Making Slow Progression Fair


Pathfinder Society

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PFS does its best to be a fair system. It is clear that Mike Brock, Mark Moreland and others at Paizo work hard to create a game that is balanced, equitable, and enjoyable for everyone, regardless of play style, class choice, or racial preference.

And yet there is one aspect of the game that is neither fair or logical: If you choose to play your character on the slow progression track, you cannot earn 1/2 a prestige point if you only complete one of the two eligible missions. The Guide to Organized Play is ambiguous regarding this, but Mark made it clear in this post – here is the relevant quote:

“In the end, a PC on the slow progression earns half the PP he would have received had he used the normal progression rounded down. That means if he succeeds at 1 mission, he gets 0 PP; if he succeeds at both, he gets 1 PP.”

I would like to ask why this is the case, and to put forth the proposition that it should be changed.

This rule wrongly penalizes someone choosing the slow progression track for their character. If they have successfully completed the requirements for earning what would be a full PP on the normal track, then they should get credit for that. Someone on the slow track already earns only 1/2 an experience point, so why can they not earn 1/2 a PP?

It has been stated that a character is not necessarily supposed to complete every faction mission he or she gets, whereas it is much more likely that a party will successfully complete the scenario requirements. So those on the normal track can pretty much count on getting at least 1 PP out of each adventure. But if it’s statistically less likely that a character will always complete both prestige missions then someone on the slow track will always be operating with an unfair disadvantage.

This seems to be something that could be easily fixed (though I could be mistaken). Right now the policy acts as a deterrent to playing a character on the slow track. I hope it can be changed and that choosing the slow track can be made a more attractive option.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5

Just yesterday the same point was made to me by another player who chooses to Slow Track his Characters at upper levels. I couldn't give him a good answer. It is a mystery to me.

I could think of no reason why they should be disadvantaged for choosing to play their character through more games. I would endorse Findas' request for an adjustment as soon as convenient, unless there is a good reason to the contrary.

5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Slow track is a choice. If you don't like that choice, don't choose it.

4/5

I also think spellcasting services should be half price for slow track characters. They have 1/2x the rewards per adventure, it should cost 1/2x times as much to deal with those conditions.

Those two reasons alone are reason enough for me to never slow track.

Sczarni 5/5 *

Yiroep wrote:

I also think spellcasting services should be half price for slow track characters. They have 1/2x the rewards per adventure, it should cost 1/2x times as much to deal with those conditions.

Those two reasons alone are reason enough for me to never slow track.

If they did that we would have people switching to slow track if they died at the end of a scenario with which they leveled but managed to die for a raise dead and restorations at half cost. Not many would do it, but someone would.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, first of all, that post by Mark Moreland was made on August 25, 2011. There have been two revisions of the PFS Guide since then under Mike Brock's leadership.

This issue has been addressed and fixed. The wording has been changed and does allow for earning 1/2 a Prestige Point on slow advancement.

I don't have my copies of the last two versions of the PFS Guide with me right now, but it has been this way since at least Aug 2012 if not Jan 2012.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Yiroep wrote:

I also think spellcasting services should be half price for slow track characters. They have 1/2x the rewards per adventure, it should cost 1/2x times as much to deal with those conditions.

Those two reasons alone are reason enough for me to never slow track.

No one is forced to use slow advancement.

Yes, your PC takes on more risk per level on slow track, but that is entirely the player's choice to do. Charging 1/2 price for spells would give them an unfair advantage. And what is the difference with charging 1/2 price for gear? If spells are half price, why shouldn't gear be half price?

It just doesn't balance that way.

4/5

Don Walker wrote:

OK, first of all, that post by Mark Moreland was made on August 25, 2011. There have been two revisions of the PFS Guide since then under Mike Brock's leadership.

This issue has been addressed and fixed. The wording has been changed and does allow for earning 1/2 a Prestige Point on slow advancement.

I don't have my copies of the last two versions of the PFS Guide with me right now, but it has been this way since at least Aug 2012 if not Jan 2012.

Thanks for your comments Don, but the wording in the Guide to Organized Play (version 4.2) is still not clear.

On page 23, Step 4: Prestige, it says "These numbers are halved for characters on the slow advancement track," which would indicate that you can in fact earn 1/2 a PP.

But on page 26, Earning Prestige, it says "To maintain balance between characters on both advancement tracks, those PCs utilizing the slow advancement track may only earn 1 PP per scenario. This point is dependent on completing both the overall scenario objective and the character's faction mission" (emphasis mine). This would seem to indicate that you can't in fact earn 1/2 a PP.

I've looked at the Compilation of message board clarifications for PFS Rulings, and I've done board searches, and I don't see anything that clarifies this issue. It's entirely possible I'm missing something somewhere, in which case I'd appreciate being pointed to it.

4/5

Don Walker wrote:
Yiroep wrote:

I also think spellcasting services should be half price for slow track characters. They have 1/2x the rewards per adventure, it should cost 1/2x times as much to deal with those conditions.

Those two reasons alone are reason enough for me to never slow track.

No one is forced to use slow advancement.

Yes, your PC takes on more risk per level on slow track, but that is entirely the player's choice to do. Charging 1/2 price for spells would give them an unfair advantage. And what is the difference with charging 1/2 price for gear? If spells are half price, why shouldn't gear be half price?

It just doesn't balance that way.

