{kjd-imc} XP deficits

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hi All,

I picked up _Advanced Gamemaster's Guide_ from Green Ronin the other
day. It contains a description of something I've been thinking about a
bit lately: XP deficits.

RAW you cannot spend XP on something (such as item creation) if it would
mean having insufficient XP for your current level. This has always
irked me; the boundary cases where you can create a scroll yesterday,
but not today because you just leveled don't seem right.

What I've been considering instead is:

.. go ahead and level
.. go ahead and spend whatever XP you feel you need to spend
.. if this takes you below the minimum needed for your level, you have a
deficit to repay before you can advance again
. alt rule: you pick up a negative level until your XP total is high
enough again

RAW you can choose to not level immediately and spend the XP. You then
gain XP faster than you would had you leveled instead; you catch up
pretty quickly.

This would allow you to gain the benefits, but you're at a deficit that
needs to be paid off more slowly. Green Ronin suggests leaving it at
that, I feel like it should have *some* kind of additional cost. I
suppose 'interest' could be charged, but that's annoying to keep track
of. The obvious cost is a negative level. It's easy to apply, it
simulates not having the current level reasonably well. It's not very
popular; AFAICT it's *worse* than not having leveled (it affects more
stuff -- -1 BAB/attack, even if you didn't improve BAB with the last
level gained).

This negative level is not correctable with /restoration/ or similar
magics, of course.


Thoughts, questions, comments?


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> RAW you cannot spend XP on something (such as item creation) if it would
> mean having insufficient XP for your current level ....
> RAW you can choose to not level immediately and spend the XP ....
>
> [My idea] would allow you to gain the benefits [of a new level], but
> you're at [an XP] deficit that needs to be paid off more slowly. Green
> Ronin suggests leaving it at that, I feel like it should have *some*
> kind of additional cost. I suppose 'interest' could be charged, but
> that's annoying to keep track of ....

You'll already pay "interest," since you earn XP more slowly at the
higher level than you would at the lower level.

> The obvious cost is a negative level.

Hm, in some ways, a negative level is actually harsher than not taking
the level in the first place -- oh, I see that you already noticed that.

A more moderate penalty would be -1 caster level until you work off the
debt. I don't know whether you should lose the slots or just the "per
level" calculations like damage dice. That way, you get to keep the
mundane benefits of the new level, but you lose one level of magic.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>> RAW you cannot spend XP on something (such as item creation) if it would
>> mean having insufficient XP for your current level ....
>> RAW you can choose to not level immediately and spend the XP ....
>>
>> [My idea] would allow you to gain the benefits [of a new level], but
>> you're at [an XP] deficit that needs to be paid off more slowly. Green
>> Ronin suggests leaving it at that, I feel like it should have *some*
>> kind of additional cost. I suppose 'interest' could be charged, but
>> that's annoying to keep track of ....
>
> You'll already pay "interest," since you earn XP more slowly at the
> higher level than you would at the lower level.
>
>> The obvious cost is a negative level.
>
> Hm, in some ways, a negative level is actually harsher than not taking
> the level in the first place -- oh, I see that you already noticed that.
>
> A more moderate penalty would be -1 caster level until you work off the
> debt. I don't know whether you should lose the slots or just the "per
> level" calculations like damage dice. That way, you get to keep the
> mundane benefits of the new level, but you lose one level of magic.

-1 caster level. I hadn't considered that. It's probably appropriate
for those who cast spells (who are, after all, the ones most likely to
spend XP on stuff).

IMC I'm working on a point-based magic system. Reducing caster level
would reduce the power of the spells castable and the recovery rate, so
it's an inconvenience, but it wouldn't affect the number of magic
points. You'd be prevented from using your biggest mojo, but (at -1
caster level) not much.

If you spend enough to put you 'two levels down' you should be at -2
caster level, of course.


Other characters can spend XP too, though. Signature items (such as a
samurai's katana) are enchanted entirely through XP expenditure.
Bastion Press has described 'prestige races', additional abilities
gained through ritual (and XP expenditure, in the thousands of XP --
there's a level minimum prereq for each, but it'd still be pretty easy
to overspend). -1 caster level doesn't work for those who don't cast
spells.


.... and as soon as I start looking at -1 to attack rolls and all skills,
we're getting close to using negative levels *anyway*.

A negative level is still simpler, I think. It gets applied the same to
all characters, and hinders everyone who gets one about the same. I'd
probably not bother if your XP is within 10% (or so) of the minimum for
your level; that'll be recovered quickly enough it's probably not worth
worrying about.

Nik mentioned he gives players a choice when they're close to leveling
(within about 10%, I think he said) -- level early and gain the bennies
but gain less XP, or wait until you can do it by the book. Slightly
more XP overall, but the difference is small.


I suppose the real question would be 'is it necessary?' Is simply being
in deficit enough? Does it *need* a penalty of some sort? I suspect it
doesn't, really.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch