|
I know that generally, it varies depending on whether its slow, average or fast level progression.
But after a certain point and from what i learned from 3.5 After you hit level 10 you hit this sort of brick wall when it comes to level progression as you cant get xp from a lot of enemies making it take way longer then normal to level up.
How accurate is this?
Campaign just took a break because DM was burnt out, but getting to 9th was a slog.
you cant get xp from a lot of enemies making it take way longer then normal to level up.
How accurate is this?
Depends entirely on the GM (if it's homebrew). If not, it depends on the module/adventure path. And whether you're playing a PFS-sanctioned game or not.
|
|
Depends entirely on the GM (if it's homebrew). If not, it depends on the module/adventure path. And whether you're playing a PFS-sanctioned game or not.you cant get xp from a lot of enemies making it take way longer then normal to level up.
How accurate is this?
Ah right i forgot, some campaigns use XP others you level up at certain points. Regardless i imagine it takes longer to get to said checkpoint the higher level you are correct?
i imagine it takes longer to get to said checkpoint the higher level you are correct?
If that's the way you want to play, sure. You can do it that way.
The GM (or designers) can put whatever monsters they like in the story. They can make the XP high or low. It all depends on their storytelling style and what kind of story arc they're trying to create.
There is nothing inherent in Pathfinder that requires you to design encounters or adventures in that style, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It takes the same number of fights in Pathfinder per level. However as you level up fights take longer I in real life so it could take more sessions to level up.
I've usually found that levelling happens way too fast, at all levels... I've just started exploring this level's potentials and figuring out problems related to the plot, when BAM! I've levelled up again. Too fast, too fast, too fast.
I've usually found that levelling happens way too fast, at all levels... I've just started exploring this level's potentials and figuring out problems related to the plot, when BAM! I've levelled up again. Too fast, too fast, too fast.
Sounds like you guys need to use a slower experience progression tracker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that leveling slows down when the PCs stop engaging in combat. The players mastered using information gathering to avoid unnecessary combat and diplomacy to deal peacefully with enemies and problem-solving to defeat the bad guy without killing everyone.
All these tools make the game extremely fun, but it does not mesh well with Pathfinder's Experience Point system. One day I should mathematically model that system to adapt it to roleplaying challenges in addition to combat challenges.
I've usually found that levelling happens way too fast, at all levels... I've just started exploring this level's potentials and figuring out problems related to the plot, when BAM! I've levelled up again. Too fast, too fast, too fast.
That would be the key to modeling leveling. When should a player level up his or her character? I like to have at least six 3-hour game sessions at each level so that I can master that level's abilities.
But each of my adventure paths has had unique challenges in leveling, so I don't have a good grasp on the general principles.
1) In the Rise of the Runelords campaign my wife and I ran, the D&D 3.5 version played with Pathfinder rules and Pathfinder-adapted opponents from d20pfsrd.com, we mistakely used medium level progression. D&D 3.5 defaults to fast progression. So we wove in several side quests to help the PCs reach the correct level before the next module.
2) In Jade Regent, we played the first module with 8 players, which put everyone behind a level. Then some moved out of state and one became a father, so the party dropped to four players. I had to advance everyone to 4th level right before the second module to compensate for the smaller party. Then in the 5th module, the players derailed the campaign. This let me make the political situation more realistic and I sent entire armies of oni against them. They earned so much XP that I had to abandon the XP system.
3) In Iron Gods, the players hesitated in Lords of Rust because I had hyped the reputation of the Lords of Rust too much. They wanted to be 7th level before confronting them. Fortunately, they were in a dangerous environment with lots of random encounters, so they reached 7th level against random encounters. In the following modules, they developed solid goals and learned to avoid the encounters that did not matter. Thus, they began the 5th module at 12th level, one short, and moved into the 6th module at 13th level, two levels short. They are currently battling the CR 23 final boss at 15th level, one level short, and slowly winning through excellent teamwork. This combat has already taken 5 hours of tabletop time. A significant fraction of that time has been, "Wait, I still have a swift action and a move action left. Let me check all my abilities and gear to see if I can do something more!"
Our D&D and Pathfinder games have always been home-brew. Usually, I ran the game, and the pace at which the party levels up has varied over the years.
General, I believe it is something that should be discussed at the beginning of a campaign, so it doesn't differ too much from everyone's expectations.
For a relatively short adventure, which will happen over a several game sessions, advancement might be fairly quick.
Since the campaign has a finite length, players and GM might want to see a character progress fast in order to get in as much playing with various class abilities, spells, etc.
