|
Ok, I've read so many posts asking about which advancement track to use, what to change for parties of more, or less than 4 pcs, and what encounters to use, to not fall behind, that I started to wonder, how many of you guys take xps serious?!
I know, they have to be in the rules-system, but I don't use them at all!
I always tell my players, that they will level up, when the time is right regarding my campaign-planning. It's so much easier to plan a campaign, and it makes it easier to insert other stuff, which is not part of an AP, for example.
In the end, it's not GM vs players, so my players know that I won't cheat them, or keep them less effective against opponents on purpose.
How do you guys do XPs? Do you use them as precisely as possible, or any other way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh hey look it's "Lol XPs R Stoopid" thread #82798169726876.
I use them because I like to use them, and keeping track of a few numbers doesn't take very much effort on my part either. End of story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in my day, everyone had different XP charts and you had a percentile modification to how much XP you gained depending on your stats.
Kids these days are too lazy to do math.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't generally use xp, not because I'm incapable of math or anything like that, but primarily because our gaming schedule isn't always consistent, and I'm not always 100% in synch with my players when it comes to what rate we all think we should be advancing at. Sometimes something I thought was going to be a really cool plot-hook that would give my guys a chance to grab some experience just doesn't interest them and I end up having to jump ahead a bit. On a strict experience track sometimes that'll leave them at a lower level than I'd intended for the encounters they'll be moving into, so I use an event based leveling system instead. It also helps keep my players who miss a night because of work or something similar on track with the rest of the group. I'll pick key events or story completion points to advance my party members, and that seems to work fairly well.
That being said, I find that when I personally am the player, my own preferences vary from my groups a bit in that I actually prefer to track experience and like to know that those random street fights, roaming goblins, and various other side quests are actually helping contribute to the character I'm becoming as more than just sidenotes in my history.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
XP is an outdated mechanic that is carried over almost entirely on the weight of "tradition".
I now level characters up by plot. I've been doing that for the past two years now and I have found it to be a major improvement in gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I threw XP out the window back in AD&D first edition. It always seemed completely and utterly pointless, and more an ego stroke to PCs than anything.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally have no problem about people who don't want to use XP in their campaign. You can easily create a mechanic where characters level whenever they achieve a particular plot element.
I use XP because my players expect it. Advantages of using XP:
- You can give out token XP awards for good roleplaying (and penalties for bad roleplaying).
- You can set a different XP reward depending on the type of solution to an encounter (e.g. you might give the players an additional XP bonus for finding a diplomatic solution rather than hack 'n slash).
- Players like counting how much XP they have and, therefore, seeing how far they are to the next level - it gives them something to aim for.
- Tradition does matter!
My players know that if they haven't hit a certain XP target by a certain point in the plot they'll have to deal with random encounters to make up the difference. It gives them a bit of added incentive to immerse themselves in the present story more thoroughly before moving on to ensure they've squeezed as much XP as they can from it so they don't have as many random encounters to deal with later (story XP is usually easier and more fun to collect then random encounter XP).
Meh, most of your reasons to DO XP pretty much match some of my reasons for DITCHING XP Diplomat.
Token XP awards potentially create disparity between player characters and can be frequent causes for accusations of GM favoritism.
Arbitrary XP awards based on GM whim might cause players to wonder how to play to please the GM, as opposed to simply playing their characters.
Counting XP risks having players thinking about their next level instead of playing to their current abilities.
Tradition only matters when the traditional thing is a good thing. Bad traditions simply perpetuate bad things.
I know a lot of people love XP. I played for decades with XP and never really realized what it was doing to my games until I played with a GM who had ditched XP and I introduced it back to our group. After just a few sessions we totally ditched it and never looked back. In retrospect I find that I have virtually zero good memories involving XP and lots and lots of frustrations and disagreements over it.
My attitude now is probably best summarized as "good riddance."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh hey look it's "Lol XPs R Stoopid" thread #82798169726876.
I use them because I like to use them, and keeping track of a few numbers doesn't take very much effort on my part either. End of story.
I believe the question was:
How do you guys do XPs? Do you use them as precisely as possible, or any other way?
He's probably curious as to how it might improve his gaming, and is clearly curious on how he can try it out. Not sure you addressed that, more so than attacked him for even asking.
