|
But instead of being snarky about him only having seven years of experience, how about backing off and supporting him
I understand that it is sometimes difficult to read intent behind posts on the internet, but I daresay that any post starting with "LOL" and ending with ;-P might just be a tad less than serious...
The only one I was snarky to however, was you. And that was because of your attack on me without reading (or seeming to understand) the entire post you responded to...
*EDIT*
And besides, it seems that Tim448 (which is whom I was responding to originally and whom you are "defending") understood what I meant...
Actually that was exactly my point. You implied that "players today" would give up an existing character to avoid level less. I pointed out that I have only played recently and my players have either preferred to have characters Raised, or have made a new character for a reason other than the mechanical penalty.
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
NOPE... Dont' think they're too soft at ALL!!! Granted this is all from a 2E perspective, I never played 3rd before Pathfinder
1) I despise the concept of xp loss. SOMEONE is making all those +1 swords out there... and the idea of HURTING the creator to make them actually boggles my mind.
WHY would a wizard ever make a magical sword or item that he would never use himself?
2) THAT said, I'm not overly fond of the 'gift certificate' method. We've got a crafter in our group that can pretty much make whatever he wants. In THAT game, it seems to be working... we're kind of in the middle of nowhere..
However, I'm old school enough to believe that treasure is something that should be FOUND... Not just get whatever treasure you can... SELL it, and then make what you WANT... It seems fundamentaly wrong.
Those two complaints aside, I've got a sorcerer and a Rogue around 7-8th level... who are CONSTANTLY unconscious. Between the rules for swarms... Strength draining shadows... noncorporeal DR... DR in GENERAL... Even the simple stuff from 2E is a MASSIVELY dangerous battle of EPIC proportions!
The fact that you don't lose a level if you die HARDLY makes the game a cakewalk.
Those two complaints aside, I've got a sorcerer and a Rogue around 7-8th level... who are CONSTANTLY unconscious. Between the rules for swarms... Strength draining shadows... noncorporeal DR... DR in GENERAL... Even the simple stuff from 2E is a MASSIVELY dangerous battle of EPIC proportions!The fact that you don't lose a level if you die HARDLY makes the game a cakewalk.
Why are they also almost dead, and what is noncorporeal DR? I am assuming you mixed up a game term somewhere?
|
|
Sort of
But were you offended?
Or did you take my meaning wrong (in any way, shape or form) when I said the following?
LOL...
Understand, I've been playing D&D for over 25 years now (not bragging, just stating a matter-of-fact). And so from my perspective, your "7 years, give or take" fits into that category or "players today" ;-p
|
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...
Yeah, but we grognards should know how much this can suck. Back in AD&D, earning that "one lousy level" could take YEARS in real time, even if you played actively. I remember a time I had *finally* achieved 11th level for my fighter, only to lose it at the beginning of the adventure to a wraith; I had the option to either demand we head back or bite the bullet and not earn any XP for the adventure (the cost of Restoration). I chose the latter, although I was pretty upset about it.
In 3E, my 12th level character was hit by a maximized Energy Drain-spell, bringing him to, what, 4th level? No wonder we decided to call it the day and camp long enough to remove those negative levels (besides, the DC was so high that I needed all the buff spells our spellcasters could cast). In the end, one of those levels became permanent loss, and it hurt again, even though not as badly as in AD&D (you level up pretty quickly in 3E, after all).
Another 3E example: my high-level fighter was attacked by a high-level vampire barbarian, and I started to take negative levels way too quickly to my taste. In PF this would have been a less of a problem, but in hostile environment in the middle of the session... yeah, my brave fighter fled and yelled at the spellcasters to neutralize the threat.
My point? Level loss is *brutal*, from a player's perspective; especially if you feel like you've really *earned* your XP. GM may see it as a resource that is earned, lost, spent, whatever; for a player it's a *permanent* investment in abilities. If the GM constantly tries to take it away, players might not be enjoying the game. In fact, I saw a lot of good roleplayers begin to metagame in 3E, because they were *afraid*.Fortunately, the PF rules have helped a lot with this, because even permanently negative levels can be shaken off, but they could have gone even further with this.
Why are they also almost dead, and what is noncorporeal DR? I am assuming you mixed up a game term somewhere?
Those two complaints aside, I've got a sorcerer and a Rogue around 7-8th level... who are CONSTANTLY unconscious. Between the rules for swarms... Strength draining shadows... noncorporeal DR... DR in GENERAL... Even the simple stuff from 2E is a MASSIVELY dangerous battle of EPIC proportions!The fact that you don't lose a level if you die HARDLY makes the game a cakewalk.
LOL
It's possible! But actually trying to damage noncorporeal things is INSANE... And with the shadows... it doesn't matter HOW many hitpoints you have, if you only have 12 strength and they're swinging with.. what is it? 1d6 str damage an attack...
on a good roll your undead in 2 rounds...
