|
The big issue here is the guy with the high tier character (i.e. a 5 in a 1-5) who sits down at a table filled with low tier characters (a bunch of 1s or 2s) and who now has to play down?
Previously, this would've likely happened anyway, right? Odds averaged across the world are a bunch of level 1s wouldn't want to tackle a CR7 end boss with just a lone level 5.
So, the new system makes it better for this level 5. Instead of getting 500g, he's getting 1200g. Sure he's not getting the full 1800g, but that's part of the price he pays for having to play his level 5 that day (maybe he's leveling up for another scenario coming up?).
I've seen a lot of players in the 4-5 tier use decent consumables, too. It's not uncommon to see someone buy and use a potion of darkvision, invisibility or lesser restoration when they have an idea of what they might be facing. If the hypothetical level 5 acknowledges that by sheer virtue of being a level 5 in a level 1 adventure, he should "tough it out", it makes this dent even more minor - to the tune of a one-time loss of maybe ~300gp (because he saved 300g by not buying that potion which would've made the adventure easier on him, when it already was going to be easy).
I've played a few sessions now with the new rules, and so far it has been fairly warmly received by the high tier guys who had to play down (because they say "hey, this is better than it would've been before!")
|
No, the "problem" seems to be either "cheating" players out of playing up, or the chance for a couple of high level characters forcing a group of low level characters to play up by manipulating the APL.
The first isn't a bug, it's a feature. The second could be considered a bug, but is easily remedied by asking the couple guys playing the high level characters to either play an appropriate level character/pregen or to take a flying leap (to a more level appropriate table).
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Cross-posted since it is on-topic to this thread and my own didn't get any answer:
In S0-S4, Out of Subtier gold is always the average of the high and low subtiers. In S5, chronicle sheets specify the OOS gold. On those chronicle sheets, is it always the average of high and low subtier gp, or is it possible for it to be a different value?
The reason I ask is that I'm working up a spreadsheet to calculate available subtiers, day jobs, and gold rewards. If S5 is consistent with S0-S4, it takes a couple fairly complicated functions out of the mix.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The reason I ask is that I'm working up a spreadsheet to calculate available subtiers, day jobs, and gold rewards.
I'd be interested in your spreadsheet when done.
Switching this thread back to the original topic:
I've now got new numbers for post-season 5 Guide changes:
Lvl...Best.....My Path
1.....3695.....2997
2.....7319.....6602
3.....14575....13518
4.....21831....20271
5.....34477....32805
6.....46736....44884
7.....65563....63528
8.....84238....82058
9.....107812...105632
10....131924...129343
11....155498...152917
The Best column is the best you can now do with the new Out of Tier rules. So for example, after you level from 1st to 2nd you can have a maximum of 3695 gp. The "My Path" column is the best I can do with a new character. For reference, I've play 82 of the available 136 available scenarios.
|
|
the system still has flaws.
a) It doesn't account for the wealth items gained from Prestige points
b) It doesn't account for wealth from day jobs (small though)
and you still get a set amount of XP per scenario, regardless of the challenges faced.
They should just go back to regular XP, medium progression. That way, if you play up, you actually earn more XP as well, and you gain levels faster, thereby reducing the impact of the greater wealth. But they shouldn't take money earned out of pocket.
failing that, if you play up and are below tier, you get 2 XP per scenario. (ie, 1-2 playing in a 4-5)
If you are between tiers playing up, (ie, 3 in a 4-5) you get 1.5 xp
if you are above tier and play down, (4-5 in a 1-2) you get 0.5 xp
if you are between tiers playing down (ie, 3 in a 1-2) you get .75 xp
the point is that XP should vary as well gold awarded for missions. But the scaling of missions doesn't fit the 3xp/level frame very well.
|
|
Or, we could not be lazy and just use the EXP table as written. Determine party APL and have X seperate XP values for each tier but people don't like that because it requires, thought, work, and 50-100 words on paper.
Or because it requires significantly more bookkeeping on the part of the GM and makes it nearly impossible to quickly audit chronicles.
Or because players will start min-maxing encounters to ensure the most gold with the least XP to game their WBL.
Or because the optional encounters will now become something parties fight over ("I need the XP!" "I don't want the XP!")
|
|
More bookkeeping than adding the item sheet? I can't believe that even you believe that. They're fine with adding book keeping.
