|
Slap me with a herring if this is too basic of a question or it's been answered on some FAQ somewhere...when I GM a scenario, can the players play more than one character at a time? I don't see any hard and fast rules on the matter.
The reason this comes up is more often than not my personal group has issues getting a quorum - so I end up having to fill the extra seats with NPCs/pregens. It would be more fun for everyone involved if the players got to play with their own characters.
|
|
You need 3 actual players playing and a GM to be a legal table. In this instance, you fill in the 4th spot with a pregen. This is the only instance you fill in an "extra seat". The GM is supposed to run this pregen, but often times, it defaults to control by one of the players at the table.
A player can only have one personal character playing at a table at a time.
EDIT:
One Character at a Time
You may only play one character during a specific scenario
session. You may have more than one active character in
Pathfinder Society Organized Play, but playing more than
one during a specific session is considered cheating. GMs
are allowed to play one pregenerated character during a
session, but only to make a legal table.
|
|
You need 3 actual players playing and a GM to be a legal table. In this instance, you fill in the 4th spot with a pregen. This is the only instance you fill in an "extra seat". The GM is supposed to run this pregen, but often times, it defaults to control by one of the players at the table.
A player can only have one personal character playing at a table at a time.
EDIT:
One Character at a Time
You may only play one character during a specific scenario
session. You may have more than one active character in
Pathfinder Society Organized Play, but playing more than
one during a specific session is considered cheating. GMs
are allowed to play one pregenerated character during a
session, but only to make a legal table.
Well that's a bummer. Looks like I won't be doing any Society games at my house any more. Thanks for the clarification.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There's nothing stopping you from playing the scenarios, you just couldn't then take those same PCs to other Society games (like at a convention or something) and play them there. You can totally still just grab a couple friends and play a game using a PFS scenario as the adventure.
|
If playing a homegame of basic AP like Jade Regent, players can play as many PCs as the gm will allow.
But in pfs play, it is mandated in the pfs field guild and seasonal guide. In an attempt not to say it exactly how Sniggevert stated it; when playing pfs sessions/encounters/modules for credit, the only way a player can play 2 characters is if a pregen is needed for an official table and said player plays the pregen along with his PC.
Pfs pregens can be found within the gm resources section of pathfinder Society.
|
|
There's nothing stopping you from playing the scenarios, you just couldn't then take those same PCs to other Society games (like at a convention or something) and play them there. You can totally still just grab a couple friends and play a game using a PFS scenario as the adventure.
That's what we'll have to do, it seems. Shame we can't get official credit for them. I like a lot of the PFS scenarios from an adventure standpoint, but some of the Society rules for reporting/running games seem designed to make the game less fun. Or at least less accessible. I hate having to maintain two versions of a character for Society and non-Society play.
But I digress. Question answered, although I'm bummed by it.
|
Techie, it is considered cheating as you are a) playing two characters at once, which is a no-no (especially because many people can't concentrate enough to play ONE character well at a table, let alone two), and b) you can only have one chronicle sheet per scenario per PLAYER. So you are playing and replaying at the same time.
Now I have somewhere around 14 different characters. That's fine. However I can only ever play one to any given table. That's the way it should be, I think.
Additionally, it would open the door wide open for people to create two characters that are basically twins to cover eachother's backs, creating a dynamic duo or supercheese. (Players already do this where they have one and the friend has another. Gets annoying when they insist on playing together even if there's not enough room for two more at a table. But I digress).
Matt, the best guess I can give is that a four-man party is the smallest number possible to have some semblance of balance. Sadly, balance is rarely on peoples' minds in Society, but still. Besides, I am personally of the school that thinks RPGs are better with a group of at least 4 (no more than 8). The three-player table size plus one NPC is allowed to let smaller groups play.
|
|
Techie, it is considered cheating as you are a) playing two characters at once, which is a no-no (especially because many people can't concentrate enough to play ONE character well at a table, let alone two), and b) you can only have one chronicle sheet per scenario per PLAYER. So you are playing and replaying at the same time.
Now I have somewhere around 14 different characters. That's fine. However I can only ever play one to any given table. That's the way it should be, I think.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion on that. Juggling multiple players can be difficult (especially if you're a role player who likes to play in-character) but calling it cheating is just silly, IMO. I'd be entertained at a table with two different PCs and someone who could play both. Isn't the point of a game to have fun?
Additionally, it would open the door wide open for people to create two characters that are basically twins to cover eachother's backs, creating a dynamic duo or supercheese. (Players already do this where they have one and the friend has another. Gets annoying when they insist on playing together even if there's not enough room for two more at a table. But I digress).
Again our opinions differ. Unless you're the kind of GM who feels it's his duty to defeat the players at all costs, why would two players working together (even if they were run by the same person) be a bad thing? Surely adventurers work together all the time in a real-world scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal opinion is that the rule is in place because running multiple characters at a table could give that person an edge over others that will also play that scenario. Since PFS is a world wide organized community, the rules are in place to make sure the playing field stays as level as possible. Allowing people to play two or more characters simply doesnt do that.
Even if everyone at your table is running two, everyone world wide isn't going to be.
|
|
The rules say:If you do not follow the rules on purpose. You are cheating.
- only one PC at a time
- only 1 chronicle sheet per scenario
- you may not replay for credit
I'm quite clear on the rules, thanks. What I asked was why the rules were decided as such. I'm beginning to get the impression that organized play isn't for me.
|
|
My personal opinion is that the rule is in place because running multiple characters at a table could give that person an edge over others that will also play that scenario. Since PFS is a world wide organized community, the rules are in place to make sure the playing field stays as level as possible. Allowing people to play two or more characters simply doesnt do that.
Even if everyone at your table is running two, everyone world wide isn't going to be.
That makes sense. I guess to level the playing field they had to limit a lot of the freedoms players might have otherwise had. Bad news is my home games won't be sanctioned. Good news is we'll have fun playing with the expanded Core rule set instead. I've been wanting to roll a Necromancer. :)
|
As has been pointed out, it can cause all sorts of problems. If one is a fighter and one is a wizard, and you always play the two together, you can have your wizard buy expensive weapons and armor for your fighter for no other reason than to hand it to him each session. Not only that, but since you have double the wealth, it's easier to recover from effects such as death of a character.
Or you could have complete synergy of the characters. The whole purpose of one character would be to set up another. While this is also possible by just playing two characters together, it would become rampant if multiple characters were allowed. This gives a distinct advantage to that player.
Another solution to look into is to play a Sanctioned Adventure Path or Modules in "campaign mode." There are many Sanctioned Adventure Paths out right now, and also the Module "Dragon's Demand" can be played in this mode.
You would then be able to play the adventure path however you like (using even house rules, less people, etc.) with whatever rules you like (you can make the character creation "like" PFS if you really wanted to...my home group for Shattered Star did!) and be able to apply it to PFS characters (only one per person, regardless of how many characters you played it with individually). While it's not a perfect solution and would limit you to adventure paths for credit when playing with less than 4 people total at the table, it is an option that will give each person involved PFS credit.
|
|
Another solution to look into is to play a Sanctioned Adventure Path or Modules in "campaign mode." There are many Sanctioned Adventure Paths out right now, and also the Module "Dragon's Demand" can be played in this mode.You would then be able to play the adventure path however you like (using even house rules, less people, etc.) with whatever rules you like (you can make the character creation "like" PFS if you really wanted to...my home group for Shattered Star did!) and be able to apply it to PFS characters (only one per person, regardless of how many characters you played it with individually). While it's not a perfect solution and would limit you to adventure paths for credit when playing with less than 4 people total at the table, it is an option that will give each person involved PFS credit.
