AD&D Varied XP Chart and 3.5 Class Tiers

[RolandDeschain]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some who violently oppose any house rules, has anybody ever put any thought into using the class based xp charts(similar to AD&D) as a method of 'balancing' the classes?

[Stegyre]

Yes, and the observation is that this did not balance classes back in the day, when it was used. Moving away from that idea was probably a good idea.

[Amphetryon]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some who violently oppose any house rules, has anybody ever put any thought into using the class based xp charts(similar to AD&D) as a method of 'balancing' the classes?

Yes; we ran a PF game where T1-T2 Classes used the 'Slow' XP chart, T3-T4 Classes used the 'Medium' XP chart, and T5-T6 Classes used the 'Fast' chart. As far as the feedback was concerned, nobody felt outclassed or useless.

[Just to Browse]

"Power now" versus "Power later" trades are not good. Variant XP charts is one of those trades.

[Flickerdart]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some who violently oppose any house rules, has anybody ever put any thought into using the class based xp charts(similar to AD&D) as a method of 'balancing' the classes?
This suggestion comes up fairly consistently. The consensus is that the headache required to implement it for 3.5 (with multiclassing, prestige classes, more XP for lower levelled characters, and so forth) is simply not worth its marginal and dubious benefits. As with any blanket "fix", this punishes players who are not a problem anyway (low optimized characters now have trouble keeping up) while players with high system mastery can easily compensate by ratcheting up character power levels. What's that, Jimmy, you wanted to play a blaster sorcerer? Well too bad, you're 5 levels behind everyone else, so unless you pull out the Grease and Glitterdust, you're just not going to be able to keep up.

[Karl Aegis]

It certainly makes monster races more appealing. Treasure is going to be sporadic at best due to varying class levels, so better pack more power into your race. It's not like low tier classes have class features anyways.

[Necroticplague]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some who violently oppose any house rules, has anybody ever put any thought into using the class based xp charts(similar to AD&D) as a method of 'balancing' the classes?

I've thought about this approach when said AD&D thing was brought up while i was teaching 3.5 to somebody. I also concluded it was a horrible idea for a couple reasons:

1:Destruction of meaning of level. A level should actually mean something. Ideally, it should stand for a fixed unit of advancement and a fixed unit of power (so all level 10 characters are roughly as powerful, and take about the same amount or effort to get there). Under the current system, failing the second, it at least gives the level meaning by having it stand for a fixed level of advancement. If you make it so that the the amount of advancement required for a level is not the same for everyone, and the amount of power a level gives isn't roughly the same for everyone, then what does a 'level' actually mean? Why not just split up the more powerful classes so their benefits are more level-appropriately spread? It has the same effect, while still giving levels meaning.
2:Rules complications. The system, as it currently is, strongly encourages multiclassing for characters of all stripes. Warriors want to get actual class features (or at least keep up the rate of proggression of their class features), casters want to get some actual class features in addition to spellcasting, skillmonkeys want to be able to do more things with there skills. The multiclassing rules take this into account by being relatively simple and easy to use. Having differing classes with different advancement rates would force multiclassing to be a horrifically bloated, complicated mess (much like it was back in AD&D). "O.k., I have 5 levels in a fast-advancing class, 5 in a slow-advancing, 3 in a medium-advancing, then finish up with two more in a fast-advancing. What XP table do I use?" Unless you also want to re-introduce the old multiclassing rules, which, while a mess, at least incorporated the differing advancement rates easily enough.

[DMVerdandi]

Instead of having a different chart, If this is what you wish to do, simply add either one or two level adjustments to the classes you think are necessary. The XP chart is already there. Just bump them higher on it.

If that is what you want to do... It doesn't really fix much.

Personally, I would redo the casters and the martials in the phb.

>Ban wizard. Keep sorcerer. Give the sorcerer the ability to add spells to spells known with spell craft check, and an hour of study per spell level.

>Use spontaneous cleric, but give it spirit shaman casting mechanic.

>Ban Druid, use spirit shaman

>Fighter gains any 3 TOB schools at war blade progression.

>Ranger and Rogue get shadow hand, diamond mind, and tiger claw schools with swordsage progression

>Replace paladin with crusader

>completely replace monk with sword sage. Never look back.

