What level do you let someone make a new character after dying?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 290 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Chris Mortika wrote:
Unlike D&D's experience chart, where lower-level characters get more experience for the same encounter than their higher-level peers, characters in Living Arcanis (and Pathfinder) all receive the same amount of xp. Khalil was always going to be 70,000 experience points behind the rest of the party.

I don't think that is really an issue, at least in Pathfinder. Given that, depending on your level, being 70,000 experience points behind doesn't mean that you are a lower level than the party. You could be nine levels behind, or you could be 1/10 of a level behind such that you are very very likely to be the same level as the other party members.


You know, I've actually played drastically "underpowered" characters before, and enjoyed it immensely.

Having new players come in at Level 1 is a totally valid way to go, as long as the GM is experienced enough to deal with the ramifications.

I've used all (or most) of the methods discussed in this thread at one point or another. Anyone feel like making a list of all the death policies so that folks don't have to suffer through pages 2-5 of this beast to get the goods?

  • New PC at Lowest Party Level (or just party level if all are equal).

  • New PC at lowest party level -1.

  • New PC at level 1.

  • Gets/Doesn't get XP from former PC's last encounter.

  • Gets/Doesn't get XP from former PC's last adventure.

    What am I missing?

  • Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Loopy wrote:
    So?

    It's great if you want to play Snarf, not so great if you want to play Lion-O.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Evil Lincoln wrote:


    What am I missing?

    "Former Level - 2, but the other PCs can choose to donate experience points to buy the incoming character up to Level - 1 or Level."


    Chris,

    Your group reminds me of the Automous Collective from Monty Python's Holy Grail. (I mean that in a good way.)


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Loopy wrote:
    So?
    It's great if you want to play Snarf, not so great if you want to play Lion-O.

    Meh, it's just for a couple adventures.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Loopy wrote:
    Meh, it's just for a couple adventures.

    Didn't realize you gave multiple levels per session like that Loopy. :)


    Blazej wrote:
    Chris Mortika wrote:
    Unlike D&D's experience chart, where lower-level characters get more experience for the same encounter than their higher-level peers, characters in Living Arcanis (and Pathfinder) all receive the same amount of xp. Khalil was always going to be 70,000 experience points behind the rest of the party.
    I don't think that is really an issue, at least in Pathfinder. Given that, depending on your level, being 70,000 experience points behind doesn't mean that you are a lower level than the party. You could be nine levels behind, or you could be 1/10 of a level behind such that you are very very likely to be the same level as the other party members.

    As mentioned before, I run a first edition game and play in a pathfinder game.

    Looking over the experience tables, I note that while they are not as severe as the first edition tables were (on average it runs 250000 eps to level nine, after which point advancement basically stops) they *do* match the basic style.

    I.e. if the party is fifth level (10000), and someone is first (0). When the party is sixth level (15000) the new person will be third (5000), when the party is seventh level (23000) the new person will be fifth (13000) (fast xp chart)

    The *problem* is that first edition games always have you playing a human level of power, whereas pathfinder after a certain point leaves you with super heroic players. I.E. in my first edition game, you can take a first level fighter, give him a +5 suit of plate mail and he's just as hard to hit as a sixth level fighter. A sword with enough plusses and a high enough strength, means a first level fighter with the right gear can contribute to combat (which is to my mind, an advantage. Not having to focus on your build, you can instead focus on character).

    This *is* *NOT* true of pathfinder. Because so much of your power comes from feats and class abilities, and the way the skills, and hit points infinitely scale (instead of just stopping at a human norm, say name level (9th) around 250k xp) there is no way a first level character can compete with an 8th level character.

    This gives me a couple of ideas for solutions for people who want to run low level PC's and actually have some consequences for dying.

    First, forget about sticking to WBL. This is a pet peeve of mine. To be in a game and come up with an idea to earn a bunch of money and be told I'm not allowed to earn that much money because the rules say I can't have that much at my level. If you eliminate WBL, it will assist new (1st) level PC's who can A) inherit gear and B) collect gear of their own allowing them to catch up. This doesn't work in pathfinder due to the difficulty in destroying gear, but in 1st edition a single encounter with a mage can correct this imbalance when they catch up. What do you lose if you start ignoring this? Players can be more or less powerful then their average party level. Adjust. You're the one railroading the adventures down an adventure path that decided to kill some people off. If you just let your PC's go where they wanted to go and do what they wanted to do instead of making them go on your adventure player death wouldn't be such a big deal.

