Wealth vs Build vs Difficulty.


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 2/5

I am just astounded at the amount of angsting and effort being put in over money. In my estimation, broken builds and lack of difficulty in playing up are way more of a culprit in this situation than the amount of cash being flung around. Thoughts?

The Exchange 5/5

It goes back to a conflicting idea of what is "fun". The concepts you listed are completely subjective. Also, views tend to shift as experiences expand, so good luck getting a unified vision of what this campaign needs. Someone's going to lose, and no one wants the short end of the stick.

I do not envy the campaign staff when it comes to making a 'correction' in the campaign rules.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5

ain't that the truth Doug.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

What do you mean by a "lack of difficulty in playing up"? Do you mean it's too easy to seat a table in which someone's playing up? Or do you mean that the scenarios are not challenging enough at the higher tiers?

Silver Crusade 2/5

I mean that the PC playing up is not in enough danger. A level 3 playing in a 6-7 should get crushed.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Well, presumably if the 3 is in the 6-7, there are other characters that are at a higher level that can act as a shield.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a lot of things that have an impact on difficulty...it's way more than just builds and gold. It's impossible to account for them all, but I'll give it a vague stab:

The Scenario
Character Builds
Character Wealth
GM Skill Level and experience
GM prep/familiarity with the scenario
Individual Player Skill Level and experience
Player personalities
Table dynamics and moods (is it the last day of a con?)
Teamwork and tactics
Table makeup (do you have 4 clerics?)
Dice Rolls

Basically...there's an infinite amount of permutations. Some of them the campaign has control over. Most of them, they don't.

You say that playing up is too easy. If you're talking about seasons 0-3, then are you suggesting that the campaign go back and rewrite all of them? If you're talking about season 4, then I suggest that it's a plethora of other factors that is giving you that experience, as many others do not share that opinion.

3/5

David Bowles wrote:
I am just astounded at the amount of angsting and effort being put in over money. In my estimation, broken builds and lack of difficulty in playing up are way more of a culprit in this situation than the amount of cash being flung around. Thoughts?

Plenty of scenarios where playing up can result in insta-death via spell. And that is not counting Season Four where the encounters are finally in-line with opportunistic OP play (and unfortunate for those of us who, after four years of mostly manageable challenges, decided it would be a good idea to make underpowered PCs with a focus on the RP elements).

But character wealth can be a huge issue. There is a player local to me (somewhat) whose PCs always seem to have inexhaustible wealth. Being able to afford something like a Ring of Evasion for 10-11 play or even Boots of Speed for 6-7 play (meaning that the PC has that much more wealth than the average PC and can have these tasty items in addition to regularly expected items) can be a game changer.

As for broken builds...if it is within the rules and someone wants to play it, who am I (or who is anyone, other than the Paizo staff running the campaign) to say how someone is supposed to have fun or play the game? I know there is a cottage industry of complaining about builds and such, but I have never seen the constructive point in it.

Personally, I think frequent changes to the rules only frustrates the players. I know that it frustrates me, and I know that several players only sporadically pay attention to these changes. Maybe the overwhelming majority of players really enjoy frequent changes and updates to the governing rules of the campaign and I am out of step. It is a distinct possibility. Furthermore, since the introduction of new material and rule changes does not seem to lead to an option of periodically reworking existing PCs to fall-in-line, it seems that PFS is consistently geared towards the newer players or those who like making new characters.

So, I guess I have some level of frustration in regards to PFS. Is some character wealth related? Sure. Is it in the top 10? Maybe? I am trying to avoid listing my frustrations (I have a convention to attend this weekend and I'd prefer to be positive while there). There are plenty of ways to make an effective PC even while being wealth-deficient. I am only likely to notice a PC's wealth in items if the player tries to dominate (or coast through) a session.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

As an anecdotal data point, Nani, I think Season 4 difficulty is just about perfect.

I'd put 'teamwork and tactics' at the top of the list. knowing when to slow-roll your expendable resources makes a huge difference. Especially when it means your turn consists of "I delay until there's something important for me to do" instead of null operations or negative operations.

The level 3 or 4 in a 6-7 shouldn't be instantly killed... no PC should be. Unless they do something foolhardy.

We recently played Heresy of Man 3 at 8-9 with my wife's 6th level polearm fighter as our tank.

