How I Think Leveling *Should* Go

[Raumoheru]

I agree with Raumohero...

mage1 should only cost the 3000 xp not 17000xp.

its kinda like you take your basic classes in mage.
i disagree because in real life, things are a lot easier when u go back to school for a second degree. you pick things up faster, and pretty much clear the low levels of study in no time.

yea that is what i was trying to say, learning the basics isnt hard, but mastering an area of expertise is.

It might be easier to "learn" something new in real life from books if you are familiar with the art of studying/reading but
A) this is not real life
B) leveling, and thus learning, in D&D often occurs while overcomming perils of monsters, solving puzzles and completing quests.
You don't become a better musician in real life by killing rats in your basement, while you can do that in D&D.

not in the typical DnD i play. and DnD should be a little more realistic in that regard.

You have to look at the powerstructure and what it brings to the table, and all things equals, it would be unbalancing in many levels (hehe) if a L16cleric could get L1 Wizard withouth a proportial increase then a L1 Wizard could get L2. The L16 can easily slash 3000 XP for a level, but has he overcomed the same amount of difficulties to warrent a level as a L1 Wizard would have done to gain the same amount of XP? Nope - he wouldn't, thus his level has been much easier. That is the reason for the slopeing XP, and combined with all the other things mentioned - well..... then it seems logical in my view.

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.

think of it this way- the high level character is gaining his/her 17th level as an individual, not the 1st level as a mage.

that is exactly what i am saying is wrong with 3rd edition

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Raumoheru

<snip>
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.
<snip>

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)

Besides - in my view, you can't really compare these classes to similar things such as "languages". We are talking about more about different professions so to speak.
The plummer isn't neasecarily faster at picking up how to work at a cashregister in the supermarket, eventhough he maybe a master plummer.
The professor might not be faster at picking up the art of capentry etc, then some commoner.
Classes are professions at least, and not skills. Language (for instance) is a skill, and that you can learn easy in D&D as well.

[Cuchulain82]

Re: Raumoheru

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:

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).

that is exactly what i am saying is wrong with 3rd edition

Then play 2nd ed- it sounds like it was made for you

[Raumoheru]

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)

he may be level 16 as a fighter but is not considered level 16 as a mage. learning a new trade is almost like starting over fresh, killing a rat with his sword wont yeild more xp but casting a spell to do it i think would.

Then play 2nd ed- it sounds like it was made for you

kinda hard when all the new pc games are all 3rd or 3.5 edition

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.

not being challenging doesnt change the fact that you would still be able to cast spells if you started training as a mage. and there would be at least some level of difficulty.

to learn the basics of something you dont need to go through a mid-life turn around and all of a sudden be a different changed person.

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).

ok i agree with that any character bein any class and the core classes now have a serious punch, but IMHO different classes with different XP tables makes sense. it is probably harder to learn the trade of a mage then of a fighter.

or another example

it is harder to become a lawyer then an electrician or plumber ( not that they are not just as important mind you)

[Ripe]

he may be level 16 as a fighter but is not considered level 16 as a mage. learning a new trade is almost like starting over fresh, killing a rat with his sword wont yeild more xp but casting a spell to do it i think would.

He is not considered a lvl 16 mage but he still had hit points, attack and save bonuses, etc. from his 16 fighter lvl and he uses them in that encounter (not to mention magical items he collected in his adventure) which means that those rat represent absolutly no danger to that character (even if that rat manage to bite him, his fortitude save would probably be high enough to avoid contracting a disease).

[Rob-hin]

Originally Posted by Raumoheru

or another example

it is harder to become a lawyer then an electrician or plumber ( not that they are not just as important mind you)

Well, a level 1 mage is very weak, but a level 1 fighter is not (respectively speaking).
A wizard takes longer to become stronger then a fighter does, I think it makes sense. The levels are the same, but the power gained by it isn't... so technically a wizard needs more xp to become powerful.

