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

[thedungeondelver]

It facilitates the idea of "taking" a level in different classes via multiclassing. It's as if the character is shopping at the character class market and decides to pick up a level in a class as an afterthought, in my opinion.

This is something I (tacitly) agree with...but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 

[billd91]

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.

So divide all XP awards by 5 or 10. That should lengthen things a bit.

I really enjoy the unified XP system and think it's been a long time coming. But I do agree that the awards are a bit high for my tastes.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

WHat I was saying was "here's a situation where characters overcome a monster and gain some XP. They all overcome the monster in different ways, and apply what they learned about overcoming that monster differently."

(That's all it was, really! I promise! )

It doesn't do anything of the sort. It awards a flat 375 XP, and doesn't imply anything about how the obstacle was overcome.

If I rewrite your example as a ghost-- a ghost which the rogue can't backstab, the fighter can't even harm normally for lack of a magic weapon, the wizard damages with magic missile 50% of the time, and which the cleric ultimately turns-- the award is 375 XP.

Yet the rogue still advances the fastest, using the old XP tables. 375 XP is/was 375 XP.

Your romantic attachment to 1e is admirable but there was nothing at work, abstract or otherwise, about the XP awards that said anything about "how" the encounter was overcome. You're ascribing abstract meaning to the design that simply isn't there.

 

[molonel]

If the game moves too quickly, divide the XP amounts by 2 or 5 or 10 until the game moves at the pace you want. It's that easy. Or do what the DM in my World's Largest Dungeon campaign does. He keeps XP awards on a chart, and just tells people when they level. If spellcasters make items, they inform him of how much XP they spent, and he marks it on the chart. No fuss, no muss.

 

[lukelightning]

I hate hate hated the old XP system. The whole party kills a dragon and takes its treasure, and the thief goes up a level but nobody else does?

 

[thedungeondelver]

Umbran FTW.

Unified XP charts (and classes with abilities targeted at making their relative worth comparable) makes LEVEL into a meaningful scale.

Making LEVEL into a meaningful scale stops us (to some extent) from having to weigh each classes benefit individually when estimating party capability.

See, I don't see "level" as not meaningful. It is very meaningful. Oh the actual word "level" might have a different meaning or a less impactful meaning, but I think both 1st and d20 D&D rely on the notion that your character is at a certain level.

I think (if I may make an assumption with all of the dangers associated) that what you're saying is that LEVEL now becomes a precise mathematical function, a sort of gearbox (if you will) that fits into the machinery of the D20 advancement-challenge rating-balance "engine", rather like a raycaster is the larger part of a 3d shooter's rendering engine, or a parser is part of a text adventure's interface engine. And in those bounds, in the bounds of latter day D&D, then yes, I see the function clearly. Again I still wouldn't do it exactly like that because as Hexgrid pointed out:

the characters all advanced on their own schedules instead of as a group. It seemed more -for lack of a better word- organic.

Organic.

 

[Victim]

Because the Paladin and the Mage were the hardest to gain levels for (if memory served) and teh Thief was the easiest, this meant that your highest level characters were actually the ones that struck me as having the least claim to some sort of meta-uberositude. So, for anythign keyed to levels, the Thief actually did better than the Mage or teh paladin. I would have preferred for the situation to have been the reverse.

...As I continued playing the game for 26 years, this obviously wasn't a deal breaker for me.

Ironically, mages were leveling up faster than several other character types for a certain range of levels (high mid, IIRC). So if the chart XP was designed to make mages advance slower to balance their power, then it wasn't doing such a good job.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Your romantic attachment to 1e is admirable but there was nothing at work, abstract or otherwise, about the XP awards that said anything about "how" the encounter was overcome. You're ascribing abstract meaning to the design that simply isn't there.

And yet, despite this, the tables are staggered and the classes do advance at different rates, and it works and works well. I am of the opinion that it works that way for the reasons I outlined. I recongize that you (and others) simply shrug it off and call it poor game design. For me the glass is half full, I guess.

But!

Lest this get bogged down, again, I do see why the chart works the way it does for d20 D&D. I'd stagger the XP given out to "emulate" the "organic"-ness of it, but that's me.

 

[Umbran]

See, I don't see "level" as not meaningful. It is very meaningful. Oh the actual word "level" might have a different meaning or a less impactful meaning, but I think both 1st and d20 D&D rely on the notion that your character is at a certain level.

The issue, at base, is that 1st and 2nd edition did rely on the notion of "level", but it was a poor notion upon which to rely. Foundation of quicksand, and all that.

I think (if I may make an assumption with all of the dangers associated) that what you're saying is that LEVEL now becomes a precise mathematical function, a sort of gearbox (if you will) that fits into the machinery of the D20 advancement-challenge rating-balance "engine"...

Yes. It is a point of good design to have an engine that works cleanly and smoothly. It is easier to add to, modify, understand, and use. What's bad about that?

Again I still wouldn't do it exactly like that because as Hexgrid pointed out:

Organic.

The only thing that becomes more "organic" (which, in this case, really means "irregular") with the old tables is the spread of character levels.

The new system allows for far more organic character development, in that they are not locked into a single class choice for eternity. Characters can have changing wants and needs through the life of the campaign, and grow to suit those needs by choosing different classes. Maybe the level number on the character sheets are all the same, but the characters vary far more widely now. That, I suggest to you, is more truly "organic" than the spread of levels you got in 1e.

 

[billd91]

Lest this get bogged down, again, I do see why the chart works the way it does for d20 D&D. I'd stagger the XP given out to "emulate" the "organic"-ness of it, but that's me.

My suggestion would be to divide the XPs for everyone by the same factor and then award bonuses back in for PCs that were most effective against the enemy. That way, if everyone is reasonably equally effective, they can all still get equal reward, but the cleric gets the most benefit for turning the ghost that the wizard and fighter can only occasionally hurt and the rogue can't sneak attack.

From a philosophical angle, I usually prefer to start low and add awards rather than deduct rewards from those being ineffective.