This is a suggested change to Society rules which I believe will reduce the administrative effort and eliminate many of the issues people have raised. It should also move the focus away from rapid character levelling and back onto adventuring. You may like it; you may hate it - I have no idea!
The change is simply this: remove the levelling mechanic from PFS and make all characters start [the pathfinder phase of their career] at 7th level. Reduce the experience progression to the point that it has no discernable effect on the campaign so characters will always be 7th level.
Adventure Paths would continue to use level progression; this suggestion is just for PFS.
Why 7th? Because it's in the 6-8 hotspot that d20 seems to have, and it enables 80-90% of existing mods to be played with no changes at all.
I would make the following suggestions:
1) Characters have 24,000gp, based roughly on p399. No more than 1000gp can be spent on consumables. Max value of any one item could be set at say 17,000, but that's purely subjective.
2) Characters gain no gp or items from adventures. They are funded by their factions and the pathfinders, and those organisations will always take any proceeds from a mission. Neither can characters obtain any permanent benefit from items or spell casting during or between scenarios, just as now.
3) However, factions would allow characters to swap out equipment between mods for no cost and they would replenish items lost or used. In effect the character is acting as an agent for that faction, and the mission is worth some expenditure. Think James Bond and what he does with the equipment he's given...
4) Factions would enable retraining. How much retraining is entirely up to the player and his willing sense of disbelief.
Points 3 and 4 are intended to remove the need to create a brand new character because you want to try a different weapon or technique, and ensures character wealth for level stays correct. Also, if I know my character is going to the desert, I can grab a load of desert related gear, and then swap it out for the arctic gear that I need for the next scenario.
5) Change the chronicles to list places visited, people met and monsters/bad guys killed or subdued. Use the monster tally for bragging rights; use the other records as a reminder of what the scenario was all about - useful for those of us who are getting old and who's memories are not what they once were!
All the other mechanics can stay pretty much as they are, unless I missed something. Characters will still have faction missions, but they'd be doing them for roleplaying reasons only, just like the main mission.
I think the benefits of this system are as follows:
a) Removes the needs for tiers and sub-tiers.
b) Reduces time and complexity in mod design.
c) Makes DMing easier with fewer stat blocks.
d) Provides a more consistent challenge level.
e) Prevents low level characters from being outclassed by high level characters.
f) Allows new players to join any game.
g) Allows new characters to join any game, removing much of the need for replay.
h) Removes the possibility of levelling out of tier before completing a mod series.
i) Removes the need for retirement; a character can play every mod.
j) Allows frequent players to use the same characters in home brew mods without issue (removing another reason for replay).
k) Allows for a wider choice of back stories - The Pathfinders recruit seasoned adventurers but at the moment every PFS Pathfinder started as a farmboy, or equivalent.
l) Let DMs sunder and burn without annoying the players...
m) Removes the need for a DM credit system.
n) Most importantly, gets rid of the whole treadmill effect and lets the adventure become the focus of the game.
o) New scenarios can deviate from the current wealth and combat requirements, opening up more creative possibilities.
p) Only one set of pregens would be required.
q) New mods would be playable by every character - no tier planning required by Paizo.
r) I would suggest getting rid of Raise Dead and similar spells. Let characters die heroically and be remembered. At the moment we have to raise characters in order to continue in a certain tier. Removing the Raise Dead spells would also make plotting easier for new mods.
The disadvantages I can think of are as follows:
A) People don't like change.
B) Characters may be seriously optimised for 7th level, although that happens to some extent now anyway.
C) No-one will be able to play an 8th level character (or any other level except 7th) in PFS, although that's already true of 13th+. They can play those levels in an AP though.
D) Some people may be playing PFS as they can't play an AP, and this may not be what they're looking for.
E) Some small amount of admin is required upfront, such as stat block changes to certain adventures, but I think the longer term savings outweigh them.
F) Chronicles would need to be redesigned, but finding items in mods has largely been superceded by the PA system anyway, so the current chronicles don't really matter.
G) Some people may not like creating 7th level characters, but the rules pretty much necessitate some degree of thinking ahead in development terms. Imagination can fill in the history, just as it does for childhood now.
H) Removing the treadmill and DM credit system may mean people run games less.
I) Some people may actually like the treadmill...
