XP doubling - except from 1st - 2nd

[Harbinger]

With the recent discussion of XP/HD progression, I had another question I want to ask. It's probably been answered earlier, but no harm in discussing it again.

The progression of XP doubles between each level except between 1st and 2nd. For example:

Fighter

Level       XP      Delta
1             0     N/A
2         2,000   2,000
3         4,000   2,000
4         8,000   4,000
5        16,000   8,000
6        32,000  16,000

From reading Dragons at Dawn, it seems that what Arneson meant was for XP acrued to be reset to 0 between each level - in which case the amount of XP required between levels does double (2,000/4,000/8,000/16,000).

So normally a fighter would require 16,000 XP to get to 5th level, but under the alternate method, they would need 30,000 XP!

My first question is does anyone know if the intent was doubling of XP required? And the second question is that given that the side-effect is that PCs get level up faster, does anyone really care?

[Deleted]

1) I don't know.

2) It took me 2 years to reach Level 9 in Greyhawk using the published table. "Faster" is a relative term.

[Harbinger]

Ah, right. I use the 'silly' XP rules from Men & Magic with 1 HD = 100 XP, so advancement is much faster than with Greyhawk XP awards.

[aldarron]

Dec 8, 2011 15:33:57 GMT -6 Harbinger said:

...From reading Dragons at Dawn, it seems that what Arneson meant was for XP acrued to be reset to 0 between each level - in which case the amount of XP required between levels does double (2,000/4,000/8,000/16,000).

So normally a fighter would require 16,000 XP to get to 5th level, but under the alternate method, they would need 30,000 XP!

My first question is does anyone know if the intent was doubling of XP required? And the second question is that given that the side-effect is that PCs get level up faster, does anyone really care?

For Dragons at Dawn; the XP method is built in the model given in the "How to Become a Bad Guy" section of the FFC. The progression used is that given in this quote from Arneson "...the creature would simply need 50% more points for each subsequent level."

So, in looking at that method and comparing to the XP requirements of D&D, it obvious that a lot less points are needed as you go up in level and the disparity gets really big. For example at level 10, the D&D fighting man needs 300,000 xp - an increase of 100,000 xp over level 9; whereas in the Arnesonian method level 10 needs 51,260 xp - an increase of only 17,087 over level 9. To me the only way this made any sense in comparison to D&D was to resart at 0 xp each time. That puts the Arnesonian method much more in line with D&D, particularly at lower level.

Resetting to 0 may, or may not be what Dave had in mind, but it's definetly not clear in the FFC one way or the other, and not particularly clear in D&D either.

[Finarvyn]

The entire XP thing has always puzzled me. Characters get better gradually in ability as they advance from level to level, yet XP needed to advance gets bigger a lot faster. In other words, the XP charts are designed to give characters diminishing return. At least that's the way I've always understood it.

Your notion of resetting to zero each level advance is an interesting one. I'll have to ponder the ramifications, other than the obvious one of slowing characters down even more.

Another factor to consider is that XP in Men & Magic is further reduced based on the level of the character compared to the monster. A 3rd level character killing a 2nd level monster is supposed to only get 2/3 XP for the kill. I hardly ever do it that way because it's kind of a bother to calculate, but that's what the rules say.

I certainly think that 4th level was supposed to be amazing and 8th level was supposed to be godlike in OD&D, whereas later editions cheapened the value of a level. I'm interested in ways to keep the power levels down, since I think that levels 3-5 is the "sweet spot" for OD&D gaming. At 5th level a Magic-user gets the fireball spell....

[starcraft]

I certainly think that 4th level was supposed to be amazing and 8th level was supposed to be godlike in OD&D, whereas later editions cheapened the value of a level. I'm interested in ways to keep the power levels down, since I think that levels 3-5 is the "sweet spot" for OD&D gaming. At 5th level a Magic-user gets the fireball spell....

Good point. I think, looking through the monster selection, that the game was kind of centered around this level range.

While it was clear that tougher monsters were 'doable' (after all, a full sized red dragon is an absolute terror in OD&D) most of the selections are at least a threat in the 3-5 level range.

Afterall, a goblin's arrows is 1d6 regardless. With the relatively slow AC progression (a 4th level cleric, for instance probably isn't sporting +3 mail), that Goblin still has a real chance of landing a shaft on your poor character. That 4th level cleric (3+1 HD in LBB if I am not mistaken) might have all of 12hp and is in serious danger from said goblin.

Most editions of the game preserve no such danger - a 4th level character vs generic goblin is a cakewalk.

EDIT - The cleric is 3HD upon further review - I was close!

[snorri]

Dec 9, 2011 5:13:06 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The entire XP thing has always puzzled me. Characters get better gradually in ability as they advance from level to level, yet XP needed to advance gets bigger a lot faster. In other words, the XP charts are designed to give characters diminishing return. At least that's the way I've always understood it.

... On the use of marginalism as an implicit economical basis for D&D en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism. I should try to seek what could be marxist system of xps

[Finarvyn]

Another factor to consider when thinking about level scale is that the Dragon was supposed to be one of the most feared monsters in the game. That kind of gives a sense as to what the level cap was in the original concept.

In the original boxed set, with the exception of the Purple Worm (15 HD) the maximum monster listed was at 12 HD. This would mean that characters were probably never intended to top 12th level, assuming that the "ultimate" would be going mano-a-draco with a Dragon. More likely, it would be assumed that a party of adventurers would take on a Dragon, so 3-4 8th level dudes would seem reasonable.

And I think the reason that the MU charts go so high is mostly for those evil MU villians, not for PCs. Same basic reasoning as the monster thought above, that a party of good guys might take on a lone evil dude. (A "Fellowship versus Sauron" type quest, if you will.)

My assumption has really been that somewhere around 8th is the upper limit for PCs from the onset, although I wouldn't quibble about anyone who wanted to cap it at 9th or 10th.

[Deleted]

Dec 9, 2011 5:13:06 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The entire XP thing has always puzzled me. Characters get better gradually in ability as they advance from level to level, yet XP needed to advance gets bigger a lot faster. In other words, the XP charts are designed to give characters diminishing return. At least that's the way I've always understood it.

Yes. The entire idea was to FORCE players to find bigger and more dangerous foes. So what if you wiped out an entire tribe of orcs, you're 10th level. You were never in any real danger. I don't care if you got 100,000 gold pieces, I'm only giving you 1000 xp.

Also, the highest level PC EVER in Greyhawk was Rob Kuntz' "Robilar" at Level 14.

[talysman]

I actually think the racial level caps were based on a 12th level (or 12 HD) expected limit. Elf max Fighter level of 4 plus max M-U level of 8 = 12. Subtract the 4 bonus levels a dwarf or halfling gets on saving throws from the 12 HD limit and you get 8, which is then reduced to reflect their smaller size (halflings are half human size, so max level = 8/2 = 4; dwarves are apparently 3/4ths human size.)

[snorri]

Fin once started an interesting discussion about 13th level as 'ultimate' level, with the exemple of Warrior of Mars

odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=4107&page=1

Moldvay / Cook went up to 14 - even ifthey stated there could be more levels. And most material pubished for D&D and AD&D caps at 14 as well.

That's basically why I choose 12 as a cap level for Epées & Sorcellerie, and my new clone Aventures fantasiques is 14.