Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread


Pathfinder Society

901 to 945 of 945 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

thaX wrote:
So no one actually talked about halvies while the conversation was going, and the mid tier gold was getting complicated with level breakdowns and wealth by each individual level. It seemed, as I have mentioned, that my post got lost in the talk about the 2/half exp thing, and the overall discussion on if PP should or should not change, if one should hold a sheet till appropriate level and so on.

Yeah thaX, your ideas were completely ignored in the discussion.

Seriously, your idea was addressed and issues were pointed out. It did not really evolve to anything different in light of those concerns however, so I am sure folks turned their attention to those ideas that were still either evolving or those that had evolved to address specific concerns that were raised.

Additionally, I would like to thank you for your response my request to drop the snark by continuing the snark and basically insulting the intelligence of your fellow gamers. Kudos to you sir on your wit and social skills. You will go far in this life I am sure. ;p

<dumps a bucket of SNARK AWAY™! over his own head for falling victim to the snark>

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

I am just frustrated.

It seems that when a change is done lately, it doesn't turn out like it should. I see a future with the EXP change, one where it doesn't go quite as expected. The one thing I don't want to happen is to go below the normal wealth levels, as can easily happen. I would prefer to ere on the side of a bit more.

There was one or two responses, but some were asides among other things considered, and I just...

Know what, I just wanted a compromise. A solution isn't possible within the realm of 3.5, where items are as much needed as skill. Wealth is needed, not because we are greedy, but because of the need for various items that help us survive.

I just see the 2x exp, half exp like a tunnel, and the light at the end is a train coming toward us.

Sovereign Court

So then I have to ask, do you feel the same way about playing modules? They kick out 3XP, 4PP and GP is usually comparable with between 2 and 3 scenarios.

1/5

I doubt the developers chose to do the double XP route. They said a while ago that they didn't like the idea, and they never gave me the impression that they changed their minds in their posts. I doubt they decided on any idea that involves changing chronicle sheets or awarding different gold than what is listed on the chronicle sheets.

The change they will implement is most likely the same idea they presented in the podcast or something very close to it. It's the one idea that fixes the WBL problem without rewriting chronicle sheets, bringing extra math to the table, or solving one problem while creating another. Some will claim that it creates a problem by gimping people's wealth for playing down. I'm pretty sure the devs have the data on how often people play down and I'm sure it's a rare occurence for most people. I have not played down once, not ever. I always play a different character or play a pregen. The people that care about their character's wealth already do this, and they will continue to do it even if awards are based on your tier played. Playing up? Yea you might have a harder time, but this "consumable expense" people keep referring to is minimal at best. I very rarely am required to use any consumables that I didn't get for free off a baddie that I killed during the scenario, or something that I bought with prestige awards even if I am playing up.

The devs made a decision. So can we please put this thread to bed?

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

thaX wrote:

I am just frustrated.

It seems that when a change is done lately, it doesn't turn out like it should. I see a future with the EXP change, one where it doesn't go quite as expected. The one thing I don't want to happen is to go below the normal wealth levels, as can easily happen. I would prefer to ere on the side of a bit more.

There was one or two responses, but some were asides among other things considered, and I just...

Know what, I just wanted a compromise. A solution isn't possible within the realm of 3.5, where items are as much needed as skill. Wealth is needed, not because we are greedy, but because of the need for various items that help us survive.

I just see the 2x exp, half exp like a tunnel, and the light at the end is a train coming toward us.

Not really. Wealth is nice...but there is SO many ways to break this game without a lot of wealth. Alchemists can do this as soon as they can afford a 5k item (or reach level 4...which ever comes first) for example. And the things you can do with casters...oh the things you can do.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

My first character, Lemtwist Bratham Mallentwine Flannelfoot Smyth Olgen Jeebs Nathers Bingham the Third can attest to the caster doing things. Then he came across something, early and then later in his career, that is immune to lightning. A Sparker, going against something that is Spark immune.

*wince*

Even so, he has items that help him.

I hope.. Pray, yea, I kneel to the ground and beg to the gods... that it doesn't end up being all out of tier gets low tier gold. That will have players try to leave tables to stay in tier, or decide to not play.

Is what I would want to avoid.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

thaX wrote:

My first character, Lemtwist Bratham Mallentwine Flannelfoot Smyth Olgen Jeebs Nathers Bingham the Third can attest to the caster doing things. Then he came across something, early and then later in his career, that is immune to lightning. A Sparker, going against something that is Spark immune.

*wince*

Even so, he has items that help him.

I hope.. Pray, yea, I kneel to the ground and beg to the gods... that it doesn't end up being all out of tier gets low tier gold. That will have players try to leave tables to stay in tier, or decide to not play.

Is what I would want to avoid.

Why in god's green earth are you doing damage as a caster?!? Seriously, lightning immune or any damage type immune should have little effect on your usefulness as a caster. Damage is for your min...err party members. Even SR isn't a big deal as you should have plenty of SR: No options to toss around. And consider the stacks of scrolls you can get with your 750 GP limit 2pp purchase, you should honestly be full of shenanigans as a caster in PFS.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5

Cold Napalm wrote:
So yeah, the issue isn't that we can't do math...the issue is that we CAN do math.

But not without an abacus!

If you use my sliding scale you are guaranteed a fixed wealth per level ratio, everyone gets equal footing whether or not they play up or down, and you make no changes in apl calculations, xp, and add a grand total of less than two minutes to the entire chronicle sheet process.

Everything else offered up so far offers MORE exploit potential to min maxers and thus MORE pressure to play up.

This will be my last post in this thread. The devs have taken our arguments under advisement. Chips are already falling where they may, and we've degenerated into repetitive meaningless utterances.

Scarab Sages

thaX wrote:
That will have players try to leave tables to stay in tier, or decide to not play.

I would be someone who would leave tables. Considering I don't get to play PFS too often, there's a decent chance this could result in me not being able to play regularly, which in turn would have a decent chance of me just leaving PFS. Character death is financially burdensome, and if I die I'd like to be able to play up to recoup some of the cost. If my character needs an item ASAP for me to have fun, I'd like to be able to play up to afford it, which comes with the risk of dying, which is financially burdensome.