She was a high percentage of our damage per round, while my magus 9 died horribly. The pressures of a table are highly varied. I'd hate to think she should have gotten 5-6 gold for the danger she put her character in...

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Timothy McNeil wrote:


But character wealth can be a huge issue. There is a player local to me (somewhat) whose PCs always seem to have inexhaustible wealth. Being able to afford something like a Ring of Evasion for 10-11 play or even Boots of Speed for 6-7 play (meaning that the PC has that much more wealth than the average PC and can have these tasty items in addition to regularly expected items) can be a game changer.

Playing up at dead levels means that a level 6 player will have ~25 grand. Books of speed is half that...not that you can afford one due to fame at level 6...but you could at 7. So really the "much more wealth" would not really change. It would just limit the games that a person with such a mentality will play, which means less players which means less game which means less everything really.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

You know, we asked him to make a new thread for build issues instead of cluttering the wealth thread. Let's not now turn it around and clutter his build thread with wealth discussions.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Wealth is in the thread name. I'm cool.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Timothy McNeil wrote:
As for broken builds...if it is within the rules and someone wants to play it, who am I (or who is anyone, other than the Paizo staff running the campaign) to say how someone is supposed to have fun or play the game? I know there is a cottage industry of complaining about builds and such, but I have never seen the constructive point in it.

Timothy, thank you for saying this so I didnt have to.

To the OP, also remember that you have an important tool at your disposal. If you dont like how a character is built or how the person is playing the character... dont play with them.

I frequently avoid playing at tables depending upon who else is at that table. I have that right. What I dont have the right to do is expect those other people to leave.

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

I disagree that the 4th season seems in line with the difficulty while previous seasons would seem simple or not that hard.

Some of the 4th season has hard/impossible battles that try to make up for the scenario having a lot of RP in the beginning. King of the Stoval Stairs needs retired, it is lethal and not much fun.

Putting a CR 18 mob against mid level party in a recent one I played, nutz.

I also seen the return of a particular spell used against the players that is "save or DIE" that is almost guaranteed to whack a player every time the scenario is run. Why does this game always turn the corner into a trap of despair at it's 4th iteration?

As far as Wealth is concerned, I understand the need for limits on wealth in an organized play setting. I have suggested a change that would be less harmful than the "All playing down get pitiful gold" solution of the supposed abuse of playing up for gold, disrupting the WBL scheme.

You see the thread, click over and read up, perhaps reading the last page to get a good feel for what is being said and proposed, and comment on my Halvies plan.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Why can't authors make interesting, challenging encounters without resorting to CR 18 or save or die? It's not that hard. It really isn't.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

What scenario has a CR 18 mob in it?

For that matter, beyond the odd disintegrate, I haven't seen much in the way of save-or-dies running around. While I'd rather see bosses use save-or-sucks such as Baleful Polymorph or Feeblemind, there are times when it makes sense. And we've definitely had save or dies going back to at least Season 1. Dying on a bad save is simply part of the game at the high tier.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Why can't authors make interesting, challenging encounters without resorting to CR 18 or save or die? It's not that hard. It really isn't.

If you know your specific audience (players/characters) I would agree. However in PFS there are too many variables as Nani pointed out. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone is good enough to make a universally challenging encounter that is fair to every possible build and party mix across our 20,000+ player-base? I think not. One man's cake-walk is another man's epic challenge. The authors can only do so much and they (along with the development team) do an awesome and, IMO, under appreciated job at providing us with diverse, fun, and yes challenging scenarios.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I mean that the PC playing up is not in enough danger. A level 3 playing in a 6-7 should get crushed.

This has the same problem as the proposed podcast solution. It forgets that sometimes, under the current tier system, you actually WANT people to play up (or down) in order to make tables. If you make playing up or down so painful that no one is willing to do it, then there is no point in allowing that option in the first place.

But the real problem here is not whether people should play up or down, or if they have too much wealth or are over-optimized. I mean, why do people care if someone else is over-optimized? It basically boils down to one thing. Everyone likes to have a moment in the spotlight. Heck, the main reason people want to have an optimized character in the first place is it increases their chance to shine. Where the problem comes from is when your character outshines everyone else too much. Afterall, they want to shine too. Excessive wealth and optimization just make it easier to outshine everyone else. I doubt anyone would care how much wealth your character had or how optimized it was if you never used it to outshine others.

