|
Does anyone else feel that leveling up in Pathfinder Society is too rapid? Or it's just me?
I think it's important to move onto 2nd level quickly, after maybe two games, because first level is rather vulnerable, especially facing 5th level wizards or cultists wielding picks x4 crits. Maybe this won't be as important once Pathfinder RPG rules kick in with bonus hit points at first level. But my Living Greyhawk/Arcanis characters have grown over years of play, and I feel they've been constant companions with me on this journey. Pathfinder characters could potentially advance from 1st through 10th level in the period of a year. Some characters advanced from 1st to 3rd at Arcanacon, and could reach 6th by Conquest.
I'd be happy for advancement to be a *little* faster than Greyhawk/Arcanis maybe ... but not by a lot.
Now that you mention it, the leveling does seem too fast.
I agree that leveling to second is something that it is nice to do quickly, but after that we seem to be burning through the levels.
Lower levels are often more fun, so I'd be happy to stay there a little longer.
So what do others think?
Well, I don't know if it'll be possible to keep everyone happy, i.e. the hard-core players who play in lots of games will find it fast, and the players who only go to cons once or twice per year will find it slow.
|
I know that this has been a real concern in the games you mention, and the standard answer is "some people will always find it too slow, others will find it too fast, we just live with it in between."
But I wonder if there isn't another answer for this, and giving players the option to "slow down" advancement: perhaps there could be a specific mechanism after an adventure for a character to take no reward (that is, no gold or xp) for the adventure. This creates a few ancillary issues to be addressed--should the "take it slow" character also be forced to take no prestige points? No access?
One enterprising character I played with in Living Greyhawk just had several characters built the same, with practically the same name, and similar if not identical equipment purchased, and just switched them out among adventures: each character had her own stack of Adventure Records independent of the others, so the paperwork was all proper, but it really felt to her like playing the same character dozens of time between levels.
|
I too find leveling a bit quick. But more to the point is that so far characters I've seen have been gathering too few GP to grow with their level.
While I don't want it to run Lord of the Bling, even moreso I don't want to see a repeat of LG's early years where 'greyhawking' was for survival and not greed.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think it's fine, it's just enough time to experience each level's abilities. My only concern is there's no way to increase it for someone who has died and had to reroll a new character so he can play in the same games as his friends.
I think that something needs to be done to address this issue first and foremost and I know it's been talked about in other places several times. I think that one solution might be to say that a PC's faction pays for their raising after the completion of the scenario in which they died (as opposed to them paying to be revived during it) with a few penalties. No level loss, but maybe their next level requires 5 XP to reach instead of 3, or their prestige is reset to half of what it was before. I think there are ways to use the mechanics of the particular OP system to allow for PCs to "not die."
|
Well from my now limited experience and the experiences of others who have played several more games...
No, I don't think it is too rapid now. First game in Society and TPK.
Along with discussions of the many other games that were TPKs don't see how many people are getting to level 3 as it is! No killer GMs either, and good players. Dice rolls all out in the open.
What the heck I like making characters, so bring on the TPKs!
|
|
The problem in my opinion isn't the speed of leveling. The real problem is the gap forming between the players who don't DM at all and who's characters survive and the players who occasionally DM AND experience character deaths. At the moment the gap is the size of about 3-4 levels and since the amount of xp received is a constant there is no way to bridge this gap.
Say there's a group of seven players, two of whom take turns DM:ing. This means the DM's lag behind about 3 xp/6 scenarios, translating to about advancing at half speed. After 12 scenarios the group would be lvl's 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3. Still in the same ball park and playable in the same tier.
Now consider what happens when one of those lvl 3 characters dies. For the next game you have a group with lvl's 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 1. Now, this group has an APL of (5+5+5+5+3+1)/6=4 and an EL of (5+5+5+5+3+1/6+1=5, which in my experience translates as quite lethal for the lvl 1 character hanging out with the lvl 5's. He's going to have a very hard time surviving. If this was a normal home game, he'd gain on the other characters because of the relatively high CR monsters the group is facing. This isn't happening in Pathfinder Society since he's still receiving 1xp/mod.
The solution in my opinion would be something along the lines of:
a) Making resurrecting a character a viable option. Perhaps something as simple as loosing ONE level and all of your prestige points.
b) Rewarding DM:ing. Say 0.5-1.0 XP/mod eaten.
|
The solution in my opinion would be something along the lines of:
a) Making resurrecting a character a viable option. Perhaps something as simple as loosing ONE level and all of your prestige points.
b) Rewarding DM:ing. Say 0.5-1.0 XP/mod eaten.
I concur with Navdi with the possible choices, although losing all of your prestige points is a little harsh considering how slowly you gain them. Losing half of them might be more appropriate.
The other problem that comes with b) is the inevitable imbalance in wealth. A character dependable on items, such as a fighter, will lack in power if not supplied with money. Monks, sorcerers and other spellcasters are not so dependant on wealth, so it favors them a lot.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I believe that Josh has said that, when version 1.2 of the Guide comes out, there will be no level loss of Constitution damage for raise dead. Your character will just be able to come back.
Having said that, I can't seem to find that discussion on the threads, so maybe I'm confused.
|
|
Well from my now limited experience and the experiences of others who have played several more games...
No, I don't think it is too rapid now. First game in Society and TPK.
Along with discussions of the many other games that were TPKs don't see how many people are getting to level 3 as it is! No killer GMs either, and good players. Dice rolls all out in the open.
What the heck I like making characters, so bring on the TPKs!
In our group we have a Cleric and a Paladin both with 23 AC, that helps a lot.