    Second, Take APL or APL-1 or APL-2. Then say that up to that level, you use the fast XP chart, while anyone at or above that level uses the slow one. This allows characters to catch up much faster. I would perfer a more exponential XP chart, but it's what we got, and the fast/medium/slow progression are quite nice.

    This effectively gives the same situation I have in my 1st edition game. Anytime the high level players gain enough EP's to level, it's enough EP's for a first level character to reach their level-1 because of the tables. You can avoid all the maths above and just give them a PC at APL-1.

    Personally, we're going to have some girls join our game, and they prefer a more narrativest style. (As in GNS, examining a theme through player choices and story arcs.) Running pathfinder which is rules light compared to our 1st edition game is going to be a better option because of the shift away from simulation and towards story arcs.

    My solution for how to implement plot armor in that game? I'm going the final fantasy route. You can't die in combat, you can only get knocked out. Death, particularly in a plot/character heavy game should be due to consequence of narrative choice, not strategic choice. Not to mention the difficulty in handling the intricate plot threads left dangling by player death.

    P.S. My 1st edition game is actually a Hackmaster game, which is a *beautiful* system. And it's interesting, my DM style for both a strict simulationist and strict narrativest games is very similar. "You wake up, what are you doing now". The primary difference being, you know theme and how closely it is related to the characters. Also, simulationist tends to be murderiffic. :-) 15 PC deaths so far!

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Chris Mortika wrote:
    Unlike D&D's experience chart, where lower-level characters get more experience for the same encounter than their higher-level peers, characters in Living Arcanis (and Pathfinder) all receive the same amount of xp. Khalil was always going to be 70,000 experience points behind the rest of the party.
    Blazej kindly wrote:
    I don't think that is really an issue, at least in Pathfinder. Given that, depending on your level, being 70,000 experience points behind doesn't mean that you are a lower level than the party.

    Addressing a point that's a little off-topic:

    Spoiler:
    Well, my character began when the rest of the party was most of the way towards 12th Level. If that campaign had been using Pathfinder's medium advancement scale, that would have put Khalil about 200,000 experience points behind the rest of the PC's. And again, his experience total would never catch up. But you're right, that by the time the rest of the party reached 13th Level, Khalil would have shot up to 10th, which is a perfectly playable gap: he'd be just a level behind the PC's cohorts.

    This was a special case, however, because the campaign in question was an Organized Play environment. The players discussed how they might just let me play a more appropriately-leveled character, but they realized that the home games would no longer count towards their own characters' advancement in the OP environment.

    It would be like people running home-based scenarios for Pathfinder Society. (Except that in PFS, characters in different tiers are not allowed to play together at all, and lower-level characters never close the level gap.)

    That's because home-based campaigns aren't the first priority of Organized Play environments, and peculiar strictures apply.

    On topic, I was relating how playing a character substantially and permanently behind the party's power curve really wasn't much fun for me.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Loopy wrote:
    Meh, it's just for a couple adventures.
    Didn't realize you gave multiple levels per session like that Loopy. :)

    After a couple of adventures they should have enough of a level to make an impact on combat. They'll catch up quick. I've used this system for a long time and it seems to work pretty well. The XP and gear rewards of a level 10 party for a level 1, 2, or 3 character are pretty significant.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Loopy wrote:
    Two things level 1 character can contribute to a level 10 party are: 1) delivering a plot device and 2) providing input.
    Only that's not contributing anything special. You're the ballboy of the sports team. Anyone can do that.

    We believe that maximizing the numbers after the plus signs on your character sheet isn't contributing anything special. All it leads to is the GM putting more imaginary monsters on the table. The end result takes you right back where you started.

    To contribute anything special, we believe a player needs an entertaining, interesting character story which encourages the other players to participate in it. And, for that, the scratches on your character sheet aren't relevant.

    That's why you and I will never be happy sitting at each other's table. The sad part about all of this is that that's not enough for you. You take the position that people who play differently from you are doing it wrong.


    I, what is this, I don't even.

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    We believe that maximizing the numbers after the plus signs on your character sheet isn't contributing anything special.

    Belief indicates to think something without proof. You don't need to do this, you are playing a game, (again read that, *PLAYING* *A* *GAME*) which has a clearly defined ruleset for a gamist strategic tactical activity.

