PDA

View Full Version : The return of different class level progressions [houserule, PEACH]



Belial_the_Leveler
2013-07-28, 04:27 PM
All of us who have lived long enough to achieve Methuselah status remember fondly a time when not all classes progressed at the same rate; fighters and rogues got to higher level significantly easier (i.e. requiring less XP) than casters. This balanced out quite a few things and adhered to flavor better. So why not do the same for newer editions? Specifically;

1) Experience accrues at the same rate and ECL or CR for anything using them directly is the same regardless of your character build. However, some classes gain actual levels faster than others.
This faster level gain gives the following bonuses; attack bonuses, save bonuses, hit die and hit points, skill points and higher max skill ranks, feats, ability increases and class abilities.
It does NOT give: iterative attacks beyond the normal max, treasure, higher effective ECL or CR, epic feats, or increase any level-dependent bonus other than those mentioned.

2) The Bard, Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Paladin, Hexblade, Scout, Ranger, Ninja, Samurai, Truenamer and Monk are fast-progression classes. Whenever a character would gain a level in one of these classes other than the first two for each class, they gain 2 levels instead. I.e. when a 2nd level fighter gains enough experience to be ECL 3 and decides to keep progressing as a fighter, he becomes a 4th level fighter. When he gains enough XP for ECL 4 and keeps progressing as a fighter, he becomes a 6th level fighter. A 20th level fighter is thus ECL 11. A 20th level Monk / 16th level Ninja is ECL 20.
NOTE: if the DM wishes, he may designate other classes or ever prestige classes not mentioned here and of the same power as the above classes for "fast" progression.

3) The Warlock, the Binder, the Shadowcaster, the Crusader, the Warblade, the Swordsage and Soulknife are medium-progression classes. They gain an extra level for every 2 they normally gain. I.e. a 3rd level Warlock is ECL 2. A 9th level Binder is ECL 6. A 15th level Crusader is ECL 10. A 20th level Warlock, 10th level Swordsage is ECL 10.
NOTE: if the DM wishes, he may designate other classes or ever prestige classes not mentioned here and of the same power as the above classes for "medium" progression.

4) Full spellcasters and PrCs as strong as them use the normal progression.

Segev
2013-07-28, 04:40 PM
Pathfinder has three exp progression tracks. Their expected usage is that the DM will pick one and everybody will be on it; the design is intended to let the DM control a bit more easily how fast the levels progress.

I, personally, however, think it would be interesting to actually make that per-class. Fighters, Rogues, etc. on the fast track; clerics, druids, full casters on the slow track, and gishes on the medium track.

If you wish to accommodate multiclassing, you would either have to borrow 2e's mechanism of having both progress simultaneously with exp divided between them, or you'd have to take the charts and convert them to how much exp you need since last level, rather than flat totals.

i.e. getting from 2nd to 3rd level in base D&D takes 2000 exp, but the table lists it as requiring 3000 exp to be third level. That's because it's giving the total (including what it took to get to 2nd).

Now, when you have enough exp to level up on a different class, you can take that class if you're multi-classing into it. This would lead to some radically different exp totals for various levels, but might be an interesting way to balance classes. If fighters are getting to level 15 when wizards are at level 10...

Malroth
2013-07-28, 04:56 PM
Bard is a bit too powerful to be a "fast track" class. a well built 10th lv bard can be permanently invisible, deliver 8d6+ sonic damage per hit with touch attacks, and sporting a +60 bluff modifier and thats not on par with whats expected for a ECL 6 character.

ZamielVanWeber
2013-07-28, 04:59 PM
Honestly, at this stage I say give it a test. It looks cool and may work as well as you hope (I worry that full casters may end up too much in the lurch early game, try it and find out.)

ironwizard
2013-07-28, 08:48 PM
^^ This. I've often said that the biggest mistake 3.x made was trying to balance the classes against each other for every level. Mages are fundamentally more powerful than fighters, and to try to treat them as equals is a fallacy.

