I think the 2xp is brilliant. It rewards you for risking your neck. It allows you to catch up with your buddies. And it seems to preserve the WLB curve.
Helping you catch up with other players is actually pretty big to me. It would be nice to feel like I don't have to wait on others to catch up, or worse like I can't catch up with my friends.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the 2xp is brilliant. It rewards you for risking your neck. It allows you to catch up with your buddies. And it seems to preserve the WLB curve.Helping you catch up with other players is actually pretty big to me. It would be nice to feel like I don't have to wait on others to catch up, or worse like I can't catch up with my friends.
Catching up has been a terrible issue for our small (1 table) home group with respect to Eyes of the Ten. I've managed to wrangle the players and keep everyone within 3 XP of each other, but those last 3 XP are going to be horrible for the player who's behind (probably playing with a table full of 7 pregens despite being 11). This 2 XP idea solves that problem too, even though I hadn't even mentioned it yet.
|
|
I think this would be a good solution here for the very small player base i have too. If someone can´t come to some games or missed some, the person could still stay in the range of the others more easily instead of falling behind so rapidly. Or a new player would catch up real fast.
The fluff is also nice, more challenge still equals more rewards and experience, but less challenge brings less reward and less experience.
To help decide wether to play up or down there could also be some guidelines. Just follow the majority of the group in form of CR. If there are not enough adequate high level characters, the group cannot play up. Like a middle tier group cannot legaly decide to play up and earn more gold that way or level faster. But if 1 or 2 low level characters join 4 higher level characters, the low level characters may play up, level faster and get the adequate WBL.
|
|
It wouldn't be a good solution for a place with a large player base, like where I am.
Player: "I want to play up so I can get out of this level and get to my golden level where I get X ability and can kill everything in one turn! Oh, you're playing a 3-7 in the 6-7 subtier. Can I join with my level 3? Pleeeeease?"
|
|
Also as a testament to WLB curve being breakable I would like to cite my witch.
He is an arcane caster.
He does not Wear armor.
In one more session he will sit at 30 AC with all save at 10+. He also has a head band of int +6.
I would not be able to do this had I not played up almost the entire time throughout his career.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yiroep, the WBL is out of whack to begin with. The WBL has no coralation with the price of Magic Items. WBL means a 11th level character is lucky to have a +3 weapon +2 Heavy armor shield +2 and a +2 to two stats belt. I have played society for 3 years and NEVER seen a wizard with a staff there is somthing wrong with this IT is the wealth by level also I have never seen a arccane caster with more than +4 ac bracers.
try bying a level 4 wand 21000 to 30000gp and you cannot buy a partialy charged wand, no good reason ever given by the campain staff for this. WIth Hero Lab this should not be an issue. IT should not take a level 10-11 character a full level of wealth to buy a 4th level wand. WBL us an artifical construct that dies not work well IMO it completly bearks when you remove crafting from the equation and not subustuite something in its place...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we should play how we have fun playing. If encouraging people to play in a tighter frame of what is set will encourage more people fine. But some people want to bet all, double down, go all or nothing. Some people have fun this way. I do not think you will attract more players by limiting what rewards they can get.
If I am part of the problem by playing up as often as I can, that is honestly silly. I would love to use a harsher word to describe this but this post would get removed. I do not force my style of play on other people.
The problem is less people playing because the rules are one way. The condition of the rules cause some people to be jerks to other people causing less people to play. I see the problem as jerks at the table. Like almost every problem in any roleplaying game.
I waste money bying trivial items to entertain the players at my table with silly circumstances. Grnated maybe that is just me. Some people will use the wealth to super power a character. Well the sad news is, is that you do not need wealth to do that. You can make a bow fighter that kills everything before everyone and be that jerk with little money.
|
|
Lou, what a character can or can't afford is relative. To say that a certain level of character "should" afford is a matter of personal preference. That is not what I'm arguing here. The crafting issue does inherently cause problems. What you're arguing essentially is that character wealth should be more, and although I can't say I disagree with you, I feel that's missing the point of my posts.