For a long-running campaign (and we've had several that lasted years), you might be better off with a slower progression. In those types of games, we've found that character development, and working through various plots and stories were more important than the crunchy bits from leveling up.
In either case, it's certainly in the control of the GM how fast or slow the progression is. They could use the way-point method (no XP) to pace it properly; fast-med-slow XP charts, or just adjust the amount and difficulty of a sessions' challenges during preparation.
Since it's obvious player tastes can vary as far as speed for leveling up; I think it's most important to figure out everyone's expectations, both GM and player alike. Whether a one-sort, a multi-session adventure, or long-running campaign, the goal is to have everyone enjoy themselves. So, do what you can at the beginning, so no one gets disillusioned part way in, and ends up dissatisfied.
A good GM can set the pace using plenty of tools. As long as everyone understands what that pace is going in, you should be in good shape.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that leveling slows down when the PCs stop engaging in combat. The players mastered using information gathering to avoid unnecessary combat and diplomacy to deal peacefully with enemies and problem-solving to defeat the bad guy without killing everyone.
All these tools make the game extremely fun, but it does not mesh well with Pathfinder's Experience Point system. One day I should mathematically model that system to adapt it to roleplaying challenges in addition to combat challenges.
Actually you should be getting experience for overcoming challenges regardless of whether or not you fight those challenges. If diplomacy allows you avoid multiple CR X encounters, you should be getting the experience for all of those encounters. If you can defeat the bad guys without killing them you still get the same experience points as you would for killing them. Assuming your DM is correctly applying experience for overcoming challenges and using medium progression, you should be leveling up fairly swiftly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With or without XP, it's the higher levels, because the combats take forever due to option paralysis and complexity, leading my group to take a month to finish a single combat.
If your using mostly pre-made stuff I strongly encourage using plot based leveling. Having used XP for 20 years, I have found the simplicity of not using it very liberating. It really opens up the possibilities of creative solutions and as a GM you don't have to figure out how to get enough encounters in to get them back on the XP track.
I could not agree more. It also allows you to just narrate encounters that should be a breeze for your party at higher levels. You don't have to have the ordinary mooks be absurdly leveled to present a challenge, you can keep them realistically low leveled. For the casters, you now get to let them use their first level powers and cantrips in narration; it makes them feel powerful and special without wasting time. For the martials, you can just narrate that their AC is impenetrable and they take out people as they march through the hordes of guards.
With or without XP, it's the higher levels, because the combats take forever due to option paralysis and complexity, leading my group to take a month to finish a single combat.
A month?
How much time in hours to finish a combat at high levels for your group? You could be playing once a month with 2 hour sessions.I've GM'd at high levels, and an hour is about average with certain exceptions.
Why do con games take so long as opposed to home games, and it doesn't take me an hour for a 2nd level game on roll20, but I also make sure that everyone is using macros.
from what i learned from 3.5 after you hit level 10 you hit this sort of brick wall when it comes to level progression as you cant get xp from a lot of enemies
I've never fought an enemy in Pathfinder who doesn't give XP. (Except when playing without using XP.)
Pathfinder XP doesn't work like 3.5 XP. With Pathfinder every enemy, is worth the same XP. In 3.5 you had to compare the level of the PC to the CR of the enemy.
However since you should be fighting enemies comparable to your level it still shouldn't slow down, even in 3.5.
If you something that is too far below you such as you being level 10, and the enemy is a CR 1 it is suggested that no XP be given.
Actually you should be getting experience for overcoming challenges regardless of whether or not you fight those challenges. If diplomacy allows you avoid multiple CR X encounters, you should be getting the experience for all of those encounters. If you can defeat the bad guys without killing them you still get the same experience points as you would for killing them. Assuming your DM is correctly applying experience for overcoming challenges and using medium progression, you should be leveling up fairly swiftly.I find that leveling slows down when the PCs stop engaging in combat. The players mastered using information gathering to avoid unnecessary combat and diplomacy to deal peacefully with enemies and problem-solving to defeat the bad guy without killing everyone.
All these tools make the game extremely fun, but it does not mesh well with Pathfinder's Experience Point system. One day I should mathematically model that system to adapt it to roleplaying challenges in addition to combat challenges.
This :)
This :)Actually you should be getting experience for overcoming challenges regardless of whether or not you fight those challenges. If diplomacy allows you avoid multiple CR X encounters, you should be getting the experience for all of those encounters. If you can defeat the bad guys without killing them you still get the same experience points as you would for killing them. Assuming your DM is correctly applying experience for overcoming challenges and using medium progression, you should be leveling up fairly swiftly.I find that leveling slows down when the PCs stop engaging in combat. The players mastered using information gathering to avoid unnecessary combat and diplomacy to deal peacefully with enemies and problem-solving to defeat the bad guy without killing everyone.
