RAW limits to levelling by killing human zombies?

[TalonOfAnathrax]

The recent thread about picking a class to survive a zombie apocalypse got me thinking about the RAW limits of "farming XP" by killing low-level enemies from a position of safety. This has never come up for me at a table (mostly because whenever a character does this I tend to grant a small ad hoc GM reward of some sort, saying that leveling comes from challenging yourself and not actual XP farming like in a video game).
But if it were done by RAW, how far could a low-level warlock get by killing human zombies?
From my reading of the DMG, it looks like human zombies will stop providing XP once the warlock has reached level 9. Am I wrong? It seems like a lot. And it seems weird that rats, cats, zombies and CR 1 creatures all stop providing XP at the same level.

[Unavenger]

Yeah, you stop gaining experience once the experience table has a dash rather than a number and the Challenge Rating is below their level. Conversely, if they kill a very high-CR enemy, the assumption is that their having been able to defeat such an enemy at all means something so unusual has happened that the DM should assign XP carefully rather than using a value from a table.

[reddir]

Technically, it says something like: 'something unusual is happening and the DM should look more closely at it'.

So, it is possible for the DM to keep giving a small bit of xp and still be in the RAW.

EDIT -- that was for higher level EL, not lower. Though for lower EL it says: "See Assigning Ad Hoc XP Awards, page 39" which suggests smaller xp rewards...so still the same general effect.

[reddir]

Oh!

That table is just for the CR-rating of a challenge, the Encounter Level.

But if you have 2 monsters that are CR 1 which attack together, the Encounter becomes EL 3.

And if you have 4 monsters that are CR 1 which attack together, the Encounter becomes EL 5.

(there is another table for this in Encounter Levels somewhere)

So you could probably keep gaining xp as long as you fight larger and larger mobs of zombies.

EDIT -- DMG p48 - 49

[TalonOfAnathrax]

Oh!

That table is just for the CR-rating of a challenge, the Encounter Level.

But if you have 2 monsters that are CR 1 which attack together, the Encounter becomes EL 3.

And if you have 4 monsters that are CR 1 which attack together, the Encounter becomes EL 5.

(there is another table for this in Encounter Levels somewhere)

So you could probably keep gaining xp as long as you fight larger and larger mobs of zombies.

EDIT -- DMG p48 - 49
I'm aware of that, but I'd always been under the impression that when a creature would be too weak to grant XP alone, swarms of it shouldn't grant XP (a high-level party can slaughter armies of orcs without it being much of a challenge for them, for example).
However when I went back to check the DMG, I couldn't find any concrete numbers about this sort of XP allocation issue.
I'll check UA and the Rules Compendium, I suppose.

[reddir]

I'm aware of that, but I'd always been under the impression that when a creature would be too weak to grant XP alone, swarms of it shouldn't grant XP (a high-level party can slaughter armies of orcs without it being much of a challenge for them, for example).
However when I went back to check the DMG, I couldn't find any concrete numbers about this sort of XP allocation issue.
I'll check UA and the Rules Compendium, I suppose.

The example given in the DMG is exactly this:
By 9th level, a character’s defenses are so good that a standard orc cannot hit him or her, and one or two spells cast by a character of that level could destroy all thirty-two orcs. At such a point, your judgment overrules whatever the XP table would say.

But then it follows up with saying that sometimes it makes sense to give xp.

Really, DM fiat at that point, with 'suggestions' either way they choose.

[Psyren]

The recent thread about picking a class to survive a zombie apocalypse got me thinking about the RAW limits of "farming XP" by killing low-level enemies from a position of safety.

