Subtier Problem in a Season 1 Game


Pathfinder Society

Dark Archive 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello everyone,

A friend of mine has run the scenario "#29: The Devil We Know—Part I: Shipyard Rats" 3 weeks ago. He had 5 players which were level 1 and he didn't have a good grasp of the rules of PFS, he thought that Subtier 1-2 would be too easy to beat, thus he decided to apply Subtier 3-4 encounters and monsters. The players have had some difficulties but none were dead (luckily) and they were successful.

According to my reading of Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, this is not legal, but the chronicle sheets have already been distributed, where all the players have victoriously deserved their sheets(which they gained for subtier 3-4) as a reward, but I feel like this is not fair, so I've decided to come and ask here.

1) Is this incident legal according to Pathfinder Society Rules? Can the GM or players voluntarily increase the hardness of a scenario, where in Guide, it says:

GPFSOP, Page 32:
Some scenarios or special events offer more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.

Note: There are 3 subtiers in this scenario...
--> From what I understand this, it's not legal.

2)If it's not legal, how can we correct this mistake? Do we have to replace every other players' sheet with Subtier 1-2 ones? Or can we let it pass over for this time only?

Thanks for your time :)

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

Wittkyrd wrote:
1) Is this incident legal according to Pathfinder Society Rules? Can the GM or players voluntarily increase the hardness of a scenario

No, it's not legal. If the average level of the group fits into one subtier, the scenario shouldn't be run at another subtier.

Quote:
2)If it's not legal, how can we correct this mistake? Do we have to replace every other players' sheet with Subtier 1-2 ones? Or can we let it pass over for this time only?

If the party beat the scenario at subtier 3-4, even if the GM pitted them against this level of opponent in error, then they should get the relevant rewards to compensate for the greater risk, use of consumables, etc.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

The first question I have to ask is if the players were aware of him changing the scenario in this way. If they weren't, then even if the players all survived and earned the greater rewards, it is still illegal.

It's an easy thing to look at and say, "Well, nobody died." However, the thing you have to ask yourself is, "What if someone had?" If they had died and it was because they unknowingly played up, then that would be a death that's on the hands of the GM and it would be vastly wrong.

However, while still illegal (to my knowledge; don't quote me), if they knowingly chose to play up and were well aware of the risks, then any blood spilled would be on them and not on the hands of the GM.

Again, this is NOT an official answer. Just my two copper mixed in with a little common sense.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

From the OP, it sounds like the GM made the changes on his own initiative, but the mistake in doing so has now been recognised and isn't likely to happen again.

2/5

I really don't understand the issue. GM was new. GM accurately thought the party could handle an upper tier. Party agreed and succeeded.

If the party didn't agree, then that is an issue. However, I don't think this is a "fairness" issue, as you state. I mean, as no one died, who was it unfair to? People who weren't at the table? It is a GM mistake if the GM didn't ask the party and let them know their increased risks. It's not a fairness issue per se.

You are allowed to play 1 step above your character level. I strongly believe step means tier in this instance. So a party of 1s and 2s can elect to play a 3-4 tier or a 4-5 tier, as it's one step above them. What you cannot do is let a level 1 or 2 play in the 6-7 tier of the 1-7 mods.

I've commonly seen level 2s playing 4-5 tier, and level 5s and 6s playing 8-9 tier. Over half of the tables I've been in have done this.

2/5 *

You can't "play up" like that. A group of level 1s will never be APL 3.

I also find it highly suspect that a level 1 group survived subtier 3-4 on the boat

Spoiler:
against a cleric channeling negative energy with several highly damaging zombies protecting him. This encounter usually TPKs level 1 groups at subtier 1-2. At subtier 3-4, just the zombies are enough to kill some level 1 groups.

Did you have a successful suck-or-die spell? If not, I suspect the GM made massive mistakes in the rules (regarding ranged attacks and firing through allies/enemies/cover) or even ran the encounter at subtier 1-2. So how did you guys win?


Furious Kender wrote:
So a party of 1s and 2s can elect to play a 3-4 tier or a 4-5 tier, as it's one step above them. What you cannot do is let a level 1 or 2 play in the 6-7 tier of the 1-7 mods.

