Tiers & Level Gain

[Gedden]

I mainly want to see scenarios offered for higher level characters. The reason that we cap out at 12 is because higher level play bogs down for the time allowed, correct? What I am most hoping for in PF2 is that higher level play is more streamlined so that we can have PFS scenarios all the way up to level 20. That won't happen right away, of course, but I think a goal should be to have PFS support the full level range of the game.
On a similar note, I would love to see the APs more PFS playable. Make it possible to run an entire AP within PFS, advancing characters all the way up. This would likely entail multiple chronicle sheets for every book and the release of the chronicles upon the release of the AP.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

jon dehning wrote:

Dustin Knight wrote:

James Anderson wrote:

As far as level one evergreens go, please model it more on First Steps and less on the other evergreens. Or a mix of the two and some of Paths we Choose. This should probably be spun off to its own thread, but I'll try to summarize.

First Steps One (and to a lesser extent the others) takes the party around Absalom and introduces people to the factions. Factions which play a major role in shaping your character.

Other evergreens explore the world and what pathfinders to a bit, but none of them really introduce SOCIETY like First Steps does.

Basically I'd like to see an evergreen version of Paths We Choose. A little thing for each faction, and the GM picks the factions based on what the table sounds interested in. Start off with a briefing by the 3 deans.

I agree. I would love an evergreen wherein the players only have to meet with 3 of the 9 factions, with a fourth encounter being tailored depending on which factions they chose. You could replay it again and again to "meet all the factions", not to mention see what kind of common enemies (or themes) are present in the different factions.

First Steps was great, but in a semi-module evergreen we could have had more meat behind each of the factions' mini-quests.

Problem with this is that factions come and go; cf First Steps 2 and 3.

I and another VO had an idea several years ago wherein each faction had its own quest. The mini-adventure introduced you to the head and was tailored/written to highlight or emphasize the factions methods and goals. This would solve the problem of one faction going away; you simply remove that faction's quest from rotation. New faction? New quest! You could keep the XP, PP, and gold similar to how the quests do it now.

Good idea, a quest could highlight what a faction represents, and it sounds similar to certain parts of the recent multiple scenarios, and that part was very well received.

[thaX]

I suggest having the tighter tiers as Starfinder, then have single level tiers for high level content. (like what modules are done) So an 12th level scenario can be played by an 11th, 12th or 13th level character. Perhaps make the scenarios at 13th level, 14th level, and even levels after that. (16, 18, 20)

What this will do is have one set of monster stats, be more focused on the level of play, and it won't have a wide range of character levels that play from different tiers.

We could also have single level scenarios for lower levels for more focused story elements and for the evergreens.

[GM Aerondor]

Not that I like high level play... but I would have thought given the very small number of truely high level characters, that you would want the level bands after 12th to be wider, not narrower.

[thaX]

It is more to do with how Prep is than it is for the tier for the character. Having tighter reign on the encounters and not having to produce two tiers of higher level content could ensure better quality and have room for exposition for the scenario for the GM/Characters to pursue.

I also think that higher level (Beyond 11 or 12th level) content will likely not be introduced until after the first season except with sanctioned content for modules and AP's.

My hope is that there is room for higher level content and that it could be something that goes beyond the character's career within the Pathfinder organization. Having a "Single" level (For a tier with three possible levels for the characters) like for a module could also make for a better challenge for the group without having it get out of hand for a lower leveled group.

The disparity in 4th season in particular (and some for 6th season) is of a particular concern for me to not repeat with this new changeover. King of the Stoval Stairs still needs to be retired, in my honest opinion, and I hope never to have the TPK heavy type of scenario to be a concern for this new edition and the upcoming seasons with it.

[Freedom Snake]

I think the tiers should be ability based. In SFS, 4-level tiers make perfect sense for a few reasons.

