Loot=XP

[abk108]

But in doing so, you break the balance between classes. Magic-users have to gain more XP due to the power they wield, thieves level faster than other classes. The balance between classes depends on this differentiation between levels to keep things in check. By leveling the entire party at once, the magic-users will be gaining access to their spells, but in scale, the other classes will now be falling behind because they are no longer gaining the advantage through faster level gain.

This is one of the reason players of 3.x have such problems as parties gain levels above 7th, with the unified leveling that 3.x introduced, there is no longer an XP/level buffer in place to keep casters from overshadowing other classes.

I never saw it as a problem that casters at higher levels are stronger than non-casters.
First: it's give-and-take, the wizard wouldn't have survived the first goblin dungeon without the reliable warrior, and now the warrior needs help from his fellow magic-user to deal with balors. It changes the experience, from "SHIELD CIRLCE and PROTECT THE 3HP ELF!" to "QUICK! SOMEONE CAST STONESKIN ON THE BARBARIAN before he gets cut to pieces!".
Second: I think that 3.x higher level characters are supposed to multiclass in some caster class - be it cleric, wizard or a prestige class. D&D 's about "sword AND sorcery", not "OR sorcery".
And I don't really think a level 20 wizard could go SOLO in a dungeon any better than a 10 Warrior / 10 Cleric would.

I know a wizard would always have that timely FLY, or PLANAR DOOR, or TELEPORT or "save-my-skin-now" spell to get out of trouble. But I suspect most wizards would rely too much on their spells, and so they could be caught off guard (antimagic circle, anyone?? ) , while a warrior or a barbarian KNOWS the perils of the world better, I think.

[reverenddak]

But in doing so, you break the balance between classes. Magic-users have to gain more XP due to the power they wield, thieves level faster than other classes. The balance between classes depends on this differentiation between levels to keep things in check. By leveling the entire party at once, the magic-users will be gaining access to their spells, but in scale, the other classes will now be falling behind because they are no longer gaining the advantage through faster level gain.

This is one of the reason players of 3.x have such problems as parties gain levels above 7th, with the unified leveling that 3.x introduced, there is no longer an XP/level buffer in place to keep casters from overshadowing other classes.

This is how I feel too. I greatly disliked the homogenizing of 4e characters, and the uber-balancing of 3x. The competitive nature of "modern" gamers, I believe, is what drove D&D into such power-gamer friendly characters, therefore the over-emphasis on class balance. I like that Fighters got incrementally better at combat, while Magic-users started off weak-as-heck and get ridiculously powerful as they gain experience. This game encourages that type of play, which in turn tell those kind of stories. I LIKE crazy insane wizards, I like Conan-esque Warriors, and the Thief is classically Grey Mouser. I don't care for Dwarves, Elves & Hobbits and other post-D&D tropes. Which is why I have so much hope for this game. It's easy enough ignore the things I don't like, and the core rules HAVE everything else I need. Granular XP awards and separate XP progression tables support this. I love it. Please keep it.

[jmucchiello]

But in doing so, you break the balance between classes. Magic-users have to gain more XP due to the power they wield, thieves level faster than other classes.

Can you show me a quote from Gygax saying that the xp tables in AD&D were anything but pulled from some unnamed nether region? Balance? BALANCE? You must be joking.

The balance between classes depends on this differentiation between levels to keep things in check. By leveling the entire party at once, the magic-users will be gaining access to their spells, but in scale, the other classes will now be falling behind because they are no longer gaining the advantage through faster level gain.

My god, you aren't joking. I don't know what to say. OD&D/AD&D/BD&D were never about balance and DCCRPG is EVEN LESS about about balance. This isn't to say this systems are completely gonzo about balance. But it is not a primary concern. Balancing encounters for the party is a DM concern. DMs of older games would have new players start at 1st level no matter what level the rest of the party was. Intraparty balance in unnecessary.

This is one of the reason players of 3.x have such problems as parties gain levels above 7th, with the unified leveling that 3.x introduced, there is no longer an XP/level buffer in place to keep casters from overshadowing other classes.

No, they don't if the fighters have the required magic items. Old school DMs who do not provide parties with the required magic items might see the problem you are talking about but I've ran and played 3e games to beyond 20th level without a single complaint that the fighters were underpowered. Heck, fighters might be doing 20-40 points of damage 4 times per round. Not even the best sorcerer can keep up with that. The difference really is range. The sorcerer will do damage over greater distances than the fighter. But inside a dungeon, distances usually aren't very big.

