3.5 with old experience points idea

[Sploggle1]

Me and a DM since 1.0 were talking about experience the other day. He was talking about how they dropped XP and raised the monster values. That got me to thinking to make the game a little more challenging why not raise the XP required to level back to 2.0 standards. So instead of all leveling at 1000, 3000 and so on go by 2.0.

So for leveling to 2 I was thinking to do this by 2.0

Warrior which includes Fighter at 2000

Paladin, and ranger at 2250

Wizards at 2500

clerics at 1500

Druids at 2000

Rogue (Originally called thief), and bard at 1250

Barbarians didn't exist in the 2.0 book from what I saw so I was going to put them with warrior at 2000

Sorcerers also didn't exist so them at 2000

[GilesTheCleric]

If your players know what they're doing, this could definitely work. However, it might be a better idea to assign xp levels based on the tiers instead of legacy. Clerics really don't need to level that quickly.

[Segev]

Clerics and Druids should actually take more exp than Wizards (but not by too much), and Sorcerers should be only a little behind Wizards. Fighters/Warriors should be the cheapest, with Paladins/Rangers/Rogues only a little more expensive. Maybe even put rogues on Fighter level.

[Sploggle1]

Clerics and Druids should actually take more exp than Wizards (but not by too much), and Sorcerers should be only a little behind Wizards. Fighters/Warriors should be the cheapest, with Paladins/Rangers/Rogues only a little more expensive. Maybe even put rogues on Fighter level.

Makes sense I guess raising sorcerers to 2250, and drop fighters to 1250, and bump rogues. Rogues to 1500 and drop the pali and ranger to 1750 to keep it balanced out.

[Sploggle1]

I can see why 2.0 jacked up the XP for palis though with what they get in the later levels. Rangers I wouldn't see to much of a problem with dropping some.

[Firechanter]

Tier 4-5 classes need up to 50% more xp to level than Tier 1s? Srsly? oÔ

Yes I know those are the olden-days tables, but back then spellcasters weren't so absurdly detached from the rest of the worlds' powerlevel.

If I wanted to do this, I'd tie the XP requirements to class tier.

Very roughly:

T1: 2500XP
T2: 2000XP
T3: 1500XP
T4: 1250XP
T5: 1000XP

So basically everyone except T5s would level more slowly.

However:
How do you want to handle multiclassing?

And:
Bear in mind that AD&D advancement tables were totally erratic. Some classes leveled faster in the beginning, then hit a wall and fell behind. Also, the required XP to the next level was usually somewhere around twice the previous amount. At the end of the day, classes of equal XP effectively were within 1-2 levels of everyone else. (with some exceptions)

[Sploggle1]

Tier 4-5 classes need up to 50% more xp to level than Tier 1s? Srsly? oÔ

Yes I know those are the olden-days tables, but back then spellcasters weren't so absurdly detached from the rest of the worlds' powerlevel.

If I wanted to do this, I'd tie the XP requirements to class tier.

Very roughly:

T1: 2500XP
T2: 2000XP
T3: 1500XP
T4: 1250XP
T5: 1000XP

So basically everyone except T5s would level more slowly.

However:
How do you want to handle multiclassing?

And:
Bear in mind that AD&D advancement tables were totally erratic. Some classes leveled faster in the beginning, then hit a wall and fell behind. Also, the required XP to the next level was usually somewhere around twice the previous amount. At the end of the day, classes of equal XP effectively were within 1-2 levels of everyone else. (with some exceptions)

That is true so tweaking the Experience table in general will probably mess up what they were going for?
Im guessing, and milticlassing is one thing I will need to compare 2.0 to 3.5 to make sure I don't mess up the multiclassing myself. I was thinking keep that at 3.5 standards but im not sure.

[Segev]

Heck, a good way to do it would be just to classify on the Tier-system:

Tier 1 classes take 2x the standard experience chart.
Tier 2 classes take 1.5x the standard experience chart.
Tier 3 classes take 1x the standard experience chart.
Tier 4 classes take .5x the standard experience chart.

This complicates multi-classing unless you break the chart down not by "exp total for this level," but instead by "exp which must be earned between now and next level to gain another level." And then you'd base that on your current class. So a level 1 Fighter would need fighter exp to get level 2. If you took a level of Wizard next, it would take Wizard-to-3 exp to gain level 3.


I'd suggest going it a step further, though: Your character level is your highest class level. Your standing exp total determines your highest class's level. Adding a new class costs exp, which is spent as if it were on magic item creation. The cost for a new class is the same as getting to level 2 in that class would be. You add that new class and gestalt its first level with your existing first level. If you reach an amount of exp such that you should level up in your highest-level class, you may choose not to up to the point where you would need to level twice in your highest-level class. At that point, you must either expend your exp on something (like leveling a lower-level class or adding a new one) or choose to level up in your highest-level class.

If you have two classes that are tied for your highest-level class, you can level either when you achieve sufficient exp.

Every time you expend exp to "level" a class that is not your highest level class, you gestalt that class's level with all other classes you have at the new level you're buying it at.

