Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The amount of times in a 5-9 that the threat level significently jumps with the 4 playrr adjustment is few and far between.
That is predicated under the assumption that the 4 player adjustment actually does anything. Pathfinder Society loves its 4 player scaling that actually has fairly good odds of doing absolutely nothing in changing the CR of combat.
|
...what extra money?That group would have a tough time in hightier, but would absolutely roflstomp the low tier. Just pick up a few extra consumables, a potion of good hope or three for the martials, and throw a shield other on the lowbies. You'll be fine. Thats what you get the extra money for.
BNW is talking about playing up. In a 3-7, 3d and 4th level characters get more money for playing out of tier, and 6th and 7th level characters get in-tier gold instead of the lesser out-of-tier gold for playing down. 5th levels, of course, get out-of-tier gold either way.
So, there will be compensation that you can use beforehand for the consumables.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...what extra money?That group would have a tough time in hightier, but would absolutely roflstomp the low tier. Just pick up a few extra consumables, a potion of good hope or three for the martials, and throw a shield other on the lowbies. You'll be fine. Thats what you get the extra money for.
BNW is talking about playing up. In a 3-7, 3d and 4th level characters get more money for playing out of tier, and 6th and 7th level characters get in-tier gold instead of the lesser out-of-tier gold for playing down. 5th levels, of course, get out-of-tier gold either way.
So, there will be compensation that you can use beforehand for the consumables.
Yes, but 'deficit spending' isn't allowed and my experience at those levels is that folks are 'cash-starved' with necessary gear upgrades...
|
|
Spend a little PP. You should have your wand res and body recovery by that point.
The higher ups can help too. I can't buy a scroll of heroism for a lowbie to keep, but i can buy it and either cast it on them or hand it to them.
Okay, my math and your math must be very, very different indeed. Screaming migraine threatening, so I'm not writing it all out right now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spend a little PP. You should have your wand res and body recovery by that point.
The higher ups can help too. I can't buy a scroll of heroism for a lowbie to keep, but i can buy it and either cast it on them or hand it to them.
So, you want the high tier character to
1) Receive LESS cash2) Buy lots of consumables to keep the low tier characters effective
3) Take greater risks/be at the front (I presume you want this too)
And then you STILL watch all the lowbies die as they get creamed by a fireball in the surprise round, sometimes when they're in the forced
"PCs start here" box of doom.
I'm sorry, but I think there IS an issue here and just saying "Life sucks" really doesn't address it
|
|
So, you want the high tier character to
1) Receive LESS cash
2) Buy lots of consumables to keep the low tier characters effective
3) Take greater risks/be at the front (I presume you want this too)And then you STILL watch all the lowbies die as they get creamed by a fireball in the surprise round, sometimes when they're in the forced
"PCs start here" box of doom.I'm sorry, but I think there IS an issue here and just saying "Life sucks" really doesn't address it
1) No. you'd be the high tier character playing at high tier. You would get the right amount of cash (the higher amount, not less)
2) Doesn't really need to be a lot.
3) If your build will support it.
or 4: One of the higher level characters swaps for a pregen, or one of the lower levels swaps for a pregen to change the APL.
|
|
the reason for rounding up with 5-6 players is that it's secretly factoring in the +1 for a larger party. A 4.66 according to PF is actually a 5.66 party. Thus they round up to 6 and play the 6-7. that's why they've set up the rules as they are. What the request is asking for is to say that this 5.66 party isn't qualified to count as a 6.
And even if we implement a rule what's the rule going to be? That the entire party agrees to play low? Well what happens with the higher level guy decides they want to have in tier gold? They end up playing up.
so the game says they are strong enough. PFS says that death is a real deal. The players are effectively complaining that these are rules. If you opt to play low levels and get TPK'd then you opted in to that. It's been discussed that there are 2 other option that avoids you being in the TPK(leaving) or from the TPK happening(pregen). If the players decide that they want to play their lv5 in a 8-9 they've accepted that there is GREAT risk of dying since they could be up against a CR 11 enemy. Tell the players that if they don't feel capable of playing the scenario with their characters to play pregens.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so the game says they are strong enough. PFS says that death is a real deal. The players are effectively complaining that these are rules.
Doesn't the system assume a more consistent party composition? Like a party that consists of support, support, support, support, support, support, and one damage dealer sure as hell isn't the same as a more balanced party.
