Level Differences and Catching Up

Back in 3.5, everyone got a set amount of XP based on their level. If you were lower, you got more. If you were higher, you got less. I don't see such rules in Pathfinder. I know a friend of mine has said that his group has a +10%/-10% per level difference, but is that an official rule? I can't find it if it is.

What is the official ruling? It can't be that one doesn't exist. That'd be stupid if you missed a bunch of sessions for whatever reason, and you ended up being forever 2-3 levels lower than everyone else with no possible hope of making up the difference.

In my last 8 years playing Pathfinder, I've seen no such rule. I agree the situation is dumb. What's worse, many GMs feel justified in keeping it this way.

It all depend on when the gap is, since levelling is based on doling, y will even Tully match levels, it's just really hard from mid levels up, unless you're playing a very long game.

Using the downtime rules, you can spend one 8 hr day to gain experience as if you defeated a CR = Lv encounter by yourself, but only to catch up to the highest level character in the party. Essentially, you help lesser adventurers out on various smaller activities with little to no danger and they all add up to a pretty decent amount of experience.

Back in 3.5, everyone got a set amount of XP based on their level. If you were lower, you got more. If you were higher, you got less. I don't see such rules in Pathfinder. I know a friend of mine has said that his group has a +10%/-10% per level difference, but is that an official rule? I can't find it if it is.

What is the official ruling? It can't be that one doesn't exist. That'd be stupid if you missed a bunch of sessions for whatever reason, and you ended up being forever 2-3 levels lower than everyone else with no possible hope of making up the difference.

One completely different solution is to dispense with XP altogether, everyone levels up at the same time when it's time.. Many adventure paths facilitate this; they have a section saying stuff like "by the time the PCs get to area X they should be level Y". So when you're running a campaign, don't track XP. Tell the players to level up when you feel the time is right.

You actual be surprised how quickly you catch up. there no need for the system, the XP amounts required to level are balanced so that you can catch up quickly. this is based off medium progression. Lets say you level 1 and the party is level 10, by the time the party reaches level 11, you will be level 7 by the time they reach 12, you will be 10, by the time they reach 13 you will almost be 12. it will pretty stable at that point.

but As Ascalapus said the essayist thing any gm can do is just remove xp from game and level up at X point. I did it love it, my friend that played in my games, did it to his games also, because he like it so much.

While GMs may like it, I know players who HATE it. So much so that they'll actually quit a game or not even join.

As for the XP progression, I have to disagree. If you're 9000 XP behind, you will always be 9000 XP behind. Unless you miss more sessions, in which case the gap only widens. The original system was in place for people to catch up if they started at a lower level. MMO's and various other RPGs have a proper system in place, but Pathfinder is lacking. As good as the Earn XP during downtime is, if a GM finds it to be too much work to come up with something, it'll get ignored.

No, you actually never catch up. I played in a Rise campaign that lasted 3 full years. The most direct reason it took so long is because of a rule that our GM instituted that said new characters come in 1 level below the lowest level PC. The justification was to be "fair" to the PCs who survived so they could keep that feel of organic growth. There was also a concern about PC wealth and new characters somehow one-upping organic PCs with respect to gear. (Side note: this gave me my habit of groaning every time a GM gripes about PC gear or wealth. Protip: don't worry about it.)

It sounded logical enough at the start of our 3 year journey together. It wasn't even bad through level 7ish. We had a couple unfortunate deaths, but it wasn't "too bad." Then, when things really started getting more difficult, those one and two level differences really mattered.

The game quickly turned into a revolving door of characters and it became a trope for our group to actively pillage gear off fallen comrades to make up for level disparity with gear and coin. (It doesn't work.) We had some shiny toys, but missing whole levels of spellcasting and ability progression really f+~%ing sucks. What sucked even worse was that even when we would level we would still be behind, and naturally, those encounters where we tended level were especially hard, and as the fates would have it, often one of us would die yet again. Yes, we used restorative and healing magic, but it really sucks when you've been doing this for so long the GM can rightly say you've exhausted the area's supply of diamonds to do resurrections and such.

We actually had a TPK toward the end of book 5 and our GM had to deus ex machina us so we could finally have a minimum recommended level party of level 16 for book 6. Know what happened with that minimum level party? TPK. End of campaign. We were all tired of it.

