D&D General Experience Points & Leveling: A Brief Primer on XP in the 1e DMG, and Why It Still Matters

[Warpiglet-7]

Me too!

I felt alienated when we skipped 2e. But it filled in too many holes for my group!

we already had “kits” which were characters we conceived, Often drew and roleplayed according to our concept. No template required....

but I am jonesing for 1e. I am in my 40s, I don’t care about “alienation.” The current zeitgeist does not really embrace me anyway.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nice analysis. But way off in what was really happening at tables. Synergies has to be taken into account. The cleric was more or less a healbot and its true fighting capacity came at third level with silence and hold person spells.

I beg to differ. I played and ran D&D and AD&D for 25 years, 1000's and 1000's of hours. The supposed 'synergies' are overrated on the whole. Clerics as healbots changes nothing either, I am assuming in my assessment you would be insane to vary from 4x CLW at level 1, period. MAYBE, you might sub in a Bless or Protection From Evil if you have specific reasons. I suppose any of the other level 1 spells might also be useful if you can anticipate the specific use (IE going in with a specific plan). All that does is increase their utility. As healers a level 1 cleric represents a spare 4.5x4 = 18 hit points, roughly doubling the melee endurance of the ENTIRE party (assuming a 5 PC party). Their fighting capacity is better than 80% of a fighter at level 1 (they are exactly 1 hit point shy of being a fighter, though they probably do a bit less damage, maybe the fighter gets a STR bonus to-hit, etc.). And yes, 3rd level, where they get all their 2nd level spells, including bonus spells for WIS, is a BIG power increase.

Think about it this way though. You would virtually ALWAYS be better off building a party with clerics subbed in for fighters. Yes, damage output will go down slightly, but not much, and total party hit point endurance, plus general spell casting, will improve greatly. Fighters are pretty good at lower levels, but nothing like vital. Clerics are vital. To the point that dropping in a half-elf that has a cleric 2nd class at party creation is practically a standard optimization tactic! (making the thief a MC'd thief/M.U. being another, elves are better thieves anyway).

The wizard might get double its spell allotment but there were usually more than one fight per day and fights were resolved way faster back then. This left your wizard stuck with darts and daggers for most fights. The wizards' job was to know when to cast their spells to tip the balance of hard/ key fights.

Right, and those are the ones that are high risk where you have to have that added power to win. Again, this is why standard optimization tactics for a 1e party is to sub in elf fighter/M.U., or clerics, or HE cleric/MU, etc. to get the extra spell power is so excellent a strategy. (at least at low levels) having all Magic Users won't work, but you could easily go half-and-half clerics and Magic Users, that is pretty optimum, particularly if one of the Magic Users is also a fighter, so 2 clerics, 2 magic users, and a magic user/fighter MC. Lots of spell power, plenty of melee when you need it. Remember, melee is a failure condition in 1e anyway, so what you need is the ability to survive that mistake now and then.

This is also true with the thief. A backstab was a relative rare occurrence at low level. Most of thieves' job was to find/remove trap and to scout ahead. They were not the damage dealer they are today.

No, but if they cannot deal damage effectively, they are greatly reduced in value. Also, certainly at low levels, thieves are terrible scouts! Their thief ability check numbers are rotten, unless they are elves, who can already sneak better than any thief! So why not be an elf magic user? Or even elf magic user/thief? See my point? Now you begin to understand why elves were made to be less desirable by level caps!

Also, no classes were guaranteed average HP from the get go. I have seen fighters with 18 con having a mere 40 hp at level 6 and a wizard of level 11 with barely 21 hp at 11th level... Your first level cleric might only get one additional HP for its second level. This is hardly doubling hp. Average hp on leveling was not thing in AD&D. At least not at every tables. I have seen players use a wish to reroll a bad HP roll that they had.

Yes, but I have no idea how that effects considerations of class design, which cannot really be based on what might happen in some specific case. Obviously you could have a 4th level fighter with 4 hit points. I've seen stuff like that, it is pretty sad. It isn't a reflection of the class though, particularly. Though I must say that a 4th level MU with 4 hit points will grumble and be in some extra danger, but it isn't going to cripple him...

Also, you also have to remember that a wizard was not a true wizard until he reached name level and so was it with all other classes. You were simply dabbles in your class until you reached that name level. When my players were meeting a paladin, they knew immediately that the NPC was 9th level. If it was Justicar, it was an 8th level paladin in becoming.

Again, I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Level titles have no mechanics associated with them, and I'm not sure why they would matter in terms of how the XP tables are organized.

