-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Was a unified Leveling XP chart a bad idea?
- Thread starter StAlda
- Start date
was
Adventurer
-I don't think that it was a bad idea. While I am in favor of slower overall advancement in general principle, differing tables always caused a great deal of problems back when I played in older editions. Specifically, the one common table accounts for the fact that experience is now awarded equally for all character contributions to the overall welfare and advancement of the party.
-The rogue, for example, used to have the lowest table for levelling because the brunt of their xp seemed to come from using their skills in such instances such as trapfinding and pick-pocketing. However, in direct combat (where the greatest amount of xp was awarded) they received much smaller awards due to the smaller number of kills they could claim. When DM's house-ruled equal xp awards to overcome this disparity, the fighters then complained it was unfair because, while everyone was getting equal xp, they had to gain much more to advance.
-I think one general table was a good idea, solving more problems then it created. It is, however just an opinion......
-The rogue, for example, used to have the lowest table for levelling because the brunt of their xp seemed to come from using their skills in such instances such as trapfinding and pick-pocketing. However, in direct combat (where the greatest amount of xp was awarded) they received much smaller awards due to the smaller number of kills they could claim. When DM's house-ruled equal xp awards to overcome this disparity, the fighters then complained it was unfair because, while everyone was getting equal xp, they had to gain much more to advance.
-I think one general table was a good idea, solving more problems then it created. It is, however just an opinion......
Last edited:
FireLance
Legend
I like the unified level advancement table.
Levels are basically just a measure of character ability. If you don't have levels, you'd have to fall back on another method. GURPS has Character Points. In the D&D system prior to 3e, the traditional alternative was XP. Presumably, characters with the same amount of XP were roughly at the same level of ability, although it was also possible that the game designers did not deliberately set out to "balance" the classes in this way. In any case, even if they did, the multi-classing and dual-classing rules played havoc with the system.
But why would you need a system to measure character ability in the first place? Well, you don't ... if you're an experienced DM. If you are an experienced DM, you will be able to set encounters for your players that are challenging but not insurmountable. You will be able to tailor challenges for each member of the party so that they feel useful, even if they are at different levels of ability. However, if you are not, you might have a walkover, a TPK or a disgruntled player on your hands.
If you're not an experienced DM, it is probably better to have some kind of "training wheels" while you earn your DM spurs. The 3e philosophy of "a level is a level", the unified advancement table and the CR system helps simplify that a little, because you're only dealing with numbers from 1 to 20. You can, of course, achieve the same effect with XP, but you'd need a table to tell you how much XP equates to what character level for each class, and each challenge will need to state what XP range it is suitable for. I don't think an inexperienced DM needs to deal with that kind of additional complexity.
Levels are basically just a measure of character ability. If you don't have levels, you'd have to fall back on another method. GURPS has Character Points. In the D&D system prior to 3e, the traditional alternative was XP. Presumably, characters with the same amount of XP were roughly at the same level of ability, although it was also possible that the game designers did not deliberately set out to "balance" the classes in this way. In any case, even if they did, the multi-classing and dual-classing rules played havoc with the system.
But why would you need a system to measure character ability in the first place? Well, you don't ... if you're an experienced DM. If you are an experienced DM, you will be able to set encounters for your players that are challenging but not insurmountable. You will be able to tailor challenges for each member of the party so that they feel useful, even if they are at different levels of ability. However, if you are not, you might have a walkover, a TPK or a disgruntled player on your hands.
If you're not an experienced DM, it is probably better to have some kind of "training wheels" while you earn your DM spurs. The 3e philosophy of "a level is a level", the unified advancement table and the CR system helps simplify that a little, because you're only dealing with numbers from 1 to 20. You can, of course, achieve the same effect with XP, but you'd need a table to tell you how much XP equates to what character level for each class, and each challenge will need to state what XP range it is suitable for. I don't think an inexperienced DM needs to deal with that kind of additional complexity.
Numion
First Post
It was a really good idea. The idea is that each character gains the same benefits from experience. Two things factor into this: experience required per level, and benefits gained each level. Old system used different benefits per level and different experience tables. The new system adjusted the benefits each class gains from leveling so that a uniform experience table can be used.
(Or the old system was just handwaved.)
(Or the old system was just handwaved.)
Keeper of Secrets
First Post
I think it is a good idea. I mean they changed the classes around enough to where they all are useful when they advance unlike under the old rules where the rouge advanced the fastest. I mean the old way worked for what they had before and the current way works for this, in my opinion. Much easier, really.
Yes. Totally a good idea. Working the class system so that characters who have the same amount of experience are the same level and are equivalent in terms of dungeon utility (since that's the target environment for the class balance layout) helps tremendously with making things easier for new DMs. The fact that all classes progress the same way, both xp-wise and in terms of level benefits like feats and stat improvements, makes things easy on new players.
The only quibble I have is that they didn't quite hit the sweet spot just yet; the cleric is somewhat overpowered, but I don't know if this is as true at low levels. I do know that at the mid to high levels we've been playing at, a cleric in the enemy group makes the whole encounter rediculously more dangerous.
The only quibble I have is that they didn't quite hit the sweet spot just yet; the cleric is somewhat overpowered, but I don't know if this is as true at low levels. I do know that at the mid to high levels we've been playing at, a cleric in the enemy group makes the whole encounter rediculously more dangerous.
LeifVignirsson
First Post
While I understand the thought behind 2E's staggered XP tables (fighters squishing things gets more XP than rogue who sneaks and hides in shadows, so they should get a quicker lane to 20), it certainly did not give the feel of a unified group, to say the least. You had some VERY suicidal mages in 2E, I can certainly tell you that.
3.X's unified table gives a chance for it to be a group again, but it certainly seemed cookie cutter like a video game when I first saw it. They modeled it after the leveling up in, say, Final Fantasy... Or at least what I saw, IMO...
But yes, I like the unified chart... Wouldn't go back to 2E's staggered if you paid me...
3.X's unified table gives a chance for it to be a group again, but it certainly seemed cookie cutter like a video game when I first saw it. They modeled it after the leveling up in, say, Final Fantasy... Or at least what I saw, IMO...
But yes, I like the unified chart... Wouldn't go back to 2E's staggered if you paid me...
the Jester
Legend
One of the best ideas of the 3e paradigm.
derek_cleric
First Post
unified XP charts....
I found it to be too much like video games.....Everyone leveled at the same time, so I reintegrated the staggered charts into my house rules. Guess I'm just old school.
--Ray.
I found it to be too much like video games.....Everyone leveled at the same time, so I reintegrated the staggered charts into my house rules. Guess I'm just old school.
--Ray.
Similar Threads
