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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 1743967" data-attributes="member: 8863">Seperate XP tables existed because classes weren't balanced in 2e. The classes that were theotically more powerful generally needed more XPs to advance than others, because they were more powerful. Of course that lead to the standard 2e arguments about rogues and cleric being more powerful because they generaly needed less XP to advance. And there was that wierd bit with wizards needing more than fighters except for a stretch at mid levels where they more quickly advanced for no apparent reason.  And the bard was really broken by that reasoning; it was a combination of the fighter, wizard and thief, and used thief XP which was the most generous in the game!    But then the classes weren't originally intended to be balanced anyway. The 3d6 method of character generation was considered standard, which meant if you used it, the power classes, that is bards, rangers and paladins would be pretty rare. However, most people IME used a system like the 4d6 method where they could assign scores; this made the power classes more common and threw the rarity out of whack. In any case, I prefer the 3e approach which makes 4d6 standard and attempts to balance the classes and make them more or less equal. The old way tended to force players to play specific characters based on dice rolls, and that just doesn't cut it today.    Level caps for demihumans was supposed to be another aspect of balance, but most people seemed to think that was stupid too.   The lower attribute caps for females was 1e's bit of sexisim in the game. 2e had the infamous "A Note About Pronouns" section at the beginning of the PHB (which eventually was completely ignored).</blockquote>

Verification