    You choose not to define which numbers, and the word special, but I'm assuming you're talking about statistics, feats, abilities and spells, all of which contribute to this strategic tactical activity.

    You can choose to think whatever fantasies you want without proof, but the *fact* is, combat changes with new options at high level. And in Pathfinder, it changes in ways that make the players of low level characters useless within the bounds of this ruleset for the tactical activity that takes up the VAST MAJORITY of the rulebook.

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    All it leads to is the GM putting more imaginary monsters on the table. The end result takes you right back where you started.

    You equate pushing a power curve somehow with level disparity. These are different issues.

    Yes, in fact characters can be maximized for this 'combat' game WHILE THE SAME LEVEL that it forces the GM to compensate in this way. That's not what we're talking about - we're talking about the power disparity BUILT INTO THE LEVELING SYSTEM ITSELF.

    Low level characters, cannot, within the context of the ruleset, effectively, consistently, and regularly contribute to combat to players several levels higher then they are.

    Look, if you're not stupid or a troll, think of it this way. Design a party of four characters, 3 level 10's and 1 level 1, and run them through four totally random combats. No story, no role play, just rolling dice using the pathfinder combat rules. Ask yourself afterwords how effective that 1st level character was.

    Then realize that the Pathfinder main book spends several hundred of it's pages devoted to that combat game. And realize that this game is what takes up the majority of time in the majority of D&D games and you can begin to see where the problem lies.

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    To contribute anything special, we believe a player needs an entertaining, interesting character story which encourages the other players to participate in it. And, for that, the scratches on your character sheet aren't relevant.

    You are absolutely right. This is also galatically irrelevant to this conversation in any way.

    You can play pathfinder or any other role playing game however you want. You've been quite unclear about what the sequence of play is like at your table (How many hours do you play, how often? Then, how much of that time do you spend in combat? What are the levels and makeup of your party? What were the opponents in your last half dozen combats? What's the level disparity? You playing E6 or some other variant or with house rules?)

    But for the majority of people, the above can be true for them to. And then they get down to the combat, where either 1 of 2 things happens.

    A) The GM has to go to great lengths to give the characters actions or opponents that allow them to maintain their relevance, such as creating a set of weaker monsters, having monsters not attack the player, giving the player other things to do in combat. (Which is a thing you decry above) This is also difficult on the GM if you have anything like the recommended encounters per session. (Say 13-20 combats per level)

    or B) The character dies or hides due to the rules of the game in the disparity between characters of vastly different levels.

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    That's why you and I will never be happy sitting at each other's table. The sad part about all of this is that that's not enough for you. You take the position that people who play differently from you are doing it wrong.

    Perhaps this is a maturity issue. It's not that people who play differently are wrong. It's that there is an objective set of rules that the assumption is everyone is playing with. Your response of "How the character interacts with the rules doesn't matter." (e.g. "scratches on your character sheet aren't relevant") is frankly an inflammatory statement. There are hundreds of pages in the rulebook devoted to this combat game. These rules are exceptionally rigid, and the issue of players feeling like they have the ability to play the game when there's a level disparity is a valid one. There is little to no information to handle this type of thing within the core book and a thread like this is appropriate discussion for this.

    If you are unable to understand that while you may change the game and turn it into story-time, my understanding is that the vast majority of time of the vast majority of players is spent in combat. In, say a proportion to which the combat, spell, feat, ability, monster and character class sections devote to combat abilities. So that's what this thread is about, keeping that balanced. You claiming it doesn't matter is useless and even if you don't know better, is a troll by it's nature.


    Im my game (AoW with Pathfinder Roles), one Character recently died (Sudden Hold). He got following choices:

    Stick with his old Character:
    - Raise Dead / Reincarnate with 2 permanent negative Levels.
    - start a new Charakter at old Character Level -1 which is equals to same level as lowest Character Level in group.

    Beeing an Druid of Obad Hai (greyhawk) he choose reincarnate.
    I selected CL-1 for new Character to eliminate the urge of dropping old chars.

    Getting the two negetive levels away will need some work for the group. getting raise dead and reincarnate are not so freely provided as well - the druid had been lucky that the meet the coven before his death.

    Short Statement:
    - new character Level should depend on your rules for Raise Dead and Reincarnate.


    nexusphere wrote:

    I, what is this, I don't even.

