In a way, the game ends at 450,000 XP ...

[anglefish]

That's when the Rouge is topped out at 12th level and most other classes are at 9th level or so.

By the time the Paladin is 12th level at 1.3 M XP, the Rouge is 19th level. Now that's a legendary thief.
I don't know if I could entertain a player for another 7 levels (maybe for the 4 levels he'll wait for the Fighter and Wizard to top out) when most of his skill/Saving rolls will have to have massive penalties to give him a challenge.

[Pat Payne]

anglefish wrote:
That's when the Rouge is topped out at 12th level and most other classes are at 9th level or so.

By the time the Paladin is 12th level at 1.3 M XP, the Rouge is 19th level. Now that's a legendary thief.
I don't know if I could entertain a player for another 7 levels (maybe for the 4 levels he'll wait for the Fighter and Wizard to top out) when most of his skill/Saving rolls will have to have massive penalties to give him a challenge.

That seems to be setting up for the old "Name Level/Lord" mechanic from OAD&D, where after a certain level the character was expected to retire, set up a manor/thieves' guild/mage tower and new PCs were to continue the adventuring, perhaps as clients of the old PC. Maybe you could try something liek that in your game -- keep the high-level PCs in the loop for really big, earth-shattering threats, but have the players go 'round with RPG: The Next Generation in normal circumstances.

[Omote]

And, with the eventual release of the CKG, I think there is going to be some additional information in making PCs worth playing at those levels. New little tidbits, beside just mechanical pluses to existing skills, will probably be included for every class. Don't retire your rogue yet, the tough stuff is just beginning.
~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Treebore]

My gamed is still going strong at 16th level. My rogue dual classed to wizard.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[serleran]

I'd have no trouble challenging a high level anything.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Buttmonkey]

Pick up some of Frank Mentzer's higher level boxed sets. There are supposed to be some insanely nasty monsters that you could adapt to challenge the cockiest of 18th level rogues.

[anglefish]

Treebore wrote:
My gamed is still going strong at 16th level. My rogue dual classed to wizard.

Speaking of, am I reading the dual class rules in Zyagag right? I got a fourth level Rouge and no matter how we do the math, we end up with a 8th level Rouge/Fighter (4/4) at 16,501 when everyone else is at 5th.

[MacLeod]

anglefish wrote:
By the time the Paladin is 12th level at 1.3 M XP, the Rogue is 19th level. Now that's a legendary thief.

Something about that seems extremely off. Part of the reason I don't like differing Xp tables...
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!

[Lord Dynel]

MacLeod wrote:
Something about that seems extremely off. Part of the reason I don't like differing Xp tables...

That's why I love them, to be honest, MacLeod. "Underpowered" characters got a little boost and were able to keep up with the "overpowered" ones. This was "class balance" long before the idea of the one XP table came along.

That's my main beef with 3.x. If they had instituted individual XP tables, the game would have been easy to address the balance issue between casters and non-casters, and thus would have been a great game, in my opinion.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[CharlieRock]

Lord Dynel wrote:
That's why I love them, to be honest, MacLeod. "Underpowered" characters got a little boost and were able to keep up with the "overpowered" ones. This was "class balance" long before the idea of the one XP table came along.

That's my main beef with 3.x. If they had instituted individual XP tables, the game would have been easy to address the balance issue between casters and non-casters, and thus would have been a great game, in my opinion.

Well, third edition needed some other help, too. Not just individual xp tables. But that certainly would have been an improvement.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[MacLeod]

Lord Dynel wrote:
That's why I love them, to be honest, MacLeod. "Underpowered" characters got a little boost and were able to keep up with the "overpowered" ones. This was "class balance" long before the idea of the one XP table came along.

That's my main beef with 3.x. If they had instituted individual XP tables, the game would have been easy to address the balance issue between casters and non-casters, and thus would have been a great game, in my opinion.

Ah, I don't know. Implementing balance via usefulness would impress me more than arbitrarily measuring each ability.

To each his own, of course. I just entered a C&C game with some guys I've never before met at 5th Level so perhaps I will get an opportunity to see this Xp table in action.
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!

[Treebore]

anglefish wrote:
Speaking of, am I reading the dual class rules in Zyagag right? I got a fourth level Rouge and no matter how we do the math, we end up with a 8th level Rouge/Fighter (4/4) at 16,501 when everyone else is at 5th.

I did my own interpretation of the 1E dual and multi class rules, I have been much happier with them.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Lord Dynel]

CharlieRock wrote:
Well, third edition needed some other help, too. Not just individual xp tables. But that certainly would have been an improvement.

That's your opinion, Charlie, and there's nothing wrong with expressing it. My experience differed.
But, I do agree that it would have been an improvement.

MacLeod wrote:
Ah, I don't know. Implementing balance via usefulness would impress me more than arbitrarily measuring each ability.

