Pathfinder 2E Absolute XP

[CapnZapp]

I personally prefer absolute XP over the relative XP used by Pathfinder 2.

That is, instead of an Orc yielding 40 XP when you first start out, and then 30 XP when you have leveled up, and then 20 XP when you have leveled up again...

...I prefer that if an Orc gives 40 XP (say) it does so no matter your level. It's always 40 XP. Instead you need more and more XP to level up.

In short, classic XP.

Here's a scheme to accomplish that (not using 40 XP as a baseline, but instead starting off by requiring 100 XP to reach second level):

The interesting bit is what I explore in the Comments column, which I'll discuss in the next post.

Edit: Just like in the core game, all xp awards are per character and assumes a four-man party. So if the newly hatched heroes kill two level 1 goblins (worth 2 XP each) and bring back the lost bracelet for a level 1 quest completion (worth 10 XP), Alice gets 14 XP, Bob gets 14 XP, Cyril gets 14 XP and Daphne gets 14 XP...

 

[CapnZapp]

First off: for this particular exercise I have gone with a baseline of 50 monsters per level, not 25 as in the Paizo default. On the other hand, quest XP is boosted considerably compared to monsters. (In Adventure Paths, completing a quest gives you 30-80 XP which is to be compared to the 40 XP of a monster of your own level)

But that's not what I wanted to philosophize over...

Instead have a look at the strange line in the Comment column for level 1: Cf. 1-1-2-4-6-10 to 1-1½-2-3-4-6

What this does is, it compares the xp haul for monsters in this scheme with what you would have gotten if you kept the default progression. In Paizo's original scheme, you'll recall that while a monster your own level gives 40 XP, a monster one level lower gives 30 XP and a monster one level higher gives 60 XP (and so on). I have just translated that into what you would get if we replace the baseline (40 XP) with whatever this scheme is getting you.

What that line is telling you is this:
First off, the bolded part is your own level, so it's identical.
The next number to the right is for one level higher (level 2 in this case). With this scheme you're getting 4 XP, with the original scheme you would have gotten 3 XP.
Then you get 6 instead of 4 XP.
Then you get 10 instead of 6 XP.
For numbers to the left of the bolded number, we go down in level. The first number to the left is 1 instead of 1½, for instance.
And the second (leftmost) number is 1 (because we dislike half of an XP) and 1.

You can't maintain the exact same xp yields when you switch from relative to absolute numbers. So why not embrace this and focus on the upside?

In this case we have a system that encourages heroes to take risks and track down fearsome monsters that are three or more levels higher than the heroes. On the other hand, "farming" relatively low-level critters gives less than it would have done under the default scheme.

For instance, a level 3 hero gets 160 XP if his party brings down a level 7 monster in the default scheme, or four times the 40 XP you get for a monster of your own level.

In this scheme, the same hero would get 35 XP (because every level 7 monster always gives that), to be compared to the 6 XP you get for a monster of your own level. This means going for the BBEG gives you almost six times the XP (5.83) instead of just four times!

Any thoughts...? I find that this more accurately mirrors the actual risk you are taking. The risk vs monsters of relatively low level just isn't there, while fighting monsters higher level than yourself carries considerable risk.


Zapp

PS. This is about rewards, not encounter budgets. The assumption is you aren't changing the way you populate encounters (that is, you still run adventure paths as written).

 

[aco175]

I do not play PF, but can see where they were going with XP for threats that become less of a treat. At first it appears to be more recordkeeping for the DM. Another thought is to where it fits with a sandbox and if 'farming' the lower threats for XP is worth it- or even happens. As the DM, I would likely add challenge to the orcs to make them a challenge again if the PCs skipped them at the lower level.

Does the PF2 system have something else that XP needed is 2000 (or whatever) to gain level 3? The XP can come from a bunch of orcs, but the game is saying that at some point the orcs are worth less, since the threat is less. By giving the full XP is the game math going to be skewed? Is this at 3rd, 5th, 10th level? I would think that keeping the full XP is not a problem.

Another thought is the game and players. If they are having fun and you are fine with it, then it is ok. At some point, my players would grow tired with killing orcs and look for the orc chief, or orc/ogre crossbreeds to gain more XP. I would add giants and beasts that they keep as pets to give out more XP. I guess I would not worry that much about it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I should add that in my experience (I have GMd one adventure path from 1 to 20; whether you call that limited experience or not I leave up to you) the most danger doesn't come from a single high-level boss.

The most danger comes from fights where there are as many monsters (or nearly so) as heroes. For instance, given an Extreme-threat encounter budget, you can place a single L+4 monster in that encounter. But it is likely more trouble for the heroes to feature four at-level foes, for instance. Or two L+1 monsters and one of those at-level ones.

Three monsters have three times as many actions as the single BBEG, and at least twice as many hit points. And most debuffs are likely to only hit some, not all, of the monsters.

Disclaimer: This applies during the first half of the game. Once heroes reach level 15 or so, they can handle much harder fights than a mere 160 XP fight, since by that time monsters below your own level just melt away: the casters now have so awesome spells that you can add a dozen L-2's and the difficulty doesn't change, because the spell the wizard planned to cast is going to wipe these with zero extra effort.

