Low levels are both less fun for DMs and players. As a DM I have less options to challenge players and have to worry about one bad roll killing someone. The result is less enjoyable play. The speed of advancement is great at first and bad after that.
Thank you for the well worded explanation. I can't say that it really makes a difference. We had multiple LG characters due to the time units so creating new ones is not the problem. There just isn't anywhere to plan to go with these characters. 12 is too low, but I understand that above that is also where a great deal of problems start in.
The speed of leveling combined with the 12 level cap is causing my players to rethink playing the society all together. We love the Pathfinder changes and plan on sticking with it, but the level cap is a real turn off. It is worse with the quick rise in level. They are almost fourth and could be 1/3 of the way finished. That does not lend itself to the long term commitment we were hoping for and the 12 level cap really means that many character ideas are now not possible. Instead, we are considering running shackled city, another of your fine products.
One potential problem is in the Beta pathfinder (if it used a currently written) that allows a Wizard that can summon undead as one of it's abilities. That is another problem. Notmousse, As I stated I don't play such a character nor do I want to play such a character. So your argument that I am upset that I could not play is not valid. You say you are enforcing the rules, but stated you don't care what Mr. Frost, the arbiter of the rules says. That sir is not enforcing the rules, but enforcing your will. That is the problem and the reason that you should keep such attitudes to your home game, not convention organized play which should require that you follow the rulings of the closest thing we have to an authority as written or stated.
Here is the problem with Mousse's argument and the reason that DM's need firm rules for organized play. His first statement:
He doesn't care what the ruling is, he cares what he thinks. It is also the reason that he states later: I think what's being missed here is that if a player has a problem with the table they're at the most powerful statement that can be made is to walk away. I've done it, and encourage anyone that finds themselves seated at a table they're truly unsatisfied with to do the same. Trust me, if it happens more than once the GM usually doesn't continue. Josh has already stated:
and
In fact, the final rules might have necromancy sorcerers and wizards that are playable. One power in the BETA allows the summoning of undead to serve them in a potentially playable class. The key problem is DM's that allow EGO to guide their decisions rather than rules. Personally, I don't like the whole Cheliax thing and hated one of the missions in a module I ran at convention. It involved six innocents dying to fulfill a mission. It only encouraged childish play and glorified evil in my opinion.
You don't need a heavy hand Mousse. The player characters will likely destroy the thing as Josh suggested. The fact that they can, has already inspired the player in my home group (after Josh's ruling) to stop heading down his current path and take his next level in Bard. "The government that governs least, governs best" (but it still has to govern.)
There's nothing in the rules that would stop someone from doing so, though I leave it to the GMs and the situation as to how they handle this--within the rules of Pathfinder Society of course. That Joshua is the problem.. Moussse has decided that someone's character as built within the current framework is just not allowed at his table. That is a problem for players that are having a shared experience.
This always ends up being a problem at conventions and such. As someone that covers politics and governmental problems, I have observed that this comes from generally one thing, ego. People allow ego (My table, my rules) to override, I am here to enforce the rules. It is the reason some DM. It is the reason that some take comments and jump and flame. You have done an excellent job of answering my original question and for that I am grateful. Please don't allow at CONVENTIONS the idea that every DM can rule character abilities and such that are allowed to not exist as Mousse has suggested he would do. (Arcane Heirphonts and the such were always facing this in LG). Clearly defined statements on such things help play and do not hinder it.
See that is one of the problems that you must remember as a DM in organized play. You can't rule something that is in the rules not allowed. Very unfair given the nature of some Cheliax and if the Beta rules are a guide in any way, the necromancy wizard.
If a LN Cleric creates undead (yes negative energy cleric) does he: 1. Get to keep the surviving characters adventure to adventure till destruction (since they cost gold to create) 2. Is there a limit on maximum HD of the creature other than a limit on the amount he can control? Also, is it considered player versus player or wrong play for the NG Cleric to destroy purposely the undead that the other cleric is creating? We have both in our group and the LN cleric's idea is to be a necromancy type of cleric. It is his dream character and it is causing table conflict due to the other cleric players desire to destroy the undead. Please advise
What is the process, if there is one, for creating and running interactives at other conventions?
My son who is about to be 10 caused a mess with this module with his Ranger (level 2). He actually talked to the Otugyh and convinced him they were friends and would kill whatever had harmed him (hence the big boss).
|