I haven't played any of the Society modules yet, but my understanding is that 13 encounters with EL = APL should raise you one level (roughly). So if each module has 4 encounters with EL = APL, it should take 3 modules to go up one level.
So I guess my question is: How many encounters are there in the average Pathfinder Society module? Less than 4? Or are the encounters usually EL < APL?
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. :-)
Some people are greedy/cheap. It's disappointing, sure, but is it really all that hard to understand? The same guy who eats all my doritos is the same guy who won't chip in to get raise dead cast.
However, I have a solution. MANY of the issues we're having are not character issues, they are player issues, and need to be dealt with as such.
It's ok to let people know when they are not meeting expectations. Be polite, of course, but have a discussion at some point about how your group will handle large costs like raise dead, and the use of one-time items.
If the answer is "Don't get killed", then you'll need to adopt a more self-sufficient style of play, and don't count on as much cooperation. Reward those who are cooperating with you, and let the rest be.
Example:
Me: Hey, can you spare a mage armor for my animal companion? It would go a long way to keeping him around.
Wizard: You know, that's a really big part of my spells per day (3rd level wizard), and I don't really think I can spare it.
two encounters later...
Wizard: Hey, can I get healed?
Me: You know, that's a big part of my spells per day, I don't think I can spare it.
Wizard: What?
Me: I think we're better off cooperating, but you didn't want to do that. I can adjust my spells for tomorrow, if you're willing to do the same.
Wizard: I see your point.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Mediterranean
|
I haven't played any of the Society modules yet, but my understanding is that 13 encounters with EL = APL should raise you one level (roughly). So if each module has 4 encounters with EL = APL, it should take 3 modules to go up one level.
So I guess my question is: How many encounters are there in the average Pathfinder Society module? Less than 4? Or are the encounters usually EL < APL?
Typically 5 encounters, varying levels but it averages out as being right that 3 modules takes you up a level if you're APL is the right tier.
Typically 5 encounters, varying levels but it averages out as being right that 3 modules takes you up a level if you're APL is the right tier.I haven't played any of the Society modules yet, but my understanding is that 13 encounters with EL = APL should raise you one level (roughly). So if each module has 4 encounters with EL = APL, it should take 3 modules to go up one level.
So I guess my question is: How many encounters are there in the average Pathfinder Society module? Less than 4? Or are the encounters usually EL < APL?
Then I'm not totally sure why people are saying that Pathfinder organized play makes you go up levels so fast, unless they're complaining about 3.5 D&D in general. But I think I've heard folks say that Living Greyhawk is slower (for instance), and that was 3.5 D&D too.
|
Then I'm not totally sure why people are saying that Pathfinder organized play makes you go up levels so fast, unless they're complaining about 3.5 D&D in general. But I think I've heard folks say that Living Greyhawk is slower (for instance), and that was 3.5 D&D too.
LG moved people extremely slowly. A few of the mods could level a person from the number and severity of monsters were it not for the XP caps given.
In comparison PFS levels players at warp speed to LG's lame burro.
Then I'm not totally sure why people are saying that Pathfinder organized play makes you go up levels so fast, unless they're complaining about 3.5 D&D in general. But I think I've heard folks say that Living Greyhawk is slower (for instance), and that was 3.5 D&D too.LG moved people extremely slowly. A few of the mods could level a person from the number and severity of monsters were it not for the XP caps given.
Ah, so there was a (low) cap on how much XP could earn in one module. Now the penny drops...
I guess it must be a convention gaming thing; I guess I can understand if you played 6 modules in two days and went up two levels, that would seem rather fast.
|
|
Ah, so there was a (low) cap on how much XP could earn in one module. Now the penny drops...
Low only in comparison to what you're expected to kill in an average LG adventure. For instance there have been trolls, grigs, baby giants, and possible trips to the Astral (and other) planes in APL (average party level) 2 adventures.
"Oh the troll only has one arm" I was told when I was about to walk. Sadly this was before I got fire resist 10, and could've just lit myself up and hugged him to death.
Ah, so there was a (low) cap on how much XP could earn in one module. Now the penny drops...Low only in comparison to what you're expected to kill in an average LG adventure.
I meant "low" in the sense that it sounds like the progression speed is about half that of regular 3.5 D&D (e.g. 1 level every six scenarios instead of 1 level every three scenarios).
