Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SterlingHeart PaganPummel 10-24-05, 09:20 PM	I wuz lookin' at the 1st ed. DMG rating for an orc...they were worth about 14 xp each. For a 1st ed. fighter, it would take 142 orc deaths fought solo to raise to level 2. With 3.5 CR 1/2 (150 xp for a 1st-3rd level group), it would take 7 dead orcs fought solo to raise to level 2..what is that? A x20 faster advancement rate? Granted, the xp systems are radically diffrent, but it does show that it took a lot longer for 1st ed. folks to raise up levels. I'm just wondering why there was such a level advancment diff. Mostly because the lack of level racial limits? Or because a bigger spread of monster power over levels let the designers make vastly powerful creatures available? (lets face it, the old 88hp red dragon of 1st ed. pales vs the 700+ hp beasts we see now....
Bullgrit 10-24-05, 10:28 PM	Also take into consideration that in AD&D1, you got XP for treasure found as well as enemies defeated. It was not uncommon for lots of treasure to be found, for the purpose of increasing the XP awarded. The AD&D1 DMG goes to some length giving DMs ways of removing said treasure from the PCs -- training costs, etc. It was even said, straight up, that the DM could/should/would have thieves and taxes take away "excess" treasure. Also, finding magic items awarded XP. If you kept and used the magic item, you got the XP award. If you sold the magic item, you got the gp value in XP. A +1 sword was worth 400 XP if kept and used, but 2,000 XP if sold (for 2,000 gp). A suit of +2 chain mail was worth 1,200 XP if kept and used, but 7,500 XP if sold (for 7,500 gp). A wand of fire was worth 4,500 XP if kept and used, but 25,000 XP if sold (for 25,000 gp). And official AD&D1 was not low magic (as some claim -- just look at the modules), so only with unusually stingy DMs was AD&D1 level advancement glacially slow. But it was slower than D&D3. D&D3 assumes a campaign will last about 1.5 years. AD&D1 seemed to assume that a campaign would last 5+ years (although only rare examples actually did last that long). D&D3 changed the level advancement rate to better match what people were actually doing. Bullgrit
Grug the Just 10-24-05, 10:57 PM	Plus, I think that's the XP for the whole party. Like that 150 would be divided by four, so that's 37. So it's only twice as fast. Considering you don't get XP for finding swag, it evens out.
Nobunaga 10-24-05, 11:40 PM	I like the system for the most part. It is easy to understand and makes it easier for DM's I think. Before when treasure counted never made much since. At least things have a system that is transferable and customizable. Even though i grew up on Ad&d, I hated D&D 2. I thought it was a waste, but 3 was so much different and same feel I was pleased. My only worry is that they gurp it out. I HATED GURPS. Having the system for many different games makes it generic in my mind. D&D gamers like a feeling that the game is distinct.
Scipion Emilien 10-24-05, 11:57 PM	Remember that 3.5 orcs are deadly for the PC, with their falcion, they could easily kill one on a lucky shot. So this is 7 seven DEADLY orc that the PC encounter before gaining their lvl.
weasel fierce 10-25-05, 12:45 AM	Orcs are certainly no walkthrough to an AD&D character either. They are quite likely to be equal or even superior to a 1st level fighter, let alone a band of the buggers. AD&D does, even with treasure, take longer to advance in. Thats not a bad thing though, depending on what your tastes are. As far as monsters being much tougher, that can propably be attributed to them making everything tougher and more powerfull. Higher numbers are better, I guess.
arbanafal 10-25-05, 05:53 AM	To be honest I like the more rapid progression from the 3.x editions. I'm glad that they give guidelines to slow it down (which I use in my converted Ravenloft campaign), or to speed it up (which we use in our actionpacked d20 future campaign) but the old xp-goals were a little to high to my taste. Example: In the last AD&D adventure that we did, "Die Vecna, Die" we started as 13th level characters. After defeating: tons of trolls, elite Ogres, beholders, 2 20th level liches, multiple 20+ level high priests, Slaadi all colors of the rainbow, miscelaineous munchkinned out uber-monsters and a greater god, we ended the adventure...as 13th level. If we did the same adventure in 3.x we would have reached epic for sure. Not that I'm in a haste to reach epic, but after more than a year of adventuring I'd expect to level up at least once ;) That's why I like the new xp-table I guess. There's always the feeling of advancement. For the first time we've build characters from 1st to 16th lvl in the span of 2,5 years. Thats a nice time, and it keeps our games fresh. My two coppers. :twocents:
Seeker95 10-25-05, 02:42 PM	1. Neither game was designed for solo advancement. 2. 1e played out 9 character levels; 3e plays out 20 levels. 3. 1st edition assumed more combat than anything else.; 3e assumes you have some roleplying outside of combat to pass the hours of playtime.