This is a massively overblown response to a few people gaming the system. The real problem is that encounters seem to be thrown off by builds way more than equipment. If people have fun playing up, let them get gold, PFS hasn't fallen apart yet. One character death costing me a huge chunk of gold with no way to recoup that and catch up to others my level would almost certainly result in me just stopping playing PFS. It's taken me a year to get to level 5 playing only the same character, and this forum is overrepresented by people with multiple characters who can play frequently.

Edit: someone linked me this thread, sorry for the horrendous necrobump, I thought it was still going.

Edit 2:

From a game design perspective, a lot of people doing the same thing (playing up) because they find the rewards (more gold) fun should be considered a happy accident. If people playing your game go outside the intended boundaries without actually breaking the rules, that's a good thing. That's how games should be improved, since you never get more solid feedback than when customers are playing. I've never seen gear throw an adventure off balance. I have seen builds mess it up, but restricting gold for balance reasons is a bit like restricting feat combinations or stat combinations because it messes up balance: it doesn't make for a fun game, it makes for an overly restrictive play style. If players are having fun and your game isn't being utterly destroyed (and it isn't), then don't freaking change it. At that point the change is literally to take away fun because things aren't going entirely as you planned them.

The Exchange 1/5

Wealth should be awarded by the challenges presented to the players, not some artificial "wealth by level" table that is a guideline. doing any different is a fundamental change to the way scenarios are written - never has wealth awarded depended on the level of the player.

The best solution in my mind is to go back to eliminating the PFS XP system of 1 per adventure, and instead award xp and gold based on the scenario in question (medium progression). advancement for playing up would take care of itself, as players who played up would get more XP as well as gold, and thus keep in line with the WBL guidelines. That's the problem with playing up right now. There's no XP downside.

Scarab Sages

With a cap of 12, more XP is a punishment, not a reward.

The Exchange 1/5

so is getting gold for level 2 or 3 when you played and faced dangers at level 4-5.

Scarab Sages

I agree?

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"This is a massively overblown response to a few people gaming the system. The real problem is that encounters seem to be thrown off by builds way more than equipment. If people have fun playing up, let them get gold, PFS hasn't fallen apart yet. One character death costing me a huge chunk of gold with no way to recoup that and catch up to others my level would almost certainly result in me just stopping playing PFS. It's taken me a year to get to level 5 playing only the same character, and this forum is overrepresented by people with multiple characters who can play frequently."

This. This times 1000. Actually, this raised to the 10th power.

Builds >>>>>>>>>> wealth. This is so true, that I can't believe wealth is being discussed by the devs or anyone else. I can take a character with half the wealth that will do 3X the damage of a character made by a new player or player not interested in being effective. It's even worse if we look a bona fide power build.

I appreciate the thought people are putting into alternate systems. Some of them are pretty cool. But I just don't why we are focusing on such a relatively minor variable in PC strength and over all table strength.

Actually, purchasing choices are far more important than amount of cash as well. Because the way items scale in price, some one can spend a lot of money on stuff that is not helping them much.

The Exchange 1/5

very true.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone suggested that instead of tracking to the scenario level that you might instead gain a flat gp total based on the level of the player's character? That levels the playing field and neither incentivizes nor disincentivizes playing up or down. People get bored with things that are too easy, so I really don't see where folks would consistently play down just to survive if it isn't fun. Each xp gained could get you 1/3 of the way between one level and the next on the wbl table in gp totals. Then they could provide incentive to play up by offering access to better purchase lists instead of an unbalanced gp reward. It's not like you would expect more Xp from playing up so why should wealth be any different?

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yes, that was suggested. The biggest stumbling block is revamping all the old chronicle sheets (although having a list in the guide would work as well).

To the last topic discussed: Good Build > High Wealth, certainly. But Good Build * High Wealth is so much greater than Avg Build * Normal Wealth that it's not even funny.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Majuba wrote:

Yes, that was suggested. The biggest stumbling block is revamping all the old chronicle sheets (although having a list in the guide would work as well).

To the last topic discussed: Good Build > High Wealth, certainly. But Good Build * High Wealth is so much greater than Avg Build * Normal Wealth that it's not even funny.

And good tactics trumps all. I have seriously seem rock solid builds with above average wealth get wrecked by bad play. I have also seem builds that make you go wha? with less gold save the day because they were played well.

Actually, the biggest stumbling block is that if your play up, you use up more consumables and playing down will have pretty much nil risk and consumables used. I play up somewhat regularly...and I gotta tell you, I go through several grand worth of consumables in some games. I suppose a small percentile can be applied based on level to tier played...but that starts to get complicated.

The Exchange

Majuba wrote:

Yes, that was suggested. The biggest stumbling block is revamping all the old chronicle sheets (although having a list in the guide would work as well).

To the last topic discussed: Good Build > High Wealth, certainly. But Good Build * High Wealth is so much greater than Avg Build * Normal Wealth that it's not even funny.

Hi Majuba. Ardurak...

Ten-minute work-out:

Lvl Full Half Total At Beginning of Next Level
0 150 150 150
1 284 142 1002
2 666 333 3000
3 1000 400 6000
4 1500 750 10500
5 1834 917 16002
6 2500 1250 23502
7 3166 1583 33000
8 4334 2167 46002
9 5332 2666 61998
10 6668 3334 82002
11 8666 4333 108000
12 10666 5333 139998

It seems easy and fair to me...just retro all of the prior scenarios to ignore the wealth figures and use the chart that can be printed on an index card.

Lantern Lodge *

AbyssLord wrote:
Has anyone suggested that instead of tracking to the scenario level that you might instead gain a flat gp total based on the level of the player's character? That levels the playing field and neither incentivizes nor disincentivizes playing up or down. People get bored with things that are too easy, so I really don't see where folks would consistently play down just to survive if it isn't fun. Each xp gained could get you 1/3 of the way between one level and the next on the wbl table in gp totals. Then they could provide incentive to play up by offering access to better purchase lists instead of an unbalanced gp reward. It's not like you would expect more Xp from playing up so why should wealth be any different?

