I am from the old days when each class had its own xp tables. so Fighter needed 2,000xp for 2nd level while the rogue needed 1250xp for 2nd level. Has anyone attempted to try this in pathfinder? Is there a reason I should not. will it unbalance everything if I use it? let me know if anyone out there has tried this
|
Unless you feel that the classes are unbalanced, and some do, then there is little to no reason to use individual experience charts for different classes. In 1E, of the worlds previously most popular and oldest roleplaying game, the individual charts were a method of somewhat arbitrarily building s semblance of balance betwixt the various classes. With the different mechanics of Pathfinder this does not hold up quite as well, and as such you can and should use the same XP chart.
Unless you feel that the classes are unbalanced, and some do, then there is little to no reason to use individual experience charts for different classes. In 1E, of the worlds previously most popular and oldest roleplaying game, the individual charts were a method of somewhat arbitrarily building s semblance of balance betwixt the various classes. With the different mechanics of Pathfinder this does not hold up quite as well, and as such you can and should use the same XP chart.
But if I did use it , would it totally unbalance the game? My thoughts is it would also allow for multi-classing , allowing the fighter mage to truely be played once again. I understand we have the magus, which is a very good class, but what if someone wished to play the classic fighter mage elf. in the current system it doesn't work. Just thinking out loud, and picking your brain.
I am from the old days when each class had its own xp tables. so Fighter needed 2,000xp for 2nd level while the rogue needed 1250xp for 2nd level. Has anyone attempted to try this in pathfinder? Is there a reason I should not. will it unbalance everything if I use it? let me know if anyone out there has tried this
I am from the "old days" as well but one mechanic I actually like in the newer systems is the exp balance. It keeps the party on an even keel and prevents that one-shot kill because the BBEG just attacks the Wizard that is 3 levels below the rest of the party.
Unless you feel that the classes are unbalanced, and some do, then there is little to no reason to use individual experience charts for different classes. In 1E, of the worlds previously most popular and oldest roleplaying game, the individual charts were a method of somewhat arbitrarily building s semblance of balance betwixt the various classes. With the different mechanics of Pathfinder this does not hold up quite as well, and as such you can and should use the same XP chart.But if I did use it , would it totally unbalance the game? My thoughts is it would also allow for multi-classing , allowing the fighter mage to truely be played once again. I understand we have the magus, which is a very good class, but what if someone wished to play the classic fighter mage elf. in the current system it doesn't work. Just thinking out loud, and picking your brain.
Fighter mage elf?
Magus orBard or
Fighter/wizard(or sorcerer)/eldritch knight.
I considered using an alternate form of multiclassing, where you could follow the normal rules and use the fast exp progression or create a gestalt (combining the best parts of 2 classes) and use the slower exp progression (but not be able to use the normal multiclassing rulse). Never tested it though.
I am from the old days when each class had its own xp tables. so Fighter needed 2,000xp for 2nd level while the rogue needed 1250xp for 2nd level. Has anyone attempted to try this in pathfinder? Is there a reason I should not. will it unbalance everything if I use it? let me know if anyone out there has tried thisI am from the "old days" as well but one mechanic I actually like in the newer systems is the exp balance. It keeps the party on an even keel and prevents that one-shot kill because the BBEG just attacks the Wizard that is 3 levels below the rest of the party.
That is a very good point. I remember people avioded playing 1st level wizards because of just that ... thanks
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there is a good way of doing this. My group uses the Tier system created by JaronK, found Here. We use some of his suggestions on balancing the tiers, but offer incentives for sticking to one class, such as faster progression.
To give you an idea of how you might customize a variable exp system, ours is presented below:
1. Select a Class:
Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard
Tier 2: Sorcerer, Oracle
Tier 3: Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Necromancer, Ninja, Paladin, Summoner
Tier 4: Alchemist, Barbarian, Cavalier, Ranger, Rogue, Samurai
Tier 5: Adept, Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk
Tier 6: Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
2. Stat-points by Tier:
Tier 1: 20 Points
Tier 2: 24 Points
Tier 3: 28 Points
Tier 4: 32 Points
Tier 5: 36 Points
Tier 6: 40 Points
3. Rate of Advancement by Tier:
Tier 1 advances at a Slow Rate, Tiers 2 and 3 advance at a Medium rate, Tiers 4 and 5 advance at a Fast rate. If characters are created at 6th level, this means that they begin with enough experience to have earned level 6 at a Medium rate (23,000 exp). If your rate is 'Slow' this would place you at level 5; if your rate is 'Fast,' this places you at level 7.
Use This Chart to determine actual starting level.
4. Gestalt Options by Tier:
Gestalting changes the character's actual Tier Designation, which will reduce the number of Stat-points, and Rate of Advancement. Players are free to Optimize within a class by selecting archetypes or advanced feats, etc. to their heart's content without worrying about a Tier shift. Equally important, players are free to choose inferior class-options without benefit of a shift down the Tier scale.
