There have been a lot of threads that talk about the inbalance in power levels between classes and just as meny try to sort a fair way to balance the scale.
I had a thought that may be a simple way to even things out , have the players advance in levels at different rates .
Much like in AD&D 1st ed where rouges level faster than fighters who in turn level quicker than mages i would say that fighters stay as the norm with rouges requireing say 20% less xp and magic user require about 20% more .
Now it would need a lot of playtesting to get the levels right but as a blanket statement i feel thats about right
Your thoughts please
But only after you have thought about it no knee jerking please
This has come up before. Because skills also advance by class levels, along with saves and attack bonuses the math won't work out. Too many things are tied into leveling up. You would have to rewrite the system.
This has come up before. Because skills also advance by class levels, along with saves and attack bonuses the math won't work out. Too many things are tied into leveling up. You would have to rewrite the system.
but the rogue would actually be the skill monkey again. :P
edit: oh god I released the kraken.
Another thing is that the amount of imbalance varies a lot depending on your table, and for many of us it is more of a problem in theory than in actual play.
Then we would have to agree on how to fix the problems. Do we allow the fighters to do extraordinary things? If so do others try to call it anime or not realistic?
Etc Etc
This has come up before. Because skills also advance by class levels, along with saves and attack bonuses the math won't work out. Too many things are tied into leveling up. You would have to rewrite the system.but the rogue would actually be the skill monkey again. :P
edit: oh god I released the kraken.
<makes will save>
No comment.. :)
Why would the system need rewriting the system remains the same just that classes get more spell hit points feats what ever at slightly different times no rewrite except for the xp table .
And the biggest gap between lvls would at worst be 2 lvls assuming that the character needing the lest xp just makes the lvl but then the character needing the most xp would be just short of there next level.
With 90% of the party being at most one lvl apart
This of course assumes that the party get the same xp per session
Why would the system need rewriting the system remains the same just that classes get more spell hit points feats what ever at slightly different times no rewrite except for the xp table .
And the biggest gap between lvls would at worst be 2 lvls assuming that the character needing the lest xp just makes the lvl but then the character needing the most xp would be just short of there next level.
With 90% of the party being at most one lvl apart
This of course assumes that the party get the same xp per session
For reasons I mentioned above. A level 12 full caster has more narrative power than a level 20 fighter, but that is a big difference in saves and skill points availible. Also a full caster such as a cleric of druid wont have the combat prowess to be in melee combat with whatever a 20th level fighter can face.
If you are going to balance the game then delaying levels alone wont work. You will need to change a lot of other things because of how everythign is tied into levels. To expand on what I already wrote, number of feats, class features, and HD are also tied into it. You can't just delay levels and walk away, and expect for it to work.
AD&D did not work like 3.5/PF, so you can't expect the same results.
PS: Before you say not all games go to 20, the problems will start well before level 20.
The problems will start at level two when casters are level one.
In pathfinder, this kind of staggered XP guarantees that no caster will ever live to see level 3 as they have to keep fighting against higher level creatures that are the fighter's level and can easily one shot them.
To do this kind of thing right you would have to set it up so that the casters actually advanced thorough the first 8-9 levels FASTER than martials, then have a massive slow down for them around level 10 where suddenly the fighters vault from behind and get to level 12-13 before they hit make that leap from 9-10.
Does that kind of thing really sound like fun to you?
Let me tell you-- it wasn't/isn't.
Level gaining in this game is about a lot more than power level. Its about maintaining a forward momentum of your characters abilities. Its a carrot to keep you from getting bored because you have periodic advancements to always look forward to.
Group members getting the rewards faster than others just creates problems in the group.
If you want a system where Wizards suck, just go play Shadowrun and mow all the casters down with machine gun fire and stop trying to fix something that isn't broken.
|
I believe some people on these boards have actually had great success using the three different XP tracks (fast, medium, or slow) on different characters, with Wizards using the slow one, Bards using the medium one, and Rogues using the fast one (or whatever).
That has the advantage of starting everyone out equal, having the level difference sorta sneak up gradually (Fast hits 3rd slightly after Slow hits 2nd, for example), and maximizing the level difference at about two levels difference between the highest and lowest level people in the party, which is workable.
