It seems like the obvious way to slow character advancement is to give less XP. Doing it by a slow/medium/fast XP table seems to create a problem if you need to convert because you've (a) decided it's too slow/fast (b) got a rotating GM who wants to do it differently etc.
Also, if the primary purpose of the Pathfinder RPG is to play Pathfinder Adventure Paths, it seems counter productive to strongly feature alternate systems of advancement that won't advance characters at the rate the adventures expect. I suppose you can have gaps between the adventures, but many assume leveling going on during the adventure, leading to (more than expected) TPKs during the climatic battles.
There was a lot of discussion about this on some of the other threads.
A fair number of people asked that Paizo include a slow gain method for those that wanted to enjoy their chars at levels longer.
They will also add in hooks and ideas to the adventure paths so that slow advancing players can be at the proper level for all of the modules in the path.
|
It seems like the obvious way to slow character advancement is to give less XP. Doing it by a slow/medium/fast XP table seems to create a problem if you need to convert because you've (a) decided it's too slow/fast (b) got a rotating GM who wants to do it differently etc.
How does it create a problem? If a DM wants to change to another XP table it's easy to convert without deleveling or gaining extra levels.
Say you're level 3 on the Medium table. Your character has 6000 xp. DM wants to switch to slow.
First you need to find out how much XP you've earned toward the next level. This is an important number.
Medium chart, Level 3 to 4 you need to earn 4000 xp to go from level 3 to level 4 (9000-5000.) You've earned 1000xp so far. (The 6000 you have minus 5000 you needed to get to level 3.)
Following so far? Hope so. If not break out the XP table and take a look. Remember, your character has 6000 and you've been using the medium table.
So why do you want to know how much XP you've earned toward your next level? Well you need to know what percent of the xp you've earned towards your next level so you can find the equivalent spot on the other table without deleveling.
You've earned 25% of the XP you need to level.
( For those that forgot their math... (1000 / 4000) * 100 = 25. 1000xp you earned after leveling up last, 4000 you need to get to the next level, 100 because we're making that number a percentage.)
Go to slow chart.
Slow, Level 3 to 4 you need to earn 6500 xp.
What's 25% of that of 6500? 6500 x 0.25 = 1625 xp
So if you've been playing slow all along and you earned 25% of the xp you need to get to level 4, you would have earned 1625 xp.
So take what you'd need to be a level 3 character on the slow chart (7500) and add it to the 25% you'd have earned if you were playing slow this whole time (1625.)
Your Xp for that chart would be... 9125xp (7500 + 1625.)
Giving them extra XP (or taking away xp if you were going from a slower xp chart to faster) maintains the level and the abilities of the characters.
In my head it's easy to figure out.. but trying to explain it is a lot harder. Hope it made sense.. ask questions if something is unclear please. ;)
Also, if the primary purpose of the Pathfinder RPG is to play Pathfinder Adventure Paths, it seems counter productive to strongly feature alternate systems of advancement that won't advance characters at the rate the adventures expect. I suppose you can have gaps between the adventures, but many assume leveling going on during the adventure, leading to (more than expected) TPKs during the climatic battles.
Each adventure path will tell you what speed to run. Since there are people on these forums who give out XP and levels when they want instead of regularly at the end or beginning of sessions, TPKs because of poor XP planning is unavoidable if the DM ignores printed EL and CR knowing he/she isn't levelling their party regularly.
I imagine their will be a "recommended" character progression for DMs who use the Pathfinder adventure paths. I would think the variable rates would help DMs with their own campaigns adjust the rate of advance for the type / flavour of campaign they want.
Not to derail this thread too badly, but I thought I'd share my great love for Pathfinder's xp chart. Specifically, the static xp per CR and the "individual xp" chart. I can add up the xp awards for the challenges overcome that night quickly and easily, even if there are varied levels in the party. No more figuring xp out two or three times because one guy missed a couple sessions and is behind by a level and there's that one guy that never misses a session who's actually ahead... Fast, easy, no division required. I love it.
Not to derail this thread too badly, but I thought I'd share my great love for Pathfinder's xp chart. Specifically, the static xp per CR and the "individual xp" chart. I can add up the xp awards for the challenges overcome that night quickly and easily, even if there are varied levels in the party. No more figuring xp out two or three times because one guy missed a couple sessions and is behind by a level and there's that one guy that never misses a session who's actually ahead... Fast, easy, no division required. I love it.
I sincerely agree. Love the XP advancement charts, the XP award charts, the whole shebang. Really hope nothing major changes with these.
|
|
I sincerely agree. Love the XP advancement charts, the XP award charts, the whole shebang. Really hope nothing major changes with these.
I hate to be a me too to another thing KEJR said but... me too! :)
And if you can figure out what I was talking about in my earlier thread, you realize moving between the charts is cake.
|
It makes more sense to use one rate of level progression and allow the DM to alter the amount of XP awarded. Why in the world would any one Want to have to figure % of levels and such by switching charts? Sure it isn't hard but it is unnecessarily complex.
