| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I typed up to codify some house rules my group uses. I'm interested in feedback and opinions.
Pathfinder gives heroes a great deal of power, placing them well above the common man from first level. Essentially, the approach is that heroes are born stronger, richer, and better than others. Many players enjoy the lower levels of play far more than the higher levels, and several analyses have demonstrated that the heroes of pulp fantasy such as Conan the Barbarian and Aragorn of Lord of the Rings may have been only 5th level heroes for all the power they demonstrate.
This leveling variant slows the progression through lower levels by having heroes begin as common folk, with weaker stats and only the equipment available to a commoner. As they gain treasure and experience they can retrain into the advanced NPC classes (Adept, Expert, Warrior) and eventually into heroic classes. By 7th level, with appropriate down time training, a hero under this system will be the equal of a standard Pathfinder Hero, but he will have had a grittier, more interesting path to becoming a hero.
At first level, a character begins as a Commoner 1 or Aristocrat 1 with two traits. Each stat is rolled in order with 3D6. If the player chooses to begin as an aristocrat, one of the traits he selects must be related to aristocracy such as Noble Scion, Inheritance, etc.
After attaining 4th level, they may retrain their levels into an advanced NPC class by paying the gold and time cost as outlined in Ultimate Campaign.
At 7th level they may begin retraining into heroic classes. At the first heroic level a character gains +1 to 4 stats of their choosing and is eligible to also retrain one trait. Aristocrats may not retrain their related trait. At second level they gain an additional +1 to 5 stats of their choosing and may retrain their second trait. The bonus to stats represents the difference between the standard array and the elite array. An example progression follows.
Commoner 1: Average Joe
Commoner 2: Average, but with some interesting tales
Commoner 3: Becoming skilled at his trade
Commoner 4: likely independently employed by now
Commoner 3/Warrior 1: Took some time off to learn weapon skills, retraining
Commoner2/Warrior 2: Refined his skills further and went questing
Commoner 2/Warrior 3: Leveled up after quest
Commoner 1/Warrior4: Spent some quest loot to retrain further
Warrior 5: Spent more loot in training, getting the itch for adventure again
Warrior 6: Went questing, leveled up
Warrior 7: Went questing, leveled up
Warrior 6/Fighter 1: Spending quest loot for advanced fighter training, +1 to 4 stats, 1 trait
Warrior 5/ Fighter 2: Retrained again, +1 to 5 stats, 1 trait
From this point forward, the character may level up automatically in any NPC class (Aristocrat only if they began as an Aristocrat or if they have earned an appropriate title) and later retrain into a heroic class, or they may level up in a heroic class if they have a trainer. They may choose to postpone leveling up until a heroic trainer is available, but if they gain enough experience to level up twice, they will automatically level up in the NPC class which most resembles their primary class.
The reasoning here is that advanced techniques require advanced training, but experience does make you better, even in the absence of such training. Using this system means that more time will be spent facing low level challenges. The search for heroic trainers can become a quest objective and adventure hook. Advancement can take many different paths, some by way of wealth and some by way of experience, meaning that wealth has more meaning in the game. Characters have a chance to establish themselves before taking on a heroic class, leading to better role play and a more natural fit of abilities when the heroic class is chosen. Finally, heroes aren’t born naturally better than others, but they get there by virtue of taking risks, and using their wealth and experience wisely.
The flat 3D6 to stats results in an overall lower powered game throughout a character’s career despite the bonuses gained when taking the first two heroic levels, and assigning stats straight down the line at creation means that a character may struggle to achieve the pinnacle of his aspirations, such as a would-be wizard with a 12 intelligence at creation. He will have to put his stat bonuses toward intelligence as he levels, and may rely more heavily on a headband of intelligence later in his career. Having to overcome such weaknesses adds character to characters, making them more well-rounded and naturally preventing min/maxing.
So, it's certainly not going to be anything like a typical Pathfinder game - but I can certainly see how it might be an enjoyable game in and of itself.
I can also see how, in this system (assuming you allow it), racial traits suddenly become hugely significant. If there is no ability to, for example, learn magic until 7th level, playing someone who has a racial spell-like ability becomes a massive boost. Unless you see everyone being human in this kind of game (which is an option).
