|
Both seem like bad ideas. Either the higher level player will dominate everything (if the group is low subtier) or the low level player will feel useless. Not to mention, if a level 6 joins a group of level 1 characters... they're going to drag the party level up to the point most of the group will probably struggle to survive.
|
Both seem like bad ideas. Either the higher level player will dominate everything (if the group is low subtier) or the low level player will feel useless. Not to mention, if a level 6 joins a group of level 1 characters... they're going to drag the party level up to the point most of the group will probably struggle to survive.
Not really; it will increasethe APL from 1 to 2, leaving it at the same Tier. (Also meaning that the 6th level wouldn't be able to play, as it was two tiers away.)
|
|
Neither person can play more than 1 subtier away but they can both play together in subtier 3-4 of a 1-7 scenario.
That said it's a bad idea to muster that way and should be avoided when possible (also another reason we don't have 1-7s anymore)
I have heard this before (though I think it has only ever come up one time) can you quote the rules text where you are getting this?
Andrew:
You may wish to change the wording from "stopped allowing" to "strongly discourage". As far as I know, you can not prevent a level 5 from playing in a tier 1-5 for the personal (even if it is logical) reason of you feeling it becomes pointless if everyone else is in low tier.
|
Neither person can play more than 1 subtier away but they can both play together in subtier 3-4 of a 1-7 scenario.
That said it's a bad idea to muster that way and should be avoided when possible (also another reason we don't have 1-7s anymore)
I have heard this before (though I think it has only ever come up one time) can you quote the rules text where you are getting this?
Andrew:
You may wish to change the wording from "stopped allowing" to "strongly discourage". As far as I know, you can not prevent a level 5 from playing in a tier 1-5 for the personal (even if it is logical) reason of you feeling it becomes pointless if everyone else is in low tier.
He can choose not to run the table. I might consider it depending on the situation.
|
I have heard this before (though I think it has only ever come up one time) can you quote the rules text where you are getting this?Neither person can play more than 1 subtier away but they can both play together in subtier 3-4 of a 1-7 scenario.
That said it's a bad idea to muster that way and should be avoided when possible (also another reason we don't have 1-7s anymore)
From the guide. Bold emphasis mine.
Within each tier, PCs or pregenerated characters
should be used in the subtier in which they fall whenever
possible, but they may be adjusted up or down, based on
the average party level at the table, as outlined below. For
scenarios with more than two subtiers, characters must be
in adjacent subtiers to play together.
So in a 1-7 (the only incidence that fits this criteria), a 1-2 and a 6-7 can only play together if the APL creates a sub-tier 3-4 table.
Read that again -- subtiers 1-2 and 6-7 are not adjacent to each other, so they cannot play together. The bolded sentence references the subtiers of the individual PCs, not the averaged subtier of the entire party.
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Yes, that was added in the Season 8 guide.
I believe that David Knott's interpretation is the correct one as well -- the players must all be in adjacent tiers. Tier 1-2 is not adjacent to Tier 6-7, so you no longer can have a 2nd level and 6th level character in a 1-7 scenario.
It doesn't state how to handle characters that are out of tier, but I would count them as whatever tier it is played at.
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
Oh nice, I'm glad they added that to help prevent some of the worst sillyness in tier making.
A quick search shows it present in the season 8 guide but not in season 7 or before. Can anybody else confirm?
It was in both the Season 4 and Season 7 guides page 31 in Season 4 and page 33 in Season 7.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It was in both the Season 4 and Season 7 guides page 31 in Season 4 and page 33 in Season 7.
Actually no it wasn't.
more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.
The new season 8 treatment forbids a level 1 and level 7 together. In season 0-7 that was permitted if playing tier 3-4.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He can choose not to run the table. I might consider it depending on the situation.Neither person can play more than 1 subtier away but they can both play together in subtier 3-4 of a 1-7 scenario.
That said it's a bad idea to muster that way and should be avoided when possible (also another reason we don't have 1-7s anymore)
I have heard this before (though I think it has only ever come up one time) can you quote the rules text where you are getting this?
