Why does Pathfinder still have XP?

[Snowbluff]

1) No more XP cost for crafting.
2) No more XP costs on spells.
3) No LA buyoff.
4) No XP penalty for multiclassing.

Or rather, "Why do they have XP measured in thousands?"

I propose a smaller digit system. You have 30 Experience Points to level (Less on a faster levels game, etc).

3 Points is what you get for an average encounter. You get more and less for encounter based the encounter CR and the effective level of your party. For example, a "Boss Fight!" would give up to 5, where as an anemic kobold could give 1.

Modules would be written with encounters clearly define and what is worth XP. For example, clearing a couple of extra traps for some bonus loot could net an extra XP or 2.

Roleplaying would still be up to DMs. A suggested amount of roleplay XP (outside of "Social Encounters") would be a small amount, such as 1.

I can't be the first one to think of this. I think PFS has cut it down to 3, based on completing modules, but I find that too simplistic.

[watchwood]

Legacy material from an older system, from the looks of it.

[00dlez]

Just for the sake of discussion - adding a few zeros to things isn't a huge deal and can give the DM more flexiblity when giving awards.

Per your example, awarding a range of 1 to 5 XP for encounters ranging from house cat to BBEG is limiting where as awarding 10 to 5,000 XP for encounters ranging from house cat to BBEG allows for a wider spectrum of possible awards.

A timely and witty remark shouted at the party's nemesis might be woth 50 XP in the "thousands style" XP system, what would you give it in the more basic system? a whole 1? .05? There's no difference between using decimals and adding digits, so why rock the boat?

[Ravens_cry]

The extra granularity ain't a bad thing necessarily. It means you can fine tune the experience gained that much more. And, kinaesthetically, people often like bigger numbers. Still, you could dock at least one zero off the numbers, easily.

[Fruchtkracher]

Also if you look at Pathfinder Society they apparantly realized that themselves. There you get a fix 1xp per module and level up every 3 xp.

[Novawurmson]

I gave up on experience years ago. The party levels when the DM says. It works much better.

[Lord Haart]

Are there level penalties for resurrection?

[Slipperychicken]

Or rather, "Why do they have XP measured in thousands?"


The same reason they kept a lot of seemingly-nonsensical stuff from 3.5: They had to copy/paste the 3.5 SRD if they wanted PF to be compatible enough for 3.5 players to be comfortable porting their material over. Having a different XP system would have turned off players who wanted to use their "old" experience values and costs. Things like this are basically what makes 3.P possible.


Are there level penalties for resurrection?

In Pathfinder, you get a "permanent" negative level instead. You don't get the daily save to remove it, but things like restoration can still take them off.

EDIT: It's an improvement over level loss in my opinion, since it keeps PCs from going into a "death spiral", where they die, lose a level, die again because they're weaker, lose another level, die again because they're even weaker, lose another level, and so on until they give up and roll a new character.

[Ravens_cry]

I gave up on experience years ago. The party levels when the DM says. It works much better.
It works great in a plot based game where everyone is willing to follow the breadcrumbs, and I've played most Adventure Paths this way. However, it's more difficult in a more sandbox game.

[Snowbluff]

It works great in a plot based game where everyone is willing to follow the breadcrumbs, and I've played most Adventure Paths this way. However, it's more difficult in a more sandbox game.

I concur. I usually just end up leveling people as I level them. :smalltongue:

[Novawurmson]

I concur. I usually just end up leveling people as I level them. :smalltongue:

The thing that surprised me about switching to this system is that my players enjoy it more, too. Rather than spending game time arguing about how much experience that goblin really should have been worth, leveling is a reward for completing major party goals.

[Pex]

Are there level penalties for resurrection?

You get negative levels. (2 for Raise Dead, 1 for Resurrection, 0 for True Resurrection.) Each negative level is -1 to all rolls (except damage) and -5 to max hit points. You retain your character level for class abilities. Restoration restores 1 negative level a week. Greater Restoration restores all negative levels.

