|
I've been thinking about how I want to handle the 3 xp charts in the alpha and I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to try this:
1)If you are using only a base class from the PF PHB you use the fast lvling system
2) If you are using a base class from a splat book or are multiclassing (from the PF PHB) use the medium table.
3)If you are using prestige classes or multiclassing more than 2 base classes (or 1 splat book base class) use the slow table.
Am I being tough? yes... but I tend to give lots of RP bonuses - maybe if you have a great background with lots of hooks in it, you can get one table faster (DM disgression)
Why give different experience to different people based on class choice? Is a class/race combo from a 3.5 splatbook going to be inherently more powerful than a PFRPG base class? It seems like the alpha raised the power levels of the base classes enough to make them all viable to 20th.
I thought the idea behind the 3 xp charts was to allow DMs to make the pace of gaining levels fit their and their players' gaming style. Maybe I'm just a communist at heart, but other than the occasional token RP award, I award equal experience to everyone at a session (and our group recently voted to share exp equally with people who miss a session through no fault of their own).
|
To me it depends on the kind of campaign you're running if you ask me.
The High XP I can see being used in 2 situations..
1) Want to get through the low levels quickly with moderate amount of combat.
2) Want to reward the characters because there's a low amount of combat and more social activities going on... meaning it's not a dungeon crawl.
The low XP I can seeing being used in 2 situations..
1) Want to spend more time in a certain level range.. like levels 5-12 without reducing the counters you're heaving.
2) I have a TON of encounters and a TON of creatures to fight, but I don't want to give the PCs lots of XP and thus have to use tougher creatures (think a defend a border outpost from a horde attack.)
|
|
Why give different experience to different people based on class choice? Is a class/race combo from a 3.5 splatbook going to be inherently more powerful than a PFRPG base class? It seems like the alpha raised the power levels of the base classes enough to make them all viable to 20th.
mostly because its a game of imagination.. and 95% of those other classes can be effectively grouped into a base class if the right choices are made sure they might no have the same exact abilities - but it makes them unique and not a cookie cutter character that I have come to expect from the base classes from the complete books, and that you have to become to get PRCs ...
When I've DMed 4 groups that have never met (in 3 different states)and all 4 had a warlock, and all 4 warlocks had the same feats because that was considered best at first glance, I got annoyed (altho the guy in the 4th group had a hell of a time, since I was running STAP with the first group and ROtRL with the other 3)
If you don't want those classes, go ahead and outlaw them. Don't punish them for taking a class you don't like.
If you look at it the beauty of pathfinder is that suplement base classes and the phb base classes will now be on par. So no need to use this system, also you cant give a player a xp handicap for choosing outside the core its just not fair, the core only covers the most basic of concepts. I know players that bring the most horrific of characters to table and never even use their sick abilities. We call this the "oh s!+%e!" button, you can kill everything with one shot but you dont out of respect for the other players, only when you really need to get out do you use them. I would prefer everyone in my game take one base class and maybe a prestiege and stick to that but its a free world and if you can sell me on it, go for it.
I also dont see the need for 3 charts, why not just put everyone on the same one, and make xp easy for once.
|
|
If you don't want those classes, go ahead and outlaw them. Don't punish them for taking a class you don't like.
That does seem to be what the OP is doing. Everyone should use the same table in the campaign.
The difference between levels goes progressively higher as the character gets higher.. to the point where a level 5 character is a level 6 character on another table (just using those numbers as examples, don't know if they're the right examples, but you can find the ones I mean.)
So it's a terrible idea to mix and match in a campaign, figure out what kind of adventure you're going to run and pick the appropriate table.
To me it depends on the kind of campaign you're running if you ask me.
The High XP I can see being used in 2 situations..
1) Want to get through the low levels quickly with moderate amount of combat.
2) Want to reward the characters because there's a low amount of combat and more social activities going on... meaning it's not a dungeon crawl.
The low XP I can seeing being used in 2 situations..
1) Want to spend more time in a certain level range.. like levels 5-12 without reducing the counters you're heaving.
2) I have a TON of encounters and a TON of creatures to fight, but I don't want to give the PCs lots of XP and thus have to use tougher creatures (think a defend a border outpost from a horde attack.)
These examples tell me you need to adjust the flow of XP, not the set chart for gaining levels. Why not have your cake and eat it too?
Let's say you want to go through the low levels quickly then spend a lot of time around level 8-12. Until you reach level 5, give out 50% more XP than listed. When you reach level 8, reduce the XP by 50% from the chart. This allows you to rush through the "boring" levels and spend more time in the "sweet spot".
The drawback to this is players may feel rushed or cheated depending on how you adjust the flow. If your players don't trust you, they may not understand why their XP is looking meager during the sweet spot.
The difference between levels goes progressively higher as the character gets higher.. to the point where a level 5 character is a level 6 character on another table
I think the differences grow to 3 levels difference.
|
|
The drawback to this is players may feel rushed or cheated depending on how you adjust the flow.