Sorcerors with Sleep help big time in the low levels. Most enemies can either be put to sleep or turned.
So I'm elbow deep this week in compiling all of the suggested and decided changes for version 1.2 of the guide book and there are some things being said in this thread that confuse me. In order to make sure I understand the complaints (or suggestions!) 100%, I need clarification.
First, there will be a GM reward structure built into v1.2 that should solve some of the home game complaints about GMs who take turns playing falling behind.
What I don't get, is the issues with raising a fallen party member. Why isn't the party pooling resources to raise the fallen PC? I understand at lower levels this isn't possible, but at lower levels the gap between dead players and alive players is really small. If you're a party of six level 5 PCs and one of you dies, the typical response in OP is for the party to help the dead level 5 get raised if he/she don't have the resources. I totally get that this gap gets exponentially more frustrating when a GM who isn't getting any credit (and thus falling behind) then also dies and the party can't raise him making him fall even further behind. I get that. What I don't get is why the other PCs don't chip in and raise him, solving the problem.
There are classic tropes of this game that I don't intend to mess with. Death is expensive. Death happens. There's a certain curve at which it's better to remake your character vs. when it's better to raise him. And so on. I want death to be a threat and a challenge. As we get better (and by we I mean myself and the contributors) at designing the scenarios, we'll get better at properly balancing the challenge levels as well helping to stem the tide of low-level deaths.
So beyond the GM credit thing (which will be fixed), what more do you suggest I do? Keep in mind that "make raise dead cheaper" is not a solution.
This post is very honestly because I don't understand the raise dead issues both from a design standpoint and from a 22-year player of D&D standpoint. Help me understand the issue. :-)
Depends on what you mean.
Can that GM use his time as a GM to build a PC that he can take to a con and run through events? Yes.
Are we going to provide free product for GMs that only GM? No.
Does this mean we're never going to? No. But our budget for PFS is small right now. When we have 50,000 players and can sell 5,000 or more scenarios a month, that may change.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Mediterranean
|
So beyond the GM credit thing (which will be fixed), what more do you suggest I do? Keep in mind that "make raise dead cheaper" is not a solution.
This post is very honestly because I don't understand the raise dead issues both from a design standpoint and from a 22-year player of D&D standpoint. Help me understand the issue. :-)
I think the issue is that a character who is raised loses a level and there's no way they can catch up with the other characters if they are all playing the same scenarios.
So the other characters pool resources to raise the character and then have a weaker character with them who can never catch up with them.
v1.2 is going to remove the level penalty for raise dead. I'll figure out a way to retroactively apply that to PCs who've been raised.
For an OP setting, I think spending 5,450 gp is enough of a punishment. (And quite honestly, I've always house-ruled raise dead like this in my home games and I'm pretty sure PRPG is leaning that way as well.)
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Mediterranean
|
v1.2 is going to remove the level penalty for raise dead. I'll figure out a way to retroactively apply that to PCs who've been raised.
For an OP setting, I think spending 5,450 gp is enough of a punishment. (And quite honestly, I've always house-ruled raise dead like this in my home games and I'm pretty sure PRPG is leaning that way as well.)
Excellent. Really pleased to have you say that.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What I don't get, is the issues with raising a fallen party member. Why isn't the party pooling resources to raise the fallen PC?This post is very honestly because I don't understand the raise dead issues both from a design standpoint and from a 22-year player of D&D standpoint. Help me understand the issue. :-)
Pathfinder Society events seem to be very gold-poor. In the adventures I've run, the party has never gotten all the loot, and has oftentimes ended up with very little.
Usually, the events where a PC dies, are not otherwise smashing successes. The party may be trying too hard to succeed at the basic adventure mission to worry about cleaning out the gold.
There simply may not be an extra 5450, or 10,900 gp (once one PC dies, others are likely to follow).
And, as people have mentioned, a lot of DMs haven't know about the "no level loss" rule for raise dead, and have simply built new 1st-Level characters, rather than have their 3rd-Level character come back as 2nd.
Josh, you asked for ways to solve the problem. I think the proposal on the table, that replacements characters gain levels faster to catch up, is the only reasonable solution.
Characters playing above their tier should get 1.5 XP per adventure. Characters playing below their tier (in case there's one surviving PC, and all the other players rolled up new characters) should get 0.75 XP per adventure.
(Or multiply those numbers by 4 to get 6, 4, and 3 XP, and level up every 12 XP.)
|
|
Hm, pooling wealth to ensure one raise dead isn't always so possible. Since all the fighting classes (fighter, ranger etc.) need money to stay competent, they can't afford to use all that much money on fallen comrades.
The other thing might be more simple for why this sort of charity hasn't happened: To some, global campaigns are new. They learn they can't lend or give money to other characters due to game balance. Thus they think pooling resources to buy one Raise Dead for another character is against the rules or the possiblity is unknown to them.
I might add it's irresponsible to assume players/characters are willing to donate. Succumbing the wealth of five characters to naught just to bring one guy up is by no means a very tempting choice, especially if you direly need that money. Thus this charity work becomes a valid option when all characters are 5th level.
Still, scaling raising by level would be much better.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also having incentive to play at different tiers is, in general, a mistake. Allow the table to decide the challenge level that they are comfortable with and play there without pressure to do otherwise.
-James
James, I agree with you in the context of larger game conventions, where there are several tables for people to play, of a variety of tiers.
I was under the impression we ere talking about PFS campaigns in game stores and the like, where there's only one table, possibly two, and most of the players are regulars. In a case like that, everybody else may be bringing their 4th-Level PCs to the table, and --since your character died last session-- you've got your 1st-Level fighter.