But human (gamer) nature being what it is, outshining others is always going to happen. It only becomes a real problem when it becomes excessive. And that is where the solutions need to be focused.

3/5

Honestly the difficulty should be high if the players run jaw first into every encounter taking the blows they have to deliver. Waelth and build design is ALWAYS trumped over smart play. Level 0 spells can easily be made to trump and encounter. Simple cheap items can stop deadly situations. Any player that runs head first into the encounter unprepared deserves whatever is flung at them.

Silver Crusade 3/5

thaX wrote:
Some of the 4th season has hard/impossible battles that try to make up for the scenario having a lot of RP in the beginning. King of the Stoval Stairs needs retired, it is lethal and not much fun.

This is very much a rail road scenario. And the combat in it is hard. Far from imposable or even hard with a group of well made characters. I find most of the problems players have. Comes not from wealth, but from pore character build choices.

Really though it comes down to. Character build > Players Tactics > Character Wealth determines how a character preforms. Even if you have above average wealth. If there built poorly they will not function above average. The problem is when you have a well made character. Then you include above average tactics, or higher wealth. That they start to function higher then a character of there level. When you combine all three in one character. You start seeing one character destroying scenarios.

I am not a min/max character maker. I do feel that all of the characters I build function in the role I built them for. There are a lot of characters in PFSP. That can not fill there role or there player has pore tactical awareness. Making it where the other players at the table have to fill in the gap. Most of this can be solved with new players getting help from experienced players when building there first characters. Not having some one build it for them. Having help making sure that the build will function as the player wants it to. No guessing that it will function as the player wants it to. This is where most of the mistakes come in. I will be the first one to admit there are some builds I would not play. That dose not mean they will not work. I am still able to help with that build due to rule knowing, and lot more play time across all levels of play. By far there are others that are much better at building characters then me. For new players there needs to be a way for them to get help in building characters. A lot of them will not want to come to the message boards to get help. Due to there being a lot of different options on different builds.

3/5

Calagnar I agree with you that weak builds with weak/new players put stress on a party. Now a lot of people would argue with you to let players play what they want, and I agree. Then many of those same people argue to fudge rolls for those people so they do not hate the game(I disagree). This is a horrible idea because people that are weak with weak builds now think they are strong and they play in higher level games weakly and threaten the group they are in.

A smart or creative player can play almost anything and support the group.

Weak player do not realize they are weak or their builds are weak. If they make it to the high levels then someone let them get there. Either poor DMs or strong party members. The idea of convincing they should not play thier characters because they are a threat to the other characters is a difficult conversation.

Silver Crusade 3/5

I have no problem with people playing what they want. That how every dose not mean that they should go in to building characters blind. This is where I have a problem. They can build what ever they want. When you warn them early on this will not work. Then it becomes there problem. I tried to explain that it would not work.

Just an example of what can happen. Almost a year ago with in a few months of me starting PFSP. New player to PFSP comes in with a lore oracle. His first level spells cure light wounds, Detect Alignment, and Sanctuary. I asked why did you take those spells? His response was he wanted them for role playing reasons. Now that's all find until you step in a season 4 scenario and things go south on you. This happens more often then I care to admit to. New players that come in knowing what there doing are few. New players that come in and ask for help are great. I'm more then willing to help new players understand the rules better, and what they need to look at for success.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

calagnar wrote:


Really though it comes down to. Character build > Players Tactics > Character Wealth determines how a character preforms. Even if you have above average wealth. If there built poorly they will not function above average. The problem is when you have a well made character. Then you include above average tactics, or higher wealth. That they start to function higher then a character of there level. When you combine all three in one character. You start seeing one character destroying scenarios.

Disagree here. I think tactics>builds>wealth. The pre gens are pretty dang horrible builds...but with the proper tactics, even these huge messes can be made effective.

Grand Lodge 4/5

thaX wrote:
King of the Stoval Stairs needs retired, it is lethal and not much fun.