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    We believe that maximizing the numbers after the plus signs on your character sheet isn't contributing anything special.

    Belief indicates to think something without proof. You don't need to do this, you are playing a game, (again read that, *PLAYING* *A* *GAME*) which has a clearly defined ruleset for a gamist strategic tactical activity.

    You choose not to define which numbers, and the word special, but I'm assuming you're talking about statistics, feats, abilities and spells, all of which contribute to this strategic tactical activity.

    You can choose to think whatever fantasies you want without proof, but the *fact* is, combat changes with new options at high level. And in Pathfinder, it changes in ways that make the players of low level characters useless within the bounds of this ruleset for the tactical activity that takes up the VAST MAJORITY of the rulebook.

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    All it leads to is the GM putting more imaginary monsters on the table. The end result takes you right back where you started.

    You equate pushing a power curve somehow with level disparity. These are different issues.

    Yes, in fact characters can be maximized for this 'combat' game WHILE THE SAME LEVEL that it forces the GM to compensate in this way. That's not what we're talking about - we're talking about the power disparity BUILT INTO THE LEVELING SYSTEM ITSELF.

    Low level characters, cannot, within the context of the ruleset, effectively, consistently, and regularly contribute to combat to players several levels higher then they are.

    Look, if you're not stupid or a troll, think of it this way. Design a party of four characters, 3 level 10's and 1 level 1, and run them through four totally random combats. No story, no role play, just rolling dice using the pathfinder combat rules. Ask yourself afterwords how effective that 1st level character was.

    Then realize that the Pathfinder main book spends several hundred of it's...

    I used the word "belief" so as to acknowledge the fact that there are other ideas about how to play. It's a shame you don't share the notion that there isn't one true way to play.

    The reason combat takes up so much space in the book (and it doesn't take up most of the space, but it does take up a good deal) is because combat is where you need the most rules - not because combat is the most important part of the game.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    LilithsThrall wrote:


    I used the word "belief" so as to acknowledge the fact that there are other ideas about how to play. It's a shame you don't share the notion that there isn't one true way to play.

    I don't think you're being fair, Lilith's Thrall; nexusphere has been pretty clear that he does allow for lots of different play styles.

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    The reason combat takes up so much space in the book is because combat is where you need the most rules - not because combat is the most important part of the game.

    I've made the same argument, myself. But, as I've outlined above, there's nothing out-of-combat that a 1st Level character can do, either. (In AD&D, tyro characters were just as good as their lordly peers at researching, talking with NPCs, and so on, but the 3rd Edition emphasis on inter-character skills has changed that.)

    People have invited you to outline what your party does. How you play. In terms of, in a four-hour play session, how many encounters or challenges, and of what type? How are they resolved?

    If you're playing 2nd Edition AD&D, then your claims make more sense.


    Chris Mortika wrote:


    People have invited you to outline what your party does. How you play. In terms of, in a four-hour play session, how many encounters or challenges, and of what type? How are they resolved?

    If you're playing 2nd Edition AD&D, then your claims make more sense.

    I've invited everyone to ask specific questions so that I know what to answer. Instead, people are jumping to wild conclusions and dumping criticism on me.

    To answer your specific questions, "in a four-hour play session, how many encounters or challenges, and of what type?" I'd say max one sword-to-sword style combat, -maybe, rarely- two. Other encounters exist, but we're really good at figuring out ways to avoid actual combat (such as the time we knew we were going after an army encampment and, instead of going sword-to-sword with them, my character was able to build and place an alchemical bomb in their camp at night). We pretty much follow the Sun Tzu idea and try to win the battle before it starts. We don't make a habit of busting down doors and killing everything in sight.


    Chris Mortika wrote:
    LilithsThrall wrote:


    I used the word "belief" so as to acknowledge the fact that there are other ideas about how to play. It's a shame you don't share the notion that there isn't one true way to play.

    I don't think you're being fair, Lilith's Thrall; nexusphere has been pretty clear that he does allow for lots of different play styles.

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    The reason combat takes up so much space in the book is because combat is where you need the most rules - not because combat is the most important part of the game.

    I've made the same argument, myself. But, as I've outlined above, there's nothing out-of-combat that a 1st Level character can do, either. (In AD&D, tyro characters were just as good as their lordly peers at researching, talking with NPCs, and so on, but the 3rd Edition emphasis on inter-character skills has changed that.)

