|
It seems that one of the more generally disliked systems in D&D(up there near grapple, which looks great in the new rules by the way) is XP loss because its a very hard hitting and very permanent thing. Whether its through death, item crafting, or spells that need some sort of limiting factor, XP loss is difficult for players and DMs alike. No player wants his character to start behind and its just more of a headache to have to keep track of challenges for a group that is spread across a number of levels.
As far as a death mechanic, I personally would vouch for a system where if a character dies and is brought back by a means that normally results in level loss, they instead effectively have a negative level on them until they have gained half the XP needed to gain their next level. So for example, a first level character requires 1300xp to get to second level. If he dies he has an effective negative level on him until he gains 650xp from when he dies, meaning if he had 500xp already when he was raised he loses that negative level at 1150xp. Also, its important to note that they don't have to 'spend' this xp to recover the negative level, it simply lingers until they have gained that much and are then able to essentially shake it off. This allows you to keep all your characters in the same range they started in while still giving a real penalty for dying.
As far as magic items and spells go, I realize this is a much tougher matter. There needs to be a system that has real mechanics behind it that allows for their creation, but also limits the quantities that can be made/cast of them. In my campaigns I can simply tell my players that as long as they don't try and abuse it then I won't charge them xp for magical items they make, but that ends up being DM fiat and thus isn't very useful for a core manual.
I was curious what thoughts the developers had on this. Whether its a spell or a crafted item, I imagine that a hefty material component(at least comparatively to the item/spell in question) could really limit it, I've seen discussion elsewhere on turning XP costs into monetary costs, normally in the form of so much gold per XP. Otherwise, perhaps separating the magical crafter from the adventuring wizards a bit more? The artificer in Eberron did a pretty good job of doing this, allowing for a reserve pool. Something like an NPC class that is a magewright of sorts, that the players could dip into for flavor reasons for their characters, but which wouldn't be something built into the adventuring classes so much could work well.
Anyway, just thought this was an important topic and I wanted to see others thoughts on it.
-Tarlane
|
I read somewhere the idea of "XP Debt"; instead of losing the XP right away for spellcasting (or whatever) you incur a balance of XP debt that is paid out of future XP earned. I think the text suggested applying half XP earned toward your debt, so you'd advance roughly half as fast until it was paid off.
Also a big fan of super-spendy material components replacing the XP cost for spells. Getting the components together could be an adventure of its own! Much better than losing hard-earned XP, in my book.
|
|
I agree with your thoughts on the debt, though I tend to think that if you are going to cost XP for something, then it should be able to be contributed by the group as any items that are created, even if just given to one of the party members, normally has the groups best interest in mind and that will also help balance out having certain people falling behind. At the very least, having something like allowing the receiver to pay the xp debt instead of the crafter means that the one who gains the benefits also suffers the penalty, though I see how thats much less flavorful.
-Tarlane
In my campaigns I've decided to change to the Unearthed Arcana XP-progression tables WITH keeping the old XP-values intact. This slows the game down, certainly, but it also gives me the option to give higher story awards etc. Plus I also decided not to raise the xp-costs for items and spells...or if so, I will change it only slightly.
With such great numbers to achieve giving up those 2k XP when creating an item does not hurt you as much as in the original rules. (2k XP was a random number btw) Plus people will still consider creating more items since it will put them behind other non-crafting PCs
My feeling is that no spell should cost xp or even rare/expensive components. If a spell is balanced out by these extra costs, the spell needs to be powered down, so that there is no need for the extra price.
The reasons for this is simple.
Players (in my experience) will never choose to cast a spell that cost xp. Never.
Players will never want a spell with expensive components, they will feel cheated.
Rate components that need to be chased down, belong in magical rituals - part of some storyline plot or something - not regular everday spells.
Let me direct you to: Dead Heroes Aren't Much Fun.
The rules are OGC and work pretty well.
My feeling is that no spell should cost xp or even rare/expensive components. If a spell is balanced out by these extra costs, the spell needs to be powered down, so that there is no need for the extra price.
The reasons for this is simple.
Players (in my experience) will never choose to cast a spell that cost xp. Never.
Players will never want a spell with expensive components, they will feel cheated.
Rate components that need to be chased down, belong in magical rituals - part of some storyline plot or something - not regular everday spells.
If it requires that sort of component then it's not meant to be a regular, everyday spell. Not every spell you can memorize should be.
My feeling is that no spell should cost xp or even rare/expensive components.
I'm with you about the XP, definetly.
I don't quite know about the expensive stuff. I'm for cutting it back, but I think that some spells can keep the money-costing stuff.
I consider them "special powers" for wizards - they can afford to have some spells they only break out on special occasions. It's good for stuff that is never actually necessary, but if you use it, it will always be a great help.
Players (in my experience) will never choose to cast a spell that cost xp. Never.