I encountered exactly the opposite experience. Gets back to builds, players, tactics and random seating.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Cold Napalm wrote:
calagnar wrote:


Really though it comes down to. Character build > Players Tactics > Character Wealth determines how a character preforms. Even if you have above average wealth. If there built poorly they will not function above average. The problem is when you have a well made character. Then you include above average tactics, or higher wealth. That they start to function higher then a character of there level. When you combine all three in one character. You start seeing one character destroying scenarios.
Disagree here. I think tactics>builds>wealth. The pre gens are pretty dang horrible builds...but with the proper tactics, even these huge messes can be made effective.

^^^THIS. and luck.

Grand Lodge 4/5

calagnar wrote:
thaX wrote:


Really though it comes down to. Character build > Players Tactics > Character Wealth determines how a character preforms. Even if you have above average wealth. If there built poorly they will not function above average. The problem is when you have a well made character. Then you include above average tactics, or higher wealth. That they start to function higher then a character of there level. When you combine all three in one character. You start seeing one character destroying scenarios.
QUOTE]

So the cure is to punish people who have invested their time and effort to know the system, have purchased all the resources so they can use them and have been playing PF for some time?

I see the change in how scenarios are balanced starting in Season 4 curbing that desire to play up.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Disagree here. I think tactics>builds>wealth. The pre gens are pretty dang horrible builds...but with the proper tactics, even these huge messes can be made effective.

I agree with that, but I would add player knowledge in the mix. As anyone who knows me I make cookie cutter characters (bow archer with standard feats) and not super characters (druid/monk that can turn into elements), so tactics>player knowlege>build. By the way, I seen a super character builder player once had to be force to play a pregen and he did very good.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Regardless of tactics and build or even player knowledge, we seem to have come to a consensus on the fact that wealth is last on the list.

1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

There is no denying that in the allwoed material and the game are some classes and builds that if you know how to do them are just plainly more powerful than others. Some are just crazy stuff like multi armed alchemist/gunsligers, others like lore warden/rogue with moonlight stalker really require a lot. But its legal and if people want to play it, why not? It´s up to the designers to take care of game balance there.
I think there are some trends and it seems that some of those people have clear favorites, but that´s a completely different discussion.
In normal games you can adjust CR to that, in PFS you can´t. But that´s also cool. If people want cakewalks, let them have it.

Knowing how to play is much more important as that, because most of those builds have weak spots. And GM´s can still choose scenarios....

The wealth thing is an issue, because if you have much more than expected you can use it to gain items that mitigate your weaknesses.

Anyway, is there something wrong with the reply buttons? Many people seem to reply to something, but it doesn´t show as a reply. Or do they just copy parts? I think that´s confusing, you never know who wrote what then.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Ricgeon wrote:

Regardless of tactics and build or even player knowledge, we seem to have come to a consensus on the fact that wealth is last on the list.

Yes but wealth is the ONLY thing on the chart that can honestly be controlled by leadership. You can't control what a player knows or how they play or their build (well you can to a limited degree with allowable material...but honestly the core book is enough). You CAN control wealth. That is why the focus on wealth by leadership.

1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

Well, there is always the additional resources page and i see no reason why they could not say something like:

"Crossclassing between gunslinger and alchemist is ok, but if you take the additional arms thing you won´t be able to reload guns with them."

Note: This case is just a victim for being my example right now because it was the first one coming to my mind. It could also go like:

"The halfling warlsinger racial trait is not usable with double sling or halfling sling staffs"

I would not like that last one one bit, but it´s totally possible and in some cases they should really clear things out on this level.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Cold Napalm wrote:
Ricgeon wrote:

Regardless of tactics and build or even player knowledge, we seem to have come to a consensus on the fact that wealth is last on the list.

Yes but wealth is the ONLY thing on the chart that can honestly be controlled by leadership. You can't control what a player knows or how they play or their build (well you can to a limited degree with allowable material...but honestly the core book is enough). You CAN control wealth. That is why the focus on wealth by leadership.

Seems pretty futile then. I have never, not once, ever felt that too much gear on a PC was an issue. Seriously, look at how much jack a +3 weapon costs over a +2. Or how much the stat booster gear costs. It's way, way, way easier to break things with specific character builds.

I realize builds can not be policed. I know this. But at the same time, there is no reason for anyone to get worked up over $$ in this setup. No one is taking over a scenario with brute force magic items.

