Oh man; 8 characters (with at least 1 XP) * 19 results = 152 options to choose from. And that's ignoring the option of adding it to a brand new, not yet built PC...
Sorry Paz:
Mark Moreland wrote:
The last sentence before the table indicates that it is 1/player
I think what he meant is that *because* it's 1/player, he has to look at over 152 options and just pick ONE.
In the top right corner of every page of this site, there's a link that says "Help/FAQ". From there, you can select FAQ lists by book/topic, including Core Rulebook. Then just click on the appropriate question or simply scroll down.
Clerics need Cha for decent channeling. You will want decent channeling.
Correction: If you want to be channeling in combat, doing so to heal, and doing so frequently; or if you want to be channeling in combat, doing so to harm undead, doing so frequently, and don't have the Sun and/or Glory domains; then your cleric needs CHA for channeling. Stray from either of those very specific focuses and the value of CHA drops fast.
Basically, CHA is important if you're playing either a channel-blaster or the stereotypical healbot cleric.
In truth, the cleric is one of the most malleable classes in the game, capable of filling almost any party role. Your stat priorities will reflect your chosen goal.
A healer cleric needs high CHA for channeling, moderate WIS for bonus spells, strong CON to last (especially if using shield other), and that's about it.
An archer cleric needs high DEX for shooting, moderate STR for damage, just enough WIS for buff spells, and that's about it.
A melee cleric needs high STR for combat power, solid CON for sturdiness, just enough WIS to be able to cast his buff spells, and that's about it.
A controller cleric needs high WIS for save DCs and bonus spells, and... whatever else you want to do.
Generalizations of what stats a cleric needs (aside from enough WIS to cast spells) extend only as far as the stereotypes we assign to the class because of its name. In reality, the cleric has more different viable stat spreads than nearly any other class.
It does not make sense that someone earns their living with a reptile farm.
For a moment I was thinking that if a farmer had an inborn knack for dealing with a particular animal, that maybe he'd choose to structure his farming career around interacting with that kind of animal.
You know, sort of like how a horse whisperer would choose to work with horses instead of chickens, or how someone with a good head for math might choose to be an accountant instead of a painter, and so forth.
But then my common sense kicked in, and I decided that no, people with a knack for a certain thing just sort of cross their fingers and hope that the worldwide random distribution of career details will maybe stick them with that thing they're good at, but we have no mechanic for determining if a PC is one of those lucky ones, so no bonus.
I see there was snippage, my old foil. And for the record, I inferred a stagnation in maturity and a possible need to self-inflate in those who can't move past the, "I can do uber amount of damage per round" orientation - yes, inferring is a cousin of coming right out and saying it, but I enjoy it more when you appreciate my efforts to be a bit subtle. That said, the apology still stands.
TBH, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by teasing you (i.e. jabbing at you since I suspecteded you can mesh optimizing the character build and imbuing the character with a distinct personality and motivations). However, since this seemed to get your back up so much, I'm thinking I actually struck a nerve. If that's the case, I'll steer clear of teasing you from now on.
Have a good evening.
Edited: to try and fix my english.
I actually was honestly asking where the irony was. That's why I edited my post, to be more clear about that. I realized after posting that it could have been taken differently.
In any case, labeling someone's preferred way of having fun as a developmental stage which needs to be moved past is no better than calling people names who have that preference of fun.
If you want to choose to believe that your fun is superior to others' fun, that's your business. But waving that mindset around on the messageboards is basically a categorical put-down to a lot of good people who haven't wronged you or even met you. If you want to believe a certain type of fun to be nothing more than a stepping stone on the way to the right way to have fun (i.e., yours), fine; just keep it to yourself, please.
It would be really, really nice if we could discuss playstyles different from our own without calling others immature or initiating a bigger-dick contest.
Deleted my post. Not worth getting into the particulars of under which circumstances my off-the-cuff joke would become legitimate in a non-joking fashion. ;)
If a GM tells me I can't solve the puzzle because my PC has 7 INT, then next week I'm going to bring my 14 INT character and just wait for the GM to give me the answers.