We already min max to get the least XP to game WBL. The higher exp award for higher level can be tweeked by giving either more/less exp based on gold awarded.
Writing an item bought or sold in two places is not the same as manually calculating the XP for each PC for each encounter. And one is a ton of extra work for a GM, the other is a trivial amount of extra work for the players. Considering the player's only other job is to show up, I'm okay with it.
It would also mean a GM would need to add up the total XP of a character across all of their chronicle sheets in order to ensure they are at the correct level.
It would also mean creating a conversion system for all PCs prior to a changed XP system.
It would also mean providing a conversion guide to each and every existing scenario or requiring GMs to look up and calculate the XP for all creatures. In many cases, the NPCs have templates added. In some cases, the creatures do not exist outside of the scenario, meaning an XP value would need to be provided by campaign management.
I don't see how such a change benefits anyone, except for people looking to squeeze a little more gold out of encounters.
Optional encounters either
1) Are inserted based on time not party input.
2) Give something to the group if they succeed like a boon.In case 1 you'll often not know it's optional. In case 2 it's often a clearly optional "Super boss" which has access to an item or boon. I fail to see how this decreases the arguments or increases it in any way.
Subtiers are
1) Calculated based on party makeup not party input
Why is one okay, but the other is not?
As to whether I know if the encounter is optional, I usually know, because I can count to 5.
|
|
Simply because I know down the road it could mean the difference between getting not only my character killed but the party, something I refuse to let happen while there are things within my power to prevent this.
You continue to flip-flip between "the scenarios are trivially easy" and "any loss of gold is often the matter between life and death."
Further, if you do constantly find your group in danger, and you say you don't:
We've done this before with little added challenge before the final fight which for once was actually a challenge for a group that I was playing in.
maybe it's because you're constantly trying to play the lowest possible character for a given tier.
So let me get this all straight:
You want a challenge
But the scenarios aren't a challenge no matter what tier you play them at
But you need as much gold as you can get
In order to survive all these non-challenging encounters?
If you really, truly want a challenge, play a character who is under equipped.
I keep seeing players min-max their builds, min-max their gold, and then
1) complain that PFS is too easy
2) cry foul the instant anything could possibly make it harder
Make up your mind.
|
|
Have a +1 weapon or run/die. DR 10, be able to break it or likely run/die if the group isn't entirely optimized.
Oil of Magic Weapon is 50gp. As is Oil of Bless Weapon. I have one of each on almost all of my characters even when they have magic weapons, so I can give one to a under-equipped party member. Oil of Align Weapon is 300gp, but you'll almost always be encountering DR/Good, so Bless Weapon will take care of it.
Ghost Salt weapon blanch is 200gp for 10 pieces of ammunition. Adamantine Weapon Blanch is 100gp. Silver is 5gp. 20 Cold Iron arrows costs 2gp.
With a Morningstar and a Dagger (10gp all told) you can cover all types of weapon type DR.
For Hardness, you really do want an Adamantine weapon, but you can also bypass it with energy damage, and until you reach high levels, it will usually cap out at Hardness 5.
It doesn't take that much gold to equip yourself for the vast majority of things you'll encounter. And it only costs a little bit more to have extra provisions on hand for your party.
|
|
Actually energy (fire, Acid, Cold, Electricity, Sonic) damage does not bypass hardness (only Force damage does).
However you can generally deal enough damage to get through most DR/Hardness that things have.
A bigger problem for some people is believing that Alchemist fires are a valid answer to swarms at level 5+, at that stage swarm HP and touch AC far outstrips your ability to hit them and deal enough damage fast enough to make a difference.
Ahh, right. I knew something didn't sound right about that as I was typing it. And yes, at higher levels, you may want to consider a Swarmbane Clasp (3000gp) if you aren't able to throw down reasonable amounts of AoE damage.
You can also get Vermin Repellant for 5gp or a Swarmsuit for 20gp. Of course putting them on in a timely manner becomes a factor.
|
Lets see...the changes were made to reduce bullying.AFAIK, the changes were made to normalize the wealth by level. The bullying was a secondary aspect. And while gold according to level also solves that, it encourages everyone to play down and get high tier gold for low tier risk.