Andrew:
You may wish to change the wording from "stopped allowing" to "strongly discourage". As far as I know, you can not prevent a level 5 from playing in a tier 1-5 for the personal (even if it is logical) reason of you feeling it becomes pointless if everyone else is in low tier.
There is a decided difference between choosing to not GM the table, and telling someone that their legal character in the level range of a scenario can not play. The former is a personal choice fully allowed, the later comes off as changing policy of organized play which is a big no-no especially for a VL. It is all about phrasing.
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
It was in both the Season 4 and Season 7 guides page 31 in Season 4 and page 33 in Season 7.Actually no it wasn't.
more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.The new season 8 treatment forbids a level 1 and level 7 together. In season 0-7 that was permitted if playing tier 3-4.
The current guide calls out that characters must be in adjacent subtiers to play together. If the APL puts the table in the 3-4 subtier, then a level one would fail into the 1-2 subtier which is adjacent to Subtier 3-4. In the same instance a level 7 would be in Subtier 6-7 which is adjacent to subtier 3-4. This still permits the table to run with no changes. If the APL falls for a 1-7 in the 1-2 Subtier, then the level of PC allowed is no higher than 4 (as the 3-4 Subtier is adjacent to the 1-2 Subtier. If the APL goes to Subtier 6-7 in a Tier 1-7, then PCs in levels 3-7 are only allowed at the table as the 3-4 subtier is adjacent to the 6-7 subtier. In my opinion, this interpretation still works as worded in the previous versions of the Guide.
If this is a change now forbidding a Level 1 PC and a level 7 PC from playing at the same table if the subtier is 3-4 in a Tier 1-7 scenario when it was allowed in prior seasons, then this should be clarified. If my interpretation is correct, then the wording of that statement needs to change to reflect as the statement in the current version of the guide requiring character to be in adjacent subtiers can be interpreted to either allow a 1 or 7 to play at the table if the subtier is 3-4 in a 1-7 scenario or forbid it completely.
|
|
It was in both the Season 4 and Season 7 guides page 31 in Season 4 and page 33 in Season 7.Actually no it wasn't.
more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.The new season 8 treatment forbids a level 1 and level 7 together. In season 0-7 that was permitted if playing tier 3-4.The current guide calls out that characters must be in adjacent subtiers to play together. If the APL puts the table in the 3-4 subtier, then a level one would fail into the 1-2 subtier which is adjacent to Subtier 3-4. In the same instance a level 7 would be in Subtier 6-7 which is adjacent to subtier 3-4. This still permits the table to run with no changes. If the APL falls for a 1-7 in the 1-2 Subtier, then the level of PC allowed is no higher than 4 (as the 3-4 Subtier is adjacent to the 1-2 Subtier. If the APL goes to Subtier 6-7 in a Tier 1-7, then PCs in levels 3-7 are only allowed at the table as the 3-4 subtier is adjacent to the 6-7 subtier. In my opinion, this interpretation still works as worded in the previous versions of the Guide.
If this is a change now forbidding a Level 1 PC and a level 7 PC from playing at the same table if the subtier is 3-4 in a Tier 1-7 scenario when it was allowed in prior seasons, then this should be clarified. If my interpretation is correct, then the wording of that statement needs to change to reflect as the statement in the current version of the guide requiring character to be in adjacent subtiers can be interpreted to either allow a 1 or 7 to play at the table if the subtier is 3-4 in a 1-7 scenario or forbid it completely.
The APL is not needing to be an adjacent subtier, the characters themselves need to be in adjacent sub tiers, since a level 2 and a level 6 are not in adjacent sub tier, they can not play together. Prior to this, the APL of the scenario needed to be adjacent to all the characters, which is why your example works under the old system.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So the question is, do the characters need to be in adjacent sub-tiers to the sub-tier being run or in adjacent sub-tiers to one another? The text is ambiguous.
(Can you run a table of levels 2, 3, 4, and 5 in a Tier 1 - 7 adventure? Levels 2 and 5 are not in adjacent sub-tiers.)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
So the question is, do the characters need to be in adjacent sub-tiers to the sub-tier being run or in adjacent sub-tiers to one another? The text is ambiguous.
(Can you run a table of levels 2, 3, 4, and 5 in a Tier 1 - 7 adventure? Levels 2 and 5 are not in adjacent sub-tiers.)
