|
Now that the Advanced Player's Guide is out, I would like to redo one of my characters. He has completed only 1 scenario, so he is still first level. I do not yet have a copy of the APG, but I hear that the monk class is quite different. Is transferring the one completed scenario from "Character 1.0" to "Character 2.0" allowed?
My other characters are higher level, so I have no intention of making any retroactive changes.
|
Now that the Advanced Player's Guide is out, I would like to redo one of my characters. He has completed only 1 scenario, so he is still first level. I do not yet have a copy of the APG, but I hear that the monk class is quite different. Is transferring the one completed scenario from "Character 1.0" to "Character 2.0" allowed?
My other characters are higher level, so I have no intention of making any retroactive changes.
Josh has currently rules that Re working Characters are not allowed, unless it is minor changes due to changes from Beta to the APG for the new classes.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
This has been discussed at length in another thread here. With Josh back, and his recovery under way, we might see an answer to this clarified soon. Just be patient.
Saying yes to rebuilding on the APG opens a pandora's box of requests for rebuilds with every single product we release that becomes legal for play in OP. I have no interest in opening this box.
|
|
Saying yes to rebuilding on the APG opens a pandora's box of requests for rebuilds with every single product we release that becomes legal for play in OP. I have no interest in opening this box.
While I understand your point of view, it unfortunately is a game-breaking decision for me. I thank you for your work on Pathfinder Society, but I'll be taking my playtime and judging elsewhere (tho still Pathfinder!).
Rob Little
|
To Rob Little,
If I may be so bold, why is this a game breaker? I am reloading all my low level characters because of the APG, and would love to change a couple things with my main character (but obviously am not going to be able to, just wanted to change a domain to a sub-domain, no biggie, would have been mostly for flavor anyway). I am curious as to why this is a "game-breaking" decision. Not just for you, but for others as well.
|
|
To Rob Little,
If I may be so bold, why is this a game breaker? I am reloading all my low level characters because of the APG, and would love to change a couple things with my main character (but obviously am not going to be able to, just wanted to change a domain to a sub-domain, no biggie, would have been mostly for flavor anyway). I am curious as to why this is a "game-breaking" decision. Not just for you, but for others as well.
I don't get to play very often...I've been playing since Season 0, but only managed to get a single character to 5th level. I have given judging credit to some other characters, but haven't played them.
My preferred level range is 5-10. I don't get excited about playing a character until then, and I was finally getting my one character to the point where I was really looking forward to playing him. There is an arch-type that is dead perfect for him, I wouldn't have to tweak anything else about the character - just apply the arch-type and he would be everything I dreamed of for the character concept. So now I'm faced with either starting over and taking another 2+ years to get to the level that I enjoy playing or playing a character that I'm not 100% satisfied with (if I remain in PFS). I'm choosing the third option - drop out of PFS and play the character I'm satisfied with.
Having played in Living Greyhawk and lived thru the 3.0-3.5 era of updates and character conversions as a member of the campaign staff (I was on the Bandit Kingdoms triad at the time, answering to Jason Buhlman), I don't remember a single person who was bent out of shape by the rebuilds, restricted as they were (the Circle may have been, but they kept it to themselves). However, I did see a LOT of people who were ecstatic by the opportunity for rebuilds, not just for the latest cheeseweasel builds, but also for rules that better let them flesh out their characters.
To me, making a flat rule like this when you are dealing with players that you may never see is almost akin to saying "I don't trust how you play your character." I trust Joshua to do his best to provide a fun game experience, provide adventures, and promote the game. If the trust isn't going to go both ways, I can't get excited about the campaign, and I'm not going to put my time and energy into promoting it.
|
|
To Rob Little,
If I may be so bold, why is this a game breaker? I am reloading all my low level characters because of the APG, and would love to change a couple things with my main character (but obviously am not going to be able to, just wanted to change a domain to a sub-domain, no biggie, would have been mostly for flavor anyway). I am curious as to why this is a "game-breaking" decision. Not just for you, but for others as well.
I don't get to play very often...I've been playing since Season 0, but only managed to get a single character to 5th level. I have given judging credit to some other characters, but haven't played them.
My preferred level range is 5-10. I don't get excited about playing a character until then, and I was finally getting my one character to the point where I was really looking forward to playing him. There is an arch-type that is dead perfect for him, I wouldn't have to tweak anything else about the character - just apply the arch-type and he would be everything I dreamed of for the character concept. So now I'm faced with either starting over and taking another 2+ years to get to the level that I enjoy playing or playing a character that I'm not 100% satisfied with (if I remain in PFS). I'm choosing the third option - drop out of PFS and play the character I'm satisfied with.
