|
Ha ha. I am in the process of planning a summoner actually, and find it total crap that the eidolon can't take improved natural attack. I am now examining the eidolon very closely, and by extension, the animal companion in a cursory manner.
I still really think that the eidolon just does not stand out enough from an animal companion. One upside is that the summoner can be more reckless because there is consequence of getting the eidolon banished, whereas getting an AC killed it at least a little annoying mechanically, even for those with the "meat shield" philosophy.
I don't find it particularly balanced that summoners have to wait till level 8 to qualify for the "large" evolution, whereas ACs get it at 4 or 7. I also find the evolution cost a bit unfair in that animal companions get their bump up for free. And ACs get the same number of feats?
I've read arguments about the two spell lists. I agree that the summoner spell list does have some advantages over the druid in haste, slow, summon pit, etc. But the sheer amount of creatures that the druid can summon by burning spells really puts the summoner to shame, given that the SLA does not work with the eidolon out.
I'm going to post some math eventually, but I also find the ACs' ability to wear barding give them an armor class advantage over eidolons that I also find very dubious.
|
|
Maybe, but remember, a) I've never seen an AC die, although I'm willing to write that up to statistical anomaly, due to input from others and b) I still don't think that's enough advantage for the Eidolon. You can see my confusion about the b%*$#ing that occurs about eidolons, but that doesn't occur for ACs.
|
I couldn't be happier with the new between-tier rules.
I sat down with a table after the rules went into play that tried to game their table into playing up 10 ways into Sunday before giving up and disappointedly sitting down for a 7-11 at 7-8. Their reason for playing up was solely for more coin (they'll say a challenge, but the whining that ensued with several near deaths at the low challenge level proved it wasn't really the case).
The sheer amount of complaining when I handed out chronicle sheets was a good indicator that this was a good idea.
EDIT: I am not be facetious. I mean it. Getting a bunch of powergamers who try to figure out ways to "beat" the system for their own gain, fail under the new rules, and then complain about how it's all broken was very much worth it.
|
The only problem I have with this system is the way the scenarios are tiered. 1-5(1/2&4/5) 3-7(3/4&6/7)etc.
What this means is in a 1-5 scenarios a 3rd level is forcibly screwed with no option not to be. The same is true for a 5th level in a 3-7.
Mike is there some way we can fix this. maybe change the tier's to read 1-5(1-3&3-5)etc...?
T least this will prevent people from being intentionally screwed.
Thanks
JIM
|
What this means is in a 1-5 scenarios a 3rd level is forcibly screwed with no option not to be. The same is true for a 5th level in a 3-7.
Screwed how? No matter which sub-tier he plays he is always getting the out of tier gold.
And he has an option not to be. Play a 3-7 mod.
In one 1-5 mod, the 3rd level PC will be getting 901 gold as out of tier. Instead of 500 for the low and 1300 for the high.
If he instead plays a certain 3-7 mod, he will get 1287 gold for the 3-4 sub-tier. If he somehow gets into a party that must play the 6-7 sub-tier, his out of tier gold would be 2226 instead of the 6-7 tier gold of 3165.
|
|
What this means is in a 1-5 scenarios a 3rd level is forcibly screwed with no option not to be. The same is true for a 5th level in a 3-7.Screwed how? No matter which sub-tier he plays he is always getting the out of tier gold.
And he has an option not to be. Play a 3-7 mod.
In one 1-5 mod, the 3rd level PC will be getting 901 gold as out of tier. Instead of 500 for the low and 1300 for the high.
If he instead plays a certain 3-7 mod, he will get 1287 gold for the 3-4 sub-tier. If he somehow gets into a party that must play the 6-7 sub-tier, his out of tier gold would be 2226 instead of the 6-7 tier gold of 3165.
Because the 386 gold your shorted by doing the 1-2 OoT vs the 3-4 CAN NEVER BE MADE UP barring having a group of uber optimized players carry you through a completely play up OoT (so a 3-4 in a 6-7) maybe? And this gets worse the higher in level you go as not only does the amount get bigger, but the tables get rarer. Although, I do believe that at level 7, you can play down in a 5-6 in a 5-9 and end up with MORE gold the doing the 7-8 in a 7-11. So I suppose you can make up some gold there...but WAY less danger for MORE gold just does not sit well with me at all.
|
|
Because the 386 gold your shorted by doing the 1-2 OoT vs the 3-4 CAN NEVER BE MADE UP barring having a group of uber optimized players carry you through a completely play up OoT (so a 3-4 in a 6-7) maybe?
