BigNorseWolf |
EXCEPT: The pregen may not fill the role that the 'organic' character was filling, which then requires massive reshuffling of table priorities to balance out the party. Problem NOT solved.
There are a metric ton of pregens What party role can't be filled by any of them? One of the 7s dropping down and You'd have a level 7 in a 5-6 subtier.
1. IT'S JUST FINE, SUCK IT UP!
Why the animosity?
*points up* mischaracterizing peoples statements like that doesn't help.
You ask for new policy when you can't solve your problems under the old policy. You ask everyone to do something differently, and open up a new can of worms when (an admitedly subjective consideration) of (amount of harm being done X number of people its done to) vs (harm done by new thing X number of people being harmed by new thing)
You have 7 points of failure, at least, before you can't adapt to the rules as they are. I'm a little skeptical as to how hard they were tried, i'm VERY skeptical that they all fail often enough to try to get more people playing down.
At the end of the day, we all *hopefully* want to see our players have fun as GMs. As players we want to see our GMs have fun.
Sitting at a 'forced march to extinction table' is not fun for either portion of that equation.
Not everything is cut and dried, and with a small amount of flexibility, the community would benefit immensely.
Malag |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember right, a player has to choose a character if he has one for appropriate tier to play (not subtier). If he doesn't have one, he may choose to play a pregen. Even if he chooses to play a pregen, he has to assign the pregen to already created character or a new character. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here.
So in the end, playing a pregen character to change APL isn't exactly a valid option. It's option for some players, not all of them.
Malag |
What would actually improve party's survival through the tougher encounters is a few steps which are easily adaptable for every PFS table (I am just throwing thoughts here):
1) Warn the players before the game that scenario is fairly difficult;
2) Provide players with information of what they are about to face (current information given through Knowledge skills before the scenario is often vague and requires too much logic to connect the dots);
3) Provide high level consumables for the party against higher level challenges (this is already being done through a degree);
4) Change the deadly monster tactics to provide some "breathing ground" for party to do so something (even if the monster is slightly of lower CR to accomodate the party of 4 players, their tactics are often unchanged);
That's a few ideas which might provide a more balanced challenge without affecting the current system's formula. It's not much, but bit by bit, it's possible to change the challenge degree.
Wei Ji the Learner |
What would actually improve party's survival through the tougher encounters is a few steps which are easily adaptable for every PFS table (I am just throwing thoughts here):
1) Warn the players before the game that scenario is fairly difficult;
If this is a known quantity, it's easy to do. Variables such as 'running cold', GM perception of party capability, party perception of party capability, and random die rolls can all impact this equation.
2) Provide players with information of what they are about to face (current information given through Knowledge skills before the scenario is often vague and requires too much logic to connect the dots);
And several scenarios run on the 'gotcha' premise -- ie, the entire party is prepared for a given situation, and then they have things which completely do NOT match up with the briefing thrown at them. While Pathfinders are supposed to be adaptable, it's typically easier to adapt to a lower subtier situation than a higher one.
3) Provide high level consumables for the party against higher level challenges (this is already being done through a degree);
However, the GM is typically limited in what they can provide by the writing of the scenario/module/AP(if not in Campaign Mode) to what the party can purchase.
4) Change the deadly monster tactics to provide some "breathing ground" for party to do so something (even if the monster is slightly of lower CR to accomodate the party of 4 players, their tactics are often unchanged);
So would this be an extrapolation of 'Creative Tactics', then? ie, because the party came in 'underpowered', the opponent isn't expecting that sort of development? I... it's weird, but I could actually get behind this sort of thinking?
That's a few ideas which might provide a more balanced challenge without affecting the current system's formula. It's not much, but bit by bit, it's possible to change the challenge degree.
The concern is that a lot of GMs will look at a scenario and go "Welp, I gotta do this thing this way because this is how it is written." The burden of organized play is the effort to try and play a consistent level of game experience when 'no plan survives the player party'.
Serisan |
Serisan wrote:I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "starting in Season 9, all scenarios will follow a gapless tier/subtier progression." Fixing the old ones comes down to adjudicating the problem better.
We don't know if the gapless tier subtier system works yet.
It will also require three if then charts on determining subtier (if season 1, 4 go to page A,if 5-9 choose path B. If 10+ choose...) Probably my personal pet peve that when i start reading that i want to start a drinking game.
That is a very understandable objection.
KingOfAnything Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha |
If I remember right, a player has to choose a character if he has one for appropriate tier to play (not subtier). If he doesn't have one, he may choose to play a pregen.
