Help with making leveling up a class cost a certain amount of xp

[Srasy]

I am thinking about running a campaign soon where everyone starts with 3 level 1 commoners and 600xp
Every feat would be 200xp
1 level of commoner would be 200xp
1 level of truenamer 300xp
1 level a of tier 4 class or below 400xp
1 level of a tier 3 class 600xp
1 level of a tier 2 class800xp
1 level of tier a 1 class 1000 xp
I'm thinking about giving everyone about 1000
After every session
Have 32 pb
And e6 la buy off rules (by reducing pb)

Do you think these values are fair?
What do you think I could/should change?
What are some potential problems I should be aware of/things I should ban outright?
Are there any rpg systems I could look at that are similar to this idea that I could look for inspiration or has someone written something like this before me and where could I find it?
What should I do about the death of someone's character because having someone level up a barbarian to get through early levels then have him die then make a wizard by just transferring the xp from the old character to the new one... Should there be xp loss if a character dies? If so how much?
If I make a cap on the level difference between all the players characters how much should it be? Is 3 a good number? Or should I live it as a free for all?

What I'm going for is a more tactics based high mortality game mode that seeks to slightly balance out some of the problems with regular dnd...

I just need help wih clarifying the rules because I'm kinda scared of 12 pixie warlocks sniping a big baddie then running out or bard stacking... Or a multitude of other things that might be troublesome...

Thanks for your help and the time it has taken you to read this giant block of text.

[Psycho Yuffie]

I like this idea. Seriously. Honestly, I can't see there being a level cap in this system, though. If you can just keep buying levels, the levels could be infinite--in theory. LA kinda loses its power, though. You could have races with LA start with less or negative XP to spend, I guess. I'm not sure what PB is supposed to mean...

Someone should help this thread out. I'm really interested, but don't have the knowledge to make a system this in-depth.

[Vadskye]

This is a very bad idea. Suppose you have a party with 2000xp. You could be:
A level 5 fighter (~42 HP)
A level 2 wizard (~10HP)
A level 1 fighter with 8 feats (~12HP)
A level 1 wizard with 2 feats (~6HP)


You can't run a sane game if you have a character with 42HP and a character with 6HP in the same party.

[Just to Browse]

Vadskye hit the nail on the head. Trying to squish an level-based system into an XP system is not the way to go, because level systems tie themselves to numeric stuff (like BAB, HP, saves) so every character without horizontal power only gets vertical power to compensate.

You know how people will always post on fighter fixes saying "The fighter is still tier 4, just with bigger numbers"? This does the same thing, but on crack.

[Realms of Chaos]

Actually, I think that I might like this system for a number of reasons:

1. Truenamers can gain ranks at the rate they need to remain usable (if CRs aren't calculated according to their level).
2. As long as challenges are set according to the most powerful non-truenamer, full casters actually feel squishy and things like high HD, high saves, and high SR are actually used by enemies at low levels when it is relevant.
3. By the time Casters take off as usual at levels 5-7, low-strength martial types have fully set into their ubercharging/infinite-trip locks and have been dominating combat for several levels.
4. Because of slower development, tenser's transformation and divine power get a big nerf and even spells like glibness or jump feel a bit more like they exist to fill the ever-growing skill deficit full casters face (EX: for every rank a wizard puts in a cross-class skill like bluff, a rogue can put 5 ranks).
5. Animal companions and summoned creatures are almost never better in battle than the party meat-shield and the saves of noncaster scale fast enough to make dominating minions require even more optimization.
6. There is less disparity between first-string and second-string casters for quite a long time (when a wizard reaches level 6, the sorcerer is equally close to 4th-level spells and the bard already has some).

Mind you, the caster still ends up owning the entire world and doing whatever it wants at the end of the day. In the meantime, though, this system seems to introduce a good amount of equity. :smallconfused:

[chaos_redefined]

This is a very bad idea. Suppose you have a party with 2000xp. You could be:
A level 5 fighter (~42 HP)
A level 2 wizard (~10HP)
A level 1 fighter with 8 feats (~12HP)
A level 1 wizard with 2 feats (~6HP)


You can't run a sane game if you have a character with 42HP and a character with 6HP in the same party.

I feel that people are ignoring the results shown here. Sure, it sounds good to have people on different levels, but the numbers just don't work out. Even if we cut back the differences, so that a fighter gets 2 levels for every level the wizard has, you are now comparing a fighter 10 to a wizard 5. Are you supposed to use CR 10 creatures, CR 5 creatures, or somewhere in the middle?