The moral of the story is don't be a douche of a GM. Give your players what they need to play in your games, or don't f*!*ing let them play. (There's a good 2+ years of frustration behind these expletives, tyvm.) If they should be level 14 then let them start at level 14 or pad the game to give them the experience they need. Penalizing players in this manner is incredibly uncool and you NEVER make up the XP. You might reach the next level "faster" but you still never equalize, and those encounters while you're short will be more difficult, take up more resources, and short you resources when the next combat rolls around.

Will I quit a campaign on the spot that does this going forward? Absolutely.

One completely different solution is to dispense with XP altogether, everyone levels up at the same time when it's time.. Many adventure paths facilitate this; they have a section saying stuff like "by the time the PCs get to area X they should be level Y". So when you're running a campaign, don't track XP. Tell the players to level up when you feel the time is right.

This is how I run my campaigns.

While GMs may like it, I know players who HATE it. So much so that they'll actually quit a game or not even join.

As for the XP progression, I have to disagree. If you're 9000 XP behind, you will always be 9000 XP behind. Unless you miss more sessions, in which case the gap only widens. The original system was in place for people to catch up if they started at a lower level. MMO's and various other RPGs have a proper system in place, but Pathfinder is lacking. As good as the Earn XP during downtime is, if a GM finds it to be too much work to come up with something, it'll get ignored.

yeah but at level 15 9000 is a drop in the bucket. much like the people who take rich parents as a background trait and getting 900 gp extra at level 1. by level 5 - 7 that 900 gp became nothing. the most you will ever behind is 1 encounter from leveling behind. which can be fixed with what thewastedwalrus stated about down time. that performing that down time action once at level 10 and all of sudden you are caught up with the rest of the group, you are actual ahead of them 600xp now. there are lots of ways to catch up if xp is used.

This sort of issue varies from group to group. If you're playing with relatively tight knit characters and story like with an AP, level variation isn't going to do the game any favors and not using XPs but just leveling up when appropriate works pretty well.

There are, however, other styles of play that allow for PCs to drop in and out of the campaign. In those cases, tracking XPs and finding other ways to mitigate the effects of differing character levels are probably going to be reasonably well-fit tools to the situation. But then, the drop-in/drop-out nature of the campaign is probably doing a good job of setting everyone's expectations of level variance.

Sounds like there are a couple workarounds and people are correct in saying that the difference stops mattering quickly.

But the truth is Pathfinder is not designed to handle level differences and any GM who's imposing one is doing the group a disservice.

If a PC dies in my current campaign, the 'replacement' starts of as one level lower than the rest of the party then levels to the party level after its first session. So we get both a bit of character development and character death is a set back, without it impeding game balance and progression too much.

The Pathfinder XP progression, like the combat maneuver system, is a simplification at the expense of poor handling of edge cases. With the combat maneuver system that's small, dextrous opponents. With XP it's any situation where two characters in the same party have different XP totals. The downtime rules are a poor patch and in both cases you should use the 3.5 systems (or in XP's case not use it at all) if the edge cases are going to come up. There were two parameters in XP and two rolls for combat maneuvers for a reason.

kevin_video wrote:

While GMs may like it, I know players who HATE it. So much so that they'll actually quit a game or not even join.

As for the XP progression, I have to disagree. If you're 9000 XP behind, you will always be 9000 XP behind. Unless you miss more sessions, in which case the gap only widens. The original system was in place for people to catch up if they started at a lower level. MMO's and various other RPGs have a proper system in place, but Pathfinder is lacking. As good as the Earn XP during downtime is, if a GM finds it to be too much work to come up with something, it'll get ignored.

yeah but at level 15 9000 is a drop in the bucket. much like the people who take rich parents as a background trait and getting 900 gp extra at level 1. by level 5 - 7 that 900 gp became nothing. the most you will ever behind is 1 encounter from leveling behind. which can be fixed with what thewastedwalrus stated about down time. that performing that down time action once at level 10 and all of sudden you are caught up with the rest of the group, you are actual ahead of them 600xp now. there are lots of ways to catch up if xp is used.

To clarify, it only brings you to the highest xp value in the party and stops. It can only be done to catch up, not go ahead. Also, the gm doesn't have to do anything to specify what exactly you do to earn the xp, it can be assumed to be time spent doing fairly easy encounters.

Many of the Paizo modules don't give enough gear or gold for players that don't die. I like the method of new characters starting at lower levels, but the GM needs to adjust the loot to reflect the suggested gold per character level for fresh characters. Especially when players are getting lots of loot that no one wants or can use, so it's being sold at half value. Consumeable items shouldn't grossly impair the party by making the overall loot diminish.

