I was browsing the What do you still need thread and was going to make a post about wanting an option for a divine spell list bard. Music is an important theme in various religions and Galorian is somewhat aware of this given the existence of creatures such as the Choral.
But before I said I'd be fine with either a Bard Class Archetype or a new Cleric Doctrine, I thought to experiment with building this concept myself using cleric as a base and Mard as a Multiclass and not taking any of the occult spell slots, to see if I could fulfill the fantasy I wanted.
The answer was sort of. Fantasy would not be fulfilled at level 2 since i'd have to pick utility cantrips. Even if I started with a 16 in charisma I couldn't improve my spell attack rolls without getting occult spell slots.
At level 4 the fantasy would be fulfilled so long as I picked polymath muse at level 2 in order to take Versatile Performance now, which would give me plenty of mileage out of the Performance skill. Maestro feels like it would have fit the flavor better (It outright references Choral Angels) but Lingering Composition is useless until I get a composition cantrip, which I can't do at level 2.
So that leaves level 6 as a sweet spot where my divine singer fantasy comes online. If I went Polymath I can now pick counter performance and if I picked maestro I had the time to grab Inspire Competence to pair with Lingering Composition
This felt fine for me personally, I've previously had a 5e build planned that came online at around level 9. Character died just before that point but I knew the risks.
However Paizo seems to have a design philosophy of giving you all the tools you need to fulfil a fantasy as early as level 2. Alchemist and Magus for example are feature rich classes that pile on multiple mechanics on you at level 1 (Advanced Alchemy/Quick Alchemy and Spellstrike/Spellstrike recharging focus spells/Arcane Cascade respectively), despite it making the classes harder to grasp for new players.
Which brings me to my question. What is the maximum level one should reasonably wait for a build to come online in this system?
Yeah. For the character designs that closely match to what a class already provides, they come online pretty quickly.
* Big beefy character that hits enemies with a sharp object really hard.
* Quick witted, charlatan character whose latest exploits got them wrapped up into things they weren't expecting.
* Dedicated monster hunter determined to rid the world - or at least an area of it - from dangerous creatures.
For things more complicated than that, it can take some levels and additional feats in order to collect the various components of a build. That is one of the reasons why Free Archetype is such a popular variant rule.
Normally in my whiteroom character theorycrafting I can get the basic concept of a build up and running by level 4 or 6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on how long you expect the campaign to go. I generally want my build to feel like its working for at least 2/3rd of the campaign and not dead-weight until I get there.
So if its a 1-20, I'm OK waiting for 6th level to feel like everything is working. If its a 1-10, I generally want it to feel online by level 2 (maybe level 4 if it feels at least thematic by 2)
My current Strength of Thousands character is probably the character I'm most worried about. I don't get to play often (normally the GM), and was very excited to play a Magus. However the party really needed a defense focused frontliner. So I've planned out an ancient elf shield magus/MC Champion (with MC Wizard coming from the usual FA rules for SoT as well). However in the first two combats, I've been all about raise shield, stride into position to provide a flank/block enemies, strike or grab/trip/shove -- no spellstrikes or arcane cascade usage, but lots of non-combat cantrip usages. So far I'd have been better as a Champion first. At level 6 and 8 (getting champions reaction and Shield Ally) is when I feel I'll be able to fill my "secondary" role effectively. Might need to stop trying to fill it for now and just "Defend though killing things faster"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level 4 or 5.
By fourth, you have a dedication and a follow-up feat, you have two freely chosen skill feats (one of which can require expert proficiency) and a third if you burn your general feat. Fifth level does a bit of cleaning up loose ends- casters get access to the last of the low-level spells, martials finally get to feel more accurate than casters, and there are a few notable features that come online. There's also a second level ancestry feat for anybody more focused on that side of things than on their class.
If a build's going to take more than that, I probably just want to go play a mid-level PF1 game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more of a mechanics first kind of guy so as long as the character is competent through all levels of play that the campaign covers it's fine right?
