I started playing the D&D ruleset about...oh, I suppose 6 years ago now. Since then, I've played strictly 3.5 on and off during that time. I grew up with 3.5, disliked 4th edition and never played it once. I continued to play on and off until I recently switched to Pathfinder with my current group.
While I adore most of the changes (especially the changes to classes, most races, and skills), there are still a few things that bug me about the system - namely, the removal of XP penalties for item crafting, certain spells, and the removal of a level loss for death.
The new item crafting rules require you to simply pay half the cost of the item in gold (as opposed to half the cost and 1/25 the cost in XP). This allows casters to create items virtually at will for little more than time and gold. He can even extend this to the rest of the party, allowing the party to get items that should empty to bank for half cost. The easier solution is to simply throw the PCs into adventures after a short crafting break, but PCs that lean more toward neutral may very well say "This town is doomed, then, let's head for the next one", or even say "Let's get the supplies and then bring the lab into that Tomb we just cleared out - if we board up the doors, we should have plenty of time".
Following that, there is now no spell that causes any XP penalty for it's casting, not even the mighty Wish and Miracle spells. Gold is a decent deterrent for over-casting such spells, but in time, the PCs can effectively cast it as many times as they want. XP penalties, on the other hand, always hurt. There is little, other than finding the material components, that stands in the way of casting anything they feel like as much as they want.
Finally, my biggest beef, the lack of a level loss when you die. Now there is only a "permanently drained level" which is not really a level loss at all (Raise Dead and Reincarnate have 2 such level drains), which can be instantly restored for nothing more than a casting of Restoration, or 2 if you use the two weaker raising spells. In 3.5, this was an actual level loss - you lose a character level, and any benefits that came from it. Nothing short of a Deities' direct intervention could bring it back.
This all leads to the crux of the thread - is Pathfinder too soft on PCs? I say yes. Crafting could be excused. Spells, I can live with but don't really agree with. I think the lack of a real penalty for dying is over the line, though. There's not much stopping a high-level party (say, 13th level) from simply charging the fighter into God knows what, then having a Contingency on him that teleports him to the Cleric if he dies. The Cleric takes up 10 minutes and some gold, and raises the fighter, and he reports what's in there. That's a poor way of doing it, but the point is still valid.
So, what do others think? Is Pathfinder, compared to 3.5, too soft on the PCs?
Compared to 3.5, it probably is.
About the XP cost for magic items - well, all Pathfinder did was removed the rule WotC added. Before WotC changed it for 3rd edition, crafting magic items in 1st and 2nd edition actually earned you experience. While I do agree with Paizo removing the XP cost, they should of put in another balancing mechanism. Personally, I require the full price to be paid when crafting an item. (I also don't allow magic item shops, so crafting is pretty much the only way to get what you want in my games.)
At least with spells, when they removed the XP they put in a balancing cost. However, that cost is gold, which is rather easy to come by. Personally, I think they should of taken a step back to the older editions. No XP cost, but a chance the shear magic involved could instantly kill your character. Or spells would magically age the caster (and required a system shock roll, with failure killing the caster. )That may be going a bit far, but it is a great deterrent to stop people from using those powerful spells...
Now, the raise dead part. This one I actually am fine with. Actually loosing a level is too much of a hassle - having to recalculate skills and feats, spells, hit points, etc. It is a whole lot easier just to keep everything the same, but take a small penalty. IF you want to make it a bit harsher, look back at the older editions. There, you could only be brought back to life a number of times equal to your constitution. So, a 14 constitution character can only be raised from the dead a maximum of 14 times. Still a lot, but at least it is a little better than unlimited resurrections. (I believe bringing a character back to life also required them to make Resurrection roll similiar to the system shock check for spells above, with failure meaning death. Except failing the Resurrection check means the character dies again. Permanently. Only divine intervention could bring the character back.)
(If you are interested in putting in the Resurrection check, it can be simulated very well as a DC 7 or 8 Constitution check. Constitution check, not Fortitude save, meaning the only thing added to the check is your consitution modifier.)
