Goodman Games

I get the fact that this is a throwback to the 1E days. Fine. I get that. I played that. I know it.


One thing 3.x/D20 has done right is unify the Experience table so that all classes advance the same. One less table to memorize and less questions the players have to keep referencing "Do I get to Level 3 or 4 with 3,100 being an Elf? Is 900 enough to get to first level as a wizard?" Dump that idea. All the classes are meant to be on par with each other roughly so why not simplify things and have one advancement table for all classes regardless of what they are and go with it? I don't see the point in making it more difficult as a priest/wizard to level up vs a fighter considering their power level is roughly the same except to say "This is how we did it in 1E!".

Some things I'm willing to go with, this complex chart just for the sake of complexity and nostalgia doesn't make a bit of set.

I suppose the tables are different because the classes are not balanced with each other (whatever people may think about using the word "balance" in this game.) You pay more if you get more.
There are some around here who say that balance in this game is a moot point, so you may well be right; let's dump the different tables, they are just an hindrance if balance is not an issue at all.

I don't see a problem with this. If you have a single experience table, as suggested, then you need to consult one table. If you use the rules as written here, you have to consult...one table! Or you saying your players are too thick to be able to identify the correct table column to consult?

The different experience point requirements for each class is the more contentious issue. I see no problem with justifying it however. Different classes have different levels of 'technical' detail that warrants them gaining experience. For example, the Wizard has the highest requirements because their art is so difficult and esoteric. In addition, they're likely to experience less instances of performing their art than, say, the thief has of wielding a weapon and picking a pocket. Take a party of adventurers who are gaining experience for killing monsters and gathering treasure. They may each kill the same number of monsters and gain the same amount of treasure, but the odds are the Wizard cast X spells while the Warrior swung his sword Y times, where Y is much larger than X. Thus, for the same experience points gained, the Warrior actually did more class-related things and so gained the more 'experience' and thus should be advanced quicker.

The remaining issue is simply that of cry babies; "Waaa waaa, my Wizard is still only level 2 and your Warrior is now level 4!" To that I say, "deal with it".

Personally (not at all official) I gave up on counting XP years ago in most of my campaigns. I redefine XP in terms of play sessions or modules accomplished and level up the entire party at the same time.

Game balance? What's the point. If a class is too weak, don't play it.

Again, not an official position but it works for me.

My players want simplicity. They want to know without having to check a table that 3,000 is XP for 3rd level for everyone not 3rd for Warrior, 2nd for Wizards, and 4th for Rogues (examples not real).

Having one unified table with everyone advancing the same mitigates them even having to reference another table and remember an XP advancement per each class rather than just one number. Every player will know that 3,000 is 3rd level and 5,000 is 5th level regardless of what class you are. Simplicity at it's finest.


DCC is all about being a stripped down, easy to use, dungeon crawling experience. This feels clunky and cumbersome.

I also think one XP table is a good idea. Get rid of the thief %s and different XPs by level; both harken back to Ad&D and not appendix N.

OK, I understand. They want to know the experience point thresholds in their heads without having to consult a table ever again after the first time. However, I must say, they must have exquisitly tailored and precision engineered lives such that they can't waste the time to turn a few pages and look at a table once every few game sessions. Are they lawyers and used to being paid by the second? However, I suspect they'll spend considerably more time each gaming session just fetching a bowl from the kitchen for their corn chips.

The only 1e and 2e character sheets had two XP boxes on the sheets... one for current XP and one for needed XP. You only look up once per level.

Easy for Joseph to add that to the existing character sheets.

To be honest, in my ongoing games I have leveled up characters via "judge fiat" so far -- not a lot of actual XP tracking -- "okay, that's three adventures at level 1 so now you're all level 2!" I consider the XP system to currently be in "philosophical mode," not even playtest mode yet.

In addition to the points noted above, one big "pro" for a unified table is that the rules for multiclassing get a LOT easier. No matter what class you are, you achieve your next level at the same XP increment, so when you level up you just choose what class you take the level in.

That said, I really feel level 5 warriors and wizards (including elves) truly are the most powerful classes at that level. In my games, a level 5 warrior typically attacks first in combat, hits often, and dishes out lots of damage (considering the action die added to damage, various mighty deeds, threat range / propensity for crits, and typically higher results on the crit tables). Wizards and elves are a little more "iffy" due to the spell checks but when the dice are right, man, they can really lay on the damage! A couple good attack spells at a +7 or +8 spell check and wham, you can really turn a fight around fast.

That's where I feel like the different XP per class comes in. Level 5 halfling? Just not as powerful as a level 5 warrior. I don't want to change the halfling class (fundamentally, I mean -- there are some minor things I need to fix)...so how can I justify the halfling player being required to accumulate the same XP as the level 5 wizard??

I haven't figured this one out yet...

I made this suggestion in another thread but moved it here. At a miminum, I'd like to see each entry reduced in cost by a factor of 10 (all thousands becomes hundreds).

Even better, I'm going to use a system like this one to replace tracking XP in large numbers. I got this idea from Monte Cook's World of Darkness which is OGL.

Each adventure (usually 4 hours) the judge awards one XP. Up to one or two additional XP might be awarded but only for a truly extraordinary accomplishment by the characters.

Each XP can buy one of the following character increases in any order:
A. hit points and action die
B. attack and crit
C. saves
D. class abilities
Cleric: spells known by level
Thief: thieving skills and luck die
Warrior: critical hits and initiative
Wizard: known spells and max spell level
Dwarf: underground skills
Elf: known spells and max spell level
Halfling: stealth and good luck charm

After all four letters are earned (in any order), 1 more XP can be spent to go to the next level and actually increase character level (which also increases caster level if applicable). Erase the letters and start earning XP again at the new level.

If a class is somewhat weaker than another class, that last XP may not need to be earned. For example, a wizard may need 5 XP to get the four advances and a level, but a halfling would only need 4 XP. If multiclassing is an option, the character pays the XP needed for whatever class they are advancing into.

A 0-level character only has to buy the level increase to 1st-level, so only one XP is needed to advance.

The amount of time it takes a PC to advance is up to the GM. Usually a week or so of downtime might be needed. A 0-level farmer becoming a wizard might take a month to polish his understanding of that weird magic he's been having nightmares about his whole life and create a grimoire.

New gamers don't like to read. When I ask them to read this or that between sessions they say they don't want to do homework. They want the game to be easy. I think one table to rule them all would feed into this younger age group. I would prefer the old style 1E tables myself.

Right, I haven't thought this out fully (as usual ) but maybe you use a unified XP table but you could make it so less-powerful classes find it easier to multiclass than the powerful ones, but then when they're multiclassed - make it as hard as the powerful classes to multiclass any further. So less powerful classes get to diversify earlier in the game, but characters with more than 2 classes are less common.

wizards, elves**, warriors, multiclassed: roll equal/under lowest level on 1d10 to multiclass further.
other single classes: roll over lowest level on 1d10 to multiclass.

**maybe as they're already dualclassed, don't allow elves to multiclass at all.

A consequence may be that everyone will pick a less-powerful class at 1st Level unless they're determined to specialize until later.

Alternatively

Try this instead - assign a DC to each new target class then roll over (die** + highest level attained) to multiclass -give the less powerful classes a lower DC e.g Thieves DC10 whereas Wizards are DC20.

**die = d16 for powerful classes, d20 for less powerful classes.


(Mind, actually I'm against multiclassing, I prefer the archetypes rather than every character being a toolkit)