Is it just me, or does the XP point progression system not seem steep enough to you guys? At level 20, i had under 200,000 XP. I know 3rd edition is quite different from 2nd, but it seems far too easy to get high levels. It used to take at least 4 million XP to get that high. The amount between levels doesn't seem exponential like it used to be.

I agree. Achieving the XP cap is pretty easy, and I wish it took longer.

True leveling up is easier than it should be, but you dont get much xp. from killing monsters and bad people.

It takes longer to lvl up when monsters are worth a measly four (4) xp - I don't think I've met anything worth more than 500 xp yet (I'm early in chp 3)

after sinking something like 18 hours a week for 4 months into Dark Age of Camelot and only hitting level 32 of 50, and hitting the wall where I level once a week if lucky, I certainly won't complain about levelling up fairly quickly...

And like was said, I'm only getting 3-4 xp a pop...

point progression is very easy here they dont just give a random set amount of XP to the creatures. but rather give the amount of xp to your char lvl. and if you did all the side quests you barely finish the final lvl up by midway chap 4. i can say with easse that on BG2 i was maxed out on my lvling up way before last chap. it all depends on how much of the actual campiagn you do.

They've added difficulty coding to the game. This means if a level 20 character kills a bunch of goblins, he gets very few xp, because they're so easy to kill. In fact, he gets little xp for anything he kills.

In my opinion, this is pretty lousy. A goblin should be worth the same amoutn of xp no matter who kills it. I'm tired of killing five hill giants, who are rated effortless, but require a fair amount of effort, and getting 20 xp from the whole lot. They should adjust the xp tables so you need more xp to level up. Hmm, this sounds a lot like first edition D&D (or Advanced D&D as it used to be called...).

The system is based on encounter difficulty, so the relative difficulty of killing goblins for a high level character is negligable than that to a low level character.

I think it is fairly accurate... one has to remember that only because the difficulty of the enemy is static, it doesn't mean your character can't have more or less difficulty with them. For exampe, my +4 to will saves made a bodak (easy) encounter the most difficult one I've had yet because of the insta-death ability (which I thought they removed for 3rd edition?). Meanwhile, I've hacked through a few roomfools of hill-giants without even being hit (32 AC baby! :D ).
So difficulty is dependant on your character type as well.

I think it is right that the XP reward for creatures decreases as you increase in power.

A goblin, a challenge at level one or two, shouldn't be worth the same amount to a level 15 character wielding a flame blade...

I disagree! I see experience as what your character learns from a fight - when he's level 1 and weak and stupid, killing a goblin is going to teach him a lot about his abilities, how to use his weapons and tactics and so on. When he's level 20 and killed thousands of monsters, his tactics and so on are going to be much more advanced, so he'll learn less. IMHO it makes a lot of sense for experience to be affected by level; having the same amount of experience for a monster regardless of the circumstances in which it's killed seems unrealistic [img]smile.gif[/img]