Proposal : Modifying the requirement for a 2nd Character

[Mal Malenkirk]

I suggest we modify the requirement to be allowed a 2nd PC.

Currently, you need to have a level 2 PC. I would like to change it to having a PC who has completed an adventure.

I am assuming that the intent behind requiring a 2nd level PC is mostly so that the player demonstrates some commitment to L4W. It's annoying enough to see one PC drop out, to see two PC drop pout over two different adventures would be a real pain.

But the level 2 requirement creates weirds inequities. Many players will get their PC from level 1 to level 2 in a single adventure. On the other hand, many others will get just a little short. For example, one could get 837 XP in his first adventure. If that adventure had run for just one more encounter, the PC would be level 2. Instead, that PC needs to go through another adventure and the result is that the player will be allowed his second PC several months later than someone who had a first adventure that granted 1010 XP. This is especially glaring if the first adventure is just shy of level 1 while the second adventure is very long.

As you can guess, this would allow me to get a 2nd PC but I thought this proposal sounded better than 'Let's allow Mal Malenkirk a 2nd PC because he is such a nice guy'.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Can't you just ask to be awarded xp when you'd level up, even if it's mid-adventure? I've seen people level up during an adventure before.

And a problem with changing the requirement to one adventure is that not all adventures are equal. Should you get to make a second character because your first one got through a short Long Arm of Lauto?

 

[renau1g]

Maybe the requirement could be to get through 1 adventure? I know my game was like that, just shy of the XP to level (If I was slower posting then it could've stretched out to get more time XP). This especially is difficult for PC's stuck in Limbo (like the Fire & Ice guys), which didn't move for months.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

If anything I think the "complete one adventure" should be an addition, not a replacement. If you need to have completed an adventure to create a 2nd character, then suddenly none of the guys in the Closed Eye qualify for 2nd characters, despite the fact that the adventure has been running for over 11 months now.

Completing one adventure does probably show about as much commitment to L4W as reaching level 2 does, though it does open the potential to flood the system with even more level 1 PCs. I'd like to see more level 2 and 3 PCs floating around - it lets DMs explore more options. There's only so many things you can do with 1st level parties

Though, I have to ask, is it too much to wait another month or two for your first character to reach level 2? Don't be afraid to say 'yes'.

 

[renau1g]

Is there any consideration to increasing the time XP, maybe by say 50%? In LEB xp is doubled across the board, but we also started at level 4. If you increased time XP it'd work for PC's stuck in limbo while a new DM was found or while they were stuck waiting for another PC. That way you're moving up PC's a slight bit faster . Just thinking out loud here.

 

[KenHood]

...despite the fact that the adventure has been running for over 11 months now.

And *cough* had 3 DM's...

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Can't you just ask to be awarded xp when you'd level up, even if it's mid-adventure? I've seen people level up during an adventure before.

It doesn't make much sense in the same adventuring day. And we all know we can spend months on the same adventuring day.

And a problem with changing the requirement to one adventure is that not all adventures are equal. Should you get to make a second character because your first one got through a short Long Arm of Lauto?

Why not? It's less frustrating to have a handful of players get easy access to a 2nd PC after three months than to have a handful of players who still can't get a second PC after over 7 months of dedicated roleplaying.

I am not kidding here; Hadrak began play in early february and by the current rules I won't be allowed a second PC until, I guess, november or december.

If anything I think the "complete one adventure" should be an addition, not a replacement. If you need to have completed an adventure to create a 2nd character, then suddenly none of the guys in the Closed Eye qualify for 2nd characters, despite the fact that the adventure has been running for over 11 months now.

Good point. Let's amend the proposal to : ''Until you have a PC who is level 2 or who has completed an adventure.''

Though, I have to ask, is it too much to wait another month or two for your first character to reach level 2? Don't be afraid to say 'yes'.

Well, yes!

It's not like there is a glut of PCs right now, anyway. Stringbean's adventure isn't filling up because of lack of PCs. Most of the PCs in the tavern are already earmarked for a sequel (that's another topic BTW; shouldn't we try to mix PCs a little more? Many PCs can go over a year without adventuring with new people if they all go on sequels).

Is there any consideration to increasing the time XP, maybe by say 50%? In LEB xp is doubled across the board, but we also started at level 4. If you increased time XP it'd work for PC's stuck in limbo while a new DM was found or while they were stuck waiting for another PC. That way you're moving up PC's a slight bit faster . Just thinking out loud here.

It's another topic, requiring its own proposal, but I wouldn't mind a slightly faster advancement rate, yes!

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Most of the PCs in the tavern are already earmarked for a sequel (that's another topic BTW; shouldn't we try to mix PCs a little more? Many PCs can go over a year without adventuring with new people if they all go on sequels).

It is another topic, but just a quick thought on that.

I figure which adventures a PC goes on and whether they change parties between adventures is entirely up to them. I'm not going to put in effect any sort of rule that requires that people switch groups ever. Short of that the only thing to be done is to advise people to change groups, but I don't even want to do that. Some people want to stay in the same group and/or follow a storyline - that's fine. Others want to play with a different group each time - that's fine too.

Oh, and it only doesn't make sense to level up in the same adventuring day if you say it doesn't (Tongue firmly in cheek here )

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Oh, and it only doesn't make sense to level up in the same adventuring day if you say it doesn't (Tongue firmly in cheek here )

Ah, but I do say it doesn't!

Seriously, you have any example of of L4W DM who has awarded XP during an ongoing adventuring day? I doubt it's been done.

Typically, even DMs who award XP in mid-mission don't do it until there is an extended rest. It doesn't feel right to me to sprout a new daily or additional healing surges just before the last fight, for example.

Many an adventure see the heroes slowly depleting their ressources as the day advance and the tension is partly created by a looming confrontation against a powerful enemy. Will you be be strong enough to tackle that final foe or will you be too weakened? It feels very weird to me if one PC is going to get into that final brawl stronger than he started the day while everyone else is weaker...

 

[covaithe]

I sympathize with Hadrak's plight, but I don't think it's possible to write a set of rules that would guarantee absolute fairness in who gets a second PC when, and how fast PCs advance, and so forth. There are always going to be inequities, and in this case Hadrak is on the short end of the stick. Sorry.

In Hadrak's case, I think it would be quite reasonable to ask your current DM in Fire and Ice if he'd consider an xp award, either after the waterfront fight or after the current skill challenge. Even if he doesn't want you to actually level up yet, that should be more than sufficient to qualify you for a 2nd character.