I do think you are incorrect about this. The season 8 guide begins the section on pregenerated characters with:
If you don’t have time to create a new character or simply wish to try out a new character class, you can use a pregenerated character.
The only limit to applying pregens is that the character you apply to must be lower level.
Credit for playing higher-level pregenerated characters must be applied to a Roleplaying Guild character of a lower level than the pregenerated character or to a newly created character.
Players with lower-level characters can apply the 7th-level pregen credit at level 7. Players with higher-level characters can apply credit to a different lower-level character or build up the stable with a new character.
Chess Pwn |
Malag wrote:If I remember right, a player has to choose a character if he has one for appropriate tier to play (not subtier). If he doesn't have one, he may choose to play a pregen.I do think you are incorrect about this. The season 8 guide begins the section on pregenerated characters with:
Season 8 wrote:If you don’t have time to create a new character or simply wish to try out a new character class, you can use a pregenerated character.The only limit to applying pregens is that the character you apply to must be lower level.
Quote:Credit for playing higher-level pregenerated characters must be applied to a Roleplaying Guild character of a lower level than the pregenerated character or to a newly created character.Players with lower-level characters can apply the 7th-level pregen credit at level 7. Players with higher-level characters can apply credit to a different lower-level character or build up the stable with a new character.
King has it right. You can have 100 characters in range and still play a pregen. And the only rule is you apply the credit to a character lower level. so your lv6 that you swap for a lv7 pregen is perfectly good to receive the credit.
Sin of Asmodeus |
I guess I have to beat a dead horse again.
When is it acceptable for PC's to not be able to win or be over their heads?
When is character death not going to have a stigmata, and simply be part of the game again?
No one should be able to 100% control when / where they have a character death.
The argument; "What about new players" doesn't hold water - due to the fact that they too will eventually have a character death. Whether or not they continue to play afterwards is strictly up to them, but the counter argument that I will now bring is this. In the examples given a fifth level character played by a "new" player may potentially die. To get to fifth level, you need to have 15 xp. Unless they played 5 mods, which is still a 20 hour investment than they have on average 60 hours in play time.
In what world are these people still considered new?
I have new people that started to play at my lodge, and hey guess what they died a few times, and they keep coming back for some reason? They have even been in over their heads and decided that retreat was the better part of valor.
Sometimes, the dice come down against you. Sometimes you don't have the right group to deal with a big bad. Sometimes, and I know this is a bad word - TPK's happen. Sometimes you don't have the prestige or gold to come back, and your character's story ended before you wanted it to.
Thats what makes the game great. The stories of what happened, even if their good or bad.
Anyway, I've said my peace, but I highly doubt that it will make any difference. Continue to increase the hand holding.
TriOmegaZero |
I guess I have to beat a dead horse again.
When is it acceptable for PC's to not be able to win or be over their heads?
When is character death not going to have a stigmata, and simply be part of the game again?
No one should be able to 100% control when / where they have a character death.
And no one is saying otherwise.
Chess Pwn |
Sin of Asmodeus wrote:And no one is saying otherwise.I guess I have to beat a dead horse again.
When is it acceptable for PC's to not be able to win or be over their heads?
When is character death not going to have a stigmata, and simply be part of the game again?
No one should be able to 100% control when / where they have a character death.
I definitely feel that there are people who are saying that it's not acceptable for 4 lvs to be over their head in an 6-7 because a lv7 sat with them and they choose not to play a lv7 pregen. Isn't that the entire complaint here? A request for change so that it doesn't happen?
TriOmegaZero |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The request is that the APL calculation and tier selection be adjusted so people can play the characters they want without being forced to play in a subtier they do not feel comfortable tackling.
Because we've gone from parties being able to choose to play up to parties being unable to choose to play down.
MadScientistWorking Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MadScientistWorking wrote:
I'm pointing out that you are giving horrible advice.No. You are not.
You are making an assertion that I am giving horrible advice. Just like you make assertions that I am horrible at character building, and rules interpretation, and every aspect of the game that comes up. Assertions that you never seem able to back with an argument, evidence, rationale, or example.
Productive discourse comes from comparing and contrasting different ideas. -I'm better than you so i'm right and you're wrong- completely evades any possibility of that. On the internet, you are a nameless, faceless NPC. You cannot just make assertions appealing to your own authority you have to provide arguments for them.
Well I mean Dispel Magic and the fact that most spells have counters that usually come up once in a while really shut up your assertion that its at least reliable.
Also, the pregens are really just bizarrely built to the point where a baseline character you make yourself is often better. Namely because you aren't beholden to the weird adherence to making a 1 to 1 duplicate of a picture.
