I would like them to stay myself. Its much easier to use a chart then to try and readjust the xp from every single critter ya kill. I mean your talking about adjusting sometimes 30 or more diffent xp's every time ya run something. mush much easier just to use the same xp and a diffent chart.
|
I think Jason's idea for the multiple charts is to allow DMs to gauge how long it will take for PCs to reach certain levels, and thus plan adventures accordingly. It gives the players an idea of when they are reaching their goals. I would like to see the actual "encounters per level" math, whether from Jason or an industrious board member.
Actually, the 3 XP charts gave me an idea I was pondering for a long time: please keep in mind that this is, of course, only a suggestion.
Why not using the 3 XP charts to DIFFERENTIATE the progression for the existing classes? Something like "fast" progression for non-casters (barbarians, fighters, monks, rogues) , "medium" progression for semi-casters (bards, paladins, rangers), and "slow" progression for full casters (clerics, druids, sorcerers, wizards)? This could fix the "wizards are too powerful compared to fighters" problem, since with same Xp the two characters would have up to 2 levels of difference.
Of course, this should lead to the problem of multiclassing, but since we could always calculate how much xp it takes from, let's say, 6th to 7th level (let's give some hypothetical values: 15000 for a "fast" and 25000 for a "slow"), it could be fixed easily (just take the amount you need for levelling up the current class level).
With the SRD rules for adjudicating Xp, this was not possible, due to a "bungee-effect" that gave characters with a lower level more xp compared to character with a higher level facing the same CR creature/trap/whatsoever, and so in the end a party with a wizard and a fighter going together and facing the same obstacles would be at the same level after some time with the rules I suggested. With the PFRPG rules instead, since every CR has a fixed xp value , this "bungee-effect" would not appear.
Please note that I don't want to reintroduce the extremely complex (and often silly) Xp tables of AD&D, but rather use an existing tool to try to solve an existing problem since the 3rd edition came out: a character with a spellcasting progression has, of course, a lot more options than a character without one, so why the latter character must "level-up" at the same speed than the former?
Just my 2 cents...
|
*snippage*
I don't have a problem in principle with the idea that some classes would advance slower than others as a way hack in some rebalancing, but in the end it's going to be pretty icky in practice, I think. What about new future classes that might be not so clearly 'semi-spell user' (nice rolemaster term, there) but rather more martial? In any case, I guess that my preference for achieving balance comes through spell and feat adjustments with a side in class property adjustments; it'll be a bit fiddly, but it'll maintain the relatively important 3.x principle of a common progression (and if you are going to categorise sets of classes as having the same progression, you still need to do finicky stuff to achieve balance within the set, which is even harder when feats and spells can be taken cross-set and will be of different benefit to different classes).
Like the OP, I'd rather scale things with XP delivered (keeping it the same for each class to make each new level). The idea that the DM will prolong the cool levels, in terms of XP to advance, whilst allowing some zipping through the slower levels is excellent for a number of reasons (not just the obvious play ones, either; from a world-logic point of view, it would explain the relative scarcity, or commonness in some worlds, of high-level characters, for example).
So, while I like the idea of different progression speed, like the OP, I would like it achieved through the DM's XP awards, partly for reasons of the cool but partly because it makes use of the existing framework (thus, at least on the surface, enabling more backward-compatibility).
I think Jason's idea for the multiple charts is to allow DMs to gauge how long it will take for PCs to reach certain levels, and thus plan adventures accordingly. It gives the players an idea of when they are reaching their goals. I would like to see the actual "encounters per level" math, whether from Jason or an industrious board member.
Medium chart = 20 encounters (with EL = APL) per level
Fast chart = 13.3 encounters per levelSlow chart = 30 encounters per level
There's some rounding of numbers either up or down, especially in the Fast and Slow charts.
I agree -- it's easy enough to multiply the XP gained by 1.5 or 2/3.
I like the idea of different Xp progression sets, it frres me from the problem of scaling xp at any encounter ...
Different xp level for different classes ... this was the way 2 ed. handled xp ... it was fine, because balancing classes was easier, but gives very big problem if you consider multiclassing ...
|
|
Let me preface my response with this...
The wizard in my groupo that went through the AoW AP was EXTEMELY powerful. I could almost never get anything within range to threaten the party due to his mainstay spell: Twin Maximized Chain Lightning. He could cast this, like, 3 or 4 times a day!
Now, with that being said...
Yes, wizards are very powerful, but should player's who choose these "Uber Classes" be penalized for picking them? If it were me, I'd never pick a wizard. There's nothing worse than seeing all of the other PC's leveling up and you still have a few thousand XP to go.
Besides, I feel that Fighters and Barbarians can be just as overpwoered as spellcasters, albeit in different ways.
Well, as I said, this is just an idea that crossed my mind for trying to fix the eternal question "Is a not-spellcaster horribly underpowered in comparison to a spellcaster?"
Regarding the multiclass, as I said before, it would be something like this (now that I have the Beta at hand can give real numbers):
Character level is at 5th with 10000xp and 6th with 15000xp (fast progression); this means that a character whose character level is 5th and his current level is in a "fast" class (any "fast" class, whether PrC or Core) needs 5000 xp to evolve his current level (15000 - 10000 = 5000)
A "medium" progression character is at 5th with 15000 xp and 6th with 23000xp; this means, to level up from 5th to 6th level the character, if his current level is from a "medium" class, needs 8000xp (23000-15000 = 8000)
A "slow" progression character is at 5th with 23000xp and 6th with 35000xp; this means, to level up from 5th to 6th level the character, if his current level is from a "slow" class, needs 12000xp (35000 - 23000 = 12000).
Of course, in the beginning it requires a bit of calculation, but in reality it would be faster if the table were something like this:
From 5th to 6th level: (Slow)+12000xp ; (Medium)+8000xp; (Fast)+5000xp
The calculation is already there,it's only a metter of subtraction from the 2 adjacent levels (in this case, 5th and 6th). Retrocompatibility is not an issue (since an NPC or moster is calculated by his level, not experience points), but it COULD (I repeat, could - it's not an assurance) equalize the powers of characters. Also, charatcers from a straight class (or characters who take classes of same xp progression) can simply read the existing table as is, without any calculations at all (even if they take Barbarian 4/ Fighter 8/ Rogue 3/ Shadowdancer 2 or something like that, they would all fall in the fast progression and so you must only read the fast entry to know how much xp you need to level up)
As always, this is a mere suggestion.
For the love of all that is holy, please don't bring back the staggered class progression from 2nd edition!!! That and THAC0 are the two major things I will never, ever miss from that period of RPG history....