That's kind of how I figure it. I think all classes are useful, just some more "versatile" than others.
I think C&C handled it quite well.

MacLeod wrote:
To each his own, of course. I just entered a C&C game with some guys I've never before met at 5th Level so perhaps I will get an opportunity to see this Xp table in action.

Good luck, man! I hope you have fun!

Treebore wrote:
I did my own interpretation of the 1E dual and multi class rules, I have been much happier with them.

Exactly. I haven't had much interest in dual classing, but my players have been asking about multiclass rules. That probably stems from their lack of or reduced knowledge of older edition rules (because all of my players played older editions). I use the multiclass rules almost as written out of the 1st Ed. AD&D PHB, with a couple of tweaks.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Relaxo]

Lord Dynel wrote:
{regarding different XP tables}

That's why I love them, to be honest, MacLeod. "Underpowered" characters got a little boost and were able to keep up with the "overpowered" ones. This was "class balance" long before the idea of the one XP table came along.

That's my main beef with 3.x. If they had instituted individual XP tables, the game would have been easy to address the balance issue between casters and non-casters, and thus would have been a great game, in my opinion.

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask everyone... do you feel characters are "balance" at the same level, or same amount of XP (If balance even exists...even if it should?) e.g. a part of all 4th level characters, or a party of all characters at 11,000 XP... whichevery class you choose is whatever level at that XP level.

so a "balanced" party might have a 3rd level wiz, 4th level fighter and ranger (cleric too, I think) and a 5th level rogue?

Just grist for the mill... until I try to make pre-gens for mid to high level modules.....

and touching on 3rd ed... is that why (class balance w/ one XP table) that wizards top out at 4 spells of each level? that seems low to me, even though they start out with more than 1 1st level spell as in days of yore. (a change a SO agree with... 1 spell? too hard. (yes, it's tough and old school and builds character... but 1 frickin' spell? too few for me)

[MacLeod]

I don't know why WotC decided that 4 should be the guy. The Sorcerer ends at 6 for all Spell Levels which (obviously) gives him 20 more Spells than the Wizard at 20th Level. While versatility is cool, I think the wizard should have ended at 50 Spells (instead of 40) and the spells per day descend. If not more spells, better scroll creation exclusively for the Wizard.
Wizard: 7 / 7 / 6 / 6 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 Sorcerer: 8 / 8 / 7 / 7 / 6 / 6 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 4
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!

[Buttmonkey]

anglefish wrote:
Speaking of, am I reading the dual class rules in Zyagag right? I got a fourth level Rouge and no matter how we do the math, we end up with a 8th level Rouge/Fighter (4/4) at 16,501 when everyone else is at 5th.

I don't have my PHB at the office, so I'm not sure if you did that right, but being the same level in fighter and rogue at that level range sounds fishy. Also, I'm not sure it's a good idea to view the PC as an 8th level character based on having 2 classes at 4th level under the CZ: Yggsburgh multiclassing rules. Gary's rules provided that the PC should be treated as having a total level equal to the highest class level plus 1/2 the lower class level (assuming 2 classes). Thus, Gary would treat your PC as 6th level.

Also keep in mind that rogues level up very fast, so it shouldn't be a surprise if a multiclassed rogue is still advancing quickly relatively to others, particularly if the other PCs have slow-advancing classes.

All of that said, it shouldn't be hard to properly calculate the PCs levels. You just divide the PC's total experience in half, drop off any fractions, and the remaining figure is how much XP the PC has in each class. Then consult the appropriate XP charts for each class to determine the level. The only math involved is dividing by 2. I don't know of any other way to do the math.

You should also be sure you are using the errata for Gary's multi- and dual-classing rules. PM me with your email address if you don't have the errata document.

EDIT: Just reread your question and clued into the fact that the PC is dual-classed, not multi-classed. That makes a big difference in how the math works.

[Luther]

Relaxo wrote:
and touching on 3rd ed... is that why (class balance w/ one XP table) that wizards top out at 4 spells of each level? that seems low to me, even though they start out with more than 1 1st level spell as in days of yore. (a change a SO agree with... 1 spell? too hard. (yes, it's tough and old school and builds character... but 1 frickin' spell? too few for me)

Well, in all fairness, that single spell was usually very powerful and the first one most folks learned was Charm. With this, you could gain an instant bodygaurd from any humanoid race, giving you, in effect, a second character to play and keep your wizard out of harms way. Then you use the wizard for figuring out ancient writings, identifying potions, reading old tomes and such. And wait until he learns a second spell, like Sleep, which can put paid to a whole encounter...
_________________
IMHO, AFAIK, YMMV.

