|
I believe the sentence you're looking for is:
"Tiers are a level restriction for play."
pg 27 OP guide right after the chart of tiers and sub tiers.
While not the clearest statement we also have a Josh Frost clarification regarding the issue:
I just had a player ask me whether his 10th level character could play in a level 5-9 adventure. I thought the answer was no, but went to look it up and couldn't find a specific prohibition in the Guide, just a lot of unclear wording about playing up. Can someone helpful point it out to me?
Thanks!
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I just had a player ask me whether his 10th level character could play in a level 5-9 adventure. I thought the answer was no, but went to look it up and couldn't find a specific prohibition in the Guide, just a lot of unclear wording about playing up. Can someone helpful point it out to me?
Thanks!
Sadly, no he can not play.
|
|
I believe the sentence you're looking for is:
"Tiers are a level restriction for play."
pg 27 OP guide right after the chart of tiers and sub tiers.
While not the clearest statement we also have a Josh Frost clarification regarding the issue:
Thanks! I also saw that sentence in the Guide, but we agree it isn't clear.
To add to the lack of clarity, Josh's statement you cite isn't absolute; he prefaces it with "Unless you're trying to make a legal table with disproportionate characters of various levels, you should always play within the appropriate Tier band for your PC", and that statement seems to leave some wiggle room. I'm going to tell the player he can't play, but I feel bad that I don't have a plain rule to point him to as to why not.
This is getting pretty frankly frustrating. The Guide is having less and less to do with, you know, *reading the Guide*, and more to do with "hunt the clarification" or even "hunt the outright rules change" in the thousands of posts here.
I had a player last weekend insist that replay with a different character was still possible, and I had to explain that this rule was revised and clarified in a forum post somewhere. Suddenly I was *that guy*, whose sole defense is "but I read it on teh Interwebs!!1!". It's inefficient, unclear, and frustrating that this campaign puts people in that position.
|
Thanks! I also saw that sentence in the Guide, but we agree it isn't clear.
I know there are a few things out there in the Guide which are unclear at the moment, but this sentence to me is crystal clear. And elegant in it's simplicity.
Obviously others don't see it so clearly. I'm curious why that is? Is it the general mixed usage of tier and sub-tier? Is it lack of concrete examples? Is it just APL and play up rules cast doubt on it?
I'm just trying to flush out the source so maybe we can get some better wording that works for more people going forward :)
|
|
Thanks! I also saw that sentence in the Guide, but we agree it isn't clear.I know there are a few things out there in the Guide which are unclear at the moment, but this sentence to me is crystal clear. And elegant in it's simplicity.
Obviously others don't see it so clearly. I'm curious why that is? Is it the general mixed usage of tier and sub-tier? Is it lack of concrete examples? Is it just APL and play up rules cast doubt on it?
I'm just trying to flush out the source so maybe we can get some better wording that works for more people going forward :)
I can't speak for others, but think it's the lack of an explicit prohibition, primarily. Compare your language to the following from the Living Greyhawk LGCS:
"If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at
which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate."
and the Living Forgotten Realms CCG:
"Each adventure has a level band. In order to participate in an adventure, your character level has to be within the range listed for that adventure, and all the PCs in the party have to be in the same level band. Once you "level out" of a particular band, that character is no longer eligible to play the lower-level adventures."
Both of these have affirmative "cannot" and "no longer" language. The sentence in the Guide, however, is very vague. It doesn't state how tiers restrict levels at all. It also doesn't help that it's the lead sentence in a paragraph about subtier calculations, and therefore seems to pertain to the subtier question.
Does this help identify my confusion here?
|
|
Both of these have affirmative "cannot" and "no longer" language. The sentence in the Guide, however, is very vague. It doesn't state how tiers restrict levels at all. It also doesn't help that it's the lead sentence in a paragraph about subtier calculations, and therefore seems to pertain to the subtier question.
Does this help identify my confusion here?
