Pathfinder 2E Absolute XP

[CapnZapp]

I’m not sure I follow. In the relative scheme, XP doubles every two levels. You can extrapolate this all the way out as far as you want and convert it to an absolute scheme. All the way out, the XP value for +1 creatures is half way between +0 and +2. Obviously, if you’re not interested in extrapolating the original scheme, that doesn’t matter.

I might have not been clear.

I was talking about the interaction between fighting, say, a L-1 creature between one level and another.

With the relative system, such a critter is guaranteed to always be 75% of the baseline (an at-level creature). It is always 30 XP which is 75% of 40 XP.

You simply can't maintain that exact ratio over levels. Take your suggested scheme, for instance. While at level 3, yes, a level 1 creature is 75% of the XP you get from an at-level creature (60 XP vs 80 XP), this does not hold true at level 4 (80 XP is 67% of 120 XP).

I just mentioned it to say I didn't find it super compelling to strive for, so I didn't even try. No biggie

 

[kenada]

For me XP values are a necessary evil. They help determine challenges and set level up expectations in game design. However, Im milestone all the way. I wont ever award XP ever again as GM. So, as long as the system works it can be whatever it needs to be.

I feel the opposite. I won’t play in a game that uses milestone leveling, and it’s not something I would use in mine. I’m not interested in the kind of game that implies (story-driven adventures). However, I don’t think milestone versus other schemes is the intended topic of this thread.

 

[CapnZapp]

For me XP values are a necessary evil. They help determine challenges and set level up expectations in game design. However, Im milestone all the way. I wont ever award XP ever again as GM. So, as long as the system works it can be whatever it needs to be.

I'm about to GM the Abomination Vaults, where using xp is recommended. So I thought I'd dust off my old xp for gold scheme and update it for use.

Anyway, you're right. It might well be the players will rebel against having to keep track of xp and we will dump the idea. It's just that I've been told awarding xp offers the players a layer of agency in that it matters if they clean out one level before they descend to the next.

This was not true when we played Extinction Curse. As long as the job was done, the quest was done, the milestone was reached, and you leveled up. Making sure to find every little crawly-creepy in the corners were not even considered.

But here it allows the heroes to decide for themselves whether to explore more on this level, hoping to level up before going further down. Or so I'm led to believe.

Then, to emphasize the quests over the actual monster slaying, in order to encourage smart play over brute slaughter, I have tweaked the xp awards for monsters and quests.

What do you think?

 

[CapnZapp]

I feel the opposite. I won’t play in a game that uses milestone leveling, and it’s not something I would use in mine. I’m not interested in the kind of game that implies (story-driven adventures). However, I don’t think milestone versus other schemes is the intended topic of this thread.

Let me just add that most Paizo APs are "story driven". I found Extinction Curse to be an outright roller coaster. Tracking xp there would have been - again imho - entirely wasteful (just extra admin for no benefit).

But I'm not entirely against xp*. <aside>I do feel they should be the default, and that WotC and Paizo should stop propagating the illusion xp is some kind of quasi-scientific and accurate measure. Once you've pierced this veil, and realize the party will always be at a level the GM is happy with, you're free to use them to your heart's desire! </aside>

*) I used them in my last campaign (the xp-for-gold experiment that was a Sandpoint sandbox) and I am suggesting to use them in this thing.

 

[CapnZapp]

Also, how does the proposed scheme handle hazards? Simple hazards are ⅕ the XP of a complex hazard, which is usually the same as a creature of that level. A shrieker is a level −1 simple hazard, so would it be worth 0.2 XP, which I assume would round down to 0 XP? Is that intended?

To be honest, I have never understood why "simple hazards" should be worth so little xp. Hazards are lethal in Pathfinder 2!

Same with "Minor accomplishments". Yech! That's for beancounters only - I can't imagine ever spending time on a quest or other accomplishment if it only gives out that little xp. Such a paltry amount is saying "don't waste a single second on me, I'm super unimportant". In the AP I just played, quests gave 30 or 40 XP (using the relative system), sometimes more, sometimes less. The text never bothered with handing out anything less than 10 XP. (Something like 3 XP when you need 1000 XP is a rounding error, not a meaningful reward!) <end rant>

I scaled my proposal so I wouldn't have to use fractional xp (with the sole exception of level -1 critters; because I feel 100 XP is a beautiful starting threshold) but I'll use the same solution I used there to answer you: round up to 1!

Edit: thank you for your extrapolated progression. It will be useful for people that find value in keeping the "feel" of the PF2 default system!

As you might have gleaned from my earlier mention, I'm basing my xp progression on the actual PF2 wealth progression. Why wealth and not xp? Because having a 1:1 gold to xp ratio sure makes things easier when you run xp for gold! To compare Kenada's and my systems, you might be interested in knowing a level 20 creature is worth 7000 XP in my system.

 

[kenada]

Let me just add that most Paizo APs are "story driven". I found Extinction Curse to be an outright roller coaster. Tracking xp there would have been - again imho - entirely wasteful (just extra admin for no benefit).

I’ve run several PF2 APs. I always augmented them, and things never went exactly according to plan. We also had parties of mixed levels (due to carious reasons). With that said, I’m not a fan of the default assumption that the bulk of your XP comes from fighting monsters. Other systems do it better.