It's funny, this is one of those topics that I both agree with and hate at the same time.
On the one hand, yes, sometimes folks "interpret" things in ways that leave me dumbfounded.
On the other hand, I have far more often witnessed occasions where the thing people were calling "cheese" or "obviously not the intent" turned out to be exactly how it's supposed to work. And I'm not talking about things that I just believe to work that way, I'm talking about when a multi-page thread ends with an actual FAQ and/or developer commentary (or occasionally, someone finally quoting an explicit rule that no one in the first half-dozen pages bothered to look up).
So I feel conflicted every time this topic comes up, with someone saying "that's pretty obviously not how it was intended to work", or something equivalent. I don't want to dismiss that possibility (because I've seen it too), but in my experience the "that's not the intent" claim has been wrong FAR more often than it's been right.
So let me get this straight:
Some folks are saying that since attacking breaks stealth, you can't apply your stealthiness (i.e., target loses DEX to AC) to resolving the attack.
Meanwhile, invisibility also breaks the instant you make an attack, yet you DO get to deny them their DEX to AC on that attack.
So why are we interpreting two "stops when you attack" mechanics in opposite ways?
Sean K Reynolds (Designer): "Nothing in the rules say that 5FS and other actions in the Combat chapter require a minimum Intelligence score to use them."
He even said, "If Paizo comes out and says rogue/barbarians can sneak attack while raging, I will CONSIDER it."
Lest it be thought that I was joking earlier, this attitude (regardless of how the rules in question actually work) is completely inappropriate for organized play. At the point where a GM is talking about picking and choosing which rules he will follow (as opposed to simply making mistakes) he needs to either learn to GM under a different mindset when running PFS or simply stick with home games that he can tailor to his tastes.
Inform a Venture Officer of the attitude you're witnessing (in as impartial a manner as you can). If nothing improves, you can contact the campaign coordinator, Mike Brock.
As a bringer of the light and justice of Iomedae's righteous blade, I can think of several so-called Pathfinders for whom I would love to be the final combat.
Yeah, I've actually got a far more elegant (IMO) system I'll be using next time I run a home game. But in the meantime, I'd settle for clarity on how what we already have works.
91 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
The darkness spell says that nonmagical light sources (and magical light sources that aren't higher level than darkness) "do not increase the light level in [the] area".
Does "in an area of darkness" qualify where the light level is not increased, or does it qualify where a light source has to be in order to be affected?
That is, if there's a torch adjacent to an area of darkness, does its light fail to increase the light level in the area? Or does the torch itself have to be in the area for it to be affected by the "does not increase the light level" clause?
Please click the FAQ flag on the upper-right portion of this post. I've recently learned that things have a better chance of getting the FAQ treatment if it's a single, concise question rather than a whole topic, so I'm going to make a thread per question and maybe we can get some answers. Click that FAQ button! :D
96 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
6 people marked this as a favorite.
The darkness spell does two things: it lowers the light level in its area by one step, and it also prevents most light sources (all nonmagical and most magical light sources) from increasing the light level in the area.
The current Official FAQ on the subject confirms that applying darkness is a two-step process, in which you first default to what it calls the "ambient natural light level", and THEN reduce the resulting light level by one step.
This question is about the first step in the process: when we "automatically default to the ambient natural light level", what exactly are we defaulting to?
What light sources contribute to the 'ambient natural light level' that gets lowered by one step within the area of darkness?
Sunlight? Moonlight? Anything else?
Please click the FAQ flag on the upper-right portion of this post. I've recently learned that things have a better chance of getting the FAQ treatment if it's a single, concise question rather than a whole topic, so I'm going to make a thread per question and maybe we can get some answers. Click that FAQ button! :D
It's funny, I had thought about digging up this thread so that its previous participants could be made aware of the new FAQ if they weren't already. Now here it is! :)
Reach and Objects: Can you pick up or manipulate an object in a square within your reach? Does this provoke an AOO? Does it provoke even if the foe can reach the object, but not your space?