That's it. What do people think? Anything I've missed?
|
Personally, I think this is an absolutely horrible idea. To me the point of playing D&D is the roleplay and the progression. I play to get the stories of when my character is weak and fragile and could die in one hit (level 1) to progressively be a much stronger character, roleplaying wise and rules wise.
With this you're also introducing new players (which is the point of Pathfinder Society) in a much higher level than one should start playing D&D at.
|
|
Ok .. first off yes I did read it .. secondly; I don't think that you'll see the majority of the changes that you proposed made simply because it changes the OP system wawy from what it was originally meant to be and moves the game away from what PFS is meant to be -- (my opinion) a society of different people at different experiences gathering together to accomplish a commone task to reach a common goal.
Personally; I like playing thru the level progression and honestly wish that leveling was a tiered progression with the higher level you became the longer it took to level out of that level. But that's a different thread and discussion. If we're talking about lvl requirements let's remove retirement at lvl 12 lol.
I think you'll find the majority of players enjoy the leveling process and obtaining new "shiney toys" for their characters. Keeping them at lvl 7 basically denys players the new "shiney" and pretty soone w/out shineies the novelty of the game wears off and people gravitate away towards a new shiney (insert relationship joke here).
From a GM perspective; I like the challege of the different tiers and stat blocks, it means that as a newwer player I get to learn more ways to work with the game mechanics -- and gain a greather understanding of the game in general
Good luck swaying the masses
Personally, I think this is an absolutely horrible idea. To me the point of playing D&D is the roleplay and the progression. I play to get the stories of when my character is weak and fragile and could die in one hit (level 1) to progressively be a much stronger character, roleplaying wise and rules wise.
With this you're also introducing new players (which is the point of Pathfinder Society) in a much higher level than one should start playing D&D at.
To me it's just the roleplay that matters now. Levelling up every 3 mods is very different from levelling up maybe once per year, as we used to do it.
I do agree it brings new players in at a higher level, but as to what level they *should* start playing at, I guess that's a matter of personal preference.
Ok .. first off yes I did read it .. secondly; I don't think that you'll see the majority of the changes that you proposed made simply because it changes the OP system wawy from what it was originally meant to be and moves the game away from what PFS is meant to be -- (my opinion) a society of different people at different experiences gathering together to accomplish a commone task to reach a common goal.
Personally; I like playing thru the level progression and honestly wish that leveling was a tiered progression with the higher level you became the longer it took to level out of that level. But that's a different thread and discussion. If we're talking about lvl requirements let's remove retirement at lvl 12 lol.
I think you'll find the majority of players enjoy the leveling process and obtaining new "shiney toys" for their characters. Keeping them at lvl 7 basically denys players the new "shiney" and pretty soone w/out shineies the novelty of the game wears off and people gravitate away towards a new shiney (insert relationship joke here).
From a GM perspective; I like the challege of the different tiers and stat blocks, it means that as a newwer player I get to learn more ways to work with the game mechanics -- and gain a greather understanding of the game in general
Good luck swaying the masses
I agree about the new shiny stuff and that's why I catered for retraining and swapping out equipment. Players can always bring in a new character of course if they want a complete change.
If a new guy, who doesn't have access to the books yet (which I know has happened), enjoys the game enough to roll up a new character, will have to show up earlier than everyone else to build a character from the ground up. And that does take time. A lot of our new players are on the navy and have to go off navy time, which is often them coming in as we're starting the adventure. It's easier to build a character at first level then it is to build one at seven.
My suggestion above was just the quick and easy option, but with a bit of extra work we could put together a set of simple building blocks that produce '7th level' characters for newbies, whilst still offering the more granular (standard) version for experts.
For example, Block 1 would include stats, three complete levels such as Fighter 1-3, feats and skills combined with all attacks and defences worked out. Define them as a brute who hits hard, an elegant one-handed fighter, a battlefield controller etc. Block 2 would be the next two levels, feats and skills combined, defined by function as before, which simply stack right on top. Same for Block 3. Add it all up, provide a name and go. Ask the community here to build the blocks and vote on the top 20 or so, then offer those.
Choosing a base block and then two extras based on the 'type' of character they want to play is likely to be quicker and less prone to mistakes than building a new character from scratch, even if the result is 7th level equivalent. Once they know how it works they can then selectively retrain to get exactly what they want as the new system would allow that.
