Different XP progressions as a means of class balance?

[Alan Shutko]

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.

Additionally, there was often guidance of the form "with 20 total party levels".

 

[Libramarian]

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.

No the idea is that some classes get less power per XP in the early game, but then in exchange are rewarded with more power per XP in the later game.

"Top level Magic-Users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."

-- Gary Gygax, OD&D, "Men & Magic"

 

[Lanefan]

Additionally, there was often guidance of the form "with 20 total party levels".

And sometimes with a proviso that the party should have at least one of class x and class y.

Add to this that even if the advancement chart is the same for all classes, realistically you're still going to end up with some level disparity within the party due to:
- not every character going on every adventure (via retirement, death, whatever)
- unexpected level loss (gotta keep those Vampires fed)
- unexpected level gain (Deck of Many Things is one of many things that can cause such)
- disparity in contribution (no matter how balanced the characters are there'll still be players who hold their characters back and don't take risks; and thus don't - or shouldn't - get as many exp.)
- side jobs and off-cycle adventures (e.g. while bored in town a Thief does some stealin' and gets exp. for it)
- henches, cohorts, and hirelings becoming full party members (usually when their boss dies or leaves)

With all this in the mix, variable progression charts become just another...well, variable.

Lanefan

 

[Yora]

"Top level Magic-Users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."

-- Gary Gygax, OD&D, "Men & Magic"

That's like Monte Cooks idea of system mastery. Made a mistake and too proud to admit it. Instead they say "I meant to do this!"

 

[Mattachine]

"Top level Magic-Users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."

-- Gary Gygax, OD&D, "Men & Magic"

This is still explicitly supporting the idea that some classes are strong and others are weak, and specifically, that wizards are the most powerful. What happens when a campaign simply starts above level 1, which many do?

Differing xp tables made sense in a game where classes are clearly of differing power levels . . . and it isn't a game I want to play or DM again. If 5e brings that back, I'll eat my hat.

 

[Minigiant]

I just so happen to remember a homebrew game of a friend that didn't use XP and levels. Characters had weeks of training. Every week or month invested in self improvement increased the character's skill.

He also have training weeks have different progression rates for different classes. 2 weeks of rogue training gained +1 HP and attack, and halfway to another skill. So in the month of offtime the rogue got 2HP, +2 attack, +1d6 skills. The fighter only +1 HP, attack, defense, armor and weapons. A month training only netted the mage or priest a new spell unless it was the 6th month.

Combined that with age based race penalties, the groups HPs were all over the place in his playtest. Elves had double costs or something. Eventually it was so much of a hassle, we voted to continue in 3e.


It was balanced as heck though

And there's my story.

 

[TwoSix]

No the idea is that some classes get less power per XP in the early game, but then in exchange are rewarded with more power per XP in the later game.

"Top level Magic-Users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."

-- Gary Gygax, OD&D, "Men & Magic"

Which is fine, if and only if there's some objective way to measure which is more powerful. Or heck, something in the class description that says:

Level 1-6: Low-power.
Level 7-12: Average-power.
Level 13+: High-power.

Just something so we don't have to guess. If a level 10 magic-user is stronger than a level 13 thief, at least give some way to KNOW that, without the benefit of painful play experience.

 

[Libramarian]

Which is fine, if and only if there's some objective way to measure which is more powerful. Or heck, something in the class description that says:

Level 1-6: Low-power.
Level 7-12: Average-power.
Level 13+: High-power.

Just something so we don't have to guess. If a level 10 magic-user is stronger than a level 13 thief, at least give some way to KNOW that, without the benefit of painful play experience.

Yeah I guess you could have a graph of each class's power vs. XP curve, as precisely as that could be determined.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah I guess you could have a graph of each class's power vs. XP curve, as precisely as that could be determined.

Yea, I'd be fine with XP or level as the X-axis and ratio of power to a baseline as the Y-axis.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

No the idea is that some classes get less power per XP in the early game, but then in exchange are rewarded with more power per XP in the later game.

"Top level Magic-Users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."

-- Gary Gygax, OD&D, "Men & Magic"

And this I would use as proof of the fact that at the time it was simply NOT understood how badly this functioned as a matter of RPG design. I don't BLAME GG as such for the error because he really didn't know better. Now we do. The concept itself of independent xp charts is not inherently flawed, but that execution, that explanation for why it should work that way, IS flawed.