Solviulnir the Soulbinder Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 On 11/12/2013 at 5:04 PM, Tamerlane said: On 11/12/2013 at 4:22 PM, Solviulnir the Soulbinder said: Why bother with levels at all? Wouldn't it be more natural to just gain new skills and abilities through performing actions specific for a character, like: Rogue - the more he/she is *actively* sneaking/disarming/setting traps the faster he she receives 'expertise' and new abilities, Warrior - the more he/she is engaged in combat/delivers blows/avoids being hit, etc... Mage - the more he/she casts/learns spells/effectively concocts potions etc... The problem with do-it-to-improve-it (aside from feeling even more grindy than conventional levelling; hello casting "detect life" every 30 seconds in Oblivion to grind Illusion) is how easily it pigeonholes you. You took an aggressive approach early in the game? Well, you never get to use stealth now because your Hitting Things With Sticks is level 10 and your Sneaking By Things With Sticks is level 1, and by now all the NPCs have Detecting Hidden People With Sticks level 8. You avoided most combat with stealth and diplomacy early on? Hope you never wanted to win a fight in the mid-to-late-game. Tamerlane, I see your point. And I agree with you OTOH, it's up to developers to design majority of the encounters throughout the game in such a way that they can be 'resolved' by means of both brute force (warrior heavy playstyle) and stealth/diplomacy (rogue/mage heavy playstyle). That way the problem which you mentioned would never occur, the player would never be forced to switch his [kill'em all] playstyle into [drop'em silently 'fore the know what's commin'] or [talk'em down] playstyles and vice-versa mid-game It was just a suggestion. It's most certainly not a perfect mechanic but it has some merits. It is flexible and caters for exp distribution according to the preferred playstyle, provided however that the majority of the quests can be completed in more than just a single manner. Also, in my previous post I stated that "this kind of mechanic needs certain safeguards to prevent exploits like: press "sneak" button and leave the game running for 3h to max your character abilities." I think we both agree on that.
Lephys Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 On 11/12/2013 at 11:30 AM, jethro said: Please no strawman examples like 1 hour against 5 hours to make a level or even 2000 against 4000. Also said person plays a group, not a single toon, and the objective of this thread is to find a way that that group doesn't level at the same time. That is the point. It is not about balancing, more balancing is just what you get for free if you adopt such a leveling scheme. It's not a strawman, because A) It wasn't even aimed at anyone's argument, so it cannot misrepresent an argument when it's not representing an argument in the first place, and B) it was just an example as to why I feel that the "different XP amounts for leveling different classes" is objectively problematic. It's not even about balancing, even though it would probably serve that end as a side-effect. What I'm saying is, when, in a game, does a player ever think it's fun to forego any tangible progression for an even longer period of time, just to receive a larger dose of progression all at once when it DOES occur? Or, to put it better, when is the introduction of a change/upgrade/new thing to which to react on a regular basis a BAD thing, for gameplay in general? Also, as I said, if you've already got a hierarchy for abilities (you don't gain level 20 abilities until you reach level 20, so that's already a longer wait than level 2 abilities, for example), how is delaying level-ups for certain classes not redundant? "This ability is structured into levels already, so that you don't get it until you've progressed a certain amount... but now, we're going to make you have to progress even MORE because of how powerful this ability is (because we've designed it that way), instead of adjusting the ability's power and/or simply placing it at a higher tier/level." You could go even further by adjusting how much XP gain they get, using the exact same principle. "Since your level 2 stuff is so awesome compared to other people's, it's going to take twice as much XP to get to level 2... AND you're only going to get .8 XP for every 1 XP other classes get." And so on, and so forth. Don't get me wrong... it achieves a goal. I'm just wondering how it wouldn't be more efficient to achieve the exact same goal in a different manner, one that doesn't sacrifice progression rate for progression potency. On 11/12/2013 at 6:24 PM, Kaczor said: It works in the opposite manner. Both Rogue and Wizard gain new abilities when they grow in level, but these abilities are different. While learning to attack from shadows by sneaking makes some sense, getting new spells in such manner does not. Sneaking can make one a better Rogue, but it won't make him a Wizard. And yet, a Wizard can utilize Illusion magic in order to accomplish things with equal amounts of Stealth, thereby making him a better master of Illusion, and, in-turn, Stealth. There isn't really an end result that's exclusive to one class or the other (in terms of something such as "attacking from the shadows.") Now, if you're talking about the method by which you do something (even if it's the same end result as someone else could do) contributing more to one's progression, then I'm all for that. It was just unclear to me, if that's what was being spoken of. Of course, it would need to be something that dynamically altered the options for handling the scenario, but was exclusive to that class's potency. Example: There are magical detectors in place, so to magically illusion your way down the stealthy path, you'd have to somehow eliminate the detectors, etc. But, the awesomely stealthy Rogue could simply utilize non-magical stealth mastery to much more efficiently/effectively slip past undetected. Boom. Rogue bonus for Roguery. Or rather, a bonus, in general, for being a Rogue happening to provide a benefit, in this instance, that being not-a-Rogue could not provide. In other words, I still think determining XP gains based on what is accomplished is the best way of handling it. I'm not very enthusiastic about any kind of "The Fighter skillfully slew all these enemies head-on, so he gets bonus XP for behaving Fighterly, and the Rogue skillfully backstabbed all his opponents without being seen, so he gets bonus XP for behaving Roguishly" system, if there is no change in factors based on the method used: all the enemies are dead now, either way, and everything else remains the same. I'm not suggesting that I'm arguing directly against anyone there. I'm simply stating my thoughts on the subject. Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u
Tamerlane Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 On 11/12/2013 at 7:19 PM, Solviulnir the Soulbinder said: On 11/12/2013 at 5:04 PM, Tamerlane said: On 11/12/2013 at 4:22 PM, Solviulnir the Soulbinder said: Why bother with levels at all? Wouldn't it be more natural to just gain new skills and abilities through performing actions specific for a character, like: Rogue - the more he/she is *actively* sneaking/disarming/setting traps the faster he she receives 'expertise' and new abilities, Warrior - the more he/she is engaged in combat/delivers blows/avoids being hit, etc... Mage - the more he/she casts/learns spells/effectively concocts potions etc... The problem with do-it-to-improve-it (aside from feeling even more grindy than conventional levelling; hello casting "detect life" every 30 seconds in Oblivion to grind Illusion) is how easily it pigeonholes you. You took an aggressive approach early in the game? Well, you never get to use stealth now because your Hitting Things With Sticks is level 10 and your Sneaking By Things With Sticks is level 1, and by now all the NPCs have Detecting Hidden People With Sticks level 8. You avoided most combat with stealth and diplomacy early on? Hope you never wanted to win a fight in the mid-to-late-game. Tamerlane, I see your point. And I agree with you OTOH, it's up to developers to design majority of the encounters throughout the game in such a way that they can be 'resolved' by means of both brute force (warrior heavy playstyle) and stealth/diplomacy (rogue/mage heavy playstyle). That way the problem which you mentioned would never occur, the player would never be forced to switch his [kill'em all] playstyle into [drop'em silently 'fore the know what's commin'] or [talk'em down] playstyles and vice-versa mid-game It was just a suggestion. It's most certainly not a perfect mechanic but it has some merits. It is flexible and caters for exp distribution according to the preferred playstyle, provided however that the majority of the quests can be completed in more than just a single manner. Also, in my previous post I stated that "this kind of mechanic needs certain safeguards to prevent exploits like: press "sneak" button and leave the game running for 3h to max your character abilities." I think we both agree on that. But the problem then is that then you would have to make the challenge level extraordinarily low to allow people to actually mix up their approach. There is no "designing encounters" at that point - either the fighting is so easy that the talky, sneaky people have a chance and the fighty people aren't challenged, or the talky sneakers have no chance so the fighters can actually have a real fight. Or... or I guess you just scale everything based on how the characters are built, but... well, that would be terrible. Also, I should point out that fighting is not "the fighter thing", talking is not "the rogue thing", etc. Anyone can fight well, albeit often in very different ways. Anyone can sneak, though some dudes are inherently better at it. Anyone can talk and there aren't even "social skills" (though various skills and attributes do come up in dialogue).