On top of that too its not like Pathfinder Society likes to experiment with the CR system like having a level 3 character fight what normally would be a monster whose CR is on part with the most deadliest scenario in PFS.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't believe the current formula has problems, consider the following party mustering to go on a 3-7 adventure:
4,4,4,4,4,7. Total levels 27, making for APL 4.5 meaning they can round down and play the low tier. Which is nice because 5/6 of the party belongs there.
But one of the players gets the flu and now the party lineup is:
4,4,4,4,7. Their new total level is 23, making an average of 4.6 and they have to round up and play the high tier with 4-player adjustment. Even though only one player belongs in the high tier.
So the second party is strictly weaker because they lost a player, but has to play a significantly harder game.
I think the "rounding up twice" is the problem.
|
I know that I am in a minority when I am saying this probably, but isn't GM a game leader also? Isn't he supposed to somewhat assist party to manage through the scenario? I know that GM is a neutral judge and everything, but I am personally struggling to understand why are the PFS scenario writers at fault here. GMs can scale down encounters through tactical advantages or disadvantages. I'v done it million times without changing scenario in any way.
Edit: My lodge is small. I'v seen first hand what Wei Ji speaks and in most cases, it's not a big deal. Fights do tend to slow down since PCs are weaker against expected monsters, but it's more problematic to me when a GM with a big ego sits at a table and doesn't understand the problem at hand. Not long after that, a large sized monster devours PC in a single round and GM is puzzled as to how and why that happened. My personal problem is with GMs leading scenarios, not with writers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that I am in a minority when I am saying this probably, but isn't GM a game leader also? Isn't he supposed to somewhat assist party to manage through the scenario? I know that GM is a neutral judge and everything, but I am personally struggling to understand why are the PFS scenario writers at fault here. GMs can scale down encounters through tactical advantages or disadvantages. I'v done it million times without changing scenario in any way.
Edit: My lodge is small. I'v seen first hand what Wei Ji speaks and in most cases, it's not a big deal. Fights do tend to slow down since PCs are weaker against expected monsters, but it's more problematic to me when a GM with a big ego sits at a table and doesn't understand the problem at hand. Not long after that, a large sized monster devours PC in a single round and GM is puzzled as to how and why that happened. My personal problem is with GMs leading scenarios, not with writers.
The difficulty comes when tactics as written mess with that. I hit a level 5 in high tier of a 5-9 from full to dead because I did what the tactics said. If there were more characters of similar level and HP, it would have been the same outcome. These guys were rightfully high tier, thankfully, but it was still somewhat ridiculous for the lowbie at the table.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difficulty comes when tactics as written mess with that. I hit a level 5 in high tier of a 5-9 from full to dead because I did what the tactics said. If there were more characters of similar level and HP, it would have been the same outcome. These guys were rightfully high tier, thankfully, but it was still somewhat ridiculous for the lowbie at the table.I know that I am in a minority when I am saying this probably, but isn't GM a game leader also? Isn't he supposed to somewhat assist party to manage through the scenario? I know that GM is a neutral judge and everything, but I am personally struggling to understand why are the PFS scenario writers at fault here. GMs can scale down encounters through tactical advantages or disadvantages. I'v done it million times without changing scenario in any way.
Edit: My lodge is small. I'v seen first hand what Wei Ji speaks and in most cases, it's not a big deal. Fights do tend to slow down since PCs are weaker against expected monsters, but it's more problematic to me when a GM with a big ego sits at a table and doesn't understand the problem at hand. Not long after that, a large sized monster devours PC in a single round and GM is puzzled as to how and why that happened. My personal problem is with GMs leading scenarios, not with writers.
On top of that too its not like you'll run into a scenario where you as a GM would have to completely rewrite the stats on the monster and the rules to even give the players a fair shake. Here's a monster with hardness 10 in a level range that prioritizes everything but not actually having a weapon that bypasses hardness. Weirdly enough that scenario had absolutely no tactics on top of it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the reason for rounding up with 5-6 players is that it's secretly factoring in the +1 for a larger party. A 4.66 according to PF is actually a 5.66 party. Thus they round up to 6 and play the 6-7. that's why they've set up the rules as they are. What the request is asking for is to say that this 5.66 party isn't qualified to count as a 6.
Actually, it's asking if the party has a significant predominance of characters of the lower subtier, they may be allowed to play the lower subtier *if they chose to*, realizing that they will miss out on the higher subtier 'goodies' as a result (this means rewards/loot list/etc).
