|
So there have been a lot of new books that have come out since the beginning of Pathfinder Society. The newest of these is the Advanced Race Guide that's just come out today. With all of these new books and new rules and options will The Powers That Be consider allowing us players to have a one time rebuild of our characters to make use of some of these new rules options (such as traits, archetypes, feats, ect).
I'm not asking for a total rebuild, maybe something like you have to keep your race and/or class but you can change other things out. Then you'd take your old character sheet and the new one and have your next GM sign off on the rebuild.
Just a thought.
|
|
DK27, see this post.
Jack, try looking at it from a positive point of view. With every new character you make, thats an opportunity to play that new character through 33 more scenarios you havent played through yet to get that character through its level progression.
|
Forgive me for being annoyed. Don't get me wrong, it won't stop me from making new characters and enjoying the new content, I'm just a bit disappointed that the only character I'm likely to get a race boon on can't benefit from the things that would fit his character so well.
It's not going to stop me from enjoying PFS or enjoying playing the character, but it also won't stop me from being vaguely irritated.
I mean, we were allowed a one-time change of faction, which I realize isn't the same as changes in race traits, but still.
|
|
The problem is that I already have 5 characters that I've created over the years, all are above 1st level. I've played MANY of the PFS Senarios and run almost all of the ones I've played at least once. So saying that you can just create a new character and play more isn't really a great option for people like me since it would take years of playing to get the characters past level 4 or 5.
|
|
Unless you have been exclusively been running/playing low level scenarios and dont get to play that often, I dont see how it would take years to get a character past level 4.
As a matter of fact, up until recently, I haven't had the opportunity to play very frequently. And since I have more than one character most of the scenarios I've been playing have been in the lower tier (though I finally have one character that's made it to the high tiers).
So, yes, it very well could take me years to use some of the new options to get characters out of the first couple of levels. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
Not to mention that almost every other "Living" style campaign like PFS has given their players options for rebuilds as the years have gone by so that long time players can utilize the newest rules for their mid and high level characters without having to start over from first level yet again.
|
|
There's also those of us with boon races that would like to tweak considering the options that have come out. I really don't have the option of just restarting my tiefling at level oneAnother very valid reason for allowing a one time character rebuild.
My point exactly. My Tiefling is too high to be able to benefit from anything about the lvl 1 rebuild options (whatever they end up being) with the release of the 4.2 guide.
I would very much like to do a full overhaul (changing his first level class, change archetype choices, etc), but that's definitely not an option either (understandably so, considering those that would use an option like that to game the system). That much I certainly can't complain about, even if it would be nice.
|
|
Not to mention that almost every other "Living" style campaign like PFS has given their players options for rebuilds as the years have gone by so that long time players can utilize the newest rules for their mid and high level characters without having to start over from first level yet again.
1. This isnt any of those other living campaigns.
2. How many of those other living campaigns are still around?There's also those of us with boon races that would like to tweak considering the options that have come out. I really don't have the option of just restarting my tiefling at level one
Believe me, I'd love nothing more than to be able to redo some of the stuff on my Tiefling, but it's not looking like I will be able to either.
Allowing rebuilds one time, like Brian said, is just the beginning. Once there are people who jkoin the game after, or miss their chance to do so now, they'll complain that they didnt get the option and how it's not fair. So then another rebuild time is allowed. And the cycle continues, over and over and over. That is not something this campaign needs.
|
|
1. This isnt any of those other living campaigns.
You're right, in some ways it's better in other ways it's quite inferior. My biggest complaint has been, and probably always will be, the lack of a central story. Year 3 has been much better in that department but it's stall lacking compared to others that have come before.
2. How many of those other living campaigns are still around?
So you're implying that by letting players have an occasional character rebuild that's what made the other "Living" campaigns go away? Could you be any more fallacious in your implications? There's enough room there to drive a Tarrasque through. For starters, Living Arcanis is still on going and, if I recall correctly, allowed their players a character rebuild once a year so they could uses the newest rules from the newest books. It was also one of the MOST story driven "Living" style campaigns I've ever played in.
Allowing rebuilds one time, like Brian said, is just the beginning. Once there are people who jkoin the game after, or miss their chance to do so now, they'll complain that they didnt get the option and how it's not fair. So then another rebuild time is allowed. And the cycle continues, over and over and over. That is not something this campaign needs.
Why is allowing a person to rebuild their characters using new and approved rules that came out after they started playing their characters such a bad thing? What would be so wrong with The Powers That Be allowing a character rebuild every new PFS year so that players can incorporate the new rules into the characters that they've already invested time into? Why is this something the the "Campaign does not need"?