It's all relative. Compared to 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 are laughably soft on characters. Compared to the original edition, 2e was somewhat soft on characters. Compared to 4e, Pathfinder is crushingly hard on characters.
I never liked the XP cost to anything. I never could reconcile that against the verisimilitude of the system. It seemed to me to be exactly what it was, a means to control the magic economy through punishing the player through their character. It made no actual sense in any mechanical way. I say this as a player who had his main PC for several years be a wizard wholly devoted to creating magic items, since his major goal in life was to create artifacts.
Whether 3.5 is too easy on characters or not, the XP cost mechanic is one thing I am glad to see finally out of the game.
Hmmmm. Well, for my part I would say that around 9th lvl (when raise dead is first available) 5k worth of gold is a considerable sum of money. Too much so just to "zerg" a pc back for recon work.
Of course, 5k becomes more of a trifling amount at higher levels. But by then higher level spells are available for bringing a pc back, and they have less "sting" to them.
I think part of the current design philosophy is to keep the game rolling and keep all players involved. I grew up "old school" gaming and know firsthand what it's like to sit through SEVERAL gaming sessions waiting for the party to get to a place they could revive my character. It's a real drag even for the most commited player.
As far as items and whatnot, PF seems to be dedicated to making some of the reward levels of the game a little more accessible. For example, in Ultimate Magic I was at first shocked to read of an 8th lvl pc being able to clone himself (alchemist:Clone Master) but upon further reflection I realized that out of the dozens of campaigns my group has played, we only ever had pcs high enough level to cast clone TWICE. So why not have a little more of the "good stuff" available a little sooner when there's still plenty of "life" left in a campaign?
After playing over two decades under a "killer" DM I appreciate a little more relaxed environment. (Or would, seeing as how I havent been able to convert our group to PF yet) Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
The ease of making items in Pathfinder does bother me a little. But that is mainly because I had a player (rogue) with a concept that involved making magic items and poison at every opportunity. His plan was to make sure he had the items he wanted, as well as selling them (mainly the poison) to make lots of gold. None of my other players would exploit the rules to this degree, so that is when it became a problem.
I don't mind the lack of xp penalty for casting the big spells. I have never liked the idea of taking xp away from the PC's - except in making magic items. :-)
Which is why I also don't mind the lack of level loss for dying. My goal as a DM is to challenge the PC's, and sometimes "almost" kill them. I don't actually want it to happen. But alas this is not an exact science (for me) and sometimes PC's die - dice happen.
Call me weak but I don't like doing that to a player. Maybe I am too emotional but when I am a player and my PC dies - it is upsetting. I know some of the other players in my group feel the same.
So my plan is to selectively make it difficult to acquire and cast the required spells when a PC's dies - depending on the situation. The fact that the party doesn't even have a PC cleric right now will make it even easier to control.
I am glad to be rid of the burden of stripping a coveted level from one the PC's just because the dice fell badly that day.
|
Depends on whether or not you use the Encounter Table. One of my GMs had never seen that, he suffers from a bit of Aspergers (not trying to be insulting to him, we've looked at all of the symptoms and he has basically all of them), but he's definitely high-ish functioning. Suffice to say there was one encounter where we were level 4 and fighting pirates, so he took the NPCs from the GameMastery Guide, most notably the Raiders, Vikings, and Pirate Captain in the marauder's section. He also had them outnumber us 2 to one, while he did give us a few NPCs to work with, it wasn't nearly enough, as the highest level NPC was a level 3 adept.
We actually did fairly well all things told, we killed about half the pirates before having to run away, thanks to the otherwise useless witch's web spell. My character was killed because I was protecting the adept and the monk died because he hopped over to their boat to anchor token it.
Suffice to say, most of us were very annoyed with him, I showed him the Encounter Table, and he cleaned up his game. Despite his issues, he's been less lethal, to me anyway, than the GM who is running Kingmaker for us.
About the XP cost for magic items - well, all Pathfinder did was removed the rule WotC added. Before WotC changed it for 3rd edition, crafting magic items in 1st and 2nd edition actually earned you experience. While I do agree with Paizo removing the XP cost, they should of put in another balancing mechanism. Personally, I require the full price to be paid when crafting an item. (I also don't allow magic item shops, so crafting is pretty much the only way to get what you want in my games.)