Agreed. Losing 0.33% of my character's eventual WBL is unacceptable and basically amounts to ROBBERY.
|
|
Because the 386 gold your shorted by doing the 1-2 OoT vs the 3-4 CAN NEVER BE MADE UP barring having a group of uber optimized players carry you through a completely play up OoT (so a 3-4 in a 6-7) maybe?Agreed. Losing 0.33% of my character's eventual WBL is unacceptable and basically amounts to ROBBERY.
So your gonna ignore the it gets worse part then? Way to cherry pick there redward. Your not gonna do much to convince me if your gonna resort to such tactics...and in fact the fact that you ARE resorting to such tactics means you actually think I have a valid point.
|
|
I think your point is *valid*, but I'm not sure how important it is compared to the possible motivations behind the change. One real possibity it that the change is really a bully tax. That is, the devs' desires to eliminate the "play up or down" debate from 95%+ of tables vs the ability for any given PC to max out gold.
I for one never thought that level 2's should have access to 4-5 money, so I am mostly in favor of the changes. It also saves me the time of trying to find 4-5 tables for my level 3's capable of contributing. And it makes it so level 3's that are slower developing don't get hosed at the little kid's table of 1-2.
|
|
So your gonna ignore the it gets worse part then? Way to cherry pick there redward. Your not gonna do much to convince me if your gonna resort to such tactics...and in fact the fact that you ARE resorting to such tactics means you actually think I have a valid point.Because the 386 gold your shorted by doing the 1-2 OoT vs the 3-4 CAN NEVER BE MADE UP barring having a group of uber optimized players carry you through a completely play up OoT (so a 3-4 in a 6-7) maybe?Agreed. Losing 0.33% of my character's eventual WBL is unacceptable and basically amounts to ROBBERY.
So it CAN NEVER BE MADE UP (except when it can)?
I don't think I'm going to convince you. I don't think you're willing or interested in being convinced. I think you're angry that your characters' earning potential has been capped. I'm just responding to hyperbole in kind.
You are absolutely right. The change will result in a lower overall WBL cap.
It will also result in a narrower disparity between the lowest WBL and highest WBL, reducing the penalty for those who play down to help complete tables.
It also means people who use GM credit for characters in between tiers will not be as heavily penalized.
It also means there will be less deviation in the WBL across the community, allowing authors and developers to better tune scenarios.
Also note that playing down, while resulting in less gold, will likely also result in less expenditure of consumables from the higher level characters. If I'm playing up, I'm going to pop that Elixir of Spirit Sight. If I'm playing down, I may just tough it out.
|
|
If you did that for 3 adventures in a row at level 4 you'd be behind more than 15% of your WBL. If you do that to 12th you'll be behind almost 25%. Yes, this amounts basically to "ROBBERY.".
Or you could, you know, play in tier and not worry about it.
Or is it you would rather every scenario give the rewards for playing up, so you can have maximum gold on all your characters?
Would you prefer the scenarios be written for the WBL of a character who always plays in tier, or always plays up?
|
|
So your gonna ignore the it gets worse part then? Way to cherry pick there redward. Your not gonna do much to convince me if your gonna resort to such tactics...and in fact the fact that you ARE resorting to such tactics means you actually think I have a valid point.Because the 386 gold your shorted by doing the 1-2 OoT vs the 3-4 CAN NEVER BE MADE UP barring having a group of uber optimized players carry you through a completely play up OoT (so a 3-4 in a 6-7) maybe?Agreed. Losing 0.33% of my character's eventual WBL is unacceptable and basically amounts to ROBBERY.So it CAN NEVER BE MADE UP (except when it can)?
I don't think I'm going to convince you. I don't think you're willing or interested in being convinced. I think you're angry that your characters' earning potential has been capped. I'm just responding to hyperbole in kind.
You are absolutely right. The change will result in a lower overall WBL cap.
It will also result in a narrower disparity between the lowest WBL and highest WBL, reducing the penalty for those who play down to help complete tables.
It also means people who use GM credit for characters in between tiers will not be as heavily penalized.
