Finally sat down and really ran the numbers on character advancement in Pathfinder, and I'm not super happy. At high levels, the difference in combat prowess between a party of one level and a party of another is not that high. I mean sure, the 15th level party can throw polymorph any object to kill anything with a Fort save or create giant huggy bears made out of magma, but that's not super different from casting flesh to stone on people you don't like. The tactical questions which go into killing a Beholder don't differ much at 11th level and 15th. And in the basic D&D rules a party of four will advance from 11th to 12th after 7 encounters with Beholders. A 15th level party will advance to 16th after 22.
In the current 3P rules, the 11th level party will still advance in 7 encounters, but the 15th level party will advance in 28.
In short, at the higher levels, the current chart makes a bigger stink about characters fighting enemies who are up or down a level or two despite the fact that at these levels an increase or decrease in level makes less difference than tactical match-up.
---
Also, I'm not jazzed about people being able to cast cloud kill at villages and ding a level. A 15th level party should have essentially nothing to fear from 20 Ogres, so giving them 4,000 XP out of the deal seems unwarranted.
-Frank
Also, I'm not jazzed about people being able to cast cloud kill at villages and ding a level. A 15th level party should have essentially nothing to fear from 20 Ogres, so giving them 4,000 XP out of the deal seems unwarranted.
I gather from this and other of your posts (ie, "Actual Broken Stuff") that making a sensible ad hoc ruling as a DM is something you prefer not to do.
If you tire of DMing you could make a good career as a public school administrator.
Also, I'm not jazzed about people being able to cast cloud kill at villages and ding a level. A 15th level party should have essentially nothing to fear from 20 Ogres, so giving them 4,000 XP out of the deal seems unwarranted.I gather from this and other of your posts (ie, "Actual Broken Stuff") that making a sensible ad hoc ruling as a DM is something you prefer not to do.
Why not add that "sensible ad hoc ruling" to the rules in the first place?
Of course, I've done away with experience points altogether in my game, so whatever they put in the rules doesn't matter to me.
Why not add that "sensible ad hoc ruling" to the rules in the first place?
Because you just don't need to idiot-proof every possible anal retentive contingency that the rules lawyers can dream up. It's far easier to expect the DM to exercise some judgment.
I really don't need the rules to tell me that dropping cloudkill on a village should not "ding" the players up a level.
I don't need the rules to tell me that you can't wish for more wishes, or that you can't make an army of undead shadow butterflies to blot out the sun and take over the world.
|
I don't need the rules to tell me that you can't wish for more wishes, or that you can't make an army of undead shadow butterflies to blot out the sun and take over the world.
That last one actually sounds like a pretty cool idea for a villain. Might have to rule that while insects normally don't have enough life force to become shadows there's this artifact that can boost them just before death... :D
I take it that you never played AD&D?
Let's just say that the Munchkin card "Boil an Anthill (Go Up One Level)" is in there for a reason. The 3rd edition scaling XP system is complicated, but it was put in there for a reason to solve real problems that real people really had.
-Frank
I take it that you never played AD&D?
Let's just say that the Munchkin card "Boil an Anthill (Go Up One Level)" is in there for a reason. The 3rd edition scaling XP system is complicated, but it was put in there for a reason to solve real problems that real people really had.
-Frank
Yes, I did play AD&D.
And that Munchkin card is in there as A PARODY OF PLAYERS LIKE YOU.
Real people also really have problems with traffic laws, and yet nobody suggests outlawing the car. Having played AD&D for a long count of years, I can say the scaling system was unneeded because sensible DMs actually read the lines in the DMG that said there was a difference between an encounter and a "gift", and encounters where the monsters don't have a chance shouldn't award XP (or, if the monsters are merely hamstrung, less XP, such as the case of the dragon who can't fly or field its breath weapon).
That's true. The 1st Edition D&D sensibly mentioned that fireballing a room full of orcs wasn't a real challenge and shouldn't be worth much XP. That's why I find it a bit odd that the Pathfinder XP table suggests that 15 CR 1 creatures (like level 1 fighters) are an average challenge for a level 9 party.
