XP Tables

[Kalindor]

Xp tables

As a side note, just because level progression has been brought up quite a few times, I'd like to mention that ideally I'd like to add an optional component to make all classes share the same xp table. I know AD&D purists may not like it, and that's why I guess I'll have to keep it optional, but balancing classes with the current tables is really harder, and later PnP editions did the right thing on this matter imo. Till now I'm almost ignoring xp tables, taking them into account only as a marginal factor, despite them playing quite big role instead (the difference between the slowest xp tables and the fastest ones is really huge).

 

I do appreciate certain aspects of AD&D tables, and I partially understand the logic behind them, but the cons vastly outnumber the supposed benefits imo. Just to mention a few thing:

- random progression rates which do not make any sense imo (e.g. mages level up faster than paladins early on, but then they become slower - druids not even need to be discussed, their xp table is simply ridiculous).

- spellcasters with fast progression (bard and to a slightly lesser extent clerics) have better lvl based spells than those cast by mages because the latters have a slow progression (e.g. they dispel better than an Abjurer specialist)

- abilities which take target's HD into account work best against powerful classes with slow progression tables (e.g. paladins), why?

- classes with fast tables get more HLAs (e.g. a fighter/thief can actually stack up more Whirlwind Attacks than a single class Fighter)

 

In general, vanilla's tables make handling the balance between different base classes extremely harder imo.

 

I'm neutral on this issue. I suppose I have the idea that thieves level up quickly so entrenched in my mind that I was initially hesitant about evening it out, but the last point you make about the difference in HLAs is convincing. However, if all classes shared the same XP table, it would change how level ups are distributed from one level up once in a while to all of them almost at once for the whole party. Since gaining level ups gives a feeling of progress, some might not like this effect.

[kreso]

Monk is ok. I'm very curious how he'd fare at higher levels....However, I'd like to playtest Wizard Slayer some more, I completely forgot about them.

As for EXP tables, I'm all for revisement, but am not sure how this would preform in game. Whose level progression would you pick? Fighter seems like a good middle-ground, thief is too fast, druid is plain stupid....

[Grammarsalad]

I'm 100% behind identical level advancement.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Well, I can see the benefits of the table change... you might also then change the other tables as well. And make the whole thing an optional components. And here I mean plural of options, like say Unnerfed Thac0 & 50th lvl tables and level cap at -1.

[Galsic]

My question is would an "AD&D purist" be playing Baldur's Gate?

 

I'm quite used to the tables as they are, but I already play with mods, and I'm MORE than prepared to adapt to anything better than vanila druid's xp table.

[Demivrgvs]

Xp tables

Whose level progression would you pick? Fighter seems like a good middle-ground, thief is too fast, druid is plain stupid....

At first I do thought about suggesting Fighter's table, but then I actually realized picking Paladin's xp progression table might be better imo.

 

Within BG1 (cap at 161,000 xp) the difference between Fighter and Paladin tables is almost non-existent and they both cap at level 8 (125,000 and 150,000).

 

Within BG2 the progression would be slightly slower (they capped at level 19 and 17 respectively), but the benefit imo would be to slightly fix the overflow of xp and level ups on BG2, and with a full party you're likely to reach more or less level 30 at the end of the game, which actually is the maximum level allowed in PnP (after that you are a god).

 

Rogues, and to a lesser extent clerics, would be the most "hurt", but they are also the ones who would get the most from the other revised tables (e.g. they will get +7 to saves vs. breath with this revision and +5 to attack rolls with the revised thac0 tables), and KR will make sure these classes will finally be great even as single class.

 

Anyway, this is not a pressing matter right now, is it?

[kreso]

Xp tables

At first I do thought about suggesting Fighter's table, but then I actually realized picking Paladin's xp progression table might be better imo.

Hmmmm.....I kind of like it.

 

Anyway, this is not a pressing matter right now, is it?

No....but you gave me an idea - I'll tweak xplevel.2da myself for all classes to match this progression....I'm really curious about this.

I assume all classes would get their first HLA at level 18 then? Just so I tweak my lunumab.2da as well.

[Demivrgvs]

Xp tables

At first I do thought about suggesting Fighter's table, but then I actually realized picking Paladin's xp progression table might be better imo.

Hmmmm.....I kind of like it.

 

Anyway, this is not a pressing matter right now, is it?

No....but you gave me an idea - I'll tweak xplevel.2da myself for all classes to match this progression....I'm really curious about this.

I assume all classes would get their first HLA at level 18 then? Just so I tweak my lunumab.2da as well.

Actually the idea was to make them start at level 21 as per PnP.

 

Btw, I'm kinda glad if a beta testers try this solution out, at least we get an idea of what would happen, but keep in mind that until you get KR's revised rogues, those classes will be badly hurt by this, especially single class thieves. Do you want me to send you at least the revised thac0 and saves tables?

[Mike1072]

Standardizing XP tables would nerf and/or buff classes, so class features would also need to be changed to maintain balance, which makes this a better fit for KR than anywhere else.

 

Keep in mind for all our changes that we'll need to have a component that searches out existing creatures, reverts their vanilla stats and abilities, and applies KR's stats and abilities. This will be a necessity for joinable NPCs and a good feature for nonjoinables eventually (Creature Revisions). Changing the XP tables has the potential to make this process more difficult if it has to choose new spells or proficiencies for the characters.

[chabba990]

I think it should be well justified if more complicated classes (eg. classes that are generally thought to be more powerful), are nerfed in levels. Although, in the long run it should be somewhat compensated. If there is fast, avarage, and slow progression, then each class should experience them in their level life cycle.