[Slipperychicken]

The thing that surprised me about switching to this system is that my players enjoy it more, too. Rather than spending game time arguing about how much experience that goblin really should have been worth, leveling is a reward for completing major party goals.

I would likely prefer this system over "you level when I say so", because with a number there, it feels less arbitrary, and more like a progression.

Of course, problems with XP and leveling remain, like why my Wizard comes out of the dungeon better at basketweaving than when he went in, even though he hasn't touched a basket in years.

[Ravens_cry]

I would likely prefer this system over "you level when I say so", because with a number there, it feels less arbitrary, and more like a progression.

True, it also takes a greater degree of trust in your GM.


Of course, problems with XP and leveling remain, like why my Wizard comes out of the dungeon better at basketweaving than when he went in, even though he hasn't touched a basket in years.
Eh, while a computer can handle a 'skills used get XP, with related skills getting less, and non-related skills not at all' system, but in a tabletop system, where all the math is external? For simulation-heavy games only.

[Slipperychicken]

Eh, while a computer can handle a 'skills used get XP, with related skills getting less, and non-related skills not at all' system, but in a tabletop system, where all the math is external? For simulation-heavy games only.

I agree with that. Leveling might have problems, but that doesn't always mean that fixing them is worth the trouble :smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

I agree with that. Leveling might have problems, but that doesn't always mean that fixing them is worth the trouble :smallbiggrin:
If you think that's bad, imagine how complex a 'realistic' encumbrance system would be.:smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

The thing that surprised me about switching to this system is that my players enjoy it more, too.
Whether or not PF is a fun system is really off topic. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

1) Some DMs like it, as a fair/impartial arbiter of when party members should advance.

2) It's extremely useful, in conjunction with the CR system (at least, where that works), to help the DM design encounters. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nx-o8VAjhUwh3nnfzDQT-JA5eFLnN_BZJiBitGjBMDg/edit)



Note however that you can still do "you level up when I say so" games even if you're using XP budgets to aid in your encounter design.

[MonochromeTiger]

1) Some DMs like it, as a fair/impartial arbiter of when party members should advance.

2) It's extremely useful, in conjunction with the CR system (at least, where that works), to help the DM design encounters. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nx-o8VAjhUwh3nnfzDQT-JA5eFLnN_BZJiBitGjBMDg/edit)



Note however that you can still do "you level up when I say so" games even if you're using XP budgets to aid in your encounter design.

agreeing with psyren but adding one simple thing.

XP with big numbers can feel rewarding for some people. which sounds better "well you just beat the lich and their minions and saved the world, congratulations now just get through the rest of this story and I'll let you level" or "you just beat the lich and their minions and saved the world, you get 8025 xp each"?

[Slipperychicken]

If you think that's bad, imagine how complex a 'realistic' encumbrance system would be.:smalltongue:

Don't remind me. I've been playing Dwarf Fortress adventure mode all week, and trying to juggle my "inventory slots" is excruciating, even with the wiki right in my face..

[Tevesh]

I also use the 'they level when I say so' and I'm surprised that someone responded with 'you've got to trust the DM'.

If you don't trust the DM on your experience, how can you trust them any other facet of the game? Why play at all if your views do not mesh?

This negative level from Pathfinder does solve the one bee in my bonnet over how do I show that dying is bad but don't want to begin a death spiral for the unlucky individual who kicked the bucket.

Luckily, all the deaths so far have resolved with the player wanting to play a new character. Now I'm ready for whomever wants to just come back.

[Firechanter]

A recent poll on a different forum suggests that about half of PF groups (represented there) play entirely without XP. They just level up when the DM says so.

[cakellene]

A recent poll on a different forum suggests that about half of PF groups (represented there) play entirely without XP. They just level up when the DM says so.

I hate that kind of system, but to each their own.