Personally though, I'd probably make level 6 my limit for campaigns that go 1-20. Level 6 is a power spike for many, if not all, classes and whatever your long-term plan is, the core of your build should be ready by then. Or at least, something that will hold together pending some big retrain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to find ways to at least pay homage to the final form as early as possible, like getting ancestry feats that give divine flavor to an eventual cleric multiclass. I like to have a real mechanical start at level 4, and if my character isn't expressed satisfactorily by level 6 I don't really want to play it. Even in high level campaigns it feels artificial, and hard to imagine the journey to get there.
This is why I really like Free Archetype because it brings builds online faster, and helps with the pretty severe class feat bottleneck
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
tbh if a build doesn't come online in at least some recognizable form by level 3 or 4 I tend to consider the concept inadequately supported by the game.
That's a complicated question.
First, what means come online? For example, my Eldritch Archer Rogue is an archer since day one but became an Eldritch Archer only at level 6. So, right of the bat I was able to play my character, contribute in a meaningful way, it's just that it was not its final gameplay.
Also, some builds have their final gameplay early but the efficiency of the build really rises at some higher level and before these levels they feel in general complex for nothing.
So, by come online I'll consider the final gameplay with the proper efficiency. A lot of my builds are contributing meaningfully right from level 1 (only my Alchemist had to wait for level 3 to bring a satisfying contribution). But their proper efficiency can come later. In terms of final gameplay, most of my builds are adjusting their gameplay during the first 4 levels and tend to have their final gameplay by level 5, but there are exceptions.
My personal opinion is that a character that has its final gameplay and final efficiency before level 5 is some kind of generic character with a lack of depth. With only a level 1, 2 and 4 class feats (considering that most of them are really weak) I don't see how I could build anything but a "generic two-weapon Fighter" or a "generic Wizard". So, most of my characters come online between level 4 and 8. 4 for the early builds, my casters get their proper spells at level 5 or 7 depending on what I appreciate the most (level 1 and 2 spells are just too weak to fulfill a caster fantasy). I sometimes need a level 8 feat to get my final gameplay, but its rare. After level 8 I consider that a high level build and avoid to play one as it means too much time waiting for the good stuff (even if I have some builds that get their proper efficiency around level 10).
As what "should" be the ideal level to come online, I think it's extremely dependent on people. I really dislike builds that don't grow in the early levels or worse builds that go down at some point. I like the feeling of growth, and I have no issue using alternate gameplays at low level. I also love to play characters that feel different, I run away from anything too generic. So my ideal level to come online is high, certainly higher than most players (at least from what I read here).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't expect a character to start resembling my concept of their eventual capabilities until level 8-10 or so, which seems to be what Victor is mostly asking about.
Spending dozens of hours playing a character that doesn't even resemble what you want to play sounds pretty miserable to me, personally.
I have two examples of builds in my current PF2 party that did not reach their stride until 3rd or 4th level.
The halfling magical trickster Sam started as a rogue with Animal Whisperer background and Scoundrel racket. He fought with a shortbow, often shooting from hiding for sneak attack damage. At 2nd level he took Sorcerer Multiclass Dedication with Red Draconic Bloodline. His two cantrips, Produce Flame and Telekinetic Projectile, were more reliable in combat than his shortbow, so he switched to attacking with the cantrips. This mothballed his Sneak Attack ability. At 4th level he took Magical Trickster, which allowed Sneak Attack damage with his cantrips, so all his abilities mattered again. He developed more strategies later, such as flanking Strikes with flaming Dragon Claws, but 4th level was the key for getting his rogue and sorcerer classes to cooperate.
The goblin champion Tikti joined the party at 3rd level, so we never saw how she would operate at 1st and 2nd level. Her build was high-Deterity defensive, raising a shield each turn, so her Strikes were with a one-handed finesse 1d6 weapon with only a +1 Strength bonus to damage. Instead, she took a velociraptor as her steed from 3rd-level Divine Ally feature. The velociraptor was her source of damage, leading to a good mix of both offense and defense. Before the velociraptor, Tikti would have been imbalanced toward pure defense.
The other five party members have evolved their builds across the levels, but they lacked a single level where the pieces had to come together. For example, the gnome rogue Binny started with Hide and Strike with her shortbow at 1st level just like Sam. However, with Thief racket she had a higher Dexterity. She kept up that tactic at all levels. At 6th level her Precise Debilitation feat to make enemies flat-footed to the entire party became extremely valuable to the party, but that was simply another step in a functional build.