I'm going to go outside of Pen and Paper, and go to the MMO world. World of Warcraft, whenever they have a major change in their character building mechanic, does a 1 time free rebuild for the character per change. Pathfinder has done that once, when they went from the 3.5 rules to the 3.75 rules. Since then, there hasn't been another example of them having a major change to the character building mechanic.
So I don't think that a one time rebuild needs to be allowed just because something new and cool is in a new book. They didn't do it for UM, they didn't do it for UC, so why should they do it for the ARG?
|
|
To me the best reason to not allow rebuilds apart from the mechanics of running an organized play campaign in any sane fashion is that it brings up the obvious question of "who are you exactly?" You could adventure with another character for numerous scenarios then one day they show up but you can't recognize them. But then, yesterday you were a sunder happy fighter and today you are a smite happy paladin.
Remind me, who are you?
Just as players are a collection of their experiences, I feel that PCs are too. Last time we played we almost died due to an ambush in a darkness spell. Today you have 120 ft darkvision as a built in racial ability. How does this make sense?
I think if you want a rebuild you're essentially asking to create a new character already.
The problem with this argument, is that only some people are calling for a total rebuild. The majority of the people asking for the ability to switch something (at least from what I've seen) is that they want to swap out one, maybe two, racial traits.
The darkness/darkvision you're describing would deal with feats. Not traits.
So, if we're using your scenario there, what's so wrong about one day adventuring with a Tiefling and the next time, suddenly, he's figured out how to grab things with his tail? Is that game breaking? Oooh, I can grab an item with my tail. Wooptie-freaking-do. Yes, that's the trait I want. Why? Because it would be fun for me. Does my ability to do that decrease your ability to enjoy the game? I should certainly hope not.
Either way, at this point we're arguing over who's badwrongfun is bad, wrong, or fun. If we don't get to swap traits, the worst that's going to happen is some whining on the messageboards. My bet is, it's not going to stop people from coming in and continuing to play their characters. It would just be nice.
You can argue, well, then just make a new character using those things you want. Welp. I only have the one race boon, so... I'm just tough cookies outta luck. I realize that. I don't like it, but I realize that I can't change my existing character. However, if I don't prod and ask about these things, there really is absolutely no chance for change. I'm loosing nothing by asking and trying to plead my case, other than my time and energy.
|
|
I, too, must weigh in *against* a rebuild.
From experience, a rebuild allows theorycrafting to come to life: builds which would have been agonizing to actually level are suddenly very attractive when allowed to spring into existence at 8th or 10th level.
I remember the 3 to 3.5 rebuild in Living Greyhawk: everyone experienced an overnight quantum leap in power level without having to suffer the mid-level aspect of "creative" builds (as my fighter/ranger/holy liberator/templar could handily attest to); it also DID have the effect of disconnecting people from their characters' RP backgrounds. The effect was tangible and, on balance, negative.
The cited annual Living Arcanis rebuilds are a case-in-point: the campaign became a comedy of cheese.
I know, given a rebuild, I would *instantly* recast my 9th level Fey bloodline sorceress as a kitsune, gaining an immediate +2 to the DCs of all my enchantment spells (which are already sick, tbh). My 11th level TWF rogue would be recast as a OWF with dervish dance, the crane wing chain and so on. Instantly!... and remember the gamer's adage, if there's something that evryone will do, or take, or buy, then that pathway, that feat, that item is unbalanced - it's too good. It shouldn't be in the game :)
Finally - and I do realize this is not universally true, but it *is* generally true - PFS is a very fast-leveling game: I'm an medium-frequency player and in two years I've leveled 39 levels worth of characters (11, 10, 9, 7, 2); it won't take THAT long before the shiny new whatsit is some meaningful level.
|
|
I, too, must weigh in *against* a rebuild.
From experience, a rebuild allows theorycrafting to come to life: builds which would have been agonizing to actually level are suddenly very attractive when allowed to spring into existence at 8th or 10th level.
I remember the 3 to 3.5 rebuild in Living Greyhawk: everyone experienced an overnight quantum leap in power level without having to suffer the mid-level aspect of "creative" builds (as my fighter/ranger/holy liberator/templar could handily attest to); it also DID have the effect of disconnecting people from their characters' RP backgrounds. The effect was tangible and, on balance, negative.
The cited annual Living Arcanis rebuilds are a case-in-point: the campaign became a comedy of cheese.
