Current XP System VS Alternate XP System from UA [Archive] - Wizards Community

Current XP System VS Alternate XP System from UA [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
StrahdVonZarovich
01-15-05, 02:28 AM I've been wondering this for a few years now...ever since 3e came out, why did wizards made the lvling-up system so damn sample and easy ?! I mean just look at the XP system from 2e, it was long and painful(3700000 points of XP were needed for a mage to reach lvl-20, if my memory is correct), but you hadn't lvl-20 char everywhere,(just look at how many ''legendary'' char were published thru the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Epic lvl Handbook, Elminster, The Symbul, Blackstaff, The crazy old man Chaoscloak I believe, Mordenkainen, Manshoon, F'Zoul Chembryl, the seven sisters, Alustriel, Drizzt, Artemis Entreri and etc, etc),they were quite rare.

Now after half a year of playing and due to a certain deck of many things (I should remind myself to not put this thing never ever in my games/campaigns) a fellow gamer of my usual group just jumped from lvl 9 to 13, and recently achieved his way to lvl-14. It took him about 6 months to get to lvl-9...he gained four lvls thru the deck...(He picked the card whom gave him 50000 XP plus the one who gave him about 50 gems who each worths 100 GP meaning he's now freakin' rich having gained 50000 GP & XP, but before that he picked the one who made him lost all his magic items, all in all he picked about 10 cards, another player just picked one, and had to fought a Dread-Wraith, he was killed in less then 3 rounds being only a knigh lvl-6, bad bad aredeck of many things, belive me!)

Now to compare a bit the XP systems from Wizards(3e & 3.5) and from TSR(2e),in second edition, I've been playing an Elven Windrider for more then a year and a half, and I'm nearly lvl-8 ! see the gap ? So I was wandering why did wizards made it so easy to lvl-up in such a short time ? Thats why I think the current XP system should removed and replaced by the one they suggest in UA, at lest this one demands that you earn 2400000 XP before reaching lvl-20, which makes more sense to me and which reduces the risk of having too much Godly (Oups I meant the atrocity they dare to call Epic) Char, what about you guys ? Opinions on this ?
Tenzhi
01-15-05, 04:11 AM In theory, you should advance in level at approximately the same rate using the Level-Independent XP Reward system in UA as you would using the default XP system.

I do prefer the alternate system in UA, though. Not least of which because it allows me to easily incorporate Gestalts into a normal campaign by simply charging them double XP to advance.
Hulluhkosika
01-15-05, 04:34 AM I think easy leveling keeps game alive. Because in add it was IMO too hard to get levels, and in the end who want's to play level 3 fighter? I like to play mid level characters, started at level 3. With these new exp system is rewarding at beginning to kill orc's and other cr 0.5 and cr 1. In add you got 15exp per orc, and with paladin or ranger you needed to kill about 160 orcs per character.. And that is not rewarding..

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StrahdVonZarovich 01-15-05, 02:28 AM	I've been wondering this for a few years now...ever since 3e came out, why did wizards made the lvling-up system so damn sample and easy ?! I mean just look at the XP system from 2e, it was long and painful(3700000 points of XP were needed for a mage to reach lvl-20, if my memory is correct), but you hadn't lvl-20 char everywhere,(just look at how many ''legendary'' char were published thru the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Epic lvl Handbook, Elminster, The Symbul, Blackstaff, The crazy old man Chaoscloak I believe, Mordenkainen, Manshoon, F'Zoul Chembryl, the seven sisters, Alustriel, Drizzt, Artemis Entreri and etc, etc),they were quite rare. Now after half a year of playing and due to a certain deck of many things (I should remind myself to not put this thing never ever in my games/campaigns) a fellow gamer of my usual group just jumped from lvl 9 to 13, and recently achieved his way to lvl-14. It took him about 6 months to get to lvl-9...he gained four lvls thru the deck...(He picked the card whom gave him 50000 XP plus the one who gave him about 50 gems who each worths 100 GP meaning he's now freakin' rich having gained 50000 GP & XP, but before that he picked the one who made him lost all his magic items, all in all he picked about 10 cards, another player just picked one, and had to fought a Dread-Wraith, he was killed in less then 3 rounds being only a knigh lvl-6, bad bad aredeck of many things, belive me!) Now to compare a bit the XP systems from Wizards(3e & 3.5) and from TSR(2e),in second edition, I've been playing an Elven Windrider for more then a year and a half, and I'm nearly lvl-8 ! see the gap ? So I was wandering why did wizards made it so easy to lvl-up in such a short time ? Thats why I think the current XP system should removed and replaced by the one they suggest in UA, at lest this one demands that you earn 2400000 XP before reaching lvl-20, which makes more sense to me and which reduces the risk of having too much Godly (Oups I meant the atrocity they dare to call Epic) Char, what about you guys ? Opinions on this ?
Tenzhi 01-15-05, 04:11 AM	In theory, you should advance in level at approximately the same rate using the Level-Independent XP Reward system in UA as you would using the default XP system. I do prefer the alternate system in UA, though. Not least of which because it allows me to easily incorporate Gestalts into a normal campaign by simply charging them double XP to advance.
Hulluhkosika 01-15-05, 04:34 AM	I think easy leveling keeps game alive. Because in add it was IMO too hard to get levels, and in the end who want's to play level 3 fighter? I like to play mid level characters, started at level 3. With these new exp system is rewarding at beginning to kill orc's and other cr 0.5 and cr 1. In add you got 15exp per orc, and with paladin or ranger you needed to kill about 160 orcs per character.. And that is not rewarding..