D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Midnight_v]

So you don't like the fighter I posted? What wrong with it, it does just what you suggest?

Actually, the only reason I didn't comment on it was because I haven't taken the time to look up the abilities you didn't print.  I wanted to get a better feel for the class as a whole rather than half of it.

Also, there were two mechanics I made on my last fighter post that I wanted to include in at some point: Foil and Tough it Out.  I thought those two added in things that other versions often don't (namely the ability to mess with other's actions and the ability to shed negative status conditions).

Respect. Good to look for yourself. I think that this was made this way because people will eventually rant about how "foil" is broke. I've read the tome alot and man that was the most hated thing ever. I liked it, it really fit a lot of things I thought about and seen in movies, lol, thrown swords.
Tough it out should replace bravery, you've created a better mechanic than paizo there.

The things I want most from sq's build is Surprise lunge, and Rapid reactions...
Surprise lunge is just something that has always belonged and takes some of the pressure off people to "enlarge" them selves or to play a minotaur or whatever.

However, the ability: Parry/ranged parry, is a weakend version of Frank and K's foil. And it was weakend for balance I think, by squirelord who is on the stronger side of things. He might be write. Care to do a quick comparison?
Foil vs. Parry/ranged parry(though in the end thats the same effect I believe)

[RobbyPants]

I'll have to read up on them a bit.  I'll also have to reread F&K's foil.  I don't think mine is as strong as theirs.  I suppose one thing that could always pull it back is to make it a standard action instead of an immediate, so you have to ready it.  The only problem is then you're simply trading an action to cancel another, and you're not even guaranteed to succeed.

[Mister_Sinister]

Alrighty, my rundown on what core classes should have done with them. Apologies in advance for occasionally going ballistic.

In general

2+Int skill points should not exist, ever, on a non-Int-based character. This is crazy, stupid and utterly unfair. Thus, for any non-Int-driven class (essentially, if you is not a wizard), the MINIMUM they should receive is 4+Int.

Barbarian

Now, overall, we are plenty happy with barbs. The idea of giving them all pounce at 6th level is a damn good one, and I think it goes a long way to making it a very strong choice overall.

My biggest gripe about barbs? Their DR. Why? Because you don't give a toss about DR 1/- at character level 7! You can get this off adamantine light armour without ever having to invest 7 levels of the class, and you can actually pretty much forget about it by 7th level.

My solution? Make all barbs gain DR = class level. That way, it's actually something meaningful.

Bard

Aside from making Diplomacy not be 'I win the game', I think these guys are OK.

Cleric

Oh God, where do I start... (pun fully intended)

First and foremost, turning. Why in the name of everything holy (this sort of bad punnage WILL continue) does every damn cleric ever get this ability? Even when it makes utterly no sense? Honestly, this should be a domain ability, given by a certain few domains where it actually makes sense for them to have it. If we're worried about divine feat fuel, just fix divine feats instead to work off divine caster level, or divine spell slots, or something. Just let's kill this sacred cow dead, it makes no logical sense at all.

Secondly, clerics being 9th level casters who can just prance around in heavy armour and have two good saves and a d8 HD is utter bullshit. Wizards and sorcs have to bend over and take it in the backside, being unable to wear armour, having bad BAB, ONE good save and a d4 HD, just for THEIR 9th level spells, so why should clerics get exempted? Oh yeah, this shit all over again. Fucking hell, I like MtG, but KEEP IT OUT OF MY DND!!!!

Then my next gripe - the cleric skeleton is made of clonage? Honestly, clerics, especially in core-only, all look waaaaaay too similar to each other. The differentiating factor of choice (their domains) actually mean two abilities and one spell per level, half of which are ones any cleric can prepare anyway. This is silly, as domains are meant to define who and what you are, not be a random addenum.

Lastly, clerics knowing every spell on their list is bullshit. Every damn book ever printed auto-grants them more power, while their arcane cousins, again, have to bend over and take it. This has got to stop. Full stop.

