I like 3E, but I miss...

[Staffan]

Right, a time frame that, due to the exponential experience point tables took about one adventure.

Actually, one adventure per level. You can't get more than one level per adventure - if you earn enough XP, you stop short of where you'd actually advance to the second level.

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually, one adventure per level. You can't get more than one level per adventure - if you earn enough XP, you stop short of where you'd actually advance to the second level.

I was using "adventure" in the sense that it would be a single dungeon. However, you could garner experience points on a session by session basis and take breaks between forays, thus keeping yourself up to speed.

 

[Storm Raven]

you must know i didn't make that rule up arbitrarily? it came from somewhere else.

I assumed that you didn't. I also know that it didn't come from the actual rules of 1e D&D. You see, since we are talking about how the rules are unbalanced, your citation to a non-rule metric means that your entire argument is irrelevant to the discussion.

yes, i know the term ECL wasn't in 1ed. i was trying to put it in terms so others would understand. the concept did exist then. just b/c you didn't personally read it, doesn't mean much to me either.

The concept didn't exist in the rules of the game. Just because it may have appeared in a Dragon article as a variant a decade after the PHB was first published doesn't make it relevant to the discussion.

The formula you describe, while potentially useful for evaluating the actual power levels of multiclassed characters is irrelevant for the actual balance as provided by the rules, since the balance provided by the rules is based upon experience points. Basically, your argument is based on something that has no bearing on the balance of the 1e rules.

you and i both know i am not that Original. i only use terms and concepts from other sources. and since we are talking about 1ed. it must have been a source from then.

Or, a source that wasn't from then that you are trying to jam into the discussion. (I know you aren't original. Most of the time it seems like the last original thought you had was in 1972 or so).

 

[National Acrobat]

Point Buy? Feh, artificial balancing if you ask me. I like the randomness of the whole thing. Characters aren't supposed to be equal, there is supposed to be differences between them. People aren't all equal. My players didn't like it the only time I tried it either. We're quite happy with random rolling of abilities.

 

[National Acrobat]

I hate double posts...grr

 

[Mista Collins]

I seriously miss the Planescape Setting. It was so nice....

<drinks from mug> one for me
<pours mug on ground> This one is for my homeys

 

[Storm Raven]

The image meant more than the stats. No one messed with a high level wizard. The ability to cast 9th level spells placed you in the same power range as some of the gods. This was a lifetime worth of work and effort. A human at this point in their life would be contemplating turning into a Lich (if evil) or continued existence with wishes, potions of longevity, clones and simulacrums if not evil.

Actually, 1e wizards were heavily dependent upon stats. If they didn't get a high Intelligence score, they could simply write off the chance they ever had of being able to cast high level spells (since there were some pretty severe limitations on a wizard's ability to cast spells based upon his Intelligence score, check the 1e PHB Intelligence score table). Since there were precious few ways to raise an ability score, this meant that you had to roll well, or your wizard would be handicapped at higher levels.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, the xp doesn't equal out that way. But then, in 1st ed it was assumed you handed xp out secretly and everyone did NOT get the same xp. That depended on GM though.

Actually, according to the 1e DMG you are incorrect. Experience was supposed to be divided evenly among surviving PCs. Check the pages on awarding experience in the 1e DMG, it explicitly states that any PC who participated (no matter how slight their participation) and survived should be awarded an equal share of experience points.

 

[Storm Raven]

Point Buy? Feh, artificial balancing if you ask me. I like the randomness of the whole thing. Characters aren't supposed to be equal, there is supposed to be differences between them. People aren't all equal. My players didn't like it the only time I tried it either. We're quite happy with random rolling of abilities.

It was only suggested as a means of balancing characters based upon their ability scores, since that is what you were griping about.

 

[National Acrobat]

Actually Storm Raven, I wasn't griping about ability scores, I was mainly griping about people who think that the game needs to be balanced and characters all need to be on the same level as far as stats, abilities, level, etc. My point was that it doesn't and shouldn't matter. The game isn't interesting that way, at least not from my and my player's point of view. We like the randomness and the fact that some characters may have weaknesses while others don't. Characters should be different in many aspects and some should just naturally be better or worse than others simply because that is life.