The PFRPG book has fast, medium and slow xp rates for the various classes and you can pick how fast you want to level up. I was thinking though what if you used those rates for the different classes so a weak class like the monk can level up faster than say a Druid.
The tier 1 and 2 class use slow xp advancement
The tier 3 and 4 clsses use medium xp advancement
tier 5 and 6 use the fast table.
TSR era D&D used to do this and it was one of the reasons why fighter types were often still useful to have around as they would hit level 18 while the wizard would be level 16 for example and the Rogue would be level 20.
|
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..
I think that in this case, the player's favored class should be the determining factor in which experience track they continue through their multi-classing levels. Or just simply, their initial class since there are options for multiple favored classes.
So I burn my first level as a monk, and then have a Wizard that becomes God-Tier even quicker? That's a trade worth 19 hit points if I've ever heard one.
Basically, its just more exploitable.
It also completely borks encounters. Heck, lots of people on these board don't even use XP anymore because it's useless.
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..
If used I guess MCing would be banned.
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..If used I guess MCing would be banned.
What about PrCs?
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..If used I guess MCing would be banned.
Another very good reason to not do it.
What about PrCs?I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..If used I guess MCing would be banned.
Haha, PrCs in pathfinder, this guy... Everyone, can you believe this guy?
...Nah, seriously, I wish Paizo gave us some more PrC love, and good, functional ones, like the Winter Witch. PrCs that don't horribly punish you for taking a unique path of focus. Mammoth Rider, WW, and Envoy of Balance are the only PrCs I really like, as is.
The idea is nice, but I only ever see a 1-3 level gap. Is that really enough?
You could try taking a gestalt multiclassing approach, where stacking class feature levels takes those levels xp instead of more. Then you could not let fullcasters do that, maybe create XP penalties for casters.
For example, a level 10 wizard could take 105,000 xp, while an level 8 fighter/rogue gestalt would take 102,000 xp. Then you could throw in your idea of different classes having different xp rates. So when you have level 10 wizards (160K xp), you could have lvl 10 fighter/rogue gestalts(142K xp).
The idea is nice, but I only ever see a 1-3 level gap. Is that really enough?
It's too much.
The idea is nice, but I only ever see a 1-3 level gap. Is that really enough?It's too much.
Somehow I really do not feel like the level 10 wizard would be envious of the level 12 rogue, or even a level 11 bard/investigator/slayer/ranger/inquisitor would be envious of a level 12 rogue.
Somehow I really do not feel like the level 10 wizard would be envious of the level 12 rogue, or even a level 11 bard/investigator/slayer/ranger/inquisitor would be envious of a level 12 rogue.The idea is nice, but I only ever see a 1-3 level gap. Is that really enough?It's too much.
IMO it can work starrting from the low teens on, but wizard would have lots of problems, if he hits lvl 4, while the fighter hits 6 an encounter later.
At the low lvls such characters will just get trampled by the lvl equivalent monsters.Other problems would be certain tactics(blasting, save or suck)lose their viability even more, while battlefield control becomes the only viable choice for full casters.
Last but not least save or suck effects will really be mean twwo characters lagging behind.
TSR era D&D used to do this
TSR failed. This is one of the reasons.
Level also influence things like BAB, base saving throws, skill ranks, and so on. By the time you are dealing with CR X your base number being off could work very much against you. This has been covered in depth in other threads, and it has never been seen as a good idea by the majority.
|
If you want a houserule to nerf spellcasters - try something along these lines. (I wrote it up back in 3.5 - but never actually played it with it - so I can't really weigh in on the balance beyond theoretical balance.)
Spells take as many actions to cast as (Base Spell level - 1/4 caster level), with a min. casting time of the current casting time (standard action in most cases).
Of note - it's base spell level, so metamagics don't increase spell-casting time.
For example - at level 8, a wizard could cast level 2 and below spells as standard actions (or whatever their base casting time is), a level 3 as a full round action, or a level 4 with 2 full round actions.
This doesn't lower the power of spellcasting out of combat, so it encourages higher level spell slots to be used for buffing, or for metamagicing lower level spells. It also makes spellcasters somewhat more dependant upon martials for protection as they bring out the 'big guns'.
Also of note - it makes counter-spelling a viable tactic (it's really a pretty dumb tactic as it stands), as a spellcraft check can tell you what spell is coming a turn or two before its fully cast, giving plenty of time to counter it. And spending 1 turn counter-spelling used one of your turns, but potentially several of the enemy caster's.
Again - I've never actually tried it. But I think it'd be easier to balance than varied exp tracks. And if it's not doing what you want, it'd be easy to tweak the formual mid-campaign.
|
|
Do you think the monk player will enjoy the game more if his wizard colleague is lower level?
Do you think it will be more fun to play a wizard if it means you'll be lower level than your party-mates?