The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity from foes that cannot reach you, no matter what action you are taking, even if it includes reaching into a threatened space. Although it might seem realistic to allow an attack in such a case, it would make the game far too complicated.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/25/12 Paizo blog.
14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
There are some spells which can counter or dispel certain diametically-opposed spells, specified in the spell description. For instance, bless counters and dispels bane.
Now, if you use bless to counterbane, the counterspelling rules say that you cast a modified version of it which produces no effect other than to counter bane. So if only the front half of the party was being targeted by bane but they were all in range of your bless, you couldn't use bless to counterspell and also give folks in a back a +1 to attacks/saves.
So what about dispelling?
Does a spell like bless, when used to dispel its opposite, produce any other effects besides the dispel?
That is, if only one party member is currently affected by bane, and I cast bless, do other party members in range get the normal effects of bless or is the dispel on that one party member the only thing that happens?
Please click the "FAQ" flag on the upper-right part of this post, unless you have a clear answer from the rules. Thanks!
Addendum:
I had previously made a thread HERE to explore the topic of using spells other than dispel magic to dispel ongoing effects (for instance, bless can dispel bane). However, after 50 FAQ flags it was dismissed without an answer. I have since learned that it's probably because there was no single, concise question being asked. Thus, I'm trying this again with a more specific question. If you FAQ'd the other thread, please hit this one as well!
Yeah, I know, I overlook things too. Just gets tiring when you encounter enough rules questions and start to realize how many of them are the result of someone having not bothered to look in the most obvious place in the rules. And don't even get me started on the folks who debate a topic for days without anyone involved ever looking it up, then when they're finally shown the rule explicitly stating the opposite of their position, they've so thoroughly entrenched themselves that suddenly it's all about "RAI" and "rules lawyering" and "obvious intent" and "poorly worded" and blah blah blah just so they don't have to admit that they spent the last two days calling people names because they couldn't be bothered to read one sentence of actual rules text and—
Do Nothing: Its a perceived problem, and not a real problem. People should be rewarded for playing above their weight.
My vote
My vote as well.
It would be nice to have (assuming I haven't already missed it) some sort of commentary from Mike/Mark/John as to the overall intent of subtiers and such.
It seems that some folks see subtiers as, essentially, "difficulty settings" to be selected from. There are rules to keep you from selecting a subtier that's too far off from your party's expected capability, but the general idea (according to some) seems to be that we're intended to be able to select a challenge level and be rewarded according to that choice. If this is the intent, then we need to come up with a solution (or lack thereof) which in no way disincentivizes playing up because it's supposed to be a selectable option for any group who wants to and is able to put together a high-tier-legal table. "I should be able to take on extra risk and achieve its extra rewards."
Others, however, see subtiers as a concession to the impossibility of organizing events when scenarios only accommodate a couple of levels of PCs. Thus, the intent is that PCs play in-tier as much as possible, and playing out of tier is something of a last resort (or next to last, or whatever) that an organizer can pull out of his hat to make an event happen. If this is true, then it's okay - even desirable - for playing up to be disincentivized to the point that a player will only do so if they really, really want to play their PC and there's no other way to do so.
These two philosophies about the intent of the ability to play out of tier produce vastly different ideas about the topic at hand, as well as wildly different reactions to those ideas. If we want to focus our energies on coming up with thoughts that are actually helpful to the powers that be, we really need to know which mindset we should be operating under.
One thing to keep in mind (IMO) is that if my tablemate isn't roleplaying as much as I'd like, how does it harm me? At worst I forget they're there, and I can go on with my own roleplaying. Sure, if the entire table is silent outside of combat then I might have a little less fun, but all it takes is a couple of engaged roleplayers to make the "fluffy" stuff really fun.
But if someone disengages from combat/tactics? That has the potential to get my PC killed (if it's egregious enough), or at least cost me more resources to survive. That's an issue.
So personally, I think people should (politely!) encourage each other toward proficient tactical capability (and themselves try to accept such guidance gracefully) but let people enjoy their own roleplaying preferences as they see fit.
