Talk:Replacing XP Cost with Essence Point Cost (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

	Leziad is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	I think this would be better if you could do the ritual only once per level, so undead PCs and pre-game crafting are kept in check.

	Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	If you don't like XP costs, this is essentially the simplest way to get rid of them without making them automatically unbalanced. The downtime benefits of this are pleasing from a setting perspective, but noncasters are a bit low on abilities which have XP costs. What should they be doing with the boatloads of essence points they acquire? LA buyoff?

Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

Basically removes XP from the equation of ...well, everything. Which is a bad thing. Another disadvantage is that it gives a reason to have downtime. "We just finished an adventure, and I *really* want to cast wish (or any other spell that requires XP), so we'll take a break for a year, kthx." Also, another reason this is bad is because it limits multiclassing, which only benefits fighters who already are at a disadvantage compared to spellcasters, who get the most out of this variant.

I dislike constant-adventuring-syndrome and consider PC downtime a good thing. I have put in fixes for your other objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideasmith (talk • contribs) at

And I dislike having the game force a year of downtime so that casters can get even MOAR power. --Ghostwheel (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

The number of essence points you get in this system is quite a bit larger than the number of experience points a crafter could ever afford to spend before. With these sorts of numbers, you could almost call this variant rule "Replacing XP Cost with Essentially No Cost At All". Especially considering that the point where crafting full time doesn't use up all of your essence points before a year has passed is only level 8.

To make this rule actually be worth its length, the breakeven point should be above level 20, so you never reach it. I'd go for a somewhat lower value, like 100*Level, but a value as high as 750*Level would be somewhat reasonable, I suppose. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

When I changed my mind about whether GP costs would be replaced, I forgot to divide by five. Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideasmith (talk • contribs) at

Disproportional Racial Benefits

Longer lived races get a lot more from this than shorter lived ones. Intentional? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really, and between this and Leziad's point I have removed the 'if a year has passed' bit. There are less problematic ways to encourage downtime.--Ideasmith (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)