Well said good sir! This would not only balance out WBL, but also give an incentive to players who take the risk of playing up with access to better equipment. Also, since it works both ways, high tier players don't suffer any serious detriment, as they will already have the needed FP/PP needed to get most items (save for example unique items made specifically for a scenario, that in of itself could be another potential benefit of playing up).

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Lei Xiao wrote:
AbyssLord wrote:
Has anyone suggested that instead of tracking to the scenario level that you might instead gain a flat gp total based on the level of the player's character? That levels the playing field and neither incentivizes nor disincentivizes playing up or down. People get bored with things that are too easy, so I really don't see where folks would consistently play down just to survive if it isn't fun. Each xp gained could get you 1/3 of the way between one level and the next on the wbl table in gp totals. Then they could provide incentive to play up by offering access to better purchase lists instead of an unbalanced gp reward. It's not like you would expect more Xp from playing up so why should wealth be any different?
Well said good sir! This would not only balance out WBL, but also give an incentive to players who take the risk of playing up with access to better equipment. Also, since it works both ways, high tier players don't suffer any serious detriment, as they will already have the needed FP/PP needed to get most items (save for example unique items made specifically for a scenario, that in of itself could be another potential benefit of playing up).

Once again, does not deal with the consumable use issues. If you get the gold regardless, then playing down will mean you will have more treasure through less consumables use and so mechanically, your promoting playing down and cakewalking sessions. The way you would fix this is to adjust the gold based on tier played vs level and like I said, that gets to complicate things when people seem to have issue with just the plain old normal and slow track...much less the addition of a "fast" track when playing up. If that is an issue, a comparative adjustment is just out of the question.

The Exchange

Cold Napalm wrote:
Lei Xiao wrote:
AbyssLord wrote:
Has anyone suggested that instead of tracking to the scenario level that you might instead gain a flat gp total based on the level of the player's character? That levels the playing field and neither incentivizes nor disincentivizes playing up or down. People get bored with things that are too easy, so I really don't see where folks would consistently play down just to survive if it isn't fun. Each xp gained could get you 1/3 of the way between one level and the next on the wbl table in gp totals. Then they could provide incentive to play up by offering access to better purchase lists instead of an unbalanced gp reward. It's not like you would expect more Xp from playing up so why should wealth be any different?
Well said good sir! This would not only balance out WBL, but also give an incentive to players who take the risk of playing up with access to better equipment. Also, since it works both ways, high tier players don't suffer any serious detriment, as they will already have the needed FP/PP needed to get most items (save for example unique items made specifically for a scenario, that in of itself could be another potential benefit of playing up).
Once again, does not deal with the consumable use issues. If you get the gold regardless, then playing down will mean you will have more treasure through less consumables use and so mechanically, your promoting playing down and cakewalking sessions. The way you would fix this is to adjust the gold based on tier played vs level and like I said, that gets to complicate things when people seem to have issue with just the plain old normal and slow track...much less the addition of a "fast" track when playing up. If that is an issue, a comparative adjustment is just out of the question.

Consumables proliferation needs to be fought. Flat wealth by level would do this. There are too many groups running around at low levels with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds that basically gives them a never-ending supply of healing during a low-level scenario. If a character knows that they will only ever get 108,000 gp by the time they reach 12th level, their perspective on things will shift toward saving gold for the non-consumables that they really need for survival in high-level play.

I would argue that "playing up" or "playing down" could be a thing of the past. The tier 1-5 adventures could be split up into sub-tier 1-3 and 4-5 play, tier 3-7 at sub-tiers 3-5 and 6-7, tier 5-9 at sub-tier 5-7 and 8-9, tier 7-11 at sub-tiers 7-9 and 10-11. Basically, the first sub-tier would be bumped up one level to the average half-way point of the scenario's spread. The average party level would automatically calculate the sub-tier that you are forced to play. Having more than four players would automatically add one to average party level.

Here are some examples with a tier 1-5 scenario.

One fifth level and three second level (5+2+2+2=11, 11/4=2.75, 2.75<3.0, play at sub-tier 1-3).

One fifth level and four second level (5+2+2+2+2=13, 13/5=2.6, 2.6+1=3.6, 3.6>3.0, play at sub-tier 4-5).

Four third level (3+3+3+3=12, 12/4=3, 3 = 3.0, play at sub-tier 1-3).

And if that higher level character is stocked up on consumables, then they should be allowed to keep them since consumables have less value in a game with a finite gold piece cap over the course of 12 levels of play especially as they level to higher levels. Potions of cure light wounds do not do a whole lot of good for 10th level characters.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

AbyssLord wrote:
There are too many groups running around at low levels with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds that basically gives them a never-ending supply of healing during a low-level scenario.

Oh dear.

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but getting a healing wand is kind of the main reason that 2PP gets you an item worth 750gp. Scenarios are actually written with the assumption that players will have access to that kind of healing, and in fact it's kind of a dick move to NOT get your own healing wand and instead expect someone else to spend their spell slots or other resources healing you instead of playing their own character.

Low-level parties running around with healing wands is PFS working as intended. If instead you see that as a bad thing, then you and campaign leadership have baseline assumptions so different from one another that you don't even really have the common ground necessary to start a productive discussion on changes to make to the system; you'll need to start with getting a feel for what campaign leadership feels is and is not a problem before lobbying for specific changes.

The Exchange

Jiggy wrote:
AbyssLord wrote:
There are too many groups running around at low levels with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds that basically gives them a never-ending supply of healing during a low-level scenario.

Oh dear.

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but getting a healing wand is kind of the main reason that 2PP gets you an item worth 750gp. Scenarios are actually written with the assumption that players will have access to that kind of healing, and in fact it's kind of a dick move to NOT get your own healing wand and instead expect someone else to spend their spell slots or other resources healing you instead of playing their own character.

Low-level parties running around with healing wands is PFS working as intended. If instead you see that as a bad thing, then you and campaign leadership have baseline assumptions so different from one another that you don't even really have the common ground necessary to start a productive discussion on changes to make to the system; you'll need to start with getting a feel for what campaign leadership feels is and is not a problem before lobbying for specific changes.