    People have invited you to outline what your party does. How you play. In terms of, in a four-hour play session, how many encounters or challenges, and of what type? How are they resolved?

    If you're playing 2nd Edition AD&D, then your claims make more sense.


    Chris Mortika wrote:


    People have invited you to outline what your party does. How you play. In terms of, in a four-hour play session, how many encounters or challenges, and of what type? How are they resolved?

    And I have invited people to ask specific questions which can be answered. Most people have chosen, instead of doing so, to criticize.

    To answer your question to the best of my ability, there are many NPCs in the game and every time we interact with one is an encounter - so there are multiple encounters during the game. There are maybe one or two hostile encounters during a four hour game session. Most of these don't end up sword-to-sword because we figure out ways to avoid going face-to-face or to put the battle to our advantage (forex. by poisoning or by bombs or traps or ambushes or the like). We're pretty Sun Tzu about battle. The game is set up so that we could have more sword-to-sword combat, but, like I said, with a couple of centuries of experience, we know the tricks to avoid it.


    I'm going back to the idea of adding a lvl 1 char to an existing highish level game... I've never done this, but my DM style could add this easily.

    When it comes to interacting with NPC's I'm less roll heavy (Having an extensive 1st ed background). I will allow the players to roleplay NPC encounter's rather than roll. A PC can say the right words with a greased palm and get the intel just as easily as a Gather Information check.

    Now combat is a diff story. If the encounter is against an animal or lower intelligent monster I roll a die to see which party member it attacks. After that it's the animals reaction to getting hurt. It will lash out after the person who's done the most damge to it from the previous round.

    Against intelligent monsters they don't know what "level" their fighting against. The see what they see. A smart group of monsters will have tactic sets. A suprised group will be in disarray, so they will be reactionary, for the first few rounds until a commander (if any) can gets order restored. A group that is wary/alert will have plans in motion, kill the caster, or sperate the barbarian and swarm, etc.

    Mob's can't see hit points... they can't threat check you... they don't recognize CR or APL... they CAN spot check and see the Pali has a glowing magic sword, and they'll know it explodes in holy light when it hits, and that the mage casted fireball on them when it happens, but all they'll notice about a lvl 1 PC is that there is another body.


    I'm not sure why there's an argument between stats and story. That's like arguing which is more important, breathing or heartbeat. Both are pretty darned critical for life.

    IMO, good characters have both story and substance. The story should fit the stats and explain any odd choices for skills or weapons, like Amiri's sword. Otherwise, the character build should be made for maximum effectiveness within the given party. There's nothing wrong with building a character well.

    Classes by nature give characters roles within the party. It helps enhance party unity and gives the group a reason to work together. The wrathful barbarian needs the quick-tongued rogue to do the talking while they're in town because he's just not very good at it; the fighters need somebody to heal them and arcane cannons to deal mass destruction, etc.

    Starting a new character too far behind guts their usefulness to the party, no matter how good their story is. No matter what the player tells me the inarticulate barbarian SAYS while attempting Diplomacy, the barbarian still has to make her Diplomacy roll. I'll give a +2 bonus for a good attempt at RP, but I won't allow autosuccess for a good story. Opponents improve their skills at high level just as PC's do, so low-level characters trying to win an opposed roll are at a disadvantage.

    It's DM prerogative to run the game the way they want to and allow players to do unique things without considering stats. But that's not the way most people play and it doesn't mean that DM's who force rolls are wrong. It also doesn't mean that players who optimize stats are ignoring good story. The two are not exclusive.


    I have a really fluid and eccentric structure for player characters in my game. It works like this:

    During the campaign, players are always welcome to swap in new characters, though never in the middle of a specific play session or encounter.

    New characters "beam in" with hit points, spell slots, etc., debited so that they are roughly on par with the existing characters.

    The exception is that when a character dies, the new character "beams in" at full strength.

    I know this is weird and more than a bit inconsistent. Here's why it works for us:

    1. I find that it doesn't encourage suicidal or "meta" game play. Players fight hard to win with the characters they have.

    2. It's just no fun to start a new character penalized. Especially at higher levels, a single level deduction can be a big deal.