I'm no expert, but im fairly sure thats wrong.

If the APL falls within a sub-tier, thats what you have to play.

I would love to be proven wrong tho, as there are many times we would have wanted to play up.

5/5

Thefurmonger wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
So a party of 1s and 2s can elect to play a 3-4 tier or a 4-5 tier, as it's one step above them. What you cannot do is let a level 1 or 2 play in the 6-7 tier of the 1-7 mods.

I'm no expert, but im fairly sure thats wrong.

If the APL falls within a sub-tier, thats what you have to play.

I would love to be proven wrong tho, as there are many times we would have wanted to play up.

Yup, you cannot play up just because you want to.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Criteria for playing up:

The APL calculated for the table is one which can legally play the tier you wish to play.

So APL2 on tier 1-2 means you must play the 1-2 even if it's a 3, 3, 2, 1 table playing, forex, Quest for Perfection 2.

Wow, those combats were dull.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Mistakes happen.

If you have played at the table and all was done as you though the rules are - and no complaints before the chronicle was filled out - well - I don't think there should be a change after the event.

And I applaud that this was brought up here.

But giving out lower level chronicles just sets the wrong precedent to go back after each game - read the scenario - and figure out mistakes made. PFS shouldn't become similar to tort law where you can afterwards ask for every wrong being set right - and that would be the more common case.

How to survive tier 3-4 - not as difficult as you think:

In regard to people her saying - how could you survive on the higher tier. Actually this specific scenario doesn't scale well. The 'killer'-encounter in tier 3-4 has the same stats and just adds 1 additional zombie.

The part that 'kills' people is the same tier 1-2 and 3-4. Similar with many of the other encounters - you just have a few more cannon fodder in each act. The dangerous foes are unchanged.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

TetsujinOni wrote:

Criteria for playing up:

The APL calculated for the table is one which can legally play the tier you wish to play.

So APL2 on tier 1-2 means you must play the 1-2 even if it's a 3, 3, 2, 1 table playing, forex, Quest for Perfection 2.

Wow, those combats were dull.

3,3,2,1 is 2.x

In the past (need to check latest version) it was deliberate that it wasn't defined how rounding is performed. Have a look at Wikipedia for rounding. There are multiple ways beside the .5 down (used normally in RPG), .5 up (typically used in math).

2.x is between 2 and 3 and can be rounded either way - even if one way might be more sensible then the other depending on .x

1.x is between 1 and 2 and even if you round it up to 2 it will never be 3.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

I'm not for going back and re-issuing chronicles or anything like that unless it's absolutely necessary, but at the same time, I don't condone a GM making a decision behind the character's backs even if it's meant to benefit them.

As I said before, it's easy to look back and say, "Well, nobody died, so who'd it hurt?" I agree that there are some scenarios that are just too damn easy even playing up, but that doesn't excuse tossing out the rules that have been set in place.

As much as I'd like a bit more of a challenge or that extra piece or two of gold, I won't suggest playing up unless the APL allows it and my players-turned-GMs have learned to do the same. I'm not denouncing anyone that has done so before, but it is a touchy subject and one I don't approve of.

Think of how you would feel if you were that player who's character actually did die and you came back later to find out the group had been playing up without your knowledge based on a decision the GM made? At the very least, I'm throwing it out there for people to take into consideration. I can't force people to accept my beliefs but it should be noted.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Thod wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

Criteria for playing up:

The APL calculated for the table is one which can legally play the tier you wish to play.

So APL2 on tier 1-2 means you must play the 1-2 even if it's a 3, 3, 2, 1 table playing, forex, Quest for Perfection 2.

Wow, those combats were dull.

3,3,2,1 is 2.x

In the past (need to check latest version) it was deliberate that it wasn't defined how rounding is performed. Have a look at Wikipedia for rounding. There are multiple ways beside the .5 down (used normally in RPG), .5 up (typically used in math).

2.x is between 2 and 3 and can be rounded either way - even if one way might be more sensible then the other depending on .x

1.x is between 1 and 2 and even if you round it up to 2 it will never be 3.