jethro Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) On 11/12/2013 at 11:33 PM, Lephys said: On 11/12/2013 at 11:30 AM, jethro said: Please no strawman examples like 1 hour against 5 hours to make a level or even 2000 against 4000. Also said person plays a group, not a single toon, and the objective of this thread is to find a way that that group doesn't level at the same time. That is the point. It is not about balancing, more balancing is just what you get for free if you adopt such a leveling scheme.It's not a strawman, because A) It wasn't even aimed at anyone's argument, so it cannot misrepresent an argument when it's not representing an argument in the first place, and B) it was just an example as to why I feel that the "different XP amounts for leveling different classes" is objectively problematic. It's not even about balancing, even though it would probably serve that end as a side-effect. Call it what you like, the example is useless, it is inflated numbers into extreme territory and so can't be an example of anything being problematic. "Pidgeons on roofs are problematic. For example a pidgeon weighing 100 tons will crash through the roof". Useless example, proves nothing. Quote What I'm saying is, when, in a game, does a player ever think it's fun to forego any tangible progression for an even longer period of time, just to receive a larger dose of progression all at once when it DOES occur? Or, to put it better, when is the introduction of a change/upgrade/new thing to which to react on a regular basis a BAD thing, for gameplay in general? Your whole argument construction seems to depend on level thresholds that are so monumentally different that it isn't even on a regular basis anymore. D&D's leveling differences were quite high (if I remember correctly), much more than what would be necessary to stagger level ups in actual play. Did you notice that adversly while playing? I didn't. Here is a sensible example: In D&D 3.5 it seems a level-up should happen after 13.3 equal level encounters. If you order the classes from fastest-leveling to slowest-leveling and make each class of this list to level 1 equal level encounter later than the previous one, level-ups would usually be separated by at least one encounter. You could fit 14 classes into this scheme without any class ever being 2 levels above any other. (And just to state the obvious, if this level-up difference is too much, halve it, there are no hard requirements) In absolute numbers it would mean something like this: Class A gets level 2 at 1000xp, level 3 at 2000xp and level 4 at 4000xp. Class B would get level 2 at 1100 xp, level 3 at 2200xp (to keep numbers round), Class C at 1200xp and 2400xp. No class would get level 2 at 2000 xp or more. Quote Also, as I said, if you've already got a hierarchy for abilities (you don't gain level 20 abilities until you reach level 20, so that's already a longer wait than level 2 abilities, for example), how is delaying level-ups for certain classes not redundant? "This ability is structured into levels already, so that you don't get it until you've progressed a certain amount... ... Why, after we both seemed to concur that it is not about balancing, are you arguing about balancing again? Nobody cares if that balancing is redundant, it is not the reason for implementing the leveling scheme Quote Don't get me wrong... it achieves a goal. I'm just wondering how it wouldn't be more efficient to achieve the exact same goal in a different manner, one that doesn't sacrifice progression rate for progression potency. That is why I listed all 4 known solutions in a previous post. Take your pick. Edited November 13, 2013 by jethro
neo6874 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) Quote Quote What I'm saying is, when, in a game, does a player ever think it's fun to forego any tangible progression for an even longer period of time, just to receive a larger dose of progression all at once when it DOES occur? Or, to put it better, when is the introduction of a change/upgrade/new thing to which to react on a regular basis a BAD thing, for gameplay in general? Your whole argument construction seems to depend on level thresholds that are so monumentally different that it isn't even on a regular basis anymore. D&D's leveling differences were quite high (if I remember correctly), much more than what would be necessary to stagger level ups in actual play. Did you notice that adversly while playing? I didn't. Here is a sensible example: In D&D 3.5 it seems a level-up should happen after 13.3 equal level encounters. If you order the classes from fastest-leveling to slowest-leveling and make each class of this list to level 1 equal level encounter later than the previous one, level-ups would usually be separated by at least one encounter. You could fit 14 classes into this scheme without any class ever being 2 levels above any other. (And just to state the obvious, if this level-up difference is too much, halve it, there are no hard requirements) In absolute numbers it would mean something like this: Class A gets level 2 at 1000xp, level 3 at 2000xp and level 4 at 4000xp. Class B would get level 2 at 1100 xp, level 3 at 2200xp (to keep numbers round), Class C at 1200xp and 2400xp. No class would get level 2 at 2000 xp or more. I don't follow this part here -- I mean, from what I recall, D&D 2 (IWD/BG/?) had different leveling requirements (1k for a fighter, 1500 for a mage ... whatever [edit - totally made up numbers]), but in 3/3.5 it's all flat regardless of class (XP needed = curXP + (newLevel x 1000XP) , so L0 -> L1 was 1,000; L1->L2 was +2,000 (3,000 total); L17 -> L18 was +18k; etc)... IDK what they did with 4E ... seems more a dumbing-down of P&P mechanics to make it fit with MMORPG mechanics than an actual improvement over anything... Edited November 13, 2013 by neo6874
jethro Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) On 11/13/2013 at 1:04 PM, neo6874 said: I don't follow this part here -- I mean, from what I recall, D&D 2 (IWD/BG/?) had different leveling requirements (1k for a fighter, 1500 for a mage ... whatever [edit - totally made up numbers]), but in 3/3.5 it's all flat regardless of class (XP needed = curXP + (newLevel x 1000XP) , so L0 -> L1 was 1,000; L1->L2 was +2,000 (3,000 total); L17 -> L18 was +18k; etc)... IDK what they did with 4E ... seems more a dumbing-down of P&P mechanics to make it fit with MMORPG mechanics than an actual improvement over anything... Yes, level differences were only in D&D 0 to 2nd edition. From 3rd on it had to be flat because you could decide which class to advance on level up. If the 13.3 value from edition 3.5 irritates you, it is a value I found on the net by chance, it was a sensible value and it doesn't matter which existing realistic RPG system I use as a basis for a staggered/different leveling modification. It is a realistic example of how such a leveling scheme could look like. If the 1000, 2000, 4000 xp level-up numbers irritate you, they were just invented by me to illustrate the math. But I'm sure I've seen a few RPGs that had such a progression, so still realistic. Just not exactly D&D (I'm no D&D expert and have to look up every bit of information) Edited November 13, 2013 by jethro
Kaczor Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 On 11/12/2013 at 11:33 PM, Lephys said: On 11/12/2013 at 6:24 PM, Kaczor said: It works in the opposite manner. Both Rogue and Wizard gain new abilities when they grow in level, but these abilities are different. While learning to attack from shadows by sneaking makes some sense, getting new spells in such manner does not. Sneaking can make one a better Rogue, but it won't make him a Wizard.And yet, a Wizard can utilize Illusion magic in order to accomplish things with equal amounts of Stealth, thereby making him a better master of Illusion, and, in-turn, Stealth. There isn't really an end result that's exclusive to one class or the other (in terms of something such as "attacking from the shadows.") Sound logical, as long as Wizard can only learn illusion spells as he levels up. You can prove that any skill or ability is cross-class ("Treat my Fighter as a Wizard, because he wears Plate Armor of Fireballs!"), but that it not the case. Some activities are "natural" to one class, some are tailored to the other. I agree on the rest of your post, however. On 11/13/2013 at 1:04 PM, neo6874 said: I don't follow this part here -- I mean, from what I recall, D&D 2 (IWD/BG/?) had different leveling requirements (1k for a fighter, 1500 for a mage ... whatever [edit - totally made up numbers]), but in 3/3.5 it's all flat regardless of class (XP needed = curXP + (newLevel x 1000XP) , so L0 -> L1 was 1,000; L1->L2 was +2,000 (3,000 total); L17 -> L18 was +18k; etc)... jethro's idea is based on AD&D, but it guarantees that all character of equal experience will also be equal or almost equal in level. To understand why this is important, look at the BG II: SoA level caps (Rogue - 23, Druid - 14). Oh... and there is no level 0 in D&D 3.5.