I know, given a rebuild, I would *instantly* recast my 9th level Fey bloodline sorceress as a kitsune, gaining an immediate +2 to the DCs of all my enchantment spells (which are already sick, tbh). My 11th level TWF rogue would be recast as a OWF with dervish dance, the crane wing chain and so on. Instantly!... and remember the gamer's adage, if there's something that evryone will do, or take, or buy, then that pathway, that feat, that item is unbalanced - it's too good. It shouldn't be in the game :)
Finally - and I do realize this is not universally true, but it *is* generally true - PFS is a very fast-leveling game: I'm an medium-frequency player and in two years I've leveled 39 levels worth of characters (11, 10, 9, 7, 2); it won't take THAT long before the shiny new whatsit is some meaningful level.
So what about the OP's post talks about changing races or classes? Yes, they mentioned feats, but I'm more than willing to compromise with just focusing on racial traits.
As I said, the problem with some characters is that they were gained through a boon. I can't make another Tiefling and level them up with the cool new stuff, I only get the one. Basically, if you used a race boon before this point, you are denied the chance to use a kinda nifty little thing. Yes, it could be viewed as trivial so because it's trivial we're denied. Bummer. But what I'm trying to get at is it would be cool if we could swap them out.
|
|
I would very much like to do a full overhaul (changing his first level class, change archetype choices, etc), but that's definitely not an option either (understandably so, considering those that would use an option like that to game the system). That much I certainly can't complain about, even if it would be nice.The problem with this argument, is that only some people are calling for a total rebuild. The majority of the people asking for the ability to switch something (at least from what I've seen) is that they want to swap out one, maybe two, racial traits.You are really asking for a full rebuild yourself as that's your ideal case above. The start of this thread asked for rebuilds only keeping race and class. People aren't just asking to swap out traits but change their characters wholesale. You even admit this isn't reasonable, so where do you draw the line? When does the rebuilt PC stop being the same character, one trait, one feat, different class, etc.? And how far down the road until you want to rebuild the character again because another book came out?
I think the only reasonable line to draw in the sand is no rebuilds at all (except where already allowed due to rules changes).
I am not asking for a full rebuild because I know it's unreasonable, I simply stated it would be nice. I'm not asking for anything more than the opportunity to change a racial trait or two. It would be cool if I could change him around to better fit the personality he's ended up with (which is completely not what I'd intended when I made him), but whatever.
What I would call reasonable, would seem unreasonable to others either by being too generous or not generous enough because not everyone shares my opinion. I, personally, would be perfectly content with a one-time chance to change a single racial trait per character. Yes, archetype changes would be fun, but at that point you run the risk of people making drastic changes at higher levels.
Just how badly would changing a single racial trait be? A trait is about equal to half of a feat. Just how much of a difference is that really going to make? Please, by all means, show me evidence that one race trait (of those allowed) is going to break the game. Prove to me that I am wrong, and I will shut up and leave. Seriously.
|
|
So what about the OP's post talks about changing races or classes? Yes, they mentioned feats, but I'm more than willing to compromise with just focusing on racial traits.As I said, the problem with some characters is that they were gained through a boon. I can't make another Tiefling and level them up with the cool new stuff, I only get the one. Basically, if you used a race boon before this point, you are denied the...
Food for though, indeed.
Well, I have to admit that the "purist" in me just doesn't like the idea - I mean, retconning (for want of a better word) a character build creates a disconnect between the build and the "history". What if - and maybe it's a big "if", but maybe it's not - your character had had those traits "back then", and as a result s/he had died? or failed a faction mission? or survived? or succeeded? Suddenly your chronicles denote the successes and failures of a character that is *not this one*.
Yes, I know it's a minor tweak, but we also know the whole game can rest on a +/-1... a miss versus a hit, a failed save versus a success, a jump versus a fall.
My view will appear quite silly - eliciting rolled eyes, no doubt - from the perspective of "this is basically a character sheet", but I actually *like* the notion that the character I'm playing is "the one" who has endured those trials and so on. So I must confess a philosophical opposition to the idea of a rebuild beyond simply the practical one.
Now, I have a stack of boons, none of which I've used yet, so obviously I can't share in the pain of an irreversible character build (indeed, I've held on to those boons *in wait of* the ARG, since I wanted to wait to see what new racial traits and so on might exist), but I do feel I can say "there will be other boons".
|
|
So what about the OP's post talks about changing races or classes? Yes, they mentioned feats, but I'm more than willing to compromise with just focusing on racial traits.As I said, the problem with some characters is that they were gained through a boon. I can't make another Tiefling and level them up with the cool new stuff, I only get the one. Basically, if you used a race boon before this point, you are denied the...
Food for though, indeed.
Well, I have to admit that the "purist" in me just doesn't like the idea - I mean, retconning (for want of a better word) a character build creates a disconnect between the build and the "history". What if - and maybe it's a big "if", but maybe it's not - your character had had those traits "back then", and as a result s/he had died? or failed a faction mission? or survived? or succeeded? Suddenly your chronicles denote the successes and failures of a character that is *not this one*.
