"Balancing" Level Progression

[RNightstalker]

Back in 1st Edition, the amount of experience it took to level up differed between each class. Would something like that work if houseruled into 3.x?

For example, a Thief needs 1251 to get to 2nd level, vs. 2501 for a "Wizard".

What does the Playground think?

[HouseRules]

We are using 2, 3 sequence of preferred numbers.
Experience should be half of AD&D from level 1 to level 2.

Level 1 to 2
Rogues 625 xp
Clerics 750 xp
Fighters 1000 xp
Wizards 1250 xp

Then, we need to adjust them right?

Still, the Divine Casters are stronger, so it would not do so well without more adjustments.

[Anymage]

2e needed really hacky methods of dual classing/multiclassing (and those were different things with different rules) in order to make different XP charts work. Ease of multiclassing was the whole point behind 3e's unified progression chart, and the ease of multiclassing feeds directly into prestige classes. You'd be breaking a lot just to have your XP differences.

On top of that, you still don't change the fact that casters get all sorts of amazing new powers while mundanes just get bigger numbers. Making those numbers comparatively bigger can stave off the fighter's being outclassed by summoned allies for a bit, but doesn't change the fundamental difference in the games that they play.

[RNightstalker]

You'd be breaking a lot just to have your XP differences.

On top of that, you still don't change the fact that casters get all sorts of amazing new powers while mundanes just get bigger numbers. Making those numbers comparatively bigger can stave off the fighter's being outclassed by summoned allies for a bit, but doesn't change the fundamental difference in the games that they play.

Breaking a lot? Such as...?

I understand the difference between powers and numbers you mentioned, which is why I'm looking at a way to progress the numbers faster than the powers.

[HouseRules]

Breaking a lot? Such as...?

I understand the difference between powers and numbers you mentioned, which is why I'm looking at a way to progress the numbers faster than the powers.

That would require different formulas for the levels entirely.

Martial Characters have a fixed xp per level. All at 1000 xp per level regardless of their level.
Then Casters have geometric level (using the preferred number sequence of 2, 3 as stated in the level independent experience in unearthed arcana).

[Anymage]

Breaking a lot? Such as...?

Multiclassing. Prestige classing. I mentioned these specifically. Your system breaks with anything other than single-classed characters.

If you try creating alternate multiclassing systems, you have a lot of fiddly bits that depend on levels. Feats come immediately to mind. You also force yourself to ask how much a given level of a class will cost. Will a second level fighter buying their first level of wizard cost the XP for a first level wizard (in which case, dipping the first level of a bunch of classes becomes cheap and desirable), or will it have the XP costs for a third level wizard (in which case, you create optimal and suboptimal XP paths for identical builds).

[Quertus]

Breaking a lot? Such as...?

So, for around 20k XP (probably less), I take 1 level in 20 classes, and go Epic. Level dipping for the win!

Also, for balance, 1st level Wizards should probably level the fastest; their progression should suddenly slow around… 5th, maybe?

[Crake]

The easy solution to multiclassing is to use gestalt-based multiclassing rather than stacking multiclassing, which is actually I believe how 2e did it (essentially). Prestige classes seem to be pretty simple to solve, just continue the same progression as the class that the prestige class is advancing (a bit more difficult for dual progression prestige classes, but if you're gestalt multiclassing then dual progression prestige classes are a bit moot and shouldn't be included anyway).

[pabelfly]

Balancing class through mechanics like XP gain neglects to consider that not everyone optimizes to the same extent. Seems much easier to balance a party by giving out magic items to help underperforming players instead.

[Quertus]

Balancing class through mechanics like XP gain neglects to consider that not everyone optimizes to the same extent. Seems much easier to balance a party by giving out magic items to help underperforming players instead.

Agreed. Balance to the table. Attempts to alter mechanics to enforce balance not only often fall flat, but make it more difficult for the players to actually achieve balance through their choices. So, IME, it's best to ask, if the most skilled player, the worst noob, and the most "for the character" player start with the least balanced base, can they make build choices to make their characters balanced, if that's something that they all want? In 3e, the answer is "yes". Make sure that any modifications to the system don't change that.

For me, the biggest question to ask (when looking at single vs multiple XP tables) is, is it better for everyone to level at the same time, or for characters to level in a "staggered" fashion. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

[HouseRules]

You have to balance in so many ways.

