Proposal to amend determining sub-tier rules

[Tarma]

There have been other threads on proposed rule changes but the threads seem to have been derailed a bit, so I wanted to request that a change in language be made allowing parties that hit exactly the float level (3,5,7,9) can choose to play up if they desire.

What I have noticed happening quite frequently lately is that at tables of four players have three players that would fit in the higher tier, but because of one lower level player they fall exactly in the middle and then have to play down.

Examples:

In a 1-5 scenario, four level 3 characters and one level 1 character puts the APL at 3.25. That means that their average APL is 3 and they play down. The same applies for 3-7 scenarios with three level 6's and one level 3 (APL 5.25), 5-9 scenarios with three level 8's and one level 5 (APL 7.25) and 7-11 scenarios with three level 10's and one level 7 (APL 9.25).

By the current rule, that party must play the lower tier, yet the three other players are two levels higher than the sub tier was written for. So obviously, the party crushes the scenario and gains out of tier gold. But often times the players themselves feel let down, since they were able to annihilate everything in their path. And some times, the players even feel cheated because the higher tier players could have gotten full high tier gold instead.

For the reasons listed above I propose that the rule be amended to let let people exactly at the float/middle level play up in a sub tier calculation if they choose.

[Hawkwen Agricola]

Actually, it depends on what season the scenario is from.

GtPFSOP wrote:

Starting with Season 4, scenarios are designed for six characters and contain instructions on how to adjust the scenario for four-character parties. When the APL of a table is between two subtiers (like APL 3 for a Tier 1–5 scenario), a party of four characters must play the lower tier without any adjustments for party size. A party of five to seven characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play the higher tier with the four-character adjustment.

For scenarios written in Seasons 0 to 3, when the APL is in between subtiers, a party of six or seven characters must play the higher subtier. Parties with four or five characters must play the lower subtier. In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier.

I believe the option of playing up or down was taken away due to WBL issues from party's always playing up. I would guess that parties of five play down in the early seasons because there is no four player adjustment. (Even though the early seasons tend to be easier, this would keep five member parties from getting trounced in the difficult early season scenarios, if they were forced to play up.)

[Andreas Forster]

First, one little error there:

Quote:

In a 1-5 scenario, four level 3 characters and one level 1 character puts the APL at 3.25.

The APL of such a group would be 2.6, but that also rounds to 3. Second, level 3 characters are always out-of-subtier in a 1-5 scenario, so that is a bad example. Maybe you meant three level 4 characters, not 4 level 3 characters.

I don't think the rule should be changed. It has actually been changed to the current state from a state where groups could choose to play up or down. This happened in order to control WBL, which had been strongly hurt by people playing up (especially with groups like those in the above examples).

Everybody should be aware of how subtier calculation works (or should be made aware when it becomes important). So if the three high-level players don't want to play down, the low-level player should be asked to either choose a higher level character or play a pregen (if possible). Forcing players to play down (and gain less gold) against their will could also be considered being a jerk, which players are advised not to do.

Instead of complaining about the calculation of subtier, it's better for the players to find a solution where everybody has fun during the game (seriously, playing down is not fun for high-level characters and playing up is not fun for low-level characters).

[wakedown]

The weirder case is when you have a 1-5 and the players that have assembled have these levels: 4, 4, 4, 3, 2.

And then you calculate their APL at 3.4 (17/5), round down to 3 and tell them they're playing the 1-2 subtier because it's Season 0 and they have 5 PCs.

I'd hate to complicate things but I'd think when the majority of players are in a certain subtier, they should play that subtier when their APL falls between tiers.

[Tamago]

I would really like to see 5-player tables get to pick whether they use the four-player or six-player rules. I know I've been in situations where I brought a low-powered "concept character" to a game and felt really bad because I was the 5th player -- rather than helping out, my PC just made things harder for everyone because the difficulty of the scenario jumped up significantly. :-/

[BigNorseWolf]

This section usually makes my head spin. People that tell me its not complicated usually wind up giving different answers for "What tier are we playing" when given sample problems.

[Mystic Lemur]

You make two assumptions I disagree with. The first is that later seasons (the ones where 5 players would have to play down) are balanced at the low end of the subtier (i.e. balanced for level 1 characters at subtier 1-2). This may be true in some cases, but I wouldn't say most, or even very many. A level 1 who would already be challenged in a 1-2 has very little business being in tier 4-5 that is already a potential party wipe for those level 3's. So your assumption that they would "crush" the scenario just isn't valid.

The second assumption is that those level 3's could ever get high tier gold. That hasn't been trite in about three years. Please tell me there aren't still GMs giving high tier gold for characters that don't fall in the high tier.

BNW, that boils down to people being bad at simple math. Like the OP who thought (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 1) / 5 = 3.25

[Ferious Thune]

I'm pretty sure he meant four level 4s and a level 1, not level 3s. Four level 4s and a level 1 would be APL 3.4 and would, in fact, play down in a Season 0-3 tier 1-5 scenario. It's just one of the oddities of the current system (which I think is a better system than what we used to have).

[Sarvei taeno]

i understand that they do not let us have the choice because they are worried low lvls will be coerced into playing up from peer pressure but honestly i feel playing down has 0 value, the gold reward is crap, the special loot is crap. i have a tendency to play a lvl 4 or 5 just to encourage others to play a higher lvl. if im gonna lvl a 1-2 character ill use an evergreen scenario/module.

i know that is rather rude way for me to handle the situation but the general difficulty of low tier 1-5 isnt even worth playing.

