Re: [dq-rules] Experience Point Costs

[Rodger Thorm <rodger_thorm@yahoo.com>]

The Experience Multipliers may or may not be a fair
balancing measure, but I'm quite sure that the game
designers included them because they felt that they
provided balance.  In my own campaign I use the 2nd
edition Experience Multipliers, and I have found them
reasonable, but that is a personal observation only. 
YMMV

There is, of course, more than just eyesight in the
advantages given to non-human characters.  We could
debate endlessly over whether or not elf-sight and the
ability to raise the dead were equal and fair
trade-offs, but that's getting petty and missing the
larger issue.

Dwarves, elves, halflings, and shape-changers all have

experience point bonuses as part of the racial
description (e.g. "If a halfling takes the thief
skill, he expends one-half the Experience Points to
progress Ranks."), and there is no offsetting penalty
to any skill in any of these cases.

The argument that "illusion that humans are somehow
smarter and therefore train much faster and learn
skills and spells faster than any other race" is
missing the point, however.  There is no modification
of the time necessary for any character to learn a
skill, spell or other ability (except orcs, of
course).  The implication in the rules is that various
non-humans need a bit more experience to learn many
things, but a lot less to learn a couple.

I do agree with you that it is a simpler matter to
divide the base experience award by the racial
modifier for non-human characters, and then use the
experience point costs without the need for additional
calculation.  The non-human player characters in my
present campaign do that already, and I certainly
endorse that as a positive measure to make things
easier for anyone else who hasn't adopted that
already.

If part of rule 6.3 doesn't make sense for your
campaign setting, don't use it.  For my part, the
Experience Cost Multipliers are reasonable, but I have
never made a player roll in order to play a particular
race.  It sounds as though you have adopted the
reverse in your campaign.

  --Rodger Thorm


Pat Hough wrote:
> In my view, the XPMs are anything but a balancing
> measure. Perhaps so because they are so
> unreasonable.
> I wouldn't protest 1.2 here, 1.1 there, 1.3 there,
> etc. but 2.0? 2.5? Sorry!
> 
> Also, let's be logical for a moment. The eventual
> result of the XPM rules is the illusion that humans
> are somehow smarter and therefore train much faster
> and learn skills and spells faster than any other
> race. Pure, unadulterated hogwash. If Master Tolkien
> is any inspiration, the elves at the very least are
> far more sophisticated.
> 
> To me, implying that the XPM rule makes sense in
> order
> to maintain campaign balance is like saying that
> AD&D's rule that heavier, thicker armor makes it
> harder to hit such an adorned entity makes sense in
> order to maintain combat balance. Doesn't do it for
> me.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com