Thank you deadmanwalking
I've done the math and a rouge wouldn't be massively out pacing a mage at any point the earilsty the gap could go to two lvls is when the rouge hits 8th at which point the mage is 6th but only 1200xp short of 7th lvl (@ a point when the party would need an average tool xp of 51,000 )
Ps i don't have a problem with the power levels as they are i just had an idea i wanted to share
|
|
Thank you deadmanwalking
You're quite welcome. :)
Ps i don't have a problem with the power levels as they are i just had an idea i wanted to share
For the record, while I don't feel like the existing balance is perfect, I feel no real desire to do this either (not least because that would force me to actually use xp). I've just seen other people mention that they do it in their games and that it works fine for them.
What math did you do? Did you account for saves vs APL and APL +3 or higher opponents, and the lack of bonuses that casters wont be giving to martials anymore
Also I am not saying it cant work for anyone. I just dont think it works for most of us without a lot of houserules in place.
The apl of a group using my idea remains the same assuming an normal spread character in a 4-6 player party
So it shouldn't effect how the party copes with an encounter ( unless the gm pushes every encounter to the max)
|
|
What math did you do? Did you account for saves vs APL and APL +3 or higher opponents, and the lack of bonuses that casters wont be giving to martials anymore
I didn't do much of anything (since I don't actually do this), but the obstacles you propose aren't really that big, to be honest.
First, definitionally, you're giving them all the same money (presumably the right amount for the Medium XP Track), so the difference in Saves due to level is +1 at most between the highest and lowest level people. That's hardly insurmountable.
And being at -1 or -2 CL at most is hardly crippling to the number of buffs a PC can throw out. It's more damaging to offensive spells, really.
Additionally, assuming you're dealing with equal numbers of Fast, Slow, and Medium Track characters, you're basically going with Fast track characters having +1 level, and Slow Track ones having -1 level (but both still having level appropriate wealth). That sounds pretty workable.
A level 12 full caster has more narrative power than a level 20 fighter, but that is a big difference in saves and skill points availible.
Exactly this. Fighters are already fine in one-on-one, stand-still-and-don't-move combat. It's just that they can't do anything else. Make them higher level and they'll be better at one-on-one, stand-still-and-don't-move combat, but STILL won't be able to do anything else.
What math did you do? Did you account for saves vs APL and APL +3 or higher opponents, and the lack of bonuses that casters wont be giving to martials anymoreI didn't do much of anything (since I don't actually do this), but the obstacles you propose aren't really that big, to be honest.
First, definitionally, you're giving them all the same money (presumably the right amount for the Medium XP Track), so the difference in Saves due to level is +1 at most between the highest and lowest level people. That's hardly insurmountable.
And being at -1 or -2 CL at most is hardly crippling to the number of buffs a PC can throw out. It's more damaging to offensive spells, really.
Additionally, assuming you're dealing with equal numbers of Fast, Slow, and Medium Track characters, you're basically going with Fast track characters having +1 level, and Slow Track ones having -1 level (but both still having level appropriate wealth). That sounds pretty workable.
That was for Tony. I should have quoted him. I think fighters and caster need to be more than one level apart for it to be balanced, but then you run into problems with how saves progress. That is why I keep saying levels tie into to many things for xp progression to work alone.
If you have a GM willing to fudge things behind the scenes it won't be so bad, but for it to be considered a good solution it should work on its own, and hold casters back one level is hardly going to make them more balanced.
In addition the casters ability to affect monster also weakens which makes the party weaker.
I never said it was a solution it was just an idea
I never said it was a solution it was just an idea
I understand. I am just explaining why it will take more work than just delaying XP. I wish it was that easy.
I think at low to mid lvls it would make a difference subtle but enough to take the edge off the problem at higher levels then it would make little difference but it might be worth a bit of play testing you could use lvl appropriate characters from npc codex as they should all be fairly even in build terms
With multi classing you would use whatever table was apporate to the class you wanted to take this would make you choose what class you where taking in advance