alternate XP award curves

[Elves]

I think the default XP award chart has awards increase too fast as CR surpasses ECL. This only becomes more pronounced as levels increase and each additional +CR is less proportionally significant. And it gets worse if you have a party of optimized characters who regularly need >ECL encounters to feel challenged -- by the book, for my taste, this makes them level up way too fast.

A simple proportional XP reduction won't fix this, because it maintains the steepness of the curve. Here are 3 simple alternate XP schemes that would address it:

For each defeated foe, subtract 10% from the XP and treasure award for each level by which its CR exceeds EPL (effective party level -- use this calculator (http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~afrey/dnd/calculator.html)).
1) Use this calculator (http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~afrey/dnd/calculator.html) to find EPL (effective party level). Use fractions, don't round.
2) If a monster's CR > EPL, halve the amount by which it does so.
3) Award XP and treasure as if they were facing a creature of the adjusted EL.
XP for each PC for each defeated foe equals:
ECL/TPL*(300 ± x for every level by which CR exceeds or deceeds ECL)*EPL

This is based on the variant XP rules in the sidebar on DMG 39 (each PC gets ECL * 0-150 XP per encounter, depending on difficulty), but fixes it so that a) characters who are behind can catch up and b) XP is directly modified by party size, like in the default system.

Perhaps x should be halved for deceeds so that a larger x value can be used in order to make lower-level people catch up faster.

A related idea: solo and small party XP in particular can ramp up in a crazy way. You might reduce XP and treasure by 11% for every party member fewer than 4. So solo adventurers have -33% and need 4.44 same-level 1v1s to level up instead of 3.33.


Any of these you'd use? Do you share my experience that XP gain accelerates too quickly for CR>ECL encounters?

[Remuko]

Looks like a simple enough fix you came up with. Hope it works out.

As for me? No. I think level ups are far too slow, not too fast.

[AvatarVecna]

Looks like a simple enough fix you came up with. Hope it works out.

As for me? No. I think level ups are far too slow, not too fast.

Leveling up is so easy and quick that the only way the world makes sense is if NPCs can't get XP from murder.

[Elves]

As for me? No. I think level ups are far too slow, not too fast.
This isn't about whether leveling is too slow or fast in itself. It's easy enough to proportionally adjust XP rate. What I'm saying is I think the CR vs ECL curve is too steep, especially at high levels and for optimized parties.

--

Rereading 3), the problem with it is PCs who are one or two levels behind the others get screwed if the APL is lowered by lots of hirelings or mooks. So using APL doesn't work.

How about ECL/TPL*(300 ± x for every level by which CR exceeds or deceeds ECL)*EPL.

That's better but still has the problem of a much slower catchup rate than the default XP table.

To solve that it seems like x needs to be higher for CR>ECL than ECL>CR.

Maybe +100 per level by which CR>ECL (max 1000) [so max reward is 3.33x CR=ECL] but only -50 per level by which ECL>CR (min 1).
Or +75/-37.5.
Or +100/-37.5 (max 1000 min 0).

[Elkad]

As for me? No. I think level ups are far too slow, not too fast.

Guess it takes all kinds, because I think past 3rd level, it's insanely fast.

But I'm looking at it from 1e eyes. Getting from 11th to 12th level was probably 100 hours played. We were 18ish (on divergent xp tables, so not exactly for everyone) for better than a year, and we played at least 20 hours a week.

[Remuko]

Guess it takes all kinds, because I think past 3rd level, it's insanely fast.

But I'm looking at it from 1e eyes. Getting from 11th to 12th level was probably 100 hours played. We were 18ish (on divergent xp tables, so not exactly for everyone) for better than a year, and we played at least 20 hours a week.

nowadays my groups would play once a week at most. id want to level up multiple times a month at the least or i'd lose interest.

[Crake]

I think the default XP award chart has awards increase too fast as CR surpasses ECL. This only becomes more pronounced as levels increase and each additional +CR is less proportionally significant.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? +2 CR is supposed to be the equivalent of fighting two equal CR monsters, and thus gives double the xp. This remains proportionally the same regardless of level, so if you're level 10 and fight a CR12 monster, you'll gain the same xp as fighting two CR10 creatures, and if you're level 14, and fight something CR16, you'll get the same xp as fighting two CR14 monsters. The xp you get is also proportionally the same as your level, such that it always takes 13.3333 equal CR encounters to level up, so... every +CR is proportionally equivalent, as far as XP is concerned.