Yes, I know it's a minor tweak, but we also know the whole game can rest on a +/-1... a miss versus a hit, a failed save versus a success, a jump versus a fall.
My view will appear quite silly - eliciting rolled eyes, no doubt - from the perspective of "this is basically a character sheet", but I actually *like* the notion that the character I'm playing is "the one" who has endured those trials and so on. So I must confess a philosophical opposition to the idea of a rebuild beyond simply the practical one.
Now, I have a stack of boons, none of which I've used yet, so obviously I can't share in the pain of an irreversible character build (indeed, I've held on to those boons *in wait of* the ARG, since I wanted to wait to see what new racial traits and so on might exist), but I do feel I can say "there will be other boons".
I'm not talking about retconning. Paizo has made their stance absolutely clear, they're not doing that on chronicle sheets. I played Master of the Fallen Fortress way back when where it gave no PA. Now that it does, I can't go back and have that changed.
I'm talking about changing a trait from this point on. Don't go back and try to change chronicle sheets, it's more hassle and opens the floodgates for all sorts of problems. I'm saying a change that will effect the future gameplay.
You, yourself, have admitted that you have a whole stack that you waited on because of the ARG. I didn't find out about that book until after I had already created my Tiefling. Perhaps because I didn't read every bloody update that hit my inbox, and if that's why I can't have my way, so be it. I'm simply trying to plead my case that it would be nice if I could change it. I have already resigned myself to the fact that it's not allowed, so I'm just tough cookies outta luck. I know this. It sucks. I'm annoyed and irritated, but my feelings have no impact on PFS as a whole because I'm not in charge, I'm just an insignificant dot in a sea of players/GMs.
I figure, I'm going to give it a few days where I put in my two cents before I give up, go growl about it in my darkity-dark, danky-dank, corner, then go back to the next session of PFS and move on. But there's absolutely no chance of me getting the option to see if I can't change out that trait for sh*ts and giggles if I don't say something.
|
|
I'm not saying "go back in your hole and shut up." I hope it doesn't come off that way. I'm just presenting my views on the topic. After all, neither one of us gets to make the decisions on the matter.
From my perspective, even a trait is too much. Traits are there to help flesh out the history of your character. Yes they provide mechanical benefit, but the purpose, it seems to me, is to provide an in-game way to reflect who a character was before they were a pathfinder. This is changing the PC's identity as surely as changing a cleric's deity and saying they always worshiped the new one. Some traits are flavored such that they aren't really choices the individual made at all, but are more things that happened to the character.
Please, by all means, show me evidence that one race trait (of those allowed) is going to break the game.I agree with David Haller above. It's not a matter of mechanics or "breaking the game" for me, but a philosophical view of who the PC is.
An example ridiculous trait swap. Tell me how this doesn't significantly alter who the character is with just a trait.
History of Heresy
You were raised with heretical views that have made it difficult for you to accept most religious beliefs and often caused you or those you love to be treated as pariahs. As a result, you have turned your back on religious teachings.Indomitable Faith
You were born in a region where your faith was not popular, yet you never abandoned it. Your constant struggle to maintain your own faith has bolstered your drive.
Yes, but now we're comparing apples to oranges. I'm not talking about regular traits. I'm talking about race traits. These are not the traits you pick to flesh out your character or their history, but the ones that are inherent to the majority of their race.
For the specific example I'm looking at is changing out the Fiendish Sorcery (count your CHA as 2 higher than it is for the purposes of sorcerers with abyssal/infernal bloodline powers and their spells), which, in my case, is utterly unused/completely doesn't effect my Magus. I'd like to change that out for Prehensile Tail. Why? Not because I give a rat's hindquarters about it making it a swift action to retrieve something off my person, but because I think it would be fun. I'm not going to get that. I could take a feat to get that mechanical effect, but that's too high a cost for that ability when I'm aiming for specific feat trees.
Yes, a change like that could make a difference in the character, but that sort of thing could definitely be explained in a way that can be roleplayed from that point on. "Oh, check out what I figured out how to do!"
No, not all examples are going to be as easy as that, but this is where my perspective comes from. Why would one little change like that break the game or completely turn the continuity on it's head?
|
|
Argh, ya edited it on me, ya bugger.
Yes. Those traits changing out wouldn't necessarily make sense, but in my experience, nobody else pays as much attention to your character's history in PFS as you do.
Maybe that level of continuity just doesn't matter as much to me since that sort of change isn't what I'm looking at for my character. And if that's why it's not allowed, so be it. I just want to try and get an official answer as to whether or not I should hold out any hope, or just give up, go home, and get over it.