Not only was it added in 3e D&D but it was done so in an attempted to slow caster (wizard) progression. A failed attempt. Not only did it never achieve that result but it actually disinsitivised player crafting to the point where it all but vanished until options the 3.5 Artificer.
I also agree about 3e level loss. Pain in the ass. The Pathfider take is far superior and easier to apply, which makes it more likely to be used and make PCs lives all that much more painful. I would also include the revised poison, disease, and curse rules to be another danger in Pathfinder that 3.5 PCs rarely had to care much about (either because they were to very strong, or to hard for a DM to manage). In the GMG one of the city disadvantages is even Plauged and gives a GM a good guide line on how often to have PCs check for getting infected.
Thanks for the responses guys. I love seeing intelligent opinions other than my own.
@Jeraa - I didn't know that Wizards of the Coast added the XP penalty for crafting in 3.0, but then I don't know much about any edition before 3. It's nice to see you agree with me on the balance.
@Brassbaboon - I actually disagree on the XP cost and verisimilitude. While I can agree with you on crafting items (I craft an item and lose life force?), I disagree with spells. Take Miracle for example - you directly ask for your Deity to intercede. As a show of faith, you have to give of yourself directly. Perhaps for other spells it's less sense (though I can make a case for Wish, Permanency, and probably a few others), but I think the world is still believable with it in there.
@PharaoahKhan - Yeah "Killer" DMs suck. Wanting more relaxation after that is fine. All the same, there's a line; I don't want things handed to me, I want to earn them.
@Dren Everblack - I disagree with not wanting to let yourself kill PCs (I wouldn't let my players in on such a decision, if I made it), but I can respect your opinion easily enough. If you have methods in your world to control such things (and make sense), then more power to you. No PC cleric helps, to be sure.
@Klerbert L. Hall - I understand all of it, but disagree about parties of different levels. It's harder to design such encounters, but you can definitely create ways to let everyone contribute (such as having lower-level minions for the weaker characters along with the boss). Character death happens arbitrarily if the DM lets it happen arbitrarily. If the PC was doing excellent all night (playing smart, that is to say), and he would die from a bad critical him from an Ork that is supposed to be no challenge, I would fudge to let him live (I don't let my players see my rolls). If he acted foolishly (like charging into enemies when he should not), I would let him die. I have killed 3 PCs in my days as a DM. Two I would let die again, one I would change if I could.
I'd like to add in another question to my first one - Let's act on the assumption that death is too forgiving in Pathfinder. How would one go about making it a more permanent penalty to make the death hurt more without crippling a character?
I'd like to add in another question to my first one - Let's act on the assumption that death is too forgiving in Pathfinder. How would one go about making it a more permanent penalty to make the death hurt more without crippling a character?
One of the ways I mentioned in my last post - setting a limit to the number of times they can come back to life. Probably equal to their Constitution score. (If for some reason something without a constitution score can be brought back to life, use Charisma instead.) Still means that they can get in quite a few resurrections, but puts a limit on them.
I would argue that any permanent penalty is crippling. Make it so the character being raised has to pay for it. This hurts, but doesn't cripple. Or make the penalty negative levels only wear off with time. Don't let them cast Restoration to fix it. Just don't criplle their character by giving them a permanent penalty. If I had to choose between a character at a lower level versus a new character, I'd always make the new character. I'm sure a lot of players would do the same.
Considering that the current adventure path first part resulted in a total party kill on the last boss I'd say not all that easy going, my players made some big mistakes a lot of which made the boss real hard to deal with.
|
|
If I had to choose between a character at a lower level versus a new character, I'd always make the new character. I'm sure a lot of players would do the same.
So if you had say, a 10th level character, he dies, is raised and therefore looses a level, and the GM says "Okay, you can keep playing this current character at 9th level or make a new 1st level character." You'd make a new one because the old one is now in your mind broken???
I'm the first to admit that I'm an old "You kids get off my lawn!" gragnard, but I just don't understand the mindset of players today...
