Planned Rebuilding before level 2


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So I'm looking at a Dex Magus level 1, then the next levels unchained Rogue. - I'd like to take Weapon Finesse as 1st level feat for surviving the first few games, then replace it with combat reflexes just before leveling since u-rogue gets finesse for free, and thus the Magus 1 / Rogue 1 wouldn't need that feat.

On the one hand I'm gaming the system (i.e. using a system meant for newbs to change mistakes to get an advantage, or at least counter a disadvantage) on the other there is no ingame inconuitiy (i.e. always has dex to hit) and mechanically the build probably won't overshadow anyone.

a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)?
b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)?
c. would you do it?
d. would you mind if others did?

Thanks for your time! :)

Grand Lodge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

a. Yes
b. Maybe but I don't think it's ethically wrong.
c. Yes
d. No

I should say I also have only played a level 1 character twice in the past year so if I'm doing it, it's generally a last minute thing to fill a table. I'll make a build I know quickly and then go from there, though it may end up having nothing to do with where the character ends up.

Silver Crusade 3/5

a. Yes it is legal.
b. There are varying opinions on this. Most consider what you are doing to be perfectly fine. Others push that to playing a barbarian for their 1st level, then changing the character entirely at 2nd level, and doing that every single character they make. Some consider any changes to be against the spirit of the game.
c. I would, and I have. (Though I mostly use the 1st-level rebuild rules to play around with different ideas.)
d. Not at all.

Dark Archive 3/5

Let me just say that you should be fine, since you seem to be following a concept and just trying to make it viable at low levels as opposed to taking the most overpowered low level options and switching them out for your endgame build. Most of the time when people object is just like when The Fox said, the first level barbarians. Let me also point out a slightly better option for getting past level 1 if you don't want to play it gimped, and that is to gm. I have only played about 2 level one games in the past year thanks to gm credit. I do not forsee any objections to this.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

a) Yes
b) My opinion is that it is unethical to do this specifically to game the system.
c) No
d) I mind, but I don't say anything as I can't do anything to stop it. On the other hand, I do chastise those who try to teach this method to others and I see it happening.

I honestly don't see why just playing a 1st level character as is, isn't a viable option.

You could always start your build as Unchained Rogue, and then go Magus at level 2. Same net result, without breaking the spirit of the game.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Its a minor tweak. Go for it. Your character is still basically the same , recognizable, and hasn't altered their appearance, personality, or narrative role. No cheese.

Silver Crusade 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A) Yes, it is legal.
B) You'll get a lot of different answers to this. Based on what you're planning, I see nothing hinky about it. If you were going to rebuild into something radically different, then maybe. Even then though, playing at level one can be brutal, I see no reason to make it worse.
C) I've done it, back when unchained rogues weren't a thing. I've had a character take something at level one then retrain it to something else at level two.
D) I wouldn't mind.

There's going to be a lot of different opinions thrown around. None of them are right, none of them are wrong. Do what you think is right.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

A. Yes
B. No. I've not done the "My level 1 Barbarian becomes a level 2 Wizard" trick, but I have FCB into HP at level one just to get an extra point of buffer (with the intent of getting 1/4th of something later). I've taken 17s down to 16, (or 15s to 14, etc) just to bump up my secondary stats to make overly-lethal first level games slightly more survivable. Though I've never changed class for a reason other than "summoners are boring to me."
C. I would do it again. It's kind of foolish not to.
D. Go nuts! Do what you enjoy. If it bothers you, that's a reason not to. Don't let others stop you from doing something legal.

Grand Lodge 4/5

A) Yes
B) Minor tweaking, less than various system changes have forced on some of my PCs.

Spoiler:
My "played all of level one as an Undead Lord, then Undead Lord got banned." PC. Still in limbo, actually, since I am afraid, since it is a boon race PC, to get stuck with a bad build at level two, where it is "play it cold, play it forever" territory. :(

C) Been there, done that. PC didn't meet my expectations when I was leveling him up to play him later, so I changed his archetype from Archer to Weapon Master.
D) Nope, no issues.
Later level retrains, if I am GMing, will need an audit for verification before I sign off on it, as the rules require. IIRC, this also applies to first level rebuilds, so...