[MonochromeTiger]

I hate that kind of system, but to each their own.

agreed, both on the dislike of that kind of system and on the understanding that just cause I don't like it doesn't mean everyone doesn't. albeit it really DOES depend on the DM if it is or isn't effective, and I've seen a few DMs aiming for a TPK instead of an interesting game.

[cakellene]

And how is it handled in those kinds of games when crafting or using spells with xp costs?

[Vanitas]

Whether or not PF is a fun system is really off topic. :smalltongue:

He was talking about the no-XP system.

[Leon]

Go with Dungeon Worlds way - Exp when you fail a roll

[Snowbluff]

1) Some DMs like it, as a fair/impartial arbiter of when party members should advance.[quote] The biggest issue is that XP amounts are pointless except "Hey, big numbers!" in PF.
[QUOTE]
2) It's extremely useful, in conjunction with the CR system (at least, where that works), to help the DM design encounters. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nx-o8VAjhUwh3nnfzDQT-JA5eFLnN_BZJiBitGjBMDg/edit)

Entirely irrelevant, considering that monsters would still have a CR, just not a calculated XP reward. A smaller point system could still get you 1 level in 10 encounters, with and appropriately challenging encounter. The level of complication in the math could instead be invested in arranging a system that can accept a varying number of players.




Note however that you can still do "you level up when I say so" games even if you're using XP budgets to aid in your encounter design.
wut. I thought that much was obvious. ._.

[Psyren]

The biggest issue is that XP amounts are pointless except "Hey, big numbers!" in PF.

What's wrong with "big numbers!" This sounds like a personal problem to me.


The level of complication in the math could instead be invested in arranging a system that can accept a varying number of players.

That's my point - there's already a system in place. So expending resources into making something else is a waste of time and energy, especially when the majority of their target audience already knows what XP is.

[Snowbluff]

What's wrong with "big numbers!" This sounds like a personal problem to me.
Baseless assumptions aside, they can be difficult to keep track of, and are entirely vestigial. When I see something that doesn't function, I tend to want to take an axe to it, like I did with monk and fighter in my play.



That's my point - there's already a system in place. So expending resources into making something else is a waste of time and energy, especially when the majority of their target audience already knows what XP is.

This isn't about development resources. This is about effort on the part of the DM and players. The CR systems currently assume 4 players. You can spend that effort cross referencing a party size instead. :smallwink:

From the player perspective, they only have to remember a small number for their total XP, and only have to know that each level is the same number of XP, be it 3, 10 or 30.

Also, it's questionable PF players know anything. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

They're much easier to track in PF - they only ever go in one direction.

For the DM and players, I'd argue it's more effort to come up with something new than it is to simply reference a table.

The beauty is that, those DMs who see it as being unnecessary can simply abandon it. But since it's easier to abandon something than create it from scratch, they ported it over from 3.5 even though it can be safely omitted. It's a "best of both worlds" scenario.

[Lord Vukodlak]

1) No more XP cost for crafting.
2) No more XP costs on spells.
3) No LA buyoff.
4) No XP penalty for multiclassing.
2nd edition had none of those either and still had xp. . Originally the only thing XP did was level you up it was 3rd edition that came up with the idea to spend xp on stuff. Why should xp be dumped just because PF dumped alternate ways to spend it.



This isn't about development resources. This is about effort on the part of the DM and players.
So your arguing in favor of the XP system rather then an arbitrary system that creates more work. If you level up when a DM says so, that can lead to arguments with the DM. It creates more on the part of the dungeon master because he now has to decided when PC's level up, how does he handle a PC missing an encounter or an adventure, how does he handle story awards? Arbitrary does not equate to easier.

The PF XP system is simple. It not like 3rd edition where you need to look up tables and compare party levels. A CR 3 creature gives 800xp divided by the number of players period. You don't get more for being level one or less for being at level ten. But at level one 800xp is significant, at level ten its trivial. Its why PF uses big numbers rather then have the ogre grant less and less xp they simply adjusted the curve to do the same job

[Snowbluff]

Lord, my problem is with dangling 66.6 XP remaining after the XP being divided up.


