Recent Posts
Josh,
I both played and ran modules at a con this weekend. One of the coordinators, who came back from RUNNING at Gencon, had a lot of rules on how Tiers and Character Levels work in PFS and their relationships to one another. Of course we didn't question him, as, he said these were given to him by you.
These 'rules' caused one of the tables to almost not happen (in which people were turned away) and another to result in a TPK. We were 'forced' to play within these guidelines, if we wanted to play. Needless to say there were a bunch of people who walked away with hard feelings because of it.
This was a smaller convention. I would like some confirmation and clarification, if you could.
1) First off. Tiers and *playable* character levels able to play are IDENTICLE and there are NO ACCEPTIONS.
In other words: A 7th level character may ///NEVER/// play a mod whose Tier is capped at 6. Likewise a 4th level may ///NEVER/// play a mod beginning at Tier 5, until reaching 5th (of course).
2) If you are in the correct level range and the table you play at qualifies for another tier you MUST play that Tier even if you are 3 or more levels out of that 'Tier.'
In other words: if you are a first level character (playing a tier 1-5 module) and the average player level is Tier 4-5, you MUST play Tier 4-5. Even if the ENTIRE table wants to run 1-2.
....................
We ran #32 (Tier 7+) with four players, we ALMOST didn't have that, but we had to turn away several level 6's. And we had to fight to get the last 7th.
...MEANWHILE: we had a table of 6 BRAND NEW (no AR's) character's and asked to do the 1-2 Tier. We were FORCED, by the judge, to run Tier 4 because we had 7th player who was level 3. We were TPKed the second combat!
These seem to be contradictory. Why is a person ONE LEVEL out denied play while an entire table THREE LEVELS out FORCED to play a tier they aren't comfortable with?
....................
He explained tiering math this way:
1) add all character levels and divide by the number of characters.
2) round all fractions up
3) add 1 for a full table of 6
4) add 1 for every player above 6
9 levels divided by 7 is 1.28 rounded to 2
Plus 1 for full table Plus 1 for a 7th character = 6 level ones and a level 3 die!
Thanks ahead of time!
James
Josh,
He explained tiering math this way:
1) add all character levels and divide by the number of characters.
2) round all fractions up
3) add 1 for a full table of 6
4) add 1 for every player above 69 levels divided by 7 is 1.28 rounded to 2
Plus 1 for full table Plus 1 for a 7th character = 6 level ones and a level 3 die!
You judge rounded the initial number wrong. 1.28 rounds to 1 not 2. After that adding 2 more for a table of 7 gives you 3. Since it was a 1-5 mod it was a choice between 1-2 and 4-5. Your table should have been allowed the 1-2. There is not much Josh can do to prevent people who don't understand grade school math from judging. That is the con organizers job.
Thanks, It wasn't a math issue, as I pointed out we *knew* it was 1.28 but he insisted you round up. I had argued with him that it *should* round down. But he said he got the info from Josh, so I didn't question it further.
The math is still a bit wonky. 8 first would be tier 4 as well as two thirds and 5 firsts. In either case there still would have been a TPK and the vast majority of the table playing 3 levels out of tier. Meanwhile, the guys one level out of tier (on the other table) are turned away.
1) First off. Tiers and *playable* character levels able to play are IDENTICAL and there are NO EXCEPTIONS.
In other words: A 7th level character may ///NEVER/// play a mod whose Tier is capped at 6. Likewise a 4th level may ///NEVER/// play a mod beginning at Tier 5, until reaching 5th (of course).
I don't believe that was the intent of the language in the guide.
Tiers are a level restriction for play. If a character is level 1, he must always try to play in a Tier 1–2 sub-Tier
whenever possible.
It sounds like the first sentence was being read independently, when I feel like the second goes on to clarify it as a goal, rather than a restriction without exception.
2) If you are in the correct level range and the table you play at qualifies for another tier you MUST play that Tier even if you are 3 or more levels out of that 'Tier.'
In other words: if you are a first level character (playing a tier 1-5 module) and the average player level is Tier 4-5, you MUST play Tier 4-5. Even if the ENTIRE table wants to run 1-2.
You are never forced to play up. You are never forced to play, for that matter. Sub-tier 4-5 for that table was ridiculous. The GM can cite all the bad math they want, but that is plainly the wrong sub-tier for the table. It worries me that this GM is out there, running PFS scenarios, and potentially driving people away seven at a time.