Andrew Christian wrote:


[...] You could always start your build as Unchained Rogue, and then go Magus at level 2. Same net result, without breaking the spirit of the game.

No, actually it would not be the same result until level 2, for reasons that I didn't explain properly before: It's not magus but kensai, and I need it for the exotic weapon proficiency. Doing Rogue first would cause disconuity, as the character would start out unable to make good use of the weapon (-4 due to lacking exotic proficiency) and then suddenly get severly better, when it was part of the backstory - so he should already be good at it. -- Besides the fact that he might not reach level 2 if he's gimped because I make him use the weapon that I want the character to use, rather than a rapier or something that would work out fine without the exotic proficiency.

-------

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

A. Yes

B. No. I've not done the "My level 1 Barbarian becomes a level 2 Wizard" trick, but I have FCB into HP at level one just to get an extra point of buffer (with the intent of getting 1/4th of something later). I've taken 17s down to 16, (or 15s to 14, etc) just to bump up my secondary stats to make overly-lethal first level games slightly more survivable. Though I've never changed class for a reason other than "summoners are boring to me."
C. I would do it again. It's kind of foolish not to.
D. Go nuts! Do what you enjoy. If it bothers you, that's a reason not to. Don't let others stop you from doing something legal.

I guess good call on the HP instead of Skill point. - Though where do you draw the line?

My favored class later will be rogue, but I guess I could change that before level up, thus get a fav class bonus while playing the first level magus.

I could dump charisma since I don't have the skill points yet to make any good use of it anyway. Though what kind of ingame sense would that make? one time you see him he's all awkward, next time he's a proper face?

The crazy thing is I could probably rationalize it if I didn't think that would cross a line. I could tell a story about how he's not very good at that magic stuff and it was messing with his self esteem until he saw how good he was at poking things with his elven branched spear and now that he's found he's not incompetent he's opened up a lot and become more confident.... actually that sounds almost good enough to be worth it.

Can't put it in Dex or else he'd be getting worse when reaching level two. Put it in Con so that he is safer at level 1, and the only difference would be that at level 2 he gains less hp than a rogue usually would? - nope Fortitude would also be getting worse. Wisdom then, for better perception? And with the rogue level he's getting the perception skill anyways, so there wouldn't be a difference? Oh wait, will saves would drop. None of those make sense...

And I guess the same would be true for shifting around the uneven numbers. If I moved the Dex 19 to 18 and put the points anywhere else, same happens as above... except charisma! Ironically that would actually work since he's getting the skills to cancel out the change on the next level anyway... still for some reason that seems to be one step to far for me, and feels wrong.

Weird where we draw the line, eh? -- I guess the attribute flipping is something I wouldn't do in a home game, where as the Kensai getting to retrain his Weapon Finesse feat for free when it gets replaced by the Finesse Rogue ability is something I'd probably ask for in a home game too.)

Thanks everyone for your answers! :)

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

Julix wrote:

a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)?

Yes.
b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)?
No. You said yourself that you are gaming the system, taking advantage of a loophole.
c. would you do it?
No.
d. would you mind if others did?
Would I mind? Yes. Would I do anything about it other than roll my eyes and groan? Only write posts like this one to try to convince people not to do it.
Thornkeep and Emerald Spire spoilers:
I won't run Thornkeep 1 anymore unless I know the players haven't done it before because I know it will be all Druids, Hunters, and Summoners who will be changing class at level 2. Unless it's people with real concepts for a full delve I'm almost at the same point for Emerald Spire 1 as all those dwarfs and half-orcs will have mutated by the time they hit level 2.

The slippery slope here is that if it becomes "acceptable practice" and people are "just doing it to survive level 1" then why don't we just start at level 2? And if we could start at level 2, why not 3 "when the interesting class features start?" Or 6 when you can take that prestige class that "makes my concept make sense?"

Everyone's got their own opinion of what level the "fun" starts at. If you're spending any time "just grinding" to get to the "fun" part, you really need to take a hard look what your character is about.

Now if you still absolutely can't stand level 1, there is a perfectly ethical thing to do. GM!