The only downside I see to it is that it *really* pushes characters away from the spellcasting classes, and quite possibly, even pretty far from classes like Rogue, just because by the time you even have the option to switch over to Adept or Expert, you're already a 4th level character - and there's no arcane equivalent to Adept, so to go down the arcane path, you're already level 7 before you can even begin retraining into what you want your character to be.
The progression you've laid out works really well for a Fighter - or even most martial classes, and I can see how it would work out organically for Commoner/Adept/Divine Class of Choice.
But it's a lot harder for me to wrap my brain around how it works for the would be-wizard, who has to become an Expert 7 before he begins retraining to become a wizard - at which point, his retraining involves forgetting all the skills he knew as an Expert?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right on the racial traits. We're doing something like this in our current game and the gnome commoner was crucial in dealing with wild animals due to his racial spell abilities. When he went adept, he was our go to guy for identifying magic loot, etc.
Spontaneous casters aside, magic imposes an older starting age to represent the time it takes to learn level 1, but if a rogue, for example, multiclasses into wizard he learns it years ahead of his buddy who started out as a wizard. By starting out as commoners, the extra time to learn magic is represented in game. The gnome above didn't love it, but it made sense, and after all, gnomes have way more time for that kind of stuff than humans.
While the adept is divine, it gets a few spells on the wizard list, so some refluffing can make sense of it as the wizard begins to specialize. Like the Dresden Files, faith in magic is one kind of faith, but magic can also be formulaic and work without faith.
As to forgetting skills, he keeps his ranks unless he retrains them, and doesn't necessarily lose them as class skills, GM fiat there. Certainly not if he retains one level.
It's been good so far. Other thoughts?
|
If you want this kind of game, I'd advise at least considering some other game systems. GURPS and Hero, for example, are already built with normal people far more in mind.
Using Pathfinder will kind of work but it really isn't a great fit. Dice are TOTALLY going to dominate your game for quite a long time.
Also, the choice between commoner and aristocrat is really no choice. Aristocrats are FAR the superior choice mechanically together with whatever social benefits you choose to give them
Pathfinder is more familiar to many gamers, and the additional danger adds a thrill not felt since AD&D.
In many games, the dice eventually become irrelevant, the minimum possible on a min-maxed skill will still succeed.
I agree the aristocrat is far superior, yet with 8 characters in our current game, only one elected to start that way.
Of course, we're all bloody minded enough that we're combining this with P6, and not adjusting the monsters.
If this is a campaign your players would enjoy, go for it.
I know, from personal taste, I would not be interested. I don't think regular Pathfinder really takes off until level 5 or so, and find levels 1-4 a grind.
I totally missed that the adept does get access to some arcane magic. I might still suggest a house rule (since you're clearly already hitting a bunch of them here) that allows the Adept to base his casting on either Int or Wisdom - based on where the character hopes to go.
I do also still think that this approach does miss out some options for spontaneous casters or other classes where spending the early levels as a commoner doesn't always make sense - but I guess even some of that can be offset by taking the right Traits.
But of course, my thoughts are all based on theory, you've been playing it.
It sounds like it's working for you and your group, and ultimately that's all that really matters.
If you want this kind of game, I'd advise at least considering some other game systems. GURPS and Hero, for example, are already built with normal people far more in mind.
Using Pathfinder will kind of work but it really isn't a great fit. Dice are TOTALLY going to dominate your game for quite a long time.
Also, the choice between commoner and aristocrat is really no choice. Aristocrats are FAR the superior choice mechanically together with whatever social benefits you choose to give them
And there it is. You post your house rules that you are already using successfully in YOUR game. You ask for input to refine them, and you get the old "that's not how I play, so you should play a different game."
One of the reasons us tinkerers tinker with PF/D&D is that it works. Even when you deviate significantly from the core rules, the underlying mechanics are robust. Also, the ability to consistently gauge the power level of challenges is a HUGE resource. Even when your PCs deviate from the norm, you can learn their power level, and select challenges accordingly.
I am not picking on you Pauljathome, but this kind of response is pervasive.
I don't think I could pull this on my group without a lot of tweaks. But I am going to try something like this. I think this is awesome. Brilliant even. I have read about campaigns where the PCs begin as NPC classes. Even one where you have several levels in the NPC class. But this let's you develop the character almost entirely IN GAME.
I will second Paul's assertion the the Aristocrat is already an "advanced" NPC class. All martial weapons, all armor, tons of social skills, d8 and .75 BAB...no brainer for me too. It worked for you, so more power to you. I just want to caution anyone who may be considering using your rules.
Thanks man.
Also, wanted to comment on the Adept. It hasn't ever seen the light of day (but it certainly will if I can get a game like yours off the ground), but I always consider that there are two other NPC caster classes. The Acolyte (divine), and the Magician (arcane). I suppose I should consider a third for psychic magic.
Anyway, I never have nailed down the spell lists, but they should be sub-optimal. I've been thinking that the Acolyte might have access to cure spells, and the spells on two domain lists. Or, if you think of domains as heroic, it would be a simple matter to cull the Cleric list for the "basic" priestly spells.
The Magician should probably have access to the divination school, and one or two other schools. I would require them to learn all the spells with spellcraft, no auto spells. So your low stat, training heavy game would naturally limit the wild acquisition of over-powered spells, even at low level.
One could easily imagine a corollary for each spontaneous class as well. But perhaps a feat chain that gives minor access to spell-like abilities would represent such inherent ability, until a Sorcerer or Oracle level could be chosen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Wultram
Character backgrounds actually get made in game. This is partially true regardless of the campaign and ruleset used. Backstory may not support actual play style. This is the pre-hero stage where the backstory is being made. This article makes an interesting case for teasing out one or two details per success as the character becomes more realized. Character Backgrounds, the OSR Way. No argument, this definitely does support a different play style from a lot of what pathfinder does.
Every skill takes some training, even a warrior is talented within his field. This method predates even that level of training. As to orc societies, it's not beyond reason that some of them might be non-combatant. This is even more likely with half orcs who were likely raised in more civilized cultures.
@AaronUnicorn and Can'tFindThePath
I've seen others tweak the adept to use different stats based on theme, it's a good idea. Spontaneous casters throw all kinds of oddness into the mix. I haven't even commented on the other house rules that calls into question.
@Can'tFindThePath
Thanks for the support. I'm glad some of the ideas work for you. That's actually the reason I decided to post. Your spontaneous caster ideas are good. I'll have to think on those.
I agree that aristocrats are very advanced. It's not much of a tradeoff, but that's why I have an aristocrat player spend a trait to justify it. It closes off some other build options in exchange for a head start.
I run a second campaign for the same group in which I open up all 3rd party material and everything from 3.5 and the players are the villains. If it's published d20 fantasy, it's approved. This allows my players to choose pulp fantasy or power fantasy each weekend. Extra work for me, but we GM because we love it, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I am ok with the concept in general, 7 levels before your actual pc class is too long. By 2nd or 3rd level any halfway intelligent character should realize they are in need of training.
"This is the pre-hero stage where the backstory is being made." Does it really take 7 levels to make a backstory? My other objections with your variant would be an over reliance on wealth, trainers and downtime, all of which are firmly in the control of the DM. As a player thinking about playing your variant, that would concern me.
I might suggest;
Commoner 1
Commoner 1/NPC class 1
Commoner 1/NPC class 1/pc class 1
at 4th level they can start retraining their commoner/npc class levels, 1 level retrained per level gained
About your 3d6 for stats, there are plenty of "rolling vs point buy" topics around.
"Many players enjoy the lower levels of play far more than the higher levels"
Have you thought about E6?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may have a point about the levels at which new option become available. I typically disdain arbitrary level limitations, which is why I dislike the entire concept of wealth by level.
I wrote this a few months back when I was first giving consideration to P6, and it was originally a way to extend low level play without full P6 conversion.
My current game actually combines this with P6, so wealth becomes a strong motivator for adventuring, as well as the best tool for dealing with danger.
In many games, wealth becomes meaningless after you've got your ideal set of magic equipment for your build, but with these limitations it becomes a very effective way to continue increasing in power.
Of course it doesn't necessarily take 7 levels to develop a backstory, but a backstory built at the table from the ground up carries a lot more significance and leads directly into a character's ongoing story.
- A cohort survived a battle in which his leader was slain by a tendriculous. The player promoted this level 1 commoner to his main character, who then purchased a few +1 arrows of plant bane, just in case. In most games, it's unlikely that a giant mushroom would figure into the backstory in any case, and even more unlikely that starting wealth would be spent on a relevant item that's unlikely to see use.
- The party was fighting zombies, and one player was in negative hit points. Another player threw a flask of alchemist fire, not realizing his fallen comrade was in the splash zone. He killed his ally. From then on, the character avoided area effects altogether, and was reluctant to use ranged attacks.
Several other house rules in play in the current game:
- Armor as damage reduction
- Armor takes damage and becomes less effective as it wears out, needing repairs.
- Multiclassing works as normal, but at level 6 you can also "Dual class" (AD&D), starting over at level 1 in a new class. As you level up you replace weaker features with better ones like a gestalt character.
This caps all abilities at what a 6th level character can do, and action economy is still limited, but a very experienced character is far superior to an inexperienced character.
NPCs stay relevant, and can pose a threat to epic heroes if provoked. Meanwhile, player characters still have something in common with commoners.
So far, none of us have actually bothered to retrain the NPC levels. We just played through 6 NPC levels for the extra class skills, then gestalt dual classed into what we felt was the best fit for the character. It makes a more organic growth.
It also allows for fast play for a new player, and quick replacement PCs if someone dies.
You may have a point about the levels at which new option become available. I typically disdain arbitrary level limitations, which is why I dislike the entire concept of wealth by level.
I wrote this a few months back when I was first giving consideration to P6, and it was originally a way to extend low level play without full P6 conversion.
My current game actually combines this with P6, so wealth becomes a strong motivator for adventuring, as well as the best tool for dealing with danger.
In many games, wealth becomes meaningless after you've got your ideal set of magic equipment for your build, but with these limitations it becomes a very effective way to continue increasing in power.
Of course it doesn't necessarily take 7 levels to develop a backstory, but a backstory built at the table from the ground up carries a lot more significance and leads directly into a character's ongoing story.
** spoiler omitted **
Several other house rules in play in the current game:
...
- Armor as damage reduction
- Armor takes damage and becomes less effective as it wears out, needing repairs.
- Multiclassing works as normal, but at level 6 you can also "Dual class" (AD&D), starting over at level 1 in a new class. As you level up you
Wow, that all sounds even better. I have considered starting a P8 game, and have been trying to figure a way to "dual-class" gestalt, like this.
I also wanted to address the "concerns" about limited backstory choices with Commoner class characters. Commoner doesn't mean farmer; this is the age old issue with taking the class name literally (ie-"barbarians" can be rangers, clerics, fighters, etc., but berserker "barbarians" are Barbarians). Yes, the Commoner's class skills seem to point directly to farmer. But, they have Craft and Profession, this opens up many possibilities. Who said the third son of a nobleman isn't a Commoner when he is young.
On a related note, I recently came up with a good fix for just this sort of thing. I was discussing the use of the Commoner class elsewhere on these boards, then it occurred to me. You could take the Commoner, strip off the class skills, and let them choose, say 5 class skills. This makes them sort of a "half-expert", and fills MANY niches that otherwise call for the Expert class. Of particular use are social or academic skilled versions.
It's also worth noting that Commoners get Perception as a class skill.
Handle Animal makes different beast master builds possible as well. Wild animals can be trained, though they remain dangerous. This turns enemies to allies.
The Adequate Commoner is a great read, by the way. It also has a few variant commoners with the idea of making a commoner competitive with heroic classes.
The other option is you can play Dungeon Crawl Classics. It can be quite fun, but the meat grinding is real.
You're right that backstory is what happens before the game. The linked article makes a better case than I am likely able to for coming up with backstory elements that make sense for the character in play. It needn't all be known from the start, just because it's in the past.
It's no good saying that I held off 3 orcs to protect the militia commander in my backstory, then I get one-shot by a single orc in play when I should be more experienced. Despite a detailed backstory, we can't really be sure how our characters will behave or perform until they hit the table.
