Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7523230" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Two further comments:</p><p></p><p>(1) If, as [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] suggested upthread is widespread according to Mearls, someone wants to have an RPG experience which is mostly about GM-mediated fiction and story revelation, then conflict resolution/closed scene resolution will be unnecessary, and task resolution with no system-established finality will be fine - the skill check in effect becomes an element of colour that the GM weaves into the unfolding narration of the ingame situation.</p><p></p><p>This seems to me to be an assumption many modules from the mid-80s on make about how the game will proceed, at least out of combat. (Eg if the PCs fail to find the dirt in the safe because they fail their safecracking roll, then they'll find it in the waste paper bin or in a note on a dead henchman or whatever.) It's hard to see how the "path" in an AP would work without this sort of thing.</p><p></p><p>(2) Contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and maybe some others, it's simply not true that differential XP tables in AD&D made fighters stronger than wizards at mid-to-upper levels. A 6th level wizard needs 40,000 XP compared to a fighter's 35,000; a 7th level wizard needs 60,000 XP compared to a fighter's 70,000; and from there it only gets better for the wizard through 13th level (1,125,000 for the wizard compared to 1,250,000 for the fighter). Parity is reestablished at 14th level (both need 1,500,000) and then the wizard falls behind again because s/he needs 375,000 rather than 250,000 per level gained.</p><p></p><p>The effect of the MU XP table is to make initial progression hard for MUs, but just at the point where they power up - around 6th/7th level - the MU rockets off, and it's not until the widely unplayed mid-teen levelss that things change again.</p><p></p><p>The only class that actually needs more XP than the fighter at mid levels through name level and thereabouts is the paladin. (Cf a ranger, who needs 650,000 to get to 11th whereas a fighter needs 750,000; 12th is close to parity - 975,000 for the ranger vs 1,000,000 for the fighter - and the ranger needs 100,000 more to get to 13th.)</p><p></p><p>But in any event it makes no sense as a design element - putting all classes on the same XP table while preserving the intraparty balance of builds is purely a mathematical exercise: for instance, putting thieves on the fighter XP table, giving them up to 9 d8 HD rather than 10 d6 HD, slightly increasing their thief ability % chances at each level above first, and slightly upping their to hit and save progression so they get the 7th level numbers at 6th, the 11th level numbers at 9th, etc, will maintain the same mathematical balance subject to modest rounding errors (eg 9d8 is average hp of 40.5 + 9*CON bonus, whereas 10d6 +2 (a PHB thief's hp at 11th level or 220,000 XP) is 37 + 10* CON - that slight rounding in favour of the thief isn't going to break the game!)</p><p></p><p>Exactly the same maths can be done for the other classes as well - for some the rouding may be more or less sharp at certain breakpoints, but it's not like AD&D was a hyper balanced game in this respect in any event!</p><p></p><p>So anyway, I don't know why this mythology about the AD&D XP tables persists as it does.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7523230, member: 42582"] Two further comments: (1) If, as [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] suggested upthread is widespread according to Mearls, someone wants to have an RPG experience which is mostly about GM-mediated fiction and story revelation, then conflict resolution/closed scene resolution will be unnecessary, and task resolution with no system-established finality will be fine - the skill check in effect becomes an element of colour that the GM weaves into the unfolding narration of the ingame situation. This seems to me to be an assumption many modules from the mid-80s on make about how the game will proceed, at least out of combat. (Eg if the PCs fail to find the dirt in the safe because they fail their safecracking roll, then they'll find it in the waste paper bin or in a note on a dead henchman or whatever.) It's hard to see how the "path" in an AP would work without this sort of thing. (2) Contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and maybe some others, it's simply not true that differential XP tables in AD&D made fighters stronger than wizards at mid-to-upper levels. A 6th level wizard needs 40,000 XP compared to a fighter's 35,000; a 7th level wizard needs 60,000 XP compared to a fighter's 70,000; and from there it only gets better for the wizard through 13th level (1,125,000 for the wizard compared to 1,250,000 for the fighter). Parity is reestablished at 14th level (both need 1,500,000) and then the wizard falls behind again because s/he needs 375,000 rather than 250,000 per level gained. The effect of the MU XP table is to make initial progression hard for MUs, but just at the point where they power up - around 6th/7th level - the MU rockets off, and it's not until the widely unplayed mid-teen levelss that things change again. The only class that actually needs more XP than the fighter at mid levels through name level and thereabouts is the paladin. (Cf a ranger, who needs 650,000 to get to 11th whereas a fighter needs 750,000; 12th is close to parity - 975,000 for the ranger vs 1,000,000 for the fighter - and the ranger needs 100,000 more to get to 13th.) But in any event it makes no sense as a design element - putting all classes on the same XP table while preserving the intraparty balance of builds is purely a mathematical exercise: for instance, putting thieves on the fighter XP table, giving them up to 9 d8 HD rather than 10 d6 HD, slightly increasing their thief ability % chances at each level above first, and slightly upping their to hit and save progression so they get the 7th level numbers at 6th, the 11th level numbers at 9th, etc, will maintain the same mathematical balance subject to modest rounding errors (eg 9d8 is average hp of 40.5 + 9*CON bonus, whereas 10d6 +2 (a PHB thief's hp at 11th level or 220,000 XP) is 37 + 10* CON - that slight rounding in favour of the thief isn't going to break the game!) Exactly the same maths can be done for the other classes as well - for some the rouding may be more or less sharp at certain breakpoints, but it's not like AD&D was a hyper balanced game in this respect in any event! So anyway, I don't know why this mythology about the AD&D XP tables persists as it does. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
Top