POLL: Scribe Scrolls and Experience

Remove all ads!

Some games like BG give experience for scribing spells to the whole party. It just occurred to me that that doesn't make too much sense, since it was the mage that did all the work. On the other hand, some games do not reward experience points at all. Perhaps the mastery of a new spell alone is an adequate reward for the mage. What do you think?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 15 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Scribe Scrolls and Experience (15 votes.)

How should XP be rewarded when scribing scrolls? (Choose 1)
* XP given to entire party - 7% (1)
* XP given to the mage only - 67% (10)
* No XP given at all - 20% (3)
* Other / see results - 7% (1)

 

It should give the mage scribing some XP. Let's just picture a mage sitting in his tent scribing scrolls at night->The rugged barbarian doesn't really learn anything from that. Or what do you think?

 

I agree with the idea of combat and generic quest experience being distributed equally among the party members. Individual actions on the other hand, like a mage scribing a spell, or a thief disarming a trap, should be individually rewarded.

 

The idea I have of scribing scrolls is adding the scroll as a new page to the spellbook

 

@Morgoth

As I understand it, you don't simply place the scroll in the spellbook. You copy it instead, learning the spell, the incantation words, signs and components required and all that. That is why you have a percentage of failure when scribbing spells to your spellbook in the BG series, for instance.

Copying a spell in the spellbook is something that only a spellcaster can do, it involves the possibility of failure, and he/she should be rewarded for it.

 

Learning a new spell should definitely add some experience, only to the mage though.
Just like Loerand said, it's a nonsense for a character with no arcane knowledge getting XP just because of his proximity to an arcanist. Same for Thieves of course. It is a bit different with them though... their area of expertise isnt so alien as arcana. A warrior for instance might grow to learn the signs by which the rogue identifies a trap.

There's this argument of the wizard not getting any XP at all for learning a new spell, since he/she gets more powerful just because of learning it anyway. But then, character levels arent in-game either, so XP cant be either, since you need these to attain new levels. I hope you can understand what i'm trying to say here

 

Yes well, do you also believe then that a mage should receive less or no experience in combat if he didn't use his spells?

Afterall, the role of a mage at least in D&D games is never to act as a pure damage-dealer (unless you're very high-level, or playing save-load style where you don't need to have the mage prepared), instead he's supposed to stand on the background and wait for the opportune moment when magic is needed.

My point is, classes are different and giving experience based on their activeness in combat or otherwise would not work. A mage wouldn't learn new spells watching enemies die by his party's hands, instead he should read read and study and read for long boring times. A thief would never level by doing simple hack'n'slash with the rest of the party. Basically, the experience the party gets from combat is treated as "general" experience counting in all the events inbetween the combat that isn't shown in the game. Such as the mage studying his books, priests praying and philosophising, etc. Party experience is just a means to make sure no-one gets left behind and each character has equally much fun.

So, because of this balance, it is just as relevant that the party would get experience when the mage would scribe a scroll, or when the thief would disarm a trap, as when in combat the fighters would personally handle most of the opponents as they usually do.

Edit: Simplified, while the warriors battle it is assumed the mages study for simplicity's and balance's sake. Just as well, while the mages scribe their scrolls it should be assumed the warriors rehearse their combat moves instead of just sitting idly by.

Bear in mind that PnP works differently. But then in PnP the GM has control over the just distribution of experience. In a CRPG, group / party experience is the only logical way to go. The alternative basically is a Dungeon Siege like system, where you only get experience on what you do, when you do it. Wether the casual D&D game *is* only about combat or not, the base princible behind the classes still comes from the assumption that they learn their skills outside of actual combat, barring pure fighters of course (who also in reality would need some training and time as well).

I'm glad D&D works the way it does. In the end it comes to a pretty realistic idea without requiring constant micro-management or creating immense balance problems that most other games that don't adopt the same idea, have.

 

I think that it should be the mage alone who gets all the xp. AFAIK in most Forgotten Realms dogma at least, an untrained mind trying to read a spell or a mage trying to read a spell that's too powerful can have negative consequences? IE: blindness, insanity, death... Like Gothmog said, Ogmar the barbarian may pick up a few tricks watching over the shoulder of a thief but would probably fry his noodle trying to read a spell over the elven mages shoulder.

 

If we consider that experience is the result of the knowledge that adventurers adquire during their endeavours, then it makes sense dividing it into shared and private XP points.

IMHO any character can fight, better or worse, regardless of whether you should use that character as a fighter or not. Even if magic users do not engage actively in battle, by being part of a group they should benefit from the knowledge of how the battle was fought, and how the monsters were killed. That can be translated into shared XP points.

On the contrary, if magic users engage in something from which they alone can attain knowledge, like scribing a spell, it should be fair that they are the only ones rewarded for doing so.

Edit: (spelling)

 

Yes well, there you said it.