Ok, I've read so many posts asking about which advancement track to use, what to change for parties of more, or less than 4 pcs, and what encounters to use, to not fall behind, that I started to wonder, how many of you guys take xps serious?!
I know, they have to be in the rules-system, but I don't use them at all!I always tell my players, that they will level up, when the time is right regarding my campaign-planning. It's so much easier to plan a campaign, and it makes it easier to insert other stuff, which is not part of an AP, for example.
In the end, it's not GM vs players, so my players know that I won't cheat them, or keep them less effective against opponents on purpose.
How do you guys do XPs? Do you use them as precisely as possible, or any other way?
XP really doesn't achieve anything, and its pure accounting, which is wasted game time. It often leads to frustrations, such as when you're only 100 XP away from the next level. GM's often just give it to their players, which proves that XP is just a silly attempt at disguising the fact that GMs are leveling their players up at a specific rate, which is always in tendem to the plot.
You're right to just go with Plot-advancement; going back to XP will feel like traveling back to the 80s, where the only phones were corded, and stone-wash jeans and crew cuts were the mainstay. Oh, and Polka Dots were freakin everywhere :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a previous campaign I ran using a different D20 game I used the story-based advancement method and it worked perfectly well within the context of that campaign.
In the current Pathfinder campaign I'm running I used XP-based advancement and it works perfectly well for this campaign.
Token XP awards potentially create disparity between player characters and can be frequent causes for accusations of GM favoritism.
Arbitrary XP awards based on GM whim might cause players to wonder how to play to please the GM, as opposed to simply playing their characters.
Counting XP risks having players thinking about their next level instead of playing to their current abilities.
Tradition only matters when the traditional thing is a good thing. Bad traditions simply perpetuate bad things.
To address your points:
- I haven't had any accusations of favouritism - the GM has to be seen as impartial and players will accept whatever decisions are handed down.- I keep track of awards so as to keep disparity to a minimum - current disparity in my campaign is 50XP. Disparity might widen as the campaign goes on but so does XP required for next level, so it tends to even out.
- Different encounter outcomes are not "arbitrary" - they are predetermined. The players generally know what they're supposed to do. If they're told to capture someone but end up killing them they don't deserve as much XP. As an example, in this scenario I might set XP award for a CR4 encounter if they kill the opponant and XP for a CR6 encounter for capturing, since capturing often is more difficult.
- Yes, players think about the next level. So what? I don't think it's effected anyone's ability to play their character's current abilities. I really don't see what you're trying to get at with this point.
- The reason many players have opted to play Pathfinder, as opposed to 4E or many of the other wonderful systems out there, is because they're driven by a sense of nostalgia. If something is a bad tradition, sure, dump it, but there simply isn't any evidence that XP-based advancement is a bad tradition. It's just a mechanic that some people are bad at managing. Others make it work perfectly fine.
I'd suggest you look at your particular campaign and ask yourself what works best. But keep in mind that what works well in a particular campaign doesn't necessarily work as well in a different campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was new to DMing I used xp as a way to pace level gain. Now I that I have more experience, I tell the party to level when they accomplish major progress.
|
|
Token XP awards potentially create disparity between player characters and can be frequent causes for accusations of GM favoritism.
Arbitrary XP awards based on GM whim might cause players to wonder how to play to please the GM, as opposed to simply playing their characters.
Counting XP risks having players thinking about their next level instead of playing to their current abilities.
To address your points:
- I haven't had any accusations of favouritism - the GM has to be seen as impartial and players will accept whatever decisions are handed down.
- I keep track of awards so as to keep disparity to a minimum - current disparity in my campaign is 50XP. Disparity might widen as the campaign goes on but so does XP required for next level, so it tends to even
Both are valid points, but my experince showed me, that "bonus xp" can cause problems.
I have 4 players. The first two are very active, have several pages of background story, (which I can easily incorporate into the campaign) and drive the story constantly forward.The other two almost have no backgroundstory and rather just hang on, enyoing the ride and do stuff when they are asked for.
All four are long-time friends and respect each other.
So I found myself in the situation, that I could constantly award the first two players and having a really hard time awarding the other two at all. The level-gap would be too huge in an ongoing campaign.
All enjoy playing Pathfinder, nobody does it wrong or right. If you have a very introverted player, he/she even might come to the conclusion (wrongly), that he/she is playing the game wrong because other players get bonus xp.