If I had to choose between a character at a lower level versus a new character, I'd always make the new character. I'm sure a lot of players would do the same.So if you had say, a 10th level character, he dies, is raised and therefore looses a level, and the GM says "Okay, you can keep playing this current character at 9th level or make a new 1st level character." You'd make a new one because the old one is broken???
I'm the first to admit that I'm an old "You kids get off my lawn!" gragnard, but I just don't understand the mindset of players today...
... *
So, the "make a new character" implies making a new level 10 character, not going back to level 1. Most GMs introduce new characters at the same level as the rest of the party, so when one dies, if you lose a level, and your GM introduces a new character at the level your old character died at, what would you do?
Less confusing now?
@ the OP:
Lol, that's brutal, bro. I'm glad I'm not playing in your game.
For me personally, the more punitive a GM is, the less chance I'll stick around in their game. If I die, I die, I got no problem with that. I just don't like to be punished extra for dying, that's a bit like adding insult to injury.
That being said, I'm never the guy that begs the party to spend thousands of gp to get some NPC to resurrect me if I'm dead. I hate being a burden, so I'm much more likely to just make a new character.
What's this ex pee you speak of?
I done away with ex pee so to be honest I like the changes. Is it too soft? Perhaps im not too worried about it. Hasn't been problem in my game neither has it made it easier.
I no longer use XP in my campaigns. I level up characters according to plot. When they need to level up to continue to be challenged, they level up. All together. If a new character joins the group, they join at the same level.
I don't track XP, don't award XP and don't want to hear about XP. It's all about the story in my campaigns.
I never had a problem with crafting or casting spells with XP costs, or even losing levels in 3.5. The way the XP system worked, you usually caught back up pretty quickly and sometimes, if you time it right, passed the other members of the party (which was always strange but it happened multiple times in games). Pathfinder no longer uses the same XP system that 3.5 did, so adding in XP cost for crafting, dying, and spells, would create a XP gap that cannot ever be closed.
I'd rather see a permanent Con loss than the current or past level loss for raise dead and the like (similar to how raise dead works if you're 1st level) . It's much easier to calculate the effects of Con loss than it is for a true level loss, and you can bandaid the Con loss enough that it doesn't serious impact game play.
I'd like to add in another question to my first one - Let's act on the assumption that death is too forgiving in Pathfinder. How would one go about making it a more permanent penalty to make the death hurt more without crippling a character?
I'm of a completely different mindset. I'd rather have PC's never die, unless the death is particularly compelling to the story. I don't care about random deaths, I've never felt like they added anything to my play experience.
There are a lot of other RPG's where the players have more control over their death, or have a limited resource that they control that prevents death (if they spend the resource on other things, it might not be available to prevent a death).
But that's me. I find RPG's more interesting where there are other consequences for losing a fight besides death. It makes for a more interesting story.
|
In one campaign in 3.x, the character who could craft items was routinely behind the others in reward. We also used a system where payers could vote to give a bonus award to each other for cool rp and stuff. One night, we started by resolving downtime stuff. He had crafted some minor stuff for the whole party. As luck would have it the dice were against him once the adventure got started. He was incredibly ineffective. So, when voting came around, the votes gave out bonus xp's to everyone but him. The pc's name was Zack. Tl this day, whenever a player gets a raw deal, we refer to it as "Getting zacked."
We were all happy that Pathfinder had more attitude and less zacktitude.
By that, I mean that all of those xp costs weren't really fun. They didn't add to the drama of a situation. They just added frustration to the players who weren't being good team mates if they were reluctant to penalize themselves to keep the game moving (rez a PC, craft an item, etc.)
If that's softer, then so be it.
Whether 3.5 is too easy on characters or not, the XP cost mechanic is one thing I am glad to see finally out of the game.
This made me laugh...as item crafting only cost exp in 3rd/3.5...before that you actualy got exp for crafting magic items...
|
|
Do we really need to start boasting about how long we've been playing the game?Did you even read my post...Yes, I did. I just don't see what "value added" there was in it.