This is why training was a thing. Yes it was a mean to relieve players of their gold, sure. But it also reflected the journey that they had started. They needed time to assimilated what they had learned and training was also to make them learn more about their profession. Contrary to modern RPG and 5ed, the starting characters were simply apprentices, novitiates in field. They were not fully formed and ready. I consider the AD&D characters as people that have learned the basic of their trade. Started to work/adventuring before fully ready and taking time to learn more about their trade in their downtime, taking time to catch up with what they have missed by going away early in their training...

Sure, but that still leaves the question whether that made the game fun or not. Nobody can answer that for anyone else. I always thought the whole training thing was an interesting idea, but not well-thought-through nor especially appealing. I guess most people agreed.

 

[Helldritch]

It's really odd how experiences differ. I never once saw Slow Poison memorized, let alone cast. Hold Person, though, was in every Cleric's prepared spells once they hit 3rd level. The reason for this was that Hold Person was useful. Slow Poison on the other hand just delayed death for 3 hours at 3rd level, and out in the wilderness or in a dungeon, the odds of finding a cure before the 3 hours were up were right around my winning the lottery tonight, and I haven't even purchased a ticket yet.

I will admit that it was almost entirely campaign dependant but often, if the town was near enough and a cleric of high enough level close, the slow poison spell was taken. A bit higher, and you could see scrolls of slow poison.

The tactic with slow poison is that it stalls all poison damage instances. No matter how many of instances of it you had on yourself. Consider it as a temporary poison immunity for the duration of the spell. Strange wording allowed that and the spell neutralize poison would cure all poison as well as the Keogtom's ointment. So why waste valuable neutralize poison and ointment on each occurrences where slow poison allowed you to go on poisoned for a few hours? And then, a neutralize poison would remove all poisons from your system, no matter how many of them you had... efficiency was the motto here.

As for the silence spell, it was, as Vorlons say, a three edged sword. It could shut down enemy spell casters but it could also shut down yours. The best use my players found for the spell was to prevent the dreaded:"Alarm!!!!!" An alarm was often the death of a group...

 

[Lanefan]

Think about it this way though. You would virtually ALWAYS be better off building a party with clerics subbed in for fighters. Yes, damage output will go down slightly, but not much, and total party hit point endurance, plus general spell casting, will improve greatly. Fighters are pretty good at lower levels, but nothing like vital. Clerics are vital. To the point that dropping in a half-elf that has a cleric 2nd class at party creation is practically a standard optimization tactic! (making the thief a MC'd thief/M.U. being another, elves are better thieves anyway).

I've seen many parties at a wide range of levels where the Clerics were also the front line.

All too often the experiment ended both a) quickly and b) not well.

 

[Maxperson]

I will admit that it was almost entirely campaign dependant but often, if the town was near enough and a cleric of high enough level close, the slow poison spell was taken. A bit higher, and you could see scrolls of slow poison.

The tactic with slow poison is that it stalls all poison damage instances. No matter how many of instances of it you had on yourself. Consider it as a temporary poison immunity for the duration of the spell. Strange wording allowed that and the spell neutralize poison would cure all poison as well as the Keogtom's ointment. So why waste valuable neutralize poison and ointment on each occurrences where slow poison allowed you to go on poisoned for a few hours? And then, a neutralize poison would remove all poisons from your system, no matter how many of them you had... efficiency was the motto here.

Yeah. If you were right on top of or in town, it was useful at 3-4th level. We were rarely that close, though.

As for the silence spell, it was, as Vorlons say, a three edged sword. It could shut down enemy spell casters but it could also shut down yours. The best use my players found for the spell was to prevent the dreaded:"Alarm!!!!!" An alarm was often the death of a group...

And given that they were many tentacled Vorlons, it was probably also a three handed sword.

 

[Helldritch]

I beg to differ. I played and ran D&D and AD&D for 25 years, 1000's and 1000's of hours. The supposed 'synergies' are overrated on the whole. Clerics as healbots changes nothing either, I am assuming in my assessment you would be insane to vary from 4x CLW at level 1, period. MAYBE, you might sub in a Bless or Protection From Evil if you have specific reasons. I suppose any of the other level 1 spells might also be useful if you can anticipate the specific use (IE going in with a specific plan). All that does is increase their utility. As healers a level 1 cleric represents a spare 4.5x4 = 18 hit points, roughly doubling the melee endurance of the ENTIRE party (assuming a 5 PC party). Their fighting capacity is better than 80% of a fighter at level 1 (they are exactly 1 hit point shy of being a fighter, though they probably do a bit less damage, maybe the fighter gets a STR bonus to-hit, etc.). And yes, 3rd level, where they get all their 2nd level spells, including bonus spells for WIS, is a BIG power increase.