I don't know how the role balance is in other regions, but in my region, there is a definite lack of divine casters (and to a lesser extent, skills monkeys). One of the reasons for this is that every group has access to healing wands. Why would a party want a fully devoted divine caster if they can replace that entire role with the purchase of a 750 gp wand and one person who has either Use Magic Device or just enough spell list access to use it?

It's also a reason that Kyra makes a lot of appearances as a pre-gen.

I'm also a player that feels strongly that this is a social game about cooperating with fellow party members (and their players) to succeed at the task at hand. If each player character is built to be completely self-sufficient, then why do we as players even bother to play the game with other people? We could just go do something else by ourselves like play a one-player video game and get that same self-centered experience. This is a social game and gamers should help one another out in and out of the game. Friendships are made at gaming tables.

And I would never consider it a "dick move" to be depended upon to help out my fellow Pathfinder Society teammates when I can.

As for campaign leadership, I believe that they are reasonable people that respect the rights of anyone and everyone to express their opinions as they see fit. I'm one voice among many, and while I may not completely reflect what has been gone before me, sometimes a fresh perspective is what is needed to resolve past problems.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

AbyssLord wrote:


I don't know how the role balance is in other regions, but in my region, there is a definite lack of divine casters (and to a lesser extent, skills monkeys). One of the reasons for this is that every group has access to healing wands. Why would a party want a fully devoted divine caster if they can replace that entire role with the purchase of a 750 gp wand and one person who has either Use Magic Device or just enough spell list access to use it?

You don't play much high levels games do you. When your party damage dealer gets confused or dominated and smacks you for 70 damage, a wand of CLW wand isn't gonna cut it. When you have an exceptional one doing 150+ damage...well you'd either better have somebody with breath of life...or get ready to use that 16 pp. Consumables does not replace a full blown divine caster...not even remotely. And this is beyond the fact that clerics and oracles make some beefy damage dealers in their own rights if you so want. The fact that at low levels, a cleric can spend precious spell slots to do things that are fun and not just be a heal bot is a GOOD THING. Seriously, if you think that removal of the CLW wand will make people want to play full divines more often...your quite mistaken. This is why the campaign head, who are quite knowledgeable folks who get paid big bucks (well probably not), choose to do it that way.

Quote:
And I would never consider it a "dick move" to be depended upon to help out my fellow Pathfinder Society teammates when I can.

So...you like not having any actions and casting healing spells then? Because I spent the first game of my cleric doing this because a rogue with 10 con and 14 ac could not get it that he was not a barbarian and kept charging forwards. He might have had fun...I was bored out of my skulls because instead of me killing things, I had to keep him from death. It was not cool.

Quote:
I'm also a player that feels strongly that this is a social game about cooperating with fellow party members (and their players) to succeed at the task at hand. If each player character is built to be completely self-sufficient, then why do we as players even bother to play the game with other people? We could just go do something else by ourselves like play a one-player video game and get that same self-centered experience. This is a social game and gamers should help one another out in and out of the game. Friendships are made at gaming tables.

You DO realize that part of the aspect of PFS if that you have no idea who you play with at muster...right? If all you do are small musters at a local store...well that becomes more like a home game where you can each make a characters to fill in roles and party together all the time. That does not happen at cons or even bigger PFS area. There are 5 groups I go to locally around here. One of the groups regularly muster 5 tables. two does 3 most of the night and the others reach 2 on many nights. You don't play with the same people with the same characters most nights. You can't make a ruleset that works for your small group and expect it to be valid for groups that are mustering 5 tables...sorry...just NO. Hell even the attitude of make none self sufficient character is liable to cause TPKs. In fact, there was almost a TPK in a game I ran because the players involved had this exact same perspective.

Quote:
As for campaign leadership, I believe that they are reasonable people that respect the rights of anyone and everyone to express their opinions as they see fit. I'm one voice among many, and while I may not completely reflect what has been gone before me, sometimes a fresh perspective is what is needed to resolve past problems.

And most of the time, things are the way they are for a pretty dang good reason. Your assuming there is a problem. The consumable is a part of PFS assumption for a dang good reason. Hell it's a part of CORE assumptions. The core rules assume you have some wealth tied up in consumables and as they get used, the get replenished. the WBL guideline is 25% consumables and that amount of what you should have at any given level...not what you should have at any given level - consumables used. So in this respect, PFS is already less forgiving of consumable usage then even core assumption of the game...and you want to make it even WORSE? Sorry...but that's just a BAD IDEA. With your idea, people would not use consumables at all. They would not use a breath of life scroll to save somebody because that means they are hit with a perma 1k gold loss of their wealth. Why would I spend 2k in scrolls to keep the party alive in that system? It'll perma weaken me. I'll just DD out, everyone else can die and I'll take my 0 exp, gold earned and possible 1 PP (actually no I wouldn't because I'm a nice guy...but with such a system, I probably wouldn't have the scrolls to begin with so my only option would be to save my own neck). Seriously, one of the main reason for the change they were talking about was to reduce the bully to play up aspect that is in the current system...along with WBL issues. If you think the bully to play up issue was bad...under this system where the best mechanical option for you is to let other players die other then you use your own consumables...yeah, that is not something we want to foster.

And yes, this is not a simple issue. if you think it's just as simple as making a simple table up...you really don't grasp the vast impact this will have. The campaign heads aren't looking at JUST WBL. To do so would be folly. They have to look at the many aspects that a reward change would ripple down the whole organization. That is what good managers do...and to give useful advice for them, you have to start seeing things from a whole different angle then just a player at your local store.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Abysslord wrote:
I don't know how the role balance is in other regions, but in my region, there is a definite lack of divine casters (and to a lesser extent, skills monkeys). One of the reasons for this is that every group has access to healing wands.

And everyone has access to healing wands because a hodge podge group of thrown together characters may lack a divine caster, and said divine caster may not be set up to heal. In a home game, players may grumble but someone will play the cleric. In organized play there's no way to guarantee that someone's going to bring along a healer. If you're playing the fighter a fighter may be the only character you have.

The Exchange

Cold Napalm wrote:
AbyssLord wrote:


I don't know how the role balance is in other regions, but in my region, there is a definite lack of divine casters (and to a lesser extent, skills monkeys). One of the reasons for this is that every group has access to healing wands. Why would a party want a fully devoted divine caster if they can replace that entire role with the purchase of a 750 gp wand and one person who has either Use Magic Device or just enough spell list access to use it?

