|
It seems that the old method was a bit easier, but maybe not...now, there is no cross-reference of character level, simply the XP budget/CRs and then you hand out a number depending on the # of players in the group. I like it - it seems that with the higher XP required it takes longer to level, which seems to balance out the higher-powered nature of the classes. Is this a correct assessment? What do others think of the new XP system?
As a DM, I love it. Having to cross-reference CR vs level (especially with a party consisting of characters of different levels, because people miss sessions or die and lose out on experience, etc) was a total pain in the rear. Moving to a static xp-per-CR chart simplifies things a lot.
As a player, I'm ambivalent. Using the medium progression, we seem to be spot on target in our Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, which has been played in either beta or release rules the entire way. It's not much of a change as far as speed of progression is concerned (again, using medium rather than fast or slow).
I liked the old way better. That way if a player falls behind it is easier for them to catch up. If you dont want to do the XP for each character then you could just decide not to do it.
I do like the fact that there are 3 tables depending on how fast you like to level up. My group loves to gain levels so the fast one will always be used. Once I do the math to find out how many encounters on average it takes to level I will decide whether to use the pathfinder or 3.5 chart.
In my experience players that fell behind stayed behind, because they fell behind for a reason (usually missing a notable number of games). The XP curve for being behind a level or two wasn't dramatic enough to catch them back up unless you're running a really long campaign. I agree that the concept was nice, but the execution was lacking IMO.
In my experience players that fell behind stayed behind, because they fell behind for a reason (usually missing a notable number of games). The XP curve for being behind a level or two wasn't dramatic enough to catch them back up unless you're running a really long campaign. I agree that the concept was nice, but the execution was lacking IMO.
I think the importance of the levels depends on the difficulty of the campaign. The old way allowed for catching up if it was needed, but there was a variant method that went by the average party level. My group normally plays in longer, more difficult campaigns, so which method to use does vary from group to group. The new method does not prevent the old method however. Just give XP for the lower level character as if the entire party was that level. So in the end I guess it does not matter.
|
|
I think it is one of the best things that they did with 3.5. I did like the old system of giving no xp to lower encounters and scaling xp for different party members but overall PFRPG method for calculating xp and generating encounters is pretty incredible.
I currently run a game with 4 players and 5 more NPC/companions (all get an even share of xp,loot, risk). I have been able to use their 5 PC "baseline" for generating encounters, add +1 CR for each 2 PC/NPC's in the party over 5 (so standard encounters for them are at around +2 CR built in as a default) and have made several encounters up or down in CR relative to that baseline which have been spot on.
I never used the original 3.5 xp system as written. It was always 50% or less than suggested xp. PFRPG codified what I was already doing..very old school feel. I never liked the 13.3 encounters and you level up system, just seem lame and a bit too soft coming from 1st and 2nd ed DMing background.
In some respects they took the CR encounter building philosophy from 4e (one of the very few things I like) and tweaked the old system so that you can build a solidly consistent set of encounters with ease. Now when I have my baseline set up, I look at the xp total and go shopping for creatures, hazards, enviro, traps and combine them into encounters.
In 28 years of gaming, I would have to rate it an "A" system. The only reason I wouldn't give it an A+ is I would have liked to have seen far more examples and structure for non-combat difficulties, open ended rewards, rp rewards, etc.
I've just got to echo what's previously been said about 3.5 ed. characters advancing too quickly. I like my players to feel like a level-up is a real milestone, and it seems that with the restructuring of the classes in PF there's something new and fun at each level, which will hopefully decrease players' tendency to switch back and forth between classes to avoid "dead" levels.
I've never fully understood the rationale behind the scaling xp awards (or treasure for that matter) as it seems to me that the scaling is built into the levels themselves. Similar to Auxmaulous, I think combat is still too xp-heavy and would like to see more detail and consideration given to roleplaying and end-of-adventure awards. This isn't a real complaint since I award xp based on my common sense as a DM, so I guess it's all just semantics.
Zo
Just a small clarification.
