|
A couple of players at my local were talking about getting the highest gold piece value for the scenarios.
They are not refusing to play or being jerks about it. But our local usually has a bunch of tables each game day so given a choice between tables they make the following choices because the GP rewards on the sheet will tend to be higher.
If PC is level 2, run in a tier 1-2 instead of a tier 1.
If PC is level 3, run in between tiers of a 1-5 at tier 4-5 instead of a tier 3-4.
If PC is level 4, run in a tier 4-5 instead of a tier 3-4.
If PC is level 5, run in between tiers of a 3-7 at tier 6-7 instead of a tier 4-5. Best.
If PC is level 5, run in a tier 5-6 instead of a tier 4-5. Still better.
If PC is level 6, run in a tier 6-7 instead of a tier 5-6.
If PC is level 7, run in between tiers of a 5-9 at tier 8-9 instead of a tier 6-7. Best.
If PC is level 7, run in a tier 7-8 instead of a tier 6-7. Still better.
If PC is level 8, run in a tier 8-9 instead of a tier 7-8.
If PC is level 9, run in between tiers of a 7-11 at tier 10-11 instead of a tier 5-9.
So has anyone with access to more chronicle sheets than me run the numbers to see if this is true? If it is, does it make enough difference to be worth the effort?
|
Yes - the higher level you play at the more gold you get. Heck - back before the out of tier rules - my bard was rolling in gold after surviving two 4-5 tier sessions at level 1 (I mostly hid in a corner, performed loudly from said corner, and did OOC healing :P). I was able to afford a mithril breastplate before hitting level 3.
Is it worth it? It depends how much you care about it. For a single session it's not a huge deal - a couple hundred gold at low levels. (Assuming not truly out of tier.) But it can add up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but so is every single decision on which table to sit down to play. There is really not any VC that is saying "I need you to go here."
Deciding based on the scenario description is meta.
Deciding on the particular player that like (or don't) at a given table is meta.
Deciding based on who is the GM is meta.
Deciding which PC in your multitude of PC's will be played tonight is meta.
Etc...
These guys play enough that they figure they will end up playing every scenario and GM'ing most of them eventually. So I don't see how it hurts anything to use this particular method to decide rather than some other method to decide.
|
Your list is off. To the point that I wonder if your group is unaware of the new rules for playing out of subtier? (Whenever your character is out of subtier, your character earns the average gold for the two subtiers, regardless of whether your character level was above or below the subtier played.)
For example, at level 3 playing in a Tier 1-5 scenario, you earn the same amount regardless of whether you are in Subtier 1-2 or Subtier 4-5. And this amount will generally be less than if you play at level 3 in a Tier 3-7 scenario.
The list should look like this:
Level. Tier. ST.
1. T 1-5. ST 4-5.
2. T 1-5. ST 4-5.
3. T 3-7. ST 6-7.
4. T 3-7. ST 6-7.
5. T 5-9. ST 8-9.
6. T 5-9. ST 8-9.
7. T 7-11. ST 10-11.
8. T 7-11. ST 10-11.
9. T 7-11. ST either.
10. T 7-11. ST 10-11.
11. T 7-11. ST 10-11.
12. T 12. ST 12.
|
They couldn't play in a sub-tier 6-7 in a 1-7. They can play in 4-5 of a 1-5.
edit:
Within each tier, PCs should play in the subtier in which they fall whenever possible, but they may be allowed to play up or down, based on the average party level at the table, as outlined below. Some scenarios or special events offer more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.
|
|
I thought that by the new rules a level 1 or 2 could not play in sub-tier 4-5 of a 1-5 scenario. I'm pretty sure I've heard that stated several times at our local.
Relevant text:
Tiers are a level restriction for play. If a PC’s level does not fall within the level range of a scenario’s tier, that character can not legally play in that scenario. For example, a 5th-level PC is legal for play in scenarios of Tiers 1–5, 3–7, and 5–9; a 1st-level PC can only legally play in a Tier 1 or Tier 1–5 scenario. Within each tier, PCs should play in the subtier in which they fall whenever possible, but they may be allowed to play up or down, based on the average party level at the table, as outlined below. Some scenarios or special events offer more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
I thought that by the new rules a level 1 or 2 could not play in sub-tier 4-5 of a 1-5 scenario. I'm pretty sure I've heard that stated several times at our local.