What the guy was saying was that there has been a "culture shift" since he started playing and that he doesn't like that "culture shift".
I kinda think he's got a point in a way (because DnD has become more MMORPG-esque), though, as you and I both know, the sense of a "culture shift" in the game is pretty constant - people always feel that way (because, in my opinion, that feeling is always justified).
Ahh, then you saw that I follower that with; "And from my perspective"...
And that perhaps, just maybe, there was a little tongue-in-cheek going on...
And if you've read the thread, then you would have also seen, that I further said (up-thread) that I "don't understand", or to say it more accurately, I just don't get, this shift in player culture of today...
your GM introduces a new character at the level your old character died at, what would you do?
Less confusing now?
I suppose. But I still fail to see how a character one lousy level lower is somehow now broken and unplayable...
But then see my grognard comment in my last post...
I'd say it really depends on where that level difference takes place. If the group is full of 15th lvl characters and you come in at 14th, does it really matter? Probably not.
If the group is full of 2nd lvl characters and you come in at 1st lvl? That makes a pretty big difference I think.
Also, I feel that these level differences could be the start of a "death spiral" type negative feedback loop, where you die and come back at a lower level, then die again because you are at a lower level, then get penalized another level and die again.
Safer all around to not punish the player, unless he died doing something truly idiotic, in which case please feel free to pile the punishment on him.
Whether 3.5 is too easy on characters or not, the XP cost mechanic is one thing I am glad to see finally out of the game.This made me laugh...as item crafting only cost exp in 3rd/3.5...before that you actualy got exp for crafting magic items...
If I remember right you even got XP for recharging staffs and could buddy with a cleric to help recharge more cleric driven items.
"unless he died doing something truly idiotic, in which case please feel free to pile the punishment on him."
Like a level 1 Wizard being killed by a house cat?
The XP cost in v3.0 and v3.5 was a joke from the start.
I was a crafting fiend in those days and you know what happened? I was down a few levels at first, but I kept up with the party anyways due to my superior amount of gear.
You know what else happened? Because I was one or two levels lower than anyone else, I got MORE XP. Before long, I was two levels AHEAD of the party AND I had twice the amount of gear.
A. COMPLETE. JOKE.
Paizo finally fixed it, both by giving static XP regardless of level and by removing XP costs for anything and everything in the game. Thank God for that!
As for Pathfinder being easy on PCs? I dunno. Characters certainly are more powerful than before, but monsters and NPC encounters are better balanced as well. My personal observation is that we all die about as much as we used to (which is a lot).
I'm not going to call anyone out here, but can we please stay away from this "current generation of gamers suck" argument? There are at least 3 or 4 threads full of grognards whining about "you young punk kids" already.
The whole business is rude and condescending. Older gamers constantly act like they lived through some horrid ordeal gaming back in the 80s. Like living through a 2E campaign compares to living through World War 2 or the Great Depression or something like that.
Now, said older gamers whine and insult younger gamers because they didn't live through the horrible "dark days" of D&D in the 80s. Get over it already, this constant negativity is obnoxious. Also, any generalizations about younger gamers tend to be false because generalizations about anything are usually false.
your GM introduces a new character at the level your old character died at, what would you do?
Less confusing now?
I suppose. But I still fail to see how a character one lousy level lower is somehow now broken and unplayable...
But then see my grognard comment in my last post...
It's not just the one level. Now he's more likely to die again, since he's lower level than the rest of the party.
And the options seem to be "Old character, at a lesser level" or "new character, maybe same character concept but with modified feats / skills / spells."
Essentially, it's the ability to completely redo your character and make any changes to things you chose in the past that really aren't working out for you.
I started playing the D&D ruleset about...oh, I suppose 6 years ago now. Since then, I've played strictly 3.5 on and off during that time. I grew up with 3.5, disliked 4th edition and never played it once. I continued to play on and off until I recently switched to Pathfinder with my current group.While I adore most of the changes (especially the changes to classes, most races, and skills), there are still a few things that bug me about the system - namely, the removal of XP penalties for item crafting, certain spells, and the removal of a level loss for death.