[Cue the posts along the lines of "I'd have three guys grapple the wizard, three guys throwing tanglefoot bags, and the other 9 guys with spiked chains and Improved Trip". <grin>]
Contributor
|
The argument that a rule doesn't need to be fixed because real DMs can rule Ad Hoc is patently ridiculous when discussing a revision intended to fix problems with the current rules.
Many of us can and do houserule and make ad hoc decisions as needed. But this game is going to eventually need to support organized play and a series of adventures and other products that will be used by DMs of varying ability and experience. These products will be used by players coming together at cons and store game-days, or forming new groups. If every DM has to Ad Hoc rule something as fundamental as XP on an ongoing basis (and I don't mean decides they should, I mean has to because the rule doesn't make sense), then it is impossible for those players to come together from a common baseline set of assumptions.
If you want to disagree with Frank's statement that giving those XP is wrong (which none of you appear to), then that's one thing, but to say that we shouldn't fix broken rules when the whole point is to fix broken rules... well, that's something else.
|
|
The argument that a rule doesn't need to be fixed because real DMs can rule Ad Hoc is patently ridiculous when discussing a revision intended to fix problems with the current rules.
You are right in that a playtest period is supposed to suggest rules and fixes for problems before the rules are finalized and if there is a sensible fix it should be implemented. However, I think part of Wulf's point, or at least how I would word the problem, is that experience is a situation that must always and finally be determined by the DM and the game situation, not the rules. There are too many potentials within the game for xp rules to cover them all.
Personally, I think the 3e charts were pretty good. But as they can't be used there does need to be a sensible replacement. I would suggest using the new charts and seeing how they work out in game.
I assume you are using the fast track xp chart here. What does it become if you use the medium progression or the slow progression charts?In the current 3P rules, the 11th level party will still advance in 7 encounters, but the 15th level party will advance in 28.
The Medium XP column is just the Fast XP column multiplied by 1.5. The Slow column is the Medium column multiplied by 1.5.
(There's some minor variation in there, but that's basically it.)
|
|
I take it that you never played AD&D?
Let's just say that the Munchkin card "Boil an Anthill (Go Up One Level)" is in there for a reason. The 3rd edition scaling XP system is complicated, but it was put in there for a reason to solve real problems that real people really had.
-Frank
Yes, I did play AD&D.
And that Munchkin card is in there as A PARODY OF PLAYERS LIKE YOU.
I played AD&D - a long time
I have read the RulesI found that little sentence (2nd. Ed. I do not remember if it was there in 1st ed.): First, this Award applies only to foes or enemies of the player characters - the monster or NPC must resent a real thread. Characters never receive experience from the defeat of non hostile creatures (rabbits, cattle, deer, friendly unicorns) or NPCs (innkeepers, beggars, peasants). Second, no experience is earned for situations in which the PCs have an overwhelming advantage over their foes.
This was taken from the 1995 Revised DMG Page 68, but I remeber there was a simmilar rule in the earlier 2nd ed. DMG.
Sometimes all a rules Lawyer needs is to read the rules.
I love how someone brings up a real problem and gets shouted down by people saying "That's what a dm is for!".
Let me revise my remarks.
Fixed XP awards ARE a real problem, and situations where the average party level so far outweighs the power of their opponents, regardless of their numbers, should absolutely be addressed by the mechanics. Frank is right.
Frank is wrong in that PCs "dinging" a level by dropping cloudkill on a village is a "real problem."
Frank is wrong that the possibility of shadow butterflies taking over the world is a "real problem."
It is possible to provide mechanics to fix these problems, and well Paizo should, but they should not worry themselves too much about ferreting out every munchkin wet dream and making sure it's specifically addressed in the rules.
whether its a village of commoners or a tribe of ogres (ogi?) the basic deal is the same, by having undermatched opponents still give xp, considering the great power of higher level stuff, its much easier to pick on those creatures, than to face level equivalent challenges.
Then don't provide them such challenges to pick on, don't allow them time to pick such challenges, or simply don't give them any experience points if they do.
Does that really need to be codified in the rules?
Well, ok, there you have it. Two lines of text, tops, to pacify the rules lawyer mob.
|
In short, at the higher levels, the current chart makes a bigger stink about characters fighting enemies who are up or down a level or two despite the fact that at these levels an increase or decrease in level makes less difference than tactical match-up.