1/5

Kevin Willis wrote:
Now if you still absolutely can't stand level 1, there is a perfectly ethical thing to do. GM!

How is that any more ethical?

If the only reason you're GMing is to get the credit to avoid playing a first level character then that is just as unethical as the player who plays a barbarian and then does a total rebuild before level 2.

Not that either is actually unethical.

4/5 5/5

a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)?
Yes

b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)?
What you described is perfectly fine. In my opinion changing minor things is ethical, changing major things is unethical. And there is a huge gray area between minor and major. The latter includes the half orc barbarian that gets retrained into an elf wizard for no other reason than increased survivability

c. would you do it?
For minor things: yes, for major things: no

d. would you mind if others did?
Not really, for major changes I will just pretend it is a different character. Now if the player would insist that mine and his/her characters have been on the same assignment I would explain that with these changes my character has a hard time believing that.

Silver Crusade 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever I look to do anything that might feel a little sketchy in PFS, I ask myself two questions.

1. Is what I'm doing legal, and obviously so?
2. Will what I'm doing negatively impact the fun of anyone else at the table?

If the answer to those questions is yes then no (which in this case it is), I'd say go ahead, have fun, enjoy your character from 1st level.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Julix wrote:
a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)?

Yes.

Julix wrote:
b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)?

Playing a 26 HP barbarian that turns into a nerdy wizard at level 2 is a bit gauche, but I wouldn't call it unethical.

Julix wrote:
c. would you do it?

I have and will likely do so again.

Julix wrote:
d. would you mind if others did?

Go ahead. Have a good time.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jack Amy wrote:
Whenever I look to do anything that might feel a little sketchy in PFS, I ask myself two questions.

It might be worth asking another question:

3. If everyone used/abused this option as a matter of course, is there a good chance that the campaign leadership would remove the option?

4/5

Jack Amy wrote:

Whenever I look to do anything that might feel a little sketchy in PFS, I ask myself two questions.

1. Is what I'm doing legal, and obviously so?
2. Will what I'm doing negatively impact the fun of anyone else at the table?

If the answer to those questions is yes then no (which in this case it is), I'd say go ahead, have fun, enjoy your character from 1st level.

I couldn't agree with this any more than I do, so that is pretty much my answer to b.

Julix wrote:

a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)?

b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)?
c. would you do it?
d. would you mind if others did?

a. Yes.

b. Please see above. I know a lot of people aren't going to like that response, but my response to them is that people play the game differently.

c. I totally would do it, although I haven't yet. The closest I have come is making level 1 "pregens" for myself so that I can play my own character concepts when I don't have a concept that I know I want to take to high levels yet. They are there for me to grab when I am drafted at a level 1 table. If I actually have a concept drawn up that I want to take to higher levels, then I play that instead since I want to know if I like how the character functions (which was one of the original intents of the rule).

d. Don't mind at all. (Mind you, I'm of the crowd that likes levels 6-20 more anyway)

1/5

a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)? Yes
b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)? No, it's completely allowed and not ambiguous.
c. would you do it? Yes
d. would you mind if others did? No.

2/5

I have shown up for game day and was seated at a low tier table, with no one who could melee or take a hit. So I quickly tossed together a level 1 fighter with a bag of hitpoints, played him, had a blast, then never used that character sheet again as it was not the concept I wanted for a character.

I have also played a level 1 oracle about 4 times, but every time I do, I see something shiny and squirrel into a completely different concept by level 2.

The game is about having fun with friends. If you are allowed to do it and it does not detract from any ones fun, then go for it.

4/5

Chess Pwn wrote:

a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)? Yes

b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)? No, it's completely allowed and not ambiguous.
c. would you do it? Yes
d. would you mind if others did? No.

Fully agree. Your particular change isn't even that significant and maintains continuity for the character. Hell, I've used rebuild on my archer hunter to have Precise at level 1, then trade it out for Rapid at 2 because I got Precise via class feature. That's practically the same scenario.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 **** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Andrew Christian wrote:

a) Yes

b) My opinion is that it is unethical to do this specifically to game the system.
c) No
d) I mind, but I don't say anything as I can't do anything to stop it. On the other hand, I do chastise those who try to teach this method to others and I see it happening.

