|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 3:07PM
#21
|
|
|
Congratulations, you have found perhaps the biggest flaw with Bounded Accuracy: you're level 1, you sneak around and look for a monster that gives enough EXP to get you to level 2, and while it sleeps, you gut it. Level up! Or if you want a team effort, find a monster that gives 650 * the number of participants EXP, and with appropriate tactics, level up in one go.
With monsters not gaining significant amounts of HP to make up for the lack of defense increase, the DM now has to employ anti-magic sphere-style areas that are anti-stealth AND use non-monster obstacles JUST to prevent a level-up-per-encounter when playing by-the-rules.
HP is one of the only things that IS supposed to scale significantly. A low level character will not cause enough damage to kill a high level target. This is NOT a flaw of bounded accuracy. Besides, I don't understand how increased defenses would help a helpless creature not get gutted.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS.
Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 5:04PM
#22
|
|
|
Congratulations, you have found perhaps the biggest flaw with Bounded Accuracy: you're level 1, you sneak around and look for a monster that gives enough EXP to get you to level 2, and while it sleeps, you gut it. Level up! Or if you want a team effort, find a monster that gives 650 * the number of participants EXP, and with appropriate tactics, level up in one go.
With monsters not gaining significant amounts of HP to make up for the lack of defense increase, the DM now has to employ anti-magic sphere-style areas that are anti-stealth AND use non-monster obstacles JUST to prevent a level-up-per-encounter when playing by-the-rules.
HP is one of the only things that IS supposed to scale significantly. A low level character will not cause enough damage to kill a high level target. This is NOT a flaw of bounded accuracy. Besides, I don't understand how increased defenses would help a helpless creature not get gutted.
Except when you look at the playtest material, a low level character CAN cause enough damage to kill a high level target. There is simply no real difference between a level 4 and a level 1 opponent beyond a FEW hit points. In fact there is no monster EXP table, so any monster can give any amount of EXP -- see Orc vs. Gnoll vs. Troll.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 2:14AM
#23
|
|
|
Congratulations, you have found perhaps the biggest flaw with Bounded Accuracy: you're level 1, you sneak around and look for a monster that gives enough EXP to get you to level 2, and while it sleeps, you gut it. Level up! Or if you want a team effort, find a monster that gives 650 * the number of participants EXP, and with appropriate tactics, level up in one go.
With monsters not gaining significant amounts of HP to make up for the lack of defense increase, the DM now has to employ anti-magic sphere-style areas that are anti-stealth AND use non-monster obstacles JUST to prevent a level-up-per-encounter when playing by-the-rules.
HP is one of the only things that IS supposed to scale significantly. A low level character will not cause enough damage to kill a high level target. This is NOT a flaw of bounded accuracy. Besides, I don't understand how increased defenses would help a helpless creature not get gutted.
Except when you look at the playtest material, a low level character CAN cause enough damage to kill a high level target. There is simply no real difference between a level 4 and a level 1 opponent beyond a FEW hit points. In fact there is no monster EXP table, so any monster can give any amount of EXP -- see Orc vs. Gnoll vs. Troll.
Yeah I did a math work up in another thread and it turns out only solos have decent hit points right up til around level 5. At that point it takes the Wizard a few spells to take out the regulars. Just the Flaming Sphere spell alone deals 28.86 over the course of 4 rounds and that's not counting the Wizard's ability to use another spell along side it for 3 rounds...
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 7:10AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2008
|
Yeah. Experienced DMs know how to tweak XP and adjust rewards to reflect the pace at which he wants level advancement to go, but it's not fair to assume every DM is that knowledgable and prepared to put the work in.
Beyond that, XPs should reflect relative challenge of one creature compared to another. If Monster A is worth 75 XPs and Monster B is worth 450, I would expect Monster B to be significantly more dificult than A.
It simply is not the case at this point. Give me One Orc right now over 8 Kobolds. Yeah, individually, he's pretty nasty, but on whole, he's not that much worse.
In fact, a clever, prepared first level group could take down 5 orcs for almost 3/4ths a level much easier than 33 Kobolds that would be required for about the same XPs needless to say. That's a whole lost of Mob Tactics (hate it as currently written) and Sling Shots (that are better to hit and do the same damage as Orc ranged attacks).
XP may not be of highest important at this stage, but it still needs to be looked at and worked on because it's still important in the long run.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 10:38AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2012
|
I had a big problem with the xp per level. Sure I can use my mighty DM powers to tell players "NO NO, YOU NO LEVEL YET!!! RAWR" but we have been (at least trying) to play the packets AS WRITTEN for testing purposes. We try to keep house rules to a minimum until the game is fully released. The players will level up way too quickly in the current rules, we were all a bit shocked when we saw the numbers.
I have no complaint about the actual xp value of creatures. I understand that they are using it as an encounter building tool, i like that aspect of it just fine.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 12:00PM
#26
|
|
|
I've never been a fan of giving XPs for killing monsters.
That just encourages players to 'clear the level' instead of work towards goals. The tipping point for me was when a player asked how many xps he could get for killing everyone in the town where the party had just finished saving the townsfolk from orcs. The same player wanted to wander around the forest and find random encounters till he leveled up.