Chess Pwn |
The request is that the APL calculation and tier selection be adjusted so people can play the characters they want without being forced to play in a subtier they do not feel comfortable tackling.
That same request can be used to say that the 1 lv3 in a party of 5 lv7 shouldn't be forced to play in a subtier that they do not feel comfortable tackling with the character they want.
That the lv7 shouldn't be forced to play low, it's not comfortable because it's too easy for them.A change of rules is being asked because it's possible to have a "bad table".
If we change this why not just let the party choose? What if 6 lv6 that are all support/skill feel that high tier is too hard for them? Why can't they play lower too?
And the players aren't forced, they are welcome to not play. They are choosing to play at a "suicide table" with a character that has low odds of survival. Just because their choice goes the statistical way and TPK's doesn't mean there's a problem to overhaul.
Character death is real, and if you want to bring an ill suited character it's more likely.
Matt2VK |
Actually, I think the real problem is the wide range of difficulty the different scenarios have.
There's a lot of scenarios that are cake walks (I'd say about 30%), most just moderate difficulty (55%), and just a few that are hard to deadly (15% of scenarios). The players just don't know how hard the scenario will be and most players like a challenge (and the loot) so they'll choose to play Up if possible.
I'll also admit I HATE playing down with a high level character. Just feel like it cheapens that scenario I'm playing down in.
Chess Pwn |
Also, the pregens are really just bizarrely built to the point where a baseline character you make yourself is often better. Namely because you aren't beholden to the weird adherence to making a 1 to 1 duplicate of a picture.
Have you looked at any pregens beyond core?
The ACG pregens are very solidly made, the occult and APG are also very well made. I wish PC's where at least as good as some of these pregens. Sure they aren't going to be exactly what you'd build if you made one. But many of them do a fine job in their role and I have no complaints when I see one at the table.So I agree that the core pregens are often making questionable choices, all the new pregens are built solidly.
Wei Ji the Learner |
Perhaps it is selfish on my part, but I'd much rather have an enjoyable experience where every encounter is *reasonably* challenging versus *nervewracking/nearly-impossible going to wipe(?)*. That latter one is not very fun nor enjoyable.
Which is why I brought up the request for consideration.
As noted up-thread, if the party is *confident* about tackling the challenges of the higher sub-tier, there is NOTHING preventing it under the request I have made.
Likewise, under the same request, if the party *doesn't* feel confident even with a higher sub-tier character at the table, they could choose to play (someone said 'rounding down', and I think that would be a viable 'fix' without changing too much or stomping on sensibilities) down.
We've hit many of the reasons why a person could potentially be an issue 'playing down'. But it doesn't explain the dogmatic and devoted position that the situation doesn't need looking at.
Is this a personal concern rather than a mechanical one?
Chess Pwn |
Thomas Hutchins wrote:Character death is real, and if you want to bring an ill suited character it's more likely.And the request is to not have to bring an ill-suited character to play the character you want to play.
If that was the case the request also covers a lv3 to be able to bring the table to low tier with 5 lv7s.
This lv3 is an ill-suited character to play the scenario with, and thus should be prevented. For we don't want to make it so you HAVE to be ill-suited if you play a particular character.So that makes the issue that you want to be able to play on "easier" mode whenever the entire party agrees to it. Which means it takes 1 person not wanting low gold to ruin it.
Heck, why not drop face skill DC's for a bunch of barbs at a dinner party? They are ill-suited character for the scenario.
Like, if these are situations that are not part of the argument then you should revise your declared intent to only be what you mean.
Chess Pwn |
Perhaps it is selfish on my part, but I'd much rather have an enjoyable experience where every encounter is *reasonably* challenging versus *nervewracking/nearly-impossible going to wipe(?)*. That latter one is not very fun nor enjoyable.
Then it sounds like you'd rather play a pregen or walk than play your low character in high tier.
Likewise, under the same request, if the party *doesn't* feel confident even with a higher sub-tier character at the table, they could choose to play (someone said 'rounding down', and I think that would be a viable 'fix' without changing too much or stomping on sensibilities) down.
So is the party a unanimous vote or a majority vote?
We've hit many of the reasons why a person could potentially be an issue 'playing down'. But it doesn't explain the dogmatic and devoted position that the situation doesn't need looking at.
Is this a personal concern rather than a mechanical one?
The reason it doesn't need looking at is this is a SELF-MADE PROBLEM. There are tons of "solutions" to this issue of having a party that is ill-suited for the scenario. As BNW points out, it's like 5 choices the players need to make to get this situation to happen. So this is saying that all of the current solutions aren't good enough because it doesn't let you bring any character you want to any table without care of other players and play an "appropriate" challenge. Where "appropriate" isn't what the guide says is appropriate, but some other definition that is easier than what is currently done.