And even if we implement a rule what's the rule going to be? That the entire party agrees to play low? Well what happens with the higher level guy decides they want to have in tier gold? They end up playing up.
If the entire party agreed to play low, then the higher level character would get out-of-subtier gold, just as if they were playing at a lower subtier that was 'organically formed' vs. this requested 'decisioning process'.
so the game says they are strong enough. PFS says that death is a real deal. The players are effectively complaining that these are rules. If you opt to play low levels and get TPK'd then you opted in to that. It's been discussed that there are 2 other option that avoids you being in the TPK(leaving) or from the TPK happening(pregen). If the players decide that they want to play their lv5 in a 8-9 they've accepted that there is GREAT risk of dying since they could be up against a CR 11 enemy. Tell the players that if they don't feel capable of playing the scenario with their characters to play pregens.
This sort of attitude is effectively "GIT GUD, SKRUBZ" and hardly conducive to *building* a shared community.
This does nothing to help with smaller communities that are desperately trying to build up their player base with competition from other campaigns -- because if the campaign is 'head in the sand' about the community, then the community will desert it.
What is the harm in allowing a higher tier character to play in the lower subtier in the narrow case of a single high tier dragging the party 'up'?
-We've already discussed the possibility of 'rolling over/trivializing encounters'
-We've already discussed the possibility of 'falling behind on WBL' (though admittedly, a TPK at the higher level would cause a higher level character to fall even *further* behind)
-We've already discussed the possibility of death being a 'real thing' no matter *what* subtier a party plays at.
What other concerns or worries are present besides these items, to incur such... spirited defense of a system that seems flawed, based on personal play experience?
|
Lets call a high tier character Doom.
Doom shows up, and Doom likes to maximize, he wants to play his 9 in a 5 - 9.
Johnny Ringo shows up with his 5, says hey Im going to play. Under your aystem, instead of aaking Doom to play a different character, or asking Johnny to plat a different character ( either one could pregen potebtially). Instead one side of the pendulum muat be picked. Either ultra hard mode, or super duper ez scrub mode.
Those are basically the only two options on the table?
Guess what, in either option Johnny Ringo is going to be carried. His contribution to the group will be minimized, if not completely over looked .
Doom will basically one shot everything and by doing so, will take away Johnnys ability to do just about anything. If this is what youre wanting than coolio.
So Johnnys two options are to be marginalized or murdered. Awesome. Im sold.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, lets look at the convergence of events that would require a rules alteration to avoid the problem.
1) you have wound up in between subtiers.
2) The higher level characters cannot carry the lower levels
3) the lower level characters aren't suped up enough to handle the higher level stuff
4) People are unwilling or unable to load up on some consumables
5) No one can or will swap to another character to change the APL
6) no one will swap to a pregen to change the apl
i mean.. yes that's going to happen. But i don't think its common emough to warrant yet another if then statement on the logic plinko of the APL calculation.
|
|
Lets call a high tier character Doom.
Doom shows up, and Doom likes to maximize, he wants to play his 9 in a 5 - 9.
Johnny Ringo shows up with his 5, says hey Im going to play. Under your aystem, instead of aaking Doom to play a different character, or asking Johnny to plat a different character ( either one could pregen potebtially). Instead one side of the pendulum muat be picked. Either ultra hard mode, or super duper ez scrub mode.
This is actually sort of what has been happening, except there is no choice and it is 'ultra hard mode or bust. And also, to identify the lower subtier as 'super ez' doesn't necessarily make it so.
There are a couple of scenarios out there where the lower subtier is actually loaded with more lethality options than the higher subtier, and could easily nail a higher level character with a 'save or spend a buncha PP' situation.
Those are basically the only two options on the table?
Actually then there would be *four* options, wouldn't there? Play a pregen (for a level that one might never see), don't play, play up with greater difficulty, play down with *potentially* reduced difficulty.
Guess what, in either option Johnny Ringo is going to be carried. His contribution to the group will be minimized, if not completely over looked .
Doom will basically one shot everything and by doing so, will take away Johnnys ability to do just about anything. If this is what youre wanting than coolio.
So Johnnys two options are to be marginalized or murdered. Awesome. Im sold.
My play experience with folks of higher tier in the lower subtier has been anything but what is being insinuated here. Perhaps due to the fact that folks playing their characters in a community setting contribute the level needed to make the scenario and table work, and try not to run roughshod over it.
Perhaps this is an alien concept to some areas.
And as noted above, four choices, quit trying to boil it down to two.
