Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Posted this on another thread, but I thought the subject deserves it's own thread for the consideration of others to think about.
After some discussion with other fellow PFS GMs and much thought, I would hope that Mr. Frost will reconsider his idea on "rebuilding."
My biggest fear is the abandoning of long running character concepts in favor of the new "toy box" opened up by the APG. I run games for a FLGS and EVERYONE has bought a copy of the APG. We schedule mostly 1-7 tier adventures because of a lack of higher tier PCs (see The Culling), but have recently began to offer the occasional 5-9 and 7-11 now that we have built up enough PCs to play them. Some of those players are seeing the advantages that an archetype could offer to their character concept, with options that weren't available previously and are already thinking of rebuilding that character under a new name to take advantage of the APG options.
This would be okay if there was enough tier 1-7 scenarios to allow those players to restart a new character using the APG's "toys", but (with the exception of Play, Play Play) that is not the case... and Season 2 is already loaded with higher tier scenarios. To date, only two of scheduled scenarios are 1-7 tier. So a player cannot remake an APG advantaged Andoran character and advance through scenarios his previous Andoran PC already has been through. Even if he uses another faction, he STILL has to be a deciding factor on whether that table will make to qualify for "Play, Play, Play" and so will probably be unable to go through those scenarios a second time. And as scenarios become retired from Season 0, this becomes even harder for a character to find scenarios to advance through. Meanwhile, I have files of tier 5-9 and tier 7-11 scenarios STILL waiting to be run.
Please, Mr. Frost, reconsider the idea of rebuilding.
|
|
Let me state that I'm quite neutral on the idea of rebuilding. That said, one positive (among several) to limited rebuilding is that it's a blessing on GM's. It gives us time to absorb a lot of the new material, especially the archetypes. They are nearly brand new classes we have to learn to deal with.
Give season 2 some time, the cycles will come back around to where there's more low-tier stuff to play. (I have the same issue, there's only 6 scenarios I can play that start under 5th level)
|
Yesterday I have generated a character with one of the Archetypes from the APG for a new home game. There was a lot of interest in the APG options from the other players.
Now the question is - should this be an indication I'm in favour of rebuilding?
I can see a lot of positive reason for rebuilding a character. But looking at the advantages and disadvantage I clearly fall into the area of being against a rebuilt.
Rebuilts tend to favour power over history. Just assume you have a Sorcerer - if you would rebuild bim at level 7 using the old rules - would he come out the same as he is now. Would you select the same spells? Or would he come out optimized as you can do decisions again that made sense at level 1 or 2 - but are no longer really as necessary now.
You would gain power - but you lose character. You wouldn't make the same 'wrong' decisions that you made several levels ago. But often it is these that make a character to what he is.
Whenever I have in my home campaign a character who dies and isn't resurrected but is replaced by a new higher level (>3) character I can see optimization, power creep. Even if you don't try to - it's difficult to avoid.
Using the new APG options going forward - YES. Select the new spell that is available - select the new feat. And for the level 1 fighter - select the new alternative build going forward as there hasn't been any difference to your current character.
But rebuilding going backwards opens up too much in my mind. You can't go back in life and rewrite decisions you have made. On the other hand - real achievement is if you still manage to get something done.
I hope I'm not coming over too strongly. I've given the whole issue my thoughts and I know ther will be examples where I personally would say - yes - a rebuild in your case would make sense and you rightly feel disappointed that it isn't allowed. But looking at the benefits and the dangers of allowing rebuilding I see the disadvantages outweighing the advantages.
Thod
|
@Thod: I understand your perspective on not wanting power creep, but it can't be stopped. How disappointing will it be for you to sit down at a table with a guy with a similar concept to yours and see he's far more effective than you?
This is a very tricky step. I devoted 2 years of my life to 4E and I know from LFR what it's like to see a rebuild possible at every level. I did like knowing that I could always have the nice new shiny option, but rebuild creep made it so eventually people could start new characters at any tier if they didn't have a qualifying character. This was too much for me to see people with high level toons who had never played them before.
So that is why I am torn on the rebuild decision. The stricter rules of Pathfinder were part of the attraction for me, but I also feel like you need to not punish people's characters by keeping options from them that make their characters better. If it makes them more powerful, then they weren't on an equal footing to start with, or the new options are too powerful. Neither scenario is really the player's fault.
|
|
I have seen new alternate rules and feats in APG that fits to my character better than core rules that I built my original character on. What I think would be something to consider is to expend PA with your faction to retrain. Just a thought, I think it would prevent people that like to change constantly for the sake of twinking, but allow people to change when they feel it is important to their character.
|
What I think would be something to consider is to expend PA with your faction to retrain.I actually really like this idea. Yes, it means you will not necessarily be on the gear curve as it were, but at the very least it represents some trade-off in the process.