As a small note, I have seen a few characters with level 4 wands and staves. It's a heavy investment, yes, but again, that's not what I'm arguing here. That's essentially the reality of having an organized campaign where you never keep anything from the adventures and everything you get is an item you bought with your gold.
|
|
Catching up has been a terrible issue for our small (1 table) home group with respect to Eyes of the Ten. I've managed to wrangle the players and keep everyone within 3 XP of each other, but those last 3 XP are going to be horrible for the player who's behind (probably playing with a table full of 7 pregens despite being 11). This 2 XP idea solves that problem too, even though I hadn't even mentioned it yet.I think the 2xp is brilliant. It rewards you for risking your neck. It allows you to catch up with your buddies. And it seems to preserve the WLB curve.Helping you catch up with other players is actually pretty big to me. It would be nice to feel like I don't have to wait on others to catch up, or worse like I can't catch up with my friends.
I also thought initially that this was a good idea. But a player can also play up and power-level through 9 scenarios and begin at 1st and at the end be 7th level. ou could concievably do this in a con. Sure he wont have all the gold but his character may not need much to begin with.
|
You would need to boost the FP/PP as well for playing up to keep all levels consistent as well, but yeah, I like the idea.
Besides it would mirror the closing of the gap that would be experienced in a home game as well (lower level PCs would not get less XP, but they need less to level up, so the level gap narrows up to a certain point even while the XP gap does not and that would be mirrored when the lower level PC hits a level or 2 below those they are playing up with).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wouldn't be a good solution for a place with a large player base, like where I am.
Player: "I want to play up so I can get out of this level and get to my golden level where I get X ability and can kill everything in one turn! Oh, you're playing a 3-7 in the 6-7 subtier. Can I join with my level 3? Pleeeeease?"
And that same player could just run a scenario or two, apply the GM chronicle sheets to that character and have the same effect with full PP, GP, etc and no loss of consumables ... I don't see this as a serious concern since there is another legal way for the same effect to be achieved.
Yes, but more xp also means people trying to play up so that they can level their characters faster and enjoy the "high life" of the higher levels more quickly. It's far from perfect.
I don't have a problem with that. Its an additional option and very rewarding at that, and it doesn't punish higher level players. A lower level player may bring APL down however. It certainly helps people catch up if the average level in the area is higher, and if he gets the higher reward he will be closer to the wealth he's supposed to have at that level instead of being far ahead of it for playing twice as many games.
|
|
And that same player could just run a scenario or two, apply the GM chronicle sheets to that character and have the same effect with full PP, GP, etc and no loss of consumables ... I don't see this as a serious concern since there is another legal way for the same effect to be achieved.
I don't equate GMing a scenario to level your character to playing up to level your character. If you're GMing, you're not:
1. Bogging down a party by playing a lower level character.
2. Fishing for opportunities to play up. (which is the whole reason we're trying to fix this in the first place)
As well, as a GM you are giving others a chance to play. I don't see it as the same thing at all.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Yiroep, the WBL is out of whack to begin with. The WBL has no coralation with the price of Magic Items. WBL means a 11th level character is lucky to have a +3 weapon +2 Heavy armor shield +2 and a +2 to two stats belt. I have played society for 3 years and NEVER seen a wizard with a staff there is somthing wrong with this IT is the wealth by level also I have never seen a arccane caster with more than +4 ac bracers.
try bying a level 4 wand 21000 to 30000gp and you cannot buy a partialy charged wand, no good reason ever given by the campain staff for this. WIth Hero Lab this should not be an issue. IT should not take a level 10-11 character a full level of wealth to buy a 4th level wand. WBL us an artifical construct that dies not work well IMO it completly bearks when you remove crafting from the equation and not subustuite something in its place...
I understand the need to regulate wealth in an organized game. It is a nature of the beast. One of the things that Pathfinder has kept that flusters me is the odd ball pricing of Magical Items, making them expensive luxuries.
On the other hand, it isn't near as bad as the Parcel System in 4th edition. Nothing is.
I agree with you, though, a character isn't gonna get prime items in the length of the Pathfinder Career. This is why one starts to play and/or run a home game...
|
|
1. Bogging down a party by playing a lower level character.
2. Fishing for opportunities to play up. (which is the whole reason we're trying to fix this in the first place)
It is rare people want to play up because they are scared. I rarely see people fish to play up other than me.