That's an excellent idea, and a helpful answer. Thank you.
|
The rules say:I'm quite clear on the rules, thanks. What I asked was why the rules were decided as such. I'm beginning to get the impression that organized play isn't for me.If you do not follow the rules on purpose. You are cheating.
- only one PC at a time
- only 1 chronicle sheet per scenario
- you may not replay for credit
Since PFS is an organized play campaign, the rules must work for all possible situations. While it sounds like you have a good group with players who are able to keep track of two PCs at the same time, that's not always going to be the case for a random group of players gathered at a convention. If the rules allowed for playing multiple PCs, it could create undesirable situations, such as one person playing two PCs while everyone else is only playing one, and that player monopolizing the limited amount of time for the scenario.
Also, it could complicate signups. If a player is allowed to sign up twice for the same session, does that mean only 4 other players get to be seated at that session? Limiting things to 1 PC per player, and having a minimum of 3 players, are rules designed to encourage more people to play. True, sometimes it results in a session not being able to be run. No solution is ideal for every circumstance. These are just the rules the campaign has chosen.
Who would determine which player is allowed to run multiple PCs, and in what circumstances? Say 5 people are seated at a table. Would one of them be allowed to bring a second PC? Or would that only be allowed to make a 4 player table? What if two players want to bring a second PC? How would it be decided?
These, and similar issues, are all things the campaign management has to consider. In addition, they've decided to only allow replay in a very limited number of circumstances, and to limit rewards to one chronicle per scenario as a player. That rule, by its nature, leads to the one PC per player rule.
And none of these reasons even start to get into the potential character building abuses when you can design two PCs as a team, which others have mentioned up thread.
There are a lot of situations that work for a group of 3 good friends who trust each other and are used to each others' play style that don't work in the much more common situation of an open game day or a convention.
I'll second Andrew's suggestion of an Adventure Path. Campaign Mode would allow you to do what you want, and the players could still receive PFS credit (though only one chronicle sheet per section, per player).
Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew and Thrune make excellent points above—especially Thrune's observations about how the practice would complicate sign-ups.
I would add that scenarios' challenges and difficulty are modified depending on how many characters are participating, so being able to add or subtract characters without any change in the number of players would enable some tweaking of the party's effective level to an uncomfortable degree.
The two-character proposal also suggests I could play two characters that are of different levels, which normally wouldn't be an issue; Pathfinder Society Organized Play is structured so that characters of dissimilar levels can still play together. However, I could also keep Character A a few levels above Character B, enabling B to reap the greater gold rewards just by tagging along with his higher level buddy. It's true that this can happen by accident based on the present system, but the two-character idea makes it far too easy to manipulate the circumstances to engineer one's own advantage.
There's a problem with spotlight-sharing, too. While I'm GMing, I want to ensure that everyone gets an equal opportunity to have about an equal amount of time in the spotlight. Do I give the player with two characters twice as much time (to the other players' detriment)? Do I give him the same amount of time, in which case neither of his characters really has a chance to shine? If the player takes a particularly long time to resolve his turn in combat, what will that be like when I let the player manage two characters? I understand this might not be an issue for particularly small groups, but the two-character model would almost certainly try to expand into larger tables (e.g. four players playing six characters)
There are also issues with reporting games. The system kicks back a message when one tries to assign player credit to more than one character for the same scenario. Allowing players to field two characters would mean either ignoring this feature (not so good) or kicking it up to the web team to redesign (time-consuming). If Player A gets credit on two characters by playing them simultaneously, does that mean Player B gets to reply the scenario for credit a second time just to "keep things fair?" There are many cans of worms down this road that are better left unopened.