If the changes were to normalize wealth, then they messed up royally on that too. Like i said, if that was the goal, the method they should have used is you get X gold at Y level...and if that was the goal, I would be actually okay with that change.
|
|
If the changes were to normalize wealth, then they messed up royally on that too. Like i said, if that was the goal, the method they should have used is you get X gold at Y level...and if that was the goal, I would be actually okay with that change.Lets see...the changes were made to reduce bullying.AFAIK, the changes were made to normalize the wealth by level. The bullying was a secondary aspect. And while gold according to level also solves that, it encourages everyone to play down and get high tier gold for low tier risk.
And while gold according to level also solves that, it encourages everyone to play down and get high tier gold for low tier risk.
As for "messed up royally," so far the response I've seen has been overwhelmingly positive.
|
If the changes were to normalize wealth, then they messed up royally on that too. Like i said, if that was the goal, the method they should have used is you get X gold at Y level...and if that was the goal, I would be actually okay with that change.
And then people would be complaining that they're facing greater risk for the same reward when forced by APL to play up. Oh, wait...
|
|
If the changes were to normalize wealth, then they messed up royally on that too. Like i said, if that was the goal, the method they should have used is you get X gold at Y level...and if that was the goal, I would be actually okay with that change.Lets see...the changes were made to reduce bullying.AFAIK, the changes were made to normalize the wealth by level. The bullying was a secondary aspect. And while gold according to level also solves that, it encourages everyone to play down and get high tier gold for low tier risk.And while gold according to level also solves that, it encourages everyone to play down and get high tier gold for low tier risk.As for "messed up royally," so far the response I've seen has been overwhelmingly positive.
By messed up royally, I mean they did not achieve their goal of normalized wealth. Wealth while MORE normalized then before, is still nowhere near normalized. The variance is still HUGE and there are still loopholes to farm wealth to insane levels if you so choose. So we have a system that didn't actually normalize wealth, didn't reduce bullying (just shift it)...and we did this because?!?
As for overwhelmingly positive...I will say I LOVE this system as a GM...I am not hearing the singing praises you seem to be from the PLAYERS. At best, I get ambivalence. Mostly I get annoyance.
|
|
If the changes were to normalize wealth, then they messed up royally on that too. Like i said, if that was the goal, the method they should have used is you get X gold at Y level...and if that was the goal, I would be actually okay with that change.And then people would be complaining that they're facing greater risk for the same reward when forced by APL to play up. Oh, wait...
And if the goal was normalized wealth, that is irrelevant to solution for said goal. When looking at the system as a whole...yes that can be an issue and it does reward, systematically to play down...hey guess what happens NOW. But that aspect doesn't really matter if the primary goal is to normalize wealth. If the primary goal is to deal with the sub-tier issue...well then no, neither the solution of fixed rewards based on level or what we had now or what we had before would work.
|
Whereas I normally see the delighted faces when a party knows that regardless of the size they will all get a flat amount of loot, wont have to quibble and moan over loot splits (CAWU/NBG/rolloffs) and so are welcoming of the mor the merrier - I have yet to hear a table moan about getting any given amount of gold, and most people are relaxed and there to have fun - and not to game systems or beancount their imaginary riches.
|
|
and been done with it. huzzah, you get the gold you get. playing up/down/equal/whatever doesn't matter. You just make tables, and wealth shakes itself out.i'm sure those numbers aren't perfect, but they are close.
It used to be "you find this much, here's your share" now it's more WBL focused. I don't know why fixing WBL doesn't work in fixing wealth by level, but it is as it is.
You do bring up a good point about the fixed reward method. You can pretty easily have the play whatever sub tier and make tables happen rule which would make mustering SOOOO much easier at times... especially so people can play the character they REALLY wanna play.
|
|
Consumables actually exacerbate the problem in the long term when under equipped. Spending 1,000 of 6,000 on consumables is meh to bad. Spending 1,000 of 3,000 on consumables is abysmal
Where are these numbers coming from?
Oil of Magic Weapon 50gp
Oil of Bless Weapon 50gp
Cold Iron Dagger 4gp
Silver Battle Aspergillum 25gp
Holy Water 25gp
----------
154gp
That takes care of most of your DR needs through level 5. If you needed one of the Oils to bypass DR in one of each scenario you play, that's still only 600gp. And you won't need that many.
My level 9 Oracle still has his original Oil of Magic Weapon. So that was 50gp, spent once. I really don't need it anymore, but I haven't bothered to sell it back because 25gp is insignificant to me at this point.