neo6874 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) @Jethro -- Flat progression or no, I still don't follow what you were trying to get at with what I quoted a post or two up. 13.3 encounters to level just means that (on average) 13.3 encounters will get you 1k EXP at L0, or 18K EXP at L17 (assuming fighting L0/1 or L17/18 equiv monsters - in a D&D 3E setting). Since everyone levels at 1/3/6/10/15/21k XP no matter their class, I'm not sure where you're getting the "order them from fastest to slowest" part, since there is no "speed difference" for any classes (since 1K XP = 1K XP). Most of the time (in either a cRPG or P&P) the leveling differences were because A party member was dead at the end of a fight (no XP that fight) A party member did something hilariously daft that worked out (bonus XP outside the encounters) A party member kept up with their journal (bonus XP outside encounters) A party member miraculously rolled nat 20 on a [diplomacy|intimidation|whatever] check to change the course of a conversation (e.g. made the evil cleric piss his pants ... so bonus XP) A party member made a Ring of Fireball, and burned 5K XP Although, I think you might be confusing me with Lephys, who you seem to have been going back and forth with for a few posts. @ Kaczor - Crossing all kinds of rulesets in my mind, it's been far too long since I've played Your explanation makes more sense than what Jethro said -- I was having a hard time with where he was talking about 3E and AD&D Edited November 13, 2013 by neo6874
jethro Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) On 11/13/2013 at 6:15 PM, neo6874 said: @Jethro -- Flat progression or no, I still don't follow what you were trying to get at with what I quoted a post or two up. 13.3 encounters to level just means that (on average) 13.3 encounters will get you 1k EXP at L0, or 18K EXP at L17 (assuming fighting L0/1 or L17/18 equiv monsters - in a D&D 3E setting). Yes. The plan is to change something flat like edition 3.5 into something with different level requirements (just as a thought experiment). Lets say we leave the fighter as before, so he levels at 1k exp. The mage we change to achieve the new level at 1.1k instead, the bard at 1.2k and so on. See, now the previously flat system would have different level requirements for the classes. And since the xp difference is the same as you would get from a single combat encounter it would mean that if you had a fighter and a mage in your group, the fighter would level first and one combat encounter later the mage (not every time, but probably quite often) Quote Since everyone levels at 1/3/6/10/15/21k XP no matter their class, I'm not sure where you're getting the "order them from fastest to slowest" part, since there is no "speed difference" for any classes (since 1K XP = 1K XP). Most of the time (in either a cRPG or P&P) the leveling differences were because ... I said "order the from fastest to slowest" because if you want to have different level requirements, you would use that to fine-tune the classes a bit. You would select the class that seems weakest in play-tests to level first to make up somewhat for the weakness. The next-weakest class would come next. Quote Although, I think you might be confusing me with Lephys, who you seem to have been going back and forth with for a few posts. No, not at all. You were replying to me and asked what the hell I was talking about. I might not be good at explaining, but I will try. Edited November 14, 2013 by jethro
Lephys Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 On 11/13/2013 at 12:33 PM, jethro said: Call it what you like, the example is useless, it is inflated numbers into extreme territory and so can't be an example of anything being problematic. "Pidgeons on roofs are problematic. For example a pidgeon weighing 100 tons will crash through the roof". Useless example, proves nothing. It's only useless when you miss the point of it. I don't comprehend what makes my examples so confusing... You see, if we take your pigeon example, and make the argument "the amount of weight a pigeon is carrying is problematic," instead of "pigeons on roofs are problematic," it makes perfect sense. And if you were trying to illustrate this with further example, would you use a pigeon carrying 7 ounces of weight, versus a pigeon carrying 8.3 ounces of weight, and explain the subtle intricacies of the now-mandatory specific data that comes from both sets of circumstances? Or would you simply compare the effects of a pigeon carrying nothing to a pigeon carrying a blatantly heavy load? Yeah... so, when I make an example about the time/effort difference between classes in a system that has a varied leveling scheme, I'm not going to say "What if the Warrior levels up in about an hour of play, and the Wizard levels up in about an hour, 3 minutes and 22 seconds of play?". Because the point is in the relationship. What my whole argument is based on is simply that progression is already staggered by the sheer existence of the leveling system, and that further staggering is a bit redundant. It's not about which version of D&D had what, or whether or not P:E is going to use it, or the number of pounds a pigeon can carry on a roof... It was a very simple comment. I feel that the "your class must gain another 1500XP to level up than this other class" system is not a very good design choice, as its cons outweigh its pros. Regardless of the extent of the cons, they are still proportionally greater than the pros. Quote Your whole argument construction seems to depend on level thresholds that are so monumentally different that it isn't even on a regular basis anymore. D&D's leveling differences were quite high (if I remember correctly), much more than what would be necessary to stagger level ups in actual play. Did you notice that adversly while playing? I didn't. Yes, I did. Why? Because it was noticeable. Both in the PnP versions that had staggered level-up schemes AND in the games in which these schemes were used... My main character was a Wizard, and Imoen (in BG) was Level 3 by the time I hit level 2. Not to mention I barely gained any capabilities at level 2, but that's beside the point (since that's a completely different design choice -- even with an extra 2,000XP of delay before I level, I could still gain plenty of stuff at the next level, or nothing at all... which is kind of the point in my "this is redundant" argument). Or, allow me to correct myself: I didn't notice it "adversely." I simply noticed it, and the fact that it was completely unnecessary. As I said, they already gave me jack-crap as a Level 2 Wizard as compared to a Level 2 Warrior or Rogue, so why delay the already-delayed things I gain? My argument isn't that this ruined the game because it's so bad. Merely that it's pointless. Every time I greet a friend, I could stab him in the leg with a small needle. That's not going to do any lasting damage. It's too small of a wound for him to bleed to death or need medical attention. But, what GOOD is it doing anyone? None. So, why not NOT do it? And I have no idea what you mean by "isn't even on a regular basis anymore." The whole POINT is that it's on a regular basis: Your Level 2 is 1500 instead of 1000, then your level 3 is 4500 instead of 3000, then your level 5 is 7500 instead of 5000. See? Relationship... point... is this not making sense? If you stagger the XP requirement for leveling for different classes, you create an unnecessary gap in progression, itself, ON TOP OF pacing the progression already based on what is gained at which level. Quote Here is a sensible example: In D&D 3.5 it seems a level-up should happen after 13.3 equal level encounters. If you order the classes from fastest-leveling to slowest-leveling and make each class of this list to level 1 equal level encounter later than the previous one, level-ups would usually be separated by at least one encounter. You could fit 14 classes into this scheme without any class ever being 2 levels above any other. (And just to state the obvious, if this level-up difference is too much, halve it, there are no hard requirements) Fair enough. Here's another sensible example: Your party is comprised entirely of the same class -- 6 Fighters. Now what? Do they level at different times? They sure don't. Now, if they were to, say, gain slightly varying amounts of XP for various dynamic circumstantial bonuses... then they'd still level at different times, but it wouldn't be arbitrarily dictated by their class. If you can point out one way in which basing the stagger on sheer class choice is beneficial in a way that another scheme cannot be (to justify the pretty arbitrary "you have to wait longer to gain any amount of new anything," regardless of how great or small that added duration consistently is), then I'll give credit where credit is do. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that I cannot think of an example, and at the moment, I can't think of anything that would be useful OTHER THAN such an example, in counter to my argument. Quote Why, after we both seemed to concur that it is not about balancing, are you arguing about balancing again? Nobody cares if that balancing is redundant, it is not the reason for implementing the leveling scheme I'm not. I've already told you... it's not about balancing! I'm saying the ONLY thing that leveling scheme actually accomplishes is redundant balancing. Yeah, that's not the reason for implementing it, which makes it even worse that it affects it. Why would you not care about arbitrary redundancy? Quote That is why I listed all 4 known solutions in a previous post. Take your pick. So, you're both saying I'm wrong about this particular method being rendered pointless by the greater pro-to-con ratio of alternative methods, AND acknowledging here that this particular method is unnecessary thanks to the the other known solutions you've listed in another post? I don't understand the purpose of your argument. It would be one thing if it was mere intellectual analysis, for whatever it was worth. But, you're actively fighting my simple observations and points, then acting as though you're not actually arguing counter to my simple observations and points. It's quite confusing. o_O Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u
jethro Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) On 11/14/2013 at 12:29 AM, Lephys said: It's only useless when you miss the point of it. I don't comprehend what makes my examples so confusing... Its uselessness ;-). It would have been a useful example and comment if you said something like "But we have to be careful to not make the variance too much, because example". Instead you just planted that senseless example and now seem to try to paint that as general disadvantage of the staggered approach. Quote What my whole argument is based on is simply that progression is already staggered by the sheer existence of the leveling system, and that further staggering is a bit redundant. It's not about which version of D&D had what, or whether or not P:E is going to use it, or the number of pounds a pigeon can carry on a roof... It was a very simple comment. I feel that the "your class must gain another 1500XP to level up than this other class" system is not a very good design choice, as its cons outweigh its pros. Regardless of the extent of the cons, they are still proportionally greater than the pros. You didn't mention any con in your first post. Your senseless example showed no con and definitely didn't illustrate redundancy if that is your story. But okay, lets move on. Redundancy is what you propose since last post as a con. To be redundant is (citing wiktionary.org) "Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary". You say staggered leveling is redundant to the existence of the leveling process itself. But the leveling process itself doesn't achieve that your characters don't all level at the same time. Which makes the staggered leveling NOT redundant with the leveling process itself. Quote Yes, I did. Why? Because it was noticeable. Both in the PnP versions that had staggered level-up schemes AND in the games in which these schemes were used... My main character was a Wizard, and Imoen (in BG) was Level 3 by the time I hit level 2. Not to mention I barely gained any capabilities at level 2, but that's beside the point (since that's a completely different design choice -- even with an extra 2,000XP of delay before I level, I could still gain plenty of stuff at the next level, or nothing at all... which is kind of the point in my "this is redundant" argument). As I demonstrated by my example you can easily implement the scheme so that it is impossible for Imoen to hit level 3 while the wizard is still at level 1. As you say, barely gaining capabilities is beside the point. So don't dwell on it and continue with it even in the next paragraph. Quote Or, allow me to correct myself: I didn't notice it "adversely." I simply noticed it, and the fact that it was completely unnecessary. As I said, they already gave me jack-crap as a Level 2 Wizard as compared to a Level 2 Warrior or Rogue, so why delay the already-delayed things I gain? My argument isn't that this ruined the game because it's so bad. Merely that it's pointless. Every time I greet a friend, I could stab him in the leg with a small needle. That's not going to do any lasting damage. It's too small of a wound for him to bleed to death or need medical attention. But, what GOOD is it doing anyone? None. So, why not NOT do it? COULD YOU PLEASE READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD. I don't get it, I have been mentioning the reason again and again. The title of this thread says it and the first post by Kjaamor explains it. Essentially: To not get new abilites all at once. So that you can try out new abilites and not overlook the smaller ones because of the shiny ones like it usually happens. Not one big lump of presents at Christmas but presents distributed over the year Quote And I have no idea what you mean by "isn't even on a regular basis anymore." The whole POINT is that it's on a regular basis: Your Level 2 is 1500 instead of 1000, then your level 3 is 4500 instead of 3000, then your level 5 is 7500 instead of 5000. See? Relationship... point... is this not making sense? You said "when is the introduction of a change/upgrade/new thing to which to react on a regular basis a BAD thing". Which implies the staggered approach is non-regular. Now above you are arguing staggered is also regular. I would say we were both confused on the interpretation of each others statement. Quote Fair enough. Here's another sensible example: Your party is comprised entirely of the same class -- 6 Fighters. Now what? Do they level at different times? They sure don't. Now, if they were to, say, gain slightly varying amounts of XP for various dynamic circumstantial bonuses... then they'd still level at different times, but it wouldn't be arbitrarily dictated by their class. THANK YOU. Finally you clearly state a disadvantage instead of just muttering cryptic hints in your beard. And yes, that is a disadvantage I didn't catch. Should be added to the list in post#38. In my opinion it is a quite small disadvantage, usually people play with mixed groups. Quote I'm saying the ONLY thing that leveling scheme actually accomplishes is redundant balancing. So you are saying, it doesn't lead to "Let's Not Have Everyone Level At Once", the thread title? Now I really don't know if you just did never read what this thread is about because of all your other postings in this forum or if you have some blind spot or if you just want to say, in a really roundabout way, that you don't know why anyone wants to "Let's Not Have Everyone Level At Once"? Or do you want to say "Because staggered leveling doesn't accomplish the stagger in every and each case (i.e. not with 5 characters of the same class) it accomplishes nothing." ? Then say so. And I would counter that it isn't necessary to have differences in leveling in every single case. If we look at the method of gaining varying amounts of XP for actions for example, this method also can't garantuee that characters level differently because the random xp gains could equal out. But it is not important to have 100% success rate on this, no matter how this is accomplished. Quote Quote That is why I listed all 4 known solutions in a previous post. Take your pick. So, you're both saying I'm wrong about this particular method being rendered pointless by the greater pro-to-con ratio of alternative methods, AND acknowledging here that this particular method is unnecessary thanks to the the other known solutions you've listed in another post? Why am I not surprised that you didn't pick one. There are other solutions, but they have disadvantages too or are only good if certain preconditons are true. So why is this paricular method pointless when it might be the best of those 4 methods? "The greater pro-to-con ratio" you just drop like a hot potato into this conversation without ever doing a real comparision of pros and cons. Edited November 14, 2013 by jethro
