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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5598748" data-attributes="member: 42582">This really depends on the consequences of removing treasure XP. Played by the book in AD&D (ie XP for treasure plus using the treasure tables), I believe that treasure makes the most significant contribution to level gain, by a considerable margin.Dropping XP for treausre seems to me to be one of the obvious signs of the increasing trend towards simulationism rather than gamism ("Why does looting things make me better at spellcasting?!") and towards a heroic rather than a mercenary genre.But only at name level - if you compare the XP charts in Basic/Expert to AD&D, for example, levels above name are twice as expensive in AD&D as in Basic.(I guess I should really be making this comparison to the OD&D rather than the Basic charts, but I don't know them off the top of my head!)My recollection is the same.I think this is an interesting amibiguity in any system in which adversaries and PCs are built according to the same rules.4e is the first version of D&D to drop this approach - epic levels are for PCs, whereas powerful adversaries are to be built using the elite/solo monster design guidelines. And interestingly, the upshot of this has been that WotC has significantly reduced support for epic tier, on the basis that it is not being played very much. Which suggests that Lanefan may be right in his hypothesis, both about player preferences and about the function of high-level build rules in classic D&D!(And for the record - I've GMed AD&D PCs up to 15th level, Rolemaster PCs up to 27th level - which I would say corresponds to AD&D or 3E levels somewhere around 18th - and am looking forward to taking my current 4e campaign into the epic tier in due course.)</blockquote>

Verification