(Or, again, vice versa, where your character was the only one to survive...)
The issue people are having is that, as the experience system goes now, there's no ay for a new PC to catch up. If I'm 3 levels behind the rest of the party, I will be three levels behind, forever. In a large convention atmosphere, that's not a problem, because there are other PCs who *are* 1st Level, too, and the player can play with them, instead.
But in smaller gaming settings, they have to play out of tier. For weaker PCs, that means that adventures are deadlier for them, and they're more likely to die again.
The modified experience issue is a method of addressing this problem. How would you address it?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To some, global campaigns are new. They learn they can't lend or give money to other characters due to game balance. Thus they think pooling resources to buy one Raise Dead for another character is against the rules or the possiblity is unknown to them.
Wait, Deussu. Is there a rule that PCs can't give money or items to one another? I've had people buy potions (and at 4th Level, they're saving up to buy a cure light wounds wand) to give to other party members. This is not allowed? How did I miss that rule?
And yes, if it's not allowed to buy the cleric a clw wand, then of course it's not allowed to buy the ranger an raise dead.
|
|
To some, global campaigns are new. They learn they can't lend or give money to other characters due to game balance. Thus they think pooling resources to buy one Raise Dead for another character is against the rules or the possiblity is unknown to them.Wait, Deussu. Is there a rule that PCs can't give money or items to one another? I've had people buy potions (and at 4th Level, they're saving up to buy a cure light wounds wand) to give to other party members. This is not allowed? How did I miss that rule?
And yes, if it's not allowed to buy the cleric a clw wand, then of course it's not allowed to buy the ranger an raise dead.
A quote from the Guide:
After, and sometimes during, a scenario, you have the option of dealing with your character’s misfortune. You may have any of the following spells cast on your character, subtracting the gp cost from your total. If your gold is insufficient, the other players around the table may chip in to get you back on your feet, but they cannot be compelled to do so. It is their choice whether or not they wish to aid you. (Though we certainly encourage players to do so—a fighter at –6 STR is not really an asset for your group, is he??However, it looks like the guide is missing the standard statement from other OP campaigns that are similar, to the effect that you cannot give items or gold to other characters to keep, but that you can lend them to them for the duration of a scenario/adventure.
From a now-defunct but similar campaign's guide:
Items may not be traded to another PC. During adventure play, you may loan items and coin to other PCs for the duration of the adventure, but their loss is reflected on your MIL and coin totals at the end of the game. Surviving loaned items and anything purchased with borrowed GP reverts back to your PC at the end of the game. You may not loan money to a friend to buy an item you cannot normally buy for yourself. Items that the lender is not allowed to keep must be sold and as much GP as possible returned in its place. Anything spent to pay for an NPC’s services does not revert to its original owner, even if only one PC benefited from the services (e.g. paying an NPC to cast a spell on one PC).
Basically, you can lend items to another character, if it makes sense in the context of the game. Lend a +1 longbow to a character who doesn't have one, when you no longer need it for one reason or another. Use a healing potion on the downed cleric. Lend a CLW wand to the cleric. Anything that survives to the end of the game reverts to the actual owner, less any used portions, whether it is 3 arrows, 23 charges, or that the potion is gone.
You can pool money for temporary in-game benefits, whether it is hiring someone to fill out a role that the party is lacking (4 PCs, and they hire a Wizard or Sorceror to provide arcane abilities) or pay bribes/what-have-you. You can also pool money, as mentioned above, to pay for Cures and Raises, but not for a magic item someone is going to keep after the game is over.
In part, this kind of rule is to keep a higher level party from twinking out a new PC, and then having that PC adventure with a bunch of different characters than "lent" him items. Essentially, cheating.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
However, it looks like the guide is missing the standard statement from other OP campaigns that are similar, to the effect that you cannot give items or gold to other characters to keep, but that you can lend them to them for the duration of a scenario/adventure. You can also pool money, as mentioned above, to pay for Cures and Raises, but not for a magic item someone is going to keep after the game is over.
Thank you, Callarek. I'd never heard of such a rule before. (Living Arcanis, the only OP campaign I'm half-familiar with, doesn't have that kind of policy.)
A couple of the local folks are indeed planning to pool their money to buy the cleric a wand of cure light wounds, and I, for one, am happy that there's no rule in PFS banning that.
|
|
However, it looks like the guide is missing the standard statement from other OP campaigns that are similar, to the effect that you cannot give items or gold to other characters to keep, but that you can lend them to them for the duration of a scenario/adventure. You can also pool money, as mentioned above, to pay for Cures and Raises, but not for a magic item someone is going to keep after the game is over.
Thank you, Callarek. I'd never heard of such a rule before. (Living Arcanis, the only OP campaign I'm half-familiar with, doesn't have that kind of policy.)
A couple of the local folks are indeed planning to pool their money to buy the cleric a wand of cure light wounds, and I, for one, am happy that there's no rule in PFS banning that.
Just remember wands can't be bought at will. You have to find them in an adventure. I've only seen one Cure Light Wand so far myself (though I've only played 9 adventures) and it was partially charged.
A couple of the local folks are indeed planning to pool their money to buy the cleric a wand of cure light wounds, and I, for one, am happy that there's no rule in PFS banning that.
This looks like an oversight to me; I wouldn't get my hopes up.
|
|
So I'm elbow deep this week in compiling all of the suggested and decided changes for version 1.2 of the guide book and there are some things being said in this thread that confuse me. In order to make sure I understand the complaints (or suggestions!) 100%, I need clarification.