Can't agree with that, far too easy to turn into playing someone else's character for them. All for offering advice if its asked for, otherwise let everyone play their own characters by themselves.
That's where the "politely" comes in. I've played alongside a first-level rogue who, we eventually noticed, was making melee attacks by rolling a d20 and subracting 1. After some questions, we determined that he was high-DEX/low-STR (as one might expect for a rogue), but was unaware that Weapon Finesse existed. Upon hearing what it is, he got this big grin and said "I like the sound of THAT!"
I'm also thinking of things like "You know, if you just 5ft step there first, you'll be flanking and get +2 to your attack." Or even just a "Careful, that'll provoke." A far cry from playing their character for them; just making them aware of some possibilities.
One thing to keep in mind (IMO) is that if my tablemate isn't roleplaying as much as I'd like, how does it harm me? At worst I forget they're there, and I can go on with my own roleplaying. Sure, if the entire table is silent outside of combat then I might have a little less fun, but all it takes is a couple of engaged roleplayers to make the "fluffy" stuff really fun.
But if someone disengages from combat/tactics? That has the potential to get my PC killed (if it's egregious enough), or at least cost me more resources to survive. That's an issue.
So personally, I think people should (politely!) encourage each other toward proficient tactical capability (and themselves try to accept such guidance gracefully) but let people enjoy their own roleplaying preferences as they see fit.
You could always narrate that the PC's kill everyone on the boat, and then they lose the mission. 1 XP, no PP, no loot.
GM: "Sorry, you all want to be dinks, you don't get the rewards of the scenario. From now on if you want to be invited to my game days, please come as dutiful Pathfinders and not asshats."
I'm an old time role player at heart and I must say that I have been somewhat turned off from PFS play due to the emphasis placed on tactics. For example, at times I have been criticized for not setting up an opponent to be flanked by another player, like it's an expectation that every character is going to act like a GI Joe operative.
I don't mind people wanting to improve their chances to succeed, but let it go. Rarely is one maneuver so critical that it requires this kind of discussion. Play the game. Have fun. Don't worry about every little detail at the cost of breaking character.
If everyone acts and fights as a highly trained, well oiled machine, then the characters cease to be individuals, with all the quirks and foibles that entails.
What if you were starting a campaign for which your GM told you that the PCs were going to be field operatives in an organization whose agents faced dangerous dungeons and fearsome foes on a regular basis, and who were only granted membership to said organization with the approval of three master trainers?
Because that's the PFS campaign.
Those who paid enough attention to campaign lore to match the setting by creating characters who act like the trained field agents they are, are not "breaking character" or "ceasing to be individuals". The PCs who "break character" or "cease to be individuals" are the ones who embody tired "wandering adventurer" tropes that make no sense in the context of this campaign.
Quote:
That's where the real enjoyment is for me, the characters and their unique interactions with each other and the environment.
There are plenty of concepts that can have rich characterization AND involve a degree of tactical acumen.
Quote:
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade.
Nice to know that you don't consider it "raining on anyone's parade" to describe their playstyle as "breaking character", "ceasing to be individuals", or with hyperbole such as qualifying flanking as a tactic that only a GI Joe would bother to use. I was almost worried that turning some of your exact words back on you might be considered offensive; glad to know you won't feel rained-on by those descriptions.
I am having more issues with delayed credit because as much as you would like to ignore it, I STILL see plenty of new players that cannot seem to grok how to hold credit when playing pregens and/or GMing (especially because they work different mechanically).
That could be changed. I imagine that if playing up, playing a pregen, and taking GM credit all worked the same way, it'd be a lot easier.
There seems to be a lot of confusion over the finer details of the Delayed Credit model (and some back and forth on what those details should even be), so here's a (hopefully) clear and thorough synopsis of the Delayed Credit idea as I see it.
Delayed Credit, Jiggy version:
Playing Up
If your PC level is within the lower subtier of a scenario (such as being 1st or 2nd in a 1-5) and you play the higher subtier, you have two options:
1) You could take a low-tier chronicles sheet, receiving exactly the normal wealth you're supposed to receive at your level.
