Has anyone ever proposed some kind of inverted LA for high tier classes?

[Red Bear]

by inverted I mean that instead of mattering less with each level it matters more, it works the same for the rest of the things.

Something like a druid of lvl 1 has a LA of +0
a druid of level 7 has a LA of +1
lvl 10 +2
lvl 14 +3
16 +4
....
(the numbers are random)

[Rogue Shadows]

I'd personally just bring back AD&D's "different classes level up at different rates," were I going to do anything like that. Seems a bit cleaner.

[Ravens_cry]

How does this work, exactly? When they hit an LA level do they need twice the XP for that level to reach the next one? Or do they need that levels worth AND what would be needed for the NEXT level to go up?

[Jeff the Green]

Yes. The problem is multiclassing: if a factotum dips cleric 1 for travel and knowledge devotion, does he have the LA? What about a Wizard 10/Cleric 10? Gish builds? PrCs that change your tiers significantly?

[Crake]

I'd personally just bring back AD&D's "different classes level up at different rates," were I going to do anything like that. Seems a bit cleaner.

Yeah, this is how I'd run something like this to be honest, although it does make multiclassing a bit confusing

[Rogue Shadows]

For the record, here are the XP tables, at least according to my Baldur's Gate II manual, though I only reprinted them out to 10th level.

Table A: Warriors (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger)
{table=header]Level|Fighter, Barbarian|Paladin, Ranger
1st|0|0
2nd|2,000|2,250
3rd|4,000|4,500
4th|8,000|9,000
5th|16,000|18,000
6th|32,000|36,000
7th|64,000|75,000
8th|125,000|150,000
9th|250,000|300,000
10th|500,000|600,000[/table]

Table B: Rogues (Rogues, Bards)
{table=header]Level|Experience
1st|0
2nd|1,250
3rd|2,500
4th|5,000
5th|10,000
6th|20,000
7th|40,000
8th|70,000
9th|110,000
10th|160,000[/table]

Table C: Priests (Cleric, Druid, Monk)
{table=header]Level|Experience
1st|0
2nd|1,500
3rd|3,000
4th|6,000
5th|13,000
6th|27,500
7th|55,000
8th|110,000
9th|225,000
10th|450,000[/table]

Table D: Mages (Sorcerers, Wizards)
{table=header]Level|Experience Required
1st|0
2nd|2,500
3rd|5,000
4th|10,000
5th|20,000
6th|40,000
7th|60,000
8th|90,000
9th|135,000
10th|250,000[/table]

Now, obviously, these need some rather steep adjustment if we're doing it according to tier rather than thematic association. Still, it's food for thought.

As for multiclassing...
I dunno; how did AD&D work it?

The absolute simplest thing to do that I can think of, is that every time you get XP, you can choose how you want to invest it in each class, and you only level up when you choose to. You pick up your first level of a new class by paying the amount of XP required to take its 1st level.

So, for example, a Level 1 Fighter finds himself with 1,250 XP. He chooses to, rather than keep saving it up in fighter, spend it into becoming a Rogue. So he's now a Fighter 1/Rogue 1.

He fights and kills a few things, and gets himself another 1,250 XP. He can choose to either keep it and save it to go to Fighter 2; or spend it to go to Rogue 2. Let's say he chooses to go Rogue 2.

Our Fgt1/Rog2 fights and kills as few more things and gets himself a hefty 5,000 XP because his DM is generous or something. He chooses to split this XP evenly between his two classes: 2,500 each. This makes him now a Fgt2/Rog3, with 500 spare XP remaining.

Or something, I dunno.

[mucat]

One thing I've considered -- especially when I want a slightly-lower-magic feel for a setting -- is to require full casters to multi-class a little. Every five levels, they must take one level in something that does not advance their main casting progression.

Ninth-level spells enter Epic territory in this system, which I find perfectly reasonable. A wizard or cleric hobbled a bit by multiclassing still competes perfectly well with the Tier 3 classes which many people consider the "sweet spot" of D&D. And a lot of interesting theurge-type builds suddenly become viable, since they're no longer competing with full Tier-1 casters.

[Pluto!]

Leaving aside the implementation issues with PrCs, multiclassing, etc., I don't like this style of fix because adjustments along these lines don't a address the systemic problems that create class imbalances, and for players who use the classes without creating problems for the campaign, wind up seeming arbitrarily punitive.