Having played in Living Greyhawk and lived thru the 3.0-3.5 era of updates and character conversions as a member of the campaign staff (I was on the Bandit Kingdoms triad at the time, answering to Jason Buhlman), I don't remember a single person who was bent out of shape by the rebuilds, restricted as they were (the Circle may have been, but they kept it to themselves). However, I did see a LOT of people who were ecstatic by the opportunity for rebuilds, not just for the latest cheeseweasel builds, but also for rules that better let them flesh out their characters.
To me, making a flat rule like this when you are dealing with players that you may never see is...
I see your point and understand your point. The first few levels of a character can be kind of painful; however (my opinion) they are also the levels where you build the character's personality and overcoming some of the lower level adversities is what makes it fun.
I also see Josh's point in that there are an astronomical number of variables that opening that particular "box" would cause and kind of the "one" person that gets to answer all the questions and deal with all the flack for it; he's trying to make things straight across the board. That way he doesn't have to try and make on-the-fly rulings and judgement changes; it's cut and dried.
Josh,
I have a question for you on this, though it may be more complicated than it is worth for PFS play. Anyway, yes the APG says that you must choose to be core or an alternate archetype at 1st level, but what about the archetypes that do not give any new or alternate abilities til higher levels? Would it be too difficult to control if you were to allow a player who, for example, has a 2nd level monk but wants to change from core to an archetype where the first new ability is not gotten til higher than 2nd level? As far as I can tell, there would be absolutely no difference between the old monk and the new monk other than a name change if the character is not high enough yet for any of the alternate abilities.
Also, a side question that may already be answered somewhere in a general Pathfinder thread but may still affect PFS play. The APG also says you can choose as many archetypes as your character can qualify for, but it does not say if you have to choose all of them at 1st level or if you can add archetypes later on, after choosing the first one. If you can choose extra archetypes at later levels, then you should be able to add archetypes at later levels to a core class character also. If this is true, then while people cannot rebuild a character and change a core class into an archetype, they could still add an archetype to their character if that character can qualify for it.
To me, making a flat rule like this when you are dealing with players that you may never see is almost akin to saying "I don't trust how you play your character." I trust Joshua to do his best to provide a fun game experience, provide adventures, and promote the game. If the trust isn't going to go both ways, I can't get excited about the campaign, and I'm not going to put my time and energy into promoting it.
While I can certainly appreciate your viewpoint, allow me to assure you that whether or not I trust GMs and players of Pathfinder Society is not even on my mind as I make this decision. In fact, I hadn't even thought "do I trust them?" or how that question might apply to the Society as a whole until you mentioned it.
It's a pandora's box of similar requests and I'm not interested in running a campaign where you can rebuild your PC each time new materials are made available for play (which, admittedly, is the extreme end of the spectrum).
|
|
I see your point and understand your point. The first few levels of a character can be kind of painful; however (my opinion) they are also the levels where you build the character's personality and overcoming some of the lower level adversities is what makes it fun.
Oh, roleplaying at any level is fun. And I'll agree with the personality building as well. I'll refine my statement in saying that _mechanically_ I don't enjoy characters until they are 5th level or higher. Until that point there simply isn't enough going on with the character to make them exciting to play during fights.
I also see Josh's point in that there are an astronomical number of variables that opening that particular "box" would cause and kind of the "one" person that gets to answer all the questions and deal with all the flack for it; he's trying to make things straight across the board. That way he doesn't have to try and make on-the-fly rulings and judgement changes; it's cut and dried.
I guess the most annoying thing to me is that some classes (particularly the spellcasting classes) have a wealth of new toys to play with that existing characters have immediate access to, but for other characters, they are cut-off. Everyone can take the new feats when they have an open slot, new spells are immediately available, rogue talents, rage powers, all available to existing characters as soon as you have an open slot. Archtypes are the only new rule that are absolutely verboten to existing characters and it grinds my gears something fierce.
...but what about the archetypes that do not give any new or alternate abilities til higher levels?
I don't consider it "rebuilding" to choose an archetype that doesn't replace anything until levels higher than your character's current level. Rebuilding is being a level 6 fighter, for example, and deciding that phalanx soldier fits your concept better. At that point you're changing three significant details of the class and essentially becoming another class.
If you're a level 2 monk and decide drunken master is good for you, then you can choose it as the abilities don't start swapping out until 3rd level. You're not rebuilding the character as he exists, you're choosing to take him in a new (future) direction.
...but what about the archetypes that do not give any new or alternate abilities til higher levels?I don't consider it "rebuilding" to choose an archetype that doesn't replace anything until levels higher than your character's current level. Rebuilding is being a level 6 fighter, for example, and deciding that phalanx soldier fits your concept better. At that point you're changing three significant details of the class and essentially becoming another class.