This is just one way of keeping us humble until we know our own characters. By the time you take a heroic class, you've actually done something heroic.
Squire is a profession, and a set of tasks that you do to fill your time. Profession and craft are class skills for commoners. It wouldn't make sense for a child to be an expert from birth, but they could easily pick up their parent's trade before coming into their own and developing other interests and skills.
I contend that this actually opens up more character concepts. If I roll a fighter, then I'm a fighter. If I roll a wizard, I'm a wizard. But if I roll a commoner, I could be anything.
For someone like Wultram who doesn't like low levels, then yeah, this whole concept sucks. The point of it is to keep levels low and rules bloat down in favor of generating story and encouraging creative options from players. High level stories are very different in tone. I'll still get to where a standard-rules hero is, I'm just delaying the gratification. That's not for everyone.
I fully agree that people are shaped by their past.
In most published campaign paths this would likely be a chapter 1 slaughter. In home brew games or campaign paths with a lot of down time, this adds depth and background. I certainly wouldn't use it in every campaign, and I don't. It's working great in kingmaker though. :)
There are many adult commoners. Rise of the Runelords Ven Vinder owns and runs the general store. He's a level 7 commoner and while he's not optimized, he's his own man without being an expert.
NPC Codex lists village elders, constables, shopkeeps, maids, farmers, anglers, miners.... All adult commoners
Expert seems reserved for advanced skills type characters such as jewelers, sailors, trappers, carpenters, blacksmiths (much more technical than many realize), sages and lawyers. To be fair, "Successful Merchant" is also an expert. I guess old Vinder is too worried about his daughter's love life.
It seems to me that the main difference is that study is required for expert trades, while simple experience works for commoners.
A young character could absolutely be given study time as they grow up, but in such a case they would likely be from an aristocratic family. That's the advantage that aristocrats have traditionally held over others. They didn't need to put the children to work. So, yes an aristocrat's child could be an expert by adulthood but they are just as likely to be an aristocrat. If a player wanted to go expert instead of aristocrat, that would be reasonable.
I don't argue that any of the above are absolutes. Life is extremely complex and games simplify by necessity.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. We know commoners have no advantages over other classes. Could you elaborate?
Here's something more concrete. Looking at the NPC codex Pig Farmer:
level 2 human commoner with skill focus in handle animal and heal.
Craft carpentry +6 (2 ranks, 3 class skill, ???)
Handle Animal +7 (2 ranks, 3 class skill, -1 cha, 3 feat)
Heal +5 (2 ranks, 3 feat)
Knowledge nature +1 (1 rank)
Profession farmer +5 (2 ranks, 3 class skill)
They didn't add the +2 to an ability on this stat block (13,9,12,10,11,8), but if you put it in Int, the carpentry adds up, favored class bonus gets him knowledge nature. He still has a rank left over, so he could pick up a 6th skill. Paizo seems to make a lot of small errors like that.
This guy only gets a +1 bonus in Con, which is great for staying alive and fighting off the flu. Add the human +2 to Int and he does okay on skills. He can still try most other skills untrained, taking 10.
And the level 1 beggar:
half elf commoner 1, skill focus bluff
bluff +4 (1 rank, 3 feat)
disguise +2 (2 disguise kit)
Perception +5 (2 keen senses, 3 class skill)
Perform wind (no modifier listed)
Here they added the +2 to Dex (8,14,13,11,9,10) We can assume a favored class skill goes into perform wind, leaving 1 rank free to make perception +6. Again, this is a viable character for his profession...such as it is. He uses the proper equipment to supplement his skills
Also, the Commoners in his campaign still get two traits. This is the same amount of background space that standard characters get. For all the talk of how limiting this is in terms of background, I don't see how it's any different than a standard 1st level Fighter. You have two traits, and you're a fighter....
And perhaps more salient to your arguments, this is for PCs. It doesn't mean that every person in the world starts as a commoner or aristocrat. Automatically extending PC campaign rules to everyone causes many issues with world-building.
@ Can'tFind
I hadn't even thought of that, but yeah.
@Wultram
Let me see if I can get where you're coming from, Wultram.
Your alias is a mage with a mythic tier of archmage, and you think the game is better above 4th level. I've seen on some of your other posts that you're against fumble charts and weaker styles of play.