To clean up the multiclassing, I'd suggest using a table that shows the net change in XP to each level, rather than the total, and modify the XP needed to advance rather than the levels gained by advancing. This gives a more even gradual advancement for the faster classes, and makes multiclassing easier to handle.

So, suppose a wizard with 36,000 cumulative XP (level 9). 10th level requires 45K, a change of 9K. If he wants his next level to be in wizard, he must earn the full 9,000 XP. If, instead, he wants to take a level in fighter, he would only need 4,500XP, 1/2 the normal total. Taking the level in a medium speed class would cost instead 6,000 XP.

Alternatively, if that's too fast, make Fast progressing classes use the current table, mediums add 50% and slows add 100%, or some other numbers to taste.

I love that this is an idea. Anyone playtesting this, please report, I'd be very interested to see how it turns out.

TuggyNE
2013-07-29, 04:57 AM
^^ This. I've often said that the biggest mistake 3.x made was trying to balance the classes against each other for every level. Mages are fundamentally more powerful than fighters, and to try to treat them as equals is a fallacy.

That doesn't make any sense at all; 3.x made a mistake, not in trying to treat level A = level A', but because it failed at that. Levels should logically be treated as the measure of power; as such, upon realizing that spellcaster levels are more powerful than others, there is only one rational fix. And it isn't "make spellcaster levels take longer to acquire", it's "even out spellcaster levels so that the same amount of effort to acquire a level of any kind has similar results in character power". Artificially holding spellcaster levels at the same level of power they've historically been, and then adding fudge factors into the system so that they require more XP and are worth more, simply doesn't make sense: it's inelegant in the extreme, solves the problem from the wrong side, and leaves the system fragile in the face of future well-meant but ignorant changes (for example, if someone sees the byzantine tables of XP adjustments and attempts to simplify them).

If, on the other hand, it were actually true that mages and mundanes were simply never equal in any way, then they should not receive experience in the same way, should not have the same sort of WBL, and in all ways should be treated as differently as PCs and NPCs are. Clearly, no version of D&D has treated them this way, because it's always assumed that, at some point, a Fighter of level X is equal to either a Wizard of level X or a Wizard of level Y. Therefore, it is possible to recalibrate the Wizard levels such that the equivalence is always found at FighterX = WizardX, for all levels.


To clean up the multiclassing, I'd suggest using a table that shows the net change in XP to each level, rather than the total, and modify the XP needed to advance rather than the levels gained by advancing. This gives a more even gradual advancement for the faster classes, and makes multiclassing easier to handle.

So, suppose a wizard with 36,000 cumulative XP (level 9). 10th level requires 45K, a change of 9K. If he wants his next level to be in wizard, he must earn the full 9,000 XP. If, instead, he wants to take a level in fighter, he would only need 45,000XP, 1/2 the normal total. Taking the level in a medium speed class would cost instead 6,000 XP.

Alternatively, if that's too fast, make Fast progressing classes use the current table, mediums add 50% and slows add 100%, or some other numbers to taste.

The additional complexities involved in multiclassing, LA, RHD, and so on and so forth should serve as a good tip-off that this approach creates almost as many problems as it solves.

Also, your example of required Fighter XP is off by an order of magnitude, which is not a little confusing.

blueblade
2013-07-29, 05:15 AM
If you were making this change, I'd recommend increasing caster HP (esp for D4 characters). Otherwise, they will have less than a quarter of the HP of their beefier equivelants, and will be too fragile to deal with a lot of encounter types.

SiuiS
2013-07-29, 05:35 AM
Why not... Just use different XP totals instead? It's so much simpler, and there's no problem with a party being composed of different level folks.


, because it's always assumed that, at some point, a Fighter of level X is equal to either a Wizard of level X or a Wizard of level Y. Therefore, it is possible to recalibrate the Wizard levels such that the equivalence is always found at FighterX = WizardX, for all levels.

