House Rule: Unified XP charts

[nittanytbone14]

I like one of the innovations introduced in D&D3.X, namely, the unified XP chart. It simplifies things for the whole party to level up about at the same time. It also is one less chart that needs to be referenced. A unified XP chart eases multiclassing systems as well.

My question is, what tweaks need to be made to C&C in order to use a unified XP chart?

Rate of progression, just like HD size, BtH bonus, or class "goodies," is a pro/con for any class. Rogues are comparatively "underpowered" with poor HD and BtH along with situationally useful skills, so to compensate they get a fast XP chart. Wizards, in exchange for mind-bendingly awesome powers, get a slow XP chart.

Let's operate on the assumption that the Trolls acted rationally when designing the XP charts (i.e., there is a method to the madness, its not just arbitrary values).

FAST: Rogue, Assassin, Bard

MEDIUM: Fighter, Ranger, Monk, Cleric, Druid, Knight

SLOW: Wizard & Illusionist (slow at low levels, faster at high levels), Paladin

This quickie analysis indicates that the Rogue & Assassin need major boosts at all levels (they progress almost twice as fast as the other classes!). The Bard needs slight boosts.

On the flip side, the Paladin needs to be toned down a bit at all levels. The arcane casters need to be toned down at lower levels.

Any ideas?

Perhaps the CK's Guide will have more guidance on these sorts of issues...

[rabindranath72]

I do not see the unified XP chart working with C&C, simply because the classes are not built to be "balanced" with each other. Classes which need an higher XP amount are those that are on average more powerful. 3.x classes are built instead to be "balanced" a priori (whether the system succeeds in this is another topic), so a unified chart makes sense.

You should need to change all the C&C classes to obtain some sort of "balance", and it does not seem so easy to do (too many variables are involved). Perhaps the CK guide will have some hints.

Cheers,

Antonio

P.S.

welcome to the boards! I remember you posting on DF.

[Tropico]

Try the house rules document presented in this thread and downloadable from this webpage.

I don't know if the original author is still around, but they've been an unbelievably useful help to me in ironing out a lot of kinks I've come across in the game. Wanting the party to level together was one of those. Making more classes was another, having different weights and types of weapons another, etc.

I've slowly incorporated around 80% of the stuff in that pdf into our games and I can honestly say it's now a lot closer to what we wanted to play from the beginning.

If the original author is still around and reads this, THANK YOU for a great complement to an already great game!

[nittanytbone14]

rabindranath72 wrote:
I do not see the unified XP chart working with C&C, simply because the classes are not built to be "balanced" with each other.

The rate of progression in the XP chart is one of the factors that makes up how "powerful" a class is, though. It is a zero-sum design philosophy -- gain a feature in one area (class ability, skill, BtH, spells, HD, etc), lose a feature somewhere else (XP progression).

The argument that classes can't be balanced against each other is disingenuous, IMHO. That is exactly what the XP charts do -- balance stronger classes (by saddling them with a slow XP chart) against weaker classes (by giving them a fast XP chart).

What would one do if a player wanted to play a "fighter-rogue" base class? Probably jack up the HD to D8 or D10, up the BtH bonus to -1 a la the Ranger, and increase the XP requirements, right?

This is the same idea. In return for taking away an advantage of the fast classes (rogues, bards), you give them some other sort of bonus or goodie to make up for it. Likewise, for taking away a penalty for the slow classes (arcane, paladins), you take away some sort of positive class feature.

For example, here's a quick patch:

Rogues - HD = D8. BtH = Level -1, a la Ranger.

Bards - Gain the Fighter's Combat Dominance ability.

Wizards - Use the same spell chart as the cleric (i.e., fewer spells per level). Furthermore, subtract one from the caster's level to determine effective level on the spells per day chart. Thus, level II spells are not gained until the wizard hits character level 4. A first level wizard has access to 3 cantrips per day.

Paladins - Use a D8 HD instead of a D10.

All classes now use the Fighter XP chart.

That should iron out the biggest issues, right?