 

Example: Monk is one of the most powerful class (at higher levels of course), so he should advance slowly in BG1 (between level 1-8 maybe?), but after that he should speed up a bit (increment in his level life cycle, between 8-16 or so), and finally he fall back to a certain pace.

On the other hand, Fighters (who are really very tha avarage hack-and-slash people in the game world, so he can obviously advance very fast) will advance fast in BG1 part, then slows down as the game Advances.

 

These are just mere ideas of course, but I think if there is Character Power on one side, and Advancement Speed on the other, then it should be played out properly, thus avoiding standardization to great extent. After all, classes are different in many aspects.

Another point is that the "cool" should come at a "price".

[kreso]

About XP tables

 

In very few words... I can live with the fact my fighters level up slowly, sure.. Tbh, thieves aren't that important for my gameplay. But it's spellcasters (Clerics and Druids, Bards I imagine even more) are so very nerfed by this (let's not forget multiclasses, even though I don't really like them).

@Demi

I'll be glad to try the whole package (ST and THAC0 + XP tables). With only XP tables something indeed seems lacking. Also,

However, if all classes shared the same XP table, it would change how level ups are distributed from one level up once in a while to all of them almost at once for the whole party. Since gaining level ups gives a feeling of progress, some might not like this effect.

this is a very valid point. People will miss that feeling of progress, at least I did. It's good that revised fighter kits get something nice almost every level so you still get that feeling, not only vanilla flat d10 HP and +1THAC0.

I'm willing to give it a shot anyway.

HLA's at 21st level? Approximated progression up to level 30? I could end up with 10 HLA's? :D Cool.

[Demivrgvs]

Standardizing XP tables would nerf and/or buff classes, so class features would also need to be changed to maintain balance, which makes this a better fit for KR than anywhere else.

Yes, as I said the idea is to use a slow xp progression table to slightly "nerf" party power level, especially within BG2 and ToB. Within BG1 the difference would be minimal (fighters, paladins, rangers and clerics already capped at level 8), only rogues and mages would have a lower level cap (8 instead of 10 and 9 respectively) but I already planned to greatly improve both classes at low levels as both of them already were very underperforming at low levels (for reasons not addressed by xp tables imo).

 

Keep in mind for all our changes that we'll need to have a component that searches out existing creatures, reverts their vanilla stats and abilities, and applies KR's stats and abilities. This will be a necessity for joinable NPCs and a good feature for nonjoinables eventually (Creature Revisions).

Aren't joinable NPCs automatically "updated" depending on clab files when they join? The only thing I thought in need of an eventual update are thieving skills, was I wrong?

 

When it comes to non-joinable creatures, they aren't affected by eventual xp tables changes. They should be affected by thac0 & save tables though, and we and Arda left those tables out exactly because he needed time for the patching code.

[kreso]

I think it should be well justified if more complicated classes (eg. classes that are generally thought to be more powerful)

Well, Spell revisions helped out with balancing the classes, but for vanilla game I'd imagine something like this:

Fighter - best in BG1, weakest in BG2

Thief - decent, broken with traps

Ranger - useless, apart from Archer and Stalker. Great in BG1, if only for stealth feature

Cleric - exellent in BG1, crappy in BG2

Druid - overpowered in both games

Bard - overpowered

Paladin - Berserker/Cleric dual is the best paladin you can make in vanilla. Apart from Inquisitor and to a much lesser extent Cavalier, no good.

Monk - average, even below average. useless in BG1

Wizard and Sorcerer - decent in BG1, amazing in BG2

Of all classes, Bards imo benefited the most from their progression. Stronger Fireballs, Skull Traps, Sleketon Warriors.....so likewise, they'll be hurt by it the most.

[Mike1072]

Keep in mind for all our changes that we'll need to have a component that searches out existing creatures, reverts their vanilla stats and abilities, and applies KR's stats and abilities. This will be a necessity for joinable NPCs and a good feature for nonjoinables eventually (Creature Revisions).

Aren't joinable NPCs automatically "updated" depending on clab files when they join? The only thing I thought in need of an eventual update are thieving skills, was I wrong?

THAC0, saving throws, spells, and proficiencies are also stored within the .cre file. If we are just talking about joinable NPCs, we don't have to worry about picking new spells or proficiencies for characters who would qualify for a new level, since we can leave them at whatever level they are and let players level them up when they join. For characters who no longer qualify for the level they have, we have the choice of leaving them at their higher level or trying to de-level them (which might mean unpicking proficiencies or spells).

 

When it comes to non-joinable creatures, they aren't affected by eventual xp tables changes. They should be affected by thac0 & save tables though, and we and Arda left those tables out exactly because he needed time for the patching code.

You want to change their THAC0 and saving throw scores without changing their levels?

[Demivrgvs]

THAC0, saving throws, spells, and proficiencies are also stored within the .cre file. If we are just talking about joinable NPCs, we don't have to worry about picking new spells or proficiencies for characters who would qualify for a new level, since we can leave them at whatever level they are and let players level them up when they join. For characters who no longer qualify for the level they have, we have the choice of leaving them at their higher level or trying to de-level them (which might mean unpicking proficiencies or spells).

Well, if necessary, patching joinable NPCs isn't that hard (we're not speaking of tons of creatures).

 

Anyway, as I said, this is not really a priority.

 

When it comes to non-joinable creatures, they aren't affected by eventual xp tables changes. They should be affected by thac0 & save tables though, and we and Arda left those tables out exactly because he needed time for the patching code.

You want to change their THAC0 and saving throw scores without changing their levels?

Yes, to match the new tables. Take for example a level 5 rogue, even if you keep vanilla's level with the revised tables he would have better thac0 and saves vs. breath.