>Barbarian gets iron heart, stone dragon, tiger claw at crusader progression

>Replace bard with marshal. Marshal gets white raven, iron heart, and diamond mind

>Make a feat that gives any 3 skills as class skills

>Make a feat that allows casters to swap their key ability score with another mental score.

>Make a feat that adds 2 bonus skill points at every level.

>Armor gains DR equal to AC+Enhancement bonus.

[RolandDeschain]

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the idea, I was simply wondering if anyone has put any thought into it or even attempted to utilize it.

The feedback, thus far, has been highly enlightening. As with any house rule, there seem to be a number of unintended consequences. I wholeheartedly agree that 3.5 encourages multi-classing and that as result keeping track of xp could be messy if you had three "Tiers" of xp advancement.

[Chronos]

>Ban wizard. Keep sorcerer. Give the sorcerer the ability to add spells to spells known with spell craft check, and an hour of study per spell level.
So, wizards are too powerful, but sorcerers who gain the wizard's main benefit in addition to keeping their own aren't?

[DMVerdandi]

So, wizards are too powerful, but sorcerers who gain the wizard's main benefit in addition to keeping their own aren't?
Forgot to say require XP to be spent (not a crazy amount, just something worth it. Maybe Spell level x 10)

I think that the book casting and prepared method do slow down a lot of gameplay with excess bookkeeping, I do.
Also wizards get bonus feats.
I didn't say that wizards were too powerful. I said to ban them.
They have a wonky mechanic that makes them quite unfriendly to newcomers upon first inspection.

[Sam K]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some who violently oppose any house rules, has anybody ever put any thought into using the class based xp charts(similar to AD&D) as a method of 'balancing' the classes?

Like many "fixes", this one will have trouble passing the "Will it be fun?" test. Playing a character who is several levels behind the party will be extremely dull for the first levels where casters are already weak (imagine being a lvl 5 sorc in a lvl 7 party - yay 2nd level spells!).

Also, how would you deal with xp gain and WBL? Do T1 classes get less loot? Do they get the same amount of exp as their higher level party members (or will they get more for being lower level)?

And like Flickerdart says, it would hit healbot clerics and blaster sorcerers who are really not that strong in the first place.

[atemu1234]

"Power now" versus "Power later" trades are not good. Variant XP charts is one of those trades.

This, basically. The system doesn't balance anything, it just slows it down. Like a boulder rolling down a hill. More people can escape the inevitable doom, but there's still going to be old people and puppies in the way.

[Zaq]

"Power now" versus "Power later" trades are not good. Variant XP charts is one of those trades.

Totally agreed. "Suck now, awesome later" is bad game design in a solo game, but it's horrific game design in a team game.

[Jormengand]

I had this with 10% bonus per tier below 1.

The DM thought that truenamers were tier 6. (In all fairness, they usually are. Usually)

Hilarity ensued.

[Chronos]

The varying-advancement-rate thing also led to weirdness like XP totals where the rogue was a better fighter than the fighter, or where the bard was a better wizard than the wizard.

[nedz]

I've looked at doing this several times. The trouble is that if people multi-class then the maths becomes a nightmare. Now it's no higher maths, just very confusing accounting.

Incidentally If you take the AD&D system as described in the 2E DMG and calculate the tables for the standard classes you will find that they are all over the place. I did run a 2E game using that system and it worked quite well — though I was using very non standard rules for Clerics and Wizards.

[endur]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some who violently oppose any house rules, has anybody ever put any thought into using the class based xp charts(similar to AD&D) as a method of 'balancing' the classes?

For AD&D it was fine. Although I think balanced xp would also have been fine for AD&D.

While I think it would be fine in 3.5, its an over complicated rule and I'm against adding "additional" over complicated rules to 3.5.

My favorite 3.5 game is core rules only (PHB I, MM I, and DMG I ... that's it, no PRCs for characters, no magic item shops, no leadership, etc.).

[Chronos]

My favorite 3.5 game is core rules only (PHB I, MM I, and DMG I ... that's it, no PRCs for characters, no magic item shops, no leadership, etc.).
You do realize that all three of those things are from the core rules.

[jjcrpntr]

You do realize that all three of those things are from the core rules.

I'm guessing he means he doesn't allow Prc's, Magic item shops or leadership.

[endur]

You do realize that all three of those things are from the core rules.

Actually, they are options that a GM can make available. Nowhere in the PHB does it say that magic item shops exist. Nor does the PHB mention the leadership feat. Nor does the PHB say your character can join the Assassin's Guild of Greyhawk.

