|
I wanted to get the playerbase's opinion on 1st level retraining. As always, this is not a rules change that is set in stone. It is just for me to get feedback from the playerbase about their thoughts on the topic. Sometimes when I present these types of topics, people think I've already changed the rule and am just informing the playerbase of the rule change, and they become upset. That is not the case. This is just me receiving feedback to see if an idea is a good one or not and whether that idea should be explored further.
What do people think if we allow rebuilds while your character is level 1? This would allow new players to try out their character, get a game or two under their belt to see if it falls under what heir character concept is, and then settle on their final build before they hit 2nd level.
One of the reasons a rebuild option, only while first level, would be considered is because local game days usually offers two games in one day. Having new players frantically rebuilding a pregen into a regular character in the too-short break between games is not advantageous to creating a solid character concept. It also allows the player who attends a 3slot/day event to rebuild after the day is done.
I will not even consider retraining or rebuilding a character after 1st level, so please do not argue those points. This topic is only about retraining a first level character before it advances to 2nd level.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Off the top of my head, this sounds like a fantastic idea. One of my local stores has recently seen several new players (new to either PF or RPGs in general). And that's without having even thought of the reason you mentioned, Mike!
I'm thinking of the player who wants to try a class, then after a session or two decides it really doesn't play like they thought it would.
Or the player who made a human maneuver master focusing on disarms and mistakenly thought he needed both Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers. His build is legal, but effectively minus one feat.
And so on.
Potential for abuse? I see little if any.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm trying to think of abuse potential here, just in case. So far all I've come up with is if someone thinks AC is more important at level 1 while HP is more important thereafter, then they could take Dodge as their 1st-level feat, then after three sessions "rebuild" to replace it with Toughness just before leveling to 2nd.
If that's the worst it gets, I'd say there's not a problem with going this route.
|
I'm massively in favor of it. I play (and occasionally GM) almost exclusively at local game days. I can't tell you the number of times I've sat down with someone who was roughly familiar with RPGs, but not with Pathfinder. I have had to *make/help* a couple of players rebuild characters on the fly (sorry, you can't take Weapon Specialization with a level 1 Oracle, even though your Wizard got 6 skill points, he can't have more than one point per level in any one skill).
I guess the question is how far do you want to go with "rebuild" rules? Just changing feats/skills or changing attributes, or even changing classes? Last weekend I had one player tell me at the end of a session "I didn't realize this was how a cleric would work. I'm going to roll up a Barbarian instead, that's what I normally play." And she proceeded to do so before the next session. I think in that case, letting her "poof" into a Barbarian would have increased her enjoyment (wouldn't have a chronicle on a character she was never going to play again).
So I don't see a downside. There's no major advantage to be had from playing one concept for 2 scenarios then changing, so I don't really see a potential for exploitation. I think it's good mainly for new players.
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
I think it would be a good idea. It probably wouldn't be used much by experienced players, which may prevent abuse.
One way I could see it being abused is by fragile casters taking the Toughness feat, putting tons into CON and casting stat for first level for initial survivability, then spreading out stats to a more balanced build right before level 2.
I'm still somewhat new to PF and Organized play, but my first character (a dwarven cleric) wasn't all that great because I didn't know the rules. It was functional, and I like a bit of the fluff and backstory I gave him, but always wished I could do some tweaking on him or his abilities because some of the things I took aren't as effective as I thought they would be when I didn't know the rules.
|
|
I particularly like it because a couple of times over the past month we've had a player come to a convention and try PFS with a pregen. They loved it, and hung around to play another session or two with the same pregen.
Then, they want to make their own character by fiddling around with the pregen who's already played two or three sessions - in this case, it involved changing Kyra's deity and domains (and thus, favoured weapons.)
In this case, I would word it hinging on XP. Perhaps, "A Pathfinder Society character with 3 or less Experience Points may choose to change the choices that they have made with respect to attributes, skills, feats, traits, and class features, without penalty, provided that the new choices are legal as per character creation."
I choose 3 because once they have them, they play their first adventure at 2nd level. I choose not to refer to chronicle sheets because if they play slow advancement, or if they get a convention boon or a holiday boon, that throws the number off.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm still somewhat new to PF and Organized play, but my first character (a dwarven cleric) wasn't all that great because I didn't know the rules. It was functional, and I like a bit of the fluff and backstory I gave him, but always wished I could do some tweaking on him or his abilities because some of the things I took aren't as effective as I thought they would be when I didn't know the rules.
This is what I keep seeing. It'd be nice to throw those players a bone.
Also, I actually have a character whose personality ended up being a lot less interesting/fun than I'd expected. It'd be nice to be able to scrap him and rebuild without "losing" those scenarios.
