expirience awards

[cccpxepoj]

haw much expirience do you recieve or award per game/adventure/quest........
I am starting this thread to show my G.M. that he is way to stingy, because after 2 years of real time ( 10 years in Game),recreation of the empire, adventuring, fighting orogs,goblins,elves,Gorgon, we are only 4th level

[irdeggman]

I use the CR system of 3.5 (since I no longer play 2nd ed).

I also do not award xp for domain actions - they have their own inherent awards (like status, RP, GB and the like).

[kgauck]

Your DM may just prefer low level play, and looking at the books and how low level a lot of major rulers are, wanted to keep to that spirit.

[MatanThunder]

:D

2nd Ed Grants full experience value by hit dice to those using class related powers, skills, melee abilities, spell casting, etc.... For use of magic items that mimic class powers related to the PC class the awards are also full.

I award 1/2 Exp for actions that aren't directly derived from PC class, skills, race. They are acting out of character.

For avoiding melee and using the ol' brain pan for something other than head butting the competition into submission I award 10% of the total creatures avoided to the PC. So it still pays to avoid conflict, and can lead to some bling if they can sneak away with it.

There are also those one time bonuses (1-5K) for just plain great ideas (or something funny that lends a sense of flavor to the game). Jack Frost the 1/2 Frost Giant once got the 5K for jamming a lance up a frozen horses nether regions looking at the rest of the party and pronouncing, "Horse on a stick"!!!! It had the group rolling on the floor....or you just might of had to be there to get it.

Don't be afraid to award innovative thought, and unique uses of class/skills/race abilities.

Later

:cool:

[cccpxepoj]

I use the CR system of 3.5 (since I no longer play 2nd ed).

I also do not award xp for domain actions - they have their own inherent awards (like status, RP, GB and the like).

so as our GM (but we still are low levels )

[cccpxepoj]

Your DM may just prefer low level play, and looking at the books and how low level a lot of major rulers are, wanted to keep to that spirit.

yes but in some point of game we should advance, i mean we started from a bottom and climbed to the highest peaks trough blood,guts,intrigues,secrets,plots that took as a days to brainstorm......
And in the end , at least i, do not feel satisfied.
I mean yes i have powerful organization, yes i speak whit the dukes of Anuire as equal, but any of my solders have a fair chance to cut me in peaces.
But this is just moaning, and has no point i as GM are much more generous and i like it the players are scions of the divine bloodlines for gods sake they are superior over a common people in power,wealth,culture,and personal strength( nobility from the past had much superior training than a commoners)

[kgauck]

I can appreciate your dilema. You and your GM do not share a view of how advancement should work. Any time either one of you don't agree on some aspect of the game that either of you feel is important, you are going to have some problems. Hopefully these are not too great of a problem, just frustrations.

Maybe the next game can be more heroic, or a side game can be run with more rapid advancement. No game will ever be the perfect game, so a certain amount of frustration is inevitable. So it is when ever any group assembles for a common task.

[ShadowMoon]

Since in my campaign I use Wounds instead of Hit Points, and Armor Absorbation instead of stupid basic AC my players can get hacked too by their guards, and they are lvl 10-13 now...

^^;

[cccpxepoj]

Since in my campaign I use Wounds instead of Hit Points, and Armor Absorbation instead of stupid basic AC my players can get hacked too by their guards, and they are lvl 10-13 now...

^^;

yes that is not a bad idea, but at least your players feel the advance of their characters, cause they 12-13 lvl.

[irdeggman]

:D

2nd Ed Grants full experience value by hit dice to those using class related powers, skills, melee abilities, spell casting, etc.... For use of magic items that mimic class powers related to the PC class the awards are also full.

Hit dice had no play in the PC's awarding of xp in 2nd ed. All creatures had a set amount of xp and the awards were per spell level, per 5 gp, etc. The only thing I recall having to do with HD was the individual "kill awards".

And those options, while commonly used (we used them), were actually an "optional" award system per the DMG. I'm not certain if there were "awards" listed for using magic items, there were for "creating" them though. And IIRC only the cleric/druids had a restriction on awards for casting spells (they had to be IAW their "ethos" or something like that.