Well, you'll be on the gearcurve as normal as spending PA doesn't affect the total aquired PA.
But I must agree: Spending PA to retrain really sounds like a good idea!
|
|
And for the level 1 fighter - select the new alternative build going forward as there hasn't been any difference to your current character.The 'official' stance is that this is a "total rebuild." It's very specifically what's being targeted.
I know - sadly RAW trumps common sense too often. If not a single actual benefit has been used as the alternative build starts diverting at level 2 - I can't see a problem personally. But yes - RAW you take the alternative built at the moment you generate your character and not at level 2.
@Thod: I understand your perspective on not wanting power creep, but it can't be stopped. How disappointing will it be for you to sit down at a table with a guy with a similar concept to yours and see he's far more effective than you?
I don't think I would care that much. I played my first few games being 1 to 2 level behind the other members of the group. I still enjoyed myself a lot and had my moments to shine. And the difference between a brand new level 1 to a level 3 is much more pronounced then an optimized rebuild using APG of the same level.
The question is - do you play competetive. So far I'm very happy that here in the UK - or at least with the players I have played and GMed - that the groups works together and tries to give everyone a chance to use his abilities. Actually in my mind it even helps your PA in the end as teamwork seems so much more powerful as individual strengths. But that is my personal opinion.
Did I ever post here, that I want to take one level of Pathfinder Chronicler with my wizard. This on it's own would let me fall behind a pure wizard build. But it would just fit so well with my character concept that I feel it is more important to have a level in this prestige class as to maximize my spells.
Don't get me wrong - I think my wizard so far is doing fine and pulls his weight - but raw power isn't everything.
Thod
|
|
I have seen new alternate rules and feats in APG that fits to my character better than core rules that I built my original character on. What I think would be something to consider is to expend PA with your faction to retrain. Just a thought, I think it would prevent people that like to change constantly for the sake of twinking, but allow people to change when they feel it is important to their character.
Absolutely fantastic idea !! I'm 100% in support. I just hope Josh is reading this.
This could be a great way out from the complete rebuild at high level to min/max while allowing some tweaks if they feel this minor change would have fitted to my character better but is available only now.
Thod
|
I have seen new alternate rules and feats in APG that fits to my character better than core rules that I built my original character on. What I think would be something to consider is to expend PA with your faction to retrain. Just a thought, I think it would prevent people that like to change constantly for the sake of twinking, but allow people to change when they feel it is important to their character.
+1 to this idea. Make it expensive so you'd only want to do it once in the lifetime of the character, but available so you could do it by ~level 5 or 6. Somewhere around the cost of a raise dead, or ~20 PA sounds right to me.
|
|
I have seen new alternate rules and feats in APG that fits to my character better than core rules that I built my original character on. What I think would be something to consider is to expend PA with your faction to retrain. Just a thought, I think it would prevent people that like to change constantly for the sake of twinking, but allow people to change when they feel it is important to their character.+1 to this idea. Make it expensive so you'd only want to do it once in the lifetime of the character, but available so you could do it by ~level 5 or 6. Somewhere around the cost of a raise dead, or ~20 PA sounds right to me.
I like the idea, it really satisfies everyone I think. There is a cost involved so you can't just willy nilly rebuild. It should be slightly graduated cost I think, like a (relatively) small PA cost to change 1 thing, and larger cost to change 2 things and then a large cost for a 'full' rebuild. ie: 5 PA, 9 PA and 16 PA. Also I think the possibility of actually costing TPA might serve 'balance' well. Maybe 1/2 (rounded up) of the points you spend have to be from TPA.
Great idea Uran!
|
I support the idea of allowing limited character rebuild, but not using Prestige Awards to do so.
I'm sure Josh has costed Prestige Awards carefully, without considering the additional burden of paying (a hefty?) sum for character rebuild. Prestige Awards become crucial at higher levels to fund possible character resurrection. If a player has already spent his Prestige Awards on a character rebuild, then this will only place greater burden on other players to contribute to the cost of the character's resurrection.