A "position of safety" isn't really a challenge though. Per DMG 49 that would make the encounter "Easy" which would lower its EL and therefore the rewards you gain - and thus the cutoff where you stop gaining XP entirely would arrive sooner, if you gained any at all. It isn't meant to be like an MMO/ARPG where yellow mobs give full XP regardless of whether they can actually hurt you or not.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

A "position of safety" isn't really a challenge though. Per DMG 49 that would make the encounter "Easy" which would lower its EL and therefore the rewards you gain - and thus the cutoff where you stop gaining XP entirely would arrive sooner, if you gained any at all. It isn't meant to be like an MMO/ARPG where yellow mobs give full XP regardless of whether they can actually hurt you or not.
I agree with you about design reasoning, and I obviously wouldn't allow farming in a game. But I'm wondering about RAW only right now, not RAI.

And so I must ask : where does it say that Easy encounters award less XP?

New things I've noticed :
- Page 39 suggests that an encounter that's half as difficult should count as EL-2.
- Table 3-1 page 49 has a table for CR 1/2 monsters like zombies, which says that 12 zombies are an EL 7 encounter. Even with the -2 for "half as difficult" (which is the only strict RAW ruling that I can find that applies to "bombarding zombies from the sky") that's EL 5, which should allow you to reach level 13 during your zombie-extermination campaign.

Obviously this sort of thing isn't okay for an actual table. However C&C for my reading of the RAW is very welcome!

[Vizzerdrix]

Do keep the mob template in mind. A few zeds here and there is a whole different fight than a few hundred.

[Psyren]

I agree with you about design reasoning, and I obviously wouldn't allow farming in a game. But I'm wondering about RAW only right now, not RAI.

And so I must ask : where does it say that Easy encounters award less XP?

New things I've noticed :
- Page 39 suggests that an encounter that's half as difficult should count as EL-2.
- Table 3-1 page 49 has a table for CR 1/2 monsters like zombies, which says that 12 zombies are an EL 7 encounter. Even with the -2 for "half as difficult" (which is the only strict RAW ruling that I can find that applies to "bombarding zombies from the sky") that's EL 5, which should allow you to reach level 13 during your zombie-extermination campaign.

Obviously this sort of thing isn't okay for an actual table. However C&C for my reading of the RAW is very welcome!

You cited it better than I could. A warlock infinitely pot-shotting zombies that are unable to fight back would count as much less than "half as difficult". It certainly wouldn't use up 20% of your available resources either.

[Zombimode]

Fwiw: this encounter calculator/ (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/) stops giving XP for CR 1/2 creatures for characters of 7th level and beyond - not matter how many CR 1/2 there are.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Biggus]

I agree with you about design reasoning, and I obviously wouldn't allow farming in a game. But I'm wondering about RAW only right now, not RAI.

And so I must ask : where does it say that Easy encounters award less XP?


DMG p.50 (at the bottom of the "Difficulty Factors" section) says:

"None of the above factors should necessarily be taken into account when assigning or modifying challenge ratings" (emphasis mine)

So as far as I can see, the RAW is that the DM should modify the CR if they think that's appropriate in a given situation.

[InvisibleBison]

- Table 3-1 page 49 has a table for CR 1/2 monsters like zombies, which says that 12 zombies are an EL 7 encounter. Even with the -2 for "half as difficult" (which is the only strict RAW ruling that I can find that applies to "bombarding zombies from the sky") that's EL 5, which should allow you to reach level 13 during your zombie-extermination campaign.

The rules for awarding XP on page 37 of the DMG make it quite clear that it's the CR of the individual creatures, not the EL of the encounter, that matters. A 9th level character wouldn't receive any XP from fighting normal human zombies regardless of how many he fought.

[Asmotherion]

Zombies, as per the template, no. As long as the total CR of the encounter is not lower than the minimum CR you gain xp from, you're good.

[One Step Two]

If you are aware of the concept of Exp firstly, then you'd be able to create an environment to continually level yourself off zombie killing. It would also presume the idea that you're fighting zombies in such a way that causes the CR to count as an actual encounter. For example, you set up a trap to only allow a single Zombie to enter a room at a time for you to fight until you reach level 7 which, as mentioned above, means you no-longer get exp.