It's important to remember that once you start creating an OP system for all levels, it gets pretty ridiculous. I can only produce ~28 scenarios a year and if I have to account for levels 1-20 suddenly we either need to expand the number of scenarios we release (which we can't do yet) or we need to wander into the realm of the classic RPGA issue of scenarios that cover all level ranges regardless of how silly it makes the story sound. For example, a Tier 1-20 (hypothetically) scenario would have an encounter with skeletons at level 1 and an encounter with a Tarrasque at level 20. That's an enormous challenge to design and develop for and something we decided very early on that we weren't going to do. So, for now, the level cap is our solution. (Keep in mind that there will be four scenarios a year for folks at the level cap plus special "capped" events starting at Gen Con in 2010.)
For those of you who hit the cap, starting a second character is the best solution. This does two things: keeps enough characters in the low levels so that Pathfinder Society is open to all who want to play (another goal of the system) and allows you to play all scenarios that are released. If you've played every scenario as they came out, you'll be above the level range of the Gen Con 2009 scenarios when they release and will need to start another PC to play those.
We can't make everyone happy, in the end, but we can make Pathfinder Society accessible for the largest number of people possible. If it comes to deciding between level ranges and accessibility, I'll choose the latter every time.
|
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.
I appears that shackled city is where we are heading for the short term.
Having about 4 years of Living Greyhawk under my belt I can't say 12 levels is too low. My main characters never got that far (managed to get to 11), though the reason might be that I created multiple other characters with which I played the lower APLs. Frankly, I enjoyed the lower levels a lot more than the ultra-complex high levels. Some players weren't so bright on how to act in a useful way, which caused a real time sink and such.
Unprepared summoners, ugh...
|
|
Frankly, I enjoyed the lower levels a lot more than the ultra-complex high levels.
Amen! When you had to reach into MMV to get a critter not seen by the PCs it's best to just start fresh.
My highest LG character was a classic college student, 11 levels, 4 classes, 2 races, awesome hat (arms akimbo, facing left, shouting melodically "I use my Helm of Glo~~~~~~~~~rious recovery!"), experimented with bard when he was younger...) hit 11 on his final AR, Dec 17th or so.
|
I agree retiring at level 12 isn't too low. As stated previously, after four years of play, none of my LG characters ever reached level 12 anyway, though this was certainly due to LG having a slower level advancement than Pathfinder Society.
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.
|
|
I feel leveling up is kind of too slow for me, I hate low levels and I want to be out of them as fast as possible.You may find come Season One with the release of the Pathfinder RPG that the improved rules will make low level play more more survivable, and more fun that it currently is now.
Nope, I played Beta and I still dislike low levels...
I can see that few of the players made it to higher level play in LG for example. That was not my own experience, but I understand it. But the ability to move SO rapidly means that more will hit a level cap quickly. For a group like ours that games weekly, this is a real problem.
Since it's a home game, you could always play an official Pathfinder Society adventure every odd week, and on even weeks you could play other unofficial adventures with the same characters (you just wouldn't get any new treasure or experience for them). That would slow down your progression to half speed.
Just my $0.02 Canadian.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Low levels are both less fun for some 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 for me and my group. The speed of advancement is great at first and bad after that.
It seems that some people think that there should be quick leveling up and then a (sorry for this) leveling off of the leveling up. Slower progression followed by even slower progression.
I've fixed this for you.
I think it's clear from this thread that while some people think the advancement is too fast, others don't, myself included. Same goes for low level play. I happen to really like play at this level - much more tense excitment when you know one mistake can ruin your day.
|
|
Low levels are both less fun for some 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 for me and my group. The speed of advancement is great at first and bad after that.
It seems that some people think that there should be quick leveling up and then a (sorry for this) leveling off of the leveling up. Slower progression followed by even slower progression.I've fixed this for you.
I think it's clear from this thread that while some people think the advancement is too fast, others don't, myself included. Same goes for low level play. I happen to really like play at this level - much more tense excitment when you know one mistake can ruin your day.
Thank you Joel, I was thinking the same thing.
|
Ok, I noticed, reading over this, that there was a call for folks experienced with LG to throw in their 2 cents.
So here we go, first lets list the Experience:
3 Modules Written (1 of which was an interactive however)
2 Characters retired at 16th level (one becoming a MetaRegional NPC who popped up in the final mods)
1 Character at 15th level
Played for years. Hundreds of ARs, Hundreds more DM points.