So, lets look at the convergence of events that would require a rules alteration to avoid the problem.1) you have wound up in between subtiers.
2) The higher level characters cannot carry the lower levels
3) the lower level characters aren't suped up enough to handle the higher level stuff
4) People are unwilling or unable to load up on some consumables
5) No one can or will swap to another character to change the APL
6) no one will swap to a pregen to change the apli mean.. yes that's going to happen. But i don't think its common emough to warrant yet another if then statement on the logic plinko of the APL calculation.
It's happened enough that I'm raising the question and making the request for a consideration of the rule. If it was a statistical outlier, it would be one thing, but the 'rounding twice' that has been noted 'up-thread' seems to be the mathematical issue at root here.
Again, I'm not asking for a massive change here. I'm not insisting that higher tier characters be *forced* to 'play down'.
What I'm asking for is the *choice* to 'play up' or 'play down' for this situation.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that I am in a minority when I am saying this probably, but isn't GM a game leader also? Isn't he supposed to somewhat assist party to manage through the scenario?
I'd be very careful with assisting during the scenario. But I do think the GM can help a lot by coaching the players while they're selecting PCs to play. He's already read the scenario, knows how difficult it is. So he can guide their PC/level/tier choices by warning if this is a scenario where playing out of tier is really inadvisable. And he can basically be an honest broker when players have PCs to choose from and they're trying to all get into the same tier.
I know that GM is a neutral judge and everything, but I am personally struggling to understand why are the PFS scenario writers at fault here. GMs can scale down encounters through tactical advantages or disadvantages. I'v done it million times without changing scenario in any way.
It's not the writers at fault - they're trying to write tiers with challenges appropriate to in-tier PCs. It's the formula for determining which tier of the scenario will be played that causes players to play a tier that they shouldn't be in.
Like how a 4,4,4,4,4,7 party can play a low tier but if they lose one of the L4 PCs they have to play the high tier.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, lets look at the convergence of events that would require a rules alteration to avoid the problem.
1) you have wound up in between subtiers.
Which happens a lot.
2) The higher level characters cannot carry the lower levels
Which is also not unusual. The simplest case is when the higher-level character (it only takes one to yank everyone else into the higher tier) isn't a front-liner. Then one of two things happens:
- The high tier PC that isn't built for frontlining gets squished on the frontline, because he's not built to take that sort of punishment. He might get lucky one encounter, but that's it. The low-level frontline PCs are in trouble because to do their job they can't hide behind the high-level PC.
- Low-tier frontliner PCs get squished because they can't take the hurt from a +6CR foe instead of the normal +3 CR foe. Should have hidden in the back.
So playing too-high only works well when the high-level PC can actually do frontline duty, and the low-level PCs don't need to be on the frontline.
3) the lower level characters aren't suped up enough to handle the higher level stuff
Which is the normal state of affairs.
4) People are unwilling or unable to load up on some consumables
Those can give an edge, but a big enough one? I'm not convinced. Maybe if you can perfectly guess which ones you'll need. But perfect consumption isn't something the majority of affected players know how to do.
5) No one can or will swap to another character to change the APL
6) no one will swap to a pregen to change the apl
It's definitely preferable to coach people into setting up a proper in-tier party, but it doesn't always work, and it can be an ugly process.
- The system right now seems biased to push people into the high tier, due to double rounding. This is scary for low-tier players.
- People with high-level PCs get peer-pressured to pick lower-level pregens to help out the group.
However, that means they can't attach the sheet to their current character. If they wanted to play this adventure because it's important to their faction, or because it's a sequel, then that gets really annoying.
- Low-level players forced to play a higher-level pregen may be out of their depth. Especially new players can have a hard time coping with both a new pregen PC and higher level challenges.
- Lots of people just really want to play their own PC.
- These negotiations will tend to happen on the game floor, because many of them are caused by last-minute events (someone cancelling/showing up unexpected), so people may not have access to their other binder of PCs.
i mean.. yes that's going to happen. But i don't think its common emough to warrant yet another if then statement on the logic plinko of the APL calculation.
The formula is definitely baroque. I wonder if we could solve the issue by changing one line:
Divide the total number of character levels by the number of characters in the party, rounding to the nearest whole number. If the result of the average party level calculation ends with 0.5, the players should decide whether to round up or down.
to
Divide the total number of character levels by the number of characters in the party. The players should decide whether to round up or down.
That would allow you to avoid the double rounding flaw in the current formula; but also give you a little more freedom to go high if the party wants it.