You don't play much high levels games do you. When your party damage dealer gets confused or dominated and smacks you for 70 damage, a wand of CLW wand isn't gonna cut it. When you have an exceptional one doing 150+ damage...well you'd either better have somebody with breath of life...or get ready to use that 16 pp. Consumables does not replace a full blown divine caster...not even remotely. And this is beyond the fact that clerics and oracles make some beefy damage dealers in their own rights if you so want. The fact that at low levels, a cleric can spend precious spell slots to do things that are fun and not just be a heal bot is a GOOD THING. Seriously, if you think that removal of the CLW wand will make people want to play full divines more often...your quite mistaken. This is why the campaign head, who are quite knowledgeable folks who get paid big bucks (well probably not), choose to do it that way.

Quote:
And I would never consider it a "dick move" to be depended upon to help out my fellow Pathfinder Society teammates when I can.

So...you like not having any actions and casting healing spells then? Because I spent the first game of my cleric doing this because a rogue with 10 con and 14 ac could not get it that he was not a barbarian and kept charging forwards. He might have had fun...I was bored out of my skulls because instead of me killing things, I had to keep him from death. It was not cool.

Quote:
I'm also a player that feels strongly that this is a social game about cooperating with
...

Considering that high level is 10th or 11th level in PFS, I have played in and GM'd quite a few high level games in the past 25 years. Using 16 pp is another escape from having a divine caster in the party, so you re-emphasize my argument about the lack of incentive to play a divine caster. You do bring up an important reason that the meat grinder at lower levels means that divine casters are more survivable to higher levels due to the high Will saves. And yes, I've seen a Destruction Domain cleric of Nethys do some nasty things with Disintegrate (among other high level divine PC use of spells like Harm...though mostly beyond reach for PFS).

With Channels and spontaneous casting as options, being a dedicated heal bot isn't completely necessary as a divine caster. They're side-thoughts, but they're completely unnecessary ones with consumables and prestige methods of covering for it.

Especially at low levels in PFS, though, there is little incentive to play through to get to the higher levels where a divine caster is really appreciated. Wouldn't "Breath of Life" be considered a dedication to being a "heal bot" considering the strict limitation on timing (hard to get it done from a consumable (scroll))?

And I'm not saying at all that there should be no healing wands. What I am saying is that something is not right when it gets to the point where almost every character that cannot even use a Wand of CLW considers buying one so that they can hand it off to someone that can use it in future sessions.

The drawback for doing something you really like to do in a hobby that you really enjoy usually means that you get paid peanuts, so yeah, probably no "big bucks" involved there. Just a lot of dedication to craft.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Abysslord wrote:
I don't know how the role balance is in other regions, but in my region, there is a definite lack of divine casters (and to a lesser extent, skills monkeys). One of the reasons for this is that every group has access to healing wands.

And everyone has access to healing wands because a hodge podge group of thrown together characters may lack a divine caster, and said divine caster may not be set up to heal. In a home game, players may grumble but someone will play the cleric. In organized play there's no way to guarantee that someone's going to bring along a healer. If you're playing the fighter a fighter may be the only character you have.

And the same can be said of the tank, the face, the damage-dealer, the trap guy, the crowd-controller, and the arcanist. Offering to fix this by completely negating any incentive for playing a healer does ruin the fun for a person that really enjoys playing that beneficent, helpful role. No other role is so completely obviated by access to magic items at low levels. Working around these gaps can be part of the fun and challenge of playing in organized play, but IMHO I don't believe that forcing players to self-correct for potential party deficiencies is healthy for the state of the game as a whole.

The Exchange

To get back on track, I believe that one of the basic assumptions of the game that is broken with playing up and playing down along with treasure based on scenario sub-tier is risk versus reward.

Higher level characters take on more risk and should be rewarded commensurate to their level of risk.

The oldest reference to dividing treasure by character level that I could find was page 109 of the 2nd edition PHB (maybe there were references in 1st edition, but I wasn't able to find any). This is a concept that has been around for quite a while, so I've just launched it up as a possible solution. I don't find it to be a bad idea unless someone can think of a reason that it won't work. Perhaps the only reason that I can think of would be that certain power-gamers wouldn't like the idea that they could no longer power-creep their characters up to unbalanced levels without the option of playing up all of the time.

Also, if this can find some sort of happy resolution, then perhaps the campaign leadership could concentrate on the other areas of the rules that break the power-level balance of the game (banning overpowered build and item options).

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

AbyssLord wrote:
Offering to fix this by completely negating any incentive for playing a healer does ruin the fun for a person that really enjoys playing that beneficent, helpful role.

Not in my experience. I've played alongside dedicated healers, and they seemed to be having plenty of fun. They didn't seem to feel "negated" by folks having their own healing wands, either. Typically, after-combat healing would be handled with wands by everyone handing them to the healer to activate on them, and the healer PC's channels/spells were saved for doing in-combat healing.

AbyssLord wrote:
Working around these gaps can be part of the fun and challenge of playing in organized play, but IMHO I don't believe that forcing players to self-correct for potential party deficiencies is healthy for the state of the game as a whole.

What's the alternative? Don't let a game happen at all unless you can put together a well-balanced party? Or go ahead and let it happen but without the tools to cover those deficiencies, so PCs end up dead? Which of those is it that you think is "healthier for the state of the game as a whole" than offering easy access to consumables?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

AbyssLord wrote:

To get back on track, I believe that one of the basic assumptions of the game that is broken with playing up and playing down along with treasure based on scenario sub-tier is risk versus reward.

Higher level characters take on more risk and should be rewarded commensurate to their level of risk.

The oldest reference to dividing treasure by character level that I could find was page 109 of the 2nd edition PHB (maybe there were references in 1st edition, but I wasn't able to find any). This is a concept that has been around for quite a while, so I've just launched it up as a possible solution. I don't find it to be a bad idea unless someone can think of a reason that it won't work. Perhaps the only reason that I can think of would be that certain power-gamers wouldn't like the idea that they could no longer power-creep their characters up to unbalanced levels without the option of playing up all of the time.