Um? No it isn't. It's actually been quote loudly telegraphed and made explicit that in older editions a fighter of level Any level measured differently to a Mage based on which level the fighter and Mage were at. Their Experience totals could be used, certainly a fighter with 20,000 XP should be able to survive the same things as a 20,000 XP wizard but even that only roughly. This was compensated by "always start a level 1", level 1 being much weaker, and play dissolving before wizards really came into their own.

But nowhere will you find an old shopper who will say a 13th level fighter and wizard are equal, except as anti 3e rhetoric.


If you were making this change, I'd recommend increasing caster HP (esp for D4 characters). Otherwise, they will have less than a quarter of the HP of their beefier equivelants, and will be too fragile to deal with a lot of encounter types.

That's intetional; you're supposed to be much more careful and or die. Gettin more HP misses the point.

Yakk
2013-07-29, 07:59 AM
Basically, this involves making Fighters (and similar) a 10 level class, Wizards a 20 level class, and 2/3 progression classes a 13-14 level class.

No messing around with leveling rates required, just a tweak in some classes level progression charts.

This can also solve the dip problem for melee classes. If level 1 only grants level 1, but level 2 grants 2-3 (double HD, double BaB, etc), dipping additional melee classes becomes less optimal.

TuggyNE
2013-07-29, 04:31 PM
Um? No it isn't. It's actually been quote loudly telegraphed and made explicit that in older editions a fighter of level Any level measured differently to a Mage based on which level the fighter and Mage were at. Their Experience totals could be used, certainly a fighter with 20,000 XP should be able to survive the same things as a 20,000 XP wizard but even that only roughly. This was compensated by "always start a level 1", level 1 being much weaker, and play dissolving before wizards really came into their own.

But nowhere will you find an old shopper who will say a 13th level fighter and wizard are equal, except as anti 3e rhetoric.

I think you missed my point. They may not have been equal at equal levels, but, for any Fighter of any level, there existed a Wizard of approximate equality at some level. That's the definition the differing XP tables are based on, that after accounting for the amount of XP gained, the characters would be roughly equal. (Seemingly, this was imperfect, but the assumption was there.)

Otherwise, what good would this whole idea be? As I also wrote, if there is no possible equivalence, at all, ever, then casters and mundanes should be separated by at least as wide a rules gap as PCs and NPCs, because they would quite literally be playing different games. This doesn't seem to be the case for D&D, but it is the case for at least one other game I've heard of.

ironwizard
2013-07-29, 05:28 PM
I think you missed my point. They may not have been equal at equal levels, but, for any Fighter of any level, there existed a Wizard of approximate equality at some level. That's the definition the differing XP tables are based on, that after accounting for the amount of XP gained, the characters would be roughly equal.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make, that casters and mundanes at equal levels are NOT balanced, the mundane must be higher level to have any equality.

Razanir
2013-07-29, 05:56 PM
Alternatively, you could add dead levels.

Classes are split into three groups.

*Fast progression: Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Soulknife
*Medium progression: Barbarian, Bard, Crusader, Psychic Warrior, Swordsage, Warblade
*Slow progression: Cleric, Druid, Psion, Sorcerer, Wilder, Wizard

Fast progression classes never incur any dead levels. Every three levels taken in medium progression classes require a dead level to continue. And every other level taken in slow progression classes must be a dead level.

(Clarification: All medium progression classes count together for dead levels, as do slow progression classes)

Finally, to preserve HP balance, change hit dice according to the table

{table=head]BAB|Slow|Medium|Fast
1/2|2d6|d8|d6
3/4|2d8|d10|d8
1/1|2d10|d12|d10[/table]

bobthe6th
2013-07-29, 08:37 PM
Numbers were never the issue. This is like fixing a fighter by giving him +3 HP/HD and +5 BAB... it isn't the point. Unless you add options and immunities... there isn't really a point. Also managed to line up the word point, so bonus points there. Damn, missed this line.