    3. Rather than grumbling, the other players like getting 're-enforcements.'

    4. I find that players like to try out different PCs. They just think it's cool. In a long campaign (this story has gone on for nearly a year now) people get antsy playing the same elven ranger.

    5. This system makes PC death less traumatic, more a fun cinematic part of the game. In my old sessions, before adopting these house rules, a PC death was horrible.

    Now it's sort of epic and cool, like Gandalf tumbling down into the abyss...

    --Marsh

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    LilithsThrall wrote:

    To contribute anything special, we believe a player needs an entertaining, interesting character story which encourages the other players to participate in it. And, for that, the scratches on your character sheet aren't relevant.

    That's why you and I will never be happy sitting at each other's table. The sad part about all of this is that that's not enough for you. You take the position that people who play differently from you are doing it wrong.

    Please point me to where I told you that your playstyle was wrong, so I can avoid it in the future. I absolutely agree that I don't think your style is workable for me and the people I know, but I don't recall ever telling you how to play your game.

    Story is separate from gameplay. You can excise all rolls from the game and still have the same story. You can excise all story from the game and still have the same gameplay. My issue is that playing a 1st level character in a 10th level game does not work in D&D any more than it does in any other level-progression game.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    My issue is that playing a 1st level character in a 10th level game does not work in D&D any more than it does in any other level-progression game.

    I think the problems started with closed statements like that. You don't feel it can work. Others do and try it as they will. For YOU it doesn't work.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    TheChozyn wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    My issue is that playing a 1st level character in a 10th level game does not work in D&D any more than it does in any other level-progression game.
    I think the problems started with closed statements like that. You don't feel it can work. Others do and try it as they will. For YOU it doesn't work.

    Well, you're welcome to disagree. I did say it was MY issue after all. Someone taking that as a personal attack on their style is unfortunate.

    Also, I've reviewed my posts, and saw nowhere that I actually said such things to LT. So unless he still thinks I'm a sock puppet, I can only assume he is taking offense at my opinions or tone. Which I find silly.

    Sovereign Court

    I do note that a lot of the arguments against lilith thralls style also make the assumption that all pcs are always gaining xp together. In games I run when I have players who are behind and they are at a story appropriate time to do so, I'll let them side quest to catch up. Lilith's group could do that as well and then even though they may start lower they can catch up to the rest of the party.

    Liberty's Edge

    lastknightleft wrote:
    I do note that a lot of the arguments against lilith thralls style also make the assumption that all pcs are always gaining xp together. In games I run when I have players who are behind and they are at a story appropriate time to do so, I'll let them side quest to catch up. Lilith's group could do that as well and then even though they may start lower they can catch up to the rest of the party.

    Its highly annoying when someone gets special treatment, as in time and resources. Both when I GM and play, I avoid trying to give anyone more time for side quests and such than anyone else. Many of my players would love a chance for extra xp, but that shouldn't happen enough to change their levels significantly. I'd have to give a whole lot of smaller challenges to that player (which would take a far greater amount of time), or throw level inappropriate challenges at them to level them up in any significantly quick fashion.

    At higher level the difference between level begins to disappear, but its still highly annoying when someone else gets a whole lot of extra time with the GM. As a result, we tend to keep track of our calendars in game pretty heavily. This prevents someone from getting a whole lot of extra character time.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Studpuffin: Without any snark, I give you a thumbs-up for finding a group who like that style of game-play. Of course, other groups play differently.

    It also depends on which game system they're using. Spurred on by blazej's suggestion, I looked at the Pathfinder experience chart more closely, and I realized that if a 1st-level PC joins up with 10th-level comrades, she'll have reached 8th level --on equal footing with the party's cohorts-- long before the others hit 11th, earning the same experience.

    That's a real change from 3.5, where a new PC will be only 4th level if receiving the same experience that brings a 10th-level colleague to 11th.

    Sovereign Court

    Studpuffin wrote:
    lastknightleft wrote:
    I do note that a lot of the arguments against lilith thralls style also make the assumption that all pcs are always gaining xp together. In games I run when I have players who are behind and they are at a story appropriate time to do so, I'll let them side quest to catch up. Lilith's group could do that as well and then even though they may start lower they can catch up to the rest of the party.

    Its highly annoying when someone gets special treatment, as in time and resources. Both when I GM and play, I avoid trying to give anyone more time for side quests and such than anyone else. Many of my players would love a chance for extra xp, but that shouldn't happen enough to change their levels significantly. I'd have to give a whole lot of smaller challenges to that player (which would take a far greater amount of time), or throw level inappropriate challenges at them to level them up in any significantly quick fashion.