DR has been a (probably) seperate issue. Sometimes it's just tough to get around at lower levels...
No AoE spells/effects burned a rogue against a swarm of bees... and later leeches...
and as for always so close to death... We're playing a Serpent skull game right now.. and SERIOUSLY!!! You have never SEEN so many missed FORT saves... The dice turn on me like a rabid dog... Poor Corrigan the 1/2 elf rogue is becoming LEGENDARY with the pain and suffering he brings on himself ;)
As for the game being soft.. Most of the complaints are about what happens after you die... If you've already DIED, then I'd argue the game wasn't too soft.
Personally I've never been fond of 'Raise dead' spells... just them alone take most of the threat out of the world. I've only had a few characters die, and when they did the spell wasn't available... so that hasn't come up yet. For the most part, I'd rather try out a new character idea than ressurect the dead one.
UNLESS there was some MASSIVE storyline attached to it...
|
1) XP costs are just a supergargantuan PITA (and besides, there's nothing a higher level PFS character would love to do more than delay retirement).
2) Level-loss w/death just means all squishies lose levels until they're hopelessly left behind. (And, once again, losing levels actually becomes attractive in organized-play if you're facing a retirement-cap: "Aw, dang! I got killed again. Guess it's back to 10th level, and I'll just keep playing those cap-level mods with my most favoritest character ever, who has more bling now than the gods themselves because he just keeps raking in the cash and PA!")
3) If you have a "roster" of characters, permanent level loss means it becomes effectively impossible to advance them with any degree of alacrity.
So....yeah: depending upon the campaign mechanic, level-loss is either a hideous impediment, or a savory piece of cheese.
|
|
Offended? No. Surprised you totally missed what I meant, a little.
Well, I'm glad you were not offended :-)
I did not miss your point however...
My response, by latching solely onto you saying that you have only been gaming for 7 or so years was just an attempt at a little silliness and humor by saying I consider that still being a little "wet behind the ears"...
So, as I said uptheard, I realize intent is not always clear on the internet...
I apologize for any confusion...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
if chaper magic items is a problem the simplest answer is to limit the amount of loot received. Low fantasy fans should like poorer economies anyway. Wow, GM's have the power of the purse strings!
I miss Dark Sun where sometimes a skin of water was a treasured treasure.
Why are they also almost dead, and what is noncorporeal DR? I am assuming you mixed up a game term somewhere?
Those two complaints aside, I've got a sorcerer and a Rogue around 7-8th level... who are CONSTANTLY unconscious. Between the rules for swarms... Strength draining shadows... noncorporeal DR... DR in GENERAL... Even the simple stuff from 2E is a MASSIVELY dangerous battle of EPIC proportions!The fact that you don't lose a level if you die HARDLY makes the game a cakewalk.
LOL
It's possible! But actually trying to damage noncorporeal things is INSANE... And with the shadows... it doesn't matter HOW many hitpoints you have, if you only have 12 strength and they're swinging with.. what is it? 1d6 str damage an attack...
I meant almost always dead. Darn typo.
As for shadow it is true that if they get two good rolls in that it can be game over, but they also have crap hit points, and that is a good thing.If the players know you like them then they should be prepared for them. My players know I like grappers(mostly tigers) so they make sure to keep a lookout in high grass type areas.
Of course if you are a new GM for them they just have to learn on the job.
If the players know you like them then they should be prepared for them. My players know I like grappers(mostly tigers) so they make sure to keep a lookout in high grass type areas.
Of course if you are a new GM for them they just have to learn on the job.
It Takes All Kinds (tm)... I'd consider this Heightened Alert in grassy areas to be metagamey at my table, and I'd be grumpy at my players. (Only a smidge tho.)
As far as Incorporeal creatures... I think what Phantom meant by "Incorporeal DR" is the change from 3.5's 50% miss chance to a straight up 1/2 damage from magical, non-ghost-touch, non-force-effect sources.
That is a MAJOR change, and one that can really mess up parties with low strength scores (or low constitution scores in the case of Wraiths, though Wraiths offer a save whereas Shadows do not) and no easy avenues for ghost-touch armor/weapons or force damage.
That said, a party with high touch AC values or some other defense against being hit by Shadows will actually benefit from the change, as opposed to being at the mercy of chance.
Mmmh I think D&D has always been "soft" on players.
It's high fantasy, you have to do epic deeds, and there's a lot of magic object, combat are very level dependant, meaning a level 10 characters can kill 20 level 1 pretty easily...
Compare to Warhammer first edition (don't know the new ones so I can't talk about them) you can't be raised : Magic object are scarce, combat are very mortal and fighting multiple opponnent is always difficult (even a really advanced character will surely die against 20 base NPC).
In exchange for that you've got some destiny point to avoid some injury or to perform great deeds.
But warhammer is a "grit" game, the world is on the ddecline, all the background is very dark, being a mage is difficult and dangerous. It's more a low magic game.