I didn't want that to happen at anytime with any of my players, which was one of the reasons I dumped xp.
On a side note:
The single AP chapters even tell us by now, at which point players are expected to be which specific level.
And thanx, guys, for your answers!
I've run campaigns both with and without XP tracking. My players seem happier when they don't see the numbers, and I just tell them when they level. When I run my homebrew stuff, I do objective based awards -- here's a thing you gotta do, and doing it gets you a level.
I put in about a level's worth of crud between them and their objective, and at least half again as much as avoidable filler, and then I don't really sweat if they "defeat" enough "monsters". I assume if they get the job done, they've earned the level.
As a player, I don't like bonus XP for roleplaying, unless that bonus XP is handed out to the group, for the group's overall roleplaying.
I'm not sure why, but my players just prefer getting XP.
Since I didn't wanna be a jerk, I let them have their fun.
|
I prefer not using XP, and leveling according to plot.
However, one of the advantages of using XP is that you can increase the party's reward for innovative and exceptionally good solutions to problems. Kill all the orcs guarding the giant's fortress? 500 XP. Trick the orcs into killing the giants for you? 5000 XP, baby.
I'm with people who don't use XP in their games. I track by accomplishment, or when I feel like the players have had enough time sitting at whichever level they're at. It removes that silliness of one character moving up faster than the others--arbitrary XP rewards to certain players for doing random stuff--and it makes it so that they're less concerned about how close they are to leveling through just plotting a graph of, "Well if I save X kittens I can get X experience which will put me exactly 100 below where I need to be to level up. I'm going to farm endangered kittens."
I grew up never playing with XP; my dad has played every D&D version and when he would DM for my little six year old self he'd throw it out the window. It's arbitrary either way, and it makes things a million times easier for my planning. Even Adventure Paths say, "Characters should be level 3 by the time they clear this cavern..." If not, make them fight more monsters? Hells naw, unless they want to. I'm moving it up and they're level three now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even Adventure Paths say, "Characters should be level 3 by the time they clear this cavern..." If not, make them fight more monsters? Hells naw, unless they want to. I'm moving it up and they're level three now.
Our gm does this and while I agree both styles are arbitrary I guess I'm an old holdout from the days where diverse party levels wasnt a big deal. I feel like arbitrary level ups sort of cheapen the game and if the players didnt earn enough xp by steamrolling an ap they should have to venture out and catch up a bit, but thats just more of a reflection of my nostalgic 2e hangups and bias.
I constantly have to remind myself not to expect pathfinder to be the same game as 2e. If I like things like crafting magic items then I should make an effort to learn to love the things that are different from 2e that I don't like so much.
Its a different game. Just because it's got Gygax on the cast list doesnt mean its what I remember. 1e was quite map focused and 2e seemed to lose that. I wonder who's idea it was to get away from the battlemap... Maybe it was Arneson. Maybe I'm an Arneson guy.
I wonder...
Based on his wiki it sounds like Arneson was probably the polar opposite of that decision and was out of the company or on his way out by the time 2e rolled around. He sounds like a died-in-the-wool battlemap dude. Sure would be nice to know who made the decision to make AD&D 2e more of a theater of the mind system... Get it off the table and put the board in your head. I've always preferred it.
Perhaps David Cook, Michael Breault, Frank Mentzer, Tom Moldvay... these guys seem to be more writer types than wargamer types... Maybe these are my guys... 1987-1996. This appears to be the era my playstyle comes from. Back when the logo was all boxy lookin. Thats what feels like home to me...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use xp. If you're playing an AP and it says "level x by this time" levelling up without xp probably works. I run a sandbox, no APs, no convenient labels, players are free to pursue a given adventure, or not. They may get half way into something and decide they are not ready for it and back out. They may decide to explore some wilderness area or try to find some legendary place. The whole group is not always together. They are not all of the same level (although they are generally close). Using xp makes it easier to keep track of everybodies individual progress. If you're on that tight everybody together all the time AP type of thing xp might be optional. For me, it's easier and eliminates arbitrary decisions on who does / does not level. As always, ymmv.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hiya.
The biggest hang-up I have with the "no xp" thing is that it feels like it takes all control out of the players hands with regards to their PC's. It makes an, in my humble opinion, almost arrogant assumption that what the DM has "plotted" is superior to what the players want to do with their characters. Without XP, the DM is basically saying "If you do this, you get XP. If you don't do that, you get no XP", without actually dealing with numbers. In other words...the DM determines what a PC's actions 'value' is according to his/her whim or pre-determined milestones.
