Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anubis" data-source="post: 1656540" data-attributes="member: 2358">It's not a flaw.  3.5 has ALWAYS been designed to allow weaker characters to catch up.  So it has indeed been a goal.  In addition, you MUST (I can't stress this enough) consider fairness and balance.  Allowing characters to get too far behind makes them useless or makes them at the very least feel insignificant or like they're not pulling their load.  So no, it's not a flaw.  Those who think it is don't understand the system.Besides, think LOGICALLY.  Logically speaking, those who are less experienced have "more to learn" than those who are more experienced.  That means my system also has the benefit of being more realistic.  It's the best of all worlds!Either way, the new rules are designed to be perfectly balanced whether people "prefer" them or not.  Since UK is going for accuracy, however, that means there is no problem.  Mine is, overall, the most accurate, whether people like weaker character catching up or not.It is?  How has that been "pointed out"?  It still works perfectly.  If such a party fought a CR 20 creature (worth 120,000 XP), the Level 20 character would earn 1500 XP and the Level 1 characters would each earn 1000 (the level maximum).  The one "supposed" flaw is easily dealt with using the other section of my proposal; remember, the most XP any one character can get per encounter is their level multiplied by 1000.  Level 1 characters can earn, at most, 1000 XP.  That part is, of course, optional, but it hammers out the only supposed flaw (which isn't even a flaw, really).  Honestly, using that example is the old "using an dumb example to intentionally break the rules", and that can happen to ANY system; realistically, a Level 20 character will never be in a party with three Level 1 characters, and even if he is, either the weaker character will get killed instantly or the Level 20 character won't be getting any XP whatsoever, which is as it should be anyway if a DM is stupid enough to form such a party.Nonetheless, using my rules IN THEIR ENTIRETY is a flawless solution.  I propose it be added to the Immortal's Handbook in place of UK's current system because the current system simply doesn't work AT ALL once you get to Level 9 (under his, a Level 9 character gets more from an encounter than a Level 8 character gets from the same encounter, which is about as bad a flaw as you can get and is quite obvious).  Like the entire Immortal's Handbook, however, it's all optional.  The design goal is and always has been accuracy.  With my system, there is 100% accuracy.  Unless THAT point can be disputed, there really is no reason to continue the discussion, honestly.I'm trying to be helpful and add to this great product by helping eliminate the biggest design flaw (the XP awards).  Unless you got some other idea that works at any and all levels and adheres strictly to the 13-1/3 rule, let's please just end the debate now.  I see no point of continuing when the answer has been found.</blockquote>

Verification