PS - rabindranath72, thanks for the welcome -- just got into C&C and figured I'd chime in on these forums here! I'm still trying to work out some issues with the mechanics, but luckily C&C is easy to house rule!

[nittanytbone14]

Here's a quick statistical analysis of the XP charts:

METHODOLOGY: I found the % difference between the XP needed to gain a certain level in a class compared to the XP needed for the same level in the "baseline" Fighter class for each level. XP for advancement beyond level 13 was weighted the same as any other level as my games rarely go beyond this point. I then averaged all of these values together to get the mean XP that a class is "ahead of" or "behind" the fighter by.

Negative scores indicate that the class progresses more quickly. Positive scores indicate a slower progression.

As you can see, this backs up the quickie analysis done earlier. Look at how much faster the rogue and assassin level!

FTR: 0.00

RANGER: 0.04

ROGUE: -0.43

ASSASSIN: -0.33

BARBARIAN: 0.12

MONK: 0.09

WIZARD: 0.17

ILLUSIONIST: 0.13

CLERIC: 0.03

DRUID: -0.06

KNIGHT: 0.04

PALADIN: 0.35

BARD: -0.16

Interestingly enough, at level 10 the Wizard and Illusionist "speed up" to the fighter progression and no longer lag behind. The illusionist even surges ahead!

[Joe]

I think this is all done to balance the game in an original manner rather than the newer uniform same table manner.

It seems much simpler to use experience tables to balance the character classes rather than 'tweaking' each and every class (with unknown varaiable results) in order to satisfy individual players desire for one concise table that applies to everyone.

The cookie cutter idea only works in some instances.

Why gimp down certain classes to fit one experience mold?

The low level 3.5 paladin is nothing compared to C&C or Original AD&D and I tnink the original character was what the original designers had intended rather than the weakened watered down versions presented to players in order to fit the perceptions of a universal mode.

It is celebrating the diversity amongst the various classes as they exist in a balanced level progression which makes it interesting. Without contrast there are no subtle nuance which makes the various classes unique.

My suggestion is to play the game in the spirit it was meant to be and trust the designers that yes, they did intend it to be just as it is.

Compare the rogue to the paladin to weigh the extreme.

It takes 24,001 exp points for the rogue to reach 6th level and the paladin to reach 5th. The level difference seems minimal.

Even at higher levels I cannot foresee a situation when the adventuring party becomes incompatible with each other.

Does anyone have examples of a high level thief overpowering any other characters?

In the case of C&C the tables ensure balance amongst diverse character types.

Rather than tweaking numerous character classes I suggest keeping each game system separate and appreciate each for it's unique qualities.

[Julian Grimm]

To be honest; Unified XP was one of the things that turned me off of 3e. I like the classic spreads and C&C emulates them quite well in my opinion. Not saying that anyone doing this is wrong but I hardly see the tables as a kink.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Birthright]

One thing I've considered is just using the fighter XP table for all classes, but apply a % penalty or bonus based on the characters class.

i.e.

rogues would gain a +x% XP modifier, paladins a -y% XP modifier.

All classes advance on the same table and multi-classing can be facilitated by nominating in advance which class the character will advance in next.

This ignores some of the 'steps' in the class XP tables assoicated with gaining new abilities at higher levels and requires the XP modifier be worked out for each class, but it will facilitate uniform XP tables without changing any of the class abilities.

[rabindranath72]

nittanytbone14 wrote:
The rate of progression in the XP chart is one of the factors that makes up how "powerful" a class is, though. It is a zero-sum design philosophy -- gain a feature in one area (class ability, skill, BtH, spells, HD, etc), lose a feature somewhere else (XP progression).

The argument that classes can't be balanced against each other is disingenuous, IMHO. That is exactly what the XP charts do -- balance stronger classes (by saddling them with a slow XP chart) against weaker classes (by giving them a fast XP chart).

What would one do if a player wanted to play a "fighter-rogue" base class? Probably jack up the HD to D8 or D10, up the BtH bonus to -1 a la the Ranger, and increase the XP requirements, right?

