I like most of what I see in my quick browsing of the Alpha. But the experience rules seem a bit messy to me. There are three columns of experience advancement and then a long chart of awards based on CR.
I say scrap it all and revise. Here's the suggestion:
1. It takes 1000 Experience Points to get to the next level.
2. Use Table 12-1 (Encounter Design) to decide how much experience each encounter is worth.
Easy: 50xp
Average: 75xp
Challenging: 100xp
Hard: 125xp
Epic: 150xp
This would mean 13 Average encounters per level.
For slower or faster advancement, shift everything over by 25xp.
Slower: Easy is 25xp, Average is 50xp, etc...
Faster: Easy is 75xp, Average is 100xp, etc...
(Using the above numbers, Slower becomes 20 Average encounters per level. Faster is 10 Average encounters per level.)
The result is less tables, an easy to remember goal for the players and the DM (it is always 1000xp to the next level), and the experience award is always relative to the challenge of the encounter regardless of how many PCs are in the party.
And all the math for how fast you advance is on the DM's side. Players don't need to check a column of numbers. No matter how fast or slow advancement is for your game, the players just need to know that it's 1000xp to the next level.
(Obviously, the exact numbers -- either the XP award or XP for Next Level -- can be tweaked based on what people think should be the number of encounters per level for slow, medium and fast advancement.)
Thoughts?
Sounds simple enough. I'll admit I sorta skimmed over the whole experience section as it seemed a bit complicated.
Hmmm -- I like this.
what a silly idea!
What about all those math majors who like experience based upon complex advanced mathematics?
Sure, sure for the rest of us it works great, but come on throw one for the math majors.
lol
I'll talk to my physics and math friends about a variant using integrals and matrices. :)
I like this a lot - for one, because not all encounters are created equal (even if they have the same EL number). The DM can just decide if the encounter was difficult, easy, etc. for him or herself. And if the PCs approach the encounter in a new and dynamic way, give 'em extra.
Less paperwork and math, more intuition...trusting the DM...I like it!
|
XP is more than just advancement speed, though. It's also a crafting cost, and a spell component. Dropping it down to 1000xp per level means I never get to cast wish. Ever.
Scale crafting costs and spell components. You could easily substitute (Spell Level x 10 xp) for the component or (Gold Price / 250 xp) for crafting.
If you shift the level requirements for experience, just do the same for everything else so it retains the relative cost.
|
As much as I REALLY do like this approach there is one drawback, which may be acceptable to players.
The problem is, say a new player joins a group. The group is lvl 5 and he enters at level 4. With this system he can never catch up in level. he will always be exactly one level behind the other players.
Same for someone who dies and is resurrected. He looses a level and can never catch up to other players. Same for someone level drained.
The mechanics from Unearthed Arcana for XP (starting on page 213) address this issue.
That being said and pointed out, my personal feeling is too darn bad. Each group should decide how they handle new players. And if you die, too darn bad, you loose a level and will always be behind the other players. In all honesty I still prefer the 1000 xp per level method described above.
I did however want to point out that shortfall (if it is indeed a shortfall at all)
|
|
As much as I REALLY do like this approach there is one drawback, which may be acceptable to players.
The problem is, say a new player joins a group. The group is lvl 5 and he enters at level 4. With this system he can never catch up in level. he will always be exactly one level behind the other players.
Same for someone who dies and is resurrected. He looses a level and can never catch up to other players. Same for someone level drained.
The mechanics from Unearthed Arcana for XP (starting on page 213) address this issue.
That being said and pointed out, my personal feeling is too darn bad. Each group should decide how they handle new players. And if you die, too darn bad, you loose a level and will always be behind the other players. In all honesty I still prefer the 1000 xp per level method described above.
I did however want to point out that shortfall (if it is indeed a shortfall at all)
Couldn't you just give the lower player a bit more? Say a "handicap" of like 110% exp? Explain it away by saying the less experienced character learns more by being around the experienced characters.
IRL I think I'm gaining more xp than my senior scientist coworkers. I'm definitely levels lower than them. }: )
I like this concept of - 1000 xp = level. I use a similar system where I hand out Fate Points dependant on how well my players succeed in different trials (from combat to social to creating plans). At 13 Fate Points, they would level.
Easy and functional. I like it. :)
I agree with using one XP chart and adjusting the XP rewards based on how quickly you want to level, but I like using the existing XP chart for 3.5 rather than a flat 1,000 per level.
Not really doable since this isn't covered by the OGL. And taking it and copying it would invite for some lawyer-action from Wizards.
|
|
I agree with using one XP chart and adjusting the XP rewards based on how quickly you want to level, but I like using the existing XP chart for 3.5 rather than a flat 1,000 per level.Not really doable since this isn't covered by the OGL. And taking it and copying it would invite for some lawyer-action from Wizards.
You can always use the charts from Unearthed Arcana which is OGL.
But I like this system better.
That being said and pointed out, my personal feeling is too darn bad. Each group should decide how they handle new players. And if you die, too darn bad, you loose a level and will always be behind the other players. In all honesty I still prefer the 1000 xp per level method described above.I did however want to point out that shortfall (if it is indeed a shortfall at all)
Catching up could be done with a handicap rule, as suggested. 10% extra per level you're behind.
XP is more than just advancement speed, though. It's also a crafting cost, and a spell component. Dropping it down to 1000xp per level means I never get to cast wish. Ever.
Who says that XP will remain a currency in PFRPG? I say it shouldn't. Never really made sense, anyway.
Eric Randell, I like your chart a lot.
If we can just address the problem of shortfall in characters who are lagging behind I think that would be worth adopting.