And that's why you don't adjust the amount of XP, you just use the kind of table above for the style of campaign you want to rule. As the DM you're supposed to plan ahead, figure out how quickly or how important it is for the PCs to level, and pick an appropriate chart.
I know for a fact that if I want my party to defend the city from 100s of orcs the mechanics for the fighting is a lot easier to deal with at low levels. Firstly I can throw 10-20 cr 1/4 at low level PCs per "day" and it'll not only be fun, but with a slow XP table, they'll get to kill A LOT of orcs without leveling up and forcing me to use tougher creatures or modified orcs.
The XP tables are fine. It prevents players from complaining that they're not getting enough XP from their encounters, and it shows them what to expect in terms of character progression. I would, however, divide all the experience values by about 100 for the sake of simplicity...but that's just me.
Ah I might be wrong, but is there a reason why the first two or three XP-values of the "old" charts are 300 XP higher?
Actually in mind of the famous Backward who-know-what:
I wouldn't change the XP chart as is. If you want a slower of faster leveling, the DM should instead increase/decrease the amount of XP gained.
Besides. An interesting thing True20 is doing, and many of you will hate for sure is just to eliminate the need for XP at all!
Since they have no spells or item creations that consume XP they just let the DM decide on when the PCs will level up!
I wouldn't change the XP chart as is. If you want a slower of faster leveling, the DM should instead increase/decrease the amount of XP gained.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Besides. An interesting thing True20 is doing, and many of you will hate for sure is just to eliminate the need for XP at all!
Since they have no spells or item creations that consume XP they just let the DM decide on when the PCs will level up!
One DM is doing that right now in a campaign. I have no problems with that at all, but it shouldn't be standard. And it's easy enough to do if you want to: Just ignore XP and you're there. The other way around means that you have to come up with an XP system for yourself.
Since we're talking about XP: MCWoD has an interesting idea: Split level-ups 4 ways. It works best if you don't use XP, actually. What you do is you give 4 partial level ups instead of one big one. They have 4 options they can choose at those "waypoints" - one is powers/abilities, one is skills, one is HP, and one is BAB (I'm not quite sure if I got them right, but it's like that). You have to take each option once before you can take any again, of course (so you can't just raise your BAB four times in a row and have +4 at 2nd level).
Now that's a nice idea! I'll keep that in mind for my next game.
...Wait a second. The reason the XP table can't be kept as is, is why it's somekind of trademarked?!
They can't trademark a simple mathematical rule!
(XP_level+1 = XP_level + level x 1,000 XP)
That's nothing they specifcly "invented".
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Now that's a nice idea! I'll keep that in mind for my next game.
...Wait a second. The reason the XP table can't be kept as is, is why it's somekind of trademarked?!
They can't trademark a simple mathematical rule!
(XP_level+1 = XP_level + level x 1,000 XP)That's nothing they specifcly "invented".
Unfortunately the whole game is WotC's IP and protected. it's just that they created a license that allows for people to use a select portion of this IP and the XP chart (and a few other bits) were not included in this license.
But they can't have a right on THIS... can they?
As I said, that's only a numerical formula.
There is no doubt in my mind that WotC would swarm Paizo with lawyers at the slightest possible infraction.
There is no doubt in my mind that WotC would swarm Paizo with lawyers at the slightest possible infraction.
Agreed. They realised that they cannot content with their content, so they have to resort to things that doesn't involve them making better games.
Even if WotC has a trademark on the sliding scale XP chart (where a creature's XP varies by the level of the party) they have presented two concepts- that an average level should be about 13.3 encounters of equivilant level, and two creatures of any given CR should give the same experience as a single creature of that CR+2. Following this formula anyone can create a set XP chart for each CR- which is what Paizo has done. As long as the CR 2 creature is worth half as much as the CR 4 creature, and to reach level 3 you need to gain (CR2 XP)x13.3 XP then your chart is comparable to the "official" one. What I am saying is there doesn't need to be three charts. All a DM has to do to slow or hasten the leveling is multiply or divide the XP by a set number. It's simpler to give a rule on how to adjust the flow of XP then to print three charts. Especially if the DM wants a different option than the three presented. Teach the formula, and they can do it themselves.
The drawback to this is players may feel rushed or cheated depending on how you adjust the flow.
And that's why you don't adjust the amount of XP, you just use the kind of table above for the style of campaign you want to rule. As the DM you're supposed to plan ahead, figure out how quickly or how important it is for the PCs to level, and pick an appropriate chart.
I know for a fact that if I want my party to defend the city from 100s of orcs the mechanics for the fighting is a lot easier to deal with at low levels. Firstly I can throw 10-20 cr 1/4 at low level PCs per "day" and it'll not only be fun, but with a slow XP table, they'll get to kill A LOT of orcs without leveling up and forcing me to use tougher creatures or modified orcs.