As The Fox stated, as long as the character is in the Tier range of the scenario, it can be played in that scenario. The APL determines the subtler not the individual character level. Unless if you end up in the higher subtier and there is no one at the table with a character in that higher subtier.
|
|
I think I misread the "...no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level..." as only 1 level away from the subtier. I will check, but I think some of the others at our local have the same mis-understanding.
Though I think a level 1-2 would have a difficult time surviving most of the 4-5 scenarios that I remember.
Thanks guys.
|
|
True, but so is every single decision on which table to sit down to play. There is really not any VC that is saying "I need you to go here."
Deciding based on the scenario description is meta.
I disagree. NOT deciding based on description is meta (baring the rare circumstances where you're sent to do one thing and something else happens)
If you have an adventure deep in the heart of the mawangi expanse the only reason that the society is sending Reginald de Sangblu the third on the trip is because Bob is the player sitting at the table. Its more than justifiable in game as Kreighton Shane hitting the flayleaf or drendle drang waking up the first 5 pathfinders he can find at 4 am. If Bob can bring Leafytree the druid instead then the out of game society is more closely matching what the in game society should be doing. Having character and player decisions match more closely is less metagaming, not more.
My problem with this sort of planning is that given the rather strict tier rules, they'll be the only ones at the table (and possibly venue) that can do this. For every one of them doing this someone else is going to have to play down that might otherwise have played up.
|
|
I don't see how you can say that. The scenario description has zero information that any potential PF could realistically have prior to choosing a particular PF lodge. So basing the decision on one piece of impossible information is no more meta than basing it upon a different piece of impossible information.
Though, after more thought, deciding which of your PC's to run based on the other PC's at the table might not be meta. It would be reasonable for the VC to pick a more balanced team. So if you based your decision on the fact that there are already 4 primary casters at the table so I will run my barbarian instead of my sorc, that could be seen as an in-character VC decision.
I don't see how that would make anyone else play down. I can see that it potentially makes the mission a bit more difficult since they are lower level than might otherwise be the case.
But they are very experienced and capable players. I have never felt like they weren't contributing at least as much as every other PC. Though I will admit, I haven't tracked exactly what level the were in relation to my PC or the subtier.
I think I would rather have one of them at level 3 for a 4-5 mission than most other players level 5 PC's. That is just because they know what they are doing, use good tactics, and have made smart choices both with their build and purchases.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PROS:
- You get more gold.
CONS:
- The scenario is more dangerous for you and for everyone sitting at the table with you. (Some people might consider this a PRO, but that feeling isn't universal.)
- If you want to run more than one or two characters to high level, you are going to run out of scenarios.
- You are going to cost fellow players consumable resources. (If my level 9 character has gloves of first aid or a scroll of breath of life, I'm more likely to need to use them on your level 5 character than on the other 8s and 9s at the table with me.)
- You are potentially forcing someone else to sit at a table where their character is woefully overpowered and earning much less gold. (e.g., your Level 3 character prevents my Level 5 character from sitting at the 3-7 table with the 5s, 6s, and 7s, and bump me to the 1-5 table with three Level 1s and a Level 2.)
- You don't look like a team player. Maybe you will spend all the extra gold on consumables that you pass out at the beginning of every scenario. Regardless, if you play up to maximize gold consistently, you look very selfish.
This is why you are experiencing blowback on this thread.
|
|
I don't see how you can say that. The scenario description has zero information that any potential PF could realistically have prior to choosing a particular PF lodge.
For starters before you're sent out you at least know where the lodge IS. So Leafytree getting sent to Nakawakergi lodge in the mawangi expanse for Heart of Darkness and Reginald de Sangblu being sent to Oppara for Foibles of the Fops makes sense just off a quick glance at a world map.
Secondly the venture captains do frequently send you to specific lodges for the missions that you're on. They let the locals with more information handle the briefing, but they have the general idea of what you're about before they send you. The captians in absolom didn't put you on the floating "Lodge" in halls of the flesh eaters on accident- they send you out looking for the spires (and even know that the place is CALLED hall of the flesh eaters in game) Games where you wind up not knowing what adventure you;re heading to exist but they're the exception, not the rule.
