Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zelc" data-source="post: 3988641" data-attributes="member: 40496">I'm not trying to bash you or anything.  I know it's hard to carry the proper tone over the internet, and readers will often see the wrong tone.  I just don't think this experience point system is a good idea.I'd be really hesitant to mess with experience points, especially when it unsynchronizes the rate that different people level up at.  This could lead to the higher-level players hogging the spotlight whether they want to or not.  If you make a battle that challenges your higher-level characters, the lower-level characters won't be able to contribute.  If you make a battle geared towards the lower-level characters, the higher-level characters will breeze through with ease.It looks like you're trying to make exp rules to punish people for min-maxing, but what really happens is they reward characters who play classes that don't need to multiclass to be powerful.  The experience point system does nothing to punish CoDZilla (Clerics and Druids) or straight-classed Wizards, who will greatly overshadow just about every other type of single-classed character.  If those other characters try to multiclass, not only are they not as powerful on a level-to-level basis, but they'll also be behind on levels.  These exp rules actually make the powerful even more powerful on a comparative basis.Also, the rules punish people who want to play a character with abilities that don't fit the standard base classes.  For instance, one of the most prominent D&D characters, Drizzt Do'Urden, is a multiclassed character.  He was originally trained as a fighter in Menzoberranzan, then when he fled the city he developed a Hunter persona that's much more ruthless and lethal (rage, so Barbarian levels), and then when he left the Underdark he trained to be a Ranger.  Now, I'm not talking about people playing Drizzt clones or whatnot.  What I am saying is that the rules would make it difficult for players to play characters like Drizzt who evolve over time or for RP reasons need a mechanic that can only be obtained by multiclassing.There was recently a long discussion on what classes mean over at the official boards.  You can read it <a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=970929" target="_blank">here</a>.  One gem that came out of it was someone's <a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14651520#post14651520" target="_blank">interpretation of multiclassing</a> (actually in the precursor thread, but linked to in the other thread).  He gave the example of a character who's mechanics were represented by Wizard 5/Geomancer 5/Runecaster 5/Archmage 5.  However, the character doesn't think "I'm going to be a Wizard for 5 levels, then I'm going to alternate training with Geomancers and Runecasters, and finally I'll study with Archmages".  Instead, he mixed the progression together to create a Scrivener class.  The character is studying to be a Scrivener from level 1-20.  Now, the mechanics are represented by Wizard 5/Geomancer 5/Runecaster 5/Archmage 5, but is the Scrivener class not as good as a straight Wizard, for instance, just because WotC decided to split the mechanics up into one base class and three prestige classes?When designing a rules system, make sure you think about what the incentives are.  What do your rules encourage the people to do?  Here are some potential issues I found with the proposed rules.  Make sure combat doesn't have to be combat, otherwise your party face will be unhappy when he diplomatically diffuses a situation only to have the rest of the party yell at him because he caused them to miss out on exp.  Also, an exp penalty for having opponents escape will bind your hands when you want them to not kill your BBEG (conflicts with your recurring plot villain; if they're recurring, then they probably escaped an earlier fight).  You'll end up punishing them because the story dictates it, and as a player, that's something I'd find quite unfair.  The high magic bonus would either punish the entire party because one player decided to use a high level spell, put a lot of peer pressure on the casters to not use their higher level spells (the villain just cast a Dimension Door, so don't use any spells higher than level 1!), or only happen when facing opponents at least 4 or 5 levels higher than the highest caster in your party (usually results in bad things, like a TPK).  Never missed is usually a matter of luck, has problems with always-hit stuff like someone said earlier, and may actually result in people attacking less to minimize their chances of missing.  The basically useless penalty can make your players unhappy because certain monsters are tough for certain classes to deal with; for instance, facing a Rust Monster would probably automatically incur the penalty for any melee characters in the party.  Also, a player might end the fight quickly with, say, a save-or-die, and everyone else in the party would get hit with the penalty.  In certain groups, the Last Man Standing bonus might encourage a player to NOT help their party so they might have a better chance of receiving it.  Yes, you might be able to punish it, but determining which are legitimate and which aren't is almost impossible and applying such a penalty in error would be really bad.All in all, I'd say that if the exp mechanic isn't broken, don't try to fix it.  With a lot of work, you can probably iron out these issues with the current proposed exp rules.  If you think that's worth it, go for it, and I wish you luck <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.</blockquote>

Verification