2) You could instead opt to take a chronicle for the higher tier played. If you do so, first resolve any deaths, diseases, or other conditions your PC acquired, using gold from this chronicle sheet (plus any contributions from your tablemates, as normal). You may also use this gold to replace lost consumables. Once you have finished with that, any remaining conditions apply immediately to your PC, as normal. The high-tier chronicle sheet (minus whatever was taken to resolve afflictions and consumables) is then put on hold. It will be applied to your PC as soon as you reach the level immediately before the subtier of that chronicle sheet (so for a 4-5 sheet, you apply it when you reach 3rd level).
The player makes this choice at the conclusion of the scenario, having seen how things panned out, using their own judgment/preference.
In the middle
If your PC is between subtiers (such as 3rd level in a 1-5 scenario), you get rewards for whatever you play. This is unchanged from current rules. This also means that if, despite measures taken to the contrary, you end up short on cash as a result of past games; you can potentially make up the difference at these levels. There is also still room for people to abuse the system, but not to the degree possible in the current system.
Playing down
This would be unchanged from the current system: if your PC is in the higher tier and plays down, you get the rewards for the tier you played. This is likely to be very rare, and if you do get cornered into it, there are still levels at which you can make up the difference (see "In the middle", above).
I absolutely HATE the idea of having to wait to apply the credit for my adventures, which is a major reason why I avoid playing higher level pregens like the plague. At least with the higher level pregens there's a good REASON to hold the credit: that higher level character risked a LOT less than my lower level character would. But holding the chronicle until level three, when I took the risk to play it at level one?
What happens to the consumables I used? Do they go away immediately, with me being unable to afford to replace them, or do I get to use them repeatedly? What happens if I have no choice but to keep playing at subtier 4-5 with a brand new character, because that's all that's available? Am I doomed to be forever level 1 with zip for cash?
Some of your concerns have already been answered, if you'd just slow down and read the details instead of jumping into your reply before you've finished reading.
The "hold the credit" plan gives you an OPTION:
You can choose to take high-tier credit later,
OR
You can choose to take low-tier credit now.
Are you concerned about being "forever level 1"? Then take your appropriately-tiered chronicle now and grow your character. Was this an isolated incident to make a table happen so you're not worried about falling behind? You can choose to take a delayed high-tier reward. Need to spend lots of cash to clear some conditions? You can choose the high-tier reward, spend its gold on condition removal, then hold the rest of the chronicle until you qualify. Did your high-level buddies steamroll the scenario so that you don't have any extra expenses/consumables to cover? You can choose to take level-appropriate wealth right now. Kind of an iffy situation? You get to use your best judgment.
Does reflected sunlight count? If I stand outside a cave and use a large mirror to reflect light into a cavern, and then cast darkness, is the reflected sunlight suppressed?
It would still be treated as ambient natural light (it's still sunlight, after all) and be lowered by the appropriate number of steps.
And IMO, it seems pretty appropriate that if you want to pierce the darkness of the evil necromancer in his cave, one of your options would be to bring the sun to him.
The people with all the data (i.e., Mike & co.) believe there's a problem. You have only your own experience (and perhaps a bit of hearsay) as data. If you believe your own little corner of the PFS experience is a better indication of the state of the campaign than all the data Mike and Mark and John have access to, then you're the one with the "distinct lack of perspective".
They only have data on how often it happens, there's no way to track WHY its happening.
...Which would apply just as much to every random forumite here who thinks they know how small of an issue it really is. They can't track it either.
Let's also not forget that Mike has access to more than just event reporting data. There's a whole different forum where only the VOs can go, whereby Mike can get a feel of what's going on all over the world.
Basically, Mike has all the data (both hard and anecdotal) that any of us has, and then some. Anyone who thinks they have a better idea of what's going on in the campaign as a whole than Mike, well, they're simply incorrect.
