|
Has anyone experimented with the idea of using different experience point tables dependent on average class level for the party? I had the thought of using the fast progression table until level 6 or 7, the medium progression until somewhere between 13-15, and then rounding it out with the slow progression for level 14 - 16+ (dependent on when medium ends).
Is this a idea seem crazy or unfair? Your thoughts, please!
It's not crazy. And it is only unfair if you don't at least warn your players first.
That said, I'm not fond of it. My regular 3.5 GM uses a custom XP chart that works similarly. (Simplified, you divide the XP you receive by your level.)
I find it annoyingly slow. But that is me. If your group likes it, I love it.
I think that advancement slows down at higher levels, anyway.
If you think it's too fast, slow it down. But be sure to talk to your players first. You don't want to bore them with playing the same level (without new goodies) for a year.
Find out what your players like/prefer and what they would be okay with. If they don't mind, or even prefer, staying on the same power level for a longer time, you should do it.
All I know is that I would get bored with that, and most of my players would be the same I think.
I think that advancement slows down at higher levels, anyway.
Not if you're fighting level-appropriate opponents (e.g. CR = average party level); the Medium chart will still take 20 encounters to go up a level, for instance.
To the original poster: I think you'd be better off trying to reduce the XP received by some factor (e.g. you only get 2/3 as much XP after level 10, say) rather than trying to splice two of the XP tables together (which would essentially do the same thing anyways).
Not if you're fighting level-appropriate opponents (e.g. CR = average party level); the Medium chart will still take 20 encounters to go up a level, for instance.
I think he meant in terms of 'table time', since high-level combat takes longer and their adventures are more unbounded.
(In 3.5 there was also the chance of level-loss and energy drain slowing you down more, but that's no longer an issue.)
In my group, we don't even keep up with XP. I decide when everyone levels up. Since I write all my own campaigns, it works to my advantage. I don't have to worry about the players wondering around looking for random encounters cuz they are about to level. My players like it too, pretty much for the same reason. At certain points during the story I will say "bright lights flash from your bodies and you feel like your better than you were 2 seconds ago." We all find this funny cuz we played "Champions of Norrath" a lot.
|
I think I would actually reverse that, slow at low
medium at the middle and fast at high level...those encounters take so long. why make them do 30 of them to get 1 level.
If you want to emulate the 1e experience, then you change certain classes to be fast medium or slow
examples:
rogue,monk=fast
sorcerer,fighter=medium
wizard=SLOOOOOW..
with different XP charts, sorcs and wizards end up casting the same level spells around the same level of XP...
I think I would actually reverse that, slow at low
medium at the middle and fast at high level...those encounters take so long. why make them do 30 of them to get 1 level.If you want to emulate the 1e experience, then you change certain classes to be fast medium or slow
examples:
rogue,monk=fast
sorcerer,fighter=medium
wizard=SLOOOOOW..with different XP charts, sorcs and wizards end up casting the same level spells around the same level of XP...
Ouch, there's something that sounds really risky.
Have you playtested this? or was this just an off-the-cuff suggestion?
I've been DMing my game where it was fast from 1st to 5th then medium the rest of the way. At fifth level we just replaced the 10,000 experience earn to make it 5th level with 15,000 and progressed from there. It was my players idea because they find levels 5-12 to be the best levels and wanted to progress through them a little slower.
Not if you're fighting level-appropriate opponents
Well, those encounters do take longer to resolve.
Plus, I've found that at higher levels, the field often is drawn out, since it can be drawn out. At lower levels, going above the average party level can quickly wipe out the party, and there's not that much room for having weaker enemies.
But at higher levels, characters can weather heavier storms, and you can have more lower-level encounters. Plus, they make more sense the higher you get, since it gets lonelier the higher you go.