The only comment I've seen Josh make regarding character rebuild was:
Correct, you can change mysteries in your example. You couldn't, say, become a cavalier. :-)
Of course, this was in relation to an Advanced Players Guide playtest class, as required by the Guide to Organised Play.
Overwhelmingly the requests for character rebuilds have been to apply a character archetype. The cry for rebuilds haven't been for new feats or spells, because these can be chosen at your next level advancement.
I think a one-time-only permission for core class characters to apply a character archetype should be considered. Not a full rebuild, just add a character archetype to an existing class. Eg, a Ranger could become a BeastMaster, making any alterations required by virtue of that archetype, but he couldn't, say, become a Cavalier.
With all due respect, although the idea seems good at first glance, I think using PA for this is a bad idea, because it's other players that will ultimately be paying for the rebuild via resurrection costs later in the game.
|
I'm sure Josh has costed Prestige Awards carefully, without considering the additional burden of paying (a hefty?) sum for character rebuild. Prestige Awards become crucial at higher levels to fund possible character resurrection. If a player has already spent his Prestige Awards on a character rebuild, then this will only place greater burden on other players to contribute to the cost of the character's resurrection.
...
With all due respect, although the idea seems good at first glance, I think using PA for this is a bad idea, because it's other players that will ultimately be paying for the rebuild via resurrection costs later in the game.
I see your concerns as a method of protecting people from themselves. Honestly, if rebuild options get added (which I'm still not convinced I'd like to see), I hope they involve PA. By involving a limited resource which does have such a high importance later in the game, you're making people think long and hard about their decision. The penalty of not having full PA to buy services later on is the ultimate sacrifice for those that would chose a rebuild, and for that I'm okay. I personally am not too concerned about the burden to others as those kinds of things tend to work themselves out between players at the table.
That's just me though.
|
|
I'm sure Josh has costed Prestige Awards carefully, without considering the additional burden of paying (a hefty?) sum for character rebuild. Prestige Awards become crucial at higher levels to fund possible character resurrection. If a player has already spent his Prestige Awards on a character rebuild, then this will only place greater burden on other players to contribute to the cost of the character's resurrection.
With all due respect, although the idea seems good at first glance, I think using PA for this is a bad idea, because it's other players that will ultimately be paying for the rebuild via resurrection costs later in the game.
I'm a little confused at where, at any point, other players are obligated to pay for one's resurrection. Is it nice of them? Yes. Do they have to? No, and I don't think they'd ever be under any obligation to. Not to mention, a Raise Dead becomes pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things by higher levels. Yes, you lose a level. But...
Part of the trade off behind the PA spending is you lose something in exchange for the rebuild. A resource that you would apply somewhere else for the character. The same resource that allows you to normally salvage a dead character without incurring harsh costs sounds rather appropriate for wanting to update a character so they fit their concept more closely.
Well, you'll be on the gearcurve as normal as spending PA doesn't affect the total aquired PA.
Actually, I was implying by that you would spend TPA; apologies for the lack of clarity. But most people seem much warmer to the idea of just PA, so =D
|
|
I'm a little confused at where, at any point, other players are obligated to pay for one's resurrection. Is it nice of them? Yes. Do they have to? No, and I don't think they'd ever be under any obligation to. Not to mention, a Raise Dead becomes pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things by higher levels. Yes, you lose a level. But...
They do?
PCs brought back from the dead in Pathfinder Society suffer no energy drain if brought back through raise dead. This
is different than how raise dead is normally handled—see page 329 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
|
|
I'm a little confused at where, at any point, other players are obligated to pay for one's resurrection. Is it nice of them? Yes. Do they have to? No, and I don't think they'd ever be under any obligation to. Not to mention, a Raise Dead becomes pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things by higher levels. Yes, you lose a level. But...
They do?
PCs brought back from the dead in Pathfinder Society suffer no energy drain if brought back through raise dead. This
is different than how raise dead is normally handled—see page 329 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
I'm in agreement with Zazazat on this one, but having never needed this, does this mean the only real differences between Raise Dead and Resurrection (other than the ungodly number of PA required) is that you don't need the whole body, and you come back with full HP?
|
|
You're right in that no player is obliged to contribute to another's resurrection, but it's generally the right thing to do. When a character dies, that character could just as easily have been yours, it's often the fate of the dice, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, trying to protect your adventuring companions.
I think archetypes are fairly balanced, for the most part, because you're swapping out existing class features for replacement ones. Generally, you're not gaining anything so much as you're reflavouring.
