|
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.
Yeah, me either.
... something about coming out of retirement ...
Though with Pathfinder Society retiring characters at level 12 (IIRC?), and a new level every three scenarios, if you start at 8th level you'll only get a dozen games under you belt before it's time to retire. You could achieve that played over one four-day weekend too.
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.
I hadn't counted the number of mods per year being written, which is a fair point. But people were complaining about LG ending too quickly after running for five or more years (iirc), so a 4 year plus lifespan for a character isn't unreasonable and I personally consider it to be deirable. Retirement isn't a target to be attained, it's an unfortunate side-effect of the character getting too powerful to play the mods being written. My aim was to push that boundary back until it didn't matter. My aim, if not yours, is not to 'toil' through levels but to relax and play as many adventures as possible with some minor progression to represent the fact my character is learning. I don't *want* to retire.
At the moment, if you start Pathfinder after 36 mods have already been published and play twice per week (as I do with LFR) then you'll have retired your first character after 18 weeks. About 4 months. I've barely started getting to know my character by that point. Now I'm unlikely to play Pathfinder that frequently, but 4 months? Even playing once per week I'll have retired after 8 months. I don't mind waiting for new adventures to come out, but it would be nice to come back to a familiar character to continue the questing, rather than having to start all over again. I might as well start another campaign by that point.
I hadn't counted the number of mods per year being written, which is a fair point. But people were complaining about LG ending too quickly after running for five or more years (iirc), so a 4 year plus lifespan for a character isn't unreasonable and I personally consider it to be deirable. Retirement isn't a target to be attained, it's an unfortunate side-effect of the character getting too powerful to play the mods being written. My aim was to push that boundary back until it didn't matter. My aim, if not yours, is not to 'toil' through levels but to relax and play as many adventures as possible with some minor progression to represent the fact my character is learning. I don't *want* to retire.
Hmmm. See, I would hope to play more than one character throughout my Pathfinder Society career. So going from level 1-12 in one year sounds like about the right pace for me (then I can start a new character each year).
Again, I'd like to point out that Pathfinder's advancement isn't really any faster than regular 3.5 advancement. So do all of the folks who are saying that Pathfinder is too fast use some kind of XP-reducing house rule in home campaigns?
Hmmm. See, I would hope to play more than one character throughout my Pathfinder Society career. So going from level 1-12 in one year sounds like about the right pace for me (then I can start a new character each year).Again, I'd like to point out that Pathfinder's advancement isn't really any faster than regular 3.5 advancement. So do all of the folks who are saying that Pathfinder is too fast use some kind of XP-reducing house rule in home campaigns?
I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm looking at this from a different perspective I think, as I have eight characters in LFR already (as we can replay mods) and I would expect to level somebody every couple of weeks. I therefore have no real interest in the levelling process in Pathfinder as I'm doing that elsewhere.
What I'm not getting in LFR, because of the way it seems to work, is any kind of consistency of plot or in-depth involvement with the game world, although individual mods can certainly be interesting. There are plot arcs here and there, but they're short and can be easy to miss with the right character, as the level tiers kick in too quickly and you've passed them by.
So I'm looking at Pathfinder to provide that involvement instead. A consistent world for me is helped by maintaining a consistent character (subject to threat of death of course) who can play all the mods and keep running throughout the campaign. Auto-retirement in less than a year is therefore an issue for me, much like I hated TUs in LG that forced one of my characters to sit on a shelf for 10 months. Retirement and TUs just interrupt my adventuring.
But not everyone will be playing both games, and that makes judging the balance very hard for Paizo.
One person on these boards suggested having two identical characters with slightly different names (say "Balthazar" and "Balthasar"). Then you can play half the time as Balthazar and half the time as Balthasar and effectively advance at half speed. Of course, Balthazar might not have the same equipment as Balthasar, but that would be a relatively minor issue, I would think.
|
But people were complaining about LG ending too quickly after running for five or more years (iirc), so a 4 year plus lifespan for a character isn't unreasonable and I personally consider it to be deirable.
I think I misrepresented what I intended to relay. There's only so much a character can do before it becomes a little strange they're still doing dungeon crawls etc...