All these tools make the game extremely fun, but it does not mesh well with Pathfinder's Experience Point system. One day I should mathematically model that system to adapt it to roleplaying challenges in addition to combat challenges.
That worked in my Jade Regent campaign where the PCs made deals with enemies to come over to their side. Each bought-out enemy was still evil, but not a current problem, so they earned full XP for neutralizing the threat.
On the other hand, adventure paths have side missions not directly related to the main quest. Sometimes players chose to skip a side mission. In Jade Regent, the bad guys diverted a city's supplies and the food ran short. The PCs had an opportunity to raid an enemy granary to feed the city. My Jade Regent party said they will defeat the enemy by noon the next day, and the people can endure hunger for that long. They were correct about the timeline, but if I had still been using XP in that campaign, they would have received nothing for skipping a mission they argued was unnecessary.
In my Iron Gods campaign, the party redefined encounters entirely. I mentioned they were fighting the final boss. Guess what? "Boss" is the correct title for that enemy, because the PCs entered his stronghold not by fighting their way in as the module planned, nor by sneaking in, but by being hired by that boss. They worked efficiently for him for a few weeks while they befriended his minions and learned his secrets. Due to their aid, the boss is ready to activate his evil plan months ahead of schedule. Befriending the minions does not mean neutralizing them: only one sub-boss out of five will side with them now that the fight with the final boss has begun. The XP value of learning secrets is hard to judge. And does helping the BBEG with his world conquest count for or against XP?
It takes the same number of fights in Pathfinder per level. However as you level up fights take longer I in real life so it could take more sessions to level up.
Exactly this. Assuming you're going at a decent pace, every three to four sessions (of 3-5 hours each) is supposed to be a level up. I'm not sure who did the math on that, but I've seen it propagated, and it seems to line up with my expectations. Adventure Paths tend to go faster for some reason, I've played/ran adventures that leveled you up each session, while it didn't feel like that much to me.
On the other hand, I've played in a group that screwed around so much we'd get through a single combat and some exposition each session (+/- 4 hours). If you get the feeling you're leveling slower, maybe it's because your gametime is cut, or you're simply taking longer in combat. Once you get into higher level, there are more powers to abuse and playing it all out tends to run longer. Level 1 or 2 is "I hit it with my sword for 6 damage." Level 12 is, "First, I'm in its aura, so I need to roll to see if I'm safe. Then, I roll for knowledge, I know its DR, be careful for his breath weapon, I quicken this spell, use this as my move action, and as a free action I heighten my standard action spell with this so it does X instead of Y." Combats go slower because people need to consider their options more and more. If you're getting bored with your current level and powers, ask your GM if he's willing to level you up faster (if it's a homebrew) so you can get more variety.
That worked in my Jade Regent campaign where the PCs made deals with enemies to come over to their side. Each bought-out enemy was still evil, but not a current problem, so they earned full XP for neutralizing the threat.
On the other hand, adventure paths have side missions not directly related to the main quest. Sometimes players chose to skip a side mission. In Jade Regent, the bad guys diverted a city's supplies and the food ran short. The PCs had an opportunity to raid an enemy granary to feed the city. My Jade Regent party said they will defeat the enemy by noon the next day, and the people can endure hunger for that long. They were correct about the timeline, but if I had still been using XP in that campaign, they would have received nothing for skipping a mission they argued was unnecessary.
In my Iron Gods campaign, the party redefined encounters entirely. I mentioned they were fighting the final boss. Guess what? "Boss" is the correct title for that enemy, because the PCs entered his stronghold not by fighting their way in as the module planned, nor by sneaking in, but by being hired by that boss. They worked efficiently for him for a few weeks while they befriended his minions and learned his secrets. Due to their aid, the boss is ready to activate his evil plan months ahead of schedule. Befriending the minions does not mean neutralizing them: only one sub-boss out of five will side with them now that the fight with the final boss has begun. The XP value of learning secrets is hard to judge. And does helping the BBEG with his world conquest count for or against XP?
Side missions in an AP should not stop properly timed leveling. Otherwise it is not a side mission. It is just disguised as one or the AP writer dropped the ball.
As far as helping the final boss and getting XP, that is a GM call. I'd see it as them bypassing the minions in a creative way, and give them XP for it. If they actually turned evil and tried to help him do something bad that would be interesting. As for them getting XP for it, its the last fight so it wouldn't matter, unless you extend the campaign. In which case I'd give them XP for defeating whoever they fought against to make <insert bad thing> happen.
