Why differing experience advancement

[nudnic]

Whats the reasoning behind differing experience advancement different classes?

Seems the amounts are pretty close simplicity would say make advance the same for all classes.

[abk108]

Whats the reasoning behind differing experience advancement different classes?

Seems the amounts are pretty close simplicity would say make advance the same for all classes.

this is being debated somewhere else as well, I think in the "LOOT=XP" thread, but Im not 100% sure!

To summarize, there seem to be various ideas on the topic: some prefer like you said 1 XP chart for all; others prefer different XP charts for balance; others seem to like the old fashioned feeling different charts add to the game (besides, it's easy enough to just say "in my campaign everyone will level up as a warrior would"... easier than devising your own different XP charts for thos who like them).

As for myself, I don't mind them, I kinda like them as they are: I like characters to level up on different sessions, so that on the session the thief leveled up he'd feel he's boss while the next session would be the warrior's turn, and so on!

[finarvyn]

this is being debated somewhere else as well, I think in the "LOOT=XP" thread, but Im not 100% sure!

That's the one. The question seems to be "why" rather than "what do we like best" so my answer to that would be that it was an attempt to create some element of balance* in the classes. Thieves, for example, wouldn't be as good as fighters at a given level, so by having different XP charts the thief could level up earlier. Not a bad design feature, all-in-all, although one could achieve the same thing by making weaker classes stronger.


* before anyone freaks out about how older games aren't balanced, it's not due to a lack of trying. Old articles in the Dragon magazine talked about the speed of a lighting bolt and if magic users were too powerful or not compared to fighters. The move from "cast bunches" (Chainmail rules) to "cas a few" (OD&D rules) was clearly done in an attempt to limit the power of a magic user. The switch from all d6 hit dice (Men & Magic) to different dice type by class (Greyhawk) was for the same purpose. The XP charts are just another example of how the designers tried to make all character classes appealing.

[abk108]

this is being debated somewhere else as well, I think in the "LOOT=XP" thread, but Im not 100% sure!

That's the one. The question seems to be "why" rather than "what do we like best" so my answer to that would be that it was an attempt to create some element of balance* in the classes. Thieves, for example, wouldn't be as good as fighters at a given level, so by having different XP charts the thief could level up earlier. Not a bad design feature, all-in-all, although one could achieve the same thing by making weaker classes stronger.


* before anyone freaks out about how older games aren't balanced, it's not due to a lack of trying. Old articles in the Dragon magazine talked about the speed of a lighting bolt and if magic users were too powerful or not compared to fighters. The move from "cast bunches" (Chainmail rules) to "cas a few" (OD&D rules) was clearly done in an attempt to limit the power of a magic user. The switch from all d6 hit dice (Men & Magic) to different dice type by class (Greyhawk) was for the same purpose. The XP charts are just another example of how the designers tried to make all character classes appealing.

+1d6

[nudnic]

I guess I feel that uneven XP scales say that the classes are not balanced. Meaning at higher levels you'd run a game and say that it's a 5th level game for Fighters but 6th level for thieves. Which seems a bit odd.

Back in the day I never paid attention to this. I feel then there wasn't any real thought on balancing characters, instead it was about the feel of the game. Implying that Wizards had to study longer to advance hence the higher XP requirement.

Of course many DMs just simplified the whole process by skipping XP and just saying everyone go up a level when it was appropriate for their game. Which almost makes a better system from a dramatic standpoint.

[JediOre]

Of course many DMs just simplified the whole process by skipping XP and just saying everyone go up a level when it was appropriate for their game. Which almost makes a better system from a dramatic standpoint.

There is merit in both approaches to leveling up. I am firmly in the "gain XP" to rise in levels camp. However, I have bent this rule on occasion when the game requires it.

Case-in-point: I run Castles and Crusades. This has a slower progression in levels than does AD&D for the monsters are not worth as much XP. Upon completion of G1-The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and G2-The Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, I realized that there was no way the party could really handle G3 and beyond at the rate they were gaining experience points. Therefore I, by deceleration, declared all the PCs leveled one level. When, or if, they make it to the cusp of Q1, I'll probably do the same thing again.

The same could be argued for running long 3.X modules that expect level advancement during play. Using AD&D or C&C experience point progression without modifying the later encounters insures the PCs will die. Of course, if the DM is seeking to put the current game to rest, then perhaps this is the way to go. . . .