So really... why not remove the full casters and just give everyone a full caster progression in one school? Play with the balance between schools a bit... possibly with varying spells per day based on the school(evocation gets way more then transmutation.)... ok, this is just going off on a tangent. But it gave me an idea!

Razanir
2013-07-29, 09:16 PM
Numbers were never the issue. This is like fixing a fighter by giving him +3 HP/HD and +5 BAB... it isn't the point. Unless you add options and immunities... there isn't really a point. Also managed to line up the word point, so bonus points there. Damn, missed this line.

So really... why not remove the full casters and just give everyone a full caster progression in one school? Play with the balance between schools a bit... possibly with varying spells per day based on the school(evocation gets way more then transmutation.)... ok, this is just going off on a tangent. But it gave me an idea!

Sir, I think you just accelerated the approach of the Tippy-pocalypse

TuggyNE
2013-07-29, 09:52 PM
This is exactly the point I was trying to make, that casters and mundanes at equal levels are NOT balanced, the mundane must be higher level to have any equality.

All right, I know you missed my point, which is probably my fault for being vague. What I'm saying is, for any given Fighter level, take the Wizard level that is equivalent (which is presumably lower, but does exist, by the logic of these proposals), and then recalibrate either the Fighter levels, the Wizard levels, or both, such that they are now equivalent on levels that are numbered the same. Example: In the OP, a level 20 Fighter is considered equivalent to a level 11 Wizard in actual power level and in XP; therefore, adjust what Fighter and Wizard levels grant until a Fighter 11 is equivalent in power to a Wizard 11, and then the XP required will of course be the same as well.

Yakk
2013-07-29, 10:09 PM
Suppose level 10 wizard is about as powerful as a level 20 fighter, after you do the analysis.

Then, come up with some PrCs that requires a 20 BaB to enter such that a level "20" fighter + 1 level of PrC is balanced against a level 11 Wizard.

The advantage of this system is that PrCs can have interesting entry requirements that can explain superhuman abilities. A really simple one might be "drink the heart blood of an adult dragon, +20 BaB": this is something a character can arrange or quest to do in order to gain entry into a particular PrC.

The first level of this PrC might grant 2d12 HD, +4 BaB, +3 to every save, immunity to the damage type of the Dragon's breath weapon, a +30 enhancement bonus to jump checks and the ability to jump as far vertically as horizontally, and a +4 enhancement bonus to every attribute, or whatever pseudo-supernatural abilities you want to shovel in to let the melee-type keep up with a wizard. Maybe give these PrCs a 5 level progression.

Then the next tier of PrCs might require +40 BaB, and similar quest/plot prerequisites.

Basically, think 4e Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies on steroids, with both a BaB gatekeeping requirement, and a pile of superhuman abilities to give you characters who can keep up with their adventuring companion who can cast a wish spell a few times a day.

ironwizard
2013-07-29, 10:42 PM
All right, I know you missed my point, which is probably my fault for being vague. What I'm saying is, for any given Fighter level, take the Wizard level that is equivalent (which is presumably lower, but does exist, by the logic of these proposals), and then recalibrate either the Fighter levels, the Wizard levels, or both, such that they are now equivalent on levels that are numbered the same. Example: In the OP, a level 20 Fighter is considered equivalent to a level 11 Wizard in actual power level and in XP; therefore, adjust what Fighter and Wizard levels grant until a Fighter 11 is equivalent in power to a Wizard 11, and then the XP required will of course be the same as well.

Ah, now I think I understand, although I still disagree. To balance them, you'd either need to cut casting significantly, maybe as much as 50% (i.e. max 5th level spells), or boost fighters to absurd levels. IMHO.


Suppose level 10 wizard is about as powerful as a level 20 fighter, after you do the analysis.

Then, come up with some PrCs that requires a 20 BaB to enter such that a level "20" fighter + 1 level of PrC is balanced against a level 11 Wizard.

The advantage of this system is that PrCs can have interesting entry requirements that can explain superhuman abilities. A really simple one might be "drink the heart blood of an adult dragon, +20 BaB": this is something a character can arrange or quest to do in order to gain entry into a particular PrC.

