Unified Class Progression Table Yay Or Nay?

[Zardnaar]

I played 3.5/Pathfinder up to the end of 2012 and then went back to 2nd ed and retroclones. Right now we are kind of playing a d20 2nd ed AD&D/retroclone hybrid using things like ascending ACs and fort/ref/will but plugged into an AD&D atmosphere. Most of my players are d20 types but they do not seem to mind even pure 2nd ed although they did not like THAC0 and things like that.

Anyway I have started to prefer the old TSR classes leveling at different rates. I'm basically in the market for a d20 AD&D 3rd edition or a fixed 3.5 (Pathfinder is not it BTW) and in either case I would actually prefer the old school class progressions. It doesn't mean I think the xp tables were perfect by any means (Driud and Wizard xp tables come to mind from TSR days) just the basic concept. For example if I played 3.5 again I would not mind if the tier 1 classes advanced on a slow table, the tier 2-3 classes used a medium xp table and the tier 4 classes and lower leveled up faster. Or I could go with 2nd eds idea with the various classes having different xp tables or shared in some cases (Paladin/Ranger, Thif/Bard etc).

In theory a unified approach is better but after seeing the balance problems caused in 3.x, 4E homogenization of the classes and D&DN take on things I'm leaning towards ye old school approach. Just posting it to see what people prefer and if some WoTC D&D prefer different xp tables or if some OSR players would prefer a unified approach.

 

[MerricB]

Unified tables were needed in 3E because of how the multiclassing worked. I like the older type tables, but I wouldn't use them with 3E-style multiclassing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Neither would I lol. I don't mind 3rd ed style MC but it would not work very well with OSR xp tables. One could run a 3.x type games using pre WoTC xp tables though. MC would resemble gestalting and classes level up at different speeds.

I think I may even enjoy that. Depends on how it was done I suppose.

 

[Nellisir]

I've yet to see an implementation of 2e style XP charts that actually does what it says on the tin. Generally the difference in progression is not radical enough to be actually significant. Furthermore, if a 2nd level thief is "equal" to a 1st level fighter, it's equally valid to increase the power of the 1st-level thief. If different XP rates are "required" to "balance" the characters, then you are saying that it is possible to balance them.

The exception to this could be multiclassing, in that chart A is used for single classed characters, B for dual-classed, and C for triple classed characters advancing as per 1e/2e style.

In a digression, I like 3e multiclassing and a unified XP chart because it makes level limits workable.

 

[Orius]

I don't think it really matters. Merrick's right about the multiclassing, 3e's tables make that system work, and I never had any problems with the concept myself. The unified progression made it easier for a DM to assign story rewards as well. Seperate XP tables along with level titles are one of the things that the OSR crowd seem to miss that I don't have any particular nostalgia for, and which I don't think really adds anything important to the game over the long term.

 

[billd91]

Chalk me up as not being particularly thrilled with different advancement tables. They had an interesting place in history but ultimately you were balancing a PC around his XP total rather than his level (while still using level as a benchmark for participation in adventures) and that, I think, was a lot harder to actually pull off successfully. The unified XP chart was one of the changes 3e made that I whole-heartedly consider an improvement.

 

[howandwhy99]

In theory a unified approach is better but after seeing the balance problems caused in 3.x, 4E homogenization of the classes and D&DN take on things I'm leaning towards ye old school approach. Just posting it to see what people prefer and if some WoTC D&D prefer different xp tables or if some OSR players would prefer a unified approach.

1. OD&D has class-specific XP progressions for a reason. They are built into the mechanical design of the game as the game design both needs and supports them.

2. If your game doesn't support varied XP progression, then you shouldn't use it without changing your game.

3. OD&D expected ALL new characters to begin at Level 1, Zero XP no matter where anyone else was with their character. It did not enforce balance between PCs. That would have been considered ridiculous considering the objective of the game - for each player to play to gain XP.

4. 3.x is notoriously bad at supporting different leveled PCs in the same game situation. If you are 2 levels or more different than another character, your odds are severely too high or too low for an appropriate challenge for the group.

5. 4e is even more rigorously balanced PC vs. PC. It may allow for greater disparity than 3.x, but I seriously doubt is supports 30 levels of play difference.

D&D Next should support a wider disparity of power between PCs. It has a much flatter progression of odds for all characters (including PCs), so different levels of PCs can adventure together. Whether or not individual XP will be the default for the game or not remains to be seen. And nothing in the rules suggests any class should or would require different XP totals than any other.

I know my understanding of why early D&D used varied XP requirements, but I'd like to hear why you want them. I agree variety is the spice of life. And it's not like D&D Next isn't including s-i-m-p-l-e & CoMpLeX classes to play. But haven't heard anything about XP rewards being different for them.

 

[fjw70]

I prefer unified xp tables but don't hate different tables by class.

 

[Storminator]

I no longer hand out XP, and have no desire to ever track it again, so different tables probably wouldn't work for me. But I'm not at your table . . .

PS

 

[pemerton]

OD&D expected ALL new characters to begin at Level 1, Zero XP no matter where anyone else was with their character. It did not enforce balance between PCs. That would have been considered ridiculous considering the objective of the game - for each player to play to gain XP.

I agree with this.

What is your view of Gygax's suggestion in his DMG that experienced players might begin at 2nd or 3rd level?

4e is even more rigorously balanced PC vs. PC. It may allow for greater disparity than 3.x, but I seriously doubt is supports 30 levels of play difference.

I don't know 3E well enough to have a strong view about it, but I think in 4e - at least played in accordance with the default expectations set out in the rulebook - makes PCs of different levels pointless. XP aren't a reward - the way the rules are set up, in effect you get XP just for turning up and playing the game (at the rate of around one level-equivalent encounter's worth per hour or so). And so, given that XP is not a reward, players aren't playing for XP: they're playing for motivations connected to the fiction itself, and the transition, within the gameworld, from heroic to epic scope. And once players aren't playing for XP, but are playing for motivations connected to the scope of the ingame situation, why muck that up by putting different players' PCs at different positions within that scope?

I've yet to see an implementation of 2e style XP charts that actually does what it says on the tin. Generally the difference in progression is not radical enough to be actually significant. Furthermore, if a 2nd level thief is "equal" to a 1st level fighter, it's equally valid to increase the power of the 1st-level thief. If different XP rates are "required" to "balance" the characters, then you are saying that it is possible to balance them.

I agree with this. Unless the idea of "level" is meant to have some additional significance besides being a method of delivering packets of mechanical effectiveness, I don't see any special benefit in letting some classes gain levels more quickly than others by needing fewer XP to achieve them.

In my experience, all it tends to do is make CON more or less important in determining some classes' hit points, by changing the number of HD, and hence the extent of the CON bonus, as a contributing factor to total hit points. And I'm fairly confident that this effect was not deliberate; I'm pretty sure it was emergent. The first published discussion of it I'm aware of is Roger Moore in Dragon magazine 69. (Moore refers to Lewis Pulsipher's earlier article in White Dwarf making the point that it is XP, not levels, that should be the key determiners of mechanical effectiveness.)