First, there will be a GM reward structure built into v1.2 that should solve some of the home game complaints about GMs who take turns playing falling behind.
Thanks Josh, I think GM rewards will help. Until recently, I've been a Pathfinder GM only. However, I thought it might be a good idea to create a character and experience Pathfinder Society as a player, the new perspective might provide insight that could enhance my GMing Pathfinder Society - never lose empathy with who you're running these scenarios for.
My character is 1st level, but my playtest group are 10 scenarios ahead of me and are now 4th level, and are probably ready to play tier 4-5 now. I've suggested some of them may want to create a second character to playtest more tier 1-2 scenarios, which two of them have done, but I think the others are keen to continue advancing their current character.
I know that sooner or later this was going to happen, and we'd have to deal with it, most likely by running different characters through different tiers. But advancing levels so rapidly makes this disconnect occur much sooner than I feel it might have in a Living Greyhawk or Living Arcanis game.
What I don't get, is the issues with raising a fallen party member. Why isn't the party pooling resources to raise the fallen PC? ... There are classic tropes of this game that I don't intend to mess with. Death is expensive. Death happens. There's a certain curve at which it's better to remake your character vs. when it's better to raise him. And so on. I want death to be a threat and a challenge.
I agree with your sentiments here.
So beyond the GM credit thing (which will be fixed), what more do you suggest I do?
There's also the feeling that leveling is occurring too rapidly. Maybe it's my old-school gaming experience, or Living Greyhawk/Arcanis convention play experience, but I've always felt I've had to work for those levels. I'm not gaining that sense in Pathfinder Society, it seems almost too easy.
Is it that I'm burning through playtest scenarios more rapidly as a Pathfinder GM than I did as a LG/LA con player? Specifically I'm interested to hear from other Living Greyhawk/Arcanis players - do you feel Pathfinder Society advancement is more rapid than you're used to? Pathfinder Society is it's own game, it doesn't have to mimic LG/LA in every regard, faster or slower advancement is okay, but what I am asking is does it feel "right" for you, or a little faster than you're comfortable with?
As we get better (and by we I mean myself and the contributors) at designing the scenarios, we'll get better at properly balancing the challenge levels as well helping to stem the tide of low-level deaths.
I'm not sure that the current tier system is granular enough not to be deadly for a group of four 1st level characters, and a walk-through for a group of six 3rd level characters (using tier 1-2 as an example). I've been keeping an eye on the Pathfinder Society GM Discussion threads and my own playtest group to gauge whether particular scenarios are difficult for a low-level group, and delaying those scenarios for convention groups until a group has characters at the high end of the tier 1-2 range. While not always a fail-safe method (I thought #1 Silent Tide was pretty safe for 1st level characters until I killed two characters playing it at Aracanacon - sorry guys!), some scenarios work better as introductory mods than others.
I'd be happy for experience awards to be 2, 3 or 4 per game, depending on whether you play "up" or "down" a tier - 3 being the norm. The maths isn't that difficult to do, and it's certainly quicker when rushing paperwork at the end of a session that's run over-time than adding hundreds or thousands - it's so easy to add incorrectly when handwritten tens, hundreds, thousands columns don't line up.
There's also the feeling that leveling is occurring too rapidly. Maybe it's my old-school gaming experience, or Living Greyhawk/Arcanis convention play experience, but I've always felt I've had to work for those levels. I'm not gaining that sense in Pathfinder Society, it seems almost too easy.
Is it that I'm burning through playtest scenarios more rapidly as a Pathfinder GM than I did as a LG/LA con player? Specifically I'm interested to hear from other Living Greyhawk/Arcanis players - do you feel Pathfinder Society advancement is more rapid than you're used to? Pathfinder Society is it's own game, it doesn't have to mimic LG/LA in every regard, faster or slower advancement is okay, but what I am asking is does it feel "right" for you, or a little faster than you're comfortable with?
I'll throw my hat into the "faster than I'm comfortable with" category. If each level represents a new toy to play with, then I feel I'm not really getting to appreciate each one before I have the next thrust upon me. Does that make sense?
Two thirds of the time I'm either getting a new toy for the first time, or thinking ahead to the toy I'm about to get. It would be nice to see that curve plateau a little longer in between those states.
I'm also a little uncertain of the forced progression inherent in PFS XP. Because the same principle isn't also applied to treasure, a party that fails a mission gets no loot and full experience. Three such scenarios theoretically put these characters a level behind in terms of treasure, which, I don't think is desirable. In standard 3.5, this problem is self-correcting: PCs who fail a lot (and don't get treasure) advance in level more slowly. The all-or-nothing approach to leveling might be a problem.
As has been mentioned, the fact that Xp doesn't scale also means that a character who gets behind his party will always be behind. Again, this removes the system's inbuilt ability to self-correct, and I think this may be the root of many players' worries with regard to low-level death and subsequent character creation.
|
|
A couple of the local folks are indeed planning to pool their money to buy the cleric a wand of cure light wounds, and I, for one, am happy that there's no rule in PFS banning that.
Well, not yet at least. By the same logic you are using there you could easily start off an adventure with 6 1st-level characters who pool their money to buy one character some good stuff (masterwork weapon, masterwork armor), and repeat this for as long as it's possible.
Who on Earth would do this, you ask? You'd be amazed...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
By the same logic you are using there you could easily start off an adventure with 6 1st-level characters who pool their money to buy one character some good stuff (masterwork weapon, masterwork armor), and repeat this for as long as it's possible.
Who on Earth would do this, you ask? You'd be amazed...
(laughs) Deussu, I wouldn't be surprised that people would try it. I would indeed be surprised that a table DM would allow it.
|
|
Okay, here's the comparison I've been looking for.