But if you use this, I'd be curious to hear your players' reactions to the rules.

[nedz]

I have looked at this, the trouble is that the adjustments are linear and yet we have a non-linear relationship between the casters and non-casters. This is what you have to fix.

It's also quite complicated, especially with multiclassing — though the latter can be done, but it's not pretty.

[Larkas]

As for multiclassing...
I dunno; how did AD&D work it?

It worked completely differently from how multiclassing works in 3.X.

I'm going from memory here, but IIRC, if you had a multiclass character (which meant not being human, as humans couldn't multiclass), you divided your XP total evenly among your classes. When a class (not a character) reached the XP total for the next level, it would level up. For example, if an elven Fighter 1/ Mage 1/ Cleric 1 received 6000 XP, it would become (according to Rogue Shadows' table) a Fighter 2/ Mage 1/ Cleric 2.

Humans could, however, dual class. That meant selecting a new class and abandoning your old class for a time (until the new class's level is higher than the old's). The experience total was also separated. If a human Fighter 10 decided to become a Fighter/Rogue, it would attain its second Rogue level at just 1,250 XP.

Summing up, it was kind of messy, but I guess a few parts could be salvaged into 3.X. Specifically, I don't think that having different base classes with different XP totals is such a bad idea. How that would interact with PrCs, however, is beyond me. ECL would have to be thrown out the window too, I guess. Or not. You could go simply by a character's total XP and figure out its ECL.

[Vhaidara]

I remember the different XP values. If I remember my BG2 manual correctly, a druid hit level 14 at the same time Thief and Bard hit level 23.

As far as multiclassing, I believe it worked like this (at least in BG itself)
You start with 1 level in all of your multiclasses (options limited by race, humans couldn't multiclass). No more than 3 classes.
When you get experience, it is evenly distributed between all of your classes.
So you want to play a Fighter/Wizard/Thief. you start as a Fighter 1/Thief 1/Wizard 1.
You get 4500XP. You are now a Fighter 1 (1500)/Thief 2 (1500)/Wizard 1 (1500).
You get 1500 more. Fighter 2 (2000)/Thief 2 (2000)/Wizard 1 (2000)
1500 more. Fighter 2 (2500)/Thief 3 (2500)/Wizard 2 (2500).

Meanwhile, your single classed cleric friend is level 4, closing in on level 5.

EDIT: bloody ninja swordsage xvart! There is no 2nd edition equivalent!

[Rogue Shadows]

I remember the different XP values. If I remember my BG2 manual correctly, a druid hit level 14 at the same time Thief and Bard hit level 23.

Let's see...Clerics, Druids, and Monks hit level 14 at 1,350,000. At that much XP, the Rogue or Bard is level 16 (1,320,000), working towards level 17

(For the record - the Fighter or Barbarian is at level 13, the Paladin or Ranger at level 12, and the Sorcerer or Wizard at level 13. So there is some disparity, but nothing huge).

[Jeff the Green]

That sounds like a headache.

Another problem to consider is that this would make casters very squishy. While that's an acceptable choice, it will represent a significant departure from 3.5's style and force casters to be even more paranoid. Expect a lot of buffing, scrying, teleportation, contingencies, and initiative optimization.

If I wanted to reduce the quadradicity of casters I'd either take mucat's suggestion (which would have the additional benefit of reducing the opportunity cost of PrCs that lose a few casting levels) or slow down the casting progression. Maybe to a max of 7th-level spells so full casters still have a bit of an advantage over bards. I might also implement SonofZeal's minimum intervention fix. This might have the effect of increasing the value of no-save spells and DC-boosters, but those are going to be in play in higher op circles anyway, which is when you'd want to pull out this nerf.

[Eldan]

I had a similar idea. Not level adjustments, though.

Instead, all full caster classes would be prestige classes with requirements.

Wizard, requirements: Knowledge: Arcane 8 ranks, Spellcraft 8 ranks, Knowledge: any two others 8 ranks.
Sorcerer: Spellcraft 8 ranks, Concentration 8 ranks
Cleric: Knowledge: religion 8 ranks, light armour proficiency, heal 8 ranks
Cleric (cloistered): K:religion 8 ranks, K:the planes 8 ranks, heal 8 ranks, knowledge (any one other) 8 ranks
Druid: K:nature: 8 ranks, handle animal 8 ranks.