My solution? Make ALL clerics cloistered. You want a military focus or to be a warrior-priest? Let us write a PrC for that which doesn't suck donkey penis, or make a specialisation (a post on which I shall make soon) for that. Secondly, make turning a domain ability and give clerics something like a 'divine pool' which can be used for some minor effects, as well as to feed divine feats. As for domains, expand them to have, say, 3-5 spells at each level, as well as giving abilities at more than just level 1 (I propose 1, 5, 10, 15, 20). However, if the spell ain't on your domain list, you ain't casting it. Simple as that. Instead of gaining an extra domain ability at 5, 10, 15, 20, you can instead gain access to another domain, with 1st level abilities, provided it is offered by your god.
Oh yeah, and fix their spell cheese. But that goes without saying.

Druid

Again, much of what I ranted about the cleric above applies here. Druids need to get their base numerics, spell selection and spell power nerfed. Wild shape also needs cutting down, hardcore. Also, have their animal companion advance at half speed, while the ranger's goes at full - in 3.0, the animal companion was a RANGER class feature, until some wise monkey thought making druids more broken was a good idea.

My solutions? Bring the druid skeleton in line with the cloistered cleric. Instead of wild shape, use the this here thing, with modifications. Have their animal companion advance at half speed, whereas the ranger's goes at full. And the spells. I propose the solution to this is similar to the domain solution for clerics - in fact, there is no reason why the two cannot be one and the same, although druid domains (I would term them 'affinities') would need some downtonage.

Fighter

This is where my brain begins to disintegrate.

I believe, very firmly, that a fighter should be a master of feat use. They should get more feats than anyone else, be able to switch them around like a caster can do with spells, and be able to get more mileage out of their feats than anyone else.
My solution? This is pretty complex, and I hope to address it more in my forthcoming specialisation thread. However, I believe one easy fix would be to give fighters a bonus feat at EVERY level. However, there is a tonne more to address here, such as improving feats. Hope to get to that soon.

Monk

Ok, monks are warrior characters. They need full BAB. They really do. In order to make them worth anything whatsoever. Additionally, they should stop having to pay through the nose just to get the same numbers their friends the barbarian and fighter get.

My solution? Full BAB for the monk, and let their fists actually be able to be enhanced for prices which don't make us cry. AC too, for the record. There is more here, but again, future thread to fully expound my ideas on this subject.

Paladin

Yeah, OW4. End of discussion.

Ranger

Make the TWF fighting style not suck, give the ranger full animal companion advancement, and you have yourselves a winner, gents.

Rogue

This is fine by me, as long as we give it something like penetrating strike.

Sorcerer

OK, Skip Williams hates sorcerers. You know that, and I know that, but the monkeys were too busy huffing Drano.

My solution? Sorcs should be able to use metamagic without the stupid spont-delay someone thought was a good idea. Additionally, they shouldn't get the random CL delay which makes them tail behind the wizard all damn day long. I would also recommend some class features based on their bloodline, granted at the same time wizard bonus feats would be (1, 5, 10, 15, 20), with bloodlines being things like draconic, infernal, celestial, fey, otherworldly, and so on.

Wizard

Overall, I'm pretty happy, except for spell silliness, as well as the fact that being a specialist actually affects you about as much as being a cleric.

My solution? Some modification of this here stuff should help.

[Vas]

Hello, Im sorta newish here but I have an idea that might hold some merit if you are willing to view things in a different light.

Everyone says spellcasting is so much more powerful than melee. Why? It just is.
If, character for character, the melee fighter can never hope to match the prowess and destruction of a wizard, why would anyone want to play melee? Well, I think melee is fun, so why the hell cant you build a powerful melee combatant?

As the rules stand right now, unless you're insane and a demon at optimising, you just simply cant. Sure you can make a decent melee class (if you grab some sort of spell casting along the way) or even a pretty good melee class (grabbing more spellcasting along the way). But rather than the endless proposals of complete reworking and fixing classes, why do we have to be stuck with just ONE melee character to play as. Wouldnt it be so much better (cooler, more fun, more powerful) to play as not one melee critter but a team of them?

This is my proposal, rather than trying to bring all the classes like fighter, monk, barbarian, (basically any class that doesnt get spellcasting) up to the standard of the higher tier of classes, have those classes, at regular (but not too regular) intervals obtain a sort of cohort, giving you more than one character to play with.

Just add this ability to all classes that qualify:

At 6th level, and every 6 levels afterwards (12th, 18th, etc), your reputation for skill and tenacity in the art of melee thwacking has aroused the interest of a like minded individual. You obtain another melee ally (which can be taken from the melee list) as a part of your new melee team. These allies are set to a level one below yours and never factor into xp EVER. They auto level along with you.

