I'm also a strong supporter of keeping only 1 XP progression chart...
or at least, Set one as the default and offer the two others as optional.
In this case I would say the Medium speed would/should be the default.
In other words: stick with the existing advancement charts, and handle how the XP are awarded in a way that allows the game to be set up for the pace desired. See my next post on my thoughts on how t award XP in a way that makes it easy for the Game Master to tailor.
I would 3rd this. In fact the changes to the way XP are handled is the only thing I see in the Alpha that I will flat not use. Someone mentioned that the XP charts are closed content. If this is the case, and XP HAS to be handled differently, then there still needs to be 1 chart and the awards chart needs to be made simpler.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Next, I want to address the experience point system -- both the flaws in how the 3.x rules handled it, and how in an effort to fix it, you have actually made things worse.
I can't disagree more.
No RPG that is class/level based needs three separate advancement charts. None. If you want to provide the players a method of speeding up or slowing down the advancement process, handle it via the rate at which XP is awarded, not in the rate at which XP is converted to new levels.
But that isn't what they did. They've given the GM the OPTION of choosing which XP Chart will work best for the GM's personal style of game.
I see the Slow/Medium/Fast Charts as a way of adding a flavor into a game. If I want a gritter feel where true heroes are fewer and more far between thus more worldly experience is needed to make my character stand out then I use the Slow XP progression. In a world where many of the people are my equals and my actions stand out less OR heroes appear from obscurity to greatness over a short span of time then the Faster progression is the one I use. Obviously, the Standard progression is going to be the Medium one, BUT there is nothing wrong with them giving us the OPTION to change the feel of our game.
In other words: stick with the existing advancement charts, and handle how the XP are awarded in a way that allows the game to be set up for the pace desired. See my next post on my thoughts on how t award XP in a way that makes it easy for the Game Master to tailor.
What if I want a SLOWER pace? But I don't want to loose any of the action? So if the game is about a goblin invasion then I can get more out of the goblins without seeing too much change in the feel of the encounters. Otherwise the PCs start getting too high in level, forcing me to level the goblins along side the PCs just to keep them as the threat. Now I don't have to. I just use the XP Chart that'll fit best with this game.
Also, if the Players wander off the beaten track in a game which is using the Slower XP Chart, as the GM, I can add more encounters into the game without sacrificing the Pace of the game I'm trying to GM. Plus, using the Slow XP Chart is going to make Level Advancement more of a factor. Players will think more carefully about the choices they make.
What they did is give the DM the choice of 3 charts I like havening choices and would like to use diff charts for diff games go paizo.
well they cant use the ones in the phb there not in the SRD. so they gave u the fast which is close . and the medium and slow for other styles of play i like the slower ones myself but medium or slow would depend on the game i like it there adventures are based off the fast but they let the dm choose .
yep I under stand you only want one chart and I'm cool with that.However I think 3 charts are really helpful for DM's making there own campaigns. And I for one would like to see them stay in a side bar if nothing else.
|
|
I happen to like the various experience charts and feel that they would add something to my personal campaigns. Being able to speed up or slow down the advancement of the players could help sustain the life my campaigns quite a bit.
I feel that this is something I would certainly use even if I do not use the rest of the rules systems introduced in the pathfinder alpha document.
Well man its simple a formula confuse some folks it just does . where a chart is a chart . all ya have to say is ok where using chart a what does it say.where in a formula ya have to add things up and i have played with folks that really get confused with that . as with a chart you look at it drag your finger from a to b and thats it simple done.no add type Y to type Z dived by 5 .sure I could do this but for the I play every once in a while type of gamer a chart always is better.
Yeah EXP charts are not open content i think the three charts are great because they let each play group select how they are going to play and the DM can still throw the creatures and give the right exp for the CRs
Oh and i did show the multi charts to a few player and they loved em . 1 of em eyes glaze over any time he has to add multiple things so charts he loves .
|
|
Hey Deth_Jester.
Fancy meeting you here.
Well, to get right to my opinion, I do not like changing the xp chart from what it is in 3.5. The reason is simple. Backwards Compatibility. I know there are a host of reasons to change the XP chart, not the least of which is that I would like higher level PC's to stay around in a level a little longer than one major fight.
The thing is, there are way to many Prewritten adventures and AP's already on my shelf (and probably other peoples shelfs) to ask GM's with a shortage of time to have to change each one whole cloth.
Even the Fast xp chart in the alpha edition is way to different at high levels.