I disliked the removal of xp penalties too (and argued against it in beta). I could almost see thier point though. I ended up dumping the xp penalty for one shot items (potions, scrolls, etc.) and keeping it for permanent items (rings, armor, weapons, etc.). I could live with this and it makes the distinction between consumable / disposable and permanent magic. Xp penalties for some magic is OK (although I allow ritual sacrifices - voluntarily or otherwise - to help take up the slack).
Level loss for death I kept. No Con penalty like the old days though -- a characters stats effect more than they did prior to 3E. Someone opined that they would rather make a new character (of the same level as the rest of the party apparently). I don't start new characters at the parties level. So much for that lack of loyalty :)
This all leads to the crux of the thread - is Pathfinder too soft on PCs? I say yes. Crafting could be excused. Spells, I can live with but don't really agree with. I think the lack of a real penalty for dying is over the line, though. There's not much stopping a high-level party (say, 13th level) from simply charging the fighter into God knows what, then having a Contingency on him that teleports him to the Cleric if he dies. The Cleric takes up 10 minutes and some gold, and raises the fighter, and he reports what's in there. That's a poor way of doing it, but the point is still valid.So, what do others think? Is Pathfinder, compared to 3.5, too soft on the PCs?
Only as soft as the DM. I don't think a game should be cut throat (and I've played since 1974) but it needs to be a challenge. The issue has to be in doubt, imo, for it to really be fun. No risk, no fun. The need to keep the party lock stepped at level X and on the path barring a tpk and startover is, to me, a bit odd. But then, I run a homebrew sand box game. I'm not strapped into an adventure path for the duration. Players may pursue something and later drop it if it's too much or delay and come back at it later. Not to say there's no consequences for that, of course. Some of my villains have gone PC hunting as a result of these failed adventures (which is a good way to drag them back into something when they're ready for it). On occasion bad things have happened to the game world or some NPC friend of the players when they botched it. And sometimes you just walk away and forget it. That's life. This type of game allows the PCs to "adjust the difficulty" through their own choices.
your GM introduces a new character at the level your old character died at, what would you do?
Less confusing now?
I suppose. But I still fail to see how a character one lousy level lower is somehow now broken and unplayable...
But then see my grognard comment in my last post...
It's not just the one level. Now he's more likely to die again, since he's lower level than the rest of the party.
And the options seem to be "Old character, at a lesser level" or "new character, maybe same character concept but with modified feats / skills / spells."
Essentially, it's the ability to completely redo your character and make any changes to things you chose in the past that really aren't working out for you.
Well, as the GM I'd probably discourage this and just restore the PC's level if he is raised from the dead. If the player wants to play a whole new character and is excited about that, then fine, but if the player wants to continue playing the old character and the party is willing to raise him from the dead, I generally just restored his level with a "restoration" spell or something like it.
I really, really don't like unbalanced parties, and I really, really want the players to feel like they are contributing to the experience. Level imbalance is one of the best ways to have a player disengage from the story.
Keep in mind that there is a set amount of gp wealth per level in the game. The only thing that the craft feats give you is the ability to make custom magic items. It doesn't circumvent this gp wealth per level. The fact that it costs half as much to make a magic item doesn't mean that you get effectively twice as many magic items.
The ability to make custom magic items is nice. It's comparable to pimping out your car. It doesn't turn it into a jet engine, but the paint job, hydraulics, etc. are just the way you want them.
Keep in mind that there are gp wealth-by-level recommendations in the game. Also, that even if your GM is careful to stick to those guidelines fairly carefully, per RAW, magic items do cost 50% as much to craft as to purchase, so, yes, this does mean that the same amount of money will fund the acquisition of twice as much booty - the game economy is abstracted to avoid boring complexity, and this is one result of that.
Given that a Headband of Intellect +4 makes the save DCs of a wizard's spells *all* go up by 2, that a Belt of Strength +2 means that a Fighter can do an extra point of damage (1.5 if he's wielding two-handed, effectively 2 if he's got an odd strength modifier) and swings at an extra +1 to hit, and that a Ghost Touch weapon *doubles* the amount of damage dealt to incorporeal creatures, I cannot agree with the allegation that all magic items are just for show - many of them make under-the-hood upgrades.