But I'm not entirely against xp*. <aside>I do feel they should be the default, and that WotC and Paizo should stop propagating the illusion xp is some kind of quasi-scientific and accurate measure. Once you've pierced this veil, and realize the party will always be at a level the GM is happy with, you're free to use them to your heart's desire! </aside>

I’d certainly agree with dispensing with the idea that encounters can be balanced in all situations, though I’m not sure we have the same things in mind.

 

[payn]

I'm about to GM the Abomination Vaults, where using xp is recommended. So I thought I'd dust off my old xp for gold scheme and update it for use.

Anyway, you're right. It might well be the players will rebel against having to keep track of xp and we will dump the idea. It's just that I've been told awarding xp offers the players a layer of agency in that it matters if they clean out one level before they descend to the next.

This was not true when we played Extinction Curse. As long as the job was done, the quest was done, the milestone was reached, and you leveled up. Making sure to find every little crawly-creepy in the corners were not even considered.

But here it allows the heroes to decide for themselves whether to explore more on this level, hoping to level up before going further down. Or so I'm led to believe.

Then, to emphasize the quests over the actual monster slaying, in order to encourage smart play over brute slaughter, I have tweaked the xp awards for monsters and quests.

What do you think?

I think you are on the right track then. I dislike using XP because it tends to lead the players decisions based on what they think the best reward is, as opposed to what seems best to their goals. XP awards always felt inorganic and gamey to me. Though, if you are going for an old school approach, then it makes sense. I like the XP system to work, I just prefer it stay under the hood.

That said, I wish PF2 was a little more into resource attrition for an old school approach. This would add to the press your luck approach to Abomination Vaults. Though, I am getting into that old school vs nu skool territory again. I think your proposed system will work and I think it would be interesting if the players understand how it works too. Might feel more like a tournament as a megadungeon tends to feel.

Do you also intend to use this XP system with traps, haunts, hazards, etc..?

 

[CapnZapp]

That said, I wish PF2 was a little more into resource attrition for an old school approach. This would add to the press your luck approach to Abomination Vaults.

Do you also intend to use this XP system with traps, haunts, hazards, etc..?

"Me too" and "yes, I don't see why not"

 

[nevin]

I think you are on the right track then. I dislike using XP because it tends to lead the players decisions based on what they think the best reward is, as opposed to what seems best to their goals. XP awards always felt inorganic and gamey to me. Though, if you are going for an old school approach, then it makes sense. I like the XP system to work, I just prefer it stay under the hood.

That said, I wish PF2 was a little more into resource attrition for an old school approach. This would add to the press your luck approach to Abomination Vaults. Though, I am getting into that old school vs nu skool territory again. I think your proposed system will work and I think it would be interesting if the players understand how it works too. Might feel more like a tournament as a megadungeon tends to feel.

Do you also intend to use this XP system with traps, haunts, hazards, etc..?

Playing for the first time in a Milestone game I'd argue that it creates a bigger problem. not having XP disconnects the player from the reward. I find Consequences fix those player's. If the players only go for the best percieved reward then "other NPC's " will do the stuff more important to the populace and begin to overshadow the PC's. Or if they do thing's like slaughter a whole tribe of orcs for XP, then the whole ecology get's messed up and a Druidic Order becomes thier enemy. Or a few levels later the High level 1/2 orc adventuring party that left the village 15 years ago comes after them. Plenty of ways to deal with greedy, Pc's abusing any system in the game.

I completely agree on resource attrition. My mage (first in pathfinder) never runs out of spells. I run out of high levels spells but I've got what feels like an unlimited amount of lower spells. I'll never agree mages are overpowered but I completely see how a DM that wanted to run the mage short on resources would get frustrated.

 

[ronaldsf]

First off, I wanted to say that I'm using an Absolute XP variant with my "Westmarch-lite" campaign that I'm setting in Otari, which is incorporating Menace Under Otari, Troubles in Otari, Abomination Vaults, and anything other players want to GM. (I'm adding a new "quest line" on the adventurers' guild's jobs board occasionally; in the last session I introduced a job post about an "emerald spire" in the nearby wood.) However, I am keeping the 2:1 ratio of XP for every 2 levels that is in the original design. The reason I'm using Absolute XP is to account for mixed level parties, as there is no consistent group of players, and character death means making a new character that starts at Level 1. (I am also using the Proficiency Without Level variant.)

For the problem that CapnZapp raises, of wanting to incentivize taking on higher challenges with a disproportionate amount of XP, I'd be more inclined to take a "softer" approach to XP, and not be chained to the math. For example, if an APL+2 level creature "feels" narratively and in actual encounter difficulty like a deadly boss fight, I'd be inclined to give it the Severe XP reward of 120. There are places in the OP's posted formula, where sometimes several enemies that are lower level than the party come off as hardly a threat at all, and yet still would yield a lot of XP... I just had that experience running mitflits against a party consisting almost entirely of martial characters.

So, if the goal is to reward the party for assuming high risk, I'd be more inclined to give ad hoc rewards, or plant high level treasure, rather than to create numerical rewards that might produce strange results in some situations.

EDIT: What I meant to say wasn't that I keep the 2:1 ratio of XP every 2 levels, but that I keep the original designers' XP ratio's intact. And since I use the Proficiency Without Level variant, I'm using the 3:2 ratio every 2 levels that is in the GMG.