1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

Well, take an figher archer with an headband of aerial agility +6 on WIS.
This item should actually not be in PFS level range i believe. Some people pointed out that there are characters with double or up to triple WBL. So with 58 fame, which is totally possible at level 10, a character with enough money could buy that and have +6 on WIS and the ability to fly at will.

A HUGE gamechanger!

1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

What brings me to one point i don´t really understand so far.
It was stated that the average PP (ergo fame) per level is 4.
With 12 levels that makes up to 48 fame, where the most expensive item you could buy would be at 41.000gp. But the fame score in the guide goes up to 99. I know there are characters at level 15 or so in special cases, but still....something odd there.

Silver Crusade 2/5

But fighter archers don't even need that item to dominate PFS scenarios. That's my whole point. They just stand around and throw out way more damage than scenarios can handle.

Builds alone can crush these scenarios. But we want to fret over some variance in money?

1/5

I think it's not wealth vs builds vs difficulty but rather wealth and builds and how they create a level of difficulty.
I think it comes down to what the writers and developers can control to keep the difficulty of a scenario at the correct level.

Wealth is completely in their control. Players have no say in what they make per scenario. This wealth will let you give your character some extra bonuses to game statistics. The game is in fact balanced around you getting a certain level of magic item in order to keep pace with monster stats. If you are too low or too high things can quickly become too easy/difficult.

Builds are not really something they can control. Yes they can and do ban overpowered classes/archetypes/feats/traits. This is done very rarely though and with great thought because no one wants to be told they can't play a huge chunk of the published material. Lets also remember that PFS is an advertisement based program. They want us to buy and use published material. That's why the program exists. However, they have absolutely no control over whether a player makes an effective build or not.

So when it comes down to it they can either
a) write the scenarios to take into consideration weaker players with the obvious side effect that stronger players will steam roll the scenario.
-or-
b) limit some of the stronger players, who are strong because of book keeping and artifacts of being able to write scenarios for broad swaths of character levels, by bringing their wealth level back down to game design levels.

Here are my characters who are not lvl 1 and how much they are OVER the wealth by level table.
Lvl 12 barbarian 14,000 gp over
Lvl 8 Wizard 20,000 gp over
Lvl 6 Witch 5,500 gp over
Lvl 2 Inquisitor 5,000 gp over
Lvl 2 Bard 2,000 gp over

I am fine with option b.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I have no problems with characters being above the wealth by level chart, because they have prohibited item creation. Limiting money will not limit the stronger players in any way in my experience.

I don't see how policing wealth is going to improve anyone's experience when there are broken builds that can run on minimal funds.

1/5

Players never have an issue with more stuff. They always want more stuff. More money, more magic items, more prestige, etc. We as players and GMs in PFS don't have to worry about the issues that stem from that mentality. We just know that we want more for our characters.

The writers and developers on the other hand have to deal with writing scenarios for a vast swath of character levels, wealth, builds, and strategy. The less variation on these things the easier it is to write an appropriate encounter for us with the budget they have. I am sure given infinite money they could write up scenarios that take this all into consideration. However, that isn't reality and so they have to pick and choose what to pieces of the equation they can easily restrict variation. Wealth is the low hanging fruit.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I completely agree its low-hanging, but if it's only say 5% of the "problem" is it even worth going after?

The tactics/build variation is so high, that any kind of control from money will be completely swamped out I think. Whenever I hear conflicting reports of how hard a scenario is, I always as about class/build differences, NEVER wealth.


trollbill wrote:
Where the problem comes from is when your character outshines everyone else too much. Afterall, they want to shine too.

I'll slightly disagree.

The problem, as I see it, is that everyone is forced to play at a given tier based solely upon their character's level and not the ability or inability of that character to handle (or slaughter) the tier.

Simply let people play whatever tier that they desire and most of this problem will go away.

If that means that the level 3 is playing at something 'designed' for level 5s, or it is a level 8 playing.. what does it matter? If that's the level of challenge that they can handle.. then both of them are in the right spot. And neither should be eclipsing the other beyond situational moments, as both are at the same level of capability.

The problem comes when the level 3 is made to play in something designed for level 1-3 when they can handle level 5 challenges. Likewise the problem comes when the level 8 is made to play in something set for levels 8-10 when all they can contribute rates around that of a level 5 character.

Neither of these hypothetical characters should be made to play in inappropriate tiers to their ability. When they are, it is there that the problems begin.

