Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
You just hit level 5. you want to be level 8 by the con. How many games do you need to play and what level will you be when you play them?
You have 0 experience. You want to get at least 3000 XP. Three games gets you 1200, two more gets you to 2000, and then three again for 3200!
|
|
You have 0 experience. You want to get at least 3000 XP. Three games gets you 1200, two more gets you to 2000, and then three again for 3200!You just hit level 5. you want to be level 8 by the con. How many games do you need to play and what level will you be when you play them?
People don't track how much experience they have. They know their character is X level
So to get that answer, you have to say 5th level, which means 4 levels of games, which is 4,000 xp. (so there's that -1 you were worried about) .
So to get another 1,000 xp its 1,000/3 = 3 with a remainder of 200.
Which means you have 5,200 xp after 3 games
6,000-5,200= 800/400= 2 games.
No. Just no. There is absolutely no advantage to your system here, at all, in terms of simplifying anything for actual use unless you have an irrational fear of mixed numbers. Knowing your XP value or having a pile of dm credit is not a normal play concern.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Five scenarios per tier means we could get our first 3-6 scenario a month earlier. (Assuming three 1-2s at Gencon and two more in September).
I understand wanting to extend play. I slow track in higher levels, too. Over a full career at normal speed, you'd only lose five games total. At 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Try spending your XP to level up. You only ever have to count to 1200.No, because for level 2 you only count to 800, 2 games, not three to get to level 3.
Is that harder?
You use fractions. Others use decimals. Getting from level 4.2 to 7.0 is not really harder than going from 4 5/6 to 7.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that harder?
Yes. And by showing the number of steps you had to consider to get the answer if you start from a players perspective I think i showed that. For starting at anything but an xp number You had to do every single step and more to get any meaningful information out of it. If you start with an xp number you still had to make the counter intuitive -1 step.
You use fractions. Others use decimals. Getting from level 4.2 to 7.0 is not really harder than going from 4 5/6 to 7.
It is because you're adding 2/5 ths and it doesn't always line up with the level progression evenly, whereas 1/3 does. Some levels take 2 games, some take 3 to level through. 3xp per level means it's a steady constant 3.
There's no gain here or reason to do this. At all. I cannot for the life of me figure out what you think the advantage is supposed to be.
I don't think anyone really wants to see a reduction in play per level.So two more scenarios and they level again.Yeah, that's the system I'm proposing. Five games per tier of play, basically.
Speak for yourself, I'd love to see a reduction in play at lower levels ;-)
One thing I like about 5e is the fact that levels 1 and 2 fly by in a couple of games. Having to play 24 hours worth of games to accomplish the same thing in PFS is a significant issue for me. Totally agree that I wouldn't want to see the same speed up later in the game, but depending on how similar levels 1 and 2 feel in PF2 vs PF1 I'd love to speed up that particular part of the leveling up process.
|
I love the 3 XP system, and don't mind that Quests always offer 1 XP (but different amounts of cash depending on how many you do). What is the issue with it?
I would hate to see us use the 1000XP per level. Story-based XP is infinitely better.
The issue with Quests is really a different topic, and it doesn’t really have to do with how much XP they grant.
Right now, if you play part 1 of Silverhex, for example, then you play part 1 of Phantom Phenomena on that character, you can’t go back and play anymore of Silverhex. Part of the original idea behind the Quests was that they provide content that can be fit into a shorter session. With the introduction of Quest Series, they have effectively become Scenario length content, because if you move on to something else before you finish the series, you can never finish the series (on that character). It’s actually removed some of the flexibility that having 1 hour Quests was supposed to create.
The suggestion in this thread is that a different XP system would make it easier to have one off Quests that aren’t part of a series without increasing the overall amount of XP that a single Quest provides, and without over complicating the math with decimal XP points.
I like the 3XP/level system, but I’d also like more shorter Quests that aren’t all tied together into a larger series, because that has been making scheduling them outside of conventions difficult. They essentially need to be scheduled in a scenario length slot, or you have to deal with issues around the entire group of players not being able to make it to the game on multiple days. And that defeats the purpose of having Quests. Changing the XP system isn’t the only way to address that problem, but it’s the one being discussed here. I’d just like some kind of change to facilitate the shorter content.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, do not change the Quest durations!
In two weeks, I’m going to be running quests at a local Anime convention. They do not have ‘slots’, each room schedules itself.
In that sort of environment, it is much easier to convince someone to try the game if I can say quests are running all weekend and each section takes about an hour. Getting someone to stay for three or four hours is extremely difficult at a non-gaming convention.