I had major issues with the entire system there because it rewarded individual play instead of "team work" - one of the best improvements made by 3.x. Also every class had its own xp table and thieves advanced so darn fast. They had the quickest advancement table and the most liberal "class awards" in the book. We had several "resentments" over the fact that the character that got the kill got the bulk of the xp even though a different character had in fact dealt almost all of the damage to the opponent. We referred to this as "stealing the kill" and it was a common practice which led to a lot of resentment for non-spell caster types.

[AndrewTall]

Another improvement is that role-play awards can be used at all levels in consistent amounts without needing to be recalibrated each level, and minimal xp for dealing with petty threats is actively built into the system.

The lack of xp for 'non-kill' activity such as good ideas, heroism, playing in-character against a players better judgment, preparation of DM aides, etc (one of the few things I really liked about palladium games) seemed to be a curious omission from 3e to me.

[MatanThunder]

:cool:


Hit dice had no play in the PC's awarding of xp in 2nd ed. All creatures had a set amount of xp and the awards were per spell level, per 5 gp, etc. The only thing I recall having to do with HD was the individual "kill awards".

With all due respect.....You are wrong here sir. I have played for 40 years and 2nd ed for 30ish of those. The experience awards were based on HIT DICE...then a HP bonus.....Then a bonus for lesser powers based on HIT DICE again....Then a bonus for greater powers based again on HIT DICE!


And those options, while commonly used (we used them), were actually an "optional" award system per the DMG. I'm not certain if there were "awards" listed for using magic items, there were for "creating" them though. And IIRC only the cleric/druids had a restriction on awards for casting spells (they had to be IAW their "ethos" or something like that.

Not optional for the base HIT DICE idea if that is your continued contention here!. Also the DMG listed experience awards were for SELLING the item only. You got that EXP for divesting yourself of the bling thing (magic item), and therefor some PC's were likely to sell magic items (especially at low level) in order to advance in levels faster....should the dice favor.....and the DM be generous!!


I had major issues with the entire system there because it rewarded individual play instead of "team work" - one of the best improvements made by 3.x.

Sorry to hear it.....I have the reverse opinion of yours it seems and really find the entire power tree systems of 3.?? to be........lacking in critical issues.

My entire post is not to be taken personally!!!

I am just posting that you may be wrong (I will find the page later if you still contend it isn't HD based), in the experience point award system for 2nd ed.

Later

:cool:

[irdeggman]

:cool:



With all due respect.....You are wrong here sir. I have played for 40 years and 2nd ed for 30ish of those. The experience awards were based on HIT DICE...then a HP bonus.....Then a bonus for lesser powers based on HIT DICE again....Then a bonus for greater powers based again on HIT DICE!

Yes and no. {Oh and I have been playing since I was seventeen and am now 49 so I am no newbie. I resent the assumption that I know nothing of 2nd ed. I started with 1st ed and then switched to 2nd ed when I joined a group running a Dark Sun campaign. We started BR about 2 months after it came out. We then switched to the Player's Option Series when that came out (Combat and tactics came out almost in parralel with the BR box set). We then played Alternity (in parallel with our D&D game, yet another game mechanic. We then switched to 3.0 (and 3.5) because it had a lot of really good ideas and new concepts that we found exciting.}

Pg 69 of the DMG Creature experience point table does indeed list xp value based on hit dice.

But each monser listed in the Monstrous Manual lists its own xp value to use instead of the base one for hit die. While these do include (for the most part) the hit die ratio - that is not necessarily always accurate.




Not optional for the base HIT DICE idea if that is your continued contention here!. Also the DMG listed experience awards were for SELLING the item only. You got that EXP for divesting yourself of the bling thing (magic item), and therefor some PC's were likely to sell magic items (especially at low level) in order to advance in levels faster....should the dice favor.....and the DM be generous!!

I was referring to the class awards - which you specifically mentioned.

DMG pg 70 Individual Experience Awards (Optional Rule) - which includes table 33 for common individual awards (which has 50-100 xp for clever ideas and not 1k to 5k. A 1k "great idea" award would almost level up a thief everytime.