Don, I think the thought is that you can keep the gear permanently, whereas if you play twice as many adventures for the same amount of gold, you'll die (or have other negative conditions to remove) twice as often in those 6 games and need to pay for twice as many raise deads as you would in 3 games while only making the same amount of money due to 1/2 gold, thus a large net loss if deaths are common. While charging 1/2 for spellcasting services might not be a feasible thing to do, it's true that it puts players of slow characters in an awkward place when someone else dies and its time to split the raise dead (I've never played slow, but I've talked to a few of them about this) and in a potentially permanent death if they themselves die without the prestige.

Grand Lodge 5/5

The text on page 26 does not specifically state that you may not earn 1/2 point. It is actually text left over from a previous edition and when noticed, it was felt that the page 26 text was not specific enough to contradict the text on page 23.

However, it may be updated in a future version of the Guide to remove any ambiguity.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Rogue, let me repeat myself:

Yes, your PC takes on more risk per level on slow track, but that is entirely the player's choice to do.

4/5

Don Walker wrote:

The text on page 26 does not specifically state that you may not earn 1/2 point. It is actually text left over from a previous edition and when noticed, it was felt that the page 26 text was not specific enough to contradict the text on page 23.

However, it may be updated in a future version of the Guide to remove any ambiguity.

Well if that is in fact the case then I'm a happy Pathfinder and I withdraw my argument.

I suppose though that there will be some players who received 0 PP on their chronicle sheets when they should have gotten 1/2 PP. Can this be corrected, and if so, how far back can they reasonably go?

The Exchange 4/5

all the way back

4/5

Don Walker wrote:

Rogue, let me repeat myself:

Yes, your PC takes on more risk per level on slow track, but that is entirely the player's choice to do.

Just because you don't have to choose it doesn't mean it shouldn't work a certain way.

There are workarounds that could work for it, it's just adding more rules. And yes, more thought would have to be put in that what I'm proposing, but it could be adjusted to work.

2/5 ****

I've got one character on slow progression, and I accept that if she's killed, she gets fewer chances to be raised from the dead.

I don't find slow progression to be unfair...but I'm here for the experience, not the experience points. I accept it's a greater risk. On the other hand, I get more games in when the character hits their sweet spot, and before they kind of blow past what the scenarios are meant to handle.

My only grumble with slow progression is that PFS doesn't generate enough revenue for Paizo to merit three scenarios a month rather than two. :)

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Slow progression could be made more consistent in risk/reward with the following change: You can spend the gold you earn during the adventure before halving.

The alternative - "I will not cover a share of the raise dead and restoration" - is counter to the goal of promoting teamwork and sharing the risks and rewards around the table to encourage the group play aspects of the society.

By the numbers a slow-play PC that is playing below tier 10-11 loses money for the adventure by taking on a full share of a raise dead's cost.

I think that's the most problematic part of slow play - it encourages selfish play, or the PC is harmed even more by being a team player.

Yes, Don, it's a choice. It appears to be a trap choice that has a great risk of making the player pay for others' mistakes at high tiers, and so should be revisited to see if it is accomplishing all of its goals.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Does the on-line reporting page accept "0.5" as a valid amount of Fame earned?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Does the on-line reporting page accept "0.5" as a valid amount of Fame earned?

Prestige, technically, and I seem to recall submitting one for .5 not too long ago. It should work fine.


I think half of the items on the chronicle sheet should be crossed off to be truly fair to slow trackers. Along with halving any boon bonus you can receive from the chronicle.

5/5

Chalk Microbe wrote:
I think half of the items on the chronicle sheet should be crossed off to be truly fair to slow trackers. Along with halving any boon bonus you can receive from the chronicle.

They should also be required to have half as much fun at the table.

Luckily at Dragnmoon's table, there will be no dip in quality as half of zero is still zero. :-)

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Luckily at Dragnmoon's table, there will be no dip in quality as half of zero is still zero. :-)

How do you do half a death at your table?...

Grand Lodge 5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Chalk Microbe wrote:
I think half of the items on the chronicle sheet should be crossed off to be truly fair to slow trackers. Along with halving any boon bonus you can receive from the chronicle.

They should also be required to have half as much fun at the table.

Luckily at Dragnmoon's table, there will be no dip in quality as half of zero is still zero. :-)

Edit: The math part of my brain wasnt paying attention there for a minute...

5/5

Actually in my experience the biggest drawback to going slow (and one reason I hesitate to do so even though I don't need a third retired character) is the cost of consumables. With 6 scenarios per level you have to buy twice as many consumables as you would with 3, but only get the same amount of cash. And since people usually start slow tracking at the higher levels, the consumables are even more expensive.

I know some people don't use consumables that much, but breath of life (1125GP) and heal (1650GP) scrolls really saved our parties from several deaths or possibly even a TPK in not one, but two season 4 scenarios...

Not that I think that should change anything I just hadn't noticed anyone else bringing this particular disadvantage of slow tracking up.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Luckily at Dragnmoon's table, there will be no dip in quality as half of zero is still zero. :-)

How do you do half a death at your table?...

being ripped in half is usually fatal.

1/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Luckily at Dragnmoon's table, there will be no dip in quality as half of zero is still zero. :-)
How do you do half a death at your table?...

He just kills half the party and calls it a PTK (partial-table-kill).

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Making Slow Progression Fair All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.