My level 5 Paladin chipped in 1000gp for a Wand of Lesser Restoration after the party suffered massive ability damage to nearly everyone. It's not my wand. I may never even get another charge from it. But helping pay for it allowed us to continue and succeed.
It sounds like the people in your powergaming group are trying to make characters that can solo encounters for when you have to play with the "normals." Maybe instead think about empowering them to contribute instead of trying to carry them all on your back. It's cheaper that way, and more fun for people who aren't you.
|
|
My level 5 Paladin chipped in 1000gp for a Wand of Lesser Restoration after the party suffered massive ability damage to nearly everyone. It's not my wand. I may never even get another charge from it. But helping pay for it allowed us to continue and succeed.
Totally out of context with the rest of the conversation I understand, but I wanted to comment on this. Just an FYI, but you can't pool money to purchase items in this way. You can pool money for spell casting services, but not for physical items such as this.
|
|
So, I originally thought that out-of-tier wealth was a solution to a problem that largely didn't exist, but having used it a few times, I find I actually like it. I would like, however, the older chronicles to be updated to avoid errors. Then again, I'd like the rest of the season zeros to be updated to Pathfinder rules, but scarce resources...
|
I ran a table yesterday where a level 5 sorcerer played with a level 2 and two level 1's. Everyone had a great time, and the sorcerer wanted the XP more than gold optimization, and was happy with his out of tier gold. Chock that up as another victory for the new system. Since the whole point of this is to have fun.
|
|
And if the goal was normalized wealth, that is irrelevant to solution for said goal.
You understand what the word normalized means right? It means most of the time people will get the average, but there will still be outliers. You're assuming that PCs of a certain level should all have exactly the same amount of gold, but that was never the goal.
The goal was to give PCs playing up slightly more gold (as opposed to double or triple the amount) and to give PCs playing down slightly more gold. Normalizing the amount you get so it's not feast or famine.
Yes it's still possible to play up and gain more gold, yes it's still possible to "game the system" to make gains. But the differences are much less compared to before. Everything is much closer to the average compared to before.
I think they accomplished their goal.
|
|
My level 5 Paladin chipped in 1000gp for a Wand of Lesser Restoration after the party suffered massive ability damage to nearly everyone. It's not my wand. I may never even get another charge from it. But helping pay for it allowed us to continue and succeed.
So...your solution to the play up and use more consumable solution is to cheat?!? I mean honestly I do wish you COULD do such things...but as it stands...yeah not so much.
|
|
And if the goal was normalized wealth, that is irrelevant to solution for said goal.You understand what the word normalized means right? It means most of the time people will get the average, but there will still be outliers. You're assuming that PCs of a certain level should all have exactly the same amount of gold, but that was never the goal.
The goal was to give PCs playing up slightly more gold (as opposed to double or triple the amount) and to give PCs playing down slightly more gold. Normalizing the amount you get so it's not feast or famine.
Yes it's still possible to play up and gain more gold, yes it's still possible to "game the system" to make gains. But the differences are much less compared to before. Everything is much closer to the average compared to before.
I think they accomplished their goal.
Your definition of normalized does not meet with mine...because you see, the variance between play up always vs play down always is some ~200% in the current system. I am not sure how you can claim a variance of 200% is normalized with a straight face. It is MORE normalized I will grant you, not once again, if that is the goal (to reduce/remove variance to normalize wealth) then the fixed you get X gold at Y level is the way you do it.
|
|
That's because you're paying attention to the variance between the two extremes, when what you should be paying attention to is the variance between individual characters.
You will see things are much more normalized between characters as there is narrower boundaries and less incentive to play out of tier.
|
So...your solution to the play up and use more consumable solution is to cheat?!? I mean honestly I do wish you COULD do such things...but as it stands...yeah not so much.
My level 5 Paladin chipped in 1000gp for a Wand of Lesser Restoration after the party suffered massive ability damage to nearly everyone. It's not my wand. I may never even get another charge from it. But helping pay for it allowed us to continue and succeed.
This was already addressed above; not so much as advocated cheating as player/GM not realizing this was illegal.
|
|
That's because you're paying attention to the variance between the two extremes, when what you should be paying attention to is the variance between individual characters.
You will see things are much more normalized between characters as there is narrower boundaries and less incentive to play out of tier.
