Ok,
I probably missed this since I'm sure it came up in the playtesting (which I missed), but I have been reading the beta rules and it seems that variable exp based on level has gone away? Or am I just not reading the rules correctly?
The reason I ask is, I played in a game with a GM a couple of years ago, and I travel a lot for work. So I'd miss about one out of 4 games. He didn't give out exp for me for any game I missed, even if my character was controlled by another player. Add on top of that the fact I joined and was made the level of the lowest character in the group (since it was an established game) and I was at a serious level disadvantage. Especially since the guy I was getting my starting level from was 3/4 to his next level, but I started at minimum for the level.
Fast forward 6 months, and I am always a level behind everyone, and 2 levels behind two people regularly. I get trashed in every fight, I can't keep up in combat (even being a warmage!), it's basically frustrating in the extreme.
The point is, the GM didn't believe in the fact that my 7th level warmage should get more experience for the 9th level encounter than the 9th level fighter did. So I could never catch up, was always at a disadvantage, and would always be falling farther and farther behind.
I really believe in the idea of 'If you are level 7, and you fight in a fight with level 9 people against a level 9 bad guy, you get more experience than they do'. After all, you are fighting way out of your level.
I really hope I'm reading this wrong...
Hey mdt :) - you're right, it did come up (frequently).
You're not "reading it wrong", but you are drawing the wrong conclusion.
The Pathfinder XP system works nearly *identically* to the 3.5 system, including the concept of lower level characters catching up. The numbers are even almost identical really. The Pathfinder system is simply "turned inside out".
The difference is in the XP, instead of the characters. If you have the Unearthed Arcana, it's about the same as the "Level-Independent XP Awards" towards the back of the book.
In 3.5 the XP needed to level has a linear progression, +1000 xp per level, over what was needed the previous level. In turn, each Challenge Rating provides a linearly increasing reward (+300) to an equal level party/character, which is then adjusted by the actual level.
In Pathfinder (and the UA system), the XP needed to level increases on an exponential progression, as does the reward for each CR. This exponential system results in an automatic "adjustment" based on level.
It's tricky to understand (I spent a few hours pondering it initially before literally gasping at the brilliance of it in the UA). The key is this: What does 1000xp mean to a 5th level character? What does it mean to a 10th level character?
In 3.5, it would be 1/5th of a level and 1/10th of a level respectively. In Pathfinder it would be 1/5th of a level and 1/34th of a level.
Now consider, what would give 1000 xp? In Pathfinder, that would be 2.5 CR 1 encounters, always, but let's look at 3.5. A CR 4 encounter would be 1000 xp for a 5th level character (alone), 1/5th of his level. That same encounter would be only 375 XP for a 10th level character, 1/27th of his level.
So - instead of adjusting how much XP you *get*, Pathfinder adjusts how much the XP is *worth* to you.
In the end, it works out almost precisely the same. The UA system did almost exactly, Pathfinder just cleaned it up a bit so the numbers came out better, since it didn't need to pretend to be compatible/identical.
Ok,
I see what you mean now. I honestly didn't pay any attention to the XP required per level. I had assumed it was SRD and didn't pay close attention to the numbers.
I'll have to think about it, but that kind of works for me. It would have solved my problem with my previous GM nicely. Thanks for explaining it, I'm sure I would have figured it out eventually, but I guess I was just being dense. :)
A single extra example (since it gets quite quite complicated to do an actual comparison):
Pathfinder:
1st level character, 0 xp
adventures with 15th level character.
15th level character gets enough xp to become 17th (425,000).
1st level character also gains 425,000 (since the many many deaths only apply removable negative levels now instead of actual level loss), enough to become 15th level.
Basically, any time the highest level person gains two levels, *everyone* else will be at least as high as two levels below, no matter the difference in levels.
They'll never "catch up" in XP, but they will in level.
2nd example (ya, I lied about the single example):
17th level character gains enough to be 20th (1.55M xp)
15th level character goes up to level 19.4 (40% of the way through 19th level, or a little over 1/2 a level behind).