If you're a level 2 monk and decide drunken master is good for you, then you can choose it as the abilities don't start swapping out until 3rd level. You're not rebuilding the character as he exists, you're choosing to take him in a new (future) direction.
Awesome! I think that answers some things for both myself and other posters. :)
|
|
It's a pandora's box of similar requests and I'm not interested in running a campaign where you can rebuild your PC each time new materials are made available for play (which, admittedly, is the extreme end of the spectrum).
But is there no room for nuance? It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and it doesn't have to be an ongoing, eternal process. Not all of the rules need to be included in a rebuild, only the ones that characters otherwise can't acquire (subdomains, bloodlines, archtypes). It can be limited to once a year, or once for the life of the character.
Imagine if you would a Con in October. Two players - one playing an 8th level Druid with a lion animal companion, who prefers to use a lion wild shape and has a lion motif, and one playing an 8th level Lion Shaman. The difference between the two players is that the second one has a lot more playtime so he was able to cram in a whole bunch of games between GenCon and October, while the first one has been playing since Season 0 and couldn't take an archtype that obviously suited his character. Neither player benefited from this rule, and arguably one player suffered from it. The campaign neither benefited or suffered from it - either way a GM has to deal with a player using the new rules. In this case, if no one benefits, and someone possibly suffered from it, I can't imagine why this is a good option.
Rob, I'm sad to see that you want to go because of this ruling.
Understand that no matter what decision I make here, someone will be just as unhappy with me as you currently are. Some will argue that rebuilds break the verisimilitude of the campaign (if I allowed it), some would say that they'll quit if I don't allow rebuilds when Orcs of Golarion becomes legal, and so on.
I have to make the decisions I think are easy for the campaign and assist the campaign the best. Avoiding the pandora's box of rebuilds is all I have in mind with this decision.
|
|
Rob, I'm sad to see that you want to go because of this ruling.
Understand that no matter what decision I make here, someone will be just as unhappy with me as you currently are. Some will argue that rebuilds break the verisimilitude of the campaign (if I allowed it), some would say that they'll quit if I don't allow rebuilds when Orcs of Golarion becomes legal, and so on.
I have to make the decisions I think are easy for the campaign and assist the campaign the best. Avoiding the pandora's box of rebuilds is all I have in mind with this decision.
I respect your decision even if I disagree with it on every point. That's why I'm choosing to leave the campaign rather than break the rules. I have had friends say "dude, just change your character, no one will know". I'll know, and I'm too much of a rules lawyer to let it go.
If the first change was say at 3rd level, and your character is now at 5th level, but you still want to change to the new type, could you do so - and just ignore the 3rd level change?
Nope. You have to take all of the features of the archetype, not just some.
|
Saying yes to rebuilding on the APG opens a pandora's box of requests for rebuilds with every single product we release that becomes legal for play in OP. I have no interest in opening this box.
In this thread some players suggested a PA cost for rebuilding. That way players could choose to rebuild when new material for their character becomes available, but they can't rebuild every time something new becomes legal.
|
I don't consider it "rebuilding" to choose an archetype that doesn't replace anything until levels higher than your character's current level. Rebuilding is being a level 6 fighter, for example, and deciding that phalanx soldier fits your concept better. At that point you're changing three significant details of the class and essentially becoming another class.If you're a level 2 monk and decide drunken master is good for you, then you can choose it as the abilities don't start swapping out until 3rd level. You're not rebuilding the character as he exists, you're choosing to take him in a new (future) direction.
Yes, this definitely needs to be posted everywhere. Many people are under the impression that choosing an archetype after character creation IS considered a rebuild. Most of the current requests would be satisfied by this ruling as it has been the most common subject I have heard so far. While it does not help higher level characters, many of the newer players (such as my area) would be very happy knowing this.
|
|
I respect your decision even if I disagree with it on every point. That's why I'm choosing to leave the campaign rather than break the rules. I have had friends say "dude, just change your character, no one will know". I'll know, and I'm too much of a rules lawyer to let it go.Rob, I'm sad to see that you want to go because of this ruling.
Understand that no matter what decision I make here, someone will be just as unhappy with me as you currently are. Some will argue that rebuilds break the verisimilitude of the campaign (if I allowed it), some would say that they'll quit if I don't allow rebuilds when Orcs of Golarion becomes legal, and so on.
I have to make the decisions I think are easy for the campaign and assist the campaign the best. Avoiding the pandora's box of rebuilds is all I have in mind with this decision.
