On 02/04/2018 at 3:39 PM, Ziggy03 said:

Easy: Let's say you have 2 Level 1 characters. One has so far received no XP and the other has 2 XP and his peg is on the last letter he possesses. Then, let's say they both gain 4 XP. The person who previously had 2 XP is now level 3, while the person who had no XP is now level 2 and has his XP peg on his first letter. Now the level 2 player gains 2 XP. His XP tracker moves to his last letter and he is still level 2.

End result: 2 players earned 6 XP, but one is level 2 and one is level 3. I would call that unfair.

It's not unfair just because people get different results. If you and I play Scissors Paper Stone and one of us win and the other loses that doesn't mean the game was unfair.

I still don't see how you can earn 4xp at once anyway.

Rock, Paper, Scissors is not mathematics though. 4+2 = 6 ; 2+4 = 6 The results for 6 XP should be the same otherwise there is no point in measuring it numerically. Since the game is classless the XP system should graduate equally. It's not like D&D where each class's benchmarks are different.

What you're saying is effectively is if I was playing a fighter in D&D and so was my buddy and I killed an Orc and then an Ogre and got 2,000XP, but my buddy killed an Ogre first and then an Orc for 2,000XP he should be higher level than me.

I'm not faulting you guys for playing as the rules are written, but the group I play with are all engineers and see the way we do it as logical. As stated earlier in this thread, the reasoning that FFG gave is they didn't think players would remember to carry over the XP after levelling. That seems pretty weak in my opinion. We're not trying to rock Fourier Transforms here. It's getting a number, performing a level up, then carrying over the remainder.

On 4/3/2018 at 9:02 PM, Ziggy03 said:

Rock, Paper, Scissors is not mathematics though. 4+2 = 6 ; 2+4 = 6 The results for 6 XP should be the same otherwise there is no point in measuring it numerically. Since the game is classless the XP system should graduate equally. It's not like D&D where each class's benchmarks are different.

What you're saying is effectively is if I was playing a fighter in D&D and so was my buddy and I killed an Orc and then an Ogre and got 2,000XP, but my buddy killed an Ogre first and then an Orc for 2,000XP he should be higher level than me.

I’m saying if that’s how the game was designed then yeah, he should be higher than you. Why can’t a game be designed in such a way that you level up faster if you kill monsters that are substantially tougher than you are?