|
Greeting all.
I have question to ponder and wonder about- why can't your own characters share gold?
I can understand that this is to prevent low-tier characters from getting better equipment too early.
But still, the case of character death- why shouldn't your characters be allowed to donate to revive a fallen comrade?
|
Character death is actually one of the times that other characters CAN chip in to help you. I know I've done it plenty of times.
Sometimes awful things happen to adventurers. After an
all-night romp through the sewers, your wounds might
start to fester with some foul disease—you might even die.
You may have spells cast on your character, subtracting the
gold piece cost from your total. If your gold is insufficient,
the other players around the table may chip in to get you
back on your feet, but they cannot be compelled to do so.
It is their choice whether or not they aid you. Additionally,
your faction may be able to aid you with certain issues as
well, so long as you have enough Prestige Points to spend
in exchange for their aid (see Fame and Prestige). Any
spellcasting purchased using Prestige Points is cast at
minimum caster level.
|
|
I think the OP is referring to sharing between characters belonging to the same person.
Yes. Sharing the gold between your collective characters, for the purpose of revival.
Why not have your GM blob spend cash it's never going to use- unless you want to turn that blob in to Character X.2.
Recently a friend of mine was witness to a character death, and apparently the dead player wanted the others to pay a lion's-share of revival cost.
|
I think the OP is referring to sharing between characters belonging to the same person.Yes. Sharing the gold between your collective characters, for the purpose of revival.
Why not have your GM blob spend cash it's never going to use- unless you want to turn that blob in to Character X.2.
Ah. I think you hit the nail on the head. The Wealth By Level (WBL) numbers DO assume that you occasionally have to pay for raise dead and other restorative services. Even with that, PFS characters are often above the WBL. Allowing you to spend money from one character to another would tilt that even farther.
It comes down to how the game is balanced. Allowing this would tilt farther toward removing the challenge for the players.
Recently a friend of mine was witness to a character death, and apparently the dead player wanted the others to pay a lion's-share of revival cost.
Without knowing the actual incident, it's impossible to say if the player didn't have enough money otherwise, was greedy and entitled, was misunderstood by your friend, or came from an area where that was par from the course.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seveal good reasons why this is not allowed:
- Once you have a level 12+ character, character death for your low-level chars would become relatively meaningless.
-The new player experience would not improve if they learn that their death is final, but the other reckless guy who in their opinion caused the TPK can get raised.
-Time is a bit of an issue in PFS, since time between scenarios is essentially endless / does not exist.
- You can only play one character at the same time.
This might be something for a player boon though, maybe apply to a number of characters who can invest a certain amount in "resurection insurance".
|
|
It's metagaming. Your characters don't have anything in common except that your their player.
While I completely agree this shouldn't be allowed, it isn't necessarily true that the characters have nothing in common. Some of my characters have pretty strong relationships with other characters of mine. One are a husband/wife, I have a couple of mentor/mentee relationships, etc.
|
While I completely agree this shouldn't be allowed, it isn't necessarily true that the characters have nothing in common. Some of my characters have pretty strong relationships with other characters of mine. One are a husband/wife, I have a couple of mentor/mentee relationships, etc.It's metagaming. Your characters don't have anything in common except that your their player.
There are a couple of different boons that essentially set one character up as the mentor to another character (I think there's a faction related one that provides an extra trait or something). I could see an extension of that idea where a boon is issued (after performing heroic deeds!) allowing a one time spending of the Mentor's prestige to aid in Body Recovery, Raise Dead, Resurrection, or Restorations for the Mentee.
Let's call it the Guardian Angel boon. (Or maybe Wealthy Benefactor).
But otherwise, yeah, without a limit, it would get out of control fast.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya the Fifth, this scenario killed my father, I'm prepared to buy!*rocks fall*
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya the Sixth, this scenario killed my father, I'm prepar--
*moar rocks fall, it's a regular Earthfall up in here.*
hide behind the mound of dead bards swashbucklers?
|
|
hide behind the mound of dead
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya the Fifth, this scenario killed my father, I'm prepared to buy!*rocks fall*
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya the Sixth, this scenario killed my father, I'm prepar--
*moar rocks fall, it's a regular Earthfall up in here.*
bardsswashbucklers?
Well, it would justify some of those folks who use -97, -98, -99 for 'sacrifices'...
|
|
While I completely agree this shouldn't be allowed, it isn't necessarily true that the characters have nothing in common. Some of my characters have pretty strong relationships with other characters of mine. One are a husband/wife, I have a couple of mentor/mentee relationships, etc.
My characters aren't as intimate with one another, but they do hang out and share stories at a Grand Lodge wherever they may be.
I do like the idea of a Boon enabling player's to share the wealth between characters. Why isn't this a thing? Also, a "hand-me-down" boon that allows a retired character to hand one non-named item to another character.
|
|
This was actually similar to a boon idea I proposed a couple of months ago, to give a character access to a piece of equipment from a different character's chronicle sheet...
Giving access to buy a piece of equipment might be ok. Granting a free hand-me-down item is a little trickier, because you can end up with a character having an item that isn't appropriate for their level.
It's been my experience that the campaign has been a lot more lenient for things like reviving a character after they've died (See the whole section James quoted upthread). Sticking to a one-time, prestige based (instead of gold) "don't mess up like this again, kid. I won't be there to save you next time," Raise Dead or Body Recovery or something similar feels like it would be more likely to actually be implemented. It's not actually introducing a new item or new wealth to a character like passing down equipment would. Instead, it's just allowing a character to continue when they otherwise might not have.
I also think that it should be tied to something completed in-game, so the boon isn't just assigned to a character the player never intends to play again. If it were a Seeker Arc or Special reward, it would be a lot more likely to be a character the player cares about, though one that may have an abundance of prestige to spare. ("Do you know what I had planned for this, kid? An island. A private-freaking island.")
|
|
]
While I completely agree this shouldn't be allowed, it isn't necessarily true that the characters have nothing in common. Some of my characters have pretty strong relationships with other characters of mine. One are a husband/wife, I have a couple of mentor/mentee relationships, etc.
The de'Bonaire's are a liter of kitsune brothers and all my character, but another liter of kitsune being run by different players wouldn't be able to pool their money the same way despite having the same background. Them all being run by the same player would still be the deciding mechanic, and thus metagamey.