neo6874 Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) On 11/14/2013 at 12:14 AM, jethro said: On 11/13/2013 at 6:15 PM, neo6874 said: @Jethro -- Flat progression or no, I still don't follow what you were trying to get at with what I quoted a post or two up. 13.3 encounters to level just means that (on average) 13.3 encounters will get you 1k EXP at L0, or 18K EXP at L17 (assuming fighting L0/1 or L17/18 equiv monsters - in a D&D 3E setting). Yes. The plan is to change something flat like edition 3.5 into something with different level requirements (just as a thought experiment). Lets say we leave the fighter as before, so he levels at 1k exp. The mage we change to achieve the new level at 1.1k instead, the bard at 1.2k and so on. See, now the previously flat system would have different level requirements for the classes. And since the xp difference is the same as you would get from a single combat encounter it would mean that if you had a fighter and a mage in your group, the fighter would level first and one combat encounter later the mage (not every time, but probably quite often) So you're going back to AD&D (AKA 2nd edition) rules then, where all the classes had different XP requirements to level up. It got pretty drastic in BG -- something like a rogue could be L15 and a druid was L9 because of the different XP requirements; though this was probably more due to the XP differential growing pretty rapidly (500XP at L1 might be 5,000 XP by L5*) Quote Quote Since everyone levels at 1/3/6/10/15/21k XP no matter their class, I'm not sure where you're getting the "order them from fastest to slowest" part, since there is no "speed difference" for any classes (since 1K XP = 1K XP). Most of the time (in either a cRPG or P&P) the leveling differences were because ... I said "order the from fastest to slowest" because if you want to have different level requirements, you would use that to fine-tune the classes a bit. You would select the class that seems weakest in play-tests to level first to make up somewhat for the weakness. The next-weakest class would come next. Yeah, it just wasn't clear that you were trying to go back to "AD&D style" XP requirements. Quote Quote Although, I think you might be confusing me with Lephys, who you seem to have been going back and forth with for a few posts. No, not at all. You were replying to me and asked what the hell I was talking about. I might not be good at explaining, but I will try. No worries -- was just the way you responded with "if X irritates you" ... Edited November 14, 2013 by neo6874
Kaczor Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 On 11/14/2013 at 1:11 PM, neo6874 said: So you're going back to AD&D (AKA 2nd edition) rules then, where all the classes had different XP requirements to level up. It got pretty drastic in BG -- something like a rogue could be L15 and a druid was L9 because of the different XP requirements; though this was probably more due to the XP differential growing pretty rapidly (500XP at L1 might be 5,000 XP by L5*) Once again - one of the major improvements over AD&D is to prevent such differences. Look at the following table build around jethro's idea: Experience | Warrior | Rogue | Wizard Experience | Warrior | Rogue | Wizard Experience | Warrior | Rogue | Wizard 0 | level 1 | level 1 | level 1 2500 | ------- | ------- | ------- 5000 | ------- | ------- | ------- 100 | ------- | ------- | ------- 2600 | ------- | ------- | ------- 5100 | ------- | ------- | ------- 200 | ------- | ------- | ------- 2700 | ------- | ------- | ------- 5200 | ------- | ------- | ------- 300 | ------- | ------- | ------- 2800 | ------- | ------- | ------- 5300 | ------- | ------- | ------- 400 | ------- | ------- | ------- 2900 | ------- | ------- | ------- 5400 | ------- | ------- | ------- 500 | ------- | ------- | ------- 3000 | level 3 | ------- | ------- 5500 | ------- | ------- | ------- 600 | ------- | ------- | ------- 3100 | ------- | ------- | ------- 5600 | ------- | ------- | ------- 700 | ------- | ------- | ------- 3200 | ------- | ------- | ------- 5700 | ------- | ------- | ------- 800 | ------- | ------- | ------- 3300 | ------- | level 3 | ------- 5800 | ------- | ------- | ------- 900 | ------- | ------- | ------- 3400 | ------- | ------- | ------- 5900 | ------- | ------- | ------- 1000 | level 2 | ------- | ------- 3500 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6000 | level 4 | ------- | ------- 1100 | ------- | level 2 | ------- 3600 | ------- | ------- | level 3 6100 | ------- | ------- | ------- 1200 | ------- | ------- | level 2 3700 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6200 | ------- | ------- | ------- 1300 | ------- | ------- | ------- 3800 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6300 | ------- | ------- | ------- 1400 | ------- | ------- | ------- 3900 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6400 | ------- | ------- | ------- 1500 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4000 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6500 | ------- | ------- | ------- 1600 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4100 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6600 | ------- | level 4 | ------- 1700 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4200 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6700 | ------- | ------- | ------- 1800 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4300 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6800 | ------- | ------- | ------- 1900 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4400 | ------- | ------- | ------- 6900 | ------- | ------- | ------- 2000 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4500 | ------- | ------- | ------- 7000 | ------- | ------- | ------- 2100 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4600 | ------- | ------- | ------- 7100 | ------- | ------- | ------- 2200 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4700 | ------- | ------- | ------- 7200 | ------- | ------- | level 4 2300 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4800 | ------- | ------- | ------- 7300 | ------- | ------- | ------- 2400 | ------- | ------- | ------- 4900 | ------- | ------- | ------- 7400 | ------- | ------- | ------- As You can see, Wizard, who levels the slowest, reached 2nd level way earlier than the fastest leveling Warrior got his 3rd. Assuming it is impossible to obtain more than 10% of current XP at once (no quest/encounter offers so high reward), different classes will never level up at the same time. You can also notice that differences in required XP among classes are negligible compared to the total amount necessary to level up. 1
jamoecw Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 On 11/8/2013 at 10:14 AM, Sarex said: On 11/7/2013 at 11:36 PM, Kaczor said: AD&D, Dungeon Master's Guide, Chapter 3, Creating New Character Classes: You can't reconstruct the existing character classes using this method. The standard classes give players advantages over custom-designed classes. Standard class characters advance in levels more quickly and, generally, have better abilities than custom-designed characters. AD&D, Player's Handbook, Chapter 3, Class Descriptions: Experience Points measure what a character has learned and how he has improved his skill during the course of his adventures. Characters earn experience points by completing adventures and by doing things specifically related to their class. A fighter, for example, earns more experience for charging and battling a monster than does a thief, because the fighter's training emphasizes battle while thief's emphasizes stealth and cleverness. So... Thief needs less XP, because he is less likely to encounter class related challenge. Sounds reasonable, but it's doubtful that many DMs reward players differently due to character class (and no game does that). Besides these tables often have some background story behind (druid is the best example). What you described is a balancing of the classes according to how to book assumes the game is being played. That no one is doing it like that is another matter. My point was that the creators of the book did xp tables for a reason, not just to make the game more "complex". complexity for complexity's sake still has reasons for why it does what it does, just that it could be done much simpler with the same result. if you look at the earlier post about how if you custom made thieves that they would level faster it just goes to show how D&D is balanced. thieves are usually considered weaker than other classes in 2nd edition unless you dual them into certain other classes (then they get to be better than normal mages). D&D created certain classes and such to get the whole tolkien fantasy thing going, but as anyone knows hobbits (thieves) are useful, but not powerful. so they tweaked the exp gained to make them closer to each other, instead of tweaking the classes to make them more similar in power level (which they later tried to do with 3rd ed. hence the singular exp tables). they want to create an adventure full of wonder and asymmetrical parties with asymmetrical fights, but most people have issues with asymmetrical stuff, and thus tend to have symmetrical challenges, that don't make good use of the weaker (utility) party members.
