Balancing classes with an old-school idea

[molten_dragon]

I never actually played 2nd edition, but I played a bunch of games based on it (baldur's gate, icewind dale, etc.) and I know that back then different classes took different XP totals to level up, not everyone used the same XP chart.

I got to thinking today about whether that could be used to help balance the classes in D&D somewhat, by keeping the higher-tier classes at a lower level than the lower-tier ones.

Actually doing it should be pretty easy, just multiply the amount of XP required to hit each level by a number. If you look at the XP chart, using a multiplier of around 1.35 should keep that person around 1 level lower than everyone else. Using about 1.7 should be about 2 levels lower, etc.

Do you think this would actually work to balance the classes out? And how much of a multiplier would you think it would take to balance them? Say to balance a tier 1 with a tier 3, a tier 3 with a tier 5, and a tier 1 with a tier 5?

[Flickerdart]

At level 1 or 20, a T4 is still a T4 - they can only really do the one thing they've got. At level 1 or 20, a T1 is still a T1. We've had arena battles where level 13 wizards wasted one level 20 fighter after another.

[molten_dragon]

At level 1 or 20, a T4 is still a T4 - they can only really do the one thing they've got. At level 1 or 20, a T1 is still a T1. We've had arena battles where level 13 wizards wasted one level 20 fighter after another.

So you don't think it would work?

I'm not really talking about head to head fights or arena battles though, I'm talking about what a character can offer to an adventuring party. And I'm assuming similar levels of optimization.

An 8th level wizard is going to have fewer spells per day, and less powerful spells than a 10th level wizard, so he's going to have to be a bit more cautious in how he uses them. That's got to be some sort of balancing factor doesn't it?

I mean, if we take it to an extreme, and the wizard was level 1, and the fighter level 20, the fighter is obviously more powerful, and can contribute more to the party than the wizard.

[Flickerdart]

An 8th level wizard is going to have fewer spells per day, and less powerful spells than a 10th level wizard, so he's going to have to be a bit more cautious in how he uses them. That's got to be some sort of balancing factor doesn't it?
"Fighter, rogue, take care of this - I'm saving my spells for an important fight." Not a great dynamic. In general, the idea of only being able to play your character for a few rounds a day (and being stuck with essentially an NPC class for the rest of the day) is terrible both for play and balance, because the floor and ceiling of performance is so far apart that making encounters becomes as irritating as designing them for a party with high tier disparity, which was the problem to start with.



I mean, if we take it to an extreme, and the wizard was level 1, and the fighter level 20, the fighter is obviously more powerful, and can contribute more to the party than the wizard.
I'm not talking about power. The fighter, even at level 20, can't do a whole bunch of things the wizard can at level 1 (identifying magic items, to pick a random example). He lacks versatility, and the high level doesn't catch him up. Raw numbers were never his problem - a well-built even level fighter can deal all the damage you could want.

[molten_dragon]

"Fighter, rogue, take care of this - I'm saving my spells for an important fight." Not a great dynamic. In general, the idea of only being able to play your character for a few rounds a day (and being stuck with essentially an NPC class for the rest of the day) is terrible both for play and balance, because the floor and ceiling of performance is so far apart that making encounters becomes as irritating as designing them for a party with high tier disparity, which was the problem to start with.

I guess I think there's a balancing point where the wizard is far enough behind to cut his power and versatility some compared to the other characters and not leave him so far behind that he has to hoard spells and only try to use them in 'important' fights.

I'm not sure about your games, but in mine, above a certain level, casters almost never run out of spells for the day.


I'm not talking about power. The fighter, even at level 20, can't do a whole bunch of things the wizard can at level 1 (identifying magic items, to pick a random example). He lacks versatility, and the high level doesn't catch him up. Raw numbers were never his problem - a well-built even level fighter can deal all the damage you could want.

I'm not talking strictly about power either.

[Coidzor]

I never actually played 2nd edition, but I played a bunch of games based on it (baldur's gate, icewind dale, etc.) and I know that back then different classes took different XP totals to level up, not everyone used the same XP chart.

I got to thinking today about whether that could be used to help balance the classes in D&D somewhat, by keeping the higher-tier classes at a lower level than the lower-tier ones.

Actually doing it should be pretty easy, just multiply the amount of XP required to hit each level by a number. If you look at the XP chart, using a multiplier of around 1.35 should keep that person around 1 level lower than everyone else. Using about 1.7 should be about 2 levels lower, etc.

Do you think this would actually work to balance the classes out? And how much of a multiplier would you think it would take to balance them? Say to balance a tier 1 with a tier 3, a tier 3 with a tier 5, and a tier 1 with a tier 5?

You wanna go back to oldschool, just pick up one of the numerous fixed retroclones. :smallconfused:

Mixing a not that great idea in with 3.5 in order to try to balance something that it doesn't even directly address is... suboptimal to achieving your desired end result.

[Flickerdart]

I'm not talking strictly about power either.
You said that a fighter 20 is more powerful; those were your exact words.

[molten_dragon]

You said that a fighter 20 is more powerful; those were your exact words.

Yes, keep reading after that. I said more powerful, and can contribute more to the party.

[Flickerdart]

Yes, keep reading after that. I said more powerful, and can contribute more to the party.
It can't contribute more to the party, because more powerful is all it is. It still has exactly one solution for dealing with things, only now it can hit things for more damage, which doesn't matter because being at -10 and -10000 are equal states of being dead.