Since tier 1 scenarios and tier 1-2 modules can now be replayed with multiple 1st level characters for credit, I do not see a problem with this plan. As for abuse, the only thing I can see is people playing up a sub-tier, finding a specific item available from the chronicle and then rebuilding the character into one that can get more use out of that item. Since only one played character would ever get that chronicle, I feel this would be bad. So if this rule goes into effect with the addition of only rebuilding if the character did not play up, or if the only chronicles on the character were ones that could be gotten again from replaying, then I would feel better about it.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
I'm still somewhat new to PF and Organized play, but my first character (a dwarven cleric) wasn't all that great because I didn't know the rules. It was functional, and I like a bit of the fluff and backstory I gave him, but always wished I could do some tweaking on him or his abilities because some of the things I took aren't as effective as I thought they would be when I didn't know the rules.This is what I keep seeing. It'd be nice to throw those players a bone.
Also, I actually have a character whose personality ended up being a lot less interesting/fun than I'd expected. It'd be nice to be able to scrap him and rebuild without "losing" those scenarios.
Meh. I only played him for one scenario, and wound up replacing him with an Oracle I'll love more than I probably ever would that cleric. I just wanted to fix him up for nostalgia's sake, I guess. I probably still wouldn't play him much. So, it's not a big deal for me. Just thinking about the player base in general.
|
|
100% in favor. First level should be the chance to get a feel for your character and how you want to play him or her. If it's your first character, or your first time playing a class, you may find that you've made any number of decisions that you'll regret down the line.
In fact, I'm only playing my 4th and 5th characters because of this, and I only started playing at the end of last year.
|
I wasn't even thinking of quickly built characters at conventions or game days, as mentioned above.
The reason I think this is a good idea, and why my local group already (illegally) generally allows this, is because of newbies who don't know what they're doing when building their first character. They show up, play the character once, then the other members of the group tell them "You should have taken this feat/spell/boosted this stat/whatever."
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I'm in favor of it. Case in point, my wife made an archer rogue as her first character, who was also focused in traps. She realized after her second scenario how ineffective she was. When she leveled she multiclassed to trapper ranger, but would have preferred if she could have started ranger and not worried about the rogue part. But she was stuck with it, so made the best of it that she could.
Sometimes a build looks great on paper, but when actually playing it, it sucks. this would allow for making adjustments. Maybe min/maxing feeling, but would make cases where a cleric dumped his cha yet wanted to focus on channeling and didn't realize they were connected.
|
|
I am 100% on board with this idea. It would be fantastic for all those brand new players who don't want to be stuck with Valeros after level 1. I see little potential for abuse. I hate having to tell them they're stuck with it or can't get credit on the actual character they want to play for what they've already done. It's a frequent thing for brand new players, and is a really bad experience for them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in favor. It'd also let a new player, who might only have the Core Rulebook, rebuild with a feat or archetype from one of the other books, with which he was unfamiliar when he built the character (but which other players might tell him about)...it'd have the side effect of encouraging him to perhaps buy another book. ;-)
|
|
Our local group has previously allowed this for new players, so they could try various things. I really support the idea, especially so players can play with a pregen and then alter it afterwards. It makes walk-in first time players a lot more manageable, and it makes it significantly easier to help them build their character once they have a game under their belt and know what the class features actually *do*.
|
I'm for it for several reasons:
1) A lot of concepts look good by level 12, but when the player sits down as a 1st level and uses them in practice they realize the "base" build is going to be too shaky for early levels and needs to be retooled.
2) Pregen adaptation. Both because some game days would force a person to hastily upgrade the class and for other reasons. Maybe they love being a Rogue, but would prefer to be a Halfling Rogue. Or Cleric of Sarenrae is nice, but they find Nethys much more interesting in terms of Domain choices.
Or the one issue that crops up almost always: They sit down, do some research after their first PFS session or so, and see an archetype they love but can't take because it begins to make changes at 1st level.
3) Race Boons.
Stick with me here, but I'm sure many a new player has sat down at a convention with a pregen and ended up with a racial boon. So now they have this awesome race that has them even more excited to play PFS...but they have to make a new character entirely and give up the one they have played 1-3 sessions with already to do so.
In terms of implementation, I'm not sure if a full name change would be possible on the website (unless it's possible to leave that feature unlocked until the 4th session is reported?).
A downloadable Chronicle sheet that denotes a rebuild HAS occurred, noting major changes such as name, race, class/archetype, and traits would probably be a good way to track it.
|
*Looks around to see if Bob has posted, notices the lack of posts by Bob. Thinks on what side of the Bob will be on*
I hate this Idea! I can think of tons of ways this can be abused!...
Wait..What?
My Anti Bob got in the way there, sorry.