Looking back over these characters, my 'level curve' matches Dark White's. This seems appropriate to me. To explain why it is more than just 'comfort' with what I am used to it's time for a wall of text:
Firstly, it is important to understand that in any living campaign, character quirks and progression is organic, particularly when it comes to views on NPCs, regional plot lines, and so on. An LG PC that started at level 1 fighting Iuz remembers countless battles as they progressed up to actually taking the guy on in the final core special. If there are only 3 modules Per level, and with a distinct lack of Regions, that means that you will replicate LFR's inability to provide reasonable character interaction with the game world, as NPCs met at level 4 become insignificant because next time you see them you are level 8. As such a slower progression permits a greater exploration of the game world, and more time to get to know it.
Secondly, Levelling up too quickly results in a lack of 'getting to know your PC'. In LFR (which follows this system) there is already a backlash of folks who only used their powers in one-two games before they were largely redundant or had levelled. If PCs level too quickly (Especially in 3.X) then powers are replaced by newer abilities, and the progression at each level won't be savoured, it will be like spamming your way up to level 60 in World of Warcraft because all the stuff before then is irrelevant.
Third, this extremely fast levelling Works in a Home Game because ideally, there is a big bad at the end you want to vanquish. This does not exist in Pathfinder, so the enjoyment comes not from 'winning' the campaign, but by PLAYING it. Diminishing that and levelling PCs too fast seems like fun initially, but later on it will cheapen the 'good levels' (8-12 imo) Unless all the modules DIRECTLY follow on from each other, it won't work.
Fourth: This 'if it works for WoTC it works for us' attitude is again flawed. There are 30 levels in 4e, but probably only 15 or so in Pathfinder (if they are sensible and keep 9th level spells out of the living campaign). Already that means an LFR PC has twice the game time to develop its quirks than a Pathfinder PC. Don't try to mimic their progression because it won't work if you want to put forth a modicum of verisimilitude and a viable Living Campaign, as already it is considered LFR's chief failing that there isn't enough time to explore the game world or regional plot issues - having HALF as much in Pathfinder is asking for trouble.
Finally, take heed of the experienced LGers, participating in a global campaign provides a great deal of experience in setting up another one.
p.s: Who do I have to go and slap with a wet fish for not allowing access to wands of cure light wounds in a living campaign? that is one of the first lessons learnt by an LGer...
|
|
Secondly, Levelling up too quickly results in a lack of 'getting to know your PC'. In LFR (which follows this system) there is already a backlash of folks who only used their powers in one-two games before they were largely redundant or had levelled. If PCs level too quickly (Especially in 3.X) then powers are replaced by newer abilities, and the progression at each level won't be savoured, it will be like spamming your way up to level 60 in World of Warcraft because all the stuff before then is irrelevant.
Third, this extremely fast levelling Works in a Home Game because ideally, there is a big bad at the end you want to vanquish. This does not exist in...
Quoted for truth, for both things. I tend to like more of this slower progress, making you feel like the character has really worked hard to achieve a level like that.
A local player (a veteran LG-player) also expressed his frustrated early on due to the lack of a wand of cure light wounds. Granted, it didn't become openly accessible in LG till year 2006, I think.
|
|
Looking back over these characters, my 'level curve' matches Dark White's. This seems appropriate to me.
Firstly, it is important to understand that in any living campaign, character quirks and progression is organic, particularly when it comes to views on NPCs, regional plot lines, and so on ... As such a slower progression permits a greater exploration of the game world, and more time to get to know it.
Secondly, Levelling up too quickly results in a lack of 'getting to know your PC'. In LFR (which follows this system) there is already a backlash of folks who only used their powers in one-two games before they were largely redundant or had levelled. If PCs level too quickly (Especially in 3.X) then powers are replaced by newer abilities, and the progression at each level won't be savoured, it will be like spamming your way up to level 60 in World of Warcraft because all the stuff before then is irrelevant.
Third, this extremely fast levelling Works in a Home Game because ideally, there is a big bad at the end you want to vanquish. This does not exist in...
I have contributed several posts to this thread expressing my discomfort with Pathfinder's rapid level advancement. Posting Darebin's LG level progression was my attempt to back-up what I was feeling with actual data. However _metz_, you have managed to express in words the reasons behind my discomfort.
I think there is a difference between playing Pathfinder Society scenarios at conventions which typically only occur once or twice a year (if you're lucky) in your city vs playing them each month in a regular home group.
At a convention, you burn through several scenarios over a four-day weekend, and you don't get much pause between to consider feat selections, character or plot developments etc, as you might in a regular home group.