I dug out my old Adventure Record sheets for my Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis characters.
My longest-played character just achieved 7th level before Living Greyhawk retired. Darebin played 35 adventures from October 2004 through to March 2008 over 10 conventions.
This is how many adventures were played to advance to each level:
Darebin, Half-orc Monk - Living Greyhawk
2 adventures to reach 2nd level
3 adventures to reach 3rd level
6 adventures to reach 4th level
6 adventures to reach 5th level
6 adventures to reach 6th level
8 adventures to reach 7th level
Other characters played advanced as follows:
Blunt, Half-orc Fighter/Rogue - Living Greyhawk
3 adventures to reach 2nd level
5 adventures to reach 3rd level
5 adventures to reach 4th level
Derrikh, Dark-kin Monk, Order of the Iron Soul - Living Arcanis
2 adventures to reach 2nd level
2 adventures to reach 3rd level
5 adventures to reach 4th level
6 adventures to reach 5th level
4 adventures to reach 6th level
Nishant, Dark-kin Champion of Sarish - Living Arcanis
1 adventure to reach 2nd level
3 adventures to reach 3rd level
Conclusion:
Living Greyhawk/Arcanis advanced quickly to 2nd and 3rd level, quicker than Pathfinder Society. However, level advancement slowed to 5 or 6 adventures per level thereafter, approximately twice the Pathfinder Society rate, it even took 8 adventures to progress to 7th level.
On this basis, I'd recommend the number of adventures required to advance to the next level should equal the level you're aiming for. For example:
2 adventures to reach 2nd level
3 adventures to reach 3rd level
4 adventures to reach 4th level
5 adventures to reach 5th level
6 adventures to reach 6th level
etc.
This slowed progression at higher levels might help lower level characters catch up over time, as some have been asking for, feels like you're working to earn each level, and re-captures the feel of old-school level progression, experiencing your new powers at each level instead of burning through levels too quickly.
|
Thanks for the hard numbers there, DarkWhite. I think that shows some of what my frustration is -- simplified XP is nice, but it doesn't reflect the leveling curve most of us are used to in home play.
Lower levels usually come quickly -- and they should. Three games to level 2 is about right, and three more to level 3 is pretty much in line with what I've seen in 20+ years of gaming. So, OK, that feels right.
Somewhere after that, it slows. Maybe not dramatically, but it does. You get used to settling into a level for a bit longer. In some games, there's another bump somewhere after that (lvl 7-8?). A lot of games might never last beyond that, but if they do surely the levels slow down a lot past 12.
So, as much as I know people want to keep it simple, I'd very much like to see a slowing of the curve at various points. Linear advancement doesn't seem to reflect how D&D leveling has happened in most play over the decades of the hobby. The advantage of just a small tweak in this would be to allow some amount of catch-up for anyone who gets "left behind".
Mathematically, I'm not sure your suggestion is quite what people would want, DW, but even if they just had a tiering system that said something like:
lvl 1-4 = 3 xp/lvl
lvl 5-8 = 4 xp/lvl
lvl 9-12 = 5 xp/lvl
That might work (maybe it "bumps" every 3 lvls, I don't know... have to play with the math and do some "what if" calculations).
|
|
On this basis, I'd recommend the number of adventures required to advance to the next level should equal the level you're aiming for. For example:
2 adventures to reach 2nd level
3 adventures to reach 3rd level
4 adventures to reach 4th level
5 adventures to reach 5th level
6 adventures to reach 6th level
etc.This slowed progression at higher levels might help lower level characters catch up over time, as some have been asking for, feels like you're working to earn each level, and re-captures the feel of old-school level progression,...
This is genius.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'd be very careful about increasing the XP required to level in PFS. I go to one con a year, and will probably be able to play 4 PFS events there. Beyond that, I've struggled to find the opportunity to play - I've played 2 more scenarios for a total of 6. While I would want to play more, I don't expect to play any until Gen Con again this year. If the leveling became slower than it already is, I may very well look for other event to play in instead.
I would guess that there are others who would feel similarly.
|
|
This is genius.
On this basis, I'd recommend the number of adventures required to advance to the next level should equal the level you're aiming for. For example:
2 adventures to reach 2nd level
3 adventures to reach 3rd level
4 adventures to reach 4th level
5 adventures to reach 5th level
6 adventures to reach 6th level
etc.This slowed progression at higher levels might help lower level characters catch up over time, as some have been asking for, feels like you're working to earn each level, and re-captures the feel of old-school level progression,...
Thanks. I like it too, but I still have a few reservations.
- When Pathfinder RPG is released, first-level characters will have more starting hit-points, +2 +2 -2 to stats (though this probably balances back to normal with the new point buy), and possibly a few new tricks (Sorcerer bloodlines etc). Hopefully, first-level characters can adventure longer before needing resting/healing, better survivability, and new tricks to explore. The imperative to claw your way above 1st level as quickly as possible may not be so urgent with the new rules - hopefully players will enjoy 1st level play more than ever before.
- At higher levels, you get stuck in your current level for longer. This is as it has always been in Living Greyhawk/Arcanis, but at what point does this become too long? In my example above, Darebin played 8 adventures to advance from 6th level to 7th. How about 10 scenarios to reach level 10, or 12 scenarios to reach level 12? But aren't these levels generally considered to be the "sweet spot" of D&D? Do players want to enjoy these levels longer?
- Should characters be awarded fewer/more experience if playing above/below tier?
