Class Experience Gaps

[Moorcrys]

I've been considering bumping the rogue, assassin, and druid experience point progression chart to the bard chart, in order to counteract the eye-popping amount of leveling those classes pull ahead of other potential classes in the party, such as the paladin and monk.

I don't mind some classes being a few levels above the others, but a rogue in a higher level party will have 7 levels on the paladin or monk, and progress at a rate of 3 levels per one. With saves and base to hits, that doesn't seem productive.

Anyone else uncomfortable with some of the class xp progressions at higher levels?
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[Korgoth]

Moorcrys wrote:
Anyone else uncomfortable with some of the class xp progressions at higher levels?

Most emphatically not! Speaking as someone who does not make a habit of playing Rogues, I'm surprised at how often people want to bone the Rogue class.

A Rogue has few combat abilities, a terrible BtH and sucky hit points. A single failed save may well kill a rogue. A wizard can have protective spells and can fry dozens of foes at the flick of a wrist. Any of the fighting classes have great hit points, the ability to regularly deal out big damage and the ability to use the coolest magic weapons and wear the most effective magic armor. Several classes can also heal themselves.

The rogue has almost no BtH, no armor, no hp and very limited abilities with only a minor damage-dealing potential. All of the other classes are able to survive a mistake (due to their HP) or avoid the mistake or its consequences entirely (magic using classes, which can use protective spells and summon critters to do their bidding). A Rogue has none of that stuff. And all he gets out of those extra levels are a couple extra hp and a much-needed boost to his saves or abilities... much needed because a failed roll often kills him.

Do as you wish in your game, of course. For myself, I have such pity on Rogue players now, I could scarcely bring myself to make it any worse on them.
_________________
"I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"

----------

"I didn't know there would be this much talking."

[Philotomy Jurament]

Moorcrys wrote:
Anyone else uncomfortable with some of the class xp progressions at higher levels?

Nope; I agree with Korgoth.

[Treebore]

Druid, maybe. Thief and Assassin, I find they need those levels to survive. Of course the Thief in my game is only 10th level and two levels ahead, but I am seeing that they need the extra boosts to save, etc... It is the one most frequently close to dying, other than the Ranger who is one of the two front line fighters, and his AC is 5 points lower than the Knights.

[miller6]

Moorcrys wrote:
Anyone else uncomfortable with some of the class xp progressions at higher levels?

If you think your method will work better for your campaign, try it and see how things go. The C&C Players Handbook encourages CKs to modify rules to suit your needs.
Brian Miller
_________________
"The adventure continues"

[serleran]

I do not have a problem with the XP charts, per se, though I may have an issue with the specific numbers... as in, what each ability is worth. I do not think a rogue should ever be 6 levels ahead of another class, which implies the rogue has absolutely no usefulness. This is intrinsically wrong.

Oh, and rogues don't suck at high levels. If you ever get a chance, I'll show you why.

[Omote]

I also think that Rogues and Assassins are a bit too low on the EPP gap, but I don't adjust them. In that case i think the Cleric class is too high on the EPP chart.

.................................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Maliki]

miller6 wrote:
If you think your method will work better for your campaign, try it and see how things go. The C&C Players Handbook encourages CKs to modify rules to suit your needs.
Brian Miller

Good advice, the charts work fine in our group, but if your think they need adjusted in your game go for it. (thats part of the greatness of C&C, make it what you want)
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[Moorcrys]

Thanks for the advice, guys. Sorry it took me so long to come back to the thread but I went on vacation and forgot I wrote it...

Korgoth wrote:
Most emphatically not! Speaking as someone who does not make a habit of playing Rogues, I'm surprised at how often people want to bone the Rogue class.

I certainly don't want to bone any class unless it buys me a drink first and tells me it loves me, but I do get concerned about things getting wonky when you hit those higher levels and by equal experience distribution you'd have a 22rd-24th level rogue in a party with a 13th level paladin. I completely agree with you that a rogue could do with some higher saving throw bonuses and boosts to hit points to keep from getting smacked down at those levels, however. But when the level gap gets to vast you run into trouble with things like the saving throw challenge for an assassin's death attack, for instance (a 21st level assassin vs. a 14th level paladin with equal exp distribution -- that's essentially a +7 bonus to kill instantly for the death attack).