However in a regular home group, you might want things to progress quicker, because you're revisiting the same character every other week, and you have ample time between sessions to consider feat selections, character and plot developments.
I really enjoyed the pace of LG. Generally, I would level up once per four-day convention, which might be two (or three) games per day, roughly eight sessions. Leveling was something I'd look forward to, but sometimes I'd be happy just playing at my current level, because it was so long since the last time I played the character due to both major Melbourne conventions being early in the year, and the nothing for the remainder of the year, that come January, it took me a few games to remember the character's abilities and settle back into character.
|
|
Some time at Origins last year I realized an error I kept making. I really hated 4th Edition D&D. I felt it was a horrible interpretation of the game I had grown up loving so much. I blamed it for WOTC canceling LG and destroying (being melodramatic now) the globe-trotting dream I had been living. But here's my epiphany (and I know I'm not the first person to say this); I can accept 4th Edition as long as I don't think of it as Dungeons & Dragons. If I try to insert 4th Edition where D&D had been in my life, I start getting mad. If I just treat 4th Edition as another game system (albeit one that does not excite me) then I can accept it and tolerate. If I'm with the right group of people I can even admit it is fun to play--but it's not D&D. Wait, wait, I have a point!
Here's my point: Many of us enjoyed the Hell out of Living Greyhawk and dearly want it back. But the truth is it is not going to come back, that chapter is finished and the page has been turned*. When Pathfinder Society was introduced I got my hopes up that a successor to LG had revealed itself and Paizo was going to pick up where the RPGA had dropped the ball. But as I learned more and more about Pathfinder Society I saw that it wasn't developing into a version of LG. I started getting annoyed. Friends who had played LG were sharing my disappointment and shying away from the game until the campaign staff 'came to their senses' and modified PFS to mirror LG. Can you see where I'm going here?
The fact is that Pathfinder Society is not LG, and will never be LG. As soon as I stopped comparing it to LG, my disappointment went away--just like when I stopped comparing 4th Edition to earlier editions of D&D. I'm not saying that Pathfinder Society is like the 4th Edition game, that would be disrespectful in my book. But I keep seeing people who were deep into the LG scene (I was there too) trying to hold Pathfinder Society up to the Living Greyhawk standard and I think that is going to lead to more disappointment. An apple is never going to be an orange. Accept Pathfinder Society for what it is; a new direction and not a reinvention. Paizo never promised us a replacement for LG. Joshua Frost never asked for more input on how he can make Pathfinder Society into the new Living Greyhawk. It has to be frustrating when you're trying to get something new going and all you hear people saying is how much better it was in the old days.
Please don't mistake this for a personal attack on any of the posters above. It was not meant to be, and I apologize if it comes off that way. Believe me, I miss LG tremendously and I think it was the best thing since sliced bread. But I have realized that if I accept PFS as something new and stop measuring it against LG I feel a lot more positive and constructive. PFS has a lot of potential on its own to go places that LG never did. Let's trust Paizo to run this campaign through a season or two before we pass judgment.
*I still play LG, but it's not the same thing when you're running it as a home game.
|
|
Thanks for your insight, Doug Doug, you make a very good point.
For my part, I am a HUGE supporter of Pathfinder Society, GMing at home games and local conventions, and I enjoy it immensely. However, when given the opportunity to give feedback, I do so, using past experiences including Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis, Mark of Heroes, each having their good and bad points.
I realise that Pathfinder Society is a world-wide organised play campaign, so when I suggest something, mine is just one voice among many thousands. While some of us prefer LG style level advancement, there are many others who enjoy Pathfinder's faster level advancement. I don't expect all of my opinions will be incorporated, but at least I have the opportunity to suggest them.
At the end of the day, I suspect that Season One will continue with the current level advancement. I'll still enjoy the game, GM it for my home group, at local conventions, and promote it every opportunity I get. Things such as level advancement probably come down to personal taste, but Pathfinder is awesome, and will continue to be so.
|
|
Despite everything, both Pathfinder Society and Living Greyhawk are (or were) global campaigns. Where as Living Greyhawk worked on a regional level, Pathfinder Society works on a factional level. It's a new approach, one I gladly accept.
Discussing level progression bases mainly on what people have experienced. I believe _metz_ mentioned how some abilities get never used before they are obsolete or upgraded with fast level progression. This similar experience could even be from certain home games. A slower level progression provides longevity, a thing I don't really see harmful at all.
|
|
I've just returned to the real world after four days of running Pathfinder Society at Conquest 2009 in Melbourne, Australia.