Think about it this way though. You would virtually ALWAYS be better off building a party with clerics subbed in for fighters. Yes, damage output will go down slightly, but not much, and total party hit point endurance, plus general spell casting, will improve greatly. Fighters are pretty good at lower levels, but nothing like vital. Clerics are vital. To the point that dropping in a half-elf that has a cleric 2nd class at party creation is practically a standard optimization tactic! (making the thief a MC'd thief/M.U. being another, elves are better thieves anyway).

Right, and those are the ones that are high risk where you have to have that added power to win. Again, this is why standard optimization tactics for a 1e party is to sub in elf fighter/M.U., or clerics, or HE cleric/MU, etc. to get the extra spell power is so excellent a strategy. (at least at low levels) having all Magic Users won't work, but you could easily go half-and-half clerics and Magic Users, that is pretty optimum, particularly if one of the Magic Users is also a fighter, so 2 clerics, 2 magic users, and a magic user/fighter MC. Lots of spell power, plenty of melee when you need it. Remember, melee is a failure condition in 1e anyway, so what you need is the ability to survive that mistake now and then.

No, but if they cannot deal damage effectively, they are greatly reduced in value. Also, certainly at low levels, thieves are terrible scouts! Their thief ability check numbers are rotten, unless they are elves, who can already sneak better than any thief! So why not be an elf magic user? Or even elf magic user/thief? See my point? Now you begin to understand why elves were made to be less desirable by level caps!

Yes, but I have no idea how that effects considerations of class design, which cannot really be based on what might happen in some specific case. Obviously you could have a 4th level fighter with 4 hit points. I've seen stuff like that, it is pretty sad. It isn't a reflection of the class though, particularly. Though I must say that a 4th level MU with 4 hit points will grumble and be in some extra danger, but it isn't going to cripple him...

Again, I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Level titles have no mechanics associated with them, and I'm not sure why they would matter in terms of how the XP tables are organized.

Sure, but that still leaves the question whether that made the game fun or not. Nobody can answer that for anyone else. I always thought the whole training thing was an interesting idea, but not well-thought-through nor especially appealing. I guess most people agreed.

Nice theory crafting. Guess we ran things differently. It all depends on party size. Mine were usually around 6 players with a few henchmen. Having two clerics was not that uncommon and would open up the possibility of taking a bless spell or two. A full party of adventurers could be anywhere from 6 to12 people. Most henchmen were falling behind as the group rose to higher and higher levels but as the players were stronger, new strategies would open up and henchmen would go down in usage and would go down to one or two for a high level party.

As for party composition, I do not doubt your analysis, but to each his own and sometimes you have to make do with what you got. Not all party are build with optimisation in mind, and the rolls might not go your way.

As for thieves being terrible scouts at low level. Yep. Most thieves were elven. But human thieves and halflings thieves were also a thing and from level 6 an on, they were very good, or at least good enough to make them worthwhile as they rose in level faster than any other classes. Your MU/T quickly fell behind in thieving capacity as you neared level 9. At that point, you mu/t would simply use improved invisibility and haste to backstab any opponent to kingdomcome.

As for the training rule
We used them. The only mod was that we allowed exp to go up to half the next level. So if you rose to level 2, you could accumulate half the experience for level 3. It was usually enough for everyone.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I will admit that it was almost entirely campaign dependant but often, if the town was near enough and a cleric of high enough level close, the slow poison spell was taken. A bit higher, and you could see scrolls of slow poison.

The tactic with slow poison is that it stalls all poison damage instances. No matter how many of instances of it you had on yourself. Consider it as a temporary poison immunity for the duration of the spell. Strange wording allowed that and the spell neutralize poison would cure all poison as well as the Keogtom's ointment. So why waste valuable neutralize poison and ointment on each occurrences where slow poison allowed you to go on poisoned for a few hours? And then, a neutralize poison would remove all poisons from your system, no matter how many of them you had... efficiency was the motto here.

As for the silence spell, it was, as Vorlons say, a three edged sword. It could shut down enemy spell casters but it could also shut down yours. The best use my players found for the spell was to prevent the dreaded:"Alarm!!!!!" An alarm was often the death of a group...

Right, there were a few tactics to use with Silence. It is also great as a way to help the party approach a particular area quietly. It can also be cast into an enemy group from a distance, or cast upon a sling stone or something and then carried, thrown, or slung into the enemy. Even non-casters can be pretty messed up by it. Imagine a fusillade of flaming oil flasks arriving, with silence cast on one into the middle of your camp. Now try to coordinate a defense! The downfall of many a bandit group or enemy party.