Level Independent Experience
Separate XP per Base Class
Separate ECL per Base Class
Easier to use Total XP than per Level XP
Gestalt Style for same ECL per Base Class

Prestige Class needs some complex rules to prevent it from becoming overpowered
Dual Progression Prestige Class counts towards ECL of all base classes it applies towards, more than 1 for 2 and less than 1 for 1.

Total ECL is calculated by the Total XP across all XP Spent on each Tracks

[RNightstalker]

Well a simple way is to assign experience point totals based on the Tier of the class or PrC

[pabelfly]

Well a simple way is to assign experience point totals based on the Tier of the class or PrC

Tiers are good as reference material but everyone has different character goals and different levels of optimization. Better to adjust according to actual table play than gaming theory.

[RedWarlock]

I really hate the idea of “balance to the table” as a mechanics-writer, because it makes it sound like we should NEVER attempt to fix obvious mechanical imbalances. Some problems are just endemic to the system as a whole, so why not try to apply a broad patch AND tweak in-play as needed? At least then, you’ll have saved yourself SOME of the in-play fixes...

[pabelfly]

I really hate the idea of “balance to the table” as a mechanics-writer, because it makes it sound like we should NEVER attempt to fix obvious mechanical imbalances. Some problems are just endemic to the system as a whole, so why not try to apply a broad patch AND tweak in-play as needed? At least then, you’ll have saved yourself SOME of the in-play fixes...

The system is so broken that it can't be fixed mechanically without changing the game entirely, so everyone just plays with an informal gentleman's agreement to start with. Better to tweak from there IMO, not least because it's a lot less work and you can't adjust for players character goals and optimization levels beforehand.

[Quertus]

I really hate the idea of “balance to the table” as a mechanics-writer, because it makes it sound like we should NEVER attempt to fix obvious mechanical imbalances. Some problems are just endemic to the system as a whole, so why not try to apply a broad patch AND tweak in-play as needed? At least then, you’ll have saved yourself SOME of the in-play fixes...

I mean, give Wizards d10 HP/Lv, weapon & armor proficiency, the ability to cast in armor, and make all their spells at will. Then it will be much easier to balance the Fighter to them. Because, as it stands, 1st level Wizards are pretty terrible.

EDIT: yes, it would be nice if there weren't trap options. But most people's ideas for making things balanced just make things worse, in one or several dimensions. 3e lets you build most any character to most any power level, assisting different levels of player skill, appeasing the itch to optimize (ie, one player can play a string class out of the box, while another optimizes a weak class, yet they can be balanced), etc.

[RNightstalker]

Well something like that would assume a level playing field as far as intended optimization or experience.

[HouseRules]

One way to balance is to remove unoptimized options until there are no more unoptimized options.
Another way to balance is to remove broken options until there are no more broken options.

Do both gets you towards the middle faster.

[Asmotherion]

i suppose you could give +1 LA to full casters to avoid complicated calculations.

That said though it's probably not going to be apreciated; Personally i'd be against the idea.

[Âmesang]

I feel like 3e already has something akin to that due to magic item crafting and certain powerful spells requiring the expenditure of XP, thus any caster who chooses to utilize them will fall behind in progression (even if only slightly).

[RNightstalker]

I feel like 3e already has something akin to that due to magic item crafting and certain powerful spells requiring the expenditure of XP, thus any caster who chooses to utilize them will fall behind in progression (even if only slightly).

I've never seen any builds that focus on crafting due to the feats required.

[pabelfly]

I've never seen any builds that focus on crafting due to the feats required.

There's may also be the time issue - you need to have a day per 1,000 gold cost (before feats). Hard to assume you'll have spare months to craft your gear.

[Biggus]

Back in 1st Edition, the amount of experience it took to level up differed between each class. Would something like that work if houseruled into 3.x?

For example, a Thief needs 1251 to get to 2nd level, vs. 2501 for a "Wizard".

What does the Playground think?


2e needed really hacky methods of dual classing/multiclassing (and those were different things with different rules) in order to make different XP charts work. Ease of multiclassing was the whole point behind 3e's unified progression chart, and the ease of multiclassing feeds directly into prestige classes. You'd be breaking a lot just to have your XP differences.