If the DM's plot is to have the PC's rescue a noble woman from certain death as orcs attack her coach, the DM has already decided "The PC's rescue her; advance plot; mental note towards level advancement". Now, if the PC's decide to *not* rescue the noble woman, and in stead let them kill her so they can follow the orcs back to their lair...the DM mentally decides "The PC's did *not* rescue her; plot doesn't advance; no advancement". This, again IMHO, just goes against the whole "players are in charge of their own PC's destiny" that RPG's are based on. So, one act of 'rescue' equates to a certain percentage of advancement to next level...but the act of tracking the orcs and clearing out their lair and taking their stuff equates to 0% advancement? Just seems...wrong.
Anyway, I'm definitely "old school" (I suppose by default; 31+ years behind the screen will do that I guess...). That said, I have successfully merged both together on more than one occasion. Actually, my current Dark Dungeons (BECMI clone) campaign uses that; I give a lot of XP and every couple sessions I give them a full level bonus. The main reason for this, which was explained at campaign start, is that I (we,actually) wanted to try some of the more high-level stuff (DD goes to level 36 + Immortals)...like running a kingdom/domain, plane hopping, mass battles and wars, etc. For the last decade or so we've pretty much been in our normal comfort zone (low'ish levels... 1st to 7th, usually), so we figured we'd change it up a bit.
PS: As a player, there's also just something special about being given XP after each session and seeing your character slowly accumulate XP...and when you finally crest into next level, that burst of endorphin and sense of accomplishment. Well, honestly, that's hard to beat. :)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
|
Ok, I've read so many posts asking about which advancement track to use, what to change for parties of more, or less than 4 pcs, and what encounters to use, to not fall behind, that I started to wonder, how many of you guys take xps serious?!
I know, they have to be in the rules-system, but I don't use them at all!
When I was running home game one of the first things I did away with was xp. My players were told their characters would level up when I felt they were ready.
I found it worked well. Everybody had fun with extended mid-level campaigns. When everybody felt it was time to advance to the next step, we did.
|
When I was a young and new DM I was tracking XP. Counting them, giving XP awards to good roleplaying and other stuff.
When I begin my first adventure in PRPG (an old 3.0 adventure) I was giving my players their XP, asking myself : How can I gave them enough XP to go level X ?
Then, I stopped given them XP, choosing when they must be level X and they never complained since.
But, we are a group of 5~6 people who play together for a long time. We play long campaign (like AP) so calculating XP and making difference between players doesn't please us.
Back in 3.5, when death mean losing real level and creating magical stuff costed XP, counting them was necessary.
Now I think counting XP isn't as necessary as it was before and I prefer not tracking them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hiya.
The biggest hang-up I have with the "no xp" thing is that it feels like it takes all control out of the players hands with regards to their PC's. It makes an, in my humble opinion, almost arrogant assumption that what the DM has "plotted" is superior to what the players want to do with their characters. Without XP, the DM is basically saying "If you do this, you get XP. If you don't do that, you get no XP", without actually dealing with numbers. In other words...the DM determines what a PC's actions 'value' is according to his/her whim or pre-determined milestones.
The main difference in "No XP" vs "XP" is whether or not you tie yourself to the exact number. In a "No XP" Campaign, the DM can have one level go at the "Slow XP Track" and have another go at the "Fast XP Track" and a third go at the "Normal XP Track".
Let me ask you something. Does a Character Level in Mid-Combat because he got the proper XP to level? Or do you "Punish" him by making him wait until the combat is over? Or if they are in a Cave with 3 "rooms" of encounters, do you make them clear the whole cave out before you give it to them? Do you only hand out XP at the end of a session? These are all arbitrary time periods. In the "No XP" system, you "give out XP" all at once when you level.
For those Edition Haters, my groups started doing it in 3rd, prior to 4th coming out. We had a Chip system that rewarded players for clever ideas, good roleplay and those could be used for "spending xp" on things like magical item creation (or could be used for rerolls or other things).
