It has. I can't remember the exact arguments, but it did not go over well. I will also tell you that the player is more important than the class. The person than can give the GM a headache with a barbarian can also do it with a caster.
In short player tier is more important than class tier, which only matters when all other things are equal, which they never are.
There is also the issue of skill points and being able to make appropriate level skill checks, the amount of HP, the ability to attack, and so on.
At low level the difference would not matter that much but at higher levels it would especially with the difference in HP. A caster that was too far behind would have issues bypassing SR, and getting monsters to fail saves.
It is easier to learn the rules, and how they are affecting your game so you can adjust that way.
PS:I am not saying you don't know the rules
PS2:What issues are you having? If something is not broke then don't fix it, and many times the issue is not the class, but other issues, such as too much loot, point buy, one player just being a lot better than the other players, and so on.
and what levels do you do the tiers for?
at lower levels, casters are actually weaker. A human fighter with thunder and fist will tear through multiple encounters faster than a wizard with limited spells.
so is the fighter considered high tier levels 1-5 and then switches to medium 6-10 and then low 11+
while the wizards would be low tier levels 1-5 and then etc
If you only look at the higher levels and balance the classes there--where wizards are stronger---than at the lower levels where wizards are weaker than melee---all of sudden that weakness is compounded by being lower level also. so four total spells a day at two levels lower or something
Most classes have their "shining" levels where they are more powerful--than you have a pivotal middle ground where balance is better--then the weak classes get strong and the stronger classes get weaker at higher levels.
Not sure if this has been discussed on the forums (search didn't reveal anything).Has anyone though about or even tried implementing the following rule:
Top-Tier classes use the Slow XP Progresion
Mid-Tier classes use the Regular XP Progression
Low-Tier classes use the Fast XP Progression.Similar to the older versions of D&D where the thief required only 1250 xp to reach Level 2, while the Wizard required twice as much (2500).
Used in this manner, a low-tier class (like a rogue for example) would routintely be 2 levels ahead of his wizard and cleric companions.
I've seen options for balancing the powerful classes vs. the weaker classes (different point buys, etc.); but never this.
I guess the question is, is this enough to balance out the tiers?
Assuming the game was played "as if" you were using the normal XP chart. If the APL was 3 (so you are starting to fight ogres, groups of orcs, etc.) would you rather be a level 2 cleric, or a level 4 rogue?
Thought about it. Back in the day that was part of class balance. Haven't done it because the simplification in xp charts was, overall, nice. The one thing I dislike about all classes using the same chart is the idea that everyone must be the same level with the exact same experience point total. All the time. Or something is "wrong". But then I don't have to worry about it on a personal level, my players are used to death and disparate levels / xp totals. I like some grit in my sandbox :)
Now, having stirred up the lynch mobs with that bit of heresy I have finished grading papers and I'm crashing.
|
Not sure if this has been discussed on the forums (search didn't reveal anything).
Has anyone though about or even tried implementing the following rule:
Top-Tier classes use the Slow XP Progresion
Mid-Tier classes use the Regular XP Progression
Low-Tier classes use the Fast XP Progression.Similar to the older versions of D&D where the thief required only 1250 xp to reach Level 2, while the Wizard required twice as much (2500).
Used in this manner, a low-tier class (like a rogue for example) would routintely be 2 levels ahead of his wizard and cleric companions.
I've seen options for balancing the powerful classes vs. the weaker classes (different point buys, etc.); but never this.
I guess the question is, is this enough to balance out the tiers?
Assuming the game was played "as if" you were using the normal XP chart. If the APL was 3 (so you are starting to fight ogres, groups of orcs, etc.) would you rather be a level 2 cleric, or a level 4 rogue?
I agree with most of the other posters... low level, the casters are typically pretty weak and get much stronger as the levels go on. The fighters are less effective than wizards at high level... if you mess with the XP progression, it will screw too much with the rest of the system. At high level, a caster is devestating but super squishy at low levels... which makes sense really.
If you have real issues with XP system, you may want to look at some of the systems that don't have "levels" per se. Personally I'm glad they flattened out the whole XP progress thingy in 3rd edition the way they did.
couldn't you do a gradual increase or decrease in progression as characters level? if you weren't going to 20 it could help balance casters to martials. just so i'm clear casters start at fast progression and work down to slow and martials start at slow and slowly move to fast.
|
from what i remember, pre-3E XP tables roughly doubled with each level. this usually meant wizard behind one level, and thief ahead one level, most other classes in the middle, for any given level. i actually prefer this progression as it makes sense to me. the trade-off is complexity. the attempt to 'balance' the classes was a result of universalizing the XP tables. and so, since 'balance' cannot be found, it makes sense to utilize different XP tables to try to bring a closer margin. especially if you are in a group of math enthusiasts and/or play single-classed adventurers...
This is a bad idea and you should feel bad for presenting it here.
Used in this manner, a low-tier class (like a rogue for example) would routintely be 2 levels ahead of his wizard and cleric companions.
I've seen options for balancing the powerful classes vs. the weaker classes (different point buys, etc.); but never this.
I guess the question is, is this enough to balance out the tiers?
The most important part and at the same time the most difficult part would be to decide which classes are which tier.
My guess is that if you ask 10 players for their opinion you get at least 11 different answers.Some ppl think the monk is one of the strong classes, others (like me) think he is one of the weak classes.
Others might give different answers for different level ranges.
As a different example let's look at the paladin. I'd say he is too strong and needs to be in the top tier. Others claim he is too MAD, thus needs a boost and should go to the middle or low tier.
The Sorcerer, is he equal to the wizard in power? Or weaker? Or stronger?
And even if you manage (which I think is impossible) to make a tier system every one agrees with you still have the problem of multiclassing.
TL;dr
Even if I did like the idea I had to say: It's impossible.