---
Also, I'm not jazzed about people being able to cast cloud kill at villages and ding a level. A 15th level party should have essentially nothing to fear from 20 Ogres, so giving them 4,000 XP out of the deal seems unwarranted.
-Frank
What's interesting about this is that these two points seems to be at odds with one another. In theory, the flat-XP system does allow for what might be termed "XP farming" (I just invented that term - aren't I clever?), but the Pathfinder XP system strongly rewards facing enemies at or above your own level, thus making farming an inefficient means of gaining XP in a situation where you can't just bot your way through it. Yes, a party of 15th level characters sould theoretically gain a level by killing 875 ogres (which I'm guessing is beyond even most cloudkills, at least for a single casting), but they could also do so by taking on six CR 17 encounters and achieve the same effect, faster and presumably while still participating in a plot of some kind.
(Interesting mathematical quirk - at 9th level, the first point a party will presumably have access to cloudkill, it takes 840 1st level commoners to gain a level. So we're talking "villages" that are closer to "small towns," which strikes me as not the kind of game most people play. If that is the kind of game you want to play, however, I suppose Paizo's got no room to tell you not to do it.)
|
|
Well, since the PFRPG is a chance to correct Errors AND Missunderstandings (or arts that can be misunderstood) I think including a few lines about the difference between combat and mass slaughter and how to provide XP for the first and not for the latter would certainly be an option - but I'd hardly call that working on an error or problem in the rules - its more like providing a helpful hand for your (or your DMs) common sense.
I can easily see this argument segueing into seat belt and helmet laws.
I'd hardly call that working on an error or problem in the rules - its more like providing a helpful hand for your (or your DMs) common sense.
There will always be those who abdicate common sense in slavish devotion to the rules.
That is the central theme of parodies like Munchkin.
(If you look at Munchkin as an indictment of the rules, and not your own playstyle, you've seriously missed the point.)
Such folk cannot be helped by any ruleset (for its faults and failings will always be winnowed out, no matter how obscure-- see "Actual Broken Stuff").
At some point they have to help themselves.
|
Contributor
|
Fixed XP is a bad thing and should be addressed as Frank and the Scribe have suggested. I wonder, though, if there is an issue with variable XP per level and having PFRPG too similar to the 3.5 DMG?
They do have to do something different with XP because the 3.5 XP rules are not part of the SRD (so they are not OGL).
I haven't actually looked at the numbers for this, but to be honest, if it were me I'd move to a simpler experience system that wasn't dependent on killing monsters.
I personally prefer to rate my players on their accomplishments in a given session in terms of roleplay, story goals, strategy etc (I have 10 categories) and then give them an award derived from that. It works for me, but it would be hard to translate into a different group that might play longer or shorter sessions than me, and /or move at a different pace in those sessions.
|
Even if Wulf's posts are somewhat harsh, I pretty much agree with him.
Taking away the DM discretional power (or if you prefer "common sense") on specific situations and events by providing a mile-long list of exceptions and sub-rules and notes and whatnots, is definitevely not the way to go.
More fleshed out guidelines, OK. A simple list of the most common misunderstandings/paradoxes, fine.
I do still play AD&D, and if I ever come up with something like "I'll go hunting deers to level up", my DM will probably laugh at me first and then hit me on the head with the spine of Monstrous Compendium. Hard.
|
|
I'd hardly call that working on an error or problem in the rules - its more like providing a helpful hand for your (or your DMs) common sense.There will always be those who abdicate common sense in slavish devotion to the rules.
That is the central theme of parodies like Munchkin.
Such folk cannot be helped by any ruleset (for its faults and failings will always be winnowed out, no matter how obscure-- see "Actual Broken Stuff").
At some point they have to help themselves.
Well - I did mean my post to sound at least somewhat ironic...
|
Contributor
|
I'd hardly call that working on an error or problem in the rules - its more like providing a helpful hand for your (or your DMs) common sense.There will always be those who abdicate common sense in slavish devotion to the rules.
That is the central theme of parodies like Munchkin.
Such folk cannot be helped by any ruleset (for its faults and failings will always be winnowed out, no matter how obscure-- see "Actual Broken Stuff").
At some point they have to help themselves.