And with Pathfinder joining the thought that XP Penalties in game should be gotten rid of, its become even easier to get rid of the exact number. Magical Items no longer cost XP to create. Spells no longer have a XP cost for Casting. Most of the reasons to know your exact number no longer exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all of those who continue to say that they use XP to reward players, I just have to ask. Are you not aware of the nearly infinite number of ways to reward players that have nothing to do with XP and do not create potential character level imbalances?
I've been rewarding players for years.
But, while I'm on the subject of rewards, I've also recently started rewarding the ENTIRE PARTY for anything any one player does. If anyone in the party does something awesome the entire party benefits.
And you know what? The players seem to like this much, much better than the individual player getting a reward. Now they compete more to provide those rewards because the whole party cheers and high-fives each other.
I think it has something to do with this being a "team game".
Maybe that's just my group though.
I like using XP to "buy" extra goodies (traits, feats, templates, assorted and sundry bonuses, class features, incantation ritual knowledge, ad nauseam) as both GM and player.
I like using XP to "buy" extra goodies (traits, feats, templates, assorted and sundry bonuses, class features, incantation ritual knowledge, ad nauseam) as both GM and player.
I would be interested in how you do this and maintain game balance. What are your rules around this?
I did not use XP for years but recently returned to XP as a method to create friendly competition between players.
I weight XP gained based on contribution slightly, and I give bonus XP for actually RPing and such.
I find the addition of competition increases their interest level significantly.
For all of those who continue to say that they use XP to reward players, I just have to ask. Are you not aware of the nearly infinite number of ways to reward players that have nothing to do with XP and do not create potential character level imbalances?
I've been rewarding players for years.
But, while I'm on the subject of rewards, I've also recently started rewarding the ENTIRE PARTY for anything any one player does. If anyone in the party does something awesome the entire party benefits.
And you know what? The players seem to like this much, much better than the individual player getting a reward. Now they compete more to provide those rewards because the whole party cheers and high-fives each other.
I think it has something to do with this being a "team game".
Maybe that's just my group though.
I agree with the thought of Pathfinder being a "team game". On the other hand, I've played with people who felt very strongly against that mindset. Several of these players prefered to view the game as a DM vs player match of wits. I never really understood this point of view, but they strongly believed it was the true way to play the game. Also these players often liked to make rogues and steal from fellow PCs directly of indirectly. Not saying one way is better, just that there are multiple ways to view and play Pathfinder.
I would be interested in how you do this and maintain game balance. What are your rules around this?I like using XP to "buy" extra goodies (traits, feats, templates, assorted and sundry bonuses, class features, incantation ritual knowledge, ad nauseam) as both GM and player.
I really should write this up in a more formal manner. Off the top of my head though ...
General Rule of Thumb: a character/creature cannot lose a level when learning/gaining feats in this fashion nor than they go into "XP deficit spending" (unless the GM approves otherwise).
Traits: 500 xp per trait, usually. If the trait is as good as a feat or is 'too good to pass up since I can buy it now', the goes up to 1,000 xp per trait (+1 save traits, +2 initiative traits, caster level improvement traits, traits that provide bonuses that are untyped). Certain traits simply should not qualify for being purchased in this fashion without having been reincarnated first (Birthmark) or simply cannot be purchased at all (Rich Parents, Heirloom Weapon). The best way to govorn these is to deduct xp to be awarded to 'pay' for traits learned during the campaign (such as traits relating to climbing, balancing, rope use, sailing, carpentry etc during a Savage Tide or Skull-n-Shackles campaign; Survival check traits when castaway or abandoned on a theoretically deserted island and so on) so that the traits are organically acquired during play and the players don't see the XP in the first place.
Feats: Feats are "tiered". My general rules of thumb are (a) the character would otherwise have to qualify to select the feat and (b) The List:
- Tier 0 - cost: 1,000 xp per feat: are those feats that you can take at 1st level that don't scale (Fey Foundling, Jackal Blood, Endurance, Run, Racial Heritage). "1st level only" feats must be 'bought'/learned/implanted into your brain before transitioning to 2nd level.
- Tier 1 - cost: 2,000 xp per feat: feats include 'first step' combat feats (Combat Expertise, Dodge, Point Blank Shot, Power Attack, Quick Draw, Two Weapon Fighting), feats that directly depend from a tier 0 feat (Die Hard), feats that can be taken at 1st level that scale in some fashion (Alertness, Skill Focus) or that begin a 'feat tree' (Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes) and 'racial' feats that require a specific racial ability or begin to enhance specific racial abilities (Deepsight). Oh, and certain item creation feats (Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll).