So the factions pay you to break everything they invent?Think James Bond and what
he does with the equipment he's given...
Exactly. The factions aren't Bob and Sue who run the local chip shop, they're the movers and shakers that help define the course of events for a whole continent.
What price do you put on bringing two countries closer to a war from which you can profiteer handsomely? Assuming you're Qadiran.
The cost of a replacement flaming sword is nothing compared to the ability to blackmail someone into a convenient marriage because you have an incriminating journal. Cheliax perhaps?
And how can you put a price on wearing an Ancient Osirion dress not seen for 1000 years to the latest ball? If you're Taldan that is - and we wonder why their empire is collapsing...
If a character breaks everything they've been given their patron will probably just raise taxes in their hometown to cover the costs. But that's all outside the scope of a PFS module, although it does give me some ideas for a mod.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
This is an interesting discussion, but these changes are not on the table, nor is it likely they ever will be. As a thought exercise, however, it's in interesting topic. Please continue, but don't hold out hope that we'll be changing PFS to cover just 7th level (or any other single level) any time soon.
|
Stormfriend, I think that you have probably underestimated the number of Tier 1-5 scenarios that would disappear under your idea. And many of them appear again and again on the various threads of favourites: Silent Tide, Frozen Fingers, Mists of Mwangi, Kingdom of the Impossible, Tide of Morning, Black Waters....
They are all well-written adventures, but perhaps the "sweet spot" is also larger than you think :)
|
I think that the leveling is the key issue at hand. The problem is that it has to be something relatively easy to implement and track. Using actual XP's like the core game is too much logistics IMO. I thought about this as an alternative...
To gain a level, it requires a number of XP's equal to your current level. So you would level from one to two after one scenario. Perhaps quick, but for new players, it gives them an immediate sense of accomplishment. For experienced players, they can get on with their career. Let's face it, uber-optimized characters aside, there isn't a huge amount of difference between characters at first level. You gain more distinction as you level up.
As you gain levels, your progression slows. To level from six to seven requires 6 XP. This allows an increasing amount of time to savor your character's new skills/abilities/powers. It also lets you play your favorite PC for a longer period of time. I believe that would be 66 XP's for level twelve over the current 36 XP (if my math is correct, it is late, and I'm tired). Besides, who really wants their character to be retired anyway.
To gain a level, it requires a number of XP's equal to your current level.
I like this idea, and I think it would improve things, although the PA system would need a bit of reworking. The difficulty would be judging gp by level - in effect you'd never find more than say 500gp from any one adventure as it would break gp/level otherwise. What happens to the equipment of the tougher enemies? Is it unreasonable to assume the people giving you the mission take the extra wealth in return for expenses and setting you up with the mission in the first place? Pathfinders would effectively be earning a wage (contract payments), rather than the free for all with loot that happens now. You could then tie it to success of the mission - succeed or don't get paid. PA is no use without the cash.
I haven't done the maths, but if expected gp/level increases faster than number of mods/level, then that could be reflected in increased contract rates for more experienced characters. If characters don't like it then they don't get pathfinder missions, and instead have to find quests on their own as adventurers (obviously outside PFS). Playing PFS is a tacit agreement of the contract being offered between character and organisation. The pathfinder society also offers protection and other benefits, so it has added value, and if you double-cross them and keep items found then they're not a good aligned organisation either... They'll punish those characters to maintain discipline (expulsion being the least nasty).
I'd be quite happy with those changes, but why not take it a step further and bypass the levelling up - do that in the players imagination instead? I guess because so many people are addicted to levelling :-)
succeed or don't get paid.
Or to be less harsh, as the character may fail through no fault of their own:
Succeed and get full rewards (500gp), regardless of treasure found.Fail, but either deliver a detailed report showing that you got really close to your objective, or bring back armloads of cash, and get half rewards (250gp).
Fail miserably by finding little money and not reaching a mod-defined waypoint (such as encounter 4), and you get no rewards.
That way DMs don't have to calculate what you missed and it's quick and simple. Scale up for higher tiers as required.
Please don't ever implement this or anything like it. Auto-leveling killed LFR for several people in my area. This would cause the same problems with pathfinder. We got by just fine leveling legit in LG for 7+ years. I see no reason to start handing out free level 7 characters now.