For the DM and players, I'd argue it's more effort to come up with something new than it is to simply reference a table.

Well, on the other hand we have CMB, which didn't need to be changed (arguably) and was something everyone everyone understood before the change.

[Vanitas]

2nd edition had none of those either and still had xp. . Originally the only thing XP did was level you up it was 3rd edition that came up with the idea to spend xp on stuff. Why should xp be dumped just because PF dumped alternate ways to spend it.

To be fair, in 2nd edition each class required different amounts of XP to level up.

[Psyren]

Lord, my problem is with dangling 66.6 XP remaining after the XP being divided up.

In general, you round down with fractions, so if there is fractional XP left over it is simply lost.



Well, on the other hand we have CMB, which didn't need to be changed (arguably) and was something everyone everyone understood before the change.

Putting aside this is not relevant to the topic at hand (XP), CMB vs. CMD is a much simpler comparison than the plethora of varied maneuver checks in 3.5. It allowed them to add a pile of new maneuvers, like groin kicks/eye pokes/drag/reposition that did not exist before, and the DM does not have to learn anything new to adjudicate them.

[Snowbluff]

In general, you round down with fractions, so if there is fractional XP left over it is simply lost. Even then, the 66 XP has no value. That could have made me a wand in 3.5. Unless I get another dangling piece of XP, I just waste time on ridiculous book keeping.


Putting aside this is not relevant to the topic at hand (XP), CMB vs. CMD is a much simpler comparison than the plethora of varied maneuver checks in 3.5. It allowed them to add a pile of new maneuvers, like groin kicks/eye pokes/drag/reposition that did not exist before, and the DM does not have to learn anything new to adjudicate them.
It's perfectly on topic. You are okay with that being simplified, but XP not being further streamlined?

Actually off topic, dirty tricks really blow. :smalltongue:

[MonochromeTiger]

Even then, the 66 XP has no value. That could have made me a wand in 3.5. Unless I get another dangling piece of XP, I just waste time on ridiculous book keeping.


as opposed to giving up a set amount of xp every time you use a certain spell or make an item and thus having to change your listed xp even more often? also on the topic of negative levels how would either xp loss or "level when the DM says" deal with that as the player becomes dependent on not overusing something that may be useful or throwing themselves to the mercy of the DM to regain something they've lost (which may very well be from terrible luck with dice and not a lack of planning or thought). if a level is lost using the xp payment system and they're then forced to use xp on something to keep the rest of the group alive it's only furthering the gap between them and their group.

[Slipperychicken]

If you don't trust the DM on your experience, how can you trust them any other facet of the game?


As for my current GM, he's an excellent GM, a fun dude who helps bring the game to life in ways other GMs in my experience have not. I'm willing to give him some room with rules (like implementing homebrew monsters ported from Magic the Gathering) because I trust him to an extent to use his powers fairly and help us generate a good experience. However, I felt dissatisfied with his handling of leveling when he did it by fiat (it seemed much too quick, and I have a hard time suspending my disbelief when our characters gain so many levels while doing so little to earn them).

Each GM (just like any other person) has strengths and weaknesses. Some are better at roleplaying NPCs, some are better at dungeon design, some aren't so good at arbitrary leveling.

[Psyren]

Even then, the 66 XP has no value. That could have made me a wand in 3.5. Unless I get another dangling piece of XP, I just waste time on ridiculous book keeping.

If you don't like the bookkeeping, why do it? Just drop XP entirely.

Again, it's for DMs that do/are used to it. Nothing says that has to be you.