So yes, D&D is easy on players, you can say that Mutant and Mastermind is easy on players to... But it's the same thing as between D&D and Warhammer, players expectation of the game is not the same if you play in a super-heroes background, a high fantasy background or a grit backround... So the rule reflect that... ;)
You can play a grit game or a low magic game with D&D but you have to adapt a lot of things (or limit the level, which is changing the rules too)... Every game as it's flavour, I like D&D the way it is now a lot more than in 3.5... I think with PF D&D is more D&D than before... ;)
I agree with you on everything you said except one thing. PF isn't D&D..it is based on D&D, yes, but it isn't D&D. It is Pathfinder.
Well, you're right, semantically PF is PF... But if you come to flavour PF is more D&D than anything else.
So comparing PF to D&d is relevant in a way ;)
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.
Hey, don't you generalize! I am an old generation gamer, and I didn't experience any "Dark Days"...
It was fun, then!Although we only had crappy b&w copies of the rules, cast the dice ourselves from resin, and had to smuggle the miniatures out of Great Britain between the salami slices...
And we didn't even had a 2nd Edition, young man!
|
|
Mmmh I think D&D has always been "soft" on players.
It's high fantasy, you have to do epic deeds, and there's a lot of magic object, combat are very level dependant, meaning a level 10 characters can kill 20 level 1 pretty easily...Compare to Warhammer first edition (don't know the new ones so I can't talk about them) you can't be raised : Magic object are scarce, combat are very mortal and fighting multiple opponnent is always difficult (even a really advanced character will surely die against 20 base NPC).
In exchange for that you've got some destiny point to avoid some injury or to perform great deeds.
But warhammer is a "grit" game, the world is on the ddecline, all the background is very dark, being a mage is difficult and dangerous. It's more a low magic game.So yes, D&D is easy on players, you can say that Mutant and Mastermind is easy on players to... But it's the same thing as between D&D and Warhammer, players expectation of the game is not the same if you play in a super-heroes background, a high fantasy background or a grit backround... So the rule reflect that... ;)
You can play a grit game or a low magic game with D&D but you have to adapt a lot of things (or limit the level, which is changing the rules too)... Every game as it's flavour, I like D&D the way it is now a lot more than in 3.5... I think with PF D&D is more D&D than before... ;)
Warhammer fantasy is the best roleplaying game IMO.The system may not be the best but they style and theme is exactly what I like. Its a shame I cannot find many others who like it as much as i do. I like the feeling of fear when entering combat and the uncertainty that the game portrays. Im not bashing PF but I started DnD in 1979 and have played many years (but never played 3.0/3.5 straight from 1st/2E to PF)and I think that the power creep from those days to now is what I do not like.It seems more like a superhero game to me than the fantasy I prefer.
Cirno and Scott wil be along shortly to continue the flame war. :)
Hama's done done it now.
I think Scott has a special magic item that alerts him when someone attacks 4E. :)
Warhammer fantasy is the best roleplaying game IMO.The system may not be the best but they style and theme is exactly what I like. Its a shame I cannot find many others who like it as much as i do. I like the feeling of fear when entering combat and the uncertainty that the game portrays. Im not bashing PF but I started DnD in 1979 and have played many years (but never played 3.0/3.5 straight from 1st/2E to PF)and I think that the power creep from those days to now is what I do not like.It seems more like a superhero game to me than the fantasy I prefer.Mmmh I think D&D has always been "soft" on players.
It's high fantasy, you have to do epic deeds, and there's a lot of magic object, combat are very level dependant, meaning a level 10 characters can kill 20 level 1 pretty easily...Compare to Warhammer first edition (don't know the new ones so I can't talk about them) you can't be raised : Magic object are scarce, combat are very mortal and fighting multiple opponnent is always difficult (even a really advanced character will surely die against 20 base NPC).
In exchange for that you've got some destiny point to avoid some injury or to perform great deeds.
But warhammer is a "grit" game, the world is on the ddecline, all the background is very dark, being a mage is difficult and dangerous. It's more a low magic game.So yes, D&D is easy on players, you can say that Mutant and Mastermind is easy on players to... But it's the same thing as between D&D and Warhammer, players expectation of the game is not the same if you play in a super-heroes background, a high fantasy background or a grit backround... So the rule reflect that... ;)
You can play a grit game or a low magic game with D&D but you have to adapt a lot of things (or limit the level, which is changing the rules too)... Every game as it's flavour, I like D&D the way it is now a lot more than in 3.5... I think with PF D&D is more D&D than before... ;)
One gripe against dying(aka uncertainty) is that it might take a while to create a new character in PF/D&D. I have never played warhammer, but if it is gritty then it sounds like fun. Now that I think about it I did make a character for it once, but never got to play. I was basically walked through the process though. How long does it take the average player to make a character at low or high levels, assuming the game has levels that is?