* Tier 1 may never Gestalt.
* Tier 2 may Gestalt with a Tier 6 to become Tier 1.
* Tier 3 may Gestalt with a T6 to become T2, or with a T5 to become T1.
* Tier 4 may Gestalt with a T6 to become T3, with a T5 to become T2, or with a T4 to become T1.
* Tier 5 may Gestalt with a T6 to become T4, with a T5 to become T3, with a T4 to become T2, or with a T3 to become T1.
Gestalting changes the character's actual Tier Designation (Though this is an arbitrary 'tax' for doing so, and doesn't necessarily make that combination a "true" T2 or T1 equivalent), which will reduce the number of Stat-points, and Rate of Advancement.
And honestly, some classes should advance more quickly as they just blow at the lower levels (Monks and Bards, et all :P). So I hope this is useful in some way.
--PC
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am from the old days when each class had its own xp tables. so Fighter needed 2,000xp for 2nd level while the rogue needed 1250xp for 2nd level. Has anyone attempted to try this in pathfinder? Is there a reason I should not. will it unbalance everything if I use it? let me know if anyone out there has tried this
I played AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D too, and one of the best advances with 3rd edition was giving all classes the same experience table. It makes many aspects of the game easier to balance.
I strongly suggest not reverting to the older method on this.
|
my question is why do you want the classes to level at a differnt speed? becuase everything is relitive balanced, I do not see why you would need to do that. It is turn that some classes seem be a little more powerful at certen levels. If you feel that some class is more or less powerful then another a small level change. YOu do not want any one in your party getting more then a level or 2 differnt then the rest of the party. That make things much hard to make it fun for the guy that is 3 levels behind.
But some one leveling a sestion early are later then everyone else would be balanced.
Ah, perhaps an example of how class variance can break the game/fun. I have a level 5 druid in my Kingmaker adventure path. Using Treantmonk's guide, this level 5 character does 82 DPR between him and his pet. Which basically means that anything CR appropriate is going to die in the first round. Compare this to the 32 DPR the rest of the strikers do (2H Fighter Archetype and Ranger).
The witch's Slumber Hex is insanely powerful. Step 1 Cause Target to fall asleep. Step 2 Someone Coup-de-grace. Step 3 Next boss encounter please!
JaronK has a compelling case for breaking the classes into different Tiers based on the power disparity, which is more than just a small bit here and there. And one good solution is to slow down the progression of top tier classes so that they don't run all over your encounters, or worse.. incidentally ruin the fun for the whole group by removing risk and suspense.
If we keep in mind that classes are balanced to the CR of each encounter, and not to each other, it makes sense to vary progression. Of course the other viable alternatives are to over stock each encounter, choose much higher CR baddies to challenge the T1's (which are likely to overwhelm the lower tiered classes), or just go with it as written ;)
But the OP seems a great solution even so.
--PC
The 2 bigest problems I see from this are Hit points and saves/save dcs. Hit points were very different 'back in the day' and saving throws didnt even exist as they do now. Slowing their advancement wouldnt be a bad way to 'balance' certian higher power classes except for the fact that they will have a difficult time saving against effects and getting their save based effects to work, as well as their considerably lower hp at mid to high levels.
You might want to check out Castles and Crusades, an ogl derived fantasy game system- they have different xp levels for the different classes (ie. rogues level up quickest off all partys, arcane spellcasters take more xp to level up).
Yeah, I agree that for all their firepower, slowing their progression introduces a weak 'flank.' So that 82 DPR Druid will still overpower any CR appropriate foe, probably even a foe several CRs above, but he's not *so completely greater* than other classes. And that is the point, T1s will now depend on their mates to keep them out of trouble unlike in the current system where certain classes carry the party (Druids, et al).
And just to emphasize, classes are supposed to be balanced to the CR of an encounter, and not to each other. However, a few classes break the CR mold, toss it aside, pour on kerosene and light a match to it. Slowing their progression a bit, and speeding up the progression of 'weaker' classes, allows a group with a wide variety of tiers, such as having a Monk (T5), a Paladin (T3), and a Druid (T1), feel more even in contribution.
Anecdotally, a newer member of our gaming group rolled up a Monk, thinking that he would be tactically useful. After several games of never successfully hitting anything, never successfully tripping anything, constantly being in melee he was always in need of major heals, he came to the conclusion that Monks made things more difficult and that they were poorly designed (his words). Later, we adopted the system I posted above, he choose to give the Monk a 2nd try, and the fact that he's a level ahead of T3's, two levels ahead of the T1's, he's completely satisfied with how his Monk has performed.
I suppose this sort of situation is why I support different exp tables based on JaronK's Tier system, and I absolutely agree that it is personal taste and a very Gamist mindset :) But this is the nature of question in the OP, and so I feel it better balances things out within the first 10 levels (can't say how it affects 11-20, haven't played that far along).
--PC