[DM Beckett]

Nah, it's not rude. There's only so much lower level play you can do, and being forced to play down is just as bad, if not worse than being forced to play up.

Playing up, others can help protect, buff, and compensate for you but when you play down, there really isn't risk or reward.

[pauljathome]

My biggest issue with the current rounding rules is when you start with a number that is clearly in the low subtier and end up in the other subtier due to rounding twice.

2.6 going to 3 going to subtier 4-5 is one example. If you combine this with 5 players the result can be very bad.

[Sarvei taeno]

pauljathome wrote:

My biggest issue with the current rounding rules is when you start with a number that is clearly in the low subtier and end up in the other subtier due to rounding twice.

2.6 going to 3 going to subtier 4-5 is one example. If you combine this with 5 players the result can be very bad.

do keep in mind the part where it says if no players are of lvl for the tier then they can choose to play down

[The Fox]

First and foremost, I want to say that the current rules for determining subtier are much better than they were previously! Thank you to Mike and John for making those improvements last year. They are appreciated.

However, there is still room for improvement. Here are a couple of examples.

Levels: 1, 2, 2, 3, 5. Must play in subtier 4-5. Yikes!

Meanwhile...

Levels: 1, 3, 4, 5 Must play in subtier 1-2.

Many capable 4th- or 5th-level characters can cakewalk a 1-2 by themselves.

A simple proposal
Choose the subtier which would have the greatest number of PCs playing in tier. If there are an equal number of PCs who would be in each tier, then play the lower subtier if there are 4 PCs, and play the upper subtier if there are 5 or 6 PCs.

Benefits
1. Simple; easy to understand; easy to remember.
2. No APL calculations.
3. Maximizes the number of characters who are in tier.

[Malag]

I am going to partially agree that APL calculations are off a bit but only for seasons 0-3. Seasons 4-6 which include 4 man and 6 man challenges seem to be very accurate in determining APL and CR for party. Also another point which Fox said, APL calculations are much better then they were before. They aren't top best, but currently as best as they can be.

[Andreas Forster]

As I already mentioned above, when wonky situations come up, like the ones presented by The Fox, that's because the players chose to bring a wide range of character levels, and in that case, it's better to talk and find a solution where everyone plays roughly the same character level.

[Mekkis]

One of the reasons that this strict, complicated subtier-determination system came about was to prevent abuse of playing up in order to get additional gold.

This was before the introduction of Out-Of-Tier gold.

Would it not be simpler to simply change it to "if APL falls between tiers, the players can choose", like it was pre-season 4?

[DM Beckett]

Andreas Forster wrote:

As I already mentioned above, when wonky situations come up, like the ones presented by The Fox, that's because the players chose to bring a wide range of character levels, and in that case, it's better to talk and find a solution where everyone plays roughly the same character level.

Only if we assume they all have multiple characters and that they are a wide range of levels.

Even with 10+ characters and that I GM more often than I play, most of my characters are outside of the 1-5 or even the 3-7 tiers now. It is a factor, but not one that always applies or is useful.

[Tarma]

I'm not asking that the entire rule be scrapped, just that when this more common than a corner case pops up they be given the option to play up. A simple language change that allows the choice to play up would help with this situation.

[Mystic Lemur]

There are pregens, and there is "find another table."

[Tarma]

Finding another table is not always an option, especially if you have a smaller turnout. If there are only three people at the table and you tell someone to go find another table, you're out a table.

And pre-gens don't help the situation if you're playing a 7-11 scenario. Since the highest level pregen is level 7, you don't gain anything by swapping out for a pre-gen.

[Ryzoken]

Tarma wrote:

Finding another table is not always an option, especially if you have a smaller turnout. If there are only three people at the table and you tell someone to go find another table, you're out a table.

And pre-gens don't help the situation if you're playing a 7-11 scenario. Since the highest level pregen is level 7, you don't gain anything by swapping out for a pre-gen.

It was my understanding that you calculate table subtier before considering pregens (so as to determine which version of pregen to use in, say, a 1-5 scenario.) Am I mistaken?

[GM Lamplighter]

There is no rule that says you ignore them.

EDIT: However, I do usually select pregen 1 or 4 mentally first, based on the level spread of the other characters. But that still goes into the "official" APL calculation.

[kinevon]

Mystic Lemur wrote:

There are pregens, and there is "find another table."

So, as has happened, and I have a PC almost in this situation right now:

My PC is at 7.2, so last chance to play in Tier 3-7 scenarios.
This game is the last part of a multi-part series, and is a 3-7/

I am sure there is a party possible that would be both the only party available (John is new, his highest PC is 3rd level, and he has also played parts 1 & 2 on that specific PC, and wants to use the special add-on from Part 2 on part 3, the only place where it can be used.)

Specific scenario:

There actually is a scenario where something like that can happen, part 3 of the Destiny of the Sands series. Parts 1 & 2 are tier 1-5, part 3 is tier 3-7. Part 2 gives access to something that is seldom allowed in PFS, but it can only be used in part 3. Whatcha gonna do?

Keep in mind that, in my area, when we have enough people to get to three tables, which has happened once, maybe twice, since NeonCon closed down, is the exception, rather than the rule. One table (if not barely one table) is much, much, much more common at this time.

Heresy of Man:

I had a PC who played parts 1 & 2, which were all that were released at the time, at a local convention. With other play, he wound up at 9.2, and literally unplayed for years, before I finally GMed all three parts locally. Barely managed a legal table at that time, and that wound up with another PC, lower level, with parts 1 & 2, until I managed to find an online game he could complete the series with. Less than optimum.