From my understanding the problem was with people forcing others to play up. So they could get more gold.
|
|
One could even make that idea more radical, moving it away from fixed 2 xp to a number of xp, PP and gold derived from the actual challenge you face, meaning how high you played up. The character would still be a bit weaker because the it receives less boons and chronicles.
The goal of this would only be to bring the characer(s) in question into the range of the others as fast as possible. I somehow doubt though a level 1 character can survive tier 5-7 for example.
|
|
I don't have a problem with that. Its an additional option and very rewarding at that, and it doesn't punish higher level players. A lower level player may bring APL down however. It certainly helps people catch up if the average level in the area is higher, and if he gets the higher reward he will be closer to the wealth he's supposed to have at that level instead of being far ahead of it for playing twice as many games.
I suppose it *is* a better solution than the current situation...WBL doesn't get ruined, and no one really gets punished.
I guess it's those "annoying players" that are still the problem. But that's always the case, isn't it?
I, for one, if the extra XP were to be implemented, would like an option to NOT do so, taking half the gold, so that if I in fact wanted my play my character longer at that level I would have the opportunity to do so.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
1. Bogging down a party by playing a lower level character.
2. Fishing for opportunities to play up. (which is the whole reason we're trying to fix this in the first place)It is rare people want to play up because they are scared. I rarely see people fish to play up other than me.
From my understanding the problem was with people forcing others to play up. So they could get more gold.
A problem which the new system does little to actually mitigate. If anything, the discussion will be more contentious.
|
|
Yes, but more xp also means people trying to play up so that they can level their characters faster and enjoy the "high life" of the higher levels more quickly. It's far from perfect.
And that hurts you how?
Seriously, here's my concern about all these WBL and Reward changes? How did the old system hurt any of you?
But since it's being changed. The 2XP Double gold sounds great, if this leads to a bunch of new players jumping up to level 5 fast, who cares? How does that hurt your game. This doesn't hurt anyones character, while the other suggestions handicap a lot of others.
|
|
It is rare people want to play up because they are scared. I rarely see people fish to play up other than me.
From my understanding the problem was with people forcing others to play up. So they could get more gold.
In my area, I've seen it both ways.
I personally like to always play in tier (and have tons of characters, so I have the capability to do so). But I have seen people who describe themselves as "greedy" say they always want to play up, and have had other people say they always like to play down if given the choice. Neither have been exceptionally rare from what I've seen.
I guess it goes by area, though.
|
|
And that hurts you how?
Seriously, here's my concern about all these WBL and Reward changes? How did the old system hurt any of you?
But since it's being changed. The 2XP Double gold sounds great, if this leads to a bunch of new players jumping up to level 5 fast, who cares? How does that hurt your game. This doesn't hurt anyones character, while the other suggestions handicap a lot of others.
I guess the only thing I can say is that it doesn't eliminate the problem of lower level characters trying to play up.
Anyway, I've said my peace on the subject. All in all, I don't really think the 2 xp thing would cause too many problems, and probably is better than the current solution in fact. I was just pointing out that it isn't a flawless solution.
I suppose it *is* a better solution than the current situation...WBL doesn't get ruined, and no one really gets punished.
I guess it's those "annoying players" that are still the problem. But that's always the case, isn't it?
I, for one, if the extra XP were to be implemented, would like an option to NOT do so, taking half the gold, so that if I in fact wanted my play my character longer at that level I would have the opportunity to do so.
All good points. I really wish I had a better solution, but the most I really have to give as input is that I don't think we should punish players. That's always the last resort to me, because it hurts people and there is usually a better solution.
I don't know what to do about "Annoying players" myself. There will always be a problem, that's inevitable. May as well ease any problems that come out of it rather than punish everyone over it though.
|
|
And that same player could just run a scenario or two, apply the GM chronicle sheets to that character and have the same effect with full PP, GP, etc and no loss of consumables ... I don't see this as a serious concern since there is another legal way for the same effect to be achieved.I don't equate GMing a scenario to level your character to playing up to level your character. If you're GMing, you're not:
1. Bogging down a party by playing a lower level character.
2. Fishing for opportunities to play up. (which is the whole reason we're trying to fix this in the first place)As well, as a GM you are giving others a chance to play. I don't see it as the same thing at all.
Sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am not equating the two, I am simply pointing out that if a player really wants to bypass a level, they already can by GMing and applying GM Credit (though truth be told, most players that fall into the description you gave that I have experienced are not the type to step up and run a table).
The way it currently is set up, the same annoying player bogging down the higher tiered tables would remain an annoying player bogging down the higher tiered tables (until Aug 15). With the +2XP solution, they catch up and are no longer bogging down the folks they would otherwise be. It would most likely not stop them from being annoying, but that is a separate matter. ;)
|
|
I don't have a problem with that. Its an additional option and very rewarding at that, and it doesn't punish higher level players. A lower level player may bring APL down however. It certainly helps people catch up if the average level in the area is higher, and if he gets the higher reward he will be closer to the wealth he's supposed to have at that level instead of being far ahead of it for playing twice as many games.I suppose it *is* a better solution than the current situation...WBL doesn't get ruined, and no one really gets punished.
I guess it's those "annoying players" that are still the problem. But that's always the case, isn't it?
I, for one, if the extra XP were to be implemented, would like an option to NOT do so, taking half the gold, so that if I in fact wanted my play my character longer at that level I would have the opportunity to do so.
If you play the slow track, that's exactly how it'll pan out.
|
|
By keeping the "Average party level" test, we could always just do flat money based on Character level regardless of playing up or down if the goal is keep people at or near level appropriate gold. Could even offer special boons for playing up that the GM could check mark on the chronicle if met to their satisfaction.
On the chronicle instead of having gold based on Tier, have gold by level. For Example, every tier 1-5 would look like this:
Level 1: 333
Level 2: 666
Level 3: 1000
Level 4: 1500
Level 5: 1833
(The example is based on a formula keeping gold exactly as detailed on Table 12-4 on page. 399 of the Core Rulebook and could be modified for more or less gold accordingly.)
Formula is: Level appropriate gold - Prior level gold / 3 (because you get three chronicles worth of gold.)
This method would encourage people to play up, not penalize people that play down, and ensure scenarios can be played with wealth appropriate characters.
|
|
I don't have a problem with that. Its an additional option and very rewarding at that, and it doesn't punish higher level players. A lower level player may bring APL down however. It certainly helps people catch up if the average level in the area is higher, and if he gets the higher reward he will be closer to the wealth he's supposed to have at that level instead of being far ahead of it for playing twice as many games.I suppose it *is* a better solution than the current situation...WBL doesn't get ruined, and no one really gets punished.
I guess it's those "annoying players" that are still the problem. But that's always the case, isn't it?
I, for one, if the extra XP were to be implemented, would like an option to NOT do so, taking half the gold, so that if I in fact wanted my play my character longer at that level I would have the opportunity to do so.
Add my voice to the growing chorus. And I like Yiroep's addition here, too, to give the player the option of not taking the extra reward.
So when you play up, you pick either (i) reward "at tier" for your character or (ii) 2 XP and higher-tier gold (and maybe boosted PP).
That seems like a fine solution to a difficult problem.
|
|
And that same player could just run a scenario or two, apply the GM chronicle sheets to that character and have the same effect with full PP, GP, etc and no loss of consumables ... I don't see this as a serious concern since there is another legal way for the same effect to be achieved.I don't equate GMing a scenario to level your character to playing up to level your character. If you're GMing, you're not:
1. Bogging down a party by playing a lower level character.
2. Fishing for opportunities to play up. (which is the whole reason we're trying to fix this in the first place)As well, as a GM you are giving others a chance to play. I don't see it as the same thing at all.
Sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am not equating the two, I am simply pointing out that if a player really wants to bypass a level, they already can by GMing and applying GM Credit (though truth be told, most players that fall into the description you gave that I have experienced are not the type to step up and run a table).
The way it currently is set up, the same annoying player bogging down the higher tiered tables would remain an annoying player bogging down the higher tiered tables (until Aug 15). With the +2XP solution, they catch up and are no longer bogging down the folks they would otherwise be. It would most likely not stop them from being annoying, but that is a separate matter. ;)
Exactly--they're dragging people down for far fewer scenarios too, since they'll catch up soon enough.
|
There are a lot of good ideas being thrown around this thread, many of which are better than the current situation and the "solution" that is being proposed for Season 5. The only negative I see is that many of the alternatives are relatively complicated (especially the ones involving variable XP).