For example, a Dwarf starts off at level 1 as a cleric. He gains enough exp to reach level 2 in a Tier 1 class. He may choose to either gain a 2nd level as a Cleric, or to expend his exp on gaining level 1 in, say, Wizard. Let's say he does that. He is now a Gestalt Cleric 1//Wizard 1. He earns exp as a level 1 character, until he has enough to get to level 2 in a Tier 1 class, again. This time, he chooses to actually gain a level, and puts it in Cleric again. He's now a Gestalt Cleric 2//Wizard 1. This means that his second HD's contribution to his overall stats are those of a pure cleric, though he's gestalted Wizard and Cleric HD for first level. His BAB, incidentally, is +1.5, due to the 3/4 BAB of both Cleric levels. His Saves are those of a Cleric, because it overlaps with Wizard's good save.

IIRC, Rogue is a Tier 3 class. Our Dwarf earns enough exp beyond 2nd level to gain 2nd level in a Tier 3 class, and chooses to expend those exp on a Rogue level. He is now a Gestalt Cleric 2//Wizard 1//Rogue 1. His BAB doesn't go up because Rogue doesn't have a better BAB than he already did, but he now has all three saves as "good" at level one (still only a +2 total to Reflex, though, due to Cleric 2 not giving him a boost there). If he gets enough exp after this expenditure to reach level 2 in a Tier 3 class, he can choose to level up Rogue to 2, however: this would get his Reflex save up.

As he added Rogue levels, too, he'd gain bonus SP in the amount of the difference between what his level had before and what it has now.

This "rewards" heavy multi-classing by making it not suck completely, but it still slows down progression considerably. And, when one reaches higher levels, the low-level insertion of "Gestalt" classes contributes less and less. But it also becomes less and less expensive, compared to the wealth of exp the characters have.

For PrCs, it is assumed that a PrC stacks with an appropriate extant class to determine level purchase. Mystic Theurge would, for instance, count as raising both Cleric and Wizard for the price of a single Tier 1 level. Arcane Trickster would do the same for Rogue and Wizard. Trying to manipulate this will usually, I think, work against the player, so it'd wind up being superior to gestalt one of three classes like this with the PrC that stacks with the other two. (Arcane Trickster is rather strictly superior to Mystic Theurge, as an example.)


This probably needs heavy examination and re-wording, and corner-case examination, but the approach is one that, I think, would help balance the tiers of classes a bit and make multiclassing purely a choice, rather than a sub-optimal risk under most circumstances. Multi-classed characters will have fewer exp total than single-classed ones, and better-Tier characters will have lower levels and HD than their counterparts with equivalent exp and weaker tiers.

[Firechanter]

Without actually having done the math, maybe you can get a similar look and feel with smaller multipliers.

So roughly like,
T5: x1
T4: x1.1
T3: x1.2
T2: x1.4
T1: x1.5

So to get to level 10, a Monk (T5) would need the same XP as now, 45000.
A Wizard however would need 1,5x that amount, or 67500XP. Conversely, a Wizard (or Cleric or Druid) with the same 45000XP would be level 8.
T3 or T4 classes would be level 9 at the same point.

Multiclassing: here it gets a bit complicated.
Say you want to start out with 4 Barb levels, then 2 Fighter and 1 Cloistered Cleric.
So you'd need:
6600XP to get to Barb 4 [(1000+2000+3000)*1,1]
9000XP to add Ftr 2 (4000+5000)
9000XP to add ClClr1 (6000*1,5)
Total XP for level 7: 24.600XP

However, you could have the exact same combination much cheaper, just by starting out ClClr1, then Barb, then Fighter. You'd get there with just 22.000XP (and completely avoid the XP surcharge for a T1 class).

[ArcturusV]

I have to ask as well, as this was part of the XP variable, if you're also using the older style variable XP GAIN per class.

My memory is a bit rusty, however I seem to recall about the only universal XP gain in 2nd edition was "10 xp per HD of enemy defeated" and something like "1 xp per 10 gp of treasure gained". Otherwise classes had XP gain that was class specific like clerics getting something like +100 for casting a spell which furthered their ethos, and what not.

[Sploggle1]

I do like both multi class Ideas. Ill have to get back to yall later on probably through private messaging. But in the end I'm guessing going with 2.0 xp leveling is good. It is the multiclassing we need to kick around.

[Sploggle1]

I have to ask as well, as this was part of the XP variable, if you're also using the older style variable XP GAIN per class.

My memory is a bit rusty, however I seem to recall about the only universal XP gain in 2nd edition was "10 xp per HD of enemy defeated" and something like "1 xp per 10 gp of treasure gained". Otherwise classes had XP gain that was class specific like clerics getting something like +100 for casting a spell which furthered their ethos, and what not.

Since 3.5 is so XP heavy I was thinking go with 3.5's way of dealing XP. which should help out this old system, and probably move it faster than it originally did in 2.0

[Firechanter]

Oh yes, the AD&D XP awards were extremely convoluted. I can't reproduce them off hand but I could look them up. (As it happens we're planning an AD&D 2nd Revival campaign.)

What I do know is that each class got +10% XP for having high stats in their primary abilities. Which further shafted the Ranger, who already had the worst advancement, and also needed like three 16s to qualify for the boost so basically you could just stick it.