|
I started talking about this on another thread but can't find it anymore since we don't have those awesome little dots to remind us what threads we have been active in.
So I will bring it up here and let you guys tell me I am dumb for complaining about the slow, medium, fast, progressions here where I can find it easier :)
Ok I have stated before I prefer the 1000 XP per level concept with awards being given for ECL.
ECL -2 is 50 XP
ECL -1 is 75 XP
ECL +0 is 100 XP
ECL +1 is 125 XP and
ECL +2 is 150 XP.
The GM can choose to award more or less XP to accelerate or slow down play as desired.
It is far easier than the current slow, medium, fast progressions.
Someone commented that the new progressions resulted in 20 encounters for slow, 13 for medium and 8 for fast. This may be fine, but it missed the point of my complaint.
If a GM wants to go fast through the first three levels then medium from 4-6 then slow from 7-10 and then end it quickly from 11-13 with fast the players have to do a LOT of XP recalculations.
For example the GM is using the Fast progression from 1-3 and the players have 6,800 XP apiece so they make fourth level.
levels 4-6 things get more interesting so the GM needs to go about medium so he switches over. But 6,800 on Medium takes the PCs back to level 3, so everyone must calculate their new XP level so to have the same percentage amount for that 800 XP above 6,000 they do some calculations and find their new XP is equal to 12,000 Medium XP.
So play goes along fine until they hit level 7 and the GM really wants to slow it down now for the meat of the story. Now the players have 36,200 XP (which takes the PCs back to level 3 on the Slow chart) but have to recalculate to the slow progression so they now have 55,544 XP.
Three levels go exceedingly well but the end of the game is going to be fast and furious so they must once again recalculate their XP, because they now have 162,250 XP which would make them jump from level 10 to level 18. Can't have that. So now they recalculate and find they have 73,130 XP instead.
This is by far the most complicated and unnecessary way of level progression. The only other choice is that the progression is chosen at the beginning of the game and never changes, which severely limits the GM.
It makes more sense to make the progress of the game dependent upon one progression chart, whether that is 1000 per level or just the medium progression list, rather than jumping all around the charts and recalculating XP each time, and let the GM alter XP awards to suit the pace of the game.
I can just find no rationale reason for recalculating XP every time the GM wants to alter the pace.
Thank you for listening to my rant. :) and have a nice day.
I think that you want the various progression XP chart to do more than it was intended for. I do believe that the whole idea was to pick a progression and keep it for the life of the character.
If you are switching tracks, then it is only two fast percentages needed. The percentage that you have now, in your current tract. And then use that percentage against your new track. Fairly easy, and even if done every 3 levels, takes only minutes.
I am not sure how your suggestion will make it better. The Gamemaster can already modify the amount of XP that they give to players. So, if you are on the fast tract, and want it to last longer, just give out less XP. Exactly what you are suggesting, but without needing to recalculate all the XP tables, and no backwards issues.
I agree with Mistwalker. Krome, what were you doing before Paizo introduced the 3-speed XP chart?
|
|
I agree with Mistwalker. Krome, what were you doing before Paizo introduced the 3-speed XP chart?
I was using the standard D&D progression chart and awarding XP as necessary to change the pace of the game. More XP to make the levels go faster or less when I wanted it to go slower.
I certainly wasn't making my players recalculate XP and changing charts every few levels.
If a GM wants to make a few levels last 20 encounters instead of 13, it's simple, you award less XP per encounter. You don't take control of the game's progression out of the GM's control. And you certainly don't have players recalculating XP every few levels.
And you are right, it only takes a few minutes to recalculate everything. But why do it in the first place?
This falls into the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" category and also the "don't make changes just cause you can make changes category."
What system did you guys use before Paizo introduced the 3 tier system? Were you unable to award less or more XP as desired? And if you couldn't why not?
What advantage does this tier system with recalculating XP have?