|
Just wanted to know what people thought of this,
I plan to use the three level advancements to coincide in the game.
Non-spellcasting classes progress on the fast chart
Partial casters (bards, rangers, paladins etc.) on the medium chart
Full casters on the slow chart
How do you think this will affect game balance, since full caster far outstrip meleers anyways I didn't think it would hurt to badly. and might make for an interesting old school feel. I have some players who learned on OD&D and some on 3.5 so I've got a good mix.
As a player i would hate it at the end you lose like 3 levels if you are a spell caster
And how would you do it when they multiclass?
|
New class levels progress at the level equivalent on the proper chart. And is a 17th level caster really 3 levels behind a 20th level fighter, or is he only 3 levels ahead?
depends on the player and the group. If the group is good at group tactics, than he might feel even to the point off damage dealt, but darn those 3 extra dice worth of hit dice would really be needed if your group is small or not well balanced.
You asked my opinion, so you're getting it - it's all your fault! ;-P
Basically, I don't like it. I think the game assumes that people are about the same level, and don't think that spellcasters generally dominate non-spellcasters.
There's stuff that depends on HD and so on, and that will punish casters now.
Beyond that, I'm not sure I'd call bards, rangers or paladins that powerful, and letting them lack behind will only make things worse for them.
And what about challenge rating? Are a Wizard 15 and a Fighter 15 still both CR 15, even though they're at a different experience mark?
Multiclassing will become more problematic - if you use different classes, what chart will you use when? Is it just one chart you're using? Is it several charts? In case of the former: How do you deal with the sudden level deficit. In the case of the latter: Do you cut up the tables to get the incremental costs?
Plus, I just don't like it. Never liked it in older editions. For me, it's an unnecessary complication. Some things that went away in newer editions went away for a reason.
It would also seem to produce an imbalance in skills. Those with fast progression will improve reach higher skill levels then the slow progression full-casters.
My guess is that the old school feel will get lost when your casters watch the other classes make more difficult skill checks or saves or hit higher AC's.
A more interesting way to bring back the old feel might be to limit max class levels based on race and stats. That way, the worst is over during character construction, rather than watching the fast progression classes move up in levels over time.
Regardless- if your players are interested in your plan, go for it. For myself, I'd hate it.
|
|
It would also seem to produce an imbalance in skills. Those with fast progression will improve reach higher skill levels then the slow progression full-casters.
My guess is that the old school feel will get lost when your casters watch the other classes make more difficult skill checks or saves or hit higher AC's.
A more interesting way to bring back the old feel might be to limit max class levels based on race and stats. That way, the worst is over during character construction, rather than watching the fast progression classes move up in levels over time.
Regardless- if your players are interested in your plan, go for it. For myself, I'd hate it.
Well at a certain point I've noticed that spellcasters tend to favor spells over skill checks anyways, there's a spell to boost or remove the need of 90% of skill checks in D&D anyways. Hitting higher ACs has almost never been a problem for wizards because they do touch attacks. and the difference on saves will be for the most part 1-2, I don't think that's significant to swing the battle against casters. The only issue I've really thought that could hinder casters is that the lower levels where they are kinda sucky last longer, but once a caster hits 5th level, I've noticed in my games that skills, and stats, are all kinda meaningless for a caster. Also, the non-casting classes start to seriously lack in comparison (except in optimized groups) past about level 10, and with this I was hoping that they would have the encouragement to continue since as you say, at least they'll have the better skills and attacks.
I loved the different XP rates for the different classes in earlier editions, in fact I personally think it can be an easier way to balance the different classes and if WotC had stuck to this formula then I bet half of the later classes they released wouldn't have been so far out of whack. That and some editing anyway.... ;P
As someone who loved the idea, I gotta say it probably won't work unless you make other changes to the game also. E.g. what the classes get for their HD etc. I have two suggestions, but am leaving the details to someone with a more mechanical mind.
1) The fast chart gets you the full Pathfinder set up. Classes using the slower progressions get the pre-Pathfinder classes and set up e.g. few feats, more limited skill choices, smaller HD etc. It's important that the PCs on the slower chart actually get something more for their XP and as they stand so far, Pathfinder changes have addressed a lot of the balance issues between say 17 levels of Fighter and 17 levels of Wizard. You may want to take this further too, e.g.
Fast XP - 1 Feat/3 Levels
Med XP - 2 Feats/3 Levels
Slow XP - 3 Feats/ 3 Levels
etc.
Although again, as you're monkeying around with the balance of the game, get someone more capable than I to look at your final numbers.
2) Play 2nd Ed. with the Pathfinder class abilities. It'll probably be easier to work out and as the class features are largely balanced and could be easily converted, it could involve a lot less work than 1).
That said, as much as I love the idea, I think it's gone now, a relic of gaming, and you're probably better off trying to capture the spirit of the older editions through play style than mechanics.
Whatever you decide to do - good luck with the game!
Peace,
tfad
I just wanted to point out that, similar to 1st & 2nd edition, the "Medium" XP track ends up just 1 level behind the "Fast, and the "Slow" XP track ends up just 2 levels behind. This is consistent after the first few levels.
So 17th level Fighter & 15th level wizard (or 24th level fighter and 22nd level wizard) would have about the same xp.
Seems like a reasonable system if you like the feel of it, or to better balance issues in your campaign.
For real AD&D feel, you should have clerics progress on the Fast XP track. And druids should get 2nd level spells at level 2.
;-)