It only feels like a 'free' level 7 character because it's not what you're used to. If the game had historically started people off a bit tougher than farmboy and then levelled slowly (to some extent doing what I'm suggesting), then this wouldn't be strange at all. I've started many home games (as DM and player) at 5th level as the plot wouldn't make sense for someone really inexperienced. My suggestion feels quite normal to me, not a freebie at all.
Auto-levelling is a mixed bag, and I specifically excluded it from my suggestion (ie bump everyone to 8th in 2012, 9th in 2013 etc) because it really bugged me in the living Eberron game (I forget what it was called now). It was the somewhat arbitrary timing, and the size of the jumps that really broke my sense of continuity. Smaller, less frequent jumps *might* work, but then it would impact on scenario access. I picked 7th for that reason (although I appreciate there are a fair number of 1-5 mods that would need reworking).
On the other hand being allowed to start playing LFR again at high level (after a long absence) does two things for me: firstly, it lets me conceive of a wider range of character types than 1st level would permit (my imagination can run wild) and secondly I'd almost never get to play otherwise as my local LFR group generally play that level of game. Given that no-one is being forced to bump character levels in LFR (as opposed to Eberron), I can't see the problem with it. It enables people to play who couldn't otherwise. I've missed several PFS games because my characters were at the wrong level; my suggestion simply negates that issue.
As for LG, it was certainly a trailblazer but just because we did something in LG doesn't mean we *wanted* to do it necessarily, we just didn't have a choice. People joined our group and other people left it for various reasons. That will happen no matter what the rules are.
|
Yikes! I see why you are suggesting this, but that would bore me to tears. I already enjoy the roleplay aspect of the game, so no change in mechanics will alter that, nor will it force others who do not roleplay to do so.
I really enjoy the development of my characters over time as the level's increase. They continue to weave the characters new abilities into the characters personality which is influenced by the adventures and the people I adventure with. I enjoy the differences in the 1st level adventures and the Epic feel of a 10-11 sub tier.
Stuck at 7th level, or Ground Hog Day, means that there will be no reason to ever see a Kobold, Goblin or Mite. It means I will most likely never face a decent dragon or a demon or devil. I will never improve, I will gain no wealth, I will never get a cool new spell, I will gain no new goodies to play with. Yuck.
The good news here is based on where PFS is headed, this will never happen. Think about it from a home game experience. An adventure Path with no leveling, no gold, no goodies. My players would revolt if I forced them to play at 7th level for 18 months.
|
I'll admit, though, that PFS's leveling pace is way too fast in the mid-levels. If we slowed that down in the "sweet spot," that would be pretty, well, sweet.
I agree, I certainly wouldn't mind if after 5th level it took 5 or even 6 exp per level to advance. Something like this would require a huge rework of all the characters and invalidate existing modules.
|
|
Just a thought on the original suggestion, if they open higher level Pathfinder Modules to organized play this might be an interesting option. Players could develop a higher level character and apply the credit to either an existing character. People who enjoy this type of play would have the option of playing higher level mods all the time.
I make that one 'for' (thank you WelbyBumpus!) and everyone else against, so I guess we'll be levelling up for a while longer...
Slowing down xp as people level up, prolonging the adventuring life of a character and giving players a chance to get to know them before the next level bump does seem to have some favour though.
|
|
I must admit I am not a fan of this idea, even being a moderately experienced 3.5 player and having played some PF RPG I would be a bit intimidated having to create and run a 7th level character cold (i.e. not having played them through the lower levels to get to know their abilities). I definately would not be playing a druid as I currently am because I would be overwhelmed by spell choices.
Also I like the mechanical levelling up process :)
As for levelling too fast, I think that all depends on how often you play. I am likely to only play PFS at cons, so may I will play 6 sessions a year, maybe even 9 so at most I will level up 2 to 3 times in a year, which is about spot on for me.
|
This has been tried (more or less) by RPGA with Legacy of the Green Regent and an Eberron campaign that followed it. It's not that fun, you have almost as little real attachment to your character as you do in 4th Edition, and honestly the whole game just becomes a munchkin's paradise.