After that point, you need to purposefully put yourself in a scenario which is more challenging, in this case allowing the Zombies to form a Mob (CR 8) and then grinding until level 16, which unless there's a way to advance simple human zombies any further, there's your cap.

[Asmotherion]

If you are aware of the concept of Exp firstly, then you'd be able to create an environment to continually level yourself off zombie killing. It would also presume the idea that you're fighting zombies in such a way that causes the CR to count as an actual encounter. For example, you set up a trap to only allow a single Zombie to enter a room at a time for you to fight until you reach level 7 which, as mentioned above, means you no-longer get exp.

After that point, you need to purposefully put yourself in a scenario which is more challenging, in this case allowing the Zombies to form a Mob (CR 8) and then grinding until level 16, which unless there's a way to advance simple human zombies any further, there's your cap.

Undead can advance by HD or apply the Zombie/Skeletor template. By level 16 they would have access to create undead 4 levels before, so it should not be an issue finding more powerful undead.

[reddir]

The rules for awarding XP on page 37 of the DMG make it quite clear that it's the CR of the individual creatures, not the EL of the encounter, that matters. A 9th level character wouldn't receive any XP from fighting normal human zombies regardless of how many he fought.

Wow. That is a thing.

It is counter-intuitive to me, far more mechanical less nuanced than I expected...
But it is RAW.

[One Step Two]

Undead can advance by HD or apply the Zombie/Skeletor template. By level 16 they would have access to create undead 4 levels before, so it should not be an issue finding more powerful undead.

This is correct, making our own zombies is trickier, as it presumes we can find corpses of our own to convert of a significant HD, which we can only relieve control of once we have a stronger controlled undead, that is assuming we have the Onyx that can make a difference. Unless OP tells us otherwise, I'm basing my idea on the standard Human Commoner Zombie (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm).

[Kaleph]

What about stop levelling up as soon as you hit level 8? As far as I know, you cannot maxx your XP*, so if you stay at level 8 and keep on killing zombies, you'll eventually collect 190,000 XP in total (or more, if ELH is on the table) and, puff!, you're level 20 all of a sudden.

* at least, I've never seen a rule stating that you loose XP in excess of, say, (2*your level+1)*1,000 XP, or the like. Does anybody knows, if this rule exists?

[reddir]

What about stop levelling up as soon as you hit level 8? As far as I know, you cannot maxx your XP*, so if you stay at level 8 and keep on killing zombies, you'll eventually collect 190,000 XP in total (or more, if ELH is on the table) and, puff!, you're level 20 all of a sudden.

A great time to make use of the Sculpt Self Feat!

Also, if the max CR zombie is level 1 or 1/2.... does it even matter? If there is nothing else out there to challenge you, just find a way to have fun. You won't actually need more power.

[Zombimode]

Wow. That is a thing.

It is counter-intuitive to me, far more mechanical less nuanced than I expected...
But it is RAW.

Again, that is a good thing. It doesn't really matter if a level 15 character fights against 1, 10 or 100 zombies. The rule reflects this.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

The rules for awarding XP on page 37 of the DMG make it quite clear that it's the CR of the individual creatures, not the EL of the encounter, that matters. A 9th level character wouldn't receive any XP from fighting normal human zombies regardless of how many he fought.
Yes. However on page 48 it says "you can treat a group of creatures as a single creature whose CR equals the group's EL", which suggests that a level 9 character would in fact receive XP for killing a pile of human commoner zombies, going by strict RAW. If the zombies weren't much of a threat (flying warlock vs landbound zombies, for example) then their EL is reduced by 2.
Of course any GM would use their judgement and not follow RAW exactly when it gets crazy like this, but the purpose of this thread was strict RAW discussion as if GM adjudication wasn't a thing.

If you are aware of the concept of Exp firstly, then you'd be able to create an environment to continually level yourself off zombie killing. It would also presume the idea that you're fighting zombies in such a way that causes the CR to count as an actual encounter. For example, you set up a trap to only allow a single Zombie to enter a room at a time for you to fight until you reach level 7 which, as mentioned above, means you no-longer get exp.