I don't see how that would make anyone else play down. I can see that it potentially makes the mission a bit more difficult since they are lower level than might otherwise be the case.
Its not really play down its "not play up" , which has the same effect on other people.
Because in order for your system to work you need a large number of higher level players in the pool to raise the average where these players can play up, which means fewer people other than these guys are playing up.
Lets say you only had 1 table. 6 players.
With people taking a random assortment
6 low= no one can play up
6 high= no one can play up (you're all in tier)
2 high 2 low 2 middle= Yay! we can play up.
With a randomish selection of people that extra gold would get spread around your players and help make up for the times that they played down. With your players running their scheme they're more often one of those limited seats getting the extra cash, denying it to someone else.
The bigger your player base/number of tables/game selection is the more it dilutes it, but it really is the same as bumming CLW charges off of people to save cash.
|
|
I don't see how that would make anyone else play down. I can see that it potentially makes the mission a bit more difficult since they are lower level than might otherwise be the case.
Season 4, Tier 3-7.
Table composition before you sit down: 5, 5, 5, 5, 3.APL = 23/5 = 4.6, which rounds to 5. With five players in Season 4, they must play in the 6-7 Subtier with the 4-player adjustment.
Now add your level 3 character: 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3.
APL = 26/6 = 4.2, which rounds to 4. They must play in the 3-4 Subtier.
|
|
Short version: if you're consistently playing up, you're consistently taking gold from the characters who are dragged down out of tier.
If they still want to do that, here's the math I did, according to estimates from a handful of chronicles across each tier.
But they shouldn't be surprised if everyone else decides to stop subsidizing their characters once they catch on.
|
|
Another example. This time there are only 5 players in the room, yourself included. You have two characters in Tier for the Season 3, Tier 3-7 scenario being run: your level 3 or your level 6.
Three other players are playing level 6's, one is playing a 5.
Case 1. You play your level 6.
Party composition: 6, 6, 6, 5, 6
APL = 29/5 = 5.8, which rounds to 6, so you play Subtier 6-7.
Case 2. You play your level 3.
Party composition: 6, 6, 6, 5, 3
APL = 26/5 = 5.2, which rounds to 5. In Season 3 with 5 players and APL between subtiers you play Subtier 3-4.
|
|
Ok, I sent a text to one of those guys that I know his phone number.
They were aware that a level 3 could theoretically play at 6-7 sub-tier in a 3-7 tier scenario. (That was just my mistake.) However, they don't feel like that would be contributing much so they were not doing any lower than a level 5. So all of their choices were as my first list (not The Fox's) in sub-tier or only 1 below sub-tier in the middle level.
So it would be only very rare that they could possibly push some else's level 5 into not being playable. And I know the guys they wouldn't do that anyway. If someone else wanted to play a level 5 and that meant they needed to play a 6 or 7 they would have no problem doing that. They will not be dragging anyone down out of tier.
I can't imagine those guys costing anyone else more consumable resources than average. As I said, they are the very prepared guys that are more likely to have the necessary consumable resources than almost anyone else. Even if you compare them to significantly higher level PC's.
If a scenario required brute force combat capability, they might be making it slightly more dangerous. But most scenarios have potential ways to finesse your way past a fight or get creative with tactics to make it easier. These are the kind of guys that always try to find those other approaches to the problem. They are certainly much better at it than me.
Also, not very many players in our local have a stable of 10+ PC's to pick and choose like this. So they really aren't stopping anyone else from doing it because almost no one else has the PC's to try doing it.
I wasn't trying to start a fight about this. I don't think anyone at our local is any less than perfectly happy when these guys sit at a table. I was just trying to figure out if they were correct that it made more money and a rough idea of how much money it could make for you.
I was just curious. I don't have enough PC's to do this kind of finagling myself. I was just curious.
|
|
My apologies. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. You guys should do what is right for you. I totally believe you when you say that these are nice guys who contribute a lot to the table and aren't mooching. I'm not addressing them specifically. And I think choosing to play characters always between subtiers is less selfish than always playing at the minimum level as possible.
It is possible to choose a level 5 character over a level 6 character for a 3-7 and have it affect the subtier. Suppose the other 4 players are playing: 6, 6, 5, 5. (Again, Season 3, Tier 3-7.)