I'm already familiar with a few of the multitude of rounding systems in common use. Guide 4.2 specifies "nearest number", which for 2.25 is never going to round up.

It also fails to define "nearest" so half in favor of the APL or half in favor of the players is still open to debate.

5/5

TetsujinOni wrote:
Thod wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

Criteria for playing up:

The APL calculated for the table is one which can legally play the tier you wish to play.

So APL2 on tier 1-2 means you must play the 1-2 even if it's a 3, 3, 2, 1 table playing, forex, Quest for Perfection 2.

Wow, those combats were dull.

3,3,2,1 is 2.x

In the past (need to check latest version) it was deliberate that it wasn't defined how rounding is performed. Have a look at Wikipedia for rounding. There are multiple ways beside the .5 down (used normally in RPG), .5 up (typically used in math).

2.x is between 2 and 3 and can be rounded either way - even if one way might be more sensible then the other depending on .x

1.x is between 1 and 2 and even if you round it up to 2 it will never be 3.

I'm already familiar with a few of the multitude of rounding systems in common use. Guide 4.2 specifies "nearest number", which for 2.25 is never going to round up.

It also fails to define "nearest" so half in favor of the APL or half in favor of the players is still open to debate.

I always let an exact x.5 round up or down as the players choose. I do caution them though that if they want to round up and that puts them in a higher subtier, then they get all the rewards, but with that comes all the risks.

There's this from the guide as well: "Similarly, in fringe cases where rounding to the nearest whole number would force a party to play up to the next subtier, they may instead choose to play down."

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Mike Lindner wrote:


There's this from the guide as well: "Similarly, in fringe cases where rounding to the nearest whole number would force a party to play up to the next subtier, they may instead choose to play down."

Yeah, not a fan of the "wuss clause". Generally harms their WBL, for one.

Grand Lodge 4/5

For the OP, as has been stated above, it is not legal. The game should have been ran in Tier 1-2.

Since it was played at Tier 3-4, and no fault of the players, keep the Chrnicle sheets this one time only. Now that you are aware of the situation, please make sure it doesn't happen again.

Grand Lodge 5/5

TetsujinOni wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:


There's this from the guide as well: "Similarly, in fringe cases where rounding to the nearest whole number would force a party to play up to the next subtier, they may instead choose to play down."
Yeah, not a fan of the "wuss clause". Generally harms their WBL, for one.

I seriously hope your comment above doesnt mean you like to insinuate that your players are wusses if they want to play down for some reason.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

TLDR: That clause is the only one that I would refer to as wussing, and that was my off the cuff evaluation of it here on the boards, not something I would do at the table.

I would strongly discourage tables that would be eligible for that clause from doing so for season 0-3 adventures. For season 4, I'd discourage it for tables that had 4 or 6 players and encourage it for tables of 5 players. For earlier seasons, I'd definitely advise them that they were taking a course of action that would be detrimental to their WBL, and have combats that were likely complete walkovers. If they want to make their future careers harder and have me turn on narrative combat mode...

That clause is for corner cases where you are running a 3-7 or 1-7, the APL (presumably with the bump for 6 players) rounds to 6, and they want to play 3-4 for some reason. They have APL6 with CR=HD characters (20 point buy), and want to play tier 3-4.

For cases where it's a APL 2.5 table of 6 characters playing a 1-7 so there's a tier 3-4, that's an APL calculation of 4 that can choose to play level 1-2.

So, there's the longer logic on why my reaction is to refer to it as the wuss clause in season 0-3.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Seth Gipson wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:


There's this from the guide as well: "Similarly, in fringe cases where rounding to the nearest whole number would force a party to play up to the next subtier, they may instead choose to play down."
Yeah, not a fan of the "wuss clause". Generally harms their WBL, for one.
I seriously hope your comment above doesnt mean you like to insinuate that your players are wusses if they want to play down for some reason.

Truly.

TetsujinOni, what subtier would you recommend playing in the following situation:

Tier 7-11 module
11th level archer
10th level support
7th level pregen
7th level pregen
11+10+7+7=35
35/4=8.75
Rounding gives you 9.