Something like that.

So, you'd have something like a bard 5/cleric 10 or Ranger 5/Druid 10 or Factotum 5/Wizard 10.

Some class features would have to be adapted, of course.

[Red Bear]

I'd personally just bring back AD&D's "different classes level up at different rates," were I going to do anything like that. Seems a bit cleaner.
I guess this would accomplish the same result much more elegantly


How does this work, exactly? When they hit an LA level do they need twice the XP for that level to reach the next one? Or do they need that levels worth AND what would be needed for the NEXT level to go up?

I have no idea, I was literally asking if someone has made a functioning system, I wrote this to give a better understanding of what I was asking


Yes. The problem is multiclassing: if a factotum dips cleric 1 for travel and knowledge devotion, does he have the LA? What about a Wizard 10/Cleric 10? Gish builds? PrCs that change your tiers significantly?
I think the system proposed by shadow run makes sense



Now, obviously, these need some rather steep adjustment if we're doing it according to tier rather than thematic association.
Of course


As for multiclassing...
I dunno; how did AD&D work it?

The absolute simplest thing to do that I can think of, is that every time you get XP, you can choose how you want to invest it in each class, and you only level up when you choose to. You pick up your first level of a new class by paying the amount of XP required to take its 1st level.

So, for example, a Level 1 Fighter finds himself with 1,250 XP. He chooses to, rather than keep saving it up in fighter, spend it into becoming a Rogue. So he's now a Fighter 1/Rogue 1.

He fights and kills a few things, and gets himself another 1,250 XP. He can choose to either keep it and save it to go to Fighter 2; or spend it to go to Rogue 2. Let's say he chooses to go Rogue 2.

Our Fgt1/Rog2 fights and kills as few more things and gets himself a hefty 5,000 XP because his DM is generous or something. He chooses to split this XP evenly between his two classes: 2,500 each. This makes him now a Fgt2/Rog3, with 500 spare XP remaining.

Or something, I dunno.
This idea makes perfect sense, I like it.


One thing I've considered -- especially when I want a slightly-lower-magic feel for a setting -- is to require full casters to multi-class a little. Every five levels, they must take one level in something that does not advance their main casting progression.

Ninth-level spells enter Epic territory in this system, which I find perfectly reasonable. A wizard or cleric hobbled a bit by multiclassing still competes perfectly well with the Tier 3 classes which many people consider the "sweet spot" of D&D. And a lot of interesting theurge-type builds suddenly become viable, since they're no longer competing with full Tier-1 casters.
I had Tier 3 classes in mind when I asked this question. I guess your system kinda works but it's not exactly what I was looking for.


Leaving aside the implementation issues with PrCs, multiclassing, etc., I don't like this style of fix because adjustments along these lines don't a address the systemic problems that create class imbalances, and for players who use the classes without creating problems for the campaign, wind up seeming arbitrarily punitive.

But if you use this, I'd be curious to hear your players' reactions to the rules.
If you have "good" players then the standard rule it's fine, but if you have people that are playing d&d for the first time or "bad player" a system like this could be useful.


I have looked at this, the trouble is that the adjustments are linear and yet we have a non-linear relationship between the casters and non-casters. This is what you have to fix.

It's also quite complicated, especially with multiclassing — though the latter can be done, but it's not pretty.
this is why I wrote that it should be an "inverted LA" that increases with levels.

[Gemini476]

As for multiclassing...
I dunno; how did AD&D work it?

Pretty badly, to be honest. Although it was kind of a Gestalt system, in retrospect.

Depending on your race, you have a number of multiclass options available to you - Fighter/Mage, Cleric/Thief, Fighter/Thief/Mage, etc. If you are Human, you can also Dual Class. I'll get into that in a bit.

When you multiclass, you level up in both classes at the same time - you split all XP you get evenly between your classes and use their individual XP tables. Due to how the math worked on the XP tables (a rough doubling of XP needed to reach each level), your multiclass character was rarely more than a level behind characters of similar classes.
As for specific mechanics, you average the HP gained at each level and split the Con bonus between the classes - a Fighter X/Mage Y will only get the full Con bonus for level X when he's a Fighter Z/Mage X.
Otherwise it's pretty much gestalt, with you getting the best saves and proficiencies and starting money of your classes.