Three guys signed up for "get wrecked" and played every available session of Pathfinder Society. They entered with fresh 1st level characters and leveled up to 5th by playing 12 scenarios and gaining a level every day! If any members of "Team Full Power Attack" are online, I'd be interested to hear their feedback on Pathfinder Society level advancement?
What I don't like is barely squeaking by with 3 or 4 players and getting the same rewards as if we had played with 6. I tend to spend a good amount on healing and incidentals that would not be an issue if we had one more player that could heal.
Yeah, table numbers and access to healing etc is always a problem with organised play campaigns. There's a big difference between a table of 4 and a table of 6, both in terms of survivability at the low end, and getting your turn in the spotlight at the high end (particularly if you're a shy or more reserved player among more vocal players).
On the LG tangent - I played a couple times and found some of those people scary because they knew so much about the campaign history, world, etc. I like Pathfinder because it is new and they are still making those things up. I enjoy reading little blurby things while people get ready for adventures, but I don't want to have to read the whole of a Pathfinder Companion book, let alone know all the important NPCs and major areas in order to fully succeed at an adventure.
I don't think LG scenarios ever required campaign knowledge in order to succeed at an adventure. You could jump in at any point and play, and gather info, knowledge skills, etc should help you gain any campaign knowledge required. If others at the table already had background knowledge of the campaign, they usually shared what they knew. Any long-term campaign rewards players who stick with it with references to campaign history, recurring characters, and keeping the scenario relevant to it's setting. I don't expect Pathfinder Society to be any difference in this regard. It's great that you have the opportunity to get in at ground level, so you'll gain this knowledge as you go, and maybe become one of those scary people you referred to earlier (in a nice way ;-).
|
|
Well I am one of the members from Team full Power Attack, and the level progression is more or less as I expected in the earlier post.
PCs levelled up nicely to level 3, but after that it seemed to be going a bit too quickly.
It was particularly annoying when you take into account how much gold and 'adventure access' you got for the few times you had to play down for your point of XP.
I stand by the view that it is too fast.
On the whole 'is it LG thing' you never HAD to know the game world stuff in LG, and most mods had nice little summaries or ways of finding out if the players WANTED to know what was going on. I would like to point out if you are on the boards now, you will end up BEING one of those experienced gamers who did know the world.
I'm jumping into the thread here to add another voice on the Raise Dead issue, in the hope we can change it.
The problem is: if my group have reached a higher tier of play then what happens if my character dies and can't be raised for some reason? Either:
1) The group restarts at 1st level as soon as one person dies and we never really progress.
2) I stop playing with my regular group.
3) The group stops playing Pathfinder.
None of those are good options, but it could easily turn out that way. In LG there were enough players in my area that I could always get a game, but Pathfinder doesn't have that kind of penetration yet.
A simple solution is to have a fast-track system for new characters that follow on from deaths. No prestige, but the same level. They would be considered a continuation of a dead character from an AR point of view so you couldn't start at 8th level unless you died at 8th level. Think of it as a cohort or follower who takes their place. There would need to be a role-playing connection between both characters, but it would be up to the player how they fit in.
Another option revolves around the issue of getting to know a character vs constant change. Why not start all characters at level 8 and require 20 or 50 mods to level up? This solves so many problems, as it negates tiers, allows characters to be played consistently without leaving infrequent players behind and means death at -1 level is significant, but not game breaking. If the character can't be raised then start again at level 8, still able to keep up, just, but you experience the loss.
There's no need to stick to the old fashioned method of levelling from farm-boy up to demi-god, and 4e does it already. Just because the rules are designed that way doesn't mean Pathfinder Society has to slavishly follow suit. Devote the game to the mid-level concept, excel in that area, and be *completely* different. There will be some disagreement about which levels work best under the 3.5 centric rules, but 8 is commonly cited as working well. If it helps, consider levels 1-7 as 'building the background' and build in non-mechanical options for each level as well; perhaps options for prestige and so forth. If levels 1-7 were spent hacking and slashing through several wars as a soldier then there's no need to roleplay it, jump to when they get discharged and go solo. It even gives the factions a reason to work with the characters, as they clearly have some skill. Gold acquisition would need to be moderated, but that's about the only mechanical problem with the idea.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I just want to adventure now, and whilst designing characters is extremely entertaining, once I've invested the time and energy in putting them together I want to play them, a lot!
|
|
Home games run within a different environment than game-days or conventions, so I can see how disruptive character death can be to a regular home group of higher tier characters.