I also highly recommend low level random encounters so lowby members of the party have chances to gain xp while facing enemies of their level. Side quests are also a good option when the party just isn't up to the next part of the module or when new characters need to build comradery with the surviving party.

Many of the Paizo modules don't give enough gear or gold for players that don't die. I like the method of new characters starting at lower levels, but the GM needs to adjust the loot to reflect the suggested gold per character level for fresh characters. Especially when players are getting lots of loot that no one wants or can use, so it's being sold at half value. Consumeable items shouldn't grossly impair the party by making the overall loot diminish.

I also highly recommend low level random encounters so lowby members of the party have chances to gain xp while facing enemies of their level. Side quests are also a good option when the party just isn't up to the next part of the module or when new characters need to build comradery with the surviving party.

Modules generally are fairly generous, AP a bit less, but they still give approximately enough for the appropriate WBL +20/30% for expendables.

Personally, I've just dropped XP. The group levels up when I deem it appropriate, and everyone levels at the same time. Underleveled characters are just a punishment on the group a a whole.

Back in 3.5, everyone got a set amount of XP based on their level. If you were lower, you got more. If you were higher, you got less. I don't see such rules in Pathfinder. I know a friend of mine has said that his group has a +10%/-10% per level difference, but is that an official rule? I can't find it if it is.

What is the official ruling? It can't be that one doesn't exist. That'd be stupid if you missed a bunch of sessions for whatever reason, and you ended up being forever 2-3 levels lower than everyone else with no possible hope of making up the difference.

There is no official rule to catch up. The designers don't suggest that you have people at different levels. Yeah it seems unfair to let everyone get XP, even if they did not participate, but it is better than continuous deaths, and having others at a lower level hurts the party as a whole, not just that one player/character.

Personally, I dont even use XP as a GM anymore.

regardless of what system I am using, you never lose XP for not showing up. It is up to the players that were there if you get any loot or credit with NPCs for work they did while you weren't there.

Use 3.5 XP system or don't punish with lower level.

3.5 system made sense because th4ere are a lot of ways to be actually lower level: Negative levels actually lowered level. Magic item creation took XP.

Now, there were a few benefits: Lower Level get more so, you'll never surpass your allies, you'll keep pace.

The thing is video games are no different. You don't earn the same XP as the person you're power leveling through various dungeon and boss runs. If you're more powerful than a particular creature, you cap and either get very little or nothing. This, you fight based on your APL. If all of a sudden a NPC that's 5 levels higher shows up to help take on the big bad, the APL is adjusted for the higher level group, and everyone gets the same amount of XP. Probably even less because the group's bigger. That makes zero sense.

regardless of what system I am using, you never lose XP for not showing up. It is up to the players that were there if you get any loot or credit with NPCs for work they did while you weren't there.

I, too, use Browman's system. All PCs have equal XP. Absent PCs receive XP for sessions they missed. Often attending a game is not an option for the player, because jobs and family are more important.

I did have one player who retired her character and began a new 1st-level character in a 9th-level party. She played a bard who was fascinated by the adventures of the heroes. The bard earned XP as the same rate as everyone else, which at first made her go up one level per game session. Eventually, only one level behind everyone else, keeping up the difference was more an annoyance than an adventure, so we agreed to level the bard up to the same as everyone else.

We RPG players have many philosophies about the role of XP in games. It can be viewed as a reward for good gaming, a way of keeping score. It can represent the maturing of the characters, honed by their ordeals. I view it as a tool for avoiding boredom and frustration. Changing abilities prevent the boredom of today's encouner seeming too much like last month's encounter, along with the spice of learning to use new abilities effectively. And the PCs often have the frustration of being too weak to overcome a known hazard, but 12 gaming sessions later, they do have a fair chance against that hazard.

It can't be that one doesn't exist. That'd be stupid if you missed a bunch of sessions for whatever reason, and you ended up being forever 2-3 levels lower than everyone else with no possible hope of making up the difference.

Do the math behind the XP and you'll see that, for example, level 1 to 18 is the same amount as 18 to 20. So yes, you'll be 2 levels behind if you missed the first 18 levels of sessions.

The thing is video games are no different. You don't earn the same XP as the person you're power leveling through various dungeon and boss runs.

You are objectively wrong. This is only the case for some video games. It's far from true in even most video games.