Despite having a different Xp formula, the PRPG Fast progression work exactly in the same way of the 3.x Xp progression; 13 encounters of the same CR of the party level (for a 4-men party) to level up.
1st level characters with 0 xp need 1300 xp to level up to 2nd. A CR 1 encounter gives 100 xp to each character = 13 encounters.
6th level characters with 10000 xp need 8000 xp to level up to 7th (23000 - 15000). A CR 6 encounter gives 600 xp to each character = 13.3 encounters.
13th level characters with 210000 xp need 85000 xp to level up to 14th level (295000 - 210000). A CR 13 encounter gives 6400 xp to each character = 13,28 encounters.
19th level characters with 1700000 xp need 700000 xp to level up to 20th level (2400000 - 1700000). A CR 19 encounter gives 51200 xp to each character = 13,6 encounters.
With Medium progression, the number of encounters rises to 20.
With Slow progression, the number of encounters rises to 30.
Any creature, trap or challenge whose CR is lower than the level of the party by 10 or more do not award any xp.
|
I'm quite happy that I have the option of running a faster or slower campaign that I don't have to do extra work on or watch to see if I'm giving too much XP.
As a player, I don't exactly mind being a certain level for a bit longer then normal. There is stuff to do at level 5 just like at level 12.
Plus slower XP grind normally means more loot! GPs before EPs!
|
|
One thing I noticed is that the Erebus campaign assumes leveling at certain points in the campaign, but it doesn't seem to match up with the medium progression as stated, since it does take more to level in pathfinder. Oh well, that's where the DM responsibility comes in to engender creative fill-in encounters.
It seems that the old method was a bit easier, but maybe not...now, there is no cross-reference of character level, simply the XP budget/CRs and then you hand out a number depending on the # of players in the group. I like it - it seems that with the higher XP required it takes longer to level, which seems to balance out the higher-powered nature of the classes. Is this a correct assessment? What do others think of the new XP system?
It's a lot easier, as the numbers are independent of character level so you don't have to cross-reference anything, or look stuff up twice if some characters are behind in levels.
Calculating the effective encounter level is a lot easier now, too, as you can just add up XP rewards and look that up (no more "X creatures of CR Y are ECL Z" table).
If you use the fast advancement track, the numbers also work out the same as in 3.5. The changes are minimal. Sure, they look a lot larger, but the you still need the same amount of encounters to advance a level.
You can now even award people XP for "trivial" tasks (i.e. give the level 15 character XP for a common goblin), since with tens of thousands of XP needed for the next level, those 100 XP won't really change anything.
|
|
It seems that the old method was a bit easier, but maybe not...now, there is no cross-reference of character level, simply the XP budget/CRs and then you hand out a number depending on the # of players in the group. I like it - it seems that with the higher XP required it takes longer to level, which seems to balance out the higher-powered nature of the classes. Is this a correct assessment? What do others think of the new XP system?
I must say the even though the new system is easier I like the 3.5 version. The fact that it scales depending on the CR compared to them (even down to zero if it is too easy).
It also allows character of lower level then the majority of the party to slowly catch up.
I liked the old way better. That way if a player falls behind it is easier for them to catch up. If you dont want to do the XP for each character then you could just decide not to do it.
Lower-level characters still catch up, so to speak.
For instance (using the Fast chart), if a 1st level character (with 0 xp) joins a 7th level party (with 23,000 xp), then they'll all be level 11 after gaining 71,000 xp.
I'm quite happy that I have the option of running a faster or slower campaign that I don't have to do extra work on or watch to see if I'm giving too much XP.
As a player, I don't exactly mind being a certain level for a bit longer then normal. There is stuff to do at level 5 just like at level 12.
Plus slower XP grind normally means more loot! GPs before EPs!
Not true, there is also a slow, medium, and fast wealth chart that depends on which XP chart is being use.
I was tempted to have humans use the fast xp system and elves the slow.