While there is some truth to this, it ignores a lot of other possibilities.
Like the reasonable player that needs the rules to throw him a bone when he's playing with the kind of players you describe at a convention.
Or when organizations like the RPGA insist on following the RAW over interpretation in order to facilitate even-handed judging.
Or when some kid buys the Pathfinder game and hasn't got years and years of play experience to help him make ad hoc judgments.
Or when a new group of experienced players form up to play and they've each formed their own houserule to patch a hole in the rules but none of those patches are the same.
It is true that you will never catch every rules loophole. But it doesn't mean you should ignore the ones you do catch. Or insult people who think it's important to catch and fix the problems that they can.
Personally, I think the 3e charts were pretty good. But as they can't be used there does need to be a sensible replacement. I would suggest using the new charts and seeing how they work out in game.
Hmmm...anyone want to run a playtest using "Encounter at Blackwall Keep"? I have a hankering to lay the smack-down on about a zillion lizard men now. :)
Moreover, certainly one can't hope that any revision will fix everything, but the idea of bashing someone who comes with clear problem definitions while it's still in time to solve every single one of them's literally ruinously stupid.
Obviously we have very different definitions of what constitutes a clear problem, and what is literally ruinously stupid.
Would the playtest go more smoothly if one side or the other just shut up, or is there room for debate?
What's your position on "The Shadow Over the Sun" and "The Difference Engine?"
Big problems? A lot of your 3.5 games come crashing down when the evil PC cleric infected himself with lycanthropy in order to quickly advance to 11th level so that he could build an army of shadow butterflies to blot out the sun?
Mostly my time was concerned with statting up high level NPCs, so I mainly hope that Paizo can fix that and a few other real concerns, but I suppose everyone's experience is different.
It's only an idea, but why awarding XP for killing monster in the first place? DnD is the exception in this regard if you compare it to others RPG.
Most modern RPG reward character for achieving story goals and roleplaying... The Challenge rating should be use to balance encounter, not for awarding experience...
If 7 challenging encounters is enough to change level, why bother giving XP for each individual goblins killed instead of awarding a flat XP for saving the town (story goal) from the goblin invasion? Saving the town from a goblin invasion for a first level group should be consider challenging and be reward appropriatly...
Killing a town of normal people with cloud kill should be not...
|
|
There are too many potentials within the game for xp rules to cover them all.Depends on what form of XP system turns out to be final.
Suppose, for example, you had an XP system that said that you needed 20 XP to advance to the next level. Then, at the end of each game session the GM awarded XP based on the challenge of the session -- not the CR of the creature, but the level of challenge the session was for the characters to get past the obsticles involved.
So, hand out...
0 XP = Trivial
1 XP = Easy
2 XP = Moderate
3 XP = Hard
4 XP = Very Hard
5 XP = Extremely Hard
I saw this idea when it was first posted and actually like this system quite a bit. Nevertheless I imagine some really creative people could figure out a way to abuse it.
The main point I think I was trying to make though is that XP should always be a matter of DM fiat and it seems to me, even in a simple system like the one you suggest, the DM must adjucate the difficulty of the encounter.
Director of Game Design
|
Gentlemen,
The tone in this thread, and a number of others like it, must come to an end. The language here has gotten a bit out of hand. We are all on the same side here, and if you feel that you cannot post respectfully in regards to other posters and their ideas, I would ask that you not post at all.
I am not saying that the point in this thread is invalid, but the tone is really bothering me.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Also, I'm not jazzed about people being able to cast cloud kill at villages and ding a level. A 15th level party should have essentially nothing to fear from 20 Ogres, so giving them 4,000 XP out of the deal seems unwarranted.
It is warranted. See below.
If you want to disagree with Frank's statement that giving those XP is wrong (which none of you appear to), then that's one thing...
I'll volunteer that argument.
Fixed XP awards ARE a real problem, and situations where the average party level so far outweighs the power of their opponents, regardless of their numbers, should absolutely be addressed by the mechanics. Frank is right.
Fixed XP awards with Fixed-XP/LVL is a problem. Fixed XP awards with *exponentially* growing XP/LVL is NOT a problem.
4000 xp out of 495,000 needed to level (1,350,000 total). That's .8% of one level.
