I know I like the current amount of XP required to level as I only get to play quite sporadically. And I can see how people that get to play 4 to 6 games a month think things go too fast.
I wonder if something like this would work. When you create your character you choose an advancement track - fast or slow. That gets registered when you register your character so you can't change back and forth. If you choose fast you use that for the life of the character and same with slow.
Fast = 3xp per level
Slow = 6xp per level
This way everyone pretty much gets to level at the pace they want, chosen when the character is created. This keeps any one group that plays at a certain pace from being alienated. Now groups that play together when likely need to decide which pace they want or some characters would be leveling twice as fast as others in the same group - but I suspect groups that play regularly are like minded enough that this decision would not be too difficult.
The problem is that those on the slow track will have twice the PA and gold with which to equip their characters.
Good StuffFast = 3xp per level
Slow = 6xp per levelMore Good Stuff
Rats! I knew it seemed too simple.
Not sure how best to handle PA with the above method, but for gold, how about if your character is on the slow XP advancement route the GM running the scenario halves the amount of gold awarded for the chronicle for your character? (Disclaimer: just thinking out loud, I have not given substantial though to the ramifications.)
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)
|
The problem is that those on the slow track will have twice the PA and gold with which to equip their characters.
Good StuffFast = 3xp per level
Slow = 6xp per levelMore Good Stuff
Rats! I knew it seemed too simple.
Not sure how best to handle PA with the above method, but for gold, how about if your character is on the slow XP advancement route the GM running the scenario halves the amount of gold awarded for the chronicle for your character? (Disclaimer: just thinking out loud, I have not given substantial though to the ramifications.)
It might be too hard to make changes now, and there would likely be a LOT of grumbling from players.
There is something to creating multiple characters and alternating with them to slow down advancement.
It might be too hard to make changes now, and there would likely be a LOT of grumbling from players.
That is what is sort of cool with the idea I threw out there. If you and your group are happy with the current system, you choose the fast advancement and nothing changes.
If you are one that wants to slow the advancement, switch to the slow track of advancement and now it is taking twice as long to level up. If you choose this, you get 50% of the gold awarded at the end of the scenario instead of full to keep wealth levels within the guidelines. (Not 100% sure how to handle PA for the slow advancement track...)
|
|
It might be too hard to make changes now, and there would likely be a LOT of grumbling from players.
That is what is sort of cool with the idea I threw out there. If you and your group are happy with the current system, you choose the fast advancement and nothing changes.
If you are one that wants to slow the advancement, switch to the slow track of advancement and now it is taking twice as long to level up. If you choose this, you get 50% of the gold awarded at the end of the scenario instead of full to keep wealth levels within the guidelines. (Not 100% sure how to handle PA for the slow advancement track...)
There is still a problem with certain character builds, then.
Archers and tanks, as an example, would take even longer than now to be able to actually start getting to their initial build points.
Current: 2 modules using a sub-par bow for the archer build (barring luck gaining 2 PA in your first module and spending it on that CLB at the start of your second module)
Current: 4 modules for that tank build to use sub-par armor before he an get his masterwork full plate. And no PA option, at this time, to get that early.
With your 1/2 gold, it will get even worse for both builds....
There is still a problem with certain character builds, then.
Archers and tanks, as an example, would take even longer than now to be able to actually start getting to their initial build points.
I think by definition if one chooses a slow advancement track that it is to be expected that the build points will be further out. As the whole point of slowing advancement is to spend more time at each level.
|
I recommend you follow the Paizo blog closely in the coming weeks, especially the Pathfinder Society blogs every Monday morning.
I hope Paizo does not change the XP. I feel like 3 seems about right for leveling. At low levels, 3 is too many (it's annoying to build a new character because of this), but overall it feels about right. I never broke down the XP if the scenarios were actually setup like a normal module, but I assume 3 scenarios is more than enough for actual XP to level, and that PFS XP is actually slowing you down.
I understand what people are saying that they like the fast advancement, because they do not get to play that often so want to feel some progress.
However, I don't think that argument holds any more weight than those who do play often and dislike the rapid advancement.
I also am not a fan of breaking down play advancement to hours played or number of encounters faced. This is not a math equation, playing the game should not be about set/established/predictable advancement rates.
And while I appreciate the brain-storming, the notion of making a second (or fifth) character that is pretty much the "same" as another and just alternate playing them...well that is just weird, imo, and will cause issues, too.
The issue those of us that dislike the rapid advancement have an issue with I think (at least I know those I play with feel this way) is that we make a character we enjoy playing and have them develop and then, in pretty fast order, we can't play them any more. And I think that is a shame.
And let me clarify, I am advocating an option of more play time for levels 7+. Plus I'd like to add more play options for levels past 12.
Additionally, because of the screwey tiering system of 1-5, 5-9, 7-11 it can be very challenging to have enough games to actually play with multiple characters that are about the same level. There just is not that much available all the time, especially not if your group has played most of what is out there.
I just think there is a way to balance this out so that those that play often can play a liked character longer, and those that play less frequently still feel like they are making progress.