Different XP progressions as a means of class balance?

[DEFCON 1]

Different XP tables could be used to balance classes, but I think there are more effective ways to do it that do not require spending valuable PH space on a whole bunch of a different tables.

 

[Mattachine]

Like I said earlier, different xp tables is explicit admission that some classes are more powerful than others, and being different levels is the balancing factor. If a new edition went back to this, I would houserule it away.

Some of the folks that like the different xp tables suggest, on other threads, that classes should be balanced by their abilities in different situations. Those two things seems mutually exclusive to me.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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

Of course it is. The fact that it has never been done correctly/effectively before may tend to color some viewpoints. And I sieze strongly upon the word "help" in there. It is not a means to completely, utterly, absolutely balance everything about the differences in classes - but it can HELP to do so.

AD&D screwed up the implementation of using xp progression to balance classes because it tried to do so by changing what you need to progress at 1st level to balance what you need at 18th, which is a completely whacky notion. Wizards are FAMOUSLY weak at 1st level - that means that as a balance they should need LESS xp to advance, not MORE. The most powerful class at 1st level should need the most xp, the least powerful the least. That symmetry should carry on through each level - as a character gains power relative to other PC's with the same xp total (NOTE: not level - xp total. We are talking about asymmetrical advancement after all) the amount of xp he needs to advance increases, as a character class falls behind other classes it requires less xp to advance. THAT is using xp to balance classes.

XP simulates expertise gained through experience.

No. XP is indeed a meta-game measure for players. Gary made this quite clear in the 1E DMG where he explained that level advancement, by rights, SHOULD be achieved by spending time in a library reading musty tomes about magic or tilting at lists - NOT just by killing the odd monster and certainly not at all by tallying up the value of its loot. XP is firmly lodged in the "game" part of Roleplaying Game. Some have said simpler is better. This too, is not UNIVERSALLY true. Not everybody wants rule-free, rules-lite systems. Sometimes added mechanics makes it a better GAME.

Multiclassing is something of a seperate discussion all its own. Frankly, I agree with Lanefan (unable to xp again until I spread some around) and I would not weep if multiclassing were simply dropped altogether. What would or could it be replaced with? I can think of a couple of things but that's a different topic as I said.

The AD&D xp charts are difficult to analyze because they are logarithmic in progression and xp awards do not necessarily remain equal. Insofar as I've been able to, however, I find that they jump around a lot and do not meaningfully reflect ANYTHING that's actually happening with a given class. Combine that with the fact that neither Gary nor anyone else (to my knowledge) has ever come forward and attempted to explain just how an increase here or decrease there was actually going to accomplish something particular. My conclusion then is that when the AD&D charts were implemented there wasn't a point where those charts were intentionally designed to acheive given effects. They were just kind of thrown out there. The whole game was indeed still being made up as it went along. RPG game design was still in its infancy - it was still being DEVELOPED as a discipline. People have put WAY too much faith into elements of even more recent editions, much less the older ones. Why do you suppose that WotC does all this playtesting? It's because when it comes down to all these bright ideas they still don't KNOW if they're all that bright, if they'll even work. The ultimate way to figure it out is to PLAY it through and see what happens.

I also want to add again that this notion that classes actually CAN be balanced is hogwash. Even if you give two players IDENTICAL characters in every respect one of them is likely to do better than the other simply because the players differ in their abilities and dice results are RANDOM; at key moments a tip from one die face to another can have deep and lasting repurcussions. Not WILL - but CAN. It is a good thing to take steps to lessen those impacts but it is also a good thing to accept that we will never eliminate the inherent unfairness of dice and player skills. It is also a FAR more interesting game when characters ARE different in their capabilities, not merely clones of each other who simply use different names for the same mechanical abilities.

It needs to be said as a reminder that D&D is a LEVEL-BASED SYSTEM. Attempts to eliminate any difference between characters of different levels is essentially trying to deny that. ACCEPT that D&D characters have levels and that they are never really going to be equal and you'll have a lot fewer problems. The more you try to divest it from this essential element the less it will feel like D&D - the less it will BE like D&D. At some point rather than trying to bend D&D to be what it ISN'T you'll do better to simply go play a different game that IS what you're after.

Just look at all the ways people handle xp and xp progression - including ignoring it entirely. There isn't a "one size fits all" solution here, and in fact more than one answer can be the correct answer. There are even possible approaches that haven't been mentioned yet. I see the advantages and disadvantages to both the AD&D varied charts per class and the 3E universal advancement. I won't be able to complain too loudly about either one and might actually enjoy an entirely new approach.