I honestly don't see why just playing a 1st level character as is, isn't a viable option.

You could always start your build as Unchained Rogue, and then go Magus at level 2. Same net result, without breaking the spirit of the game.

+1. This is how I feel.

I plan to play all my first level characters as the character that I plan to play in the future.

This said, it is legal and I really don't have with people doing it. I might say something. Or I might not.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)? Absolutely
b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)? It's about as unethical as double dipping the Nachos.
c. would you do it? While I have done 2nd level rebuilds it was always because something didn't work out the way I thought it would when playing the character. I have never done a planned rebuild but then again, I have plenty of GM credits so most of my characters start at 2nd level.
d. would you mind if others did? No. Unless they made a continuous habit of it. Such as players always playing a 1st level barbarian just to survive getting to second level then completely rebuilding it. A feat change like what you are suggesting is inconsequential.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Serisan wrote:
Fully agree. Your particular change isn't even that significant and maintains continuity for the character. Hell, I've used rebuild on my archer hunter to have Precise at level 1, then trade it out for Rapid at 2 because I got Precise via class feature. That's practically the same scenario.

But that's actual retraining. That's not "free rebuild at level 1". (or if it was it totally shouldn't have been)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Andrew Christian wrote:

a) Yes

b) My opinion is that it is unethical to do this specifically to game the system.
c) No
d) I mind, but I don't say anything as I can't do anything to stop it. On the other hand, I do chastise those who try to teach this method to others and I see it happening.

I honestly don't see why just playing a 1st level character as is, isn't a viable option.

You could always start your build as Unchained Rogue, and then go Magus at level 2. Same net result, without breaking the spirit of the game.

As I stated, I find it mildly unethical but this got me thinking. It is a very common and accepted practice for GMs to use GM credits to start their characters out at 2nd level to avoid issues like what the OP is talking about. Is this not also gaming the system? I've heard people complain about players using the 2nd level rebuild rules to game the system, but I have never heard anyone complain about GMs using GM credits to game the system. So why is it okay for GMs to game the system with GM credits, but not okay for players to game the system by using the 2nd level rebuild rules? What is the actual difference?

Grand Lodge 2/5

trollbill wrote:
What is the actual difference?

It's the cop-out answer that I normally see on the forums of "it's a bonus for GM'ing."

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

claudekennilol wrote:
trollbill wrote:
What is the actual difference?
It's the cop-out answer that I normally see on the forums of "it's a bonus for GM'ing."

So you are saying you don't actually see any difference?

4/5

claudekennilol wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Fully agree. Your particular change isn't even that significant and maintains continuity for the character. Hell, I've used rebuild on my archer hunter to have Precise at level 1, then trade it out for Rapid at 2 because I got Precise via class feature. That's practically the same scenario.
But that's actual retraining. That's not "free rebuild at level 1". (or if it was it totally shouldn't have been)

Why not? One of the most common things I see with Core rogues is to have weapon finesse at level 1 and then when the character hits 2 and before you play it at 2, you rebuild to not have weapon finesse and take the finesse rogue trait (Which is why I'm glad that unchained rogue exists now).

You can rebuild before you PLAY the character at level 2, so you can rebuild it before the first game at level 2 (or higher, if GM credited).

Grand Lodge 2/5

trollbill wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
trollbill wrote:
What is the actual difference?
It's the cop-out answer that I normally see on the forums of "it's a bonus for GM'ing."
So you are saying you don't actually see any difference?

I personally don't have a problem with either. But my snipe was about other things that I've seen that as answer to that appear they could be similar questions.

Andrew Roberts wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Fully agree. Your particular change isn't even that significant and maintains continuity for the character. Hell, I've used rebuild on my archer hunter to have Precise at level 1, then trade it out for Rapid at 2 because I got Precise via class feature. That's practically the same scenario.
But that's actual retraining. That's not "free rebuild at level 1". (or if it was it totally shouldn't have been)

Why not? One of the most common things I see with Core rogues is to have weapon finesse at level 1 and then when the character hits 2 and before you play it at 2, you rebuild to not have weapon finesse and take the finesse rogue trait (Which is why I'm glad that unchained rogue exists now).