I'm also in the Serleran camp in that I don't find rogues or assassins to be particularly weak... or weak enough to warrant a 10 level handicap versus other classes in any event. I don't expect a rogue to stand toe-to-toe with a fighter of equivalent level... not unless there's already a nice pointy object sticking out from the fighter's back anyway.

In any case, I'll scrap my original intent and use the core C&C rules (which I assume are playtested between classes up to 12th level) until the character crosses the 1.3 million exp line (when paladins hit 12th level, the highest 12th level EPP chart in the game), then I'll move to a more standard progression chart where classes level relatively evenly... that will basically run the rogue at about 6 levels above the higher experience demanding classes, the assassin about 5 levels above, the druid about 3 etc. I think that should work out for me pretty well...

Thanks for the food for thought.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[phadeout]

The C&C PHB was designed to go to 20th level.

At 20th level, THIS is where I'd look at re-balancing and adjusting the experience charts.

[Nelzie]

phadeout wrote:
The C&C PHB was designed to go to 20th level.

At 20th level, THIS is where I'd look at re-balancing and adjusting the experience charts.

The 1st printing only shows up to 12th level.

Anyway, if you look at the XP Charts.

Most all of them stop doubling up around 9th and 10th levels. At that point, they all simply add the same amount of XP required to go from, for example 8th level to 9th level, in order to bump up all future levels. I seem to recall this being somewhere around 250,000 XP for most of the classes. I do know that around 12th level, most of the classes all require near 1 million+ XP. (I'll check when I get home and post what it is.)
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Moorcrys]

phadeout wrote:
The C&C PHB was designed to go to 20th level.

At 20th level, THIS is where I'd look at re-balancing and adjusting the experience charts.

When who reaches 20th? The rogue or the paladin?
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[phadeout]

Moorcrys wrote:
When who reaches 20th? The rogue or the paladin?

You must be looking at it wrong... when both reach 20. So when the rogue reaches 20 he'll be what, 6 levels a head? if you rework it... rework it so he is always that far a head, but doesn't get any farther.

[Moorcrys]

phadeout wrote:
You must be looking at it wrong... when both reach 20. So when the rogue reaches 20 he'll be what, 6 levels a head? if you rework it... rework it so he is always that far a head, but doesn't get any farther.

Oh, OK, great. That's pretty much the way I've been thinking about it. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly... but I think my method pretty much works out the way you describe.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

[phadeout]

Moorcrys wrote:
Oh, OK, great. That's pretty much the way I've been thinking about it. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly... but I think my method pretty much works out the way you describe.

Lol, sorry, sometimes I don't see who posted what, but yeah, we're talkin the same thing here 8)

[BASH MAN]

Well, I am definatly uncomfortable with how much XP a barbarian pays to level for such little effect. They should be on the rogue table too! You are much better off as a fighter or ranger than a barbarian.
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

[phadeout]

BASH MAN wrote:
Well, I am definatly uncomfortable with how much XP a barbarian pays to level for such little effect. They should be on the rogue table too! You are much better off as a fighter or ranger than a barbarian.

That's why, the CK needs to modify things and is encouraged to do so. I don't think any has NOT modified the barbarian. I know that nobody would ever play one in my game if I hadn't.

[moriarty777]

phadeout wrote:
That's why, the CK needs to modify things and is encouraged to do so. I don't think any has NOT modified the barbarian. I know that nobody would ever play one in my game if I hadn't.

Hmm... that's interesting because, I have had one player play one and there might be another player also doing so in the near future... Unmodified!

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[phadeout]

moriarty777 wrote:
Hmm... that's interesting because, I have had one player play one and there might be another player also doing so in the near future... Unmodified!

Moriarty the Red

Well, your players are less of a power gaming group then mine I can see

[moriarty777]

Or the ones who looked at the Barbarian don't. Actually, I'm fairly happy with the classes 'as-is' and with my Multi-Classing rules variant, someone who REALLY wants to play an 'arcane bard' or 'arcane ranger' can.

The only class I feel like *really* tweaking (and just a wee bit at that) is the fighter.

I'd be happy with the fighter but if you consider a couple of classes like the bard (now) or the ranger... I find that the class needs a bit more of a pick-me-up. The Combat Dominance ability at 4th level is probably one I'll tweak just a bit more to really be satisfied. Even then, I'm still relatively happy with it.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[gideon_thorne]

moriarty777 wrote:
Or the ones who looked at the Barbarian don't. Actually, I'm fairly happy with the classes 'as-is' and with my Multi-Classing rules variant, someone who REALLY wants to play an 'arcane bard' or 'arcane ranger' can.