He explained tiering math this way:
1) add all character levels and divide by the number of characters.
2) round all fractions up
3) add 1 for a full table of 6
4) add 1 for every player above 6
#2 is not supported by the rules, as was already pointed out.
"You should always round this number to the nearest whole value."Plus, #4 is also a complete fabrication.
"If there are six or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL."
I'm sorry so many people got hosed. I hope everyone will give PFS another chance. I also think it would be a good idea to try and educate that GM, so they don't wipe any more tables through their misapplication of the rules.
Plus, #4 is also a complete fabrication.
"If there are six or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL."I'm sorry so many people got hosed. I hope everyone will give PFS another chance. I also think it would be a good idea to try and educate that GM, so they don't wipe any more tables through their misapplication of the rules.
Having run a seven player table at GenCon I went to josh to specifically ask him if the math changed and he specifically said "No".
So I agree with Bob, I have know idea of where this is coming from. Add the character levels together and divide by 4. Round to the nearest number.
I honestly don't remember add one if you have a table of six. I never did that, but I had mostly first level games so I don't see how it made a differance.
Thanks, It wasn't a math issue, as I pointed out we *knew* it was 1.28 but he insisted you round up. I had argued with him that it *should* round down. But he said he got the info from Josh, so I didn't question it further.
The math is still a bit wonky. 8 first would be tier 4 as well as two thirds and 5 firsts. In either case there still would have been a TPK and the vast majority of the table playing 3 levels out of tier. Meanwhile, the guys one level out of tier (on the other table) are turned away.
It seems like your stubborn judge had the basic math issue. He also no doubt completely misunderstood something Josh had said.
I'll paste the relevant paragraph from the Pathfinder guide to organized play. These are the rules as written and should be the guidelines to how to run events. Word of mouth is unreliable and thus should not be used.
In order to determine what Tier a mixed-level group of
PCs should play, they have to determine something called
their APL, or average party level. You should always round
this number to the nearest whole value. Most encounters
are designed with four players in mind. If there are six
or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL. For
example, if your group consists of six players, two of
which are 4th level and four of which are 5th level, your
group’s APL is 6th (28 total levels divided by six players,
rounding up, and adding one to the final result).
I will point out that the wording "rounding up" used in the example is used to describe how rounding to the nearest worked in the example and is not some blanket always round up rule. Perhaps this wording in the example is part of the confusion and should be changed.
In the case of your group the tier according to the actual written rules would have given the table no choice but to play tier 2 as you add +1 if you have 6 or more not +1 for each player over 5.
Also in your other example, the 8 first level character table should be broken into 2 tables of 4. 8 is not a legal table size.
Thanks, It wasn't a math issue, as I pointed out we *knew* it was 1.28 but he insisted you round up. I had argued with him that it *should* round down. But he said he got the info from Josh, so I didn't question it further.
The math is still a bit wonky. 8 first would be tier 4 as well as two thirds and 5 firsts. In either case there still would have been a TPK and the vast majority of the table playing 3 levels out of tier. Meanwhile, the guys one level out of tier (on the other table) are turned away.
It seems like your stubborn judge had the basic math issue. He also no doubt completely misunderstood something Josh had said.
I'll paste the relevant paragraph from the Pathfinder guide to organized play. These are the rules as written and should be the guidelines to how to run events. Word of mouth is unreliable and thus should not be used.
In order to determine what Tier a mixed-level group of
PCs should play, they have to determine something called
their APL, or average party level. You should always round
this number to the nearest whole value. Most encounters
are designed with four players in mind. If there are six
or more players at your table, add +1 to your APL. For
example, if your group consists of six players, two of
which are 4th level and four of which are 5th level, your
group’s APL is 6th (28 total levels divided by six players,
rounding up, and adding one to the final result).I will point out that the wording "rounding up" used in the example is used to describe how rounding to the nearest worked in the example and is not some blanket always round up rule. Perhaps this wording in the example is part of the confusion and should be changed.
In the case of your group the tier according to the actual written rules would have given the table no choice but to play tier 2 as you add +1 if you have 6 or more not +1 for each player over 5.
Also in your other example, the 8 first level character table should be broken into 2 tables of 4....
I stand corrected. But as I said before. I was running 1st level tables.