|
|
A character can be made in a matter of minutes.Character creation by the book is almost 100% random, you basically choose your race and roll for everything else including starting career. Careers are stuff like Rat catcher and Dung collector, not brave fighters, wizards and clerics more along the lines real people usually lower or middle classed. There are no levels only careers. You start as a basic career and you buy skill and stat upgrades with XP.When you qualify to go into a advanced career you can buy your way into that career with XP.A career has a limited set of career exits that you can choose, although with XP you can buy yourself into any basic career.
|
|
The problem I have with Warhammer and Warhammer 40k is that the settings are, for lack of better words, pants on head retarded. The Orks shouldn't survive in the fantasy setting, the Space Marines are not even a 4th as dangerous as they could/should be. The system they use is also very flawed, in D&D the baseline character has a 50% chance to hit another character (10s and no BAB ala an NPC), where in WHF/40kRPG, you have to be awesome to have a 50% hit chance. Plus the magic/psychic powers system basically states that a magic practitioner, of any skill level, won't make it through their first decade, and many of them are DOA.
I would never have my players roll a random class, unless they wanted to because they couldn't think of anything, forcing the players to do it be a random profession, especially while having crappy jobs like Rat-catcher (even if the last one I saw was awesome....or at least his dog was, seriously that thing bagged nearly twice as many kills as the rest of the party combined), is a quick way to make them lose interest in the game. Especially since some of the modules have you going on important adventures that can very well decide the fate of nations, with base line characters. This means the defense of a nation can be in the hands of a Rat Catcher and his small, but vicious, dog. No one wants that.
A character can be made in a matter of minutes.Character creation by the book is almost 100% random, you basically choose your race and roll for everything else including starting career. Careers are stuff like Rat catcher and Dung collector, not brave fighters, wizards and clerics more along the lines real people usually lower or middle classed. There are no levels only careers. You start as a basic career and you buy skill and stat upgrades with XP.When you qualify to go into a advanced career you can buy your way into that career with XP.A career has a limited set of career exits that you can choose, although with XP you can buy yourself into any basic career.
That's if you play with the random rules and make a first career character... ;)
If you don't then making a first career character is a bit shorter than D&D : you choos your race (mostly humans due to strong racism), roll you caracteristic (8 or 10 carac's, there's way to put them where you want for some), choose your first career (this give you your skills/feat with sometimes option to choose from a list, your equipement) and you're ready.
Making an advanced character is much more difficult, since you don't have level but can "buy" skills/feat with experience points and in order to change of career you have to pay in XP too. If I remember well enough you can also choose to buy carac augmentation with xp... And for a 1000/1500 xp character that's a lot to choose from and it takes very long time to do so...
Most of the career got implied "fluff admission fee" (it's easy to do a hobo or a shepherd background if you choose that as first career but if you want to pass from hobo to shepherd you have to do some actual shpeherding... If you want to pass from shepherd to mercenary you have to engage in a mercenary corp etc. Some, like mercenary sergeant are very explicit and ask for men under your orders in order to be qualified for the career.). I loved that thing though it limit a bit your choice sometimes...
The campaign settings was great, one of the most developped I ever see... It's clear for me that if you want a gritty and very political game Warhammer is a very good choice... "The ennemy within" is a very good campaign (in fact one of the best I've seen, even a notch beyond paizo AP ;) ) but can only be played in first ed. due to background change in second ed. (I've played second ed. 3 or 4 times and the gritty part was toned down so we leave it at that...)
This summer I will play third ed... Will see, if the gritty part has return maybe we will play PF alernately... If not we will play PF full time... :p
But as I have already said Warhammer as nothing to do with PF, first there's only one campaign world. And it is very difficult to change it, the rules are wrapped around the settings... That's one thing I like with PF, though I am currently playing in Golarion due to my group playing AP I usually begin with a Dawnforge like campaign where the PJ can become gods and the decision they made count in the shapping of the world, then play 1000 years after that remodeling the world a bit... My players love that, Wharammer can't give these kind of experience ;)
About 4th Ed I've nothing to say, I have quickly read the rules (very quickly) of the 1st ed core rulebook and left it at that... Seems to me it can be good but since I'm not a fan of ToB it's not for me... Now the only "real D&D" I play are boardgames (Which are very good games, I really enjoy playing Castle Ravenlof Boardgame)...
|
|
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?
If a new character is introduced to a group (as substitute of a dead one or as a new player) he get the same XP of the lowest level player in my group.
"Rolling" a new character mean that the player will get to buy the gear for him, choosing that gear while he has access to the actual resources of a higher level character and not gathering it while playing and accepting what is found. that is a big advantage as the player will buy (if allowed) the right gear to optimize the character, even if the GM would not normally give that gear as a reward.
I have seen players burning most of they "appropriate level" wealth in the stat increasing tomes when they were creating new high level characters. With a bit of careful management and asking the other players and RL friends for a loan of their spare gear they were capable of being useful and get full advantage for the "free" stat boost.
