[Brainstorm] Balancing class power through XPs earned


Homebrew and House Rules

Scarab Sages

Hi folks,

I don't know if this came up yet, but I bet others have toyed with the notion...

As many of us have seen over the years, there has often been discussion, and concern, regarding how well balanced classes are in comparison to one another as they rise in levels. Instead of going over what the problems have been, I propose for consideration as a house rule, the following, as a smooth remedy to an otherwise complex problem:

Derived from Table 4-1 on page 30 of the PF hardcover core rules...

a) Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards (the heavy spellcasters) use the Slow advancement column,
b) Bards, Paladins, and Rangers (the light spellcasters) use the Medium advancement column,
and c) Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and Rogues (the non-spellcasters) use the Fast advancement column.

The power of magic spells in the game seem to be the issue that generates the most class balancing debates, so that is why I broke down the classes into 3 groups based upon their growing spellcasting powers.

I know differentiating XP progression is old school, but I have never ever seen a problem in games where a few PCs a were a level or 2 behind the leading character -- indeed it is so common that I'd gather many take it for granted that with absentee players variation in party XP standings is the norm. Given this phenomenon doesn't appear to break the game, why not use XPs as a way to manage class "power" as a campaign develops?

YMMV of course :-)

The only tangle that I see so far, and it's a "biggie": multiclassed characters... What to do...? I suppose the most current class the PC has dictates the column for the next level? Or the class you want next level dictates the column? Hmmm...


I wasn't a fan of it in 2nd edition and I'm especially not a fan of it for Pathfinder. Why especially not for Pathfinder? Because Paizo intentionally went to the effort of removing the XP tax from casters (xp costs for spells and for magic item creation). It seems just a bit counterproductive to add it back in after they went to all the trouble of removing it.

Another strike is that it removes the flexibility of a DM to alter the speed of progression in his game. As written, a GM could choose to have every character advance at the Slow progression rate in their game if they like that. With this change, they'd be forced to allow Fighters to advance more than twice as fast as spellcasters because there are no remaining options for changing the advancement speed of the system as a whole.


Winterthorn wrote:
The only tangle that I see so far, and it's a "biggie": multiclassed characters... What to do...? I suppose the most current class the PC has dictates the column for the next level? Or the class you want next level dictates the column? Hmmm...

I'd have them track the XP for each class seperately. Each time the character earns XP, they decide where they want to allocate those points. If you wanted to micromanage even further, you could dictate to the player how they spread it around based on what they did while earning it (hmm, you cast a bunch of spells and didn't use your sword much, so give your wizard level 300 XP, and your fighter levels only 100).

Not that I agree at all with this approach mind you. While they might not be reshaping the rules of the universe, high-level fighters, monks and barbarians will be doing some pretty spectacular things, especially with level-appropriate equipment.


There might be simpler answers.

1) Make spellcasters into prestige classes. That way they're five levels behind.
Alternatively: Decide how many levels you want them behind and then assign entry requirements based on that.

2) Require casters to multiclass in some minimum pattern.

These ways you slow down their advancement without different XP charts.

Scarab Sages

Zurai wrote:
I wasn't a fan of it in 2nd edition and I'm especially not a fan of it for Pathfinder. Why especially not for Pathfinder? Because Paizo intentionally went to the effort of removing the XP tax from casters (xp costs for spells and for magic item creation). It seems just a bit counterproductive to add it back in after they went to all the trouble of removing it.

When the xp costs for spells and for magic item creation initially appeared in 3.0, it seemed an interesting idea at the time, but years of play proved to me that it was very messy to manage and account for. I like that Paizo disposed of the messiness there. What I'm thinking of is a "tidier" cost difference -- the spellcasting player doesn't have to think about spending XPs for this and that. And while I wouldn't call it a "tax", I am presupposing spellcasters have to work a bit harder to gain xps since magic otherwise makes adventuring life a little "too easy"...

Zurai wrote:
Another strike is that it removes the flexibility of a DM to alter the speed of progression in his game. As written, a GM could choose to have every character advance at the Slow progression rate in their game if they like that. With this change, they'd be forced to allow Fighters to advance more than twice as fast as spellcasters because there are no remaining options for changing the advancement speed of the system as a whole.

