Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax May 21, 2004 23:24:54	Does anyone else believe the theif's experience requirements are too low? Has anyone changed the experience table because of this?
#2 zombiegleemax May 21, 2004 23:39:53	Actually I never had a problem with the thief's experience level requirements. Really, as power goes, it isn't the most powerful class at upper levels. Also, their skills/job function puts the class at more risk than any other class. The experience points level was the 1st/2nd edition way of balancing out the classes - one that I actually agree with. However, this is just IMHO.
#3 zombiegleemax May 22, 2004 0:36:17	Except for the differeing XP tables per class resulting in some funky effects for multi/dualclassed characters, I agree with Cato above. The differences in XP per level make up somewhat for the differences in class power. The multiple prime requisites for some (though not all) of the more powerful classes help too.
#4 lina_inverse May 22, 2004 1:18:48	only had a problem with thieves when it came to bards.bards being strictly better than wizards in 2E and all..... oh and the fact most thieves ended up lvl2-3 after the first adventure.but thats more to do with the wonky exp rules,then again 3E has wonky power scaleing and forced magic!
#5 Thailfi May 22, 2004 10:46:05	Thieves are so obviously the weakest class in 1e/2e that if anything they should need less experience to level up. I wouldn't even blink if someone wanted to put a 12th level thief in my 7th to 9th level dungeon.
#6 tas May 22, 2004 18:48:48	oh and the fact most thieves ended up lvl2-3 after the first adventure.but thats more to do with the wonky exp rules,then again 3E has wonky power scaleing and forced magic! In the 1st ed. rules, this kind of thing was balanced out by 'training costs' rules. (That also explained the Monty Haul levels of treasure involved in certain scenarios too!) Cheers Tas
#7 lina_inverse May 22, 2004 20:20:06	Originally posted by Tas oh and the fact most thieves ended up lvl2-3 after the first adventure.but thats more to do with the wonky exp rules,then again 3E has wonky power scaleing and forced magic! In the 1st ed. rules, this kind of thing was balanced out by 'training costs' rules. (That also explained the Monty Haul levels of treasure involved in certain scenarios too!) Cheers Tas good enough.just alot of people who want to use training dont want to include the levels of gold nessasary.
#8 zombiegleemax May 24, 2004 0:20:00	I'm new to second ed, but I'm just loving the xp tables by class, it has such a wonderfull balance to it, thieves really deserve the bonus they get in my opinion.
#9 lina_inverse May 24, 2004 1:37:21	Originally posted by FireAndIce I'm new to second ed, but I'm just loving the xp tables by class, it has such a wonderfull balance to it, thieves really deserve the bonus they get in my opinion. in 2E they sure did.but bards didnt!ACK! ahhhh 2E gotta love when fighters where the most powerfull class in the game after bards.who now suck majorly.
#10 zombiegleemax May 24, 2004 2:03:02	As compared to 1e where the ranger, the cavalier, and the barbarian were the kings of the hill. But yes, 2e fighters were awesome. If you were playing in FR, give a 20th level fighter a dead magic stone and they would beat anything that could be ffected by normal weapons. In 2e, it would not be unheard of for a 20th level fighter to take on hundreds of orcs and win, single handidly.
#11 lina_inverse May 24, 2004 2:08:24	Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter As compared to 1e where the ranger, the cavalier, and the barbarian were the kings of the hill. But yes, 2e fighters were awesome. If you were playing in FR, give a 20th level fighter a dead magic stone and they would beat anything that could be ffected by normal weapons. In 2e, it would not be unheard of for a 20th level fighter to take on hundreds of orcs and win, single handidly. never played 1E.im getting nostalgic,talking about the uberness of fighters and bards.
#12 zombiegleemax May 24, 2004 2:33:31	1e rangers were frighteningly powerful. They were reprinted in the 2e Complete Ranger's Handbook. Would you like me to type one up here for basis of comparison?
#13 lina_inverse May 24, 2004 2:37:37	Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter 1e rangers were frighteningly powerful. They were reprinted in the 2e Complete Ranger's Handbook. Would you like me to type one up here for basis of comparison? hey sure,though i doubt they compare to 2E bards.i do know they had wizard spells though..... mmmm bards gotta love getting fireball when the mage is at 3rd level.