Personally, I wouldn't like either. I've had the dubious joy of playing an archer that was at some point level 7 while the rest of the party was level 3-5. So I got stuck playing the tank because they were all too squishy.
TSR failed. This is one of the reasons.
TSR era D&D used to do this
TSR failed because of a lot of bad business decisions. At its height TSR era D&D was around 4 times the size of Paizo and they lasted 26 years. Paizo has been around for 12 years so its a little hard to throw that bone around;).
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..
While I am not particularly fond of the overall idea, I do have an idea for how multiclassing could be handled: once you have levels in more than one class, you simply use the slowest applicable XP table for whatever classes you have. Shifting from a faster table to a slower table could leave you stuck at one level for quite a while if you are of high enough level when the shift occurs.
|
|
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..While I am not particularly fond of the overall idea, I do have an idea for how multiclassing could be handled: once you have levels in more than one class, you simply use the slowest applicable XP table for whatever classes you have. Shifting from a faster table to a slower table could leave you stuck at one level for quite a while if you are of high enough level when the shift occurs.
So a Monk 1/Wizard 9 would go slow just like a Wizard 10, while a Monk 10 would be going fast?
Well, that certainly sounds fair. After all, everyone knows that multiclassing caster/noncasters are totally OP.</sarcasm>
TSR failed because of a lot of bad business decisions. At its height TSR era D&D was around 4 times the size of Paizo and they lasted 26 years. Paizo has been around for 12 years so its a little hard to throw that bone around;).TSR failed. This is one of the reasons.
TSR era D&D used to do this
yup, I know. I forgot a smile :)
anyway, what I mean is that the tsr like progression of xp based on the class it's a really old school concept. To use such a method you need to take into account a lot of factors. I don't like a solution like that. In pf, especially at lower levels, the casters risk really lot.
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..If used I guess MCing would be banned.
I'm all about house rules, but the standardization of things like the XP chart and the a la carte multiclassing are two of the best things about the 3.x family, IMO. Its take on MCing might actually be the greatest thing that PF inherited from 3.0 and 3.5.
So, not that I play PF all that often anyway, but these sort of house rules are the kind of thing that'd have me bowing out before the game starts. Both of these rules feel like cutting off a finger because there's a splinter under the fingernail. There are much better ways to balance classes than going back to TSR-era sensibilities, IMO.
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..While I am not particularly fond of the overall idea, I do have an idea for how multiclassing could be handled: once you have levels in more than one class, you simply use the slowest applicable XP table for whatever classes you have. Shifting from a faster table to a slower table could leave you stuck at one level for quite a while if you are of high enough level when the shift occurs.
So a Monk 1/Wizard 9 would go slow just like a Wizard 10, while a Monk 10 would be going fast?
Well, that certainly sounds fair. After all, everyone knows that multiclassing caster/noncasters are totally OP.</sarcasm>
I don't believe in tiers, but for a lower-magic world or something, I'd suggest taking the progression of the class you have the most levels in (or the worst of the most if tied), and make it one worse if multi-classed with other classes that have a worse progression.
That way a Fighter 9 would level faster than a Fighter 8/Wizard 1, who'd level faster than a Wizard 5+/Fighter 4-. Call it the old Multiclass XP Penalty :) Remember folks - freely multiclassing came with Pathfinder, not 3.0/3.5 - it just cracked the door open.
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..If used I guess MCing would be banned.
No, you just have to change the way the table looks. Instead of being cumulative XP, change the XP table to "needed XP to advance from level n to level n+1" then you use the XP tract of whatever class you take in a given level. Assign XP tracts to PrC's as "full casting progression is slow, dropped casting levels is medium, no casting is fast."
I like the idea, but calculating in case of multiclassing breaks the idea for me..If used I guess MCing would be banned.I'm all about house rules, but the standardization of things like the XP chart and the a la carte multiclassing are two of the best things about the 3.x family, IMO. Its take on MCing might actually be the greatest thing that PF inherited from 3.0 and 3.5.
So, not that I play PF all that often anyway, but these sort of house rules are the kind of thing that'd have me bowing out before the game starts. Both of these rules feel like cutting off a finger because there's a splinter under the fingernail. There are much better ways to balance classes than going back to TSR-era sensibilities, IMO.
I have been playing TSR era recently D&D and I can now see why a lot of things like restrictions existed and the lack of things like feats which leads to power gaming.
I'll have to loo in the PFRPG core book but there was a little line in the 3.5 books about multiclassing which more or less said only with the DMs permission. That rule seemed to get ignored a lot in 3E heyday not sure if it carried through to Pathfinder.
I actually prefer TSR era multiclassing rules or at least a tweaked version of them over the d20 multiclassing rules.
Its just things as basic as changing the way spells and magic items are acquired from OSR D&D to 3.x created a lot of problems IMHO. If a spell was broken in AD&D the DM could just not hand it out, d20 he would have to explicitly ban it as PC classes get to chose the spells they want when they level up.
