Warning: the numbers I use are from the 3.0 DMG as I do not have the 3.5 DMG. However the root problem probably remains the same (if it doesn't sorry). Presented below is a method by which parties of high level characters can gain many more XP per encounter than they would otherwise be able to at the price of having to divide the loot more ways and having to watch out for low level characters. Consider:Party A: 4 20th level characters. Average level: 20. Party B: 4 20th level characters and 1 1st level character. Average level: 16. Party C: 4 20th. 2 4th and 1 3rd level characters. Average level: 13. Each party fights a single CR 20 monster. Party A earns 6000 XP and 80k gp or 1500 XP and 20k gp per member. Party B earns 19200 XP and 80k gp or 3840 XP and 16k gp each. Party C earns 46800 XP and 80k gp or 6686 XP and 11429 gp each. Thus rather than the normal 13 encounters to level up. Party B takes 6 (really 5.2 but you can't have.2 encounters) for its 20th-level members to reach 21st and Party C's 20th level members reach 21st in but 3 encounters. There is the problem of keeping the low-level members low-leveled so that they may continue to lower the average party level. This is easily achieved by either A) having them die and be resurrected regularly (which is not unlikely in combat against a CR 20) or B) simply replacing them. Also the above calculations of gp per member assume an equal share of gp; it seems probable that a low-level character would be quite content to receive an entire encounter of his level's worth of treasure and a scroll of resurrection per encounter which would increase the amount of treasure remaining for the 20th level characters and keeping them closer to their expected treasure value by level (of course given the amount of XP they earn magic item crafting is also an attractive option as the extra XP generated by party C each cost the 20th level characters 1.7 gp of lost treasure per XP if treasure is divided equally but can be exchanged at a much higher rate through magic item crafting). Conclusion: it is possible for high level parties to exploit the fact that XP awards (in 3.0 and possibly 3.5) rely upon average party level to gain levels much more quickly than otherwise possible. Whether this is a problem or not is left to the reader. Extensions: Does this work in 3.5? Will it work in 4? And perhaps most importantly should this be in CharOp instead of general?
Something was fixed in 3.5 then.1. Determine the party level (the average level of the party members).2. For each monster defeated determine that single monster's Challenge Rating.3. Use Table 7-1: Experience Point Awards (Single Monster) to cross-reference the party level with the Challenge Rating to find the XP award.4. Add up the XP award for each monster defeated to find the party's award.5. Divide the total XP among all the characters who started the encounter. (Even if they are knocked unconscious everyone who took part in an encounter gains experience for that encounter.)Emphasis mine words author's. So the exploit works fine in 3.0 but was patched in 3.5. Reason #n that I don't stick to the XP and advancement rules... Although it seems odd that under 3.5 high level parties get (pretty severely) penalized XP-wise for protecting lower-level characters.. and that system is still open to slight breakage in leveling lower-level characters. Consider a party of 4 20th level characters and a 13th level character who collectively kill a CR 20. Each 20th level character gets 6000/5 or 1200 XP while the 13th level character gets 46800/5 or 9360 XP (assuming the numbers have remained the same between versions). Also my contention is not that this makes any sense but that under a literal reading of the 3.0 rules it is possible. Additionally even a 1st-level character has a chance at Aid Another or if of a spellcasting class they can use wands scrolls and staves or wondrous items regardless of class.
Warning: the numbers I use are from the 3.0 DMG as I do not have the 3.5 DMG. However the root problem probably remains the same (if it doesn't sorry). Presented below is a method by which parties of high level characters can gain many more XP per encounter than they would otherwise be able to at the price of having to divide the loot more ways and having to watch out for low level characters. Consider:Party A: 4 20th level characters. Average level: 20. Party B: 4 20th level characters and 1 1st level character. Average level: 16. Party C: 4 20th. 2 4th and 1 3rd level characters. Average level: 13. Each party fights a single CR 20 monster. Party A earns 6000 XP and 80k gp or 1500 XP and 20k gp per member. Party B earns 19200 XP and 80k gp or 3840 XP and 16k gp each. Party C earns 46800 XP and 80k gp or 6686 XP and 11429 gp each. Thus rather than the normal 13 encounters to level up. Party B takes 6 (really 5.2 but you can't have.2 encounters) for its 20th-level members to reach 21st and Party C's 20th level members reach 21st in but 3 encounters. There is the problem of keeping the low-level members low-leveled so that they may continue to lower the average party level. This is easily achieved by either A) having them die and be resurrected regularly (which is not unlikely in combat against a CR 20) or B) simply replacing them. Also the above calculations of gp per member assume an equal share of gp; it seems probable that a low-level character would be quite content to receive an entire encounter of his level's worth of treasure and a scroll of resurrection per encounter which would increase the amount of treasure remaining for the 20th level characters and keeping them closer to their expected treasure value by level (of course given the amount of XP they earn magic item crafting is also an attractive option as the extra XP generated by party C each cost the 20th level characters 1.7 gp of lost treasure per XP if treasure is divided equally but can be exchanged at a much higher rate through magic item crafting). Conclusion: it is possible for high level parties to exploit the fact that XP awards (in 3.0 and possibly 3.5) rely upon average party level to gain levels much more quickly than otherwise possible. Whether this is a problem or not is left to the reader. Extensions: Does this work in 3.5? Will it work in 4? And perhaps most importantly should this be in CharOp instead of general?The examples are flawed. The lower level PCs would not survive the encounter and thus should not be factored into it. Since you only receive XP for encounters you survive (being raised after the fact doesn't count as survival). In time your PCs would run out of levels from being raised then eventually CON for being raised at 1st level or let their Elf named Schmoo die and scream "Screw you guys I'm going home and **** this game!"As a few side notes:1. D&D is an RPG. It's a not an MMORPG where a bunch of your low level buddies should join up with the heavy hitters for a night of "Power Leveling".2. Pit Fiends to not "Respawn" every 8-20 minutes if the party just sits there and rememorizes spells.3. When monsters die you should not kneel down search their corpse and find 46,800 XP and 80,000 gold just resting there for you to take. In short. I hope this wasn’t your idea because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You seem like a smart guy. I find the concept of what you suggested to be while well thought out (congrats on your math skills) it was complete waste of time and energy. The reason it was never a problem for the reader was because 85% of us have enough common sense to know the game isn't about killing things to gain EXP and Cash it's about the RP experience. The remaining 15% are thinking up “Cheating The XP System” threads and doing the math as we speak all the while thinking Naruto is a real guy who can really do all those things.
Hmmm.. where to begin?The examples are flawed. The lower level PCs would not survive the encounter and thus should not be factored into it. Since you only receive XP for encounters you survive (being raised after the fact doesn't count as survival). If a character takes part in an encounter even if she is incapacitated and dies during the encounter that character gets a chare of the experience points. If a character dies and is raised the awarded experience points are granted to her after she comes back from the dead (and after she loses a level if appropriate)Another.0/.5 difference apparently. In time your PCs would run out of levels from being raised then eventually CON for being raised at 1st levelHmmm.. perhaps a 2nd level character would serve better than a 1st. Die resurrect back to first level level up from gained XP. Repeat. As the average remains 16 this is not a problem. And for party C the problem is also not a problem if they level up after each resurrection. As a few side notes:1. D&D is an RPG. It's a not an MMORPG where a bunch of your low level buddies should join up with the heavy hitters for a night of "Power Leveling". I am aware of that. However an unscrupulous high-level party could easily hire henchmen cohorts mercenaries or (as it not unusual in my (small and unreliable) group) multiple characters per player. Additionally. I find your disparaging of my viewpoint as odd considering that I find MMOs to be the bane of tabletop roleplaying (and shun them).2. Pit Fiends to not "Respawn" every 8-20 minutes if the party just sits there and rememorizes spells.3. When monsters die you should not kneel down search their corpse and find 46,800 XP and 80,000 gold just resting there for you to take. But of course. Multiple encounters with the same variety of foe using the same tactics in the same place quickly become stale. However if one is running a high-level game there should be high-level foes for the players (and 8-20 minutes would put a major crimp on the whole "resurrect and level" loop). As for looting. I did not state that either. The XP is immediate; however the treasure is not. I simply used averages to ease my math and because rolling random treasure for every encounter for such a proof as this seemed a waste of time. However it was my honest mistake to forget to put "average" with each gp value on the initial post. I thank you honestly for finding my fault. In short. I hope this wasn’t your idea because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You seem like a smart guy. I find the concept of what you suggested to be while well thought out (congrats on your math skills) it was complete waste of time and energy. Ah motives. Funfun. I did not spend my time looking through the rules for loopholes; I was simply sitting one day doing my calculus homework and went. "Hey if XP awards are based off of average party level there is room for abuse." This is probably in part a result of my study of programming; part of my task when I design a system to be utilized it to find and eliminate inputs which could potentially crash the system. Thus when I read and use a system. I also look for these "crash values" not necessarily intentionally. Thus. I stumbled across this one a couple of day ago crunched some numbers for 10 minutes yesterday and have spent perhaps 20-30 minutes posting. Of course my motive for posting was distinct from my motive for finding; I was curious if wotc had found and eliminated the problem in 3.5 or failing that if perhaps it could be put on the radar for elimination in 4e. The reason it was never a problem for the reader was because 85% of us have enough common sense to know the game isn't about killing things to gain EXP and Cash it's about the RP experience. Hmmm.. most of my group would disagree. Our idea of rol(l)(e)playing is "Make a Diplomacy check." And usually we're lucky if we get that... Sorta sad but that is the state of things. Numbers don't argue cajole or whine. The remaining 15% are thinking up “Cheating The XP System” threads and doing the math as we speak all the while thinking Naruto is a real guy who can really do all those things. Hmmm.. who is this Naruto?... Naruto (NARUTO - ナルト -. Naruto?) is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Masashi Kishimoto with an