After that point, you need to purposefully put yourself in a scenario which is more challenging, in this case allowing the Zombies to form a Mob (CR 8) and then grinding until level 16, which unless there's a way to advance simple human zombies any further, there's your cap.
I'd forgotten all about the mob template, thanks! Wow, eventually getting to CR 16 is pretty crazy.
There are indeed ways to grind higher (making your own traps and then surviving them repeatedly has been mentioned, and it seems valid by RAW) but I'm mostly wondering how high someone would rise as they exterminated zombies.


What about stop levelling up as soon as you hit level 8? As far as I know, you cannot maxx your XP*, so if you stay at level 8 and keep on killing zombies, you'll eventually collect 190,000 XP in total (or more, if ELH is on the table) and, puff!, you're level 20 all of a sudden.

* at least, I've never seen a rule stating that you loose XP in excess of, say, (2*your level+1)*1,000 XP, or the like. Does anybody knows, if this rule exists?
I didn't know you could consciously refuse to level. I thought the only way to avoid gaining a certain level was to avoid facing challenges (so no XP) or to use negative levels to remove levels.

[Kaleph]

I didn't know you could consciously refuse to level. I thought the only way to avoid gaining a certain level was to avoid facing challenges (so no XP) or to use negative levels to remove levels.

This could become actually a thing if you're crafting very expensive items. Say you're level 10, you have reached, after your last fight, 55,100 XP, i.e. 10,100 above the minimum for level 10. You would normally level up, but in that case you would be only 100 XP above the minimum for level 11. In this precise moment, you cannot anymore craft stuff that costs more than 100 XP, so depending on your plans you may want to postpone the act of levelling up.

[Saintheart]

Yes. However on page 48 it says "you can treat a group of creatures as a single creature whose CR equals the group's EL", which suggests that a level 9 character would in fact receive XP for killing a pile of human commoner zombies, going by strict RAW.

Page 48 is providing rules or at worst guidelines about how you calculate the EL of an encounter, not the CR of the creatures who comprise that encounter or the XP awarded. EL does not have a part in determining XP. EL only determines the proportion of encounters that need to be at, below, above, or grossly above the party's EL for the purposes of variety in the adventure. EL also determines the average treasure value of the encounter, but it does not determine XP.

XP is by RAW (p. 37) determined by "each monster defeated." It's a pure headcount.

[Quertus]

It's amazing to me that, after over 2 decades, people still can't get the fundamentals of the game. Either 3e is drawing a lot more new blood than most suspect, or we are sorely in need of some "back to basics" training.

[reddir]

It's amazing to me that, after over 2 decades, people still can't get the fundamentals of the game. Either 3e is drawing a lot more new blood than most suspect, or we are sorely in need of some "back to basics" training.

Every table is different, so people have all sorts of habitual and differently-interpreted ways of engaging with the system. There have always been discussions to attempt to clarify what the rules meant or intended in certain areas, and how people tweak them for best functionality.

Did you really intend to sound as condescending as your post made you seem?

[Saintheart]

It's amazing to me that, after over 2 decades, people still can't get the fundamentals of the game. Either 3e is drawing a lot more new blood than most suspect, or we are sorely in need of some "back to basics" training.

EL and CR are predominantly the realm of the DM, which means most players won't bother or won't need to really learn about it. Players only see the far end, which is the award of XP and treasure, and maybe lodge complaints if the DM doesn't keep the treasure up to WBL or the XP flowing quick enough. Which brings me back to one of my big issues with 3.5: it's mostly built for players, not DMs, despite the fact the DM is more essential to the game than any individual player. And the problem being that 3.5 had something of a conflict of interest: on one hand it could teach DMs how to use and control the massive rulesets they might have pitched at them and feel obliged to use ... or it could sell more rulebooks. It went for option 2 for the most part.