Also, note how well/long those campaigns went when still running up against Living Greyhawk.
|
|
Please don't ever implement this or anything like it. Auto-leveling killed LFR for several people in my area. This would cause the same problems with pathfinder. We got by just fine leveling legit in LG for 7+ years. I see no reason to start handing out free level 7 characters now.Auto-levelling is a mixed bag, and I specifically excluded it from my suggestion (ie bump everyone to 8th in 2012, 9th in 2013 etc) because it really bugged me in the living Eberron game (I forget what it was called now). It was the somewhat arbitrary timing, and the size of the jumps that really broke my sense of continuity. Smaller, less frequent jumps *might* work, but then it would impact on scenario access. I picked 7th for that reason (although I appreciate there are a fair number of 1-5 mods that would need reworking).
On the other hand being allowed to start playing LFR again at high level (after a long absence) does two things for me: firstly, it lets me conceive of a wider range of character types than 1st level would permit (my imagination can run wild) and secondly I'd almost never get to play otherwise as my local LFR group generally play that level of game. Given that no-one is being forced to bump character levels in LFR (as opposed to Eberron), I can't see the problem with it. It enables people to play who couldn't otherwise. I've missed several PFS games because my characters were at the wrong level; my suggestion simply negates that issue.
I do agree that for the current 4th Edition LFR, the idea of getting to create and play higher level characters (up to a maximum level 11, I think it is) was a controversial one among it's players; I don't mind it personally since it allows for not having to create a whole new 1st level character if some updated errata made the old character "unfun" to play- but I can see the reasoning for the preference of not allowing such.
This has been tried (more or less) by RPGA with Legacy of the Green Regent and an Eberron campaign that followed it. It's not that fun, you have almost as little real attachment to your character as you do in 4th Edition, and honestly the whole game just becomes a munchkin's paradise.
Also, note how well/long those campaigns went when still running up against Living Greyhawk.
Alway sort of figured they ended up stopping once 4th Edition came onto the scene. ;)
Just a thought on the original suggestion, if they open higher level Pathfinder Modules to organized play this might be an interesting option. Players could develop a higher level character and apply the credit to either an existing character. People who enjoy this type of play would have the option of playing higher level mods all the time.
It might not be a bad idea for something like above the current 12th level cap (ie. 13 and above?)
|
I agree that the "3 adventures per level" seems to result in gaining levels too quickly at higher levels, but that is somewhat balanced by the increased difficulty of higher tier adventures (more experience).
As for the restrictive replay rules, I don't like them. I don't think anyone does. Our group meets biweekly and we do run the risk of running out of available modules. I would rather replay for no credit with a pregen than not play at all, a choice which could become real soon.
|
|
As for the restrictive replay rules, I don't like them. I don't think anyone does. Our group meets biweekly and we do run the risk of running out of available modules. I would rather replay for no credit with a pregen than not play at all, a choice which could become real soon.
Perhaps you missed [urlhttp://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderSociety/general/pFSUpdateOfficialReplayRules]this change[/url] which has yet to be published in an updated version of the guide?
Or was that the rule you were referring to as not liking?
|
|
As for the restrictive replay rules, I don't like them. I don't think anyone does. Our group meets biweekly and we do run the risk of running out of available modules. I would rather replay for no credit with a pregen than not play at all, a choice which could become real soon.Perhaps you missed [urlhttp://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderSociety/general/pFSUpdateOfficialReplayRules]this change[/url] which has yet to be published in an updated version of the guide?
Or was that the rule you were referring to as not liking?
I agree with the replay rule as described in Version 3.02 of the organized play rules. A player may play a given scenario a second time for credit with a character of a different faction. I do not like the rule as most recently posted here. I do not like the "risk of death and loss of consumables but no reward or credit" rule, although I am not sure whether that rule applies at the moment. If the character must assume risk with no possibility of gain, then I would rather use a pregen than my own character. I would also rather play a pregen than go home.
If you play you earn 1 credit that is applied to the character that played through the scenario.
If you GM a scenario, you earn 1 credit that can be applied to any character that hasn't played through the scenario.You receive GM or player credit regardless of the order you play/GM the scenario. You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free to use PPP to seat legal tables, but if you already have earned your credits you do not earn any additional ones.
|
|
I agree with the replay rule as described in Version 3.02 of the organized play rules. A player may play a given scenario a second time for credit with a character of a different faction. I do not like the rule as most recently posted here. I do not like the "risk of death and loss of consumables but no reward or credit" rule, although I am not sure whether that rule applies at the moment.
I am a big fan of the corollary of "no risk, no reward." I could live with unlimited replay with "no reward, no risk."