Should a Monk of the Healing Hand have to pay PA for sacrificing the ability to heal himself for the ability to heal others? When new Monks of the Healing Hand aren't burdened with that cost?
For many reasons I think paying for archetypes with PA is a poor choice.
|
Should a Monk of the Healing Hand have to pay PA for sacrificing the ability to heal himself for the ability to heal others? When new Monks of the Healing Hand aren't burdened with that cost?
For many reasons I think paying for archetypes with PA is a poor choice.
As one who is against the idea of allowing rebuilds, I have found the possibility of using PA to pay for the rebuild interesting. If the player doesn't want the burden of cost, then they can simply make a new character and incorporate the archetype without penalty.
I think it was Steven King who wrote that an author must be willing to kill off their favorite character if the story requires it. As participates in role-playing games, we all are the authors of our stories. To rebuild a character midway through their story just doesn't sit right to me. Part of who that character is, is based on the abilities the character has and doesn't have. Personally, if something came along that I just had to try, I would rather create a new character.
With that said, if rebuilds were to be allowed, I would want it costly. The player who cannot wait should have to pay and PA is a limited resource that could fit the bill nicely (though I think TPA would be better an bdk86 initially implied). It allows the rebuild, but would hinder the character from obtaining additional resources for a time - a fair trade-off IMO.
|
|
I'm a little confused at where, at any point, other players are obligated to pay for one's resurrection. Is it nice of them? Yes. Do they have to? No, and I don't think they'd ever be under any obligation to. Not to mention, a Raise Dead becomes pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things by higher levels. Yes, you lose a level. But...
They do?
PCs brought back from the dead in Pathfinder Society suffer no energy drain if brought back through raise dead. This
is different than how raise dead is normally handled—see page 329 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Oops, no, you're right. Then why is a Resurrection spell even an issue when you get the same punch from Raise Dead?
|
|
As one who is against the idea of allowing rebuilds, I have found the possibility of using PA to pay for the rebuild interesting. If the player doesn't want the burden of cost, then they can simply make a new character and incorporate the archetype without penalty.
Costly to the character or to the player? Starting a new character can be costly to the player in the extreme - they may no longer be able to play with friends who are playing high level games, and depending on how heavily they played before, there may not be a lot of scenarios they can play at all with a new character.
I think it was Steven King who wrote that an author must be willing to kill off their favorite character if the story requires it. As participates in role-playing games, we all are the authors of our stories. To rebuild a character midway through their story just doesn't sit right to me. Part of who that character is, is based on the abilities the character has and doesn't have. Personally, if something came along that I just had to try, I would rather create a new character.
And what of the players who were trying to shoehorn character concepts into existing rules who actually now have access to rules that will actually allow them to do what they were trying to do in the first place? Part of why I don't like most of the arguments against rebuilding is that folks seem to feel that it is in the best interests of the character if it stays as is for the sake of "vermissitude". Unfortunately, the people making those arguments are making that judgment with absolutely no idea of what the story or concept of a character at someone else's table or game is. I'm not interested in shutting down a player who has a legitimate reason for changing the rules of their character to come closer to their concept, just so we can shut down folks who are only interested in using a rebuild to powergame their characters.
With that said, if rebuilds were to be allowed, I would want it costly. The player who cannot wait should have to pay and PA is a limited resource that could fit the bill nicely (though I think TPA would be better an bdk86 initially implied). It allows the rebuild, but would hinder the character from obtaining additional resources for a time - a fair trade-off IMO.
I so strongly disagree with you I am nearly fuming. The idea that a player should be penalized for wanting to have fun is anathema to the game. If it was for the sake of game balance, I could see a cost being associated with the rebuild, but assigning a high cost just to enforce static character progression is beyond me. Character "retcons" occur all of the time, both in fiction and in game. Admittedly, they are not all well done, but when they are done well, it can attract new attention, fans, and enjoyment of the character. Allowing a player to fully enjoy their character should be the goal, not telling them that "if you really want to play that character, you'll need to start over".
|
|
Robert, you need to cool down. First, this is just a discussion and everyone has a right to voice their opinion. Second, Josh hasn't even hinted that rebuilding is an option. In fact he's specifically said "no" to it several times. Remember, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.