You can rebuild before you PLAY the character at level 2, so you can rebuild it before the first game at level 2 (or higher, if GM credited).

My mistake, I was confused and thought Rapid Shot's prereq was Precise Shot (but it's not, it's Point-Blank Shot). Being aware of my confusion, I don't have a problem with it.

But to clarify what I meant, I was meaning that you can't "free rebuild" a first level feat to something that has a prereq for something you're getting at second level--that would be retraining and not "free rebuilding".

Scarab Sages 4/5

trollbill wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
trollbill wrote:
What is the actual difference?
It's the cop-out answer that I normally see on the forums of "it's a bonus for GM'ing."
So you are saying you don't actually see any difference?

The difference would be that when a GM applies credit to their character, that character is not actually participating in the adventure with the other characters. A character being played in a scenario that is taking advantage of the rebuild rules has the opportunity to negatively impact the experience of the other players. I don't know how often that happens or how big of a problem it is, but it is a difference. I could see it turning into an issue for a small community if someone continually brings an overpowered 1st level Barbarian build to the table so they can crush everything in a Tier 1 scenario in one hit. It's doubtful something like swapping out Weapon Finesse before 2nd level would cause any major problems.

GM credits don't have that potential issue. In fact, a GM is facilitating an opportunity for other players to advance their own characters. I would, however, take issue with a GM who intentionally put in a subpar effort running a scenario just so they can get it over more quickly and get their chronicle. That is a potential problem with GM chronicles, but also an entirely different issue.

It's worth noting that I don't have any philosophical issues with what the OP is proposing to do. Much more consistency would be maintained for that character than for many 1st level characters, and it doesn't bother me that the character wouldn't be spending prestige to retrain. It's a first level character. As long as the player is helping to facilitate and contribute to the fun of the table, I don't think it's worth turning it into an issue.


Other related question on pre-level 2 rebuilds: What about gear? If I do the oft-bashed "1st level barbarian rebuilt to 2nd level wizard", what happens to the barbarian's stuff? Does that get a free rebuild as well or do you sell it back for half and replace it?

Scarab Sages 4/5

thejeff wrote:
Other related question on pre-level 2 rebuilds: What about gear? If I do the oft-bashed "1st level barbarian rebuilt to 2nd level wizard", what happens to the barbarian's stuff? Does that get a free rebuild as well or do you sell it back for half and replace it?

You can sell gear back at full price, unless it's an expendable that has been used. So, for example, if you buy an alchemist's fire, then use it in a scenario, you can't sell it back. If you buy a wand and use a charge, it's no longer a fully charged wand, and it's unable to be sold back. But your sword, armor, etc., and any unused expendables, can all be sold back at full cost as part of the rebuild.

3/5

a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)? Yep.
b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)? Yep (nope).
c. would you do it? Yep.
d. would you mind if others did? Nope.

5/5 5/55/55/5

trollbill wrote:


but I have never heard anyone complain about GMs using GM credits to game the system. So why is it okay for GMs to game the system with GM credits, but not okay for players to game the system by using the 2nd level rebuild rules? What is the actual difference?

The DM put a lot more work into it, and skipping level 1 is likely his only reward.


Ferious Thune wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Other related question on pre-level 2 rebuilds: What about gear? If I do the oft-bashed "1st level barbarian rebuilt to 2nd level wizard", what happens to the barbarian's stuff? Does that get a free rebuild as well or do you sell it back for half and replace it?
You can sell gear back at full price, unless it's an expendable that has been used. So, for example, if you buy an alchemist's fire, then use it in a scenario, you can't sell it back. If you buy a wand and use a charge, it's no longer a fully charged wand, and it's unable to be sold back. But your sword, armor, etc., and any unused expendables, can all be sold back at full cost as part of the rebuild.

Thanks. That's what I'd thought, but I wasn't sure.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:


but I have never heard anyone complain about GMs using GM credits to game the system. So why is it okay for GMs to game the system with GM credits, but not okay for players to game the system by using the 2nd level rebuild rules? What is the actual difference?
The DM put a lot more work into it, and skipping level 1 is likely his only reward.