This is the same idea. In return for taking away an advantage of the fast classes (rogues, bards), you give them some other sort of bonus or goodie to make up for it. Likewise, for taking away a penalty for the slow classes (arcane, paladins), you take away some sort of positive class feature.

For example, here's a quick patch:

Rogues - HD = D8. BtH = Level -1, a la Ranger.

Bards - Gain the Fighter's Combat Dominance ability.

Wizards - Use the same spell chart as the cleric (i.e., fewer spells per level). Furthermore, subtract one from the caster's level to determine effective level on the spells per day chart. Thus, level II spells are not gained until the wizard hits character level 4. A first level wizard has access to 3 cantrips per day.

Paladins - Use a D8 HD instead of a D10.

All classes now use the Fighter XP chart.

That should iron out the biggest issues, right?

PS - rabindranath72, thanks for the welcome -- just got into C&C and figured I'd chime in on these forums here! I'm still trying to work out some issues with the mechanics, but luckily C&C is easy to house rule!

Surely another way of looking at class balance is to factor the XP chart as one of the elements of said balance. More an interpretation thing, however (like in: moving a term in an equation from one of the sides to the other).

I have no clue whether your suggested modifications balance each other out, to bring them on the same scale as the fighter. I guess you should playtest it to see whether it works in practice.

I wonder: is having a unique XP chart worth the trouble of changing the classes?

[rabindranath72]

nittanytbone14 wrote:
Here's a quick statistical analysis of the XP charts:

METHODOLOGY: I found the % difference between the XP needed to gain a certain level in a class compared to the XP needed for the same level in the "baseline" Fighter class for each level. XP for advancement beyond level 13 was weighted the same as any other level as my games rarely go beyond this point. I then averaged all of these values together to get the mean XP that a class is "ahead of" or "behind" the fighter by.

Negative scores indicate that the class progresses more quickly. Positive scores indicate a slower progression.

As you can see, this backs up the quickie analysis done earlier. Look at how much faster the rogue and assassin level!

FTR: 0.00

RANGER: 0.04

ROGUE: -0.43

ASSASSIN: -0.33

BARBARIAN: 0.12

MONK: 0.09

WIZARD: 0.17

ILLUSIONIST: 0.13

CLERIC: 0.03

DRUID: -0.06

KNIGHT: 0.04

PALADIN: 0.35

BARD: -0.16

Interestingly enough, at level 10 the Wizard and Illusionist "speed up" to the fighter progression and no longer lag behind. The illusionist even surges ahead!

Given the wide range of the values involved, averaging (I suppose arithmetic mean) may not be a good indicator; extreme values tend to bias the result. You could try evaluating the median or, better yet, a weighted average, or geometric average.

[Tropico]

Funny thing is, I practically shoe-horned a unified XP chart into my game. All classes use the same chart (from that pdf above).

Changes made to balance the classes into the chart? None. Aside from giving casters larger hit dice (I don't like d4s).

Bad consequences in gameplay from doing any of this? None. Classes play fine. Noone's outshining anyone. Everyone's having fun. And if one character were to start lagging behind, I can't imagine it would be anything but trivial to give them some magic item to compensate.

My advice from having had 7 great C&C game sessions so far is eyeball it, start playing, see what happens; the system can take it as long as you keep an eye on it.

Just one thing, though:

Quote:
Wizards - Use the same spell chart as the cleric (i.e., fewer spells per level). Furthermore, subtract one from the caster's level to determine effective level on the spells per day chart. Thus, level II spells are not gained until the wizard hits character level 4. A first level wizard has access to 3 cantrips per day.

That is a seriously weak wizard you're gonna have there. In fact, my only issue at the beginning of the game before I started tinkering myself was that the wizard was lagged way behind everyone else power-wise and the player was bored and disengaged.. the thread is still in the forums somewhere.

Wizards don't follow a straight linear increase in power. From what I was told back when I asked, they're supposed to start out a lot weaker than everyone else, then get a lot stronger in the later levels. You're probably gonna want to balance him out later but there's really no reason to make him even weaker at the early levels.

