I have noticed that depending on what class you have started out with you are awarded less amounts of experience points for creatures slain. For example by level 3 a goblin might award 17 xp if I have a Fighter Class 42 xp if I have a bard and 78 if I have a sorcerer. Thus A sorcerer can achieve 4th level before even leaving the academy. Does anyone know if this is intended to make it easier for classes that are weeker at beginning levels or does it occur throughout the game. Personally I feel it is unfair and takes some of the challenge of starting with a spellcaster away from the game. Thus it is less rewarding to achieve the higher levels. Interested on getting an explanation and hearing others points of view
fighters kill all the time, their reaction wud be like "o wow i killed a goblin..."
a sorcerer not being too experienced in fighting wud be like "WOW i killed a goblin!!!!!!"
get it?
but yea it is still kinda dumb
I can see your points...Thanks for your input. It has been a long time since I have played D&D and I am not as familiar with v3.5 rules as I could be. I just remember that no matter what class you were you did not recieve more or less xp than any other class. If it is intended I think that it is flawed thinking and takes away from what D&D is all about. I mean spellcasters may be week at lower levels but at higher levels they can be forces to be dealt with. There are not too many 20th level fighters that would fare very well against a Wizard of the same level...he might be dumb enough to think he could but unless he is multiclassed or has friends with him he would be lucky indeed to walk away from such an encounter. And I bet the spellcaster would still get more xp for a kill be it goblin or otherwise and higer levels as well. Generally I do not even play spellcasters...just don't like that they get more experience than I do especially in the early levels. I mean they get the ray of frost wand upon passing their test and that kills all but the goblin elites with one zap. A fighter generally must go toe to toe and take a hit or two...who is risking more?
It isn't D&D 3.0 or 3.5 rules - it is a NwN implementation as far as I know.
I've not tested it fully - but I've heard from people on this and other forums, that fighter-character get higher exp. rewards then spellcasters when fighting spellcasting enemies, but lower when fighting other figther-type enemies (and vice versa naturally).
However, it could be simply that spellcasters and other "soft" (rogues for instance) character classes simply gains more XP because of making it easier to level these characters in the early game.
Different XP for same goblin??? 
It has been a long time since I have played D&D and I am not as familiar with v3.5 rules as I could be. I just remember that no matter what class you were you did not recieve more or less xp than any other class. If it is intended I think that it is flawed thinking and takes away from what D&D is all about. I mean spellcasters may be week at lower levels but at higher levels they can be forces to be dealt with. There are not too many 20th level fighters that would fare very well against a Wizard of the same level...he might be dumb enough to think he could but unless he is multiclassed or has friends with him he would be lucky indeed to walk away from such an encounter. And I bet the spellcaster would still get more xp for a kill be it goblin or otherwise and higer levels as well. Generally I do not even play spellcasters...just don't like that they get more experience than I do especially in the early levels. I mean they get the ray of frost wand upon passing their test and that kills all but the goblin elites with one zap. A fighter generally must go toe to toe and take a hit or two...who is risking more?
Linear Mode
