Ok, so I was just introduced to Pathfinder (and loving it) and was an avid 3.5 player. The experience chart in 3.5 had an easy formula to follow to find what experience you needed for your level, the formula went as follows:
Exp. needed for next level = (Current Character lvl x 1000) + Exp. needed for last lvl (Ex: Exp. needed for lvl 4 = 3 x 1000 + 3000)
I've looked at the current Exp. charts in the Pathfinder Core Book on pg. 30 and have not found any seemingly easy pattern or formula as what was in 3.5.
I'm wondering if anyone knows of any sort of pattern or formula?
|
You may want to check out Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Conversion Guide (OGL) PDF. I am not sure if there is a formula, but this document will help you with any conversions.
Nothing in it, already checked.
Ok, so I was just introduced to Pathfinder (and loving it) and was an avid 3.5 player. The experience chart in 3.5 had an easy formula to follow to find what experience you needed for your level, the formula went as follows:
Exp. needed for next level = (Current Character lvl x 1000) + Exp. needed for last lvl (Ex: Exp. needed for lvl 4 = 3 x 1000 + 3000)
I've looked at the current Exp. charts in the Pathfinder Core Book on pg. 30 and have not found any seemingly easy pattern or formula as what was in 3.5.
I'm wondering if anyone knows of any sort of pattern or formula?
It is very nearly a sum of exponentially increasing amounts. Something along the lines of 1000*2^(Exp/(2000*level)) for medium progression will get you fairly close. It might be 1000*level, fudge around with that expression until you get something that at least gets you to be the same level. The fast progression lines up with the 3.5 in terms of fighting the same monsters and it's faster than medium by like 30%. So fast conversion would be like 650*2^(Exp/(2000*level)). This is fast and loose, but should work.
The pattern is a bit more complex than the one in 3e:
Basically, the extra amount of XP you need for level X is twice as much as you need for level X-2. Level 5 needs 6000 (15000-9000), while level 3 needs 3000 (5000-2000).
It starts at 2000 for level 2 on medium progression, and 1.5 that for the next level to get the ball rolling. Multiply with 1.5 for slow, divide by 1.5 for fast.
The numbers are "rounded" sometimes, like 105000 instead of 107000 for medium 10, which can throw you off the scent. And with the fast progression, the rounding starts way earlier, which can be even more confusing.
The pattern is a bit more complex than the one in 3e:
Basically, the extra amount of XP you need for level X is twice as much as you need for level X-2. Level 5 needs 6000 (15000-9000), while level 3 needs 3000 (5000-2000).
It starts at 2000 for level 2 on medium progression, and 1.5 that for the next level to get the ball rolling. Multiply with 1.5 for slow, divide by 1.5 for fast.
The numbers are "rounded" sometimes, like 105000 instead of 107000 for medium 10, which can throw you off the scent. And with the fast progression, the rounding starts way earlier, which can be even more confusing.
While that'd technically be a concern if they didn't choose base 2, there's a handy mathematical expression, Sum(2^x) from -infinity to n = 2^(n+1). Note that the amount of xp needed to go from level 7 to level 9 is twice the amount needed to go from level 9 to level 11.
It is very nearly a sum of exponentially increasing amounts. Something along the lines of 1000*2^(Exp/(2000*level)) for medium progression will get you fairly close. It might be 1000*level, fudge around with that expression until you get something that at least gets you to be the same level. The fast progression lines up with the 3.5 in terms of fighting the same monsters and it's faster than medium by like 30%. So fast conversion would be like 650*2^(Exp/(2000*level)). This is fast and loose, but should work.
Could you work out an example please, I'm having troubles plugging in the information.
I had been intending to just use the system I developed for my 3.5 game. I like the numbers in 3.5: easy to use and understand. And I used my own system for giving out XP which gave about half as much as the DMG did for combat encounters, and then I gave out about the same amount for role playing.