Assuming we trust Mike to be a functional and honest adult at all in the first place (and anyone who doesn't has little reason to be in this discussion), then we have to assume that if he says something's going on in the campaign, then he's seeing it all over the world rather than basing it on one local area's anecdotal viewpoint like any of us would have to do.
And once again for good measure, I'd like to apologize for the tone of some of my earlier posts in this thread. I've deleted the worst one. Sorry about that, folks.
Yeah, sorry. Deleted my other post. Here's the calm version:
Quote:
To address your "counters" in sequence.
1) no its not the end of the world. But if you drove 1-2 hours to play and find out you can't play the PC you brought with you, it's damn inconvenient. One could say irritating ... or even infuriating if it occurs more than once, which this change could result in, depending on what route is ultimately taken. Having it happen everyone once in a blue moon wouldn't result in a lost player, but once a month might.
If it happens that often, the fault is not with the wealth system.
Maybe the coordinator needs to start posting the scenario offerings in advance for a change. Or maybe you failed to check those offerings before you drove so far. Or maybe the coordinator isn't rounding up GMs until the last minute and/or isn't getting backups. Or maybe someone invited a friend a while back but isn't willing to GM or maybe go slow-track for even one level so they can catch up a little.
Quote:
2) Granted with extenuating circumstances folks should be more flexible, however, if the system itself loses flexibility to accommodate these types of situations, as could happen, then we're talking about more than just being flexible on the part of the players. They would either end up having to play a pregen or drop the game for the day. Bottom line, you lose players for that day, and if it gets coupled with (1), then you increase the likelihood of losing players for good.
Sometimes weird crap happens and the best-laid plans fall through. Adults roll with that. But if that situation is happening "once a month", then it's because one or more people are not willing to be the one who makes a difference. The current subtier rules simply made it easy for everyone to be less responsible than they could have been and (sort of) be okay. Now we're finally seeing the long-term effects of that irresponsibility, but people aren't connecting the two.
Quote:
3) Level range at a table happens. We've all seen it.
And if it's happening regularly, then there's more going on; unfortunately, the real causes of level disparity were hidden because "that's alright, just play up". Instead of having to see if we should be organizing better, or planning better, or giving back more, or being more flexible; we were able to just throw the "play up" band-aid on the problem instead of treating the real problem. And now that there's a suggestion of removing that patch, people are seeing the festering wound underneath and acting like it's just how things are and we neeeeed that patch! But if we were just willing to look honestly at how those situations arise in the first place and what we could do about it, we might not find that patch so necessary.
Quote:
4) If the PC is legal for the scenario, they should be able to play the PC. The MMJ proposal would make playing a PC out of tier a penalized action, so your options are play your PC and be penalized or play a pregen, which many view as a penalty in and of itself. Players should not be penalized for playing.
"Your options are play your PC and be penalized or play a pregen"? What about planning ahead better, or helping with coordinating, or doing any number of things that reduce the occurrence of that type of situation in the first place? Why isn't "take measures to make it easier to seat you in-tier" an option? You say "players should not be penalized for playing", but what you're actually talking about is not just "playing", but "playing out of tier". If you play in-tier, there's no penalty whatsoever. If you play out-of-tier, it's less satisfactory than playing in-tier. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
Quote:
6) Most folks don't have the $$ to print up new fliers every week with all the relevant info.
Who said anything about new fliers? (And people say *I* am attacking strawmen?) If you make a flier that says "Show up on DAY at TIME", people will just show up and expect to be accommodated. If instead your flier (your ONE flier) says "PFS happens here, visit/call/email for details" then people have to seek information before they attend. It has nothing to do with printing new fliers.
Quote:
Yes, you can use warhorn, but what about folks who do not have internet access?
"Call for details!"
"See Bob at the front counter for details!"
"Register on Meetup for our next game! Don't have internet access? Call Fred at ###### and he'll sign you up!"
That's basic. Any other organization with attendance rules would handle events this way. The ability to play up as freely as we have so far has just made it possible to not handle things like any other organization would, and (sort of) get away with it. And now that we're looking at removing that crutch, people are aghast at the idea of having to walk upright without it like they would for any other organization.