Millennium 10-25-05, 02:51 PM	With 3.5 CR 1/2 (150 xp for a 1st-3rd level group), it would take 7 dead orcs fought solo to raise to level 2..what is that? Pit one orc against one first-level character under the 1e and 3.5e systems, and you'll see what that is.
rogueattorney 10-25-05, 05:25 PM	The xp and level advancement systems of 1e and 3.x e are one of the many reasons why the two systems are fundamentally different games. There are so many different assumptions made in the design of the two games that 1:1 translation is simply impossible. They assume a fundamentally different style of game and promote a fundamentally different style of game play. 1e was created under the assumption of having parties of 6 to 8 pcs all with their assorted henchmen and hirelings splitting the risk and reward. 3.x was created with the assumption of 4 pcs. 1e was created under the assumption that characters tend to wind their careers down around 15th level, while 3.x was created under the assumptions that characters' careers end around 20th. 1e was created such that characters reach their "retirement age" in approximately 4 years of regular game play, while 3.x was created such that characters reach "retirement age" in one year of regular game play. 1e was created under the assumption that one of the basic motivating factors in character actions was acquisition of treasure. 3.x was not. Of course, 1e was also created under the assumption that most, if not all, of that treasure was spent in training costs (1,500 gp per week of training at 1st level), living expense, and the maintenence of hirelings/henchmen. There are no such considerations in 3.x for the obvious reason that gp's aren't doled out in such great number. About 75% of a player's xp in AD&D1 is supposed to come from treasure rather than monster slaying. Thus a first level fighter would have to get about 500 xp from slaying monsters to get to 2nd level. Assume an adventuring party of 8, that's 4,000 xp from monsters for the whole party. Divide that by 14 and that's about 286 orcs the party has to defeat before the the fighter gets to 2nd level. The 3.x fighter's party has to kill about 28, if the previous poster's math is right. The result isn't that the 1e party necessarily has to kill more monsters to get to the next level, it's acually that the 1e party has to kill more big monsters to get to the next level. An ogre or two will make a big dent in the xp required. R.A.
imrtl 10-25-05, 06:12 PM	Personally while X amount of xp is written in a book, that doesn't mean anything. I don't give out huge amounts of combat xp, just because each creature is worth X amount. As a DM I advance the party as fast as I want them to go. And secondly if an encounter is not a threat they get 0 xp. Also I give out RolePlaying XP. So the player that sits and does nothing but rolls dice all night is going to get lower xp than the actively participating player. Any player that comes up with some brillant idea/plan that works typically gets bonus xp for that. So I guess you can either tie yourself to what the books say, or as a DM you can just advance your party at whatever rate you decide.
Seeker95 10-25-05, 07:18 PM	So I guess you can either tie yourself to what the books say, or as a DM you can just advance your party at whatever rate you decide.While a true statement, this is irrelevant to any discussion about actual game mechanics. Such suggestions are perfectly appropriate for any What's a DM to Do? question.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-25-05, 07:37 PM	They made the experience totals lower to make the game more accessable to casual gamers. For example, I get to game maybe twice a month and that's it. A faster level advancement is a boon to me. If people are able to game once a week or more, then a slower advancement might be better for them. but for me, it'd take years to raise to level 2 with the 1E level advancement. And that's kinda boring if you ask me.
weasel fierce 10-26-05, 12:27 AM	1. Neither game was designed for solo advancement. Quite true. Any single character will perish in minutes, in most D&D adventures 2. 1e played out 9 character levels; 3e plays out 20 levels. The focus in on levels 1-9, which is also more enjoyable to me. However, the rules provide for play up to level 20 as well (classic D&D covers 36 levels and becoming a god ;) ) 3. 1st edition assumed more combat than anything else.; 3e assumes you have some roleplying outside of combat to pass the hours of playtime. Funny that they increased the focus on combat in virtually every regard. Ultimately, every edition of D&D comes down to hacking and stealing.
