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...