With or without XP, it's the higher levels, because the combats take forever due to option paralysis and complexity, leading my group to take a month to finish a single combat.A month?
How much time in hours to finish a combat at high levels for your group? You could be playing once a month with 2 hour sessions.
Yeah, that's never been the case with my groups: I've never seen a 1 hour combat after level 8. It doesn't help that the games are 2-3 hours of playing every 2-3 weeks. So, yeah, combats take a month or two. Then again, they're also never 1 Boss vs. 4 PCs. The group is always 6-7 PCs and the opponents always have blocker mooks.
Side missions in an AP should not stop properly timed leveling. Otherwise it is not a side mission. It is just disguised as one or the AP writer dropped the ball.
No every significant encounter can directly relate to the main storyline of its adventure path. I could give examples out of all three adventure paths I have run, but they would be spoilers. Sone encounters simply happen on the way to the main quest. As the PCs level up, they gain new abilites to identify and avoid the unnecessary encounters, which my players judge unexciting. The main story excites them more. But those on-the-way-to-the-main-story encounters provide about 1/3 of the XP in the adventure path.
Thus, I wonder whether the slowdown that Malik Gyan Daumantas observed is from skipping those lesser villains by such a distance that, instead of neutralizing a challenge by slipping past, they were never challenged in the first place.
As far as helping the final boss and getting XP, that is a GM call. I'd see it as them bypassing the minions in a creative way, and give them XP for it. If they actually turned evil and tried to help him do something bad that would be interesting. As for them getting XP for it, its the last fight so it wouldn't matter, unless you extend the campaign. In which case I'd give them XP for defeating whoever they fought against to make <insert bad thing> happen.
They have not bypassed the minions. The bad guy has backups (an oversimplifcation to avoid spoilers) and has to be defeated three times, so he will rally his minions after one death. The PCs laid groundwork for converting the minions and it might pay off. But how in the world do I measure the proper XP for research and groundwork that might not pay off? It is like trying to award XP in the middle of a battle rather than at the end of it.
And the players did not serve the bad guy out of evil motives. They want to persuade the bad guy to abandon his evil plan by inventing a non-evil plan that serves his legitimate goals. They tried earn his trust while learning about his values and motives. But they were too cautious, too distracted, and too helpful. They ran out of time.
Yeah, that's never been the case with my groups: I've never seen a 1 hour combat after level 8. It doesn't help that the games are 2-3 hours of playing every 2-3 weeks. So, yeah, combats take a month or two. Then again, they're also never 1 Boss vs. 4 PCs. The group is always 6-7 PCs and the opponents always have blocker mooks.With or without XP, it's the higher levels, because the combats take forever due to option paralysis and complexity, leading my group to take a month to finish a single combat.A month?
How much time in hours to finish a combat at high levels for your group? You could be playing once a month with 2 hour sessions.
Ok. That explains it. I don't tend to run into combats that last more than an hour until double digit levels though. I do tend to run through campaigns quickly compared to other GM's, but I haven't put my finger on why yet.
I have not run that game so its hard to say how I would do it. If there comes a point when those minions definitely are out of the picture, or you have bypassed the point where the party would have fought them I would grant the XP. If they have to fight them anyway they players would know they XP has already been granted so they don't get it a 2nd time.
This AP seems unusual with the way it is explained so my normal ways of doing things is hard to use here. Because of that it will be a GM especially since your players are off the rails.
I've never seen a 1 hour combat after level 8.
It took me some time to understand this post because at first I thought it meant all your combats were less than an hour. Which sounded reasonable to me. An hour-long combat is pretty epic.
This AP seems unusual with the way it is explained so my normal ways of doing things is hard to use here. Because of that it will be a GM especially since your players are off the rails.
The Iron Gods AP is fairly normal, spiced with high technology replacing some magic. It became unusual when the party went off the rails.
However, the changes I made due to the derailment contrast with the AP as written. Paizo APs provide one combat encounter after another, with only small breaks for non-combat encounters. They fit combat into scenes where a published story would have had dialogue: "Let's talk to the farmers about the mysterious will'o'wisp sightings." "As you approach the farm, you see a goblin raiding party setting fire to the haystacks! Roll for initiative."
I had assumed this is because many players like a oombat-heavy campaign. GMs with other kinds of players can provide ways to bypass some combat. But what if combat is the only way to give players the massive XP needed to be ready for the next module? The APs also give out story award XP, but unless the award is for a major quest objective, it roughly equals the XP for killing an average monster.