The simple proposal here is very good. For those pointing out that this messes up xp costs to cast wish and make items, the version printed in the alpha rules has the same issue, in that it makes wishes effectively free. Either way, the xp costs will have to change. Good opportunity to do so methinks.
The problem is, say a new player joins a group. The group is lvl 5 and he enters at level 4. With this system he can never catch up in level. he will always be exactly one level behind the other players.
Same for someone who dies and is resurrected. He looses a level and can never catch up to other players. Same for someone level drained.
Thanks to everyone for all the great responses and concerns.
For the level gap issue I'd suggest this:
For each level a PC is below the highest level PC in the party, give them an additional 25xp for each encounter.
So at the end of a Hard fight the 12th-level PC gets 125xp, the 11th gets 150xp and the 10th gets 175xp.
The nice thing about 25xp is that it gets the PC caught up, but not too fast. Assuming the 11th-level PC above is exactly 1000xp behind, this should catch him up his XP in four to six levels, with an increasing amount of time sharing the same level.
It catches up the 10th-level PC faster until he is one level lower, and then slows it down. This keeps the gap between levels close, even if the difference in level starts somewhat extreme. It looks like the PC two levels behind would need about six to eight levels to catch up, but again would spend an increasing amount time either one level below or at the same level.
(In a math sense, this approximates giving an additional 25% XP for each level below the highest level PC in the encounter. The numbers aren't perfect, but they're pretty close.)
Again, everyone, thanks for the comments.
|
Perhaps this is a dumb idea, but how about a much smaller number?
Say 10XP per level.
You get 1 XP for a challenging Encounter.
You get nothing for an easy encounter, you get 2 for a damn hard encounter.
You can also get an extra point for good roleplay, or facing a particular challenge alone.
With a system like this a late bloomer (ie a lower level character) has to stand out (RP bonus, or facing single challenges) in order to catch up, but the goal post isn't miles away.
Also, if you want characters to level up faster, than you use 8 instead of 10. Want slower 12, or even 15. Want your players to pelt you with dice, set the number at 20.
---
As another alternative, check out THIS This system moves the focus from hit the monster shaped XP pinata, to accomplishing character goals
Well i really liked the new chart ideas with the whole 1000 xp thing you are losing out on the CRs almost all togther and its back to alot of the guess work (like 2nd ed)
Guys reread these rules again a couple times and really look at them I think he did a great job
The 3 differnt advancement charts are great think you could use them for the more powerful races like a drow has to be on the slow chart, if you are playing on the fast chart i think it could be really cool
I didn't like having three charts... make it one chart, otherwise I'm pretty cool with it. Actually, if you just made it the Medium/Moderate speed, I think that would be fine.
In many ways I agree that the 1000 xp would be easy to do, but in other ways I see certain problems in it. I kinda like having the old CR this equals that in XP... though I think it should remain the same no matter what character level your characters are... thus a CR1 should be worth 300xp whether you are level 1 or level 20, and as such I think the progression factor works better... aka 1000 to level 2, 3000 to level 3, 6000 to level 4, etc.
(or, if you wanted to adjust for keeping the same xp, do this... 2000 to level 2, 5000 to level 3, 9000 to level 4, etc.)
Well i really liked the new chart ideas with the whole 1000 xp thing you are losing out on the CRs almost all togther and its back to alot of the guess work (like 2nd ed)
Guys reread these rules again a couple times and really look at them I think he did a great job
The 3 differnt advancement charts are great think you could use them for the more powerful races like a drow has to be on the slow chart, if you are playing on the fast chart i think it could be really cool
Actually, you're not losing out on factoring the CR of creatures. If you look on page 61, the Encounter Design table tells you what amount of what CR should be used in a proper encounter for characters of your party's average level. So, using the OP's XP system, if you have four 5th level PCs, then an encounter of two CR 4 creatures constitutes an Average difficulty encounter, and would net each PC 75 XP.
Actually, you're not losing out on factoring the CR of creatures. If you look on page 61, the Encounter Design table tells you what amount of what CR should be used in a proper encounter for characters of your party's average level. So, using the OP's XP system, if you have four 5th level PCs, then an encounter of two CR 4 creatures constitutes an Average difficulty encounter, and would net each PC 75 XP.
That's right. You are still using the CR of the creatures. It just gets referenced once instead of twice.
|
|
I like the 1000 XP/level model, it simple and fast. I think a lot of DM's don't crunch the numbers for every encounter they have anyway. I know when I do it I throw together a couple monsters that would seem about the right difficulty and see how it goes. It would sure save on space, no more 20 level XP table and no giant 20 level CR to XP reward tables.
|
|
During today's session, I've found myself giving xp on the fly. I've never been able to do that in my 3.5 games, but the little chart of page 62 made it possible.
We're using the fast progression rate and it's more or less 1 level per 1,5 sessions. An Adventure Path in about 6 months, if you play weekly. How convenient, isn't it? ;)
What I'd like is a more "logical" progression rate. I know the "+1.000/+2.000/+3.000" isn't available for license reasons, but i don't quite get the logic in the number of xp for each level. And yes, it's a bit of an OCD thing, I know...
I like the simplified idea for XP from the original poster, but I'd rather see XP gotten rid of completely. It would be easy enough:
1) Put in a guideline saying "As a general rule, player characters should go up a level after an adventure. An adventure can be anywhere from 8 to 20 encounters, depending on how fast you want your players to advance. Alternately, you can use the XP charts from the 3.5 PHB and DMG."
2) Replace things that cost XP with other penalties (e.g. Wish spells can require an expensive component, magic item crafting can be 20% more expensive, coming back from the dead gives a negative level for the duration of one adventure, etc.).
That seems like an even simpler solution. I gave up on giving XP for individual stuff long ago.