Trying to get all the players to play the same is a fool's errand, and destined to make many people unhappy. Organized campaigns have done so in the past and always caused angst by doing so. Embrace the diversity of gamers and builds. It is what makes organized play so wonderful.

-James

3/5

David Bowles wrote:

I completely agree its low-hanging, but if it's only say 5% of the "problem" is it even worth going after?

The tactics/build variation is so high, that any kind of control from money will be completely swamped out I think. Whenever I hear conflicting reports of how hard a scenario is, I always as about class/build differences, NEVER wealth.

A few people will find to abuse the system no matter what. Creating a solution to the small wealth problem will definately create other issues. Are those new issues worth correct a slight problem.

1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

james maissen wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Where the problem comes from is when your character outshines everyone else too much. Afterall, they want to shine too.

I'll slightly disagree.

The problem, as I see it, is that everyone is forced to play at a given tier based solely upon their character's level and not the ability or inability of that character to handle (or slaughter) the tier.

Simply let people play whatever tier that they desire and most of this problem will go away.

If that means that the level 3 is playing at something 'designed' for level 5s, or it is a level 8 playing.. what does it matter? If that's the level of challenge that they can handle.. then both of them are in the right spot. And neither should be eclipsing the other beyond situational moments, as both are at the same level of capability.

The problem comes when the level 3 is made to play in something designed for level 1-3 when they can handle level 5 challenges. Likewise the problem comes when the level 8 is made to play in something set for levels 8-10 when all they can contribute rates around that of a level 5 character.

Neither of these hypothetical characters should be made to play in inappropriate tiers to their ability. When they are, it is there that the problems begin.

Trying to get all the players to play the same is a fool's errand, and destined to make many people unhappy. Organized campaigns have done so in the past and always caused angst by doing so. Embrace the diversity of gamers and builds. It is what makes organized play so wonderful.

-James

This would need a formula to express a characters power, which is quite difficult given all the abilities and spells, etc. Also characters able to slay a dragon alone might be totally unable to solve any social problems where they cannot just slaughter anyone.


Hayato Ken wrote:
This would need a formula to express a characters power, which is quite difficult given all the abilities and spells, etc. Also characters able to slay a dragon alone might be totally unable to solve any social problems where they cannot just slaughter anyone.

No need for a formula, just the person who knows what the character can do the most.. the player.

Then when the table sits down and realizes that they are all lopsided and can't solve any social problem, or can't kill a flumph together let alone a dragon, or any other of a myriad of 'wow weak group' they could play a lower level challenge rather than a higher, switch out characters, etc..

It's not that hard to gauge. And in the end, if you gauge wrong then who do you blame?

-James


Hi guys! I have a question, how much damage is too much damage?
Should deadly aim be banned? precise shot? Point blank? Improved Critical?

Because of how the game works, when you ban something, or say 50 damage per round is too much, the builds will just change to be 49.9, if that makes sense

Silver Crusade 2/5

I'm not proposing anything like damage caps. I'm merely pointing out the futility of wealth regulation. I don't see how this helps anyone.

Grand Lodge 4/5

David Bowles wrote:

I completely agree its low-hanging, but if it's only say 5% of the "problem" is it even worth going after?

The tactics/build variation is so high, that any kind of control from money will be completely swamped out I think. Whenever I hear conflicting reports of how hard a scenario is, I always as about class/build differences, NEVER wealth.

Exactly. So if it is ultimately a combination of all three (tactics, build, wealth) that creates the "problem" how does nerfing the wealth for all solve the problem of over-powered characters? You'll still have very efficiently built characters who will still be able to over-shadow others and claim scenarios are too "easy", which as I understand, was the original "complaint".

Grand Lodge 4/5

james maissen wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:
This would need a formula to express a characters power, which is quite difficult given all the abilities and spells, etc. Also characters able to slay a dragon alone might be totally unable to solve any social problems where they cannot just slaughter anyone.

No need for a formula, just the person who knows what the character can do the most.. the player.

Then when the table sits down and realizes that they are all lopsided and can't solve any social problem, or can't kill a flumph together let alone a dragon, or any other of a myriad of 'wow weak group' they could play a lower level challenge rather than a higher, switch out characters, etc..