I'll have to think about it, but that kind of works for me. It would have solved my problem with my previous GM nicely. Thanks for explaining it, I'm sure I would have figured it out eventually, but I guess I was just being dense. :)
That's actually the real beauty of the system, it reduces arguments immensely. I had a player who was much higher level (and much stronger even without being higher level) than most of the rest of the group in 3.5, and he got *extremely* tired of getting 1/4 to 1/8 the xp that the rest did. I eventually instituted a "double-averaged" system that combined 3.0 and 3.5 - averaging the party, then averaging each person with that to determine their XP reward.
I explained the Pathfinder system to that player, and how it was virtually identical to the system he hated... he had no problem with it at all. It was just the statement that the system made, that made him feel like his (much larger) effort was less important.
Your previous GM was probably used to 1st or 2nd edition (or maybe 3.0) where everyone always gets the same XP. This nicely circumvents the issue. Of course, 1st and 2nd *also* had exponential XP needed, and also circumvented this problem.
And for the record, you're not dense at all - a great number of people too a great amount of effort to explain it to...
Your previous GM was probably used to 1st or 2nd edition (or maybe 3.0) where everyone always gets the same XP. This nicely circumvents the issue. Of course, 1st and 2nd *also* had exponential XP needed, and also circumvented this problem.And for the record, you're not dense at all - a great number of people too a great amount of effort to explain it to...
Yep,
You nailed it in one. But, despite explaining over and over again why they went to level based experience, and showing him nice math that proved I'd never be able to catch up and always fall more behind, he refused to change the flat exp award. I eventually had my character die because of it, and started the whole mess over with another one that was only one level behind everyone else.Of course, this is the same GM that couldn't be made to understand that after about 6th level, the Challenge Ratings assumed magical gear, and he kept getting ticked off at WoTC for getting the CR's wrong when we came close to being killed by CR 8 monsters (none of us had more than MW armor/weapons, except for the fighter/cleric who had a +1 flaming sword he stole from a defeated fire elemental planar resident).
The guys a great guy, and has really really good stories, but the frustration level of actually playing under him isn't worth the good stories. When he plays in my games we have a great time. Oh well, thanks again for the explanation.
The rules aren't the problem. The GM is the problem. Stupid ways to handle XP, starting levels, and especially absent characters (if it's something you cannot really help) are the problem here. It's part of the "I don't give a damn you're not having a good time because your character isn't weak, I do things my way" Syndrome, which is often incurable and sometimes fatal (final stages result in GMs being beaten to death with wads of dead characters' sheets).
Of course, it could just be that he's oblivious to the problem.
Talk to him.
The rules aren't the problem. The GM is the problem. Stupid ways to handle XP, starting levels, and especially absent characters (if it's something you cannot really help) are the problem here. It's part of the "I don't give a damn you're not having a good time because your character isn't weak, I do things my way" Syndrome, which is often incurable and sometimes fatal (final stages result in GMs being beaten to death with wads of dead characters' sheets).
Of course, it could just be that he's oblivious to the problem.
Talk to him.
I did.
The other players did.
The first guy that quit did.
The second guy that quit did.
I quit.
The fourth guy (who replaced me) did, before he quit.
The guy's game finally imploded.
Then he moved away for work (leaving my game, which had taken off in the meantime).
Oh well, I pretty much agree with you though, it's the GM not paying attention to whether the players are having fun. I've done it in the past, and I try to ask everyone now 'Did you enjoy tonight?' at the end of each game. As long as there's no huge complaints (and I don't consider 'Man, how come we haven't gotten any treasure recently' to be a major complaint, since I know they are getting their rewards for all the pain and agony in a game or two (they've had about 5-6 games now with major battles but not a lot of treasure due to the types of opponents they have been having).
See? People like that can teach you so much. Well, it's so much of how not to do it, but experience means learning from mistakes, and it's always more fun to learn from other people's mistakes. It probably made you a better GM.
See? People like that can teach you so much. Well, it's so much of how not to do it, but experience means learning from mistakes, and it's always more fun to learn from other people's mistakes. It probably made you a better GM.
Heh,
I'd like to think so. :)
See? People like that can teach you so much. Well, it's so much of how not to do it, but experience means learning from mistakes, and it's always more fun to learn from other people's mistakes. It probably made you a better GM.
"No man is completely useless; he can always serve as a bad example."
-- david
Papa.DRB