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

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

I didn't say it was poor game design. I said it wasn't doing what it was doing for the reasons you said it was. Your example was pure fantasy.

As it happens, I think that slowing down or smoothing out the power curve of the various classes makes for a better game. I've got posts and threads scattered all over ENworld as testament to that.

You might even say I've written books on the subject.

 

[Jim Hague]

I didn't say it was poor game design. I said it wasn't doing what it was doing for the reasons you said it was. Your example was pure fantasy.

As it happens, I think that slowing down or smoothing out the power curve of the various classes makes for a better game. I've got posts and threads scattered all over ENworld as testament to that.

You might even say I've written books on the subject.

No! No way! I don't believe you, Wulf!

 

[Plane Sailing]

One of the things I always found most irritating about the 1e experience charts was their pointless irregularity.

For instance, wizards needed the highest amount to reach 2nd level, and needed the highest amount after reaching 'name' level (was it 11th or something?), but in the mid levels centred around 7th they actually required less than the poor old fighters did!

The 1e general assumption was that harsher xp charts balanced more powerful class abilities... but I think it was a flawed assumption, because it never actually worked IMX

 

[Umbran]

In earlier editions it was possible to jump classes, or to change within a class (thief/acrobat), or to add a class (dual classing).

"Jump Classes" is not a term from teh 1e rtules that I remember. Dual classing required notably high ability scores, and was only available to humans (and to half-elves who were understood to be heading for Bard, a very specific exception). "Change within a class" was only available to the theif/acrobat, as I recall, and was not a general feature of the rules.

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...

Here I disagree. The hard and fast rules where there, and the basic suggestion was that changing classes was not an option - it was specifically made difficult, and not open to everyone. That's not organic. That's something that looks lumpy because the DM needed to apply a crowbar to it to make it flex

I loved playing the game, but I don't think it has a strength here.

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.

Before I coudl say, you'll have to describe what you mean by that. Because what you say is "organic on the meta level" I see as "lumpy and uneven general design on a meta level". And when the general design is lumpy and uneven, it takes a whole lot more work for me to do much with it.

That, you see, is a major point - the base design of 3e is much more elegant than 1e or 2e. I guess you can say that the base design of the prior editions is more organic, as it did grow haphazardly out of the minds of Gygax, et al.

The question - why is this "organic" important? Given that they'll (in general) be even more varied in abilities, why do you specifically care so much about their spread in levels?

 

[Mauricio Pezzotta]

It doesn't make a difference; with exponential XP tables, that difference is essentially irrelevant, they'll be all advancing at the same speed.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

The DM could allow your "Mouser" character to be a thief with the ability to cast cantrips. Done. I guess the objectional part is the "if the DM allows."

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Whuh? "definitely...very broken"? The old system was in no way, shape or fashion a "kludge" to make up for problems with the game.

Yes, it was, and I explained why.

And as far as multiclassing...divide the awarded XP over the number of classes; that isn't hard nor is it kludgy.

You're assuming that- a) we want to play two classes from the beginning of the game, and b) we want to play only those classes. This allows no room for prestige classes, or for elaborate multiclass combinations (which I like, BTW). It also assumes that we want to continue advancing in the same class, and it assumes that adding a level of a class when you're at 13th level is of the same value as it would be at 3rd. (Heck, if you're using stackable features and an exponential XP curve like 2e, why bother to advance past fourth or fifth level in a given combat class- just take the first few levels in any). It don't work.

Magic users didn't "race ahead" in terms of power, the balance came from the advancement costs in XP terms.

Exactly the point I made; the balance came from the advancement cost, rather than from the construction of the class itself. (Unlike 3e)

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[/b] (to wit, they weren't in AD&D 1 which is my point of reference).

Well, I did. (and I never played AD&D 1, I didn't start playing until 1997) I wanted to give players OPTIONS, which were practically an unknown quantity in the core D&D rules (Which was why so many of my players at the time wanted to play point-based systems like Vampire or d6 Star Wars instead- they could build the character they wanted.) Player's Option fixed this, but it was tied to so much outdated legacy junk (like the XP charts, THAC0, the messy multiclassing and dual classing systems) and had such an imbalance between classes (Priests with character points could potentially become one-man parties if the player knew what he was doing) that it became broken and unworkable. d20 D&D fixed this- and the unified advancement chart was part of this improvement, and part of what made D&D a game worth playing again.

 

[teitan]

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.

In my opinion "balance" is a subjective concept that is entirely in the hands of the DM and no system can truly "balance" a game except mechanically and once the game starts, that can easily come to an end.

 

[Nightfall]

Teitan,

So true, so true.

Me I'm fine with the same XP chart advancements for everyone. Because then I don't have to endless figure out XP for the other guys based on what spells they casts, how many converts they made, etc, etc. It's all up to yours truly.

 

[Storm Raven]

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."

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the system uses a unified XP table or not. How much XP you earn has no bearing on how you apply it. Your example has nothing to do with your argument.