#14 zombiegleemax May 24, 2004 3:15:16	Here is the 1e ranger. Certain information like XP tables and the giant class specification table have been withheld in interest of maintaining WOTC's copyright. I am posting as a method for comparison. The ranger progresses at a slightly slower rate than the fighter. They eventually gain both druidic and magic user (Wizard) spells. He attacks as follows:
#15 lina_inverse May 24, 2004 19:25:46	Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter Here is the 1e ranger. Certain information like XP tables and the giant class specification table have been withheld in interest of maintaining WOTC's copyright. I am posting as a method for comparison. The ranger progresses at a slightly slower rate than the fighter. They eventually gain both druidic and magic user (Wizard) spells. He attacks as follows:
#16 zombiegleemax May 24, 2004 19:33:26	Why is that? The spells / table? Getting them to look perfect in code would have taken awhile and I didn't think it was that omportant since they are readable (And this post is only for a comparison.). Do you need them adjusted to be more readable?
#17 lina_inverse May 24, 2004 19:36:28	Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter Why is that? The spells / table? Getting them to look perfect in code would have taken awhile and I didn't think it was that omportant since they are readable (And this post is only for a comparison.). Do you need them adjusted to be more readable? no no.its more the..... WEAPON SPECILZATION WITH +20 DAMEGE TO A HOST OF MONSTERS AND 2HITDICE PER LEVEL!
#18 zombiegleemax May 24, 2004 19:42:57	C'mon! Its not THAT bad. Only at 1st level do they get an extra hit die, and it is balanced out by only rolling a d8. By 5th level a straight fighter has more hp [5x5.5 = 27.5 v 6x4.5 = 27]. Further, where are you getting +20 damage? It is +1 per level, so an 8th level Ranger gets +8 when fighting a Hill Giant. Big deal...
#19 lina_inverse May 24, 2004 19:47:56	Originally posted by Yorlum C'mon! Its not THAT bad. Only at 1st level do they get an extra hit die, and it is balanced out by only rolling a d8. By 5th level a straight fighter has more hp [5x5.5 = 27.5 v 6x4.5 = 27]. Further, where are you getting +20 damage? It is +1 per level, so an 8th level Ranger gets +8 when fighting a Hill Giant. Big deal... sorry been playing 3E too much,thinking 20th level is easy.anywho. its still nasty from what i understand 1E has the same engine as 2E so fighters where king,specing with nifty damege bonuses.and hp when it most matters.is a pretty big deal. looks compareable to ye olde bard....what the heck is with the 3 per party restriction anyways!
#20 zombiegleemax May 24, 2004 20:18:29	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse looks compareable to ye olde bard....what the heck is with the 3 per party restriction anyways! Rangers are supposed to be fairly solitary Aragornesque types. Loners by nature, and while they can be LG, the typical Rangers I saw and ran tended to be CG types.
#21 zombiegleemax May 25, 2004 4:01:29	Meh. The thief is nothing. Give me Player's Option and I'll create a cleric that has all the abilities of the fighter (incl. weapon spec.), and casts spells and has cleric saves and advances as a cleric. If you're going to break the game bad, go for Player's Option.
#22 zombiegleemax May 25, 2004 5:16:05	Originally posted by Asta Kask Meh. The thief is nothing. Give me Player's Option and I'll create a cleric that has all the abilities of the fighter (incl. weapon spec.), and casts spells and has cleric saves and advances as a cleric. If you're going to break the game bad, go for Player's Option. Huh? Who broke the game? And er what's 'Player's Option'?
#23 incenjucar May 25, 2004 5:38:46	Player's option was part of 2.5. 2.5 was essentially trying to drag some point buy elements in to D&D. There were a few interesting ideas, but it was often rather easy to abuse.
#24 zombiegleemax May 25, 2004 6:42:23	Originally posted by Incenjucar Player's option was part of 2.5. 2.5 was essentially trying to drag some point buy elements in to D&D. There were a few interesting ideas, but it was often rather easy to abuse. Thanks, Incenjucar. Glad I missed it from the sound of it.
#25 zombiegleemax May 29, 2004 15:10:29	Also keep in mind that the 1st edition ranger had some minimum ability requirements that were somewhat steep to just qualify and were definitely steep when you were trying to qualify for the xp bonus. (whereas it was much easier to qualify for the xp bonus ability requirements for the fighter and the thief...) Thus, the fighter and the thief were cruising up level progression much faster than the ranger with all his cool abilities.
#26 zombiegleemax Jun 02, 2004 20:17:06	Yeah if u really want a class that needs way too much xp, check out the tables for 1e barbarian: level--------------xp needed---------hd(d12) 1----------------------0--------------------1 2----------------------6--------------------2 3----------------------12k-----------------3 4----------------------24k-----------------4 5----------------------48k-----------------5 6----------------------80k-----------------6 7----------------------150k---------------7 8----------------------275k---------------8 9----------------------500k---------------8+4 10--------------------1mil-----------------8+8 500k xp per level above 11 Please note that they get double constitution modifier to hit points and double Dexterity modifier to hit points, in addition to other insanely powerful abilities! p.s. sorry about the dashes but i cant get the hang of code