[Psycho Yuffie]

I think you're missing out on the point of the thread. You're just saying it doesn't work without providing any helpful suggestions. He made this thread to get feedback to make something like this work, not to be told it sucks and that's it.

[TuggyNE]

I think you're missing out on the point of the thread. You're just saying it doesn't work without providing any helpful suggestions. He made this thread to get feedback to make something like this work, not to be told it sucks and that's it.

Sometimes ideas don't work out and there is no obvious way to make them function. What then?

[malonkey1]

Sometimes ideas don't work out and there is no obvious way to make them function. What then?

Well, think of a non-obvious way. What I'd do would actually untie BAB etc. from levels directly, so your save bonuses & BAB are set to poor by default and hit dice are always d6, and your base saves, hit dice and BAB are based on total XP earned, while class levels are bought with XP, and levels grant bonuses to BAB, HP, and saves.

For example, Barbarian levels might offer, say, +1/2 level BAB, +1/3 level Fort saves, and 3 bonus HP/level, while a Wizard would offer no BAB, +1/3 level Will saves, and no bonus HP.

Additionally, what I'd do is make each level in a class more expensive (say, each level costs the level*the original cost, so Wizard levels would cost 1000-2000-3000-so on.) But that's just me.

[Realms of Chaos]

I feel that people are ignoring the results shown here. Sure, it sounds good to have people on different levels, but the numbers just don't work out. Even if we cut back the differences, so that a fighter gets 2 levels for every level the wizard has, you are now comparing a fighter 10 to a wizard 5. Are you supposed to use CR 10 creatures, CR 5 creatures, or somewhere in the middle?

I'd say CR 10 creatures. Hell, I'd say to set CR at Total XP rewarded/400. You can set treasure according to this value as well, aiding the survival of low-leveled players in the process.

Obviously, changing just this will lead to problems. I would make a couple of further additions to this arrangement:
1. Remove the option to buy feats and let them be gained by level normally. I honestly don't know why that was done and it leads to lots of traps as shown in previous examples.
2. Either follow the example of 4e and give everyone +20 HP at level 1 (so high tier classes can survive a hit or two until they're strong enough to actually protect themselves) or make a decent tanking mechanic (so that 23 hp can last in CR 10 combat).

Again, to state the obvious, this arrangement puts high-tier classes on "catch-up" duty, forcing them to use their resources to shore their poor skills, poor saves, and poor offense. With that said, high-tier classes actually have those resources so I fail to see any of the "math problems" people keep talking about unless you want to point them out in more detail.

[malonkey1]

I'd say CR 10 creatures. Hell, I'd say to set CR at Total XP rewarded/400. You can set treasure according to this value as well, aiding the survival of low-leveled players in the process.

Obviously, changing just this will lead to problems. I would make a couple of further additions to this arrangement:
1. Remove the option to buy feats and let them be gained by level normally. I honestly don't know why that was done and it leads to lots of traps as shown in previous examples.
2. Either follow the example of 4e and give everyone +20 HP at level 1 (so high tier classes can survive a hit or two until they're strong enough to actually protect themselves) or make a decent tanking mechanic (so that 23 hp can last in CR 10 combat).

Again, to state the obvious, this arrangement puts high-tier classes on "catch-up" duty, forcing them to use their resources to shore their poor skills, poor saves, and poor offense. With that said, high-tier classes actually have those resources so I fail to see any of the "math problems" people keep talking about unless you want to point them out in more detail.

Agreed. Really, the math issues only come up in low-level play, where a mage's spells can't last through the day reliably. At 5th level-equaivalent and beyond, the issues dissolve.

[Vadskye]

Agreed. Really, the math issues only come up in low-level play, where a mage's spells can't last through the day reliably. At 5th level-equaivalent and beyond, the issues dissolve.

The math issues never dissolve. This system says that a 20th level warmage can handle the same challenges as an 8th level wizard. That's insane. Go ahead - try it with a playgroup. Run some sample encounters yourself. The whole concept is broken.

Yes, high tier classes have a great deal of flexibility and utility. That is "horizontal power", as Just_to_Browse put it. Giving lower tier classes nigh-infinite numbers ("vertical power") is not a good solution.

Srasy, you are better off pursuing the "automatic gestalt" idea proposed in the tier thread (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.msg176410#msg176410). Like your system, it is a tier-based approach to power balancing that grants "more levels" to lower-tier classes, but without breaking the game.

