A thing about d20 D&D I didn't like, and still don't know why it was done...

[thedungeondelver]

What does that combat example have to do with a unified XP chart?

What it has to do with it is that when the XP are doled out at the end, in AD&D1 those XP are "spent" (if you will) differently. From that example, assuming a party of adventurers with 25000XP each we have a:

5th level cleric (curate)
5th level fighter (swashbuckler)
5th level magic-user (thaumaturgist)
6th level theif (filcher)
...

Assuming they're fighting a hill giant with maximum XP, the reward is 1498 XP (or 375 XP each)

Now each character advances towards the next level differently - in that the awarded XP will push each character closer to the next level slower or faster than his counterparts, because they apply what they gained (in the abstract) from the encounter differently according to their class. That was the point I was making.

 

[Umbran]

Well, if you don't unify the XP charts, you don't have a solid concept of character level separate from class level - and that puts the idea of free and easy multiclassing pretty much out the window.

The difference is that in 1e and 2e, XP measured advancement in a class. In 3.xe, it represents advancement as a person. Aside from the philosophical change that implies, it makes development, design, and implementation of classes far simpler, because it removes a major variable from the picture.

In general, if you don't unify XP/level, you lose the ability to gauge things that go with character level, but not class level - like the bonus feat every 3rd, or the ability score every 4th. What it means to spend them on spells or magic item creation becomes unpredictable, same for the impact of level drain. Basically, the value of the XP would vary from character to character, depending not only on their level, but in exactly which classes those levels were in. The XP, then, ceases to be a predictable measure of much of anything. And then what's the point?

Unified XP are perhaps the single best design change in 3e.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Well, if you don't unify the XP charts, you don't have a solid concept of character level separate from class level - and that puts the idea of free and easy multiclassing pretty much out the window.

The difference is that in 1e and 2e, XP measured advancement in a class. In 3.xe, it represents advancement as a person. Aside from the philosophical change that implies, it makes development, design, and implementation of classes far simpler, because it removes a major variable from the picture.

In general, if you don't unify XP/level, you lose the ability to gauge things that go with character level, but not class level - like the bonus feat every 3rd, or the ability score every 4th. What it means to spend them on spells or magic item creation becomes unpredictable, same for the impact of level drain. Basically, the value of the XP would vary from character to character, depending not only on their level, but in exactly which classes those levels were in. The XP, then, ceases to be a predictable measure of much of anything. And then what's the point?

Unified XP are perhaps the single best design change in 3e.

I see what you're saying, inside the design of d20 and why it works there, I guess. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the ... for lack of a better word, philosophy behind the whole thing, but horses for courses and all of that.

 

[Quasqueton]

Captain America will slap to death the next person who mentions 3rd Edition. Test me on this.

"3rd Edition."

I *am* Captain America. I have pictures to prove it. [Actually, I really do.]

Quasqueton

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Au contraire, this is one of the great innovations of d20 D&D.

Well, technically, it was an innovation when the Rolemaster people did this. They also scooped d20 with the stacked multiclassing that you like in 1987 (Rolemaster Companion 2, page 11).

Considering the amount of crossover between Rolemaster and D20 (in terms of systems and designers), I think it's safe to say that this isn't a coincidence. It's one of many places where d20 borrowed from RM rather than being innovative.

 

[Treebore]

Its one of the reasons I like Castles and Crusades. XP progression has always been the best way to balance classes. So having the more powerful classes require more xp's makes sense to me, especially when the thief gets a couple of levels ahead of the other classes to make up for its combat weakness while the other power houses trudge along through the xp charts.

Plus I also like requiring a lot of xp's because it allows for "random encounters" and other elements of "depth" to the characters and campaign history.

As for making multi-classing easier, no. Multi classing is still just as easy in C&C. Just like in old school D&D your going to earn a ton of xp's to have that extra versatility. You don't like the "price" then don't multi-class.

My biggest problem with 3E is it gives the candy out far to quickly and easily. I much prefer the old school feel of having "earned it" when my character levels up. 3E has to much the attitude of "entitlement" to advance quickly.

I much prefer playing a character for a long time, and having enough character history that it took them years or decades to become a high level powerhouse. A game where you become 20th level in 9 months of campaign time is not something I can buy into.

Once upon a time you only got power that fast by selling your soul to the forces of evil.

 

[Darklone]

Now honestly, what's the use of having e.g. in AD&D a bard or thief being usually one level ahead of the rest? Give him a higher HD and a faster spell progression and you'll have no difference. Same for the rest.

There is no real difference. It just feels different. And the DM is responsible for changing the feeling of his games. That's me for me, so I know who can and will change it if I don't like it (or my players convince me).

 

[Crothian]

I see what you're saying, inside the design of d20 and why it works there, I guess. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the ... for lack of a better word, philosophy behind the whole thing, but horses for courses and all of that.

Then were is the discussion? You don't like it, great. And there is nothing the people that do like are going to say to make you see otherwise. You seem to have created a thread just to put down the current game.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Then were is the discussion? You don't like it, great. And there is nothing the people that do like are going to say to make you see otherwise. You seem to have created a thread just to put down the current game.

No I didn't. I asked a question about design philosophy. Then I had the termetity to say that I got it, but that it differed with mine. I see now why it works with 3e. And in retrospect I'd go the other way, leave the table as-is, but use the older tables as a reference point to stagger XP rewards. I make no secret about preferring 1st edition AD&D to later versions of D&D. But I didn't start this thread "just to put down the current game".

 

[Garnfellow]

I'm not sure I understand how the combat example in the OP relates to the premise.