Quests make a great outreach, get more people to try the game.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't care what the format we use for XP, whether it be 3/level or 1000/level, whatever. I only have two requests
(1) We maintain the same rate of leveling. Three scenarios = 1 level
(2) We eliminate fractions. Assuming we keep slow track and quests, etc. the basic unit of measure should be formatted so the minimum reward you can earn is still a whole number. I really dislike have 1/2 XP for slow tracking scenarios. For PFS2 we have the chance to "fix" it, and I hope we do.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't care what the format we use for XP, whether it be 3/level or 1000/level, whatever. I only have two requests
(1) We maintain the same rate of leveling. Three scenarios = 1 level
(2) We eliminate fractions. Assuming we keep slow track and quests, etc. the basic unit of measure should be formatted so the minimum reward you can earn is still a whole number. I really dislike have 1/2 XP for slow tracking scenarios. For PFS2 we have the chance to "fix" it, and I hope we do.
I agree strongly with both points. So this is the scale I'd like to see:
- Quests are worth 2 XP a piece, or 1 XP on slow track.
- Scenarios are worth 8 XP a piece, or 4 XP on slow track.
- Modules are worth 24 XP per chapter, or 12 XP on slow track.
- It takes 24 XP to level up.
Advantages:
- No fractions with anything
- Quests can be designed out-of-order
- A typical quest pack would contain 4 quests, and this seems to fit the 1:4 scenario vs. quest time. Fits better in a Con slot.
Disadvantages:
- Encourages quest packs to be exactly 4 quests long; longer than that and the pack no longer generates the same XP as a scenario, or gives less XP per quest.
I think a quest pack generating a different amount of XP from a scenario is tolerable, although it shouldn't be encouraged.
- Calculating multiples of 24 is harder than multiples of 3. One solution for this is to put an XP/level table on the inevitable Chronicle Zero handout / in the Guide.
Actually, if we're including an XP/level table for convenience anyway, why not take a crazy step further? Ditch the fame/gold table and turn it into a level/gold table. The old fame/gold limit table was never a really comfortable fit; it was mostly irrelevant except for characters that played too many modules. If it's meant to simulate WBL, why not just do as Starfinder does and just openly link it to XP?
This would move Fame/PP entirely into the Faction side of the game, instead of the current hybrid system.
|
|
I'm prepping for paizocon right now am going through the exercise of checking each characters experience versus their level, this task would be more demanding and more prone to error with larger numbers.
Also I have the conversation at least twice with every new player about how much experience is what level. "I haven't played this guy in a while, is 9 xp level 3"
Simplicity is very important to me here, I think some of conceptually elegant solutions (1 xp per hour, 12 xp per level) will cause more little head aches.
Can anyone elaborate on why the dislike for fractions?
Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Paducah
|
I really don't care what the format we use for XP, whether it be 3/level or 1000/level, whatever. I only have two requests
(1) We maintain the same rate of leveling. Three scenarios = 1 level
(2) We eliminate fractions. Assuming we keep slow track and quests, etc. the basic unit of measure should be formatted so the minimum reward you can earn is still a whole number. I really dislike have 1/2 XP for slow tracking scenarios. For PFS2 we have the chance to "fix" it, and I hope we do.
I completely agree with point 1. But I don't mind fractions THAT much...I would suggest if they stay they be simple, say a numeric scale of 1, so .5 (1/2) or .2 (1/5) but not .25 (1/4) or .125 (1/8) and certainly not something repeating like 1/3 or 1/6.
If it is a 5 quest pack each quest could be .2 XP and the whole series be 1 XP. The math stays pretty simple, and the numbers small (which seems to be a concern).
But, I would prefer whole numbers, just don't really want to see 6XP/scenarios or 31XP/module or whatever just to have 1XP/quest on slow track.
|
Venture-Lieutenant
|
Slow track should be easy. Just double the experience needed to level and do not worry about it on the adventure record. A slow track PC needs 6 exp to level vs a normal needs 3. That makes it up to the player to make sure everything is correct and leave the GM to deal with all the other things a GM has to deal with.
--Chris
|
|
Slow track should be easy. Just double the experience needed to level and do not worry about it on the adventure record. A slow track PC needs 6 exp to level vs a normal needs 3. That makes it up to the player to make sure everything is correct and leave the GM to deal with all the other things a GM has to deal with.
--Chris
Because characters can switch back and forth between slow and normal tracks, that becomes a big challenge (can't divide by three and add one to figure out their level, don't level up at every interval of three). For example, I slow track the GM credit I assign to characters but normal track when I play them.
