H.M.Gimlord
Explorer
Quit talking about me
proposal: higher level additional characters
- Thread starter evilbob
- Start date
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
You can already retire character and replace them with equivalent character or transfer XP to other character.
And typically, you get a 2nd PC when your first has reach level 1.
So is this basically a stop gap measure for people who have kept just one PC until he is level 5 or 7 and now want a second PC?
Just who exactly is this targeted at?
And typically, you get a 2nd PC when your first has reach level 1.
So is this basically a stop gap measure for people who have kept just one PC until he is level 5 or 7 and now want a second PC?
Just who exactly is this targeted at?
evilbob
Explorer
Everyone who wants to play more than one PC. You mention "starting a 2nd PC" like PCs all level at the same rate; in fact, they can be wildly different. In particular, this would help anyone who had a higher level PC (so, long-time member) who just wanted to get more high-level play.
Tenchuu
First Post
The 3rd character variant would be of no benefit to me, because I don't want to play three characters while I am DMing; DMing takes up a LOT of my time, and I just don't think I could do it and run three PCs.
The proposal as originally proposed would be nice, in that when I do create a second character, it could be at a significantly higher level. As of right now, I'd have to DM for 6 months to start my #2 at level 2. With this proposal, I could start him at level 4.
However, I do see a possible problem in that, if passed, members would be more likely to recruit privately for a new game (finding players they like, and agreeing to a level everyone can hit). Maybe that's bad, maybe it's not. It all depends how the judges want new games formed.
[sblock=Tangential thoughts possibly inappropriate for this thread]
I think EB is trying to address a larger issue with this proposal. So, what's really the issue trying to be addressed? Here are my guesses:
1. A number of players want a mechanism to play at higher levels / different tiers. If this is the case, then probably an entirely different proposal should be put in place to define what requirements you must reach to be able to start a new character off at 11 and/or 21.
Or is it:
2. Since games run at different paces, players are not gaining EXP evenly/balanced. One of EB's comments seemed to hit home on this point. If you're lucky and you get a fast-paced DM and player group, you will level much faster than someone who is in a group with slow posters. Since it's a living setting, that's kind of unfair (Time XP attempts to fix this, but it is insufficient). In some ways, this proposal is trying to address that by allowing a slow-post-affected player to start another PC above level 1, and perhaps balancing it out. But since fast-posters would get the same benefit, a slow-post-affected player would still be stuck behind. A better proposal to address this issue would be to change the ratio on time EXP so that time actively playing more heavily impacts XP (perhaps even to the point that adventuring is a treasury oriented activity, with Time XP as the only XP source).
[/sblock]
The proposal as originally proposed would be nice, in that when I do create a second character, it could be at a significantly higher level. As of right now, I'd have to DM for 6 months to start my #2 at level 2. With this proposal, I could start him at level 4.
However, I do see a possible problem in that, if passed, members would be more likely to recruit privately for a new game (finding players they like, and agreeing to a level everyone can hit). Maybe that's bad, maybe it's not. It all depends how the judges want new games formed.
[sblock=Tangential thoughts possibly inappropriate for this thread]
I think EB is trying to address a larger issue with this proposal. So, what's really the issue trying to be addressed? Here are my guesses:
1. A number of players want a mechanism to play at higher levels / different tiers. If this is the case, then probably an entirely different proposal should be put in place to define what requirements you must reach to be able to start a new character off at 11 and/or 21.
Or is it:
2. Since games run at different paces, players are not gaining EXP evenly/balanced. One of EB's comments seemed to hit home on this point. If you're lucky and you get a fast-paced DM and player group, you will level much faster than someone who is in a group with slow posters. Since it's a living setting, that's kind of unfair (Time XP attempts to fix this, but it is insufficient). In some ways, this proposal is trying to address that by allowing a slow-post-affected player to start another PC above level 1, and perhaps balancing it out. But since fast-posters would get the same benefit, a slow-post-affected player would still be stuck behind. A better proposal to address this issue would be to change the ratio on time EXP so that time actively playing more heavily impacts XP (perhaps even to the point that adventuring is a treasury oriented activity, with Time XP as the only XP source).
[/sblock]
renau1g
First Post
I agree with you on the variable speeds greatly affecting the level ups of PCs. Kane's reached level 6 without any DM credits spent on him in a pretty short amount of time (7 months to get from 3 - 6th). If this timing continued, Kane could reach paragon by in around 10 months or so.
Personally, I'm a big believer that time xp should be higher as currently without it being doubled the encounter xp far outstrips the time xp.
Simple Errand - 1709 xp of which 312 was time
Chef's Request - 1056 xp of which 166 was time
Mal's is pretty pronounced as well:
Hell's Basement - 1039 xp of which 52 was time
I'm not too keen on having options for 11th or 21st to start as I'm not sure there's enough DM's to support that level game. covaithe ran an epic adventure for a while in Playing the Game and it was pretty intensive, my own PC's turn took as much time as a whole update in one of my adventures so I can't imagine the DM time to update.
Personally, I'm a big believer that time xp should be higher as currently without it being doubled the encounter xp far outstrips the time xp.
Simple Errand - 1709 xp of which 312 was time
Chef's Request - 1056 xp of which 166 was time
Mal's is pretty pronounced as well:
Hell's Basement - 1039 xp of which 52 was time
I'm not too keen on having options for 11th or 21st to start as I'm not sure there's enough DM's to support that level game. covaithe ran an epic adventure for a while in Playing the Game and it was pretty intensive, my own PC's turn took as much time as a whole update in one of my adventures so I can't imagine the DM time to update.
evilbob
Explorer
withdrawn (for now!)
Well this proposal seems dead in the water since no one has really given it much debate in a while, especially given the similar proposal to double time XP that happened last week. As no judges have yet even voted, I guess we may as well put this one back on the shelf and dust it off again in another year or so when we're thinking of doubling time XP again.
Well this proposal seems dead in the water since no one has really given it much debate in a while, especially given the similar proposal to double time XP that happened last week. As no judges have yet even voted, I guess we may as well put this one back on the shelf and dust it off again in another year or so when we're thinking of doubling time XP again.
H.M.Gimlord
Explorer
Update: Time XP doubling has been voted on and passed on 08.09.2010.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