You say that PCs "should be rewarded commensurate to their level of risk", but what you propose — having wealth distributed according to PC level instead of subtier played — would produce exactly the opposite.

Players will start engineering situations in which their own PC is high enough level for the upper tier but the table's APL lets them play down. That way, they face virtually no risk but still get full wealth for their level. This in turn vastly reduces the amount of wealth spent on consumables (whether you have a balanced party or not, consumables are a built-in part of the game that is designed to be a noteworthy portion of your wealth) and you end up with the exact same problem that we already have, just enabled in the opposite way.

Instead of people engineering their tables so that they play up every single game and get too much wealth, people engineer their tables so that they play down every single game and have too much wealth from not having to ever blow it on necessary consumables. Either way, it's the same basic idea: people do everything they can to avoid playing the right level for their PC, and end up with too much gold at the end as a result.

This was already thought of long before this thread even began; it's simply not a viable option.

Any proposed solution needs to make it more appealing to play in-tier than out-of-tier while also normalizing wealth.

The Exchange

Jiggy wrote:
AbyssLord wrote:

To get back on track, I believe that one of the basic assumptions of the game that is broken with playing up and playing down along with treasure based on scenario sub-tier is risk versus reward.

Higher level characters take on more risk and should be rewarded commensurate to their level of risk.

The oldest reference to dividing treasure by character level that I could find was page 109 of the 2nd edition PHB (maybe there were references in 1st edition, but I wasn't able to find any). This is a concept that has been around for quite a while, so I've just launched it up as a possible solution. I don't find it to be a bad idea unless someone can think of a reason that it won't work. Perhaps the only reason that I can think of would be that certain power-gamers wouldn't like the idea that they could no longer power-creep their characters up to unbalanced levels without the option of playing up all of the time.

You say that PCs "should be rewarded commensurate to their level of risk", but what you propose — having wealth distributed according to PC level instead of subtier played — would produce exactly the opposite.

Players will start engineering situations in which their own PC is high enough level for the upper tier but the table's APL lets them play down. That way, they face virtually no risk but still get full wealth for their level. This in turn vastly reduces the amount of wealth spent on consumables (whether you have a balanced party or not, consumables are a built-in part of the game that is designed to be a noteworthy portion of your wealth) and you end up with the exact same problem that we already have, just enabled in the opposite way.

Instead of people engineering their tables so that they play up every single game and get too much wealth, people engineer their tables so that they play down every single game and have too much wealth from not having to ever blow it on necessary consumables. Either way, it's the same basic idea: people do...

Higher level PCs playing with lower level characters necessitates that the higher level PCs shoulder more of the danger and burden during the scenario in order for success to occur. If you are still applying the logic of "play up/play down" then what you say would be the case, but if there is no option to create a cakewalk scenario for a high level group of PCs, then the danger level will on the balance be appropriate for the group.

For those rare groups of players that cheat with their GM to know the contents of the scenario and engineer groups of player characters to allow the high level PC to get his share of the wealth easily (which he would get no matter what scenario he/she played within, so it's not really an unbalanced amount of wealth for the character at the level the character is playing at), there's nothing that can be done about that level of conspiring (even under the current system).

You don't think that a fifth level player would have to blow at least some of his/her consumables in order to get the first or second level PCs through the lower sub-tier scenario? Do you really think that three or more other players/GMs would always play second fiddle to a higher level PC just to give him an easy pass? Even if they passed the right to play the fifth level PC around the table, that's an awful lot of gaming and cheating to get the levels that they all want out of it (and I'm saying levels, since all characters of that level would have the same wealth).

And one of the precepts of this style of play is that you have to trust the community to be honest until they show that they are not trustworthy. I'm sure there are fake scenarios played all of the time just to boost character levels, but there's not really anything that can be done about that level of player cheating. They're missing out on playing the game for a cheap thrill.

The Exchange

Jiggy wrote:
AbyssLord wrote:
Offering to fix this by completely negating any incentive for playing a healer does ruin the fun for a person that really enjoys playing that beneficent, helpful role.

Not in my experience. I've played alongside dedicated healers, and they seemed to be having plenty of fun. They didn't seem to feel "negated" by folks having their own healing wands, either. Typically, after-combat healing would be handled with wands by everyone handing them to the healer to activate on them, and the healer PC's channels/spells were saved for doing in-combat healing.

AbyssLord wrote:
Working around these gaps can be part of the fun and challenge of playing in organized play, but IMHO I don't believe that forcing players to self-correct for potential party deficiencies is healthy for the state of the game as a whole.
What's the alternative? Don't let a game happen at all unless you can put together a well-balanced party? Or go ahead and let it happen but without the tools to cover those deficiencies, so PCs end up dead? Which of those is it that you think is "healthier for the state of the game as a whole" than offering easy access to consumables?

Players often show by example that "fighting to the death" is the only option they consider for overcoming encounters. Not so.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

AbyssLord wrote:


And the same can be said of the tank, the face, the damage-dealer, the trap guy, the crowd-controller, and the arcanist. Offering to fix this by completely negating any incentive for playing a healer does ruin the fun for a person that really enjoys playing that beneficent, helpful role. No other role is so completely obviated by access to magic items at low levels. Working around these gaps can be part of the fun and challenge of playing in organized play, but IMHO I don't believe that forcing players to self-correct for potential party deficiencies is healthy for the state of the game as a whole.

So instead of giving the players an OPTION to patch up holes in a group that may muster, we make a system where they either can't or it's extremely hard to?!? SERIOUSLY?!? I don't think you even remotely understand how to make organized play work if this is your view point. What you suggested would make organized play basically unplayable as the people in charge of muster would have to put together a balanced party or no game can happen. How healthy do you think this game would be if you show up to a game and unless the group needed your character's role, they had to turn you away? Or the game fails to muster at all.

