Remathilis
Legend
This project began when I was converting an old 3.5 module to my new Pathfinder game.
As the Prd shows, the rate of XP and treasure gain has differed from the original 3.5 rules. I began to wonder how much.
Below is a simple spreadsheet broken into three sheets: The first is the difference between "assumed" treasure per level in PF and in D&D. The second is the difference in treasure per encounter (including all three of PF's speed settings) and the last is D&D XP vs. PF XP, with the Unearthed Level-independent variant thrown in for good measure.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Akapjk5Mm3cAdDA2RTAtVDYyUDZhaHFYbUx6WTk2cnc&hl=en
The first sheet shows that, if you were using purely D&D level-appropriate treasure, your PF PCs would fall behind the "curve." It would stand to reason that, despite Pathfinder's claim of "fixing" magic-item dependency, the core rules encourage more items overall.
The second shows the rate treasure gained per encounter. Unlike the first chart, treasure per encounter is LOWER compared to its predecessor. So while PF PCs have more stuff overall, it takes them longer to acrue it.
This sheet also shows the maximum Item Level (derived from Magic Item Compendium) a PC could earn per encounter. Surprisingly, all charts evened out over the long run, so while slow-advancement PCs got less good stuff early (and fast got just on the cusp of their own level group and the next group) the levels roughly evened out over time.
The last chart shows the difference between XP charts in the three variants. The original table was designed to show number of encounters needed to level (typically 13.3 for D&D) but this was later dropped to too many variants in APL/EL over the course of a campaign. However, the chart does show that the doubling (or tripling) of XP would increase the number of encounters needed to level. My informal check of 1st level shows that the fast track still required 13 encounters to level, but the medium needed 20 and the slow needed 30 of APL equal encounters.
So what does that all mean?
1.) PCs will need to fight more monsters (on average) to level in Pathfinder than they would in D&D 3.5
2.) Therefore, they earn more treasure than a PC of equal level in 3.5, but...
3.) Each individual treasure "packet" is smaller.
Most modules can be corrected by checking the overall treasure value against the wealth per level chart in PF and adding or subtracting treasure as needed to compensate. For low-level modules, this is not a big deal; the encounters in the module will be worth "less" XP than they would in D&D so a few additional "no treasure" encounters should suffice.
You can even use treasure tables (such as the one in the DMG or MIC) but skew toward the lower end of the table. Slower games might want to roll one level lower on a given table, faster games one level higher.
I didn't do a detailed analysis of treasure to XP per encounter, so if anyone wants to do that, feel free to use my tables as a start-point. They are also a good start-point for anyone wanting to convert an onging 3.5 game to Pathfinder.
Hope you found it useful.
As the Prd shows, the rate of XP and treasure gain has differed from the original 3.5 rules. I began to wonder how much.
Below is a simple spreadsheet broken into three sheets: The first is the difference between "assumed" treasure per level in PF and in D&D. The second is the difference in treasure per encounter (including all three of PF's speed settings) and the last is D&D XP vs. PF XP, with the Unearthed Level-independent variant thrown in for good measure.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Akapjk5Mm3cAdDA2RTAtVDYyUDZhaHFYbUx6WTk2cnc&hl=en
The first sheet shows that, if you were using purely D&D level-appropriate treasure, your PF PCs would fall behind the "curve." It would stand to reason that, despite Pathfinder's claim of "fixing" magic-item dependency, the core rules encourage more items overall.
The second shows the rate treasure gained per encounter. Unlike the first chart, treasure per encounter is LOWER compared to its predecessor. So while PF PCs have more stuff overall, it takes them longer to acrue it.
This sheet also shows the maximum Item Level (derived from Magic Item Compendium) a PC could earn per encounter. Surprisingly, all charts evened out over the long run, so while slow-advancement PCs got less good stuff early (and fast got just on the cusp of their own level group and the next group) the levels roughly evened out over time.
The last chart shows the difference between XP charts in the three variants. The original table was designed to show number of encounters needed to level (typically 13.3 for D&D) but this was later dropped to too many variants in APL/EL over the course of a campaign. However, the chart does show that the doubling (or tripling) of XP would increase the number of encounters needed to level. My informal check of 1st level shows that the fast track still required 13 encounters to level, but the medium needed 20 and the slow needed 30 of APL equal encounters.
So what does that all mean?
1.) PCs will need to fight more monsters (on average) to level in Pathfinder than they would in D&D 3.5
2.) Therefore, they earn more treasure than a PC of equal level in 3.5, but...
3.) Each individual treasure "packet" is smaller.
Most modules can be corrected by checking the overall treasure value against the wealth per level chart in PF and adding or subtracting treasure as needed to compensate. For low-level modules, this is not a big deal; the encounters in the module will be worth "less" XP than they would in D&D so a few additional "no treasure" encounters should suffice.
You can even use treasure tables (such as the one in the DMG or MIC) but skew toward the lower end of the table. Slower games might want to roll one level lower on a given table, faster games one level higher.
I didn't do a detailed analysis of treasure to XP per encounter, so if anyone wants to do that, feel free to use my tables as a start-point. They are also a good start-point for anyone wanting to convert an onging 3.5 game to Pathfinder.
Hope you found it useful.