[Just to Browse]

The base numbers aren't just off concerning HP, they're also completely crazy regarding saves, AC/BAB, and HD-derived benefits. Level-appropriate turning is now effectively impossible from character generation (and actually impossible by Clr3), save-or-X effects now completely crap on high-tier classes for most of relevant gameplay, and there are so many "Free Ticket to Win Combat" abuses that it's not even funny.

If the high-tier classes pick really abusive abilities like no-save/no-sr attacks and free persisted buffs, then if you knocked down the XP cost so that fighters are only twice the level of wizards, then maybe you could have a somewhat balanced game if the enemies used really dumb tactics, but 90% of the playspace for this game is Utter Dismal Failure.

My recommendation to make this better is to rewrite it. Even if D&D had easily-distinguishable boundaries of balance and math that worked, the basic premise of granting orders of magnitude more vertical power in exchange for that much less horizontal power is a non-starter.

[yougi]

A way to solve the HP problem is to change how HP is calculated. If first level is as much hp as other levels, then it won't work. If, however, you have a boost at first level, and the HP gain of other levels is less, then it evens it out.

Take 4E: Each class has a set amount of HP/level (let's say 3 for a caster, 4 for rogues and clerics and the like, and 5 for front-liners). At first level, you get your Con score + your class HP. Every other level, you only get the class HP.

That way, a 1st level wizard with 14 Con would have 17HP, while the 5th level fighter, even if it's a Dwarf with 20 Con, would have 45. The gap is much smaller.

That, however, doesn't solve the horizontal vs vertical power.

[Realms of Chaos]

I've never understood the claim that vertical advancement can't be used to instate balance to some limited degree.

The thing about spell casters is that their power isn't nearly as uniformly lateral as people seem to suggest. You CAN do lateral things with magic like scry or teleport or use death effects but the same resources used for this lateral power also have to be used to gain vertical magic power like assay spell resistance, cl boosters, divine power, haste, and other buffs.

From what I can tell, the point here isn't to give noncasters huge numbers but to give casters super SMALL numbers so that they have to use some of their resources on shoring their weaknesses (leaving them less stuff to use on horizontal power).

Regarding the warmage/wizard battle, that is actually something I would actually like to see. Eclectic learning shenanigans would certainly give the warmage the edge in battle but I'm not too sure how one-sided things would really be and the wizard could almost certainly handle some challenges better than the warmage (challenge =\= battle and most "tier challenges involve multiple scenarios where the level 8 wizard would trump the level 20 warmage).

Also, I find it a bit disengenuous to claim that bigger numbers won't help mundane characters when another complaint against them is that an animal companion, summoned arachnid, or pumped CoDzilla takes their jobs... But that's a whole other matter.

[Just to Browse]

I've never understood the claim that vertical advancement can't be used to instate balance to some limited degree.It can be, but it's kind of like UV light. If you are exposed to a bunch of UV light, you get cancer and that's bad. But a little is better than none at all.

In D&D, this principle applies to the balance of spirit shaman (daily flexibility, less power) and the sorcerer (by-level flexibility, more power).


The thing about spell casters is that their power isn't nearly as uniformly lateral as people seem to suggest. You CAN do lateral things with magic like scry or teleport or use death effects but the same resources used for this lateral power also have to be used to gain vertical magic power like assay spell resistance, cl boosters, divine power, haste, and other buffs.Oh boy I can't wait to get haste and CL boosters when the rogue can deal twice my HP in damage from 60 feet away.


Regarding the warmage/wizard battle, that is actually something I would actually like to see. Eclectic learning shenanigans would certainly give the warmage the edge in battle but I'm not too sure how one-sided things would really be and the wizard could almost certainly handle some challenges better than the warmage (challenge =\= battle and most "tier challenges involve multiple scenarios where the level 8 wizard would trump the level 20 warmage).They could not. A level 20 warmage challenge includes CR 16-20 outsiders. The wizard can't beat their saves or AC, and will die in one hit.


Also, I find it a bit disengenuous to claim that bigger numbers won't help mundane characters when another complaint against them is that an animal companion, summoned arachnid, or pumped CoDzilla takes their jobs... But that's a whole other matter.Again, bigger numbers are not a problem all the time. Full BAB v. Low BAB is a thing that exists and people are OK with that. The problem is when you give the fighter +50 HP, +10 to hit, +20 to damage, and say it's "balanced" to the wizard. That's not good design.