Meh, everything is subject to GM permission. No need to repeat it all the time.
Up to a point. Have a look at any of the spell caster classes and in Pathfinder they get to chose what spells they get to pick when they level up at least the arcane classes.
So unless a DM explicitly bans a spell they can pick anything they like which means they can combo spells together very easily.
In AD&D you could not pick fly +greater invisibility for example you would have to research or find those spells. And the DM could still ban any spell he wanted to and the splat books were 100% clear about everything being optional.
|
Up to a point. Have a look at any of the spell caster classes and in Pathfinder they get to chose what spells they get to pick when they level up at least the arcane classes.
Provided that class isn't banned. Or that the GM looks over the sheet and says they need to change something because it doesn't fit the campaign or what not.
Most GMs just don't want to spend the time with line-by-line approvals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been playing TSR era recently D&D and I can now see why a lot of things like restrictions existed and the lack of things like feats which leads to power gaming.
I'll have to loo in the PFRPG core book but there was a little line in the 3.5 books about multiclassing which more or less said only with the DMs permission. That rule seemed to get ignored a lot in 3E heyday not sure if it carried through to Pathfinder.
I actually prefer TSR era multiclassing rules or at least a tweaked version of them over the d20 multiclassing rules.
Its just things as basic as changing the way spells and magic items are acquired from OSR D&D to 3.x created a lot of problems IMHO. If a spell was broken in AD&D the DM could just not hand it out, d20 he would have to explicitly ban it as PC classes get to chose the spells they want when they level up.
I agree that a lot of the small changes that were introduced with 3e resulted in quite a few problems, and some of 3e's innovations probably didn't turn out as the original 3e team expected. (See: multiclassing and feats.) And if you like the way that 2e handles things, then by all means, go retro!
But after playing 2e during my childhood, and then playing 3.0 and 3.5 for eight years, I think that introducing 2e-isms just introduces a different set of problems. Arguably lesser problems overall, but I'd personally rather spend the time and energy tinkering with PF than Frankensteining 2e and PF together. In the end, I think I'd spend a similar amount for a greater result.
But this is your game of course, so YMMV.
|
|
Meh, everything is subject to GM permission. No need to repeat it all the time.Up to a point. Have a look at any of the spell caster classes and in Pathfinder they get to chose what spells they get to pick when they level up at least the arcane classes.
So unless a DM explicitly bans a spell they can pick anything they like which means they can combo spells together very easily.
In AD&D you could not pick fly +greater invisibility for example you would have to research or find those spells. And the DM could still ban any spell he wanted to and the splat books were 100% clear about everything being optional.
Personally, I would rather the system be open and as GM restrict or ban as I see fit. Restrictive game design may help enforce balance, but provides little explanation to the casual player. If I don't happen to agree with those system wide restrictions I now have to open them up as well. Pass.
I have been playing TSR era recently D&D and I can now see why a lot of things like restrictions existed and the lack of things like feats which leads to power gaming.
I'll have to loo in the PFRPG core book but there was a little line in the 3.5 books about multiclassing which more or less said only with the DMs permission. That rule seemed to get ignored a lot in 3E heyday not sure if it carried through to Pathfinder.
I actually prefer TSR era multiclassing rules or at least a tweaked version of them over the d20 multiclassing rules.
Its just things as basic as changing the way spells and magic items are acquired from OSR D&D to 3.x created a lot of problems IMHO. If a spell was broken in AD&D the DM could just not hand it out, d20 he would have to explicitly ban it as PC classes get to chose the spells they want when they level up.
I agree that a lot of the small changes that were introduced with 3e resulted in quite a few problems, and some of 3e's innovations probably didn't turn out as the original 3e team expected. (See: multiclassing and feats.) And if you like the way that 2e handles things, then by all means, go retro!
But after playing 2e during my childhood, and then playing 3.0 and 3.5 for eight years, I think that introducing 2e-isms just introduces a different set of problems. Arguably lesser problems overall, but I'd personally rather spend the time and energy tinkering with PF than Frankensteining 2e and PF together. In the end, I think I'd spend a similar amount for a greater result.
But this is your game of course, so YMMV.
I have had fun mixing d20 into 2E and 2E into PF.
Houserules
2E
BAB instead of THACO
Ascending ACs
Mo racial or level limits
Humans gain +1 WP/NWP and +1 to an attribute of their choice
PF
All magic item creation and metamagic feats do not exist.
AD&D magic item creation rules from Spells and Magic are being used.
Casting permanency on a magic item does not drain a con point.
Wands of Cure lt Wounds do not exist.
|
This was something I tinkered with a while back. Here is what I came up with: Linkified.
Note that Prestige classes are not figured in this at this time.
I also haven't playtested it yet either.