The first level of this PrC might grant 2d12 HD, +4 BaB, +3 to every save, immunity to the damage type of the Dragon's breath weapon, a +30 enhancement bonus to jump checks and the ability to jump as far vertically as horizontally, and a +4 enhancement bonus to every attribute, or whatever pseudo-supernatural abilities you want to shovel in to let the melee-type keep up with a wizard. Maybe give these PrCs a 5 level progression.

Then the next tier of PrCs might require +40 BaB, and similar quest/plot prerequisites.

Basically, think 4e Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies on steroids, with both a BaB gatekeeping requirement, and a pile of superhuman abilities to give you characters who can keep up with their adventuring companion who can cast a wish spell a few times a day.

Problem with this is it introduces an immense amount of power creep, something 3.x already suffers from.

(Not really related to this post so I'll keep it short, but IMHO the best way to balance casters AND still keep the earth-shattering flavor of individual spells is to make magic difficult or dangerous to cast.)

SiuiS
2013-07-29, 11:16 PM
I think you missed my point.

Yes I did. Sorry.


Numbers were never the issue. This is like fixing a fighter by giving him +3 HP/HD and +5 BAB... it isn't the point. Unless you add options and immunities... there isn't really a point. Also managed to line up the word point, so bonus points there. Damn, missed this line.

So really... why not remove the full casters and just give everyone a full caster progression in one school? Play with the balance between schools a bit... possibly with varying spells per day based on the school(evocation gets way more then transmutation.)... ok, this is just going off on a tangent. But it gave me an idea!

I dunno. The problem with full caters versus fighters number wise is based on equal level. If the wizard is third level as bein thrown into 6-8th level fights routinely because that's where a fighter is, it will feel more balanced even if its not.

Gnorman
2013-07-30, 01:45 AM
[comical exaggeration]

Imagine two armies fighting each other. One is full of untrained peasants with 18th century muskets, the other has a modern military force with tanks, bombers, drones, et cetera.

It doesn't really matter too much how many untrained peasants or how many muskets you have.

[/comical exaggeration]

Erik Vale
2013-07-30, 02:13 AM
[comical exaggeration]

Imagine two armies fighting each other. One is full of untrained peasants with 18th century muskets, the other has a modern military force with tanks, bombers, drones, et cetera.

It doesn't really matter too much how many untrained peasants or how many muskets you have.

[/comical exaggeration]

Yea it does, after killing a few thousand musket armed peasents defending their homes, the advanced forces civilians see it on TV, kick up a fuss, and the war ends. Or it doesn't, and the millitary force's leader gets a knife in the back...
Not a cometary on real life, though I know it could be interpreted as such.

PersonMan
2013-07-30, 02:22 AM
Fast progression classes never incur any dead levels. Every three levels taken in medium progression classes require a dead level to continue. And every other level taken in slow progression classes must be a dead level.

This sounds like a terrible idea to me. It basically says 'oh, you're looking forward to new things from your level up? Screw you!' to caster types. It's similar to round-long casting times for everything; it may fix the problem, but it makes the game a lot less fun for the casters, which is kind of just shoving the problem over to someone else, isn't it?

Gnorman
2013-07-30, 07:32 AM
This sounds like a terrible idea to me. It basically says 'oh, you're looking forward to new things from your level up? Screw you!' to caster types. It's similar to round-long casting times for everything; it may fix the problem, but it makes the game a lot less fun for the casters, which is kind of just shoving the problem over to someone else, isn't it?

This is the crux of one of my two main objections to the idea of different level progressions in general (the other being that giving the Fighter/Rogue/What Have You better/higher/more numbers doesn't solve the balance issue to my satisfaction). When you're the one playing the Wizard, it isn't much fun to hear, "Okay, you level up slower because you picked a good class." It feels like a punishment. The same goes for making magic difficult or dangerous to cast - you're sacrificing fun to solve the wrong problem.