Dual Classing is something Humans can do, and it's a bit weird. After you've taken two levels in a class, you can begin to take levels in another class (starting at level 0). You can only use the abilities of the class you are currently using - or rather, if you use any abilities of your old class then you forfeit your XP for the encounter and halve your XP for the adventure.

There's probably some more things I didn't mention, like Elf multiclass Mages being the only ones that can wear armor, but I'm not that familiar with the AD&D rules.

Also the XP tables were pretty borked. Why does the Monk take more XP to level than the Mage?

[Gnome Alone]

Reading the title I thought maybe "high tier" meant in this case tiers 4-6, those being the higher numbers, and that perhaps "inverted LA" would involve letting people playing the more limited tiers to have a certain strata of level-adjusted races for free; let the Fighter be a Minotaur and such-like. This not being the case in the OP, I would nevertheless posit it as a more fun solution.

[Invader]

I still like giving tier 1 casters bard progression casting.

I think for the amount of effort involved that's the most eloquent solution.

[Larkas]

I had a similar idea. Not level adjustments, though.

Instead, all full caster classes would be prestige classes with requirements.

Wizard, requirements: Knowledge: Arcane 8 ranks, Spellcraft 8 ranks, Knowledge: any two others 8 ranks.
Sorcerer: Spellcraft 8 ranks, Concentration 8 ranks
Cleric: Knowledge: religion 8 ranks, light armour proficiency, heal 8 ranks
Cleric (cloistered): K:religion 8 ranks, K:the planes 8 ranks, heal 8 ranks, knowledge (any one other) 8 ranks
Druid: K:nature: 8 ranks, handle animal 8 ranks.

Something like that.

So, you'd have something like a bard 5/cleric 10 or Ranger 5/Druid 10 or Factotum 5/Wizard 10.

Some class features would have to be adapted, of course.

Think Expert 5/ All-the-above 10. I'd actually increase them to 15 levels to avoid fast progression. Not sure I love the idea, but IIRC something like that was used in d20 modern.

[Eldan]

Think Expert 5/ All-the-above 10. I'd actually increase them to 15 levels to avoid fast progression. Not sure I love the idea, but IIRC something like that was used in d20 modern.

Oh yeah. Certainly 15. Those were just example build. I'm not sure I'd require Expert. That might be a bit too harsh for the first five levels. Rogue, Factotum, Bard, etc. are all fine classes.

[Pluto!]

If you have "good" players then the standard rule it's fine, but if you have people that are playing d&d for the first time or "bad player" a system like this could be useful.
I don't know that it would be. A level 16 Sorcerer under the hands of a well-versed player is still playing a fundamentally different game than a level 20 Fighter, but a level 16 Sorcerer who is being built and played poorly, doing 15d6 energy damage per round or whatever, is going to suck anyway and is going to be punished for it.

This seems like the kind of rule that, under the right circumstances, will slightly inconvenience players who are going to break things anyway, but under most circumstances will just be an unfun slog for players who use certain classes without giving anything more fun or useful to anybody involved.

If the goal is normalizing the power levels between characters, there are plenty of classes floating around books and the internet that can be used to do just that - just replacing the default class options with Beguiler-styled casters (there are a million homebrews for any archetype) and ToB-styled mundane dudes (or other "melee fix" subsystem) will address the system's problems more directly, will better control for character build mistakes and will package interesting classes and abilities along with the weaker casting lists instead of just making certain classes bad in ways that don't affect their gamebreaking elements.

[Darth Stabber]

Tier based gestalt is a far simpler solution for this usecase. Not perfect, but easier to implement and likely just as a effective as the other options presented here.

[Rakaydos]

I think aa modified version of Dual Classisng from ADD2nd would work.

That is, you can choose to start leveling up a different class each level, without missing out on your existing classes. That would maintain the 3.x style multiclassing with 2nd ed XP charts.

[Shining Wrath]

I'd personally just bring back AD&D's "different classes level up at different rates," were I going to do anything like that. Seems a bit cleaner.

My thought exactly. Learning a new level of Wizard was 3x as hard as learning a new level of rogue.

[Larkas]

Oh yeah. Certainly 15. Those were just example build. I'm not sure I'd require Expert. That might be a bit too harsh for the first five levels. Rogue, Factotum, Bard, etc. are all fine classes.

Hmmm, I guess you're right. Must've been a knee-jerk reaction http://nirmukta.net/images/smilies/set1_b/sweatdrop.gif