For instance my main LG character (a rogue3 ranger2 fighter2 ex-bard0 swashbuckler3) has:
- been to nearly a dozen foreign planes (not counting the near infinite levels of the abyss he's been to)
- cursed with bad luck by a god
- cursed by a vengeful dragon's spirit
- was reincarnated by a great druid's spirit (in bunny form), and completed the day's adventuring afterwards
- gave up bardic life and became a dwarf (see above)
- can call upon latent powers of my bloodline
- can call upon over a dozen other magical/supernatural favors
- can cheat death (twice).
- has cheated death more times than I can recall (thanks helm of glorious recovery!)
- has worked for a few legendary LG characters, and several named NPCs
- made deals with angels, fey, devils, demons, and abberations alike
- made enemies (and allies) of epic characters
- blessed (and cursed) by several churches
- slew a maug single handedly with a dagger
- owed well over 2 dozen mortal favors
- purchased a keep and became a minor noble somewhere (I forget where)
- attracted a band of 40 followers and a mid level cohort
- full citizen of and mansion owner in the Kingdom of Nyrond
- own a cottage somewhere else
- roaming member of the Greyhawk city watch
- carried and cured of the plague.
- owns a dog that can slay a hamlet (that I leave at home to keep *him* safe)
- And still gets reprimanded for beating one child (that was taking me deep into the Abyss)
At which point I think to myself: "I can sell *one* item (at half GP cost) and have enough for booze and whores for me and my men for several lifetimes, why am I still doing this?"
The vast majority of that list is before LG got crazy with year 8, and he lived mostly in the Nyrond and her Environs, a metaregion known for being reserved with access and favors.
It's important for me to point out two things about Pathfinder Society:
1. We will always err on the side of the system making way for new players.
2. We are not and never will be Greyhawk.
Once you accept those two things, a lot of the complaints in this thread wash away. Of course, the ones that don't wash away I will continue to listen to and modify as I see fit. But please keep in mind that our system has to always allow room for new players--I personally never joined Living Greyhawk because I found out about it long after it started and the bar for entry was set higher than I was willing to work for. With Pathfinder Society, that bar is set low enough that a hard core player can get a good 18-to-24 months of solid game play with his or her first PC and then create a second around the 18-month mark to play in lower level scenarios again. By recycling players in this manner, we get old and new constantly churning and rising from the bottom. Even with character retirement, you'll get to play your level-capped PC 3-4 times a year with Tier 12 scenarios. In my opinion this gets you the best of all possible worlds. I'm not going to make everyone happy, but at least I'm not making everybody grumpy. :-)
|
|
I think Pathfinder is meeting this goal admirably.It's important for me to point out two things about Pathfinder Society:
1. We will always err on the side of the system making way for new players.
2. We are not and never will be Greyhawk.
I also get this, but you can't avoid the comparisons. Sometimes it's good, because you get to learn from the success and short-comings of what has passed before (and it is evident that Pathfinder has done so). Sometimes it's bad, because some have difficulty looking past what has come before (sometimes, myself included). But this being Season 0 and having an open forum, players will air their opinions.
Just as Pathfinder will be compared to LG, so will many bring their 4E experiences to the game. It's only a matter of time before some players play the same scenario with different characters because they didn't know any better.
But it's a good thing for Pathfinder to stand tall and make it's own name in the organised play environment.
But please keep in mind that our system has to always allow room for new players--I personally never joined Living Greyhawk because I found out about it long after it started and the bar for entry was set higher than I was willing to work for.
See, this response puzzles me - the bar for entry was create a first level character.
I joined LG and LA as a player about mid-campaign. There were many players with vast campaign knowledge I didn't have to start with. But I still enjoyed playing individual adventures with other characters of my level, and slowly acquired a level of campaign knowledge in the process. It's always been possible for new players to jump in and enjoy LG whether or not other players have previous campaign knowledge. Just as a new player has to learn it's not a good idea to strike Skeletons with a rapier, other players with previous experience may pass on this knowledge, and in time this new player may pass the same advice to other players. Pathfinder is no different in this regard.