Some 3.5 equivilencies:
1 CR-appropriate encounter = 1/4 of daily resources
13 CR-appropriate encounters = 1 level xp
13 CR-appropriate encounters = 3.25 of daily resources used
20 Ogres = .8% of 1 level xp
125 * 20 Ogres = 1 level xp
10 * 20 Ogres = 1 CR-appropriate encounter = 1/4 of daily resources
So 20 Ogres = 1/40 of daily resources
20 Ogres will probably take more than one cloudkill spell. If they all got to attack once, that's at least one hit for some damage, probably a bit more. That seems to be reasonably equivalent to 1/40 of daily resources for a 15th level party.
The problem (as some saw it) in 1st edition with flat xp rewards occurred at "name" level, about 9th-11th, when the xp needed to level flattened out to be the exact same amount every level. So with increasing ability to kill, the same challenge could be dealt with easier, and thus leveling sped up - theoretically at least.
Pathfinder RPG's system, just as 3.5 did, *halves* the effective value of an encounter, every two levels higher you are. In 3.5 it provided a hard limit at a range of 7 levels - any further netted no xp at all. Pathfinder simply continues the trend outward, while also inverting the system to flat xp.
Frank's other argument, which seems to have been somewhat ignored, is actually a complaint that a 15th level party doesn't have much of an easier time fighting a beholder, and thus shouldn't need four times as many encounters with one to level as an 11th level party. Basically Frank's first point is 100% valid and true - I just think it's a good thing.
In my opinion, that complaint would lead to an "ideal" system of flat xp rewards, with flat xp requirements, in addition to the 3.5 "challenge range" limits.
I admire the ingenuity and balance of the Pathfinder RPG XP system, and had actually already implemented the system from Unearthed Arcana that it is based on.
I dont know how much this is a part of this discussion but it was somthing i was doing I went through and gave all the EXP in ROTRL Burnt Offering I used the new chart and gave the party two story awards and they will be at enought exp to get to 5th level
But this is if they hunt down and kill every single creature im getting ready to do the same thing for 3.5 exp rules and see what the difference in exp will be (this is with 4 to 5 players)
|
|
im getting ready to do the same thing for 3.5 exp rules and see what the difference in exp will be (this is with 4 to 5 players)
I can spare you the effort. If they get every available scrap of printed XP, they hit 10,802 at the end of the adventure.
Thats cool cause with PRPG they end up at 10100 (if my math is right)
Thanks for the link but it just sends me to ROTRL disussion board
I read this last night and roflcoptered myself to sleep without posting. I haven't read or heard anything like that since way back in 2nd edition when I first started out DMing. I often had players asking to kill squirrels for that 1 extra EXP point so they could level. The idea of killing a whole village with cloud kill is a tad ludicrous given a challenge based award system. What challenge did that village present?
The ogres however are a good point. 60 to 80 ogres (APL-9 for 15th level characters) as presented in the monster manual (clubs, hide armor, and a few javelins) is a fairly pathetic.
An important element that needs to be very clear is how a DM defines what a challenge is. That would go a long way toward clearing this up. However there is a situational element to calling something a challenge that a DM (or adventure designer) needs to rule on. I don't see a clear way to write a simple RAW rules set that could capture that determination process. For those who want to try, keep it to a page or less.
Now a quick fix while still using the basics of EXP system outlined. Creatures/Traps/Obstacles with a CR less then APL - 9 (lowest on the table) do not generate EXP at all. For a 15th level group Ogres at CR 3 would not generate EXP, no matter how many there are in an encounter.
|
|
Gentlemen,
The tone in this thread, and a number of others like it, must come to an end. The language here has gotten a bit out of hand. We are all on the same side here, and if you feel that you cannot post respectfully in regards to other posters and their ideas, I would ask that you not post at all.
I am not saying that the point in this thread is invalid, but the tone is really bothering me.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I argree and - if I in this thread or another overstepped the boundaries of politeness I hereby apologize.
I'd like these forums - especially the playtest forums to be a place of fruitful debate, not of accusations and battering insults.
Additional to previous post:
The sliding scale has a built in mechanic to normalize the party level. Party members above the Average Party Level (APL) receive less experience, and those below receive more. At high level this is close to 75% and 150% for one level above and below respectively. The variance is more extreme for greater level differences.