anime adaptation. The main character. Naruto Uzumaki is a loud hyperactive unpredictable adolescent ninja who constantly searches for recognition as well as to become Hokage acknowledged as the leader and strongest of all ninja in the village. I think that I am mildly offended and will assume (perhaps unreasonably) that that particular crack was aimed specifically at me. If that is not the case. I apologize for any offense given below in advance. No manga is not to my taste. I find most anything boasting graphics and artistry as one of its primary draws to be "not to my taste." This is not to say that I code in assembly or play only Rogue-like games. However. I do turn graphics settings on all games I do play down to the minimum for improved performance and minimal distraction. As for my literary tastes. I prefer scifi/fantasy (big surprise). Currently staring at me on my bookshelf is (almost) the entire set-connected M:tG series (I am missing Legends cycle. Lorwyn several of the anthologies and the books that came before they were connected with sets). Behind those is my moderate Dragonlance collection. Also the Dhampir series (newer but none too bad) the Ender Quartet some Heinlein. Lord of the Rings. Silmarillion. Vector Prime. Dune three Lovecraft anthologies. The Uplift War. Flatland. Atlas Shrugged. Brave New World. Fahrenheit 451. 1984 and numerous others. Currently I am reading The Fountainhead (Rand). The Book of Five Rings (Musashi) and On the Theory and Practive of Evolutionary Algorithms (Thomas Back). So no no manga. And definitely no believing in it. Distinguishing between truth and falsehood is a vital skill (booleans are important). However (and no particular offense intended just advocating those pit fiends you mentioned earlier (which by the way being only CR16 in 3E if memory serves are suboptimal for a 20th level party)). I am curious as to your stance on American comic books in the superheroic style. Is it that you dislike graphic novels and comics in general or is it just those which are Japanese? (and no. I'm definitely not pulling a race card as I am whiter than an albino polar bear)
However (and no particular offense intended just advocating those pit fiends you mentioned earlier (which by the way being only CR16 in 3E if memory serves are suboptimal for a 20th level party)). I am curious as to your stance on American comic books in the superheroic style. Is it that you dislike graphic novels and comics in general or is it just those which are Japanese? (and no. I'm definitely not pulling a race card as I am whiter than an albino polar bear)This is a fair and honest question no offence taken. No. I happen to like comic books (d20 M&M. Aberrant) and even graphic novels and manga. I prefer to keep them far away from my D&D games however. And I certainly have nothing against anyone of a particular ethnicity again no offence taken. After all you don't me from Adam's house cat so there is no harm in asking to learn. What does bug the snot out of me is that the way Wizards designed the game they made the entire game a number crunching. 'kill things for loot and cash' scenario. Most of the books are filled with numeric tables that break down what you should have at X level and should get from each encounter as a result of being X level. It's made up to play like an MMORPG where the characters lack any real sense of being and as I read these forums (which I've done since day 1) I see through the years that the game itself is breaking down into a mockery of what it used to be. Guess I'm just ol' school. I remember when 200,000 XP wasn't enough to get a Fighter to 9th level. Now he’s 20th in only a few adventures. Oh and Pit Fiends are CR20 and can sometimes be found in groups of 4. For each pair of identical creatures the collective EL is increased by +2 I believe. (I don't have my books with me at the moment I’m at work.)
Oh and Pit Fiends are CR20 and can sometimes be found in groups of 4. For each pair of identical creatures the collective EL is increased by +2 I believe. (I don't have my books with me at the moment I’m at work.)Against. .0 vs.5. It always sort of irritated me that (in 3.0) balors were CR 18 while their devilish counterparts were only 16s. Also interesting was the fact that in 3.0. EL didn't count for XP but did count for treasure. I do agree that the game is mechanically geared heavily towards combat by design. Whether this is because combat can cause disagreements (which can be solved easily and impartially by rules and dice) or because it was engineered to be combat-focused is debatable. Of course since all the rules deal with combat when people spend time building a character's mechanics and stats they want to use them and the only way to do so (for most feats spells abilities etc) is in combat. As for MMOification of D&D. I am in no place to judge (haven't played MMOs). Also though I've been playing a couple of years our style (combat-focused) has remained basically constant. We tend to have an assigned plot or mission (as no character ever creates anything vaguely resembling a hook nor acts pre-emptively. I am forced to railroad for plots) with combats stemming from it and rewards for success following. However you are correct that most characters tend to be a bunch of stats. Though I have been attempting to alleviate this problem (by giving statistical bonuses for character; probably not the best way but the ends may justify the means) irregularity of gaming makes this difficult ryanlycaon: That is about what I tend to do for experience when I DM because having to keep track of XP is usually not worth the effort (primarily because we usually only play 2-4 sessions with the same set of characters (which equates to 1-4 months of realtime by the end of which interest has been lost)). I do run treasure by the tables usually modifying for plot and consistency ("Why is there a suit of +1 chainmail in a rust monster's hoard?").
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=959464
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