    At higher level the difference between level begins to disappear, but its still highly annoying when someone else gets a whole lot of extra time with the GM. As a result, we tend to keep track of our calendars in game pretty heavily. This prevents someone from getting a whole lot of extra character time.

    Who's getting special treatment? since anyone who is behind at any time can do so, it's not special treatment as anyone can find themselves behind at any point for any variety of reasons. It's only special treatment if only one person can benefit from it. I.E. someone else who winds up in the same situation isn't allowed the same thing. If everyone has that option as long as condition x is met then it's not special treatment.


    lastknightleft wrote:
    I do note that a lot of the arguments against lilith thralls style also make the assumption that all pcs are always gaining xp together. In games I run when I have players who are behind and they are at a story appropriate time to do so, I'll let them side quest to catch up. Lilith's group could do that as well and then even though they may start lower they can catch up to the rest of the party.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with your suggestion, but we don't use it. The reason is that all of the players are adults - many with children, many with professional careers, etc. There just isn't any time - real world time - for it.

    We do, however, make use of the fact that the experience chart isn't linear (something I mentioned earlier, but, as usual, was ignored).

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    lastknightleft wrote:
    Who's getting special treatment? since anyone who is behind at any time can do so, it's not special treatment as anyone can find themselves behind at any point for any variety of reasons. It's only special treatment if only one person can benefit from it. I.E. someone else who winds up in the same situation isn't allowed the same thing. If everyone has that option as long as condition x is met then it's not special treatment.

    It's a wonderful idea, and I would highly recommend solo adventures to bring the low level character up. It could never work for my current group as I have 8 players and only game twice a month for 2-4 hours. :/

    LT: Am I not going to be helped by pointing out where I misstepped so I can better myself as a poster?

    Liberty's Edge

    lastknightleft wrote:
    Who's getting special treatment? since anyone who is behind at any time can do so, it's not special treatment as anyone can find themselves behind at any point for any variety of reasons. It's only special treatment if only one person can benefit from it. I.E. someone else who winds up in the same situation isn't allowed the same thing. If everyone has that option as long as condition x is met then it's not special treatment.

    Part of the problem that I have with xp gaining side quests is that you're basically creating a second game. You run this second game to get a character closer to where he needs to be, but the end goal is to get him closer to where the party's level is. Why not just allow them to come in at closer to the party's actual level and stick with that game?


    Evil Lincoln wrote:
    What am I missing?

    • Forget relative or absolute levels, but instead use a percentage of XP values of the party or previous PC and let Levels fall where they may, as this avoids the whole "rounding down" problem of losing 1.5 or even 1.9 levels when the rule is "Level -1" or effectively being Level -2 if the party is about to level

    R.


    Studpuffin wrote:
    Why not just allow them to come in at closer to the party's actual level and stick with that game?

    I am all for cutting out the middle man.


    This thread has caused me to reevaluate how I'm going to handle new/dead characters. Here's a new policy for review:

    With new players and seasoned players rolling a new character, the character's level becomes the level of the lowest max character level reached in the game by a seasoned player. For example, if a party consist of 3 level 3 characters and 1 level 7 character and the 3 level 3 characters die, they'd come back as level 3 characters.

    The character *ALSO* gains 1 permanent negative level. This negative level can be removed by restoration after 1 week of game time. If you have access to someone who can cast greater restoration, you can spend 5k of diamond dust to remove the negative level right away. A character that is level 1 doesn't gain a negative level.

    Too unfair?

    Sovereign Court

    Studpuffin wrote:
    lastknightleft wrote:
    Who's getting special treatment? since anyone who is behind at any time can do so, it's not special treatment as anyone can find themselves behind at any point for any variety of reasons. It's only special treatment if only one person can benefit from it. I.E. someone else who winds up in the same situation isn't allowed the same thing. If everyone has that option as long as condition x is met then it's not special treatment.
    Part of the problem that I have with xp gaining side quests is that you're basically creating a second game. You run this second game to get a character closer to where he needs to be, but the end goal is to get him closer to where the party's level is. Why not just allow them to come in at closer to the party's actual level and stick with that game?

    Mostly because it would break the versimilitude of my world after level 3.

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Studpuffin wrote:
    Part of the problem that I have with xp gaining side quests is that you're basically creating a second game. You run this second game to get a character closer to where he needs to be, but the end goal is to get him closer to where the party's level is. Why not just allow them to come in at closer to the party's actual level and stick with that game?

    I have an answer for that, which you may or may not find satisfactory. (And I'm okay with that.)

    I made the mistake, once, of starting a tabletop D&D party at high level. They stumbled over themselves for the first level or so, not quite understanding what their spells or feats allowed them to do. All their gear was ideal for generic purposes, but they didn't have anything quirky for which they needed to find innovative uses.

    I never have that problem with folks who have worked with their PCs from their humble beginnings.

    Nowadays, whenever I introduce any character above 1st Level, replacement or new-player, I describe several possible adventures that might have brought the character up to the desired level, and the player decides which sound attractive to the character. And then we sit down with the module(s) and walk through those adventures. The PC starts with WBL loot drawn from the adventures, or can "sell off" loot for half price and buy any item he pleases. And then, time permitting, I run him through a short (about the size of a Pathfinder Society scenario) adventure on his own or with a single other PC.

    I pause while people mutter: "if my DM told me my character couldn't have any gear I wanted, I'd walk away from the table!"

    So, studpuffin, that's my answer to why I don't just plop new PCs into the campaign without background and a "milk run" adventure. It takes time; you're right. But it shows the player the new ropes, before the stakes get too high.


    Chris Mortika wrote:
    I pause while people mutter: "if my DM told me my character couldn't have any gear I wanted, I'd walk away from the table!"

    <grin>

    Not gonna be me that says it. I actually appreciate the approach you describe and if I was a more organized DM I might even use it (I'm an improv/seat-of-the-pants style DM for the most part). After all, players don't get to choose (edit: all) their magic items when they're playing the game normally, I don't see anything wrong with at least guiding their choices as to what they have when they create a new character after a character death/retirement.

    For the record, that's different from my feelings for character class because the player always is the one to decide which classes his character has.

    Liberty's Edge

    Chris Mortika wrote:


    So, studpuffin, that's my answer to why I don't just plop new PCs into the campaign without background and a "milk run" adventure.

    I allow for rebuilds during the campaign, though it doesn't come up very often (at least in D&D, in came up a bit during one SW:SAGA game). We used a similar rule to the one that came out in PHB II. If someone is very unhappy with their character I will at times let them swap things out, but I often ask that they keep the core concept of their character intact. When we converted to Pathfinder there were some issues since some classes had yet to be converted, so I asked that everyone find a good core fit to their character concept. Our Bard-Warmage ended up as just a Sorc and our Scout ended up a Rogue-Fighter.

    Its no skin off my nose, I just kind of wondered about the reasons for such a way of playing.

    Chris Mortika wrote:
    I pause while people mutter: "if my DM told me my character couldn't have any gear I wanted, I'd walk away from the table!"

    Are you addressing me with this? (:?

    I wouldn't let people buy anything they wanted either. I use the GP-limit of a given city in order to determine what kinds of items they could have access to, depending on what they write for a backstory. Barring that, we'll talk our way through likelihoods.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    Gear is different from character concept, dear Chris. :)

    I've heard that method mentioned before and wholeheartedly support it. Depending on time constraints I would be certain to perform it. I find gear selection to be a heck of a pain and would love to have a guideline for it. Probably the main reason I went with a Vow of Poverty monk the one time we started at 15th level.

    It makes much more sense than other methods like 'here's your total, no item higher than X'. And it gives story and background information for you to build off of.

    Studpuffin wrote:
    Are you addressing me with this? (:?

    You, me, Zurai, and I'm sure plenty of others. ^^


    Chris Mortika wrote:
    whenever I introduce any character above 1st Level, replacement or new-player, I describe several possible adventures that might have brought the character up to the desired level

    I do pretty much the same. If a new Player joins (or a replacement PC comes in) then the Player and I will sit down and map out a backstory for the character that explains their levels and build, but simultaneously influences them. We start with the character concept and built backstory and stats to achieve the concept, not the reverse.

    I like to keep a basic 3-Act model, even for lower level characters, but especially for high ones. I've found it very useful.

    R.

    251 to 290 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What level do you let someone make a new character after dying? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in General Discussion