EDIT: Besides, if you don't want to take advantage of the opportunity to change a race trait, you don't have to. But by saying "No" to those that would like to take advantage of that option, you're saying "No" to their badwrongfun. Honestly, what do you care about my character's past?
EDIT the 2nd: I realize I may be coming off as harsh/rude, and I apologize, it's not my intention. I'm just putting forth my thoughts/feelings on the situation.
|
|
To me the best reason to not allow rebuilds apart from the mechanics of running an organized play campaign in any sane fashion is that it brings up the obvious question of "who are you exactly?" You could adventure with another character for numerous scenarios then one day they show up but you can't recognize them. But then, yesterday you were a sunder happy fighter and today you are a smite happy paladin.
Remind me, who are you?
Just as players are a collection of their experiences, I feel that PCs are too. Last time we played we almost died due to an ambush in a darkness spell. Today you have 120 ft darkvision as a built in racial ability. How does this make sense?
I think if you want a rebuild you're essentially asking to create a new character already.
Please read my original post. I even said I'm NOT asking for a total rebuild. Just something where we can swap out traits, feats, or archetypes. Make us have to keep our race, class, and ability scores. The campaign staff could put together a Chronicle sheet to do the tracking on that the player prints out, brings to his next event and whatever GM is running the table signs off on it. They already put out those silly little Chronicles for the various Holidays/Celebrations.
Some people have said that it would make certain builds that are "unappealing" at lower levels something people just "make" at a higher level. To them again I say, I'm NOT asking for a total rebuild and I'm NOT asking to have anything "retconned". But there are new options that come out in EVERY book that Paizo puts out and there are some options that would really fit some of my characters. But because I've already played them I can't use those options unless I create another character that's exactly like the one I'm already playing with a different trait or feat or archetype. That just doesn't sound fun to me.
To those people who say, "Oh just make a another character". Let me tell you something. I played Living Greyhawk, I had three characters I played throughout the entirety of the campaign and I played Living City, I had three characters I played during the time I invested in that campaign. I remember those characters vividly, they had personalities, they had flavor and they ALL had stories they could tell. I already have five PFS characters and there is a increasing likelihood that I will have to make more before the end of the campaign. I try my hardest to put personalities to all five of my characters and make them memorable and unique, but I honestly don't remember who they are sometimes. I'll look at the character sheet and I won't remember what adventures that character had or what personality they had. I think that some players, like me, are starting to get bogged down by the number of characters they have, but that is a topic for another thread.
To get back to my original topic though. I don't see what I'm asking for as a huge game breaking thing, or even a huge strain on the campaign staff since this could be taken care of at a table with a GM. If it is though, I'd appreciate being told why. I'm only looking to use rules that are already approved but weren't available to me when I originally made and played my characters. And like I said, it's not appealing to me to remake my character start over from level 1 all because I wanted to use a different rules option that would have been perfect for him.
|
Opening things up for a rebuild (even minor ones) everytime there is a new book is a slippery slope.
Just because it has been done in other, now defunct or still ongoing, “living” campaigns, does not mean it’s a good idea for Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Even if it seemed to make things successful in those other campaigns (a concept of which I’m dubious).
Trust me, I’d love to get a hold of some of the alternate racial traits for a couple of my existing characters. But I like my characters the way they are, they rock.
I’ve had the experience of getting a character up to level 6 through GM credit and playing him only once, then only twice at level 7, But did get to play him through 9.1. I don’t enjoy him that much, because I didn’t actually experience most of his development. It also hurts that as a gnome alchemist/cavalier on a [redacted] he is one of the more complicated characters to try and deal with in combat. By not experiencing that complication through every level, I find it very difficult to play him.
Rebuilding can have the same effect. If you end up at a table with 5 rebuilds playing for the first time, especially at a higher level, you’ll end up with a lot of confusion and bog the table down in my opinion.
I just don’t think rebuilding is a good idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rebuilding isn't a good idea generally speaking. One example - LFR <shudder>. Once they started that, the already rolling-downhill pile it was simply picked up more speed. Overnight, not only did the RP aspect of your character change (though, there was very little RP involved anyway), but the whole mechanics of any given character that opted for this changed.
To be fair...rebuilds in LFR were almost necessary due to the ungodly amount of retcon'd material...but that's another story.
That said, I would be in for the ability to change traits out when any given racial book comes out*, especially for non-standard races. Why? Mainly for reasons already stated; one-time chronicles, few inherent choices prior to any given racial book (but esp. ARG), from an RP perspective these are inherent to bulks of the race's population anyway, and it's not game-breaking mechanically either. I mean, if I can now count Acrobatics as a class skill and gain a +1 versus having a +2 Init...is that really a huge deal game-wise? Nah...but it might be something the player would like.