But if you have higher tier characters playing at public events, you really should consider creating a back-up character at first level for those occasions when there isn't a higher tier table available, or you want to introduce someone new to the game.
Jumping in at 8th level is fine if playing a one-shot published adventure or Adventure Path, but it's not really what joining an organised play campaign is about.
Low tier death and its time to make a new character, but shouldn't higher tier characters be able to meet the expense of the occasional resurrection? That's always been how it's worked in other Living games. Sure, death hurts, but I think that's the point. How is Pathfinder handling resurrection differently?
|
|
How is Pathfinder handling resurrection differently?
Death in LG lost you XP, so you could recover the gold cost of being raised from the dead, staying on the gold curve,and at higher APLs even getting ahead of it.
Death in Pathfinder is purely a financial cost, with no way of ever Recovering it. This means any PC who dies in Pathfinder is permanently worse off than other PCs.
A permanently punitive 'raise dead' is bad for a living campaign. Whilst we should avoid making it a benefit like it was in LG, it shouldn't be a complete kick in the nuts to long term gold.
- Metz really doesn't like the way gold is handled in Pathfinder, at ALL.
|
|
Death in Pathfinder is purely a financial cost, with no way of ever Recovering it. This means any PC who dies in Pathfinder is permanently worse off than other PCs.
I'm among a large number of people who would've rather lost some gold than a level. Oh sure you're short some cash, but in the long run you're still gaming with your buddies, or at least at the same league as them. 1 lost level can mean a long road of half xp and gp in LG, or worse yet a death spiral that leaves a character broken in more ways than one.
Ok smartass we listened to you whine, now what are your solutions?
Jumping in at 8th level is fine if playing a one-shot published adventure or Adventure Path, but it's not really what joining an organised play campaign is about.
I disagree, for me the ability to maintain a consistent character and play in different venues with different people whilst slowly getting to know a changing gameworld is what the living campaigns are about. The idea of levelling from 1st is just tradition.
Using the old xp mechanism and starting at higher levels would have curtailed the campaign as characters would retire too quickly. But the xp process has been modified to x adventures = +1 level now, so just change X to gain 4 levels in what would originally have gained 12 or 20 levels. It's an arbitrary figure anyway.
There are other RPG systems out there that have done something similar. Wasn't there one where rolling your character hisory could result in your character dying before they even started playing? :-) I'm not suggesting we go that far, but you get the idea. They weren't sword and sorcery, so I never really played them, and I like the 3.5 ruleset so I don't want to lose that, but if we're changing the xp process anyway...
|
|
Ok smartass we listened to you whine, now what are your solutions?
I don't think this response was called for. I asked a question "How is Pathfinder handling resurrection differently?", and _Metz_ provided an informative answer, which I appreciated.
From _Metz_ I was reminded that resurrection in LG cost gold and a level, meaning you could recover the gold by replaying the level, so you weren't left with sub-par equipment compared to other players of the same level.
NotMousse added that playing a level behind your friends cost in other ways, eg reduced gold, reduced experience, and maybe even further risk of character death due to playing "out of tier".
Both valid points, though I think from different viewpoints - eg, whether you're playing with the same group of friends (not falling behind your friends in level), or whether you're playing with different players each session (maintaining equipment appropriate for your character level).
I would be interested to read futher discussion and suggestions, but please keep the discussion civil, no need to get personal.
|
|
There are some organised play campaigns that handle character levels differently:I disagree, for me the ability to maintain a consistent character and play in different venues with different people whilst slowly getting to know a changing gameworld is what the living campaigns are about. The idea of levelling from 1st is just tradition.
Jumping in at 8th level is fine if playing a one-shot published adventure or Adventure Path, but it's not really what joining an organised play campaign is about.
- 3E Living Forgotten Realms, Eberron Mark of Heroes and Xendrik Expeditions each used a system whereby every six months all characters would be bumped up to the next tier if they hadn't already gained the required level during that time-frame;
- I've heard talk that the current Living Arcanis campaign has level bumped all characters to level 10 (a secondary reason I've left LA after having enjoyed several years of play - supporting Pathfinder Society being the primary reason);
- There are often other campaign systems or one-shot scenarios offered at conventions with their own take on character levels;
They've already fast-tracked leveling to once per three scenarios, which is already a brave move in my opinion. As previously mentioned, a group of players reached 5th level in four days at Conquest over Easter, so it wouldn't take long for a dedicated player to reach 8th level, given the opportunity.