Why not make it simple for everyone.
Rule: Regardless of the tier you play your character gets the gold for their appropriate tier.
Done.
If there is a disparity of levels at the table the GM should ASSIST the players in deciding to play up or down. Sometimes its better to play down (high level characters are being run by experienced players and the low level characters are being run by new players). Sometimes its better to play up (Challenge! Adventures! "Cooler" Monsters! RAWR!). Why not let EACH INDIVIDUAL TABLE decide amongst themselves?
How Players could still "Game the System" or "Cheat":
Playing down MAY limit use of consumables and save experienced characters money. That is it.
Problems that are Avoided:
(1) Bullying. As long as everyone at a table is civil and willing to work together (AKA what the players should be at the table to do) there will be no bullying as there is no measurable reward to play up or penalty to play down (bullying can and does go both ways).
(2) Dominance by high level characters in a lower tier. The players of the high level characters choose to play down after an equal and open discussion (and hopefully to help the lower level characters at the table). If a player is disruptive to the game for any reason the GM should deal with them (as always).
(3) Unbalanced WBL. No matter what you play you get what fits you in terms of wealth. You may save some GP on consumables by playing down, but that is all.
Assumptions Made:
(1) PFS players are reasonable and play together because it is fun; nobody is out to "be a jerk."
(2) At least ONE PERSON at the table is an adult and can steer the table towards a fun outcome.
|
|
I vote yes on the 2 xp idea. We already have the slow advancement track. Playing up should be the fast advancement track. You could make it that you gain +1 more XP for each tier up that you play. For example: If you are tier 1-2 and play 3-4, you gain 2 XP. If you play 4-5 you gain 3 XP and so on. You might still make more gold over the course of your adventuring career than players that don't play up, but it at least closes the wealth gap a little while still rewarding those that take the risks.
|
|
Add my voice to the growing chorus. And I like Yiroep's addition here, too, to give the player the option of not taking the extra reward.
So when you play up, you pick either (i) reward "at tier" for your character or (ii) 2 XP and higher-tier gold (and maybe boosted PP).
That seems like a fine solution to a difficult problem.
I was just about to say this, but in a quirky way that wouldn't make sense (as I usually do).
Yes, this. This is an excellent idea.
|
|
@Relmer:
The variable XP option need not be complicated. When you play up, you get to pick your reward: either (i) "at-tier" for your character or (ii) doubled (2 xp, higher-tier gold, boosted PP).
I'm wary of the solution you propose ("Regardless of the tier you play your character gets the gold for their appropriate tier") for reasons hashed out upthread: difficulty forming tables, lower-level characters not willing to take on that risk, spend the extra gp in consumables etc. It just puts a lot of friction on the process of forming tables and picking tier.
The at-tier-or-double solution avoids that problem and still addresses the WBL concerns that got this whole thing started
|
|
Well, all my assumptions are made of the baseline that players need to play up or down in order to play.
As it is changed now, if you play down you loose money. If you play up, you run a higher risk which will show in your gold amount and PP, because you will need more healing etc.
This is the thing i am aiming to mitigate by letting people do if need be, but taking care that the need goes by fast and doesn´t leave negatives on your character.
|
|
I vote yes on the 2 xp idea. We already have the slow advancement track. Playing up should be the fast advancement track. You could make it that you gain +1 more XP for each tier up that you play. For example: If you are tier 1-2 and play 3-4, you gain 2 XP. If you play 4-5 you gain 3 XP and so on. You might still make more gold over the course of your adventuring career than players that don't play up, but it at least closes the wealth gap a little while still rewarding those that take the risks.
N.B. It is illegal to play more than one tier up.
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Relmer:
The variable XP option need not be complicated. When you play up, you get to pick your reward: either (i) "at-tier" for your character or (ii) doubled (2 xp, higher-tier gold, boosted PP).
I'm wary of the solution you propose ("Regardless of the tier you play your character gets the gold for their appropriate tier") for reasons hashed out upthread: difficulty forming tables, lower-level characters not willing to take on that risk, spend the extra gp in consumables etc. It just puts a lot of friction on the process of forming tables and picking tier.
