APL Issues- When do we play up?

[Deurn Ironbelly]

Hi everyone,

I'm a new PFS GM- first game is actually coming up shortly. I've been DM'ng my own games for years though, so I'm not inexperienced.

I'm running 04-18: The Veteran's Vault, and have 6 players RSVPd for our session, with a 7th new player (new guy) on the wait-list. Right now I've got two 3rd levels, two 2nd levels, and two 1st levels.

A similar level mix has been blowing through our regular sessions, and I thought about bumping the scenario up to the next Tier, but want to keep it noob friendly for now.

I've asked if any of the 3rds wants to start a new 1st level Alt, if so I'll just run it at the 1-2 Tier. (the best outcome, in my mind)

I was wondering if I should bump the Tier up and open the table to the wait-list player? He'll also be a level 1...so it doesn't seem like a good idea.

Or should I just run the Tier 1-2, and just expect the scenario to be a cake-walk for the group?

[Richard D Webb]

With that current mix, you would clearly be in Tier 2 (12 total levels divided by 6 = 2)I usually only bump up a tier if there right in the middle of total levels (ex. 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, etc)and everyone at the table is okay with it. Also, Seasons 4+ have the option to play higher tier with 4 characters, meaning it is possible to play a full 6 person group that is on the border with the higher tier for 4 players.

There's a nice Tier PDF on the Shared GM Pathfinder Resource (Should be pinned at the top) that can help out as well.

[Blackbot]

Your APL is (3+3+2+2+1+1)/6 = 2.
So you have to play in Subtier 1-2, not much you can do about that.

[Deurn Ironbelly]

Thanks for the help. The chart in the GM resources was super helpful. :)

I think I'm still going to see if anyone wants to start an Alt character until some of the newer players catches up a bit. I'd like to keep everyone *somewhat* together, but still leave room for new players.

Much appreciated!

[Don Walker]

The difference between level 3 and level 1 is not much. The problem comes when the higher level PCs level out of tier for the adventure.

Also, the closer everyone is in power level to each other the more fun everyone usually has. Though I've seen some level one PCs with more power than level 3 PCs.

[Dan Simons]

Richard D Webb wrote:

With that current mix, you would clearly be in Tier 2 (12 total levels divided by 6 = 2)I usually only bump up a tier if there right in the middle of total levels (ex. 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, etc)and everyone at the table is okay with it. Also, Seasons 4+ have the option to play higher tier with 4 characters, meaning it is possible to play a full 6 person group that is on the border with the higher tier for 4 players.

One note of clarification, the words "option to play higher tier" are no longer applicable in PFS. The APL and the number of players dictate which tier and which level of difficulty (4-player or 6-player, for Season 4+ scenarios only). Choice has basically been removed.

[GM Lamplighter]

There is still a choice when the APL is exactly X.5. X.5 can be rounded to X or X+1 per Mike's post a while back. So if you are at 3.5 you can either be APL 3 (and then follow the Guide's rules for determining subtier and adjustments) OR you can be APL 4 and play subtier 4-5. This happens more often than I'd like, but as it is the GM who determines APL, I usually just make the choice, based on how many folks would be out-of-tier either way.

[Dragnmoon]

GM Lamplighter wrote:

There is still a choice when the APL is exactly X.5. X.5 can be rounded to X or X+1 per Mike's post a while back. So if you are at 3.5 you can either be APL 3 (and then follow the Guide's rules for determining subtier and adjustments) OR you can be APL 4 and play subtier 4-5. This happens more often than I'd like, but as it is the GM who determines APL, I usually just make the choice, based on how many folks would be out-of-tier either way.

I have never seen this post where you get to decide if you round up or down for .5. For APL you round up for .5. If he did post it, you need to make sure it was posted after the new rules for determining APL since the rules changed so dramatically

That said, there is a case when you can decide if you are playing up or down. For season 0-3 scenarios if your APL is between tiers and you have no PCs of a level of the Higher tier you may decide to play down if you wish. This is the only time you can decide to play up or down.

All the rules for determining what tier you play are on page 31 of the PFS guide.

[Dan Simons]

Mike Brock's post on that issue, dating from 2012, is right here.

[Don Walker]

Dan Simons wrote:

Mike Brock's post on that issue, dating from 2012, is right here.

