Offline
Does anyone else think the higher XP requirement of the Legerdemainist (compared to the Purloiner) is unjustified?
They only differ in the following points:
Offline
To me it looks like its related to the source of the spells they use. I don't have the file in front of me but I believe the Legerdemainist draws from higher xp classes for spells than does than does the Purloiner (cleric?). This may generate the higher advancement cost.
Offline
I would agree with mabon5127.
Offline
Yeah, that must be it, now that youguys mention it.
Offline
The cleric is quite an XP bargain IMO in every Old School edition of D&D. I think this just continues that proud tradition.
Offline
I've learned not to worry too much about the XP differences between classes. Its impact is insignificant in the long run. Barring introducing new PC's during play (death, new player, etc.), characters will never be more than one level apart in experience.
Last edited by foxroe (9/18/2017 4:52 pm)
Offline
foxroe wrote:
I've learned not to worry too much about the XP differences between classes. Its impact is insignificant in the long run. Barring introducing new PC's during play (death, new player, etc.), characters will never be more than one level apart in experience.
I agree.
Offline
Turn Undead is the deal-breaker here. It is a MAJOR ability, even at the stunted progression.
Offline
Ghul wrote:
Turn Undead is the deal-breaker here. It is a MAJOR ability, even at the stunted progression.
Uhm, yeah, I agree. Yet, the Legerdemainist needs 2750 for 2nd level, while the Purloiner "only" needs 2500.
Offline
Blackadder23 wrote:
The cleric is quite an XP bargain IMO in every Old School edition of D&D. I think this just continues that proud tradition.
100% agree.