I Love this idea, for many of the reason mentioned.
We talking full rebuild or just partial? I have no issues with Full rebuild.
How about a free faction change also before Level 2 to go with this?
It sometimes is not fully clear by the Faction write ups what the factions will be asking you to do, after a couple of faction missions a player can get an idea they made a mistake in their choice, so I think allowing them to change their faction as well during the rebuild would work well.
I on the other hand think it should be limited to 2xp or lower, because once you get 3, you are no longer level 1.
If by your second game you have not figured out that you made a mistake, one more game will not make a difference.
|
|
Im on board with this assuming we clarify how to handle things the character bought and/or expended before the rebuild.
I would assume you could go back to square 1 with buying equipment, but that anything you bought and was completed expended (like a potion of CLW for example) you wouldnt get the gold back for.
Im not saying I'm against the idea entirely if the example I listed above doesnt work like I would assume, I just think it needs to have a definite ruling before the rules actually takes effect.
|
|
I think the most important thing in keeping players with an OP campaign is that they like their characters. As such, allowing them to figure out what they are doing is a good thing. I see the issue being one more of a player learning the rules and not being limited to the most basic concept he or she could think of when starting.
|
|
This seems like a good idea. +1
A downloadable Chronicle sheet that denotes a rebuild HAS occurred, noting major changes such as name, race, class/archetype, and traits would probably be a good way to track it.
The 1st level rebuild topic in general seems fine. It just seems like it would be hard to enforce/police. As it stands now, the only facts/data about a character that are stored on the reporting site other than the scenario receiving credit and the Prestige Points are character name, character number and faction.
If a player were to play their first scenario as a fighter and later decide to play their 2nd scenario as a cleric using the same character number, I do not think anyone would know or care. As long as the character is leagally constructed and the player has the appropriate chronicle sheets who would think to question it. Only the honor system and player attachment to their character is preventing this from happening on a more regular basis.
|
|
This is overall a good idea just for the mere fact it gives new players a second chance. Experienced players don't really need it, although they might appreciate the chance in case they miscalculated on their build.
PF is a complicated game, and things that make it friendlier to new players are generally a good idea.
|
I'd LOVE to be able to change the name of a character. Some people come up with the worst names off the top of their head and then are stuck with it for 12 levels or more (I'm looking at you, Billy Mayes the rogue!)
or how my half-elf had a great half-elf name Deidre Tiriel, but it doesn't make any sense for a gnome, which is what I changed her into when we switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
I'm definitely for retraining for first level.
|
|
I'm strongly in favor of rebuilds for lvl 1 characters. It means players can play anything (not just the official pregen) at level 1 and then get credit on what it turns out they actually want to play.
Also it helps solve issues like realizing the spiked chain doesn't have reach half way through the first session, or other related problems.
All in all I think the problems this flexibility will solve vastely outweigh the small amount of verisimilitude lost.
|
|
Others have said expressed my reasoning above, but I wanted to chime in with another voice of support for this. The main reason is it would make things friendlier on new players. Expecting a brand-new player to nail down everything about a new character in a new system within the very limited time between slots at a convention is a bit much.
Pathfinder was the very first table-top RPG I played. I played a pregen the first game, then the GM helped me create my own character. While I continued to play my first character (now at level eleven), there are things after the first game playing him (second XP) that I wanted to change, and not being able to left a slightly bitter taste in my mouth.
Quick off-topic
Grats on that shiny new star Mike!
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Birmingham
|
All for it. This will be especially handy for organized play newbies who always need some time to adjust from home game weirdness to structured rules. 1st level as a little bit of buffer will go a long way.
As a fledgling coordinator who is recruiting an awful lot of these OP newbies, this can't happen fast enough!
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm for it.
Let's face it - I'm sure there's already quite a bit of this going on. When you register a PFSOP character some of the specifics are spelled out, but not necessarily things like feats. And there are a lot of feats to choose from! Even with many years of (non-PF) RPG experience (and a copy of Hero Lab) it took me a few iterations to get a build that worked for the character I was trying to create. I was able to do this at home, before registering the character; I doubt if I would have got everything right if I'd tried to do it under time pressure at a convention (although the PFS Ambassadors could well have steered me away from a couple of pitfalls).
I'd wager that quite a few first-time players revisit feat selection after their first session, when they discover the truth of Molke's dictum "No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy"
Sounds like a capital idea. It fixes an existing problem and doesn't create a new problem -- that's all you can ask for from a rule change!
I have never seen a unanimous agreement on a proposed rule change...
You know what that means?
That it can't happen! ;)
Don't be so optimistic! I think it means that the actual change that gets put in the Guide will have almost no resemblance to what was proposed. ;-)