Instead it is much more logical to create three different rates of XP award.
In fact in another topic someone posted the Holy Grail of XP systems:
1000 XP to level, every time
125 XP per Critter Very fast or very hard fight
100 XP per Critter fast or hard fight
75 XP per Critter normal fight
50 XP per Critter slow or easy fight
25 XP per Critter real Slow or real easy fight
NOTHING is simpler than that, AND you can vary the speed of advancement at will, within the middle of a level or whenever a DM desires.
And if you take the control out of the DM's hands of controlling advancement pace, you will (I guarantee someone will) run into a player who wants to go slow and enjoy his player's development and another will want to go fast and power level. The two will bicker about it because it is in the player's section of the book. The DM will step and mandate the pace and no one will be happy.
Additionally, the charts are not designed for changing pace mid level. The only way to do so is to start making needless calculations as SirUza showed earlier. I don't know about you but I don't have time to go figuring out percentages for PCs so I can know when they will hit a certain level if I change the pace. Say I want them to hit level 10 by the end of the adventure so I can throw a cool new one at them for level 10. Then I realize that in mid-level they will be 75% of the way but not quite. So I need to calculate which chart they need to be on and how many more encounters I can throw at them to get them there. Then I have to tell the PCs that I want them to change charts right quick so we can make it. Then when they hit level 10 we'll switch back.
Isn't it simpler and more logical to just alter the XP award to change the pace of advancement?
|
|
Nope. I would say stop trying to do something that system isn't designed for. XP rewards have been simplified by Paizo quite elegantly. I don't want to see it messed with because a few people have these random mid-campaign DM changes who might conceivably want to change pacing... or worse a DM that thinks giving his players less XP is "rewarding."
If cutting player's XP works for you then keep doing it. Pick a chart for normal situations and cut their XP when you need to. But those of us playing all seem to be doing pretty well on the medium and fast tracks with the super easy to read XP reward chart they put in. It doesn't need to be gunked up with alternative reward systems.
Well, I've got two degrees in Math my eyes glassed over when you were explaining your simple system for "jumping tracks." :-)
The point isn't how simple it might be to jump tracks, the point is that by not fixing the source (giving XP) you are creating a problem where none should exist.
In another thread, Jason said (If I recall) that fast = 13 enc/level, medium was 20 enc/level and slow = 30 enc/level. Which is interesting because 3.5 rules use "fast" and also because I remember a WotC person says that because of splatbook escalation, DMs were giving out more ELs over PL and it worked out closer to 10.
My solution is just to print the Medium Chart, and then say, in the GM rules only (where players don't need to think about it), this is based on 20 enc/level, if you want another number multiply the reward by 20/n.
So double it for 10, cut it by a third for 30, divide it by 500 if you want a 1,000 (better keep decimals though!) If you've got a fetish for the number 37, use that, we don't judge here.
You seem to be saying this would be more complicated. I don't see how. You've got the amount of XP given, and the amount XP needed to level. One of those numbers needs to move in order to slow or speed leveling. Making it the latter makes the GMs work modestly easier, pushing that complication onto the players, who have to make sure they know what the right column is. Furthermore, they can't memorize the table as easily if there are three columns (unless they only play at one speed and make sure they memorized the right column.)
|
|
DM looks at chart, says "Everyone gets 50 xp." No math. If the campaign is using medium then the players can look to see they need 3000xp to level up.
That's the point of this system. Not I'm going to give out XP like this today, and xp like this tomorrow, and XP like this next monday.
The problem exists only because he wants to do something this system isn't designed for. You're suppose to start at level 1 and go to level 20 on the same table. If he wants to cheat his players out of XP for an encounter, he doesn't need rules for that, he can keep reducing the XP how he's been doing it.
Sorry if I got you hung up on this one example, of shifting columns in mid campaign. The overarching point is that you are making things much more complicated in the long run by changing the XP targets instead of just giving out more/less XP.
For example, if you wanted to run a "low treasure" campaign, would you do it by giving out less treasure or changing every freaking thing you can buy to be more expensive?
Actually, I never thought of it until I was trying to highlight how illogical the multiple tracks are, but the game says nothing about how to give less/more treasure which seems like you'd have to if you wanted to slow down/speed up the game.
If you use a multiply XP by a factor, it's easy, you just do that to standard treasure awards too. It isn't clear what you'd do with the multiple tracks idea.
|
|
I agree to liking this system a great deal. It makes handing out XP at the end of session or even during session fast and effective(Normally right now I end up just telling the players later what they have gained, when I can sit down and look at the chart and see what they have fought).
Really, the only time you need to look at the XP to next level chart anyway is after a character is leveled and they are looking for what their next level is. Handing out of XP is something that happens much more commonly and thats where the simplicity should lay.