Case 1. You play your level 6.
Party Composition: 6, 6, 5, 5, 6
APL = 28/5 = 5.6. This rounds to 6, so you play Subtier 6-7.
Case 2. You play your level 5.
Party Composition: 6, 6, 5, 5, 5
APL = 27/5 = 5.4. This rounds to 5. In Season 3 scenarios, this means you play Subtier 3-4.
Edit: Another example. Same scenario, but the other characters are 7, 6, 6, 3.
Case 1. You play your level 6.
Party Composition: 7, 6, 6, 3, 6
APL = 28/5 = 5.6. This rounds to 6, so you play Subtier 6-7.
Case 2. You play your level 5.
Party Composition: 7, 6, 6, 3, 5
APL = 27/5 = 5.4. This rounds to 5. In Season 3 scenarios, this means you play Subtier 3-4.
This is good for your 5th-level character, but EVERY other character at the table earns less gold because you chose to play your level 5 instead of your level 6.
|
|
Here's another way to look at it. Let's just suppose I play with the same group of people over and over again. (That is a pretty reasonable assumption on its own; moreover, if everyone who played PFS obeyed the advice I'm about to give then the assumption is not even needed.)
I will restate the situation I described above: Season 3 scenario, Tier 3-7. The other players at the table brought characters whose levels are 7, 6, 6, and 3. I am trying to decide between playing my level 6 or my level 5.
Assumption 1. My character will be better off with more gold, because this means he will have more equipment, both personal gear and consumables that he can share with others.
Assumption 2. My character will be better off if the other players' characters have more gold, because this means they have more equipment, both personal gear and consumables they can share with others including my character.
Looking at a typical Tier 3-7 scenario from Season 3, the gp rewards are as follows:
Subtier 3-4: 1266
Out of subtier: 2265
Subtier 6-7: 3264
Case 1. I play my level 6.
Party Composition: 7, 6, 6, 3,
APL = 28/5 = 5.6. This rounds to 6, so we play Subtier 6-7.
The level 6's and level 7 earn 3264 gp each. The level 3 earns 2265. Together, we as a party earned 15,321 gp.
Case 2. I play my level 5.
Party Composition: 7, 6, 6, 3,
APL = 27/5 = 5.4. This rounds to 5. In Season 3 scenarios, this means we play Subtier 3-4.
The level 6's, level 7, and my level 5 earn 2265 gp each. The level 3 earns 1266. Together, we as a party earned 10,326 gp.
As a party, my choice to play a level 5 has cost us almost 5,000 gp, or almost 1/3 of our gold.
Even from a purely selfish point of view, it is better for my characters if I play the level 6 than the level 5. A secondary benefit is that everyone earns more money.
|
|
Very insightful thread.
Just trying to get my head around your case studies Fox, doesn't that advocate always playing up? I mean, obviously the party is going to get more gold if they play a different subtier and increase the risk of the game.
If another player on my table told me they were doing what Lavode is talking about, I'd be impressed. I wouldn't think that it's cheesy or selfish. The whole table could take advantage of that strategy if they wanted to, or they could ignore it and go wherever the wind sends them.
I've never played at a table where people were intimidating others or being passive aggressive about choosing a character to play - it's always been the player's choice and the table's always been accepting of it. The best case scenario, if his characters have a good amount of gold, he's a stronger character in the long-run, which increases survivability for the party down the track. So by all means, strategise away!
|
|
Regarding the topic at hand, I guess I am not really advocating one way or another on whether one should try to maximize their gold or not.
But I am trying to point out that doing so will result in a tragedy of the commons.
If, instead, we try to maximize the gold of the party, we will all come out ahead in the long run. I don't know if there is a simple rule to follow to make that happen. (Other than ask, what will be best for the group as a whole?)
|
|
Regarding the topic at hand, I guess I am not really advocating one way or another on whether one should try to maximize their gold or not.
But I am trying to point out that doing so will result in a tragedy of the commons.
If, instead, we try to maximize the gold of the party, we will all come out ahead in the long run. I don't know if there is a simple rule to follow to make that happen. (Other than ask, what will be best for the group as a whole?)
I don't think that anyone trying to maximize their gold would be in any way using up a finite resource (other than potentially their own) - so the Tragedy of the Commons doesn't really apply.
