Making decisions - good ones and bad ones - which count and can't be easily reversed - this is what defines character.
Overcoming adversaries is what let's you feel achievement.
We should not forget that we play PCs - player characters
I don't say that playing a PB - a player build - can't be fun as well or in certain circumstances can be even more fun.
But it is still called a player character and I hope this aspec of the game won't change.
+1
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm not old so I don't get it (only 25 doncha know)Yes, alas, you're too young. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_and_the_bunnymen
Not to be confused with Delta and the Bannermen
|
Since I happen to agree with Thea and you on this, does this make you and I "Echoing Bunny Men?"
(You have to be old for that joke to make any sense.)
You can lump me in there as well, though I'm apparently too young to get that too.
(only 25 doncha know)
Emphasis mine...making me think of 'Bobby's World', lol.
|
|
Since I happen to agree with Thea and you on this, does this make you and I "Echoing Bunny Men?"
(You have to be old for that joke to make any sense.)
You can lump me in there as well, though I'm apparently too young to get that too.
(only 25 doncha know)Emphasis mine...making me think of 'Bobby's World', lol.
hehe
|
|
I've never been in a home game where retraining was allowed. And likely wouldn't want to be.
Seems like we're building just another neon sign signalling to gamers to start home games where retraining is available, and avoid PFS.
This. Is this even a common thing , to allow players to respec in home games.
There are many, many reasons someone would rather play a home game than PFS but I would not have guessed that this was one of them.
|
I've never been in a home game where retraining was allowed. And likely wouldn't want to be.
Seems like we're building just another neon sign signalling to gamers to start home games where retraining is available, and avoid PFS.
This. Is this even a common thing , to allow players to respec in home games.
There are many, many reasons someone would rather play a home game than PFS but I would not have guessed that this was one of them.
Heck, 3 of our longest running campaigns (started in 2001) are still going in 3.0 because we didn't want to change our characters for continuity sake. We use newer 3.5 material, but only as additions at later levels, not as a chance to rebuild.
|
This. Is this even a common thing , to allow players to respec in home games.
There are many, many reasons someone would rather play a home game than PFS but I would not have guessed that this was one of them.
I run a home game Kingmaker campaign. Guess what I allowed? Level 1 rebuilds. Once they hit 2, no changes. Mind you, 4/6 players are new to Pathfinder and 1 out of those 4 is his first PnP rpg ever.
Funny, only one player rebuilt anything and it was not the super new player.
|
|
I do admit that there are lots of trap options in PF, compared with even 3.5, but taking the occasional deviation from the optimal build of whatever type you want is not really a problem, since PFS is still not the kind of organized play environment where you need to relentlessly optimize as a baseline.
I'm just not seeing how people making missteps in designing their characters is a world-shattering problem.
|
|
I don't plan to give up this fight but if that's the kind of campaign you guys want for now, it's all yours.
Feral, I'm not sure exactly what you're fighting for ... you want rebuids ok .. well we're getting lvl 1 rebuilds .. the powers that be have had to compromise between completely open rebuilds at any level or none and given us one level to make changes that we need to make.
I don't see that point of high level rebuilds ..
I'm sorry you're getting what you obviously want, but we were at least given part of a bone.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I've never been in a home game where retraining was allowed. And likely wouldn't want to be.
Seems like we're building just another neon sign signalling to gamers to start home games where retraining is available, and avoid PFS.
This is the blurb I'm giving my players at my home game regarding retraining. We're about to start a very long campaign, and I expect that people will realize that they might want to be playing something else after a while. We are also using Hero Points (in a somewhat butchered, watered down version -- you don't get them from leveling anymore), so the retrain process involves a payment of those.
Changing Your Concept Sometimes you start a game, play through the tutorial and want to change your class. I want you to be able to do the same thing here. Minor adjustments (a feat, skill, etc) can be done by spending hero points.
- For one hero point, you can retrain all of your skill points. This can be done at levels 3, 5, 7, etc.
- For two hero points, you can exchange one feat, spell, or class ability (like a rogue talent) for another.
If, however, you want to build an entirely new character, I am totally alright with that. I understand the desire to mix it up. Speak with me, explain why you want to change, and we'll work to make it happen. You can do this once and keep the same wealth and experience, we'll work your new character into the story, retire your old one, and continue on. If everyone at the table wants to do a rebuild at the end of a story arc or act, we'll just adjust the story some and have everyone start off as a new party of adventurers or whatnot, no problem. The take home point from this is twofold. First, I want you to have fun. If you're not having fun, I'm not having fun. And second, I want you to play a character you'll fall in love with, and if what you're playing isn't that, we'll make it so.
But that's for my home game.