It also means there will be less deviation in the WBL across the community, allowing authors and developers to better tune scenarios.
Also note that playing down, while resulting in less gold, will likely also result in less expenditure of consumables from the higher level characters. If I'm playing up, I'm going to pop that Elixir of Spirit Sight. If I'm playing down, I may just tough it out.
See unlike you, I DID give a full account (like say the ability for a level 7 to game the system to make up some of that lost gold). And yes there is a smaller disparity between the LOWEST POSSIBLE gold and HIGHEST POSSIBLE gold. That I do think is actually a good thing and I like that about this system. Then again, we could have done that MUCH BETTER if that was the ACTUAL goal. Seriously, if that was the goal, we should have just said at level X, you get Y amount of gold per scenario. Then there would be ZERO difference between lowest and highest possible gold. I thought the whole point of this was to make play BETTER. So there would be less bully to play up (great so now we have bully to play down...reason to follow). So tables would be easier to muster (wait not seeing that since you have to be more careful about play up and down now). So people can game the system less (okay, that I will give you). So people don't end up screwing themselves (ummm nope this is actually WORSE since in the old system, one play up at the higher tier with a good group that kept your expendable usage down made up for pretty much all the play downs you did at lower levels). And yeah did I mention the bully to play down? You admit that play up requires more consumables...like that elixir that costs 1k. So...I get the same gold if I play down or up...what do you think that two level 4 players will be asked to do when in a group with 4 other levels 3? Play down you say? So no, I honestly do not see how this is a good fix beyond more equalized wealth...and like i said, if that was the case, then this solution is totally half baked.
|
|
...what do you think that two level 4 players will be asked to do when in a group with 4 other levels 3...
The situations where that party can play:
1 - 5:
APL of 3.33, which is in between, but with 6 players they're automatically playing 4-5.
3 - 7:
APL of 3.33, so they're playing 3-4.
1 - 7:
APL of 3.33, so they're playing 3-4.
No bullying will occur.
|
|
Umm where are you getting the auto play up for 6 players?!? If there are 4-5 players they have to auto play DOWN, but that should be a case where the choice is still open....
1 - 5:
APL of 3.33, which is in between, but with 6 players they're automatically playing 4-5.
No bullying will occur.
A party of five to seven characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play the higher tier with the four-character adjustment.
For scenarios written in Seasons 0 to 3, when the APL is in between subtiers, a party of six or seven characters must play the higher subtier.
|
|
Umm where are you getting the auto play up for 6 players?!? If there are 4-5 players they have to auto play DOWN, but that should be a case where the choice is still open....
1 - 5:
APL of 3.33, which is in between, but with 6 players they're automatically playing 4-5.
No bullying will occur.
Depends on which season you're playing.
Starting with Season 4, scenarios are designed for six characters and contain instructions on how to adjust the scenario for four-character parties. When the APL of a table is between two subtiers (like APL 3 for a Tier 1–5 scenario), a party of four characters must play the lower tier without any adjustments for party size. A party of five to seven characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play the higher tier with the four-character adjustment.
For scenarios written in Seasons 0 to 3, when the APL is in between subtiers, a party of six or seven characters must play the higher subtier. Parties with four or five characters must play the lower subtier.
|
|
Umm where are you getting the auto play up for 6 players?!? If there are 4-5 players they have to auto play DOWN, but that should be a case where the choice is still open....
1 - 5:
APL of 3.33, which is in between, but with 6 players they're automatically playing 4-5.
No bullying will occur.A party of five to seven characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play the higher tier with the four-character adjustment.
For scenarios written in Seasons 0 to 3, when the APL is in between subtiers, a party of six or seven characters must play the higher subtier.
Oh wow...that is just so much worse then I could have possibly imagined. Way to allow griefing. So you see a group of 4 levels 3. You can bring in a 4 or 5 and force a play up so they can all no die/use up a lot of consumables...yeah....
|
@Cold Napalm: I'm sorry, but that kind of mentality is wrong. I can't imagine someone coming up, seeing the four person table and thinking "I wasn't going to play PFS today, but darn it, I want these people's characters to DIE!", and then join the table so they play up a tier. That kind of behavior is not tolerated in PFS play (at the very minimum under the "Don't be a Jerk" rule) and someone trying to ruin a game would be kicked out by any GM worth their salt. Likewise, someone wanting to play a game when there's room and they have a valid PC to play shouldn't be denied just because the tier would get kicked up a notch. Just means the table prepares strategies/tactics, puts on their A game, has some fun.