[Darg]

I would like to point out that you should be monitoring how a party defeats encounters and adjusting how much xp they receive by how handily they defeat the encounters and how much of their resources they spend.


An encounter so easy that it uses up none or almost none of the PCs' resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all

If your party requires +2 EL to be challenged, make that your baseline. If a EL +2 encounter is as difficult as the book thinks an EL+0 encounter should be, all you have to do is cut the XP in half for -2 EL adjustment. Your average +0 encounter should cost the party ~25% of their resources. When it doesn't it isn't a difficult enough of an encounter to award full xp.

[Rebel7284]

There is also the whole "don't use XP for leveling" variant. Everyone levels up when plot appropriate

[Elkad]

nowadays my groups would play once a week at most. id want to level up multiple times a month at the least or i'd lose interest.
More than once every 4-5 sessions still seems way too fast, even if the sessions are 4-5 hours now instead of 20-30.

I want time to enjoy my new level, not just make new sheets.


There is also the whole "don't use XP for leveling" variant. Everyone levels up when plot appropriate

Tried that at my table last run.
While they didn't complain during the game, I took a secret ballot at the end and all 6 players voted to go back to XP.
They like to see the hourglass fill.

[Quertus]

I would like to point out that you should be monitoring how a party defeats encounters and adjusting how much xp they receive by how handily they defeat the encounters and how much of their resources they spend.



If your party requires +2 EL to be challenged, make that your baseline. If a EL +2 encounter is as difficult as the book thinks an EL+0 encounter should be, all you have to do is cut the XP in half for -2 EL adjustment. Your average +0 encounter should cost the party ~25% of their resources. When it doesn't it isn't a difficult enough of an encounter to award full xp.

Yeah! Because the Real Man™ who bashes the door down with his face, and loses 90% of his HP in the process, deserves so much more XP than the bookworm who uses the doorknob like a wuss! It's important to punish PCs for being smart, and doing things the easy way, or defeating foes with superior tactics! Only morons deserve XP!

[Darg]

Yeah! Because the Real Man™ who bashes the door down with his face, and loses 90% of his HP in the process, deserves so much more XP than the bookworm who uses the doorknob like a wuss! It's important to punish PCs for being smart, and doing things the easy way, or defeating foes with superior tactics! Only morons deserve XP!


Bad rolls or poor choices on the PCs’ part should not modify ELs or XP awards. If the encounter is difficult because the players were unlucky or careless, they don’t get more experience.

Your scenario has nothing to do with anything.

[Elves]

I'm not sure what you mean by this? +2 CR is supposed to be the equivalent of fighting two equal CR monsters, and thus gives double the xp. This remains proportionally the same regardless of level, so if you're level 10 and fight a CR12 monster, you'll gain the same xp as fighting two CR10 creatures, and if you're level 14, and fight something CR16, you'll get the same xp as fighting two CR14 monsters. The xp you get is also proportionally the same as your level, such that it always takes 13.3333 equal CR encounters to level up, so... every +CR is proportionally equivalent, as far as XP is concerned.
The basis of the XP system is 3.33 1v1 encounters vs a CR = ECL foe to level up, which divided by 4 characters becomes 13.33. That part I'm fine with. But then it becomes 2.22 1v1 encounters vs a CR = ECL +1 foe or 5 1v1s vs a CR = ECL -1 foe. That's the part I think is too steep, at least at high levels.

A CR 5 encounter at ECL 1 is almost certain death. Meanwhile, at ECL 17, a CR 21 encounter is one that's challenging but that nearly all parties can beat with some resource use. But they're both CR = EPL +4.

This reality is reflected in published modules like the Paizo adventure paths: high-level parties are regularly given encounters several levels higher, but 1st level parties aren't given CR 5 encounters.

That suggests a different method, which is to add a corrective based on what proportion of ECL the departure from ECL is.

[Elkad]

A CR 5 encounter at ECL 1 is almost certain death. Meanwhile, at ECL 17, a CR 21 encounter is one that's challenging but that nearly all parties can beat with some resource use. But they're both CR = EPL +4.



1st level getting a CR 5 fight? Well, not fresh out of the chargen maybe. As the climax before L2 once they have a little loot? Maybe, if I was in KillerDM mode (which is kinda my default to be honest).