I think that given the nature of PFS, if you are tired of your current character/concept, you should just make a new one. And if you're a newbie and you were still learning the game, first level rebuilds solve that issue. I think that the new implementation is plenty of retraining, since there's no worry of "falling behind in levels" since you're playing an organized format.
|
|
It's not always about optimization. Plenty of times it's just about enabling the player to have a character that's more fun for them or more in line with their character's background.
Presumably the character's background was established from the get-go to be in line with the concept. I' not sure why that would need to change. Isn't the first thing the reason that people make new characters though. It is the reason I do, so that I can have something new to have fun with when an established character wears a little thin.
None of the threads about this topic, race boons, or any other changes really are going to be productive until we can see the changes in guide 4.2 anyway.
I'm not sure why I keep failing my will saves and posting TBH.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
It's not always about optimization. Plenty of times it's just about enabling the player to have a character that's more fun for them or more in line with their character's background.Presumably the character's background was established from the get-go to be in line with the concept. I' not sure why that would need to change. Isn't the first thing the reason that people make new characters though. It is the reason I do, so that I can have something new to have fun with when an established character wears a little thin.
None of the threads about this topic, race boons, or any other changes really are going to be productive until we can see the changes in guide 4.2 anyway.
I'm not sure why I keep failing my will saves and posting TBH.
Right there with you. I fail to understand why we can't all just wait a few weeks to see what is going to change, already, before clamoring for even more changes.
I think I just need to avoid the boards entirely for a while. Maybe that test of will I can actually pass...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, for you, me, and others starting over is a viable option.
But for some, being told to start over after investing 30-50 hours into something is a deal breaker.
Another poster mentioned Mass Effect earlier. Mass Effect, a game with a much smaller time investment, allows readily available rebuilds at the small cost of some in-game currency. Almost all other modern games do. Simply, the model of "You can never change anything, ever" is outdated because it's not fun for most people.
Do we want this campaign to grow or stay the scale that it is now?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do we want this campaign to grow or stay the scale that it is now?
Funny, I was under the impression that it was already growing by leaps and bounds without rebuilds, and we're already less than two months away from even more improvements.
Methinks perhaps you overestimate the necessity of your preferences for the health of the campaign.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm know it's not doing poorly.
I'd just like to see it do better.
And in your opinion, the surest way of seeing it do better is to jump from no rebuilds at all, straight to a much broader policy that would apply to every PC in the entire campaign, without the first-level-only intermediate step?
|
|
I'm know it's not doing poorly.
I'd just like to see it do better.
I think it's safe to say that is what we all want. But the best way to do that is NOT to go from 'No Rebuild Allowed' to 'All Rebuild Allowed' at once. The fact is that the campaign is doing very well under the no rebuild rules, but Mike is willing to make a compromise with those wanting rebuilds, by allowing rebuilding at first level. He said that (in some other place) it likely wont chance anytime soon, which means he is not opposed (I assume) to opening up rebuilding options further, sometime down the line, after we have seen the effects of this limited rebuilding option has on the campaign.
Basically, he is wisely dipping the big toe of PFS into the rebuild waters to see how it goes. If it does work well, perhaps more rebuilding will be opened up later on.
To completely change the rule at the drop of a hat just cause a vocal minority on the boards want it would be a bad policy, me thinks.
|
|
me thinks.Copycat! ;)
I did notice you said that, but had forgotten about it by the time I posted. I do actually use that phrase often enough that it wouldnt be considered strange for me to post it. So, maybe copycat, but unintentionally. :P
If people posting on an internet message board were an indication of a majority/minority there'd be many a game company out of business right now.
I'm a bit confused by this. Are you meaning that if the people who post on the boards were the only customers, that more game companies would go out of business? I so, I completely agree. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
By no means, I'm just confident that more is going to be needed.
So you don't actually think broader rebuild rules should be applied as of Guide 4.2, you think it's fine to start with just first-level rebuilds for the time being, and you're okay with broader rebuilds being a future consideration rather than an immediate one?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you don't actually think broader rebuild rules should be applied as of Guide 4.2, you think it's fine to start with just first-level rebuilds for the time being, and you're okay with broader rebuilds being a future consideration rather than an immediate one?
More or less, this.
I'm a bit confused by this. Are you meaning that if the people who post on the boards were the only customers, that more game companies would go out of business? I so, I completely agree. :P
I mean that, just because a few people on a message board disagree/agree with you is not indicator that either party is the majority.
If that were the case Bioware would be out of business right now.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So you don't actually think broader rebuild rules should be applied as of Guide 4.2, you think it's fine to start with just first-level rebuilds for the time being, and you're okay with broader rebuilds being a future consideration rather than an immediate one?More or less, this.
So then, your goal in all your fervent lobbying for more open rebuild rules would be...?
|
|
Feral's point is that the discussion needs to continue. Nothing wrong with him keeping up the torch on an issue he champions.
