Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7290232" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Semi-ot? Someone mentioned above.. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] said:"If you kept the xp-for-gp rule, that - I think - puts you in the minority. Many if not most 1e DMs houseruled it out, and (perhaps because of this trend) 2e RAW dropped it as well.And as the great majority of xp in 1e came from treasure, dropping that rule had huge (and, IMO, very positive) effects on advancement rate: it slowed to a crawl."I dropped it back in/around '85 or so. It stayed that way for me in all my campaigns for a good 18 years or so (+/-2). Then someone...I think it was Gary himself, actually, commented to me about the reasoning. The reasoning for the XP=GP thing was to more or less "level the playing field" between classes. Each class needed it's own XP amount. Orcs were worth 10xp. Kobolds worth 5xp. Ogres worth 125xp. Minotaurs were worth 275xp. (IIRC, all from memory). Thing was, a lone fighter in plate mail with shield and a sword could kill a half dozen kobolds without breaking a sweat. A lone magic-user with magic missile could, if he won initiative, kill one or two kobolds. Then he'd be in a fight for his live vs the last three. Was quintet worth 25xp to BOTH the fighter and the magic-user? By the rules...yes. In short, there was a lot riding on how 'tough' the character was in regards to success in many combat situations (which is a lot of the basic D&D game, honestly...at least for the first 8 levels or so).Enter the idea of GP for XP. Now, if the magic user could use ventriloquism to luer the kobolds away, he could sneak in and grab the 50gp gem they were guarding. The fighter could just rush in and kill, then grab the 50gp gem. The thief could hide in shadows, sneak in, pick pocket it, and sneak out with that 50gp gem. The cleric could fight, or spell, or maybe even talk/convert long enough to get that 50gp gem. The end result being that EACH of the classes obtained that gem in their own way, using their classes 'forte'.In early 2000's, that explanation as to why the GP=XP thing existed, suddenly made all the sense in the world. It still does. I now, when I DM 5th, only give about half xp for monsters, but I give full 1:1 xp for treasure (GP). Currently DM'ing  a Basic D&D campaign for the last month or so. Gods I forgot how much I love this game! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> In it, I'm giveing full xp for monsters, AND 1:1 for GP:XP. But then again, in BECMI we have 36 levels plus another 36 (?) as Immortals....not that we've ever gotten basic characters farther than level 14. Anyway....sorry for the demi-derail. I guess this would tie into costs of raising from the dead. Maybe the cost of Raising is subtracted from the characters XP total as well? This MIGHT result in a level loss...or maybe not. But that's a penalty that isn't uber detrimental, but it probably makes enough of a dent to be noticeable (and this, a deterrent from getting yourself killed).^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification