I am wondering what the logic lies behind the Pathfinder XP system. In 3.5E, for example, the system was designed for the characters to level every 13.3333... encounters, assuming they encountered level-appropriate challenges. There was also a simple XP formula of how much XP is needed to attain a new level.
Pathfinder obviously needed to change this, since the 3.5E XP system is not OGL. Different (much higher) XP requirements for advancing levels were also needed due to the switch to level-independed XP gains. What I am wondering about, though, is why the specific number were chosen... other than simply, 'well, we need a bigger number so let's arbitrarily choose this kind of progression'.
Also, I am wondering why some sort of simpler formula was not chosen for XP requirements to attain a given level.
My understanding is that each module has about 4 level-appropriate encounters, so three modules = 12 level-appropriate encounters. O.K., it's not 13.3333, but it's close enough (especially if you suppose that characters might be getting "story awards" for non-combat encounters).
Oops...I thought you were talking about Pathfinder Society, not Pathfinder RPG (why does everything have to be called Pathfinder?).
The logic is that the Medium chart is 20 level-appropriate encounters per level (almost exactly). The Slow chart is 30 encounters/level and the Fast chart is 13.33 encounters/level (but with some rounding error).
Oops...I thought you were talking about Pathfinder Society, not Pathfinder RPG (why does everything have to be called Pathfinder?).
So true! It does capitalize on the brand, but it also creates confusion.
The logic is that the Medium chart is 20 level-appropriate encounters per level (almost exactly). The Slow chart is 30 encounters/level and the Fast chart is 13.33 encounters/level (but with some rounding error).
Thanks for the answer - this is indeed what I was looking for, when asking the question.
Also, I am wondering why some sort of simpler formula was not chosen for XP requirements to attain a given level.
The simplification wasn't at the players' end. In fact, it's a bit harder for the players (well, for me anyway, since I'm good at math and recognized the 3.x pattern instantly and can calculate the start/end of any level in my head practically instantly).
The real simplification is at the DM's end. Handing out XP became a whole world easier than before, especially if your PCs are not all the same level.
Since players look up their XP once per level and write it down (if they're smart), but DM's calculate XP over a dozen times per level (really, it's probably more like 40-50 times per level, since encounters with multiple enemies require multiple XP calculations), I'm all for simplifying the DM's end even if it complicates the players' end.
Also, I am wondering why some sort of simpler formula was not chosen for XP requirements to attain a given level.The simplification wasn't at the players' end. In fact, it's a bit harder for the players (well, for me anyway, since I'm good at math and recognized the 3.x pattern instantly and can calculate the start/end of any level in my head practically instantly).
The pattern is still semi-logical: The amount of XP needed to go up a level doubles every 2 levels. Of course, there is some rounding that spoils the pattern, but that's the underlying idea.