Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5781123" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm not interested in bringing separate XP progression back either, but I think this is poor logic.&nbsp; Separate XP progression is a reasonable tool for bringing balance where it would otherwise be difficult.&nbsp; One of the problems D&amp;D has always faced is that some classes power level increases more exponentially than others.&nbsp; Differing XP progression is a way to turn a more linear classes power progression into a more exponential progression.And its pretty easy to implement as an option as well.&nbsp; Everyone uses a unified XP progression table, but have the classes that need a boost to balance them gain an X% bonus on earned XP.&nbsp;&nbsp; So if you want rogues to advance slightly faster than other classes because you think they've been nerfed, give them a 8% bonus on earned XP.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or if think Bards and Monks suck, give them a 12% bonus on earned XP.&nbsp; One advantage here is that you can tweak that number to a very fine degree - probably finer than you can reasonably expect to estimate the difference in utility of the classes.Huh?&nbsp; I don't understand that at all.&nbsp; To be frank, it sounds like you got burned by an unfriendly social dynamic and are blaming it on the system.&nbsp; I still use individual XP awards, and I haven't had any real problems.&nbsp; Do you award XP to an individual who wasn't even there?&nbsp; Suppose one member of your party is separated from the rest and solos a CR+2 monster by himself, barely surviving, while his friends who are looking for him run over a CR-2 encounter with ease?&nbsp; Do you give them the same XP?&nbsp; If you do, don't think that giving the same XP in that situation is just as likely to cause social conflict in a table prone to it as not giving the same XP would in another situation?&nbsp; If the table is prone to competitiveness to the point of arguing over a difference in 10 or 100 XP, then its just going to argue about unfairness regardless of what you do.Yeah, I have a feeling that we should never game together.&nbsp; I'm ok with having mechanics that mitigate luck and prefer graduated failure to sudden failure, but I see no fundamental difference between failing a saving throw and being paralyzed and recieving a critical and being knocked unconscious.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you demand 'no save or suck', then it seems like you are ultimately suggesting 'my character shouldn't ever fail, because if it does the game has failed me'.&nbsp; I don't see how I can reconcile that with any game I'd want to play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5781123, member: 4937"] I'm not interested in bringing separate XP progression back either, but I think this is poor logic. Separate XP progression is a reasonable tool for bringing balance where it would otherwise be difficult. One of the problems D&D has always faced is that some classes power level increases more exponentially than others. Differing XP progression is a way to turn a more linear classes power progression into a more exponential progression. And its pretty easy to implement as an option as well. Everyone uses a unified XP progression table, but have the classes that need a boost to balance them gain an X% bonus on earned XP. So if you want rogues to advance slightly faster than other classes because you think they've been nerfed, give them a 8% bonus on earned XP. Or if think Bards and Monks suck, give them a 12% bonus on earned XP. One advantage here is that you can tweak that number to a very fine degree - probably finer than you can reasonably expect to estimate the difference in utility of the classes. Huh? I don't understand that at all. To be frank, it sounds like you got burned by an unfriendly social dynamic and are blaming it on the system. I still use individual XP awards, and I haven't had any real problems. Do you award XP to an individual who wasn't even there? Suppose one member of your party is separated from the rest and solos a CR+2 monster by himself, barely surviving, while his friends who are looking for him run over a CR-2 encounter with ease? Do you give them the same XP? If you do, don't think that giving the same XP in that situation is just as likely to cause social conflict in a table prone to it as not giving the same XP would in another situation? If the table is prone to competitiveness to the point of arguing over a difference in 10 or 100 XP, then its just going to argue about unfairness regardless of what you do. Yeah, I have a feeling that we should never game together. I'm ok with having mechanics that mitigate luck and prefer graduated failure to sudden failure, but I see no fundamental difference between failing a saving throw and being paralyzed and recieving a critical and being knocked unconscious. If you demand 'no save or suck', then it seems like you are ultimately suggesting 'my character shouldn't ever fail, because if it does the game has failed me'. I don't see how I can reconcile that with any game I'd want to play. [/QUOTE]

Verification