Hrmm, wondering if I have been doing this wrong this whole time...

For Class and a Half, the XP requirements, do you take 1/2 the XP to reach the next level of the 1/2 class, or 1/2 the XP of the class at the level of the character, for example -

When advancing to level 2 as a F(1/2 Wiz) you need 2,001 (F) + 1,300 (W) for 3,301.

When advancing to level 3 which of these do you need -

• 4,001 (F) + 1,300 (1/2 of W1) + 1,301 (the other 1/2 of W1) for 6,602
• 4,001 (F) + 2,750 (1/2 W3) for 6,751

Obviously the former is more advantageous to the player, while the later will slow down progression pretty heavily in the mid levels until you reach XP plateau's. I think the intent was the latter option, though we have played with the former option for those that have chosen this method.

Full experience of prime class plus half the experience of the other at same said level.
8th lvl fighter full experience and half the experience of an 8th lvl mage.

I just re-read the entry, seems the above is how I would interpret what is written.

Check out Domesday IX and you will see example multi-class and class and a half and you will see all the experience written out in what I think are the correct rules. That said, they also pass the sniff test, meaning, class and a half fighter and wizard should have higher experience requirements than fighter and even a straight wizard, but not by much. In the first 12 levels where experience doubles, well, class and a half will likely be last to level AND multi class may be behind by one full level, but never more than that. So a bunch of 5th lvl PCs will have a 4th and 2nd level fighter-1/2Wiz in their midst. Should be able to hang with them and contribute.

I just noticed a math error in the Domesday experience table, the Illusionist Bard was numerically an illusionist barbarian (so those numbers are off), the monk-assassin are on. Plus all the multi-class have the copy paste or drag down error of only adding 200 experience to each level, not the increasing exp. DAMN! Who edited this thing, oh yeah, me!

This looks correct based on the Enhanced Classing rules in Expanding Classes.