And let's be honest, you can explain it away if you are more RP-heavy. "So, I've been taking gymnastic lessons, so I a bit more light on my feet and can tumble better, etc. - but I also now prefer to wait a bit before jumping into battle to gain the best perspective of my environment for acrobatic fighting."
Traits...I'd go for. Feats, archetypes....too different, no-go IMO.
*I could support other traits from other books too...I just think the racial ones probably make the most sense from a mechanic & RP perspective, and thus would satisfy the most people.
|
|
You're right, in some ways it's better in other ways it's quite inferior. My biggest complaint has been, and probably always will be, the lack of a central story. Year 3 has been much better in that department but it's stall lacking compared to others that have come before.
1. This isnt any of those other living campaigns.
And they seem to be working on that. Season 2 had a storyline, though it was definitely muddier than the season 3 one was.
So you're implying that by letting players have an occasional character rebuild that's what made the other "Living" campaigns go away? Could you be any more fallacious in your implications? There's enough room there to drive a Tarrasque through. For starters, Living Arcanis is still on going and, if I recall correctly, allowed their players a character rebuild once a year so they could uses the newest rules from the newest books. It was also one of the MOST story driven "Living" style campaigns I've ever played in.
2. How many of those other living campaigns are still around?
Wow. Jump to conclusions much? I made this a separate point from my first one cause they are not related. This was a question, because I dont know what all living campaigns there have ever been (outside of Living Greyhawk which seems to get brought up more often than I care to hear comparisons for) and that 4e thing DnD does now. Are there others? Are they still around?
Why is allowing a person to rebuild their characters using new and approved rules that came out after they started playing their characters such a bad thing? What would be so wrong with The Powers That Be allowing a character rebuild every new PFS year so that players can incorporate the new rules into the characters that they've already invested time into? Why is this something the the "Campaign does not need"?
Allowing rebuilds one time, like Brian said, is just the beginning. Once there are people who jkoin the game after, or miss their chance to do so now, they'll complain that they didnt get the option and how it's not fair. So then another rebuild time is allowed. And the cycle continues, over and over and over. That is not something this campaign needs.
I'm not saying it is a bad thing, something we dont need, that it would cause any kind of harm to the campaign, but why is it necessary? That's what i want to know. The camapgin runs fine, now, without allowing rebuilds. Why change it now?
|
|
I’ve had the experience of getting a character up to level 6 through GM credit and playing him only once, then only twice at level 7, But did get to play him through 9.1. I don’t enjoy him that much, because I didn’t actually experience most of his development. It also hurts that as a gnome alchemist/cavalier on a [redacted] he is one of the more complicated characters to try and deal with in combat. By not experiencing that complication through every level, I find it very difficult to play him.
Rebuilding can have the same effect. If you end up at a table with 5 rebuilds playing for the first time, especially at a higher level, you’ll end up with a lot of confusion and bog the table down in my opinion.
Again, let me state, I'm not asking for a TOTAL REBUILD OF THE CHARACTER. Here let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say that I have a Half-Orc *Insert Class Here* with all the standard Racial Traits out of the core book. What is so complicated about switching out his Intimidating racial trait for Rock Climber? You loose a +2 to Intimidation and get a +1 to Acrobatics and Climb? Or maybe I picked up the Improved Sunder feat and but then rarely ever used it and would instead like to swap it out for the new Surprise Follow-Though feat out of the ARG. I start taking AOO's when/if I ever attempt to sunder things but when I use Cleave or Great Cleave now the second target is denied his Dex to AC. Where's the complication?
Things like I stated above don't even "change the character" or how it would be played. It would be changes that make the character more like I pictured it in my head kind of thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was a question, because I dont know what all living campaigns there have ever been (outside of Living Greyhawk which seems to get brought up more often than I care to hear comparisons for) and that 4e thing DnD does now. Are there others? Are they still around?
Ones that are "still around" include (this isn't an exhaustive list, but what I can think of off the top of my head):
- Legends of Arcanis (follow-on to Living Arcanis, fantasy-themed, uses a proprietary game system (Living Arcanis was 3.5))- Legends of the Shining Jewel (fantasy, formerly used 3.5, now uses Pathfinder)
- Fellowship of the White Star (gothic horror, uses modified 3.5)
- Living Divine (4E)
- Ashes of Athas (4E)
- Heroes of Rokugan (proprietary system)
- Shadowrun Missions (proprietary system)
Play of the "big two" (LFR and PFS) undoubtedly dwarfs all the rest of these.