 

[Melkor]

I'm running AD&D again currently; I find this rule works well to differentiate the classes, and it contributes to AD&D's multiclassing rules working well in play, whereas I think 3e multiclassing is terrible and 4e it barely exists.

I completely agree with this.

I would love to see different XP for different classes make a comeback.

 

[Dausuul]

I also want to add again that this notion that classes actually CAN be balanced is hogwash. Even if you give two players IDENTICAL characters in every respect one of them is likely to do better than the other simply because the players differ in their abilities and dice results are RANDOM; at key moments a tip from one die face to another can have deep and lasting repurcussions. Not WILL - but CAN. It is a good thing to take steps to lessen those impacts but it is also a good thing to accept that we will never eliminate the inherent unfairness of dice and player skills.

This completely misunderstands the goal of game balance. A well-balanced game is not one where all outcomes are identical; it is one where all participants have the same chance to achieve the same outcomes given the same level of skill. Two identical characters are perfectly balanced by definition. The flip of a fair coin is balanced, even though every flip ends in total victory for one player and utter defeat for the other. Balance has nothing to do with the degree that chance and skill affect the outcome; balance is what's left after you subtract the impact of chance and skill.

Your concept of "balance" precludes player decisions from having any impact on the game at all. As far as I know, nobody wants such a system and nobody is seeking to create one.

Attempts to eliminate any difference between characters of different levels is essentially trying to deny that.

Another ludicrous idea that nobody wants and nobody is trying to achieve. Of course characters of different levels are going to have different amounts of power! That's the whole point of levels!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Having "experience points" that everyone uses implies a common currency. Having "levels" that everyone uses implies a common currency. Perhaps it implies more precision than is the case?

One way you could explicitly have different progressions and make no claim to precision would be to have different points and tiers for each class. Maybe you get "ranks" in weapon use, through "combat points"; "circles of spells" via "arcane mojo"; "divine favor" via "priestly intervention"; and so forth. When a wizard helps kill a monster he gets arcane mojo. The fighter gets combat points. A fighter/wizard gets some of each (or perhaps either). Likewise for completing quests or talking or sneaking or recovering treasure or any number of things. Or better yet, you go with some activities rewarding more of one thing than another. Kill an orc, available are 3 combat points, 2 arcane mojo, and 1 divine favor. Each character can get that all of those, or whatever subset they can benefit from.

All pretense to balance is thrown explicitly clear out the window. (My point is slightly more serious than the example. )

 

[howandwhy99]

I think XP is a per Class ranking, just like Class Level but at a finer measure.

NPCs could have class levels. Wizard 3rd Level, 5235 XP. They gained or lost XP (almost) like PCs did.

 

[Starfox]

Never again.

I remember a campaign 30 years ago. We were all going to make 5th level characters. I tried to point out to the GM that my 5th level thief had half the exp of the 5th level fighter and ought to be 7th level if things were to be fair - and was ignored.

Or the fact that at most xp figures, a 2nd efition bard had just as many spells per day as a Wizard of the same xp, and on top of this had many more hp and his other bardic abilities.

 

[prosfilaes]

This is one thing that would virtually kill D&D Next for me. How can you have a module for 4-5th level characters if 4th level and 5th level don't mean anything outside the context of a class?

If the power levels of a character are measured in levels, bring the levels into line. How is it balanced if a mage is 3rd level while his companion the thief is 3rd, 4th and 5th levels? They can't all be balanced, and if you're going to say "close enough", what was the point in stressing about balance and creating this different tables in the first place.

You can say that anyone should be able to handle this. But it's yet another little bit of complexity to make the game that much harder. One of the things I liked about 3E was the way all this gratuitous complexity was shaved away, and multiple XP tables went the way of THAC0 for good reason.

 

[billd91]

All pretense to balance is thrown explicitly clear out the window.

No, just the yardstick used to measure balance is different. Instead of measuring character balance at the level... uh... level, the balance is measured by XPs. Characters should be roughly balanced when they have the same number of XPs which means, for example, the wizard might be 11th level, the thief 12th level, and the fighter 10th level. Level is not measuring equivalency between PCs, the XPs are. Levels just determine when a PC gets better at his own profession.

Frankly, I think it's more complicated doing things this way so I'd rather avoid it.