Considering I'm toying with a house rule, and I am not suggesting a change to the official rules for everyone, the only person who might miss flexibility is me (and anyone who borrows my idea). At 115,000 experience points under this idea a fighter would be at 11th, the ranger at 10th and the cleric 9th -- I really don't think such an outcome is problem as I said it has been very common for PC parties to not have everyone at the same level anyways...

Some people may like this, others won't. I'm just exploring this to see how I can make it work for my campaign. :-)

Shadow Lodge

There are two possible problems I can think of.

1.) with the party being broken up like that, there are going to be a lot of problems, (the further the divide the more) when the Cleric can't heal/debuff/buff/cure whatever aligments the higher level fighter would be facing to be challenged. Same with the Wizard not being able to bring the needed firepower. All those caster would be severely behind the power level for the challenges presented, and would at the very least need either more spells and higher base DC's, or something along those lines. Otherwise, I think they will just not have so much fun.

2.) Does this xp thing change, like it did in 2nd Ed? The Wizard started off being harder to level but later on got levels faster. The Fighter and Thief are sort of the opposite, (I think), and the Cleric was right in the middle.

Scarab Sages

ZappoHisbane wrote:
Winterthorn wrote:
The only tangle that I see so far, and it's a "biggie": multiclassed characters... What to do...? I suppose the most current class the PC has dictates the column for the next level? Or the class you want next level dictates the column? Hmmm...
I'd have them track the XP for each class seperately. Each time the character earns XP, they decide where they want to allocate those points. If you wanted to micromanage even further, you could dictate to the player how they spread it around based on what they did while earning it (hmm, you cast a bunch of spells and didn't use your sword much, so give your wizard level 300 XP, and your fighter levels only 100).

I like your initial suggestion, but if I do this house rule, I think I should steer away from the extra micromanaging... It's hard to come up with something like this that doesn't explode in a GM's face.

ZappoHisbane wrote:
Not that I agree at all with this approach mind you. While they might not be reshaping the rules of the universe, high-level fighters, monks and barbarians will be doing some pretty spectacular things, especially with level-appropriate equipment.

Your last point is interesting. Level-appropriate equipment is not an exact science, and I know many like me err on stingyness to avoid the classic "monty haul" problem. If I'm conservative with the magic rewards, that can make spellcasters more powerful versus non-spellcasters of the same level.

So my challenge is too keep the "keel" even while the magic item arsenal is moderate to moderate-low.

I'm still thinking about this out loud...

Scarab Sages

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

There might be simpler answers.

1) Make spellcasters into prestige classes. That way they're five levels behind.
Alternatively: Decide how many levels you want them behind and then assign entry requirements based on that.

2) Require casters to multiclass in some minimum pattern.

These ways you slow down their advancement without different XP charts.

Hmmmm, there's something easy to the overall notion of a "delay"... I could see an in-game campaign explanation... I'll have to think about that because ultimately, as a house rule, it has to be something players can say "okay, I understand" when they are selecting the class they want to play.

Scarab Sages

Beckett wrote:

There are two possible problems I can think of.

1.) with the party being broken up like that, there are going to be a lot of problems, (the further the divide the more) when the Cleric can't heal/debuff/buff/cure whatever aligments the higher level fighter would be facing to be challenged. Same with the Wizard not being able to bring the needed firepower. All those caster would be severely behind the power level for the challenges presented, and would at the very least need either more spells and higher base DC's, or something along those lines. Otherwise, I think they will just not have so much fun.

2.) Does this xp thing change, like it did in 2nd Ed? The Wizard started off being harder to level but later on got levels faster. The Fighter and Thief are sort of the opposite, (I think), and the Cleric was right in the middle.

Maybe I am "playing with fire" here... I had hoped that the initial idea was workable/playable. See, house rules aren't secret so players choosing to play aren't getting sidelined by a surprise necessarily -- albeit the unforseen can occur -- so my players can give the feedback I need prior to implementation... But before I propose it to them I need to check for "bugs" lol

1.) I understand what your saying, but I think a 9th level wizard can provide excellent support to an 11th level fighter. I'd average the party level to determine typical encounter levels I feel they'd be able to handle. It is such an incredibly inexact science no matter how much planning, analysis and number crunching we do.

