Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Toric_Arthendain" data-source="post: 5849368" data-attributes="member: 9833">No, I'm asserting that each PC requires more experience points to level up in 1e than is required in 3e and that the experience awarded is significantly more in 3e.  An orc in 1e is worth maybe 10 xp divided amongst all the PCs that participated in defeating it.  An orc in 3e is worth 300 xp to a party of 1st level PCs, divided amongst all of them that participated in defeating it.  Those PCs in 3e only need 1,000 xp to hit level 2.  In 1e, the thief needs 1,250 and every other class needs more than that.  Four 3e PCs defeat an orc and each receives 75 xp.  In the same situation in 1e, they each receive 2.5 xp.  It takes more xp to level in 1e and the awards for defeating monsters, one of the iconic ways to earn xp, are significantly smaller.I'll agree to disagree then.  I remember when 3rd edition came out reading about how leveling would be faster so that the players wouldn't have to spend so much time at each level.  Seemed like a design consideration to me.  I guess only Monte Cook and the others that worked on it could confirm that.  Four PCs of level 1 in an encounter with four orcs in 3e nets the PCs 300 xp each for defeating them.  Then an encounter with four skeletons nets them another 300 xp.  At that point, they are nearly two thirds of the way to level 2 and after only 2 encounters.  Throw in one more encounter and they just about have it.I really don't see how you are reaching this conclusion.  Skill checks have nothing to do with leveling.  And combat better run faster in 1e than it does in 3e because you would need MANY more creatures defeated to come close to the xp that gets awarded in 3e for defeating monsters.  The PCs in 1e have to defeat roughly 30 orcs to net themselves the same xp that the 3e PCs get for defeating one orc.  And yes, I am aware that in 1e the PCs get xp for treasure by the book.  But each orc isn't going to be walking around with 290 gp worth of treasure to make up the difference in xp as awarded in 1e vs. 3e.  He might have a handful of coins at best.I know that monster xp isn't all the xp that is received in 1e.  I stated that in a previous post.  But as mentioned above, a single CR1 creature in 3e nets four PCs of 1st level 300 xp to divide up.  A single orc in 1e nets the PCs roughly 10-20 xp to divide up.  Add in the coins that the orc in 1e is carrying and you might have 30 xp to divide up.  And the 1e PCs require more xp than their 3e counterparts.I understand what you are saying about the treasure ratios in modules.  They are placing more treasure on average than an individual DM might give out in his own adventure creations.  However, many of the potential treasure rewards end up not discovered, at least in games I have played in or run.  They are often hidden in such a way that the players need to be super explicit or they won't find them.  I ran across one such situation this past week in our game.  In an encounter, the only way to find the monster's treasure is to dig up the ground in their lair.  I would not allow the PCs to find that unless the players specifically stated that they were doing that.  In another case, treasure was hidden underneath the cool coals in a brazier.  Again, if they didn't specifically state that they were dumping the coals out of the brazier or moving them around, I wouldn't have them discover that.  There are countless situations like this in the published 1e modules.  Not everything that was stocked in these modules was going to be found.  This goes back to forgetting about the search check and looking to the players to be very specific as to what they are searching and how they are going about it.  In addition, as I stated earlier in the thread, there are stretches of the Temple of Elemental Evil dungeons that don't give the PCs much in the way of treasure.  It might take a session or three before they come across some really good, significant stuff.  But by level five, most classes need tons of xp to get to level six.  20,000 for a magic-user to a whopping 50,000 for a ranger.  Everyone levels at different times because of the way the experience totals by class are set up.  We went three sessions with no one leveling and the fighter finally leveled to 5 last session.  A few others are close.  So in my estimation there is some element of luck and player skill involved in 1e as the PCs need to find some of the bigger and better treasure in the modules.  It isn't always in plain sight or on the monsters that they just defeated.  The same can be true in 3e but there is no xp award for treasure there.With significantly bigger xp awards for monsters in 3e and lower xp totals required for leveling, combined with awards for defeating traps and modules that offer story awards, I see 3e as a faster leveling system.  With luck in 1e, you might level quickly especially over the first few levels but it depends on the module and the players ability to find hidden treasure and the DMs style of running the game.  I am fully aware that an individual DM could make leveling in either 1e or 3e faster or slower based on a huge variety of factors but by the book, 3e seems to favor faster leveling.</blockquote>

Verification