These class based awards have per HD of creature defeated (for warriors (10 xp/ HD) and rogues (5 xp/HD)

Wizards
making a potion or scroll - xp value
Making permanent magical item - xp value

(Table 34 makes no mention of "selling" the magic item)

Priests:
Per successful use of granted power 100 xp
Spells cast to further ethos 100 xp/ spell level

Rogues
200 xp for successful use of special ability
2 xp/gp obtained as treasure
5 xp/hd of creatures defeated

Thieves were the "worst" offenders with this class award system.

Their xp advancement table was the easiest.

1,250 for 2nd level
2,500 for 3rd
160,000 for 10th
1,100,000 for 15th

compared to a fighter (paladins and rangers had a harder table)
2,000 for 2nd
4,000 for 3rd
500,000 for 10th
1,750,000 for 15th




My entire post is not to be taken personally!!!

Then please refrain from using large and/or bolded fonts, which commonly signify "YELLING", especially when they are specifically inserted and not the normal posting style used. It is a very upsetting habit to have.

[MatanThunder]

:cool:

Yes....NOT NO!!

Page 47 DMG 2nd Ed....clearly states that HIT DICE are used in the resolving of experience......

Which you had contended in your post was not the case.

I had a feeling that you might not like someone mentioning that this is exactly how experience is deteremined....although I resorted to my house rules of using a 1st ed variation of the awards based on HD & HP. The DMG clearly states that HD & special powers determine the value of experience earned.

Page 48 goes on with an Optional rule about the experience earned and to the right of that is a Class Awards system that I hadn't read for years....thanks for setting me up for the refresher course.

Now drop the attitude please.......I was simply saying that you were wrong for saying, "Experience was not based on Hit Dice"......which page 47 clearly states it is.

I also know that each DM is an island unto themselves for rules selection, and that we all play it a little different.

Each to their own!!

Later

:rolleyes:

P.S. Nice to post to another ol' gamer.....I started in 1976 on the University of Fairbanks campus......in a 4th story dorm room facing the Denali Mountain range....EPIC!!

[Thelandrin]

For the record, Matan, I edited your post to remove the huge, overblown, unnecessary font choices you were making. Also, making comments like "drop the attitude" are not helpful and distinctly a double-edged sword, as they could easily be construed as an attitude of your own.

Play nice, people.

[irdeggman]

:cool:

Yes....NOT NO!!

Page 47 DMG 2nd Ed....clearly states that HIT DICE are used in the resolving of experience......

Which you had contended in your post was not the case.

I had a feeling that you might not like someone mentioning that this is exactly how experience is deteremined....although I resorted to my house rules of using a 1st ed variation of the awards based on HD & HP. The DMG clearly states that HD & special powers determine the value of experience earned.


yes and of course still a no.

Your original post stated:


2nd Ed Grants full experience value by hit dice to those using class related powers, skills, melee abilities, spell casting, etc.... For use of magic items that mimic class powers related to the PC class the awards are also full.

Which pretty much states that the use of class abilities was awarded "based on hit dice".

I strayed somewhat on this one and lost my the point I was trying to make, which was that individual awards (like those for class based powers and abilities) were not tied to the character's hit dice. This is the implication of your post. I did provide the brief summary of how that portion worked. This can be real confusing for those who had never played 2nd ed since in the 3.x system the amount of xp awarded is dependent on the PC's hit dice (actually character level - which includes any non-hit dice type of LA applied).

So in 2nd ed a 15th level fighter defeating a plain orc received the same amount of xp as did a 1st level fighter. While the 15th level fighter would come no where near to advancing in level as would the 1st level fighter he still received the same award.

In 3.5 a 15th level fighter who defeats a plain (i.e., 1 HD orc warrior, CR 1/2) would receive 0 xp since it is not considered a challenge, while a 1st fighter would receive 150 xp (1st level character versus a CR 1/2 creature). The assumption here is for single combat, that is a party of 1 so division of xp.