It could be argued that the opposite is true. Each player maximizing their own wealth with no cost to others is, in many ways, the moral of Tragedy of the Commons.
|
|
...
It is possible to choose a level 5 character over a level 6 character for a 3-7 and have it affect the subtier.
...
I agree it is possible. Not likely, but possible. However, neither I nor they are advocating/doing that. They would not pick a PC that was pulling the group down a tier. Just wouldn't do it. They are certain to have another PC of higher level that they can play to keep it in the high tier if that is what the group wants.
Just a few months ago they both played level 5 PC in a 1-5 to help make sure the rest of our level 3 and 4 PC's would survive what was rumored to be a very tough scenario. One of them was even playing for no credit since he had already played it. But he was worried that a table of 5 with 5,4,4,4,3 might not survive.
Not trying to gain anything at another expense. But if all else is equal (hurting other players is not equal), they were deciding to run a PC at the bottom or 1 below tier to maximize his gold.
It sounds like you guys feel they are correct that this will net more gold. Any idea how much more?
|
|
Regarding the topic at hand, I guess I am not really advocating one way or another on whether one should try to maximize their gold or not.
But I am trying to point out that doing so will result in a tragedy of the commons.
If, instead, we try to maximize the gold of the party, we will all come out ahead in the long run. I don't know if there is a simple rule to follow to make that happen. (Other than ask, what will be best for the group as a whole?)
I don't think that anyone trying to maximize their gold would be in any way using up a finite resource (other than potentially their own) - so the Tragedy of the Commons doesn't really apply.
It could be argued that the opposite is true. Each player maximizing their own wealth with no cost to others is, in many ways, the moral of Tragedy of the Commons.
Only a finite resource in the sense that everyone can't do it. Someone has to be playing the in-subtier PCs that let the maximiser play up.
If everyone refuses to play their PCs except in the highest subtier they qualify for, no one plays because there won't be any 6-7 level PCs willing to play in subtier 6-7 of tier 3-7 for the 3rd level PC to play with. They'll all be holding out for subtier 8-9 of a 5-9 tier.
There's your finite resource. Players. The more players try to maximize, the harder it will be to put together games. The maximization strategy only works when the number of players using it is relatively small. Small enough not to affect the games being run.
If the character is always significantly out of tier - I agree with you. That's not what the OP said. In the OP - he was always within the normal range of the mission, just always at the low end. In the OP's case, everyone could theoretically do it.
|
|
I have seen a table of a 4th level, three 3rd levels and a 1st - which was going to have to play up to sub-tier 4-5. The low level guy didn't want to risk it and went home, so they were then forced to play down. On second thought he might have been 2nd.... but same thing.
This is probably less outrageous than it seems.
I don't know all the circumstances, there are pieces of this story that are missing - were any of the players upset/passive aggressive/unwilling to change, was there any negotiation, did they have any alternate characters to use (not pregens)?
For someone to walk away with their level 1 or 2 character because they don't want to play a subtier 4-5 is already a risky gambit for that character, and the player might just not want to take the risk, and they might all be fine with getting up to leave for another day on a lesser risk game. Heaven help him if the game was Darkest Vengeance. Or maybe the player thought about the APL and figured he was doing everyone a favour.
Or maybe it erupted into a bitter argument because he got upset about it? In which case, getting up from the table to play another day is also not a bad idea.
There's more similar cases - ones that are advocated by VOs - where the play, play, play rule simply doesn't always apply universally. Playing to an appropriate playstyle is often more important so that everyone has fun at a table they do choose to actually play at, rather than at every table they sign up for.
Just to raise everyone's blood pressure a few more points. The guy said if he really wanted to be a jerk about really maximizing his cash, he read about someone else's idea...
Note: Neither he nor I are really proposing doing this!
Occasionally you can fail a mission such that you get no XP, but do get some gold and possibly a secondary condition prestige point.
|
|
Just to raise everyone's blood pressure a few more points. The guy said if he really wanted to be a jerk about really maximizing his cash, he read about someone else's idea...
Note: Neither he nor I are really proposing doing this!
Occasionally you can fail a mission such that you get no XP, but do get some gold and possibly a secondary condition prestige point.
That would drop your alignment one step, for sure.
