Anyone played using the slow advancement rate?

[DaveMage]

In its two campaigns my pathfinder group has used the Medium advancement rate. In 3.x, of course, we used the equivalent of the fast advancement rate.

Has anyone used the slow advancement rate for Pathfinder, and if so, how was it as a player and/or GM?

 

[Epametheus]

My group has done slow advancement for every game so far.

It gives the DM quite a bit of leeway for ramping up challenge, especially for a well-optimized and/or large party.

Our group has completed Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull; we were usually 1 or 2 levels behind the recommended level, but made up for it by being a larger group (usually 5 to 7 players are any given game).

So far it's worked fine.

 

[Dykstrav]

I've played in a group that did slow advancement and it was pretty awesome. We'd play an average of five sessions or so before we gained a level, so it had a more 1E-2E vibe to us (when it was typical to gain a level every three to five sessions or so). It was a blast for us.

But I don't think that everyone would enjoy it that way. It seems that most groups these days enjoy leveling at a bit faster rate than that. Heck, I don't know many groups these days that even do individual x.p. awards any more.

In actual play, our biggest net effect was that we went through disposable magic items (potions and scrolls) a bit faster--more encounters per level and all that. My observation is that around 20% or so of the treasure at any given level is disposable at fast advancement, around 25-30% at medium, and 30-40% at slow. I'd recommend that you discuss disposable items with your GM before the campaign starts, especially if your party is the sort that likes to rely on them. Treasure from individual encounters were also correspondingly smaller, but it wasn't really noticeable over the long haul.

 

[Systole]

I've never played slow. My feeling is that if you think you want to play slow, what you really want is to play E6.

 

[DaveMage]

My group has done slow advancement for every game so far.

It gives the DM quite a bit of leeway for ramping up challenge, especially for a well-optimized and/or large party.

Our group has completed Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull; we were usually 1 or 2 levels behind the recommended level, but made up for it by being a larger group (usually 5 to 7 players are any given game).

So far it's worked fine.

Interesting that it has worked with the APs. I would have thought the slow rate would put PCs at a tremendous disadvantage with the level requirements as you get to the later APs. Good to know it worked!

I've played in a group that did slow advancement and it was pretty awesome. We'd play an average of five sessions or so before we gained a level, so it had a more 1E-2E vibe to us (when it was typical to gain a level every three to five sessions or so). It was a blast for us.

But I don't think that everyone would enjoy it that way. It seems that most groups these days enjoy leveling at a bit faster rate than that. Heck, I don't know many groups these days that even do individual x.p. awards any more.

In actual play, our biggest net effect was that we went through disposable magic items (potions and scrolls) a bit faster--more encounters per level and all that. My observation is that around 20% or so of the treasure at any given level is disposable at fast advancement, around 25-30% at medium, and 30-40% at slow. I'd recommend that you discuss disposable items with your GM before the campaign starts, especially if your party is the sort that likes to rely on them. Treasure from individual encounters were also correspondingly smaller, but it wasn't really noticeable over the long haul.

Do you play in a homebrew game? The biggest advantage I can see with slow advancement is that you can go through several published modules for a given level set before advancing - which would be hard to do with medium or fast.

I've never played slow. My feeling is that if you think you want to play slow, what you really want is to play E6.

I don't know enough about E6 to comment, but as I said above the advantage I can see with slow advancement is that it gives a GM flexibility with regard to multiple same-level adventures without worrying too much about the party quickly being too powerful to run more than one for a given level.

Thanks all for the replies!

 

[N'raac]

A lot depends on the group. If the players are focused on getting that next feat/spell/whatever, they may get frustrated with slow advancement. Other groups may get frustrated with faster advancement when it feels like the characters change so fast they never really get played at their current power level, just augmented to the next step.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

That's how I handle multiclassing in my games. Single-classed characters use Fast, Gestalting with an NPC class or taking a "free" archetype is Medium, and full Gestalt is Slow.

 

[Nookie]

my group uses various advancements as a form of balance for powerful races. normal races use fast track moderately powerful rages use medium and more powerful races use the slow track. the idea is the more powerful races do not rely on their class as much to get by a challenge so they do not advance in the class as quickly. As for treasure we hand out moderate treasure levels.

 

[Azgulor]

Slow advancement is the default rate for each of my campaigns. No complaints from the players and it affords me more flexibility. As a GM, I like that it softens the "Hayseed to demigod" cycle to a more managable period of campaign-time. To my surprise, my players in each group feel as though they're working towards something rather than expecting the next level bump.

 

[IronWolf]

The leveling rate varies within the games I run. I tend not to hand out XP in defined way and just have the players level as I see fit during the course of the campaign. Sometimes they level rather quickly and others a little slower. Depends on what is going on in the campaign and such.

I am currently running the Kingmaker AP and there are suggested levels listed at the beginning of each book, including at about level they should be at for the highlights. It makes it nice not to have to worry about have they done enough encounters to hit the right level and just let them grow with the story.

Seems to work well enough and definitely way less work for me as the GM to track all the experience points.