There has to be a balance in the management of this campaign. Some players want the keys to the candy shop, and some want to shut the store down. Josh has to be careful *if* he opens up the option to rebuild, because it's ripe for abuse. The same things that make the game fun for Robert may ruin the game for "Bill". I appreciate that Robert has a character concept he's trying to play, and a rebuild from the APG may enhance his enjoyment of the game. But on the same token you have "Bill" who is combining all sorts of discordant and unintended features into a GM's nightmare. Someone is going to lose. But let's stay civil and keep from taking things personal while we discuss the topic. Any decision Josh may come to will be after careful consideration. I'd rather have him thinking it over than playing referee on the messageboards.
|
|
Robert, you need to cool down.
*snip*
But let's stay civil and keep from taking things personal while we discuss the topic. Any decision Josh may come to will be after careful consideration. I'd rather have him thinking it over than playing referee on the messageboards.
*blink* I thought I was doing a good job on restraining myself, avoiding personal attacks, and trying to comment constructively, but apparently I failed horribly. I will refrain from further comment on this topic.
|
|
I have to agree with Doug Doug. One of the positions Joshua was posing at GenCon was "where do we draw the line? How many new supliments are going to come out and people are going to want to rebuild."
Given that Joshua is going to need to have some down time due to PaizoCon, GenCon, Europe convention reporting and recovering from some work being done to his shoulder we can all afford to take some time and breathe.
I myself don't feel that I have a dog in this fight. I will abide by the rules set forth in the guide.
|
|
*blink* I thought I was doing a good job on restraining myself, avoiding personal attacks, and trying to comment constructively, but apparently I failed horribly. I will refrain from further comment on this topic.Robert, you need to cool down.
*snip*
But let's stay civil and keep from taking things personal while we discuss the topic. Any decision Josh may come to will be after careful consideration. I'd rather have him thinking it over than playing referee on the messageboards.
Thank you Robert. I may have over-reacted, but I felt the tensions rising on the thread and decided to speak up. I apologize if I made it sound like I didn't want you to post here. Not at all the way I meant to come across. When posts are being taken apart line by line and people add that they are 'fuming' I get concerned, that's all.
|
|
Oops, no, you're right. Then why is a Resurrection spell even an issue when you get the same punch from Raise Dead?PCs brought back from the dead in Pathfinder Society suffer no energy drain if brought back through raise dead. This
is different than how raise dead is normally handled—see page 329 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Well there is still the bit about hit points and possible spell loss, but no negative levels is a huge step up :) Also as mentioned if you are mangled, missing parts or otherwise a fleshy little splat Raise Dead might not work for you.
You restore life to a deceased creature. You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than 1 day per caster level. In addition, the subject’s soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject’s soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.
Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell gains two permanent negative levels when it is raised, just as if it had been hit by an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it takes 2 points of Constitution drain instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can’t be raised). A character who died with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being raised. A spellcasting creature that doesn’t prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) has a 50% chance of losing any given unused spell slot as if it had been used to cast a spell.
A raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current HD. Any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1. Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone. While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature’s equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell.
A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.
|
|
Thank you Robert. I may have over-reacted, but I felt the tensions rising on the thread and decided to speak up. I apologize if I made it sound like I didn't want you to post here. Not at all the way I meant to come across. When posts are being taken apart line by line and people add that they are 'fuming' I get concerned, that's all.
Understood. In my response above, I was trying to be clinical in my arguments, but I wanted to illustrate that I do feel strongly about the case for a rebuild, thus my "fuming" comment.
I wasn't present at GenCon so I did not benefit from a discussion with Joshua regarding the topic, but if I had, he probably would have gotten an earful from me :)
|
|
To me, the whole purpose of PFS is to have fun. That is it. End of story.
IF society stops being fun, people will leave the society games.
While I understand the reluctance to allow rebuilds when a new RPG book comes out, the PFS masters that be must realize that eventually they will cause people to leave.
I do not encourage rebuilds at the drop of the hat, any time a player decides he wants a new character concept. Instead I suggest once a year, at the beginning of a new season, there is an official rebuild period.
I have already seen several players drop out of society. I hate to see even more do so. But I fear that will be inevitable.
|
|
I so strongly disagree with you I am nearly fuming. The idea that a player should be penalized for wanting to have fun is anathema to the game. If it was for the sake of game balance, I could see a cost being associated with the rebuild, but assigning a high cost just to enforce static character progression is beyond me. Character "retcons" occur all of the time, both in fiction and in game. Admittedly, they are not all well done, but when they are done well, it can attract new attention, fans, and enjoyment of the character. Allowing a player to fully enjoy their character should be the goal, not telling them that "if you really want to play that character, you'll need to start over".