Living Greyhawk probably gets brought up often for a number of reasons:
- Play of it was absolutely huge at the time (2000-2008)
- Many people who are involved in PFS at some level played LG
- Golarion is evocative of the Greyhawk campaign setting for many people
The list of older / ended campaigns is even longer (again, this isn't exhaustive).
RPGA / WotC campaigns
- Living Greyhawk (3.5)
- Living City (2E, then 3E)
- Living Force (Star Wars)
- Legacy of the Green Regent (3.5)
- Xen'Drik Expeditions (3.5)
- Mark of Heroes (3.5)
Other campaigns (many of which were sanctioned by the RPGA at one point, even though they weren't owned by TSR / WotC)
- Living Death (gothic horror, used modified 2E, then 3E)
- Living Jungle (primitive fantasy, used 2E, then 3E)
- Virtual Seattle (Shadowrun)
- Living Spycraft (modified 3E)
- Living Dragonstar (modified 3E; our own Andrew Christian was a campaign administrator for it)
|
|
I’ve had the experience of getting a character up to level 6 through GM credit and playing him only once, then only twice at level 7, But did get to play him through 9.1. I don’t enjoy him that much, because I didn’t actually experience most of his development. It also hurts that as a gnome alchemist/cavalier on a [redacted] he is one of the more complicated characters to try and deal with in combat. By not experiencing that complication through every level, I find it very difficult to play him.
Rebuilding can have the same effect. If you end up at a table with 5 rebuilds playing for the first time, especially at a higher level, you’ll end up with a lot of confusion and bog the table down in my opinion.
Again, let me state, I'm not asking for a TOTAL REBUILD OF THE CHARACTER. Here let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say that I have a Half-Orc *Insert Class Here* with all the standard Racial Traits out of the core book. What is so complicated about switching out his Intimidating racial trait for Rock Climber? You loose a +2 to Intimidation and get a +1 to Acrobatics and Climb? Or maybe I picked up the Improved Sunder feat and but then rarely ever used it and would instead like to swap it out for the new Surprise Follow-Though feat out of the ARG. I start taking AOO's when/if I ever attempt to sunder things but when I use Cleave or Great Cleave now the second target is denied his Dex to AC. Where's the complication?
Things like I stated above don't even "change the character" or how it would be played. It would be changes that make the character more like I pictured it in my head kind of thing.
Because the whole point of playing a roleplaying game, is to take a personality (your character) through adventures, and deal with the repercussions of your choices (as voiced through your character). These choices include any choices made during character creation.
Rebuilds make no sense in a roleplay perspective, and this campaign is based on a roleplaying game.
Thematically and continuity-wise, rebuilds are a bad, bad idea.
You can come up with whatever RP reasons you want, but forcing an RP reason onto a character because of a mechanical change, still makes it bad roleplay.
|
|
And they seem to be working on that. Season 2 had a storyline, though it was definitely muddier than the season 3 one was.1. This isnt any of those other living campaigns.You're right, in some ways it's better in other ways it's quite inferior. My biggest complaint has been, and probably always will be, the lack of a central story. Year 3 has been much better in that department but it's stall lacking compared to others that have come before.
I'll give you the Year of the Shadow story line, though I think calling it "muddier" is a little of an understatement.
Wow. Jump to conclusions much? I made this a separate point from my first one cause they are not related. This was a question, because I dont know what all living campaigns there have ever been (outside of Living Greyhawk which seems to get brought up more often than I care to hear comparisons for) and that 4e thing DnD does now. Are there others? Are they still around?2. How many of those other living campaigns are still around?So you're implying that by letting players have an occasional character rebuild that's what made the other "Living" campaigns go away? Could you be any more fallacious in your implications? There's enough room there to drive a Tarrasque through. For starters, Living Arcanis is still on going and, if I recall correctly, allowed their players a character rebuild once a year so they could uses the newest rules from the newest books. It was also one of the MOST story driven "Living" style campaigns I've ever played in.
That's the conclusion you let me too with your post as a whole, I didn't realize I should read them as two separate posts on two separate topics.
As for what 4e does or doesn't do I couldn't tell you. I played 4e when it first came out. I ran through the first mod "Keep of the Shadowfell" or whatever it was called and the me and the group I played it with didn't really care for it so we switched to Pathfinder. As to why Living Greyhawk gets brought up a lot, it was one of the MOST successful "Living" style campaigns ever done. It lasted the entirety of the 3E and 3.5 and had a ton of players across the world. As for ones that are still around, like I mentioned before, Living Arcanis is still around, as is the 4e LFR (but I don't play LFR). Most of the rest either didn't have enough of a player base to keep it going or the companies behind them pulled support and shut them down.