But this really just circles back to the fact that CR in particular and to a lesser extent EL are bad tools. With the concession that it's very difficult to do so otherwise given the size of 3.5.

[Kalkra]

A great time to make use of the Sculpt Self Feat!

Also, if the max CR zombie is level 1 or 1/2.... does it even matter? If there is nothing else out there to challenge you, just find a way to have fun. You won't actually need more power.

I'm pretty sure that if you have unlimited spells from Sculpt Self that would affect your xp gains. Plus, you can get your AC so high that a zombie will only hit you on a natural 20, and then you add fast healing or damage reduction and even at level 1 you could take a nap in the middle of a zombie horde and be fine the next morning. At that point, I can't image you'll be getting xp, level notwithstanding.

[Unavenger]

It's amazing to me that, after over 2 decades, people still can't get the fundamentals of the game. Either 3e is drawing a lot more new blood than most suspect, or we are sorely in need of some "back to basics" training.

My suspicion is that a lot of people avoided the experience system deliberately, and a nontrivial number modified it to suit their needs or used ad hoc experience totals that felt right. Also, a large fraction of the 3.5 following actually plays Pathfinder, which just hands each monster an XP value (based on (1) its CR and (2) a relatively simple formula consistent with the (a) the rule that twice as many monsters is two higher EL and (b) the fact that the square root of two can be roughly approximated as either 3/2 or 4/3, which multiply to 2) rather than caring what level you, the killer, are. In Pathfinder, you can kill eighteen thousand CR 1/2 zombies and get to level 20, if you really wanna, and if you can do relatively simple maths and remember that CR 1 is 400 and CR 2 is 600, you can work out any XP value in the game just from CR (CR 1/3 and CR 1/6 are approximations but if you round up to nearest 5 you get the result you want, which makes you wonder why they didn't just divide every XP value by 5), and it's written in the monster description anyway, which makes it a fairly popular way to calculate experience compared to 3.5.

[reddir]

... Pathfinder, which just hands each monster an XP value ... rather than caring what level you, the killer, are. In Pathfinder, you can kill eighteen thousand CR 1/2 zombies and get to level 20, if you really wanna, ... and it's written in the monster description anyway, which makes it a fairly popular way to calculate experience compared to 3.5.

3.5 offered something like this in an Unearthed Arcana varient - Level-Independent XP Awards (page 213). It required changing a few things and the numbers are probably different, but it seems basically the same.

[Wildstag]

I always just used experience calculators like on the d20srd or other websites, and they've given the same values when data is input to calculate, so I never really cared about the nitty gritty of understanding how it worked, just that it did.

I think if other creatures could become zombies and attack humans, then I think there's still be some threat in that scenario as levels get higher. A brown bear zombie would be CR 4.

But this thread is about human zombies specifically. Since a zombie would be limited to 2d12 HD, using the encounter calculator on d20srd, you'd be limited to effectively an E6/E7 campaign.

[Dimers]

at least, I've never seen a rule stating that you loose XP in excess of, say, (2*your level+1)*1,000 XP, or the like. Does anybody knows, if this rule exists?

It does. I'm AFB, so I apologize for not being able to give a quote, but the gist is, if you would go up two levels at a time then you instead are 1 XP short of the second gain.

[reddir]

It does. I'm AFB, so I apologize for not being able to give a quote, but the gist is, if you would go up two levels at a time then you instead are 1 XP short of the second gain.

I remember this being for a single encounter, not for one's total accumulated xp.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

It's amazing to me that, after over 2 decades, people still can't get the fundamentals of the game. Either 3e is drawing a lot more new blood than most suspect, or we are sorely in need of some "back to basics" training.
Wow, that sounded surprisingly condescending.
I've been playing 3.0 and 3.5 since 2011. In that time I've come across a ridiculous number of interpretations of the functioning of the XP system, houseruled XP systems, and a horrifying number of tables that just dump it all and have you level at arbitrary milestones.
Please excuse my confusion as to how exactly things function when there isn't a GM to adjudicate things.