MadScientistWorking Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro |
MadScientistWorking wrote:Also, the pregens are really just bizarrely built to the point where a baseline character you make yourself is often better. Namely because you aren't beholden to the weird adherence to making a 1 to 1 duplicate of a picture.Have you looked at any pregens beyond core?
I was specifically referring to the Occultist and the Oracle. Two of the newer pregens where their stats are clearly based upon their artwork.
Malag |
@Wei Ji
It's a fact that people are imperfect beings. There will always be mistakes here and there in the long run. I do agree that there is many "gotcha" moments in scenarios. While story and foreshadowing the incoming story is important, I do feel that revealing 1 or 2 encounters in the scenario more clearly won't detract from the story line itself. High knowledge characters might feel rewarded actually for once.
Like I said before, tactics can be slightly changed in order to provide characters some decent chance to act sooner, but I have a feeling that some GMs might be against this as it might "remove the challenge" feeling. On the negative side, I rarely see GMs roleplaying those bad guys through their actions. Why not try sub-optimal dirty trick for example or Intimidate check? It's like, non-existent...
In the end, PFS policy is clear. Run as written. But I still believe that GMs are responsible for their own games. Putting excuses on the scenario avoids the responsibility given to them as game masters, but I can understand why they are doing it.
@KingOfAnything
Thanks a lot for correcting me. I wasn't sure about that part completely.
Chess Pwn |
It's not my intent. I was a part of one of the tables that spawned the thread, but I'm just following the discussion. When I see you and others focusing on the "waaaaa no character death" straw man, I feel the need to correct that.
Sorry this is getting a little confusing so I want to make sure some things are clear.
1) you don't actually want a change2) you don't actually know the intent of those asking for change and thus can't accurately answer if my situations are intended to be included or not.
3) You feel that saying that there are tons of options to avoid this Suicide situation and that if the players opt for the suicide scenario they should be prepared to die is the same as us complaining that there aren't enough character deaths?
Are these all correct? Because this is what I'm understanding you to be saying.
BigNorseWolf |
We've hit many of the reasons why a person could potentially be an issue 'playing down'. But it doesn't explain the dogmatic and devoted position that the situation doesn't need looking at.
Is this a personal concern rather than a mechanical one?
No.
Neither AHHH! factor 10 or cakewalk are perfect: cakewalk is boring. AHH factor 10 is bad because the randomness of dm dice players dice, suitability of players for the scenario, and of course dice will push an AHHH factor 10 game to death multiple times.
What you're seeing are different evaluations of what the right AHHH! factor to cakewalk ratio is, and how the various suggestions would change it. People that think that there are too many cakewalks already don't want to be pressured into playing down more than what already happens.
Wei Ji the Learner |
Then it sounds like you'd rather play a pregen or walk than play your low character in high tier.
Actually, no. I'd like to play my character in the low tier in *some* cases. Thank you for TRYING to put words in my text that weren't there.
So is the party a unanimous vote or a majority vote?
Either 'secret ballot' or unanimous. If the *party* is not feeling confident, that would include by default the higher sub-tier character, correct?
The reason it doesn't need looking at is this is a SELF-MADE PROBLEM.
A 'self-made' problem that could be exacerbated by:
1. Scenarios that have sequential thematic ties and limited play chances.
2. Play groups that have limited numbers
3. GMs that prepped the 'high tier' because 'who ever preps that low tier garbage, anyways?'
4. GMs and players that think 'walking three miles to school uphill in snow and barefoot was good enough for them, so it's good enough for anyone else', so to speak.
There are tons of "solutions" to this issue of having a party that is ill-suited for the scenario. As BNW points out, it's like 5 choices the players need to make to get this situation to happen.
And yet, they are common enough that it is *not just me* noticing that this is an issue.
So this is saying that all of the current solutions aren't good enough because it doesn't let you bring any character you want to any table without care of other players and play an "appropriate" challenge.
Actually, throughout the concern has been that the *entire* party has been in concert about the potential lethality of a given situation (playing into 'nearly certain death' without CHOICE). That hasn't changed.
Where "appropriate" isn't what the guide says is appropriate, but some other definition that is easier than what is currently done.
As has been noted by others much better with the math in this thread, because of a math quirk there are sequential errors that can cause this to occur.
As I and others have noted, 'playing down' is not always 'easier'.
It is not black and white, unfortunately, which may be causing some of the disconnect.
Thus the request, as it falls on the Campaign to make this call, GMs cannot currently via Campaign rules allow players to 'round down'. This apparently WAS a feature before, but has since been removed.
Chess Pwn |
Thomas Hutchins wrote:I was specifically referring to the Occultist and the Oracle. Two of the newer pregens where their stats are clearly based upon their artwork.MadScientistWorking wrote:Also, the pregens are really just bizarrely built to the point where a baseline character you make yourself is often better. Namely because you aren't beholden to the weird adherence to making a 1 to 1 duplicate of a picture.Have you looked at any pregens beyond core?
What's wrong with them? A blaster oracle and a weapon using occultist? Their stats look decently placed for their builds.
Sin of Asmodeus |
Sorry, but whats an ill-suited character?
Also, the straw-man isnt one when the obvious intent is to be able to subvert apl's. The apl system is fine.
This is the pendulum of hand holding. We already have rules in place for parties to follow by. If you bring a level 3, to a 3 to 7, you should have an idea that you may be forced to play high. Vice Versa by bringing a 7 you may have to play low.
But if its 5.5 etc you're playing up with a 4 person adjustment. That's all there is to it. If you die and your the lowbie, hopefully the higher level people will contribute to bringing you back. The end.
KingOfAnything Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha |
MadScientistWorking wrote:I was specifically referring to the Occultist and the Oracle. Two of the newer pregens where their stats are clearly based upon their artwork.What's wrong with them? A blaster oracle and a weapon using occultist? Their stats look decently placed for their builds.
Gonna second this question. I took a look at Mavaro and Alahazra at level 7 and they both seemed solid and capable in a variety of scenarios. Do you have a specific criticism MadScientistWorking?
Wei Ji the Learner |
No.Neither AHHH! factor 10 or cakewalk are perfect: cakewalk is boring. AHH factor 10 is bad because the randomness of dm dice players dice, suitability of players for the scenario, and of course dice will push an AHHH factor 10 game to death multiple times.
What you're seeing are different evaluations of what the right AHHH! factor to cakewalk ratio is, and how the various suggestions would change it. People that think that there are too many cakewalks already don't want to be pressured into playing down more than what already happens.
Instead of 'pressure to play up/down' we now have 'you MUST play up'.
Like I've stated up-thread, my play experience with folks who have been 'playing down' (who have done so *by choice*) has been exceptionally positive, with them *not* running rampant over the table and in some cases having *more* issues with the lower sub-tier than they would have had with the higher sub-tier (finding that out after the scenario in talks with the GM, etc).
I think we need to step away from the idea that lower sub-tier = "cakewalk". That it can be *just* as lethal as a higher sub-tier.
If we can imagine that, then suddenly it becomes much more palatable.
TL;DR Not looking for super-EZ mode. Looking for *playable* mode.
Chess Pwn |
Thomas Hutchins wrote:Actually, no. I'd like to play my character in the low tier in *some* cases. Thank you for TRYING to put words in my text that weren't there.Wei Ji the Learner wrote:I'd much rather have an enjoyable experience where every encounter is *reasonably* challenging versus *nervewracking/nearly-impossible going to wipe(?)*. That latter one is not very fun nor enjoyableThen it sounds like you'd rather play a pregen or walk than play your low character in high tier.
Sorry, it seems like you're getting hostile. I never intended to put words in your mouth. Just stating what I'm understanding from what you're saying.
Now, from what you said, it sounds like you'd rather play a pregen or walk since playing a low in a suicide session according to you, "not very fun nor enjoyable". Now I could be mistaken and that you find playing a pregen or walking to be even less enjoyable than playing a low in a suicide session, but from what you said can you see why I would think you'd prefer those option over playing a low character? I find it odd that you counter it and say that want you'd want to do is something not supported by the rules. Perhaps that is another miscommunication here. I was working off the assumption that we were only choosing between the 3 legal options of walk, play a low in suicide, play a pregen so it's not a suicide. I was not including any non-legal options.Thomas Hutchins wrote:So is the party a unanimous vote or a majority vote?Either 'secret ballot' or unanimous. If the *party* is not feeling confident, that would include by default the higher sub-tier character, correct?
So if it needs to be unanimous then a jerk that brings the table high instead of playing a character around the other's can continue being a jerk and not allow the table to go low. Thus I feel that this proposed solution will not really change the the results from what we currently are seeing.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
The reason it doesn't need looking at is this is a SELF-MADE PROBLEM.A 'self-made' problem that could be exacerbated by:
1. Scenarios that have sequential thematic ties and limited play chances.
2. Play groups that have limited numbers
3. GMs that prepped the 'high tier' because 'who ever preps that low tier garbage, anyways?'
4. GMs and players that think 'walking three miles to school uphill in snow and barefoot was good enough for them, so it's good enough for anyone else', so to speak.