Returning to the main question:
yes, sometime I miss the Xp cost for stuff. Not for the magic item creation but for some of the spells. In another thread there was a serious discussion about creating a "question machine" with several clerics using hundreds of Commune spells to get some specific information through yes/no questions.
BTW: in the 1st and 2nd edition you would earn XP creating magic items but making them permanent would cost you 1 point of constitution.
Regarding the "Dark Days of the 80's", it -was- dark. Am I the only one who remembers the Patricia Pulling thing?
In my area, we had to be careful whom we talked to about gaming because we'd be associated with cultists and there was fear that we'd try to commit suicide like James Dallas Egbert III.
The idea that the 80s were difficult because it was hard on -characters- it just laughable.
I remember all of that. Pulling a D&D book out at school was treated like you had just pulled out drugs; that's no exaggeration. And the local libraries were forced to remove all D&D materials from their shelves. Saying you were a D&D player was like saying you were a mass murderer waiting to happen and was a guranteed trip to the counselor if you said it at school.
Some areas were better/worse than others but LilithsThrall is right; those were bad times and not because of your character.
SJ
Regarding the "Dark Days of the 80's", it -was- dark. Am I the only one who remembers the Patricia Pulling thing?
In my area, we had to be careful whom we talked to about gaming because we'd be associated with cultists and there was fear that we'd try to commit suicide like James Dallas Egbert III.
The idea that the 80s were difficult because it was hard on -characters- it just laughable.
Well I'm french so I've never had this problem (read about it in specialized press though ;) ) even in the 80's we could play in school...
In the 80's I played every saturday and sunday all afternoon and my parents and all parents for that were ok with it... Better that we played in my living room than go outside and do drugs or alcohol... :p
And my father was a techer... ;)
|
|
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?
Another problem with people redoing their characters every time they are killed is the old adage (at least in my gaming group):
"He who lose a friend gain a treasure"
If a character is killed and replaced by a new character with brand new gear appropriate for his level, the gear/money of the deceased stay in the hand of the other characters.
If they are lawful and the character has know living relatives they can give the gear to them (or keep it and take an alignment hit). probably even lawful character will give monetary compensation and keep some choice bit of equipment.
If the deceased has no relatives and/or the group is chaotic or neutral?
They keep gear and money.
So adding a new character in exchange for a dead one is a easy way to get more wealth instead of spending the money to get back the dead 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?
Well, the AD&D solution was that each time you were resurrected, you lost 1 point of Constitution. That's why there was a hard limit on resurrections -- each time you came back, you were at a greater disadvantage, *plus* you had to make a Resurrection Survival roll -- which was Con-based.
It's certainly something that would work if you wanted to make the game harder without completely gimping the characters who die -- but at the same time, it makes Constitution an even more important stat that it had been before.... and it makes death very hard to deal with, and failure will tend to cascade (as you lose hp and fort save each time yo come back).
Also, to be fair, the current fluff for how some of those spells work doesn't really jive with Con Loss (why would the brand new body that just got made for me be less healthy that my old one?).
Putting that aside, it's all a matter of what you're trying to do and why. One thing I did a while back was the following, which I liked, because I found it did a good job of making death non-trivial without making it insurmountable. It's a multi-step approach, so I'll just provide the outline:
1. Beef up the window on Breath of Life from 1 round to 5 rounds. If Breath of Life brings you back, yay! Temporary negative level for a day, and off you go.
2. Add one-shot "elixir" type wondrous items of Breath of Life to the list of magic items (at the appropriate cost).
3. Require characters being Raised (via Raise Dead) to have to make a Fortitude save -- DC was equal to the amount of damage they exceeded their death threshold. Failure results in Con Damage equal to the margin of failure... if damaged Con <= 0, well, so much for that. Character sheet goes into the shredder (after your party's done looting you)
4. Characters being brought back to life by anything other than Breath of Life needed to make a Will save in order to have the will, desire, etc to come back to the Material Plane (think about it - you die, your soul goes for judgement - if you're dining in Valhalla, are you really going to want to come back?). The DC for this was 10, with a modifier based on how long you've been dead. For Raise and Reincarnate, it was +2 per day, for Resurrect it was +2 per week. Failure means the spell works, but you're in (your character's version of) heaven now and aren't so keen on coming back.
5. I didn't mess with True Resurrection (other than making it so that you needed a piece of the body-- so a King who dies and is lost on the battlefield, for instance, can't be True Ressurected by his advisors -- allowing for quests to recover part of the body) -- I mean, come on, it's the same level as Miracle.
Edit: Didn't indicate what happened if you failed the Fort save.
Regarding the "Dark Days of the 80's", it -was- dark. Am I the only one who remembers the Patricia Pulling thing?
In my area, we had to be careful whom we talked to about gaming because we'd be associated with cultists and there was fear that we'd try to commit suicide like James Dallas Egbert III.