How can a mage learn more powerful spells and gain greater control over magic by simply watching his friend fight? Surely he should gain experience of battle by following the examples of others, but learning spells?

How a battle is fought has no significance at all in a man's ability to understand magic, just his ability to understand combat and how his already existing magic could be used in it.

If a mage can learn magic while watching a barbrawl, then is it not only fair that a warrior can learn fighting while watching a companion copying a scroll to his spellbook?

This is my point. If you take away one, you must take away the other. If only mages get experience from using their special abilities, then only fighters should get experience from using their abilities (which is, plain fighting), as well as only thieves should get experience from using theirs. This cannot be done in a working manner in a CRPG. Even if it could, it's more feasible and fun this way.

 

Mages do not learn new spells automatically when levelling up, they obtain the ability to cast more spells of a particular level or levels, and more control over their magics. Only druids, clerics and sorcerers (and ultimately paladins and rangers) learn spells automatically when levelling up. But those are related to their beliefs or divine ascendancy.

For a mage, learning more spells always implies the study of those new spells. Think about this: What is the only way to increase intelligence, the main stat for a mage, and thus become more adept to the magical arts? Studying and learning. IMHO, learning how a battle was fought and won, maybe working in the strategy that lead to that victory, is a valid intelligence boost. In most fantasy novels, mages are not just fancy robe wearers, fireball-happy casters. Most of them are depicted as sages whose advise should be sought, and many are counsellors of kings and generals.

Sad as it sounds, fighters have no special abilities of their own other than fighting. And they are damn good at it. Any other character can fight if they must, but also have other abilities of their own that are not open to plain fighters.

In combat, all those involved (even bystanders) should benefit from it experience wise. In real life, that is how you learn. You see, hear, taste or feel something that you never experienced before, and if you can assimilate it, you learn something new. If not, your brain does not retain that information. If, for instance, you were to read a text on how a particle accelerator works without knowing anything about the matter, you would probably benefit little from it. Now imagine that the same manuscript is written in Occitan or any other dead language. There is no way you would benefit from that reading.

True, in game terms this distribution of experience could be difficult to implement, but is that reason enough not to do so? For instance, a level 1 mage casts sleep, a gibberling (sp?) fails the saving throw and falls into a slumber. Why doesn't the mage get experience for that successful spell? The creature is not dead, true, but even the clumsiest of mages should be able to kill it by slicing its throat with a dagger or cracking its skull with a staff if s/he wished to. It is defeated already.

EDIT: Sentence removed.

[ August 04, 2004, 11:59: Message edited by: Colthrun ]

 

I still don't see how you think mages should learn spellcasting abilities watching others fight?

Realistically speaking, the statboost you get in 3:rd edition every 4 levels, should be something you were practicing anyway, in the case of someone doing combat it would more likely be brawns than brain.. especially as compared to the brain-increasing type of practice, meaning constant reading and analysing difficult arcane language and formula. Even here it's a matter of gameplay and balance that the choice is ultimately given to the player.

One cannot realistically learn skills one does not use. When a warrior moves in the field of battle, dodging and hitting, straining his body to its limit time and time again, it's obvious he learns of this and would become more powerful at it. It is not logical, however, that a mage who was standing behind, possibly using a sling or a bow with poor success and nothing more, would get any more information about magic. That's what a mages levels are afterall, greater understanding of magic. It's not a matter of intelligence, but a matter of experience in the arcane. Otherwise a lv 2 mage with 18 intelligence would overpower a lv 5 mage with 16 (one point every 4 levels, do the math) intelligence easily.

Anyway, if you could learn by just watching as a bystander (let's face it, same party or not, there are many times when mages don't really do jack), why can't you get enormous powers by looking at some legendary hero take on a dragon? Or someone closer to your character's level, with nothing to do with your character, taking on someone powerful?

I really can't think of anything more to say anymore. It is quite obvious to me that unless they made a game where you had to play the time a mage sat and studied spells, rehearsed them, and studied some more, you can't touch the delicate experience balance. Experience can be gained through watching combat, yes, but there's a definite difference between someone who's watching it and someone who's doing it. Just as with everything else in life, you need to do it yourself to actually understand it. Only in games does a mage get more power in combat. In novels he gets it by reading hours on hours, each day, for years. And then learns to use it effectively with some minor experience in combat.

Thus the experience a warrior gets when a mage reads a scroll is not of understanding the magic this mage learns, it's the sum of all the experience gained from the deeds used to get the scroll. It's many different deeds from all members in the party combined to one equal share of experience for all. You could just as well give experience only to the mage when he cast spells, or read scrolls, or studied. Only to the thief when he succesfully disarmed a trap or backstabbed an unwary guard. And only to the fighters when they went in and killed the monsters before they could reach the rest of the party. You could get all these individual experiences and sum it all up to see what each of the members in the party had *really* earned. But it's an awful lot of trouble when you can just share one big sum of experience inbetween all of them, and let the player choose his style instead of worrying about someone getting left behind.