Slow poison is a vital spell. Note that poisons have INSTANT EFFECT in AD&D (generally, unless noted otherwise) so normally once someone is poisoned, they're dead, before you can attempt any sort of response. ONLY Slow Poison will actually get around this fact, nothing else. Neutralize Poison will work on a PC, but only if the poison was slowed first, because it lacks the same "come back from the dead" feature. So actually saving someone from something like a poison spider bite requires TWO spells, Slow Poison to reverse their already factual 'death', and THEN Neutralize Poison to permanently fix the problem. The description of Keotum's Ointment is more ambiguous, but to be safe you should always pack Slow Poison.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've seen many parties at a wide range of levels where the Clerics were also the front line.

All too often the experiment ended both a) quickly and b) not well.

If the clerics couldn't cut it, then it is pretty unlikely that some fighters were going to fare much better. I mean, assuming you got some incredibly lucky die rolls and got a % strength, AND a better than 16 CON, then sure, you are probably substantially stronger in melee than most clerics. OTOH a cleric with a 17 to thrown into STR or CON (since the 18 will be in WIS) won't be a wimp either. Obviously if you roll a lot of high hit die rolls, with the high CON, you could have some pretty stupid hit points for your level too, and again that's great, but you have to assume equally exceptional characters on both sides of that comparison.

So, yes, some individual fighters will be 'better at melee than any cleric', but most will just be slightly better on average. Then factor in that the cleric heavy party is always healed, and once you hit 3rd will also have a bunch of other utility 'buffs' and such. You can construct corner cases, but when putting together a party you don't mostly go with corner cases, you go with "what normally works, and will handle the unexpected well" and that kind of party ALWAYS has more casters.

 

[Helldritch]

Right, there were a few tactics to use with Silence. It is also great as a way to help the party approach a particular area quietly. It can also be cast into an enemy group from a distance, or cast upon a sling stone or something and then carried, thrown, or slung into the enemy. Even non-casters can be pretty messed up by it. Imagine a fusillade of flaming oil flasks arriving, with silence cast on one into the middle of your camp. Now try to coordinate a defense! The downfall of many a bandit group or enemy party.

Slow poison is a vital spell. Note that poisons have INSTANT EFFECT in AD&D (generally, unless noted otherwise) so normally once someone is poisoned, they're dead, before you can attempt any sort of response. ONLY Slow Poison will actually get around this fact, nothing else. Neutralize Poison will work on a PC, but only if the poison was slowed first, because it lacks the same "come back from the dead" feature. So actually saving someone from something like a poison spider bite requires TWO spells, Slow Poison to reverse their already factual 'death', and THEN Neutralize Poison to permanently fix the problem. The description of Keotum's Ointment is more ambiguous, but to be safe you should always pack Slow Poison.

I fully agree on that.
But Keogtom's ointment is pretty clear that it will clear poison.
DMG p149 about Keogtom's ointment...
Placed upon a poisoned wound (or swallowed), it detoxifies any poison or disease.
That is pretty clear to me.
At a price of 10000 gold for five jar each with 5 uses that means a mere 400gp for each use of the ointment. That is pretty cheap compared to having a caster cast neutralize poison on a character (1000gp, DMG p104). If it could be possible...

Even a scroll of neutralize poison does not come cheaper. 100xp x4 (4th level spell) X 3 or 1200gp. As per DMG p121. And that is if the caster does not charge the 1000 gold for casting the spell for the scroll creation. And you need an 11th cleric to scribe scrolls... I do not think that a high priest will not charge that additional 1000 gold. At least not in my games.

The last possible solution would be an elixir of health from the Unearthed Arcana. At 2000 gold, it is even costlier than the scroll option. Healing solutions beside having a cleric in your party would not come cheap. The best solution is the ointment, yet, you need a nice friendly alchemist and e en these do not come cheap. Many groups were pooling their resources to get these. Often making quests for the alchemist or the church.

 

[Maxperson]

Slow poison is a vital spell. Note that poisons have INSTANT EFFECT in AD&D (generally, unless noted otherwise) so normally once someone is poisoned, they're dead, before you can attempt any sort of response. ONLY Slow Poison will actually get around this fact, nothing else. Neutralize Poison will work on a PC, but only if the poison was slowed first, because it lacks the same "come back from the dead" feature. So actually saving someone from something like a poison spider bite requires TWO spells, Slow Poison to reverse their already factual 'death', and THEN Neutralize Poison to permanently fix the problem. The description of Keotum's Ointment is more ambiguous, but to be safe you should always pack Slow Poison.

Sure. I'm talking about those levels before you can cast Neutralize Poison. The vast majority of the time you simply won't be close enough to make a difference with Slow Poison.