Why do levels one and two suck so bad?

[Rystil Arden]

Why do some classes advance faster than others in your campaign? In mine, everyone advances at the same rate... in fact, it's rare that the xp totals of the characters vary by even 1 xp one character to another.

Based on the archaic references to 'quick-advancement classes' and 'thieves', I would guess that he plays either an older version of the game, or one of the new rulesets designed to be a facsimile thereof.

 

[Delta]

Why do some classes advance faster than others in your campaign? In mine, everyone advances at the same rate... in fact, it's rare that the xp totals of the characters vary by even 1 xp one character to another.

Note in his post that that he quoted from the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Basic Rulebook (1977-78 ed.), p. 22.

Prior to 3E, every class had its own individual XP chart. Thieves & clerics advanced fastest, with the smallest increment between levels. Wizards advanced the slowest, with a larger increment between levels. Fighters had a middle-ground advancement rate. Designers tried to balance more powerful classes with more XP needed to advance levels.

 

[Grog]

Prior to 3E, every class had its own individual XP chart. Thieves & clerics advanced fastest, with the smallest increment between levels. Wizards advanced the slowest, with a larger increment between levels. Fighters had a middle-ground advancement rate.

Actually, that's not quite right. Wizards advanced the slowest at low and high levels, but at mid levels (5th-9th or so) they had a much faster advancement. I'm not sure why it was done that way.

The problem with the 1st edition advancement tables was that it was often the case that you would need as much XP as you'd gotten in your character's entire life just to go up one more level. This wasn't a big deal at low levels, when it wasn't that much XP, but if you were playing a wizard, and you'd just hit 11th level, you'd earned 375,000 XP (I think) to go from 1st to 11th level, and then you needed another 375,000 XP to go from 11th to 12th level. That was pretty silly, IMO.

When I DMed 1st edition, I didn't usually give XP, I just advanced the characters in level whenever I felt it was necessary.

 

[Nifft]

editing mode on...

 

[Delta]

Actually, that's not quite right. Wizards advanced the slowest at low and high levels, but at mid levels (5th-9th or so) they had a much faster advancement. I'm not sure why it was done that way.

There was that exception in OD&D/AD&D, but if you look at the expanded "Basic D&D" rules (per Foster, the Mentzer set/Rules Cylcopedia), even that exception was ironed out for the magic-user class.

I had no problem with the geometric XP rules in earlier editions. Advancement was designed to slow down, which made sense for a lot of campaign worlds.

 

[Particle_Man]

that's the type of thing that can come back to bite PCs in the back several levels later and remind them they are in a cohesive campaign and not a series of unrelated kleptomanical murder sprees.

Yeah, made you wonder why elves are thought to be the good guys.

 

[Imp]

Even a white dragon has some serious traps on his lair, and may return by the time you get there. As a DM, at first level, I wouldn't expect the party to head to the lair, and I would try to give them plenty of warning before the TPK that would happen if they continued.

Traps? How?

Assuming it is of adult age, I can't see what tools it has to ensure a TPK of any low-level party that stumbles upon its unattended lair. First-level sorcerer spells and not particularly impressive manual dexterity?

On the other hand, such a dragon's lair is probably on a steep high-altitude mountain cliffside and that would be enough to deter a 1st-level party, or at least delay them until big D comes back.

I think this is more a scenario of, who are these fools who nicked the jewels from the dragon's lair, causing him to rampage all around the countryside?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There was that exception in OD&D/AD&D, but if you look at the expanded "Basic D&D" rules (per Foster, the Mentzer set/Rules Cylcopedia), even that exception was ironed out for the magic-user class.

I had no problem with the geometric XP rules in earlier editions. Advancement was designed to slow down, which made sense for a lot of campaign worlds.

IMO the big problem is what this did for multi-classing versus single-classing. It is pretty much a no brainer that it is better to be a 1e Fighter8/Cleric8 than a Fighter9. If the XP curve were flatter this problem would not have been much of an issue, as a Fighter7/Cleric7 is not necessarily better than a Fighter9 or Cleric9.

 

[Celebrim]

IMO the big problem is what this did for multi-classing versus single-classing. It is pretty much a no brainer that it is better to be a 1e Fighter8/Cleric8 than a Fighter9. If the XP curve were flatter this problem would not have been much of an issue, as a Fighter7/Cleric7 is not necessarily better than a Fighter9 or Cleric9.

Which is true, and one of several problems with the 1st edition XP system.

But its also true that the balance between classes is so bad, that a Thief8/MU8 or a Thief8/Fighter8 really isn't that much better than a MU8 or Fighter8.

 

[Delta]

IMO the big problem is what this did for multi-classing versus single-classing. It is pretty much a no brainer that it is better to be a 1e Fighter8/Cleric8 than a Fighter9. If the XP curve were flatter this problem would not have been much of an issue, as a Fighter7/Cleric7 is not necessarily better than a Fighter9 or Cleric9.

That I somewhat agree with. Multiclassing is IMO the biggest glitchy thing throughout OD&D/AD&D.

However, you also have to remember that OD&D/AD&D had other mechanical restriction to balance that out: to actually be permitted Ftr/Clr status you had to be a demihuman with level limits, or a human with onerous ability and advancement restrictions. To take your example, playing 1E right of the PHB as written, no demihuman PC would be allowed Ftr8/Clr8 (specifically the Clr8 part); only humans after they'd double-classed and locked themselves out of one those classes thereafter.

Yes, a very clunky balancing mechanism and in IMO the 3E system beats it hands-down (except for when people start to allow 7+ separate class dippings, then I get very nauseous). But in the general case the proposed broken 1E Ftr8/Clr8 was not really permitted.