So my players and I are discussing creating a sort of character stable or guild function, where a player can have multiple characters that he can access. I have a few questions for anyone who has dealt with this.
1) Is there any sort of blog post (Paizo or not) or otherwise already created mechanic for this?
2) I want there to be an in-game time period in which a player cannot swap a character. I'm thinking a month or so. Good idea or no? Maybe I should just do it per level?
3) We're thinking the secondary characters would be one level lower, at minimum experience, at all times (our method for new characters, so that people don't just create a new character to replace old ones who have fallen behind). Sound good?
4) Any other advice.
It'd be houseruled. What do they mean by "stable" - inactive characters that can be activated at the expense of deactivating another character? Or characters that can be activated alongside the "main"?
The later used to be called Henchmen (or "Henchies" for short), and you could have up to 25 of them with good CHA (even higher with godly CHA but we won't go there), but has been replaced with the "Cohort" of which There Can Be Only One.
If the former, multiple PCs for each player but only one of them played at any given time, I have a vague recollection of an rule in one of the, IIRC, 2E books, where you could basically add 1 level to any of your other characters any time the active character leveled. (It might have been a Dark Sun idea), but this dropped away because in practice it doesn't work so well - after all, how does everyone stay geared?
Why would they need to swap characters a lot? Do they get bored playing one character too long and like variety? (It does happen). Overall IMO having a "rule" for it is more cumbersome than not.
There are only some "DON'T DO" rules I can think of:
1) no "loaning" gear between characters if they do this. This absolutely includes no "sharing" of spellbooks!!!
2) no "free gear"/"free WBL monies" - players will argue that it's "fair" and "reasonable" that while their characters are "off-stage" they're "still earning," just as they're "still leveling" and thus when activated should have gear appropriate to whatever level they're at, and, naturally, they should get to pick this gear just like they're picking feats and skills and such for the characters in their stable.
But that always gets abused.
However, once you say "no" to these things, for obvious good reasons, the "stable of characters" idea has more problems than not, at least if these characters are meant to "help out" in the same campaign/adventures as the "main" characters.
Again, there are ways where this can sort of work, mostly if people are willing to accept overall slower leveling (no "free" levels to keep their stable all within 1 level of each other/the "main," so that, if they want all their characters to be of similar level, they have to adventure with each roughly equally - which is the only thing, given the above "DON'T DO" rules - that will keep them appropriately geared for the campaign anyhow).
|
This sounds much like an idea from Darksun, where it was so lethal that you were started at lv 3, and had a stable of characters because they *will* die.
I don't remember the specifics, but it was along the lines of equal XP for all, swapping out was only permitted upon death and/or between adventures... Honestly I can't remember much of it.
How I would do it, is all the characters would level at the same time, but enforce a training time to level. This would offer downtime for the characters going on 'break' and be a convenient way to add new adventure hooks.
It is the former - they want characters they can pull out when/if they get bored of their current. However, the point was raised whether or not they could have access to the knowledge of the other characters (specifically brought up was calling on a secondary character that is a wizard for his skills). Not necessarily playing both at the same time, though.
See, Vendis, when you put stuff like this to the boards and make it sound like "player wants" people immediately jump to munchkin-esque conclusions. This was originally YOUR idea.
Also, the fact is, there are only three of us in our current Kingmaker group, two of us are sneaky-types, and two of us are nature-y types, with zero arcane magic. Since my sneaky-archer build ranger is the one that creates all the overlap, I've decided I should try to play a wizard for once and bring some versatility to our handicapped group, but I don't want to just kill my ranger, because I really, really enjoy playing him, and at some point will want to bring him back out.
The questions raised about being able to go and have these two characters have a conversation or offering aid was tangential, and there are no plans to make regular visits. However, if it's to be done, it would make it absolutely useless to set it up so that the "stabled" character remains in stasis or has to split gained experience from the active character.
I offered up that a stabled character would gain experience, but would always be one level lower than the active character at the minimum possible experience to attain that level, and that any contact between the active character and stabled character that rendered any tangible benefit (information, skill checks, spells, etc) would incur a penalty to experience gained for that level (5-20% depending on the situation as determined by the DM).