[Tortog]

Whats the reasoning behind differing experience advancement different classes?

Seems the amounts are pretty close simplicity would say make advance the same for all classes.

Thanx for starting this thread, this topic was only part of the discussion on that threat and this one can let us discuss the theories, etc. With respect to this topic, the other thread centered around the 'Balance Vs. Convenience' ideas (lets call them: 'x' and 'y'-axis) and this argument has been going on ever since D&D went to standardized XP charts. It's not likely to ever find a satisfactory resolution, so I got to thinking about it and remembering the older format of differing amounts of XP for doing different Classes. One of the things that sometimes happened is that the other classes would max out their XP totals while the wizard still had 1.25million XP to go... It caused problems in some games for those of us who really liked gaming at the advanced levels (12+).

What if there is a 'z'-axis approach? What if we use the core functions as our guide and let that be the determining factor in who gets promoted and when? Thinking in terms of what the party is going to need allowed me to come to the following:

You need the thief to be 1-2 levels ahead of everyone else: because they need the better chances of finding and dealing with traps, otherwise the game ends early w/ a TPK.

You need the cleric to be at least 1 level ahead of everyone else: they have the bandages, they need to be able to live long enough to heal everyone else.

Fighters are the base-line for comparison.

Wizards have always been the combat engineer/ heavy weapons specialists and have always had the power and ability to 'break' any game. As such it makes sense to limit their progression compared to the others. In addition to balance, it also creates a natural 'weak link' so in combat the players will tend to gather and protect this valuable resource.

BUT (& and hear is the new part): what if we then set up the tables to all end at the same number?

I spent some time analysing the numbers provided in the beta and projected (as best I could) out to 10th level. Assuming Elf(10th) to provide the maximum, I got 72,250XP*. Tinkering with the level progressions of the other classes based on function within the party allows us to set the pacing for the advancements as needed to preserve playability, but they all come into their maximum power at the same time. Based on my experiment, the respective levels for the classes work out to: Elf 10= Warrior, Wizard, Cleric, Dwarf=11; Thief=13; Halfling=14. When you look at average HP for those levels you get:

11HD Warrior: 71.5hp
11HD Dwarf: 60.5hp
11HD Cleric: 52hp
14HD Halfling: 51.5hp
13HD Thief: 48hp
10HD Elf: 37.5hp
11HD Wizard: 29.5hp

The above calculations include 2HP for 0-lvl average, and still preserve the advancement priorities I mentioned at the other end of this posting. For balance you can then let the wizards keep their power (i.e. Magic missile spell that can do 200+ points of damage), and then just beef up the Elf a bit. From this maximal level the games can progress into a more "storyteller" format to emulate "epic gaming".

I know it's a little late to be suggesting such radical changes, but I just had to throw it out there.
Any thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I don't want this to devolve into a numbers argument, someone else can derive better values, I just needed something to work with in order to illustrate the basic theory.

{edited once for club fingered typing.}
{edited twice to hopefully improve clarity & correct a math error}

[abk108]

I'm sorry, i'm not sure I understand the point of your post

Are you suggesting to put an XP-cap on classes, rather than a level cap?
Like : the max amount of XP you can obtain is 100'000 (random number i picked), by then elves will have reached 8th level, wizards 9th level, warriors 10th level, dwarves 11th, clerics 12th, halfling 13th and thieves 14th.

is that it?

[finarvyn]

I guess I feel that uneven XP scales say that the classes are not balanced. Meaning at higher levels you'd run a game and say that it's a 5th level game for Fighters but 6th level for thieves. Which seems a bit odd.

The fundamental problem is that there is no numerical or scientific way to balance classes. It's all a judgement call.

Gaining a +1 to attack compares how to gaining one additional spell? How many percent gain in picking pockets compares to a +1 in combat. How can you decide? What if that spell gained is a fireball versus a "rope trick" or siimilar. Offensive spells might be easy to rate because of damage inflicted, but trickery spells are more elusive in value.

It gets worse when XP charts double from level to level but combat bonuses (or spells or picking pockets percents) don't, so a 4th level character might be twice as good as 2nd level but "costs" 4x the XP. Balance at 2nd level might not be balanced at 4th, 8th , 12th, or other level of your choice.

None of this takes player cleverness into account. Too many variables.

The OD&D game was designed by making a good guess and all of the variants do much the same thing only with slightly different numbers. Some guesses may be "better" and others not so much, but they are just guesses.