So essentially a PC's level had relatively nothing to do with the xp he received as awards. It did, however, have a factor in how much xp he needed to advance (but the same is true in 3.5 with regards to xp for advancement) - and the tables were not linear nor could I ever determine what the mathematical basis was for them since they varied drastically as the character progressed in level and pretty much no two types had the same table. The wizard table was by far the strangest one. At low levels they were the most difficult to advance, then they became almost the easiest at mid-levels only to again become the hardest at higher levels

[cccpxepoj]

ADND 2nd edition, man, i can hardly remember it.
But it brings a nice memories back.
:)

[irdeggman]

ccpxepoj,

How many of the actons accomplished were at the domain level?

In the adventuring/encounter front how many NPCs were involved? That is followers, body guards, cohorts, lieutenants, etc?

For domain level actions - there is really near the xp awards you might think available. The BRCS only has a "variant" for domain level awards and that is really small when compared to adventuring awards. (from 50 to 100 xp/PC levle per action). In 2nd ed only the PC game had an award system for domain actions - there were no "official" rules for it. Many people did, however, post their house-rules on the boards and some managed to "crack" the PC games system.

For a lot of NPCs. While the RAW has them not count (that is any associated with the Leadership feat) in the xp split - many people choose to have them count. Those that count them consider the fact that they "lessoned" the risk associated with the encounter, usually substantially and count them in the sahares given. I believe one of the most common variations is to have them count as 1/2 a PC. The BRCs (chap 8) has a variant that counts all cohorts and Lts as full PCs and body guards and followers as 1/2.

So there may be many reasons why the PCs' levels are relatively low.

Not having sufficient details of the game I couldn't offer a better rationalization than the above.

[cccpxepoj]

ccpxepoj,

How many of the actons accomplished were at the domain level?

In the adventuring/encounter front how many NPCs were involved? That is followers, body guards, cohorts, lieutenants, etc?

For domain level actions - there is really near the xp awards you might think available. The BRCS only has a "variant" for domain level awards and that is really small when compared to adventuring awards. (from 50 to 100 xp/PC levle per action). In 2nd ed only the PC game had an award system for domain actions - there were no "official" rules for it. Many people did, however, post their house-rules on the boards and some managed to "crack" the PC games system.

For a lot of NPCs. While the RAW has them not count (that is any associated with the Leadership feat) in the xp split - many people choose to have them count. Those that count them consider the fact that they "lessoned" the risk associated with the encounter, usually substantially and count them in the sahares given. I believe one of the most common variations is to have them count as 1/2 a PC. The BRCs (chap 8) has a variant that counts all cohorts and Lts as full PCs and body guards and followers as 1/2.

So there may be many reasons why the PCs' levels are relatively low.

Not having sufficient details of the game I couldn't offer a better rationalization than the above.
Every GM, different rules i have nothing against it, i just started this thread to see how people think about that topic, and to compare it to my opinion.
Thank you all.

[MatanThunder]

:cool:


ADND 2nd edition, man, i can hardly remember it.
But it brings a nice memories back.

The price is right too for the entire set up...if you care to download it. $5 vs $30+ for 3.??

The system has its good and bad points, but with a number of reviews on Amazon, (and my own), for the 3.?? materials.....it seems that 3.?? isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

I have most of the 2nd ed stuff++, but at $5 per any type of release digitally I think that some more frugal gamers might just like it a little better than trying to find that NON FLUFF 3.?? material.

Later


Irreg...........:rolleyes:

[cccpxepoj]

:cool:



The price is right too for the entire set up...if you care to download it. $5 vs $30+ for 3.??

The system has its good and bad points, but with a number of reviews on Amazon, (and my own), for the 3.?? materials.....it seems that 3.?? isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

I have most of the 2nd ed stuff++, but at $5 per any type of release digitally I think that some more frugal gamers might just like it a little better than trying to find that NON FLUFF 3.?? material.

Later


Irreg...........:rolleyes:

i have most of 2.ed. books in hardcopy or pdf , i just haven't used it in the last 7 years (i think:confused: ) but thanks anyway

[MatanThunder]

:cool:

Each to their own......

