Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Korgoth" data-source="post: 3830201" data-attributes="member: 49613">Exactly.&nbsp; I think XP for gold is one of the best mechanics of D&amp;D.&nbsp; The game is about &quot;tomb robbing&quot;, about mounting an 'archaeological' expedition from when archaeology meant &quot;land piracy on behalf of Western civilization&quot;.&nbsp; When you're in the dungeon, you're not trying to &quot;clear the level&quot;; you're trying to get the Blue Pearl.I'm all about XP for gold.Now, Demihuman class and level limits are less of an issue for me.&nbsp; But I do like them:&nbsp; it's a convenient way of mechanically representing why humans are the dominant species.&nbsp; If Elves live for 800 years... then I guess they should have literally dozens and dozens of 30th level wizards.&nbsp; Man should live in their shadow.&nbsp; Same with Dwarves... and if there are no restrictions on classes, then the Dwarf fighter is just a meaningless stereotype.&nbsp; But if you have these limitations, it's a way of explaining that there's something about the determinacy of these species that restricts them: since, on a literary level they're archetypes anyway, why should they be as versatile as man?Another nice thing about the class and level limitations is that they are easier to remove or ignore than they are to retroactively add back in.&nbsp; There's no reason, in 1E AD&amp;D, that I can't allow a Dwarf to be a ranger or a bard.&nbsp; But it's harder in C&amp;C, a game that's very close to 1E, because Dwarves are already balanced against Humans in the allocation of Prime stats.Overall, I could take or leave the class and level limits, but I do like them.&nbsp; XP for gold is the one I'm far more interested in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Korgoth, post: 3830201, member: 49613"] Exactly. I think XP for gold is one of the best mechanics of D&D. The game is about "tomb robbing", about mounting an 'archaeological' expedition from when archaeology meant "land piracy on behalf of Western civilization". When you're in the dungeon, you're not trying to "clear the level"; you're trying to get the Blue Pearl. I'm all about XP for gold. Now, Demihuman class and level limits are less of an issue for me. But I do like them: it's a convenient way of mechanically representing why humans are the dominant species. If Elves live for 800 years... then I guess they should have literally dozens and dozens of 30th level wizards. Man should live in their shadow. Same with Dwarves... and if there are no restrictions on classes, then the Dwarf fighter is just a meaningless stereotype. But if you have these limitations, it's a way of explaining that there's something about the determinacy of these species that restricts them: since, on a literary level they're archetypes anyway, why should they be as versatile as man? Another nice thing about the class and level limitations is that they are easier to remove or ignore than they are to retroactively add back in. There's no reason, in 1E AD&D, that I can't allow a Dwarf to be a ranger or a bard. But it's harder in C&C, a game that's very close to 1E, because Dwarves are already balanced against Humans in the allocation of Prime stats. Overall, I could take or leave the class and level limits, but I do like them. XP for gold is the one I'm far more interested in. [/QUOTE]

Verification