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

[thedungeondelver]

The unified XP chart. If I was going to DM d20 D&D again and was only allowed to change one thing back to 1e, that's what I'd change. I'd put the old XP charts back in effect. I think different classes (professions, whatever) apply what they've learned differently. And how they learn what they learn goes at a different rate.

If we take a page from AD&D and envision a scene where Morley the Mage, Falstaff the Fighter, Clyde the Cleric and Tom the Thief take down a hill giant, we've got: Morley casting a magic missile spell to do damage, while Falstaff wades in with his long sword; meanwhile, Tom the Thief is looking to get around for a backstab, while Clyde casts a cause serious wounds (hey, I never said these were good-aligned adventurers!).

In d20 D&D much the same thing is going on (except there's lots of...uh...epic tumbles and...um...dire cleaving - but I kid! I kid because I love. Anyway...).

In both cases, the hill giant is slain, loot is taken, there is much rejoicing.

But in the former case, each class member (so I'd always envisioned it) applies what they learned about taking down a hill giant differently. Falstaff figured out that a giant's femoral artery isn't in exactly the same place as a human, so stab somewhere else. Morely now knows that giants get no special benefits against magic. Clyde figures out that his god doesn't mind him killing giants in that particular fashion, and Tom groks that a punch dagger to the base of the spine is much the same here as against bugbears or ogres.

So for me, other than "Well it's just more convenient", I don't really see any point in the universal XP table. Like demihuman class/level restrictions to many of you, there's just no logical in game reason for universal XP to me. I mean I suppose I could be slick and adjust the XP I gave out for each class, but it's a lot easier to just use what I already have...

 

[Darklone]

It had advantages and disadvantages.

To me it's not a big change since I don't give the same XPs to everyone.

 

[smootrk]

I think the main point about the XP table was simplification.

Other than that, I agree that the current game has an over emphasis on 'balance' which still cannot be reached.

 

[thedungeondelver]

It had advantages and disadvantages.

To me it's not a big change since I don't give the same XPs to everyone.

And there you go, you just adjusted it on the other end, which I can appreciate. Same effect. I've just encountered the opposite expectation in gaming d20 D&D, personally.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

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

The linear, unified XP chart (rather than the old pseudo-exponential charts) is what makes the "stacked" multiclassing work, which is one of my favorite parts of d20.

The old system was mainly a cludge to make up for several problems in the old game- the tendency for wizards to race ahead in power relative to the other characters if not held back, the weakness of the rogue classes, the wonky (if interesting) Druid hierarchy, and the fact that Rangers and Paladins were just plain better than Fighters. I also never understood why the Cleric had such a fast advancement chart- one that became especially problematic after Player's Option introduced Crusaders, who advanced on the Cleric chart with Fighter THAC0. Oops.

Nah, this was definitely a case of something very broken that was fixed in the new edition.

 

[Pbartender]

So for me, other than "Well it's just more convenient", I don't really see any point in the universal XP table.

It greatly simplifies the multiclassing rules.

 

[thedungeondelver]

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

The linear, unified XP chart (rather than the old pseudo-exponential charts) is what makes the "stacked" multiclassing work, which is one of my favorite parts of d20.

The old system was mainly a cludge to make up for several problems in the old game- the tendency for wizards to race ahead in power relative to the other characters if not held back, the weakness of the rogue classes, the wonky (if interesting) Druid hierarchy, and the fact that Rangers and Paladins were just plain better than Fighters. I also never understood why the Cleric had such a fast advancement chart- one that became especially problematic after Player's Option introduced Crusaders, who advanced on the Cleric chart with Fighter THAC0. Oops.

Nah, this was definitely a case of something very broken that was fixed in the new edition.

Whuh? "definitely...very broken"? The old system was in no way, shape or fashion a "kludge" to make up for problems with the game. And as far as multiclassing...divide the awarded XP over the number of classes; that isn't hard nor is it kludgy. Magic users didn't "race ahead" in terms of power, the balance came from the advancement costs in XP terms.

And w/r/t "players options" and a "crusader" class, hey, never had a problem with that, as none were in the Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide (to wit, they weren't in AD&D 1 which is my point of reference).

 

[Crothian]

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

 

[Mark CMG]

It simplifies it not only for the players and DM but also for the designers when balancing the classes. If you think of each character class as a series of equations in which everything on the right side of the equations are the experience points, then you know that what you are striving to design, for any given level, is for everything in any two equations to be approximately equal on the left side.

 

[Gryffyn]

Absolutely, it was needed to make the new multiclassing system work.

Another good way to think of it is this: in AD&D, not all levels were created equal. Characters were more balanced by total XP than by character levels. In D&D3, they attempted to balance characters by character levels, which added the benefit of more liberal multiclassing rules. (Okay, some people might disagree that's a benefit.)