The at-tier-or-double solution avoids that problem and still addresses the WBL concerns that got this whole thing started
Relmer's solution actually doesn't lead to as much friction as the current plan because he is proposing that high level characters who play down still get high tier gold. However, it does lead to cakewalks with a high level carry, which MJM also specifically wanted to avoid.
I still maintain that the XP solution is simple, practical, effective, and actually solves additional issues while it's at it.
|
|
I agree with this change, but as a discussion as an alternative perhaps this:
What about adjusting the fame caps?
Current fame/purchase cap
Under 5 0 gp
5 500 gp
9 1,500 gp
13 3,000 gp
18 5,250 gp
22 8,000 gp
27 11,750 gp
31 16,500 gp
36 23,000 gp
40 31,000 gp
Alternative
Under 5 0 gp
5 500 gp
9 1,200 gp
13 2,000 gp
18 4,250 gp
22 6,000 gp
27 8,750 gp
31 11,500 gp
36 16,000 gp
40 22,000 gp
Would reduce how early people could get the signature items or major enhancements and would level out the playing field as people are still getting PP at the same rate playing up or down
|
|
I vote yes on the 2 xp idea. We already have the slow advancement track. Playing up should be the fast advancement track. You could make it that you gain +1 more XP for each tier up that you play. For example: If you are tier 1-2 and play 3-4, you gain 2 XP. If you play 4-5 you gain 3 XP and so on. You might still make more gold over the course of your adventuring career than players that don't play up, but it at least closes the wealth gap a little while still rewarding those that take the risks.N.B. It is illegal to play more than one tier up.
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.
That's what I get for typing before thinking. Doh. But seriously the double xp idea is a great one and I support it 100%.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Relmer:
The variable XP option need not be complicated. When you play up, you get to pick your reward: either (i) "at-tier" for your character or (ii) doubled (2 xp, higher-tier gold, boosted PP).
I'm wary of the solution you propose ("Regardless of the tier you play your character gets the gold for their appropriate tier") for reasons hashed out upthread: difficulty forming tables, lower-level characters not willing to take on that risk, spend the extra gp in consumables etc. It just puts a lot of friction on the process of forming tables and picking tier.
The at-tier-or-double solution avoids that problem and still addresses the WBL concerns that got this whole thing started
Relmer's solution actually doesn't lead to as much friction as the current plan because he is proposing that high level characters who play down still get high tier gold. However, it does lead to cakewalks with a high level carry, which MJM also specifically wanted to avoid.
I still maintain that the XP solution is simple, practical, effective, and actually solves additional issues while it's at it.
Good point. This removes the friction of asking a high-level to play down (except that it will be boring). Cakewalks are a problem, of course.
The friction I'm especially worried about is one or two lower-level players vetoing playing high-tier because, from their perspective, it would be all-risk-no-reward (but for the thrill of the challenge!). At-tier-or-double gives them something for their trouble, if they want it.
|
|
So when you play up, you pick either (i) reward "at tier" for your character or (ii) 2 XP and higher-tier gold (and maybe boosted PP).
That´s actually really cool, because it is even more flexible.
It would take care of the situation that one doesn´t really want to play up or level up fast, but doesn´t have other oportunities for one evening or two. That might really save a table or a player from going home without a game.If you then still add something to (i) along the lines that the Grand Lodge is rewarding you for your heroic help out and take over some of your higher expences or measures that are not at your command (read: you don´t have the means to get that cure/remove x, etc, or it would really damage your progression) it would be really smooth.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my thought process for why I think the new change as proposed would work well:
1) I think scenarios are going to get harder. Season 4 showed me that groups playing up often lose one or two characters each session. In fact, I believe the number one reason for TPKs in Season 4 (if not in general) is due to playing up. By disincentivizing people from playing up, you prevent unnecessary player deaths that slow down the end of the game.
2) You prevent the overshadowing of other players at the table because everyone will have wealth similar to their expected level.
It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character
|
|
I agree with this change, but as a discussion as an alternative perhaps this:
What about adjusting the fame caps?