1. pregen solves this, credit to the correct character and less suicide
2. pregens aren't effected by number of players3. GMs don't factor at all into which tier the players play at so I don't see how this is relevant.
4. I again fail to see how this is relevant. If you feel it is, please be welcome to explain the point you were trying to make.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:And yet, they are common enough that it is *not just me* noticing that this is an issue.
There are tons of "solutions" to this issue of having a party that is ill-suited for the scenario. As BNW points out, it's like 5 choices the players need to make to get this situation to happen.
Well of course. 1%, .1% or even .01% of a big enough number means that there will be a number of people and situations that run into it. I'm not denying that the situations don't come up. Nor that they are likely suicide missions if the party plays lots of low levels that are used to being carried in a high tier game. But I've seen plenty of APL appropriate tables be suicide missions because of the characters chosen. So having a suicide mission isn't only for this low leveled high tier situation. So I'm not seeing any need, especially not pressing need, that this 1 edge case is out of line with appropriate play experience based on my understanding of the views PFS has laid out.
What I'm trying to convey, is that there is already a solution, pregens, that should probably be pushed and tried before saying that we need a new solution printed.Thomas Hutchins wrote:Actually, throughout the concern has been that the *entire* party has been in concert about the potential lethality of a given situation (playing into 'nearly certain death' without CHOICE). That hasn't changed.
So this is saying that all of the current solutions aren't good enough because it doesn't let you bring any character you want to any table without care of other players and play an "appropriate" challenge.
Right, if the entire party doesn't care about the other players characters and thus gets into a situation where it's 4 lv4s and a 7 putting them in high tier, and thus not caring that they are choosing to bring a lv4 in a 6-7. You're saying that we should alter the game to accommodate an easier game for them bring a poor character rather then them bringing an appropriate leveled character. So sure after they are selfish and unconcerned about their character choice the table might realize they are doomed, but the players are all still deciding that they'd rather play a doomed game than bring an different character.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:As I and others have noted, 'playing down' is not always 'easier'.
Where "appropriate" isn't what the guide says is appropriate, but some other definition that is easier than what is currently done.
So wait. You're telling me you want change the rules to be able to play low cause it's less dangerous. And then turn around and say that playing the low tier with the same characters isn't easier than the high tier.
If it's not easier then why the try to change to allow them to change if it's for no difference?Chess Pwn |
BigNorseWolf wrote:
No.Neither AHHH! factor 10 or cakewalk are perfect: cakewalk is boring. AHH factor 10 is bad because the randomness of dm dice players dice, suitability of players for the scenario, and of course dice will push an AHHH factor 10 game to death multiple times.
What you're seeing are different evaluations of what the right AHHH! factor to cakewalk ratio is, and how the various suggestions would change it. People that think that there are too many cakewalks already don't want to be pressured into playing down more than what already happens.
Instead of 'pressure to play up/down' we now have 'you MUST play up'.
Like I've stated up-thread, my play experience with folks who have been 'playing down' (who have done so *by choice*) has been exceptionally positive, with them *not* running rampant over the table and in some cases having *more* issues with the lower sub-tier than they would have had with the higher sub-tier (finding that out after the scenario in talks with the GM, etc).
I think we need to step away from the idea that lower sub-tier = "cakewalk". That it can be *just* as lethal as a higher sub-tier.
If we can imagine that, then suddenly it becomes much more palatable.
TL;DR Not looking for super-EZ mode. Looking for *playable* mode.
If low tier is just as lethal as high then it's just as playable as the high tier and this whole issue is moot.
And yes. The rule is set, there is no choice other than which character. If you choose your character then the guide tells you the subtier. If you want to alter your character then the table recalculates and gives the new subtier. They removed choices because choices leads to pressuring people which lead to more people being unhappy than with the current situation.RSX Raver |
Again, how does this request account for the higher level people not wanting to play down? If APL is such that you play the higher tier, I feel that it should be like hard mode, in such that everyone agrees to play down otherwise you do not.
I have been on both sides of the situation, bring the low level in high tier and being stuck being the high level in low tier. Neither is great, but I much rather be the low level playing up. Nothing is fun about having everyone unhappy that your high level character trivializes all the encounters. Not to mention playing down hurts the high level characters WBL.
KingOfAnything Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha |
The rule is set, there is no choice other than which character. If you choose your character then the guide tells you the subtier. If you want to alter your character then the table recalculates and gives the new subtier. They removed choices because choices leads to pressuring people which lead to more people being unhappy than with the current situation.