Gyges Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 I disagree, better to standardize and balance power according to level. I dont see any other point in this besides the aesthetic of having a bigger number than your companions. If they are equally strong but not on the same level, or equally strong and not on the same level is a difference in ease of implementation, the former being the better in that regard.
Lephys Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) @jethro: Thanks for that. Glad to know my sincere efforts at discussion are "useless" to you. You think I take the time to respond to people with 15-minute responses because it makes me feel smart and I like being a cryptic d-bag? I'm glad you think so highly of me. I really appreciate it, and I look forward to spouting useless nonsense at you in the future. Enjoy your standard-setting intellect. Edited November 14, 2013 by Lephys Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u
neo6874 Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) On 11/14/2013 at 3:55 PM, Kaczor said: On 11/14/2013 at 1:11 PM, neo6874 said: So you're going back to AD&D (AKA 2nd edition) rules then, where all the classes had different XP requirements to level up. It got pretty drastic in BG -- something like a rogue could be L15 and a druid was L9 because of the different XP requirements; though this was probably more due to the XP differential growing pretty rapidly (500XP at L1 might be 5,000 XP by L5*)Once again - one of the major improvements over AD&D is to prevent such differences. Look at the following table build around jethro's idea: (Table removed for brevity) As You can see, Wizard, who levels the slowest, reached 2nd level way earlier than the fastest leveling Warrior got his 3rd. Assuming it is impossible to obtain more than 10% of current XP at once (no quest/encounter offers so high reward), different classes will never level up at the same time. You can also notice that differences in required XP among classes are negligible compared to the total amount necessary to level up. I was wrong in calling it "AD&D rules" -- I suppose "AD&D-esque" is a better comparison. Your table is nice, but it doesn't go far enough. The way that the math works is that after only a few more levels, the Wizard will start falling severely behind in the levels -- by FTR level 16 (120,000 XP) the wizard will be down two full levels, and it gets worse from there. Various assumed XP Caps (chapter, game overall, etc) Assuming 60,000 FTR -> L11 (55K XP) - next level @66k RGE -> L10 - next level @60,500 WIZ -> L10 - next level @66k Assuming 120,000 FTR -> L16 (Total XP 120K) - next level @ 136k RGE -> L15 (Total XP 15,500) - next level @132K WIZ -> L14 (Total XP 109,200) - next level @126k assuming 200k FTR -> L20 (total XP 190k) - next level @210k RGE -> L19 (total XP 188,100) - next level @209k WIZ -> L18 (total XP 183,600) - next level @205,200 assuming 300k FTR -> L25 (total XP 300K) - next level @325k RGE -> L23 (total XP 278,300) - next level @303,600 WIZ -> L21 (total XP 277,200) - next level @303,600 *NOTE -- all maths are likely not perfect. Math used XP_TO_NEXT_LVL = (CLS_XP) * (CUR_LVL) where: CLS_XP = the XP points you gave (1000; 1100; 1200) CUR_LVL = current character level (1,2,3,...) TOTAL_XP_THIS_LEVEL = (PRV_LVL_XP_REQ) + (PRV_LVL_TOTAL_XP)where:PRV_LVL_XP_REQ = XP needed to progress from the previous level to this level (e.g. 3,000 for L3 -> L4; 4,000 for L4->L5; etc) PRV_LVL_TOTAL_XP = result of this formula from the previous level (e.g. 3,000 at L3; 6,000 at L4; etc) edit -> ze table, up to L39 (because, why not) FIGHTER (Warrior, whatever) Reveal hidden contents Level NEXT_LVL_XP MIN_XP 1 1000 0 2 2000 1000 3 3000 3000 4 4000 6000 5 5000 10000 6 6000 15000 7 7000 21000 8 8000 28000 9 9000 36000 10 10000 45000 11 11000 55000 12 12000 66000 13 13000 78000 14 14000 91000 15 15000 105000 16 16000 120000 17 17000 136000 18 18000 153000 19 19000 171000 20 20000 190000 21 21000 210000 22 22000 231000 23 23000 253000 24 24000 276000 25 25000 300000 26 26000 325000 27 27000 351000 28 28000 378000 29 29000 406000 30 30000 435000 31 31000 465000 32 32000 496000 33 33000 528000 34 34000 561000 35 35000 595000 36 36000 630000 37 37000 666000 38 38000 703000 39 39000 741000 ROUGE (Thief, whatever) Reveal hidden contents Level NEXT_LVL_XP MIN_XP 1 1100 0 2 2200 1100 3 3300 3300 4 4400 6600 5 5500 11000 6 6600 16500 7 7700 23100 8 8800 30800 9 9900 39600 10 11000 49500 11 12100 60500 12 13200 72600 13 14300 85800 14 15400 100100 15 16500 115500 16 17600 132000 17 18700 149600 18 19800 168300 19 20900 188100 20 22000 209000 21 23100 231000 22 24200 254100 23 25300 278300 24 26400 303600 25 27500 330000 26 28600 357500 27 29700 386100 28 30800 415800 29 31900 446600 30 33000 478500 31 34100 511500 32 35200 545600 33 36300 580800 34 37400 617100 35 38500 654500 36 39600 693000 37 40700 732600 38 41800 773300 39 42900 815100 WIZARD (Sorcerer, whatever) Reveal hidden contents Level NEXT_LVL_XP MIN_XP 1 1200 0 2 2400 1200 3 3600 3600 4 4800 7200 5 6000 12000 6 7200 18000 7 8400 25200 8 9600 33600 9 10800 43200 10 12000 54000 11 13200 66000 12 14400 79200 13 15600 93600 14 16800 109200 15 18000 126000 16 19200 144000 17 20400 163200 18 21600 183600 19 22800 205200 20 24000 228000 21 25200 252000 22 26400 277200 23 27600 303600 24 28800 331200 25 30000 360000 26 31200 390000 27 32400 421200 28 33600 453600 29 34800 487200 30 36000 522000 31 37200 558000 32 38400 595200 33 39600 633600 34 40800 673200 35 42000 714000 36 43200 756000 37 44400 799200 38 45600 843600 39 46800 889200 Edited November 15, 2013 by neo6874