Though Pathfinder does allow players to achieve higher levels of play quicker, so I do accept your point from that angle.
|
|
Hi All,
I'm part of Team Full Power Attack and completing 12 mods in a 4 day con was a blast (Go team!).
Is levelling up in PFS too rapid? To me, not really, I figure I get to play every mod and have the same character for over a year. If there is a huge demand for PFS then a high level campaign could be created.
However gold and xp are inextricably linked in any D&D (3.5ish) campaign setting. Pardon if this seems like a threadjack but any thoughts about xp have to think about gold too.
I don't mind not losing a level from death, it also means the people won't have too much gold per level (I have heard of players in LG who were happy to die so that they would have more gold for their level).
If you pay a huge gold penalty for dying and don't lose a level then your character will have less gold than a PC who hasn't died. It's a permanent penalty, you will always have less gold. Imagine a tank fighter running around in a loin cloth, with a club at 5th level because he died last session.
The other thing is consumables, they are also gold that is lost forever. Even a character who doesn't die but is forced to use a lot of consumables can have a lot less gold than someone who doesn't buy these things.
All of these things can spoil people's fun, your character is ineffective, or people don't want to spend money on helping their team.
A solution is to have a gold cap based on xp, so that even if a 1st level PC plays up and gets far more gold than they should, they can't keep all of it. It also means that if there is a little more gold from the mod and you are way below the gold curve, you can keep it all and slow recover from paying for a ressurection or whatever. People would feel like they could spend a little gold on others because they could get it back.
For example: at low levels the average gold is 450, and lets say that the gold cap at level 1-2 is 300 gp per 1 xp. This means that at 2 xp a PC could have a maximum of 600 gp worth of equipment. If a PC is forced to drink 3 cure light wounds potions (150 gp) then they will be able to take all 450 gold from the next mod and still have a total of 900 gp at second level.
Hope that makes sense,
Matt
|
Do you feel big now that you have personally attacked me?Not particularly, but your tantrum was amusing.
But thank you for not polluting this thread with your off topic solutions to the levelling problem you have with PFS.
Now lets get one thing straight you arrogant jerk:
I do not want Pathfinder to be LG. I expect it will be different and it *should* be different.
HOWEVER. I would like to think that the Campaign would build on the years of experience in 3.5 organised living campaign instead of listening to immature fools like yourself, who want only their sort of game-play fun maximised. It is idiotic in any business venture to ignore the experiences of those that have come before. A living campaign panders to a huge audience, and the LG administration, from the Circle to Triad, To con organisers running interactives have experience with this.
I already Identified the issues with levelling up to fast in an earlier post. Go back and read it.
As to the issue of death, your proposal is that because you want an *out of character* benefit - (to continue playing with the same group of friends) You are willing to cop a permanent *in-character* penalty.
That is your choice, but don't call others who disagree with that decision 'whiners' or accuse them of throwing a 'tantrum'.
Some of us occasionally think about more than just ourselves when writing these posts, and I know many players - BASED on aforementioned experience with organised play, that would really hate that a permanent penalty.
As such, my message to the Admins is that this permanent player penalty needs to be ratified, so that death is *BAD* but not something that screws you over in the long term without *ANY* chance of catching up.
Apparently that proposal in of itself is offensive to you, I can't fathom why.
|
|
Hi All,
A solution is to have a gold cap based on xp, so that even if a 1st level PC plays up and gets far more gold than they should, they can't keep all of it. It also means that if there is a little more gold from the mod and you are way below the gold curve, you can keep it all and slow recover from paying for a ressurection or whatever. People would feel like they could spend a little gold on others because they could get it back.For example: at low levels the average gold is 450, and lets say that the gold cap at level 1-2 is 300 gp per 1 xp. This means that at 2 xp a PC could have a maximum of 600 gp worth of equipment. If a PC is forced to drink 3 cure...
I was waiting for you to post this Matt (GENTAR!!!), I think it is a good system and didn't want to steal the idea :) This is the system/solution I prefer but was waiting for you to post it.
FULL POWER ATTACK!
|
|
Now lets get one thing straight you arrogant jerk:
Yes whiner?