Weapon proficiency in SF at level 3 is a complete game changer. Factor in additional feats at 3 and 5 (4 additional feats in the case of the soldier) and having even a single level 5 at a tier 1-2 table becomes completely broken and pointless. The 5 at a table with levels 5, 1, 1, 1 (APL 2), 5, 3, 2, 1, 1 (APL 2.4), 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 (APL 2.3) or a 5, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1 (APL 2.3) will hit everything on a 4 or 5, probably one-shot most NPCs, obliterate skill checks, and make the whole game no different for the low level players than it would be if they were to just watch someone else play and listen to the story. A level 5 in tier 1-2 would be obnoxious and ridiculous in terms of SF scaling.
If PF2 scales like SF does, then the tiers need to progress like SF does.

Second, if you care about new players and omission of unnecessary complication as a design aspect, adding a sandwich tier between the tiers doesn't seem to be value-added or help your case.

Frankly, limiting the sub-tiers to one increase per feat universally obtained is one of the best things Paizo did with SFS. Limiting the tiers to a maximum of 2 complete sub-tiers per tier that every player neatly fits into also makes great sense.

Anything larger than two sub-tiers should be reserved for multi-table specials.

[thaX]

Yeah, I think the closer tiers like in Starfinder should be the norm for the beginning levels. My suggestion is to narrow it down further with higher level play, beyond 11th or 12th.

[Ascalaphus]

I think there's merit in that.

I also think that there's merit in some of the following ideas:

1) No more out of subtier gold - you always get the gold appropriate for your level, regardless of whether you play up down or in the middle. No more angst when you're constantly one level ahead of your friends. And simpler chronicle filling in - just give someone the gold for their level at all times.

2) If there's going to be a jump between levels as pronounced as the 1-2 jump, maybe that's worth a tier split between 1 and 2. A character just about doubles in HP between level 1 and 2 in PF1 and SF, and also about triples in gear. Monsters that challenge level 1 characters often have trouble scratching the paint of level 2 characters.

3) Hopefully we won't see as strong a jump in power in PF2 as we see in SF between level 2 and 3 (weapon specialization, soldier gear boost, better trick attack). Because right now there's these big jumps between levels 1,2,3 and that makes it feel like anyone playing up or down is very off.

[thaX]

1 -- I believe the mid-tier gold compromise should be kept, keeping the WBL (if there is such a thing in PF2) closer to what the character should have.

The reason for mid tier gold was that there was a fantastically huge amount of Higher tier gold that was given out to lower level characters (specifically, levels one or two most of the time) to a certain subset of players that always want to play up specifically for the gold reward it entailed. This also punished those who ended up playing low some of the time to make the table or having limited characters they could play, ending up with less gold than what they should have.

Mid Tier gold, as it is in PF1, makes it so that the WBL curve is not abused or that those playing low are not punished for doing so.

2 & 3 -- Looking at what we have thus far in the blogs and the info sparsed out, I don't see as big of jump as we did in Starfinder. A part of the balancing of higher level play could be a part of the playtest that would be fettered out and adjusted before the final release.

Another thing I should like to see is how Evergreens are done and perhaps the single level tier (for a level range above and below that level) could ease the development of those multiplay branching/alternate play scenarios.

[Brent Bowser]

Adventures League goes to 20. I don't see why we can't. Obviously, not until season 3 or 4.

Keep the Starfinder tiering so we don't have to worry about being between tier. 3 exp per level. Maybe instead of prestige, we get downtime days so we can apply those to crafting or retraining.

Set the rule so you get the rewards for the tier you are, not the tier you played. There'll be no power leveling, no gaming the system to try and get more rewards and be slightly more powerful than other people at your level, and it won't punish folks who are forced to play down because of the influx of new, lower level people into that particular game.

[JDDyslexia]

I'm not sure if I'd want to go much further than level 12. Tables with higher-level characters can have a harder time fitting into the 4-hour slots most game stores and conventions operate in. You already run into this issue with some 7-11s.

I feel like if we push that all the way to 20, you'll be spending two game slots just to get through one scenario for 1 XP, and that will get really annoying after the third or fourth time.

