. Commoner railgun, dark chaos feat shuffling elven proficiencies, creating a quarterstaff in infinite-zero time, etc.

In this case, I think the RAW is strong enough on its own. The RAI works, but I don't think it should be expected to overrule the, er, rule.

[Arcanist]

Err...no?

Care to elaborate?


That's why I don't get the general contempt for the official FAQ. Sure, they make some blatant errors, but it still carries more weight than some random dude on the internet who feels like they know better than the designers...

I am not, nor is anyone else here claiming to know anything more about the game than the designer. The disagreement isn't whether the rules are stupid or not (they are), but whether this is a RAW-in-the-book rule or not (which it isn't). I've admitted that I use this house rule freely and liberally, but I do not see any evidence besides an opinion piece saying otherwise.

[HouseRules]

ECLXP TankMust Spend or Level Up
12999At Least 2000 xp
24999At Least 3000 xp
36999At Least 4000 xp
48999At Least 5000 xp
510999At Least 6000 xp
612999At Least 7000 xp
714999At Least 8000 xp
816999At Least 9000 xp
918999At Least 10000 xp
1020999At Least 11000 xp
1122999At Least 12000 xp
1224999At Least 13000 xp
1326999At Least 14000 xp
1428999At Least 15000 xp
1530999At Least 16000 xp
1632999At Least 17000 xp
1734999At Least 18000 xp
1836999At Least 19000 xp
1938999At Least 20000 xp
2040999At Least 21000 xp
2142999At Least 22000 xp
2244999At Least 23000 xp
2346999At Least 24000 xp
2448999At Least 25000 xp
2550999At Least 26000 xp
2652999At Least 27000 xp
2754999At Least 28000 xp
2856999At Least 29000 xp
2958999At Least 30000 xp
3060999At Least 31000 xp


"XP Tank" depends on your ECL. You cannot accrue more experience than your "XP Tank" value, so a Single Character Cannot craft an item that requires lots of experience. A party, on the other hand, could have other party members chip in on the XP cost.

[Thurbane]

For some players RAI carries more weight than RAW. In fact, most people just back and forth between RAI and RAW when one favors them, instead of showing the two sides and saying the validity of two possible results.

That's definitely true.

Anecdotally, people often tend to agree with ANY reading of the rules that serves their purpose, be they players, DMs or internet commentators.

[Crake]

But you guys are saying that the FAQ carries more weight than the Rules in the Rule Books.

No, the FAQ, just like skips article is an interpretation of the rules, they exist alongside them, not in place of them.

[HouseRules]

The rules is like Quantum Physics. There are multiple states of truth, but we have to measure it. Is it RAW? Is it RAI? That depends on the party that is playing the game.

[Thurbane]

Care to elaborate?
Honestly, I don't know that I can show empirical evidence.

Suffice to day, if Bill Gates told me how to fix an issue with a Microsoft product, I'd be more inclined to listen to him, than that one guy we all know that's super-good with computers, but doesn't work in the industry...

Might have disastrous consequences, but I'd likely chose the same way every time.


I am not, nor is anyone else here claiming to know anything more about the game than the designer. The disagreement isn't whether the rules are stupid or not (they are), but whether this is a RAW-in-the-book rule or not (which it isn't). I've admitted that I use this house rule freely and liberally, but I do not see any evidence besides an opinion piece saying otherwise.

See above.

[Arcanist]

The rules is like Quantum Physics. There are multiple states of truth, but we have to measure it. Is it RAW? Is it RAI? That depends on the party that is playing the game.

RAW only really matters for theoretical optimization stuff where there is no arbitrary DM to decide one way or another. The rules have to be taken as they are presented in their clearest text. But in my experience? RAI prevails at actual tables where the game is actually played instead of talked about.

[AmeVulpes]

Suffice to day, if Bill Gates told me how to fix an issue with a Microsoft product, I'd be more inclined to listen to him, than that one guy we all know that's super-good with computers, but doesn't work in the industry...

Might have disastrous consequences, but I'd likely chose the same way every time.

The situation here is Bill Gates telling you to unplug your desktop while on an update screen ("please do not turn off your computer").
You might listen to him. Might not, reasonable either way.
Same with your guy we all know.
I'll listen to the update screen.

The rules and the writer are in disagreement. There was no conflict in the rule on its own, as I can tell, so he's not even telling you how to fix a problem, just changing a rule.

[Crake]

The situation here is Bill Gates telling you to unplug your desktop while on an update screen ("please do not turn off your computer").
You might listen to him. Might not, reasonable either way.
Same with your guy we all know.
I'll listen to the update screen.