2.) I just took a look at ye olde 2nd Edition PH and indeed the tables seem to lurch ahead and then behind one another level by level when comparing classes. What I'm tinkering with is using the mathematically consist tables in the PFRPG core rules for some differentiation between classes without concocting my own tables -- an exercise in math I'd sooner avoid! lol


Extrapolate a bit into the future. Now look at the charts and look at your fighter, ranger, and wizard with these XP totals:

100,000
300,000
500,000
1,000,000

By the end, your fighter is going to reach 20th level with 2.4 million XP. The ranger is at 18th, the wizard 17th. By the time your fighter is "topping out" and getting his capstone, the wizard/sorcerer/druid/cleric is barely getting to 9th-level spells. I too am concerned about the ability of spellcasters to do some of their job in terms of dealing with injuries and whatnot. Yes, they are the most powerful classes around, but when you now have to make caster level checks against some effects, they're job got harder (at least for clerics and druids). Also, ask yourself again what your goal is. If it's limiting the power of spellcasters, then ask what is the problem with them. You'll probably find it to be spells. Even with slower advancement, the same spells exist, and the casters will still do rude things to their enemies. Also, for those with actual capstones (druid, sorcerer), you're depriving them of a chance to reach those abilities with a tremendous amount of XP. Same with the middle classes.

If you don't routinely play to high levels, then you're not going to see more than 1-2 levels of difference, and then you should ask yourself will it really make that much of a difference in the power of spellcasters.

Scarab Sages

Lathiira wrote:

Extrapolate a bit into the future. Now look at the charts and look at your fighter, ranger, and wizard with these XP totals:

100,000
300,000
500,000
1,000,000

By the end, your fighter is going to reach 20th level with 2.4 million XP. The ranger is at 18th, the wizard 17th. By the time your fighter is "topping out" and getting his capstone, the wizard/sorcerer/druid/cleric is barely getting to 9th-level spells. I too am concerned about the ability of spellcasters to do some of their job in terms of dealing with injuries and whatnot. Yes, they are the most powerful classes around, but when you now have to make caster level checks against some effects, they're job got harder (at least for clerics and druids). Also, ask yourself again what your goal is. If it's limiting the power of spellcasters, then ask what is the problem with them. You'll probably find it to be spells. Even with slower advancement, the same spells exist, and the casters will still do rude things to their enemies. Also, for those with actual capstones (druid, sorcerer), you're depriving them of a chance to reach those abilities with a tremendous amount of XP. Same with the middle classes.

If you don't routinely play to high levels, then you're not going to see more than 1-2 levels of difference, and then you should ask yourself will it really make that much of a difference in the power of spellcasters.

I've been looking at Table 4-1 many times as I think this through... If I may summarize what you're saying, I agree it's a question of whether what I'm proposing as a house rule is *effective* given the game system's components and the balancing act I'm attempting to do between classes.

I'm not running my game to 20th -- my games usually wrap up between 12th and 15th before everyone wants to do something new. So will my idea work? I am comfortable with the concept being a grognard I guess, lol. However, I'm still thinking about it...

Say, anyone still play some Basic, 1st and/or 2nd ed. D&D and have some thoughts on this brainstorm?

Shadow Lodge

I'm not much against it, but I have thought of another issue which might make this pointless. In the 3E model, Xp is based off of CR vs character level. I think your idea is to keep the casters at a lower level than the non-casters. But by doing this, they are going to actually be getting more xp per encounter, and essentually evenning right back out, just at a slightly slower progression. More like a fight or two behind, than they jump right back up to near equal xp, and slowly drop back to a fight or two behind.

Maybe it would be easier to simply start the noncasters out a level ahead, and be done with it. Possibly give them another level around 10 ish (or just a free +1 and 1 HD). It would be a lot easier on everyone, have a similar effect to what you want (I think), and might offer some insight as you play.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Winterthorn wrote:
I know differentiating XP progression is old school, but I have never ever seen a problem in games where a few PCs a were a level or 2 behind the leading character

Different XP tables were 1st edition and it sucked so bad, it isn't any funny.