[molten_dragon]

It can't contribute more to the party, because more powerful is all it is. It still has exactly one solution for dealing with things, only now it can hit things for more damage, which doesn't matter because being at -10 and -10000 are equal states of being dead.

I don't agree at all. A fighter can offer more than damage to a party, especially at level 20. He may not be all that good at doing those other things, but he can do them.

[Flickerdart]

I don't agree at all. A fighter can offer more than damage to a party, especially at level 20. He may not be all that good at doing those other things, but he can do them.
Let's say that T5s like the fighter have a 100% XP boost, so that the fighter is level 20 in a party with, say, a level 10 cleric, druid, and wizard. What is he offering aside from damage?

[bekeleven]

Let's say that T5s like the fighter have a 100% XP boost, so that the fighter is level 20 in a party with, say, a level 10 cleric, druid, and wizard. What is he offering aside from damage?

Any answer I can think of circles back to WBL. And I assume that in this hypothetical party the fighter doesn't say "I'm higher level so I'm taking all of the loot."

[Radar]

Varying XP tables were not the main balancing factor in AD&D. Different initiative mechanic and lack of Concentration skill was. In ye olden days, when your time on the initiative chart came up, you chose your action, but it would not happen immediately - each action took specific ammount of initiative ticks to complete. In particular casting spells IIRC took one tick per spell level. If during that time you got hit, the spell was lost.

Additionaly: no bonus spell slots from high stats, no free spells learned at a level-up for wizards, no max HP at first level, no CON bonus to HP for casters, the ability to move and full-attack in the same round (oh, and iteratives were only for martial classes), lower ammount of truly broken spells, much fewer options for buffing yourself sky-high for the whole day. And we had to walk uphill in thick snow to our dungeons and we liked it.
At any rate, it's really easier to just play AD&D or any of the well made retro-clones then taking up the herculean work to adjust D&D 3.5.

edit: and casters still ruled at the high levels, but they had to work really hard to get there.

[nedz]

I've looked at doing this but it's very tricky.

There is a common saying Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard.
This isn't strictly true unfortunately, but the relationship is definitely non linear.

Even if you managed to balance these classes xp tables you then have the issue of multi-classing.

[molten_dragon]

At any rate, it's really easier to just play AD&D or any of the well made retro-clones then taking up the herculean work to adjust D&D 3.5.

edit: and casters still ruled at the high levels, but they had to work really hard to get there.

It's not meant to completely balance things, it was a passing idea that I thought could be a quick fix to make things somewhat more balanced.

[molten_dragon]

Even if you managed to balance these classes xp tables you then have the issue of multi-classing.

Doesn't seem that hard. Your XP to get to the next level is based on the multiplier for the class you just took.

So if fighter is a x1 modifier, and wizard is a x2, A level 1 fighter would require 1,000 XP to hit level 2, and a level 1 wizard would require 2,000 XP to hit level 2.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

How do youu handle multticlassing or the various ACFs, full variant classes, and the numerous addittional classes introduced throughout 3.5's lifetime? It sounds like your proposed fix would do diddly there.

[nedz]

Doesn't seem that hard. Your XP to get to the next level is based on the multiplier for the class you just took.

So if fighter is a x1 modifier, and wizard is a x2, A level 1 fighter would require 1,000 XP to hit level 2, and a level 1 wizard would require 2,000 XP to hit level 2.

The linear multiplier is inadequate, but even if it wasn't consider the sequence
Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 and compare it to Wizard 1 / Fighter 1
You have to base xp on the level you are about to take, not the previous one or the second build stub I just quoted costs 1,000 xp more.

[Phelix-Mu]

Another useful thing along these lines (though it doesn't improve balance much) were the achievement-based xp awards by class. Like fighters got bonus xp for each hd of enemy defeated, rogues got xp for treasure found/stolen and traps disarmed, and so forth. Most of the awards for mundane classes came up more often (except maybe for the healbot) from what I recall.

Anyway, it's an interesting thought. But, as I said, I'm not sure this improves things terribly much.

[Chronos]

In addition to trashing the 3rd edition multiclassing rules (which are much better than 2nd), the 2nd edition varying experience tables also introduced some horrible imbalances of its own. For instance, there were XP values at which the thief was better in every way than the fighter, or where the bard was better in every way than the wizard, in addition to having their own abilities.

[LordConcrete]

One problem I'd find with this is how do you handle multi-classing?
And a Wizard is not only more powerful than a fighter, but more versatile.
The only way a Fighter can imitate some of the higher level spells is with WBL and that's very expensive.

The only thing a level 20 fighter contributes more than a level 10 fighter is more WBL (this covers things like flight, teleport, etc)
I guess, one can trip better, hit things harder, maybe grapple more?
Not very impressive.

[The Trickster]

It's not meant to completely balance things, it was a passing idea that I thought could be a quick fix to make things somewhat more balanced.

I think it would help, but as others have pointed out, doing it would cause other issues (like multiclassing issues, etc).

Wizards dont have more raw power in 3.5 then they did in AD&D. The big difference is how much they get. I played an AD&D wizard, and at level 1, they could cast one spell a day. 3.5 gave wizards at least four (three level 0, one level 1) plus additional spells for high intelligence. Also, iirc, wizards in AD&D could only learn spells from scrolls, where in 3.5, they could learn spells from scrolls and would get two spells added per level.