Finally, Pathfinder Society Organized Play is a social game. It's fantastic that a group can play PFS scenarios sort of like a home game, by which I mean following PFS rules but not changing the attendance on a regular basis. Heck, it's how I started PFS. That said, one of the many strengths of organized play is that it enables rotating attendance and playing a familiar game with complete strangers. I respect that you may wish to experience scenario with just one or two other people; however, I encourage you to see a perceived limitation (3 player minimum) as a medium for expanding your gaming group and introducing others to the game we love.
|
|
TechieMoe, sorry I did not understand your question. It appeared to me that you were asking (in other words) why not following the rules is considered cheating. My bad.
I believe this rule is, in part, a legacy from Living Greyhawk days.
Back then you were able to play two characters at the table if:
- you had the Leadership feat and brought a Henchman along
- there was an empty seat at the table
This aspect of LG caused some problems as Ferious Thrune points out above. When more than one player had a Henchman, but there was only one empty seat, there could be hard feelings when neither would agree to leave their Henchman at home. In those case no one got to play an extra PC. Also, players with two PCs would get more time that those only using one PC which some players resented.
Pathfinder Society evolved from this earlier campaign and took steps at the start to avoid these problems. Case in point, the Leadership feat is not allowed in PFS.
I hope this explains some of the 'Why'.
|
|
Thank you for the insight, everyone. I think I understand the "why" now. Society is just too restricted for my home group, so we'll be following the Core Rulebook instead. As John Compton pointed out, PFS is more of a social event, and although I'd love to expand my group life doesn't always accommodate. The best I'm usually able to get is two other friends, so that makes us unable to do any sanctioned games.
Looks like I'll have two sets of characters - one for myself for when I'm able to attend others' PFS groups and one for my home group (who love RPGs, but dislike PFS due to the many restrictions). It's an imperfect solution, but it looks like the only one for my situation.
I'll leave on the point that resonated most from me when I read the Core Rulebook:
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breath life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs.
Thanks again, everyone. I hope to enjoy much Pathfinder in the future (with or without the Society's blessing.) ;)
|
|
Welcome to Pathfinder, TechieMoe! Organzied PLay isn't for everyone, sometimes due to style and sometimes due to the limitations of the rules (like number of players). It's a great game either way, but it sounds like you don't really *need* Organized Play for what you're doing. A lot of us started OP because we didn't have a regular group we could play with, or wanted to meet new players, or whatever.
Remember, it's the same game - if you do decide to come to a PFS event, you'll have to start a new PC but you'll be playing the same game we all know and love.
I have a campaign running now with 3 players. I have an NPC with a mount. All the players are very experienced. They all have Leadership as well as controlling additional "cohort" characters gained through roleplay. In addition, the sorcerer is a golem crafter/devil binder with 5 golems and a host of devils in tow. It has become a VERY, VERY large group. Small battalion more like. It is very tiring. Combat is excessively long and hard to mange at times. However, my players can't wait for each session. They absolutely love it. And that makes me happy. However, if they weren't veteran gamers, it would be very, very difficult for them. As a GM, you must give it a shot if your players want it. If they can't handle it, they will let you know eventually.
|
This issue has recently come up for me, and after searching, I have read through all the comments in this thread, including developer remarks. I don't see the problem with pregens.
Given that table sizes of up to 6 are legal for PFS and scenario difficulty, player experience and desire for challenge level vary (some love 4-player tables and some want 5-6), I see absolutely no reason why there can't be a single in-subtier-only no-credit pregen allowed at table sizes from 3-5, or at least 3-4, based on player wishes or necessity (party gaps, drop-outs, etc.). It doesn't break anything, doesn't create havoc, NOBODY gets credit for it, it eliminates prep issues relating to scenario scaling when players have to drop or fail to show up, it helps prevent aborted games when players don't feel good about 4-person runs, and it supports an emphasis on fun and being social.
Also, it is sometimes hard to have throw-together PFS parties with sufficient diversity, where players find themselves in a party that can't, for example, heal and have already made the time commitment. Where's the fun in that? Or, what if, based on APL, they are required to play up and don't really have the party resources? Should the adventure fail, or would an in-subtier pregen fix the problem?