weasel fierce 10-26-05, 12:39 AM	Pit one orc against one first-level character under the 1e and 3.5e systems, and you'll see what that is. Propably one dead fighter in both games. I cant give the details for 3.whatever, but in AD&D, a single fighter against a single orc is a slight edge to the fighter. 2 orcs is bad news though Assuming high strength, they are going to be fairly equal in attack values, the fighter is likely to be ahead in hit points (assuming a 16 con, average is 6-7 versus 4-5 for the orc) If we presume both are armed with D6 damage weapons, the fighter will likely take 2-3 hits to kill, while the orc is propably down in 2. So a hard-fought 15 XP. AD&D thoroughly assumes that the majority of XP will not come from hacking, as the amount of kills would have to be stupendous, and the party would have been wiped out long before reaching their goal.
arbanafal 10-26-05, 05:01 AM	I don't know about 1st Edition, but in 2nd edition AD&D you also need to add all kinds of class dependant XP benefits: The fighter would add the "XHD kill" xp bonus to slaying the orc. (too lazy to search for my old DM's guide) So he would actually get a little more than 15xp. Clerics added 100xp/use of granted power Wizards added 50xp/spell level Ohh...how I loved keeping track of all the HD's of kills made by whom and number of Xlvl spells cast and powers used...:bored:
weasel fierce 10-26-05, 05:05 AM	I could be wrong, but Im pretty sure those were optional rules. In any event, they are particular to AD&D 2nd edition, and do not exist in any other version.
jasper 10-26-05, 09:27 AM	rougeattorney is mostly right( rats I agreeing with a lawyer. I got go rub my tongue on the carpet). Wotc did some research which basically found out some of thing RA said a few others. The 3E has faster advancement so gamers can get to 20 level before the avg group breaks ups due life. As for advancement in both games I had pc advance to around 9th level in about 1 game calendar and about 9 months real time. If you want slower advancement either cut the xp given by a % or after a while CR 1 critters become so easy they gain no xp. So 3E does kill orc farming at 10th level.
Bullgrit 10-26-05, 10:00 AM	EGG wrote the rules based on the experiences at his table and what he saw at tournament tables. He regularly had 10+ Players in his games. He wrote to how he and his friends were playing the game. WotC did research and found that the average of actual game groups around the world was a DM and ~4 Players. So they designed to how the "D&D populace" at large played the game. That's why D&D3 incorporated as official many of the house rules that large numbers of groups were using in their games. EGG was blazing the trail, walking at ground level, without a map. WotC paved that trail with the benefit of a satellite map, GPS trackers, and the guidance of folk who had traveled the trail many times (helping the pavers to avoid the pitfalls). EGG's game ran almost 7 days a week, so I'd figure gaining XP in his games was much faster (in Real World time) than in those groups that played just once a week (or less). I never had a campaign work up past 7th level before Real Life broke up the campaign (and/or group) in a year or so. I am very glad that D&D3 is designed to allow me to break through that old glass ceiling. Bullgrit
Man in the Funny Hat 10-26-05, 10:59 AM	A x20 faster advancement rate? Granted, the xp systems are radically diffrent, but it does show that it took a lot longer for 1st ed. folks to raise up levels.They are different. And the systems they work WITH are different as well. So different that you really can't compare them very closely. About all you can do is simply say that advancement IS faster in 3E, but it's not because of 1E that they differ so much - it's because of 3E. 3E was designed with a fairly specific rate of advancement in mind. They did some actual surveys of how people played the game, what they wanted changed and so forth. The results that they came up with were that more people wanted this kind of rate of advancement (or just thought they did). The amount of XP awarded as compares to the challenge of the encounters, the number of encounters per level, and so forth all come from that basic shift in understanding of where players wanted the rate of advancement. Or because a bigger spread of monster power over levels let the designers make vastly powerful creatures available? (lets face it, the old 88hp red dragon of 1st ed. pales vs the 700+ hp beasts we see now....Given the enormous changes in the systems it's very difficult to meaningfully compare given monsters and the challenge they presented in either system. One thing you can say is that 3E redesign has PC's facing far FEWER monsters on a regular basis although I'm not sure if that was intentional or simply resulted from how the XP, CR and EL systems were integrated and nobody thought to look at it. Another thing is that monsters WERE redesigned between the two editions. Dragons were widely percieved as UNDERpowered in previous edtions compared to how people thought they should be. However, 3E had this terrific means of adjusting things to more consistently compare the power levels of monsters versus what the PC's should be able to handle - CR. As a result we now have a much more accurate measure of what IS an appropriate challenge for PC's of a given level. 88 hp weenies versus 700 hp monstrosities from pre- and post-3E simply do not compare directly to each other because the systems they work within don't compare. The best you can do is compare how they challenged PC's of a given level within the system they come from - and even that is impractical because prior to 3E there were no STANDARDS of treasure and equipment values for PC's. Nobody could really say what was a well-equipped party and what was a weakly equipped party - and the differences in power level from the two were enormous.
