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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lorehead" data-source="post: 2839112" data-attributes="member: 40086">Since several people have put together complete systems, I'll take the time to discuss them.Splitting XP between classes is another way of saying "50% XP penalty."  It doesn't work in third edition, and it never will.  It didn't even work in second edition.  The only reason it ever came close is that, at the levels people played demihumans, a 50% XP penalty used to put you a flat one level behind in both classes.Since that was (and is) too powerful, you really want the gestalt characters to be more like two levels behind.  Give them a LA and be done with it.  The system won't be as balanced as the one in the core rules, it won't be as flexible, and it won't mesh well with existing CRs and PrCs.  But, it will be more like AD&D multi-classing, which seems to be the main design goal.I wasn't telling you to use a geometric progression, but I see how I could have left that impression.  I was saying that, if you've already decided to use a fractional XP penalty come what may, you would have to switch to a geometric progression.  In my opinion, that's exactly the reverse of what you should do, but if someone's bound and determined to breathe life back into the astral corpse of that particular sacred cow, that's his best option.Switching would produce several undesirable side-effects, which include: the importance of XP penalties would decay exponentially, instead of their present inverse proportion to character level, and the formula for XP cost of magic items would need to become much more complicated and wholly different from the GP cost.If you do want to replace the XP system, I posted <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2814586&postcount=11" target="_blank">an alternative</a> some time ago that simplifies calculations, preserves the meaning of XP costs and represents fixed level gaps as fixed XP penalties.</blockquote>

Verification