I think it is sub-tiers to each other.
The level 5 in a 1-7 is a complicated question because it is always out of tier. I would allow it figuring you could round either way for which tier, but I would understand if someone ruled the other way.
|
|
Just seems like a bad idea to me. If the party's APL is 1-2, why the frell do you want to bring a level 5 or level 7 character into the adventure? Either pull out one of your low level characters, or grab a pregen.
1) the adventure is liberty's edge and you're a liberty's edge fantatic
2) the adventure is liberty's edge and you want to play your liberty's edge character3) first or second character and you need to get them leveled up for next week
4) party composition: The adventure requires a face, your other characters named their axe diplomacy to meet the social requirements
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Just seems like a bad idea to me. If the party's APL is 1-2, why the frell do you want to bring a level 5 or level 7 character into the adventure? Either pull out one of your low level characters, or grab a pregen.1) the adventure is liberty's edge and you're a liberty's edge fantatic
2) the adventure is liberty's edge and you want to play your liberty's edge character
3) first or second character and you need to get them leveled up for next week
4) party composition: The adventure requires a face, your other characters named their axe diplomacy to meet the social requirements
5) Some have one character they level from 1-12 and start another. So they have only one character at any given time that can be played.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oonly having 1 character at a time in PFS is a somewhat unrealistic luxury. It's not a home game, and so you can't assume everyone will adapt to your wishes. I generally "strongly discourage" this because it ruins games for everyone but the one person with the unrealistic expectation (and probably for them, as well, unless they just want a Chronicle sheet). Of, course, as TOZ said sometimes it makes sense to have the veteran overseeing the recruits, but that depends on the player of the veteran to pull punches and let the new recruits learn and contribute.
|
|
Some people, myself among them, have near religious objections to pregens. (as in religions don't normally allow you to carry a flame thrower)
Agreed, I typically will not play if I require a pregen except for scenarios that require them. Part of playing Pathfinder is the joy of role playing the character I created with the backstory/build to support the experience. Pregens just do not feel the same when trying to roleplay.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So. I have had good experience with mixed tier parties. Prior to this ruling, my boyfriend's (at the time) Level 7 support cleric played as many 1-7 adventures as he could to spread his heightened continual flames amongst as many low level characters as possible. We have also had lots of times when a pair of level one characters have played in a party of mostly fives on high tier -- they survived and had a good time.
I have seen higher level support PCs work just fine with lower levels, and lower levels contribute on a higher tier. Is it ideal? No. But everyone had a good time, and everyone got to play. Are we being a little rigid here in saying that a level five should never play with a level one? I really don't want us to impose yet more restrictions on how we may organize tables.
Hmm
|
Oh nice, I'm glad they added that to help prevent some of the worst sillyness in tier making.
A quick search shows it present in the season 8 guide but not in season 7 or before. Can anybody else confirm?
I can confirm that the Guide Revision team specifically made notes to add that to the Season 8 guide to help alleviate any confusion or argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a decided difference between choosing to not GM the table, and telling someone that their legal character in the level range of a scenario can not play. The former is a personal choice fully allowed, the later comes off as changing policy of organized play which is a big no-no especially for a VL. It is all about phrasing.He can choose not to run the table. I might consider it depending on the situation.Neither person can play more than 1 subtier away but they can both play together in subtier 3-4 of a 1-7 scenario.
That said it's a bad idea to muster that way and should be avoided when possible (also another reason we don't have 1-7s anymore)
I have heard this before (though I think it has only ever come up one time) can you quote the rules text where you are getting this?
Andrew:
You may wish to change the wording from "stopped allowing" to "strongly discourage". As far as I know, you can not prevent a level 5 from playing in a tier 1-5 for the personal (even if it is logical) reason of you feeling it becomes pointless if everyone else is in low tier.
One of the jobs of a venture-officer and game day coordinator, is to ensure that all players have as much fun as possible. After many, many, many organized games in the Twin City region by a plethora of organizers, it has become clear that vastly different levels (even if technically legal) do not make for a fun game.