Bruunwald 10-26-05, 11:54 AM	Once again, I shall mix metaphors: The proof of the irrelevant topic is under the hat. That is to say that when we played 1st Edition, the PCs went up a level every three sessions or so. When we played 2nd Edition, the PCs went up a level every three sessions or so. When we played 3rd Edition, the PCs went up a level every three sessions or so. Now we play 3.5 and the PCs go up a level every three sessions or so. I find most of the retro complaints or supposedly "broken" complaints on these boards crop up with people who have no practical experience with the supposedly broken item. Though not a sterile, scientific and controlled fact-finding basis for a conclusion, I do think simple experience with the thing, showing time and again, an opposite result, is proof enough that most of these comments are incorrect.
Judging Eagle 10-26-05, 02:37 PM	I could be wrong, but Im pretty sure those were optional rules. In any event, they are particular to AD&D 2nd edition, and do not exist in any other version. I thought those were 1st Ed. Rules. Wizards and clerics were likely to blast or heal stuff and fighter were more likely to fight stuff all for that 'bonus' xp. My favorite rule from 2nd ed was the: "if you have more than 16 in your classes base stat, you get 10% more XP" rule. Guess which players always had an 16+ in their classes 'main stat' in the campaign we used to play? Yup all of them. The rule was really silly since you'd put it there anyway (unless you were a ranger, who had con as their main). Really, the increasing of base monster XP, and removing bonus XP from class type and related actions as well as bonux xp for loot makes the game easier to handle since there is less book-keeping. Also, I don't always hand out treasure, so my PCs would be really hurting if they were still lvl 3-4 with high stats and not 5-6 with high stats (so far, they've only earned about 43-48k gp between 7-8 PCs).
arbanafal 10-26-05, 04:33 PM	[...] I find most of the retro complaints or supposedly "broken" complaints on these boards crop up with people who have no practical experience with the supposedly broken item. Though not a sterile, scientific and controlled fact-finding basis for a conclusion, I do think simple experience with the thing, showing time and again, an opposite result, is proof enough that most of these comments are incorrect. Allthough I agree with you when your comments are applied to most topics about percieved brokenness, I don't have the impression that this thread is about claiming that something is broken or wrong. As far as I have observed, this thread is about older-edition gamers having retrospective fun at the editions they used to play. I played 2nd edition AD&D, and I followed the guidelines from those books. Now that I play 3rd edition I look back upon more than a decade of gaming and I can see some improvement, at least for our group. Compared to the streamlined version of 3.x rules, the XP-rules from previous editions seem, well...strange in a way. Like character-level restrictions for certain classes for non-human races and different xp-tables for each class. I never hated it (although we houseruled most of it), but I like the 3.x xp system better. As long as no flaming occurs, I consider this discussion a cool breeze of nostalgia :cloud9: LOL, I almost forgot about the 16+ stat bonus! Good one :D
weasel fierce 10-27-05, 12:50 AM	I thought those were 1st Ed. Rules. Wizards and clerics were likely to blast or heal stuff and fighter were more likely to fight stuff all for that 'bonus' xp. I guarantee you, that they were not 1st ed rules. However, rewarding a player for playing in accordance to his class, was rewarded by having shorter training times My favorite rule from 2nd ed was the: "if you have more than 16 in your classes base stat, you get 10% more XP" rule. It makes sense, but its not really all that great a rule. Guess which players always had an 16+ in their classes 'main stat' in the campaign we used to play? Yup all of them. Roll stats in order ;) Only way to play D&D if you're playing old school. Really, the increasing of base monster XP, and removing bonus XP from class type and related actions as well as bonux xp for loot makes the game easier to handle since there is less book-keeping. Not really. You have to crossreference a chart, with each PC's level, to find the actual XP value, as opposed to just looking in the book, and there it is. Whatever you are most used to, is going to be easiest though. Also, I don't always hand out treasure, so my PCs would be really hurting if they were still lvl 3-4 with high stats and not 5-6 with high stats (so far, they've only earned about 43-48k gp between 7-8 PCs). I award very little treasure, but I assign XP awards for reaching certain objectives, based on story or character, as well as doing plain cool things. So it evens out. The rate you are "supposed" to advance at is meaningless to me, regardless of system.