Mainly because I don't like elves :)
And yes it is soooo much easier to do xps at the end of an evening when your tired. Thankyou!
|
|
I'm favor the new system over 3.5's. It is much easier than the old one just divide the XP for the monster by the number of players. Although I will probally not allow XP awards for encounters that are going to be way to easy. Otherwise you might have an awful lot of evil wizards fireballing towns for their next level. (2,000 people X 100 xp each = 200,000 xp.)
I think the -10 CR equaling no xp as maybe being a bit too generous to the players. I might lower the threshold to -7CR, still need to do the math.
In the case of the wizard, I don't think he should get xp for each villager but maybe get a higher CR for either destroying or wholly subjugating the village. Maybe even loose xp if he loses control of the place later on.
To me xp should be about challenge, if a bunch of 8th level PCs take on hordes of CR 1 encounters I don't think they should get squat. If the CR 1 challenge gets something to raise their threat - in the village example - using siege engines with dedicated warriors assigned, specialized attackers in position- such as orcish archers on a rise with cover, then I would give them the points.
Wiping out villagers en mass would net the 8th (or higher level) PC nothing unless he actually wiped out or took over the community.
Again, some expanded xp rules would be nice (like neg xp for failure, or xp for running a town, etc) but I assume they will be coming out in the upcoming Gamemaster Guide. Hopefully
The fact that it scales depending on the CR compared to them (even down to zero if it is too easy).
The way the new numbers are set up, they very nearly do the same thing:
The XP you get for encounters, and the XP you need for the next level, rises exponentially.
That means that even though you do get XP for laughably easy tasks, the it is so little that it can be compared to a single step in a Marathon run.
"Yay, my level 19 character single-handedly kills that CR 1 fighter! How much closer does that get me to level 20?"
"Well, you were already halfway there before you nuked that sucker, and the fighter nets you 400 gp, so, you only need to do this 874 more times!"
And that's on fast track.
It also allows character of lower level then the majority of the party to slowly catch up.
As does the new system.
Say your party just turned level 5, and a new character joins in at 4th level.
Assuming fast track again, the party has 10000 XP, while the laggard only has 6000. Holy fast XP progression, Batman! Four thousand experience points! He'll never catch up!
Of course he'll never catch up, because they'll likely always be 4000 XP apart (unless he does some solo work).
But as you gain levels, those 4000 XP will be less and less significant. Here's the number of fights of each CR the laggard will need to be in in order to "catch up", i.e. be the same level as everybody else (provided it's a party of four)
CR 4: 13,33
CR 5: 10
CR 6: 6,67
CR 7: 5
CR 8: 3,33
CR 9: 2,5
CR 10: 1,67
CR 11: 1,25
CR 12: 0,83
CR 13: 0,63
CR 14: 0,42
CR 15: 0,31
CR 16: 0,21
CR 17: 0,16
CR 18: 0,10
CR 19: 0,08
CR 20: 0,05
Sure, for the next couple of levels, he will lag behind for several fights. By level 8, it will not be that bad, any more. By level 12, it will be less than one fight. Depending on how the numbers run, chances are they will level-up in the same fight!
Otherwise you might have an awful lot of evil wizards fireballing towns for their next level. (2,000 people X 100 xp each = 200,000 xp.)
That is less than a tenth of a level for a wizard that can kill 2000 people with a single fireball. :P
A wizard that can kill 2000 people with a single fireball could likely go through 11 or more towns in a single day.
|
|
Not true, there is also a slow, medium, and fast wealth chart that depends on which XP chart is being use.
That's very true, but I'd like to think I'll still come out ahead despite that. More foes faced means more gear recovered for resale. Even with the cost of the store front we'll be doing good business!
Anyone want to buy a slightly used suit of chainmail? Only one previous owner...
Is this the flea market?
I have one Andoran warhorse for sale. Like all Andoran warhorses, this one was trained to ride backwards, though it can still ride forwards, too (sometimes, Andoran knights are attacked from the rear).
If even half of those 2,000 people got an attack before the wizard fried them (it's impossible to hit 2,000 people with the same fireball, even widened and repeated), that's 1,000 attacks. Even if the villagers require a 20 to hit using a rock picked up off the street, that's 50 hits and 2 crits, for 52d3+52 (assuming a +1 strength modifier for commonfolk) damage. That's 156 damage on average and almost certainly enough to drop the wizard stupid enough to think he can just fireball towns all day long.