The scenario of the doubled magical items due to the gold they have going twice as far, however, is not realistic - the GM is in control of the rest of the world, and ought to be able to present the players with scenarios where they will run out of time to avoid having this doubling of effective magical item potential take place. Either that, or he's factored the party's intentions to craft and craft and craft into his playbook, and has adventures planned to take their additional resources into account.
To answer the original question, I think that the changes in Pathfinder, as compared to 3.5, *allow* for a softer game, but don't necessarily *force* games to be soft by default. A canny GM wishing to make the game harder will restrict access to diamonds and diamond dust, for example, to limit or block a party's ability to use Restoration to remove permanent negative levels resulting from death (such a use of Restoration takes an amount of diamond dust costing 1,000gp, and only removes one permanent negative level possessed by a target in a one-week period). Other limitations can be introduced along similar lines.
Also, any generalizations about younger gamers tend to be false because generalizations about anything are usually false.
Unless cited with supporting, verifiable statistics. Then, according to several studies on Statistics in Journalism and Media, such generalizations are only 50% likely to be false.
XD
your GM introduces a new character at the level your old character died at, what would you do?
Less confusing now?
I suppose. But I still fail to see how a character one lousy level lower is somehow now broken and unplayable...
But then see my grognard comment in my last post...
It's not just the one level. Now he's more likely to die again, since he's lower level than the rest of the party.
And the options seem to be "Old character, at a lesser level" or "new character, maybe same character concept but with modified feats / skills / spells."
Essentially, it's the ability to completely redo your character and make any changes to things you chose in the past that really aren't working out for you.
Well, as the GM I'd probably discourage this and just restore the PC's level if he is raised from the dead. If the player wants to play a whole new character and is excited about that, then fine, but if the player wants to continue playing the old character and the party is willing to raise him from the dead, I generally just restored his level with a "restoration" spell or something like it.
I really, really don't like unbalanced parties, and I really, really want the players to feel like they are contributing to the experience. Level imbalance is one of the best ways to have a player disengage from the story.
This one makes me wonder. They could contribute at, say 10th level. But not at 9th level with the same gear they had before? The whole module with identical level thing started because the modules tended to competition between players. It rarely was that even (thanks to PC death and variable class experience to go up levels) in ordinary play.
Contributions can be made even if you lose a feat, a couple of hit points and skill points. I don't play APs though, so it's hard for me to judge how it works there... are they balanced that close to the edge?
This one makes me wonder. They could contribute at, say 10th level. But not at 9th level with the same gear they had before? The whole module with identical level thing started because the modules tended to competition between players. It rarely was that even (thanks to PC death and variable class experience to go up levels) in ordinary play.
Contributions can be made even if you lose a feat, a couple of hit points and skill points. I don't play APs though, so it's hard for me to judge how it works there... are they balanced that close to the edge?
It's not about overall game balance to me. It's about player enthusiasm and engagement. I'm a player too. I know what it's like to play at a lower level than everyone else in the party, just because you happened to be the one who died instead of character B who could have just as easily been the victim of the random critical hit.
I just don't like it, never have liked it and that's why I don't use XP at all anymore. Parties are balanced, players are engaged, I don't get a constant stream of private messages bragging about their "role playing brilliance" to ask for bonus XP.... I don't get questions asking whey a character DIDN'T get bonus XP...
I just don't care for the whole XP thing. I wish I had dropped it years ago.
You're right Pathfinder is a softies game.
The Man Games forum is that way ---->
Don't mind that cliff ahead of you. No, keep walking, it'll be fine.
Hehehe.
It's not about overall game balance to me. It's about player enthusiasm and engagement. I'm a player too. I know what it's like to play at a lower level than everyone else in the party, just because you happened to be the one who died instead of character B who could have just as easily been the victim of the random critical hit.
I just don't like it, never have liked it and that's why I don't use XP at all anymore. Parties are balanced, players are engaged, I don't get a constant stream of private messages bragging about their "role playing brilliance" to ask for bonus XP.... I don't get questions asking whey a character DIDN'T get bonus XP...