If that is the case, I don't think there was even and issue to begin with outside of extremes...which you are advocating we ignore under the OLD system. So since all this does is reduce the extremes, that is what I am looking at.
|
|
This was already addressed above; not so much as advocated cheating as player/GM not realizing this was illegal.So...your solution to the play up and use more consumable solution is to cheat?!? I mean honestly I do wish you COULD do such things...but as it stands...yeah not so much.
My level 5 Paladin chipped in 1000gp for a Wand of Lesser Restoration after the party suffered massive ability damage to nearly everyone. It's not my wand. I may never even get another charge from it. But helping pay for it allowed us to continue and succeed.
You do realize that many people read posts in order and reply to then in such...right?
|
|
So...your solution to the play up and use more consumable solution is to cheat?!? I mean honestly I do wish you COULD do such things...but as it stands...yeah not so much.
My level 5 Paladin chipped in 1000gp for a Wand of Lesser Restoration after the party suffered massive ability damage to nearly everyone. It's not my wand. I may never even get another charge from it. But helping pay for it allowed us to continue and succeed.
As Snigglevert pointed out, you're not allowed to pool resources to buy an item. It was a mistake that frankly should have been caught. I was playing and should have known better, our GM was experienced and should have known better, and at least two of the other players were regular GMs who should have known better. Mistakes happen.
But thanks for accusing me of outright cheating.
|
|
What about the consumable for an invisible monster? What about the consumable for deeper darkness? What about the consumable for flying? If you bother preping for things that magic and bless weapon fight why not prep something for spells which might TPK you. Special prep for 1 situation is pointless if situation 3 comes up and you die to it because you neither had better gear or "Just the right consumable.
That takes care of most of your DR needs through level 5.
See how I was specifically addressing low levels?
At higher levels, yes, the consumables will be more expensive, but they will also be a smaller percentage of your wealth. Deeper darkness? An Oil of Daylight (750gp/2PP) and Potion of Darkvision (300gp) should take care of you. Potion of Fly (750gp/2PP). But you know all that. And you also know that those aren't really necessary till level 7 and beyond.
In a recent module, my Oracle used an Elixir of Spirit Sight (1000gp) to do 4hp of damage to a wraith (or spectre? I forget). Do I regret using it? No, because it was the last 4hp needed to stop it from piling negative levels on the party, and we didn't know what it had left at the time.
As to carrying players. "Empowering" Them to contribute is often impossible. How do you "Empower" The fighter with 15 str and 16 AC? Or the barely better than elite array rogue?
How do you empower a fighter? Enlarge him. Bless. Inspire Courage. Potion of Bull's Strength. Haste. Blessing of Fervor. Blur. Displacement. Trip or Blind the target. Or trade him your amazing +3 Keen Greatsword that you got from min-maxing your wealth for his Mwk Greatsword. Now you're almost equals! (trading back at the end, of course, lest you be accused of cheating)
The last ninja I played with I attempted to give him some better tactics but he instead spent turns invisible doing nothing (effectively the same as sitting unconscious.) I don't know what to say about it because "Empowering" Them requires their cooperation, which they rarely give before falling unconscious and leaving you to carry them.
It sounds like you think very little of these other players. Why are you playing with them? So you can be the hero and save the day? Solo the scenario and have them stand back in awe at your min-maxing and gold-squeezing prowess? Do you think it's fun for everyone else to play your sidekicks?
I also try to build my characters to be as good as they can be. My Lore Warden can grapple and pin most BBEGs in two rounds (soon one round). Or he can Blind or Trip or Entangle him to let others participate. I usually choose the latter, but keep the former in my back pocket for if things go south.
|
|
Darkvision potions are often necessary as soon as level 3-4. I'd just like to point that out. This tax on races without darkvision is actually pretty obnoxious.
Only if a creature is using Darkness in Dim Lighting or less. If it's normal darkness (not the spell), Light (or a plain old torch) will take care of you. You won't be likely to encounter Deeper Darkness at those levels.
EDIT: Admittedly, my understanding of the darkness/lighting rules is about on par with the rules for pooling resources to buy consumables, so I could be off there.
|
|
The problem is that a level 2 spell, darkness, facilitates the need for a 300 gp consumable. Level 3,4, and 5 casters are common in tiers 3-4 and 4-5. As well as creatures that just do it. Tieflings and Aasimars just rofl and carry on.
Yet, I don't hear anyone b$@!&ing and moaning about how non-darkvision races get bent over in the consumable department. Just b!#+#ing about some gold they *might* lose out on if a certain sequence of events occurs.