Play it at 7-8 or 10-11?

I "wimped out" and pulled out my 8th level combat maneuver fighter in place of my 11th level archer.

Spoiler:
The scenario was You Only Die Twice, and the GM hadn't caught that the haunt damage at high tier was from the Heal spell. It would have probably been a TPK if we had played high tier with him.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
kinevon wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:


There's this from the guide as well: "Similarly, in fringe cases where rounding to the nearest whole number would force a party to play up to the next subtier, they may instead choose to play down."
Yeah, not a fan of the "wuss clause". Generally harms their WBL, for one.
I seriously hope your comment above doesnt mean you like to insinuate that your players are wusses if they want to play down for some reason.

Truly.

TetsujinOni, what subtier would you recommend playing in the following situation:

Tier 7-11 module
11th level archer
10th level support
7th level pregen
7th level pregen
11+10+7+7=35
35/4=8.75
Rounding gives you 9.

Play it at 7-8 or 10-11?

I "wimped out" and pulled out my 8th level combat maneuver fighter in place of my 11th level archer.

** spoiler omitted **

Play it at either, probably low since it's 2 iconics and probably two low system mastery players in a hurt-you-lots tier. The clause we're discussing and I'm referring to would've come into play if your party was APL9.5 or higher and wanted to play subtier 7-8.

Completely different conversation than playing a 1-7 with 1,2,4,4 and playing tier 1-2. (I'd probably push for handing L4 pregens to the 1 and 2 players and playing tier 3-4 in this circumstance... there's avenues to maneuver in legally here).

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kinevon wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:


There's this from the guide as well: "Similarly, in fringe cases where rounding to the nearest whole number would force a party to play up to the next subtier, they may instead choose to play down."
Yeah, not a fan of the "wuss clause". Generally harms their WBL, for one.
I seriously hope your comment above doesnt mean you like to insinuate that your players are wusses if they want to play down for some reason.

Truly.

TetsujinOni, what subtier would you recommend playing in the following situation:

Tier 7-11 module
11th level archer
10th level support
7th level pregen
7th level pregen
11+10+7+7=35
35/4=8.75
Rounding gives you 9.

Play it at 7-8 or 10-11?

I "wimped out" and pulled out my 8th level combat maneuver fighter in place of my 11th level archer.

** spoiler omitted **

I tend to switch out characters if that makes a difference and I have two in the tier. It's a much cleaner solution (although it pisses off one local player when that causes us to "play down". Too bad. He can't play up 100% of the time.)

Spoiler:
Isn't that a 5-9?

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Playing a scenario with characters at both extremes of what is technically allowed 1+5, 3+7, 5+9, 7+11 in my view is always problematic.

In this case I would nearly always try the following to avoid it:

a) sidestep it at the invitation stage for my local environment where I know all players and which characters they have
b) If i can't do this as I can't fill the table otherwise - ask one player to play a pregen instead
c) at a convention ask the players at either extreme if they have other characters with a smaller level gap that they are willing to play instead
d) at a convention - try to swap one or two players with a neighbour table

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Yep. Marshalling adjustments beats weird bent-apl tables.


GPFSOP, Page 32:
Some scenarios or special events offer more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.

This does not say that a character can not play at a subtier more than 1 'level' away from their character level. It says if there are more than 2 subtiers, they can't play one more than 1 'step' away from their character level. If one sub tier is 1-2, the next is 3-4, and the next is 5-6, the subtier that is one step from 1-2 is subtier 3-4. Subtier 5-6 would be 2 steps away from subtier 1-2.

The wording on this is make even more clear by the fact that this rule only applies if there are more than 2 subtiers. with 2 or less subtiers, it would be impossible to go more than one step away from character level.

I don't see another way to reasonably define 'step' in this context. Other wise, at level 1, you would be defining the subtier that is at your character level, subtier 1-2, as the exact same subtier that is 1 step away from your character level. if A is one step away from B, A cannot be the same as B.

[addition upon realizing that a campaign admin posted earlier in the thread] If it the intention of the campaign administration that you are not allowed to play a more difficult scenario for greater rewards and greater challenge, then that rule needs to be changed. Because even if you defined 'step' as 'level', if I'm level 2, then subtier 3-4 is blatently not more than 1 level away from my level.

