|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFS used to have a huge wealth disparity from playing up vs playing down.
Out of tier gold significantly reduced this problem but there we're still weird gold optimization issues like always applying GM module credit to characters at the bottom end of the range,
Rather than having the gold be determined by the scenario just have a charge in the guide to organize play based on your level...
For every xp earned while at level x, gain y gold
1 : 500
2 : 750
3 : 1000
etc. Or however much generated appropriate wbl.
All this assumes that WBL works basically the same as PF1 although given the notes on magic items this may not be true.
Venture-Captain, Texas—Austin
|
Hm, now that is an interesting idea.
I can totally see how this would make sure there were no problems with WBL and put everyone on the same track.
That being said, one thing I like about the current system is that if you play up out of tier, you get a little more gold for taking a risk. If you play down out of tier, you get less gold for what was an easier mission.
I like that his creates a little difference in what gold you will have as you level up, so that not everyone just makes the exact same purchases at certain exact points.
Overall I think I prefer the current system.
|
I like the suggestion. The "increased risk" argument has always seemed somewhat weak since
1) most groups will try really hard to keep the low character alive
2) the players who like to play up often play twinked out monstrosities that actually aren't weaker
3) the increased risk is shared by all characters at the table. It is not at all uncommon (especially at 5 player tables) that the extra character is a net loss, the group would have had an easier time if the character wasn't present. So why does JUST the low tier character get more money for increasing EVERYBODIES risk?
4) Getting monetary rewards for playing up increases the incentive for playing out of tier which is generally a bad thing.
I think that I WOULD like to keep the out of tier rewards for characters playing down, though. They ARE taking a lower risk in general.
More importantly, I want to make it more likely that they will play a character in range. I tend to really dislike scenarios when a character or two are playing down. They strongly tend to dominate play and make the scenario a ROTFLSTOMP. Not their fault, its hard not to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like this idea as well. Along with the reasons mentioned above, it could simplify bookkeeping as well. Nice round numbers that could make it easy to know how much wealth a character should have. Big fan of your idea Pirate Rob, I hope this winds up being another fine contribution from you. Might be better than what you did to Bahb's paladin. Might.
|
The potential for conflict is as well present with the current system. Say you're playing a 3-7, it really isn't fair for the level three barbarian to be fighting things that all one shot him just because majority ruled playing up. Likewise, it really isn't fair for the party if the level 7 barbarian is walking around one-shotting lv 3 encounters because they are down. I believe they mentioned the tightening of tiers as a possibility and I think that will solve the most egregious of the issues, but I am still wary of what lv 4's will do in a 1-4.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think it's an interesting idea.
The current system isn't golden either; it only rewards or punishes playing all the way in the wrong subtier. A L3 character in an 1-5 adventure earns the same taking less or more risk, but the L2 gains a bonus for taking more risk and the L4 takes a penalty for taking less risk.
Playing up you'll still have the reward of better loot access; or vice versa the punishment of less access. But that's consistent for both between-tier and out-of-tier characters.
|
|
I like the balance of the current system. There is a small gain if you put in the effort to game it (GM credit at lvl 3 then play at lvl 4 for best risk/reward) but it is small enough that it doesn't feel like you are missing out if your aren't gaming the system.
In my time playing I only really remember 3 games where a character was fully out of tier. So my experience might be a regional outlier.
|
I think this would work great especially if implemented alongside tiered combat that I've seen other organized play campaigns use. So you play a 1-4 game, one pc is level 1, everyone else is 3-4. The monsters are ran at high tier, but the level 1 guy rolls against their tier 1 defences, and is hit by their tier 1 damage, etc. So in effect, you always play in tier.
|
|
I'm firmly on the side of keeping things as is. Yes, you have people who try and game the system to maximize their gold potential. But I wouldn't say that's a large section of players. What I have seen happen is, at least in our area, is players having to play up because the table is full. They can of course play a pre-gen at that point but if you have a character in the level range 99% of people are going to want to play their character. Don't punish those people that end up having to play up.
|
|
PFS used to have a huge wealth disparity from playing up vs playing down.
Out of tier gold significantly reduced this problem but there we're still weird gold optimization issues like always applying GM module credit to characters at the bottom end of the range,
Rather than having the gold be determined by the scenario just have a charge in the guide to organize play based on your level...
For every xp earned while at level x, gain y gold
1 : 500
2 : 750
3 : 1000etc. Or however much generated appropriate wbl.
All this assumes that WBL works basically the same as PF1 although given the notes on magic items this may not be true.
I dig this. I can't tell you how much I dig this. I mean, sure, the table will probably have to be adjusted for 2e's WBL, but w/ all the talk of them shifting towards tighter tiers, there's not going to be that weird Out of Tier math.
As someone who's 5th level gunslinger recently was on the receiving end of a breath of life spell from a 9th level cleric (and also summarily adopted the faith of Cayden Cailean), I'm not going to say that those playing out of their subtier don't earn that extra gold. All I'm saying is that your suggestion simplifies it greatly, and i completely endorse it.
|
I also like this proposal, adjustments for not meeting objectives could be set out as “players loose x% of their reward for not meeting this objective”. I do hope that the x there will be a multiple of 10 to make calculation easy.
Using a flat % could cause too much to be lost at high levels and not enough at lower levels (or maybe the other way around!).
If they were to go to this suggestion, which I think has merit, I don't think a multiple of 10 should be used.