[melancolly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raumoheru
or another example

it is harder to become a lawyer then an electrician or plumber ( not that they are not just as important mind you)


but how many lawyers could become plumbers or vice versa , i think a lawyer of 20 years would find it very hard to become a plumber , so if a 15lvl fighter wants to become a 1lvl mage it should cost him more exp than 0lvl charector.

if you like 2nd edition beter than 3rd play it

[Raumoheru]

but how many lawyers could become plumbers or vice versa , i think a lawyer of 20 years would find it very hard to become a plumber

i am pretty sure ALL lawyers can EASILY become plumbers. but why would they want too? lot less money....

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by Raumoheru

i am pretty sure ALL lawyers can EASILY become plumbers. but why would they want too? lot less money....

And there we have it

[jopperm2]

I don't think all lawyers could be plumbers. C Elegans is a freakin genius when it comes to brain research, but she has admitted herself she's a lousy clinician. I doubt she could be a politician very easily. THere are other careers she probably couldnb't do. How about WNBA Basketball player. I kinda doubt it.

[Raumoheru]

Originally Posted by Aegis

And there we have it

what is this supposed to mean?


being a plumber is one of the easiest jobs ever so it is not hard and even the least intelligent of people can do it unless of course they are mentally handicaped and physically and mentally cannot.

but hey mentally handicaped people dont really go adventuring now do they?

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Raumoheru

what is this supposed to mean?


being a plumber is one of the easiest jobs ever so it is not hard and even the least intelligent of people can do it unless of course they are mentally handicaped and physically and mentally cannot.

but hey mentally handicaped people dont really go adventuring now do they?

Thats quite an offensive statement you made IMO, and I'm no plumber.

Reading through the thread a few times now, it seems your just looking for a place to rant. They've made good suggestions. You don't like the new version of the game with how leveling works. Well, deal, go back to 2nd edition, or implement 2nd edition's leveling system into the rest of the new edition. Those would be easy solutions, for me at least. But hey, maybe I'm mentally handicapped for not getting this whole fuss.

[Raumoheru]

Originally Posted by Magrus

Thats quite an offensive statement you made IMO, and I'm no plumber.

Reading through the thread a few times now, it seems your just looking for a place to rant. They've made good suggestions. You don't like the new version of the game with how leveling works. Well, deal, go back to 2nd edition, or implement 2nd edition's leveling system into the rest of the new edition. Those would be easy solutions, for me at least. But hey, maybe I'm mentally handicapped for not getting this whole fuss.

not ranting

i am just saying i do not understand why 3rd edition levels up the way it does, and nobody has given a reply that i agree with that makes sense of it. people are more adaptable and it really isnt that hard to change.

but hey if you guys really think it makes sense then ok w/e ill go along with it cuz they obviously arent gonna change it anytime soon.

like i said playing 2nd edition isnt an option because all new videogames use the new edition.

there is a reason you dont need a college degree or even a highschool diploma in order to be a plumber so i do not see that statement as offensive.

[AarronIkarus]

Originally Posted by stormcloud

I agree with Raumohero...

mage1 should only cost the 3000 xp not 17000xp.

its kinda like you take your basic classes in mage.
i disagree because in real life, things are a lot easier when u go back to school for a second degree. you pick things up faster, and pretty much clear the low levels of study in no time.

You may be able to clear the lower levels of study quicker, but try getting a degree in physics and then going back for one in sociology. Not an easy transition to make. Or, to get more in tune with the threme, degree number one is chemistry(alchemy) and the second one is theology. Two very different schools of thought.

[Raumoheru]

Originally Posted by AarronIkarus

You may be able to clear the lower levels of study quicker, but try getting a degree in physics and then going back for one in sociology. Not an easy transition to make. Or, to get more in tune with the threme, degree number one is chemistry(alchemy) and the second one is theology. Two very different schools of thought.

that is further proving my point not going against it.
lower levels are easy but higher levels are harder to attain, at least if u want high levels in both classes.

oh no, this is ranting, must stop