It's not really about how many levels you have. It's about making the levels you DO have worthwhile. The Fighter isn't fixed by giving him more Fighter stuff.

Meeky
2013-07-30, 09:09 AM
I think the problem really lies in the fact that the classes ARE balanced... if every class is played by a person that is entirely new to D&D and has no clue what's a good build, really. But fans learn from their games, blah blah blah, we all know this; and so soon everyone knows that, really, D&D as it is just isn't made to be a balanced game.

I think I agree with what Gnorman and Tuggy have been saying: You can't just punish the casters / powerful classes for being, well, powerful, but simply giving Fighters more Fighter stuff won't help them. But if you're not giving them Fighter stuff, is the Fighter still a Fighter?

Honestly, in D&D's current state, I'd say the best answer to this problem is the Tier system, which is already in place. When you have experienced players, just tell them what tiers they can play and don't worry about XP issues. Patching things up by reducing XP gain for powerful characters may work for some groups, but it is, as Tuggy said, inelegant. The whole system needs to be reworked if you want some real balance.

EDIT: Still, if you plan to use a modified XP system, I'd say "Make an XP calculating program to go with it for the purposes of multiclassing." No, don't make charts; that will just get convoluted and painful for users. Make a Flash program or something.

Razanir
2013-07-30, 05:57 PM
I think the problem really lies in the fact that the classes ARE balanced... if every class is played by a person that is entirely new to D&D and has no clue what's a good build, really. But fans learn from their games, blah blah blah, we all know this; and so soon everyone knows that, really, D&D as it is just isn't made to be a balanced game.

I disagree. Regardless of player ability, higher tiers still have more useful and more varied abilities. Playing a fighter will always feel less interesting and useful than playing a wizard, for example.

bobthe6th
2013-07-30, 06:16 PM
Sir, I think you just accelerated the approach of the Tippy-pocalypse
If everyone is a wizard, is the fact wizards are broken really an issue?

Razanir
2013-07-30, 06:27 PM
If everyone is a wizard, is the fact wizards are broken really an issue?

No... But that doesn't mean the Tippyverse wouldn't be created. EVERYONE would be casting the spells to create it.

bobthe6th
2013-07-30, 06:53 PM
Is the Trippy-verse really a bad thing? at least this way there wouldn't be an oppressed minority of non casters looking for something to do... and one caster couldn't do it all.

Cuaqchi
2013-07-30, 06:56 PM
That doesn't make any sense at all; 3.x made a mistake, not in trying to treat level A = level A', but because it failed at that. Levels should logically be treated as the measure of power; as such, upon realizing that spellcaster levels are more powerful than others, there is only one rational fix. And it isn't "make spellcaster levels take longer to acquire", it's "even out spellcaster levels so that the same amount of effort to acquire a level of any kind has similar results in character power". Artificially holding spellcaster levels at the same level of power they've historically been, and then adding fudge factors into the system so that they require more XP and are worth more, simply doesn't make sense: it's inelegant in the extreme, solves the problem from the wrong side, and leaves the system fragile in the face of future well-meant but ignorant changes (for example, if someone sees the byzantine tables of XP adjustments and attempts to simplify them).

If, on the other hand, it were actually true that mages and mundanes were simply never equal in any way, then they should not receive experience in the same way, should not have the same sort of WBL, and in all ways should be treated as differently as PCs and NPCs are. Clearly, no version of D&D has treated them this way, because it's always assumed that, at some point, a Fighter of level X is equal to either a Wizard of level X or a Wizard of level Y. Therefore, it is possible to recalibrate the Wizard levels such that the equivalence is always found at FighterX = WizardX, for all levels.