It does. I know for me personally I don't like a lot of the examples given in the Guide. I like good examples. I'm also not a huge fan of a big list of 'cannot.' There is a middle ground though. Many question starts out with "It doesn't say in the Guide that I can't..." or a common rebuke is "But it doesn't say in the Guide that I can't."
Thanks!
|
This is getting pretty frankly frustrating. The Guide is having less and less to do with, you know, *reading the Guide*, and more to do with "hunt the clarification" or even "hunt the outright rules change" in the thousands of posts here.
Be patient. We all know that Hyrum/Mark are diligently working on a better organized system for errata/FAQ material for PFS. Because we, as a community, tend to "rules-lawyer" so much and nit-pick the grammar and words use in the rules, I expect they have to be extremely thorough or things could just get worse.
|
|
Is it the general mixed usage of tier and sub-tier? Is it just APL and play up rules cast doubt on it?
These two are high on the list. It is clear that mixed usage of tier vs. sub-tier is rampant and causes a lot of confusion, especially for the casual players.
APL, how it is calculated, and what it really means still causes a lot of issues even with experienced players. Kyle's (I think it was him) breakdown of APL vs. what sub-tier you should play was very helpful, IMHO, and something similar should be added to the next version of the guide.
BTW, I though that it was clear that you could not play out of tier, but I guess part of that was an interpretive assumption of RAI vs. RAW
|
|
This is getting pretty frankly frustrating. The Guide is having less and less to do with, you know, *reading the Guide*, and more to do with "hunt the clarification" or even "hunt the outright rules change" in the thousands of posts here.Be patient. We all know that Hyrum/Mark are diligently working on a better organized system for errata/FAQ material for PFS. Because we, as a community, tend to "rules-lawyer" so much and nit-pick the grammar and words use in the rules, I expect they have to be extremely thorough or things could just get worse.
This is something I've had to point out to another developer whose game I may or may not be playtesting ;) If you don't say flay out can or cannot and insted use 'usually do not', you will get a ton of people playing the 'exception to the rule'. Gamers need firm yes and nos for things.
|
|
APL, how it is calculated, and what it really means still causes a lot of issues even with experienced players. Kyle's (I think it was him) breakdown of APL vs. what sub-tier you should play was very helpful, IMHO, and something similar should be added to the next version of the guide.
You mean this?
BTW, I though that it was clear that you could not play out of tier, but I guess part of that was an interpretive assumption of RAI vs. RAW
Yeah, like I said it clicks for me. The words 'level restriction' say it all. But clarity here is definitely a good thing.
|
This is something I've had to point out to another developer whose game I may or may not be playtesting ;) If you don't say flay out can or cannot and insted use 'usually do not', you will get a ton of people playing the 'exception to the rule'. Gamers need firm yes and nos for things.
And that is why I hate this line in the Guide...From Play, Play, Play!
"If the rules are preventing you from getting a legal table assembled for play, then the rules need to change. You, as the GM or coordinator, have the ability to stretch the rules in small ways (most of which are stated in this document) in order to ensure that as many players as possible can play."
That line has caused me no end of trouble! I have had people insist that, that line allows them to break all the rules! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
This is something I've had to point out to another developer whose game I may or may not be playtesting ;) If you don't say flay out can or cannot and insted use 'usually do not', you will get a ton of people playing the 'exception to the rule'. Gamers need firm yes and nos for things.And that is why I hate this line in the Guide...From Play, Play, Play!
"If the rules are preventing you from getting a legal table assembled for play, then the rules need to change. You, as the GM or coordinator, have the ability to stretch the rules in small ways (most of which are stated in this document) in order to ensure that as many players as possible can play."
That line has caused me no end of trouble! I have had people insist that, that line allows them to break all the rules! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!
My counter argument there is that is says GM or Coordinator, therefore YOU are the judge not them. So :P~~~~~
|
|
That line has caused me no end of trouble! I have had people insist that, that line allows them to break all the rules! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that sentence was Josh's way to leave stuff to GM discretion.
Like when he would turn a blind eye on people "improvising".Was it "la la la la la" he used to say?
|
|
That line has caused me no end of trouble! I have had people insist that, that line allows them to break all the rules! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!I think that sentence was Josh's way to leave stuff to GM discretion.
Like when he would turn a blind eye on people "improvising".Was it "la la la la la" he used to say?
Also I think you have to put your fingers in your ears for it to work properly.
|
|
Also I think you have to put your fingers in your ears for it to work properly.That line has caused me no end of trouble! I have had people insist that, that line allows them to break all the rules! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!I think that sentence was Josh's way to leave stuff to GM discretion.
Like when he would turn a blind eye on people "improvising".Was it "la la la la la" he used to say?
:D
|
|
I wonder why anyone who has a level 10 character is willing to play a lower tier, when in a short time his character will be level 12 and retired.
Hard to avoid, even if you are playing in a legal mod, since they are 7-11, and a fair chance that the sub-tier winds up 7-8 instead of 10-11. Not many chances to play at that high a tier.
Indeed, 8-9 would presumably pay better than 7-8...
|
I wonder why anyone who has a level 10 character is willing to play a lower tier, when in a short time his character will be level 12 and retired.
This is why I've stopped applying GM credit to my characters, because I don't get to play them. Though I did reluctantly have to apply GM credit to raise my 3rd level Witch to 5th level so that I could participate in a Tier 5-9 (sub-tier 5-6) play-test for an upcoming convention.
Cheers,
DarkWhite
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is why I've stopped applying GM credit to my characters, because I don't get to play them. Though I did reluctantly have to apply GM credit to raise my 3rd level Witch to 5th level so that I could participate in a Tier 5-9 (sub-tier 5-6) play-test for an upcoming convention.
Okay, now I'll admit I'm confused. As I understand the rules for GM-credit, we have no choice: if / when we have a character of appropriate level for the GM-credit, we must apply that credit, yes? We don't get to apply it later, when it might be more opportune, and we don't get to defer applying it in hopes of building a character who might better explot the particular equipment-access opportunities.
Am I not understanding that correctly? (Because I've ended up GM-credit advancing a character out of where I wanted to play it.)
|
This is why I've stopped applying GM credit to my characters, because I don't get to play them. Though I did reluctantly have to apply GM credit to raise my 3rd level Witch to 5th level so that I could participate in a Tier 5-9 (sub-tier 5-6) play-test for an upcoming convention.
Okay, now I'll admit I'm confused. As I understand the rules for GM-credit, we have no choice: if / when we have a character of appropriate level for the GM-credit, we must apply that credit, yes? We don't get to apply it later, when it might be more opportune, and we don't get to defer applying it in hopes of building a character who might better explot the particular equipment-access opportunities.
Am I not understanding that correctly? (Because I've ended up GM-credit advancing a character out of where I wanted to play it.)
Play, Play, Play.
I think that you are usually right, but if I had the credits, and no way to help out and play a slot zero for a con I would have applied them without a second thought.|
|
Chris
It's a reward - as such I can't see a reason you are forced to take it.
There are issues in regard to deferring it. You are surely not supposed to deter half a year and apply as you find fit.
On the other hand I can't see anything wrong with GMing a scenario now, not taking any credit, GM it again in half a year and then taking the credit.
Practically it tends to take a few days for me until I report when I actually take the credit. If I report others it can take longer as GMs not always let me know straight away for which character to apply credit. Yep - need to organize that better ...
Thod
|
|
Okay, now I'll admit I'm confused. As I understand the rules for GM-credit, we have no choice: if / when we have a character of appropriate level for the GM-credit, we must apply that credit, yes? We don't get to apply it later, when it might be more opportune, and we don't get to defer applying it in hopes of building a character who might better explot the particular equipment-access opportunities.
Am I not understanding that correctly? (Because I've ended up GM-credit advancing a character out of where I wanted to play it.)
Geez! I'm in big trouble!
I've only taken one GM credit since GenCon 08!:) Pretty sure it's optional.