I'm guessing English isn't your first language, otherwise you're just trying too hard.
It's all well and good you latched onto someone's idea, in fact it's not a bad idea to hitch your wagon to, but in general, just complaining isn't nearly as fruitful as actually thinking up a solution.
My own solution, which I admit is merely a tweak of LG's charity of Friends clause, would be that at every level a character assess their own net worth. Should that net worth be under 80% of level appropriate that their GP be raised to that amount.
|
|
I'm guessing English isn't your first language, otherwise you're just trying too hard.
Another personal attack - you must win all the debates, with your rational and factual discourse. How arrogant and presumptuous to assume that because you don't bother to convey your message well that anyone who does can't speak English as a first language? There are a lot of people out there that do try to speak the language correctly, I am by no means perfect but I do try.
As a matter of fact English is my first language. Moreover I lived in England on and off throughout my formulative years, mainly in Oxford or Cambridge. Would you like me to refer to you as a n00b that can't handle 'teh' truth? Here it is nice and simple for you: YOU EPIC FAIL AT ARGUING.
Do not confuse articulation with 'trying too hard'. Your inability at speaking or writing English is your own issue, not mine.
Latching on to Matt's idea is not what I am doing. Matt is a friend, I have known him for years. He convinced me to start playing Pathfinder. We went to the same con PRIOR to this discussion where he proposed that solution. (Hence Dark-White asking for our opinion) I was merely waiting for him to get round to posting it.
It seems odd that for someone who was bad-mouthing the consideration of LG you are now completely reversing your argument. Shows us the conviction you have when exposed to the Socratic method.
I would rather be a whiner and point out the flaws in a system so others may benefit, instead of hiding behind ignorance and trying to pretend everything is perfect all of the time. All progress is a result of the unreasonable man who questions how something is done. You are clearly not in that category.
As to thinking up a solution, I discussed this proposal with Matt a while back, and we agreed HE would post it up long ago. You don't understand the context so don't presume you understand the situation.
Don't forget this is a 'feedback' post not a 'what are some better ideas' post.
If you would like me to dumb that down for you I can oblige.
|
Disregarding the loud chatter above, I would like to address this "PFS is not LG, and never will be" issue.
Of course it won't be like Living Greyhawk. Nevertheless ignoring experience and insight from previous global campaigns would be a grave mistake. These messageboards are the people's way of expressing themselves, and supressing the voices would only lead to grumpiness.
The speed of leveling is one, which the thread's title says already. Some like fast, some like slow. That is one issue where there are no real compromises. At the moment the steady, linear progression is in line with the wealth gained. Using the model proposed by DarkWhite would require alterations to the income, making it a bit of a challenge to address the wealth correctly. At that point it'd become necessary it deploy a gold cap, limiting the amount of wealth gained. This would be similar to Living Greyhawk.
Continuity is another thing people seem to discuss a lot. Some like one-shots and some plot-arcs. Plot-arcs tend to be trilogies or quadrilogies, and involve a much bigger plot and/or dungeon with the word 'EPIC' stapled on the cover. These plot-arc adventures are easily more memorable than everyday odd jobs. The impact these plot-arcs have could easily affect future scenarios in a very drastic way. However I know there is one dire problem impeding this concept's progress.
Since scenarios can be played in the any order, these plot-arcs couldn't hold a ground-shaking effect on e.g. the leadership of some big town. The plot-arcs would always return to status quo ante. Of course nothing prevents from creating adventures of great length yet without an impact on Golarion. Albeit a working solution, a bit unsatisfactory. I actually would have an example from #18 The Trouble with Secrets. Only for those who have read or played the scenario.
Namely, although there would be a chance for a permanent effect, there just isn't one. This issue has actually been talked about in our local gaming commune.
So far I haven't seen much political intrigue in Pathfinder Society, possibly due to the strict limit with pages and time. Without extra space you aren't able to include lots of important NPCs with their delicate motives, or explain the scheme to the DM in a elaborate fashion. I think this is also an issue I hope will be addressed some way. We've tried to introd-... seduce old Living Greyhawk players to play Pathfinder Society as well. Disappointingly I have had to compare PFS and LG in terms of scenarios and the use of alternative methods, as it's a thing they tend to ask about. Frankly every time I've said "Don't do a diplomat, so far the PFS scenarios have been just hack-n-slash." Navdi already has been seriously irritated by scripted combats, but that's another story.