As such, a venture-officer or game-day organizer is well within their purview to set parameters for what will, and will not be allowed, at the game days they organize. Because the first mandate that overrides all other mandates, is that the maximum number of people have fun. And if several people don't have fun because someone is insisting on playing a vastly outleveled character, then that is something that is bad for the hobby and the community and soon becomes toxic.
|
|
It was in both the Season 4 and Season 7 guides page 31 in Season 4 and page 33 in Season 7.Actually no it wasn't.
more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.The new season 8 treatment forbids a level 1 and level 7 together. In season 0-7 that was permitted if playing tier 3-4.The current guide calls out that characters must be in adjacent subtiers to play together. If the APL puts the table in the 3-4 subtier, then a level one would fail into the 1-2 subtier which is adjacent to Subtier 3-4. In the same instance a level 7 would be in Subtier 6-7 which is adjacent to subtier 3-4. This still permits the table to run with no changes. If the APL falls for a 1-7 in the 1-2 Subtier, then the level of PC allowed is no higher than 4 (as the 3-4 Subtier is adjacent to the 1-2 Subtier. If the APL goes to Subtier 6-7 in a Tier 1-7, then PCs in levels 3-7 are only allowed at the table as the 3-4 subtier is adjacent to the 6-7 subtier. In my opinion, this interpretation still works as worded in the previous versions of the Guide.
If this is a change now forbidding a Level 1 PC and a level 7 PC from playing at the same table if the subtier is 3-4 in a Tier 1-7 scenario when it was allowed in prior seasons, then this should be clarified. If my interpretation is correct, then the wording of that statement needs to change to reflect as the statement in the current version of the guide requiring character to be in adjacent subtiers can be interpreted to either allow a 1 or 7 to play at the table if the subtier is 3-4 in a 1-7 scenario or forbid it completely.
I'm pretty sure Preston, that when our Guide Revision team was making guide revision suggestions, that it was determined that allowing a level 7 and a level 1 to play in the same game was detrimental to the game, and so that the wording of the rule disallows this.
That being said, I believe we had created a grid or chart that would have made this abundantly clear, but the chart was really difficult to create without making all kinds of weird columns and rows. So when it went through development it looks like they distilled what we had originally presented into a text statement that was hoped essentially said what the chart tried to convey.
|
|
There is a decided difference between choosing to not GM the table, and telling someone that their legal character in the level range of a scenario can not play. The former is a personal choice fully allowed, the later comes off as changing policy of organized play which is a big no-no especially for a VL. It is all about phrasing.
One of the jobs of a venture-officer and game day coordinator, is to ensure that all players have as much fun as possible. After many, many, many organized games in the Twin City region by a plethora of organizers, it has become clear that vastly different levels (even if technically legal) do not make for a fun game.
As such, a venture-officer or game-day organizer is well within their purview to set parameters for what will, and will not be allowed, at the game days they organize. Because the first mandate that overrides all other mandates, is that the maximum number of people have fun. And if several people don't have fun because someone is insisting on playing a vastly outleveled character, then that is something that is bad for the hobby and the community and soon becomes toxic.
Andy, it is because we told them they could do this.
|
|
Andy, it is because we told them they could do this.
There is a decided difference between choosing to not GM the table, and telling someone that their legal character in the level range of a scenario can not play. The former is a personal choice fully allowed, the later comes off as changing policy of organized play which is a big no-no especially for a VL. It is all about phrasing.
One of the jobs of a venture-officer and game day coordinator, is to ensure that all players have as much fun as possible. After many, many, many organized games in the Twin City region by a plethora of organizers, it has become clear that vastly different levels (even if technically legal) do not make for a fun game.
As such, a venture-officer or game-day organizer is well within their purview to set parameters for what will, and will not be allowed, at the game days they organize. Because the first mandate that overrides all other mandates, is that the maximum number of people have fun. And if several people don't have fun because someone is insisting on playing a vastly outleveled character, then that is something that is bad for the hobby and the community and soon becomes toxic.
Yup, with the understanding that its well within a venture-officer or game-day organizer's purview to do so.
