Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MatteBlack 03-23-07, 11:25 AM	The APL 3+ rule has ruffled alot of feathers and there are number of threads discussing them. Many claim the rule is preventing them from getting into specific adventures in it's effort to maintain player enjoyment and appropriate challenge to the whole party. I am of the opinion that capping how far players are able to overplay the APL is a worthy pursuit. The only remedy I have seen it to repeal the new rule but, I think there could be other answers. One solution I have mentioned that has largely been ignored is allowing players to take on negative levels when mustering to adjust to the APL needed for a given table or perhaps even play with a friend's new player character. It seems like it could solve a lot of problems by allowing alot more flexibility. Higher level characters would be able to be played more in a detuned state and I really don't see any ways it would break the game through abuse. You'd get the same XP, accesses and gold, or possible more, as you would have overplaying the challenge level and remove the problem of overly dominant characters. Chalk it up to a random undead attack along the road or such that you just don't heal until the adventure's end. Could this work or are all those people just complaining because they want to sidestep any real risk in a mod?
trollbill 03-23-07, 12:23 PM	I think they are mostly complaining because they like to focus on only 1 character rather than have a stable for the correct APL. This is probably true of people who don't get to play much and don't want to through an opportunity to play their favorite character away because of this rule. I do see several problems with your solution: 1) Complication. This essentially requires a player to re-calculate their character at the beginning of the adventure after the muster, meaning that this is likely to eat into precious play time. 2) Balance. While negative levels may lower the effectiveness of the character, it doesn't reduce the amount of equipment he has, which in some cases can greatly effect the power level of the character. The more negative levels he takes, the more his relative power increases due to possessions. 3) Verisimilitude. Many DMs and Players will balk at RP justifications for these negative levels, especially when there are ways of removing them in the game when given RP explanations.
vvincent 03-23-07, 12:29 PM	While this is not a bad idea on the face of it - it does pose some issues. A negative level does not have the same effect as losing one character level. Compare two characters - a 5th level wizard, and a 9th level wizard with 4 negative levels. All things being equal - the 9th level wizard is still more powerful. And this doesn't include equipment differences between the characters. Unfortunately, I see no solution that would resolve all issues. If a choice has to be made - I favor the one currently in place. Maybe it's me - but I've never had a situation where a character was either forced from a table because of their level. But I also consider the position of "if I can't play X APL, then I'm leaving the table" to be a valid one. Not because I believe in people being a**holes, but because it's your perrogative as a player to play under conditions of your choosing whenever possible, as long as the play conditions are legal under the established rules. I am of the belief that my time is valuable. Because of that - I will not play at a table where I unlikely to enjoy myself. So I tend to take the approach that if the table is unlikely to be enjoyable (either because I am too low a level or too high a level), then I won't play. Of course, the collorary to this rule is that it is incumbent upon us players to work together in a cooperative manner. LG requires a minimum number of players within a certain level range. That means that all of us must work together or none of us will play. So while my time is valuable, I also have an obligation to not be an a**hole when it comes to mustering for a table. If that means I need to play with a different character - then I should be willing to do so. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule (story line participation, etc), but the exceptions don't invalidate the underlying premise - they only place it in context of the situation. Vernon L. Vincent
MatteBlack 03-23-07, 03:08 PM	1) Complication. This essentially requires a player to re-calculate their character at the beginning of the adventure after the muster, meaning that this is likely to eat into precious play time. 2) Balance. While negative levels may lower the effectiveness of the character, it doesn't reduce the amount of equipment he has, which in some cases can greatly effect the power level of the character. The more negative levels he takes, the more his relative power increases due to possessions. 3) Verisimilitude. Many DMs and Players will balk at RP justifications for these negative levels, especially when there are ways of removing them in the game when given RP explanations. Good points. 1) It would be some complication but, probably wouldn't take much longer than some the mustering arguments it would be sidestepping. 2) I assumed items would be taken into account. 3) It would need to be clear that voluntarily taking this option would bar it from being healed during the adventure. It wouldn't be something people have to choose, if they weren't comfortable with it for there character. Lee
bronzmonkee 03-23-07, 03:37 PM	2) Balance. While negative levels may lower the effectiveness of the character, it doesn't reduce the amount of equipment he has, which in some cases can greatly effect the power level of the character. The more negative levels he takes, the more his relative power increases due to possessions. How about something like this: In addition to the normal penalties for gaining a negative level, the character also temporarily loses the usage of a piece of equipment for each negative level gained. The equipment lost must be the most expensive piece of equipment that the character owns. The line of reasoning is that the character has earned the most gold at their highest level. Hence, they would not have been able to afford the expensive equipment at a lower level. If the character does not have really expensive equipment, then that character's equipment is not likely a major contributor to the character's effectiveness. Two coppers from the peanut gallery, Ian Seale Sultanate of Zeif
Japangirl 03-23-07, 03:54 PM	That's also really problematic for people who put all their wealth into one item, like archers. At APL 6, you'd expect an archer to have a +1 bow, and maybe even a +1 (insert element here) bow. If an archer loses two or three levels, he loses his bow and becomes less effective than an on-APL person. As for complaining instead of focusing on a stable, that is not the case at all. Continuing story arcs for continuity is important to some people, and gives great RP opportunities. It's very frustrating to hear "Have you played mods X, Y, and/or Z?" and the only response is "With my high level I played all of them". I know that RHoD has devastated my "stable" of characters, as it has for many in my area. I thought I'd have a 12ish, a 6ish, and a 3ish to start the year with and play them all at appropriate places. Thanks to RHoD, my 12 is now 15 and my 3 is now 4, but I have nothing in between anymore. Not that I'm complaining about RHoD, I hope it'll be a lot of fun (still haven't started it yet, our first planned DM had real-life concerns interfere), but it has messed with the natural flow of characters.
Grantor 03-23-07, 06:02 PM	What we really need are more players, more tables forming and more people that have played enough LG to have middle to high level characters. If two tables of 2,2,2,6,6,12 try to form, there is going to be some unhappy people, if four of these tables try to form, no problem. The problem, is a short term one, as I see it. If we can keep the high-level players from ever causing a poor experience for lower leverl players, we will have more people that join the campaign and more tables forming. At least the high-level guys have a choice: not play or create a low-level character to play with the newbies. When I was a newbie, I didn't have a choice about playing in the APL six and higher tables; it just wasn't going to happen.
David Argall 03-23-07, 07:34 PM	I do see several problems with your solution: 1) Complication. This essentially requires a player to re-calculate their character at the beginning of the adventure after the muster, meaning that this is likely to eat into precious play time. Probably not too serious. Many of us keep our old character sheets, and so reversing to a lower level will take a trivial amount of time. And players willing to do this are presumably going to be ready to just pull out the PC of a year ago. 2) Balance. While negative levels may lower the effectiveness of the character, it doesn't reduce the amount of equipment he has, which in some cases can greatly effect the power level of the character. The more negative levels he takes, the more his relative power increases due to possessions. Clearly the major problem. The PC returned to 7th level needs to be of 7th level power. But one way to handle it is again to just use old character sheets, which list old equipments, skills, etc. It's extra paperwork and all, but it should work. 3) Verisimilitude. Many DMs and Players will balk at RP justifications for these negative levels, especially when there are ways of removing them in the game when given RP explanations. We have several unreal elements, such as TU, 3 battles an adventure, etc, etc. Waking up temporarily as 7th level instead of 8th is something we can just deem so normal as to not be worth mentioning.
Haro 03-23-07, 11:05 PM	Probably not too serious. Many of us keep our old character sheets, and so reversing to a lower level will take a trivial amount of time. And players willing to do this are presumably going to be ready to just pull out the PC of a year ago. Clearly the major problem. The PC returned to 7th level needs to be of 7th level power. But one way to handle it is again to just use old character sheets, which list old equipments, skills, etc. It's extra paperwork and all, but it should work. You are talking about a campaign-wide ruling here, therefore you need to think on a campaign-wide scale. Expecting every player to have retrospectively and accurately kept "old" character sheets is unfeasable. I put old in quotations because for my 14,11,10,4 and 2nd level PCs I have always used a pencil and updated the one sheet for each. With regard to the scale down of gp relative to level, does anyone honestly think there is a simple way that will ensure a semblance of fairness to every character across the board? The concept might work for for a small group of people in one area but it is quite frankly unworkable for the many, many thousands of players across the campaign. Joe
thorinXXX 03-24-07, 12:38 PM	Not no, but HELL NO!!!! This would be entirely too cumbersome to put into effect.
David Argall 03-24-07, 01:06 PM	Expecting every player to have retrospectively and accurately kept "old" character sheets is unfeasable. Not evreybody. Just those that want to play down when the table is marginal.
Haro 03-24-07, 07:22 PM	Not evreybody. Just those that want to play down when the table is marginal. The playing field has to be level for everybody. You can't make a rule in a campaign this large that so blatantly caters for a small element and excludes the rest. Joe
zigspatty 03-24-07, 10:49 PM	Not evreybody. Just those that want to play down when the table is marginal. Even if allowing a PC (or 2!) to take negative levels were a good idea, deciding when the table is "marginal" breaks open a whole new can of worms. Is it marginal when 6 4-5th level PCs are forced to play APL 6 when they are otherwise balanced? What about when the numbers say it is a solid APL 6, but they have no spellcasters at all? Or when there are only 4 PCs? What if the APL is solid but half the group died and lost all their stuff in yesterday's interactive? And if there is more one higher level PC - how do you decide which should take negative levels? If higher level bullies is a problem, this will do nothing to eliminate them, it only gives another possible issue to bully Taking negative levels is a bad idea because it affects different character classes more harshly than others. A warrior-type tends to fare pretty well when he loses only 5 hp per level, but the arcanist could lose the equivalent of more than a HD if he doesn't have a good con. And that's before you look at their better equipment...
cycloptic_squirrel 03-25-07, 12:48 AM	Let's suppose I have a character that I like playing. Now take away all his stuff and throw a curse on him due to a set of bad decisions in a particularly unforgiving mod. He's not as fun any more. Luckily, I kept my character sheet from two months ago when he was still Mr. Awsome. I'll just play that version of him until curse expires and/or I rebuild my item inventory. Say I have a build that is pretty decent at level 4 for APL 4, follows with half a dozen levels of dead levels (particularly useless at 8 and 9), but when level 10 is reached, all the pieces fall into place and the character is very effective for his level. Now I can play him at APL 4 continually and be reasonably effective until I get enough experience to hit level 10, thus skipping all the boring/dangerous parts of the build. Say I play a character who's doing particularly well at APL 8. I look ahead and see there's not much excitement ahead in the build. Why advance? I can just play APL 8 until retirement! I think the campaign rules are specifically designed to avoid these sorts of activities. I sympathize when tables can't or have difficulty mustering, but this isn't the way to fix it.
The_Jester 03-25-07, 11:34 AM	Keep in mind the penalties of a negative level are set in the DMG: A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained: * -1 on all skill checks and ability checks. * -1 on attack rolls and saving throws. * -5 hit points. * -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level). * If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level. So a wizard taking a negative level might lose two or three levels worth of BAB and a level and a half worth of hp. And -1 to all skills, not just ones they put ranks into so a reduced level fighter might be at a sever negative for spot and listen. The negative level RAW also fail to mention anything about class abilities, only spells. So a L8 druid negative leveling to a 7 or 6 could still, technically, wildshape into a large sized creature. A fighter still has access to feats and a sorcerer.... well they're screwed. And, as mentioned before, there's still the equipment issue. This could be worked around by a number of rules. They can only have 2 negative levels bestowed maximum (so a L13 could play in an APL8 game) and any equipment purchased after the last AR where you leveled up could not be used. But that gets complicated and still causes problems (my L12 rogue bought a CLW wand as back-up healing after he leveled. It's not unbalanced why can't I use it?!). It's when rules get complicated with dozens of sub-rules and options that large mistakes happen and unbalance enters the game (like a L9 sorcerer dropping down to L7 and losing 10hp so they're crazy-squishy but they'd only lose half their 4th-level spells so they can still drop 2-3 ice storms on the mobs). It sucks if you only have one character or can't continue a series with the character you've played the rest in but thems the breaks for balance.
MatteBlack 03-25-07, 11:58 PM	Sorry, I didn't mean the actual "negative levels" as per the rule book but, more to backward engineer the character to a lower level. The negative levels would be unfair to some classes. I don't actually think that tuning a character down a few levels would be that complicated. It is very rare that I sit down at a table without a player or two who can practically build characters in his sleep. I think as this became a more common practice or if a character was expecting to do so, the adjustments would become pretty quick to do. As long as it is an LG legal character for that level that was made of choices existent in the original higher-level version, it would seem fine to me. I am still not sure how item levelling could be handled but, I am sure some sort of value cap per level could be set. Perhaps if it were a bit lower than the average character of that level, it would be enough to deter players from abusing this option. Would the player that continuously played his character at a lower level really be that problematic? I wouldn't promote the tactic because it seems cheesy but, it seems like it wouldn't really be hurting other players or overall campaign balance. Lee
The_Jester 03-26-07, 11:05 AM	Gold cap on items? I'm sure math on the fly won't be problematic at all, no will dealing with people who purchased items at a discount. And just because some players can do their characters in their sleep doesn't mean all can. This would really hurt shaky players and people new to the game. And while it's easy to figure out what your L8fighter took over the last couple levels trying to figure out the skill point arrangement of the average rogue or bard would be a pain and possibly result in some cheating or creative number crunching. Plus, if someone has upgraded alot of equipment recently to above the cap they may be underequipped to handle the APL. There's the possibility to downgrade for +X items but what if they never had the lower version, suddenly they've magically been given an entirely new item. There's also the logistics of having your character be powered-down while 'misplacing' their best toys; a fairly big logical leap to explain away on a possibly regular basis. LG already stretches reality enough... And how would ARs be handled? Regular gold and XP? Obviously the character faced threats equal to their level and was just at risk of death. But why should they get more than everyone else? And, since the leveling down would likely be used to push people over the 3+ hump they should technically be taking half. Of course, this means anyone can willingly de-level themselves by one and avoid taking half. What if the person dies? Do they die at one less than their current level or do they die at one less their regular level? What if someone gets captured by slavers? Obviously they would lose all their equipment as per usual, but does that include the 'misplaced' equipment? It's a neat idea (very CoH...) but doesn't opens up many, many cans of worms.
MatteBlack 03-26-07, 01:14 PM	Ok, let me take a shot at these points. Gold cap on items? I'm sure math on the fly won't be problematic at all, no will dealing with people who purchased items at a discount. An item value cap similar to the NPC chart for items would be a starting point. All items would be based on their book value when "de-levelling" and it would be up to them if if the item was worth it to bring. I'd suggest allowing item powers to be removed or "turned-off" but, I could see arguments for both ways on this. The important thing is that it be consistent. And just because some players can do their characters in their sleep doesn't mean all can. This would really hurt shaky players and people new to the game. And while it's easy to figure out what your L8fighter took over the last couple levels trying to figure out the skill point arrangement of the average rogue or bard would be a pain and possibly result in some cheating or creative number crunching. Plus, if someone has upgraded alot of equipment recently to above the cap they may be underequipped to handle the APL. There's the possibility to downgrade for +X items but what if they never had the lower version, suddenly they've magically been given an entirely new item. At it's simplest, the player would have to have an LG legal lower level version in order to take this option. All the abilities chosen would have to be on the original full level version of the character. As this became common practice, more and more players would become preapred for this. No one would be forced to take the option but, the alternative could be lowered XP or no table to play at. I'd bet no one would have difficulty finding a adept character builder willing to help. There's also the logistics of having your character be powered-down while 'misplacing' their best toys; a fairly big logical leap to explain away on a possibly regular basis. LG already stretches reality enough... I see this as a fairly small problem but, I think most folks are creative enough to find an explanation they would be comfortable. The story of how this happened should be left to the player but left in vague terms. And how would ARs be handled? Regular gold and XP? Obviously the character faced threats equal to their level and was just at risk of death. But why should they get more than everyone else? And, since the leveling down would likely be used to push people over the 3+ hump they should technically be taking half. Of course, this means anyone can willingly de-level themselves by one and avoid taking half. They get the XP and gold for what they play at. If it gets used to dodge the xp penalty to play at a more appropriate level for the adventure, that's a good thing. Maybe it would remove one more argument for having to be at the next APL up. This should keep the risk/reward balance at normal points. What if the person dies? Do they die at one less than their current level or do they die at one less their regular level? The original character build would lose a level. Yes, it would be harder to regain the higher level back than the one the modified version would lose but, it would balanced, somewhat, by the fact that they will likely be playing over the level of the adventure's APL. What if someone gets captured by slavers? Obviously they would lose all their equipment as per usual, but does that include the 'misplaced' equipment? This is probably a good argument for keeping items individually intact vs. reducing their plusses. "All" your equpment would become all items counted below the gold value cap that are used by the lower-level character.
solbergb 03-26-07, 01:33 PM	I dislike this. It totally destroys suspension of disbelief that these characters have a timeline and a history. I don't care about the mechanics. It just doesn't make sense. Where it DOES make sense that a level 12 guy isn't going to hang around with a bunch of level 7 guys.
Japangirl 03-26-07, 02:20 PM	Where it DOES make sense that a level 12 guy isn't going to hang around with a bunch of level 7 guys. I'd actually have to disagree with this. Adventurers hang out in the same taverns, after all, so you look around as a big scary level 12 and realize that there's no one in the tavern nearly as cool as you and you're really really bored. Then this group of adventurers who is not as experienced as you starts making plans, and being bored you offer to tag along just because you have nothing better to do. I know a lot of my real-life altruistic impulses spring from being bored or having nothing better to do, so why not adventurers also?
solbergb 03-26-07, 03:57 PM	Professional football players don't usually join pickup games - because it would spoil the fun, and because he's so much better he'd likely risk injuring the other players. Elite commandos don't bring raw recruits on hostage rescue missions. Bomb squad people don't let the new hire defuse real bomb. I just don't see it. If for no other reason than the L12 guy likely has enemies that could vaporize the lowbies with a casual swat or as collateral damage. While this sort of thing doesn't happen from a metagame standpoint in LG, my assumption about tiering is that at least some of the random thug encounters are actually people going after the specific PC's, not just whomever is wandering down the road next. 10th level "bandits" can't even make their consumable costs back on a typical caravan. They might be the kind of punks who tried to make a name by taking down a famous gunslinger (and normally died attempting it). Or they might just be so tempted by the obvious wealth of the adventurers as to make a suicidal attack. Or they might have out-of-date information about their capabilities and assume they are a level or two lower. The difference between level 12 and level 7 is that the level 12 can be expected to kill four level 7s most of the time, by himself.
MatteBlack 03-26-07, 03:59 PM	I dislike this. It totally destroys suspension of disbelief that these characters have a timeline and a history. I don't care about the mechanics. It just doesn't make sense. Where it DOES make sense that a level 12 guy isn't going to hang around with a bunch of level 7 guys. I am of the opinion that most of the downsizing to be done would be a level or two to fit a table. Larger downgrades would likely rarer and of course this would be optional. If it breaks your suspension of belief for your character then don't take the option but, I don't think most players would really note whether or not another character was up or down a level or two so strongly. Odds are you would never play with that character except when they are playing down to yours. Honestly, hot or cold dice can have just as big an impact as that level or two on a given mod. Some folks may even draw a richer picture of there characters story in creating why the are "sick", "depressed" or having a bad day due to the powerdown. I tend to disagree with 12 not hanging with the 7s. It was something that was happening and with this idea, the purely out of game number of level can out be pushed aside and allow more characters the flexibility to come together. Keep in mind, our current option is, "No, your level is too high, bully someone to make it work." This just opens an option for those who would like to play that lower level an option to do so and perhaps even with less xp penalty. This allows the new 3+ rule, which I feel is very appropriate, to exist and still allow players the flexibility to play the mods they want with the characters they want.
The_Jester 03-26-07, 11:56 PM	An item value cap similar to the NPC chart for items would be a starting point. All items would be based on their book value when "de-levelling" and it would be up to them if if the item was worth it to bring. I'd suggest allowing item powers to be removed or "turned-off" but, I could see arguments for both ways on this. The important thing is that it be consistent. Which is fine if all items have pluses or PCs have big items. If they have a whole lot of small items then this is bypassed. Up until last adventure my L7 gnome bard's most expensive item was 2000gp, pricey but not out of the range of a L3-4 character. So my L7 bard could easily drop down a level play an APL4 game with all her stuff.
Morgen 03-27-07, 12:15 AM	.... Why is this rule such a big problem for you people? Why should we execute this huge rule set and headache so you guys can play some 9th level character at APL 4?
MatteBlack 03-27-07, 12:40 AM	.... Why is this rule such a big problem for you people? Why should we execute this huge rule set and headache so you guys can play some 9th level character at APL 4? Honestly, I am fine with the 3+ rule. I find it does bother alot of folks. I think this could be a way to retain appropriate Character/APL combos and return the flexibility many, apparently, miss so badly.
MatteBlack 03-27-07, 08:07 PM	As I was updating a character today, I realized alot could be solved by getting in the habit of making a new character sheet at each level. With all the AR's and such we carry now, a few sheets wouldn't be much of a burden. Lee
thorinXXX 03-28-07, 02:19 PM	As I was updating a character today, I realized alot could be solved by getting in the habit of making a new character sheet at each level. With all the AR's and such we carry now, a few sheets wouldn't be much of a burden. Lee A few more sheet for this character, and a few more for that one, and a few more for the other one, and a few more for... This is a decent idea in theory, but in practice it is much more work than is practical.