Downside is reintroducing peer pressure to play high. But in a way that's already there, because now there's peer pressure to play PCs of a level that gets you into the desired tier.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Sensian
For me, that's classical case when a GM doesn't know what to do and follows the listed tactics blindly. Don't get me wrong, if you followed tactics in scenario, you did fine, but the end result is most important, if the players had fun in the scenario or not.
@Lau Bannenberg
I tend to forget how everyone here is salty on every text you make. When I said "assisting" I did mean coaching players, but about the game system in general. We often get new, but causal players, who don't know much about Pathfinder and I don't feel like explaining people outside the session for hours about how the system works. Instead, I teach them through the gameplay.
But even when I am not coaching new players, I generally want players to succeed on their tasks, and that's just it. I am not getting the same vibe from other GMs. They are way more opposed to the players then me. This creates resentment slightly in players and a small mistake like that tends to turn away our already small pool of players.
But I am starting to derail a bit now and I don't expect everyone to understand my attitude anyway. My apologies.
|
|
The formula is definitely baroque. I wonder if we could solve the issue by changing one line:
That would work. But it would also allow parties to play up for more gold.
Which.. i don't think is a bad thing. The treasure baths of yore have been toned down thanks to the out of tier system. The more rigid APL rules and out of tier loot system both fixed that problem, one or the other can scoot without the system going nuts.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
4) People are unwilling or unable to load up on some consumables
Or people are smart enough to know that scenarios often make it so that consumables are useless and is a surefired way to get people killed. Hell I've dropped an entire party down the pit because of your horrible logic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Sensian
For me, that's classical case when a GM doesn't know what to do and follows the listed tactics blindly. Don't get me wrong, if you followed tactics in scenario, you did fine, but the end result is most important, if the players had fun in the scenario or not.
Tactics are important to presenting the intended scenario. I'm not saying that every tactic should always be done - for example, an enemy who is surrounded before their turn starts is probably rethinking the 1 round cast of Dominate Person or Summon Monster that they're intended to get off before the PCs approach and will likely move to the "when surrounded" or similar tactics. That said, if the monster would objectively still consider the tactic valid and it outright says it does that tactic first, why wouldn't you do it? Otherwise, you're not really running the scenario as written.
During Combat Losarkur’s loyal edavagor opens combat with its breath weapon, attempting to get as many targets as possible within the two cones. On rounds when it cannot use its breath weapon, the edavagor wades fearlessly into the largest mass of enemies it can reach, using its size and many attacks to deal damage to as many creatures as possible each round.
If you don't open with the breath weapon, you're not running as written. If you do use the breath weapon, you're likely to kill any low-tier PCs outright with up to 16d6 fire damage (2 8d6 cones, which can overlap), which averages to 56 damage with 2 DC 24 reflex saves for half. The 4 player adjustment only reduces the save DC by 2.
Once you've addressed that whole shindig, now you get into the "wades fearlessly into the largest mass of enemies it can reach" part and realize that, with +23 to hit and +8 damage on each attack in 4 player, you're going to slaughter everything right-quick. It also explicitly splits attacks each round as much as possible, so face tanking it is not easy. Yes, it has a low Will save. Good luck getting past its SR 23.
|
|
Or people are smart enough to know that scenarios often make it so that consumables are useless and is a surefired way to get people killed. Hell I've dropped an entire party down the pit because of your horrible logic.
4) People are unwilling or unable to load up on some consumables
If you can't make an argument better than I'm better than you, then you're not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with allowing players to choose how to round in every circumstance is that it creates odd situations on the high tier. A group of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 would play 10-11 with no adjustment. A group of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 9 (APL 9.83) could choose to round to 9 and play with the 4-player adjustment.
That's why I suggested rounding toward the tier in which the most characters fall, but only when APL is in the middle. So that high tier scenario would round up. The 4, 4, 4, 4, 7 situation would round down. You could make that rounding optional if you still want players to have the option to play up if they feel like they can handle it.
BNW and Sin - Again, nothing in any of the systems being suggested prevents a player from running an in-tier pregen, running a different in-tier character, playing at a different table, or going home. A calculation system that relies on those things in order to create the best challenge isn't doing its job. If the current system is leading to poor power level match ups, then providing more flexibility in the system to select a closer matchup might help solve that problem.
When the rules were changed, it was partially in an attempt to keep players from forcing a bad tier matchup, pressuring players to play up, etc. How is pressuring players to play a pregen or leave any better? Is it possible that too much of the choice of what tier is appropriate for the group was taken away? It removed too much flexibility.
