Using XP Charts to Assist Balancing Classes

[Stormonu]

Back in the day, classes followed different XP charts as part of the balancing factor of the class. By 3E, this had been dropped, with the idea that "all classes are equal" (though I don't think anyone really buys that).

Granted, I'm just starting up my first Pathfinder game, but I'm considering doing the following to help in balancing the relative power inequalities I'm used to seeing:

Full Casters will use the Slow XP Progression chart (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard)
Partial Casters will use the Medium XP Progression chart (Bard, Paladin, Ranger)
Non-Casters will use the Fast XP Progression chart (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue*)

* Not sure what to do if the Rogue takes the spellcasting talent.

Players will need to announce what class they will be progressing in for the next level so they can determine the proper XP they need for the next level. Note that XP needed per level is different from the "total XP" listed on the three charts. For example, to go from 3rdh to 4th level, the Slows need 6,500 XP, Mediums need 4,000 XP and Fasts need only 2,700 XP.

I'll imagine this has been brought up before - has anyone tried it and how did it work out? Were there issues with doing something like this?

 

[Crothian]

I think the classes are more balanced then you think. At low levels the fighter is probably better off then most of the spellcasters but it is the higher levels the spellcasters really shine. We are 9th level in our Pathfinder campaign and the fighter still does more damage then either the Wizard or Druid though they shine really well when they have the right spell for the right job.

It will be interesting to see how this goes. Mostly it seems that the fast XP character will be about a level ahead of the medium and the slow will be a level behind.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This is, IMO, a terrible idea. I hate varied XP charts - they spectactularly failed to work in previous editions, and I don't think bringing them back will help out all that much.

Especially when 3E- / PF-style multiclassing is involved.

 

[Crothian]

they spectactularly failed to work in previous editions

How did they fail in previous editions?

 

[Dingo333]

Personally, I don't like the idea, but I would be willing to try it out

My biggest problem would be how you would balance some things. For example, Oracle, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus. An oracle would be in the caster (slow) progression, that is fine, it makes sense and is fair. An alchemist would fall where? fast? it has spells/extracts. Medium? it is lumped with a bard there, the only thing that compares, and then it is nerfed compared to rouge. Fast? even more nerf, can't keep up with its buddys in that track for spells. Inquisitor, paladin falls into medium, but inquisitor is more spells (and more useful ones) then a pally or ranger. It is also lower BAB compared to ranger and equal to cleric. so does it go in the medium-slow progression as it is kinda a halfway point between cleric and ranger? Magus has similar problems (I know it is not out YET comments on magus based on last playtest and spoilers). Summoner may be even worse off. Glancing at it, it gets slow off the bat, but this isn't fair to it, as it has no direct attack spells, and its main attack form is the eidolon or summons, both of which are slowed already compared to a fighter of the summoner's level.

I agree with Crothian. The classes are more balanced then you would think.
A paladin will outshine a fighter vs Undead
A ranger will outshine a fighter in the wild
A cleric will outshine a paladin vs Undead
A cleric can outshine a paladin in healing
A wizard will outshine the fighter in a siege/massive battle
A rouge outshines everyone in a dungeon with traps
In a short skirmish, the fighter will outshine the wizard

Each class has a niche, and a good DM will make encounters so that each can shine without outshining another. Each will get to show their area of expertise

P.S. The rouge gets A 0 level spells, usable 3pd and A 1st level spell, useable 2pd and (at or after 10th) the ability to try to dispel a magic effect on their target if they sneak attack. Unless there is another talent I am not aware of or you are speaking about UMD, I don't see an issue with them being noncaster type except their damage overshadowing the rest of the group

 

[Stormonu]

I had purposely not included the APG classes as I really haven't had the chance to see them in action yet and know where they fit on the XP chart (I'll get my chance though, as my starting group is 3 inquisitors and a summoner).

Of course, now that I think about it, Prestige Classes will be somewhat of a problem to classify as well (though I think it is doable). 'Course, I HATE prestige classes and would instead prefer something like the old 2E kits instead or something along the lines of alternate class abilities, similar to the alternate racial abilities in the APG.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How did they fail in previous editions?

The point of varied XP progression is to make it such that, at a given XP total, everyone is more-or-less equal. It does this by handing more levels to "weaker" classes sooner.

Unfortunately, this didn't end up working out - wizards still "win" at higher levels and it didn't take them that much more XP to get there (and, oddly enough, they had the fastest level progression after, what, 9th-level?, anyway, so it wasn't even implemented all that well). Combine this with multiclassing / dualclassing and exponential XP growth, and the level difference was never enough to seriously matter.

And it can't be, because otherwise the monster attack (or damaging spell) that is strong enough to phase the fighter-types insta-gibs the casters, and the game system doesn't include any way for fighter-types to guarantee that the casters aren't getting hit.

In the end, this isn't all that much different than the current system, which attempts to make it such that at any given level, everyone is more-or-less equal. It may not work out that way in practice, but a system based on level quanta is much easier to manage than one based on xp quanta.

 

[Crothian]

Unfortunately, this didn't end up working out - wizards still "win" at higher levels and it didn't take them that much more XP to get there (and, oddly enough, they had the fastest level progression after, what, 9th-level?, anyway, so it wasn't even implemented all that well).

Magic Users needed 375,000 per level above 10; clerics needed 225,000; fighters needed 250,000; thieves needed 220,000. That did make a big difference at higher levels. Wizards did have great spells at high level but they needed to have a high intelligence to cast those spells and it was more difficult to get higher attributes.

We found the XP system worked pretty well.

 

[TanisFrey]

The xp charts from 1, 2 & BECMI editions had there problems when you got over 9th or 10th level. They charged to much for fighters at low level and too little for wizards at high levels. However, the charts did make the classes more balanced with each other.

The fighter usually had a few levels on the mage most of the time, and the thief usually had a couple of level on the fighter all the time to keep balance.

My group has talked about implicating this for our 3.5 games. We were thinking the PRCs would usually kick you up into the next tier. This would make us create a 4th chart for the wizard/cleric/druid PRC.

The other thing we have thought is to apply the multiclass rules to PRCs. We would only apply if the character in question had more that one PRC. In that case the 2 or more PRCs would need to be within one level of each other. The PRCs would not need to be within one level of any Base class.

 

[Dingo333]

I had purposely not included the APG classes as I really haven't had the chance to see them in action yet and know where they fit on the XP chart (I'll get my chance though, as my starting group is 3 inquisitors and a summoner).

Well, be prepared to make 4 photocopies of each monster's stats to hand out cause if the Inquisitors are being played right, one or more of them will make a KN check then shout to the rest of them its know weaknesses

My inquisitor had a +20 to all monster identifying KN checks by level 5 and as the DC for a KN check on monsters is usually 10+CR I was able to just open the beastiary up and read aloud until level 12 (needed on average 30 to know anything)

But yeah, I feel the classes are really balanced already. And if you cut power to the wizard or cleric any more then it already is, you run the risk of making them useless in an otherwise well balanced party. Things that would be easy or even equal to the fighter end up one shotting the wizard and if you make the enemies even stronger, the ranger and bard are taking major beatings and barely surviving. Usually (and by usually I mean barring large XP bonuses to single players) The fighter will have 2-3 levels on anything else