So you are saying GMs have earned the right to game the system in this manner? (Not arguing with that, just getting a clarification)

Lantern Lodge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:


but I have never heard anyone complain about GMs using GM credits to game the system. So why is it okay for GMs to game the system with GM credits, but not okay for players to game the system by using the 2nd level rebuild rules? What is the actual difference?
The DM put a lot more work into it, and skipping level 1 is likely his only reward.
So you are saying GMs have earned the right to game the system in this manner? (Not arguing with that, just getting a clarification)

It's not "gaming the system." It's a reward for volunteering.

The Exchange 5/5

as I am one of the people who really enjoy playing 1st level - down where the PC personality is still forming - the view of skipping the first 3 fun adventures is not something I look forward to.

Now if I could just delay those "GM reward Chronicles" to put them on higher level PCs... say a couple 11th level ones...that would appeal to me.

5/5 5/55/55/5

trollbill wrote:


So you are saying GMs have earned the right to game the system in this manner? (Not arguing with that, just getting a clarification)

Its not gaming the system. Its an advantage inherent in DM credit, so a feature not a bug.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:


So you are saying GMs have earned the right to game the system in this manner? (Not arguing with that, just getting a clarification)

Its not gaming the system. Its an advantage inherent in DM credit, so a feature not a bug.

So, semantics then?

5/5 5/55/55/5

trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:


So you are saying GMs have earned the right to game the system in this manner? (Not arguing with that, just getting a clarification)

Its not gaming the system. Its an advantage inherent in DM credit, so a feature not a bug.

So, semantics then?

If you're not putting the intent into your words yes its semantics.

If you are intending the insult its an important difference.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Um going to say the following bits with two caveats. 1) This is how I learned to roleplay, how I prefer to roleplay and I fully understand that others may enjoy this passtime differently. And 2) I'm in no way trying to say badwrongfun, but feel the opposite is being said of how I enjoy things.

There is a difference if you care about roleplay continuity if character. GM credit blobs have no continuity to maintain. Once a character has been played, using a system that was created to help newbies and allow fixes to concepts that didn't pan out, to do things you couldn't otherwise do (or typically do in a home campaign) is gaming the system.

Using GM credits just starts your continuity a bit later.

If you don't care about roleplay continuity, which I understand that not everyone does, then the difference is largely semantics.


a. Is it legal (w/ or w/o table variation)?
Yep. There seems to be concurrence on this point.

b. Is it ethical (anything wrong with it)?
Given what qualifies as an acceptable encounter for a level 1 in PFS? Totally acceptable.

I might still be bitter over the level 1 DC 25 perception check and the level 1

Spoiler:
frigging DRAGON.

c. would you do it?
Gleefully and without remorse. I've even got the backstory ready for my perma level one.

The barbarian wished for eternal youth. It didn't go well.

d. would you mind if others did?
Not a bit.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:


So you are saying GMs have earned the right to game the system in this manner? (Not arguing with that, just getting a clarification)

Its not gaming the system. Its an advantage inherent in DM credit, so a feature not a bug.

So, semantics then?

If you're not putting the intent into your words yes its semantics.

If you are intending the insult its an important difference.

No insult intended.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Andrew Christian wrote:

Um going to say the following bits with two caveats. 1) This is how I learned to roleplay, how I prefer to roleplay and I fully understand that others may enjoy this passtime differently. And 2) I'm in no way trying to say badwrongfun, but feel the opposite is being said of how I enjoy things.

There is a difference if you care about roleplay continuity if character. GM credit blobs have no continuity to maintain. Once a character has been played, using a system that was created to help newbies and allow fixes to concepts that didn't pan out, to do things you couldn't otherwise do (or typically do in a home campaign) is gaming the system.

Using GM credits just starts your continuity a bit later.

If you don't care about roleplay continuity, which I understand that not everyone does, then the difference is largely semantics.

Agreed. I prefer the continuity myself.