But I see your point, core rules can include those options. .. I meant that I'm trying to reduce rules, so even options from the DMG I'm trying to reduce.

[Urpriest]

Actually, they are options that a GM can make available. Nowhere in the PHB does it say that magic item shops exist. Nor does the PHB mention the leadership feat. Nor does the PHB say your character can join the Assassin's Guild of Greyhawk.

But I see your point, core rules can include those options. .. I meant that I'm trying to reduce rules, so even options from the DMG I'm trying to reduce.

Indeed, neither the PHB nor the DMG even mentioned Greyhawk, or suggests that anyone should play in it. You'd need at least the Gazetteer.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Here's an idea;

Above level 5, the following apply;

1) Full casters progress as normal.

2) Warlock, Bard, Dragon Shaman, ToB and other supernatural classes progress at 2 class levels per character level.

3) Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk and other physical classes progress at 3 class levels per character level.

4) NPC classes progress at 4 class levels per character level.

5) Monster CR beyond the first 5 is halved.

[Chronos]

So, a level 10 character could be a fighter 5/wizard 5, or a wizard 5/fighter 15? I'm not sure what the benefit is to starting this only after level 5.

[Telok]

My preferred solution is pretty minimalist. Remove stat bonuses from casting and kill metamagic reducers. A high casting stat no longer provides bonus spells or higher DCs. The metamagic thing is pretty self explanatory.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

So, a level 10 character could be a fighter 5/wizard 5, or a wizard 5/fighter 15? I'm not sure what the benefit is to starting this only after level 5.

The speed-up I put after lvl 5 'cause casters are pretty weak at the first few levels. I guess a clause about counting the caster levels always first is needed. That way, a fighter 15/wizard 5 is always a 10th level character no matter the order the levels are taken.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

My preferred solution is pretty minimalist. Remove stat bonuses from casting and kill metamagic reducers. A high casting stat no longer provides bonus spells or higher DCs. The metamagic thing is pretty self explanatory.

Yeah, now the wizard only puts a 14 in his Intelligence, gets the rest via stat-boosters till he hits 19 and puts his highest ability scores in Constitution and Dexterity.

You actually made the buffer wizards that much stronger since they have higher base physical stats. The control wizards don't care since their spells have no saving throws anyway. And the only caster types that are hurt are the blaster-types that use their magic directly to hurt enemies.

[Chronos]

Quoth Belial_the_Leveler:

The speed-up I put after lvl 5 'cause casters are pretty weak at the first few levels.
Everyone's weak at the first few levels; that's what those levels are for. Well, more precisely, everyone except about five classes are weak in the first levels, and one of those five that isn't weak then happens to be the druid.

[Telok]

You actually made the buffer wizards that much stronger since they have higher base physical stats. The control wizards don't care since their spells have no saving throws anyway. And the only caster types that are hurt are the blaster-types that use their magic directly to hurt enemies.

Actually most control spells have saves. This helps bring the saves down into the manageable range where someone's good saves are actually good and the bad saves aren't a 95% failure. The blasters still blast just fine, saves still do half damage and mooks die easy. Plus the orbs and other ranged touch spells are unchanged.

The biggest difference, which most people overlook, is that the casters stop getting bonus spells. The fifth level wizard has one or two 3rd level spells instead of three or four. Casters stop casing spells every round (well, the smart ones) and start developing answers other than "cast another spell at it." You can talk about scrolls and wands making up the difference but the WBL and the choice to include a magic-mart doesn't change so there's really no difference unless the caster wants to start spending more of his money on consumables.

It's the fewer spells per day that make the difference in how things play out. It achieves the goal that I want in my games, less total caster dominance by fewer spells per day over the same number of encounters and problems.

[Chronos]

Well, once you get to mid-levels, the casters can still throw a spell every round... but most of them will be lower-level spells, so you've got that, at least.

[Flickerdart]

It's the fewer spells per day that make the difference in how things play out. It achieves the goal that I want in my games, less total caster dominance by fewer spells per day over the same number of encounters and problems.
YMMV but I don't see "you get to do the same overpowered stuff, but only half the time, and the other half the time you get to play a commoner with a rat" to be a good solution. It's hard to feel heroic when you know you're swinging your sword only because Marvin the Mage can't be arsed to use his precious slots.