-Tarlane
i kind of like the 3 different xp selections, depending on how high powered of a game your running, we have used different xp tables in our d and d game b4 depending on what the character chooses to do IE, a Litorian from Arcana Evolved in taking racial lvl's is subject to that books xp, so when i was a 6th lvl Litorian(all Racial LVL's) i was accually in the xp chart almost a 7th lvl with XP. keeps the power curve down i think and how a GM wants to run his game
To tell the truth, I never even considered changing XP tracks.
I am running slow XP campaigns. The players know this, and do not even look at the other tracks -well, at least not while I'm around :).
|
|
To tell the truth, I never even considered changing XP tracks.
I don't know why anyone would. Pick an XP track based on the type of campaign it is. Funny part is I just recently noticed in Alpha 2, the last part about conversion talks about using XP percentages (my formula above) for figuring out where characters would convert to if you wanted precision conversion.
I don't see why you should recalculate XP. It would be much easier to simply lower the amount of XP you get for a challange to slow down the speed of progression.
The A2 XP-tables don't do anything else than that you have to overcome 15, 20, or whatever encounters to reach a new level. I translated it into thre rows of XP/CR and I don't see any difference. You can even use the original table for XP needed for next level.
XP = (Party Level * 4 * 1000)/# of Encounters needed for next level.
|
|
I like having the options available, I even had this vision of giving a game an old school feel by making the non casting classes level on the fast chart, the half casters on the mid chart, and the full casters on the slow chart.
I think this is the correct interpretation of the rule. Sure you could have a "slow" or "fast" campaign, but what I read led me to believe that character classes with a D6 for hit points (the sorceror and the wizard) would be on the slow progression to help balance the inequity of power between them and the fighter styled characters who are on the fast progression.
Additionally, I think this discussion could be clarified if the XP progression chart was printed on the chart with the class features and abilities.
As to options, well.....I used to play Rolemaster. It had something like 8 Companion books of optional rules. This just led to confusion and everyone using different rules for their game. The most popular and best received RPG of all time that had more players and ushered in the Golden Age of Roleplaying Games was AD&D (First Edition for all you pups).
It had limited optional rules and varied XP progression. Sure, Unearthed Arcana came along, but that was almost 10 years after the game to publication. It was also the beginnning of the end, which we now call 4th Edition.
|
|
I like the different XP tracks. I've been mulling around the idea of using all 3 in the same campaign; different XP tracks for different classes (ala 1e).
Fighter would be fasted. Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard would be slowest. Everyone else would be in the middle. Or something like that. I'm still thinking about it.
-Skeld
I like the different XP tracks. I've been mulling around the idea of using all 3 in the same campaign; different XP tracks for different classes (ala 1e).
Fighter would be fasted. Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard would be slowest. Everyone else would be in the middle. Or something like that. I'm still thinking about it.
-Skeld
This is initially what I thought the table was for! I thought that the different classes would have an entry in the class description that designated them as a fast, medium, or slow advancement class. It's not a bad idea, in my opinion, although I have a feeling that it would make things unbalanced, so then it probably isn't a good idea either.
Anyhow, I think that the three different rates being available for GMs to choose from is good.
I think this is the correct interpretation of the rule. Sure you could have a "slow" or "fast" campaign, but what I read led me to believe that character classes with a D6 for hit points (the sorceror and the wizard) would be on the slow progression to help balance the inequity of power between them and the fighter styled characters who are on the fast progression.
Hmm. Ya think? But while spellcasters may get beefier with magic the more they progress, fighter-types are not without their own advantages, including superior hit dice. Right now, and I'm looking at all these rules as someone who is new to 3.5E from 2E, things look fairly balanced between the classes. But that's just a first impression, and may not be a very well-informed one.
The most popular and best received RPG of all time that had more players and ushered in the Golden Age of Roleplaying Games was AD&D (First Edition for all you pups).
It had limited optional rules and varied XP progression. Sure, Unearthed Arcana came along, but that was almost 10 years after the game to publication. It was also the beginnning of the end, which we now call 4th Edition.
Spot on.
To turn again back to the "Slow/Fast XP Table" thing.
Well it is for me a great idea, but it should be compatible for the future, and in that case I am talking for people who want to play beyond 20th level. So the progression of the xp table remembers me back in time of 2nd edition. It is familiar even similar, but not the same! The progression ends at 20th level. Ok it is also based on 20th level, but even in 3.5E xp tables went beyond 20th level. And if I just put in mind what kind of paperwork it gets ...
Fast:
20th. 2.400.000 xp / 40th. 24.000.000 xp ? maybe
Medium:
20th. 3.600.000 xp / 40th. 36.000.000 xp ? maybe
Slow:
20th. 5.350.000 xp / 40th. 53.500.000 xp ? maybe
sounds of a lot paperwork huh ;),
some people might tend to play even beyond that level cap. *YeYe ^^)*