Instead of having separate XP charts for each class, possibly apply an XP penalty (similar to the one for multiclassing in 3.5) for higher-tier classes? Perhaps 10% less XP per tier?

[Zombimode]

Besides the fact that I always found AD&Ds different XP tables for different classes absolutely horrible (it counteracted some of the classes differences such as HD, dissolves the meaning of "level", had completely wonky numbers, did nothing to "fix" any kind of imbalances), 3e simply does not work that way. The choice of class for any given level is made when you have earned enough XP, not before.

[HouseRules]

The game never solve the foundation problem.

Casters double their power every level.
Martial double their power every two levels (using any available combat simulator).

[RNightstalker]

Instead of having separate XP charts for each class, possibly apply an XP penalty (similar to the one for multiclassing in 3.5) for higher-tier classes? Perhaps 10% less XP per tier?

That's why I was thinking tables for each Tier instead of having to calculate penalties.


The game never solve the foundation problem.

Casters double their power every level.
Martial double their power every two levels (using any available combat simulator).

Is that true? How do you figure (without going into simulators lol).

Also, may I ask a stupid question: would you rather have a level 10 fighter or a level 5 wizard? What about 20-10?

[pabelfly]

That's why I was thinking tables for each Tier instead of having to calculate penalties.



Is that true? How do you figure (without going into simulators lol).

Also, may I ask a stupid question: would you rather have a level 10 fighter or a level 5 wizard? What about 20-10?

Wizard 10 has a lot of options that a Fighter, particularly a melee fighter doesn't. Flight. Invisibility. Teleport. Debuffing. Status ailments. It's why high-level play at the table is basically a gentleman's agreement that casters like wizard and cleric self-nerf to let everyone have a chance to shine. And I say this as a fan of melee combat.

I'd only take Fighter 20 if it came with gear. No gear, Wizard 10.

[Crake]

Wizard 10 has a lot of options that a Fighter, particularly a melee fighter doesn't. Flight. Invisibility. Teleport. Debuffing. Status ailments. It's why high-level play at the table is basically a gentleman's agreement that casters like wizard and cleric self-nerf to let everyone have a chance to shine. And I say this as a fan of melee combat.

I'd only take Fighter 20 if it came with gear. No gear, Wizard 10.

I mean, be that as it may, Wizard 9 vs wizard 10 definitely isn't a "double" in power. Unless you're saying it's more like wizards quadruple their power every 2 levels? So doubling ever level is an aggregate, rather than a constant?

[RNightstalker]

Wizard 10 has a lot of options that a Fighter, particularly a melee fighter doesn't. Flight. Invisibility. Teleport. Debuffing. Status ailments. It's why high-level play at the table is basically a gentleman's agreement that casters like wizard and cleric self-nerf to let everyone have a chance to shine. And I say this as a fan of melee combat.

I'd only take Fighter 20 if it came with gear. No gear, Wizard 10.

With gear on both situations.

[Biggus]

That's why I was thinking tables for each Tier instead of having to calculate penalties.


What I meant was, having separate tables for each tier causes all sort of problems with multiclassing and prestige classes, as Anymage mentioned, while an XP penalty doesn't cause any of those things.

[HouseRules]

I mean, be that as it may, Wizard 9 vs wizard 10 definitely isn't a "double" in power. Unless you're saying it's more like wizards quadruple their power every 2 levels? So doubling ever level is an aggregate, rather than a constant?

It's more along the lines that every class gains sqrt(2) power every level, but caster gains an additional 2× multiplier when they gain a spell level.
Thus, full casters quadruple their power every 2 levels, but spontaneous casters does not from level 1 to level 3 because of their delay casting.
Partial casters clearly does not gain as much as full casters, and half casters gain very few.

Of course, if the spells are nerf, then this impact is less.
Some spells do give higher multipliers, and others give lower, but the average spell is just so good compared to mundane of course.

[RNightstalker]

What I meant was, having separate tables for each tier causes all sort of problems with multiclassing and prestige classes, as Anymage mentioned, while an XP penalty doesn't cause any of those things.

I honestly can see that point of view and maybe an XP penalty would be simpler. But I would personally lean towards the Tier system, so the more "powerful" classes you take, the more your progression slows down.

If I find a group crazy enough to try it out, I'll definitely have to check back in and report.