The final verdict... it's all about choice. Provide multiple things and you'll get a much more satisfied crowd. I accept the fact I won't like every scenario written (I hold hatred towards Third Riddle and Trouble with Secrets), but I cannot avoid disappointment. Not everyone like everlasting political intrigue, and not everyone likes mindless dungeon crawls.
|
|
I don't see why I should be temporarily banned for being personally attacked, (more than once) purely for expressing a different view on raise dead - but I will stop rising to trolling - as in that regard I am dropping to his level. NotMousse won't get more out of me.
I apologise to the other members of this thread for bringing my personal issue with another poster out into open discussion.
|
|
My own solution, which I admit is merely a tweak of LG's charity of Friends clause, would be that at every level a character assess their own net worth. Should that net worth be under 80% of level appropriate that their GP be raised to that amount.
Good idea, there does need to be a gold ceiling or a gold floor. A certain amount of gold you can't have over or a certain amount of gold you can't have under. This at least makes everyone a little more equal, and allows for recovery from really bad circumstances.
Checking at the start of each level make things easier than checking each adventure, you could also check if you were over a gold cap only at the start of each level.
A gold floor doesn't encourage PCs to help pay for resurrections or potions, because they lose the gold and only get reimbursed when they fall to 80% of the PC Gold per Level table.
The gold floor does have the advantage of that a player only have to check it (and do all the calculation) if they are well below the gold curve.
Matt
Always Power Attack for Full!
|
|
Do not confuse articulation with 'trying too hard'.
My apologies, I was hoping you weren't fluent instead of trying to be a dick.
In any case I still believe when complaining one should offer at least an idea since what boils down to 'it sucks' only tells the creatives that you don't like it.
It seems odd that for someone who was bad-mouthing the consideration of LG you are now completely reversing your argument.
Are you certain you're fluent? In one post I was referencing character longevity, in the other character viability. These are clearly two different subjects, and in neither did I state the problem or solution was related to emulating LG.
I would rather be a whiner...
I would rather discuss a solution.
|
|
Well if you played LG back in year 1 or 2 you would have tracked the exact gold value of your character.. it was called (by many) Living Accounting because of it.. and it was a real pain.
I'd heard, and seen some older characters and mods, brutal. I think the last year went too far the other way though.
PS Oh, and while I'm posting I thought I'd say to you: grow up and be civil.
Will do! =p
|
|
A gold floor doesn't encourage PCs to help pay for resurrections or potions, because they lose the gold and only get reimbursed when they fall to 80% of the PC Gold per Level table.
But a floor has two distinct advantages. First it keeps people from being gimped by (CLW) potion addiction. Second it gives another in character reason for being a part of the PFS (they make sure I'm not adventuring nekkid).
Though I'm considering that instead of checking at the start of a level, allow the assessment once per level at any time. This works especially well during those first few levels when you'll end up panhandling for clothes if you happen to die.
|
|
Having GMed Pathfinder Society at two conventions now, I'd be strongly against anything that increased the amount of book-keeping and checking. There just isn't time after a scenario that ran overtime, with players anxious to run to their next session, or a bite to eat, or the venue is closing it's doors.
In theory, players are supposed to present both their current and previous Chronicles sheets, so the GM can check that numbers have been carried from one page to the other correctly, but in practice, this never happens. It is very much an honour system, and I'm fine with that, but if you're using an honour system, you can't rely on this level of book-keeping to be maintained and accurate, and particularly if it confuses or bores some players or GMs or becomes a chore, it may deter them from the game.
|
|
I don't have the details here, and I am conscious of the fact that comparisons with LG aren't always apt, but I believe that towards the end of LG the admins modified the charity of friends rule, saying something along the lines of: "if your total wealth is less than [some fraction, perhaps 3/4, of] the appropriate entry on the PC wealth by level table in the DMG, you can invoke charity of friends.