I also recall an old example of a build that worked at low levels, but had to be repaired at high levels. In Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, I had created an elf archer cleric named Glitter. He had Dex 18, so he was also good at sneaking and scouting. The entire party developed a stealthy style. Our motto was, "Never enter by the front door." But D&D 3rd Edition used a skill-point system where class skills cost one point per +1 bonus and non-class skills cost two points per +1 bonus. The two stealth skills, Hide and Move Silently, would cost Glitter 4 out of 5 skill points per level. Due to needing to support other skills he fell behind and became less stealthy than most of the party. I repaired this by multiclassing into wizard at 10th level. That qualified him to take the Arcane Archer prestige class at 11th level. Hide and Move Silently are class skills for Arcane Archer, so Glitter invested exclusively in ranks in those skills while taking levels in Arcane Archer to regain his stealthiness. Arcane Archer also allowed him to advance in divine spellcasting despite being intended for arcane spellcasters.
I don't expect a character to start resembling my concept of their eventual capabilities until level 8-10 or so, which seems to be what Victor is mostly asking about.Spending dozens of hours playing a character that doesn't even resemble what you want to play sounds pretty miserable to me, personally.
Sometimes, you don't have the choice.
I mean, if you want to play a blaster caster, before level 5, you can hardly commit to your final gameplay.
To me it depends on what you consider "come online". If you mean to be functional and fun to play, level 4 at most. If you mean to have the main feat combo you are going for setted up, I'd say that level 12 or even 14 can be reasonable if you are still functional before that. As for having the mechanics of the caracter resemble your personal character concept, I believe that's a personal thing and that no one here will be able to provide a better answer than "if it feels right it works fine".
Thing is that most builds have several layers of "being online". Let's say you are playing a Wit Human Swashbuckler with the Cooperative Nature + One for All combo. by levels 3-4 you can buff allies and get panache consistently with One for All. In that regard, your build is already "online". That said, at levels 9 and 10 you get Exemplary Finisher and Dueling Dance, improving your survivability a lot. Then your defensive setup is "online". Finally, at levels 14, 16 and 18 you can go for Impossible Riposte, Felicitous Riposte and Parry and Riposte. By then, your whole Riposte combo is "online" (and improved still at level 20 with Inexhaustible Countermoves).
Thing is that most builds have several layers of "being online". Let's say you are playing a Wit Human Swashbuckler with the Cooperative Nature + One for All combo. by levels 3-4 you can buff allies and get panache consistently with One for All. In that regard, your build is already "online". That said, at levels 9 and 10 you get Exemplary Finisher and Dueling Dance, improving your survivability a lot. Then your defensive setup is "online". Finally, at levels 14, 16 and 18 you can go for Impossible Riposte, Felicitous Riposte and Parry and Riposte. By then, your whole Riposte combo is "online" (and improved still at level 20 with Inexhaustible Countermoves).
I can only speak for myself but in general I have a main set of mechanics that I consider core to my character. To take a similar example: my Swashbuckler. I consider that the main set of abilities are Leading Dance and Impaling Finisher. Of course, I'll get the Riposte feats at high level but they are not the main focus of my build.
But I also fully agree on the "layers".
For example, my Summoner with a ranged Eidolon doesn't have a ranged Eidolon before level 2 and as such has a completely different gameplay before that.
Also, before level 7, I play him as a healer as it's super strong at low level. Once again a change of gameplay once at level 7.
Without Tandem Move, I have some clunky moments, so I consider it also to be a necessity.
And my build is a bit weak at low level compared to more classical Summoner builds. At level 7, 8 and 10 I have power level increases allowing me to catch up with other Summoner builds.
Also, Protective Bond is really important to remove a weakness and even make a strength out of it.
So it's hard to put a clear "come online" moment in all of that. I know my build is online at level 10 and not online at level 1. But different players may consider different levels for such a build to come online.