This is how I feel too. I greatly disliked the homogenizing of 4e characters, and the uber-balancing of 3x. The competitive nature of "modern" gamers, I believe, is what drove D&D into such power-gamer friendly characters, therefore the over-emphasis on class balance. I like that Fighters got incrementally better at combat, while Magic-users started off weak-as-heck and get ridiculously powerful as they gain experience. This game encourages that type of play, which in turn tell those kind of stories. I LIKE crazy insane wizards, I like Conan-esque Warriors, and the Thief is classically Grey Mouser. I don't care for Dwarves, Elves & Hobbits and other post-D&D tropes. Which is why I have so much hope for this game. It's easy enough ignore the things I don't like, and the core rules HAVE everything else I need. Granular XP awards and separate XP progression tables support this. I love it. Please keep it.

I was with you until "separate xp progression tables". There is nothing inherent about separate xp progressions that is required to validate the rest of the paragraph. The acquisition of spell power could just as easily be tied to level in lock step with warrior progression and still provide a weakling to demigod experience for the wizard. I don't know how else to say this. Why base this on the xp progression when the game can just do this with power acquisition in the class abilities by level chart? And once you have identical xp charts, you don't need xps.

[reverenddak]

I was with you until "separate xp progression tables". There is nothing inherent about separate xp progressions that is required to validate the rest of the paragraph. The acquisition of spell power could just as easily be tied to level in lock step with warrior progression and still provide a weakling to demigod experience for the wizard. I don't know how else to say this. Why base this on the xp progression when the game can just do this with power acquisition in the class abilities by level chart? And once you have identical xp charts, you don't need xps.

Sorry, I can't help it. I like the baseline that XP/Level provides. An X amount of experience per level makes the most sense for a Class/Level based system. Given that this is a game that quantifies "abilities", what is the problem with quantifying experience? Whether you like to award a level for some arbitrary number challenges or you award an arbitrary amount XP per whatever. In the end you're still quantifying experience. Some sort of standard is needed, and reflecting this with XP/level is the easiest and most flexible. Flexible in that it's easy to ignore, for those that like to arbitrary award levels. But functional for those like me that don't like the guesswork, and so I can make sure I'm progressing the characters at a fair rate. This is especially important for organized play... yes, I said organized play. I'm pretty optimistic about the success of this game, and organized play is a good indicator of a successful commercial RPG product. Don't even pretend that this is not a commercial product.

And what's wrong with the concept that, all other things being equal, that people with different "skill sets" progress at different rates than others? I see nothing wrong with it, in fact I like it. I like that a Fighter progresses faster than a Wizard, and a Thief progresses faster than a Fighter. It makes sense to me. A Thief gets plenty of practice (experience) doing their job, while a Fighter has to work out and keep his weapons fine tuned, while a Wizards has to nerd out even more studying his books. It reflects that certain "skill sets" are harder than others.

[abk108]

(...)
And what's wrong with the concept that, all other things being equal, that people with different "skill sets" progress at different rates than others? I see nothing wrong with it, in fact I like it. I like that a Fighter progresses faster than a Wizard, and a Thief progresses faster than a Fighter. It makes sense to me. A Thief gets plenty of practice (experience) doing their job, while a Fighter has to work out and keep his weapons fine tuned, while a Wizards has to nerd out even more studying his books. It reflects that certain "skill sets" are harder than others.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the last paragraph and its obvious conclusion, which I highlighted. I really can't stomach the idea that certain skills are harder than others, it all depends on the person. Difficulty is subjective: for Steven Hawking jumping is the hardest skill while explaining the physics of the Universe is the easiest, while maybe for an Olympic Athlete jumping and running are the easiest skills.
It's sort of like when you hear people complaining that "being a football player is not a job! I wish they worked a day as a woodcutter and they'd learn!".
Football player is a job, as hard as any other. Overpaid maybe, but that's the law of the market, but I digress.

The way I see it, Skill sets are different but not in the form of difficulty.
I might state that the XP for stealthy/thievy actions (backstabbing, trapfinding, pickpocketing) is given out so that Warriors and wizards get only 30% of that XP, while the thief gets more; then again, the XP for frontal battles should be given out to thieves and wizards at 30%, while warriors get full XP.