For my part, 1st level rebuilds are as far as I'm willing to go. I don't want to be on a table with the same people playing the same characters and never knowing what to expect as a GM or a Player. I know that's an extreme in the other direction, but it's what fuels my position.
I think comparing RPGs to Video games isn't really apt either as Video games tend to be focused on the same things most modern media is these days, short attention spans and unwarranted self-entitlement. The further you go down that path the more likely you are to please no one.
I can name at least one OP system whose travel in that direction ruined all the fun in it for me and many of the people I have now playing PFS. Be careful what you wish for you just might get it and discover the candy-like shine you thought it had was actually manure.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Feral's point is that the discussion needs to continue. Nothing wrong with him keeping up the torch on an issue he champions.
Sure, but when by his own admission it's an issue which should not be advanced upon for what, maybe a year at the earliest? I have to wonder what the point of arguing about it NOW could possibly be.
|
Feral's point is that the discussion needs to continue. Nothing wrong with him keeping up the torch on an issue he champions.Sure, but when by his own admission it's an issue which should not be advanced upon for what, maybe a year at the earliest? I have to wonder what the point of arguing about it NOW could possibly be.
If you don't want to argue about it "now" with him, then don't.
|
I've never played in home game that didn't allow some degree of rebuilding.
Even LG had a system for it.
LG also had a system for managing time expenditures outside of the adventure (TUs) and many home games can very easily manage the passage of "non adventure" time. This is entirely what made adapting the the Retraining rules from the PHBII possible: it could be managed and adjudicated without a dedicated GM.
Frankly, while TUs and similar systems system are nice in that they allow for more manageable item creation, retraining, and other non-adventuring activities...it doesn't fit well with the mechanics or philosophy underpinning Pathfinder Society play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And my 2 Coppers:
I like the idea of 1st level retraining. This gives you three adventures to see how the concept "feels" in actual play. While it is not ideal (as some builds don't truly come into their own until higher levels), it does give us a chance to test the waters.
I've found that characters I don't enjoy playing on a mechanical level start to show this by the third scenario with them. I actually have two characters sitting in my binder right now (A 2nd Level Half-Orc Cleric of Nethys & a 1st level Human Paladin of Sarenrae) that I stopped playing because they were not enjoyable to me and I wished I'd made different choices starting out. So I set them aside in favor of other PCs. I could adapt them over time, but that would involve suffering through a less than enjoyable play experience with them to get there.
I do have a couple PCs I would do things differently with if I had the opportunity to rebuild. My Summoner was started under the APG Beta Test rules; I ended up having to cease play with him for lack of feats I wanted for him until Ultimate Magic came out.
Regardless, I still don't like the idea of full retraining in any game.
My experience in home games where we've started at higher level is that players make different build choices for characters started at a higher level than those started at first. They are willing to take less than optimal feats that chain into something highly optimal. They feel safer sacrificing hit points as they now have gear to pick up the slack defensively. They choose different spells known. That archetype that doesn't look good at 1st level is attractive because you start out with the 7th level ability that is pretty awesome.
Allowing for retraining outside of lower levels will create builds that function in an 8th, 10th, 12th, etc. character but would have never survived Society play long enough to get there and for the build to "click". It creates a less than organic character.
A 1st level retrain at least addresses some basic issues surrounding new players with pregens/beginner box characters, base builds that don't work in practice, and other fundamental issues that can lock someone into a character at 1st level they realize they don't want. It salvages those 1-3 scenarios worth of play, and does little to upset character progression reflecting efforts to survive a career of hazardous adventuring.
Asking for retrains for high level characters because new content comes out you'd prefer that PC to have doesn't address issues that could potentially make the character less than fun to play; you've played them just fine until now and in theory, enjoyed it. They are just less than ideal compared to some other options or happen to fit your concept more closely. The character themselves hasn't suddenly ceased to function mechanically as they did before.
|
|
Allowing a prestige cost feat/trait/skill rebuild system.
PRO:
-You wouldn't need to sit and wait for new Paizo products to be released before you started playing the character concept.
I would like to play a Hellknight Signifier but I need to wait until the right book is released. If I start a general wizard, I'm probably in trouble.
-More excitement about new gaming options presented by new Paizo releases. Because people can use them.
-New players don't need to stress about getting their 'build' right from the get go, they can afford to make mistakes and they won't lose hours of gaming their characters when mistakes occur. Thus:
-Less googling search term: 'powerful pathfinder builds'
-Ability to adapt rules to fit character narrative arcs: IE Grand Lodge investigator turns into Shadow Lodge spy. Self-centred Taldan Cavalier ascends to become a paladin. Master Summoners become regular summoners and learn how to make friends.
-Less impact when Paizo needs to errata existing products.
-With less gamers having to 'start again' to play the character they want, there'd be a bigger range of tiers and tables, rather than a lake of 1-5 tier tables.