Case in point:

Spoiler: The final fight of our Extinction Curse campaign

It's one of the few Extreme-threat encounters of the entire campaign. And it was a rout. This fight is scripted to take place on a platform that raises to the top of the tower, where beams of light will grant the BBEG five lives(!)

And I stuffed the encounter with many more opponents because I knew Extreme wasn't nearly as scared as before. But the BBEG didn't even get the chance to initiate the encounter. He got slapped with the Fleeing condition and so he could not start the raising of the platform, and when he got back to normal all his eleven allies were dead (the party wiped them all in two rounds flat), and he made an attack, inflicted a bit of damage, and was then promptly whaled upon by everybody and died.

Then the heroes scored a critical success and I told them about the light resurrection thingy. So they simply lifted his carcass outside the platform before going up to investigate (and disable the source of his energy)

Fight over - and campaign over - like it was some Moderate-level routine warm-up exercise.

 

[CapnZapp]

I do not play PF, but can see where they were going with XP for threats that become less of a treat.

Just to clarify that (perhaps surprisingly) I'm actually not criticizing anything in this thread. Relative xp is not a thing that gets in the way or ruins your game or anything like that. It just is. That I find no xp (aka milestone leveling) to be the far easier approach for most games is kind of off-topic.

For this thread I should reiterate absolute xp is not inherently superior. I just prefer it.

In this thread I'm mostly fishing for comments and analysis on the fact you cannot maintain the exact same ratios between at-level foes and not-at-level foes when you switch between absolute and relative XP (and vice versa)

 

[CapnZapp]

Does the PF2 system have something else that XP needed is 2000 (or whatever) to gain level 3?

In Pathfinder 2, you always need 1000 XP to level up. If you're level one, you need 1000 XP to reach level two. If you're level nineteen, you need 1000 XP to reach level twenty.

This corresponds to 25 monsters of your own level. If you kill an orc as a level 1 hero, you gain 40 XP. If you kill a Pit Fiend as a level 20 hero, you gain 40 XP. In all cases, killing 25 monsters your own level means 40x25=1000 XP.

This is what I call "relative XP" as opposed to "absolute XP" which doesn't care about the hero's level. One example of the latter is when an Orc gives 2 XP while a Pit Fiend gives 7000 XP.

 

[aco175]

In Pathfinder 2, you always need 1000 XP to level up. If you're level one, you need 1000 XP to reach level two. If you're level nineteen, you need 1000 XP to reach level twenty.

This corresponds to 25 monsters of your own level. If you kill an orc as a level 1 hero, you gain 40 XP. If you kill a Pit Fiend as a level 20 hero, you gain 40 XP. In all cases, killing 25 monsters your own level means 40x25=1000 XP.

This is what I call "relative XP" as opposed to "absolute XP" which doesn't care about the hero's level. One example of the latter is when an Orc gives 2 XP while a Pit Fiend gives 7000 XP.

This clears that up, thank you. Trying to get first impression of the system and thinking that it is lacking, although I do not see the periphery stuff that may make it work better.

Does this system make it easier to 'budget' an encounter? Do you just grab 4 monsters of same level and call it an encounter. This allows me to grab 1 monster at N+1 for more XP and double at N-1 to equal the same budget, the 160xp. I guess I can see where the orc is worth only 10xp at level 5 and 40 at level 1.

It seems like a system change to go to absolute XP over relative XP. Would you be able to use the PF1 monster manual for XP? I would hate to change the values in my book and then need to change the level requirements to more a 5e type. I'm not a big math-type on the boards, so I'm not sure I can help.

 

[CapnZapp]

This clears that up, thank you.

You're welcome.

I'll leave your general questions about Pathfinder 2 XP awards for another thread, but you did ask one thing I can address here:

It seems like a system change to go to absolute XP over relative XP.

Actually no. I would foresee not many changes at all.

It's mostly just an aesthetic preference which you prefer.

Would you be able to use the PF1 monster manual for XP?

I haven't considered it and I wouldn't recommend it. Many monsters are much more (or less) dangerous in PF2. It's really two completely different games.

 

[kenada]

You can't maintain the exact same xp yields when you switch from relative to absolute numbers. So why not embrace this and focus on the upside?

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.

Spoiler: Extrapolated Progression

Level	To Next Level	Creature/Hazard	Simple Hazard	Minor Acc.	Moderate Acc.	Major Acc.
−1	—	20	4	2	15	40
0	—	30	6	3	22.5	60
1	1000	40	8	4	30	80
2	1500	60	12	6	45	120
3	2000	80	16	8	60	160
4	3000	120	24	12	90	240
5	4000	160	32	16	120	320
6	6000	240	48	24	180	480
7	8000	320	64	32	240	640
8	12000	480	96	48	360	960
9	16000	640	128	64	480	1280
10	24000	960	192	96	720	1920
11	32000	1280	256	128	960	2560
12	48000	1920	384	192	1440	3840
13	64000	2560	512	256	1920	5120
14	96000	3840	768	384	2880	7680
15	128000	5120	1024	512	3840	10240
16	192000	7680	1536	768	5760	15360
17	256000	10240	2048	1024	7680	20480
18	384000	15360	3072	1536	11520	30720
19	512000	20480	4096	2048	15360	40960
20	—	30720	6144	3072	23040	61440

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?

 

[payn]

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.