Planning ahead still only allows you to use one XP chart. My way allows more versatility providing your players trust you. I don't recommend this technique with people who don't know what you're doing and turn into rules lawyers. My players (hopefully) would understand that I am doing it for a reason and accept it.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Even if WotC has a trademark on the sliding scale XP chart (where a creature's XP varies by the level of the party) they have presented two concepts- that an average level should be about 13.3 encounters of equivilant level, and two creatures of any given CR should give the same experience as a single creature of that CR+2. Following this formula anyone can create a set XP chart for each CR- which is what Paizo has done. As long as the CR 2 creature is worth half as much as the CR 4 creature, and to reach level 3 you need to gain (CR2 XP)x13.3 XP then your chart is comparable to the "official" one. What I am saying is there doesn't need to be three charts. All a DM has to do to slow or hasten the leveling is multiply or divide the XP by a set number. It's simpler to give a rule on how to adjust the flow of XP then to print three charts. Especially if the DM wants a different option than the three presented. Teach the formula, and they can do it themselves.
I prefer having the three charts to choose from. Players can look at a chart and see immediately the pace the game is going to take. I like my players to know what to expect going in. It puts us all on the same page.
Now there does not need to be three charts but it's nice to have them as an option. If you prefer a system where you can adjust the flow of XP then pick a "base" chart (right now I understand fast is close to the rate Paizo expects the APs to run)and adjust the rate of XP earned. Just as you probably are doing now.
The funny thing about the "fast" XP chart is that it follows the WotC formula- not the "medium" as expected. I think the fast chart should be the medium and a faster chart be made for the fast flow.
<sigh> It seems you can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think. Obviously having someone feed you the chart is much easier than making your own based on your own needs. I was hoping that a game so deeply based in math wouldn't make someone sick at the thought of using a calculator and typing "x5" or "/2".
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
The funny thing about the "fast" XP chart is that it follows the WotC formula- not the "medium" as expected. I think the fast chart should be the medium and a faster chart be made for the fast flow.
<sigh> It seems you can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think. Obviously having someone feed you the chart is much easier than making your own based on your own needs. I was hoping that a game so deeply based in math wouldn't make someone sick at the thought of using a calculator and typing "x5" or "/2".
I can think fine thank you.
I could of course adjust the flow of XP or draw up my own chart but if there can be ready options why is that bad?
I have a 40+ hour a week job, a wife, two kids, and enough stress and other stuff in real life that I don't mind having some of the heavy lifting done for me. That's why right now I'm running the RotRL. Running an AP cuts down on my prep time.
I don't see how letting the professional game designers take care of a little detail like an XP chart makes me deserving of the snarkiness.
|
|
Actually, the fast accrual seems even slower that the D&D accrual. And there are times that I'd like to see that speed up.
not really - the alpha adds that XP should be given out for special Roleplay situations instead of having it as 'if you want' therefore, the PCs should gain more XP per serssion
The funny thing about the "fast" XP chart is that it follows the WotC formula- not the "medium" as expected. I think the fast chart should be the medium and a faster chart be made for the fast flow.
<sigh> It seems you can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think. Obviously having someone feed you the chart is much easier than making your own based on your own needs. I was hoping that a game so deeply based in math wouldn't make someone sick at the thought of using a calculator and typing "x5" or "/2".
I can think fine thank you.
I could of course adjust the flow of XP or draw up my own chart but if there can be ready options why is that bad?
I have a 40+ hour a week job, a wife, two kids, and enough stress and other stuff in real life that I don't mind having some of the heavy lifting done for me. That's why right now I'm running the RotRL. Running an AP cuts down on my prep time.
I don't see how letting the professional game designers take care of a little detail like an XP chart makes me deserving of the snarkiness.
Don't get me wrong- I feel your pain. I have the full time job, wife, and two kids myself. I'm running Red Hand right now. And I apologize for the snarky comment- people who let others think for them really bother me, and I get testy around people who get confused when told to divide by two.
What I'm saying is that everyone is making it sound like you need a math degree to alter the flow of XP. If you are capable of doing this, then my snarkiness isn't directed at you. I just don't see the need for more than one chart with a small sidenote about adjusting XP to prolong or shorten a campaign. Besides, it's only the DM that needs to be concerned with the XP dealt, whereas everyone has to remember which XP chart to use if you go that route. I feel putting three charts in the book will confuse the people who are incapable of deeper thinking. I feel those people should be playing Candy Land instead though.
The funny thing about the "fast" XP chart is that it follows the WotC formula- not the "medium" as expected. I think the fast chart should be the medium and a faster chart be made for the fast flow.
I think 3.5's way was fast enough. People were complaining about that already. Plus, it's not sucha big deal.
You'd be surprise how many people struggle with the simple math that's already in the game.
I wouldn't. I've been in 4e forums.