Advancement Chart - Page 9

[Papa-DRB]

I would like to see changes on this chart reflect a more programmatic approach to XP.

As an example:
1. Fast being the "standard" 0,1k,3k,6k,10k,15k,21k, etc.
2. Medium being 1.5 * Fast.
3. Slow being 2 * Fast.

As it stands now for Fast, the 1.3 & 3.3 are seemingly random, then it kicks back to the "standard" 6, 10, 15, then goes somewhat random again.

-- david
Papa-DRB

ps. I bring this up for all the character generators that are looking to assign XP via formula. So far, I haven't figured out what the formula is for any of the methods. For the generator that I use, xp = 500 * level * (level - 1).

[KnightErrantJR]

I'm betting that some of that has to do with the fact that under "standard" D&D 3.5, some class levels advance way too fast, but somewhere in the middle levels, it starts taking forever to get levels again. I think that some of this has to do with leveling out progression so that all levels take a similar amount of time to achieve against appropriate encounters.

BTW, love the idea of the three advancements. For the playtest I'm still using the fast advancement, but for most of my campaigns, I'll likely revert to the "Old School" slow advancement chart, as I like players to have more time to get to know their characters at a given level, and for campaign time to pass a bit more before characters near the dizzying heights of epic level.

[Archade]

What's interesting is to compare it to the fixed XP system in Unearthed Arcana. The XP rewards per CR are very close. However, the fast advancement track is 5% slower than the UA version, and the medium and slow advancement tracks are much slower yet ...

[Neithan]

I think they used a basic formula, but adjusted the ammounts to simple to handle ammounts of thousands. There is no smooth curve like in the 3.5e XP-table.
They chosed simplicity over accuracy. And I think that works just fine, all those number of encounters and treasure per encounter and character wealth for level are just basic guidelines which are based on a mathematical formula in theory, but mostly meaningless in practice. In the end it comes always down to the gm judging what encounters the group can handle with their current resources. That a table says they should be able to handle it doesn't say that their current equipment has the items the monster designer assumed to be at hand.

[seekerofshadowlight]

I myself love the new charts very old school feel. and what sounds cooler
1 I have 78'000xp so I am now 13th level
or 2 I have 210'000 xp so that now makes me 13th level

[wayland]

When it comes to speed of advancement I always feel it's the DM's concern. As such I was wondering why the approach was taken to have three tracks that complicate matters for the player?
Why not have one standard track for the players, but have the DM decide on the amount of XP awarded (e.g. Fast = 1.5*XP, Normal = 1.0*XP and Slow = 0.5*XP).
Using this approach the DM could even adjust the XP value between adventures (e.g. to fast-track through the levels the group is less interested in) without the players really having to notice as the "I need 5000 xp for lvl 3" still holds in all situations.

Just my two cents (which are getting more valuable for you guys at Paizo by the day as I'm from euro-country ;-) )

[Frank Trollman]

The Advancement chart from the 3.5 PHB is not open content and they are not allowed to reprint it without permission. They don't have said permission, so if they write an advancement chart at all it has to be unique intellectual property or the OGL is revoked in 30 days and they get a legal hassle.

I assume that the current advancement chart has been deemed sufficiently unique by lawyers to be printed in Pathfinder. So you are unlikely to see it made more similar to the PHB version.

I would like it to be made more predictable however. I hate looking up charts and the fact that the PHB chart follows a simple rubric meansthat I don't ever have to look at it any more. The current chart is sufficiently non-standard that I would have to look at it every time I gained or lost experience regardless of which advancement speed is in use.

-Frank

[K. David Ladage]

Personally, I'd like to see something much simpler. I have suggested this (in much more detail, and in retrospect -- much more difficult than such a system even needs to be) in one or two other threads, but the basics of it comes down to this:

State (for example) yu need 10 XP to advance each level. That's right: every single level, you need 10 XP to advance.

Now...

Each encounter, assign a value to it:

* Trivial encounter: 0 XP
* Relatively easy encouner: 1 XP
* Moderate encounter: 2 XP
* Relatively challenging encounter: 3 XP
* Very difficult encounter: 4 XP
* Extremely difficult encounter: 5 XP

Difficulty can come from combat (i.e., "This encounter was about the same CR as your levels, and it made you think a little, so I will grant you all 3 XP.") or it cam come from story-based challenges (i.e., "Congratulations! You were able to successfully negotiate a trade agreement with the Orcs of the Northern Highlands! And you did it without embarasing the Elf-Queen. I award you 4 XP.").

If a single character does something noteworthy that adds to the enjoyment of the game... award that character a bonus XP. And so on.

The scale slides on its own. What was a Very difficult encounter at level 3 ("Oh no! A dozen orc Warriors!" suddenly becomes a moderate or even relatively easy encounter at level 6, and might even be trivial at level 9.

Now, I know I have said that the place to speed up or slow down advancement is in the rewards. But in thinking about it, I think that is you use a mechanic where you "spend" the XP to advance -- meaning when I acquire 10 XP, I "spend them" and become a level 2 character with 0 XP -- then allowing the game master to simply state that in his/her campaign, you have to spend 12 XP, 15 XP, 20 XP... or perhaps 8 XP, 6 XP, or 5 XP... allows the GM some ability to speed up or slow down the campaign.

In fact, for an "old school" feel, you can say that the amount of XP needed to advance to the next level is equal to your current level times 5. So if you are 5th level, it will take 25 XP to advance to 6th... at which time it will take 30 XP to advance to 7th.

This has one other interesting side-effect: Action Points.

Some people have been asking to have action/fate/what-ever points added to the Piazo game. Cool! Add them in. But make them XP. Here is what I mean:

Suppose I have spent my XP and I am not at 3rd level. So I adventure some more and I have 4 XP toward my advancement to 4th level. And I am in the midst of a really tough situation and want to use an action point to {insert use fo action point here}. Fine. I now have 3 XP, as my XP *are* my action points.

Thoughts?

[Papa-DRB]

Frank Trollman wrote:

The Advancement chart from the 3.5 PHB is not open content

I would like it to be made more predictable however. I hate looking up charts and the fact that the PHB chart follows a simple rubric means that I don't ever have to look at it any more. The current chart is sufficiently non-standard that I would have to look at it every time I gained or lost experience regardless of which advancement speed is in use.

-Frank

Yea, I know they can't use the PHB one, that was an example.

Yes, more predictable or in my words programmatic, is what I am looking for. If someone can come up with a simple formula that extends the middle sweet spot, fine. Works for me. I just want to be able to understand the formula once and not have to refer to a chart again.

-- david
Papa-DRB