I played a 1st edition D&D game for 9 years. We all started at 1st level. I never missed a day.

I was a 17th level Druid. I had a Jade Scepter of Defending that I loved.

Another player in the game was a 20th level Fighter -> Dual Class into a 20th level Cleric working on becoming a god (when the game ended he has Spell Resistance 70% which is 70% of any spell cast on him failed if he wished. That SR was granted by a god. He was also considered incorporeal to any metal he wasn't wearing or wielding which made him immune to weapon attacks.)

Another player was a high level Bard (iirc around 13 th level) which required 7 to 9 levels in Fighter, Rogue and Druid before becoming 1st Bard.

In short, I resented the ridiculous number of experience needed per level for a Druid after 15th level. I had numerically the same experience as everyone else (because the DM didn't hand out different XP per player.)

It was ok in 1st because it was RAW. If you added this for a game I was playing, I would have strong opinions (probably negative) toward you if I were in your game.


Winterthorn wrote:


I've been looking at Table 4-1 many times as I think this through... If I may summarize what you're saying, I agree it's a question of whether what I'm proposing as a house rule is *effective* given the game system's components and the balancing act I'm attempting to do between classes.

I'm not running my game to 20th -- my games usually wrap up between 12th and 15th before everyone wants to do something new. So will my idea work? I am comfortable with the concept being a grognard I guess, lol. However, I'm still thinking about it...

Hey, I cut my teeth with the old Gray Box, the Unearthed Arcana, and the ol' Red Box, so I resemble that grognard remark! I even still have Gray Box and Red Box, and the Temple of Elemental Evil to boot!

In all seriousness, you'll be costing the caster's 1-2 levels. Will that truly limit their power? Well, if you throw certain spells at them successfully, you'll be making their lives a lot tougher, e.g. the holy word series, or for that matter any spell dependent on hit dice. On the other hand, their power is in their spells. They'll be using magic up to 1 spell level behind schedule and 1-2 caster levels behind the norm when dealing with SR. But creative casters manage to deal with these issues; that 1 level of difference won't matter much to saves, and they can deal with SR if they must. So really, I don't think this will limit their power much at all. Instead, you might just annoy or aggravate those who are playing casters with a penalty that won't necessarily do much to stop them from dominating higher-levels.

I also want to hear about what happens with multiclass characters. You can't just say, 'well, you want wizard levels, then you shift over to the slow table' because that would result in potential level loss on the spot. It's something else to consider.

Scarab Sages

James Risner wrote:
Winterthorn wrote:
I know differentiating XP progression is old school, but I have never ever seen a problem in games where a few PCs a were a level or 2 behind the leading character

Different XP tables were 1st edition and it sucked so bad, it isn't any funny.

I played a 1st edition D&D game for 9 years. We all started at 1st level. I never missed a day.

I was a 17th level Druid. I had a Jade Scepter of Defending that I loved.

Another player in the game was a 20th level Fighter -> Dual Class into a 20th level Cleric working on becoming a god (when the game ended he has Spell Resistance 70% which is 70% of any spell cast on him failed if he wished. That SR was granted by a god. He was also considered incorporeal to any metal he wasn't wearing or wielding which made him immune to weapon attacks.)

Another player was a high level Bard (iirc around 13 th level) which required 7 to 9 levels in Fighter, Rogue and Druid before becoming 1st Bard.

In short, I resented the ridiculous number of experience needed per level for a Druid after 15th level. I had numerically the same experience as everyone else (because the DM didn't hand out different XP per player.)

It was ok in 1st because it was RAW. If you added this for a game I was playing, I would have strong opinions (probably negative) toward you if I were in your game.

LMAO. Good Memories/Bad Memories... My players are grognards like me, so while I think they'd understand what I'm contemptating for my PF campaign, I know there's a risk of invective, vitriol, colorful metaphors, etc... lol. House rules can be a bit of a sales job for the GM...

I haven't decided yet tonight, but I'll wait for more feedback for the next few days. Sometimes more minds are needed to work through an idea that may have subtle implications one way or another. Tonight I'm not seeing any big problem now -- but the perception of fairness, and whether the whole idea is effective, are currently open questions.