Actually off topic, dirty tricks really blow. :smalltongue:

They're thematic and flavorful. Maybe not the best choice for the heroic and skillful PCs, but getting kicked in the balls by a thieves' guild strongarm is going to put the taste for vengeance in any player's mouth :smallbiggrin:



Each GM (just like any other person) has strengths and weaknesses. Some are better at roleplaying NPCs, some are better at dungeon design, some aren't so good at arbitrary leveling.

Exactly, some DMs are inexperienced - and without a guideline can end up leveling the players erratically, or too fast, or too slow. Using math gives everyone at least some assurance that things are fair.

[Ravens_cry]

Exactly, some DMs are inexperienced - and without a guideline can end up leveling the players erratically, or too fast, or too slow. Using math gives everyone at least some assurance that things are fair.
That's precisely what I meant about trust. Every DM has some things they are better at, and going for arbitrary 'level up' requires trust they are good at knowing when is a good time to level up.

[Vanitas]

Oh, there is a point for numerical XP in Pathfinder - the different advancement tables (slow/medium/fast).

[Snowbluff]

Oh, there is a point for numerical XP in Pathfinder - the different advancement tables (slow/medium/fast).
You can do that with a lower digit XP system. All they did was add a percentage. :l

If you don't like the bookkeeping, why do it? Just drop XP entirely That's actually off topic. The question isn't "Why have an XP system?", it's "why this XP system."



Exactly, some DMs are inexperienced - and without a guideline can end up leveling the players erratically, or too fast, or too slow. Using math gives everyone at least some assurance that things are fair.
And then you proceed to answer your own, off-topic question.

Nice skirting the question you could not answer.


as opposed to giving up a set amount of xp every time you use a certain spell or make an item and thus having to change your listed xp even more often? This is also actually off topic. The thread isn't about 3.5. I am fine with have large amounts of XP each level if I can use it as a resource for something else. It's like having vespene gas and minerals. The crafting rules and spells with XP costs are optional a vast majority of the time.

[Lord Vukodlak]

In general, you round down with fractions, so if there is fractional XP left over it is simply lost.Actually in PF you round to the nearest whole number. So 66.6 becomes 67.


Even then, the 66 XP has no value. That could have made me a wand in 3.5. Unless I get another dangling piece of XP, I just waste time on ridiculous book keeping. What book keeping? is adding numbers to a running total really that hard?

From the DM's side because xp rewards only changed based on CR and not party level figuring out how much XP the party gets is easy, no complicated tables.(but they do have a table for xp rewards


It's perfectly on topic. You are okay with that being simplified, but XP not being further streamlined?
Pathfinder already streamlined XP significantly, what you propose is NOT simplified its arbitrary which can lead to arguments and complications when not every PC is present for every challenge. Arbitrary work is the hardest work if your trying to do it fairly

[Snowbluff]

what you propose is NOT simplified its arbitrary and can lead to arguments and complications when not every PC is present for every challenge. How so? Clarify. Argue. Propose. Do something that is worth listening to. I am open to advice, but simply stating a negative isn't effective or helpful.

I also want to know how not being present affects the new XP system. If you were not present/participating, you get no XP. Isn't that how it works in PF? :smallconfused:


Leveling up when the DM says so is railroading.
This is actually off topic.

Wait, did anyone read what I was proposing? I mean, you guys make it sound like I am making a case for just entirely removing any form of XP. Were any of these post anything but knee-jerk responses and personal attacks?

[Psyren]

That's actually off topic. The question isn't "Why have an XP system?", it's "why this XP system."

I'll answer your question with the question I posed earlier that you did not answer: "why bother going to the herculean effort of making and balancing a brand new XP system with smaller numbers when there is already a perfectly serviceable one?"

While I agree there are options besides "use the existing one" and "drop XP entirely", I don't think the effort required to create those new options is a valuable use of designer time. They were right to leave that up to individual DMs.

(Unless you're saying there's a vast majority of you that want smaller XP numbers?)

