|
. Say for example X character is an extremely well built, extremely powerful killing machine. Now say you've got X person that built entirely for `cool` factor, completely disregarding their character's effectiveness. Which one would you rather play with?Whoever's more fun to play with as a person.
There's nothing stopping Hacky the killing machine from hamming it up and romping through the dungeon and having a grand old time severing heads. There's nothing stopping Paradigm the concept character with a 20 page backstory to sit there and have a deep emotional reason why he's stabbing orc number 5 that never comes up to the other players.
And that is a good way to look at it! If the player is fun to play with, enjoy it. Dwelling on how powerful or weak a character build is won't accomplish anything besides getting people good and mad.
|
What I'll wager is that the proposal to limit rewards based on level was offered to address a perceived problem that is when you have 1st level character playing at subtier 6-7 in a Tier 1-7 missionIt was not.What was fundamentally true about this situation before it was restricted is fundamentally true about a Level 1's playing in a subtier 4-5 in a Tier 1-5 game. It's just a question of degree.
Except of course that a level 1 can meaningfully contribute in a 4-5 or 3-4 game (i.e. 1 tier up). In fact my cleric at level 1 was in a 3-4 tier. I did about 1/3 of the damage that scenario...IN MELEE. I buffed the fighter into a killing machine for the last fight and healed about 100 HP and kept one person from dying even. Your telling me that my level 1 character was under no risk and did not meaningfully contribute? Because you know, the party seem AWEFUL grateful to have my level 1 cleric around.
The fortress of nails game where my level 5 played in the 8-9 tier pretty much prevent a TPK and your telling me she took no risk and did nothing as well then? Because I could have sworn having a character with 30 hp running up to unleash a touch spell to stagger lock down the boss was considered pretty risky...and that did cause the boss from causing even more deaths then what we had.
Yes at two tiers up, there is a pretty good chance your gonna get carried. At one tier up, that is not such a given. You can contribute in a meaningful way when you play one tier up still. So your assertion that there isn't any meaningful risk when played up is false. There COULD be no meaningful risk when played up based on the group make up...but that is hardly the case every time...nor would I even say most of the time.
|
Benrislove, could I get you oppion on if the cost of magic items is inline with the gold awarded per chronicle?
In tiers above 7 I feel that it is very low as I think that the WBL table is skewed twoard a very low powered game. at level 7 the total wbl is 23500 gp IMO this is very low the tier award that I would give is 6000 gp per scenario, this is based on how I award wealth in my home game I use the formula of character level /2-1 then award the amount of gold based on that value of a magic weapon. between levels 7 and 8 I would award 18000 gp to each player.
Right now I feel that level 7 to 11 characters get robbed for the risk that they take. How Many wizards have you seen using a staff in PFS. I can easily answer that none In 4 years of playing Pathfinder society I have never seen a wiazrd use this Iconic wizard item.
|
|
Benrislove, could I get you oppion on if the cost of magic items is inline with the gold awarded per chronicle?
In tiers above 7 I feel that it is very low as I think that the WBL table is skewed twoard a very low powered game. at level 7 the total wbl is 23500 gp IMO this is very low the tier award that I would give is 6000 gp per scenario, this is based on how I award wealth in my home game I use the formula of character level /2-1 then award the amount of gold based on that value of a magic weapon. between levels 7 and 8 I would award 18000 gp to each player.
Right now I feel that level 7 to 11 characters get robbed for the risk that they take. How Many wizards have you seen using a staff in PFS. I can easily answer that none In 4 years of playing Pathfinder society I have never seen a wiazrd use this Iconic wizard item.
How many wizards have you seen in normal games use a staff that wasn't a custom staff or one you just happen to find? Staves are extremely poor value as written.
|
|
Staves are actually insanely good value in PFS, where they fully recharge every scenario. In our local lodge, one wizard saved up and got a Staff of Fire relatively early, and he benefited greatly from having those extra fireballs he could throw every scenario at his own DC and at the CL of the staff or his own, whichever was better (5 extra fireballs would cost 45,000 with Pearls of Power, but only 18,950 with the staff). They're also great in Kingmaker or other APs where there's a lot of downtime in between each fight, and they can be even better if you have a familiar who can use them. Also, it's horrifically expensive, but the Staff of Life is worth it if you don't have a party cleric (in our Kingmaker game, the party all chipped in for it, and my familiar has saved the day with heal multiple times). They're pretty bad in APs with a big rush where you're going into the dungeon every day.
|
|
Except of course that a level 1 can meaningfully contribute in a 4-5 or 3-4 game (i.e. 1 tier up).What was fundamentally true about this situation before it was restricted is fundamentally true about a Level 1's playing in a subtier 4-5 in a Tier 1-5 game. It's just a question of degree.
The subtier spread is not the issue. It's the level difference that matters. Why? Because the degree to which it is true increases. As you notice, I'm talking about 1's playing in a 4-5 game, not a 3-4 game. The fundamental problem that existed when there was no restriction still applies.
I'll repeat: It's a question of degree.
Now let me repeat myself again: One reason you might introduce a wealth by level restriction could depend on the degree to which you think playing up allows individuals to gain benefit with little or no risk.
So...we are now making major rules changes based on what you THINK is happening...not what actually is happening?!? Umm yeah...I don't think so.
Hitting me with anecdotes about how your character contributed in one game or provided beneficial healing in another is exactly that, anecdotal. I'm sure there's an anecdote out there where someone's level 1 might have saved the day in a Tier 6-7. I'm sure is some specific build, as in Jason's case, which could be far more effective or valuable in any given scenario. Obviously a healer can contribute in nearly ANY game where someone takes damage. Inconsequential. What matters is how playing up works at the population level.
The ancedotal evidence shows that what you THINK is happening all the time may not be as much as you think. Yes what happens when playing up at the population level is what matters...and not just me, but I have seen many tables play with a player or two play up. In fact it happens almost every week. I have yet to see the person playing up being carried. I have seen badly made characters die. I have seen badly played characters die. I have seen people with badly made characters insist that the table at 3.5 APL play down for them (which we generally do in the current system as a couple play up easily makes up for it). I have yet to see this whole person play up get carried you claim. Yes I am just one person in one area...but so are you. Unless you have some proof otherwise (saying the devs are thinking about doesn't count as they have already said that they will leave the system as is if they find that it really isn't that big of an issue and/or any fix will cause more problems then it solves).
It also worth pointing out that at higher levels, the generalizations change. There's a big difference between level 1 fighting up versus a level 5 fighting up. I'll wager that the largest population of players/games in PFS are below level 5. So what happens at low levels is more of a concern than what happens at high levels.
Largest...probably...but I'd wager that the margin is not that big. 3 of the 4 PFS locals around here has one low one high table and depending on the group, sometimes the highs have more then the low and sometimes we get two of one or the other...but overall I doubt that the number of high vs low is as large as you may think. Then again I could be totally off...but I just don't see it around here ar least.
|
|
I would also like to point out that I played fortress of the nail and I wish that "Boon" didn't exist. It was basically useless because of how inflexible it is, especially for my level 6 gunslinger. I would rather just have had gold, or maybe something actually cool?
Prepped it for a con and am playing it soon--You had a ranged character go through it. Do you have any idea at all what a ranged character would want from that boon in 8-9? I'm completely stumped. I've paged through UE looking at everything. If we actually survive and earn it, I may get a scroll of 8 copies of a 3rd level spell. Casters are absolutely no problem to shop for, but I can't think of a single item for an archer.
|
|
The name alone should give an idea... you 'kids' better come prepared!
Oh dear. Does this mean it's going to be a super-combat-heavy-hack-slash-fest-spectacular-of-blood this year?-Matt
Hmmm. This hackfest all-but-confirmation is unfortunate news. Thank you for warning us in advance about all the combat, as it is a significant stray from the Convocation set out to accomplish last PaizoCon.
-Matt
Associate Publisher
|
I would not say it is a hackfest. But I would say, I'd be disappointed if you were coming to something with 'Siege' in the title not expecting a fair bit of fighting. I wanted it to share some elements with the Convocation, and I'm sure it will!
Actually, the non-combat stuff I put in the draft is all things I'm pretty proud of! :)
|
|
Thank you for the clarification, but it is unfortunate to learn of a combat-focused Special this time around. PFS scenarios are already loaded with combat; more combat is just not very Special.
I ended up doing a post in the End Boss thread which features a siege, a story arc in which very little combat actually occurs, thus showing that the word "Siege" does not imply combat. In fact, the nature of a siege is an environment featuring the threat of combat, combat as ambience, rather than combat-in-initiative as the main event, as a battle in the field would feature.
PFS already has a ton of combat. If more combat is what the coordinators believe is best for a Special, then I'm just going to have to live with that.
-Matt
I still would love to see a PFS mod with zero combat.
:)
-j
Roleplay. Investigate. Solve mysteries.
|
|
|
|
I read through this thread again and saw a lot of discussion about the special potentially involving lots of combat. >_> Gotta say I approve of this. Hopefully they'll send us against mobs that are significantly above the CR above the party as a whole. Give us something reaaalll nasty to play with this time around. No mercy.
|
|
Let's try to answer the question in a different way:
My daughter - she tags along as she is part of he family. I'm glad she has been included into games and other GMs know her and take extra care. There are privileges in having a multi-star GM as father. In the early seasons she could be 'carried through'. She would contribute roll play wise - and she had her shining moments.