[finarvyn]

It reflects that certain "skill sets" are harder than others.

No, it probably reflects that certain skill sets are more valued in combat than others.

If you took away all combat spells, how many players would still want to be a magic-user? I have a couple who might, but I'm not 100% sure they would do it. They love the fact that they can toss a fireball down the throat of something nasty a lot more than they like the fact that they can do a "magic mouth" or invisibility spell. Thieves get lots of "useless" skills like picking pockets. How much damage does that do?

If a GM runs a campaign where the ability to sneak is valued close to the ability to blast things then one XP chart works just fine. If a GM runs a campaign where the primary purpose is to blow things up then the Thief gets cheated with a single XP chart.

Just my two coppers.

[Pilgrim]

I have to say, I'm a bit baffled at just how casual some players take magic. Perhaps, therein, is where the problem lay with a modern view of D&D versus older.

Being able to cast a spell, even something as lowly as "magic mouth" is leaps and bounds above anything that a thief or fighter can do. It's MAGIC after all, we're not talking stage show theatrics, we're talking spell crafting, demon pacting, blood-sacrifice-in-some-cases, real honest to goodness powers beyond mortal man, type stuff.

I don't understand how it can be tossed, haphazardly, in to the same skill level as learning something mundane.

Perhaps the fact that D&D has been around for so long, compounded by years of video games, movies, high-magic fantasy novels, and such have desensitized players to the notion of what magic is, that is has become painted in a light of casualness, akin to flipping on a light switch.

[JediOre]

Pilgrim,

Good post.

[reverenddak]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the last paragraph and its obvious conclusion, which I highlighted. I really can't stomach the idea that certain skills are harder than others, it all depends on the person. Difficulty is subjective: for Steven Hawking jumping is the hardest skill while explaining the physics of the Universe is the easiest, while maybe for an Olympic Athlete jumping and running are the easiest skills.
It's sort of like when you hear people complaining that "being a football player is not a job! I wish they worked a day as a woodcutter and they'd learn!".
Football player is a job, as hard as any other. Overpaid maybe, but that's the law of the market, but I digress.

Of course it depends on the person. The right combination of natural talent (ability scores) and their chosen "field" (class), made a huge difference when it came to success. Obviously a bit of luck (dice) and upbringing (occupation) helps.

In OD&D, BECMI and AD&D characters got a bonus % of XP if they had high ability scores, this is something I also liked, it supports the "naturally" gifted excel faster in their field.

The way I see it, Skill sets are different but not in the form of difficulty.

I absolutely believe that, all other things being equal, some skill-sets are harder than others.

I might state that the XP for stealthy/thievy actions (backstabbing, trapfinding, pickpocketing) is given out so that Warriors and wizards get only 30% of that XP, while the thief gets more; then again, the XP for frontal battles should be given out to thieves and wizards at 30%, while warriors get full XP.

Interesting. This could be more complicated but it would reflect the difference from the reward side of things. By issuing variable XP, dependent on the challenge, would do the same as having different progression rates. This would work with a unified XP chart, but as a DM it would be way more time consuming. It's much easier to have a lump sum of XP, and dividing it by the number of characters. Something like this was an option in AD&D and/or 2e.

I totally understand that unified progression chart would be simplest. But it seems illogical for people like me that feel that some classes should progress at a different rate, as I've argued. Isn't there is already a Topic concerning unified XP tables?

In regards to this topic, I support standard XP values of some sort. Whether they're for Challenge Levels, Monster HD and/or Treasure recovered or spent. It's abstract, but "quantifying" levels of experience is an abstraction.

[jmucchiello]

I absolutely believe that, all other things being equal, some skill-sets are harder than others.

Now explain how killing an orc is a measurably greater improvement to the skill set of thief than it is to the skill set of a fighter (assuming AD&D style xp charts 15/1250 is greater than 15/2000). Because if the XP charts are supposed to vary because of in-universe difficult of the skill sets associated with the classes, then what I said above is also true in-universe.

And if you use gp=xp and not monster rewards, then finding a pile of gold is a measurably greater improvement to the skill set of a cleric than it is to a fighter (X/1500 versus X/2000). Again, an absurd statement.

No, xp charts were varied for "balance" in D&D. 10,000 xp in one class was supposed to be as strong as 10,000 xp in some other class. But based on how DCCRPG borrows Saving Throw, Attack Bonus and other D20 concepts, it should also borrow level balance from D20.