[Snowbluff]

I'll answer your question with the question I posed earlier that you did not answer: "why bother going to the herculean effort of making and balancing a brand new XP system with smaller numbers when there is already a perfectly serviceable one?"[quote] The same question could be posed to any of the changes posed in PF. *shrug*

The purpose is to limit the number of things that need to be remembered with each XP. You only ever need the same amount of XP to level. It's one less thing to remember. This was kind of true in 3.5. When you hit a level, you need (Your level x 1000) XP to level up. There is a pattern in PF, but it's not as clean. (You need the next levels amount of XP x 1000?), and it gets more complicated with the other 2 tracks. Ideally, that would not be a chart. "You need 30 XP to level," and "Your level is your XP/30 rounded up (Plus 1)." \

EDIT: This might be better as expressed as "You level every 30 XP."

I like having easy equations I can memorize. :smalltongue:

The second part is to try and define encounter better. Ideally, you would get more XP for things that aren't necessarily a fight, and I would like to put some more hard rules to that. This would be helpful
[QUOTE]
While I agree there are options besides "use the existing one" and "drop XP entirely", I don't think the effort required to create those new options is a valuable use of designer time. They were right to leave that up to individual DMs.
I can appreciate this.

[Psyren]

I'm confused - you acknowledge the existence of the chart, but then say something like "it's one less thing to remember." But, the whole point of a chart, is so you DON'T have to remember it, right?



The second part is to try and define encounter better. Ideally, you would get more XP for things that aren't necessarily a fight, and I would like to put some more hard rules to that.

There can't really be hard rules to that, because XP should be tied to difficulty, and the difficulty of overcoming a challenge that isn't a fight is too dependent on the nature of the challenge itself. Guidelines are all that can really be provided in such a situation, and both games did that.

Perhaps a good rule of thumb or starting point would be "how much XP would I have given the players if this HAD been a fight, and they defeated it normally?" and then adjust downward from there, since talking is less risky. For instance, if they talk down the hostile dragon and avoid a fight, they should get XP - but if talking it down involved a single skill check, I would award slightly less, especially since the consequences of failure likely would have been just fighting it anyway.

And this too is where the full XP values come in handy, because making them larger numbers allows more granularity when it comes to dividing them up. Now, instead of splitting the XP perfectly evenly, you have the option of giving a little bit more to the face or loremonkey than the others, since without their help there would have been a dangerous fight. Similarly, the trapmonkey should get a bigger slice of the pie if a dangerous mechanism is shut off so the entire party can move on to the next area.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Wait, did anyone read what I was proposing? I mean, you guys make it sound like I am making a case for just entirely removing any form of XP. Were any of these post anything but knee-jerk responses and personal attacks?
According to your topic title that is what your purposing. You ask why does pathfinder still have an xp, which tells us your looking to get rid of it. You should have asked "why do they use big numbers"


3 Points is what you get for an average encounter. You get more and less for encounter based the encounter CR and the effective level of your party. For example, a "Boss Fight!" would give up to 5, where as an anemic kobold could give 1.

What constitutes a boss fight? How many CR 3 creatures does it take to make an average party encounter for five level five PC's. What if the party is above or below the recommended level for the adventure module? how do you adjust the XP?

What is the encounter level for a party of four 7th level PC's containing Ten CR 2's Two CR 3's and a CR 6? That's something a DM has to figure out under your system and it gets complicated.

Under pathfinder every CR 2 is worth 600, every CR 3 is worth 800 and every CR 6 is worth 2,400. There is no adjusting the xp rewards based on party level, you don't need to figure out the effective CR of the whole encounter together. That is just an overly complicated headache which your system would bring back.

Looking up the table for how much XP you need to level up isn't hard, in fact some sheets have a current XP entry and "Next Level XP" entry. So you'd only need to do it each time you leveled up because you have how much you need for the next level on your sheet.

But
"You get more and less for encounter based the encounter CR and the effective level of your party." Means you have to check stuff every single encounter its a lot more work for the DM.