Quote:
What about folks who just realized they have the day free and stop in to grab a game?
Doesn't that fall under "adults are flexible with extenuating circumstances"? If I suddenly have a day free, should I show up to the theater and expect them to switch to a movie I haven't seen?
Quote:
What about the folks who are from out of town and the folks organizing the event don't have online sign up for slots?
If the organizers don't have online sign-up, then they need to take other measures (have more than one scenario/tier prepped to run, do signups by email, something). Again, we're talking about doing what any other organization already does. Loose subtier rules let us get away with less, and now folks have come to expect that as the baseline, and basic organizational measures are being seen as too much to ask.
Quote:
What about people who were in the store for something else and decide to "give PFS a go"?
An adult doesn't walk up to an event and say "I'm playing". An adult walks up to the event and asks whether they can play, and accepts the entirely reasonable possibility that maybe they'll need to sign up for next time instead.
Quote:
What if a local TV station reports on the event and you have lots more folks show up than anticipated?
Right back to "adults are flexible with extenuating circumstances". Honestly, how often is that going to happen at a given venue? Maybe once, EVER?
Quote:
There are PLENTY of scenarios that can and do pop up for any event which can play havoc with the event. They are completely valid concerns and dismissing them out of hand as you did is a pretty myopic view of the entire situation.
A group of individually-listed extenuating circumstances - which put together will still only happen occasionally - is not a valid dataset around which to build policy. And everything anyone has mentioned that DOES happen with noteworthy frequency is something which a basic level of preparation (on both the players' and organizers' sides) would nearly eliminate.
Wow, that's a lot of posts between last night and now... Definitely did not read them all.
Just from skimming, I do have this question:
Why are we trying to make a system in which no one ever has to play a pregen or make a new 1st-level PC or announce/check the game day's scenarios ahead of time, ever?
The main complaint I'm seeing against the solution presented in the podcast is that:
1) If there's a game where there's only one table, AND
2) If somehow a one-table game day has managed to produce PCs spanning a 4 or 5 level range, AND
3) All of the low-level players would rather go home than play a pregen, AND
4) All of the high-level players would rather go home than either play a pregen or start a second PC, AND
5) No one is willing to step up and GM a second table, AND
6) Either the organizer did not announce the scenario ahead of time, or none of the players could be bothered to pay attention to such an announcement and see the problem BEFORE arriving;
THEN, if all six of those conditions are met, we have an uncomfortable situation worthy of throwing the system out.
Are you guys serious?
Unless I'm missing something, every single situation used as a case against the "Podcast System" can be solved by one or two people just deciding to NOT be the most important person for one day.
If we want to keep to the WBL curve but still reward people for playing up,
Are those both actual goals?
It was stated by Mike/Mark/John that they want to protect WBL, but do we actually have a goal of rewarding people for playing up? I was under the impression that what we want to encourage is to play in-tier as much as possible, and that the fact that there's even a legal option to play out of tier (in either direction) is a concession to organizational needs but is still a deviation from the intended experience.
Some folks in this thread make it sound like playing up is something that's supposed to be an option from the get-go, and anything that would make it less desirable than playing in-tier is somehow bad. But that's not the impression I get from what I see/hear from the Guide or Mike or anywhere else.
I feel that wealth is restrained by fame needed to purchase items.
Every PC I play (I'm on my 9th slot now), after about 3rd-4th level I never touch the Fame cap. For any given price, there's about 3-6 items I want to buy. I might have to wait on Fame for the first one, but as soon as I can afford X, suddenly I'm getting a stat belt for 4k, then a stat headband for another 4k, then upgrading my armor from +1 to +2 for 3k, then doing the same with my shield for another 3k, then the same with my cloak of resistance for another 3k... By the time I finish the list and move on to pricier things, I've accumulated so much Fame in the interim that I never have to look at it again.
If Fame is honestly restricting your wealth, then you're part of the "playing up too much" problem that we're trying to solve.
Jiggy
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