I'm now considering a flat progression, one that's easy to calculate your character's current level by glancing at your current experience total, and allows for varied experience awards for playing above/below tier. This is my new suggestion:
You're awarded 2, 3 or 4 experience per scenario:
- 2 for playing below your tier;
- 3 is normal for playing your tier;
- 4 for playing above your tier.
This rewards players for facing greater challenges, and provides an option for leveling faster, and discourages players from facing easy challenges, though players who enjoy longer a slower level progression could seek tables below their tier.
Characters start with 10 experience at 1st level.
When they reach 20 experience, they're 2nd level.
When they reach 30 experience, they're 3rd level.
when they reach 90 experience, they're 9th level.
etc.
I like the 10 experience per level, because it's more obvious than 3 experience per level - not that 3 experience per level is difficult to calculate in your head, but I've found players are always asking.
I much prefer 5 scenarios per level, rather than the current 3, so I'm trying to evolve a simple system (retaining 10 experience per level - I really like this) from the ideas here to achieve this. Compare Method A/B below:
Method A:
2, 3 or 4 experience per scenario
approx 3 scenarios = 10 XP = advance to next level
more granular - the difference between playing above/below tier is x2
Method B:
1, 2 or 3 experience per scenario
average 5 scenarios = 10 XP = advance to next level
more swingy - the difference between playing above/below tier is x3
I'd be very careful about increasing the XP required to level in PFS. I go to one con a year, and will probably be able to play 4 PFS events there. Beyond that, I've struggled to find the opportunity to play - I've played 2 more scenarios for a total of 6. While I would want to play more, I don't expect to play any until Gen Con again this year. If the leveling became slower than it already is, I may very well look for other event to play in instead.
I would guess that there are others who would feel similarly.
I think there could be a good solution for this. Characters automatically gain experience points during down-time, and this isn't without precedent: some campaigns - 3.5 Living Forgotten Realms and Eberron Mark of Heroes, Xendrik Expeditions - level-bumped players 3 levels each season (primarily because they didn't use a tier system). Some possible suggestions:
- one experience point per two months of down-time
- one experience point per month of down-time (maximum 5 experience)
- half an experience point per month of down-time
- if you haven't levelled during a season, your character levels now
Not sure what is the simplest option here, maybe the Paizo guys can work on it. But the goal is if you only play occasionally, you will gain some experience, but you should level once per year if you haven't already, while preventing regular players from gaining free experience unnecessarily, and ensuring regular players still feel rewarded for actually playing.
|
|
Yes, DarkWhite's proposal for a more logarhytmic level progression is excellent. Keeping it as a "2 xp to reach level 2" it remains simple. The difference between this and 3.5's original progression was "n xp to reach level n+1 (multiplied by 1000)".
Additionally a character gains all kinds of odd new gizmos and powers as they level. If the time between levels is too short, getting familiar with all the new abilities isn't as fluent. This further would back up a logarhytmic level progression.
I'm not into multiplying the xp amount. It was hard enough to count all kinds of 28455xp + 1230xp etc. One mistake and you're about to waste an hour recounting them.
Also the said 'level-kick' system would shorten the life of PFS, so I'm strictly against it.
|
|
Depends on what you mean.
Can that GM use his time as a GM to build a PC that he can take to a con and run through events? Yes.
Are we going to provide free product for GMs that only GM? No.
Does this mean we're never going to? No. But our budget for PFS is small right now. When we have 50,000 players and can sell 5,000 or more scenarios a month, that may change.
I was thinking of maybe giving the GM's a discount on the adventures or something else. Maybe a discount on an order or something. Custom avatar even... so many games GM'd gets you your own avatar or forum tag.
Being able to put some faction points into the world pool to help influence your favorite faction.Is a person still only going to be able to play in an adventure once (and get XP) weather they are a GM or not?
What is the benefit of being a GM?
(For my situation I will be GM all the time due to the makeup of my group and my schedule.)
|
|
Also the said 'level-kick' system would shorten the life of PFS, so I'm strictly against it.
To be quite clear, the level-kick I'm proposing would be completely optional for those players who wanted to take advantage of it. Maybe they only attend one game-day or convention per year and don't want to be stuck at first level for the next three years, or maybe they want to keep pace with their mates who play a few more sessions than they're able to. Players aren't required to level-kick, but if they haven't leveled in the past 12 months, then it's a good opportunity to do so.
I'm *not* proposing an Eberron-style level-kick where everyone in the game gets booted from 3rd level to 6th level every 6 to 12 months, just because the campaign setting is only written for one tier which is continually moving ahead. I found that style of campaign a complete failure, because I couldn't play my character often enough for any continuity. Every time I was able to join an Eberron game, I had to rewrite my character another 3 (or more) levels, and never got to enjoy the early (or mid) levels. This is exactly the opposite of what we're trying to achieve with your goal below, and I'm pretty sure Paizo have no intention of introducing such a campaign style.
Additionally a character gains all kinds of odd new gizmos and powers as they level. If the time between levels is too short, getting familiar with all the new abilities isn't as fluent.
|
|
What is the benefit of being a GM?
(For my situation I will be GM all the time due to the makeup of my group and my schedule.)
Forgive me for straying a little off-topic, but this is a realisation I've come to recently:
I used to be one of those guys who GMed because I loved the game, and none of my players were familiar enough with the rules, or they enjoyed playing too much to take on the responsibilities of GMing, so it fell to me because no-one else would.
Because GMing always required prep time, and it was difficult to find friends who also enjoyed the game, there were long lapses between my gaming years and non-gaming years. So one year, I decided to go along to a convention to see what that was all about? I got hooked! I loved the game again, because I could enjoy it as a player :-)
I enjoyed playing at cons for the last 5 years, but then 4Ed shook up the playing field, and Paizo started publishing amazing adventure paths, and I suddenly wanted to GM again, to bring this amazing stuff to my gamer friends!
