Different XP progressions as a means of class balance?

[Elodan]

I have no real feelings one way or the other on this but I thought it might be an interesting topic to discuss (not sure if there's a message board law that you can only start topics you're passionate about).

AD&D used different XP progression tables as part of the means of balancing classes. A Fighter needed to get 2000xp to reach 2nd level; a wizard (magic-user) needed 2500xp. If both had 5000xp, then the Fighter would be 3rd level while the wizard was 2nd.

Is this still a viable means to help "balance" the classes?

 

[billd91]

Is it a viable means of obtaining balance? Potentially. Is it worth pursuing? I don't think so. Too complicated to get right. I think it's a lot easier to let the classes advance in level at the same rate and balance around that.

 

[steeldragons]

"Is it still...?" Technically, for 4e no. Not sure about 3e.

I think it makes complete sense, to reflect the difficulty inherent to increasing one's power in severely divergent modes of increasing power.

So yes. For me, it is a very obvious and yet subtle way to "balance" the classes. You're increasing in a lot of power, you need more XP. Simple. Done.

Makes total sense and gives every class a "flavor" to their "difficulty" in increasing power.

I have no trouble with it and regardless of the "rules" of 5e, I will be keeping XP differences in my games.

--SD

 

[Ratskinner]

I have no real feelings one way or the other on this but I thought it might be an interesting topic to discuss (not sure if there's a message board law that you can only start topics you're passionate about).

AD&D used different XP progression tables as part of the means of balancing classes. A Fighter needed to get 2000xp to reach 2nd level; a wizard (magic-user) needed 2500xp. If both had 5000xp, then the Fighter would be 3rd level while the wizard was 2nd.

Is this still a viable means to help "balance" the classes?

I never thought it was actually worth the trouble the first time around. It rarely made much difference, maybe a level or two for part of an adventure. I never felt it ended up "balancing" anything at all. It perhaps does make some simulationist sense, but not enough, IMO.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Absolutely not. I'm not in favor of XP, period, but I'm definitely not in favor of taking a metagame rule intended to pace the game and using it to "balance" different classes. It's confusing (how on earth would 3e style true multiclassing work with it?) and doesn't help balance anything. This is one dead cow that needs to stay that way.

 

[Serendipity]

I would be very happy if they did this.

 

[Tallifer]

AD&D had varied experience requirements. 3.5 and Pathfinder dropped them.

It seems like a fair way to balance classes, but I prefer mechanical balance. Plus it seems to punish wizards even more at low levels, but make little difference at high levels. High level fighters in AD&D did not receive much benefit from going past a certain level.

 

[MortalPlague]

Please no... it's just more complication for very little simulation gain. If they absolutely need to do this, it could be included in a module.

Perhaps the wizard (cause he's the one who needs more to level, right?) could choose when to level up. There could be the normal level up benefits for 2000 xp, but if he holds on and chooses to level at 2500 xp instead, he gets an extra metamagic feat?

 

[Sunseeker]

Absolutely not. XP is an metagame measurement for players, it shouldn't have any in-game function. Spells shouldn't cause you to lose/gain it/cost it, and classes shouldn't progress at different rates through it.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I can see potential benefits, but the downside is more EXP charts in the book.