It's my experience as well - from the people I play with and from myself.
Well, almost. But still it's exceedingly rare.
I think it's because you start lagging behind, and usually for something that benefits the party as a whole.
Players will never want a spell with expensive components, they will feel cheated.
If it's something you'd use regularly, I agree. Stoneskin? Would be great, but you need to keep spending money on it. I'd say you can bump it up a level or two and just forget the expensive stuff. True Seeing? Psions get to manifest it without paying anything (and they also get something akin to Stoneskin without cost - actually, it's better, since it's DR/-).
As I said, make it big stuff, stuff that will really help. You can get people to chip in - or even have others sponsor you.
|
Regarding level loss for dying: Although I agree with the sentiment of removing the level loss, dying should hurt. Otherwise who cares (within reason - like you have a high level cleric in the party!) There should be a pretty painful mechanic.
Oh and I still make people lose levels from certain undead. It does make them fear them big time - which they should!
Actually as both a player and DM, I've dealt with spells that cost XP with little to no problem- it just requires an excessive amount of forethought beforehand, and let's be honest: it's just XP. I've had more problems with players spending money, the greedy little bastiches.
|
I don't think XP should ever be a commodity at the Player's disposal. I use the following house rules to handle these costs.
Death: Players suffer 1 negative level (as if level drained) and also have their maximum age reduced by 10. This aging effect does not actually affect your current age, just the point at which you die from old age. the negative level requires greater restoration, miracle, or wish to negate. lesser restoration will not work.
Spells: spells with XP components instead age a character based on the following list.
* Atonement: 10 years
* Awaken: 5 years
* Commune: 1 year
* Gate: 20 years
* Limited Wish: 2 years
* Miracle: 25 years
* Permanency: 1 to 9 years (level of spell to be made permanent)
* Planar Ally: 5 years
* Planar Ally, Greater: 10 years
* Planar Ally, Lesser: 1 year
* Restoration, Greater: 10 years
* Simulacrum: 1 year per 2 HD
* Vision: 1 year
* Wish: 25 years +
Magic Items: Item creation feats provide a number of XP to spend on crafting equal to 500 +100 per item creation feat you possess per character level . This cost increases as you level up. A first level wizard starts play with 600xp (500 +100 from scribe scroll). A 4th level wizard with scribe scroll would have 2,400xp for crafting, at 5th level he gains a further 600xp, at 6th level he takes craft wand gaining 600xp from craft wand feat and a further 100xp from scribe scroll feat. for a total of 4,200xp.
Should a wizard require more xp to craft items he can convert his age into XP, adding 1 year of his age for each 1,000xp he wishes to spend.
magic items that require spells with XP components must pay the aging costs listed under spells in addition to the XP the item requires, you cannot use the xp from item creation feats to pay the cost of spells.
The aging effects from magic item creation and from casting spells affects your current age but does not provide you with the mental benefits from that aging, it does still affect your physical stats.
All aging effects are permanent, however, a character could magically extend his maximum age through spells such as Miracle or Wish.
I don't think XP should ever be a commodity at the Player's disposal. I use the following house rules to handle these costs.
Death: Players suffer 1 negative level (as if level drained) and also have their maximum age reduced by 10. This aging effect does not actually affect your current age, just the point at which you die from old age. the negative level requires greater restoration, miracle, or wish to negate. lesser restoration will not work.
I like that, and I will incorporate that into my campaign. It'll still drain the party of resources (paying an NPC cleric to cast the spell for example) but won't cause them to lag behind in level and power. Even if they are high enough level to accomplish the goal can still let it have a bit of bite by having the negative level linger for a short time. Perhaps 1 week - the clerics wisdom modifier to show the effect of shaking off the journey to the other side.
As far as aging instead of xp loss.... i like SOME of that and may incorporate it. I'd say if wish or miracle was used to instead duplicate another spell eliminate the cost (unless the spell duplicated has a cost of its own) and permanency is good assuming that you can draw off of the lifeforce of the one being enchanted (making darkvision permanent on party members for example). Doubt many NPCs or even PCs would be willing to do it if it meant them losing a year or two each time someone wanted the enchantment.
Losing years instead of XP might work to a point, but in the end your still punishing a character for creating magic items. I'm not sure what the perfect solution would be. Maybe a combination of approaches. Perhaps similar to your idea, but give them a number of points per level, with a bonus amount for each creation feat they take.
I guess I'm gonna break the trend here. I've always liked XP loss as a mechanic. Partly because they are "easily" replaceable, and in general my group has always found progression too fast. We've even used them as a form of planar currency (in the sense of selling part of the soul), for switching out previous feats/skill choices, and altering "permanent" class option choices. This is likely a quirk of my group since our "sweet spot" for adventure is roughly 1-8, nobody gets upset at being "held back", and they've never been able to resist a side trek.