For me I refuse to buy their over priced so called New material. Since most of the ideas in the game were just converted in the d20/3.?? era...it is really just reselling everyone the same material with the new (and not very improved) system.

I vote with my wallet and don't buy the new stuff....I have read it (one of my sons play that version), but they are offering nothing new....just reworked to be sold to the new generations.

I'll save an average of $25 per purchase....and now whatever anyone else posts is pretty much official since W****** of the C*** have given up on that edition.

They did do a fine job with Experience in 2nd ed though. Third has offered very little to improve that part of the game.

Later

:cool:

[RaspK_FOG]

Allow me to remind you that bashing D&D 3rd Edition is hardly any aspect expected of any forum; I don't mind your opinion, I mind it being stated over quite about anything (it's getting a little like the old Mountain Dew jokes)...

On the other hand, I do agree that AD&D 2nd Edition was a fine system if you cared to curb somes issues it had; the Player's Options series is particularly important to that goal, and I am almost certain I'll be using it for my next campaign (a Masque of the Red Death one; I initially had that grand desire to convert it to Alternity, but I realised that the feel of the setting would be turned into a more pulpish one, something that I may want to do in the future, if my players all want to play normal, gun-totting humans, but is awful in this case otherwise).

[irdeggman]

I have to agree with RaspK_FOG here. The almost constant backhanded "bashing" of 3.5 serves no purpose. Most people are using it now and almost every new member is, since those who have started gaming within the past 7 years or so have most probably not seen 2nd except on the "discount shelf", which is sad because there is a lot to learn from "history".

I am not bashing 2nd ed - which I liked, especially the Player's Option stuff (except for the split ability scores - which I felt led directly to the min/max/powergamer/munkinism that I really don't like).

[cccpxepoj]

i started to play RPG with older players than me, so i learned 2nd edition and it was great, but in time we started to use 3rd,and after some time 3.5 edition, there is maybe a one party of "veterans" still using 2ed in my town .
and yes the newer generations never seen books for 2nd edition not even in discount shelf. sad but that is the way of life.

[irdeggman]

:cool:
They did do a fine job with Experience in 2nd ed though. Third has offered very little to improve that part of the game.

:cool:

To each his own. . . .

But I disagree with this one though.

xp and the challenge system is the one area that 3.5 drastically improved, by design, the system used in 2nd ed.

3.5 has the CR system which gives a relatively easy way to judge what is an appropriate encounter level for a party of PCs. 2nd required extensive "eye-balling" and quite often "dice fudging" in order to keep things from getting out of hand (either way too easy or way too difficult).

3.5 has much improved way of handling "balance".

In 2nd ed the xp tables for each class were not the same, and if using the optional "class-based" awards (which from my experience almost everyone used in some manner or another) things got even more out of whack. This system (class-based awards combined with differeing xp tables) encouraged PCs playing for themselves by competing for xp. How many times has this situation come up - a fighter keeps on whacking at the BBEG for round after round, all by himself, and the thief gets in one final hit and gets the "klil" and thus robs the fighter of his class-based award? - in our Dark Sun game is was quite often and the reason why our DM added a house rule to award xp based on damaged dealt in addition to the "kill" award.

3.5 has all classes advance in the same way, with xp awards based on team play and cooperation. There are no individual awards (except for role-playing) awarded in 3.5 period. This in itself encourages a group to act more like a team instead of plotting to get one up on the other PCs. Heck the PHB II pg 157+ has an optional rule for "teamwork benefits" that goes even further.

In 2nd ed a 1st level human fighter was not the same, xp wise, as was a 1st level elf wizard. The elf was worth more xp due to "special" abilities. In 3.5 they are both CR 1 and have the same xp advancement requirements.


But to each his own. . . . .

[MatanThunder]

:rolleyes:


(it's getting a little like the old Mountain Dew jokes)...

And I like my Mountain Dew.....

I hate to point it out, but you said I should lay off the edition material then our local pundant came out with his response.

Let me respond please.


But I disagree with this one though.

xp and the challenge system is the one area that 3.5 drastically improved, by design, the system used in 2nd ed.