As someone who was holding off on starting a 2nd character till after the APG was out...I have no desire to rebuild my 7th level Cleric based on the APG material. I can understand that some people do. My initial response is, too bad. Your character was created prior to the APG and you cannot go back in time and make APG options applicable to a character that has already been played. Period. You are able to pick up new feats and spells etc as you level going forward and that's going to have to be enough.
However the idea of being able to spend (T)PA to allow rebuild for those who want it is a fantastic middle ground where everyone wins. Spending an in game resource you had fun earning, in order to allow yourself to have more fun with the APG options without having to start a new character from 1 XP pretty much makes everyone happy. I'm happy, cause I don't care one way or another, but don't want to allow wholesale respecs. 'You' are happy because you get to respec at a cost I can live with ;)
|
|
I think the general consensus is that wholesale respecs are a bad idea. And even with TPA costs I don't it shouldn't be possible. There is too much room for abuse. I'm talking changes in archetypes, feats, domains, alternate racial traits, maybe even alternated favored class benefits. I can imagine a lot of clerics are rather sad that a subdomain that better represents their concept is now there, just out of their reach.
Things that you may have been trying to do via a different method or just role play now codified in a new mechanic are what a rebuild should accomplish. Spells are relatively unnecessary as those classes with a set list have a means of modifying it (either via swap or buying scrolls to add new spells to their arsenal). As Joshua has stated, there should be no Oracle-to-Cavalier level alterations.
As for issues of people rebuilding a character every time a new book comes out, a TPA cost that is prohibitively expensive (rebuilding an aspect of your character more than once hurts their gear curve too much to be worth it) or even limiting it to one time in the life of the character plus TPA would be worthwhile (perhaps a Chronicle sheet in which you must document the changes made, the TPA expended, etc. and have signed off on by a GM at the next table you play at?).
All of this is musings and ideas, and for all we know the entire discussion may be rendered moot upon Joshua's return. I have no personal stake in this one way or the other; my only PFS character right now is a Summoner who is seeing no real changes save the way my summons/eidolon function due to being not too high in level. But I have been in the situation where new content came out and I looked at my current character, now comparably impotent in concept, because the mechanics that support it are out of his reach due to the timing of his creation.
|
|
I have seen the abuse side of rebuilds in LG. But as someone who would love to take advantage of a rebuild for one of my characters, I would love to see a rebuild be made available. I'll accept whatever Josh decides.
If I had known what was going to be made available in the APG I would have waited to create my secondary character. (A half-orc wizard) I will be scrapping all my characters, except my main character that is 7th level, and start from scratch if rebuilds are not allowed. Mainly because the concepts are better represented in the new materials.
I'll wait and see what official decision is made.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Allowing rebuilds is as dicey as the replay issue in my mind. It took me a week or two after my initial posts to post again as the discussion was heated and it is always better to stay cool than post something that will just makes things worse.
Right now I am neutral to the rebuild issue.
PRO's
1. More fun for players.
2. More use of newer material which MAY push more sales.
3. All player to extend the use of a PC.
CONS
1. Abuse is another step easier.
2. GM's, Regional coord., and our Events manager have another level of complexity to deal with.
Its hard to say which issues are the most important. As a GM I see this as a massive pain. I would rather see someone build a new PC and try the new stuff out but I like players at the table and lots of them.
If I had to guess at the mechanic in question to allow a rebuild. I would think the CPA and gold would be needed to be spent for retraining purposes.
My two cents but I am only a lowly 2 Star GM.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
So much healthy debate...I'm glad I re-posted this in a thread of it's own.
As a GM, I understand the hassle that could result from allowing a complete rebuild. The sheer amount of accounting and paperwork alone makes this untenable.
As a player, I would love to see some degree of reconfiguration on so many levels. After all, I just purchased a $40 book; I want to play with the toys.
That said, I feel that a player should be able to benefit from the potential of archetypes, sub-domains, and sub-schools. These concepts are not new for characters... the mechanics are. For example, my main PF character started out as a barbarian. After many adventures facing undead, he eventually returned to Absalom and asked for someone to help train him to better combat them, taking a level of Ranger. That was many level ago. If the Combat Style two-handed weapon had been available, it would have fit him. Alas, he had only ranged weapon or two-weapon style as choices available at the time and chose ranged... even though he has never used a ranged weapon in combat. A limited rebuild would fix that issue, giving him something he would already have otherwise... in this case, Cleave.