 

There's a really easy solution, isnt it?

Experience gained from various activites dependable on class.
This way, mage gets most XP from studying arcana, fighters get most from fighting&training, rogues from backstabbing&Trap-activities and just about everything else, simply because a rogue does a bit of everything.
This should be fairly easy to implement in any CRPG, thus adding more realism.

A step further would be seperate levels. It couldnt be D&D anymore, it's too different already. Say, every character would have different areas of expertise. Classes, perhaps, but it'd be smoother without them at all. Dungeon Siege is the perfect example. What you're doing gets better.
The way we have it now... a wizard in training for instance. He doesnt get any training with weapons at all (broom proficency from sweeping the floor? ) and yet he can emerge from the tower/academy/Sorcerere experienced by means of level about 4 with appropriate BAB.
It's just more realistical.

 

Aye it is. But I don't like it.

Although I've been pretty far to the hardcoreish side in the recent MMO discussions in VN-boards, there's still a limit how far even I'll go. While it is possible that someone could implement a working, comfortable system where you only gained skill in what you did, I'm still highly sceptical about it. Dungeon Siege is a good example. As there mages were useless for having to spend more spells than one does playing 3 full chapters in Diablo 2 to level just once after the first few initial levels. Same thing for each individual spell. I very much prefer the system the way it is in D&D. No game I've played so far has succeeded in implementing that "realistic skill learning" system. Save for Jagged Alliance 2 perhaps, which had some rather severe problems as well.

The present system in D&D allows for a lot of freedom, increasing the fun and gameplay while taking virtually nothing away from the immersion or realism. It only leaves the 'specifics' of the experience gain untold to the player. If changes were to be made there, for example in BG2, then it could no longer be a mere action-adventure RPG. It would become a fantasy world simulator more than a mere game. Not a bad thing in itself, but playing such a game would require a completely different attitude, IMO.

 

This is a very good explanation and I quite like it. Still, the use of an “experience points for all for whatever deed accomplished” system is democratic, and very convenient, but it is not fair. I am a strong believer in recognition for personal achievements. IMO, it is as unfair for a mage to get more spell slots because a fighter nearly got killed engaging a troll on his own and winning, as for a fighter is to level up because the mage learned a spell he just bought.

I may be very wrong in this, but implementing an individual experience point earning system for battles can’t be that difficult. I am no programmer, but BG does not allow you to rest, or to leave an area unless the group is together. Does it track the distance between characters using variables, and uses those variables to determine how far away are some characters from others? If so, using the same variables, it should also know which characters are too far away from the fight as to benefit from shared combat experience. Moreover, it could register whether the character attacked or cast a spell during combat, and reward that accordingly when that shared combat experience is distributed… I know, I am an individualist and a control freak, and I like it.

This is how I understand group experience gained in battle: several characters did something as a group, i.e., killed a beast. Even those who didn’t participate actively know how the thing was killed, because they were there. They learned something. However, if a character does something on his/her own, something that no other but him/herself can, or that no one saw (learning a spell, picking a lock, or killing a monster while the group was seven screens away), why should others be rewarded? My ideal situation is explained below.

Agreed. In a fantasy novel, a mage would use his/her free time in the camp to study and practice spell casting before or after going to sleep, or would sought knowledge from libraries and other mages. But a warrior would also spend some time practicing and caring for his weapons, perhaps even sparring with a more experienced fighter.

Killing, and solving puzzles should be the means to reach the end of the game, defeat the bad guy, and rescue the princess. Not just an excuse to make a powerful character. The problem is that things like making camp, looking for water, eating, copying and learning scrolls, brewing potions, oiling and repairing armour, sharpening swords, going to the toilet… all are supposed to happen in the background or between transitions, because they are tedious, they are not “epic”. What happened to those games that made you join a guild to receive training and level up? The way I would really like to see characters increasing in level would be by their own schooling and training, not by killing things using what skills they already know… or retrieving books from a haystack.

 

I suppose it's true that the hidden experience a mage should get from studing while not doing combat equals exactly the experience any other class would gain by doing their own things.

So in the end it really comes down to which system you wish to use. Experience earner per individual accomplishments, or experience earned as one single party without individual gains. If the experience was given to each by their individual actions, then the only "right" way to implement this would be for the entire game to be created so that it was balanced for this.

If only mages were to get experience from scrolls, only thieves from traps, only bards from singing, while everyone would gain experience from battle, then fighters should get a slight bonus for their greater-than-normal stake in battles. And all these forms of experience should be divided evenly so as to allow a smooth gaming experience with no class gaining an unfair advantage over another simply because they have more to do.

Might not be a bad thing if it really worked. At least the developers would be forced to take into account all classes as each of their skills should be required to be used in order to make them even playable.