I am considering either not giving XP, and just telling my players when to level-up, or giving out xp and certain intervals such that they will level up exactly when I want them to.
I am also planning to use the "Abandoned Mine Office" side-trek from the forums as an intro.
If I _don't_ give XP, at what point in TWC would other DMs suggest I allow players to advance to Level 2?
If I _do_ give XP, has anyone figured out (based on CRs and ELs as written in the adventure) when PCs should hit level 2?
Thanks.
If you don't give XP, have em level up after clearing out the first sub level.
How are you dealing with things that cost XP? I could never play a campaign like that but if you can keep things balanced then more power to you. Still it seems like alot more work then letting the PC's level up normally and modifying encounters a bit if they are too low or too high.
Well, for creating items that cost XP, I would grant PCs with item creation feats a number of "creation points" equal to 10% of the XP required for their current level. Any "creation points" not used are lost when the PC levels up, but they receive a new pool of points based on their new level. This was suggested by one of my players who also DMS, and who doesn't give XP, but has PCs level up after x number of sessions.
There is a good reason for doing it this way, at least in my experience (no pun intended). I believe that people should earn what they get in life, and that extends to XP. I also believe that XP _shouldn't_ just be awarded for killing things and over coming traps. In my previous campaign I awarded the usual xp, but I also gave "story" xp when certain things were accomplished. However I like a good "roleplaying" game (that _is_ what D&D is supposed to be) so I also give XP to award good RPing. Unfortunately it can be kind of subjective, and some people are more comfortable RPing than others.
Now, before someone accuses me of denying xp to people who "don't like to talk in a funny accent all night", I gave everyone a sheet that explained ways players could "describe" their actions without actual;y "acting them out" that would be far more interesting than "I cast fireball" and still be considered "roleplaying".
Unfortunately we ended up with some PCs who were farther behind in level, especially when a player couldn't make a session. I don't think a player should be awarded the same RPing xp as everyone else if they weren't there! It lead to some arguments and recriminations, so I figured "scr3w the xp".
Instead I intend to have players level-up at appropriate points through-out the campaign. I am also going to use action points, so I can reward good roleplaying with more action points, and for the item creationists, I will allow action points to be cashed in for item creation points. :-)
If I _do_ give XP, has anyone figured out (based on CRs and ELs as written in the adventure) when PCs should hit level 2?
It depends to some extent on the order in which they tackle the various elements of the cairn. But with four PCs, if you use the Mine Office Side Trek, they should reach level 2 after defeating the mad slasher and the acid beetle swarm - which is an appropriate place to receive that reward, if they've survived! They would then go to 3rd level after getting past the Face in Darkness trap, assuming they deal with all the creatures and traps along the way. (It's possible to never trigger the Guardian of the Veil, for example.)
If you don't use the Mine Office, four PCs would reach 2nd level after exploring one of the two lower "lairs" in the cairn, and 3rd level after fighting the wounded owlbear at the Land farmstead.
This was going to be my next question. The adventure says the party should be level 3 by the end of the adventure. Was it Paizo's intention that the players should have enough XP to advance to 3rd level at the _end_ of the adventure, or _before_ the end of the adventure such that the last few encounters are done at level 3 instead of level 2?
Should the party start the next adventure at the beginning of level 3, or already on their way to level 4?
This was going to be my next question. The adventure says the party should be level 3 by the end of the adventure. Was it Paizo's intention that the players should have enough XP to advance to 3rd level at the _end_ of the adventure, or _before_ the end of the adventure such that the last few encounters are done at level 3 instead of level 2?
Should the party start the next adventure at the beginning of level 3, or already on their way to level 4?
I believe the intent was that, after all of the encounters in the adventure are done, the party has enough XP to be 3rd level for the next adventure. In some cases they will have enough XP before then, but levelling up is rarely done in the middle of the adventure, so it's usually left to the end anyway.
The adventure says the party should be level 3 by the end of the adventure. Was it Paizo's intention that the players should have enough XP to advance to 3rd level at the _end_ of the adventure, or _before_ the end of the adventure such that the last few encounters are done at level 3 instead of level 2?
Should the party start the next adventure at the beginning of level 3, or already on their way to level 4?
Based on the XP available in The Whispering Cairn, a group of four PCs should be comfortably on their way to 4th level by the end. I seem to remember one of the Paizo team saying something similar on these boards a while back, but I can't find it now...
My group is currently in HoHR, and so far I have kept track of XP very carefully - but I'm beginning to think I don't need to, because the PCs have actually been right on track, level wise, the entire time. This may not continue as they reach higher levels, but from my experience (so far) the adventures are designed just right, to give the desired level of advancement needed to continue. Of course, my group is likes to explore every nook and cranny and leave no stone unturned - if you had a group that likes to skip entire parts of each adventure - oh well...
Also - I've maintained a very fast pace. There has been virtually no "down time" for them. The week in the Free City, at the start of HoHR, is the first such break that they have had. At this rate, they won't ever have any time for item creation, etc.
I wouldn't be a fan of not allowing crafting at all. First, you are taking away an interesting and rewarding part of the game. Second, players with craft feats tend to be more 'balanced' and not min/maxed characters. For example, the party wizard won't have all the metamagic feats if he wants to make a few trinkets for himself and to share. Third, you give the party a chance to have more control over the experience by letting them have a better selection of equipment. Fourth, you create a more realistic system of matching the players desires (It just so happens, the magic dealer does have a magical bastard sword of fiery burst and a wand of cure serious wounds.) with what can be found arround a town. Fifth, side quests open up as players track down hard to find materials and componets. Finally, you introduce another way for players to spend walth and keep things in check.
Personally, I encourge craft feats as well as the various crafting skills. It is more belieavable to me that the archer has craft- bowyer and can not only repair his primary weapon, but make the endless supply of arrows that is needed to quest with such a character. You would be suprised how much pride a character can take in his newly smithed masterwork longsword, that the party wizard just enhanced into a magical wonder.
.