- Tier 2 - cost: 4,000 xp per feat: are those feats that are direct follow ups on the feats branching along their tree from Tier 1 (Improved Disarm, Mobility, Precise Shot, Cleave, Improved Sunder, Uncanny Alertness, Improved Great Fortitude, Double Slice), have a fairly significant requirement normally attained at about 5th/6th level (Master Alchemist, Master Craftsman, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wand, Craft Wondrous Item, Heroic Recovery) or the like.
- Tier 3 - cost 8,000 xp per feat: feats include 'next along the branch' feats that are fairly typically qualified for after 5th level but before 10th level (Greater Disarm, Great Cleave, Shot on the Run, Manyshot, Spring Attack), begin a feat chain at about 5th/6th level (Vital Strike) certain item creation feats (Craft Construct, Craft Rod, Forge Ring) and the like.
- Tier 4 - cost: 25,000 xp per feat: feats continue a chain at about 10th/11th level or so (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Blind-Fight, Improved Vital Strike), begin a feat chain at about 10th/11th level (Penetrating Strike), certain item creation feats (Craft Staff) or are otherwise 'gotten' at about 10th/11th level (Arcane Blast).
- Tier 5 - cost: 100,000 xp per feat: feats continue a chain at about 15th level or so (Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Blind-Fight, Greater Vital Strike, Two Weapon Rend) or are otherwise qualified for at about 15th/16th level or so (Spell Perfection).
- Tier 6 - cost: 250,000 xp per feat: feats would be ones qualified for almost exclusively at 19th level. I don't know of any from the top of my head.
- But what about Extra (X) feats? These are treated a a bit differently than the norm. There are two varieties of such feats - so far - in Pathfinder. The first, cheaper variety adds to a numerical pool (Extra Bombs, Extra Rage, Extra Ki, Extra Grit) while the second variety adds additional class features (Extra Discovery, Extra Rage Power, Extra Rogue Talent).
- Those that add to a numeric pool cannot be learned any earlier than the level at which the class feature that grants/uses such a pool cost 2,000 xp the first time the feat is learned. Additional selections of such 'pool' feats double in xp cost each time after the first: 4,000 xp for the second; 8,000 xp for the third; 16,000 xp for the fourth and so on.
- Those that expand the selection of class features are acquired along the tiering structure - the first time is Tier 1, the second Tier 2, the third Tier 3 capping at the per-selection cost of Tier 6.
Templates have to be handled very carefully - and often on an ad-hoc basis. If you use pre-Pathfinder templates that included a level adjustment this really helps. A combined level adjustment of roughly +5 (depending on the template!) is simple enough to fix by sliding from Medium progression to the Slow progression IF the template(s) in question are acquired/inherited at 1st level or the GM is willing to backslide the characters in levels to their proper spot on the Slow XP track.
Example: Character spent centuries perfecting body, mind and soul beneath the suns of a certain "hydrographically challenged" planet inhabited by psionically empowered carnivorous hobbits (among other creatures), acquiring the dust creature and solaric templates (combined level adjustment of +5). The transition to Golarion nearly destroyed the character (wiping XP back to zero, setting XP track to Slow). Time to start anew!
Acquiring templates otherwise can be based along the lines of the Lich: At 120,000 gp, a specific Tier 2 non-combat feat (Craft Wondrous Item), unavailable for several months of in-game time (enchanting the phylactery - this does not account for the in-game time spent researching your specific lichdom elixir) and counting as a CR +2 adjustment I would gauge a template at a cost of 160,000 xp, in addition to the Tier 2 required feat, increasing to 240,000 xp if there is not a *massive* monetary cost accompanying it. Ad-hoc adjustments to this are necessary as not all CR +2s are created equal!
The advanced simple template I originally 'priced' at 50,000 xp. Seeing it used in play with hindsight I'd gauge it at 120,000 xp instead.
Recommended XP costs ... hrm, I'd need to work on this, as quite a few templates for player characters are a LOT nastier than others. Hopefully this gives something to nom on though! :)
Game Balance: In an AP this is self-correcting. Invest too much XP into feats, you're going to get dead and looted in a hurry because you're too far behind the level curve. In a home-brew campaign spending XP for goodies allows on to "linger" at the lower levels. Feats - you can have GOBS of combat feats - you still can't take but so many actions in a round, and no feat I've seen outside of the Mythic Feats/Epic Feats in 3e allowed the action economy to be gotten around.