There are creative solutions to these problems, like going out and hiring and dragging along mediocre NPCs during the game, but what's the difference between that and a pregen, other than making players pay for it in gold instead of just using a pregen to improve the party gaming experience? Hirelings are sometimes necessary, sometimes funny, but kind of a pain.
So, can anyone put forward reasoning why running a single, no credit pregen at table sizes of 3-5, or 3-4 is problematic? All the cheat, credit & reporting scenarios outlined above are non-issues. The empasis is on playing the game and having a good time at any experience level, organized or not.
I fully support and understand the social interaction component, but that is also not a reason to disallow a single pregen as I have suggested. When tables of people who do show up to be social and game can't easily go forward because of party gaps or excessive scenario risks, adding a pregen despite not being a table of 3 shouldn't be a blocker.
I would like to see this rule changed for PFS to put the emphasis on fun and gaming and help more games go forward without having to reschedule based on absence, party gaps, or players who are uncomfortable with scenario risk/difficulty. A legal table is not necessarily a viable one.
|
|
At table size 3, you must use a pre-gen stop gap.
If you do not have a viable table of 4-5 players due to class make-up...one of them can play a pre-gen rather than everyone fail the mission. Or they can play it harder... There are a lot of magic item options to overcome various diversity deficiencies...
All scenarios have options to "balance" it to a table of 4. How good those are vary wildly from encounter to encounter sometimes though.
|
|
At table size 3, you must use a pre-gen stop gap.
Yes - sorry. I should have been a little more clear above. I was grouping 4-5 with the mandatory 3 with the implication that the rule should be generalized and extended to allow for 1 no-credit pregen as long as there are less than 6 players.
If you do not have a viable table of 4-5 players due to class make-up...one of them can play a pre-gen rather than everyone fail the mission.
The Guide allows anyone to play a pregen ostensibly to "try out a new class". However, the credit may not be applied to a character of the same level. So, if someone in the party leaves behind their Level 4 for a pregen/4, it means their character can't advance and the credit will have to be applied elsewhere. And, substituting a pregen for a PC also doesn't address the issues of quantity, experience, battle difficulty, length of encounters, etc. People who show up at a game should be able to play their intended characters and get credit for them (which would be the case with an added no-credit pregen).
How good those are vary wildly from encounter to encounter sometimes though.
I completely agree. I have seen some of the 4-player adjustments, and I don't think they really address the issues that parties will face (or perhaps only minimally, or for experienced players). A no-credit pregen would help, even if it eliminated the scaling.
I support a change that would allow a table/GM/player decision to add (rather than substitute) a pregen at table size < 6.
I realize there are certain work-arounds that relate to scaling, player experience, pregen subbing, items, magic, certain skills, etc., but if the goal is to always be able to move forward with an emphasis on fun, social experience and success, I think adding a pregen might help as a viable option.
If people are happy with party composition, experience level, scaling or 4-person PC competence/well-roundedness and/or want the increased challenge, great. But when that's not the case, the party can spend the whole game struggling, or it can end badly (or never even start in the first place, even with 4) - situations that might easily be avoided with an added pregen.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Allowing a pregen at any table would throw the average wealth level of PCs off.
Pregens would be raided for consumables, so PCs wouldn't need to use their own. Pregens could also be used as a throw away character to eat a death instead of a PC. Saving the PC the need to spend money/PP on a raise dead, etc.
|
|
Allowing a pregen at any table would throw the average wealth level of PCs off.
Pregens would be raided for consumables, so PCs wouldn't need to use their own. Pregens could also be used as a throw away character to eat a death instead of a PC. Saving the PC the need to spend money/PP on a raise dead, etc.
"No, it's ok, don't use up Kyra's wand first, here use mine."
- Said no Pathfinder Ever.
Allowing a pregen at any table would throw the average wealth level of PCs off.