Level 20 in 3.5: 190,000 xp
190,000 xp in 3.alpha is somwhere between 12th and 13th level.
I do think that 3.0 & 3.5 levels characters to fast, but it is way to late to change that now, at least in my opinion. Keep the 3.0 xp chart, and just have a sidebar telling dms how to make the xp faster or slower to suit thier tast.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
How is it more helpful to a DM to have three XP advancement charts than it is to have a simple system that reduces or increases XP rewards?
I like the 3 charts.
#1 It is a tool that without much explanation a GM can set the speed of the game. If a GM wants to further adjust the speed of the game it would be easy enough to draw up your own xp chart. "Hmm this need to work a tad faster / slower adjust the amounts by 10% up or down"
#2 The xp chart is as much a tool for the players as for the GM. It has been my experience that players often have expectations of how much XP a particular encounter is worth. If the DM is believed to be tampering they may cry foul. The charts set the expectations out for both the GM and players in advance.
Tampering?
Are you serious? I am not being sarcastic here or anything... but if you do not have some trust in the Game Master and his/her judgement... why are you playing with them?
ah man who ya talking to
oh and i was gonna point out they look alot like 2e's charts and I like it. may just be me though.
|
So how is 3 different charts going to make things so much more difficult? If your a GM you have the option of picking slow/medium/fast and you follow that chart. I don't see the confusion.
I think that having the choice between 3 progression charts much less confusing than trying to redo the math to figure out how to increase the amount of xp rewarded. I'de rather not have to go back and redo all of my encounters.
Thank you Paizo for the options. I'm gonna start running my group with the Alpha rules this weekend. It's going to be fun.
|
|
Alzrius: The charts are, on the surface, slower, only until you realize the amount of suggested xp is going to be increased. It is not only the experience progression chart that is left out of the SRD, it is also the experience reward chart. It will be necessary then to have a unique method of calculating experience, irregardless of your point about the advancement chart.
Personally, I think Mr. Ladage is right in suggesting one chart is better than three and the logical place to create alternatives is in XP calculation.
Though I like the simplicity of the 3e method of calculating xp needed, (i.e. current level x 1000) if a new system must be adopted, I am more and more liking the suggestion made about a flat 1000 xp per level. However the method of calculating xp in such a system would certainly have to be very flexible.
ah man that brings back some memory's it really does i guess thats why i kinda been digging there charts lol.
|
|
"Only until you realize the amount of suggested xp is going to be increased" is a complete guess, since there's nothing in the Alpha Playtest document that says that, nor is there any statement from the Paizo people (of which I'm aware). It's quite possibly a very accurate guess, but it's still just a guess, not a given.
It's not really a guess.
Page 62 of Alpha, sidebar, Table 12-3.
A CR 1 Monster is worth 400 xp. By the DMG that should be 300 xp.
As to your other points... You might be right that a court would uphold the right to produce a math formula, but if there is the chance of WotC even trying to force some sort of legal confrontation, why bother with the headache and possible expense?
Okay, I've kinda stated this in another post but there's so many threads now I'd like to bring it back up again.
I'm not that fond of the three different charts but this personally would make me happy.
Would it be a good enough compromise for both sides of the fence on this if... Paizo kept 3 different charts but expressively indicated that one of three (probably either the fast or the medium... most likely the medium) is the standard, default while the other two are optional? That way, most gaming groups would likely pick the default xp list while the others would still be there for the other groups that needed/wanted them.
The reason that I think this would help because early in playtest, I found the selection a bit confusing.... I think specifically showing off one as being the default advancement would help and you could still keep the other two in the game that way.
Any opinions in this suggestion?
"Only until you realize the amount of suggested xp is going to be increased" is a complete guess, since there's nothing in the Alpha Playtest document that says that, nor is there any statement from the Paizo people (of which I'm aware). It's quite possibly a very accurate guess, but it's still just a guess, not a given.
It's not really a guess.
Page 62 of Alpha, sidebar, Table 12-3.
A CR 1 Monster is worth 400 xp. By the DMG that should be 300 xp.
As to your other points... You might be right that a court would uphold the right to produce a math formula, but if there is the chance of WotC even trying to force some sort of legal confrontation, why bother with the headache and possible expense?
I don't think they would bother.. or win either. For those that remember Villians & Vigilantes, the ancient but lovingly cherished super hero rpg, the rules system was in many ways a virtual copy of most D&D basic rules elements... the normal 6 ability scores, hit points, XP chart, etc. I don't remember ever hearing of Fantasy Games Unlimited (wasn't that the name of the company?) having problems... but then again I think Jeff Dee also did art for D&D in the early days as well as help write this game.
