Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5877551" data-attributes="member: 82106">But what did those different XP charts ADD to the game? I think the problem with this concept is that it isn't individual complexity of each element. It is the way that the combination of moderately obtuse elements cumulatively adds up to a very opaque system. So for instance level SEEMS to indicate capability in AD&D, but it doesn't. A 12th level rogue is nothing like at the XP total of a 12th level wizard. Thus a single point of XP doesn't mean the same thing to different classes. This just makes my head hurt. It makes it very hard to decide how to play around with things and often is the root cause of things like the difficulty in making new classes or MCing problems, or just "woops! That encounter killed the party!"Making a point of XP mean the same thing to everyone and making 'level 12' mean the same thing (or at least TRYING to in the case of 3e) has cumulative positive benefits and allows the system to be much more transparent and manageable.The same thing is true of things like AC, to-hit calculations, moving to 4e's system of defenses instead of saves, etc. Just take the saves-to-defense change between 3e and 4e. This seems like a simple change that just changes who rolls the dice at a certain point in the game. However it has all sorts of positive knock-on effects. There is no more of the annoying and tedious deciding if DEX bonus does or doesn't apply, and no more "touch AC" awkwardness when there was already a REF save, now REF is a defense that does what the save used to do AND what the 'touch AC' used to do. Notice that this also enabled the game to accomodate implements with an enhancement bonus, weapons usable as implements, etc. These are all great simplifications and improvements in flexibility.So, yes, when you look at each thing with a microscope maybe you don't see any big difference between THAC0 and 4e's 'modern' unified always higher d20 mechanism, but when you step back and look at the system AS A WHOLE you see that there are great advantages to the 'modern' approach. I can't by contrast name even one single advantage to the 'old way', except 'tradition'. It just wasn't better, and it was 'not better' at a deep level.</blockquote>

Verification