The only way to get a feel for that kind of stuff is by playing the game, though

[Buttmonkey]

Maybe I'm missing something due to never having played 3E or 3.5E, but I really fail to see what the big deal is with PCs leveling at different times. It was never a problem when I ran 1E back in the early 80s. And it seems that any "advantage" that you might get from unifying the XP charts so that people level at the same time would be tossed out the window once PCs start dying (well, other than a TPK).

[Nelzie]

You can use a unified chart if you want to.

We have seen no issues with keeping the XP charts as is.

The campaign that I am running has been going strong for nearly 2 years, meeting roughly twice a month, sometimes less during the holiday season.

The characters are just beginning to approach 9th level and the campaign has been a regular blast. Everyone has fun, everyone has their own time to shine and nobody feels left out of the fun.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[BLOOD AXE]

I like the different Xp charts. It seems balanced & it works well for me. Its like the old Basic D&D set rules, the old boxed set w/ the red cover. I guess thats why I love C&C. No 4E for me.

[Maliki]

nittanytbone14 wrote:
The rate of progression in the XP chart is one of the factors that makes up how "powerful" a class is, though. It is a zero-sum design philosophy -- gain a feature in one area (class ability, skill, BtH, spells, HD, etc), lose a feature somewhere else (XP progression).

The argument that classes can't be balanced against each other is disingenuous, IMHO. That is exactly what the XP charts do -- balance stronger classes (by saddling them with a slow XP chart) against weaker classes (by giving them a fast XP chart).

What would one do if a player wanted to play a "fighter-rogue" base class? Probably jack up the HD to D8 or D10, up the BtH bonus to -1 a la the Ranger, and increase the XP requirements, right?

This is the same idea. In return for taking away an advantage of the fast classes (rogues, bards), you give them some other sort of bonus or goodie to make up for it. Likewise, for taking away a penalty for the slow classes (arcane, paladins), you take away some sort of positive class feature.

For example, here's a quick patch:

Rogues - HD = D8. BtH = Level -1, a la Ranger.

Bards - Gain the Fighter's Combat Dominance ability.

Wizards - Use the same spell chart as the cleric (i.e., fewer spells per level). Furthermore, subtract one from the caster's level to determine effective level on the spells per day chart. Thus, level II spells are not gained until the wizard hits character level 4. A first level wizard has access to 3 cantrips per day.

Paladins - Use a D8 HD instead of a D10.

All classes now use the Fighter XP chart.

That should iron out the biggest issues, right?

PS - rabindranath72, thanks for the welcome -- just got into C&C and figured I'd chime in on these forums here! I'm still trying to work out some issues with the mechanics, but luckily C&C is easy to house rule!

I cringe at unified XP charts, but this looks like a good fix to balancing the classes. It does hurt the wizard at lower levels. I would suggest keeping them the same at lower levels, but slowing down their spell progression at higher levels.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[LordSeurek]

I have also been looking into the XP levels for different classes. Since myself and another gamer on the boards feel the progressin thru the levels is too slow, I decided to take a crack at modifying the tables as a house rule of mine.

The link below gives you the option of viewing or saving the file using notepad (since everyone has this
feel free to rip it to shreds or say, geez LS, thats pretty darn cool
All comments are welcome before I try it out in a game soon.
http://www.onedump.com/file14/d54c0c35a ... vised1.txt

L.S.
_________________
When All of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed" -- M.Manson (Man That You Fear)

Society Member: http://www.cncsociety.org/

[Buttmonkey]

If you think C&C characters don't level fast enough, I would think it would be much easier to just award more experience (e.g., increase all XP awards by 25% or whatever number feels right) rather than try to tweak the XP tables.

[LordSeurek]

Fair enough. My CK in one of my games goes by the book in terms of what XP is given out for monsters, role playing, treasure. Maybe I'll just suggest to increase the XP by a percentage.

I think I will try my tables in my game though, any thoughts about it?

L.S.
_________________
When All of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed" -- M.Manson (Man That You Fear)

Society Member: http://www.cncsociety.org/

[Breakdaddy]

You can use Serleran's build your own class document which does use a unified XP chart, but you will have to build your own class from the features contained therein.