Pregens would be raided for consumables, so PCs wouldn't need to use their own. Pregens could also be used as a throw away character to eat a death instead of a PC. Saving the PC the need to spend money/PP on a raise dead, etc.
"No, it's ok, don't use up Kyra's wand first, here use mine."
- Said no Pathfinder Ever.
Actually I'm with Brian on this one. I think it's a little unethical for characters to abuse pre-gen characters the way that they do.
If "no Pathfinder ever" would turn down free healing, why should Kyra, Seelah, or whomever [in character] dole out their consumables for your characters?
I was expressing agreement with Brian as well.
I suppose a GM could insist that the pregen refuses to allow her resources to be milked in such a way. I've just never seen the GM do so.
(but now that you put that Idea in my head...)
I didn't read that in you initial statement, but I won't argue your intent since that's a losing battle.
I'm not even sure how to get players to start treating pre-gens with respect. I've seen players change other players treatment of pre-gen gear for the positive, but I don't know how that'd work on the GM end of things. It's uncooperative to withhold healing, but treating pre-gens as free PC level gear is callous, too.
|
|
I didn't really consider the issue of pregen abuse - good points. I appreciate the perspective from those of you who have been playing PFS for a long time.
I could see how it would theoretically be possible to add some rules to control pregen use, but that might just result in more rules instead of more fun.
For example - rules might say:
1. No pregen consumable may be applied to any character except the pregen if an identical consumable exists in the party [ensures that common pregen consumables are strictly backup, critical need only]
2. A pregen may not be used if a similar class or primary class ability exists in the party. [prevents class and spell/magic type stacking abuse - divine, arcane, etc. - even from different classes - sorcerer + wizard]
3. Alternately, an interesting rule might be that consumables follow the assignment of credit. [For example, if you use a pregen consumable, then you are responsible for paying for its use from the character who gets the credit, just as if your real character were using that consumable, etc.]
These rules might go beyond the intended scope of control for a pregen and be problematic. And, in the case of #1, they might prevent a pregen or player from doing something they need to do in order to be effective based on a technicality.
When I originally wrote my post, I was concerned about the fact that I was about to run a notoriously deadly scenario with only 4. Luckily, a 5th showed up at the last minute and the party triumphed with some narrow escapes (a low damage roll leaving a character to -1, and 2 failed BBEG defensive CC's that were likely going to be lethal). Might not have gone so well with 4.
I still believe there is some pregen middle ground (beyond the 3-party table rule...where those tables may also exhibit abuse). Power could be given to the GM to add a pregen in parallel with the trust, common sense, or maybe even rules modification to limit any related abuse, as necessary. I don't know if the rules above fall into a useful category for that purpose, but they were an interesting thought exercise.
Thanks for the discussion - it is very informative. And, deusvult - your comment was hilarious! "Said No Pathfinder Ever." Haha! Nice one.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look in the Guide. PFS table sizes are suppose to range from 4-6, but it does allow you to stretch to 3 or 7 if no other options are available.
The reason why tables of 3 get a pregen to boost them up to 4 is because the CR system in Pathfinder is based off a group of 4.
Early PFS adventures were balanced around a group of 4. After several years worth of reporting data. The campaign leadership noticed that a large percentage of PFS tables were reported with 6 players.
In response to this data Paizo reformatted the combats in PFS scenarios to account for 6 party members, but also included a method to adjust the encounters for a smaller group of 4.
As long as you have at least 4 players you don't need an extra character to help in combat. Actually a table of 5 is the only size that puts you at a disadvantage.