The down side though, is if a character falls behind, they stay behind and can't catch up like they did in 3.5.
They couldn't "catch up" in 3.5 either. They could narrow the XP gap through party XP gain when they were a level behind, but they couldn't actually get to the same amount of XP.
Pathfinder is actually very similar - lower-levelled characters get a much greater portion of their total XP-to-level in a specific encounter, and so will "catch up" to the other players fairly quickly - while the actual XP differential won't change, the relative value of that XP difference gets smaller as the XP-to-level total increases.
They couldn't "catch up" in 3.5 either. They could narrow the XP gap through party XP gain when they were a level behind, but they couldn't actually get to the same amount of XP.
Not true. Thanks to a big encounter at the end of a chapter a couple weeks ago, while playing 3.5, I became the highest exp character. (The other party members had just leveled, and I was just shy of leveling, prior to that.) Not only did I catch up... I now have the highest exp in the group.
"The new XP system" makes me think somebody didn't play prior to 3.0. :) It's an excellent hybrid, and one of the few things 4th Edition also did right.
Well, I'm not interested, but that's because I plan on dumping XP in my games. Leveling will take place at points appropriate to my story, not at the behest of an arbitrary chart. :)
I do something similar, but the new XP system allows me to calculate about when the leveling up should happen.
I use the slow track (yeah, I know, I am cruel and evil) and mix in modules with our current AP. Being able to know how much XP any particular monster will give, regardless of the player's level, makes my life much easier.
If even half of those 2,000 people got an attack before the wizard fried them (it's impossible to hit 2,000 people with the same fireball, even widened and repeated), that's 1,000 attacks. Even if the villagers require a 20 to hit using a rock picked up off the street, that's 50 hits and 2 crits, for 52d3+52 (assuming a +1 strength modifier for commonfolk) damage. That's 156 damage on average and almost certainly enough to drop the wizard stupid enough to think he can just fireball towns all day long.
Subtract those who cannot see the invisible wizard. And those who cannot get to him because he is flying.
Commoners with rocks and pitchforks won't stop a powerful wizard, ever.
But who knows what powerful threats to a marauding wizard lurk in a sleepy town?
Well, as the GM, I do! }>
Subtract those who cannot see the invisible wizard. And those who cannot get to him because he is flying.
Now add the captain of the watch, the town militia, the clergy of the local church, all the retired adventurers, and any adventuring party in town.
I was being generous with my villager example.
|
Not true. Thanks to a big encounter at the end of a chapter a couple weeks ago, while playing 3.5, I became the highest exp character. (The other party members had just leveled, and I was just shy of leveling, prior to that.) Not only did I catch up... I now have the highest exp in the group.
Heh, that's pretty good. :)
IMO that's one very big reason why the new PF XP calculation is better -- the type of advancement that you describe should never be possible. It's an artifact of the mathematics behind XP calculation in 3.x. If the GM instead applied the amount of XP as percentages, it wouldn't have happened.
For example, say you were 10% away from being at the next level, while the rest of the party was already 10% into the next level. (Call it level 9 for discussion's sake.) You would be awarded 10% of the L8 XP and then 90% of the L9 XP. The rest of the group would get 100% of the L9 XP.
This would keep the L8 character perpetually behind the rest of the party -- close, but never quite catching up.
If a PC has less XP for some reason, then they are paying a price for something that the PC did or some situation the PC was in. I don't like to withhold XP from a PC whose player can't make it one night -- it's too much like metagaming. Instead, one of the other players takes over that PC so that they don't get behind in the XP curve. (Using MapTool to hold all encounter-related information such as attack sequences, AC bonuses, spell abilities, and so on makes it much easier for another player to take over the character for one night.) A player who misses the game long-term risks being replaced with another player (we're getting close to that now in my game with a player who's had severe computer issues -- and has been traveling -- a lot for the last few weeks).