As far as I know, I won't break the game by using the 3.5 numbers instead of the Pathfinder numbers for XP. After all, it's still just a number.
It is very nearly a sum of exponentially increasing amounts. Something along the lines of 1000*2^(Exp/(2000*level)) for medium progression will get you fairly close. It might be 1000*level, fudge around with that expression until you get something that at least gets you to be the same level. The fast progression lines up with the 3.5 in terms of fighting the same monsters and it's faster than medium by like 30%. So fast conversion would be like 650*2^(Exp/(2000*level)). This is fast and loose, but should work.Could you work out an example please, I'm having troubles plugging in the information.
Eh, I got it wrong. Lemme whip up excel and do a trendline.
Aight, got it. I forgot that total XP was quadratic in level.
Your XP at each level in 3.5 is 500*level*(level+1). So solving for your level in terms of your XP. Effective Level (EL) = 1/2+Sqrt(1/4+XP/500) this calculation is if you don't want to lose anything by simply rounding off your XP to the nearest level. XP in pathfinder (medium progression) is XP = 2000*2^((EL+1)/2)). Now this formula falls a little short of their XP by level chart, though it really only seems to be about 1 encounters worth on a few sample calculations. Also it will fall shorter at higher levels since PF's progression isn't exactly exponential.
As far as I know, I won't break the game by using the 3.5 numbers instead of the Pathfinder numbers for XP. After all, it's still just a number.
Paizo couldn't use the 3.5 experience chart though, since it unfortunately isn't part of the OGL.
Interesting.
I noticed that the 3.5 experience chart was almost exactly the same as the Villians and Vigilantes experience chart. The only difference was that V&V required an extra thousand XP to hit each level.
So I suppose Paizo could have just required an extra 550 xp to hit each level.
The much bigger numbers compared to 3e also serve another purpose:
In 3e, the XP you gained for an encounter depended not only on the CR, but also on your level. The idea was that easier encounters should not be as rewarding as more difficult ones.
By going exponential in Pathfinder, they can achieve the same without the extra referential step: You get the same amount of XP for an encounter no matter what level you are, but since higher levels require so much more XP (and higher-level challenges award so much more XP), easier encounters net you a less significant gain, and all without having to cross-reference the XP chart. That also means they can just write down the XP a monster will grant you, right next to the CR!
Your XP at each level in 3.5 is 500*level*(level+1). So solving for your level in terms of your XP. Effective Level (EL) = 1/2+Sqrt(1/4+XP/500) this calculation is if you don't want to lose anything by simply rounding off your XP to the nearest level. XP in pathfinder (medium progression) is XP = 2000*2^((EL+1)/2)). Now this formula falls a little short of their XP by level chart, though it really only seems to be about 1 encounters worth on a few sample calculations. Also it will fall shorter at higher levels since PF's progression isn't exactly exponential.
It isn't exponential, damn this really quite annoying. If you chart out the XP needed between level's it's very chaotic, there is no set pattern, it seems like they just through random numbers. Unless they developed the XP chart from the XP received from encounters.
Your XP at each level in 3.5 is 500*level*(level+1). So solving for your level in terms of your XP. Effective Level (EL) = 1/2+Sqrt(1/4+XP/500) this calculation is if you don't want to lose anything by simply rounding off your XP to the nearest level. XP in pathfinder (medium progression) is XP = 2000*2^((EL+1)/2)). Now this formula falls a little short of their XP by level chart, though it really only seems to be about 1 encounters worth on a few sample calculations. Also it will fall shorter at higher levels since PF's progression isn't exactly exponential.It isn't exponential, damn this really quite annoying. If you chart out the XP needed between level's it's very chaotic, there is no set pattern, it seems like they just through random numbers. Unless they developed the XP chart from the XP received from encounters.
Well the difference in XP between levels is nearly exponential.