This created a floor below which very unlucky PCs could not drop (at higher levels, dying was far less feared than having all your stuff stolen from you) - but put the onus on the player to do the calculations, and only if and when it was necessary to see if the rule would apply.
Something similar could allow for real penalties but prevent them from completely destroying the character's ability to continue playing.
Of course it won't be like Living Greyhawk. Nevertheless ignoring experience and insight from previous global campaigns would be a grave mistake.
I second that sentiment. Don't avoid a good solution to a problem just because Living Greyhawk did it first!
|
|
Hi All,
I'm part of Team Full Power Attack and completing 12 mods in a 4 day con was a blast (Go team!).
Hi Matt,
I just received the call for game submissions for Unicon, 3rd and 4th October, and yes, there will be more Pathfinder! probably Melbourne's first public Pathfinder event post the conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder RPG ;-)
Is levelling up in PFS too rapid? To me, not really, I figure I get to play every mod and have the same character for over a year.
Thanks for the feedback, as it was something I was interested to receive actual player experiences from. I figured a "get wrecked" session might put Pathfinder Society's faster level progression to the test, but so far Matt "for" versus _Metz_ "against". Not a broad sample for purposes of statistical analysis, but hey, it's something ;-)
Faster progression has it's pros and cons, but overall, perhaps it isn't any better or worse than it was under LA/LG, just "different". As I've been almost exclusively GMing Pathfinder Society, it shouldn't affect me as much as my players. I guess it just struck me because it was a change from what I was used to, but maybe I should just get used to it.
It is good that new players can advance through the ranks quicker, particularly for those that can't play as frequently. And for those that do play frequently, it's a good reason to create a second character once your primary character starts hitting the higher tiers.
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, as it was something I was interested to receive actual player experiences from. I figured a "get wrecked" session might put Pathfinder Society's faster level progression to the test, but so far Matt "for" versus _Metz_ "against". Not a broad sample for purposes of statistical analysis, but hey, it's something ;-)
Oh don't make us Travel to Melbourne AGAIN Stephen :P
On the whole differing opinion, I think it is important to note that Matt mainly plays at Cons, whilst I pick up a lot more games at games day and at the odd home game. I think we actually represent the two main groups that will be playing Pathfinder Society, the 'only at cons' group, and the 'Play everything as soon as it comes out' group.
I'm getting over the faster level progression, I'd prefer it to be slower, but after reviewing the target demographic I understand why it is probably necessary. It can never match LG for sheer module output, and as such cannot have a similar level progression. A shame, but oh well, you can't have everything.
On the whole raise dead issue, in LG the notion of overcap was crucial. Many mods existed where monies were in excess of what you could take from the mod. This often helped with the use of things such as potions and raising from the dead, as well as consumables needed to complete any task. (especially at higher levels)
Additionally, with PC death, The gold versus level cap is even more important, such that a PC is not punished permanently via lost gold, but also cannot derive a future benefit from it either.
The most important thing to consider is the offsetting of consumable requirements of PCs with the gold curve. Failing to discount consumable sunk costs usually ensures that the gold curve is actually skewed too low. This combined with a death could, as Matt put it, have a level 5 fighter in a loincloth, who's only recourse is either to retire or be useless. Neither of which are good options.
Basically Overcap = a good thing.
Overcap + Maximum gold per PC level = even better thing.
I'm part of Team Full Power Attack and completing 12 mods in a 4 day con was a blast (Go team!).
Hi, my name's Metz and I'm a Powerattackaholic :)
Patto and I have been wearing our Badges proudly since coming back :)
I'm certainly not ignoring the lessons of the past. I've had lengthy discussions with Jason and Erik about Living Greyhawk and other org play campaigns and I believe that based on all the feedback and those discussions that Pathfinder Society is heading in the right direction. Evidence of that is that no one can agree on a single way to do things differently. Everyone on this thread (and many others like it) have said things or pointed out rules that have made me scratch my head, examine the solutions, and make adjustments. The 1.2 and 2.0 rules sets for PFS will reflect these conversations. So please don't take my assertion that I'm not trying to rebuild LG to reflect a personal ignorance of past lessons--it simple isn't the case.