Extra Cantrips or Orisons, Expanded Arcana and Spell Mastery
Extra Cantrips/Orisons is a Tier 1 feat.
Expanded Arcana is a Tier 2 feat for 1st and 2nd level spells, a Tier 3 feat for 3rd and 4th level spells, a Tier 4 feat for 5th and 6th level spells, a Tier 5 feat for 7th and 8th level spells and a Tier 6 feat for 9th level spells.
Spell Mastery cannot be learned by a Wizard in this fashion before 5th level, qualifying it as a Tier 2 feat. A Wizard that has enough spells in his spellbook to master by way of selecting Spell Mastery more than once can learn Spell Mastery at the cost of XP once per level starting at 5th level. The third time this is done, and every odd numbered time thereafter, the XP cost goes up a tier. Thus, at 7th level to learn Spell Mastery a third time now costs as if it were a Tier 3 feat. Starting at the fifth time [no earlier than 9th level] Spell Mastery now costs as if it were a Tier 4 feat. Starting at the seventh time [no earlier than 11th level] Spell Mastery now costs as if it were a Tier 5 feat. Starting at the ninth time onward [no earlier than 13th level] Spell Mastery now costs as if it were a Tier 6 feat.
Turin I like your system but just a question.
Is this your entire sytem for progression or do your PCs level normally and they can add the templates and additional feats as they want/need to?
*edit* disregard I missed the "General Rule of Thumb: a character/creature cannot lose a level when learning/gaining feats in this fashion nor than they go into "XP deficit spending" (unless the GM approves otherwise)." part
Either way still very cool I just thought it was more World of Darkness like.
Turin I like your system but just a question.
Is this your entire sytem for progression or do your PCs level normally and they can add the templates and additional feats as they want/need to?
*edit* disregard I missed the "General Rule of Thumb: a character/creature cannot lose a level when learning/gaining feats in this fashion nor than they go into "XP deficit spending" (unless the GM approves otherwise)." part
Either way still very cool I just thought it was more World of Darkness like.
EDIT: This isn't the entire system, it's what I cobbled together typing the posts as they came into mind. :)
The GRoT is discretionary. I'm fine with going WoD-like with it. Adding class features and such would be doable with it too.
I use this in combination with level advancement via XP - most of the time the players are afraid enough of falling behind the level curve that it doesn't result in more than handing out a few traits, Slow XP progression at a +1 or +2 CR of goodies and a fistful of feats added into the mix. Maybe even layering additional archetypes without penalty on the Slow progression.
In a MUCH longer-term campaign, however, this can really shine. Feather in a bunch of isolated AP chapters, assorted modules and homebrew material so that they stay close to the curve (but not quite on it) and it can be a blast.
I did not use XP for years but recently returned to XP as a method to create friendly competition between players.
I weight XP gained based on contribution slightly, and I give bonus XP for actually RPing and such.
I find the addition of competition increases their interest level significantly.
Haven't you then just made XP the new game they're playing :P? If the in-game challenges are no longer interesting, yet the XP game Is, perhaps its time to dabble in a new adventure module with new characters :)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't you then just made XP the new game they're playing :P? If the in-game challenges are no longer interesting, yet the XP game Is, perhaps its time to dabble in a new adventure module with new characters :)?
Now I know why you're not called Paul the Cheerful Optimist...
Just kidding.I hate this comment but only because my brain beats to the same drum.
Once you've started enjoying the metagame more than the game its time to think about changing the game. But I have these thoughts about how much people enjoy having batllemats and running battlemat engineered characters or playing in battlemat centric systems so I'm kinda stabbin myself in the eyeballs for even being here.
Your sentiment is very valid.
Having ruminated on this a bit ...
In an AP campaign, set the PCs from Medium to Slow advancement and allow them to "buy" off the 'menu' with the difference between the two.
The differences are about right between the two tracks. The 'cost' of actual level advancement is the Medium XP track. The 'leftover' XP is used to 'buy' stuff, purchased at the transition between the two levels. Unspent XP I recommend disallowing.
Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I've read so many posts asking about which advancement track to use, what to change for parties of more, or less than 4 pcs, and what encounters to use, to not fall behind, that I started to wonder, how many of you guys take xps serious?!