Don't get me wrong. The current system is a big improvement. But I don't think it's taking enough of the factors for how the APL is achieved into account. Number of characters is only part of it. Number of characters actually in a tier should maybe be another part.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
@Lau Bannenberg
I tend to forget how everyone here is salty on every text you make.
I didn't entirely disagree with you, your point about the GM as a coach helping the players have a good time was a valuable addition to the conversation.
I just wanted to develop the point further.
|
|
Re: Nail
I was under the impression that "split attacks between as many foes as possible" was a typical author's trick to make a monster look scary, but secretly pull punches. A monster dividing its attacks isn't focus-firing to kill a single PC per round.
And that would work.. IF the party was reading his tactics. Since the sane thing for a monster to do is focus fire, the sane thing for the party to do is to put the tank forward and make him the only target. That particular monsters outrageous for its cr to hit, damage, and number of attacks means that he shreds the tanks and back liners with equal aplomb.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
The issue with allowing players to choose how to round in every circumstance is that it creates odd situations on the high tier. A group of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 would play 10-11 with no adjustment. A group of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 9 (APL 9.83) could choose to round to 9 and play with the 4-player adjustment.
They could, and it might seem a little cheesy, since they have one more (under-tier) PC than a typical in-tier four-player party. On the other hand, they have only four players actually in tier, so they're kind of halfway between a true four-player party and a true six-player party.
So I wouldn't consider that such a bad side effect. If the GM knows the scenario is hard he can counsel them that "pleading the four" is a good idea; if he knows the scenario is easy he can tell them it'll be more enjoyable to do the full tier.
I've had good experiences with giving the GM/players some choice in difficulty, in a structured way. For example, choosing a harder or easier path in Cosmic Captive, and optional encounters that are only encountered if the players elect to. These were an enjoyable way to cater to players that wanted more than normal challenge.
The more dramatic issue is that my version would allow a 4,4,4,4,5 party to round up from 4.2 to 5 and then play the high tier. Which would usually be a very dangerous idea, but it could be fun for people who breeze through in-tier scenarios.
That's why I suggested rounding toward the tier in which the most characters fall, but only when APL is in the middle. So that high tier scenario would round up. The 4, 4, 4, 4, 7 situation would round down. You could make that rounding optional if you still want players to have the option to play up if they feel like they can handle it.
That would also work.
I think we two are in agreement on the broad problems and desired changes; this is a detail on which fix is better. Yours is a little "tighter" in getting people precisely where they should be; mine is a little simpler, and making the already-baroque rule shorter is always nice.
|
|
Lau, read my post more closely, in the proposed situation (always round down, or always able to choose to round down) a group of 5 level 10s plays up no adjustment. A group of 5 level 10s plus a level 9 plays up with the 4-player adjustment. They're adding a character to the party and it's lowering the difficulty, because it lowers the APL to just under 10 and they can round down.
In general, though, I think you're right that we're in agreement about the issues. I just wanted to point out that while being able to always round down fixes some corner cases, it creates new ones. In this instance, it's being able to choose an easier path with the same rewards for everyone as if the harder path was taken.
|
|
re fortress of the nail
Thats not a problem with APL. Thats a problem with an under cr'd monster combined with a lower level character merely existing in higher level scenarios.
I don't disagree with you about that thing being under CR'd. It is, after all, from one of the more murderous seasons. Even being under CR'd, it's also assumed to be either an APL +3 or +4 encounter.
The "lower level character merely existing in higher level scenarios" part entirely the point of this thread, though.
Re: your suggestion about median vs average, I think it helps in some cases, but I think the better solution is to follow the "no gaps" tiering system that Starfinder Society is expected to have.
|
|
@Lau Bannenberg
I know that you didn't disagree with me, but you are threading carefully through the conversation in order to keep the "PFS policy" in place. I get that. Everyone does that here, because some comments can easily be interpreted to be done against the PFS policy.
On the point of the topic however, I still feel that teaching GMs some specific concepts can provide more fruitful and better experience in the scenarios. I sincerely doubt that current formula can be stretched further without harming smaller communities which thrive on level disbalance.
@Serisan
I really don't have much to say in that regard. I completely agree with most what you said. I generally follow tactics as long as they make sense, but that doesn't mean that I can't twist them in a way that I see fit.