But by 5th level, or even 3rd, it's normal for a climax point. Not waiting until 17th.

[Mordante]

nowadays my groups would play once a week at most. id want to level up multiple times a month at the least or i'd lose interest.

That seems way too fast to me. Leveling should be done when something is achieved. Maybe every 3 to 6 sessions till level 10. From level 10 to 15 maybe once every 10 sessions and after level 15 leveling grinds to a slow crawl at best. If you level at all past 15.

[InvisibleBison]

That seems way too fast to me. Leveling should be done when something is achieved. Maybe every 3 to 6 sessions till level 10. From level 10 to 15 maybe once every 10 sessions and after level 15 leveling grinds to a slow crawl at best. If you level at all past 15.

I feel like you're contradicting yourself here. If leveling should happen when something is achieved, how could there be a fixed schedule for how fast it happens? What do you think should happen if a party achieves something significant enough to merit leveling three sessions in a row?

[Mordante]

I feel like you're contradicting yourself here. If leveling should happen when something is achieved, how could there be a fixed schedule for how fast it happens? What do you think should happen if a party achieves something significant enough to merit leveling three sessions in a row?

Experience. A group can achieve something in a few sessions. Win a tough battle or solve a puzzle. There isn't something significant happening every session. Some session you just spent traveling from A to B, or prepare for an upcoming fight or even spent a whole session buying the correct clothing for a visit to some Lord.

[Elves]

It's not fruitful to try and standardize level up rates based on playtime because every group has different preferences and habits on every axis. What I'm speaking to in OP is the proportional adjustment for defeating encounters above or below ECL, not the absolute rate of XP gain which can be easily adjusted.

[Remuko]

That seems way too fast to me. Leveling should be done when something is achieved. Maybe every 3 to 6 sessions till level 10. From level 10 to 15 maybe once every 10 sessions and after level 15 leveling grinds to a slow crawl at best. If you level at all past 15.

ill be up front. I'm 35 but I didnt get into DnD until I was nearly an adult with 3.0. I got into DnD because I was into video game rpgs, not the other way around as I'm sure is true for some people here. To me "leveling up" doesnt, and imo shouldnt, have to have any special significance. It's just the character growing stronger. And honestly its why I like RPGs both tabletop like this, and video game. The leveling up and growing stronger process is one of the most important things to me. Its what keeps me hooked. Its why as unpopular as it is, I like 3.0/3.5's Epic system even with its (massive) flaws. Infinite level ups? Thats nothing but a plus to me. I don't like level caps.

I'm just gonna add this clarification sentence here to say this is just all how I enjoy it, and not that I think this should be forced on anyone else, obviously. I like that the game is flexible enough to allow me to play like this and let others play differently!

[Mordante]

ill be up front. I'm 35 but I didnt get into DnD until I was nearly an adult with 3.0. I got into DnD because I was into video game rpgs, not the other way around as I'm sure is true for some people here. To me "leveling up" doesnt, and imo shouldnt, have to have any special significance. It's just the character growing stronger. And honestly its why I like RPGs both tabletop like this, and video game. The leveling up and growing stronger process is one of the most important things to me. Its what keeps me hooked. Its why as unpopular as it is, I like 3.0/3.5's Epic system even with its (massive) flaws. Infinite level ups? Thats nothing but a plus to me. I don't like level caps.

I'm just gonna add this clarification sentence here to say this is just all how I enjoy it, and not that I think this should be forced on anyone else, obviously. I like that the game is flexible enough to allow me to play like this and let others play differently!

I understand what you are saying. To me computer RPGs have nothing in common with table RPGs.

[Remuko]

I understand what you are saying. To me computer RPGs have nothing in common with table RPGs.

levels stats exp character growth (in power).

[lylsyly]

I just ran that calculator (https://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~afrey/dnd/calculator.html) with a common situation for my table's 1 dm and 6 players.

I input 2 players at ecl 4 due to la+1 templates and 4 players at ecl 3 versus 1 cr 4 opponent. The xp numbers I got came out as the following:

4 ecl 3 get (3.5 based) 225 and (difficulty based) 184
2 ecl 4 get (3.5 based) 200 and (difficulty based) 246

Shouldn't the ecl 3 folks get more than the ecl 4 folks in the difficulty based version?