Current fame/purchase cap
Under 5 0 gp
5 500 gp
9 1,500 gp
13 3,000 gp
18 5,250 gp
22 8,000 gp
27 11,750 gp
31 16,500 gp
36 23,000 gp
40 31,000 gpAlternative
Under 5 0 gp
5 500 gp
9 1,200 gp
13 2,000 gp
18 4,250 gp
22 6,000 gp
27 8,750 gp
31 11,500 gp
36 16,000 gp
40 22,000 gpWould reduce how early people could get the signature items or major enhancements and would level out the playing field as people are still getting PP at the same rate playing up or down
If you ran with a "double reward" for playing up (that is +2XP, higher tier GP and double FP/PP) you really would not need to make any additional adjustment. Granted, if a PC misses out on 1 PP goal, they would actually miss out on 2 FP/PP, but the disparity would be mitigated for the most part.
|
|
@Relmer:
The variable XP option need not be complicated. When you play up, you get to pick your reward: either (i) "at-tier" for your character or (ii) doubled (2 xp, higher-tier gold, boosted PP).
I'm wary of the solution you propose ("Regardless of the tier you play your character gets the gold for their appropriate tier") for reasons hashed out upthread: difficulty forming tables, lower-level characters not willing to take on that risk, spend the extra gp in consumables etc. It just puts a lot of friction on the process of forming tables and picking tier.
The at-tier-or-double solution avoids that problem and still addresses the WBL concerns that got this whole thing started
When players have to make a choice on what reward they get its complicated for them (some players have a hard time picking their spells). I think the best solution is one that can be summed up in a single sentence, does not penalize anyone, and encourages people to play at any table that is running a scenario within several levels of their character's level.
I think the flexibility offered by a solution that does not penalize players would actually make it EASIER to form tables. Now players can play at a table for a number of reasons other than "everyone else is within one level of my characters": (1) They like the GM (2) They like the other players at the table (3) The scenario sounds cool. Wouldn't that be nice, to pick a table to sit at for a reason other than having to answer the question "What is mechanically most beneficial to my character's wealth and/or advancement?"
I understand the concern that lower level characters may risk more by playing up than they will be rewarded. But they CHOOSE to do so after talking with the other players at their table like adults. They knew the risks and the table tier was decided by everyone. Nobody should have gotten bullied and coerced; there was no tangible reward to do so.
Picking a tier should be easier. It just requires a discussion which, to some degree, already happens now. Except now there is no need for bullying or coercion in the discussion.
|
|
So when you play up, you pick either (i) reward "at tier" for your character or (ii) 2 XP and higher-tier gold (and maybe boosted PP).That´s actually really cool, because it is even more flexible.
It would take care of the situation that one doesn´t really want to play up or level up fast, but doesn´t have other oportunities for one evening or two. That might really save a table or a player from going home without a game.If you then still add something to (i) along the lines that the Grand Lodge is rewarding you for your heroic help out and take over some of your higher expences or measures that are not at your command (read: you don´t have the means to get that cure/remove x, etc, or it would really damage your progression) it would be really smooth.
That's definitely the next question. If we agree on at-tier-or-double, then do we throw in a little extra for the "at-tier" option to cover consumables / conditions?
Personally, I think that no further mechanic should be added, for two reasons: (1) it starts messing with WBL again; (2) it's added complexity, which PF and PFS really don't need any more of!
But even though I'm not persuaded, I can definitely see the argument. And I love the flavor you suggest.
|
|
Here's my thought process for why I think the new change as proposed would work well:
1) I think scenarios are going to get harder. Season 4 showed me that groups playing up often lose one or two characters each session. In fact, I believe the number one reason for TPKs in Season 4 (if not in general) is due to playing up. By disincentivizing people from playing up, you prevent unnecessary player deaths that slow down the end of the game.
2) You prevent the overshadowing of other players at the table because everyone will have wealth similar to their expected level.
It shouldn't be a problem for coordinators because there are always going to be pre-gen options or the option to create a new character
Except that I know folks who refuse to play pregens. The pregens are, pretty much, not equipped well, are less than ideal builds (and I'm not even talking min/max here) and, most importantly, there is no player investment with the pregen.
And if the pregen dies, so does the lower level PCs they would be applying the credit to.
So the choices with the upcoming change is:
1) Higher level PCs play down (if possible) and takes a GP hit
2) Player with lower level PC plays a pregen that they have no investment in
3) Player with lower level PC walks away from the table (which could result in no table being run)
Not really an ideal set of choices.