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
It was in both the Season 4 and Season 7 guides page 31 in Season 4 and page 33 in Season 7.Actually no it wasn't.
more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.The new season 8 treatment forbids a level 1 and level 7 together. In season 0-7 that was permitted if playing tier 3-4.The current guide calls out that characters must be in adjacent subtiers to play together. If the APL puts the table in the 3-4 subtier, then a level one would fail into the 1-2 subtier which is adjacent to Subtier 3-4. In the same instance a level 7 would be in Subtier 6-7 which is adjacent to subtier 3-4. This still permits the table to run with no changes. If the APL falls for a 1-7 in the 1-2 Subtier, then the level of PC allowed is no higher than 4 (as the 3-4 Subtier is adjacent to the 1-2 Subtier. If the APL goes to Subtier 6-7 in a Tier 1-7, then PCs in levels 3-7 are only allowed at the table as the 3-4 subtier is adjacent to the 6-7 subtier. In my opinion, this interpretation still works as worded in the previous versions of the Guide.
If this is a change now forbidding a Level 1 PC and a level 7 PC from playing at the same table if the subtier is 3-4 in a Tier 1-7 scenario when it was allowed in prior seasons, then this should be clarified. If my interpretation is correct, then the wording of that statement needs to change to reflect as the statement in the current version of the guide requiring character to be in adjacent subtiers can be interpreted to either allow a 1 or 7 to play at the table if the subtier is 3-4 in a 1-7 scenario or forbid it completely.
I'm pretty sure Preston, that when our Guide Revision team was making guide revision suggestions, that it was determined that allowing a level 7 and a level 1 to play in the same game was detrimental to the game, and so that the wording of the rule disallows
...
Thanks for the clarification Andy, I guess it was one those changes that snuck by but I do see the reasoning behind the decision. Looks like another statement that needs better clarification for the next guide (makes a note).
|
|
ummm how is it ok for a venture officer, or anyone else ok to change paizos policies?
You are assuming they are changing things. First and foremost a VO has the duty to ensure a healthy community having fun. If a rash of level 5s playing subtier 1-2 is causing lots of players trying to play low subtier a poor time or chases away newbies, then they are following the most important policy by disallowing that from hapoening.
|
|
ummm how is it ok for a venture officer, or anyone else ok to change paizos policies?You are assuming they are changing things. First and foremost a VO has the duty to ensure a healthy community having fun. If a rash of level 5s playing subtier 1-2 is causing lots of players trying to play low subtier a poor time or chases away newbies, then they are following the most important policy by disallowing that from hapoening.
A VO can not change Paizo policy. A VO can not decide to allow an archetype that is banned because it is fun, or ban something because they feel it is not fun. They can choose to not run a game, they can ask a player who is harassing people to not play, but they can not change Paizo policy. If you think they can, feel free to quote in the Season 8 guide where they are allowed to ban legal characters from playing at a legal table.
James: Regardless of the truth of your statement, it does not mean you can be banned from playing that scenario.
|
|
ummm how is it ok for a venture officer, or anyone else ok to change paizos policies?You are assuming they are changing things. First and foremost a VO has the duty to ensure a healthy community having fun. If a rash of level 5s playing subtier 1-2 is causing lots of players trying to play low subtier a poor time or chases away newbies, then they are following the most important policy by disallowing that from hapoening.A VO can not change Paizo policy. A VO can not decide to allow an archetype that is banned because it is fun, or ban something because they feel it is not fun. They can choose to not run a game, they can ask a player who is harassing people to not play, but they can not change Paizo policy. If you think they can, feel free to quote in the Season 8 guide where they are allowed to ban legal characters from playing at a legal table.
James: Regardless of the truth of your statement, it does not mean you can be banned from playing that scenario.
You are intentionally mis-reading both James and Andy's statements. At no point did anyone advocate not allowing a legal resource at a table. Never. I am on record stating this very concept most vociferous. Also, no one said anything about banning a player from a scenario.
What you are not addressing is the concept of a local VO saying that your level 5 Barbarian will not play a tier 1-2 scenario. If you think that a VO is hamstrung into allowing this no matter what, then I suggest you sit down at a table with the above grouping and play a level 1-2 PC.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The always interesting part of this is at the GMs are volunteers. If you continuously try to force a GM to deal with this kind of table, you're going to be hard-pressed to find GMs over time.