As for a PA cost, I feel that is a good middle ground. In fairness, this would be a CPA cost, not a TPA cost, I would assume... like all the other favors allowed. Even if it involves a TPA total, as seen in the Faction Guide, that would also be acceptable.
Either way, I hope that Mr. Frost (after his recovery) will address this in v3.1.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
So much healthy debate...I'm glad I re-posted this in a thread of it's own.
As a GM, I understand the hassle that could result from allowing a complete rebuild. The sheer amount of accounting and paperwork alone makes this untenable.
As a player, I would love to see some degree of reconfiguration on so many levels. After all, I just purchased a $40 book; I want to play with the toys.
That said, I feel that a player should be able to benefit from the potential of archetypes, sub-domains, and sub-schools. These concepts are not new for characters... the mechanics are. For example, my main PF character started out as a barbarian. After many adventures facing undead, he eventually returned to Absalom and asked for someone to help train him to better combat them, taking a level of Ranger. That was many level ago. If the Combat Style two-handed weapon had been available, it would have fit him. Alas, he had only ranged weapon or two-weapon style as choices available at the time and chose ranged... even though he has never used a ranged weapon in combat. A limited rebuild would fix that issue, giving him something he would already have otherwise... in this case, Cleave.
As for a PA cost, I feel that is a good middle ground. In fairness, this would be a CPA cost, not a TPA cost, I would assume... like all the other favors allowed. Even if it involves a TPA total, as seen in the Faction Guide, that would also be acceptable.
Either way, I hope that Mr. Frost (after his recovery) will address this in v3.1.
Yes I meant CPA
|
|
As someone who was holding off on starting a 2nd character till after the APG was out.Just a quick point on this: If you used any GM credit to build the character from before August 5th, you are in violation of the "No Rebuilds" rule according to what was said on-site at GenCon. Your character can take no options that are in any books from before the date shown on your chronicle sheet, NOT the date you happen to start writing down character stats. The date on the chronicle sheet is supposed to be the date the adventure is run.
Yeah, I'm a lil annoyed by that. I'm pretty much discarding one character I've never played because of that...I intend to reroll the character and make them "legal", but I'm going to lose out credit on 3 scenarios I judged that I had assigned the first iteration of the character.
|
|
As someone who was holding off on starting a 2nd character till after the APG was out.Just a quick point on this: If you used any GM credit to build the character from before August 5th, you are in violation of the "No Rebuilds" rule according to what was said on-site at GenCon. Your character can take no options that are in any books from before the date shown on your chronicle sheet, NOT the date you happen to start writing down character stats. The date on the chronicle sheet is supposed to be the date the adventure is run.
I'm not challenging Josh's decision because it makes sense, but what about a character that's "in-transition"? If you played a character on August 3rd (the day before the APG was let out) and gained enough XP to go up a level, but you didn't get around to actually doing the updating and leveling of the character until August 5th (the day after the APG was let out) for a game on August 6th.
In this case you have a character the "rebuild" isn't really a rebuild at all, it's an update to the character at an appropriate time (i.e., there was no other XP gain during that time) but it falls "within window". I can think of lots of players that may have experienced this, and used the APG to update their characters because of a level gained the day before Gen Con (technically "before" the new rules were in effect).
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
@Kyle: I plan on doing exactly that.
The problem is that I have players here that are abandoning their high level characters to play with the new options, and not enough low tier scenarios that they haven't been through... and we have run everything since Season 0 up to Scenario #50. I have long-time Pathfinder devotees now thinking of looking elsewhere if they have to start over to use archetypes while the newbies get to start with these options with no cost (like the suggested CPA). And as a GM, I watched a player last week purchase scrolls for his wizard character with the new spells (all done legally) and use these new toys, while the martial class players have to wait for a feat advancement to even consider using the APG.
These are the issues I am looking to resolve. As a GM, I hate for players to have purchased a book and feel it was a wash-up for Organized Play. And I sell a LOT of Pathfinder stuff through our store FLGS to PFS players. The APG is a FANTASTIC book, full of good stuff. Let the players use it.
The problem is that some people's idea of a rebuild clashes with Josh's. I am pretty sure that Josh's ruling is that once you have made your character and played that character, even if only in one scenario, that you cannot rebuild to fit another character concept or archetype if it requires you to change anything at all that your character already has.
|
|
I'm completely with Arnim Thayer on these points.
I'd like to add, I mostly GM Pathfinder Society at various games conventions, and slot-zero them with a local group of players. I occasionally get to play a character, but not nearly as often as I GM.