I only let her play now if I sit on the same table with a powerful character. But I try to leave her out now and on the weekend she replayed We Be Goblins to avoid being a liability.
My wife - she experienced three dead characters in four con games in a row. She actually is a four star player (>100 games) but is the archetypical casual gamer. She doesn't care about optimization. I had to rescue one of the dead characters from permanent death after the game as she assumed (falsely) she didn't have enough prestige.
She loves to hack - but she is very one dimensional to her game style. Playing several non dwarven fighters after her first character make it worse. Season 4 combined with that is out of her league.
My son - he is a keen player. He had one dead character in one of the last games. It was a bad tactical decision. But he has potential. Give him more experience and he will learn and manage to play on season four difficulty.
Myself - I still haven't lost a single character or died a single time I can boost. But to be honest - on one convention I cringed as it would have been a clear TPK if the GM wouldn't have forgotten DR of the critters (none of my comrades had weapons to counter it) and would have applied other special abilities. We scraped though without a dead character - but that was extreme soft balling.
As GM:
I had situations in the past when I felt I just couldn't challenge powerful builds in the past. Now this isn't an issue anymore. At the same time I struggle with my local group. I currently have not a single 'power gamer' left. It is a complete group of casual gamers and we often end up with 5 players. In this circumstances I avoid GMing season 4 but rather played Thornkeep or some other modules.
Too hard or not?
There is no yes or no answer. It depends on each player. For some this season is too tough. For others it allows the challenge they are craving for.
And of all the players I describe I'm the only one posting here, for me - no - it's not too hard. It's okay. But there are enough players out there who struggle. Unless they have given up already.
I think the real question should be - what can be done for these players. How can we help them to avoid losing them. The gap between good and weak players is growing due to more complex options. The question therefore should be - what can be done to close the gap or at least to soften the problems caused by it.
I will try starting a thread along these lines - well - provided I manage.
|
|
I would also like to point out that I played fortress of the nail and I wish that "Boon" didn't exist. It was basically useless because of how inflexible it is, especially for my level 6 gunslinger. I would rather just have had gold, or maybe something actually cool?
You could get one masterwork double barrel pistol
A ring of ferocious actions lets you ignore staggered effects which can be nice...eats up a ring slot tho.
Feather step slippers...because really, ignore movement penalty in difficult terrain constantly rocks.
If you did low tier...
Well boots of the cat is fun and I like it a lot. Generally like the feather step better tho. If you could combine magic items in PFS, I would totally combine these two items.
Amulet of recovery is pretty nice to have as a back up. Increased save vs some effects...but more importantly once heals 2d8+3 when brought below zero. One use item tho.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the real question should be - what can be done for these players. How can we help them to avoid losing them. The gap between good and weak players is growing due to more complex options. The question therefore should be - what can be done to close the gap or at least to soften the problems caused by it.
Teach them to play better. Seriously. Tactics trumps builds. You can have the most awesome character on paper...but if you lack tactics, it will do you no good. Good players can take those god awful pre-gens and make them rock in the scenario. So instead of worrying about if a build is weak or not or if there are too many options, just teach players to play better. Course that is MUCH harder to teach and learn then how to make a powerful build.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I'd stop softballing Tier 1-5 scenarios [I rarely have to, it's only happened a handful of times] if two conditions were met.
1) There was some sort of a raise option available at that level, and,
2) If killing PCs actually taught the player anything.
Unfortunately, there are some players whose characters repeatedly die because these players aren't the greatest at character building. Killing them off over and over again doesn't do much to stop that, it just ends up beating them over the head with the scenario until they get frustrated and quit.
Some of you, of course, may be asking why a raise is so important at those levels given the lack of chronicles attached. To that, I would like to point out that there is more than a mechanical loss when a PC dies - it is the end of a character concept. That's very frustrating, as I've said a number of times. If the campaign is going to ramp up in difficulty, it requires some sort of option to take care of low level PC deaths, otherwise, the game will become almost entirely combat-oriented, with players developing no real bond to their characters.
|
|
Season 3.5 and later is where the difficulty level of PFS came off of "training wheels".Playing with 6 players at-tier, you were effectively playing with enemies wielding nerf bats.
They gave them back their real intended challenge rating versus the players this season.
If you have players who can't handle season 4... it's not the campaign's problem except to tell GM's: Stop softballing. It's a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
We have to be careful that this doesn't become
Season 3.5 and later is where the difficulty level of PFS came off of "training wheels" - and PFS stopped to be inclusive (to weaker players).
I've always been proud that PFS was inclusive and non-elitist. Some aspects might be unavoidable that it becomes more and more difficult to cater for stonger and weaker players as the campaign goes on and additional material is produced. But we have to be careful where this leads - unless this is the intention where it should go. And I haven't seen anything from Paizo itself supporting this.