In case of this specific scenario, I would double check the mentioned values in order to be apsolutely sure that there was no mistake on part from the scenario writer. Believe it or not, I'v seen it many times. Incorrect hp values, Saving throws, AC. It can happen. Once I made sure that the values are fine, I would follow the tactics as mentioned, but here is a few things that I am at liberty to "twist":
- Creature might provoke AoO or two while he charges at 3rd target
- Creature might choose to do CMB check on AoOs instead of doing damage
- Creature might put himself in a worse position
- Creature might avoid flanking
- Creature might avoid using Power Attack
Am I actually changing scenario by doing this? I am not.
Note: 16d6 overlaping cones doesn't sound right honestly, but I am unsure at which subtier level is this supposed to work. It's not unusual for writer to make a mistake like I said before.
|
|
The "lower level character merely existing in higher level scenarios" part entirely the point of this thread, though.
*backfoot headscratch*
The request here seems to be for some flexibility in the apl calculations. That would not help in that case at all
9 9 9 9 9 5= Obviously playing up. the 5 dies, unless you're going to allow the ability to play down no matter what the APL is , rounds to, can be construed as, or finagled to that is obviously playing up and the level 5 is toast.
Re: your suggestion about median vs average, I think it helps in some cases, but I think the better solution is to follow the "no gaps" tiering system that Starfinder Society is expected to have.
I don't think that's doable at this point. You have 10 years worth of backlogged scenarios, followed by time for star finder to come out, be evaluated, decided on , implimented,
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I think the better solution is to follow the "no gaps" tiering system that Starfinder Society is expected to have.I don't think that's doable at this point. You have 10 years worth of backlogged scenarios, followed by time for star finder to come out, be evaluated, decided on , implimented,
I think it's perfectly doable.
We've got a variety of scenario tiers now, but there's nothing that says new scenarios have to be divided into tiers the same way. And we've already got subtiers 1-2, 3-4 (from 3-7 scenarios), 5-6 and 7-8; the first time we run into problems would be what to do with level 9 (a problem Starfinder is unlikely to encounter this year).
The major drawback I can see would be that if scenarios are still written for only two subtiers then there will be a few less scenarios a year that any particular character could play.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Or people are smart enough to know that scenarios often make it so that consumables are useless and is a surefired way to get people killed. Hell I've dropped an entire party down the pit because of your horrible logic.
4) People are unwilling or unable to load up on some consumables
If you can't make an argument better than I'm better than you, then you're not.
I'm pointing out that you are giving horrible advice. Using your logic will result in dead characters. I wish it worked that way but usually when difficulty spikes buffing becomes useless and you as a player should have no context when it will happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A thought, perhaps even a meta thought.
Looking at a 5-9 scenario.
The 8-9 subtier (no 4 player adjustment) is played by parties of 5/6 with an APL of anywhere between 9 and 7.6. (We'll call it a 2 EL spread, 1.4 from the APL and the extra .5 from the 6th player missing, and then just round the 0.1.)
That's actually a pretty big effective level spread.
Grabbing a random 5-9 from season 7 gives me the following encounter difficulty (Assuming APL 9+1 for the max party of 6, and APL 7.6+0.5 for the worst party of 5)
Encounter Difficulty: CR 9 (Easy/Challenging)
Encounter Difficulty: CR 12 (Hard/Deadly)
Encounter Difficulty: CR 11 (Challenging/Epic)
There's a pretty huge difference between the expected difficult of the high tier of this scenario.
---
Moving to the 4 player adjustment, for the high tier we have anywhere from parties of effective APL 9 (group of 4 level 9s) at the highest down to parties of effective APL 7 (APL 6.6+0.5 from player 5)
Assuming the 4 player adjustment really does reduce the CR of the encounter by 1, it shouldn't be any worse.
---
Note there is some overlap in APL for these groups. A party with effective APL between 8-9 might or might not get the 4p adjustment, depending on how they are made up.
---
So a 5-9 scenario, currently comes with 4 difficulty settings and services effective APLs from 5-10 (I guess 10.5 with 7 players, I'm going to go back to ignoring 7 player tables though)
With a time machine to do it differently... I'd consider just calculating APL, adding 0.5 for each player beyond 4th and then separating the difficulties of a 5-9 scenario into:
5-6.25
6.25-7.5
7.5-8.75
8.75-10
You could have your choice if right on the edge, or whatever.
I'm not sure it's worth the headache to try and implement something like this after so long, but I think it's reasonable math to fix the problem.
|
|
The "lower level character merely existing in higher level scenarios" part entirely the point of this thread, though.