None of the examples I've raised apply to my own characters, most were hypotheticals, I'm not recommending rebuilds for my own benefit, I'm requesting them on behalf of many players I've gamed and talked with since the APG was released. These are not players trying to gain advantage from the system. They're players who have been building ad roleplaying their characters with a specific concept in mind, in some cases since society play began.
Some people have argued here about the administration woes for GMs. I really don't see that. As long as a player brings a Society-legal character to the table, and plays responsibly, I don't have any reason, or time, to check their character sheet and previous chronicle sheets for possible discrepancies. Society play uses the honour system, and I do expect players to respect that, and not rort the system. However, unless a player makes an obvious rules error during play, it's not going to cause me any administrative grief at all. All I record at the end of each session are the characters names, society numbers, factions, and prestige awards. Technically, I don't even need to know their race or class, much less their archetype of sub-domain. Month-by-month as the APG's release date become a distant memory, neither am I going to notice or care whether a character was built before or after the book's release.
Occasionally, a new player will make a character choice based on some mis-understanding of how the rules work, and ask me if they're allowed to make some change? If it's an honest mistake by a new player, it's a good opportunity to help them with the rule they were having problems with, and have a brief chat about the Organised Play system - many new players haven't read the Guide to OP. I'll usually advise they shouldn't make such changes after those choices have been made, but if I GM their table at the next con, I probably wouldn't remember every feat on their sheet, even less had they not drawn my attention to it, and I doubt any other GM would either, so make the change discreetly, and learn from the experience. The honour system vs RAW.
Living Arcanis allowed full character rebuilds until you reached third level precisely for this reason - new players unfamiliar with the system being stuck with poor character choices made when pressured to scratch a character together (or handed a pre-gen) minutes before the start of their first game.
I realise people don't want players rebuilds getting out of hand; however, to date, there have only been two releases of this importance to characters - the Core Rulebook and the APG. No other sourcebook has impacted characters the way these two books have.
Of course this issue is likely to arise again with the release of Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat and similar hardcover releases. I think as long as there are sensible restrictions, using the APG as an example (eg, other books may contain different elements):
1) you can't alter basics such as name, race, class, ability scores;
2) you may apply a newly released alternate racial traits, archetype, sub-domain, sub-school, where doing so more accurately represents the character you've been playing before the book was released;
3) feats/equipment/spells can be taken via normal character advancement.
I fully realise point 2) is subjective, and some players will ignore it, but at least it's there as a guideline to encourage versimiltude. It's no worse, I guess, than the hand-waving of story requirements for prestige classes.
@Enevhar: I realise Josh's rebuild is solely to migrate the six new base classes from playtest status to fully APG compliant, and was never intended to be any broader than that specific purpose. There's no mis-understanding there.
This debate is taking place because the APG contains options that are more appropriate for some player's roleplay concepts than their current builds allow, in some cases, perfect fits! Preventing long-time supporters of the campaign from these options while new characters are taking them freely is most unfortunate.
|
|
I've done a little bit of reading. I only have my PDF version with me - so it's not ideal and I hope I typed it in correctly from page 72.
The core Class archetypes are included in this chapter. Characters may take more than one archetype if they meet requirements
At no place I've seen so far does it state you have to take an archetype at creation of a character. Please if anyone finds such a requirement then correct me. But looking at the fighter archetypes all of them diverge from the core build either at level 2 or level 3. As such I interpret RAW that for these you decide when levelling up to level 2 or in some cases level 3 if you take the archetype or not.
I know this was a case that started it - but as far as I can tell RAW this seems not a rebuilt and should be legal similar to a wizard taking an APG spell into his spell book at next level.
There are a few archetypes that change bits already at level one aka at creation. So for these it would be a rebuild. But I thought I throw this out here. It doesn't help the level 7 characters out there - but it hsould give some relief.
This also opens up an ar retype for a level 7 as by double classing he could take an archetype as his second class. Maybe not what you are looking for - but something that seems allowed already with existing rules.
I just hope I didn't miss somewhere in a different chapter a bit about taking archetypes. But I looked for restrictions and when you take them and didn't find them.
Thod
This also opens up an archetype for a level 7 as by double classing he could take an archetype as his second class. Maybe not what you are looking for - but something that seems allowed already with existing rules.
This can't be done, as it has been ruled in another thread, that I may eventually find when the forums are behaving better, that all archetypes for a class are considered as the same class and not different classes, so your choices for multi-classing are still the same 17 classes.