Any mechanic the 'flat' award would use is artificial and party members ahead would stay ahead and those behind would stay behind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
XP extrapolation:
How much XP does it take to attain 21st level? What about 22nd?
I cannot divine a pattern to extrapolate on the flat XP tables, but on the sliding scale its an easy 21,000xp more and 22,000xp more respectively.
The XP award table is similarly easy to extrapolate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
XP Inflation:
The value of XP at high level is greatly reduced. A 17th level wizard on the 'fast' experience track could toss off 70 wish spells before running out of spare XP.
The same 17th level wizard could toss off 3 wishes on the sliding scale.
On the sliding scale the wish is about 30% of the wizards XP to level, on the flat scale it's less than 2%. This difference makes the XP cost for spells more of a technicality than an actual cost.
Making the XP cost a cost would either be clunky or unbalanced.
Suppose we made the cost for wish 100,000xp so that our 17th level wizard can only toss of 3 like the sliding scale wizard. Our 'flat' 18th wizard can still toss off 5 while our sliding wizard needs to be 25th level before he can manage that feat.
Perhaps you could scale the XP cost with the caster level. But how do you balance that table? How would you extrapolate past level 20?
Most of this also applies to magic item creation. The 4,000xp to make that 100,000gp item is a mere technicality to a high level character.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold value for XP:
On the sliding scale the worth of a single XP is vastly reduced at high level. Surely if the solution to the XP inflation problem is to scale up XP costs that the GP cost for XP should similarly be reduced.
Add another calculations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The sliding scale is easy to extrapolate and elegantly does away with all these little headaches the flat award introduces.
I will be using the sliding scale as a house rule if nothing else.
Thanks.
I like the new exp chart but there are problems when you go back and do the EXP I posted this somewhere else but some of the adventures in the adventure path at high levels are giving to many levels like three levels for Fortress of the Stone Giants
|
|
What's interesting about this is that these two points seems to be at odds with one another. In theory, the flat-XP system does allow for what might be termed "XP farming" (I just invented that term - aren't I clever?), but the Pathfinder XP system strongly rewards facing enemies at or above your own level, thus making farming an inefficient means of gaining XP in a situation where you can't just bot your way through it. Yes, a party of 15th level characters sould theoretically gain a level by killing 875 ogres (which I'm guessing is beyond even most cloudkills, at least for a single casting), but they could also do so by taking on six CR 17 encounters and achieve the same effect, faster and presumably while still participating in a plot of some kind.
(Interesting mathematical quirk - at 9th level, the first point a party will presumably have access to cloudkill, it takes 840 1st level commoners to gain a level. So we're talking "villages" that are closer to "small towns," which strikes me as not the kind of game most people play. If that is the kind of game you want to play, however, I suppose Paizo's got no room to tell you not to do it.)
And this is what is being missed with some of these discussions regarding experience. Sure, the 15th level party still gets experience for squashing rats in a basement... but the amount of XP received is so insignificant that it's not worth their time, unless they're ageless undead or something as it will take stupidly long for them to gain enough rat XP go go up a level. Thanks for doing the math, above, because that's an excellent illustration.
My concern with static XP awards is that it won't compensate for the party member who has fallen behind a level or two and is trying to catch up. Other than that, I don't have an issue with static XP. For my part, though, I would still prefer something mathematically equivalent to 3.5 (which would, then, probably modify the character advancement XP thresholds, as well, back to something similar to 3.5).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I appoligize if I re-hash anything previously said, but my eyes sort of glazed over with all of the formulas presented in this thread.
There's two points I want to make, and I hope they add to the discussion.
1) If some sort of scaling XP table is used, similar to 3.5, then please break up levels 1-3. That's my biggest dislike of the 3.5 XP system is that they put levels 1-3 together, presumably to speed advancement in the early levels. I'd much rather see a similar progression in these levels as in all of the others.
2) I think static XP could be a viable option, but only if they have some rule that creatures who's CR is lessthan the average party level -5 (or some similar number) simply provide no XP, similar to the 3.5 table where at a certain point creatures don't provide XP, since they're not enough of a challenge, no matter how many of them are there.