West Marches Campaign

[Jackofmages]

I am in a a West Marches group. I was wondering how PF2 would be able to handle it. The character levels vary from about 1-12. Do you guys think it can handle such a game?

[RunnerAndJumper]

That depends. Are Level 1 and 12 PCs playing simultaneously? If so then probably not, because of the "+level to everything" rule: Either Level 1 characters are going to be useless, or level 12 are going to steamroll everything. I think it would only work when the PCs are no more than 2 levels apart.

[Jackofmages]

RIP PF West Marches.

[Lyee]

Honestly, if you say 'everyone treat your level bonus as X today' (say, average level of the party), then different-level parties will probably work better than ever. Strong characters will still have more HP, damage, class features, and items, but for the d20 rolls characters will be somewhat competitive.

[Pramxnim]

Lyee wrote:

Honestly, if you say 'everyone treat your level bonus as X today' (say, average level of the party), then different-level parties will probably work better than ever. Strong characters will still have more HP, damage, class features, and items, but for the d20 rolls characters will be somewhat competitive.

I like this idea. It's also a lot easier to design encounters if you just treat the party level as such and such. Sure, higher level PCs will bring out more damaging abilities or have more hp, but lower level PCs having less will balance things out.

Outside of proficiency modifier (level + proficiency rank), the difference between bonuses come down to stat modifier and item bonus from magic items. Stat modifier differences are small (they vary from +0-+7, but for the majority of the game, a PC's main stat has a +4-+6 modifier), but magic items can skew things a little bit.

Magic item damage dice contributes a lot towards damage in PF2, and they scale every 4 levels. It's probably a good idea to avoid parties where the difference between the highest and lowest level PC is 8 levels or more. A mundane weapon doing 1d12+4 is never going to feel impactful compared to a +2 weapon that does 3d12+4 damage a swing (the issue is compounded when making multiple attacks).

[Soldarc]

In PF2 its imposible to mix characters that are more than 2 levels apart (thats why their XP system states that everyone always get the same amount of XP no matther what.) This is because of the +level to everything. the lower level characters can tag along but they wont be able to do anything, all skillchecks will be to hard, they cant hit monsters and they will basicly be auto critted by every monster.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

I don’t know how well PF1 can handle a spread of characters at such disparate levels without making the low level characters basically irrelevant anyway?

Like there’s not much difference here between editions, both games assume the party is the same or similar level. You’re already “off-book”.

[Chance Wyvernspur]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I don’t know how well PF1 can handle a spread of characters at such disparate levels without making the low level characters basically irrelevant anyway?

Like there’s not much difference here between editions, both games assume the party is the same or similar level. You’re already “off-book”.

Of course you couldn't take stock Paizo content into a game with big mix of levels, but if you viewed PF1 as a toolbox and were willing to tinker, you could keep much of it. The key is having a plan to keep ACs from going nuts and knowing what level ranges you want to be in the sweet spot.

One particularly game I liked very much involved characters from 6-9th level. Your level depended on where you were in college. Freshmen were 6th, Sophomores 7th, Juniors 8th, and Seniors 9th. (Yes, they only leveled at the start of the school year.)

Magic items were limited to +1 and they were all custom crafted to only work for one person.

Many bonuses didn't stack anymore. I had to monkey with the monsters, but that's normal. I'm always changing around the critters to fit my tastes or fix silly things.

I miss that game.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, that was a D&D 3.5 game, but it would have worked in PF1 too.

[Yolande d'Bar]

I run a lot of sandbox campaigns, with wide disparities in PC level, and I've been thinking what I'd have to houserule to use PF2 in a sandbox setting.

My early thoughts:

1) throw out the XP system, a throwback to 3.0 days (& AD&D1e as well) requiring GM adjudication of every award, and just use the XP tables and awards from PF1. PF1's system, by the way, was the best XP in any edition of D&D, and it doesn't get enough credit IMO.

2) Remove +1/lvl from skills and beef up considerably the bonuses gained from proficiency so the math ends up around the same--but with much wider disparities between untrained and experts. This way there's no danger of the world leveling up with the characters. (I'm thinking you get +1/level when trained, but the level of proficiency caps the maximum level you can add: so maybe expert caps out at +6/6th level and a character needs to acquire master level proficiency to ever add more). This solves the "Ostog the Untenured" problem:

http://www.5mwd.com/archives/comic/ostog-the-untenured

3) Remove +1/lvl from both attacks and AC as well, and beef up proficiency bonuses to make up the slack, mathematically. This keeps AC and attacks from escalating in most cases.

4) Add some general feats to allow classes to gain proficiency levels in skills, weapons, and armor--so that characters not gaining high levels of expertise from their class can still sacrifice something else to keep progressing i.e. the sorcerer can use her precious general feat to learn spear expertise, if she's high-enough level and trained, etc.

5) I think saving throws are fine as is. I think most monsters can be left alone as well.

6) This will be a much more dangerous ruleset for PCs, encouraging them to avoid combat and favor brains over brawn, OSR style.

Early thoughts, but I think something like the above is necessary for any sandbox campaign. It allows me to save all the things I love about PF2e (spell nerfs, 3 actions, etc.) I sure wish I had to do less surgery, though.

[redcelt32]

What is West Marches? I am not familiar with that campaign?

[RobRendell]

redcelt32 wrote:

What is West Marches? I am not familiar with that campaign?

West Marches was a famous sandbox D&D 3.0 campaign run by Ben Robbins back when the 3.0 rules had just been published.

http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/

The players had a lot of agency, even to the extent of organising the sessions (subject to GM availability). There were over a dozen players, and they would form and dissolve parties as required - a player would solicit for allies for a specific expedition on the mailing list ("I want to check out the ruined tower south of the Golden Hills that I noticed on my last outing - who's free this Thursday night?"), and other players would reply with expressions of interest until they had a party for the night (or not).

As such, characters with wildly different levels could end up adventuring with each other, assuming the higher-level party members thought the lower-level ones could contribute (and the lower-level characters felt the potential rewards were worth the greater risks.)

After Ben published the details online, including "running your own" guidelines, it inspired a lot "West Marches"-style campaigns subsequently.