2nd ed exp worked just fine for 20 years and illicted much less negative feedback than many other things like THACO for those unable to wrap their minds around the whole positive/negative number line issue.

At the advent of the 3.?? era the Experience issues didn't even make it on the radar.

Its really all the same thing set up for resale.

It is a point system that will allow the achieving of level advancements. Thats it for either system.


3.5 has the CR system which gives a relatively easy way to judge what is an appropriate encounter level for a party of PCs. 2nd required extensive "eye-balling" and quite often "dice fudging" in order to keep things from getting out of hand (either way too easy or way too difficult).

That not really an issue. It isn't the DM's problem if the PC's cross paths with a monster above their skill level. If they tempt fate by trying to cross blades with something that will kill them then they DESERVE to die.....period!!

I never fudged the dice and my players, and I as a PC ,were smart enough to spot the NO win situation when we saw it.

I let the dice decide the encounters randomly.....It is a dice game afterall.

If my pet creature was killed by a lucky roll then the fates were lucky to the PC's that day, and if my monster pounded the head of the lead PC in a wide arc then the party learned that even an orc can get lucky from time to time.

No CR is and continues to be a crutch for DM's who want to control their PC's lives as much as the game they are running. I like free will and randomness.


3.5 has much improved way of handling "balance".

Balanced smalnced....if the dice are lucky your PC or gamers grow. If the dice suck then it is time to roll up a new PC or monster no problem at all.


3.5 has all classes advance in the same way, with xp awards based on team play and cooperation.

Which is another reason that 3.?? is not that good.

Nothing in life is fair ever!!!

In this game (the young espcially) should find that there are consequences in their actions even in games. Do something dumb and you die.

The classes are like the social classes in our society. To try to equalize one at the expense of the others is exactly the same as the old communist block ideas of forced equality and eventually doomed to failure just like that system.

At 1st level the classes are staggered like this basically in regards to class strength and survivablity. Fighter, Thief, Cleric, & Mage.

Now when you reach the mid levels the classes each have a more balanced aspect, but I would rate the progression as Cleric, Fighter, Thief, & Mage.

It is only when you reach the higher levels that the progression goes to Mage, Cleric, Fighter, & Thief.

No matter how 3.?? tries to play the communist "Fair & Equal" will it ever truely be that way. And nor should it be.

Reflect the real world in you fantasy gaming, or don't each to their own, but I always come back to the realism of the real world to reflect the hard life lessons that we as people or the PC's in our games should learn.

A laborer, lawyer, doctor, or political person are not equal either....but that is the real world social class we live in. Some learn more than others and this lends them power.....like the role playing game we all play!

Later

:cool:

[ShadowMoon]

Communism was not doomed because it "forced" equality among classes, it was doomed more because it forced people period. And their error was based on the idea that if all people are equal should have equal needs...

Sorry, I know it is off-topic, but still, this anti-communism 40-ties propaganda just screams for a reaction.

><;

[RaspK_FOG]

I'd advise people to stay OFF the political chit-chat too while on these boards; if you please?

On the matter of XP, the benefits of a uniform scale is that, now, levels make more sense in a way, since pre-3rd-edition D&D suffered from a common error in design: multi-layered overcompensation.

Your mage is supposed to be weak, right? So he gets a lower THAC0, cannot wear armour or use some weapons, gets fewer hit points, and so on; but it does not stop there, does it? Your wizard takes a great leap forward initially, but suddenly remains far behind! He not only is weaker in almost any other aspect apart from spellcasting when compared to other characters, he also progresses even SLOWER than the rest in that already weak progression!

[Thelandrin]

Now that Irdeggman has started his handy "I'm better than you etc." thread, any such edition-bashing posts not directly connected with the post title will get summarily banished there.

[cccpxepoj]

Communism was not doomed because it "forced" equality among classes, it was doomed more because it forced people period. And their error was based on the idea that if all people are equal should have equal needs...

Sorry, I know it is off-topic, but still, this anti-communism 40-ties propaganda just screams for a reaction.

><;

i agree whit ShadowMoon in some point, but this is not thread dedicated to political themes ( at least not from our world ).