jethro Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) On 11/15/2013 at 3:30 PM, neo6874 said: On 11/14/2013 at 3:55 PM, Kaczor said: On 11/14/2013 at 1:11 PM, neo6874 said: So you're going back to AD&D (AKA 2nd edition) rules then, where all the classes had different XP requirements to level up. It got pretty drastic in BG -- something like a rogue could be L15 and a druid was L9 because of the different XP requirements; though this was probably more due to the XP differential growing pretty rapidly (500XP at L1 might be 5,000 XP by L5*)Once again - one of the major improvements over AD&D is to prevent such differences. Look at the following table build around jethro's idea: (Table removed for brevity) As You can see, Wizard, who levels the slowest, reached 2nd level way earlier than the fastest leveling Warrior got his 3rd. Assuming it is impossible to obtain more than 10% of current XP at once (no quest/encounter offers so high reward), different classes will never level up at the same time. You can also notice that differences in required XP among classes are negligible compared to the total amount necessary to level up. I was wrong in calling it "AD&D rules" -- I suppose "AD&D-esque" is a better comparison. Your table is nice, but it doesn't go far enough. The way that the math works is that after only a few more levels, the Wizard will start falling severely behind in the levels -- by FTR level 16 (120,000 XP) the wizard will be down two full levels, and it gets worse from there. Note the example used in the table assumed that the next level is always double xp from the previous, different from AD&D (and I see now Kaczor used a factor of 3 once, for whatever reason). Naturally if the level progression is slower, the class differences would grow slower as well to make sure that no class lags behind. If you want it in mathematical terms, if x(n) is the xp you need to reach level n and you have c classes to distribute, then class 0 would level at x(n), class 1 would level at x(n)+ 1/c * (x(n+1)-x(n)) , class 2 at x(n)+ 2 * 1/c * (x(n+1)-x(n)) and class p at x(n)+ p * 1/c * (x(n+1)-x(n)). Because I numbered the classes from 0 to c-1 it is guaranteed that all classes level up to this level before the first class levels to the next. This formula works independent of which RPG system you use. Edited November 15, 2013 by jethro
neo6874 Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) It still falls apart after approximately ten levels (assuming I'm following your math properly)Math FLOOR((BASE_XP*LEVEL) + (CLS_MOD * ((1/TOTAL_CLASSES) * ((BASE_XP*(LEVEL+1) - (BASE_XP*LEVEL))))),1) Where: BASE_XP = Base XP for the leveling system (e.g. 1,000) LEVEL = Current Level (e.g. 1) CLS_MOD = Class number (0,1,2,...) TOTAL_CLASSES = Total number of classes I'm using the following numbers to fill in the variables: BASE_XP = 1000 LEVEL = {1,41} CLS_MODFTR = 0 RGE = 1 WIZ = 2 TOTAL_CLASSES = 3XP Tables:Fighter: Reveal hidden contents Level NEXT_LVL_XP MIN_XP 1 1000 0 2 2000 1000 3 3000 3000 4 4000 6000 5 5000 10000 6 6000 15000 7 7000 21000 8 8000 28000 9 9000 36000 10 10000 45000 11 11000 55000 12 12000 66000 13 13000 78000 14 14000 91000 15 15000 105000 16 16000 120000 17 17000 136000 18 18000 153000 19 19000 171000 20 20000 190000 21 21000 210000 22 22000 231000 23 23000 253000 24 24000 276000 25 25000 300000 26 26000 325000 27 27000 351000 28 28000 378000 29 29000 406000 30 30000 435000 31 31000 465000 32 32000 496000 33 33000 528000 34 34000 561000 35 35000 595000 36 36000 630000 37 37000 666000 38 38000 703000 39 39000 741000 40 40000 780000 Rogue: Reveal hidden contents Level NEXT_LVL_XP MIN_XP 1 1333 0 2 2333 1333 3 3333 3666 4 4333 6999 5 5333 11332 6 6333 16665 7 7333 22998 8 8333 30331 9 9333 38664 10 10333 47997 11 11333 58330 12 12333 69663 13 13333 81996 14 14333 95329 15 15333 109662 16 16333 124995 17 17333 141328 18 18333 158661 19 19333 176994 20 20333 196327 21 21333 216660 22 22333 237993 23 23333 260326 24 24333 283659 25 25333 307992 26 26333 333325 27 27333 359658 28 28333 386991 29 29333 415324 30 30333 444657 31 31333 474990 32 32333 506323 33 33333 538656 34 34333 571989 35 35333 606322 36 36333 641655 37 37333 677988 38 38333 715321 39 39333 753654 40 40333 792987 Wizard Reveal hidden contents Level NEXT_LVL_XP MIN_XP 1 1666 0 2 2666 1666 3 3666 4332 4 4666 7998 5 5666 12664 6 6666 18330 7 7666 24996 8 8666 32662 9 9666 41328 10 10666 50994 11 11666 61660 12 12666 73326 13 13666 85992 14 14666 99658 15 15666 114324 16 16666 129990 17 17666 146656 18 18666 164322 19 19666 182988 20 20666 202654 21 21666 223320 22 22666 244986 23 23666 267652 24 24666 291318 25 25666 315984 26 26666 341650 27 27666 368316 28 28666 395982 29 29666 424648 30 30666 454314 31 31666 484980 32 32666 516646 33 33666 549312 34 34666 582978 35 35666 617644 36 36666 653310 37 37666 689976 38 38666 727642 39 39666 766308 40 40666 805974 Edit, and if you're gonna come back and say it's only "this bad" because the numbers are small ... here's the 20th class in a 20-class game.Fake 20th class Reveal hidden contents Level NEXT_LVL_XP MIN_XP 1 1950 0 2 2950 1950 3 3950 4900 4 4950 8850 5 5950 13800 6 6950 19750 7 7950 26700 8 8950 34650 9 9950 43600 10 10950 53550 11 11950 64500 12 12950 76450 13 13950 89400 14 14950 103350 15 15950 118300 16 16950 134250 17 17950 151200 18 18950 169150 19 19950 188100 20 20950 208050 21 21950 229000 22 22950 250950 23 23950 273900 24 24950 297850 25 25950 322800 26 26950 348750 27 27950 375700 28 28950 403650 29 29950 432600 30 30950 462550 31 31950 493500 32 32950 525450 33 33950 558400 34 34950 592350 35 35950 627300 36 36950 663250 37 37950 700200 38 38950 738150 39 39950 777100 40 40950 817050 Another Edit:Unless what you're trying to do is work it out backwards ... such as FTR = 10K XP overall at level 5 ...so x(n) = 10,000 x(n+1) = 15,000 3 classesWiz = Class 2then Wiz needs ... 10,000 + (2 * (1/3) * (15,000 - 10,000) 10,000 + ((2/3) * 5,000) = 13,333 XP to attain L5 Edited November 15, 2013 by neo6874 1
Kaczor Posted November 16, 2013 Posted November 16, 2013 @jethro: I have used D&D 3.5 progression as a base, hence the strange numbers. @neo6874: I have made a mistake, namely scaling has been done by "total XP" instead of "XP to next level". I see nothing wrong in your example, however. It guarantees 0-1 level difference among all classes, doesn't it? This solution cannot handle too many classes, because it will shrink the "maximum amount of XP allowed to be rewarded at once" to laughable values, but I believe it is not really the case in Project Eternity.
