What's the ideal rate of inflation XP should have when it comes to gain in levels? Are empty levels ever a good idea?
Empty levels are meaningless, since they defeat the purpose of having levels at all. It is paradoxical to have become better without actually becoming better.
You also don't want leveling to take more and more time (as they do in vidya) - just have the challenges in order to gain experience at all be harder.
The reason why there isn't a bunch of level 25 Fighters in the village guard isn't that they haven't trained - it's that they haven't got the guts to do the sort of deeds that would turn them into level 25s.
For a simple xp system, just have each level be achieved after, say, 10 challenges. If something the party does is too "low level", it just doesn't count. An easy challenge might count as 0.5 or 0.75, while a hard challenge counts as 1.5 or 2 regular challenges.
>>47740129
>For a simple xp system, just have each level be achieved after, say, 10 challenges. If something the party does is too "low level", it just doesn't count. An easy challenge might count as 0.5 or 0.75, while a hard challenge counts as 1.5 or 2 regular challenges.
I've normally just them them levelled as appropriate but the player keep on insisting I give them XP ( I guess it's the 'joy' of having numbers go up, what can I say, skinner was right).
Assuming a rate of steady rate of gaining one level every 3 sessions, what short of scaling should I give them?
>>47740078
>Are empty levels ever a good idea?
No. Especially if only certain classes get empty levels whereas others don't. A fighter getting more HP and a +1 to his BAB is pretty lame compared to the Wizard or Cleric getting a new gamebreaking spell.
Basically what >>47740129 said.
>>47740248
If you've already determined how often they will be leveling up, what do you mean by "scaling"? If you go by what I suggested in >>47740129, just reset xp each time they gain a level. The next level, they'll have to do something more challenging than previously, so the previously gained experience doesn't really count after they reach that level.
>>47740078
Don't think of xp, think of time, the question you should be asking is how much time should PCs spend at each level?
I tend to go for 2 sessions at level 1, then 4 sessions at each level after that when playing DnD, different systems vary of course, but from 3e onwards that tends to be a good pace
Obviously things get a bit tricky when looking back at editions when different classes gained levels at different amounts of exp
>>47740404
I'll probably do that.
The thing about scaling is there is a nice 'catch up' system to it. A level one character in a party of level 10 doing the appropriate activities will eventually eventually equal out. Which keeps chacter death an issue but not crippled
>>47740413
>Obviously things get a bit tricky when looking back at editions when different classes gained levels at different amounts of exp
Not just that, some classes explicitly gain XP at different rates as well.... on top of levelling at different points.
>>47740731
>'catch up' system
Just have the player gain XP faster proportionally to the level of the rest of the group.
Example:
Level 10 party with level 1 char. The level 10 party crosses out 1 challenge, which wasn't that big a deal. It was a big deal to the level 1 char, however, who crosses out 10 challenges instead. The level 5 char crosses out 2.
But I really wouldn't make players start at level 1 if they die. It's terrible enough to lose a character - and even if that character is somehow ressurected, it's still shameful to have fallen at all, and especially so if it drains the character's/the party's resources to spend on ressurrection. Just have the player start at the same level as the rest of the group.
Read more here: http://theangrygm.com/death-sucks/
>>47740078
I don't know if it's necessarily the right choice gameplay-wise, but from a pure mathematics perspective I love 4e's experience progression.
>>47740940
Yeah, but then death feels meaningless. I'd like to respectfully disagree--I don't think you should start their new character at level 1, but I think putting them a couple levels behind is reasonable. If the party is level 10, start the new character at 7-8.
>>47741482
Nothing prevents you from having adventurers come back somehow changed from having died, or with strange diseases, personality quirks or similar downsides.
D&D 4e imposes a kind of "ressurrection sickness" in the form of a stacking -1 penalty to all d20 rolls until the raised PC has completed three milestones (1 milestone = 2 encounters in a row without a long rest between them). That way, you don't have to keep track of which class features or spells you might lose - but the attack rolls/skill bonuses/defenses/spell DCs are still lowered.
But yeah, for entirely new characters they might as well start a level or two lower than the rest of the group. Although losing all the acquired loot, status and achievements of the old character is a harsh punishment already.
>>47741482
Even if it seems fair, having a character that you spent months building up die and having to start off weaker than the rest of the party is already a pretty shitty situation.
Think about it, you spent months and months and months of game time building up a character's power, gaining magic items, amassing spells/feats, and in one fell swoop, all that effort goes down the drain and you're forced to play a character that's weaker, less experienced, and less capable of handling the challenges that the party might face.
You go from a badass to dead weight and you're much closer to death than the rest of the party due to the fact that you have less HP and less AC than you did on your old character.
>>47740078
0
Level inflation is fucking idiotic.
Empty levels make players feel like shit and is why I hate d&d
>>47745985
Ditto
Agreed
+ 1
>>47740078
Empty levels are stupid, especially since it only really affects martials.
>>47741482
Yeah and having a steady XP inflation rate means they will ideally jump back to the action. The rest of the party simply won't constantly outpacing him because of the headstart.
Of course the GM could just simply say 'I guess jeff earns two levels now' during the game but it doesn't quite feel the same.
Actually forget everything I asked
I just wanted to know about XP formulas.
For example 3.5 had a fairly clear formula. To get to a new level, you need to gain XP equal to your current level x 1000.
So for instance, to get from 1st to second level, you need 1000 xp, from 2nd to 3rd level, you need 2000 more XP. Or another words have a total of 3000 XP.
If I was good at maths I could work out what the inflation rate is for that but I'm not.
>>47749668
I don't know that there's one right way of doing things. If a certain edition has a formula, it's probably because the designer found that aesthetically pleasing more than because the ideal progression can be mathematically derived somehow.
Here's one I'm working for my game. Essentially, the GM assesses the difficulty / importance of a challenge / encounter / task relative to the party's level and capability and awards a small number of XP on that basis, with 8 XP being the standard for a moderately challenging enocunter.
The "8 is average" figure applies if you're lumping everything together. If you wanted to, say, separately award XP for both fight strength and treasure found, you could reference the values on the far right, awarding an equal half of experience for each, or a big "half" for one and "small" half for the other (approximately one third and two thirds, respectively).
You start of needing to accomplish 8.75 average tasks / encounters / challenges / achievements to gain a level (to get to 2nd), and end up needing 25 (for any level above 10; it takes 20 to get to 10).
>>47749668
>If I was good at maths I could work out what the inflation rate is for that but I'm not.
You're increasing the amount of XP you need by an ever-shrinking fraction of what you needed last level.
To get to 3rd level, you need 1 1/2 times the XP you needed to get to 2nd. To get to 4th, you need 1 1/3 times the XP you needed to get to 3rd. Then 1 1/4, 1 1/5, 1 1/6, 1 1/7, 1 1/8, and so forth.