How this could work: Your melee team has one initiative count, one movement, one attack, basically for all intents and purposes you still have one character. Only thing is he hits harder and you can have something called STRATEGY. Lets have a look at a few situations.

You have a fighter, a barbarian, and a rogue (ha, sorry rogue but I know you have a hidden card up your sleeve, if taken as an ally, you DONT get UMD as a class skill!) who happen upon a nasty giant, stomping on innocent townsfolk. Oh and you have a wizard too. You are the fighter, lvl 17 (with the others as lvl 16 teammates), and decide this giant has to die. Obviously. Why wouldnt the giant deserve to die, its not like the stomping on innocent villages could be because of their brutal slaying of his entire family for nothing more than the sport of it. Okay I digress. Anyway. Since you are a tactical force to be reckoned with, you act at your best initiative count, confounding the wizard to your clever use of teamwork, and engage the target. The fighter and barbarian howl their warcries and charge, with the rogue sneakily moving into combat on the flank. This is all one movement. Then, the strike happens in concert. As the barbarian and the fighter raise their weapons to crunch the giant, the rogue skewers it in the calf. Half wheeling to find the source of its pain, the giant gets a hammer in the chest and a sword in the throat. All within half a second. The same attack roll. The wizard looks on in disbelief, then around himself to discover he has no friends of his own to share some sort of snide comment.

This is what happened. The fighter and barbarian charged, and as part of the movement of the charge, the rogue flanked the giant. As the attack happened at the end of the charge (and the movement part of the rogues turn had ended), they use one attack roll, (the best of course, we arent trying to make weakness here) and add all their damage and effects, including the rogues sneak attack since he flanked.

In the next turn there would be 4 attacks, due to BAB, but the rogues damage would only take part in 3 of the 4 since his BAB isnt high enuff for the 4th attack.

Now the reason why I say only the best rolls are used instead of average, Im trying to find a solution to make these classes comparable to spellcasting, not a sorta nice medly of half arsed rolls and flashy effects.

These allies could be completely customised with feats and skills, but you cannot stray from the class progression. That means no monk 2/hexblade 3/urpriest 1/sacred fist 10 sorta deals.
Having all actions as one is both for flavour and practicality. No one wants to wait while one player rolls umpteen different rolls for his handful of characters on the one hand, but it also feels so much better if you work and strike as a TEAM. You have tactics, you have style, and you also have power, tho not at the cost of flavour.
As for items, buying an armour for your main character would in turn by an armour of equal or lesser value for your team mates too, or enchanting a weapon from +1 to +2 would give the same benefit to your allies. This keeps them in the game. What you cannot do is multiply other items for financial gain or cheesiness. Only items that are worn that are explicitly needed like armour, weapon, stat enhancement, cloak of resistance etc can be obtained this way. All other items like wands or gems or potions are one copy only. Also those copies made for your allies are THEIRS, they are essentially customised to those characters, and are there only for the purpose of making them not suck. Oh and guys, no selling their customised items for your own profit, thats just not cool ;P.

Another way to go about it is any bonuses you accrue from items are transferred to your allies too, might be simpler.

Anyway, thats my idea, hope it is interesting

Cheers!

(PS: By all means, certain fixes that are in sore need like full BAB to monks, more feats for fighters are still great, and neccessary! This is just a way to not have to completely redesign classes, maybe as a variant)

[Elennsar]

It's interesting, but I'm not sure I'd want to do it (and I know "play several characters" doesn't appeal, though it fits some styles, it shouldn't be the fix). Beyond that, I'm not sure to say.

Risada: That (fists deadlier than a blade) is exactly the Emperor-forsaking problem. If the monk is deadlier unarmed and unarmored, then unless its some super special exotic rare mystic not-taught-to-just-anyone technique (Which unless totally rewritten, D&D fails at, and is certainly a bad idea to make a standard class, as opposed to prestige/advanced/whatever)...

Then people will not learn to use swords and armor! This is a bad thing!

Now, if we were playing "Charging Tiger, Sneak Attacking Dragon.", where PCs are all monks/unarmed martialists, having that make swords and armor out of date wouldn't be a problem.

As is, it meshes extremely badly with the Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin and all other "armed and armored" approaches, because it means that there is no reason to wear armor or use swords.