Then Living Greyhawk retired, Living Arcanis seems to be going through a period of change, so I thought I'd try this Pathfinder Society thing.
The four-hour play format is great - minimal prep time, easy to purchase, download and get up a game at short notice with whoever is available, you don't need to maintain the same group of players like you might if running an adventure path, random Joe can play for a day just to see what it's about, and flakey Jim can give some lame excuse and not turn up, and you're not going to break any continuity.
With the quality of the setting, and the punchy adventures, everyone I've introduced it to loves it and want to play more! They say I run a good game, but I think I've just been given good material to work with, Paizo make it easy for me :-)
So that's the benefit of being GM, at least for me - I've actually come to enjoy presenting a fun story with my friends, moreso than actually playing the scenarios myself. I really need no more enticement than that.
|
|
Yes, DarkWhite's proposal for a more logarhytmic level progression is excellent. Keeping it as a "2 xp to reach level 2" it remains simple. The difference between this and 3.5's original progression was "n xp to reach level n+1 (multiplied by 1000)".
I've had another thought about the experience point progression.
I kind of wanted to keep experience in multiples of 10 to gain a new level, because it was easy to remember. Eg, you start 1st level with 10 experience, you reach 2nd level when you reach 20 experience, you reach 9th level when you reach 90 experience, etc.
My only misgiving about this was that it kind of limited you to how many experience to award per scenario (eg, 2, 3 or 4 versus 1, 2 or 3 for playing above/below tier as discussed in a previous post), and how many games this allowed you between levels (eg, 3 games at 3 experience, or 5 games at 2 experience), and my wanting to play more than 3 scenarios per level.
I think I've found a solution that numerically satisfies all of the above goals:
You start out with a 1st level character with 1.0 experience points. You gain a point (or points) for playing each scenario ... for the purposes of this discussion, it really doesn't matter how many points per scenario, or how many points required to reach the next level ... because the first number represents your level, and the second number represents how many points you've earned at your current level.
For example, let's suggest for argument's sake that you need 12 points between levels. You begin a first level character with 1.0 experience.
- You play your first game on tier and earn 3 points, you now have 1.3 experience.
- You play a second game above tier and earn 4 points, you now have 1.7 experience.
You continue in this way until you reach 1.12 experience (or more) which immediately converts over to 2.0 experience - you're now 2nd level!
It's easy to see that someone with 4.6 experience is a 4th level character, half-way on his journey to reaching 5th level.
This way, points per scenario, and points between levels, can be any numbers Paizo likes - more points between levels, means more scenarios played between levels. If everyone knows you need 12 points to gain a level, and your level is clearly identified by the number preceding the decimal, it's easy as!
PS: You could still use a logarythic progression using the Level.experience method described here. Eg (assuming a flat 1 point awarded per scenario):
1.2 = 1st level character reaches 2nd level
2.3 = 2nd level character reaches 3rd level
3.4 = 3rd level character reaches 4th level
7.4 = 7th level character half-way to reaching 8th level
11.12 = 11th level character reaches 12th level
|
|
2 adventures to reach 2nd level
3 adventures to reach 3rd level
4 adventures to reach 4th level
5 adventures to reach 5th level
6 adventures to reach 6th level
etc.This slowed progression at higher levels might help lower level characters catch up over time, as some have been asking for, feels like you're working to earn each level, and re-captures the feel of old-school level progression,...
(snip, and insert)
Michael Suzio, Wed, Feb 4, 2009, 09:27 AM
lvl 1-4 = 3 xp/lvl
lvl 5-8 = 4 xp/lvl
lvl 9-12 = 5 xp/lvl
I like what you guys are saying here. Before I go on with agreeing I'd like to point out one, or two, thoughts. I agree with Joshua that death should be a part of the game. If it weren't combat encounters would lose its luster. I also think if death occurs there should be an in-game/role playing result after a raise dead. Losing a level is a classic component for that result. I've never been a fan of changing the rule to not lose a level after a raise dead.
Now back to me agreeing. After death, with the limited number of scenarios available, it is difficult for a player to catch up, if at all. Changing the xp per scenario would give a player the potential to catch up to his/her home/game-day party APL. Although, I do see Joshua's point that by eliminating the level loss it takes care of the catch up problem and does not complicate the xp award system. However, now I'm back to the thought of death and the enjoyment of tough combat. If all I need is coin accumulation and a generous party then the danger of death is dulled.
If it were up to a vote I think I'd go with DarkWhites recommendation. It's simple and easy to understand in a campaign guidebook. Michael's recommendation, though well thought out, doesn't fix the issue of catching up after taking a level loss from a raise dead (xp for levels 1 - 4 is how PFS is currently run and the issue at hand).
Hope this added something positive to the discussion.
This thread has many interesting ideas, all of which are well though out and well presented. This is exactly the sort of feedback I like to read.
Given that we have the first two seasons planned out, it's not very likely we could implement any leveling changes at this point. It'll take 18 months of playing every scenario released for your level range to hit the level cap. Not every player in the society will play every released scenario in their level range every month. So the hardcore players will hit the cap at the 18-month point and start a new character, while casual or beginning players will come along at their own pace. For the sake of the Society and the sake of keeping an open door to low-level beginning characters, I like the system the way it is. I should also mention, that we're release fairly frequent top tier (Tier 12) scenarios so everyone at the level cap can continue to play their highest level PC. I'm not yet sure how they'll scale or if PCs can level up past 12th, but you will have opportunity to come back to your highest level PC a few times a year and play him or her.