Sorry to see you go, Rob. Hopefully you will still drop by the game days and still hang with us at MilCon.
|
|
Sorry to see you go, Rob. Hopefully you will still drop by the game days and still hang with us at MilCon.
I'll probably swing by the game days periodically to say hi, but without PFS, I don't have a reason to go to MilCon, so I won't be spending the money for a con pass. It's a lil sad cause my group was thinking about going to PaizoCon next year, but we probably won't do that now.
|
|
Robert, I don't want to respark a huge debate, but I really don't understand.
You were (presumably?) happy playing your character. Nothing was changed about your character, and new options were added for other, new, characters. Why does this impact your enjoyment of the character you've been playing for so long?
I guess I'm so confused because I have had similar things happen to me, on a MUD I play, where I have a very old, very high level character. Sometimes new options are added, but the only time I've been upset with that is when abilities that were "standard" are taken away and molded into "options". I've never minded there being new things for others to take.
Would you mind explaining what changed, for you, in the playing of the character you have?
|
|
Robert, I don't want to respark a huge debate, but I really don't understand.
Would you mind explaining what changed, for you, in the playing of the character you have?
He explained. The new toys make the old toys not as much fun, and he doesn't have the time and inclination to start over.
So hand over the new toys or he is going to take his old toys and go home.
|
|
Kortz... that's not needed, really.
Probably not needed, but he's made himself pretty clear, as have the powers that be.
And if by "backgrounds" you mean Ari's, thanks. He's part John Donne, though Donne was definitely a better poet.
Wayy off topic... should work into that background that Pathfinder Society...
|
|
You were (presumably?) happy playing your character. Nothing was changed about your character, and new options were added for other, new, characters. Why does this impact your enjoyment of the character you've been playing for so long?
Would you mind explaining what changed, for you, in the playing of the character you have?
I wasn't entirely happy. I had started a character, but mechanically he wasn't that satisfying. Character concept was a sword-and-board fighter, going the full two-weapon fighting and shield bash route. Unfortunately, in order to be competent enough to actually use shield bashes in two-weapon combat at low level, I had to put my weapon training at 5th into close weapons. This had the side effect of making shield bashes a more effective single attack than my sword, which was not what I really wanted, and it got worse at higher levels. This isn't really what I was trying to do and I wasn't very satisfied with it, but I already had the time commitment put into the character and there was some hope that a) there might be something in APG to fix it and b) I'd be able to implement the fix.
In fact, there was something in APG to fix it - the two-weapon fighter archtype. It made two-weapon fighting with the shield feasible without the shield outpacing the sword. It basically fixed the issue I had with the character. But I couldn't use it.
So my choice is to play the character as is, even tho I haven't been entirely satisfied with it or start over and play a different character. I enjoyed the time spent playing the character up to this point, but I don't enjoy the character enough to justify playing him going further as he is. And it is hard for me to get excited about investing time in another character if I might potentially have a similar problem in the future. Given I have limited play-time available, the option to me becomes play in a campaign that serves me or play in one that doesn't. To me the choice is clear.
That isn't to say that folks aren't being served by the existing campaign model. There are a lot and there will continue to be a lot. I just personally believe that the number of people who would be negatively affected by allowing reasonable rebuilds of characters is nearly negligible compared to the number of people who would find their enjoyment of the game improved by allowing it.
|
|
Except you are not locked into a class until you select it EACH LEVEL If nothing has yet changed you still can be what ever you want until you equal or pass a substitution point.
And by your ruling, once you select Cleric at 1st level you can never add a level of a different class because you have already made your choice.
Uhm, no, because that passage is specifically referring to when you select your class features: When you pick your first level in the class. You can then choose to get different alternate class features when you pick your first level in a different class. But you have to make your choice at Fighter 1, Rogue 1, Monk 1, etc. If you want multiple alternate class features (and they don't conflict) you must choose all of them at that time.Except you are not locked into a class until you select it EACH LEVEL If nothing has yet changed you still can be what ever you want until you equal or pass a substitution point.
And by your ruling, once you select Cleric at 1st level you can never add a level of a different class because you have already made your choice.
Which is why I also asked this in my other post:
Also, a side question that may already be answered somewhere in a general Pathfinder thread but may still affect PFS play. The APG also says you can choose as many archetypes as your character can qualify for, but it does not say if you have to choose all of them at 1st level or if you can add archetypes later on, after choosing the first one. If you can choose extra archetypes at later levels, then you should be able to add archetypes at later levels to a core class character also. If this is true, then while people cannot rebuild a character and change a core class into an archetype, they could still add an archetype to their character if that character can qualify for it.
I have not yet posted this in the general forums nor gone looking for an answer, though.