I'm all in favor of the monk being a solid combatant and I'm interested in him getting cool stuff. Being able to kill five men in three seconds is not one of those things unless we rewrite the game so that it is supposed to be dumb to use a sword or wear armor and that's the flavor (in which case, we're not playing D&D in any sense anyone would recognize, ever).

Plausibility has nothing to do with it...any halfway creative Wuxia fan can explain how chi empowers monks to do superhuman moves of super awesome coolness. Its the fact it makes it moronic for anyone to rely on swords and armor when relying on fists and skill is equal if not superior.

So...back on topic. I like Midnight's post of a fighter, if not all the abilities. Fighters should be the general I-can-win-at-fighting guy. This will probably mean most Rangers/Barbarians/Paladins/etc. will take fighter levels. This is not a bad thing, though I'd hope one can work a feat in so that it doesn't hurt their other abilities too badly.

[Shadowhowler]

Barbarian

Now, overall, we are plenty happy with barbs. The idea of giving them all pounce at 6th level is a damn good one, and I think it goes a long way to making it a very strong choice overall.

My biggest gripe about barbs? Their DR. Why? Because you don't give a toss about DR 1/- at character level 7! You can get this off adamantine light armour without ever having to invest 7 levels of the class, and you can actually pretty much forget about it by 7th level.

My solution? Make all barbs gain DR = class level. That way, it's actually something meaningful.

 
I'm Ify on the free pounce... but I like your idea with the DR. Thing is, I think it goes a tad to far. I'd do it DR1/- for every two levels.

[Mister_Sinister]

I'm Ify on the free pounce... but I like your idea with the DR. Thing is, I think it goes a tad to far. I'd do it DR1/- for every two levels.

Let's see how it holds up to numerical analysis. I will take a barb with my DR suggestions and show how much damage off a level-equivalent melee attack (as a percentage) his DR represents, at levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20.
Level 1

[spoiler]Small elemental

Average damage: 2.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 40%

Small animated object

Average damage: 2.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 40%

Camel

Average damage: 4.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 22%

Darkmantle

Average damage: 6.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 15%

Lemure

Average damage: 2.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 40%

Dog, riding

Average damage: 6.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 15%

Dwarf, duergar, 1st level warrior

Average damage: 5.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 18%

Elf, drow, 1st level warrior

Average damage: 4.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 22%

Ghoul

Average damage: 4.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 22%

Giant ant, worker

Average damage: 3.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 29%

Krenshar

Average damage: 3.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 29%

Monstrous centipede, large

Average damage: 5.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 18%

Average total percentages of the sample: 26%
Conclusion: DR as I propose it does not stop even half the damage in ANY case within the sample, and, on average, reduces damage by just over a quarter. Not unbalanced at all.
[/spoiler]

Level 5

[spoiler]Achacheirai

Average damage: 16
Damage stopped (percentage): 31%

Barghest, greater

Average damage: 9.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 53%

Cloaker

Average damage: 9.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 53%

Devil, bearded

Average damage: 8.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 59%

Earth elemental, large

Average damage: 15
Damage stopped (percentage): 33%

Genie, djinni

Average damage: 8.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 59%

Hydra, six-headed

Average damage: 8.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 59%

Lycanthrope, werebear

Average damage: 19.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 26%

Monstrous spider, huge

Average damage: 13
Damage stopped (percentage): 38%

Nightmare

Average damage: 8.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 59%

Ooze, ochre jelly

Average damage: 10.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 48%

Shadow mastiff

Average damage: 7.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 67%

Average total percentages of sample: 49%
Conclusion: These are pretty strong numbers, posting consistent highs close to, or above, 60%. However, on average, it stops about 50% of damage taken, which is acceptable.
[/spoiler]

Level 10

[spoiler]Animated object, Collossal

Average damage: 27
Damage stopped (percentage): 37%

Couatl

Average damage: 15
Damage stopped (percentage): 67%

Cryohydra, nine-headed

Average damage: 10.5
Damage stopped (percentage): 95%

Demon, bebilith

Average damage: 16
Damage stopped: 63%

Formian, myrmarch

Average damage: 9
Damage stopped: 100%

Fire giant

Average damage: 25
Damage stopped: 40%

Monstrous scorpion, Gargantuan

Average damage: 17
Damage stopped: 59%

Naga, guardian

Average damage: 14
Damage stopped: 71%

Total average percentages of sample: 67%
Conclusion: Again, highly strong figures. However, overall, when considering melee monsters, against whom this DR will kick in most of the time, not unreasonable.
[/spoiler]