I know, they have to be in the rules-system, but I don't use them at all!I always tell my players, that they will level up, when the time is right regarding my campaign-planning. It's so much easier to plan a campaign, and it makes it easier to insert other stuff, which is not part of an AP, for example.
In the end, it's not GM vs players, so my players know that I won't cheat them, or keep them less effective against opponents on purpose.
How do you guys do XPs? Do you use them as precisely as possible, or any other way?
There are two rules I find unneccessary in dnd. One is experience points. Dnd is a cooperative game where the focus is to immerse yourself in a world where your characters obtain goals for thier own motives. Introducing XP breaks that immersion on two fronts, 1 is that it turns a cooperative game into a competititon for monster killing and xp gaining and 2 it is an out of game statistic that breaks the immersion of the character's actual goals. I don't invite players into my campaign who seem obsessed with leveling and xp, it is a great predictor for a power gamer.
But, this has been an age old divide that isn't going anywhere. I've never played ina game where we tracked xp (nor ran one) and i've had several dms. Essentially the party levels when the party levels, as a party. Death simply gives a negative level in most cases if a player decides to assepct a res(but i've played in games where rez's are hard to come by and mostly not worth it).
The other rule is initiative individually. They are two rules that I feel regularate grown people to act as adults and break the immersion of the game. (For initiative i have a house rule where all the pcs scores are added up after a roll and the creatures scores are added up and averaged out the number of party members. Then it goes one side other side allowing for more group coordination and tactics.
If you drop the PCs below the expected track their fundamentals will be poor. At low levels this will be okay and they may actually be stronger for the extra feat in some cases, but at higher levels they'll suffer from poor accuracy, poor saves, low DCs, and sometimes just not having access to some expected ability like flight or the ability to restore ability drain.Having ruminated on this a bit ...
In an AP campaign, set the PCs from Medium to Slow advancement and allow them to "buy" off the 'menu' with the difference between the two.
The differences are about right between the two tracks. The 'cost' of actual level advancement is the Medium XP track. The 'leftover' XP is used to 'buy' stuff, purchased at the transition between the two levels. Unspent XP I recommend disallowing.
Thoughts?
From memory I can't recall any AP that flight is absolutely essential for. Restoring ability drain is another matter true, but the APs so very, very often cache such devices that it is not often a significant consideration for several levels after you acquire the cache.
I always tell my players, that they will level up, when the time is right regarding my campaign-planning. It's so much easier to plan a campaign, and it makes it easier to insert other stuff, which is not part of an AP, for example.
Bolded for importance. Planning is great and all, but you have to be prepared for players to break those plans, or flat out not following them. The only way I see no XP working is if you railroad your players, and they are willing to be railroaded. There's too much room for things to happen otherwise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried precise exps. It annoyed most people when they didn't level at the same time (those who weren't levelling...) Often precise xps lead to players seeking out every encounter for more exps rather than following the story.
Now I use the pathfinder society type system where players level every three sessions. I still have some parties that seek out every combat, just in case they have some hidden loot (I think they played too much Diablo...) But generally it leads to players looking to play through sessions rather than going on an exp hunt.
I use XP as well.
I just like to give my players a (sorta) tangible reward. The knowledge that their effort does something to their advancement and thrill of "I'm almost at next level, just one or two monsters more". I tend to keep player XP about equal (except maybe marginal differences created with party splits or similar things).
For the same reasons I like XP as a player. I can live without them, if the GM doesn't use them, but generally i prefer having them around.
I don't think either version, with or without XP solves more problems than it creates as opposed to the other.
I use XP as well.
I just like to give my players a (sorta) tangible reward. The knowledge that their effort does something to their advancement and thrill of "I'm almost at next level, just one or two monsters more". I tend to keep player XP about equal (except maybe marginal differences created with party splits or similar things).
For the same reasons I like XP as a player. I can live without them, if the GM doesn't use them, but generally i prefer having them around.I don't think either version, with or without XP solves more problems than it creates as opposed to the other.
My response to this answer is always that the story should be reward enough. I think if the story and adventure is exciting enough when/ and how a player levels becomes in consequential to taking over a kingdom or losing the town square in an orc assault.
Sure thing, but why not have even more stuff to be excited about if its so simple to implement?