Scarab Sages

Lathiira wrote:

Hey, I cut my teeth with the old Gray Box, the Unearthed Arcana, and the ol' Red Box, so I resemble that grognard remark! I even still have Gray Box and Red Box, and the Temple of Elemental Evil to boot!

In all seriousness, you'll be costing the caster's 1-2 levels. Will that truly limit their power? Well, if you throw certain spells at them successfully, you'll be making their lives a lot tougher, e.g. the holy word series, or for that matter any spell dependent on hit dice. On the other hand, their power is in their spells. They'll be using magic up to 1 spell level behind schedule and 1-2 caster levels behind the norm when dealing with SR. But creative casters manage to deal with these issues; that 1 level of difference won't matter much to saves, and they can deal with SR if they must. So really, I don't think this will limit their power much at all. Instead, you might just annoy or aggravate those who are playing casters with a penalty that won't necessarily do much to stop them from dominating higher-levels.

Your last point is, in fact, a very good one... ~brain thinking~

Lathiira wrote:
I also want to hear about what happens with multiclass characters. You can't just say, 'well, you want wizard levels, then you shift over to the slow table' because that would result in potential level loss on the spot. It's something else to consider.

That was my first concern... The table shows the cumulative progression -- I think I'd have a table that shows the relative difference.... Taking 5 levels of fighter (fast), then a two levels of cleric (slow), then back to fighter... Ugh, this could be a real mess... Well, I'll have to play with how the table values are expressed to see if it is as bad as I'm afraid of... Back later on that.

Keep on "feedbacking" folks :-)


I was toying with elves and other longlived races using slow progression and short life span races using the fast progression.
If a PC could live/have an adventuring career of say 30years and hit 20th level why isn't there hoards of high level elves kicking about when they have several (human) lifespans to hone their skills?

Scarab Sages

Spacelard wrote:
I was toying with elves and other long-lived races using slow progression and short life span races using the fast progression. If a PC could live/have an adventuring career of say 30 years and hit 20th level why aren't there hoards of high level elves kicking about when they have several (human) lifespans to hone their skills?

Hi there, I can see where you're coming from -- races that have long lifespans have often plagued me with respect to game mechanics vs flavour. I have always believed a satisfying game system should have a healthy logical relationship between the mechanics (and its game terminology) and the intended flavour(s), and that if well done, it vastly facitates "believability". Somehow long-lived elves do not benefit in-game from their lifespans except for loooong campaigns that feature PC aging. Not very satisfying in terms of game "logic". Your idea is interesting... But I wonder if it's effective for this purpose -- just as I had to wonder if my idea for fine-tune balancing classes was effective? Is it fair for humans to attain 20th level before elves? And if the difference is negliable in the grand scheme of things, is it worth the bother to have it as a house rule? (The RAW-flavour logic problem of race life-span is good for a separate new thread!)

Update to my original topic: I've decided to abandon using the slow-medium-fast XP columns to balance class power, because what initially seemed like a simple and elegant house rule to provide some additional class balance is anything but once one pours over the math. Oh well...

-W


Spacelard wrote:

I was toying with elves and other longlived races using slow progression and short life span races using the fast progression.

If a PC could live/have an adventuring career of say 30years and hit 20th level why isn't there hoards of high level elves kicking about when they have several (human) lifespans to hone their skills?

Nuh uh!

Nobody would play an elf. Ever. Everyone would want to be humans or half-orcs. The elves would still be 2nd level while the humans and half-orcs (and half-elves and halflings, probably) would all be 4th level.

Nobody would want to play a race that made them level at half the rate of their allies.

They would catch up a little. When the humans hit 9th level, the elves would only be 6th level, but that's more than half (it's two thirds), so while they're now 3 levels behind, at least they're not half...

No way I would play an elf.

If you put dwarves and gnomes on medium, they wouldn't get played much either, maybe not at all, for the same reason.

I do get where you're coming from, and logically it might seem to make sense (well, not really - why would brilliant elves who always have +2 to their INT fail to learn as much from each fight as their comparatively less intelligent companions?), but mechanically, it so totally destroys the elf race that it's not even playable.


