Different XP progressions as a means of class balance?

[Mattachine]

You have to remember, EGG was simultaneously making a game that fostered roleplay and, well, actually, gaming!

His D&D was about winning, in a sense, against the DM and against the other players, and that post makes it clear: his class XP tables have a risk/reward aspect. If you risk playing the wizard, you might die very easily, but if you play your cards right, you win in the end.

As evidenced on this board and others, there are some folks that share EGG's gaming style. They want the opportunity to take the risky class in the beginning to have the more powerful class later on.

 

[Hassassin]

As evidenced on this board and others, there are some folks that share EGG's gaming style. They want the opportunity to take the risky class in the beginning to have the more powerful class later on.

I would add that even if you take a "competitive" view of it, the competition doesn't have to be between the players or the player and the DM. It can be just personal "can I do it" sort of competition.

It's not how I play, but I know people who like to challenge themselves in that way. In effect, they extend the character creation mini-game to include survival and level advancement.

 

[delericho]

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

Not just "no", but "hell no, and it never worked right in the first place". Different XP progressions are an awful idea that the game is well rid of, and the reintroduction is about as close to being a deal-breaker as any single game element can be.

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.

At 2,499 XP, the 2nd level Fighter is supposedly balanced with a 1st level Wizard, while at 2,501 XP that same 2nd level Fighter is now balanced against a 2nd level Wizard. How does that work?

(Or, to put it another way, the rate of XP acquisition is too irregular, and the power steps for levels too great, for this to work. If every character gained 250XP every session, it might work, but that was never the system.)

Of course, this also ignores one of the realities of the 1st Ed system: at the low levels the Wizard was considerably less powerful than the Fighter, while also being hit with a punitive XP progression. But the moment the Wizard starts acquiring any real power (at about 5th level), the progression shifts about so that suddenly it is the Wizard who is gaining levels faster. Far from being balanced, the different XP progressions actually exaggerated the imbalanced that were already found in the system!

 

[delericho]

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

IIRC, "DM's Option: High Level Campaigns" included such a table.

 

[Dausuul]

Actually, there's a good point here: For people who want the "wizards weak at low levels, strong at high levels" arc, class-specific XP tables make it possible to put that in the game and still support those of us who want balance at all levels.

If you want balance at all levels, you use the unified XP table which puts everybody at the same level for the same XP. If you want wizards weak at the start and strong at the end, you use a set of class-specific tables where wizards level up slow in the early days and then accelerate later.

Whether it's worth including this system, of course, would depend on how many people want it.

 

[herrozerro]

The farmboy who has to fight things and later discovers his magical abilities is a very common fantasy trope that D&D should support.

My game has always supported this, i just allow rerolls pretty much whenever a player wants. I ask only that the race remains the same and we work on a good point to change together.

If a player doenst like being a fighter and wants to be a wizard? just reroll a wizard and we'll work on a good point to change.

 

[herrozerro]

Um, no. XP simulates expertise gained through experience. Nothing meta about that.

So magic drains experience? casting spells make you forget all of your experiances?

 

[Mattachine]

Being attacked by a vampire causes memory loss?

 

[Bluenose]

You have to remember, EGG was simultaneously making a game that fostered roleplay and, well, actually, gaming!

His D&D was about winning, in a sense, against the DM and against the other players, and that post makes it clear: his class XP tables have a risk/reward aspect. If you risk playing the wizard, you might die very easily, but if you play your cards right, you win in the end.

As evidenced on this board and others, there are some folks that share EGG's gaming style. They want the opportunity to take the risky class in the beginning to have the more powerful class later on.

That's fine if the class is actually riskier than other ones. As time has gone on D&D has persistently given the "Wizard" more and more spells designed to make life safer for them. And several ways to escape from combat more easily than other classes. And more spells, so they don't have to decide whether their one spell should be for offence or defence. At some point, that increased risk for greater reward later went the way of the dodo.

 

[billd91]

At 2,499 XP, the 2nd level Fighter is supposedly balanced with a 1st level Wizard, while at 2,501 XP that same 2nd level Fighter is now balanced against a 2nd level Wizard. How does that work?

Because "close enough" means exactly what it says. The balance really was close enough between the 2nd level fighter/1st level magic user and the 2nd level fighter/2nd level magic user.

But like I said, the real difference in rates appears most at the upper ends where it works just fine. The structure of the tables keeps characters relatively close in level for a long time, however, so I don't think it merits a whole lot of design consideration for D&DNext.