Having a rigid or complicated mid- or late-level "build" as your heart's true end goal and then complaining about the length of time it takes to arrive there strikes me as foolish in a system designed to allow characters to grow piecemeal into strength and retrain nearly every aspect of their development. If you can't extract enjoyment from the journey there, or satisfactorily tell the tale of your character's advancement in that direction over the course of a campaign, that's a player problem, not a system problem.
I don't think I've seen any player complaining about the low levels unless it was something backed into the class (like the low level casters being quite weak) and as such something you can't retrain.
Also, retrain has limits: Retraining a feat here and there is ok, but retraining something that is core to your character, like your subclass, is for most players out of bounds.
I have a wrestler barbarian I want to play sometime.
It will always have nice damage, but it's highest damage feat setup doesn't finish until 20. Starts using the fighting style I prefer at 5.
It's resist all physical doesn't start until 9.
Auto hit grab at 4 with less then great chance of success, upgrading to much better at 12.
Thrash at 8 and collateral at 16.
So generic Dragon barb until 4 or 5, then steadily layering on upgrades to smash and grab and smash more fighting.
I want to play this to see if it's fun or if too much is waiting for certain levels to shine.
My dragon druid I put through FotRP would have failed my concept until 12, that's much worse IMO. I really want more 11-20 APs because of things like this, it's just more enjoyable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who often builds character 1 to 20, I've always found the idea of "coming online" to be a bit off. Imo, your character should be functional out of the gate, and the scope of what your character can do should expand as the game goes on. I never build a character that would have to wait in order to be cool; I build them so they are cool at all levels; even if it means dialing back my ideas back (ex my dragon disciple doesn't come online at level 8 or whatevs when I can breathe fire, my dragon initiate is online at level one as a competent offensive caster, and as they level, they grow into their powers)
Characters aren't really a static thing, amd I tend to find most people in actual play that Ive been with that build around one specific thing tend to be disengaged or not as excited when they are leveling upnto the point where they get all the powers they need to "come online", and once they do, they tend to struggle when that thing isn't how you solve the problem.
So for me, your idea should be "online" at character creation, you just need to be okay with the concept that your character grows over time
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who often builds character 1 to 20, I've always found the idea of "coming online" to be a bit off. Imo, your character should be functional out of the gate, and the scope of what your character can do should expand as the game goes on.
Perhaps I can give an example to help you see what people might mean by "coming online".
Let's say someone is wanting to play a swordsman who uses spells to augment their combat capabilities in tough spots. Magus doesn't fit, since it's too heavy on the magic side, so a Fighter with a multiclass in Wizard is where they land.
This concept can "come online" at many different levels depending on what exactly they want.
Level 1: Ancestry option to get a cantrip of some kind that's useful in combat. But is a cantrip what they meant when they said they wanted a spell up their sleeve? What if they want a different ancestry option?
Level 2: Wizard Multiclass Dedication for cantrips with combat potential. Again, is a cantrip hitting that flavor of a potent magical resource for tough spots? Are there Fighter feats that they need for another portion of the build that has pushed this out to level 4?
Level 4: Basic Wizard Spellcasting - first time getting a slotted spell. Finally, a daily resource that can have a dramatic effect on a fight depending on the situation! This is what they were imagining when they started. Their build has come online!
Therefore, I think the definition of "coming online" is roughly:
"When a character concept meets certain minimum requirements to fulfill a particular fantasy that the player desires."
As someone who often builds character 1 to 20, I've always found the idea of "coming online" to be a bit off. Imo, your character should be functional out of the gate, and the scope of what your character can do should expand as the game goes on. I never build a character that would have to wait in order to be cool; I build them so they are cool at all levels; even if it means dialing back my ideas back (ex my dragon disciple doesn't come online at level 8 or whatevs when I can breathe fire, my dragon initiate is online at level one as a competent offensive caster, and as they level, they grow into their powers)
Characters aren't really a static thing, amd I tend to find most people in actual play that Ive been with that build around one specific thing tend to be disengaged or not as excited when they are leveling upnto the point where they get all the powers they need to "come online", and once they do, they tend to struggle when that thing isn't how you solve the problem.
So for me, your idea should be "online" at character creation, you just need to be okay with the concept that your character grows over time
I asked my wife about VictorThell's original post, and she said that 6th level isn't bad. She talked about how a character growing into their full abilities can be a good story about character development. A 1st- or 2nd-level character feeling like they can't deal with everything, about being only as capable as an ordinary villager, is part of the system.
She's the player of the magical trickster rogue Sam, whom I mention in comment #12. She said that Sam acquiring his magic in little bits and pieces was always intended as part of his character arc.
In contrast, as a GM building monsters and NPCs under Pathfinder 2nd Edition rules, I build for the end product. The creature will show up in one encounter and will have no opportunity for a growth arc. Well, except that my players like their characters keeping in touch with their former allies, so a lot of them show up a second or third time.
I rebuilt NPC Amelia Rivercast for her second appearance because of a discussion about time oracles. At 2nd level, Amelia had been a very fast messenger, created on the fly to fill a need in the game. I realized that I could explain her speed with the new time mystery for oracles published in Dark Archive. I also decided to give her Running Reload for her crossbow to emphasize that she was on the move all the time. The archetypes Alkenstar Agent and Archer could give her Running Reload at 6th level, but she was an established character for whom those archetypes did not fit. Instead, I used the Gunslinger Multiclass Archetype which could give Running Reload at 8th level.
The party was happy to see Amelia again, And they did like that Amelia's incredible speed now had a class-based explanation. From their 15th-level perspective, 8th level looked fairly mundane. They sent more help along with her when she took over escorting their rescued refugees. The Running Reload was never mentioned, but it helped me feel that Amelia had grown from her role of civilian city defense into a bigger role as heroic defender of Nirmathas.
Thus, 8th level was not bad for Amelia; nevertheless, I was disappointed that her re-envisioned character concept required so many levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for me, your idea should be "online" at character creation
I mean, I think most people want that to some extent. It's just in some examples Paizo has not provided the tools to do so. So the option is to either wait or scrap/rewrite the concept, neither of which really feel great... or just play in a campaign that starts at a higher level, which I admittedly am starting to see more and more of too for this same reason.
I asked my wife about VictorThell's original post, and she said that 6th level isn't bad. She talked about how a character growing into their full abilities can be a good story about character development. A 1st- or 2nd-level character feeling like they can't deal with everything, about being only as capable as an ordinary villager, is part of the system.
I think that's almost talking about a separate idea entirely.
Because a character can be a level 1 character who can't deal with everything and be the character you want to play, but it can also be a level 1 character who can't deal with everything and not be the character you want to play because you're waiting for higher level features to come together.
The example of a character who comes into magic slowly over time is perfectly valid... but if the player in question was instead playing a character who they felt should have magic be a core part of their identity, those first few levels essentially mean they aren't actually playing the character they want to play with the story they want to have, which can really suck.
The game's definitely not worse for having a Magus instead of just pointing people toward a wizard MC that didn't even give you a spell slot until 4.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like your post. There are false assumptions and a bit of badwrongfun in it.
Imo, your character should be functional out of the gate
A character can be functional without being online. Either because you have a valid gameplay out of the gate despite lacking the part that you really like or because you use an alternate gameplay before coming online.
I never build a character that would have to wait in order to be cool
There is not a single first level character build that I would find cool. You just don't have enough tools to make anything interesting to me at that level. Should I stop playing PF2 or always ask if I can start with a few levels?
Characters aren't really a static thing, amd I tend to find most people in actual play that Ive been with that build around one specific thing tend to be disengaged or not as excited when they are leveling upnto the point where they get all the powers they need to "come online", and once they do, they tend to struggle when that thing isn't how you solve the problem.
So, they play the wrong way?
If you can build your characters so they're always online right at level 1, it's great for you. But it's not the case for everyone. And I don't like feeling dismissed because I don't have the same expectations regarding the mechanical elements of the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually stumbled into a nifty idea in this thread, that I now want to share back.
Like many of you, I'm into crunch. I have crunch that I think is cool. For one moderately silly example, "I want to play a goblin who is awesome because he is almost constantly on fire."
Well... that one's going to take some building towards, for a few different reasons. That's just how it is. At the same time... that doesn't have to mean that you're not cool while you're doing that building. Even at level 1, you're a little goblin with aspirations of flammability, and that can be cool too. you can have him work up to it. Sure, from a crunch perspective, the cool numbers thing that you want to have happen only happens after you've gained a few levels, but from a flavor perspective, the journey to get there - the path along which your little autopyromaniac earned his awesome little combo - can still be very cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked my wife about VictorThell's original post, and she said that 6th level isn't bad. She talked about how a character growing into their full abilities can be a good story about character development. A 1st- or 2nd-level character feeling like they can't deal with everything, about being only as capable as an ordinary villager, is part of the system.I think that's almost talking about a separate idea entirely.
Because a character can be a level 1 character who can't deal with everything and be the character you want to play, but it can also be a level 1 character who can't deal with everything and not be the character you want to play because you're waiting for higher level features to come together.
The example of a character who comes into magic slowly over time is perfectly valid... but if the player in question was instead playing a character who they felt should have magic be a core part of their identity, those first few levels essentially mean they aren't actually playing the character they want to play with the story they want to have, which can really suck.
If a character is not the character that the player wants to play, then the player should not play that character. Seriously, having to play through a level that the player does not like is worse than a feat tax. It would be a game-time tax, like playing a 1st-level wizard who is as frail as a kitten in the hope he survives to high levels for all-powerful magic.
The game's definitely not worse for having a Magus instead of just pointing people toward a wizard MC that didn't even give you a spell slot until 4.
Some character concepts ought to be put on the shelf and saved for later when Pathfinder offers what the player wants. Pathfinder is a work in progress. Wait for the magus class instead of building a fighter with wizard dedication.
Or the player can embrace the journey to the level when a build comes on line. Growth can be part of the adventure. That expands the character concept to more than just the build.
As Sanityfaerie said while I was writing this, aspirations can be cool, too.
For example, in my Pathfinder 1st Edition Iron Gods campaign, Iron Gods among Scientists, my wife wanted to play a dwarven gadgeteer Boffin, somewhat like the PF2 inventor class. We cobbled together a workable gadgeteer by starting with a gunslinger with the Experimental Gunsmith archetype to give her an experimental firearm gadget at 1st level. Her goal was technological crafting, but fully functional high technology was kept away from the PCs until 7th level, so she was patient and willing to play a character learning about high technology for 6 levels. Then at 7th level she took Leadership feat to gain a robot companion, picked up a technological autograpnel gun, and started to build high technology.
Therefore, Boffin began as a student of technology rather than a fully-trained technologist. This shaped her response during the entire Iron Gods adventure path. Instead of disbanding the technology-hoarding Technic League after the PCs defeated it, they took control and reshaped it into the Technic School that would teach the common people. Instead of fighting their way into the crashed Divinity spacecraft, Boffin talked to the evil computer Unity and got them hired as repair crew.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the last messages, I think people made a false equivalence. A character can be cool without being online, these are 2 distinct things. First, a character is much more than just its mechanical elements. And even from a mechanical perspective, there's something cool in the journey and the feeling of progression.
Being online just means that the gameplay you want to experience with this character is now fulfilling. So, obviously, you should have quite some fun once a character is online, but it doesn't preclude you from having fun before (luckily).
If my posts gave the impression that I was not having fun with my characters at low level, I want to correct that: I'm having a lot of fun with my characters at all of their levels. As a side note, that could be an interesting subject: What do you like in a character, what makes it cool for you? I know I wouldn't play most of the characters I see played around me, so in my opinion we all have different expectations when it comes to a character.
Level in PF2 is a tangible, narrative and mechanical feature of the game. It is also something that doesn’t really exist for NPCs, so it can be very difficult for many players to be sure what a level 1 character concept is, vs a level 7 or level 11 character concept.
I think the adventure writer/GM has a fair bit of responsibility in helping the group playing their game place the starting level in the narrative world because the game mechanics can make things very confusing narratively. For example, how long does it take to learn how to cast spells? Some characters will spend years learning how to essentially cast nothing more than a handful of cantrips. Others might level up 3 or 4 times in a week and literally become a wizard over night. Making sense of that requires cooperation between player and GM.
Also complicating the conversation, a game only going from level 1 to 4 could see the “swords person who casts spells” built as full caster class with a weapon proficiency, and be a better fit for idea of casting and combat than starting as a fighter and adding spells. A campaign or adventure starting at level 5 and ending around 9 also ends up with radically different mechanical assumptions and abilities that change core assumptions of the game. So what happens in a campaign going from 1 to 10? Some GMs allow retraining to let characters really change over time. Others might allow it in theory, but silo the down time so much that it is not really possible in play. Other times, they might tell the player up front that most of the story happens in one week. All of these will allow for very different character arcs.
Another complication here is that some campaigns run a broad enough gambit of play, that a fun low level character idea could get a player through the first book or 3 of an AP, then that character could hang up their adventuring boots, or focus in on becoming an NPC/Backstory character for a new higher level character concept better suited for the rest of the campaign.
None of these are the bad/wrong way for GMs and Players to navigate the expectations of the campaign and the player’s character concept(s). The player who has a concept that the game starts supporting best a level X could feature starting down a similar but better supported path at level 1 and slowly retrain into their more realized concept, or have that higher level concept character come into the campaign when the story supports characters of that level joining the story. Inflexibly demanding players use the same characters from the start of a campaign to the end is a dangerous narrative expectation for your campaign any way because death happens too. Letting character arcs end when players feel those arcs are over/not fun can make a robust game narrative that can survive major twists like the party losing a big fight and having multiple characters getting captured or killed. When only 4 people in the whole world know what is going on with a major world wide threat, it can easily be campaign ending when those heroes can’t finish the mission anyway. As a GM, it is probably best not to get too ridged in your assumptions that these 4 characters setting out at level 1 will be the same 4 ending the campaign at level 20. That also extends to assumptions players are making for their characters at level 1 that might need to change over the campaign as well. Do you want to create an environment where players feel like they might be better off getting their character killed off, so they “have to” bring in a new character? Or where the story lets players play the character that will be the most fun for them, during this part of the story?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of these are the bad/wrong way for GMs and Players to navigate the expectations of the campaign and the player’s character concept(s).
Well, I think the GM not telling the players that the campaign/adventure they are about to run will not feature enough downtime for players to ever retrain any of their feats or abilities might constitute a mistake on the part of the GM, although it is easy to think that you are going to give your PCs downtime, but the PCs will feel like there is a time crunch, or only one PC is really wanting to use downtime and other PCs are just wanting to press ahead, and so someone feels stuck with character choices they don't love.
As a GM, you can waive downtime requirements, or give the party access to retraining options (masters, locations) that let the retraining happen faster. In fact, written APs do this fairly frequently, but I think some players will end up feeling like it is somehow cheating unless the adventure writers themselves wrote it into the book and the players just happened to stumble into "the right choices?" I think this is up there with refusing to ever customize treasure for your party, as something that feels like it might be "playing it by the book," but really you are just penalizing your players for not knowing in advance what rewards and challenges they are going to face in the campaign.
As a GM, you can waive downtime requirements, or give the party access to retraining options (masters, locations) that let the retraining happen faster. In fact, written APs do this fairly frequently, but I think some players will end up feeling like it is somehow cheating unless the adventure writers themselves wrote it into the book and the players just happened to stumble into "the right choices?" I think this is up there with refusing to ever customize treasure for your party, as something that feels like it might be "playing it by the book," but really you are just penalizing your players for not knowing in advance what rewards and challenges they are going to face in the campaign.
That brings to mind ways the GM ought to cooperate with bringing a build on line. For example, a Session Zero is great for preparing for the beginning of an adventure, but what if the player has a great idea for a 6th-level build. How much should the GM forewarn the player about the state of the adventure at 6th level? For example, if the 1st module has undead to fight, so the player comes up with a great idea for an undead-demolishing paladin that comes together at 6th level. But what if the supply of undead was only in the 1st module?
Likewise, the not-yet-online build should still be especially good for certain types of encounters. The GM can increase the player's fun by routinely including some of these encounters.
Providing the right gear, the right training, and the right encounters is the GM's job. Though "right" does not always mean exactly what the player wants. Sometimes, if a build sacrificies handling certain encounters in min-maxing, the GM should provide the full experience by making the weakness from the sacrifice matter. And earning the specialized gear or training through roleplaying or side quests will make the player feel proud.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That brings to mind ways the GM ought to cooperate with bringing a build on line. For example, a Session Zero is great for preparing for the beginning of an adventure, but what if the player has a great idea for a 6th-level build. How much should the GM forewarn the player about the state of the adventure at 6th level? For example, if the 1st module has undead to fight, so the player comes up with a great idea for an undead-demolishing paladin that comes together at 6th level. But what if the supply of undead was only in the 1st module?Likewise, the not-yet-online build should still be especially good for certain types of encounters. The GM can increase the player's fun by routinely including some of these encounters.
Providing the right gear, the right training, and the right encounters is the GM's job. Though "right" does not always mean exactly what the player wants. Sometimes, if a build sacrificies handling certain encounters in min-maxing, the GM should provide the full experience by making the weakness from the sacrifice matter. And earning the specialized gear or training through roleplaying or side quests will make the player feel proud.
I generally agree with everything you posted here Mathmuse, and agree that the most important place for this conversation to happen is between a GM and the table, preferably at session 0, although it can still be a conversation worth coming back to mid campaign if players seem to be getting frustrated with their characters.
At the same time, I think the idea of "the GM should provide the full experience by making the weakness from the sacrifice matter" can be complicated when the GM and the player have very different ideas about what is significant enough of a sacrifice for it to matter.
As a GM, I think it is important to think carefully about what you want out of campaign. Do you want players building more to the generic strength of their builds for a vision of individual characters that might be separate from anything related to the campaign? Do you want your players responding to the unfolding story and making choices related to what is coming up next?
In my experience, it is very easy for newer players to focus in on the immediate story, and then potentially feel saddled with trap options later on if the campaign doesn't actively encourage giving the party down time between major thematic shifts in the campaign where the party can learn about the upcoming challenges and prepare to face them. While many veteran players tend to skew the exact opposite way (perhaps from getting burned when they were newer players) and be incredibly hesitant to choose any option or item that has a limited but specific value if there is a more broadly useful option still available. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is probably a campaign stylistic conversation rather than a matter of best policy or etiquette.
As a GM, when I run a campaign, I want it to feel like a special and unique experience, and not feel like a repeatable video game approach to a campaign, even if I am running published material that a potential player may have seen, played through or ran themselves. I too want the choices my players to make to matter, and for them not to feel like they could just make any choice at all and the whole world will bend to accommodate them to facilitate their victory, but I also want to be able to present unique options for the players to find as rewards (both items and character options) that might encourage them to not feel too set in their ways about what their character will look like in 5 levels time.
Thus generally, I don't want to know the exact build that my players imagine having for themselves far out in advance, I want to get a sense of the story the player is setting out to tell for the character, and to make sure that their entry point into the story of our collective campaign matches the mechanical level that we are starting at. So if I have a character who expresses interest in building a character who starts off a soldier with an interest in learning magic, we need to figure out if the soldier part is a background or a class element, and whether learning magic is the focus of the story, or just adding some magic to make the character fight better is the point of that detail.
I am getting ready to start running Fist of the Ruby Phoenix right now as a GM, because I feel like I have been stalling out as a GM of high level play in my homebrew campaign, and I wanted to get a better sense of GMing high level play without having to also design all the encounters. My players are very excited to get to jump into higher level characters, with more developed character concepts, but mostly because we have already played together for a long time, many of us over multiple different campaigns, and we all feel ready to try something different than a level 1 to 20 experience. Fist of the Ruby Phoenix is a very interesting AP structurally, because many of encounters are very difficult, but the lethality of those especially challenging encounters is heavily mitigated by happening with the context of a tournament and not a dangerous remote dungeon. As a result, the AP itself seems to acknowledge that players starting at level 11 are going to have some growing pains and want to be able to try some different options out, and, in the book, it provides retraining options that can be done in hours instead of days. That seems like a very smart move for an AP starting at higher level.