[Quertus]

Wow, this is part of why I love the Playground: I express confusion - even poorly - and Playgrounders start pouring forth explanations!


Every table is different, so people have all sorts of habitual and differently-interpreted ways of engaging with the system. There have always been discussions to attempt to clarify what the rules meant or intended in certain areas, and how people tweak them for best functionality.

Did you really intend to sound as condescending as your post made you seem?


Wow, that sounded surprisingly condescending.

I wasn't aiming for "condescending" so much as "shocked". Like, if we were on a "Monopoly" discussion board, after Monopoly hadn't been published for over a decade, and people were of the opinion that all new players played Settlers of Catan or something… and a Monopoly player showed confusion about the "pass Go" mechanic.

Well, no, not just one, but lots of players didn't get one of the fundamental mechanics that they ought to have to interact with to play the game.

I was afraid we'd played so long, we hadn't thought about the basics for too long or something. (I know that I don't remember much about Monopoly's specific rules beyond the house rules that I've played with in the last decade)

But, as others have pointed out, house rules obfuscate this, and…


EL and CR are predominantly the realm of the DM, which means most players won't bother or won't need to really learn about it. Players only see the far end, which is the award of XP and treasure,

Yeah, only the GM *has* to see this bit. I guess my bias from being a GM is showing. :smallredface:


Pathfinder,


3.5 offered something like this in an Unearthed Arcana varient - Level-Independent XP Awards (page 213).

That's cool - I'll have to check that out.


I've been playing 3.0 and 3.5 since 2011. In that time I've come across a ridiculous number of interpretations of the functioning of the XP system, houseruled XP systems, and a horrifying number of tables that just dump it all and have you level at arbitrary milestones.
Please excuse my confusion as to how exactly things function when there isn't a GM to adjudicate things.

I guess this particular problem of 2e (too many undeclared house rules, that people conflate with / remember instead of the actual rules) still exists in some form in 3e :smallfrown:

[reddir]

... I wasn't aiming for "condescending" so much as "shocked". Like, if we were on a "Monopoly" discussion board, after Monopoly hadn't been published for over a decade, and people were of the opinion that all new players played Settlers of Catan or something… and a Monopoly player showed confusion about the "pass Go" mechanic.

Well, no, not just one, but lots of players didn't get one of the fundamental mechanics that they ought to have to interact with to play the game.

I was afraid we'd played so long, we hadn't thought about the basics for too long or something. (I know that I don't remember much about Monopoly's specific rules beyond the house rules that I've played with in the last decade)

But, as others have pointed out, house rules obfuscate this, and…
That's cool. Easy to misinterpret mood on message boards. Glad it wasn't a case of toxic posting.

And as was mentioned - LOTS of tweaked and straight up house-ruled mechanics.

Heh, and people mess up Monopoly rules all the time! Its a bit crazy actually, even from people who play it a few times each year.


That's cool - I'll have to check that out.
The OGL thing brought forth a lot of creativity and specialized variant rules for 3.x. Some of them are very elegant and bring a lot to a table. Of course others are best not used.


I guess this particular problem of 2e (too many undeclared house rules, that people conflate with / remember instead of the actual rules) still exists in some form in 3e :smallfrown:

I don't think it is a bad thing necesarily.

Tables and local communities will naturally develop their own cultures and this can help people feel comfortable and familiar with their local fellow gamers.

It only becomes a problem when people insist on their local tweaks and refuse to acknowledge what the RAW says or the most natural interpretation of the RAW. And of course it is a sad day when people are intolerant of others' gaming cultures and tweaks.

[Psyren]

I wasn't aiming for "condescending" so much as "shocked". Like, if we were on a "Monopoly" discussion board, after Monopoly hadn't been published for over a decade, and people were of the opinion that all new players played Settlers of Catan or something… and a Monopoly player showed confusion about the "pass Go" mechanic.