No, I remember it quite clearly -- especially when that stuff would get on talk shows and I'd once again have to defend my choice of hobbies from "well-meaning" family members. It became much easier when papers started getting released showing that gamers tend to be more stable because e have an outlet...
But, yes, I remember the Pulling thing, and the Chick tract -- all of that.... On the plus side that's why we have fun words like "Baatezu" - which I kind of liked... unlike the renaming of the Outer Planes, which sucked.
Another problem with people redoing their characters every time they are killed is the old adage (at least in my gaming group):"He who lose a friend gain a treasure"
If a character is killed and replaced by a new character with brand new gear appropriate for his level, the gear/money of the deceased stay in the hand of the other characters.
If they are lawful and the character has know living relatives they can give the gear to them (or keep it and take an alignment hit). probably even lawful character will give monetary compensation and keep some choice bit of equipment.
If the deceased has no relatives and/or the group is chaotic or neutral?
They keep gear and money.
So adding a new character in exchange for a dead one is a easy way to get more wealth instead of spending the money to get back the dead character.
OK... So, in our current 3.5 campaign our party ranger was a lifelong friend (best friend) of our party druid. When he died, (at level 6) the druid collected his +1 longbow, becoming the first magical weapon or armor that she owned. It was clear to everyone that the ranger would have wanted her to have it.
Later in the same game a newly introduced rogue was killed before he even got to explain to the group who he was, where he was from or whether he had any relatives. His stuff was spread throughout the group.
In all the total amount of magic that was gained by level 8 from the deaths of party members amounted to:
1 +1 longbow
1 set of "gloves of dexterity"
1 "amulet of natural armor, +1"
1 pair of "boots of elvenkind" (or maybe it was the cloak...)
And this has been a fairly lethal campaign with a character death occurring on average every two levels.
If your campaigns are having balance issues because of spreading around the dead character's wealth, I have to think that either your characters have a whole bunch of stuff, or else you're having a whole lot of party deaths...
In either case I'd say that's something the GM needs to take a good hard look in the mirror about.
Regarding the "Dark Days of the 80's", it -was- dark. Am I the only one who remembers the Patricia Pulling thing?
In my area, we had to be careful whom we talked to about gaming because we'd be associated with cultists and there was fear that we'd try to commit suicide like James Dallas Egbert III.
The idea that the 80s were difficult because it was hard on -characters- it just laughable.
I remember all of that. Pulling a D&D book out at school was treated like you had just pulled out drugs; that's no exaggeration. And the local libraries were forced to remove all D&D materials from their shelves. Saying you were a D&D player was like saying you were a mass murderer waiting to happen and was a guranteed trip to the counselor if you said it at school.
Some areas were better/worse than others but LilithsThrall is right; those were bad times and not because of your character.
SJ
Back in high school, I invited a long time friend to come play in our game. He was excited and began work on a character. A got a phone call AT THE SCHOOL the next day. I was called into the office to take it (cell phones weren't exactly common at the time) and I was verbally berated by my friend's mother who, in short, told me I could never see him again, much less game with him because of my "terrible influence." Prior to that incident, I had known the kid for YEARS and it was well known that I didn't break laws, do drugs, drink, or sleep around. My friend ended up getting into some of that stuff later on, quite possibly because he didn't have my "negative influence" or because his mother was overbearing. Who knows.
In another incident, a school bully threw my book bag off the top of the bleachers over and over again, until everything within was completely destroyed, including my roleplaying books. I called his family and demanded that they pay for the damages. Turns out the boy lived with his grandfather. The old man grew up in a house where manners were important I suppose, and as such he was polite and accommodating enough over the phone. We arranged to meet at the public library outside of school so that his boy could apologize and that they could make financial amends. Once we met, they asked to see the books before paying for them (a reasonable and expected request). Once he saw they were D&D books, however, the old man flew into a rage. He yelled and cussed to my face, calling me and my books evil and satanic (and that's the nice stuff). Naturally, he refused to pay for the books or make his grandson apologize (and in fact seemed to be holding back from stoning me to death).
I was voted "most likely to go on a killing spree" in the school superlatives.
These events happened in the mid- to late-90s in a small country town. It's still out there, even today.
|
|
Another problem with people redoing their characters every time they are killed is the old adage (at least in my gaming group):"He who lose a friend gain a treasure"
If a character is killed and replaced by a new character with brand new gear appropriate for his level, the gear/money of the deceased stay in the hand of the other characters.
If they are lawful and the character has know living relatives they can give the gear to them (or keep it and take an alignment hit). probably even lawful character will give monetary compensation and keep some choice bit of equipment.
If the deceased has no relatives and/or the group is chaotic or neutral?
They keep gear and money.
So adding a new character in exchange for a dead one is a easy way to get more wealth instead of spending the money to get back the dead character.
OK... So, in our current 3.5 campaign our party ranger was a lifelong friend (best friend) of our party druid. When he died, (at level 6) the druid collected his +1 longbow, becoming the first magical weapon or armor that she owned. It was clear to everyone that the ranger would have wanted her to have it.