Plus, if you look at older computer games like the Bard's Tale series, Legacy Of The Ancients, Legend Of Blacksilver, Might And Magic (earlier ones), etc. etc. (I'm thinking back to the Commodore 64 days here), they generously borrowed from the D&D rules.
I like the three charts. I thought advancement in 3.5 was too fast in the beginning, and not enough time in the sweet spot before things got hinky.
Having a slower chart means more time/fun with one character getting to use new and different abilities.
I really like this as I run a solo game and a group another night. This is a good guideline to follow.
My 2 cp.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Tampering?
Are you serious? I am not being sarcastic here or anything... but if you do not have some trust in the Game Master and his/her judgement... why are you playing with them?
For me it's not about trust, it's about expectations. If a player expects to advance levels based on prior experience with the RAW and is suddenly not making the headway expected it can be disheartenning. Putting the chart up in front of the PC's does something a formula and suggested guidelines for altering XP given cannot do. It sets a CLEAR and firm expectation of results.
Furthermore I don't disagree with you about not playing with GMs you trust. I wouldn't play with a GM I didn't trust but not every game runs at the level you or I might expect and the rules should help those games as much as it helps ours.
Even if the formula for calculating the XP awarded were simplified in the process?Keep the various XP charts for this reason:
Yes, you could vary the way XP is awarded, but this makes the DM's already complicated life more complciated. If you force XP progression to always follow the same breakpoints for level advancement, you're changing a variable into a constant in a complicated equation, and thus making all the other variables more complicated. The awards are already parts of formulas, and adding more computation to them only bogs them down even more. The progression breakpoints are static - it won't hurt anything to allow the DM to choose where those breakpoints lie.
Huh, I was just about to make the point that Pneumonica did.
KDL - I get exactly where you're coming from. I would gleefully enjoy making those XP calculations variable on the pace that had been set for the campaign. But you and I are rare ones.
It is indeed a whole lot easier for most DM's to have the *same* chart/calculation to determine XP, and let the amount needed change. Of course, I'd like to congratulate each of the handful of DM's that manage to convince their players to accept the Slow chart :)
My own biggest objection to both the XP charts and the XP calculations is that they don't flow from an algorithm. I don't use the XP charts typically - I do the calculations in my head. For instance a CR 15 encounter is worth a base of 4500 to a 15th level party. If the party is only 11th level, that's doubled twice, to 18000. Or an 11th level character needs 66000 xp total to reach 12th level (1+11 * 11/2 * 1000).
Table calculations in 3rd edition are really quite elegant, and it'll take a good bit of work to come up with an equally elegant counter solution. Funny enough though I was already using the Unearthed Arcana Fixed XP for running Rise of the Runelords.
How is it more helpful to a DM to have three XP advancement charts than it is to have a simple system that reduces or increases XP rewards?
It is more helpful to the DM because it does not change the manner that XP is calculated and awarded. The only thing the DM needs to choose is how fast they want to level up.
In other words: how is it better to have three options for applying the reward than it is to have unlimited options of granting it in the first place?
Well, there already are an unlimited number of options to grant XP, though not actually printed in the rules, as far as I can recall.
There are several sources (DM's toolboox, published adventures) that encourage raising or lower XP awards based on things such as facing an injured foe, fighting in difficult terrain, or whatnot.
Either way, you're not actually "applying the reward" differently in the the XP charts. That's what makes it easier for the DM. You calculate and apply XP awards the same, reguardless of which XP chart you choose to use.
Casey
I say dump the entire experience point system as it stands, it gets too caught up in the minutia: CR, EL, xp. Too many variables to mess with and juggle. I don't know many DMs that ever sat down to figure out how much xp his encounters were according to CR and EL. Every single DM I know or have gamed with ALWAYS hand waves the xp. They give out what they think is appropriate and move on.
I think the simplest way to do xp in a new edition would be to just give a single point for each player per session. Then give out extra points for completing story goals, completing story arcs, defeating a particularly difficult creature, good role playing, etc. For a total of 1 to 10 points per session. Then when you get 10 points you reach second level, 30 points: 3rd level, 60 points: 4th, 100: 5th, etc., or something along those lines.
That takes so much book keeping out of the rules its not even funny (not that many DMs did any of that book keeping anyway).