Hardly trying to break the game, just trying to make it less "gamey."
Um.. One person had maybe half of their post talking about munchkining, and it was in a very fair way - they asked specifically the reason why this was being looked at and responded to a few of the reasons it might be. I don't get it when you say that someone is jumping to conclusions.
Anyway, Fog's right, the stuff he's written is what's going on. Just a party with overlap considering options for dealing with it.
We did something like this in Kingmaker. As a group we tend to have short attention spans and by the half way point of the campaign many of the initial PCs were retired (to run the Kingdom) and "Team B" was born.
After the Kingdom shaking events of Book 6, everyone picked their favorite PC, some of the originals were leveled up and we counter attacked. No one ever played more than one PC at a time but it gave people who had gotten bored with their character a chance to change things up. I think only the player playing a Ranger played the same PC throughout the whole campaign.
Um.. One person had maybe half of their post talking about munchkining, and it was in a very fair way - they asked specifically the reason why this was being looked at and responded to a few of the reasons it might be. I don't get it when you say that someone is jumping to conclusions.
Anyway, Fog's right, the stuff he's written is what's going on. Just a party with overlap considering options for dealing with it.
You're on here as much as I am, you know how the forums can be. Last time you posted a thread about something you though "I" wanted to do with a character (see shocking grasp gauntlet) it was a flurry of inane responses about how I (the player) was trying to break your game. I didn't call any posts out in this thread: just reminding you to be wary of the internet and how they perceive these things.
He asked for rules to make it workable. If you're not going to exploit, it's not a problem to have the stable "rules" set up so that it won't be exploitable.
If he (or you) are in a group that doesn't need such guidelines, then more power to you but no need to ask about it here and then get all huffy and passive-aggressive when people respond with "here is how you can make it work while minimizing potential problems."
I sincerely am glad if you're in a group where no one will try to find an exploit. But then you can go rules-minimum on this whole thing and just use whatever works best.
I'm not huffy. Just setting the record straight.
I think the forums can be a great resource for ideas, but lately it seems like the majority of people who post on here talk about how strict you have to be with players. That's all well and good if you are playing at the FLGS with people you might be good acquaintances with, but we're all roommates and have known each other for 5 or more years and have just recently lost our only "problem" player.
Also, Vendis and I rotate DMing, so a lot of our rulings are co-operative interpretations.
I would prefer a rules minimum approach for the subject at hand, and I feel that the solution is simple, though obviously Vendis disagrees.
I think the forums can be a great resource for ideas, but lately it seems like the majority of people who post on here talk about how strict you have to be with players.
Ok, and I understand. For better or worse the kind of problems DMs usually bring for advice on involve things like that, and there's an epic thread/troll thread ongoing at the moment revolving around such issues.
My own early posts in that thread tried to strike a balance and point out that what works for some doesn't apply to others, so I understand where both the people concerned with "powergaming ruining our/my campaign" are coming from and those concerned with "if you clamp down too hard on players, are too controlling on rules and options, you take the enjoyment out of the game" people are coming from, too.
See my post here where I tried to, gently, suggest other "solutions" to "the fifteen minute workday problem" other than the DM coming up with schemes to control rest times, which, if overdone, can make the players see the campaign as an ordeal (or even see the DM as an antagonist).
Now as for the specific idea here - I was, ages ago, in a campaign where we had several characters, a "stable" as it were, and one player in particular abused it, which led to others to emulate that, and though I'm not proud of it me too (in part out of a felt need to 'keep up' and in part because my general rule of thumb is to not nerf myself compared to others if a DM/DM will let other people at the table do something). Oh and we were all close school friends (but not very mature, I admit). So part of what I suggested was informed by experience.
Which isn't experience at your table. So if the suggestions don't apply to your group, fair enough; if it means no one there will use having a stable of characters as a means to increase the size of spellbooks by having 'the guild' share spells, then fair enough. But perhaps they will help others who consider the same idea when they read this thread. Or not.