The rules and the writer are in disagreement. There was no conflict in the rule on its own, as I can tell, so he's not even telling you how to fix a problem, just changing a rule.

They're not in disagreement in this case though.

[HouseRules]

They're not in disagreement in this case though.

The example is in disagreement. The character held more XP than necessary to go up two levels which violates PHB rules cited above.

Edit: Actually, the example shows that when a character had enough XP to level up two levels, it was forced to level up one level.

[AmeVulpes]

They're not in disagreement in this case though.

According to the rules, you can never spend so much experience that you lose a level -- though you can delay gaining a level and instead keep your experience points available for item creation (or spellcasting). If you do so, you always can change your mind. That is, you can gain a new level anytime you have enough experience to do so, even after delaying awhile.

XP Cost: Experience that the spellcaster would normally keep is expended when making a magic item. The XP cost equals 1/25 of the cost of the item in gold pieces. A character cannot spend so much XP on an item that he or she loses a level. However, upon gaining enough XP to attain a new level, he or she can immediately expend XP on creating an item rather than keeping the XP to advance a level.

The RAW provides no other options. It does not allow for "delaying awhile" by my reading.


The example is in disagreement. The character held more XP than necessary to go up two levels which violates PHB rules cited above.

In this case, this as well.

[HouseRules]

Advancing a Level: When your character’s XP total reaches at least the minimum XP needed for a new character level (see Table 3–2), he or she “goes up a level.”

You have no choice but to level up if you have enough XP unless you spend that XP by crafting or casting a spell that requires XP immediately until you are below threshold to level up.

[RoboEmperor]

The RAW provides no other options. It does not allow for "delaying awhile" by my reading.



In this case, this as well.

Ahem, step into my rule lawyering office!

Lets draw a Venn Diagram. Draw a circle and label it "delay a level." Inside the circle draw a 2nd circle called "immediately spend xp".

As you can see, being able to immediately spend xp is not mutually exclusive with delaying a level. I can immediately spend xp or I can not. It doesn't say I have to level up if I don't spend the xp immediately. Nowhere does it say my choices are level up or immediately spend xp. It says I can level up, I can immediately spend xp, and nothing about being one or the other. And Crake's reasoning along with the existence of variant rules where leveling up is delayed until training or resting shows delaying leveling up is possible even though not explicitly stated. If you haven't noticed d&d has a lot of things not explicitly stated.

For example, Planar Binding, it says it MUST use magic circle as a trap, but then we have Complete Mage that says you can use mundane traps for Planar Binding and Nar Demonbinder who has signs instead of magic circle. So who wins? That word MUST that prevents all other forms of traps, or the official content that shows you can use other forms of traps?

So anyways, delaying a level is not explicitly mentioned or banned, the rules allow it in a grey area kind of way, and the author says you can so he wins.

I think however you can't bank enough XP for 2 levels because there's that rule about killing a super high CR monster and gaining enough xp to level up multiple times puts you 1xp behind the 2nd level up.

You need to show me where it says you can't delay a level. Otherwise it's not a house rule.


You have no choice but to level up if you have enough XP unless you spend that XP by crafting or casting a spell that requires XP immediately until you are below threshold to level up.

Doesn't say attaining a new level is mandatory. (this is rule lawyering (me not you), being obnoxious and telling you for a direct explicit quote when it doesn't exist :P)

[Crake]

I think however you can't bank enough XP for 2 levels because there's that rule about killing a super high CR monster and gaining enough xp to level up multiple times puts you 1xp behind the 2nd level up.

The rule actually simply states that you can only advance one level at a time, so you could bank up enough xp to gain 2 levels, but if you actually level up, that's when the xp is docked.

[Arcanist]

So anyways, delaying a level is not explicitly mentioned or banned, the rules allow it in a grey area kind of way, and the author says you can so he wins.

It's not in the book, so it isn't RAW and no amount of hand waving how it's the author's RAI will change that. I'm sorry, it's a house rule. All you've stated is that this is Skip William's interpretation of the rules, and not Skip William's presentation of the rules.


You need to show me where it says you can't delay a level. Otherwise it's not a house rule.

Right, so you're shifting the burden of proof. Adorable :smallsigh:


When your character’s XP total reaches at least the minimum XP needed for a new character level (see Table 3–2), he or she “goes up a level.”

It does not say "you may" or "you can" or any similar verbiage, you simple go "up a level".