@KDL,
I think having options to change the amount of XP is a viable option to change the rate of levelling-up using the existing XP chart. But I think that the change in the chart itself is meant to separate the Pathfinder RPG from other high-fantasy settings.
One of the things I never got used to, or really liked, was how fast characters level up in 3e. I know that, as a DM, I can control how much XP is given out, but I've run a lot of adventure paths over the past 5 years, and the AP system expects characters to be a certain level by a certain point, so I use the XP system as written.
As a player, my dislike of levelling quickly is that the character doesn't have enough time to fully use the new feats, abilities, spells, etc, gained at the level before gaining more.
As I see it, the change to the XP chart itself means that the Pathfinder RPG will allow more play at each level, especially the middle levels, where many game designers feel the game is mechanically at its best.
It may also allow longer campaigns, or longer adventures, without having to calculate new EL every 13 encounters.
Casey
I say dump the entire experience point system as it stands, it gets too caught up in the minutia: CR, EL, xp. Too many variables to mess with and juggle. I don't know many DMs that ever sat down to figure out how much xp his encounters were according to CR and EL. Every single DM I know or have gamed with ALWAYS hand waves the xp. They give out what they think is appropriate and move on.
I think the simplest way to do xp in a new edition would be to just give a single point for each player per session. Then give out extra points for completing story goals, completing story arcs, defeating a particularly difficult creature, good role playing, etc. For a total of 1 to 10 points per session. Then when you get 10 points you reach second level, 30 points: 3rd level, 60 points: 4th, 100: 5th, etc., or something along those lines.
That takes so much book keeping out of the rules its not even funny (not that many DMs did any of that book keeping anyway).
No offense, but how do you know that your set of DMs well-represents the game as a whole? I mean, maybe that's what every DM you've gamed with has done, but every DM I've gamed with actually has calculated the XP for it, including myself. That's including figuring out story awards etc. as well. So from my perspective, if I were to go just from personal experience, I'd say it's entirely the case that people do.
No offense, but how do you know that your set of DMs well-represents the game as a whole?
I don't know that, but I didn't say they represented the game as a whole, or at least I didn't mean too, if thats how you read it. None taken, btw.
I'm just conveying the habits of DMs i've meet in my experience and large circle of gaming friends. All any of us have to go by is personal experience.
And kudos to you for actually sitting down and doing the math when it comes to xp, I just don't have the patience for it. I'd rather spend that time doing something else.
In other words: stick with the existing advancement charts, and handle how the XP are awarded in a way that allows the game to be set up for the pace desired. See my next post on my thoughts on how to award XP in a way that makes it easy for the Game Master to tailor.
Well, just eyeballing the tables, the progressions seem to work (assuming 4 pcs) out to 20 encounters at cr = to character level on the slow progression, 15 at medium and 10 at fast. If you want to simplify, why not assume a fixed number of encounters per level, and weight encounters according to table 12-1 in the pathfinder alpha doc. Easy counts as +0, average as +1, challenging as +2, hard as +3, epic as +4.
If I use the medium tract, my PCs need to get the equivalent of 15 encounters. They can get this by 15 average encounters, 7 challenging + 1 average encounter, etc. If I want to vary beyond this, I either add additional weight (so easy becomes .5, average 1.5, challenging 3, etc) to the encounters, or raise/lower the number of encounters per level per track.
This probably screws the XP for Magic Items/Spells casting/crafting system, unless something else is brought in.
Keep your XP table as it is. This is exactly the way I wanted it from the beginning. It takes up little to no space (less than it would to write rules explaining how to alter the xp rules to one's liking). It is easy to follow at a quick glance. When I bought the 3.0 PH, this was the very first thing I noticed and changed. You fixed it, please keep it. Fixing these sorts of things are major selling points for me. Your doing a fix things edition, not a rewrite all the rules. If we want a rewrite of the rules that's what 4th edition is providing. It is also why I don't want 4th edition. Keep it a fix it edition.
I'm gonna go with keeping the charts. They look fine and it's easier to keep track of when the characters reach a new level than recalculating the xp award depending on which campaign your playing in. The new way of awarding xp also looks alot easier but as I haven't realy tried it, I wont say too much just yet.
|
|
Well, just eyeballing the tables, the progressions seem to work (assuming 4 pcs) out to 20 encounters at cr = to character level on the slow progression, 15 at medium and 10 at fast.
I think you'll find it works out to between 10-13 for the fast, assuming a 4-5 player party. 13 at first, 10 at second, 13.5 for 3rd, 12.3 for 4rth, etc.