This is the issue it comes down to for me. There are problems and edge cases with both systems, and solutions of variable palatability to those problems. When it comes down to the edge cases, I think it is better for the organization that people are frustrated by the rules in the Guide rather than by each other.
TriOmegaZero |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are these all correct? Because this is what I'm understanding you to be saying.
I do not mind the campaign staff answering this request yea or nay. I know just as much of the intent of those asking as you do, and your responses do not seem to be replying to what is actually being said. If the answer 'there are pregens appropriate to the subtier being played that can be used instead of the desired character, and players can opt to pass on playing until an appropriate party can be formed' is the final answer then so be it. Your focus on character death is entirely unwarranted and unhelpful to the discussion. No characters in the inciting incident actually died save for the summoner who was breath of life'd in time.
MadScientistWorking Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MadScientistWorking wrote:What's wrong with them? A blaster oracle and a weapon using occultist? Their stats look decently placed for their builds.Thomas Hutchins wrote:I was specifically referring to the Occultist and the Oracle. Two of the newer pregens where their stats are clearly based upon their artwork.MadScientistWorking wrote:Also, the pregens are really just bizarrely built to the point where a baseline character you make yourself is often better. Namely because you aren't beholden to the weird adherence to making a 1 to 1 duplicate of a picture.Have you looked at any pregens beyond core?
The level 7 versions of both of those classes have AC comparable to a level 1 character which is something Im entirely confused as to you end up with that.
KingOfAnything Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha |
Thomas Hutchins wrote:The level 7 versions of both of those classes have AC comparable to a level 1 character which is something Im entirely confused as to you end up with that.MadScientistWorking wrote:I was specifically referring to the Occultist and the Oracle. Two of the newer pregens where their stats are clearly based upon their artwork.What's wrong with them? A blaster oracle and a weapon using occultist? Their stats look decently placed for their builds.
Mavaro is built to use his many sources of temporary hitpoints as a defense, rather than rely on AC.
Alahazra's AC is a little low, even after using her spells. But, I don't think criminally so for a full caster. She has a lot of mobility to keep herself away from threats.
Wei Ji the Learner |
Again, how does this request account for the higher level people not wanting to play down? If APL is such that you play the higher tier, I feel that it should be like hard mode, in such that everyone agrees to play down otherwise you do not.
I have been on both sides of the situation, bring the low level in high tier and being stuck being the high level in low tier. Neither is great, but I much rather be the low level playing up. Nothing is fun about having everyone unhappy that your high level character trivializes all the encounters. Not to mention playing down hurts the high level characters WBL.
This could accounts for that very simply: If the *entire party* is uncomfortable with playing 'up', then that would mean the entire party would support 'playing down'.
I've played a L1 'up' many times into the 4-5 range, so I'm not adverse to the idea of it happening, just like I have played a L4 'down' into the 1-2 range. I've even played a 7(important to note--pregen!) 'up' in a 10-11 a few times, and felt like I was contributing.
However, there have been scenarios where I've been politely forced into 'walk' because a table 'playing up' doesn't want a pregen around to push them into the full 'higher tier'.
My personal experience has been that it's been fun for everyone involved (higher tier playing 'down'), and it hasn't been particularly an issue like 3-7 and 5-9, where there's this unstated 'peer pressure' to 'play high or bust'.
If the 'four player adjustment' meant something more than the cosmetic service it seems to provide at times, it wouldn't be an issue -- however, the hue and cry would seem to rise up against that being 'too easy' for 'playing up'.
When you're forced to 'play up' and 85% of the party can't contribute effectively, that's a recipe for failure that's present before the scenario begins.
And before folks start saying I don't want potential character death... I don't want potential character death where there's jack-all the party can do about it, versus *having a chance to do something about it*.
EDIT: And before folks go 'Well, just play a pregen'... what happens if the venue doesn't have pregens available in that range? That turns into 'walk', doesn't it?
Chess Pwn |
However, there have been scenarios where I've been politely forced into 'walk' because a table 'playing up' doesn't want a pregen around to push them into the full 'higher tier'.
I'm not completely sure what you're getting at, but you shouldn't be forced to do anything. If a spot was open then you should be allowed to fill it, with any character you deem fit.
Also it seems that there is an unhealthy view of pregens at your venue. The core pregens are pretty bad and not worth bumping a table up. But the newer pregens are quite good and are very much worth their weight. I've seen plenty of PC's that are less effective in their builds than these pregens. So a table shouldn't be complaining or trying to convince you not to play if you'd be playing a pregen.And before folks go 'Well, just play a pregen'... what happens if the venue doesn't have pregens available in that range? That turns into 'walk', doesn't it?