Winterthorn wrote:
Update to my original topic: I've decided to abandon using the slow-medium-fast XP columns to balance class power...

I'm glad to hear it. Aside from the maths headachiness, it would have been awful, espcially at the low levels when some classes are still 2nd levels while their companioins are 4th level.

So now that this idea has been kicked to the curb, one cannot help but wonder if you're mulling over some alternative class-balance ideas.

If so, then I'd like to call out some possible concern from your original post:

Winterthorn wrote:

a) Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards (the heavy spellcasters) use the Slow advancement column,

b) Bards, Paladins, and Rangers (the light spellcasters) use the Medium advancement column,
c) Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and Rogues (the non-spellcasters) use the Fast advancement column.

I don't think you have the class balance correct here.

Yeah, I know you balanced it based on how strong they are at spellcasting, but that's not the only consideration.

For one, I don't think druids' power is on par with the other pure casters. It was in 3.5, but they got hit hard with the nerf-stick in Pathfinder, so I wouldn't put them past the middle group. Weak pet + weak melee + mediocre spells /= strong class; they aren't strong at anything.

For another, paladins got ramped up into overdrive in Pathfinder, so I would put them way up at the top with the wizards. Their smite evil outsider ability is so all-powerful, it turns even-CR battles into one or two rounds of watching the paladin superstar kick some sorry fiendish tail, especially at high levels.

Another point, bards still suck. They got some good changes, and lost some endurance, and even though the net benefit is a gain, they're still the weakest class in the game.

And rogues are not the 1e/2e wimps that their "thief" ancestors used to be. Now that they can sneak attack practically at will and have a whole new slew of talents, they are deadly little machines of mayhem. Besides, you wouldn't want them 2 or 3 levels ahead of everyone else or their stealth and disable skills will blow away the DCs of any level-appropriate adventure. I would move them to medium.

That shakes it up like this:

a) Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers and Wizards (the good classes) use the Slow advancement column,
b) Druids, Rangers and Rogues (the average classes) use the Medium advancement column,
c) Barbarians, Bards, Fighters and Monks, (the classes that suck at higher levels) use the Fast advancement column.

I'm not happy with rangers in the middle, but they're strong enough not to drop down with bards and monks. Barbarians and fighters are stronger than bards and monks, but not strong enough to sit with druids or rogues. So it's still a bit wonky, but I tried to keep it in three groups.

Now, I know you abandoned the slow/medium/fast XP columns. But if you break the classes into three groups of power, this revised version is how I would do it.

But there's nothing to say it must be three groups. If I expand with two more groups, halfway between a-b and halfway between b-c, I can splite stuff out even better:

1. Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards (the dominators)
2. Druids and Paladins (better than average but not dominators)
3. Rogues (middle of the pack)
4. Barbarians, Fighters, and Rangers (good at low levels, weak at high levels)
5. Bards and Monks (the losers)

Now, there we go. That's the strat I see. If I were really gung ho to balance the classes, I would first break them into these 5 groups, then work my way up from the bottom with the balancing hammer.

First, I would add some stuff for bards and monks. Raw class ability. Not sure what, but it would be meaningful.

Then I would tweak the upper levels of barbarians, fighters, and rangers.

I would probably leave druids and rogues alone. I know, those two aren't even in the same group, but rogues are the middle ground, they don't need to be ratcheted up or down, and druids could stand to take a tiny downward ding, maybe, but I still tend to compare them to the other three core casters rather than to the full 11-class spectrum, so I don't want them to lose anything.

Paladins would get their smite toned down a notch and their channel turned up a skooch.

And the three dominators. Hard to say what I would do to them. Much of the spell-nerfing in Pathfinder has already resulted in these guys losing some of their 3.x lustre, so for now, I would hope it's enough and probably leave them alone, though I would look at tweaking concentration checks; right now, they're just too easy at high levels where these three dominators really shine.

I know, that's just one tarrasque's opinion. Everyone else will have their own different opinions. I would just hate to see you punishing druids after Pathfinder already slapped them around, and I'd hate to see you enhancing rogues or failing to enhance bards. In short, don't think of balance as only being about spells. Balance the classes based on everything they can do.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / [Brainstorm] Balancing class power through XPs earned All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules