|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I put this in another thread, but I thought it deserved its own thread all to its own.
Many people are confused on the wording with the rule with playing up, most of it comes down to tier vs sub-tier and wording in the guide not being clear enough on that.
Through conversation on these boards with Josh the actual meaning of the rule has become clear so I wish to lay it out below by giving a level by level on what Sub-Tiers a character can play in.
I will Start off with Terms
Tier - All scenarios Fall in a Tier Range, The Range is listed Below.
- Tier 1-5
- Tier 1-7
- Tier 5-9
- Tier 7-11
- Tier 12
Sub-Tiers - All Tiers Except Level 12 have Sub-Tiers, they are a way to give a wider range to different levels to play the same scenario but still make sure the group is all of similar level.
- Tier 1-5 Sub-Tiers: 1-2 & 4-5
- Tier 1-7 Sub Tiers: 1-2, 3-4 & 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Sub Tiers: 5-6 & 8-9
- Tier 7-11 Sub Tiers: 7-8 & 10-11
- Tier 12: no Sub Tiers
You are allowed to play Up or Down 1 Sub-Tier within a scenario if your level falls in the overall Tier of the scenario, but the GM/coordinator should try to avoid it.
You are not allowed to play up Tier
So that Said here is the break out per Level of the character, * designates preferred and GM/Coordinator should always put them in preferred if at all possible.
Level 1
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Sub-Tier 1-2*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 4-5
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Sub-Tier 1-2*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 3-4, Cannot Play up to Sub-Tier 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 2
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Sub-Tier 1-2*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 4-5
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Sub-Tier 1-2*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 3-4, Cannot Play up to Sub-Tier 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 3
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 1-2, Can play up to Sub-Tier 4-5
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 1-2, Sub-Tier 3-4*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 4
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 1-2, Sub-Tier 4-5*
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 1-2, Sub-Tier 3-4*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 5
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 1-2, Sub-Tier 4-5*
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Cannot play down to Sub-Tier 1-2, Can play down to Sub-Tier 3-4, Can play up to Sub-Tier 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Sub-Tier 5-6*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 8-9
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 6
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Cannot play down to Sub-Tier 1-2, Can play down to Sub-Tier 3-4, Sub-Tier 6-7*
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Sub-Tier 5-6*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 8-9
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 7
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Cannot play down to Sub-Tier 1-2, Can play down to Sub-Tier 3-4, Sub-Tier 6-7*
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 5-6, Can play up to Sub-Tier 8-9
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Sub-Tier 7-8*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 10-11
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 8
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 5-6, Sub-Tier 8-9*
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Sub-Tier 7-8*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 10-11
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 9
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 5-6, Sub-Tier 8-9*
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 7-8, Can play up to Sub-Tier 10-11
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 10
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 7-8, Sub-Tier 10-11*
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 11
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 7-8, Sub-Tier 10-11*
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 12
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 12 Scenario: Tier 12*
Play, Play, Play cannot be used to deviate from this, if you have seen otherwise, there was a mistake made and people make mistakes *Even Josh*, don't use that Mistake to believe you can use Play, Play, Play.
If you need more clarity I will gladly give it.
Please don't use this thread to argue that you don't like the rule or you want it changed.
|
Tier 7-11 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 7-8, Sub-Tier 10-11*
Nice work man!
The only feed back I would give for this is that when listed as this quote is it could be mistakenly read that this character can play down sub-tier #1, #2 even though your intent is they can play down sub-tier#1 and can play normally at sub-tier #2 and the use of the * indicates preferred seating choice. Could just be me, but it's slightly muddy that way.
A more explicit: Tier 7-11 Scenario: Can play down to Sub-Tier 7-8, can play sub-tier 10-11*
is what I have in mind.
Way to go!
|
I put this in another thread, but I thought it deserved its own thread all to its own.
Many people are confused on the wording with the rule with playing up, most of it comes down to tier vs sub-tier and wording in the guide not being clear enough on that.
Through conversation on these boards with Josh the actual meaning of the rule has become clear so I wish to lay it out below by giving a level by level on what Sub-Tiers a character can play in.
I will Start off with Terms
Tier - All scenarios Fall in a Tier Range, The Range is listed Below.
- Tier 1-5
- Tier 1-7
- Tier 5-9
- Tier 7-11
- Tier 12
Sub-Tiers - All Tiers Except Level 12 have Sub-Tiers, they are a way to give a wider range to different levels to play the same scenario but still make sure the group is all of similar level.
- Tier 1-5 Sub-Tiers: 1-2 & 4-5
- Tier 1-7 Sub Tiers: 1-2, 3-4 & 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Sub Tiers: 5-6 & 8-9
- Tier 7-11 Sub Tiers: 7-8 & 10-11
- Tier 12: no Sub Tiers
You are allowed to play Up or Down 1 Sub-Tier within a scenario if your level falls in the overall Tier of the scenario, but the GM/coordinator should try to avoid it.
You are not allowed to play up Tier
So that Said here is the break out per Level of the character, * designates preferred and GM/Coordinator should always put them in preferred if at all possible.
Level 1
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Sub-Tier 1-2*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 4-5
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Sub-Tier 1-2*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 3-4, Cannot Play up to Sub-Tier 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 12 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
Level 2
...
- Tier 1-5 Scenario: Sub-Tier 1-2*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 4-5
- Tier 1-7 Scenario: Sub-Tier 1-2*, Can play up to Sub-Tier 3-4, Cannot Play up to Sub-Tier 6-7
- Tier 5-9 Scenario: Cannot play in these Scenarios
- Tier 7-11
Awesome.
It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.
Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied.
|
|
It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.
Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied.
Eeek... That is important, I just had that talk to with a Player of mine and was what kicked me off to post this. Doh..Can't believe I forgot to add that.
|
|
It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.
Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied.
VERY important. A fact that is missed by 90% of players I talk with at Cons.
|
|
VERY important. A fact that is missed by 90% of players I talk with at Cons.It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.
Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied.
This can't be repeated often enough. For one thing, I think most of those players would be deeply unhappy with the actual results of "play-up at will," at least as long as the GM didn't pull punches.
|
|
Look at that. YOu did such an excellent job that Josh got excited and got it all sticky.
:)
I kid, I kid.
And by the way, Dragonmoon, I cut and pasted this into a word doc to hang at our local game store.
Make sure you add the Bit Josh said about not being able to Simply choose to play up.
And it is Dragnmoon!!!!! ;)
|
This can't be repeated often enough. For one thing, I think most of those players would be deeply unhappy with the actual results of "play-up at will," at least as long as the GM didn't pull punches.
I was reminded of how things can work out when a APL 2.5 group played up at my last event. The party could do it, of course, but IT TOOK FOREVER. Nobody could hit. So if you get any whiners then be sure to tell them that they can't play up (or maybe shouldn't play up even if they can) because there is a time limit that they will probably exceed if they do.
|
|
Mostly the chart is OK.
Though it appears there is a misconception about playing down.
The current version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, "Scenarios and Tiers" p. 26-27, states that "rarely" players may be allowed to play up.
No where in the guide is it stated that players are ever allowed to play down.
There is mention of playing down if APL is between sub-tiers in "Calculating Average Party Level" but that does not in it self mean that players can play down to a lower sub-tier than their character is.
If it is allowed for players to play down below their character level I think it should be added to the next version of the guide.
|
|
Mostly the chart is OK.
Though it appears there is a misconception about playing down.
The current version of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, "Scenarios and Tiers" p. 26-27, states that "rarely" players may be allowed to play up.
No where in the guide is it stated that players are ever allowed to play down.There is mention of playing down if APL is between sub-tiers in "Calculating Average Party Level" but that does not in it self mean that players can play down to a lower sub-tier than their character is.
If it is allowed for players to play down below their character level I think it should be added to the next version of the guide.
Perfect timing for this to pop up considering a similar question was just raised.
I believe that the chart works as you mentioned Diego, it just doesn't have an 'only if' clause on it. I certainly don't give the players the choice unless they are between teirs. I had a player walk off of a game due to this last weekend. Not a big deal considering he is the biggest problem player in the region. But we had to reaffirm that APL is what is played. In hindisght I could have avoided it by making 2 tables out of the 7 that were there. *shrug*
|
|
It is noted in a later Post in this thread, that Playing up or Down can only be done based on the APL, That was the only thing I forgot, otherwise everything I said was correct.
First you Figure out APL, Based on APL you decide the Sub-Tier and you need to verify that all players can play in that sub-tier, If for example somehow the APL was 5 and you had a level 1 in the group, you could not play up to Sub-Tier 6-7 because level 1s are not allowed to play in that sub-tier, but the Level 6's and 7's in the group could play down to Sub-Tier 3-4 and the level 1 could play up to that sub-tier. If the APL was 4, then you have no choice the level 6 in the group has to play Sub-Tier 3-4 if he wants to play in the game. That final note in the rules was just to show that if you are between is the only time you can choose to go up or down if it was within the rules.
|
|
...
My main problem is, that I cannot see in the GtPFSOP, that characters are allowed to play down.
Page 27 does state that (emphasis mine):
"Rarely, PCs may be allowed to play “up” a Tier if they’re lower level than all of the other players."
"A player may only ever play up one step."
"Finally, if the APL of a table is between two sub-Tiers (like APL 3 for a Tier 1–5 scenario), the players may choose to play up to sub-Tier
4–5 or play down to sub-Tier 1–2."
|
|
...My main problem is, that I cannot see in the GtPFSOP, that characters are allowed to play down.
Page 27 does state that (emphasis mine):
"Rarely, PCs may be allowed to play “up” a Tier if they’re lower level than all of the other players.""A player may only ever play up one step."
"Finally, if the APL of a table is between two sub-Tiers (like APL 3 for a Tier 1–5 scenario), the players may choose to play up to sub-Tier
4–5 or play down to sub-Tier 1–2."
It is confusing, but it is there.
Basically APL allows a mixed group of levels, the APL is the actual mechanic to decided what Sub-Tier you play in , all the rest is basically restrictions on what levels can play what sub-tiers *One step*, and what levels can be in the mixed group *Only levels that fall in the Tier*
He used poor examples, but that is the case through out most of the guide.
Edit: That said, it could made clearer and it was supposed to be, A lot of my Post above is based on conversations with Josh in the Forums to help clear it up.
|
|
As I understand these rules players cannot play down at all. However the party can.
I will refer to the three rules on page 27. by the following numbers:
1) "Rarely, PCs may be allowed to play “up” a Tier if they’re lower level than all of the other players."
2) "A player may only ever play up one step."
3) "Finally, if the APL of a table is between two sub-Tiers (like APL 3 for a Tier 1–5 scenario), the players may choose to play up to sub-Tier 4–5 or play down to sub-Tier 1–2."
E.g. A) if you have a party composed of four 3rd level characters the party's APL is 3 (4*3/4).
For a Tier 1-5 scenario, the APL places them between sub-tiers and since all characters are neither 1-2 nor 4-5, but still 1-5, they can choose to play either up or down according to (2) and (3). They basically don't have a sub-tier to play down from.
E.g. B) if you have a party composed of six 2nd level characters the party's APL is 3 (6*2/6+1).
If the scenario is Tier 1-5, the APL places them between sub-tiers, which means they can play down to sub-tier 1-2, but according to (1)not up, since none of the characters are of sufficient level to play sub-tier 4-5.
E.g. C) if you have a party composed of two 1st level, three 2nd level and one 4th level characters the party's APL is 3 ((2*1+3*2+4)/6+1).
Again for a Tier 1-5 scenario, the APL places them between sub-tiers, which means that they cannot play down to sub-tier 1-2 since the 4th level player cannot play down, but according to (1)can play up, since the 4th level character is of sufficient level to play sub-tier 4-5.
According to (2) the situation becomes more complicated/restricted for tier 1-7 scenarios.
This is how I interpret the rules. By this I am not saying my interpretation is better than yours. Just that there is at least one other interpretation based on the RAW.
To clarify this matter I think GtPFSOP p.27 should be rewritten.
P.S: Even though my avatar is marked VC, I do not think my interpretation of the rules are more valid than those of other players, and don't intend to tell anyone, what to do at their own tables.
When I come to the boards I do it, as I always have, as my own person. I realize now that I have to be more careful how I write, since the VC tag can set off some people.
|
|
This is how I interpret the rules. By this I am not saying my interpretation is better than yours. Just that there is at least one other interpretation based on the RAW.
My own interpretation is that since there is absolutely no mention of playing down or hint of playing down that it is allowed in as much as the tier system is a level restriction. That ends up being the base rule which allows a level 7 to play in a 1-7 (sub-tier 3-4) with a level 2. Both characters a legal under the tier choice and contribute to an APL calculation which can yield a sub-tier 3-4 result. And this original post was blessed by Josh.
My opinion, as always, is mine. :)
|
|
Diego, just think of it this way... If you where correct there could never really be much mixer in levels in groups allowed. Level 2 could not play with level 3s because if the APL was 2 or lower the level 3 could not play the game.. etc..etc..etc.., that is way too much of a restriction and unrealistic for games with level ranges in a scenario and would cause too much of a risk of a player missing out of a game he payed for at a con because his 4th level pc can't play because most of the table is level 2!
|
|
Diego, just think of it this way... If you where correct there could never really be much mixer in levels in groups allowed. Level 2 could not play with level 3s because if the APL was 2 or lower the level 3 could not play the game.. etc..etc..etc.., that is way too much of a restriction and unrealistic for games with level ranges in a scenario and would cause too much of a risk of a player missing out of a game he payed for at a con because his 4th level pc can't play because most of the table is level 2!
To be fair, I don't think he disagrees so much with your (and my) interpretation so much as he is asking for clarification.
|
|
I think the core concept is inclusivity (if that is even a real word). The ability of a player to play up/down one sub-tier within the tier they are legal for is almost a necessity to ensure that you can seat all players. The larger the attendance the less of an issue this becomes, but at small, local games, with a mix of part/full-time players, you will almost never have a table of all PC's levels within a single sub-tier.
|
|
Diego
This is an interesting catch. The questions - do you interpret the lack of a rule as it is allowed or not allowed. Just ponder the alternative.
Take the following scenario
Three level 1 and one level 6. This would be an APL of 2.25 and nothing in the rules forbidding to play down by one sub-tier - so also nothing to play down by two - allowed or disallowed.
The reason I interpret it the way Dragnmoons table is build up is, that this was generated after a lot of discussion and I assume Josh himself made it sticky.He should have voiced an opinion if he disagreed.
But yes - the lack of some words can be interpreted either way. But I would regard the symmetric interpretation being the most sensible one. Other vice mixing becomes very difficult.
Thod
|
|
I hope the GtPFSOP 3.0.3 or 4 will include a better explanation of these issues.
Alternately I think it would be interesting if players who have played at one of Josh's tables would post the level make up of their party and the tier/sub-tier they played.
I only played with Josh once.
We where 4 players - three 3rd level characters and one 2nd level - APL was 11/4 or 2.75 = 3.
We played a Tier 1-7 at ST 3-4.
One player played up.
EDIT:
I actually, played with Josh twice. The secund time I was GM and there were four 1st level characters in a ST 1-2 game
|
|
Three level 1 and one level 6. This would be an APL of 2.25 and nothing in the rules forbidding to play down by one sub-tier - so also nothing to play down by two - allowed or disallowed.
Actually, That would be a Very Bad Mix!!! The 6th could not play in that table because He could not Play down to Sub-Tier 1-2 and they could not play up to Sub-Tier 3-4 because the APL did not allow it... I would tell the level 6 to make a new PC if possible, or work something else out for him.
Also there is 1 Level that can never play Down, Level 12 can only play Tier 12
|
|
Three level 1 and one level 6. This would be an APL of 2.25 and nothing in the rules forbidding to play down by one sub-tier - so also nothing to play down by two - allowed or disallowed.
Actually, That would be a Very Bad Mix!!! The 6th could not play in that table because He could not Play down to Sub-Tier 1-2 and they could not play up to Sub-Tier 3-4 because the APL did not allow it... I would tell the level 6 to make a new PC if possible, or work something else out for him.
Also there is 1 Level that can never play Down, Level 12 can only play Tier 12
Dragnmoon
I think you missed the subtleness of my post. Common sense I agree with you. I even say so in the post.
RAW show me where it isn't allowed. Diego observed that there is a rule that allows to play up one sub-tier and only a single sub-tier. But there is none that says you can play down one sub-tier. As there is no such mentioning there is also non saying you can't play down two sub tiers.
You infer this from the play up rule.
Don't get me wrong - I think you are absolutely right with the table as written. This is how it is supposed to be. This is how I would interpret the pages of postings. Sorry - but the rule lawyer just came through after reading Diegos comment and I had to turn his argument on the head.
RAW it doesn't say anything about play down apart of being between sub-tiers.
Thod
|
|
...
Don't get me wrong - I think you are absolutely right with the table as written. This is how it is supposed to be. This is how I would interpret the pages of postings. Sorry - but the rule lawyer just came through after reading Diegos comment and I had to turn his argument on the head.RAW it doesn't say anything about play down apart of being between sub-tiers.
I think Dragnmoon's table is helpful and it is probably as right as my own interpretation is.
The problem is that players may run into different interpretations at different venues. To avoid that I suggested a revision of that text.
...
Don't get me wrong - I think you are absolutely right with the table as written. This is how it is supposed to be. This is how I would interpret the pages of postings. Sorry - but the rule lawyer just came through after reading Diegos comment and I had to turn his argument on the head.RAW it doesn't say anything about play down apart of being between sub-tiers.
I think Dragnmoon's table is helpful and it is probably as right as my own interpretation is.
The problem is that players may run into different interpretations at different venues. To avoid that I suggested a revision of that text.
Well, since Josh had looked at Dragnmoon's table and said what he wrote is how it is supposed to work and stickied it so that it would not be lost to the archives, I would say unless Mark and Hyrum come out with something different, then this is the one and only official way to do it, even if it has not yet made it into the Guide.
|
|
So I noticed something at the Convention I went to this weekend, many people are still getting this part of PFS way wrong, and even when they are pointed out that they are getting it wrong they will not except it because the Guide is still so unclear on it.
Much of this rule was made clear through posts and conversations with Josh but was never made clear in the Guide. I am sure Hyrum is working on that in the next incarnation of the guide, and may be changing the rule all together.
One thing I will like to point out though, please either put some restriction on Play, play, Play! or make it clear it is meant to break every rule in PFS, because currently that is what I get the most. "Well with Play, Play, Play! we can do what ever we want anyway" or something similar to that.
I know every GM is different but for me even with Play, Play, Play! there are 2 rules I will not break, Max table size and This one, so it drives me a bit nuts when I see people using it.
One example of something I heard this weekend was that a Level 6 could play in a level 7-11 Scenario because they could go up 1 Sub-Tier, Which is not true out of Tier, you can not play out of Tier. This is not really clear in the guide.
Also That you could not play-down, like Diego mentioned, because that is not in the guide at all!
Anyway I know they are working on it, I just got a bit frustrated.
|
It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.
Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied.
I don't understand why you can't decide to play up if you want to as a party. If the party understands that death is more of a certainty for the increase in gold and potential loot you can buy, I say why not! And it's not like the increase in gold is going to do anything but sit there. They might get to buy +1 weapon or armor earlier than their peers, but they are still beholden to the PA spending limit.
Some scenarios I've played through have been absolute cakewalks at levels 1-2, and that's with having only 4 people at the table. I definitely could've gone up to play a subtier higher and still come out A-OK.
|
|
They might get to buy +1 weapon or armor earlier than their peers, but they are still beholden to the PA spending limit.
You will end up with people getting forced into playing up by peer pressure and then getting killed.
If you are routinely able to play up you'll jump the gold/PA curve pretty badly and be able to buy higher tier gear off the Chronicles that you normally wouldn't be able to afford (in terms of gold and PA).
|
It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.
Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied.
I don't understand why you can't decide to play up if you want to as a party. If the party understands that death is more of a certainty for the increase in gold and potential loot you can buy, I say why not! And it's not like the increase in gold is going to do anything but sit there. They might get to buy +1 weapon or armor earlier than their peers, but they are still beholden to the PA spending limit.
Some scenarios I've played through have been absolute cakewalks at levels 1-2, and that's with having only 4 people at the table. I definitely could've gone up to play a subtier higher and still come out A-OK.
Why not "just play up"?
1) Balance - Treasure and XP for any given module are intended to be balanced to the level of the party playing. If you consistently play up, the character will gain an unbalanced amount of treasure for the campaign. While this might be a great thing for you, the fact that your character has much more bling than other characters of the same level at other tables will give a sense of unfairness to others. Besides that, if your character consistently gathers more bling than his level should, he becomes unbalanced for any future encounters, making it that much more difficult to provide a challenge to you that doesn't kill you outright.
2) Peer Pressure - Sure you say "everyone wants to play up". But what if nobody wants to be "that guy" that speaks up for himself ans says that he'd rather not have his character die just so you can get more treasure? Or, he'd rather not just sit on the sidelines being useless while you run out and do everything fun that he can't do because he's way out of his tier?
3) Time - Yes, you might be able to complete an out of tier adventure. But the time given for the adventure is based on characters being of the appropriate level. What happens when every combat runs long because it takes 25-50% longer to grind down the enemies as it should because you aren't doing damage appropriate to the tier?
4) Character deaths - A DM should feel that monsters are actually trying to kill the characters. What happens when the DM starts feeling like he needs to pull punches because fighting to win would kill most or all of a party? Suddenly the DM has a whole lot harder job, and what might have been a fun challenge to him becomes a let down? And have you really completed the adventure if the DM had to pull punches to keep you alive? I personally think I have more pride than that. (Of course my mother never let me win any game she ever played with me when I was a child. She said that if I wanted to win, then I needed to actually win.) (This last weekend, I suspect that a judge pulled punches in order not to kill our party. Yes we were playing up. If I were the DM in that instance, I'd be seriously pissed off for being put in that position, and I'd probably have done my best to actually kill the party.)
|
|
Some scenarios I've played through have been absolute cakewalks at levels 1-2, and that's with having only 4 people at the table. I definitely could've gone up to play a subtier higher and still come out A-OK.
Sometimes if people just have the right types of weapons, the right skills, and the right spells, a scenario is going to seem a lot easier than it would otherwise.
Yes, there are a few that are easier than others, but how do you know that before you play them?
If you assume that they are always easy, its easy to walking into a challenging one, play up, and end up with heavy casualties.
I've played several sessions that were easy for another group that ended harder for the group I was in because we didn't have a cleric or a rogue or a dedicated front line fighter, etc.
|
|
You will end up with people getting forced into playing up by peer pressure and then getting killed.
If you are routinely able to play up you'll jump the gold/PA curve pretty badly and be able to buy higher tier gear off the Chronicles that you normally wouldn't be able to afford (in terms of gold and PA).
I disagree about the gold / PA curve. Because if people are playing up on a consistent basis, the PA skill checks go up in difficulty, and therefore a limiting factor. What is a character to do with twice as much gold as someone else their level with average or below average PA? Buy more potions? Also, the higher tier gear on the chronicle sheets is mainly garbage. I have not ran across many items that don't end up being on other sheets (Potion of invisibility?) or are things I cannot access with the TPA that I have. There is only 1 item of note (from a Season 2 scenario) that I would say is actually worth have a chronicle sheet for. Other than that, I rarely point to something on my chronicle sheet that I can't already buy (read: I've only had to do that once).
I've had the pleasure of playing up and the displeasure of playing down. Due to APL, playing 3-4 with my level 1 Paladin was a breeze. Yes, I dropped in two of the encounters, but it wasn't anything bad and I did not die. Another time, I did a 3-4 with my level 6 cleric. I hated every minute of it, and it definitely was not worth the hit in gold. But I did it because the party needed a healer. Not to mention, no one else had a character that could use a wand of CLW because none of them got spells. Lucky me.
|
|
1) Balance - Treasure and XP for any given module are intended to be balanced to the level of the party playing. If you consistently play up, the character will gain an unbalanced amount of treasure for the campaign. While this might be a great thing for you, the fact that your character has much more bling than other characters of the same level at other tables will give a sense of unfairness to others. Besides that, if your character consistently gathers more bling than his level should, he becomes unbalanced for any future encounters, making it that much more difficult to provide a challenge to you that doesn't kill you outright.
Balance is already built into the system with TPA limits on amount of purchases. There is not a whole lot of good having more gold is going to give you without having the TPA to purchase items.
2) Peer Pressure - Sure you say "everyone wants to play up". But what if nobody wants to be "that guy" that speaks up for himself ans says that he'd rather not have his character die just so you can get more treasure? Or, he'd rather not just sit on the sidelines being useless while you run out and do everything fun that he can't do because he's way out of his tier?
I typically play with a core group of folks, and I can honestly tell you that they all would prefer to play up. How out of your tier are you if you can only play up to the next subtier? I would argue not by much, especially having ran a good number of 1-7 tiers. I would say there is a more fitting change going from 1-2 to 4-5 than there is from 1-2 to 3-4. The difference is almost negligible.
3) Time - Yes, you might be able to complete an out of tier adventure. But the time given for the adventure is based on characters being of the appropriate level. What happens when every combat runs long because it takes 25-50% longer to grind down the enemies as it should because you aren't doing damage appropriate to the tier?
If you're getting 50% increases in time by going from 1-2 to 3-4, I'd say the GM needs to get people to act quicker. Time is always an issue, and 80% of our time overruns in my local group are caused by having heavy roleplayers.
4) Character deaths - A DM should feel that monsters are actually trying to kill the characters. What happens when the DM starts feeling like he needs to pull punches because fighting to win would kill most or all of a party? Suddenly the DM has a whole lot harder job, and what might have been a fun challenge to him becomes a let down? And have you really completed the adventure if the DM had to pull punches to keep you alive? I personally think I have more pride than that. (Of course my mother never let me win any game she ever played with me when I was a child. She said that if I wanted to win, then I needed to actually win.) (This last weekend, I suspect that a judge pulled punches in order not to kill our party. Yes we were playing up. If I were the DM in that instance, I'd be seriously pissed off for being put in that position, and I'd probably have done my best to actually kill the party.)
If people know going up a tier means more of a likelihood of death and the table agrees to do it, then I am all for it. I have NO qualms about killing characters, and I don't sit there and baby my PCs through. In fact, the only thing that has kept some players alive in some of the encounters I've ran is the fact that the tactics for some NPCs specifically state that they aren't out to kill PCs (either because they are too dumb or they want to have potential slaves to sell).
I think folks should be given an option to increase a sub-tier if they want. I have no problem with folks taking on higher risks for a higher reward, because I relish in the opportunity to lay waste to some PCs.
/In fact, out of the 9 scenarios I've GMed, 0 PCs have died.
//I'm even sadder I never GM'ed Mists of Mwangi before the revision.
|
|
It's obvious we thoroughly disagree, so I'll just point to what I think is the most glaring problem with your answer.
Balance is already built into the system with TPA limits on amount of purchases. There is not a whole lot of good having more gold is going to give you without having the TPA to purchase items.
Assume a character has a TPA purchase limit of 5000gp.
Do you really believe that there is no power difference between a character able to buy 3-4 4000gp items and a character only able to buy 1?
I know that my 8th level character has really never bumped hard against the TPA limit. What holds down his power level is available gold.
|
|
I disagree about the gold / PA curve. Because if people are playing up on a consistent basis, the PA skill checks go up in difficulty, and therefore a limiting factor.
Actually, in many scenarios the PA skill checks are not scaled.
The Gold reward almost always is, as are the available items. So regardless of APL, you are going to be able to buy items that you normally could not at your PC's level, just because of chronicles.
Which is part of what makes adventures cakewalks.
|
|
Assume a character has a TPA purchase limit of 5000gp.
Do you really believe that there is no power difference between a character able to buy 3-4 4000gp items and a character only able to buy 1?
I know that my 8th level character has really never bumped hard against the TPA limit. What holds down his power level is available gold.
That is more than just assuming a TPA purchase limit. That's also assuming a person regularly plays up and manages to survive all those games. The statistical likelihood of that being the case is pretty low I feel, and therefore you're just chasing a rabbit down a hole.
Yes, there are power differences, but that's the trade-off of risks and rewards. To the victor goes the spoils.
On the other hand, I have a 7th level character, and he's been hampered by the PA limit. That's because I know what I'm saving up for, and have been planning to do so since he was at 1st level. I even made rough calculations to prove that the limiting factor would be PA, not gold.
|
|
Actually, in many scenarios the PA skill checks are not scaled.
The Gold reward almost always is, as are the available items. So regardless of APL, you are going to be able to buy items that you normally could not at your PC's level, just because of chronicles.
Which is part of what makes adventures cakewalks.
Even though I've GM'ed 9 scenarios, I believe almost all of them bump up in skills by about 5 (except for 1-2 and 3-4, they keep the skill check the same for both of those subtiers).
Most items available for your subtier are worthless in the sense you almost always have enough PA to buy them (unless you're 1st level). Not only that, the vast majority of items repeat across multiple chronicle sheets. It is very rare that you see something within your own tier worth getting that you could not get otherwise through TPA - even rarer that you have something worth getting that is actually tailored to your character.
I can't begin to count the number of times my cleric runs across 'potion of x' or 'scroll of x' that I isn't either cost effective as getting a wand of the same spell or I can't use altogether because it's not on my spell list.
|
|
Most items available for your subtier are worthless in the sense you almost always have enough PA to buy them (unless you're 1st level). Not only that, the vast majority of items repeat across multiple chronicle sheets. It is very rare that you see something within your own tier worth getting that you could not get otherwise through TPA - even rarer that you have something worth getting that is actually tailored to your character.
Yes, the TPA buy limit does make most Chronicle purchases invalid when you are on track. If you start having a abundance of gold and playing up you are going to have much earlier access to some +2 gear, and attribute increasing wondrous items etc on your Chronicles and the gold to buy them. There is a curve and you are talking about willfully breaking it. There wouldn't be a curve if they didn't want it followed for some reason.
|
|
Honestly, it seems to me that there's a simple solution to this dilemma.
Let the guys fight the higher sub-tier foes, but stick to the rewards as allowed by the appropriate sub-tier. It gives folks more of a challenge while maintaining the wealth curve.
Granted, this requires a bit of a judgment call on the part of the GM, but if the good guys are walking thru the encounters, perhaps they need more of a challenge.
|
|
... If all players agree to the bump, that's a different story, but I object to this tactic as a general practice done without the prior agreement of the players.
And as stated above, frequently there are a player or two who don't really want to play up, but don't want to speak against the group. And in my experience (playing up legally), those are usually the players who lose their characters first.
|
|
... If all players agree to the bump, that's a different story, but I object to this tactic as a general practice done without the prior agreement of the players.And as stated above, frequently there are a player or two who don't really want to play up, but don't want to speak against the group. And in my experience (playing up legally), those are usually the players who lose their characters first.
I agree with K-Shacks, if that means anything. I would think that the majority of people wouldn't speak up about such an occurrence until they got into a situation where they were going to die ("Sure I'll play up, just protect me"..."What do you mean you're dominated?!?! Don't attack me! Okay I'm dead").
|
|
... If all players agree to the bump, that's a different story, but I object to this tactic as a general practice done without the prior agreement of the players.And as stated above, frequently there are a player or two who don't really want to play up, but don't want to speak against the group. And in my experience (playing up legally), those are usually the players who lose their characters first.
I've been at this table in a legal setting. We had a group of a six (me), three fives, and a three. Our APL put us squarely in the "5" category. The group demanded to play up a tier to 6-7 even though I pointed at the level 3 and kept saying "are you sure?" Lucky we had a good GM that was a) kind enough to play it fairly easy b) a level 6 wizard capable of doing hefty fire based AoE damage (don't poo-poo the evoker), and c) not enough time, so we wound up ending the module early and getting our XP because we went through enough encounters. If even one of those factors had not been there, we would have been in a world of hurt and were on the road to a TPK.
That was an instance where we were allowed to play "up a tier" because of the party make-up. The silent low-level player who I could tell didn't want to play up and risk death was immediately overruled by the three level 5's that wanted to play up a tier. I can say from experience that bullying is a legitimate problem in these instances.
This is why my table ruling when I'm a GM is that the table has to agree unanimously to play up, and I get a final veto anyway if I think somebody is being coerced.