That's not to say that I'm not open to suggestions--but given the current schedule, implementing a change like this would be hard and disruptive.
|
|
This thread has many interesting ideas, all of which are well though out and well presented. This is exactly the sort of feedback I like to read.
Thanks for the feedback, Josh.
One more idea that might be easier to implement, and help resolve the following couple of problems:
- a group of friends playing fewer/more scenarios than each other will see the level gap appear between them as they advance;
- some players feel level advancement is too rapid and might like a slower pace;
Suggestion: character advances level after playing at least three scenarios (but the player may voluntarily opt for every four or five scenarios or whenever suits the player).
Considerations:
- you can no longer assume a character's level by counting scenarios played in steps of 3, though this would still represent the character's maximum possible level;
- a player who has advanced at a slower rate by choice, may opt to advance his character to his maximum played level at any time, eg catching up for any voluntarily lost levels.
These suggestions don't require any shake-up of the leveling system, it works just the same as it always had for players who choose to advance at the normal rate.
But if someone wanted to play 3 scenarios to level 3, 4 scenarios to level 4, 5 scenarios to level 5 etc (which seemed a popular suggestion to some), they could (with the exeption of 3 scenarios for levels 1 and 2, of course).
During the rush between games at a games convention, on more than one occasion I've not had time to level up my character between games, so this occasionally happens on an informal basis anyway, but actually documenting it in the guide to organised play would legitimise the practice, and give some players the ability to slow down for their friends to catch up.
|
|
I had a rather large post all ready to go before I decided to just break it out into a few different posts.
First and foremost, was my concern on leveling. While the 1xp thing makes it far easier to keep track of, having a character level every 3 modules makes characters level extraordinarily quickly. While I don’t think this is too much of an issue at lower levels, when you reach the mid to high level range it is far too often. If leveling is increased then a character generally will not have enough wealth to survive at their level, and unfortunately 3.5 has a heavy emphasis on gear. Without a little bit of that money, such scenarios would be deadly. Add in that many players need a little bit of time to adjust to playing a character at a certain level, I think that character death will be high at the higher levels. You just can’t expect someone who’s never played a rogue before to be used to playing a 10th level rogue (or whatever) so quickly. Leveling shouldn’t be a given. If you want to keep the 1xp ratio to keep bookkeeping simple, perhaps change it to a sliding scale. Say it takes 3 adventures to get to levels 2-3, then 4 adventures to get to 4, 5 to get to 5th and so on. Even this maybe much too quickly – I have to sit and think about it further. And as I now have finished reading this thread, I see that someone else suggested the same thing. :)
I also see that some people on this topic are asking about character death. Death is a part of the game and to remove any danger of it (as some people have suggested) takes away a lot of the interesting challenges of the game. It makes things less heroic and less memorable for example, if you see that troll in front of you rip your friend’s arm off and you throw yourself in front of it so that everyone can flee. Whoopie. I died. Where was my save point again? Bleh. Death should absolutely have some hefty consequences to it. I’m not sure that just the gp cost is enough. I think that the level/con loss should remain.
I’ve played a lot of games in my life, and have a good amount of years and experience playing in both high level games and the living/organized play setting. I have to say I avoided any of the campaigns that had level bumps or automatic leveling like the plague as do most of the group that I play with. I honestly think that if you had such a function, it would drive players away in droves – WotC learned this with their campaigns that had such policies.
It really saddens me to see comments that the leveling system is set in stone for the next two years. The point of season 0 was to give suggestions, and Joshua’s comments about the system make it seem like that isn’t the case. While going to a more traditional xp system might be a little more difficult, utilizing some variations on the 1xp system shouldn’t be too hard.
Regardless, I want to say that I really appreciate all the work that is going into all of this. Thanks!
-Toni
I should point out that the amount of loot in gold pieces you get for each Tier is dramatically scaled based on the player wealth by level table in the DMG. You *should* have more than ample wealth, even if you're leveling 3 scenarios per level.
I'm going to implement a changed in Season 1 to how Prestige Award points reward the PCs. I think this change will be incredibly popular (and I dig it) but it isn't feasible if I change the leveling scheme since people will gain access to non-appropriate level gear if they choose to level slower.
Again, lots to think about.
|
|
Hi!
First of all, I am going to apologize. I think my previous email came across a little grumpier then I intended. :)
I actually don’t have any issue with the amount of gold that is being given out at this point. I have always been a BIG fan of having to EARN what you get and not have everything fall into place perfectly for you. Yeah, raise dead is spendy but it SHOULD be. [Here soul, go back in this body! *Shove*]
And I do appreciate you telling me that your leveling is based off of the new prestige award system you will be unveiling and that a new system won’t work well with something new. However, there is the option of saying that not only do you have to have so many faction points to receive such-and-such a reward but stipulate that you also have to be a certain level.
And I do admit, I’m a little unclear on the ‘choosing’ to level slower, so maybe that’s where some difficulty is for me. Are you saying there is going to be an option for people to just to choose to not to level? Or, is this in reference to people who won’t be able to play as much?
-Toni
|
|
And I do admit, I’m a little unclear on the ‘choosing’ to level slower, so maybe that’s where some difficulty is for me. Are you saying there is going to be an option for people to just to choose to not to level? Or, is this in reference to people who won’t be able to play as much?
As I read it, Josh was referring to my hypothetical suggestion of choosing to level slower. I don't believe he's suggesting that choosing to level slower will become an option in Season 1.