Quote:
Considering that high level is 10th or 11th level in PFS, I have played in and GM'd quite a few high level games in the past 25 years. Using 16 pp is another escape from having a divine caster in the party, so you re-emphasize my argument about the lack of incentive to play a divine caster. You do bring up an important reason that the meat grinder at lower levels means that divine casters are more survivable to higher levels due to the high Will saves. And yes, I've seen a Destruction Domain cleric of Nethys do some nasty things with Disintegrate (among other high level divine PC use of spells like Harm...though mostly beyond reach for PFS).

By high level in PFS, I mean 7+. The damages I mentioned can be done from level 7ish. I know of a 6th level PFS character that does 140 damage a round. The lethality of a table in 7+ games goes WAY up without a divine around. You have GMed a lot of high levels games you said...but were they PFS games? Because running a home game where people know each other and have tactics built around each other and your pretty much guaranteed that the roles are all covers AND you as the GM has every right to adjust encounters to fit your group is NOWHERE near the same as running a high level PFS game...where you have no idea who is at your table, they do not know each other's tactics and your CAN NOT adjust the encounters. What is good for one may not be good for the other. So once again, your not quite grasping at the impact of it all.

Quote:
The oldest reference to dividing treasure by character level that I could find was page 109 of the 2nd edition PHB (maybe there were references in 1st edition, but I wasn't able to find any). This is a concept that has been around for quite a while, so I've just launched it up as a possible solution. I don't find it to be a bad idea unless someone can think of a reason that it won't work. Perhaps the only reason that I can think of would be that certain power-gamers wouldn't like the idea that they could no longer power-creep their characters up to unbalanced levels without the option of playing up all of the time.

So...the it makes people act more like jerks, the power gamers will won't even REMOTELY be stopped (tactics and build trumped gold), your still not fixing the gold imbalance as people will just play down instead of up, tables maybe harder to muster and more players may have to get turned away from games...and oh yeah IT REALLY ENCOURAGES JERK PLAYSTLE (because this one is important) isn't enough reasons why this could be a bad idea to you?!? Okay.... Yeah...so moving along then....

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

AbyssLord wrote:


You don't think that a fifth level player would have to blow at least some of his/her consumables in order to get the first or second level PCs through the lower sub-tier scenario? Do you really think that three or more other players/GMs would always play second fiddle to a higher level PC just to give him an easy pass? Even if they passed the right to play the fifth level PC around the table, that's an awful lot of gaming and cheating to get the levels that they all want out of it (and I'm saying levels, since all characters of that level would have the same wealth).

Your joking...right?!? I don't have to go through my consumables when playing AT TIER. Oh yeah, maybe a charge of a wand of infernal healing or two if there isn't a healer around. If I am playing down...yeah.... I'd be sad if I needed to use any consumables. Now the 1-2 MAY need consumables for their end...but with the system you proposed, why would the 5th level use THEIR consumables on them to keep them alive when all that does it sap their power for future games? Future games where they may actually need said consumables to keep THEMSELVES alive.

The Exchange

Cold Napalm wrote:
AbyssLord wrote:


You don't think that a fifth level player would have to blow at least some of his/her consumables in order to get the first or second level PCs through the lower sub-tier scenario? Do you really think that three or more other players/GMs would always play second fiddle to a higher level PC just to give him an easy pass? Even if they passed the right to play the fifth level PC around the table, that's an awful lot of gaming and cheating to get the levels that they all want out of it (and I'm saying levels, since all characters of that level would have the same wealth).
Your joking...right?!? I don't have to go through my consumables when playing AT TIER. Oh yeah, maybe a charge of a wand of infernal healing or two if there isn't a healer around. If I am playing down...yeah.... I'd be sad if I needed to use any consumables. Now the 1-2 MAY need consumables for their end...but with the system you proposed, why would the 5th level use THEIR consumables on them to keep them alive when all that does it sap their power for future games? Future games where they may actually need said consumables to keep THEMSELVES alive.

Sigh. The current system rewards players of higher levels when they bully players of lower levels to accept higher sub-tier adventures that they most likely face a higher danger of not surviving. That rewards selfishness, so you end up perpetuating an organized play environment of selfish players.

The alternative that I presented seems to me to support players that support one another through the game to succeed cooperatively. As the higher level PC, you give of your resources if you play with lower level players for the good of the party and success at the scenario.

There's no way around it. Players of higher level characters will always bully the players with lower level characters as long as the system supports players of widely diverse character levels.

Perhaps, you're right. Selfish players make organized play untenable.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AbyssLord wrote:


And the same can be said of the tank, the face, the damage-dealer, the trap guy, the crowd-controller, and the arcanist.

The tank can be: A fighter, barbarian, cleric, paladin, monk, druid, druid's pet, dex abusing alchemist, cavalier, samurai...

The face isn't usually necessary to live, but its often necessary to complete the mission. It could be a rogue, bard, paladin, sorcerer, oracle, cleric or anyone with a trait and the skill point to spare.

EVERYONE can deal damage.

Anyone with a good perception score can be the trap guy.

Crowd control can be a wizard, alchemist, druid, bard, cleric, reach fighter, tripping monk, grappler,

Pretty much nothing but a cleric or oracle is going to be able to keep the entire group alive, and even then you have to be built for it. Most people don't want to play that one very specific build of character character, so many groups don't have one.

Quote:
Offering to fix this by completely negating any incentive for playing a healer does ruin the fun for a person that really enjoys playing that beneficent, helpful role.

But not fixing it ruins the fun of everyone that DOESN"T want to play that role, which is a lot more people.

The Exchange 4/5

Folks do not need to play up. If a table wants a challenge, make the folks who want to play up play in a table of just 4, but don't re-adjust the encounters and keep them as if the table had 6 players. For their efforts, I say just give them 2 extra PP.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Joseph Caubo wrote:
Folks do not need to play up. If a table wants a challenge, make the folks who want to play up play in a table of just 4, but don't re-adjust the encounters and keep them as if the table had 6 players. For their efforts, I say just give them 2 extra PP.

Umm...that has a whole other set of issues. Because PFS buy limit is based on fame, this means you would play up to gain fame so you can uber load into one giant item that basically can be even more unbalancing then having extra gold but can't buy the one giant item.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Cold Napalm wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
Folks do not need to play up. If a table wants a challenge, make the folks who want to play up play in a table of just 4, but don't re-adjust the encounters and keep them as if the table had 6 players. For their efforts, I say just give them 2 extra PP.
Umm...that has a whole other set of issues. Because PFS buy limit is based on fame, this means you would play up to gain fame so you can uber load into one giant item that basically can be even more unbalancing then having extra gold but can't buy the one giant item.