But this is probably the wrong thread. I will start another one - how to help players who can't handle season 4 (who still need their training wheels).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) There was some sort of a raise option available at that level
Perhaps the Prestige cost for raise dead could be based on character level and not be a flat cost?
Or what if, as a PC's Fame score rose, they would receive a number of zero-cost raises based on hitting certain Fame thresholds? That way, Prestige could go for cool things instead of sitting in the bank as a buffer against death.
-Matt
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
1) There was some sort of a raise option available at that levelPerhaps the Prestige cost for raise dead could be based on character level and not be a flat cost?
Or what if, as a PC's Fame score rose, they would receive a number of zero-cost raises based on hitting certain Fame thresholds? That way, Prestige could go for cool things instead of sitting in the bank as a buffer against death.
-Matt
I would support either of these moves. Personally, I think it's unconscionable that the only level where you can regularly lose your entire character completely is the one that new players find themselves in, and in which it is increasingly easy to die. I'm all for a *brutally* difficult 5-9 and 7-11 - Ghennet Manor and Fortress of the Nail are among my favorite scenarios. The fact is, though, the safety net just isn't there for new players.
Killing off new players' characters in 1-5s is much like trying to discipline a cat 5 hours after it's done something wrong. It doesn't understand why you're yelling at it, nor does it understand what it should change. All it knows is that it doesn't like what it's experiencing. That's not what we want for our new players, nor do we want to encourage players to make throwaway characters for 1-5.
|
|
There has been one such option in the past
The boon given out to new players who did all of the Beginner Bash when the Pathfinder Beginner box was unveiled.
It allowed you a free resurrection - provided you had <16 prestige. I felt this was a VERY useful boon for fresh new players. I know it lowered my concern in killing two characters of a new group whom I was teaching Pathfinder.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
There has been one such option in the past
The boon given out to new players who did all of the Beginner Bash when the Pathfinder Beginner box was unveiled.
It allowed you a free resurrection - provided you had <16 prestige. I felt this was a VERY useful boon for fresh new players. I know it lowered my concern in killing two characters of a new group whom I was teaching Pathfinder.
I have seen these and desperately wish I had a stack of them to hand out. It would make my life as a GM SO much easier.
|
|
The beginner bash boon for character number xxxxx-1
Experienced players shouldn't need it. But it can take out the sting from dying for new players. I've seen new players close to tears when their character died - despite having that boon.
They learned that day - and permanent death wouldn't have added anything in addition.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
The beginner bash boon for character number xxxxx-1
Experienced players shouldn't need it. But it can take out the sting from dying for new players. I've seen new players close to tears when their character died - despite having that boon.
They learned that day - and permanent death wouldn't have added anything in addition.
I don't know about only for -1s, though. I think it should be offered in some form for all characters prior to , say, level 3. Experienced players' characters can sometimes die through no fault of their own due to poor decisions of a newbie table. I nearly lost a character in The Disappeared with a party that was extremely, extremely inexperienced and was really unable to deal with the challenges that scenario presented.
|
I was playing a game this last weekend, and one of the players had an "overpowered combat machine". Everyone knew the PC was built for one thing, being able to out put damage.
Cue encounter with angry mob of towns folk. We walk into the encounter and the face character rushes foward to "Diplomacy" the encounter. Rolls low, and fails to defuse the situation this round. And "the face" gets attacked for his trouble. 4 HP from a shortsword (out of 5 attacks from angry t'folk, who plainly aren't very good at this). Finishing the round, up moves the two combat PCs and the judge says: "So, you think Intimidate will work much better than Diplomacy". And the two combat PCs say: "Nah, we'll just swing for non-lethal."
First PC rolls a miss (I think) and the Combat Machine swings - and puts a townsfolk down dead. Normal hit, low damage (for him), killed the NPC outright. Damage right thru non-leathal, all the NPCs HP and enough extra to kill him. Silence at the table. Smiles disappeared. In an encounter we knew we had to be sure not to kill anyone. Because this PC is built for season 4 games - "got to specialize in putting the monsters down". The mind set is there... Has PFS gone too far into "hard mode"?
The judge asks "Why didn't you Intimidate the crowd?"
The player responds "I'm -2 on Intimidate!"
The judge points out "The DC was 11 - and your to hit roll was a more than that even at -2..."5 minutes later the judge is still looking up in the mod what to do if we killed a townsfolk... and he notes that if the t'folk had had more than 4 HP the NPC would have lived (6 or 7 anyway), so he finally said (to make his life easier) - "Commoners get a D6 HP, these guys should have 6 HP. so you'd have one round to stablize him, and he didn't die."
The Combat Machine player spent the next game hour or so silent. Feeling bad that he'd let his team down I think. By trying real hard at being the best he can, building the best PC he can, at what the game seems to be telling him he needs to be...
18+ damage from a single unarmed strike, eh? What subtier were you playing?