lukelightning
First Post
I'm voting no because I when I try to read and understand that rule it makes my head hurt.
The "measure of challenge" rule in AD&D1
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
the Jester said:
Me too. Since the vast majority of XP came from treasure, not monsters, if the PCs were killing something weak (and as a result, poor) they usually weren't getting any significant amount of XP anyway. Fiddling with the numbers to shave one or two points didn't seem like it was worth the time.
The Shaman
First Post
Yes, I used it for many but not all encounters.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
No. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard of it.
ThirdWizard
First Post
I played 1E only using a PHB. No DMG and no MM. So, I didn't have that rule available.
Sort of. I'd guesstimate the ratio as something user-friendly like 2/3 or 3/4 rather than 11/16 or 17/23 or whatever, and usually use averages rather than totals (so a party of characters averaging 4th level fighting a group of 3 HD monsters gets 3/4 XP -- this was the system suggested in OD&D, which the AD&D formula is a more exact/complicated version of). This would be done on an encounter by encounter (rather than session by session or adventure by adventure) basis. And note that this adjustment applies to both monster XP and treasure XP for the encounter (so if the aforementioned 4th level party gains 3,000 g.p. by defeating those 3 HD monsters they'll get 2250 XP from the treasure in addition to 3/4 the XP value of the monsters).
Yet another point proving that my oAD&D group played Basic disguised as AD&D. (^_^) I don't find the rule hard to understand, but we found it a needless complication.
I suspect many rules in oAD&D--especially in the DMG--were developed to combat a specific trend, which consensus disliked, in the Greyhawk or another Lake Geneva campaign. If you're campaign seldom runs into that trend, the rule isn't worth bothering about.
Another example would be the "only enough XP to gain one level" thing. The few times this actually came up, the DM usually waived it. Had we had a lot of "characters with two classes" abuse, I suspect the waivers would begin to disappear.
I suspect many rules in oAD&D--especially in the DMG--were developed to combat a specific trend, which consensus disliked, in the Greyhawk or another Lake Geneva campaign. If you're campaign seldom runs into that trend, the rule isn't worth bothering about.
Another example would be the "only enough XP to gain one level" thing. The few times this actually came up, the DM usually waived it. Had we had a lot of "characters with two classes" abuse, I suspect the waivers would begin to disappear.
Similar Threads