Well, no, not just one, but lots of players didn't get one of the fundamental mechanics that they ought to have to interact with to play the game.

I was afraid we'd played so long, we hadn't thought about the basics for too long or something. (I know that I don't remember much about Monopoly's specific rules beyond the house rules that I've played with in the last decade)

But, as others have pointed out, house rules obfuscate this, and…


It's amazing to me that, after over 2 decades, people still can't get the fundamentals of the game.

If I may - it might help if you avoid terms like "can't" when it comes to people understanding something, it implies that there is some kind of deficiency in those people that isn't able to be overcome. That might help explain some of the negative reactions you got.


Wow, that sounded surprisingly condescending.
I've been playing 3.0 and 3.5 since 2011. In that time I've come across a ridiculous number of interpretations of the functioning of the XP system, houseruled XP systems, and a horrifying number of tables that just dump it all and have you level at arbitrary milestones.
Please excuse my confusion as to how exactly things function when there isn't a GM to adjudicate things.

I wouldn't call milestone/story-based leveling "horrifying." It's inconvenient in 3.5 since not knowing how much XP you have to do things with (like craft or cast spells) can make it difficult to use certain tactics, but the group can play around that, and in PF it hardly matters since XP is only used for leveling. Besides, as others have said the CR/EL system is borked anyway, so you might as well simply level on a narrative basis.

[Vizzerdrix]

… and a Monopoly player showed confusion about the "pass Go" mechanic.

This part caught my eye. What "pass go" mechanic? :smallconfused:

[icefractal]

I wouldn't call milestone/story-based leveling "horrifying."Seconded. IME, it works as well or better than standard XP, while being a lot less book-keeping.

It can feel arbitrary, sure, but eh - so is XP, IMO. Unless you change the setting so that you're actually drawing power from the souls of defeated foes or something (with the corresponding push toward fighting everything), it's a meta mechanic not anchored to anything in-universe. I think milestone leveling that was tied to something IC would actually be more associated.

[Menzath]

Well, the table on dmg pg 38, sub text, seems to indicate that 9 would be the highest level you could get from killing Cr 1/2 zombies. Since an earlier section states that anything below Cr1 is considered Cr 1, but with xp reduced according to it's Cr fraction.

And thats if we only go by killing zombies(human) and not any other type of animal(non zombie). Most bears, boars, and bison show as Cr4. Should be able to get us up to 12th level.

[Quertus]

This part caught my eye. What "pass go" mechanic? :smallconfused:

… (AFB, but…) "collect $200 when you pass (or land on) 'Go'." Referenced in "go directly to…"/"do not pass Go" mechanics; utilized by "advance to…" mechanics.

[reddir]

Well, the table on dmg pg 38, sub text, seems to indicate that 9 would be the highest level you could get from killing Cr 1/2 zombies. Since an earlier section states that anything below Cr1 is considered Cr 1, but with xp reduced according to it's Cr fraction.

And thats if we only go by killing zombies(human) and not any other type of animal(non zombie). Most bears, boars, and bison show as Cr4. Should be able to get us up to 12th level.

A couple of posters have mentioned the Mob template, which has a set CR of 8 and therefore raises the possible character level to 16.

[Afghanistan]

… (AFB, but…) "collect $200 when you pass (or land on) 'Go'." Referenced in "go directly to…"/"do not pass Go" mechanics; utilized by "advance to…" mechanics.

If you're going to be an arrogant condescending jerk, at least KNOW the mechanics! :smalltongue:


“GO”...Each time a player’s token lands on or passes over GO, whether by throwing the dice or drawing a card, the Banker pays him/her a $200 salary.

The $200 is paid only once each time around the board. However, if a player passing GO on the throw of the dice lands 2 spaces beyond it on Community Chest, or 7 spaces beyond it on Chance, and draws the“Advance to GO” card, he/she collects $200 for passing GO the first time and another $200 for reaching it the second time by instructions on the card.