Actually before 3.X things really were that different. Along with the regular stuff: A rogue got XP for every 10gp worth of treasure recovered, Fighters got additional XP per hit die of enemy killed, and Spellcasters got XP for the level of spells used (which mattered because of much slower spell recovery times: 1 Hour/Spell Level). Add in the 10% XP bonus for requisite stat which specialty classes (Paladin, Ranger, Druid) either didn't have or had multiple requirements for the bonus and XP calculations were rather exhausting. There were also some meta-based limitations like the Druid (above 10th) where only 1 15th could exist, 4 14th level, ~16 13th, etc. So being a powerful class actually had limits on play. That and negative effects of spells like aging a year from a Haste spell... Yes, things were very different before WotC got ahold of things...

TuggyNE
2013-07-31, 05:53 AM
Actually before 3.X things really were that different. Along with the regular stuff: A rogue got XP for every 10gp worth of treasure recovered, Fighters got additional XP per hit die of enemy killed, and Spellcasters got XP for the level of spells used (which mattered because of much slower spell recovery times: 1 Hour/Spell Level).

Interesting. It seems like those mostly cancel each other out, although I can't be sure.


Add in the 10% XP bonus for requisite stat which specialty classes (Paladin, Ranger, Druid) either didn't have or had multiple requirements for the bonus and XP calculations were rather exhausting. There were also some meta-based limitations like the Druid (above 10th) where only 1 15th could exist, 4 14th level, ~16 13th, etc. So being a powerful class actually had limits on play. That and negative effects of spells like aging a year from a Haste spell... Yes, things were very different before WotC got ahold of things...

I was aware of all of these; they do not substantially affect my thesis, except perhaps to strengthen my point that merely reverting one part of the XP calculations (while leaving all the other causes of balance problems in 3e style) is insufficient to fix the problem, and would only serve to patch some of the symptoms.

SiuiS
2013-07-31, 06:43 AM
This sounds like a terrible idea to me. It basically says 'oh, you're looking forward to new things from your level up? Screw you!' to caster types. It's similar to round-long casting times for everything; it may fix the problem, but it makes the game a lot less fun for the casters, which is kind of just shoving the problem over to someone else, isn't it?

'Kay.
Now prove a third level wizard is a modern military force and a 7th level fighter is a peasant.


This is the crux of one of my two main objections to the idea of different level progressions in general (the other being that giving the Fighter/Rogue/What Have You better/higher/more numbers doesn't solve the balance issue to my satisfaction). When you're the one playing the Wizard, it isn't much fun to hear, "Okay, you level up slower because you picked a good class." It feels like a punishment. The same goes for making magic difficult or dangerous to cast - you're sacrificing fun to solve the wrong problem.

It's not really about how many levels you have. It's about making the levels you DO have worthwhile. The Fighter isn't fixed by giving him more Fighter stuff.

Interesting. This doesn't make any sense though; this is how things played out Long ago, and there was no sense of being screwed over. You are only screwed over i you think one fighter level is worth one wizard level. If you don't think they are equivalent, then you're just Bei a jerk by forcing fighters to suck because you feel entitled to 'fast advancement'.

Would you feel the same way if melee got multiple levels per level instead of slowing down caster advancement?


My favorite touch in a game that needs it is to cap you at 50% caster, period. A tenth level character who is a straight wizard, is wizard 5/expert 5 (or something else).


I disagree. Regardless of player ability, higher tiers still have more useful and more varied abilities. Playing a fighter will always feel less interesting and useful than playing a wizard, for example.

What if the fighter is a wuxia Kungfu badass and the wizard just uses magic missile and then goes home after fifteen minutes?

Because first level melee characters who kick off walls and throw flying enemies out of the air are easy, unless the DM shuts down fun melee.



I was aware of all of these; they do not substantially affect my thesis, except perhaps to strengthen my point that merely reverting one part of the XP calculations (while leaving all the other causes of balance problems in 3e style) is insufficient to fix the problem, and would only serve to patch some of the symptoms.

It's a matter of windows, I think.