Level 10

[spoiler]Brass dragon, mature adult

Average damage: 17
Damage stopped: 88%

Bronze dragon, adult

Average damage: 17
Damage stopped: 88%

Inevitable, marut

Average damage: 19
Damage stopped: 79%

Red dragon, adult

Average damage: 20
Damage stopped: 75%

Silver dragon, adult

Average damage: 17
Damage stopped: 88%

White dragon, old

Average damage: 18
Damage stopped: 83%

Total average percentage of sample: 84%
Conclusion: This is where it starts to get worrying, as the damage prevented is highly significant.[/spoiler]

Level 20

[spoiler]Black dragon, wyrm

Average damage: 27
Damage stopped: 74%

Brass dragon, ancient

Average damage: 20
Damage stopped: 100%

Bronze dragon, very old

Average damage: 20
Damage stopped: 100%

Copper dragon, very old

Average damage: 19
Damage stopped: 100%

Demon, balor

Average damage: 20
Damage stopped: 100%

Devil, pit fiend

Average damage: 22
Damage stopped: 91%

Red dragon, old

Average damage: 26
Damage stopped: 77%

Silver dragon, old

Average damage: 19
Damage stopped: 100%

Tarrasque

Average damage: 35
Damage stopped: 57%

Total average percentages of sample: 89%
Conclusion: At high levels, this appears to go crazy.[/spoiler]

Final conclusion: It seems that at early levels, this is tolerable, going slightly crazy at level 10+, and totally mad at 20. At the same time, I believe that the barbarian's ability to shrug off physical damage like this is not unreasonable, as it lets them take on powerful melee monsters with sheer tankage, as opposed to fighters (who would do so with smarts, tactics and higher AC).

[Elennsar]

One very effective, but not as much so, possibility for Barbarian DR.

Instead of "DR X/nothing"...DR X/Constitution modifier.

This means that epic barbarians don't wind up making greater wyrms break their claws on their hides, and is almost as good at lower levels as DR X/nothing.

[Vas]

So no one wanted to investigate further the potential for my idea? Forgive me if Im wrong, but isnt it still a way to change DnD for the better with an interesting and unique fix? I know its not the norm of "Fighters suck so we have to completely rewrite them", but I didnt want to do that since almost all of those threads end up with "But now you made him too broken, I dont like it since he doesnt suck anymore".

Any thoughts on this at ALL?

[RobbyPants]

So no one wanted to investigate further the potential for my idea? Forgive me if Im wrong, but isnt it still a way to change DnD for the better with an interesting and unique fix? I know its not the norm of "Fighters suck so we have to completely rewrite them", but I didnt want to do that since almost all of those threads end up with "But now you made him too broken, I dont like it since he doesnt suck anymore".

Any thoughts on this at ALL?

Well, if I understood your idea, are you suggesting granting free cohorts to ceratin weak classes?  I guess on principle I don't really like the idea because I'd like a class to be good on it's own merit, not because it becomes its own party.

Or, maybe I misunderstood your first post and I'm off base from what you wanted.

[Vas]

It was more along the lines of part of your character, not cohorts in the sense they are now. Im thinking of a squad based character, one that moves with one mind.

Perhaps I didnt explain it well, or perhaps its just not for most peoples style of DnD, it was just a way to fix the classes without rewrites. You could still rewrite a few things, sure, but this way you wouldnt have to get the approval of many multiples of fixes for each character, they are already there and ready to play in the PHB.

Ah well, i can always hope huh 

[Elennsar]

Vas:

Me - It's interesting, but I'm not sure I'd want to do it (and I know "play several characters" doesn't appeal, though it fits some styles, it shouldn't be the fix). Beyond that, I'm not sure to say.

I think you have an interesting idea, but its not how I'd want to play a fighter or anything else for that matter. Its not clear enough how this would work relative to the game on the whole without exploring it more, so I can't comment.