[Psyren]

What Vuko said. This is one of the main things I am glad PF ditched.

[Bhaakon]

Baseless assumptions aside, they can be difficult to keep track of, and are entirely vestigial. When I see something that doesn't function, I tend to want to take an axe to it, like I did with monk and fighter in my play.

That fine for you and your group, but Paizo is running a business. A large part (virtually all?) of their fan base are D&D legacy players, and, for many of them, familiarity with and nostalgia for D&D are the major impetus for investing in the system. It may seem like reforming the XP system would be a small change, but tinker with enough such details and suddenly it doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

Now that's not an issue for many RPG players, particularly ones who play in multiple systems, but that familiarity factor is a big part of the reason why Pathfinder is outselling those other systems.

Also, it's not that hard to track XP. Simple addition, even with big numbers, isn't that difficult. It's not THAC0.

[Firechanter]

Personally, I prefer properly calculated Encounter-based XP.
Why?
So that we can be sure to see some action at the table.

If there's just a fixed key "You gain a level every 3rd session" or so, or the DM just assigns levelups by fiat, you can find yourself trapped in neverending sessions of boredom. And if you complain about too-talky sessions, the DM might say "What do you want, you've just gained a level".

With Encounter XP, when sessions are action-less, slow and boring, I have _proof_ that something is wrong, and can confront the DM about it.

[Crustypeanut]

I do my best to never let myself have 66 experience left over that can't be divided evenly with the group. I always like to round it. Say there are four players in the group, and this pops up. I'll round it up to 100 experience and give everyone 25 xp.

I'm OCD like Snowbluff in that regard - but I still like experience. My players do too. They enjoy it when I say "You gained 2000 experience each!" at the end of the night, for example.

In that sense, I also try to make encounters based on the number of people I know will be showing up so I don't have to worry about that issue. But if it comes up, a slight bump up (or down) to the nearest number that I like suffices.

On that note, I hate CR 1/3rd creatures. When I bring them out, they always come out in threes, or not at all. Heh :P

[Pex]

And this too is where the full XP values come in handy, because making them larger numbers allows more granularity when it comes to dividing them up. Now, instead of splitting the XP perfectly evenly, you have the option of giving a little bit more to the face or loremonkey than the others, since without their help there would have been a dangerous fight. Similarly, the trapmonkey should get a bigger slice of the pie if a dangerous mechanism is shut off so the entire party can move on to the next area.

I would advise against that. The face of the party is supposed to do the talking. The trapmonkey is supposed to disarm the trap. That's the whole point. The party is in it together. They should get XP together. Getting a moment to shine is for the fun. It shouldn't be for the XP. The fighter is not going to want to talk things out if the bard keeps getting more XP because he keeps helping avoid fights. He'll go right for the sword and demand more XP than the bard who just sang and gave a +1 bonus.

[Psyren]

I would advise against that. The face of the party is supposed to do the talking. The trapmonkey is supposed to disarm the trap. That's the whole point. The party is in it together. They should get XP together. Getting a moment to shine is for the fun. It shouldn't be for the XP. The fighter is not going to want to talk things out if the bard keeps getting more XP because he keeps helping avoid fights. He'll go right for the sword and demand more XP than the bard who just sang and gave a +1 bonus.

I see your point and definitely agree, but I think I got my point across poorly. I'm merely saying that when one member of the party saves everyone else a lot of headache by playing their role well, they should be rewarded. But it wasn't meant to be "every time you do the thing you're in the party to do." Only when it goes beyond the call of duty in some way.

I intended this to apply to combat situations too. If the fighter risks himself tp hold a chokepoint while the rest of the party escapes a collapsing dungeon, I would reward him a little extra for that too.

[MonochromeTiger]

I see your point and definitely agree, but I think I got my point across poorly. I'm merely saying that when one member of the party saves everyone else a lot of headache by playing their role well, they should be rewarded. But it wasn't meant to be "every time you do the thing you're in the party to do." Only when it goes beyond the call of duty in some way.