Bottom line is that what one person thinks is "balanced" another will claim is unbalanced.

[Tortog]

I'm sorry, i'm not sure I understand the point of your post

Are you suggesting to put an XP-cap on classes, rather than a level cap?
Like : the max amount of XP you can obtain is 100'000 (random number i picked), by then elves will have reached 8th level, wizards 9th level, warriors 10th level, dwarves 11th, clerics 12th, halfling 13th and thieves 14th.

is that it?

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I was in a hurry this morning when I posted, so apologies if it is unclear. I'm thinking that levels above 10 bring the character a hit die, a +1 to add to one of their saves, and the continuing progression of their core abilities. I.e. the Halfling will continue to get sneakier, but won't get any better at 2-handed fighting. This is because fighting is warrior schtick and Tolkien tells us that Hobbits are so super-freaky sneaky that they can sneak up on Elves in secret council: on the Elves home turf no less... The thief will continue to gain prowess in thieving skills, etc. Maybe at levels 11 and 13 each class gets a special power related to their class.

I've been doing a lot of research reading, and my idea came from the way novels are set up... Most of the time they have a main character that starts off weak, but comes into the fullness of their power, and then goes off on a major/epic quest.

Take Lieber's "Swords and Deviltry" and the very first time we meet character of "the Grey Mouser". He had been sent on a quest by his Wizard master as part of some training ritual for him to become a wizard. The summary of the events of that quest describe a character that (using 0D&D terms) was at least an 8th level Thief to pull off all of that mission by himself. When he meets Fafhrd for the first time the Grey mouser has been terrorizing the thieves guild of Lanhkmar by committing a series of high profile thefts right under their noses.

Same thing with "Dwellers in the Mirage" by Merritt, the main character in that story spends the first 80-90 pages describing the adventures that led to the point where the story starts. When the main story actually starts off, the main character and his friend are wandering into the Alaskan wilderness with nothing but clothing, backpacks, and a couple of rifles... In AD&D terms that's at least 6-7th level fighter or ranger to be able to do that with any confidence. I haven't finished this one yet, but I'm half way into the book and the real story is only just beginning... I hope the end will be worth the wait.

For that matter, in Tolkien's the Lord of the Rings saga, there is something like 30-50 years between when the ring is discovered and when Frodo finally plucks up the courage and sets out on his quest to destroy it: aided by the need to evade the Ring Wraiths. I forget the exact amount of time as it's been a while since I read it all the way through from the beginning, but it was at least a couple of decades of Frodo living life to the fullest in the shire before everything kicks off. Then Frodo, Sam, Merry & Pippin 'volunteer' their friend/cousin Drodo to act as bait for the Wraiths so the rest of them can get to the town of Bree: by way of an adventure in the Barrow Mounds. In AD&D terms, this tells me that by the time they get to Bree they all have at least 4-5 levels (or more) of Halfling... and Aragorn has been waiting in and around the town of Bree and the Shire for all of that time. Small wonder that he's a bit peeved when they finally show up. He's something like 90+ years old when we meet him, and he has spent most of that time training with Elves to be a ranger, plus other adventures... So again, we find ourselves near the beginning of the epic quest with significantly powerful characters.

What I'm saying is that; if we are to use Apendix N as a reference model, then perhaps we should emulate this pattern of character development. I figure that the 0 to 10 Level XP crawl is the prep work for the epic quest that they will become entangled with, let them progress through those levels (balanced as best we can for good game play) then they all reach their maximum potential at the same time. Then go off on world spanning adventures (just like the characters in novels) which shape the destinies of countries/worlds etc.

Maybe this is at the heart of what Mr. G was trying to accomplish with the 0-level mechanic, but I (and others on this Board) have found the 0 to 1st level transition to be a bit jarring, or otherwise difficult to bridge. So this new idea is something that I'm going to experiment with for a bit: it should emulate the old school feel of staggered class advancement, but preserve game-play balance of powers with only minor tweaks to Elf and Wizard classes.

[snip]
Bottom line is that what one person thinks is "balanced" another will claim is unbalanced.

Absolutely... and this plus your other points illustrate just how difficult the XP/level advancement tables are to create. It is as much an art form as it is a mathematical problem.

[Coleston the Cavalier]

Wait, character classes in older games aren't balanced?

[Ravenheart87]

Wait, character classes in older games aren't balanced?

Only clerics, at least that's what my players think.