[DM Livgin]

Joe Bouchard wrote:

I'm not sure if I'd want to go much further than level 12. Tables with higher-level characters can have a harder time fitting into the 4-hour slots most game stores and conventions operate in. You already run into this issue with some 7-11s.

I feel like if we push that all the way to 20, you'll be spending two game slots just to get through one scenario for 1 XP, and that will get really annoying after the third or fourth time.

I feel like PF2 will play faster at higher tiers than PF1. But I only made it to lvl 7 with the playtest so the is just speculation.

[Rakle]

I know the following isn't exactly PF2 related

I would suggest the idea of fast start chronicle sheets for PF1. The sheets would available to anyone. They have to be applied to new character numbers. They would come with preset amount of prestige, fame & gold. The amounts wouldn't be as good as actually working a character up each level, but still good enough to make a viable character.

PF1 could have a couple of different levels of available sheets such as level 4 and level 7. Mid and upper level will still be commonplace for the first few years of PF2 while low level play will drop off. It will allow people to participate when they might not be able to level up new characters

[Pirate Rob]

I talking about this a little before back on page 2. After seeing PF2 playtest I like the total level scaling idea even better. Revised thoughts below:

At the moment PF adventures come with 4 versions (low/high and 4/6).

That's potentially a lot of different versions of encounters to prep.

I've talked about this before but getting this down to 2 or 3 would be nice.

To this end I like the thoughts of level adventure +/-1. This helps make it clear what level you should be, especially since lvl 1 vs 5 seems like an even bigger gap in PF2 due to +level to everything.

--

How to scale in a way that takes into account both number of characters and level.

Add the total level of characters and consult chart.

For a level 2 Adventure (playable 1-3) Assuming a table of 4-6 players our total character level ranges from 4 to 18

So have
4-8 give monsters threats a -1 penalty to everything that we're adding level to.
9-13 Normal
14-18 give threats a +1 bonus to everything that we're adding level to.

More complicated version if 7 players tables are still a thing:

4-7: -1
8-13: 0
14-17: +1
18-21: +2

Include this as a sidebar in every adventure. It doesn't involve any division to determine average, it doesn't involve any rounding shenanigans. No ability to add a lower level character to manipulate the average down.

Also if you have a player leave early or join late it's easy to recalculate in a non-disruptive manor.

version for level 1 tables:

4-8: 0
9-12/14: +1

---

Adding/Subtracting a small number to everything is relatively simple. No different creatures/spells to prepare.

[Ascalaphus]

Having seen some playtest adventures, I think PFS is going to have to really rethink tiers yeah. Rob's idea could work.

The thing I'm worried about: monster save DCs scale up quite fast - as fast as player DCs. That means that if you're punching above your weight, few of your spells are going to have full (regular) effect, which is disheartening. Conversely, if you're punching down, everything will be frail to you.

PF1 is written with a 4P party in mind, but PFS is often played with 5-6 people. It needs scaling to accommodate the party's bigger action economy. In some adventures, that's done with a heavier boss with bigger numbers. That's generally not fun in PF1, but I think it will be far, far worse in PF2.

[Magabeus]

I like the level gain idea at 1000 xp with a scenario granting 300.

Although I would prefer to divide the numbers by 100. That means you lvl at each multiple of 10, which is easy to calculate. The 'multiple of 3' system we use now is tougher for a lot of people.

Slow advancement could then be 1 xp and 1/3rd prestige and gold for scenarios, while slow advancement for APs and modules could be something else.

[Chaosorbit]

Disclaimer: Haven't read anything in this thread before Thursday's post.

I realllly like the idea of tier being a level +/- 1.