Would it be fair to say that you like powerful options and the stories possible at higher levels?
If Pathfinder had Epic levels I think you would like them, because it opens up more story options than the typical 1-20, specifically above level 20. Is that right?
All I'm doing here is the same thing, but at the other end, using existing rules to add story options below level 1. Some might like it, and I picked up a couple ideas from other GMs as we've discussed it. And that's the whole point.
As you say, you're just not the target audience.
Also, the Commoners in his campaign still get two traits. This is the same amount of background space that standard characters get. For all the talk of how limiting this is in terms of background, I don't see how it's any different than a standard 1st level Fighter. You have two traits, and you're a fighter....
And perhaps more salient to your arguments, this is for PCs. It doesn't mean that every person in the world starts as a commoner or aristocrat. Automatically extending PC campaign rules to everyone causes many issues with world-building.
While I personally I do agree with you in that it's not all that different, I do see how others can feel it's a limitation. Being a 1st level fighter implies months or years of actual training, or maybe service as a guard or soldier. It gives the idea that the character has had a history in the 'profession' of their choice and something that can be built on further in game more easily. Being a commoner (to me at least) implies that the character has no established history yet, a totally blank slate beyond a very mundane life. To some people, this is probably hard to work within a game that is at its core meant to be about embracing fantasies where we just don't want to be anything near mundane. I admit to having a very hard time sometimes building a character's personality or similar without needing a semi-strong class background for help.
I also agree on the world-building issues. Granted I will say it might be an interesting set up if the party itself wasn't the one who got the PC levels in the beginning. Even though I prefer the mid to high levels of play much more than the lower ones, it might be fun to be the townsfolk rising up against the powerful villain once and a while.
@Naoki
Thank you! That's all I'm sayin'
And like I posted above, I run another game of ludicrous high power options. I'm just sharing an idea here.
@Naoki
Thank you! That's all I'm sayin'
And like I posted above, I run another game of ludicrous high power options. I'm just sharing an idea here.
Yes, I agree.
And I have run nor played in nothing like this before, and that's the point. I have been playing D&D since 1987 with the same 3 or 4 friends. We did the level grind in 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, then changed to 3rd when our mains were 20th (or more with multiclass conversion). So, we started from the top in d20...and went up from there! We stopped playing those PCs when most were between 27th and 40th! level.
We recently finished a four year campaign of Rise of the Runelords, going from 1st to 19th. And, we are in the final stage of Way of the Wicked, where we have also reached 19th level.
I have toyed with the idea of running a variation on E6/P6, and other ideas, to slow down the power scale. I can't just switch game systems, because nothing else has enough to offer. So, this idea appeals to me, and I know at least one or two of my players.
That's great!
I actually got started with DnD in 1988, myself.
When I switched my main character from WEG D6 star wars to the Wizards d20 system he actually came out to level 107. It was crazy, but thats what 10 years on one character can do. I had a couple others that were comparable.
The Angry GM makes a good point that Pathfinder isn't actually a game, but a game engine that we base our games on. There's so much you can do with a given rule set. I think he specifically said DnD, but the point stands. Actually, rereading the linked article he has some points relevant to this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Wultram
Well, that explains why you've participated.
I disagree that a farmer can't be viable at level 1. A single rank with class skill bonus and no stat gives a +4, which means you can take 10 on any normal or simpler task. Anything over that is gravy. Completely untrained you can take 10 and manage any simple task.
Your preferences matter because our entire discussion has been based on different preferences, and that's fine but the negativity is getting a bit tired.
I've only taken what's published and added a constraint that eventually goes away. Intended for use only for those who care to use it.
Here's a summary of your complaints so far, and my rebuttals.
Older editions had you train for each level, and some skills truly require training. That's dedicated time and expense while you develop a skill yourself, or paying someone to teach you.
"...this will severly limit character backgrounds..."
Constrained creativity. With limits in place, creativity flourishes. Google it if you don't already know.
"...I'll make s!!$ up as we go along" does not a good backstory make..."
Neither does a 10 page essay written before the game that has no bearing on how a character is actually played. A detail added here and there is more organic, and better presented. These aren't real people with decades of life experience behind them.
