Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3768771" data-attributes="member: 4937">This is partially true.  First edition leveling rate is comparable to third edition through the first few levels of play.  But, since each level requires double the experience points of the previous, things normally get slower and slower.  The gap between 8th and 10th is huge.  At latter levels the advancement rate is flat, but its a huge gap of like 325000 XP per level and treasure doesn't scale up past 10th level.  It's going to stay slow at that point even if you don't houserule xp for gp away.Besides which, if you actually read the fine print on the XP for gp rule in the 1st edition DMG, you only get the full xp for a gp if you earned it from an appropriate challenge.  If for example, a party of 10th level characters entered a lair of kobolds, they'd only get 1/10th normal xp for any of the limited treasure that they might obtain for such a foray.Besides which, and this ought to be an old and settled argument, exactly how much treasure your DM gave out in play depended alot on which of the conflicting examples of treasure allocation he used as canonical.  If his perception of appropriate amounts of treasure was based strictly on the treasure tables in the MM, then advancement was very slow indeed.  If on the other hand, the treasure tables were used for wilderness encounters and 'dungeons' were designed according to the example of treasure allocation in the 1st edition DMG, then advancement was somewhat faster.  If on the other hand, you took the treasure allocation from published (tournament) modules as indicative of appropriate design, then advancement could be very fast indeed.  As for myself, I was much closer to using the treasure tables as the appropriate guideline, and took the detailed example of treasure composition from the 1st edition DMG as gospel.  Most DMs I played under where more or less the same, since no one wanted to be accused of being 'Monte Haul'.  Everyone would have rather had a 'manly' reputation for harshness.I didn't say it was a reason for avoiding 4e in and of itself.  I suggested that it was further evidence that the game being designed was not designed with me in mind as a target audience.  It is further evidence that whatever concerns that they've chosen to address, they aren't my concerns.</blockquote>

Verification