Bullgrit 10-27-05, 08:40 AM	Roll stats in order Only way to play D&D if you're playing old school.OD&D and BD&D. AD&D1's usual default was Method I: 4d6 drop lowest (as now in D&D3). Bullgrit
blazeesq2000 10-27-05, 12:14 PM	I still do the gold piece for xp and magic for xp thing. It makes the characters hungry for both, and gives the 3.5 an old school feel. (I don't make them pay for training though). So if I design a Level 1 3.5 adventure, for 4 characters, the XP value of encounters, treasure and magic combined will be 4,000 exp. When you think about it, it still works pretty well. If I want to play a higher-magic campaign, I just don't add the exp for magic items. This way I can tailor each adventure so that I am pretty sure that everyone gets to go up a level. In the 1st. Ed. system it was annoying because a party might have at some point a 9th level Fighter adventuring with a 6th level Magic-User. I always felt bad for the Magic-User (Ranger and Paladin too) in that respect. Most DM's a played with didn't give XP's per se, but once in awhile they would say "Okay, you all go up a level."
weasel fierce 10-27-05, 01:54 PM	A high level magic user adds a lot of options that a level 9 fighter simply doesnt. Same for rangers (who become pretty hardcore at high levels) But if it bothers you, It'd be easy to just use the same chart for everyone (the fighter chart would propably be the one I'd pick) OD&D and BD&D. AD&D1's usual default was Method I: 4d6 drop lowest (as now in D&D3). That doesnt mean you cant roll in order. The way we roll for AD&D characters is 4D6 drop one, rolled in order. Then you get to either switch 2 of them OR reroll one.
Bullgrit 10-27-05, 02:28 PM	OD&D and BD&D. AD&D1's usual default was Method I: 4d6 drop lowest (as now in D&D3). That doesnt mean you cant roll in order. The way we roll for AD&D characters is 4D6 drop one, rolled in order. Then you get to either switch 2 of them OR reroll one.Oops. I meant to include that Method I allowed placing the scores in whatever order the Player wanted. And keeping them in the order you roll them is perfectly acceptable. Forcing the Player keep the rolls in order is a restriction on the standard rule. Not a big deal either way. I was just clarifying. The thread was talking about AD&D1 and D&D3. You said that keeping the rolls in order was old school (implying that it was the rule under AD&D1). I just pointed out that *that* old school rule dated back to before AD&D1. Bullgrit
weasel fierce 10-27-05, 02:41 PM	Ah, my apologies. Yes, the recommended method in AD&D1 is as you describe. Looking back my post wasnt all that clear. When I grew up, we always rolled in order, so it became the standard way of thinking for me. Cheers!
Bullgrit 10-27-05, 02:47 PM	When I grew up, we always rolled in order, so it became the standard way of thinking for me.Yeah, it was quite a paradigm shift for me and my group at the time, when we started giving some thought on what kind of character we might want *before* we rolled the dice. And even still having some choice in what to play after rolling, instead of just taking what the dice gave us. Sometimes there's fun in taking what you roll. Bullgrit