Obviously the advantage of having subtiers is being able to open the scenario up to more levels of players. But inevitably at game stores and conventions, I have sat down to find I couldn't in good conscious play my 5th level character with everyone else's brand new level ones, or show up with a that new level one I'm super excited about to find everyone else ready to roll their level 4-5s. I think it probably would force org play folks to do more planning to make sure the release of content with a +/- 1 model meet the needs of the player base. But I think it would be well worth it and you'll also find that this will make many GMs so happy, as they won't have to do as much prep. I know for me I'll still do the same amount of prep, but instead of reviewing all those extra monster stat blocks I'll spend time knowing the scenario better and knowing the monsters better and in the end the experience will be better for everyone.

Also, I really like the idea of making the scenarios for 4 characters and then providing an upward adjustment for 5, 6, 7 players. In my opinion it is far easier to prepare to scale up, than scale back. In games with 4 players, everyone gets more chances to shine and that is more fun...but it is nice to be able to accommodate 5, 6, or 7 if that is what you have.

Leveling and XP - keep the math simple and consistent is all I would ask.

Now something super exciting I read in Tonya's post was "Quest of the month" concept and I got to say it is pure love I have for this idea. I really like the idea of having mini adventures that can be run in small timeframes. For example, I have a weekly game group and we only meet for 2 1/2 to 3 hours on a week night, we play board games and RPGs, but have tended to not do society play as it doesn't really fit our timeframe...but with this I can guarantee we would include this "quest of the month" in one of our sessions for sure. I think it is really common nowadays to only have a couple hours to squeeze in some gaming and being able to play a quest like this would be awesome. Also I'm thinking about all the subtle tie-ins or lead-ins that can be crafted by this approach. I think it will make Golarion feel even more alive.

[Greymist]

Tiers are to group together characters with similar levels of ability, and therefore need to recognize where there are major increases in character abilities. In PF2, with character level added to determine success with many actions, going from level 1 to level 2 is a major change. Other major changes are when characters receives the four ability boosts and when characters receive new levels of spells. It seems that a tier of three levels, with an adjustment similar to that suggested by Pirate Rob, would be the best way to enable all participating characters to have similar power levels and to adjust the scenario to compensate for different power levels.

[Greymist]

I'm not excited about a Quest of the Month. We tend to cram each current quest series into a single 4-hour slot, which can be difficult at times with a five part quest. I'd prefer if Paizo continued to do these as quest series, but perhaps as a 4 part series. That will make it easier to complete in a standard 4-hour slot, and will facilitate playing these over a two or more shorter sessions.

[GM OfAnything]

I really like the 1000 XP.

Making slow advancement and quests both 100 XP alleviates some of my concerns about the 300 XP scenarios.

Rewards should primarily be in multiples of 100 XP, but I could see some chronicle boons that reward 25 or 50 XP for defeating a "hard-mode" or optional encounter.

[Hmm]

I want us to keep the 1xp per scenario.

I really like 3xp math. The simplification of it was one of the things that made me happy in Org Play. The newest quest packs are 4 per quest pack, which works fine in a gaming store slot. I hope we keep this format, as it works well for both conventions and for regular play.

Hmm

[Xathos of Varisia]

I like the adjacent level idea for scenarios, but I realize that's going to be difficult for a lot of people due to the numbers of people who have characters available for that idea.

Something that might help out would be if the scenarios were written for multiple tiers, but written in a way that a specific version of the scenario was written for a specific tier.

Take Wounded Wisp. It's written for a 1-2 tier. It could have alternate versions written for 3-4, 5-6, 7-8. or 1-3, 3-5, 5-7, 7-9, etc. The storyline stays the same, but the difficulty can be changed. Encounters could be retooled entirely for the tiers with different monsters possible, not just powered up versions of the same thing. It could be sort of like the Tome or Halflight Path where instead of modular construction along a linear line the modules are designed along a vertical line for tiers.

Then to alleviate the problem of writing a lot of scenarios and lowering the quality of them, allow replay of these new vertical modular evergreens with different characters in the different tiers. I still don't like allowing the same character to play the same scenario regardless of the tiers involved.

I would keep the 1 xp per session, but we could have some 2 xp sessions that are more difficult than a regular session. Not quite as long as a 3 xp module, but with enough twists for the specific scenario that 2 xp is warranted.

