Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KDLadage" data-source="post: 259564" data-attributes="member: 88">Re: Concerning Edena, and concerning the ELHIf you advanced Edena the way you described -- meaning that if you played him in his 4th level days, advanced to 5th, and thus added a level onto the upper end of the character, then I would have to agree that this would be "cheating" in my book. Going from 4th to 5th is _not_ the same thing as going from 40th to 41st.There was an old article in Dragon that compared the old 1st edition classes against one another to see how they stacked up. The classes were remarkably balanced in the end (single-class wise) but they realized that you have to compare XP to XP, not level to level.I do not understand this statement. The matter of the effectiveness/munchkiness/power levels of the ELH have absolutely nothing to do with the idea of whether Edena is/isn't a character created by a process that one might/might not call cheating. These are two wholly unrelated issues.For example: If I were any olympic athlete and I have chosen to use an illegal drug, I am cheating and stand a chance of being disqualified. It really does not matter if the drug was some sort of performance enhancing drug, or was recreational with the potential to be performance degrading, now does it?Not the point.Irrelevant.So?Good for them, then.OK. And your point?And...?Please -- I realize that this seems harsh, inflamitory and possibly even arrogant on my part. It is not intended to be. I am simply trying to state that you are arguing that because of =A=, then =B= must be true when =A= and =B= are not related in any way what-so-ever.If the ELH is terrible, poor, mediocre, fair, good, great, superb or legendary in its handling of high level campaigns has no impact what-so-ever on the facts as they are presented dealing with the character Edena.Allow me to show you the most extreme example of what I am talking about. Assume the 1st edition D&D rules. I am playing a Thief. I need 1500 XP to advance to 2nd level. Now, to make it to 160th level would require (and I am estimating here, I have not looked at those advancement charts in a long, long time) over 12,000,000 XP. Twelve Million Experience Points. (Three-hundred million in second edition).Now, if I advance from 1st to 2nd, then from 2nd to 3rd, then keep playing 2nd level versions of this thief, advancing him to 3rd each time... and adding this level up to the upper end form some games... I could theoretically advance to 160th level with a mere 240000 XP or so. Two-hundred forty thousand Experience Points.This represents a compression factor of approximately 50!! In second edition the compression factor is 1250!! or about 2% (or about 0.08% in second edition) of the XP needed, you have advanced to an ungodly level. Yes -- I would call this cheating. And no, this has no bearing what-so-ever on the viability of the ELH.(edit: corrected numbers based upon information provided below)</blockquote>

Verification