If you feel that the majority of the tables mustered in your area are missing important skills or are unbalanced in some other way. Then as a community you should try to create a wider variety of characters to resolve that issue.
|
|
Thanks, Brian.
re: 3-7 - Yes. I've seen that in the Guide. 7 is good from a social standpoint because it's inclusive, but it's also an unbalancing risk for action economy in favor of the party. But, it should be up to the players and GM to decide how challenging they want the run to be (which speaks to a more flexible pregen rule). I can also see how 5 would be a disadvantage in later seasons (ahhhh! robots!), but I guess it depends on season and maybe even on scenario.
re: CR System - it's a good intent and assuming apples-to-apples, it may work more than 50% of the time, but any CR system breaks down quickly on both sides vs. special abilities, magic, party composition, optional encounters, party resources, experience, etc., despite best intentions. Honestly, I haven't seen enough scenarios as a GM to formulate a full opinion yet and am still fairly new - I really need more 1st-hand data.
I've played a number of games with my 3 characters, but have only run a Season 2 scenario and a Season 4 scenario so far. In the Season 2 scenario, considering a hypothetical table size of 4, the difficulty would be very high and it's a particularly lethal scenario (CR is out the window in the final encounter and maybe easier in the others - a wide skew). In the Season 4 scenario, the scaling for 4 players didn't seem to be significant enough to modulate the primary risk.
So, at the moment, I'm not totally convinced of the validity of the CR system or later season scenario scaling, but any wide-open, generalized balancing is always difficult, at best, especially when there are so many variables. However, I'm glad there is at least baseline balancing and am open-minded about it. I feel like I need more PFS exposure as a GM and player in different configurations, as above.
Regarding pregens, I currently feel that it should be up to my discretion as a GM to allow the use of a single pregen up to the legal table size, whether based on season scaling, party composition, player experience level, scenario difficulty or other factors to ensure a positive gaming experience. Rules and CRs are good as a baseline, but the scope of the limited 3-player pregen rule is not sufficient to support all situations and assumes omniscience (CR or otherwise), whereas GM discretion has a better chance of success (including in limiting abuse, even in 3-person configurations).
Finally, given the rules as they stand now, I don't want to have to play the pregen as a GM. I think the indications in the Guide regarding who plays pregens should be reviewed and players should be allowed to run them when they're used (which may be what's happening anyway in practical terms). It seems more appropriate and maintains necessary separation.
I'm looking forward to running more scenarios and seeing how things play out!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was expressing agreement with Brian as well.
I suppose a GM could insist that the pregen refuses to allow her resources to be milked in such a way. I've just never seen the GM do so.
(but now that you put that Idea in my head...)
I didn't read that in you initial statement, but I won't argue your intent since that's a losing battle.
I'm not even sure how to get players to start treating pre-gens with respect. I've seen players change other players treatment of pre-gen gear for the positive, but I don't know how that'd work on the GM end of things. It's uncooperative to withhold healing, but treating pre-gens as free PC level gear is callous, too.
First, I'd recommend discouraging terms like "Kyra-bot" and "Heal-bot". Until players stop thinking of the pregens (and healers in general) as inanimate objects --not even as NPCs--the abuse will certainly continue.
First, I'd recommend discouraging terms like "Kyra-bot" and "Heal-bot". Until players stop thinking of the pregens (and healers in general) as inanimate objects --not even as NPCs--the abuse will certainly continue.I was expressing agreement with Brian as well.
I suppose a GM could insist that the pregen refuses to allow her resources to be milked in such a way. I've just never seen the GM do so.
(but now that you put that Idea in my head...)
I didn't read that in you initial statement, but I won't argue your intent since that's a losing battle.
I'm not even sure how to get players to start treating pre-gens with respect. I've seen players change other players treatment of pre-gen gear for the positive, but I don't know how that'd work on the GM end of things. It's uncooperative to withhold healing, but treating pre-gens as free PC level gear is callous, too.
Locally, our players don't even use those terms (to my knowledge), but I agree with your subtle approach. Hopefully the new pregens will endear themselves among the player base more than the Core Rule Book and Ultimate Combat pregens managed to.
|
|
Locally, our players don't even use those terms (to my knowledge), but I agree with your subtle approach. Hopefully the new pregens will endear themselves among the player base more than the Core Rule Book and Ultimate Combat pregens managed to.