Do you often find yourself shopping an the edge of your fame score? Even playing up I've always been out of gold well before I get near the fame cap after level 4 or so.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

AbyssLord wrote:


Sigh. The current system rewards players of higher levels when they bully players of lower levels to accept higher sub-tier adventures that they most likely face a higher danger of not surviving. That rewards selfishness, so you end up perpetuating an organized play environment of selfish players.

The alternative that I presented seems to me to support players that support one another through the game to succeed cooperatively. As the higher level PC, you give of your resources if you play with lower level players for the good of the party and success at the scenario.

There's no way around it. Players of higher level characters will always bully the players with lower level characters as long as the system supports players of widely diverse character levels.

Perhaps, you're right. Selfish players make organized play...

The current system, gives the lower levels player more gold to take that extra risk. The system you propose would make it so the high level players use less gold if they play down and don't use up their resources and just carry and cakewalk the scenario (which is no fun for anyone really...it just becomes a grind to get the best end game stuff really). T top it off, your system would be harmful for the high level character to use their resources to help the lowbie who may misstep and mess up.

Umm...I never felt bullied into playing up in the current system. Under the proposed system you have I would feel kinda used when the level 5 joins the level 1-2 game and then cake walks the scenario for us so he can get his 2k gold with no risk while the rest of us watches the game go by however. I would feel that was a waste of my 4 hours. At least if I play my level 2 in a 4-5 game and I die, I'd have a cool story to tell. If I live, I get some extra gold, probably a cool story and a chance to actually play the game. And actually, in the current system, the lowbies are abusing the high levelers to get extra gold if the rumors that playing up generates too much wealth is an actual systemic issue in organized play is to be believed (honestly...don't see it...doesn't mean it doesn't happen...but it has to happen in a big enough quantity to be a systemic issue).

There is a difference between selfish and making a system that punishes you for not acting like a jerk. Your a selfish jerk...well the system can't fix that. The system mechanically punishes if you don't act like a jerk...take a wild guess what kind of behavior your gonna end up having a lot more of.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
Folks do not need to play up. If a table wants a challenge, make the folks who want to play up play in a table of just 4, but don't re-adjust the encounters and keep them as if the table had 6 players. For their efforts, I say just give them 2 extra PP.
Umm...that has a whole other set of issues. Because PFS buy limit is based on fame, this means you would play up to gain fame so you can uber load into one giant item that basically can be even more unbalancing then having extra gold but can't buy the one giant item.
Do you often find yourself shopping an the edge of your fame score? Even playing up I've always been out of gold well before I get near the fame cap after level 4 or so.

I could afford my level spell storing sword for like 6 session before I could get it with fame. And I have reach the fame limit a few times on my EK...but that is the one that is LEAST likely to do this. For my witch, if I could do this, I would so collect up for a headband of int +6...not even funny. In 9 sessions I could have the fame and gold to get a +4. A level 4 witch with a 25 int...oh, the fun we will have. Furious finshers can get their impact weapons even faster. Barbarians can get their furious weapon at level 4 with the fame boost.

Sczarni 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
Folks do not need to play up. If a table wants a challenge, make the folks who want to play up play in a table of just 4, but don't re-adjust the encounters and keep them as if the table had 6 players. For their efforts, I say just give them 2 extra PP.
Umm...that has a whole other set of issues. Because PFS buy limit is based on fame, this means you would play up to gain fame so you can uber load into one giant item that basically can be even more unbalancing then having extra gold but can't buy the one giant item.
Do you often find yourself shopping an the edge of your fame score? Even playing up I've always been out of gold well before I get near the fame cap after level 4 or so.

I had to wait 2 scenarios to put Holy on my crossbow once I had the money for it. (admittingly, this was because there were some season 0/1 GM chronicles on him, which granted 0PP)

Grand Lodge 4/5

Here is my idea for weath per game.

Example level 1-5 adventure, 1-2 and 4-5 tier.

Have the gold spelled out per level of the character.

500/750/1000/1200/1500

If you play down move down the list two spots, if you play up move up the list one spot. If you are the middle level, you would drop one level.

The chronical sheet could also have it spelled out.

Just mark Level 1 500 or up 750
Level 2 750 or up 1000
level 3 down 750 or up 1200
level 4 down 750 or up 1200
level 5 1500 or down to 1000.

Makes it easy and fair. This also helps the delima of the between character, level 3 in the above example.

The Exchange 4/5

These are the ideas I really like. this whole post is my opinion, i'm going to list potential issues I can foresee with each approach.

Ideas:
1) Double xp/PP from playing up an entire sub-tier (IE you're level 2 playing a 4-5)
Half xp/pp from playing down an entire sub-tier.
Systems stays the same for people between tiers.

2) Mid-tier gold awards

3) new sub-tiers, each encompassing 3 levels with the "middle" level being the design space. Similar to how module awards are factored. -Can't play out of tier-

Pros/cons:
1)Pros:
Solves the wealth issue with math.
Works on all the seasons
Helps newer players catch up to the groups that they are playing "up" with.
Player's "eat" fewer scenarios as they level up enabling them to play more characters at higher levels, if that's what they like doing.
1)Cons:
Player's accelerate through the levels much faster, maybe not have the player experience needed for higher levels.
(note: I don't think this matters at all. Experience is a thing for sure, but weaker players and stronger players will always exist for more reasons than skipping 5-6 scenarios.)
Half/double xp can create an awkward situation are level 12, so some GM adjudication is required to make sure players go fast or slow track on their last scenario in order to reach exactly 12 exp.

2) Pros:
People between tiers get the "right" amount of gold.

2) Cons:
People don't get "appropriate" awards for the challenge they are facing, and that's lame.

3) I love this idea everything about it, and would love to see this going forward, but it simply doesn't address the scenario's we already have.

901 to 945 of 945 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Wealth in Season 5--Brainstorming Thread All Messageboards

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