I understand you're worried about gold losses from lack of higher tier amounts and extra consumables spent for being forced to play up. In that case, what system would you suggest to make a fairly standard way to set tiers and difficulty for semi-random group of players that reduces party bullying for tiers, makes it more efficient for the GM to appropriate the mission scale for tier, and provides a fairer way to distribute gold when playing out of tier?
@David Bowles: I think it's more of trying to keep the party within a tier as much as possible more than anything else :)
|
|
There is now only a very narrow range that allows a choice. If there are no players actually in the 4-5 subtier, and there are 6 ore more players, and their APL is 3, they may choose to play down.
It's already been pointed out that this is only true for seasons 0-3. Does not apply to seasons 4-5 (although I think it should).
|
|
As I stated previously the campaign is forcing people to play up to there detriment. The way they tier the scenarios is the culprit however not the way gold is issued.
I personally will walk away from a table if I cannot play it with a char that is in tier.
This is a personal choice and not one that I think others should follow unless they want to.
|
|
There is now only a very narrow range that allows a choice. If there are no players actually in the 4-5 subtier, and there are 6 ore more players, and their APL is 3, they may choose to play down.It's already been pointed out that this is only true for seasons 0-3. Does not apply to seasons 4-5 (although I think it should).
Season 4-5 has the "4 person adjustmemnt", however. This is actually somewhat similar to the my proposal of three difficulties for each subtier. Because now we effectively have four "modes": Lower subtier with 4 person adjustment, regular lowers subtier, upper subtier with 4 person adjustment, and regular upper subtier.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Hahah. Oh so funny. Situation
P1:Level 1 Cleric
P2:Level 2 Fighter
P3:Level 2 Fighter
P4:Either Level 1 paladin or level 5 druid
P5:Either level 1 wizard or level 5 WitchP4 and P5 have absolute control over the tier which they play at. If they say "I'm playing my 5th" The level's 1 and 2's must play up. Bullying will still happen.
Nope. They don't.
This has happened 3 times in the 6 games I have been at. All three times they were given the option to play a level 1 pregen, play their level one, or find another table. In one case someone came from the other table, to take their place, and sent them over there. The GM and the table can say who they are willing to play with. And if they persist in dragging underlevel characters into a challenge they are not ready for, they are violating the jerk rule.
(In fact one of the venues I played at pretty much defined playing with a 3 level difference without the consent of the low level characters as being a violation of the jerk rule, and therefore not allowed.
|
|
I just got home from running a game tonight, Season 4 Tier 3-7, party of six: 3, 3, 3, 5, X, Y. I ran everyone through the various new Season 5 rules (including handing out faction missions and then offering to take them back).
X and Y had signed up with their level 6 characters but didn't want to force the party up into the higher sub-tier. So they got ready to play their level 3 back-up characters (APL would have been 3.3, so we'd be playing 3-4 with no adjustments).
We double-checked the APL, and with the 6s it was 4.3. Round to the nearest whole number, 4. So they'd be playing 3-4 either way.
They decided to play their level 6 characters (). At the end, one said to the other, "I like this. We can play with everyone else now."
Not everyone cares about gp.*
*And these guys are pretty good at min-maxing their characters, too.
|
|
My complaint about playing down is that I feel there is no threat. I could careless about the money. I play up for the challenge, the extra gold is just nice.
When I play down, even when in the middle level. I often have to find reasons to stay out of the combat to give the low level characters a chance to fight.
I have only played for 1 year, but I have never heard anyone complain about playing down due to the money.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
That's easily fixed. Just go read the rest of this thread. It is full of people complaining about how not being able to max their wealth by level by playing up is cheating them out of things other people got to have. And how not being able to get full credit playing up is crippling their characters.
|
|
That's easily fixed. Just go read the rest of this thread. It is full of people complaining about how not being able to max their wealth by level by playing up is cheating them out of things other people got to have. And how not being able to get full credit playing up is crippling their characters.
I can read anything on the internet. Hearing them say it at game time is completely different.