Scarab Sages 4/5

I prefer continuity as well, but as someone who played a 1st level ninja without Weapon Finesse through all three scenarios at level 1, it is extremely painful. I threw a lot of Shuriken just to be able to hit something. I often felt like I wasn't contributing like I should be for the table. This was before the 1st level rebuilds were allowed and well before retraining was an option, and I needed a specific set of feats by 3rd level to be useful going forward. Using my level 2 ninja trick for Finesse Rogue was the only way to get where I needed to be, and that was including the human bonus feat. It was also a few months before I started GMing, so using GM credit didn't happen. Now I almost always GM credit past 1st level, unless I'm playing one of the repeatables.

Having the option to have Weapon Finesse at 1st, then swap it for another feat at 2nd and take the ninja trick would have meant that my character was more representative of where it would eventually go rather than less. There's continuity of character, and there's continuity of the character's build. They aren't always the same things.


Andrew Christian wrote:

Um going to say the following bits with two caveats. 1) This is how I learned to roleplay, how I prefer to roleplay and I fully understand that others may enjoy this passtime differently. And 2) I'm in no way trying to say badwrongfun, but feel the opposite is being said of how I enjoy things.

There is a difference if you care about roleplay continuity if character. GM credit blobs have no continuity to maintain. Once a character has been played, using a system that was created to help newbies and allow fixes to concepts that didn't pan out, to do things you couldn't otherwise do (or typically do in a home campaign) is gaming the system.

Using GM credits just starts your continuity a bit later.

If you don't care about roleplay continuity, which I understand that not everyone does, then the difference is largely semantics.

Though the OP's plan doesn't really break continuity, even if the way he mechanically gets his abilities changes.

The Barbarian -> Wizard thing would. I'm less bothered by smaller changes around the same basic character concept.

The Exchange 3/5

my very first game and very first character was a Half-Orc Barbarian with a great axe. I played through the First Step's Part one with him and

spoiler:
When Old Granny McFanny that runs the Orphanage cast sleep on our Paladin, he failed, my 7 Int Barbarian, Charge/Power Attacked/Crit and did some 35 damage to this little old lady made me realize that maybe this kind of character wasn't right for the society
After that in first steps part 2 and on I made a Dwarven Stonelord Paladin of Torag, I didn't try to say it was the same person though. I think that is what the first level rebuild rules are good for, finding what works for you and what doesn't and then changing accordingly.

I however find nothing wrong with people that take weapon finesse at level 1, then retrain it to something else if they are getting a class that grants it for free.

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Codanous wrote:

my very first game and very first character was a Half-Orc Barbarian with a great axe. I played through the First Step's Part one with him and ** spoiler omitted ** After that in first steps part 2 and on I made a Dwarven Stonelord Paladin of Torag, I didn't try to say it was the same person though. I think that is what the first level rebuild rules are good for, finding what works for you and what doesn't and then changing accordingly.

I however find nothing wrong with people that take weapon finesse at level 1, then retrain it to something else if they are getting a class that grants it for free.

"Old Granny McFanny"? do I know this lady? surely not...

3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Um going to say the following bits with two caveats. 1) This is how I learned to roleplay, how I prefer to roleplay and I fully understand that others may enjoy this passtime differently. And 2) I'm in no way trying to say badwrongfun, but feel the opposite is being said of how I enjoy things.

There is a difference if you care about roleplay continuity if character.

Continuity is what you make of it in PFS.

Examples & blatant rhetoric:
Do you refuse to sit at tables with characters who have gone through the same scenarios that you have, but with a different group?
If not, do you tell them they're lying when they tell you about it - just to keep it "in character" as your character should have seen them there and they obviously weren't ... Probably not.

We are at 7 Season of PFS now, and not all of us have been playing since the beginning.
I played a Season 0 last night with a character than had GM credit & had to be completely ret-conned because of PFS changes. Should I make sure to break the 4th wall appropriately to ensure "continuity"? ... Probably not.

If an NPC dies in a scenario you've played and then you end up playing an earlier scenario with that NPC, do you disrupt the table in character to try to resolve the continuity issue? ... I would hope not.

-TimD

EDIT: removed what may have been construed as a personal attack on another forum member at the cost of another opportunity for a Princess Bride quote lost...

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Planned Rebuilding before level 2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.