[noob]

if you play with the optional rules that you have to train to gain levels then you can definitively delay leveling up.

[RoboEmperor]

Which is great for Ghostwalk characters and characters who play as Ghost. For anyone else that doesn't play a Ghost, it doesn't apply so I have no idea why you are even bringing it up.

To point out that it is NOT a house rule for a PC to delay leveling up. Leveling up works identically in all campaigns without house rules. If you can delay leveling up until you rested in ghostwalk you can delay leveling up in any campaign unless that campaign specifically says you can't do that.

Again I repeat, you being able to immediately expend the xp to create an item is not mutually exclusive with not immediately expending xp and expending the xp later, which only works if leveling up can be delayed.

Again, nowhere does the book say you have to level up. Nowhere does the book say you can't delay level up.

Thirdly, there exists items like the +5 Tomes of ___ that require 25,000xp to create which cannot exist without delaying level ups since Epic levels were NOT a thing when core came out.

Let me put this clearly.
1. A rule says when you get enough xp to attain a new level, you attain a new level
2. A rule says you can, upon gaining enough XP to attain a new level, he or she can immediately expend XP on creating an item rather than keeping the XP to advance a level.
3. In order to expend XP on creating an item you need to, by RAW, begin crafting, which means you can delay leveling up until you get your hands on crafting gear
4. Therefore gaining xp =/= automatic level up
5. Therefore being able to immediately expend XP does exclude expending XP later
6. Therefore you can delay leveling up
7. Therefore that Rules of the Game article is a CLARIFICATION, not a house rule.


Right, so you're shifting the burden of proof. Adorable :smallsigh:

This ain't nothing baby. It's just one of the many, many, many, maaaaaany rule lawyering tactics.

My point was
1. You can't win against obnoxious Rule Lawyering in d&d 3.5 because the rules are written terribly
2. The only way to beat obnoxious Rule Lawyering in d&d 3.5 is to go the RAI route.
3. You can't win against RAI because Skip Williams said it loud and clear
4. If you can't win with RAW or RAI, you lose :)

[HouseRules]

Tomb of +5 could be crafted with multiple characters! Use other characters to chip in the xp cost. Stop thinking in SOLO characters that violate rules.

[Jeraa]

Thirdly, there exists items like the +5 Tomes of ___ that require 25,000xp to create which cannot exist without delaying level ups since Epic levels were NOT a thing when core came out.

You can make them in steps. +1, then upgrade to +2, then +3, and so on. That way, you don't need to spend the XP all at once. It is perfectly possible to make a +5 tome without epic levels.

[AmeVulpes]

Tomb of +5 could be crafted with multiple characters! Use other characters to chip in the xp cost. Stop thinking in SOLO characters that violate rules.

What exactly provides for characters chipping in XP? I've thought about this before, but never seen a supporting rule, outside of perhaps epic magic group casting rituals etc.

[HouseRules]

You can also make them in steps. +1, then upgrade to +2, then +3, and so on. That way, you don't need to spend the XP all at once.

A Tomb +1 requires 1 wish, a Tomb +2 requires 2 wishes, a Tomb +3 requires 3 wishes, etc.

Thus, use 15 wishes (craft 5 times) for a +5, or use 5 wishes (craft once) for a +5. The cost is the same overall, except for the usage of wishes which could be use more efficiently.

[Jeraa]

A Tomb +1 requires 1 wish, a Tomb +2 requires 2 wishes, a Tomb +3 requires 3 wishes, etc.

Thus, use 15 wishes (craft 5 times) for a +5, or use 5 wishes (craft once) for a +5. The cost is the same overall, except for the usage of wishes which could be use more efficiently.

No, it doesn't use 15 wishes. You still only pay for the normal 1 to 5. You aren't making a new tome from scratch, so you only pay the difference in the cost.

And before it is mentioned, you don't actually cast the spells required during crafting, or the tomes would require far more XP than they already do. You just spend an appropriate spell slot.

[HouseRules]

No, it doesn't use 15 wishes. You still only pay for the normal 1 to 5. You aren't making a new tome from scratch, so you only pay the difference in the cost.

And before it is mentioned, you don't actually cast the spells required during crafting, or the tomes would require far more XP than they already do. You just spend an appropriate spell slot.

You actually spend 1 spell slot per 1000 gp, so you could spend more spell slots than you would think with expensive items.

[Jeraa]

You actually spend 1 spell slot per 1000 gp, so you could spend more spell slots than you would think with expensive items.