neo6874 Posted November 16, 2013 Posted November 16, 2013 (edited) I think the better solution is to keep the XP static for everyone (1,000 * CUR_LVL = XP_REQ), but then do a few things: NPCs start at +10-33% of the XP needed for the next level. So assuming you find a L5 NPC anything, they'll have between 10,500 and 11,650 Total XP (since L5 - L6 requires 5,000 XP and you have 10,000 Total XP at L5) XP rewards vary based on what you do. So a quest requires some finesse and avoiding traps ... you lead with the rogue, and the fighter is your rear guard ... rogue gets say +10% XP over the base, Fighter gets -10% because he's big and loud and caused you to fight at one point. Assuming we're talking about the "standard" average progression of 13 same level encounters, this means that the rogue is getting the following breakdown: +7 XP at L1 (1,000/13 = ~76) +76 XP at L10 (10,000/13 = ~769) +153 XP at L20 (20,000/13 = ~1538) Now, it's been stated that PE is gonna have "quest XP" (or whatever) rather than "encounter XP", so all the game needs to keep track of at that point is simple things, that you as a player won't know are happening ... e.g. Your wizard casts sleep on the guard, so you can waltz on in -> wizard XP trigger You sneak through the shadows, and slip a dagger between his ribs (and hides the body) -> rogue XP trigger You bash his face in with a warhammer -> FTR XP trigger You set fire to the storehouse -> bonuses for whichever party member did that You fake being a band of travelers set upon by mercenaries, and convince the guard you're trustworthy -> bonus XP for the charismatic one etc Throw in 5 or 6 encounters like this in one "quest", so you have the chance to rotate through your party --- BUT throw in some options that will end up penalizing someone else ... for example, you need to get into town, and you know the watch captains are being paid off by BBEG (but the regular joes at the gate are just honest guys trying to make a buck ... they don't even know their superior is on BBEG's payroll)... sneaking up to them and killing them outright might penalize a cleric or paladin since "No part of your evil ways" ... but a less violent solution -- "hey guys, a three-headed-monkey! (sleep spell)" might get the wizard a bonus, but won't directly penalize your cleric/paladin. Edited November 16, 2013 by neo6874 1
Kaczor Posted November 16, 2013 Posted November 16, 2013 On 11/16/2013 at 2:58 AM, neo6874 said: XP rewards vary based on what you do. So a quest requires some finesse and avoiding traps ... you lead with the rogue, and the fighter is your rear guard ... rogue gets say +10% XP over the base, Fighter gets -10% because he's big and loud and caused you to fight at one point. That is certainly the best solution and it was discussed before. The only reason, I can imagine, for seeking another way is the overall complicity of this idea, which makes it unlikely to be implemented. I disagree on the experience penalty, however. Isn't it pointless? Fighter is already penalized in said situation as he does not get the bonus. Unless he is less suitable for this kind of job than paladins, wizards, clerics or any non-rogue characters, I see no reason to double this penalty. On 11/16/2013 at 2:58 AM, neo6874 said: sneaking up to them and killing them outright might penalize a cleric or paladin since "No part of your evil ways" Such actions should have more dire ramifications for paladin-like characters. Loosing all abilities would suffice...
Mor Posted November 16, 2013 Posted November 16, 2013 From what I read its likely that you'll find your self in situation where you'll have to part with some of your NPCs. Also we have a stronghold, where we can send our extra NPCs and even send them to missions to level up, so they don't get far behind. It seem like this will offer a far more flexible gameplay in term of your companions, no more core group that you have to stick with it to the end.
Tamerlane Posted November 16, 2013 Posted November 16, 2013 (edited) On 11/16/2013 at 4:34 AM, Kaczor said: On 11/16/2013 at 2:58 AM, neo6874 said: XP rewards vary based on what you do. So a quest requires some finesse and avoiding traps ... you lead with the rogue, and the fighter is your rear guard ... rogue gets say +10% XP over the base, Fighter gets -10% because he's big and loud and caused you to fight at one point. That is certainly the best solution and it was discussed before. The only reason, I can imagine, for seeking another way is the overall complicity of this idea, which makes it unlikely to be implemented. I disagree on the experience penalty, however. Isn't it pointless? Fighter is already penalized in said situation as he does not get the bonus. Unless he is less suitable for this kind of job than paladins, wizards, clerics or any non-rogue characters, I see no reason to double this penalty. On 11/16/2013 at 2:58 AM, neo6874 said: sneaking up to them and killing them outright might penalize a cleric or paladin since "No part of your evil ways" Such actions should have more dire ramifications for paladin-like characters. Loosing all abilities would suffice... There are no morality requirements for paladins or clerics (or anyone - PE does not have an alignment system). Fighters are not inherently anti-stealth, and giving characters EXP rewards for playing "to their type" sounds boring as heck. Edited November 16, 2013 by Tamerlane
jethro Posted November 16, 2013 Posted November 16, 2013 On 11/15/2013 at 7:08 PM, neo6874 said: It still falls apart after approximately ten levels (assuming I'm following your math properly) Math FLOOR((BASE_XP*LEVEL) + (CLS_MOD * ((1/TOTAL_CLASSES) * ((BASE_XP*(LEVEL+1) - (BASE_XP*LEVEL))))),1) Where: BASE_XP = Base XP for the leveling system (e.g. 1,000) LEVEL = Current Level (e.g. 1) CLS_MOD = Class number (0,1,2,...) TOTAL_CLASSES = Total number of classes Sorry, but you simply seem to have miscalculated your tables. I said x(n) is the xp you need to achieve level n. You substituted this with BASE_XP*LEVEL, fine. But then your fighter has CLS_MOD of 0, so his leveling scheme is exactly xp(LEVEL)= BASE_XP*LEVEL, which should produce the sequence 1000,2000,3000,4000. But in your table it is 0, 1000, 3000, 6000 ??? Could it be that you used a spreadsheet and forgot to adapt the function used ?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now