It's not that hard to gauge. And in the end, if you gauge wrong then who do you blame?

-James

Agreed. I can tell when players sit down to certain scenarios (such as say The Disappeared) if they will be sucessful or not, because I know their characters are built for combat.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Ricgeon wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

I completely agree its low-hanging, but if it's only say 5% of the "problem" is it even worth going after?

The tactics/build variation is so high, that any kind of control from money will be completely swamped out I think. Whenever I hear conflicting reports of how hard a scenario is, I always as about class/build differences, NEVER wealth.

Exactly. So if it is ultimately a combination of all three (tactics, build, wealth) that creates the "problem" how does nerfing the wealth for all solve the problem of over-powered characters? You'll still have very efficiently built characters who will still be able to over-shadow others and claim scenarios are too "easy", which as I understand, was the original "complaint".

Actually...it gets a bit worse then that. People who have good tactics can play well with pretty much ANYTHING...even the pre-gens. People who build well will continue to build well. So yeah these people get their power cut under then by a small amount. They honestly won't even notice. Now the new player who doesn't know much yet or the people who like to make not optimal characters or those who just can't play very well yet...yeah they will get hurt a LOT by this. So really you make the issue worse, not better by reducing wealth. Run an AP with 75% WBL and 10 PB and then do it with 200% WBL and 25 PB. The power growth for the advanced optimizers will be pretty small...the power growth for the casual will be freaking gigantic.

Grand Lodge 4/5

On the Wealth by Level thing, remember that we are playing High Fantasy, not Standard Fantasy, in PFS.

And, from the PRD section on Weath by Level:

Quote:
Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.

So, if you consider that, it seems likely that using the raw WbL table is going to be incorrect for PFS in any case.

labrat wrote:

Here are my characters who are not lvl 1 and how much they are OVER the wealth by level table.

Lvl 12 barbarian 14,000 gp over
Lvl 8 Wizard 20,000 gp over
Lvl 6 Witch 5,500 gp over
Lvl 2 Inquisitor 5,000 gp over
Lvl 2 Bard 2,000 gp over

Using the 200% level, instead of the 100% level, as recommended for High fantasy, means that your PCs are:

Level 12 Barbarian: 94,000 gp UNDER
Level 8 Wizard: 13,000 gp UNDER
Level 6 Witch: 10,500 gp UNDER
Level 2 Inquisitor: 4,000 gp OVER
Level 2 Bard: 1,000 gp OVER.

Looks like only your 2nd level PCs are actually over the High fantasy suggested Wealth by Level parameters....

Paizo Employee 3/5 5/5

Cold Napalm wrote:
Ricgeon wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

I completely agree its low-hanging, but if it's only say 5% of the "problem" is it even worth going after?

The tactics/build variation is so high, that any kind of control from money will be completely swamped out I think. Whenever I hear conflicting reports of how hard a scenario is, I always as about class/build differences, NEVER wealth.

Exactly. So if it is ultimately a combination of all three (tactics, build, wealth) that creates the "problem" how does nerfing the wealth for all solve the problem of over-powered characters? You'll still have very efficiently built characters who will still be able to over-shadow others and claim scenarios are too "easy", which as I understand, was the original "complaint".

Actually...it gets a bit worse then that. People who have good tactics can play well with pretty much ANYTHING...even the pre-gens. People who build well will continue to build well. So yeah these people get their power cut under then by a small amount. They honestly won't even notice. Now the new player who doesn't know much yet or the people who like to make not optimal characters or those who just can't play very well yet...yeah they will get hurt a LOT by this. So really you make the issue worse, not better by reducing wealth. Run an AP with 75% WBL and 10 PB and then do it with 200% WBL and 25 PB. The power growth for the advanced optimizers will be pretty small...the power growth for the casual will be freaking gigantic.

Except that the new / non-optimizers typically DON'T go looking to play up at every opportunity, while the uber-players do. This adds a wealth disparity on top of the difference due to build and tactics. So WBL isn't an issue with most everyone except the ones who already have a distinct advantage.

They're simply trying to eliminate the ability to obtain additional wealth (= power) by building characters that can play up consistently without much fear of consequences. As it is now, the rich get richer, the poor get sacrificed in the name of playing up, or hide in the background.

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Wealth vs Build vs Difficulty. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.