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

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Put me in the camp of "unified XP is a good idea" -- both for simplicity, and the ease of multiclassing, plus general fairness -- if awarded equal XP, everyone levels at about the same rate (my last campaign I awarded equal XP for encounters oevrcome, but not necessarily for RP and other factors, so there was a slight difference player-to-player, but everyone generally levelled at the same time unless someone had missed a lot of sessions).

Now, the rate on the unified chart is another story ... I prefer to slow down advancement, and awarded XP at 50-75% of the book rate to achieve that in my last campaign (and reduced treasure awarded in proportion as well, so PCs wouldn't become too rich for their level).

If the current default assumption is 13.3 EL-equivalent challenges per level, I think the right number is closer to 25.


Don't forget, too, that 1E XP was awarded primarily on the amount of treasure recovered -- the XP for defeating the monster itself was relatively insignificant in comparison. So if the whole party does different amount of work defeating the monster, but the fighter carries out the most treasure because he has the highest STR, should he get the most XP?

That's why I'm perfectly happy to chuck class-based XP and use the current unified system.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

The unified XP chart.

It was done because it's more fun to have everyone in the party levelling up at the same time, and because one of the design goals of Third Edition (making every class competitive at every level) requires it.

I think it's an excellent change. There is so much about Third Edition that makes earlier versions of the game seem deeply silly.

 

[iwatt]

Didn't 2e also have wonky rules so that characters gained bonus xp based on particular actions:

thiefs: gold stolen
fighters: HD defeated
clerics and mages: i don't remember

so adding to the irregular xp charts, you had to add in irregular xp awards.

Talk about a nightmare.

 

[IceFractal]

The thing is that I can't see how the different XP charts represented "learning things in a different way", unless that way was "thieves always learn stuff faster".

I mean, imagine a fight against a Lich. The mage is learning all kinds of stuff about necromancy, mage dueling, and so forth. The thief isn't doing much, because the Lich is undead. But at the end of the fight, the thief learns more??

 

[Piratecat]

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.

I respect your opinion, but I think as stated it's demonstrably wrong. Did you ever play 2e using kits? The Priest's Handbook actually made priests less powerful than core rules, and the kits in the Elf Handbook made elves far more powerful than core rules. In my opinion this imbalance isn't subjective at all; it's clear, provable, and out of the hands of the DM.

That's what 3e was trying to redress. By putting all races and classes on a roughly equal footing and trying to make all of them roughly equally fun to play (or at least equally powerful), they levelled the playing field. Now you could pick whatever was most fun to roleplay, because the classes and races gave approximately comparable advantages.

 

[Crothian]

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.

If that is what the players are doing, then blaime the players. This is not an attitude the game causes. It is a player problem (assuming one sees this as a problem).

 

[Aaron L]

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."

So it's a "good" that the game lacks the ability to model something and has to use a DM fudge to get what the player wants?

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

Meh. The last thing I want to worry when creating new (campaign-specific) classes (be it base character classes or prestige classes) is how much they should advance by level, XP-wise.

Even worse, tracking XP when multiclassing, which can also affect that system as well. I mean, why do I have to declare multiclassing at the start of character creation. Why can only humans "dual"-class later during the campaign?

While most major-brand RPGs have unified XP charts, up until 2000, D&D retain the various class XP charts.

Personally, I think we should reform the classes to be in-sync with the unified XP chart. IOW, a 1st-level wizard's overall power level should be on the same plateau as a 1st-level fighter's power level, albeit in their own ways. The old AD&D makes weak wizards at low -- and therefore get a much easier XP chart. Though we're using a unified XP chart in 3e, the designers haven't done enough to make wizards a bit stronger at low level, believing that in the long run -- that is when one reaches higher level, if they survive -- they will possess near-godlike spells.

I'm glad they rid of the various class XP charts. It would take up more ink and pages in future supplements.

 

[molonel]

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."

Objectionable? Hardly. More like silly. Why should we require the baseball bat of DM fiat on something so comparatively trivial?

Smells like micromanagement to me.

 

[thedungeondelver]

It was done because it's more fun to have everyone in the party levelling up at the same time, and because one of the design goals of Third Edition (making every class competitive at every level) requires it.

I think it's an excellent change. There is so much about Third Edition that makes earlier versions of the game seem deeply silly.

I disagree. I find it to be restrictive lockstep for reasons I've outlined elsewhere.

But, as I say, courses for horses...