Well that should happen what, Once and then the venue should have pregens? Like is it at all normal for repeating venues to NOT carry pregens? For no one there to carry pregens? Is the venue really not wanting a walk in to be able to play the scenario by not carrying pregens?
And that's assuming there's not easy access to the pregen docs nor the ability to print a pregen off.
Also it can be explained and shared to always come ready for if the table is low tier or high, which could mean bringing your own pregen if the venue really wont carry them.
RSX Raver |
When you're forced to 'play up' and 85% of the party can't contribute effectively, that's a recipe for failure that's present before the scenario begins.
To play up you require more then half the party to have a high tier character. Now at a table of 4, you play down when between sub-tiers, so this only applies to tables of 5 or more. A well built skill monkey should not have that big an issue with the DC change from 3-4 to 6-7, or from 5-6 to 8-9. The only place I feel this can be an issue is combat, and I have only experienced a handful of combats that are so bad I would not want to be out of tier for them.
I do not believe in the "play a pre-gen" solution, mainly because I hate playing a pre-gen unless I have nothing in the range of the scenario. So when I die horribly for playing a low level at high tier, it is my own fault. Not a problem of the system, that is player choice.
Terminalmancer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:To play up you require more then half the party to have a high tier character. [...]When you're forced to 'play up' and 85% of the party can't contribute effectively, that's a recipe for failure that's present before the scenario begins.
No?
tier 5-9, character levels 9/7/6/6/6/6. Average 40/6 = 6.67 = round up to 7. 7 is in-between subtiers, so a party of 6 plays up with the four player adjustment.
You have one character that's supposed to be there and one character that's expected to survive in a party where most of the other characters are the right level. The other four, depending on the scenario, could be in for quite a challenge.
RSX Raver |
RSX Raver wrote:Wei Ji the Learner wrote:To play up you require more then half the party to have a high tier character. [...]When you're forced to 'play up' and 85% of the party can't contribute effectively, that's a recipe for failure that's present before the scenario begins.
No?
tier 5-9, character levels 9/7/6/6/6/6. Average 40/6 = 6.67 = round up to 7. 7 is in-between subtiers, so a party of 6 plays up with the four player adjustment.
You have one character that's supposed to be there and one character that's expected to survive in a party where most of the other characters are the right level. The other four, depending on the scenario, could be in for quite a challenge.
While I know mathematically that is correct, I really feel in that situation it should be considered 6. I guess for me, my lodge has enough power gamers that in that example, in general at least 2 of the players are likely able to play up with less issue and it would sort out. Of course there is definitely scenarios where that is a death wish, but our GMs are good enough to kindly hint that the party should reconsider playing up in those cases.
Wei Ji the Learner |
I've seen enough in-tier characters go from full to unconscious in one action or worse(so it would only be far worse for below tier characters) that I'd fully support stopping double rounding up.
Not talking con dumpers or crits or anything like that either.
This is kind of my thinking, but it can't be done at the moment.
And also agree, if folks dump CON or get 'crit', that's a risk of playing no matter what tier -- a certain angry halfling comes to mind -- and will happen no matter what kind of table configuration there is.
I was thinking about Terminalmancer's math, and a 9/6/6/6/6/6 table would equal '39/6', right?
That'd be 6.5, which is technically smack dab in the middle of the middle, but because of that .5 there'd be a round 'up' to 7, which makes it even more obnoxious as it goes to 8-9 with the current system. Unless I'm failing at math here?
Granted, that's a bit of a niche, but swapping out one '6' for a '7' and one '6' for a '5' gives the same math...
Pirate Rob |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Up at .5 is not the only reasonable method of rounding.
wikipedia has a really fascinating article regarding it if you're mathematically inclined and have some extra time.
Terminalmancer |
Ferious Thune wrote:If you end up at 6.5 you can actually decide to round down to 6. So that situation is accounted for currently.So it's okay to round down when normally you'd round 'up' at .5, but not if at .67?
Thank you for the clarification.
Yeah, there's a reason I added that one poor 7th level hypothetical PC... :)
Wei Ji the Learner |
Yeah, there's a reason I added that one poor 7th level hypothetical PC... :)
We didn't even mention WBL in that section of the thread, though. :P
That all aside, thank you very much for math'ing that for me, I'm continuing to learn from this, both in terms of tiering and in terms of personality and what one might need to anticipate at any given table.
To bring it back to original post, is it an unreasonable request to have the option to 'go low'?