I give xps for accomplishments. I know the historic way in D&D is to kill/get xp/repeat, but I play a game that is less combat driven. I don't want a group to skip RP and problem solving and want to jump into the fights. I've spent several sessions in a row without a fight, so I'd hate to have a game where the characters don't feel like the play time was rewarding.
An example from my one of my 'no XPs for killing monsters' sessions:
XP rewards for:
Figuring out what happened to the blacksmiths daughter
Tracking the kidnappers to their camp
Defeating the leader of the kidnappers (dead or alive)
Returning the missing girl alive
Bonus XP if they:
Figured out the reason for the kidnapping
Talked their way into extra rewards
Uncovered a villian in the town
Anything random that suprised or impressed me
While there were several fights in the adventure, only one gave XPs. The party raided the camp, but they would have gotten the same xps if they had found a way to trick the kidnappers or sneak the hostage out.
I've always prefered adventures where the characters optimized for combat were not the 'best' characters to have.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 3:47PM
#27
|
|
|
I've never been a fan of giving XPs for killing monsters.
That just encourages players to 'clear the level' instead of work towards goals. The tipping point for me was when a player asked how many xps he could get for killing everyone in the town where the party had just finished saving the townsfolk from orcs. The same player wanted to wander around the forest and find random encounters till he leveled up.
I give xps for accomplishments. I know the historic way in D&D is to kill/get xp/repeat, but I play a game that is less combat driven. I don't want a group to skip RP and problem solving and want to jump into the fights. I've spent several sessions in a row without a fight, so I'd hate to have a game where the characters don't feel like the play time was rewarding.
An example from my one of my 'no XPs for killing monsters' sessions:
XP rewards for:
Figuring out what happened to the blacksmiths daughter
Tracking the kidnappers to their camp
Defeating the leader of the kidnappers (dead or alive)
Returning the missing girl alive
Bonus XP if they:
Figured out the reason for the kidnapping
Talked their way into extra rewards
Uncovered a villian in the town
Anything random that suprised or impressed me
While there were several fights in the adventure, only one gave XPs. The party raided the camp, but they would have gotten the same xps if they had found a way to trick the kidnappers or sneak the hostage out.
I've always prefered adventures where the characters optimized for combat were not the 'best' characters to have.
That pretty much how Skill Challenges in 4E were supposed to work in theory: the DM sets up situations whose difficulty is based on the complexity of the given situation, the DM assigns an EXP value based on the determined difficulty, then when the players resolve the given situation, they gain the EXP alloted to the situation. It's sad however, that there wasn't much talk on how to design skill challenges properly after that, so in practice the entire thing was looked upon unfavorably.
Heck, 13th Age arguably got it right: get rid of the damn EXP, have the DM level you up (even if it's in partial increments) when he says you level up. That way, not only does the dev team not have to worry about the math behind monster and leveling EXP, but the DM is free to grant levels within a non-combat campaign.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 20, 2012 - 5:39PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2008
|
Yeah. I don't remember which it was, but in some edition they suggested giving full XPs for overcoming encounters without combat that you would have given with combat. I latched on to that right away and have been using it for years and years since.
But I've always given out RP XP, Quest XP, etc., and (to be honest) have regularly cut down on XP granted by combat.
Example: Say the group is hired by a local lord to find out what's causing terribly diminished produce and strange deaths at some of the outlying farms under his control. I quickly settle down and come up with some antagonists, hazards, etc., to fit the scenario. I design some encounters (some combative, some non-) and then get a total XP pool that should be achieved for the entire "adventure." We'll say it comes out to 4500 XPs. Of that, say 3000 XPs will be in combat against likely hostile creature. I then, usually, cut that in down to probably 1500 XPs (half) and then dole out the other 1500 through various quest rewards such as:
Did they rescue the farm family being held hostage by Rotleaf Goblins? 250 XPs there.
Did they find a remedy for the curse on the land? 500 XPs there.
Did they drive off or slay the Rotleaf Hag that was behind it all? 500 XPs there.
Did they keep the lord updated and satisfied, interacted well with for their standing in the area? 250 XPs.
Tends to give players in my groups reasons to do more than monster hunt, but to really interact with the world and roleplay their heroic parts.
As they say, though, your milage may vary.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 1:45AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2009
|
I've not had a chance yet to play the new packet (almost half my group had stomach issues the night we were supposed to start) but I have read it. The way I'm going to deal with the XP issue is that, while we're playtesting, use what they give us. If it stays this way, I'm sure as a DM, I can tell my players that we're still using either the 3.5 or 4e XP progression tables, and they'll be fine.
And yes, while you could just arbitrarily tell players when they level, I've always found that they would rather see for themselves how close they are, rather than rely on me to tell them. It functions as a sort of gauge of their success, and gives them something to work for. Just my preference I guess.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 2:06AM
#30
|
|
|
In the game linked in my signature you get no XP for monsters.
What you do get is quest and goal xp.
A goal might be to force the group of monsters to vacate the area they are in. You can accomplish this by killing them all, convincing them to leave, or surrender and kicking them out, or any combination of the previous.
It encourages the party to work toward story goals rather than kill counts...
|
|
|
