I am really trying to reconcile the AD&D method of certain classes needing more XP to level up with the Milestone method used by so many DM's today. That becomes a lot more accounting for a DM.
Every class needs the same amount of exp to level now so milestone works. If you're doing accounting, then you're not using milestone.
If you are using the common XP table like later editions then you are correct. I think Vince is saying if you kept separate XP tables like in AD&D then milestone does not work.
And AD&D also had separate saving throw tables for different classes and different categories, like poison or death magic. Proficiency in saving throws helps differentiate between classes that are good at some and not so good at others. Proficiency bonus also could help make fighters better at fighting (instead of tables for each class), maybe fighters get something like Expertise in a weapon/weapon class that allows them to use double their PB on attacks. Where a wizard would not. But that might be too much. Don’t want to go back to BAB of 3E though.
Edit: Unearthed Arcana had weapon specialization and double specialization to help boost fighters since they fell behind in later levels. This is kind of what I am referring to above but using PB instead.
I remember playing an Elven Fighter with double spec with a bow, and having point blank ability. That was clearly a lot more accounting than anything in 5e. But then again, now we have Elven Advantage and all the other Feats. So I guess the accounting and specialization of chars is reasonably on par. I am not sure which was, or is, a better system.
I am really trying to reconcile the AD&D method of certain classes needing more XP to level up with the Milestone method used by so many DM's today. That becomes a lot more accounting for a DM.
Every class needs the same amount of exp to level now so milestone works. If you're doing accounting, then you're not using milestone.
If you are using the common XP table like later editions then you are correct. I think Vince is saying if you kept separate XP tables like in AD&D then milestone does not work.
And AD&D also had separate saving throw tables for different classes and different categories, like poison or death magic. Proficiency in saving throws helps differentiate between classes that are good at some and not so good at others. Proficiency bonus also could help make fighters better at fighting (instead of tables for each class), maybe fighters get something like Expertise in a weapon/weapon class that allows them to use double their PB on attacks. Where a wizard would not. But that might be too much. Don’t want to go back to BAB of 3E though.
Edit: Unearthed Arcana had weapon specialization and double specialization to help boost fighters since they fell behind in later levels. This is kind of what I am referring to above but using PB instead.
I remember playing an Elven Fighter with double spec with a bow, and having point blank ability. That was clearly a lot more accounting than anything in 5e. But then again, now we have Elven Advantage and all the other Feats. So I guess the accounting and specialization of chars is reasonably on par. I am not sure which was, or is, a better system.
We had a fighter with double specialization in bow as well and, I forget which module it was with Lolth (who had only 66 HP back then), where he took her down in one round. Was kind of anticlimactic in a way.
I am really trying to reconcile the AD&D method of certain classes needing more XP to level up with the Milestone method used by so many DM's today. That becomes a lot more accounting for a DM.
Every class needs the same amount of exp to level now so milestone works. If you're doing accounting, then you're not using milestone.
If you are using the common XP table like later editions then you are correct. I think Vince is saying if you kept separate XP tables like in AD&D then milestone does not work.
And AD&D also had separate saving throw tables for different classes and different categories, like poison or death magic. Proficiency in saving throws helps differentiate between classes that are good at some and not so good at others. Proficiency bonus also could help make fighters better at fighting (instead of tables for each class), maybe fighters get something like Expertise in a weapon/weapon class that allows them to use double their PB on attacks. Where a wizard would not. But that might be too much. Don’t want to go back to BAB of 3E though.
Edit: Unearthed Arcana had weapon specialization and double specialization to help boost fighters since they fell behind in later levels. This is kind of what I am referring to above but using PB instead.
I remember playing an Elven Fighter with double spec with a bow, and having point blank ability. That was clearly a lot more accounting than anything in 5e. But then again, now we have Elven Advantage and all the other Feats. So I guess the accounting and specialization of chars is reasonably on par. I am not sure which was, or is, a better system.
We had a fighter with double specialization in bow as well and, I forget which module it was with Lolth (who had only 66 HP back then), where he took her down in one round. Was kind of anticlimactic in a way.
Like I have said, no edition was perfect. I remember when the Cavalier came out in Dragon magazine, and players very quickly realized to actually play it as designed meant the char was suicidal.
After unearthed Arcana was released for AD&D, players were mad as only Cavaliers and Paladins had an easy attribute increase system for the stats they needed most. All other classes needed wishes, books and such.
I’d love to see an advanced system for crafting/using artisan tools, I think the current rules on crafting are doing a disservice to a mechanics that could be very useful if represented properly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I remember playing an Elven Fighter with double spec with a bow, and having point blank ability. That was clearly a lot more accounting than anything in 5e. But then again, now we have Elven Advantage and all the other Feats. So I guess the accounting and specialization of chars is reasonably on par. I am not sure which was, or is, a better system.
We had a fighter with double specialization in bow as well and, I forget which module it was with Lolth (who had only 66 HP back then), where he took her down in one round. Was kind of anticlimactic in a way.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Like I have said, no edition was perfect. I remember when the Cavalier came out in Dragon magazine, and players very quickly realized to actually play it as designed meant the char was suicidal.
After unearthed Arcana was released for AD&D, players were mad as only Cavaliers and Paladins had an easy attribute increase system for the stats they needed most. All other classes needed wishes, books and such.
I’d love to see an advanced system for crafting/using artisan tools, I think the current rules on crafting are doing a disservice to a mechanics that could be very useful if represented properly.