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

[lukelightning]

This leads to "An adventure for characters levels 9-14...or possibly 16 if there are lots of thieves in the party, or 8 if you have some paladins...."

 

[thedungeondelver]

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'm not trying to be dense, here, but I really don't see it as a "foundation of quicksand".

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?

Nothing, I concede this point. And the whole of a "one xp chart for everbody in d20" (it is universal across the system, right? that's the reason I refer to d20 as a whole, here).

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.

I respectfully disagree, sir (assuming you're a sir!). In earlier editions it was possible to jump classes, or to change within a class (thief/acrobat), or to add a class (dual classing). I will admit that the hard and fast rules for that weren't there, for everything, but that there was a lot of suggestion and a lot of things left up to the mind of the DM...that there was a great deal of, how shall I say, individual initiative in how to go about it all. That's more organic to me than a cut-and-dried methodology from which there is no deviation.

Perhaps, if I may, we're seeing organic on two levels here (oy! "level" again! ). You see "organic" in the individual character sense and I'm thinking more on the "meta" level.

But again, I see the reason it fits in the way it does. Should I DM latter day D&D again I'll probably straddle the line, either staggering XP or finding some other method to bring in that "organicness".

 

[Pbartender]

Organic.

In the end, though, that organic-ness is just an illusion.

Ultimately, Experience Points, and the levels attained thereby, are just a means of quantifying a character's advancement and determining what abilities he gain when. The actual numbers involved in Experience Points and Levels matters very little, so long as A) the rate of advancement and ability gain is appropriate and B) the power levels of two different classes with roughly the same amount of XP is roughly the same.

For 3rd Edition, they made Experience and Levels the standard, and arranged the power gains around that framework. Whereas earlier editions defined the power gains per level first, and then arranged the experience points around that to get an appropriate rate of advancement.

Conceptually and mechanically, it's generally far easier to consider that a 5th-level Cleric, a 5th-level Fighter, a 5th-level Rogue and a 5th-level Wizard (12,000 XP) all have the same power level, than a 4th-level Cleric, a 4th-level Fighter, a 5th-level Thief and a 3rd-level Magic-User (12,000 XP).

"Organic-ness" really has nothing to do with it. Organic-ness is more about players making character-building choices for their characters based on what happens to them during the game, rather than on a master plan pre-determined at character creation.

When you look at it that way, while D20 certainly doesn't eliminate those master plans (in fact, I admit they they flourish), at least there is possibility for organic growth... Characters that have a change of heart, or a change of profession can simply take new feats, assign new skill ranks or multiclass into a new class to reflect that change. There never really was that option in previous editions... For the most part, what you chose to do at first level determined exactly what you would be doing until the death of your character. The opportunities for switching were few, far between and troublesome. I'd hardly call that organic growth.

Organic character growth is easy in D20 games... "You cannot multiclass without permission from the DM. When appropriate, the DM may suggest specific classes or prestige-classes for multiclassing."


EDIT: ...beat to the punch.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

As it should be. Being able to pick and choose per level is the only way to model a lot of different types of heroes. Suppose I want to do The Grey Mouser, for instance. In AD&D I had to either dual class first as Wizard for one or two levels then switch to Thief (but that presumes I have the uber-high stats required for dual classing), or play a demi-human and take MU/Thief.

But wait! Mouser only knows a piddly little amount of magic, but multiclassing like AD&D had it means that my magic-user level will always be within 1 of my thief level (I think there is a brief hiccup where you're actually two levels ahead but that all levels out after about 8th or 10th, I forget which, where the thief suddenly has a comparatively huge gap in XP as oppossed to his other levels). So, it doesn't model that sort of thing well at all.

Also, it cuts down on the dreaded Magic-User/Cleric, virtually equal power in the two most powerful spell-casting classes.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

This leads to "An adventure for characters levels 9-14...or possibly 16 if there are lots of thieves in the party, or 8 if you have some paladins...."

... or 7 if your characters have high stats and phat lewtz0rz, unless there are only 3 in the party. If there are 9 in the party, you might want to cut levels a little bit further...

Same thing for d20, though. A group of 7 combat-optimised characters who've made all the mathematically superior feat choices is going to have an easier time of most adventures than a group of 3 characters who've experimented with weird class combinations and optimised for roleplaying, none of whom have taken any levels as a priest. And a party that really uses henchmen intelligently skews the calculation too, as does a party with the "right" magic item...

You've always got to use judgment and intelligence.

 

[WayneLigon]

I will admit that the hard and fast rules for that weren't there, for everything, but that there was a lot of suggestion and a lot of things left up to the mind of the DM...that there was a great deal of, how shall I say, individual initiative in how to go about it all. That's more organic to me than a cut-and-dried methodology from which there is no deviation.

Different strokes, and all. I'd rather have a methodology spelled out for me rather than 'what I can convince the DM to let me do'; that almost always leads to arguements and favoritism.

 

[molonel]

But wait! Mouser only knows a piddly little amount of magic, but multiclassing like AD&D had it means that my magic-user level will always be within 1 of my thief level (I think there is a brief hiccup where you're actually two levels ahead but that all levels out after about 8th or 10th, I forget which, where the thief suddenly has a comparatively huge gap in XP as oppossed to his other levels). So, it doesn't model that sort of thing well at all.

Yes. I've actually played characters like that in 3rd Edition that start out as one thing, and then move to something entirely different. I played a character who was as dwarf fighter 1/barbarian 1/cleric 1, a sort of chaotic neutral wild man who worshipped battle. His character arc had him eventually joining the church of Dumathoin, who our DM played as the dwarven face of Boccob. He moved away from being a warrior, and found his way into Contemplative where he stayed. It wasn't a powergamer move at all (the Contemplative had d4 hit points, and a wizard's save and BAB) but it wouldn't have been possible under previous editions of the rules. Certainly not with a dwarf.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Different strokes, and all. I'd rather have a methodology spelled out for me rather than 'what I can convince the DM to let me do'; that almost always leads to arguements and favoritism.

And I appreciate that. You're taking the train, I'm driving, but we'll both get to where we want to go and all that.

 

[Thotas]

So true, WayneLigon. I've heard so many people talk about the Player Empowerment that comes from having hard and fast rules for everything. But I've also seen a lot of old-time games where some player knew how to "work" the DM ... and that same DM can now say, "Look, it's right here on page 124. That's the rule, and now it's the gnoll priest's turn ..."

 

[lukelightning]

What about level-dependant effects? Cloudkill kills low hd creatures...so the thief and paladin both have the same amount of XP but the paladin is lower level, so he croaks?