Re: Raumoheru
Quote:
think about it...
it is much easier for an experianced person to go back and learn something new, like for example a new language, then a young inexperianced person. why you ask? because they are older and wiser and will know how to study better and know more about themself and how they learn best. |
I disagree. Furthermore, I agree with Xandax in that comparing learning languages to class level advancement isn't a good analogy.
I think Xandax summed it up well:
Quote:
But he won't get XP for the same easy tasks in D&D (and never have) as a L1 inexperienced person would. That is because he hasn't overcome any challenges in doing so.
Because it is easy, he dosen't "progress" as a character. (symbolized in Killing rats as L1 yields XP, but as a L16 it dosen't) |
Remeber, xp doesn't equate to how many challenges a character encounters, but rather how challenging those encounters are to that character. A high level character will have a much greater variety of experience and knowledge than a low level character, and consequently the only challenges that they will really learn from (and hence gain xp from) will be more difficult challenges.
If you had attacked the relative, "sliding scale" approach for granting xp I would have been more inclined to support you. However, I think that the class system in 3rd ed is probably the best improvement over 2nd ed. The old class system was cumbersome and seemed very arbitrary- especially with regards to demihumans (ie- if elves have magic coursing through their veins and dwarves are fighting machines, why do they both have level limits?). Now, all the classes use the same XP table, any character can be any class, and the core classes now have some serious punch (something they were lacking in 2nd ed).
Quote:
| that is exactly what i am saying is wrong with 3rd edition |
Then play 2nd ed- it sounds like it was made for you