The only class I feel like *really* tweaking (and just a wee bit at that) is the fighter.

I'd be happy with the fighter but if you consider a couple of classes like the bard (now) or the ranger... I find that the class needs a bit more of a pick-me-up. The Combat Dominance ability at 4th level is probably one I'll tweak just a bit more to really be satisfied. Even then, I'm still relatively happy with it.

Moriarty the Red

*smiles* I've said it often, that my favorite fix for the fighter is to switch Combat Dominance and Weapon Specialization around.

Ie, the first at first level and weapon spec at 4th. The fighter would also get an extra attack at 7th as well as 10th.

Personally im inclined to give all the 'warrior' type classes Combat Dominance at first level, the fighter extra attacks at 7th and 10th, and the ranger, paladin and barbarian also having an extra attack at 10th.

I've run and played my games a certain way for a long time now, and im disinclined to change some habbits and restructure my entire game setting to C&C paramiters. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[moriarty777]

gideon_thorne wrote:
*smiles* I've said it often, that my favorite fix for the fighter is to switch Combat Dominance and Weapon Specialization around.

Ie, the first at first level and weapon spec at 4th. The fighter would also get an extra attack at 7th as well as 10th.

Personally im inclined to give all the 'warrior' type classes Combat Dominance at first level, the fighter extra attacks at 7th and 10th, and the ranger, paladin and barbarian also having an extra attack at 10th.

I've run and played my games a certain way for a long time now, and im disinclined to change some habbits and restructure my entire game setting to C&C paramiters. ^_~`

The more I think about it, the more that some of what you are saying makes sense. Combat Dominance is great but by the time you get it, the impact it makes is a lot less. By eighth level (as it is right now) it is almost useless. I mean... if you are running an adventure for 7-9 level characters... how often are they fighting 1 hitdie creatures of type d6 or less?

Swapping them may solve a lot of issues. Mind you, I've always *liked* the idea of Specialization at 1st level but I'm sure most players would gladly accept the trade!

I'd have to examine it a bit more closely before I did that though but it's definitely worth a second look.

Thanks!

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[moriarty777]

Here's another idea... have you considered just given the Extra Attack ability at 4th level (instead of 10th) for fighters (and drop the whole Combat Dominance thing)?

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Metathiax]

Quote:
Combat Dominance is great but by the time you get it, the impact it makes is a lot less. By eighth level (as it is right now) it is almost useless.

I find a Cleave-like ability to be a good substitute to Combat Dominance which, after all, sounds pretty much like a nerfed version of the Cleave feat... It seems that the fighter's Combat Dominance and the barbarian's Primal Fury are the most house-ruled class abilities out there...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

[Dristram]

phadeout wrote:
Well, your players are less of a power gaming group then mine I can see

Power gaming in C&C?? How is it possible? When I ran C&C for gamers in my area, the ones who really liked to power game were frustrated with C&C because they couldn't break the rules. LOL I find that C&C sooths the power gaming mentality and brings things back to role-playing as the focus. All my players think the barbarian is a cool class as is.

If you get a chance to see Serl's XP breakdown for the classes, you will see where the higher XP for the barbarian comes from. I think those who want to play a barbarian because they think it will be a combat killing machine will not appreciate the Primal Sense and Force abilities. You can strip them from the class and which will make the XP for 2nd level go down to 1,650.

[phadeout]

Dristram wrote:
Power gaming in C&C?? How is it possible? When I ran C&C for gamers in my area, the ones who really liked to power game were frustrated with C&C because they couldn't break the rules. LOL I find that C&C sooths the power gaming mentality and brings things back to role-playing as the focus. All my players think the barbarian is a cool class as is.

If you get a chance to see Serl's XP breakdown for the classes, you will see where the higher XP for the barbarian comes from. I think those who want to play a barbarian because they think it will be a combat killing machine will not appreciate the Primal Sense and Force abilities. You can strip them from the class and which will make the XP for 2nd level go down to 1,650.

Not a matter of power gaming I guess, as just a matter of certain classes being very unpopular - though I've fixed this anyways.