We call her "Government Heals" and it's kindof jokeish when she's at the table.
"Kyra! Hi! Do you remember me? We explored <insert scenario> together. You were just level 1 then, and I was level 2. My, you're level 7 now? When did you pass me up?"
"Yes, yes, well, I've explored that particular dungeon several times with many people. I'm sorry I don't remember you."
If the people at the table are having fun, then meh.
Now, one interesting rule could be "leave the Pregen like you found it." That is, anything of the pregen's you use, you have to replace (including 15gp per wand charge.) That would certainly make players think twice about throwing the consumables around.
|
|
Now, one interesting rule could be "leave the Pregen like you found it." That is, anything of the pregen's you use, you have to replace (including 15gp per wand charge.) That would certainly make players think twice about throwing the consumables around.
^Agree - just comes out of the chronicle gold. Or, alternately, that those resources may not be used on anyone except the pregen if a similar resource exists in the party, as I mentioned above.
|
|
The real abuse is when a PC dies and has the pre-gen sell all their magic items to pay for the raise dead.In the Guide it specifically says that Pregens can only sell gear to clear conditions on themselves.
That's what I thought, but when I checked my copy of the Season 6 Guide, it doesn't qualify it to themselves only, anymore.
If that is incorrect, maybe it can be fixed on the mid-Season update that was going to come out with the new Core information in it.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
The real abuse is when a PC dies and has the pre-gen sell all their magic items to pay for the raise dead.In the Guide it specifically says that Pregens can only sell gear to clear conditions on themselves.That's what I thought, but when I checked my copy of the Season 6 Guide, it doesn't qualify it to themselves only, anymore.
If that is incorrect, maybe it can be fixed on the mid-Season update that was going to come out with the new Core information in it.
It is still in Season 6 Guide. It is in the last paragraph of the Getting Started section on page 6.
It is still in Season 6 Guide. It is in the last paragraph of the Getting Started section on page 6.The real abuse is when a PC dies and has the pre-gen sell all their magic items to pay for the raise dead.In the Guide it specifically says that Pregens can only sell gear to clear conditions on themselves.That's what I thought, but when I checked my copy of the Season 6 Guide, it doesn't qualify it to themselves only, anymore.
If that is incorrect, maybe it can be fixed on the mid-Season update that was going to come out with the new Core information in it.
Any equipment that’s listed on the pregenerated character sheet may only be sold to clear conditions such as death during the play of a sanctioned event, and any remaining gold does not carry over at the end of the adventure.
A player could make the argument that, because the sentence does not restrict the sale of items to pay for the raise of the pre-gen herself, the gold can be used to pay for the raise of any dead character.
|
|
It is still in Season 6 Guide. It is in the last paragraph of the Getting Started section on page 6.The real abuse is when a PC dies and has the pre-gen sell all their magic items to pay for the raise dead.In the Guide it specifically says that Pregens can only sell gear to clear conditions on themselves.That's what I thought, but when I checked my copy of the Season 6 Guide, it doesn't qualify it to themselves only, anymore.
If that is incorrect, maybe it can be fixed on the mid-Season update that was going to come out with the new Core information in it.
Any equipment that’s listed on the pregenerated character sheet may only be sold to clear conditions such as death during the play of a sanctioned event, and any remaining gold does not carry over at the end of the adventure.A player could make the argument that, because the sentence does not restrict the sale of items to pay for the raise of the pre-gen herself, the gold can be used to pay for the raise of any dead character.
And the reference in the Module section is, effectively, identical.
That was why I deleted my post, where I was going to quote that material from the Guide, but it no longer limits the sale to clearing the pregen's condition.
If, as all three of us seem to think, it should, then it needs to be clarified, hopefully as soon as in the update coming out to add Core to the Guide.