Was a unified Leveling XP chart a bad idea?

[Terwox]

absolutely a good idea.
class advancement is now spread out through the power they gain at each level being roughly equal, instead of based on the experience they gain and etc.
much, much better.

 

[derek_cleric]

How did you do that? ..... tweaking them a lot.

Yes. There was a large amount of tweaking. I used the SRD and the 1981 Moldvay Basic and Expert rules as a guide. Separated race and class. Added sorcerer, skills and feats. A pinch of bat wing......<whomph!> A new set of 3e-ish rules with the original feel.

Back to the XP charts....I guess it's just a matter of opinion. In our group, there are 3 GMs. Two use the unified charts as they like the full 3e rules. I OTOH use my house rules PHB. It works for IMC on Mystara (the original classic DnD setting) but not for theirs.

--Ray.

 

[SSquirrel]

I remember in the days of 2nd Ed we would ask the DM what level we were going to be and they might say 7th level. This actually meant 7th lvl magic user, as taht was the most expensive chart. Meant you had like a 9th lvl Thief, but it felt even.

IMO, seperate charts for different classes just encourages classes to not be evenly built b/c they can always just balance it out in XP costs. See RIFTS and anything else by Palaldium. See 1st Ed AD&D. No way in heck was the Barbarian an equal class with say Fighter. Things might not be perfect in 3 and 3.5, but at least its better balanced on a class by class basis.

Hagen