Later in the same game a newly introduced rogue was killed before he even got to explain to the group who he was, where he was from or whether he had any relatives. His stuff was spread throughout the group.
In all the total amount of magic that was gained by level 8 from the deaths of party members amounted to:
1 +1 longbow
1 set of "gloves of dexterity"
1 "amulet of natural armor, +1"
1 pair of "boots of elvenkind" (or maybe it was the cloak...)And this has been a fairly lethal campaign with a character death occurring on average every two levels.
If your campaigns are having balance issues because of spreading around the dead character's wealth, I have to think that either your characters have a whole bunch of stuff, or else you're having a whole lot of party deaths...
In either case I'd say that's something the GM...
10.500 gp in magic items for the surviving 3 characters (I hypothesize the standard 4 guys party). That is 3.500 each. 13% of suggested wealth by level at level 8. Not so bad.
How many gp from the dead bodies?
If the +1 bow was the first magic weapon or armor for the druid at level 6 he was either uninterested in them or your campaign is magic poor. BTW, that bow alone at level 6 is almost 1/6 of the suggested wealth at that level. So your counter argument is fairly weak.
A new character at level 8 bring with him (in theory) 27.000 GP in equipment.
If he dies and the gear is divided between the other players the net effect is that they get 33% more wealth than the norm.
Unless your new characters get in the group naked and without equipment there is a net increase in the party wealth.
At the same time there are players that go the "I am making a new character so I will optimize it [as they treating him as a item] for the current level of play" approach to creating the new character, avoiding feats that are useful only at low level, mixing prestige classes in a way that would have been hard to achieve in actual play and so on.
Fortunately I had only 1 ex-player following that route of character recycling, normally my player don't feel (in 3.5) that losing a level to rise dead or resurrection will break the character. So the saying "who lose a friend found a treasure" is only a joke, but one with a big grain of truth.
10.500 gp in magic items for the surviving 3 characters (I hypothesize the standard 4 guys party). That is 3.500 each. 13% of suggested wealth by level at level 8. Not so bad.
How many gp from the dead bodies?If the +1 bow was the first magic weapon or armor for the druid at level 6 he was either uninterested in them or your campaign is magic poor. BTW, that bow alone at level 6 is almost 1/6 of the suggested wealth at that level. So your counter argument is fairly weak.
A new character at level 8 bring with him (in theory) 27.000 GP in equipment.
If he dies and the gear is divided between the other players the net effect is that they get 33% more wealth than the norm.
Unless your new characters get in the group naked and without equipment there is a net increase in the party wealth.At the same time there are players that go the "I am making a new character so I will optimize it [as they treating him as a item] for the current level of play" approach to creating the new character, avoiding feats that are useful only at low level, mixing prestige classes in a way that would have been hard to achieve in actual play and so on.
Fortunately I had only 1 ex-player following that route of character recycling, normally my player don't feel (in 3.5) that losing a level to rise dead or resurrection will break the character. So the saying "who lose a friend found a treasure" is only a joke, but one with a big grain of truth.
Re: my druid's lack of magic items:
She grew up in a dryad oak grove and went to study at a local druid's hut. She never even saw a town until she was already a level 1 druid. Or money. As a result it took her a long time to understand that those little metal (yuck!) discs were a means of exchanging goods. She finally figured that out with the party's cleric helping out about level 4 or 5. So she missed out on a lot of loot that way.
The only magic item she had until getting the bow were a magic box that doubled the duration of goodberry potency, and a bit of the heartwood of her slain mother oak tree which gave her protection from penalties for one hour if underground or indoors. So she's probably not a good indication of the party's overall wealth. Or maybe she was.
Our GM considered loot we took off of a dead companion after a battle to be part of the encounter's total loot value, so he basically subtracted that from the loot he would have otherwise given us. I have to say I don't think 13% of wealth at level 8 is remotely game breaking and I said our campaign was a bit more lethal than most I've seen.
I still maintain that if characters are dying and being replaced at a rate that imbalances your character wealth acquisition, that character wealth acquisition is quite obviously not remotely your biggest problem.
I believe I've, thus far, got "bragging rights" to playing/GMing the longest (30yrs).
I've always found it more interesting if a player who can role-play the shock & return of dying; that new 10th-level character, if chosen, better be more interesting than the last one who's survived the odd 3 years of game-time with the party. I'd feel nothing for a 'newcomer to the party' that was hacked to bits in the next encounter over an established PC that was embelleshed & improved with the rest of the party. Wouldn't the party cheer to have their restored mate who was run through by the Kurgan & dashed upon jagged rocks, or would they turn on Fabio who somehow upstaged their fallen companion?
In the end, nothing is more annoying than a player who would rather play the stats & not the character.
Well, if GM experience matters... I think I've got you equaled at least.