As organized play, we are obligated to follow the rules as written for the campaign, not what we think the authors of those rules really mean.

I might have been at the table in question in the original post, and we've played up for at least 2-3 modules, with different GMs. Playing the 1-2 subtier encounters with parties of 6-7 experienced players would not have been a fun experience. Playing the 3-4 subtier encounters was very much fun, full of drama and tension and a real risk of failure, and created memorable expeirences that we've been talking about for weeks.

The GM explained that adventures from that particular season were childishly simple at tier 1-2, and that in later seasons that problem had fixed itself. Everyone at the table agreed to play up in difficulty.

Grand Lodge 4/5

John, in order to play up,you have to have an APL, Average Party Level, that falls within the appropriate subtier.

To play at subtier 4-5 in a tier 1-5 scenario, the APL of the party needs to be at least 3.

7 Level 1 PCs have an APL of (7*1)/7+1=2, which still only allows play at subtier 1-2, not 3-4 or 4-5.


so 7 level 2 PCs(APL3) can play subtier 4-5, but 7 level 1 PCs(APL2) can't play subtier 3-4? Is there a table somewhere that explains this, or am I missing something.

2 level 1 PC's and 5 level 2 PCs would be APL 12/7 + 1 = 2.714
Could they play tier 3-4?

What APL would 2 level 1 PCs and 4 level 2 PCs be?

The Exchange 4/5

JOHN DICKERSON wrote:

so 7 level 2 PCs(APL3) can play subtier 4-5, but 7 level 1 PCs(APL2) can't play subtier 3-4? Is there a table somewhere that explains this, or am I missing something.

2 level 1 PC's and 5 level 2 PCs would be APL 12/7 + 1 = 2.714
Could they play tier 3-4?

What APL would 2 level 1 PCs and 4 level 2 PCs be?

Total level of all players divided by the total number of players. +1 if the party has 7 PCs.

so the APL of 2 level 1 + 4 level 2 would be 10/6 = 1.6 rounds to APL 2.

7 level 2's would be APL 3 so they could play 3-4. Or cakewalk mode 1-2, but couldn't play up to 6-7.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Benrislove wrote:
+1 if the party has 7 PCs.

For season 0-3 Scenarios you add +1 to the APL if you have 6-7 players, for Season 4 Scenarios you do not.

The Exchange 4/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
Benrislove wrote:
+1 if the party has 7 PCs.
For season 0-3 Scenarios you add +1 to the APL if you have 6-7 players, for Season 4 Scenarios you do not.

true, i had forgotten to mention that since we were talking about season 1, good catch.

Grand Lodge 4/5

JOHN DICKERSON wrote:

2 level 1 PC's and 5 level 2 PCs would be APL 12/7 + 1 = 2.714

Could they play tier 3-4?

That rounds to APL 3, so yes they can play a tier 1-7 scenario at subtier 3-4. However, due to the fact that they're only APL 3 because of the 6th-player bump, they can choose to play subtier 1-2 instead.

If it were a tier 1-5 scenario, then they would fall between subtiers and could choose to play subtier 1-2 or subtier 4-5.

This is all explained in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, version 4.2, on page 32 under the headings "Tiers and Subtiers" and "Determining Subtiers."

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Jonathan Cary wrote:
JOHN DICKERSON wrote:

2 level 1 PC's and 5 level 2 PCs would be APL 12/7 + 1 = 2.714

Could they play tier 3-4?

That rounds to APL 3, so yes they can play a tier 1-7 scenario at subtier 3-4. However, due to the fact that they're only APL 3 because of the 6th-player bump, they can choose to play subtier 1-2 instead.

If it were a tier 1-5 scenario, then they would fall between subtiers and could choose to play subtier 1-2 or subtier 4-5.

This is all explained in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, version 4.2, on page 32 under the headings "Tiers and Subtiers" and "Determining Subtiers."

Hurray for the link and page reference. You're my hero for the day.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Subtier Problem in a Season 1 Game All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society