[DM Livgin]

I've always thought of the current version as adjacent levels.

1-5 can group characters from level 1-3 or 3-5 together easily.
3-7 does the same with 3-5 or 5-7.
5-9 becomes 5-7 or 7-9.
7-11 is 7-9 or 9-11.

And it has worked fairly well as long as you had a reasonable level distribution. Sub-tier 1-2 and 10-11 were a little unpleasant for level 3s and 9s respectively but that is just tuning. I've been in enough 1-2 sub-tiers where a level 3 saved the team.

[GM OfAnything]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I want us to keep the 1xp per scenario.

I really like 3xp math. The simplification of it was one of the things that made me happy in Org Play. The newest quest packs are 4 per quest pack, which works fine in a gaming store slot. I hope we keep this format, as it works well for both conventions and for regular play.

Hmm

Hi Hmm!

My favorite parts of the 3xp system are that every level is the same and that multiples of 3 are easily recognizable. No tables to look at to figure when you'll level and it is easy to tell when you need to level up.

What do you like best about it?

I feel like the current quest format is largely a scenario by another name and could better serve a purpose. I would really like more flexibility to play a quest after a fast session or quickly in between con slots without feeling obligated to finish four or six more before playing the character again.

I'd like the option to play one or two at a time as well as being able to sit down and knock out four in a slot.

Are there challenges to collecting a monthly quest releases to play three or four in a game night slot?

[ProfessorC]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I want us to keep the 1xp per scenario.

I really like 3xp math. The simplification of it was one of the things that made me happy in Org Play. The newest quest packs are 4 per quest pack, which works fine in a gaming store slot. I hope we keep this format, as it works well for both conventions and for regular play.

Hmm

I have to agree with Hmm on this one. When I was a campaign administrator for LG we discussed moving to it due to modules never giving out less than full experience. In fact if a module did it would in general be blacklisted and not played, one I wrote got complaints as there was a decent likelihood of not getting full experience. The 3 XP system is simple, efficient, not really prone to math errors, and eliminates 99% of the complaints of that sort we had in LG.

GM OfAnything wrote:

I feel like the current quest format is largely a scenario by another name and could better serve a purpose. I would really like more flexibility to play a quest after a fast session or quickly in between con slots without feeling obligated to finish four or six more before playing the character again.
I'd like the option to play one or two at a time as well as being able to sit down and knock out four in a slot.
Are there challenges to collecting a monthly quest releases to play three or four in a game night slot?

So what it looks like to me is quests fill two roles. Role 1: Be an scenario that can be played in a standard slot. Role 2: Allow for short game demos at cons. I know that means that cons tend not to schedule the quests as full round slots, making it difficult to get the full quest in at a con. For a quest to serve the role you would like as something short to do while waiting for other things a rethinking of how the chronicle sheet system is managed would be required. Not only experience, but fame and gold become a problem. Not to mention a chronicle sheet is to be 100% complete before the next one is introduced.

I think what would serve the role better would be a series of shorter scenarios kind of like the 2 hour adventures for AL. Halving rewards is easy and you would not have to revamp the whole chronicle sheet system.

--Chris

[D Dog]

Looks like a lot of really experienced people on this part of the forums. I'm seeing lots of stars. May I offer the humble opinion of someone completely new to ttrpgs as of last year.

Quest of the month is a great idea. For novices and less dedicated PFS players/GMs, the 4 hour scenario is quite often a dealbreaker. I really enjoy playing full scenarios and modules, but with a family, I rarely have the time to give up between 4.5 to 5 hours (with drive time) on an evening or weekend. I thought quests were the solution when I first started, but since they are a series, they get scheduled as whole sessions in 4 hour slots anyway. And playing just a few of the quests out of a series is kind of like watching half of a movie - not very satisfying. There must be other "casual" rpg fans out there that feel the same way. My wife and some of my single friends feel that way - Pathfinder is fun but 4+ hours is too big a commitment to make very often. Quest of the month solves that problem. Short and self contained. And having 12 per year would be great too.