Spell slots, yes. But you aren't casting the spell so no component costs for those spell prerequisites. So even though a +5 tome takes 7 days to make, you aren't actually casting wish 7 times (and spending 35000xp). You just expend a total of 7 spell slots over that 7 days.


Tomb of +5 could be crafted with multiple characters! Use other characters to chip in the xp cost. Stop thinking in SOLO characters that violate rules.

From the beginning of the magic item chapter in the DMG, under Prerequisites:


If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s level must be known. The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item.

You can not split the XP required among multiple people.

[RoboEmperor]

Tomb of +5 could be crafted with multiple characters! Use other characters to chip in the xp cost. Stop thinking in SOLO characters that violate rules.

You can't. MiC clearly states the provider of the feat must be the one to provide XP. Also the XP sharing spell is webcontent. The point is, you should be able to craft the +5 Tome CORE ONLY without epic because both the rule about delaying leveling up and the Tome book are presented in CORE.


You can make them in steps. +1, then upgrade to +2, then +3, and so on. That way, you don't need to spend the XP all at once. It is perfectly possible to make a +5 tome without epic levels.

Where does it say you can do that? IIRC MiC was the one who said you can improve non-weapons and non-armors like that, not Core.

[Jeraa]

Where does it say you can do that? IIRC MiC was the one who said you can improve non-weapons and non-armors like that, not Core.

Core puts absolutely no limits on upgrades. It just uses a weapon as an example, but in no way limits itto only weapons/armor.


A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword.

Item, not weapon or armor.

[RoboEmperor]

Core puts absolutely no limits on upgrades. It just uses a weapon as an example, but in no way limits itto only weapons/armor.



Item, not weapon or armor.

That's a nice find. Doesn't help my current argument but doesn't matter, that's a nice find.

[AmeVulpes]

Where does it say you can do that? IIRC MiC was the one who said you can improve non-weapons and non-armors like that, not Core.


A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do so is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword.
I'd say it's fairly clear.

EDIT: Ninja'd incredibly hard. Or do we say swordsage'd? I've seen both.

[noob]

I'd say it's fairly clear.

EDIT: Ninja'd incredibly hard. Or do we say swordsage'd? I've seen both.

ninjas have an harder life than swordsages.

[fallensavior]

Yet another reason to houserule away XP completely.

I must say though that that it is pretty tendentious of one side to insist that the rule saying you can do something actually means that you can't do that thing because of insistence on a specific interpretation of an ambiguous term.

But yeah, XP is a terrible game mechanic. We are better off without it.

[Doctor Awkward]

That's why I don't get the general contempt for the official FAQ. Sure, they make some blatant errors, but it still carries more weight than some random dude on the internet who feels like they know better than the designers...

The thing with the FAQ is that a) Skip only did it in the first place because no one else really wanted to do it, and b) not only did he stop penning responses entirely in 2004, he admits in an interview with Monte that it had long prior become a group effort between various other staff writers with little official editorial oversight, let alone designer input.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110714024136/http://www.malhavocpress.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?int_dnd30_Skip

He expressly states that his intent with the "Sage advice" column was to "offer good DMing advice on how to make constructive decisions" rather than to elaborate about specifics in the rules and clarify author intent. This is obvious with the style in which the FAQ is frequently written. He muses about the rules. There's a lot of jokes and quite a bit of, "Heh, yeah that's a little silly isn't it? Well here's my advice..."

It's not even like the Sage advice column over time degraded into something not terribly useful for rules clarifications with his departure. It was always a place where Skip (or some other random staff writer) glanced at the most relevant rules they could locate and make a quick decision, which is why there is so much inconsistency between the FAQ, the errata, and the texts themselves.

The general contempt for the FAQ largely stems from dealing with folks who like to treat the entire thing as RAW and try and use it to settle arguments, when it's clearly nothing but an opinion piece. And sometimes the FAQ is not even a well-informed opinion.

[unseenmage]

What exactly provides for characters chipping in XP? I've thought about this before, but never seen a supporting rule, outside of perhaps epic magic group casting rituals etc.

This web article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a) is where I get my rules for such. Not every GM allows for it though.

Apologies if this has already been answered.

[wilphe]

This means we have to define "immediately" in a useful way. Upon slaying that exact kobold, do you have to pull a workshop out of your portable hole and make said item in the dungeon? Impractical.

Or just at your soonest opportunity? This is my definite pick.


Doesn't the answer to that question at least in part depend on when the character levels up?

There are some groups where level up only happens in downtime

There are some groups where level up happens at the next rest

There are some groups where it would happen as soon as the XP are gained.