XP needed to go to next level (in thousands):2
3
4
6
8
12
16
24
This is an exact exponential for the medium progression through level 9. However their rounding afterwards throws it off.
A comparison between the exact exponential that my math is based and the actual table
2
3
4
6
8
12
16
24
32
48
64
96
128
192
256
384
512
768
1024
2
3
4
6
8
12
16
24
30
50
65
95
130
190
255
410
500
750
1050
They nearly follow the XP required doubles every other level from 3.5, just with rounding which makes anything short of a 19 degree polynomial fail to produce an exact match. Now if you can convince your GM or just want to use it yourself, Xp req'd at each level set to match an exact exponential will go as follows (in thousands):
2
5
9
15
23
35
51
75
107
155
219
313
441
633
889
1273
1785
2553
3077
I like the new method much better then what was in 3E. Yes knowing what you needed to level was easier to figure out but looking something up on a chart is not that hard to do. Pathfinder is much more like the method used in Basic to 2nd ed D&D.
It has the advantage of just being able to add up the XP for all the things you do and divide it up among the party. No trying to figure out how much that dragon is worth based upon the level of the party... and no trying to figure out how much player B gets vs Player A who is a level behind for missing a session or two.
Additionally by having a steep curve on how much XP you get it is easier for players who miss a session or two to catch back up as the 3K XP they missed out on four levels ago is going to be made up by less then one encounter at higher levels.
Overall an old school feel and it works very well. Plus players always feed like they are getting MORE as they level up and the numbers get bigger for the boss fights.
I think the biggest problem with looking something up on the chart is, well, maybe I don't have the chart in front of me. Having a nice formula is handy so that I can do the calculation without having to pull out the book and turn to the page. It can be a big time saver, and saves a lot of wear and tear on the books.
I also like scaling XP per level. For one thing it makes sense. In my own system, a 1st level PC killing an orc warrior for the first time got double the normal amount, or 180 xp total. A 10th level PC killing a 1st level orc warrior isn't learning that much, so only gets 9 XP for the effort. Hardly even worth it.
I guess you can get the same effect by scaling the XP needed for the next level.
I found the exp system in Pathfinder puzzeling a little when I first saw it...it got rid of two things I liked...
1) Striaght forward math.
2) Allowing some measure of catch up if somebody falls a level behind.
But I like it now as it got rid of LAs...I am playing a Drow in a game. The gamne started at 3rd level...my drow started at 2ned level. The character will always be a 2,000 exp behind...but as we get higher level and those cool drow abilities become less important the 2000 exp lag...becomes less of an issue. I mean I have not worked it out yet but my guess is around 12th level...I won't even notice it.
So rather this was intentional or not...it did fix some issues with the LA system.
Though...you really can't have people lag behind anymore....
|
|
Additionally by having a steep curve on how much XP you get it is easier for players who miss a session or two to catch back up as the 3K XP they missed out on four levels ago is going to be made up by less then one encounter at higher levels.Overall an old school feel and it works very well. Plus players always feed like they are getting MORE as they level up and the numbers get bigger for the boss fights.
+1
I have a group that rotates players a lot - people have to cancel because of busy schedules and it's hard to get the exact same group together every time. The exponential progression means that people who are behind get to catch up eventually.
And I have always felt that the power of the characters (and the monsters) grows exponentially with level/CR in Pathfinder, so it just makes sense for the XP value to do so as well. (4E appears to have a more flat/linear progression, and so i think 4E's flatter curve makes sense there.)
The only advantage I find in the 3.x system is that reflected the little-to-no danger involved in fighting enemies of significantly lower level - you wouldn't want PCs focusing on killing large numbers of mooks just to farm XP. But a GM could put a stop to that without unnecessarily complicating the math.
That seems like an issue to me as my group has frequent deaths. Does PF have a mechanism for lagging PCs to catch up or is it up to DM fiat?Though...you really can't have people lag behind anymore....
Catching up is discussed in this post and those following.