I keep seeing people whine and protest about the "class tiers"; a simple and easy solution would be to assign the classes to tiers and then a different xp chart to each tier.
If druids/wizards/clerics are tier 1 make them use the slow chart, it's what they did in second edition.
There is your balance, rogue are the bottom tier, they go up the fastest!
I keep seeing people whine and protest about the "class tiers"; a simple and easy solution would be to assign the classes to tiers and then a different xp chart to each tier.
If druids/wizards/clerics are tier 1 make them use the slow chart, it's what they did in second edition.
There is your balance, rogue are the bottom tier, they go up the fastest!
I dunno if "whiner" is the best term to use in way of a constructive discussion.
I dunno if "whiner" is the best term to use in way of a constructive discussion.I keep seeing people whine and protest about the "class tiers"; a simple and easy solution would be to assign the classes to tiers and then a different xp chart to each tier.
If druids/wizards/clerics are tier 1 make them use the slow chart, it's what they did in second edition.
There is your balance, rogue are the bottom tier, they go up the fastest!
true, but my first descriptive terms where worse, and i want a provoking start (it gets peoples attention).
It's an interesting idea. If people claim that a lvl 7 rogue is much less effective than a lvl 7 wizard, I wonder how they'd feel comparing a lvl 9 rogue to a lvl 7 wizard?
My major problem would be what to do with multiclass characters.
It's funny, I remember that a thread about the same topic was created a few weeks ago, and the thread just "died" after receiving only a few replies. Nobody seemed to care.
Well who wants to earn less xp for being awesome?
I resurrected the old thread. It's called Scalar Experience. It's a much better title IMHO.
What do with multi-classing. In 2E multi-classing was like version of Gestalt characters. Sure Humans could Duel class but when they did that started at 1 st again and lost their previous classes abilities if they wanted to gain experience until the new class equal to or exceeding the level of the original class. So this mean no problem with different experience amount for each class.
So say you go tier 1 on the slow chart for a Wizard for 5 levels, the 1 level of Fighter as tier 3 working towards a EK build.
My guess is you need 23,000 to get the 5th then 5,000 for the tier 3 class for total of 28,000 instead of 35,000. Then you want EK at tier 2 for 12,000 more XP for total of 40,000 instead of 53,000 for 7 levels of wizard. It could work but you'd build you own XP chart based on where you wanted to go as you leveled up.
|
I keep seeing people whine and protest about the "class tiers"; a simple and easy solution would be to assign the classes to tiers and then a different xp chart to each tier.
If druids/wizards/clerics are tier 1 make them use the slow chart, it's what they did in second edition.
There is your balance, rogue are the bottom tier, they go up the fastest!
I had actually considered that as a way to capture an old school feel to classes when they first released the different XP charts.
The way I did it was
Full caster = Slow progression
Half caster = mid progression
Non caster = fast progression
For multi classing you only change progression if you have more than one tier of separation, in which case you split the difference, otherwise you take the progression of your highest level class. So for example a fighter 3 bard 1 would be on fast progression, but a fighter 1 bard 3 would be on medium progression. A fighter/wizard however no matter what level would be mid progression.
or another example, a cleric 5/paladin 1 would be a slow progression while a paladin 5/ cleric 1 would be a medium progression character, while a cleric/rogue would be a mid progression character.
A fighter/Rogue would always be a fast progression character, while a cleric/wizard would always be a slow progression character.
PrCs do not change your progression track.
I keep seeing people whine and protest about the "class tiers"; a simple and easy solution would be to assign the classes to tiers and then a different xp chart to each tier.
If druids/wizards/clerics are tier 1 make them use the slow chart, it's what they did in second edition.
There is your balance, rogue are the bottom tier, they go up the fastest!
Here's a thought for you: that solution didn't work in earlier editions, either, and it works worse here.
Look here, rogue! Even though you successfully managed to catch the wizard with his pants down and sneak up on him in his sleep, he still gets to act in the surprise round, go before you do, and force two Fort saves or be turned to stone before you even get to act! Take heart, though, you get to be a level higher. What's that, you say? You didn't get +1 Fort with that extra level? I'm sorry. I'm sure you'll make a lovely statue.
Even though you successfully managed to catch the wizard with his pants down and sneak up on him in his sleep, he still gets to act in the surprise roundThis sentence does not compute.
Diviner!
Giving it a little thought it's a far less horrible idea than I would have expected. From a fluff perspective it would make sense that magical skill would take far longer to gain than purely physical skills, and I could see where it could make multi-classing more attractive.
The idea is worth experimenting with at least.
Giving it a little thought it's a far less horrible idea than I would have expected. From a fluff perspective it would make sense that magical skill would take far longer to gain than purely physical skills, and I could see where it could make multi-classing more attractive.
The idea is worth experimenting with at least.
I think a better solution is to give higher point buys to lower tier characters to help even the playing field, if thats what your looking to do.
I keep seeing people whine and protest about the "class tiers"; a simple and easy solution would be to assign the classes to tiers and then a different xp chart to each tier.
If druids/wizards/clerics are tier 1 make them use the slow chart, it's what they did in second edition.
There is your balance, rogue are the bottom tier, they go up the fastest!
You are incorrect to call the posters discussing class balance "whiners".
There's a constructive thread about the same topic currently active here.
I keep seeing people whine and protest about the "class tiers"; a simple and easy solution would be to assign the classes to tiers and then a different xp chart to each tier.
If druids/wizards/clerics are tier 1 make them use the slow chart, it's what they did in second edition.
There is your balance, rogue are the bottom tier, they go up the fastest!
You are incorrect to call the posters discussing class balance "whiners".
There's a constructive thread about the same topic currently active here.
I'm sorry i missed this one, the extra thread (mine) is unnecessary.
I think I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread, since there is another thread with the same topic, and a vastly less imflammatory thread title.