I intended this to apply to combat situations too. If the fighter risks himself tp hold a chokepoint while the rest of the party escapes a collapsing dungeon, I would reward him a little extra for that too.

sarcasm dictates that I ask, is the little extra he's being a rewarded a helmet to lessen the damage next time part of a dungeon falls on him?

[Psyren]

sarcasm dictates that I ask, is the little extra he's being a rewarded a helmet to lessen the damage next time part of a dungeon falls on him?

Hopefully he already has a helmet :smallbiggrin:

[Snowbluff]

This thread has gotten way outta my hands. I go to class and play one session, and I am little lost. I'll see about posting later. ~(' .')~

[Evandar]

Everyone knows non-magical helmets don't do anything.

[Psyren]

Everyone knows non-magical helmets don't do anything.

Not true at all! They can in fact look quite stylish.

[Slipperychicken]

Not true at all! They can in fact look quite stylish.

Everyone knows that the cool kids heroes fight without their helmets so the audience can tell who they are.

[TuggyNE]

Everyone knows that the cool kids heroes fight without their helmets so the audience can tell who they are.

*cough*WilliamatHastings*cough*

(OK, he didn't fight without a helmet, but he did, at least allegedly, take his off to stop a rout from false reports of his death.)

[Zombimode]

I would advise against that. The face of the party is supposed to do the talking. The trapmonkey is supposed to disarm the trap. That's the whole point. The party is in it together. They should get XP together. Getting a moment to shine is for the fun. It shouldn't be for the XP. The fighter is not going to want to talk things out if the bard keeps getting more XP because he keeps helping avoid fights. He'll go right for the sword and demand more XP than the bard who just sang and gave a +1 bonus.

If the party acts as a group, sure.

But the characters do not always act as a group. I award XP for achieving difficult objectives and overcoming challenges. If a character does something on his/her own, is the only one who contributes to this action, carries the risk all by himself and succeeds, then this character alone will be rewarded with XP.

A similar principle applies to characters, that are, for some reason or the other, absent (most likely because the player didn't made it). If less characters are present the risk will be higher, but so should be the reward.

[cakellene]

If the party acts as a group, sure.

But the characters do not always act as a group. I award XP for achieving difficult objectives and overcoming challenges. If a character does something on his/her own, is the only one who contributes to this action, carries the risk all by himself and succeeds, then this character alone will be rewarded with XP.

A similar principle applies to characters, that are, for some reason or the other, absent (most likely because the player didn't made it). If less characters are present the risk will be higher, but so should be the reward.

That leads to party imbalance, which is usually something you would do everything you can to avoid.

[Psyren]

That leads to party imbalance, which is usually something you would do everything you can to avoid.

Overall, yes - but XP is a river, so you can let one player slip ahead or fall behind for a little while without impacting the party in the larger scale.

[Slipperychicken]

Overall, yes - but XP is a river, so you can let one player slip ahead or fall behind for a little while without impacting the party in the larger scale.

I agree, I find that one only starts noticing the difference when you have 2-level disparity. Being one level behind isn't as bad as it sounds.

[Killer Angel]

I agree, I find that one only starts noticing the difference when you have 2-level disparity. Being one level behind isn't as bad as it sounds.

Even if i tend to agree, there's a clear difference if you compare two casters, if one can cast the higher lev. spells.


That said, back on the original topic: pathfinder is intended to be compatible with 3.5 products, so it's logical that they keep xps in the same range of values.

[Zombimode]

That leads to party imbalance, which is usually something you would do everything you can to avoid.

Party imbalance is only an issue if the gaps are very large, like 3-4+ levels. Such large gaps will simply not occur.

Sure, there may be players who just can't stand the idea that somethings is not balanced, but those players won't be happy playing 3.5 anyways, so I don't particularly care.