[Treebore]

Relaxo wrote:
Yeah, I've been meaning to ask everyone... do you feel characters are "balance" at the same level, or same amount of XP (If balance even exists...even if it should?) e.g. a part of all 4th level characters, or a party of all characters at 11,000 XP... whichevery class you choose is whatever level at that XP level.

so a "balanced" party might have a 3rd level wiz, 4th level fighter and ranger (cleric too, I think) and a 5th level rogue?

Just grist for the mill... until I try to make pre-gens for mid to high level modules.....

and touching on 3rd ed... is that why (class balance w/ one XP table) that wizards top out at 4 spells of each level? that seems low to me, even though they start out with more than 1 1st level spell as in days of yore. (a change a SO agree with... 1 spell? too hard. (yes, it's tough and old school and builds character... but 1 frickin' spell? too few for me)

I find it far more balanced than 3E ever succeeded at it with their unified XP tables.

Of course I also accept that not all classes are supposed to be equal in all ways either.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Relaxo]

Luther wrote:
Well, in all fairness, that single spell was usually very powerful and the first one most folks learned was Charm. With this, you could gain an instant bodygaurd from any humanoid race, giving you, in effect, a second character to play and keep your wizard out of harms way. Then you use the wizard for figuring out ancient writings, identifying potions, reading old tomes and such. And wait until he learns a second spell, like Sleep, which can put paid to a whole encounter...

Charm is a better choice than the magic missile I always went with.... food for thought... yummy.

[Relaxo]

Luther wrote:
Well, in all fairness, that single spell was usually very powerful and the first one most folks learned was Charm. With this, you could gain an instant bodygaurd from any humanoid race, giving you, in effect, a second character to play and keep your wizard out of harms way. Then you use the wizard for figuring out ancient writings, identifying potions, reading old tomes and such. And wait until he learns a second spell, like Sleep, which can put paid to a whole encounter...

Charm is a better choice than the magic missile I always went with.... food for thought... yummy.

[MacLeod]

Relaxo wrote:
Charm is a better choice than the magic missile I always went with.... food for thought... yummy.

Charm really isn't that great unless you are referring to the pre-fixed version... you know, the one that lasts for days/weeks/months as opposed to 1 hour/level. Plus, that sounds reeaally boring to play. Not to mention that if someone resists you will miss out on said boring game play.

O, if only D&D magic worked differently...

Treebore wrote:
I find it far more balanced than 3E ever succeeded at it with their unified XP tables.

The only folks I've ever noticed as being unbalanced are those wizards that throw massive area of effect attacks. Fix that part and the unified Xp tables could work just fine. You can even achieve 'Works Excellently' if one was to take the time to properly tweak things and actually monitor rules-exceptions (the way WotC should have).

I know I am wasting my time given the crowd I am preaching to... but you folks pretty much expect this sort of junk out of me by now, I would hope.
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!

[commanderFuron]

Me and Omote often discuss this very issue with the rogue. The biggest problem imho is that the siege engine/saves are very affected by different levels. a difference of 6 levels makes a prime effectively meaningless. At high XP totals the Rogue mechanically is going to rock the house of the other character classes. He will make all his saves against any but the best wizards, he will be able to steal with impunity, he will have a very good HP total, He will have a decent to hit and do great damage using his rogue abilities.

But Omote has said, and it has been hinted at here, the CK will add twists to the advancement. Mainly I want to see what is in the CK for high level play. In 3.5, that's what I like. The level were the PC are making the choices that effect the world and action or inaction has a very real impact on the universe. No edition has truly made this level of play as workable as 3.5 even with it's flaws. I hope that the CK has a new and refreshing take on it.

[Treebore]

MacLeod wrote:
nced than 3E ever succeeded at it with their unified XP tables.

The only folks I've ever noticed as being unbalanced are those wizards that throw massive area of effect attacks. Fix that part and the unified Xp tables could work just fine. You can even achieve 'Works Excellently' if one was to take the time to properly tweak things and actually monitor rules-exceptions (the way WotC should have).

I know I am wasting my time given the crowd I am preaching to... but you folks pretty much expect this sort of junk out of me by now, I would hope. [/quote]

Yep, Druids, Bards, Sorcerors, Wizards, Clerics, etc... were all pretty tough to deal with until you got about 6 levels into the Epic range, then the fighter types became the dominators of the game, especially by 40th level.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Treebore]

commanderFuron wrote:
Me and Omote often discuss this very issue with the rogue. The biggest problem imho is that the siege engine/saves are very affected by different levels. a difference of 6 levels makes a prime effectively meaningless. At high XP totals the Rogue mechanically is going to rock the house of the other character classes. He will make all his saves against any but the best wizards, he will be able to steal with impunity, he will have a very good HP total, He will have a decent to hit and do great damage using his rogue abilities.

