Different XP progressions as a means of class balance?

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], the quoted statement was referring in the quoted posts' previous paragraph, to the hypothetical use of totally different XP scales and levels, not what was used in 1E.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Exactly. It begs the question why it would be necessary at any point in a campaign for one or more classes to have gone through additional leveling-up processes than the others? If the 12th level thief, 11th level wizard, and 10th level fighter are all supposedly balanced based upon the relatively same XP count they all have... what's been the reason or point for the thief to have leveled up two additional times over the fighter? What's to be gained from that over just taking those abilities the thief got in those two extra levels and spreading them back into the other 10?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Exactly. It begs the question why it would be necessary at any point in a campaign for one or more classes to have gone through additional leveling-up processes than the others? If the 12th level thief, 11th level wizard, and 10th level fighter are all supposedly balanced based upon the relatively same XP count they all have... what's been the reason or point for the thief to have leveled up two additional times over the fighter? What's to be gained from that over just taking those abilities the thief got in those two extra levels and spreading them back into the other 10?

Theoretically, it could make sense in a game with relatively few levels. Maybe spreading the abilities becomes too coarse. You might also want certain abilities kept out of certain level ranges for other reasons. For an actual example of both those reasons, consider the Dragon Quest "professions" that work somewhat like classes but only have 10 "ranks", with each one having a totally different XP chart. The rank 1 "Healer" gets some fairly shoddy stuff compared to the rank 1 "Courtier" or "Ranger", but then by rank 8, the Healer can raise the dead, while the other two have already mostly peaked. It is more than twice as expensive to be a Healer as a Courtier, but this ratio doesn't hold throughout all 10 ranks.

Of course, DQ has plenty of other issues that, if addressed, might make those characteristics unnecessary. And D&D has never had either of those excuses, except perhaps for the Basic/Expert without anything else (or OD&D--not sure about it).

 

[Spatula]

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?

It could be, but it seems like a needless bother in a level-based game. If XP were the only measure of power, then sure.

It's not clear to me that your statement about AD&D is true, that the XP tables are part of the means of balancing classes. The XP tables in AD&D are largely nonsensical; the values might as well have been pulled from a hat. For example, MUs require less XP to level than fighters do right around the "sweet spot," when MUs are really coming into their power.

 

[billd91]

Exactly. It begs the question why it would be necessary at any point in a campaign for one or more classes to have gone through additional leveling-up processes than the others? If the 12th level thief, 11th level wizard, and 10th level fighter are all supposedly balanced based upon the relatively same XP count they all have... what's been the reason or point for the thief to have leveled up two additional times over the fighter? What's to be gained from that over just taking those abilities the thief got in those two extra levels and spreading them back into the other 10?

I agree, spreading those abilities out so that level by level the PCs match up makes a lot of sense.

I will point out, however, that in 1e, the fighter had maxed out his Saves at 17 level while the wizard was at 16th level, a full level before the wizard got his 9th level spells. The thief was just about to max his out (although at 21st level) by that point as well and would have them maxed by the wizard's 17th level. So by the time the wizard's group was out and adventuring against really high level stuff in which he would need his 9th level spells, his compatriots were already as defended against wacky stuff as they were going to get. And on top of that, the wizard was still a couple points off his best saves and wouldn't be reaching them any time soon (the haul between 17 and 21st level is a hefty 1.5 million XPs).

That's the sort of thing that different XP tracks per class really leads too, I think. Balancing advancement at the really high upper levels. For 1e, I can't say it did a bad job of it. But I don't really think it was particularly valuable at low levels other than to set up thieves with favorable level advancement because they otherwise kind of sucked.

 

[TwoSix]

Using XP progression as a balancing tool would be fine if there had ever been any effort to balance along the XP axis. Unfortunately, the use for the progression charts was simply to enforce growth that appeared simulationist. Thieving is easy, wizardry is hard, so wizards will require twice as much XP per level! Druids become hierophants after level 15, so they'll require 500,000 XP a level now!

I'm fine with different XP progression, I'm fine with levels that mean different things to different classes. But there should be some scale built into the game of measurable capability. Whether that be XP or level or something else, there should be some numerical value on the character sheet that indicates to the DM what sort of challenge the character can face.

Ultimately, level is a function of XP and class. (Level = f(class,XP)). XP is a function of player skill, time invested, and DM campaign settings. To my mind, the goal should be that players of equal skill should be rewarded with equally powerful characters.

With that goal in mind, classes should either be balanced at all XP values to ensure that the more skillful players gain levels faster; or that imbalanced classes grant levels at different XP plateaus, because it takes less skill to gain XP in an encounter with a more powerful class. (Ergo, weak classes need the least XP, since they required the most "expenditure" of skill to reach that point).

If you don't believe in rewarding player skill, but rather participation, then the 3e-4e progression makes the most sense. It gives you the best scale for measuring baseline capability, as well as granting equivalent rewards to the players.

 

[Tallifer]

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 edition 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.

Yup. We once played from 1st to 9th level. Then the dungeon master got bored and told us to add 10 levels. Now imagine the difference between a 19th level paladin and a 19th level wizard.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I disagree. Expertise gained through experience would be specific to skills and abilities. To a lot of talking? Your Charisma and Diplomacy improve. Do a lot of fighting? Your Strength and weapon-skill improves, you don't get general new abilities, you need specific training for that.

Except that D&D doesn't work like that. There are no rules for improving skills and attributes just through training. I actually prefer systems where you do that, but in D&D the mechanic is you get experience which makes you better at everything at once in large discrete steps.

 

[Mattachine]

Quick note: published AD&D adventures generally were designed for a range of levels (usually 3, sometimes 4 or 5), where the xp totals could be equal, but levels were not expected to be.

For instance, the Desert of Desolation series started with a party of level 5-7, and Against the Giants started with a party of levels 8-12.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I'd like to see it playtested at least. Maybe keep everyone equal at the lower levels then slow up the more powerful classes at the higher levels?