*backfoot headscratch*
The request here seems to be for some flexibility in the apl calculations. That would not help in that case at all
9 9 9 9 9 5= Obviously playing up. the 5 dies, unless you're going to allow the ability to play down no matter what the APL is , rounds to, can be construed as, or finagled to that is obviously playing up and the level 5 is toast.
At my specific table, sure. At some of the weirder tables (APL = 6.6 rounding up to 8-9 subtier with a laughable adjustment), I think it's still relevant.
Re: your suggestion about median vs average, I think it helps in some cases, but I think the better solution is to follow the "no gaps" tiering system that Starfinder Society is expected to have.I don't think that's doable at this point. You have 10 years worth of backlogged scenarios, followed by time for star finder to come out, be evaluated, decided on , implimented,
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
At my specific table, sure. At some of the weirder tables (APL = 6.6 rounding up to 8-9 subtier with a laughable adjustment), I think it's still relevant.
That happens, but there are a lot of points of failure you need to get to that point, and to some extent people bring it on themselves by not changing with the adaptability already built into system.
|
|
That happens, but there are a lot of points of failure you need to get to that point, and to some extent people bring it on themselves by not changing with the adaptability already built into system.
However, to some folks the 'adaptability' is worse than manacles, especially folks who may have only one or two characters they can bring to the table and kind of *need* to for either story reasons (the scenarios are part of a series and might not come back up on rotation for a while, for example) or they are stuck in the unenviable position of playing a given scenario because that's the only table that's left at the local venue.
With larger gaming population bases, this is not so much an issue. In areas where things are a bit... tighter, it crops up more.
|
|
That happens, but there are a lot of points of failure you need to get to that point, and to some extent people bring it on themselves by not changing with the adaptability already built into system.However, to some folks the 'adaptability' is worse than manacles, especially folks who may have only one or two characters they can bring to the table and kind of *need* to for either story reasons (the scenarios are part of a series and might not come back up on rotation for a while, for example) or they are stuck in the unenviable position of playing a given scenario because that's the only table that's left at the local venue.
With larger gaming population bases, this is not so much an issue. In areas where things are a bit... tighter, it crops up more.
And playing a pregen lets them get that scenario they need on the character that needs it. Problem solved.
That's the biggest issue here I see to this complaint. WE HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM ALREADY. The complaints coming in is that you don't like the solution, not that there's a problem that can't be dealt with. The lower leveled guys can apply the credit to the character that they would have played, and it then gives them an incentive to keep playing PFS to level up and gain that held scenario. The real problem you're experiencing is that players would rather run a suicide mission with their character than play a suitable character for the scenario.This is very similar to playing a pregen in a 3-7 because it's the only game available and your character is only lv2. You want to play this scenario? Play a pregen. Don't want your lv3 to die in a 6-7? play a pregen.
Back awhile I asked if the entire table needed to agree. So if you have the 1 high level person refusing to play low then we have THE EXACT SAME ISSUE AS NOW. 4 players with lv4 play up because the lv7 guy doesn't want lower gold and not agreeing to play down, even if he's a 9 int wizard with 5 con that hasn't spent any money. So unless you say that the minority get ignored and have the rules force the lv7 to play down or not play this problem can still happen.
So the issue comes back to the players deciding to go on a suicide mission instead of bringing a character more suitable for the scenario, which is not something that changing anything in the rules can change in people.
|
|
However, to some folks the 'adaptability' is worse than manacles, especially folks who may have only one or two characters they can bring to the table and kind of *need* to for either story reasons (the scenarios are part of a series and might not come back up on rotation for a while, for example) or they are stuck in the unenviable position of playing a given scenario because that's the only table that's left at the local venue.
I get that someone can't swap to a different character.
But NO ONE can swap to a different character?No one can swap to a pregen? (now that pregens count as the faction to where credit is going)
Everyone is stuck?
The DM can't/wont warn you this is a killer scenario , you really need to work this out?
Did everyone make scarab sage characters together or something?
The calculus on how often this happens vs how often a broader solution would be exploitable/usable/ result in less fun for others doesn't seem to work out for any change that I see.
With larger gaming population bases, this is not so much an issue. In areas where things are a bit... tighter, it crops up more.
We have a small population here, but with the number of times we've had to start over to level up the new guy, everyone should have a stable of level 5 characters they could swap to for a 5-9, or at least SOMEONE would.