[Orion]

JaronK's Tier system

Having read this, it occurs to me that with a few changes to the XP tables, you might be able to even out the tiers of classes. Way back in 2nd Ed., different classes had different XP requirements. The Mage and Paladin were the highest and the old Thief was the lowest (I think?). A similar fix might work if you're not interested in seriously monkeying with the classes as they stand (although that fighter, above, looks pretty sweet, actually).

So take JaronK's tiers and assign greater or lesser XP requirements. Hammering out the exact numbers might get a bit tricky, but you could, say, compare a 5th-level Wizard/Cleric/Druid to various levels of Fighter/Monk. When the Fighter/Monk is, by level, roughly equal to the 5th-level Wizards/Cleric/Druid, then you could do some kind of math fu and figure out how much (by percentage) to decrease the by-level XP requirements of the Fighter/Monk. The added benefit of this for the lower-tier classes is that they suddenly have all kinds of opportunity to multi-class, because they're going to get to 20 long before the higher-tier classes, so they have "extra" levels that they can grab. By the same token, the higher-tier classes really have to stick with their chosen path or else they start to sacrifice a lot of power/effectiveness.

I know it's not as elegant as actually making balanced classes, but I've never been convinced that that's even really possible, so the uneven XP progression might be the best fix. 2nd Ed. was by no means a flawless system, but at least it was smart enough to take class disparity into account.

Just a thought. Do with it what you will.

[Mister_Sinister]

Orion, piecemeal XP is a stupid, pointless and highly poor idea that should be the first thing we consider burning. Institutionalising and complicating it further does not make for good changes.

[Kuroimaken]

Orion, one other thing you fail to consider - back in 2nd edition each class also had its own source of XP not counting role-playing and monster-slaying (the Thief, for example, gained 1 XP for every GP attained - not stolen, ATTAINED), which is something that doesn't exist in 3e. Also, the idea of trying to math out what each class should gain makes my brain hurt.

[Elennsar]

I disagree in regards to balancing classes (if its possible to balance combat and magic and noncombat in points based systems, there's no reason class based systems will be unable to do so) being too difficult to be possible.

As to seperate XP tables...

That is a significant additional complication to the game for no gain.

I can't even begin to imagine what would be the use of it. All you'd do is slow down the advancement of the overpowered (but keep them just as overpowered, which means that at high levels, they still dominate the game) and speed up the advancement of the underpowered (again, at high levels, they would still suck).

Not to mention how it would mean judging whether an encounter is the "right level" for PCs of a given level would become impossible.

And to use an incredibly broken but within-the-rules example, that means the following would be possible:

Rogue: I sell something to another rogue for 1,000,000 gp.
Rogue: Then I buy it back for 1,000,000 gp.
Rogue: I go to another rogue and sell it for 1,000,000 gp.

Subsitute your choice of number for one million, the point stands. Is it blatant abuse? Oh yeah. Is having that be possible a good thing in any sense of the word? Hell no.

[Orion]

I'm not sure how the old rules about getting XP from different things affects whether different XP tables would work. We don't need to retain those rules to employ multiple XP tables.

Even if we did something like that, it's pretty easy to plug the holes you're talking about by saying that you get XP for using your class features successfully, not by sheer volume of body count, but that's just me. I'm not combat-oriented. Alternatively, the DM who is awake just says "Oh hell no." and it's a done deal.

Calculating the XP shouldn't be that tough, considering that we already have a tier system that looks pretty dang solid to me.

The thing is, WotC and many, many players have been trying to make balanced classes for going on a decade now. Much as I respect the analytical abilities of the people on this here discussion forum, I doubt we're going to crack the problem next week. Lateral thinking might be the only way out of the problem.

But that's all I'll say about it, because it's clearly not a popular idea.

[Shadowhowler]

But that's all I'll say about it, because it's clearly not a popular idea.

 
 
 
Yeah, not so much.
 
I was a 2 holdout for years, only switching to 3.5 two years ago. One of the things I liked most about the 3.5 system as opposed to my beloved 2e was the uniform exp. I would not want to go back.

[RobbyPants]

Calculating the XP shouldn't be that tough, considering that we already have a tier system that looks pretty dang solid to me.

Another nasty thing is figuring out how to handle multiclassing level by level.

I agree with the others in that I'd rather keep the single XP table.

[Mister_Sinister]

Quite, Robby. Really, this is a no-brainer: split XP tables are needless time-consumption to no productive end.