And thus, that post from Mike has been made obsolete with the release of PFSOP Guide 5.0 August 14, 2013.

[Sniggevert]

Don Walker wrote:

Dan Simons wrote:

Mike Brock's post on that issue, dating from 2012, is right here.

And thus, that post from Mike has been made obsolete with the release of PFSOP Guide 5.0 August 14, 2013.

It would only be obsolete if the Guide contradicted it. It does not, as it still uses the same language about round to nearest whole number, but does not state whether to round .5 up or down...which was what his statement ended the debate on in the first place.

[Akerlof]

GM Lamplighter wrote:

There is still a choice when the APL is exactly X.5. X.5 can be rounded to X or X+1 per Mike's post a while back. So if you are at 3.5 you can either be APL 3 (and then follow the Guide's rules for determining subtier and adjustments) OR you can be APL 4 and play subtier 4-5. This happens more often than I'd like, but as it is the GM who determines APL, I usually just make the choice, based on how many folks would be out-of-tier either way.

Here's the actual text for determining sub tier from Page 31 of the Guide to Organized Play:

Determining Subtiers wrote:

In order to determine which subtier a mixed-level group of PCs must play in, calculate the group’s average party level (APL). Divide the total number of character levels by the number of characters in the party. You should always round to the nearest whole number.

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. In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier.

(Sorry, for some reason it won't let me put paragraph breaks into the quote.)

I think the rule you were thinking was supplanted by the bolded part above: If you are between sub tiers, and you have 6-7 players, and none of the PCs are in the higher sub tier, and you are playing a season 0-3 scenario, then the players may choose to play down. That's the only room for choice left in the tiering rules that I can find.

<edit> There's still the choice of whether you want to round .5 up or down. That can affect whether or not your APL is between tiers or in tier in some cases. It doesn't apply here, though, and isn't sufficient to give the players a choice of whether or not to play up unless several other factors are met. </edit>

[TwilightKnight]

Folks, let's not get all bent out of shape over the .5 thing. Players have very little choice when it comes to playing up/down anymore. I don't think it hurts anything to grant them the minor boon to choose which way to round X.5. Just don't pre-round to get to X.5 and then round to an APL. Try to remember that its not about trying to kill the PCs, so don't be too quick to push them up. Just have fun!

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

[Don Walker]

Sniggevert wrote:

Don Walker wrote:

Dan Simons wrote:

Mike Brock's post on that issue, dating from 2012, is right here.

And thus, that post from Mike has been made obsolete with the release of PFSOP Guide 5.0 August 14, 2013.

It would only be obsolete if the Guide contradicted it. It does not, as it still uses the same language about round to nearest whole number, but does not state whether to round .5 up or down...which was what his statement ended the debate on in the first place.

Sorry, my bad. I was taught in elementary school that when rounding .5 to the nearest whole number you round up. However, there are many cases in Pathfinder when you round .5 down. I agree that Mike's post from 2012 is still valid.

[kinevon]

Don Walker wrote:

Sniggevert wrote:

Don Walker wrote:

Dan Simons wrote:

Mike Brock's post on that issue, dating from 2012, is right here.

And thus, that post from Mike has been made obsolete with the release of PFSOP Guide 5.0 August 14, 2013.

It would only be obsolete if the Guide contradicted it. It does not, as it still uses the same language about round to nearest whole number, but does not state whether to round .5 up or down...which was what his statement ended the debate on in the first place.

Sorry, my bad. I was taught in elementary school that when rounding .5 to the nearest whole number you round up. However, there are many cases in Pathfinder when you round .5 down. I agree that Mike's post from 2012 is still valid.

Dan, as I think was mentioned in that thread, or a similar one, there are actually multiple methods of rounding available, some round up, some round down, and I believe one was mentioned that rounded one way on odd numbers, and the other way on even numbers.

[GM Lamplighter]

Hopefully it is on the list of "things to clarify in Guide 6.0", but until then we have to use the method of rounding specified in the Guide: "... to the nearest whole number." That orphans X.5 results, since both nearest integers are "nearest". Luckily, the OP Coordinator said to let the group choose if the APL is exactly X.5, clarifying how to deal with the orphaned result.