[PF] Experience Points

[Zeromage1]

Hi, guys,

I want to run a really long lasting campaign but I don't want the characters to get past level 12 or so that magic and character's powers get too out of control and encounters become impossible to plan for. Do you guys have any recommendations? Have you ever run a campaign via the slow track? (It seems like it basically 1 level slower). I was thinking of using the slow track and also halving xp given, but I also don't want to frustrate players to the point where they gain no new abilities and get bored.

[Slipperychicken]

Have you considered talking to them about simply capping their level somewhere reasonable or reining in their abilities? Basically, tell them what you posted here: that you're having trouble planning for their abilities, and also your concerns about them getting bored if they don't level up or gain new abilities.

One compromise is to do what E6 does: institute a level cap, but after you hit the cap, you get a new feat every time you gain N additional experience. Players can still look forward to getting XP and new abilities, but it's usually not going to to be very problematic unless they beeline for broken combos.

[Zeromage1]

One compromise is to do what E6 does: institute a level cap, but after you hit the cap, you get a new feat every time you gain N additional experience. Players can still look forward to getting XP and new abilities, but it's usually not going to to be very problematic unless they beeline for broken combos.

I really like that idea. Is E6 a poster on this board? Do you have a recommendation for what level to make that cap? Also, maybe I could do something like up to level 10 levels will advance as usual. Then maybe from level 11-15 have a break where it's just a feat per level. Then pick up again at level 16 (which would be level 11 as normal). If that makes any sense.

[TuggyNE]

I really like that idea. Is E6 a poster on this board?

E6 (or more generally E(X)) is a system that cuts off the usual leveling system at a particular point and replaces it with feats gained every 5000 XP after that. E6 itself was the first, stopping at level 6, but E8 and E10 are also fairly common. Here's an overview (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/9470/roleplaying-games/ex-the-many-games-inside-the-worlds-most-popular-roleplaying-game).

[Zeromage1]

Thanks, guys.

[BWR]

I've run Slow progression campaign, and after 2 years the PCs have hit level 15. MY gf expressed some concern that levelling would go too slowly, but she has come to agree that the current rate of advancement is fine.

I've played in several 3.5 games under a DM who hates fast levelling - he wants slow, sprawling games with tons of large, long fights and slow levelling. This is fine, we played 2e for more than 5 years and only hit level 11. What wasn't fine was many of his attempts to reign in xp. First he'd throw a heavy encounter at us then look at the xp reward and say "eh, that's too much, you get half". Needless to say, this royally pissed us off. After complaining loudly about it the next games instituted a flat half xp rate. This is fine. What wasn't fine was that in addition he instituted a cap of 1000 xp/person per combat. So he could throw these insane encounters at us and give us bugger all. Sometimes we'd lose 2/3rds or more of the xp we would have gotten, even taking the half into account. Again, this was very unpopular and we complained loudly until he gave in.
TLDR: giving reduced xp is fine, but don't do it vicariously and announce at the start of the game. If you don't want PCs getting too much xp, don't put them in situations where they would get it but rob them of it.

The most important thing to do is talk to your players and tell them what sort of game you want and how you will be handling advancement.

[Nibbens]

Yeah, be careful with lessening the XP players earn. The only time i'd advocate it is when they have a clear advantage i.e. Zombies walking forward slowly toward a town while players are all armed with bows along a building, prepared and ready for the wave. The situation here is "players fishing with dynamite" so to speak. Lessened risk to them, and easier killing potential. In this situation, absolutely lessen the XP because the players didn't have an appropriate "challange" for the CR.
Now, if he players were "in the barrel with the fish" (on the ground with the zombies) then no, the challenge is more appropriate for the CR.

[Segev]

Are EXP even meaningful in PF? Everybody is on the same EXP chart, and nobody can spend them on anything. Everybody will level at the same time.

Why not just hand out levels at plot-appropriate points?

[Nibbens]

Are EXP even meaningful in PF? Everybody is on the same EXP chart, and nobody can spend them on anything. Everybody will level at the same time.

Why not just hand out levels at plot-appropriate points?

They do serve a purpose. Handing out levels every so often seems arbitrary (even if it's not) and can contribute to player dissatisfaction. I tried this before and my players felt cheated...
Also, players love two things. 1) rolling dice and 2) watching their numbers go up. Seeing the experience go up gives them a sense of accomplishment i've seen.

[Segev]

If that works for you, I suppose that's good, then.

I've played in games where the DM just hands out levels as the plot progresses, and it's worked well for us, but to each their own.

[squiggit]

Yeah I don't see how it's any more arbitrary than jury rigging and screwing with XP progression to have the same result.

Plus it saves on bookkeeping and cuts down on other XP related issues.

[BWR]

It depends on the players and the DM. If my aforementioned DM had just handed out levels when he felt it was appropriate we'd probably be around level 3 now (after 2.5 years and nearly level 9). That would be, considering all the stuff we've gone through, annoyingly and unfairly slow. He likes everyone else being as powerful or more powerful than us, but doesn't like us getting powerful. Once you have that sort of attitude you really need some sort of agreed upon, fixed rate of advancement. You send such and such an encounter at the PCs, they get that much closer to a level. This isn't arbitrary or random, it's a fixed progression with a method of calculating that is open to all. Handing out levels when the DM feels appropriate is far more random because the players have no input or insight but are entirely reliant on the DM handing it out.

[Axinian]

They do serve a purpose. Handing out levels every so often seems arbitrary (even if it's not) and can contribute to player dissatisfaction. I tried this before and my players felt cheated...
Also, players love two things. 1) rolling dice and 2) watching their numbers go up. Seeing the experience go up gives them a sense of accomplishment i've seen.

On the other hand, though, my group does it great effect. It also depends on how you time the level up. It's immesnely satisfying to level up after a tense and exciting boss battle or shocking revelation, rather than some normal encounter, as is often the case when using XP as is.