Scenarios are statted for play at various tiers of play, and Paizo don't intend to retire any scenarios from play, so they'll always be available for download or show up at various conventions etc. If you miss playing a high tier adventure at GenCon, you can always catch it later (unless it's an exclusive).
They've already fast-tracked leveling to once per three scenarios, which is already a brave move in my opinion. As previously mentioned, a group of players reached 5th level in four days at Conquest over Easter, so it wouldn't take long for a dedicated player to reach 8th level, given the opportunity.
I don't want to level quickly, I want to level slowly. For that reason level bumping a la Eberron when I've already started playing the character doesn't work for me. But starting at higher levels is just a different focus to starting characters at 16/18 years of age, or starting as babes-in-arms and roleplaying kindergarten... Heck, you could run a version of the game where all the characters have to be 12th level geriatrics coming out of retirement. Same rules, same world, similar adventures potentially, it's just a different focus. Then slow level progression down to a crawl so we can linger on the characters and enjoy them without looking for the next power-up all the time.
I appreciate I'm asking for the opposite of what Pathfinder is doing so my suggestion is unlikely to see much success, but Year 1 hasn't started yet, so maybe I'll get lucky? :-)
As folks have pointed out, it's hard to strike a balance between intense players who will go up three levels in a weekend and casual players (like myself) who'll go up three levels in a year.
|
|
Ok smartass we listened to you whine, now what are your solutions?
Do you feel big now that you have personally attacked me?
I hope you do, because attacking random folks on forums must be your Jungian escapism.
I answered a question on how it was handled in LG. Moreover, I was answering a post from someone I knew PERSONALLY about the differences in the systems. I also expressed that I have some issues with the gold. I have stated some of my views/solutions in other threads. They do not require repetition here because it is OFF topic.
As I am not campaign administration I am not so arrogant as to assume that I should just straight attack another player or state that my view is correct. I just offered my insight based on MY experience as a module writer, con organiser, and DM. You clearly think only *your* opinion matters. If someone counters it then they need to be yelled at in a crass fashion?
Grow up.
And this is coming from a 22 year old.
I would personally like to see Raise Dead cost less gold, or cost 1 xp as well or something, so you have the opportunity to catch up.
Being a level behind with the RIGHT gear is often better than the right level with NO gear, in my experience as a 3.5 optimiser.
Dying once can permanently cripple a PC in Pathfinder, in LG it just meant you had to play a few games to catch up. You cite an *out of game* issue as why you don't want to lose a level, but this is NOT a system for home play, it is designed as a Living campaign for conventions, etc. It has to take into account the effects IN CHARACTER before out of character effects if the system is to be viable.
Put that in your bigoted pipe and smoke it.
(Yeah I got angry, but this guy doesn't even know me so he deserved it)
Or if we must start at 1st level:
1xp = 2nd
2xp = 3rd
4xp = 4th
8xp = 5th
16xp = 6th
32xp = 7th
64xp = 8th
128xp = 9th
256xp = 10th
512xp = 11th
1024xp = 12th and retirement.
Make that inclusive xp, so 16 mods gets you to 6th, rather than needing 16 more than 5th. That way characters will hit 6th at a similar speed to the current mods, whilst getting out of the 1st level danger zone far more quickly, and then really slowing down by the 8th level hotspot of 3.5 rules - and potentially never reaching retirement whilst still advancing. It also grants an opportunity for characters that die, or new players, to catch up and play with the long-termers.
In the current system 33 mods = retirement, but in the version above 32 mods means you're just settling in to your character at 7th level with a comfortable adventuring career (or painful death) ahead of you.
|
|
I don't think this response was called for.
I've noticed our opinions can vary greatly. The problem with critical thinking nowadays is most people are critical without thinking. I was merely pointing out the part metz missed.
Character death can really dampen a person's mood, but unless it takes you completely out of the fight roll with the punches and cope.
|
|
Or if we must start at 1st level:
You know we're looking at less than 50 (around half that) mods a year so far right?
That's over 30 *years* of mods to hit retirement age. If I wanted to start at the bottom, get promoted through attrition, battle for years to earn respect, then retire after decades of toil I'd just look for another job.