I just don't care for the whole XP thing. I wish I had dropped it years ago.
I've played down a level or two and stayed engaged. Guess it depends on the individuals. Thank the odd gods of the galaxies that I haven't had your experience, no pun intended, with experience points and players. They sound just a bit whiney. Note to self: "Must thank my players more often".
*edit* Not, btw that I'm some uber player. The people I play with tend to pull together for whoever "bit the bullet" for the group. makes it easier to take I guess.
You guys should try gaming with demons, then when you lost a PC. They cut off the tip of one of your fingers at the first knuckle and then the second knuckle at the next death and so on. Now thats hard core gaming. :)
Hah! Demons; they expect you to be inventive. Now Devils... damn rules lawyers every one :D
I'm glad the xp and permanent lvl loss is gone. Much easier to keep track of than trying to remember what you rolled for hit points the last level. Using xp as a cost was a bad idea. Slows advancement when a DM wants to keep everyone advancing at the same pace.
I think the permanent negative level was a fine way to do it. Though I might have made it permanent until you advanced to your next level rather than lasting only a week. It's not that important to me.
I don't see any problem with the changes. I prefer them. Makes the game easier to run.
I've played down a level or two and stayed engaged. Guess it depends on the individuals. Thank the odd gods of the galaxies that I haven't had your experience, no pun intended, with experience points and players. They sound just a bit whiney. Note to self: "Must thank my players more often".*edit* Not, btw that I'm some uber player. The people I play with tend to pull together for whoever "bit the bullet" for the group. makes it easier to take I guess.
So have I, and so have most of the players I game with, except for those who only started playing with Pathfinder. I have exaggerated the XP issues for effect, but regardless of the exaggeration, I have always felt that XP was arbitrary and that characters in a party should advance equally. Back in the old days different classes advanced at different XP values, so it was nearly impossible to keep the party balanced.
Rules changes that make it easier to keep the party at the same level and don't strain credulity make the game better in my opinion. I never saw any game play advantage to having characters lose XP or constitution points for dying, especially when they died through heroic sacrifice or through random acts of capricious dice. I long ago stopped imposing a level loss penalty on raised characters. My magic item making wizard made items in every version of D&D (has not been in Pathfinder) and the whole XP cost thing in 3.0 and 3.5 was just bizarre and painful. As I said, I'm glad it's gone.
I am not saying that level loss or XP costs make the game unfun or unplayable. I'm just saying that to me getting rid of them makes a fun game more fun and more playable. That's all.
The new item crafting rules require you to simply pay half the cost of the item in gold (as opposed to half the cost and 1/25 the cost in XP). This allows casters to create items virtually at will for little more than time and gold. He can even extend this to the rest of the party, allowing the party to get items that should empty to bank for half cost. The easier solution is to simply throw the PCs into adventures after a short crafting break, but PCs that lean more toward neutral may very well say "This town is doomed, then, let's head for the next one", or even say "Let's get the supplies and then bring the lab into that Tomb we just cleared out - if we board up the doors, we should have plenty of time".
The XP penalty was never big enough to really matter anyway. Those that wanted to craft would craft and a decked out 11th level character(let's say he burned his XP so he did not level) is stronger than a non-decked out 12th level character.
Following that, there is now no spell that causes any XP penalty for it's casting, not even the mighty Wish and Miracle spells. Gold is a decent deterrent for over-casting such spells, but in time, the PCs can effectively cast it as many times as they want. XP penalties, on the other hand, always hurt. There is little, other than finding the material components, that stands in the way of casting anything they feel like as much as they want.
Those material components cost money, and even if the money is there that does not mean the material component is available. This reality also applies to spell that require expensive diamonds to bring someone back to life.
The level loss also made people just want to make a new character or a clone of the old one. Now both groups get what they want. The more laid back groups get an easier fix to permanent levels. For the more hardcore groups those expensive components can be hard to come by.Pathfinder is not too hard or soft. It is just right since now the power is in the GM's hand to control death.