But Omote has said, and it has been hinted at here, the CK will add twists to the advancement. Mainly I want to see what is in the CK for high level play. In 3.5, that's what I like. The level were the PC are making the choices that effect the world and action or inaction has a very real impact on the universe. No edition has truly made this level of play as workable as 3.5 even with it's flaws. I hope that the CK has a new and refreshing take on it.

I believe a 19th level rogue's bth is still a paltry +6 or +7. So yes, they are far more likely to make their saves, steal, and back stab, but if a fighter type of 13th level gets them in a toe to toe fight the Rogue is still going to lose/die.

So the rogue is the guy who is ghosting (hide/move silently) his way all over the battle field, slippery as an eel, stealing your gold pouches as he goes. Sounds right to me.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[commanderFuron]

I agree in a straight up to hit comparison the fighter wins, but because the rogue can use all his skills awesome with the level difference there is no reason it should come to a one on one fight fair fight. Plus saves against magic at that level become really important.

[Treebore]

commanderFuron wrote:
I agree in a straight up to hit comparison the fighter wins, but because the rogue can use all his skills awesome with the level difference there is no reason it should come to a one on one fight fair fight. Plus saves against magic at that level become really important.

I think my players would argue with that one on you.

Besides, that is one thing I love about C&C, it keeps saves important. In every other edition of D&D it became too easy to make saves. So yeah, that 19th level thief makes them easier than everyone else, but thats one of its "advantages", "class powers", whatever you wish to call it.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[MacLeod]

Treebore wrote:
Yep, Druids, Bards, Sorcerors, Wizards, Clerics, etc... were all pretty tough to deal with until you got about 6 levels into the Epic range, then the fighter types became the dominators of the game, especially by 40th level.

You mean... 26th Level? My group could never focus long enough to attain such levels in 3.5!!! Haha...

I can believe what you say about the magic users. Then again, a smart DM can setup encounters and situations pretty easily to counter a magic user pretty easily. Counter Spell plus Epic Dispel and you can control them pretty easily. Figure out their strengths and transform them into weaknesses... not to beat them, of course, but to challenge them. ^_^
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!

[Treebore]

MacLeod wrote:
You mean... 26th Level? My group could never focus long enough to attain such levels in 3.5!!! Haha...

I can believe what you say about the magic users. Then again, a smart DM can setup encounters and situations pretty easily to counter a magic user pretty easily. Counter Spell plus Epic Dispel and you can control them pretty easily. Figure out their strengths and transform them into weaknesses... not to beat them, of course, but to challenge them. ^_^

Yeah, my wife was in the military at the time, so there were some hard core gamers around! Got to play in several Epic games ranging between 48th and 68th level.

Yes, every one of the games started out at 1st level.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[MacLeod]

That's truly epic. I can't even imagine being capable of convincing my old party to stick with their characters for more than 15 levels. @_@

Core of the problem is that they never know what they want to play... and when the time comes to play the game, they just pick whatever has a cool name. -_- Then they get sick of their character's capabilities after a while or the DM burns out and nobody wants to step up to the plate.
_________________
In this world of LIES... the TRUTH, it means RESISTANCE!

[Lord Dynel]

MacLeod wrote:
That's truly epic. I can't even imagine being capable of convincing my old party to stick with their characters for more than 15 levels. @_@

Core of the problem is that they never know what they want to play... and when the time comes to play the game, they just pick whatever has a cool name. -_- Then they get sick of their character's capabilities after a while or the DM burns out and nobody wants to step up to the plate.

That's tragic. Not having an idea of what to play, these days, is kind of crazy. Of course I played in the earlier days of rolling ability scores first, checking what races you could qualify for/making racial adjustments, then deciding on what class you were allowed to play...

...sounds like your friends would be at home in the bygone era.
Anyway, I do like the concpet of the unified XP table. On paper it's fantastic and allows for easy multiclassing. And really, my group doesn't even see, or chooses not to see, the disparity amongst the classses. I've had a 7th level sorcerer start taking fighter levels, I've seen a 5th level wizard start taking rogue levels. I've seen druids not dominate the battlefield (and weren't in wildshape w/ Natrual Spell, either). They actually played what they wanted and didn't worry about "gimping" their characters. And these were Epic level games as well.

I understand that the classes are a bit unbalanced and I feel that different XP tables would have been a viable solution, but since I don't experience all the problems that WotC board folks do or the people who publish Trailblazer, then I don't have any need to change 3.5 or switch to a newer edition of D&D.

But that's all moot anyway, because my game of choice is C&C.
As far as the disparity that does exist amongst the classes because of the different XP tables in C&C, I say "Bravo!" I think that some classes are more powerful than others. Therefore, they should progress slower. As Tree pointed out, even with the level gap, the fighter is still going to beat the rogue, but the rogue is going to be the master at "thievery" and not at combat, where the fighter is still king...and should be.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.