Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Junkheap" data-source="post: 298222" data-attributes="member: 768">We had the same problems in one of our campaigns.&nbsp; My cleric(18th lvl)was at least 2 lvls higher than the closest party member and around 4 higher than the others.&nbsp; This was mainly due to heart of nightfang spire(whatever its called).&nbsp; I was the only cleric and still am, but they needed me alive and NOT drained more than they needed it.The way we do it right now is we use the DMG version.&nbsp; I dont fine either version really fair(FRCS or DMG).&nbsp; In DMG version, my cleric gets a whole lot more than he should. In the FRCS, he get a whole less than he should.&nbsp; It should always be based on a party of 4.&nbsp; The only reason the party is usually surviving the harder battles is because the higher lvl party member is using way more resources to save the partys butt than he does with a party of the same lvl.&nbsp; An example would be a marilith agains the above party or a 18th lvl ceric, 16th lvl barb, 16th lvl thief and 15 lvl sor(prestige classes mixed in for all).&nbsp; The party has a way better chance of surviving with the cleric being that high, than if he was 16th lvl.&nbsp; Whether it be during battle spells, buff spells, damage spells, or pretty much raise deads or heals.&nbsp; It is for sure a higher lvl character would use more resources to help the weaker.In the above situation the DMG would probably give too much XP, but it is more fair than the FRCS where he gets short changed for doing a lot of the work.&nbsp; Kinda miss the 2e(or mostly every other video game rpg other than nwn) where the monster xp is set.&nbsp; Prob is that this doesn't work in 3e.Mind you, it also makes a lot more difference if spell casters were the highest lvl in the party than fighters.&nbsp; I don't think adding 2 more lvls of fighter would amount to a comparable effort a mage/sorceror/cleric has to put up.Geez...i hope you guys undestand my gibberish.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Junkheap, post: 298222, member: 768"] We had the same problems in one of our campaigns. My cleric(18th lvl)was at least 2 lvls higher than the closest party member and around 4 higher than the others. This was mainly due to heart of nightfang spire(whatever its called). I was the only cleric and still am, but they needed me alive and NOT drained more than they needed it. The way we do it right now is we use the DMG version. I dont fine either version really fair(FRCS or DMG). In DMG version, my cleric gets a whole lot more than he should. In the FRCS, he get a whole less than he should. It should always be based on a party of 4. The only reason the party is usually surviving the harder battles is because the higher lvl party member is using way more resources to save the partys butt than he does with a party of the same lvl. An example would be a marilith agains the above party or a 18th lvl ceric, 16th lvl barb, 16th lvl thief and 15 lvl sor(prestige classes mixed in for all). The party has a way better chance of surviving with the cleric being that high, than if he was 16th lvl. Whether it be during battle spells, buff spells, damage spells, or pretty much raise deads or heals. It is for sure a higher lvl character would use more resources to help the weaker. In the above situation the DMG would probably give too much XP, but it is more fair than the FRCS where he gets short changed for doing a lot of the work. Kinda miss the 2e(or mostly every other video game rpg other than nwn) where the monster xp is set. Prob is that this doesn't work in 3e. Mind you, it also makes a lot more difference if spell casters were the highest lvl in the party than fighters. I don't think adding 2 more lvls of fighter would amount to a comparable effort a mage/sorceror/cleric has to put up. Geez...i hope you guys undestand my gibberish. [/QUOTE]

Verification