In a campaign focusing on one adventure, levels "2-4", the fighter will definitely pull ahead if he needs only 1800 to 2nd versus the wizard's 2500. In a game where you go from 1 to 20 over years, no it won't matter. But in an acute presentation it can and will work. You just have to get used to saying "everyone roll up a character with X,000 experience" instead of using "X level characters".

Gnorman
2013-07-31, 07:14 AM
'Kay.
Now prove a third level wizard is a modern military force and a 7th level fighter is a peasant.

Not to get too bogged down in this endless debate, but even a 3rd level Wizard has far more options at his disposal than a 7th level Fighter. Giving the Fighter comparatively more hit dice, BAB, and feats doesn't change this fact.

I am willing to concede that the higher WBL will allow the Fighter to have better toys to play with, but that's just going to be another thing that will stick in the craw of the person playing the Wizard.

Keep in mind that "balance" plays a larger role in my conception of the game than others. I despise rolling for ability scores, for example. I think that all the players should be on even footing. But that's twofold task - you have to raise the floor on the Fighter and lower the ceiling on the Wizard.


Interesting. This doesn't make any sense though; this is how things played out Long ago, and there was no sense of being screwed over. You are only screwed over i you think one fighter level is worth one wizard level. If you don't think they are equivalent, then you're just Bei a jerk by forcing fighters to suck because you feel entitled to 'fast advancement'.

I don't think that a level of Wizard and a level of Fighter are equivalent. I just don't think that giving the Fighter more levels solves the imbalance. Fighters don't suck because of their advancement speed.

To be more constructive: Allowing a Fighter to reselect his bonus feats every 24 hours would be a great starting point, rather than just inflating the numbers. But that's not really what we're discussing here.


Would you feel the same way if melee got multiple levels per level instead of slowing down caster advancement?

I was addressing the former scenario in the first place, but it doesn't make any difference. I would feel the same way, because it's the same thing. If the Fighter is Fast, the Wizard is comparatively Slow.


My favorite touch in a game that needs it is to cap you at 50% caster, period. A tenth level character who is a straight wizard, is wizard 5/expert 5 (or something else).

I don't like this solution at all, to be frank. I generally dislike solutions that force a particular path on a player. That doesn't mean it can't work for you and your group; just that I would not willingly adopt it.

Erik Vale
2013-07-31, 09:14 PM
Question, has anyone made a system combining the better parts of 3rd ed and beyond [as in, the less broken] with the earlier editions which are seen to be less broken.

It seems that some of the major problems with balance and some game problems might be fixed by combining them [not that I have personally played anything other than 3.5/pf for dnd]

ironwizard
2013-07-31, 09:16 PM
Question, has anyone made a system combining the better parts of 3rd ed and beyond [as in, the less broken] with the earlier editions which are seen to be less broken.

It seems that some of the major problems with balance and some game problems might be fixed by combining them [not that I have personally played anything other than 3.5/pf for dnd]

Some friends and I have considered trying it. If we were to start it, would there be interest in a log of changes? Perhaps a place for some input on here?

TuggyNE
2013-08-01, 02:41 AM
If you don't think they are equivalent, then you're just Bei a jerk by forcing fighters to suck because you feel entitled to 'fast advancement'.

For what it's worth, unfortunate consequences, even if foreseen, are not always intended, especially when someone is specifically saying "this isn't the way to go about what you want to do, let's try something else".


In a campaign focusing on one adventure, levels "2-4", the fighter will definitely pull ahead if he needs only 1800 to 2nd versus the wizard's 2500. In a game where you go from 1 to 20 over years, no it won't matter. But in an acute presentation it can and will work. You just have to get used to saying "everyone roll up a character with X,000 experience" instead of using "X level characters".

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I know how you'd have to present it (and I think that accepting XP as a point of equivalence while denying levels as that is a failure of game design and a flaw of logic), and I know, more or less, the circumstances in which the patch would come closest to working. You yourself admit it won't fix all the problems, though, and since its basic idea is, like E6, slapping down hackish limiters on the full game to make it more workable, admitting that you still need other level limiters as well is pretty bad.