Actually if it were up to me, a 2 hour quest, as others have mentioned, sounds perfect. Two could be scheduled in a typical 4 hour slot, but each still be self contained. With all of the playtest polls, why not poll people specifically about the quest format?

[Ascalaphus]

I would like more self-contained quests too. I mean, I really dig Fallen Family Broken Name. It's a good story that unfolds nicely. But it doesn't really make a lot of sense if you play just one chapter.

Dreaming of the Future doesn't take the "loose chapters" concept very seriously anymore. Chapter 1 has the easy combat, which helps introduce the basic concepts so that by chapter 3 you're ready for a more complicated running battle and a serious bossfight in chapter 4.

I don't think it's easy to write a 1-hour self-contained quest that has a proper story, some RP, and a good climax fight. But I've also seen some really good scenarios made when people put their mind to it and are very mindful of the challenge they're trying to meet.

And yeah, 1-2 hour sessions is something we need to get better at. I think it's easier to write a 2-hour thing. Then you can have a proper beginning, middle and end. And maybe a small fight to demonstrate the basic combat rules at low stakes, and a more challenging bossfight that makes you feel like an awesome adventurer.

1-hour quests on the other hand have the advantage of being easier to squeeze into a big lunch break or suchlike, so they're good for demos in not-really-dedicated-to-gaming spaces.

[Kate Baker]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I think it's easier to write a 2-hour thing. Then you can have a proper beginning, middle and end. And maybe a small fight to demonstrate the basic combat rules at low stakes, and a more challenging bossfight that makes you feel like an awesome adventurer.

If we do go to stand-alone quests, I'm also hoping that they'll target the 1.5 to 2 hour range. While it wasn't written explicitly for Society play, Heroes for Highdelve takes about that long and is just a fantastic introductory adventure. Maybe they could give half an XP instead of a quarter? Then two make a traditional con slot pretty easily, or one can be run in a demo slot.

[Silbeg]

Kate Baker wrote:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I think it's easier to write a 2-hour thing. Then you can have a proper beginning, middle and end. And maybe a small fight to demonstrate the basic combat rules at low stakes, and a more challenging bossfight that makes you feel like an awesome adventurer.

If we do go to stand-alone quests, I'm also hoping that they'll target the 1.5 to 2 hour range. While it wasn't written explicitly for Society play, Heroes for Highdelve takes about that long and is just a fantastic introductory adventure. Maybe they could give half an XP instead of a quarter? Then two make a traditional con slot pretty easily, or one can be run in a demo slot.

I could get behind that idea.

Especially if they had “optional” encounters so that you could drop something to have a better chance of getting close to 1 hour, for demos, etc..

1/2xp is easier to deal with than 1/4

[DM Livgin]

After seeing the difference between a level +2 and a level +3 monster in the playtest, I want tightly grouped subtiers.

[Ed Reppert]

Jack Brown wrote:

1/2xp is easier to deal with than 1/4

Why?

[Silbeg]

Because we already have 1/2 xp from slow track.

[D Dog]

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

And yeah, 1-2 hour sessions is something we need to get better at. I think it's easier to write a 2-hour thing. Then you can have a proper beginning, middle and end. And maybe a small fight to demonstrate the basic combat rules at low stakes, and a more challenging bossfight that makes you feel like an awesome adventurer.

1-hour quests on the other hand have the advantage of being easier to squeeze into a big lunch break or suchlike, so they're good for demos in not-really-dedicated-to-gaming spaces.

Why not both 1 hour demo style "quests" and 2 hour, 1/2 xp "quests" (with optional encounter?). I mean, with potentially 12 a year to work with... Idk, maybe this is too many formats to support?

[Tonya Woldridge]

Locking this thread.

Commentary is moved to the blog discussing Tiers & Level Gain Updates