"...any other circumstances you would have actually gotten enough training during your childhood to be anything else than a commoner..."
And yet there are still adult commoners, even elders.
That sums up your complaints so far. I understand that you don't like it and that's fine. Do you have anything to contribute? Suggestions for improvement? Valandil suggested earlier access to other classes, and that's a good idea. AaronUnicorn suggested altering the Adept to better suit other casting classes.
So far, your best has been to play a different game, and that too has been addressed. People know Pathfinder and the rules support this style. If you have nothing to contribute, then let's waste no further page space.
Edit: Come to think of it, pauljathome suggested a different game first, so you've actually contributed nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first objection is rolling 3d6 for stats. It's hugely random, doesn't reflect the proportion of the population that are potential heroes, has a big risk of one PC overshadowing the others and (unless you can put them in the order you want) is likely to block a player from playing the character he'd like.
You can by all means start with a 5-point buy or something equally weak, provided that it's not entirely random and they get to improve their stats considerably (to something like 15-point) by the time they hit PC-class levels. Maybe give 1 or 2 build points per level.
It also looks very slow. Unless you're on the Fast xp track it'll take forever and have a huge body count. And that body count can't be mitigated by Raise Dead because they can't afford it. So a player might struggle all the way to Commoner 3 / Adept 2 and then die and go all the way back to Commoner 1. Or he gets a replacement 3/2 character with...none of the backstory that supposedly justifies this.
So if you are on the Fast track, I suggest that you reduce the number of Commoner levels needed to 1 or 2, then 1 or 2 NPC levels, and use a slower track instead. Fill that in with the fractions of levels from Unchained or SKR's system (which I use) so you get the sense of continual growth.
I like low-level play, so I use the Slow track. They're PC classes IMC but have plenty of time to interact with mortals and get that backstory.
I like that SKR system. There was something similar for 3.x, a custom class creator or something. It got a bit complicated with a point buy system and a bunch of charts. This is elegant in its simplicity.
Yeah, the original post is definitely underpowered and Gygaxian in brutality. Part of the idea's origin was the Dungeon Crawl Classics character funnel, where chance is a factor. (Good call, Nathan Hartshorn)
So I contributed nothing?
Oh just reasoning for every flaw I pointed out. In one case math that just hint short proves the flaw objectively.
Yeah I am done, you have fun searching for your echo chamber.
Oh and come to think of it. Learn basic manners and don't quote people in a dishonest fashion, especially people that actually took time to try help you with something. I would have more to say but sadly this is a neutered messageboard.
...just wow...
doesn't reflect the proportion of the population that are potential heroes,
Everyone is potential hero!
has a big risk of one PC overshadowing the others
Some risk. Not so big. It's not generous method.
and (unless you can put them in the order you want) is likely to block a player from playing the character he'd like.
that's why you seek people willing to not have any strict vision of their character in mind starting game
chaos worshippers, luck cultists,In other words - it's not for everyone.
But neither is balance and point buy.
Hmmm.
I guess, if your players are really into social situations and RPing their formative years, this could work, but it does seem excessively tedious. Why not try something like...
In the original Traveller game, there were sets of tables to generate your characters pre-adventuring life, resulting in various skills and a whole grocery list of past military or civilian experiences to draw from.
In the Pendragon game, there were tables used to generate your father and your grandfather's careers, set against the known history of wars and campaigns in the Arthurian setting.
"Central Casting - Heros of Legend" was a 3rd party supplement adaptable to any fantasy game, with table after table used to generate a backstory. It was highly variable and quirky and full of fun details. Imagine spending an entire evening with all your players around the table, taking turns rolling up the results of the character's family and formative years. Frankly, that's about all the further I'd want to go with such a system. And you can still get it in PDF form from one of the existing purveyors of PDF RPGs.
And this is coming from an old Grognard who started playing Chainmail and D&D in the mid-70s, and still has a special spot in his heart for those few low-level adventures, when everyone is 1st or 2nd level and never more than a few hit points from certain death.
Oh and another thing...
After a few moments on google, I found a website that has reduced the tedium of the Central Casting Heros of Legend book to a single click. It's brilliant!
Dotting for reference....