Xp Penalty Chart? Where'd that go?

[Deathrydar]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you're looking for race and class combined penalty, see: https://wiki.project1999.com/Choosing_a_Race#Class

The table is confusing. It has values in Dwarf Magician, Halfling Enchanter, etc. What am I reading incorrectly?

[stars2heaven]

Somewhat off topic but still related, why do these exist in the first place? It's easy to see it as a balancing of the advantages that some of the races have, but what about the highbrid classes? Were they seen as having significant advantages that justified a penalty? From what I hear others say Paladins kinda get the shaft and can't point to much that they have any advantage in.

[Chryorn]

Originally Posted by stars2heaven [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but what about the highbrid classes? Were they seen as having significant advantages that justified a penalty?

Yes - a warrior with spells is much more powerful than a warrior without magic. That was the idea behind the class penalties. Later the developers realized that there was no big advantage that justified those penalties and removed them. But in Classic they existed.

[Broor]

Originally Posted by stars2heaven [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Somewhat off topic but still related, why do these exist in the first place? It's easy to see it as a balancing of the advantages that some of the races have, but what about the highbrid classes? Were they seen as having significant advantages that justified a penalty?

I think a deeper answer may lie in AD&D lore, which was a primary inspiration for a lot of the race/class content in EQ. Going back to second edition rules, simpler classes used different exp tables than Warriors, Wizards, or Hybrids, allowing them to level faster to compensate for their less powerful kits. Rogues needed 1250 to get to level 2, Clerics/Monks 1500, Warriors 2000, Paladins/Rangers 2250, Wizards 2500. Later editions added powerful races that players could choose, but at the cost of a level or two, so if the party were starting their adventure at level two, your Ogre Warrior would be level one to balance his amazing stats with the rest of the crew. I see the EQ penalties as an adaptation of that idea-

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Broor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think a deeper answer may lie in AD&D lore, which was a primary inspiration for a lot of the race/class content in EQ. Going back to second edition rules, simpler classes used different exp tables than Warriors, Wizards, or Hybrids, allowing them to level faster to compensate for their less powerful kits. Rogues needed 1250 to get to level 2, Clerics/Monks 1500, Warriors 2000, Paladins/Rangers 2250, Wizards 2500. Later editions added powerful races that players could choose, but at the cost of a level or two, so if the party were starting their adventure at level two, your Ogre Warrior would be level one to balance his amazing stats with the rest of the crew. I see the EQ penalties as an adaptation of that idea-

This, except intermediated by MUDs, which were of course based on D&D themselves (I think DikuMUD was the one EQ was most based off?)

[magusfire24]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This, except intermediated by MUDs, which were of course based on D&D themselves (I think DikuMUD was the one EQ was most based off?)

Yes according to Brad that is the MUD Eq was based off of.

[Gustoo]

Well..it doesn't matter why. They're classic.

But yeah it was to balance the fact that the class could take hits and use spells which was kinda the best. (In theory)

Also people didn't really know much about these penalties.

Ogre and troll cuz they so dumb
Halfling cuz they so cool

But they say the halfling bonus was supposed to be a human bonus (cuz they so basic) but I'm glad it is the way it is.

[loramin]

Fixed.