CON:
-Exploiters gonna exploit and switch feats depending on their usefulness at low level and high level. Their prestige points are going to get slammed by this, and if they die, let's hope they still have 16PP.
-GMs need to keep adapting to remember what regular characters capabilities are. More 'can I see your sheet?' moments.
-Less focus on system mastery, potentially less players building up a rules knowledge necessary to GM.
-Jiggy wouldn't be happy.
|
|
-New players don't need to stress about getting their 'build' right from the get go, they can afford to make mistakes and they won't lose hours of gaming their characters when mistakes occur. Thus:
-Less googling search term: 'powerful pathfinder builds'
These two are hugely important and I think they're entirely overlooked in favor of making selfish "I put in all this time so you can just restart" people happy.
Fun isn't a zero-sum game.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
These two are hugely important and I think they're entirely overlooked in favor of making selfish "I put in all this time so you can just restart" people happy.
Fun isn't a zero-sum game.
Zero sum would be no first level retraining and it would remain as it currently is. Debate all you like, but this is one topic I am standing firm on, and any further debate on this topic will most likely not attract my attention. We are instituting first level retraining. Weve never had any form of open character rebuild in the past. It won't change to any other higher levels anytime in the near or far foreseeable future. If that is what you are looking for, then Pathfinder Society may not be the best choice for your organized play needs. We hope you will stick around and enjoy all the changes we do have planned to improve the campaign. But continually debating something I've already advised is not going to move further than what is already planned is effort better spent on other topics.
|
|
If that is what you are looking for, then Pathfinder Society may not be the best choice for your organized play needs.
Sound good Mike. Stick to your guns and I'll stick to mine.
Thank you, Mike.
I've never thought it made much sense in-character to completely change the way a character acts, things they know, and what they do halfway through a campaign.
You know, short of Psychic Surgery. And psions and their powers aren't in PFS. ;-)
This is one of those logical fallacies that people are always talking about.
Nobody has suggested allowing wholesale rebuilding.
Iron Will -> Toughness
Isn't hurting anyone.
|
|
Why would being short a maximum of 12hp completely spoil your fun?, and why cant you just pickup toughness on your next odd level?
Why would someone else feeling they're short 12 HP ruin your fun, out of curiosity? I'm genuinely curious, this "just pick it up at the next level" mindset kind of ignores that maybe the player had other plans then continuing in a game with a character that they made a minor mistake they feel is important for another few dozen hours of their lives...
|
|
Since people have brought it up, I think it's worth discussing how we've seen this system introduced in other organized campaigns.
I'll explain the two I know the best.
LFR
This campaign went through a few revisions but ultimately their rebuild/retrain rules were something like this:
Upon leveling up you can retrain any number of powers, skills, and feats. In addition, you can retrain your paragon path (prestige class) and epic destiny (super prestige class). Also, you can completely rebuild your stats. There were a few rules to this (ex. Your feats had to be listed in a legal order).
I believe the only thing you couldn't wholly replace was your base class and race (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this).
This system saw a lot of abuse. Within my local area I know people would completely rebuild their characters once they reached certain levels (when certain builds hit their stride) and, personally, my roommate went out of his way to retrain his stats every 4th level (to optimize his stat bonuses).
Personally, I'd never want to see PFS go this far but this is a good example of the worst-case-scenario some people are worried about.
LG
LG's retraining rules didn't come into play until near the end of its lifetime (I believe year four or five).
They worked something like this...
Upon leveling your character you could spend a small but not meaningless amount of gold and TUs (a sort of meta resource representing in-game time) to retrain one of the following:
A feat
Up to four skill points
A class feature with multiple options (favored enemy, domains, etc)
You couldn't retrain anything that made another portion of your character invalid (you couldn't retrain skill points if it made you not eligible for a feat you had).
Now back in my LG days I knew about a lot of cheesy/questionable/cheating practices going on but cheesing the retrain rules was not on the list. Yes, cheaters are going to cheat and optimizers are going to optimize but nobody that had ever heard of (and I traveled a good deal) was using this system to gain some sort of absurd advantage.
In total, I believe I used these rules twice. Once to swap Dodge for Weapon Focus (since remembering to use Dodge was a pain in the rear) and swapping a few skill points from Survival to Intimidate (because I didn't use Survival much and I thought it would be cool for my character to be scarier).
Neither of these changes represented some sort of wild change in character.
Obviously PFS can't adopt this system in whole (as we don't use TUs) but Prestige/Fame would be a good stand in.
I can't say where to draw the line as far as what should be retrainable - skills, feats, class features, race, class, zodiac sign, etc, but that's something we could figure out later.
|
|
Saves don't really work like that. Iron Will is always a 10% greater chance of making your save and if anything will saves are more important at higher levels.
But let's just say doing so is an advantage.
If people are blowing a significant amount of prestige to gain that small of a benefit, it's not a benefit at all.