And the bickering in this thread stops now. Play nice. We can have a civil discussion about this topic without name-calling.
So please don't take my assertion that I'm not trying to rebuild LG to reflect a personal ignorance of past lessons--it simpl[y] isn't the case.
I guess the particular decision that made me scratch my head a little bit was with respect to purchased animals. At first, the answer seemed to be "bring in whatever you want" (too liberal, IMO) and now the answer seems to be "you can only bring in one 'combat' animal" (too strict and/or vague, IMO). Living Greyhawk seemed to have a very sensible policy (something like "you can bring one purchased animal in addition to your familiar/animal companions, but it may raise the APL", I think), and I'm a little surprised that Jason or Erik didn't suggest something like that right off the bat.
At any rate, I'm having a blast playing Pathfinder Society games so far (the occasional head-scratcher notwithstanding), so keep up the good work!
|
|
A gold floor doesn't encourage PCs to help pay for resurrections or potions, because they lose the gold and only get reimbursed when they fall to 80% of the PC Gold per Level table.But a floor has two distinct advantages. First it keeps people from being gimped by (CLW) potion addiction. Second it gives another in character reason for being a part of the PFS (they make sure I'm not adventuring nekkid).
Though I'm considering that instead of checking at the start of a level, allow the assessment once per level at any time. This works especially well during those first few levels when you'll end up panhandling for clothes if you happen to die.
A gold floor does have the advantage of quicker recovery from paying for raise dead, in fact, if the PC only had 80% of the Gold per level when they died, then they don't lose much at all. (I'd prefer that death still had a little sting no matter what your circumstances.) I guess I feel that death should be a penalty but you should be able to recover from it.
A gold floor doesn't really stop you being gimped from burning up consumables, it just means that you are stuck at 80% of what other adventurers who didn't buy (or didn't use) the consumables have.
I guess I would rather feel that through good play I can still reach the top even if I'm playing a character type that uses a lot of consumables (like an archer, adamantine or silver arrows, anyone?), or die due to bad luck.
I suspect that the gold floor will be implemented because it requires a whole lot less paperwork (only the people who need it will check it).
Another idea is the Living Eberron idea that at a certain level you have a certain amount of gold/gear, no more, no less. Consumables cost 5 times what they normally would, so you wouldn't just fill up on them. I don't have much experience of how this system works, just putting it out there.
Matt
Just on the gold floor concept, characters that buy and sell equipment frequently (assuming sell values are less than new values) will hit the floor quickly and then get to swap equipment for no real cost if their minimum gold gets bumped at set points. For example: once you hit 80% you can sell all your gear just before a recalculation and get half value for it (for example), then recalculate your wealth back up to 80% and buy new. You'd always be on 80% instead of 100%, but the flexibility is significant. I don't have the Pathfinder rules to hand (I can't remember how selling works - I assume it's allowed), but I'm guessing anyone who sells equipment might find themselves in that situation.
That's not necessarily bad as it allows characters to be re-imagined and re-equipped without getting hurt financially (I quite like it in fact), but it may also be open to abuse. The only restrictive aspect of it is from lost access to items, but then you choose what to buy and sell so you just do it selectively.
|
|
That's not necessarily bad as it allows characters to be re-imagined and re-equipped without getting hurt financially (I quite like it in fact), but it may also be open to abuse.
Trust me, 80% GP is not the place to be. You want your net worth, and even more to the point, cash on hand to be as high as possible to buy that next great thing to come up in access.
|
|
... The 1.2 and 2.0 rules sets for PFS will reflect these conversations. So please don't take my assertion that I'm not trying to rebuild LG to reflect a personal ignorance of past lessons--it simple isn't the case.
Going back to a previous post:
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.
I'd modify this to say: start a second character when you hit 4th level. I'd like to see this in the future PFS rules as a recommendation for players. A person with only a 1st or 2nd level character has no choice, they can't play anything else, but once you hit 4th, making a 1st level character lets you help others get into the game. Also makes life easier for the marshal and DM. It also resolves the concern about advancing too fast - you won't if you spread the scenarios out a bit.