[reverenddak]

I absolutely believe that, all other things being equal, some skill-sets are harder than others.

Now explain how killing an orc is a measurably greater improvement to the skill set of thief than it is to the skill set of a fighter (assuming AD&D style xp charts 15/1250 is greater than 15/2000). Because if the XP charts are supposed to vary because of in-universe difficult of the skill sets associated with the classes, then what I said above is also true in-universe.

I'm either not sure what you're saying, or you're supporting my argument. Considering that XP is an abstract measure of experience, how a thief goes about killing an orc is no different than what it takes for fighters getting past a traps. The whole party gets the same amount of XP for the challenge using the current system. It's up to the DM to make sure that every character carries their fair share of the weight over the span of an adventure. We're trying to avoid granular XP award systems, right? I'm only trying to support my argument that XP is the way to go.

And if you use gp=xp and not monster rewards, then finding a pile of gold is a measurably greater improvement to the skill set of a cleric than it is to a fighter (X/1500 versus X/2000). Again, an absurd statement.

Irrelevant. Treasure awards are assumed to be relative to the level of difficulty (at least over time.) With that in mind, it doesn't matter if you give 10xp per monster HD with 1 xp per gold, or if you give 30xp per monster HD, with no XP per gold, it's the same thing if there is 4d10 gp in his pocket.

To quote E.G.G: "Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along... [etc.]... All very realistic but conductive to non-game boredom!" (DMG pg 85)

No, xp charts were varied for "balance" in D&D. 10,000 xp in one class was supposed to be as strong as 10,000 xp in some other class. But based on how DCCRPG borrows Saving Throw, Attack Bonus and other D20 concepts, it should also borrow level balance from D20.

Nope, I disagree. Varied Xp charts reflected difficulty to improve in a chosen profession, you can call that "balance" but it's not the same kind of balance, which I know we agree, DCC character classes are trying to avoid. Saving Throw & Attack Bonus? Hardly new "d20" concepts, they're exactly the same, just reversed in application and mathematically the same (Applying a modifier to the roll vs. adding the modifier to the target number.) and totally irrelevant when it concerns a varied or unified XP table. Class balance, which I'm not interested in, is one of the main reasons for the unified XP table. Again, it supports homogenized, balanced in a fight style character classes ala 3x/4e. With a unified XP table, there is no difference between XP & Level. While with a varied XP table, the difference is obvious--it's harder to progress as a Wizard, than it is for a Thief. I can't seem to find "why" Gygax chose varied XP charts, but my reasoning is sound, and varied classic XP charts support it.

[jmucchiello]

I absolutely believe that, all other things being equal, some skill-sets are harder than others.

Now explain how killing an orc is a measurably greater improvement to the skill set of thief than it is to the skill set of a fighter (assuming AD&D style xp charts 15/1250 is greater than 15/2000). Because if the XP charts are supposed to vary because of in-universe difficult of the skill sets associated with the classes, then what I said above is also true in-universe.

I'm either not sure what you're saying, or you're supporting my argument. Considering that XP is an abstract measure of experience, how a thief goes about killing an orc is no different than what it takes for fighters getting past a traps. The whole party gets the same amount of XP for the challenge using the current system. It's up to the DM to make sure that every character carries their fair share of the weight over the span of an adventure. We're trying to avoid granular XP award systems, right? I'm only trying to support my argument that XP is the way to go.

You are assuming there is a party when the orc is being killed. A lone thief encounters an orc, kills it, and gains 15/1250 of level 2. A long fighter with the same encounter only gains 15/2000 of level 2. That doesn't make sense. Why would a thief gain more thievyness than a fighter gains fighteryness for the same encounter? The answer CANNOT be because of the difficulty of the skill set. The nature of the two skill sets implies that killing the orc should do NOTHING for the thief's thievyness.

The fair way to accomplish what you want is by only awarding experience for actions that actually create learning experience within the skill set. But as we all know, individual xp awards based on class (as seen in AD&D2) were a dumb idea. So if you treat xp as generic, then the difficulty of the skill set is immaterial to the value of xp.

