Experience penalties to balance classes?

[Charlie Kemek]

if you look at the tier system here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0), you'll see the basic idea of the balance of the classes. now, in first edition, not all the classes were balanced in power. the ranger was clearly superior to the fighter, and the thief was the weakest class in the game (yes, the monk was still brokenly weak, but we'll get there). they balanced them by them all having their own experience charts. so what if we did the same thing for 3rd eddition? tier 1 would take around 1 1/2 times the exp to level up, tier 2 would take 1 1/4, tiers 3 and 4 would be around normal, maybe 1 1/10 above or below. tier 5 would take 3/4 of the exp, and tier 6 1/2 the exp. thoughts? now, these penalties could be moved around a little, but not much.

[Draz74]

Biggest problem will be meshing it with the multiclassing system.

[Charlie Kemek]

Biggest problem will be meshing it with the multiclassing system.

say you take 2 levels of fighter. that would be 3/4 of the experiance points needed for those two levels. then you take a level of wizard. that would be 1 and 1/2 times the normal experiance for your third level.

Edit: so level 1 to level 2 would be 750 XP (1000*3/4), level 2 to level 3 would be 4500 XP (3000*3/2).

[Spiryt]

I was thinking about something like this, and it's nice idea IMHO, but multiclassing system indeed should be redesigned.

And I will probably just make 2 Tiers : Full Casters & Everyone Else.

"Everyone Else" aren't really balanced so well, but complicating thing into 6 Tiers doesn't smell tasty.

[Charlie Kemek]

what is the problem with it just being the way it is, just changing with every class you take? a level of wizard will take more XP and a soulknife will take less XP

[Glimbur]

As it currently stands, lower level characters get more experience. Combine this with lower level characters reducing the APL and if you give out experience by the book the casters won't be as far behind as you might think.

This will also affect what sort of challenges you can throw at the party. It takes longer for them to get to Raise Dead. A mummy is CR 5, and you need Remove Curse to get rid of the Mummy Rot. That's ok, Remove Curse is Cleric 3 so no problem, right? Except now the cleric is too low level to cast that but a mummy is still a good encounter by CR. There are other monsters with similar problems, ability damage poisons v lack of Lesser Restoration being a large category.

tl;dr Lack of clerical cures for effects monsters can generate mean that CR is further broken.

[Charlie Kemek]

As it currently stands, lower level characters get more experience. Combine this with lower level characters reducing the APL and if you give out experience by the book the casters won't be as far behind as you might think.

This will also affect what sort of challenges you can throw at the party. It takes longer for them to get to Raise Dead. A mummy is CR 5, and you need Remove Curse to get rid of the Mummy Rot. That's ok, Remove Curse is Cleric 3 so no problem, right? Except now the cleric is too low level to cast that but a mummy is still a good encounter by CR. There are other monsters with similar problems, ability damage poisons v lack of Lesser Restoration being a large category.

tl;dr Lack of clerical cures for effects monsters can generate mean that CR is further broken.

precisely why the healer is now a viable option. you can take a few levels in it, and a few in warmage and make a perfectly viable mystic thurge about the same level as normal. and the CR system wouldn't be used AT ALL. use something else. Maybe that could be made a new version of that too.

[Random832]

As it currently stands, lower level characters get more experience. Combine this with lower level characters reducing the APL and if you give out experience by the book the casters won't be as far behind as you might think.

What about using the pathfinder rules for XP - where each encounter is worth a fixed number of XP and subsequent levels cost more XP - you could have tier 1 classes use the slow advancement table, etc.

I think advancement actually worked that way in earlier editions as well, so since that's where this idea is coming from it makes sense

Of course, the question does remain how to make it work with multiclassing. It'd be nice if XP to level for the PF system could be simply worked out as a formula.

[JonestheSpy]

Man, talk about full circle, this is exactly what the rules were in 1st edition AD&D. Classes were way unbalanced - rangers and paladins were fighters with extra powers, thieves were far less capable than in later editions, etc. The different levels of xp needed to level up were the balancing factor. I recall thieves needed the least to level up, paladins the most, followed closely by magic users.

In 3.5, I prefer to adjust the classes than figure out how different classes should progress.

[Charlie Kemek]

What about using the pathfinder rules for XP - where each encounter is worth a fixed number of XP and subsequent levels cost more XP - you could have tier 1 classes use the slow advancement table, etc.

I think advancement actually worked that way in earlier editions as well, so since that's where this idea is coming from it makes sense

Of course, the question does remain how to make it work with multiclassing. It'd be nice if XP to level for the PF system could be simply worked out as a formula.

Yes, I believe that implementing the pathfinder XP would be the correct option to fix everything.


Man, talk about full circle, this is exactly what the rules were in 1st edition AD&D. Classes were way unbalanced - rangers and paladins were fighters with extra powers, thieves were far less capable than in later editions, etc. The different levels of xp needed to level up were the balancing factor. I recall thieves needed the least to level up, paladins the most, followed closely by magic users.

In 3.5, I prefer to adjust the classes than figure out how different classes should progress.

The problem with that is that it is a lot harder to remake all the classes than to change the amount of XP they need to level.

[JonestheSpy]

The problem with that is that it is a lot harder to remake all the classes than to change the amount of XP they need to level.

But more fun.

[Charlie Kemek]

But more fun.

true. but some people just don't have the time to do that (like me, and many other people who play D&D), or the home-brewing abilities to do that (like many people who play D&D (except those gifted few)).