I think that you are correct that you must take the credit at the time of running though, if you can.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Okay, now I'll admit I'm confused. As I understand the rules for GM-credit, we have no choice: if / when we have a character of appropriate level for the GM-credit, we must apply that credit, yes? We don't get to apply it later, when it might be more opportune, and we don't get to defer applying it in hopes of building a character who might better explot the particular equipment-access opportunities.
If you're sitting on a pile of Chronicles that haven't been applied yet, you can apply them as you see fit when you want to. As long as you haven't played the PC receiving the credit since you GMed the scenario, I see no problem with it. And even then, if you are holding onto a Chronicle because the PC isn't high enough level yet, then you can play it to get it in the right range. But even then, if you decide you'd rather not apply that credit to the PC, then you can still opt out.
The biggest hurdle in delaying GM credit is reporting, as it's not always the GM who actually enters information on paizo.com.
|
|
I don't regard them as GM "rewards", but rather GM "punishments" as in "no, you may not play this character through level 4". My primary character would have been retired by now if I had been applying GM rewards after every session, which is why I decided quite some time ago to no longer apply GM rewards to my characters, because ultimately I enjoy playing them instead of skipping levels.
However, the downside of this is that despite having created low-level back-up characters (I've long criticised other players for not creating low-level back-ups to help new players join tables), my character levels were 1st, 3rd and 10th! That just happened to be the way the scenarios fell, and lack of low-level scenarios certainly hasn't helped the situation.
One of the chores of a convetion GM / event organiser is having to keep one step ahead of the gaming public with new scenarios, slot-zeroing new-releases before major events.
One of my GMs scheduled a few slot-zeros, and then realised we couldn't play tier 5-9 at all. There was one low tier scenario I hadn't played, so we played that on Friday night, but then I had to search for GM credits I hadn't previously applied to get me over the line for Saturday's game (so, yes, the character has been played since the GM credit was earned).
The alternative was playing a pre-gen, which I was prepared to do if I couldn't reach level 5 any other way. Though you don't gain credit for playing a pre-gen, and there are other tier 5-9 scenarios to slot-zero, while still stuck at 3rd level. I strongly resisted burning level 4 entirely with this character, but it seemed the only way.
I run a games day at my local game store every Sunday, I GM every session at four conventions per year, and I usually GM slot-zero sessions for other convention GMs. It's the rare opportunity that I get to play, and when I do, it's usually to support other GMs running slot-zeros prior to a convention. I have a backlog of unused GM-credit, so this was the time to call in a favour, credit that should have been applied to the character at the time the sessions were run.
Cheers,
DarkWhite
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you're sitting on a pile of Chronicles that haven't been applied yet, you can apply them as you see fit when you want to. As long as you haven't played the PC receiving the credit since you GMed the scenario, I see no problem with it.
Well, of course that's the case, Mark. If I earn GM credit in August, and don't play the character till November, there's absolutely no difference between applying the credit in August, September, or right before the character hits the table.
And even then, if you are holding onto a Chronicle because the PC isn't high enough level yet, then you can play it to get it in the right range.
(nods) I'd understood that to be the case. (I have several GM-credit experience points for Tier 5 - 9, and no character which can use them. Once I get a character to 5th level, it will automatically become 7th Level.)
But even then, if you decide you'd rather not apply that credit to the PC, then you can still opt out.
That's new information to me. So, I can raise the character to 5th level, not take the GM credit, continue to play it, and then apply a GM-credit once a level or so? Or is it the case that once I "opt out" of applying the GM-credit to that PC, I've opted out, and can't decide to apply some of it later on?
|
|
If you're sitting on a pile of Chronicles that haven't been applied yet, you can apply them as you see fit when you want to. As long as you haven't played the PC receiving the credit since you GMed the scenario, I see no problem with it. And even then, if you are holding onto a Chronicle because the PC isn't high enough level yet, then you can play it to get it in the right range. But even then, if you decide you'd rather not apply that credit to the PC, then you can still opt out.
The biggest hurdle in delaying GM credit is reporting, as it's not always the GM who actually enters information on paizo.com.
The GM credits might never be reported at all.
Does this not create a problem with reporting?