VOs are always balancing fun for everybody (GM and Player) at the tables. In this particular instance, the one player in question is not being told "you can't play", but rather, "the fun for everybody at the table is dependent on you being a team player, level 1's and 2's are easy enough. If you could please play..." That player has a choice of how to react - play or leave. Nothing is being forced upon them.
So yes...VOs do (and most certainly SHOULD) have this discretion. Otherwise what's the f-ing point of having VOs?
|
|
Just because you can play a scenario doesn't mean you should or that others will be happy if you do.
you could say the same thing about an undead themed character, or a paladin. Or pet class when someone doesn't like them. People have a lot of objections to other peoples characters.
There are good reasons for playing a 5 in a 1-5. You need to get to 6 and you keep getting stuck in the 1-5 rut. Its the perfect scenario for your character. Its part 3 of the two parter you've done.
I'm a little skeptical of telling someone they can't play a legal character without knowing that they're going to try to be disruptive. But with that said, if you are playing out of tier it can be easy to ruin everyones night. A healer can probably stand in the back and buff and no ones going to complain that they're alive and totally shredding things. A barbarian would have a harder time dialing back, maybe punch the dungeon to death because their axe is in the shop?
|
|
The always interesting part of this is at the GMs are volunteers. If you continuously try to force a GM to deal with this kind of table, you're going to be hard-pressed to find GMs over time.
VOs are always balancing fun for everybody (GM and Player) at the tables. In this particular instance, the one player in question is not being told "you can't play", but rather, "the fun for everybody at the table is dependent on you being a team player, level 1's and 2's are easy enough. If you could please play..." That player has a choice of how to react - play or leave. Nothing is being forced upon them.
So yes...VOs do (and most certainly SHOULD) have this discretion. Otherwise what's the f-ing point of having VOs?
Very much so.
While Mike didn't publish it wide and far, because the implications of making it an official position are obvious, he did, privately, often tell VO's that he trusted them to use their discretion to run their region in the best way possible for the maximum amount of fun for the maximum number of people.
And yes, this did include several things like saying, "No 5's in a 1-2," and, "We schedule 5 person tables and rarely will allow a 6th." The implicit and tacit agreement between the VO's and Mike with this kind of discretion, is that the VOs knew if they abused this discretion, they would be quickly removed as a VO.
Jon and I simply empowered our VL's and Store organizers to do the same thing. That we'd back them.
And you know what? There was never an instance that I or Jon was made aware of where this discretion was being used to turn away a player from being able to play or to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Did some players choose to leave (and sometimes angrily?) the game day? Sure. But I'd rather that one player be angry about not being allowed to dominate a sub-tier 1-2 game with a bunch of 1's and 2's with their 5, than a table of possibly new players all playing their brand new 1's or pregens not ever coming back to the game again because of that one jerk who refused to play a 1 or a 2.
There doesn't need to be a hard coded rule for VO's to use discretion to make sure the most amount of fun is had by the most number of people.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you can play a scenario doesn't mean you should or that others will be happy if you do.you could say the same thing about an undead themed character, or a paladin. Or pet class when someone doesn't like them. People have a lot of objections to other peoples characters.
There are good reasons for playing a 5 in a 1-5. You need to get to 6 and you keep getting stuck in the 1-5 rut. Its the perfect scenario for your character. Its part 3 of the two parter you've done.
I'm a little skeptical of telling someone they can't play a legal character without knowing that they're going to try to be disruptive. But with that said, if you are playing out of tier it can be easy to ruin everyones night. A healer can probably stand in the back and buff and no ones going to complain that they're alive and totally shredding things. A barbarian would have a harder time dialing back, maybe punch the dungeon to death because their axe is in the shop?
There is a huge difference between using discretion to disallow a huge level discrepancy (level 5 with 1's and 2's is even more egregious than a level 9 with level 5's and 6's or a level 11 with 7's and 8's) and disallowing certain build choices. That's why its called discretion.
However, for the Paladin/Phrasmin vs. Necromancer issue, a GM always has the discretion to ask one or more of those players to play something different if the drama and angst between the players is untenable for fun for the rest of the table.