Now if you want to say that the skill sets provided discernible quantums of skill at different rates, that's perfectly fine. But that has nothing to do with the difficulty of the skill set and more to do with how the skill set becomes identifiably better over time. The problem here though is this is a game. And the game designer makes the decision about when the quantifiable delta in ability happens for all classes. So the if the designer decides, all classes across each level should be equivalent in capability within their domain, then a single xp chart is a must. And I suspect that is the approach Goodman Games, a company that wants to sell adventure modules, will take. Because I don't think marketing of adventures that say "Best for characters of around 10,000 xp" is as good as "Best for characters of 3rd level."

And also note, even if the designer says "All classes across all levels should be equivalent" he can append "except the wizard class who will be somewhat less capable at lower levels and somewhat high powered at upper levels" to that statement. And it does not invalidate my premise. It just means he will adjust the quantum changes for the wizard differently than he does for the other classes. The point is what 2000 xp means for a fighter vs a thief vs a wizard is not dependent on some weird abstraction of what those classes are. It is dependent on whatever the game designer wants. And I suspect this game designer will want the impression that 3rd level is 3rd level is 3rd level for all classes so that he can sell adventures for parties of 3rd level.

[bholmes4]

This http://muleabides.wordpress.com/2010/04 ... har-hills/ sums up why I like gold as xp better than I ever could.

I also prefer variable experience requirements for the classes. Honestly it doesn't have a big impact on the game due to the way xp scales, maybe for one session a character is a level higher than the rest of the group. There is just something fun about it when the thief in the party manages to level up and no one else does. For the next session he gets to feel like the heavy in the group, hopefully he even gets to stand out at some point in the adventure due to his extra skill and hit points. Then the next game everyone else catches up and he fades back to his normal role.

I like that. It reminds me of a comic book or tv series where a background character steps up to the plate for one episode.

It doesn't have to make sense to me I just know I would miss that dynamic if it was taken away. Besides it's always nice to tell yourself that at least you will level faster as a rogue when you missed out on being the wizard. I fail to see how having a unified xp chart adds to the game though. It takes 2 seconds to look it up so it's not as though it's an "extra rule" to remember. You just jot down what you need for next level on your sheet when you level up.

[Pilgrim]

The point is what 2000 xp means for a fighter vs a thief vs a wizard is not dependent on some weird abstraction of what those classes are. It is dependent on whatever the game designer wants. And I suspect this game designer will want the impression that 3rd level is 3rd level is 3rd level for all classes so that he can sell adventures for parties of 3rd level.

Why, when adventure designers of the past never had this problem? Adventures in the past have always been set as, "For character levels 1-3" or "For character levels 5-8" etc. There is no good/logical reason for restricting all classes to a single level of advancement, except for DMs/GMs who simply don't want to take the time and effort to deal with individual XP awards.

[abk108]

The point is what 2000 xp means for a fighter vs a thief vs a wizard is not dependent on some weird abstraction of what those classes are. It is dependent on whatever the game designer wants. And I suspect this game designer will want the impression that 3rd level is 3rd level is 3rd level for all classes so that he can sell adventures for parties of 3rd level.

Why, when adventure designers of the past never had this problem? Adventures in the past have always been set as, "For character levels 1-3" or "For character levels 5-8" etc. There is no good/logical reason for restricting all classes to a single level of advancement, except for DMs/GMs who simply don't want to take the time and effort to deal with individual XP awards.

I am in favour of different XP charts, but I have to say that adventures, and tournaments, should've always said "For characters of 5000 XP" rather than "For characters of 3rd level". That was one big mistake in that they allowed the wizard to have roughly 1500 XP worth of "power" more than the thief.

[jmucchiello]

Why, when adventure designers of the past never had this problem? Adventures in the past have always been set as, "For character levels 1-3" or "For character levels 5-8" etc. There is no good/logical reason for restricting all classes to a single level of advancement, except for DMs/GMs who simply don't want to take the time and effort to deal with individual XP awards.

Look, Joseph has kept lots of 3e/4e-isms in the game to "ease modern players" into the game. I highly doubt that won't also include the XP chart. What was "good marketing" in the past is past. I'm old. I don't have to time to care about numbers the size of xp. Should a magic user require 375,000 xp per additional level after 11th? Why exactly? The skill set after 11th grow linearly with power? That's a strange skill. Most skills plateau and require greater and greater effort to minimally improve once you are an expert.

And I, too, have always though 1st/2nd ed modules should be rated by xp total. Especially since I was always a multiclasser.