I'm not saying it is a bad thing, something we dont need, that it would cause any kind of harm to the campaign, but why is it necessary? That's what i want to know. The camapgin runs fine, now, without allowing rebuilds. Why change it now?Why is allowing a person to rebuild their characters using new and approved rules that came out after they started playing their characters such a bad thing? What would be so wrong with The Powers That Be allowing a character rebuild every new PFS year so that players can incorporate the new rules into the characters that they've already invested time into? Why is this something the the "Campaign does not need"?
Allowing rebuilds one time, like Brian said, is just the beginning. Once there are people who jkoin the game after, or miss their chance to do so now, they'll complain that they didnt get the option and how it's not fair. So then another rebuild time is allowed. And the cycle continues, over and over and over. That is not something this campaign needs.
It would be necessary to help those people who had a specific character in mind when they sat down to create them but didn't have the rules that allowed them to create what they had in mind (see my example I gave in my reply to Andrew). And yes, the campaign runs fine now but why summarily dismiss a change that more than a few people want "because this is how we've done it so far so why change it". The type of changes I'm asking for are minor, Racial Traits, Feats, and Archetypes (this is probably the most complicated) but none of these changes would be game breaking, in my opinion.
|
|
Your stuffYour stuffMy stuff
Responses in order according the the numbered system we have already been using, lol:
1. Lol
2. My apologies. I hadnt meant to mislead you. No harm, no foul. ;)
3. I really do understand where you are coming from on this. I've got a few characters (at least) that I'd love to make some changes to, even if they are minor changes. In all honesty, I think Andrew's latest post says it better than I can. I completely agree with him on this.
|
|
Because the whole point of playing a roleplaying game, is to take a personality (your character) through adventures, and deal with the repercussions of your choices (as voiced through your character). These choices include any choices made during character creation.
Rebuilds make no sense in a roleplay perspective, and this campaign is based on a roleplaying game.
Thematically and continuity-wise, rebuilds are a bad, bad idea.
You can come up with whatever RP reasons you want, but forcing an RP reason onto a character because of a mechanical change, still makes it bad roleplay.
And I would guarantee you that if you were to sit down with one of my characters that changed a trait or a feat, you'd never be able to tell. Also, while this is a Roleplaying Game it is also a GAME. It has rules to follow when building your character but the rules don't define the character of your character they define what he can or can't do. It's up to you to create the character's personality and make his "in game" decisions. No Racial Trait, or feat can do that for you.
As for the whole consequences of choices, are you talking "in game" choices or "character creation" choices. Becuase if I don't have a choice then there can't be any consequence from it. If I have a character that was created in Year 1 before APG, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic and ARG came out I was never given the choice of the content in those books. Should I have waited to create and play that character? If so, how long do I wait? A year? Two? Maybe I just never play hoping that the option I want eventually comes out in a book before the campaign ends?
All that I'm asking is to be giving a chance to explore some of these new choices that have been giving to me with characters I've been playing for a while and have an investment in. I don't want to have character clones because that one rules option that didn't exist when I created my character and would fit him PERFECTLY wasn't around when I made him. Where's the roleplaying in that?
|
|
As for ones that are still around, like I mentioned before, Living Arcanis is still around, as is the 4e LFR (but I don't play LFR). Most of the rest either didn't have enough of a player base to keep it going or the companies behind them pulled support and shut them down.
See my post above. There's at least a half-dozen other OP campaigns (beyond PFS and LFR) currently running out there. Some (like Legends of Arcanis) are being run by smaller game companies; others (like Legends of the Shining Jewel) are run by groups of dedicated gamers.
Yes, there were more OP campaigns in the mid-2000s, when (a) practically every game company had a d20 rules set on the market, and (b) the RPGA allowed third-party campaigns to use the RPGA's event-ordering system. Most of the campaigns from that era are, indeed, gone now, but there are others out there.
|
|
See my post above. There's at least a half-dozen other OP campaigns (beyond PFS and LFR) currently running out there. Some (like Legends of Arcanis) are being run by smaller game companies; others (like Legends of the Shining Jewel) are run by groups of dedicated gamers.
Yes, there were more OP campaigns in the mid-2000s, when (a) practically every game company had a d20 rules set on the market, and (b) the RPGA allowed third-party campaigns to use the RPGA's event-ordering system. Most of the campaigns from that era are, indeed, gone now, but there are others out there.
I did see your list (after I made my post, oops). I knew there were more but having not really been to a big gaming Con in almost 5 years and not having a ton of time to even spend at my local gaming stores makes it difficult stay up on what's out there.
What's wrong with rebuilding as a new character? No one said people can't join the PFS (ingame that is) at higher levels. Maybe someone was adventeuring for quite some time before they cared to join.
Isn't that what you get if you play with pregenerated characters? the ability to later apply that to another character?