I can think of lots of things more annoying than a player who would rather play the stats than the character. In most cases I don't care that much if a player is all mechanics and no flavor, my issue is much more when a player role plays in direct opposition to their character's actual stats. Which based on several other threads going on right now seems to be a rather common preference for many players.
As far as dying is concerned, if my character dies and is brought back from the dead, then I will role play that. If the party decides not to bring my character back from the dead, I will enthusiastically build a new character with a new concept I've always wanted to try. I won't build a "clone" of the dead character because I always want to try new things.
I might express a preference for being raised from the dead or not to the group and/or GM based on how much I am enjoying the current experience with the recently deceased character. I do tend to chafe a bit after playing the same character for months and months. I like variation quite a bit.
The truth is, though, that I have not had a character actually die in a long, long time. The last character I had die was in a one-shot TPK where the GM totally misplayed the "Blind fight" feat giving his Ogre Mage the ability to act as if he could see in broad daylight while all of our characters had to fight totally blind. But that was a one-shot and that character probably never would have been played again anyway.
Other than that I would have to go back decades since my last character was killed that needed to be resurrected.
I guess I've been pretty lucky in that regard.
I believe I've, thus far, got "bragging rights" to playing/GMing the longest (30yrs).
I've always found it more interesting if a player who can role-play the shock & return of dying; that new 10th-level character, if chosen, better be more interesting than the last one who's survived the odd 3 years of game-time with the party. I'd feel nothing for a 'newcomer to the party' that was hacked to bits in the next encounter over an established PC that was embelleshed & improved with the rest of the party. Wouldn't the party cheer to have their restored mate who was run through by the Kurgan & dashed upon jagged rocks, or would they turn on Fabio who somehow upstaged their fallen companion?
In the end, nothing is more annoying than a player who would rather play the stats & not the character.Well, if GM experience matters... I think I've got you equaled at least.
I can think of lots of things more annoying than a player who would rather play the stats than the character. In most cases I don't care that much if a player is all mechanics and no flavor, my issue is much more when a player role plays in direct opposition to their character's actual stats. Which based on several other threads going on right now seems to be a rather common preference for many players.
As far as dying is concerned, if my character dies and is brought back from the dead, then I will role play that. If the party decides not to bring my character back from the dead, I will enthusiastically build a new character with a new concept I've always wanted to try. I won't build a "clone" of the dead character because I always want to try new things.
I might express a preference for being raised from the dead or not to the group and/or GM based on how much I am enjoying the current experience with the recently deceased character. I do tend to chafe a bit after playing the same character for months and months. I like variation quite a bit.
The truth is, though, that I have not had a character a character actually die in a long, long time. The last character I had die was in a one-shot TPK where the GM totally misplayed the "Blind fight" feat giving his Ogre Mage the ability to act as if he could see in broad daylight while all of our characters had to fight totally blind. But that was a one-shot and that character probably never would have been played again anyway.
Other than that I would have to go back decades since my last character was killed that needed to be resurrected.
I guess I've been pretty lucky in that regard.
30 years. Hah! Got ya! started D&D my junior year at high school (1974-5). Seriously though, I agree about the characters. You don't dump a character because you gain a statistical advantage. If you're seriously unhappy with a character, yeah, but not just for mechanical reasons. I haven't played in years, I DM (which is fine by me) but I've been there in the past.
|
|
I still maintain that if characters are dying and being replaced at a rate that imbalances your character wealth acquisition, that character wealth acquisition is quite obviously not remotely your biggest problem.
What I can say?
I find your attempt to create a strawman weaken your argument, don't bolster it.As I already explained it has not unbalanced my campaigns at all, as my player normally don't retire a character simply because he has lost a level to a rise dead.
On the other hand I see that your GM has taken step to avoid that problem:
Our GM considered loot we took off of a dead companion after a battle to be part of the encounter's total loot value, so he basically subtracted that from the loot he would have otherwise given us.
so maybe he share my opinion that it could affect a campaign and that some guy that love mix/maxing more than role playing would exploit it.
Item crafting in PF really only works out well with the intended power level of the game when the PC's start at level one and keep getting thrown into adventuring situations, with only little breaks in-between ( i.e. give them a month or two between major plotlines ). That way taking the item crafting feat pays off, yet is not overpowered.
Letting lots of months or even years pass between adventures is a surefire way to unbalance the game, because in that case the item crafter ( normally one who takes Craft Wondrous Item, the most important and one of the most easily obtained crafting feats ) can basically nearly double the effective party wealth.
That is why crafting does simply not work in the Kingmaker campaign. If you strictly play the AP by the treasure values given out in it and let the PC's craft magic items to their hearts desire, they will have far more effective WBL than they should, very soon after level four. If you let them abuse the magic item economy and BP withdrawal rules, it is even worse.
The only solution I've found to that is tracking the effective WBL constantly and adjusting treasure values to be lower, which is tons and tons of work for a GM, especially when you are playing a published AP.