However, I agree with some of the others that leveling from 1st to 2nd is too slow - I'd really like to see the equivalent of 'Intro mods' that are worth 2 XP. I've done first level before, lots of times, I'd like to be done with it as soon as possible. After that, advancement is fine, maybe a bit too fast after 4th.
|
|
However, I agree with some of the others that leveling from 1st to 2nd is too slow - I'd really like to see the equivalent of 'Intro mods' that are worth 2 XP. I've done first level before, lots of times, I'd like to be done with it as soon as possible. After that, advancement is fine, maybe a bit too fast after 4th.
I'd be willing to wait until Season 1 and the release of the Pathfinder RPG before making a call on this one. One of the goals of Pathfinder Beta was to make 1st level play less vulnerable. If the Pathfinder RPG retains one of the bonus hit points options from the Beta, +2 +2 -2 stat modifiers, Sorcerous Bloodlines and other enhancements, you might find that 1st level play is more enjoyable, and not want to skip past it in the space of one "intro mod".
|
|
I'd be willing to wait until Season 1 and the release of the Pathfinder RPG before making a call on this one. One of the goals of Pathfinder Beta was to make 1st level play less vulnerable. If the Pathfinder RPG retains one of the bonus hit points options from the Beta, +2 +2 -2 stat modifiers, Sorcerous Bloodlines and other enhancements, you might find that 1st level play is more enjoyable, and not want to skip past it in the space of one "intro mod".
I'm not worried about less vulnerable - I just don't find 1st level very interesting any more, haven't for years. Those things won't make it more interesting. Note that I wasn't suggesting skipping past it in one mod - it would still take TWO mods to complete first level. Two seems to be plenty for me.
|
|
I don't know if this is "fly in the ointment " stuff or not but so far I have gleened two useful pieces of info.
1) 1st level should be over sooner i.e. "intro mods".
2)gold should be SLIGHTLY more controlled : if you want to have a gold "ceiling" you need a gold "floor" because if you have players at higher levels, who meet in a pickup game (usually in con only scenarios) they are more likely to give up individual rewards , if they know they will get SOMETHING out of the mods
on a relavent subject but not wholly germaine to the thread, why not give low level characters all the gold for a module, if they manage top avoid or negotiate an obstacle instead of killing or beating up a NPC?
in the 2 modules I have expierenced the group lost gold for NOT beating up a NPC, and in another they lost gold for talking the info out of a NPC insead of fighting.
I'm not worried about less vulnerable - I just don't find 1st level very interesting any more, haven't for years. Those things won't make it more interesting. Note that I wasn't suggesting skipping past it in one mod - it would still take TWO mods to complete first level. Two seems to be plenty for me.
Heck, I'd probably be happy starting at level 2 and just skipping level 1. That's what I do when I'm DMing a home game, generally.
|
Just some quick opinions.
I've never liked negative levels for resurrection and I'm glad they're changing this in the organized society and perhaps the RPG. It's always been a houserule of mine. Perhaps being reduced by 1 XP would be ok however.
I'd also like for raise dead to cost less. Maybe it could even cost a prestige point or two.
I like starting organized play at level 1. I don't think people should start at level 8 unless it's a pregen.
I wouldn't like to be level bumped every 6 months.
I have no opinion on whether 3 XP per level or if DarkWhite's new levelling method makes more sense. Being a casual player, either would be ok imo. I like the *concept* of slightly slower advancement at levels 6+.
I think we should pay attention and strongly consider implementing the suggestions of anyone who has experienced organized play in other formats (like LG/LA) for a number of reasons. They've seen what works and what doesn't work. Also, I think Pathfinder wants to steal players from the former LG/LA society (if I was the brand manager, I would at least). Also, since this is season 1 in a few weeks, you have more or less carte blanche to reset almost anything you like. This option won't be available (or won't be as accepted or elegant) in seasons 2 and beyond.
I'm a casual PF GM/player, I trust that whatever solution is picked will probably be fine.
I'd also like for raise dead to cost less. Maybe it could even cost a prestige point or two.
I think you'll be very happy with the v2.0 guide book.
When I'm done with it, sure.
I'm shooting for it online around August 1st.