|
Conversely, would you then also pull aside players with poorly performing PCs? Because my rogue had to be carried through The Blakros Matrimony due to poor rolls and enemies that perfectly foiled his abilities.What impact might that have, and what would still need to be addressed?
I suppose that would be something else to be addressed.
On the other hand, is that even an issue? Granted I've only GM'd ~25 games, but I've had people make the comments I talked about more than once, but never the opposite (i.e. "Man, that really shouldn't have been that hard; why is that guy's character so bad?"). I never seem to hear about other people's issues with underpowered tablemates, either (except once, and even then the situation eventually started to seem like it might have had more to do with GM error).
I've seen it, but almost nobody is rude enough to say that right away to the player's face, so you only get to here it if it's players you know well enough that you might go out somewhere afterwards or otherwise socialize with them. It's very rarely about builds, though, it's usually about tactics. I've heard a player say to me after I GMed that player through a scenario--"I know you've run this one before with all iconics and they did OK, and I hope it wasn't my character that was letting the team down. I think it wasn't, based on my sense of things. It's just, this guy always plays wizards and other complicated spellcasters, builds up a huge spellbook, and has no idea what to prepare. I get aggravated having to handhold him, but you saw what happened this time--he left over half his slots open and then ran out of spells and then the 7th level wizard was just using 1st level wands for the rest of the scenario."
There is a solution that would be easy to implement:
Stop worrying so much about characters playing the "right" tier.
Then, bond can play up, and really be challenged, and rip can play down, and really be challenged.
Players just have to know where they stand compared to the 'average' PC, and that can be learned as they play.
That isn't going to stop people from playing weak characters up or strong ones down. Who's to say that Rip won't play up because he's clueless about where he stands or because he likes to live dangerously, or Bond play down because he prefers feeling invincible? Aren't you assuming everyone has similar idea of what an 'ideal challenge' is?
|
Extensive Scenario play testing ?
I don't think it's feasible, but if Paizo were to tap into a bunch of play testers who could run through each adventure and report on the perceived level of difficulty, that might provide a good estimate of difficulty. And the blame would fall on the play testers in general for the label if players complain.
The reason I don't think it would work is that it would require a lot of time to play test and the play testers would need to keep quite.
I don't think players would stand for having to wait several months while others got to play a Scenario just to determine it's difficulty and gamers are terrible secret keepers.
Not to mention play testers would want to tweek the scenario which would mean another round of play tests for the new changes. A vicious cycle.
I think the best way to gauge a Scenario's level of difficulty is to read the reviews for a Scenario (assuming early players/GMs submit them).
Um, Dude. what do you think Chronicles are REALLY for?
Probably one of the best marketing feedback devices ever developed.
Give Paizo enough time to get a big enough database, and they should be able to fine tune the difficulty level. Given the size of the user base right now, and the longevity of the OP so far, and I would say that season 5 should be in the right time frame for them to find the "happy medium".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's a nice food for thought:
Why not take out all combats? *entire thread gasps*
No? Not ready for that yet?
Okay, then how about some more roleplay only adventures?
Let's be honest, we can break out the ban hammer all we like, but Pathfinder gamers are not stupid. We are always going to find a way to play the system to the ways that benefit us and min/max the most efficiently. It's the nature of the gamer beast.
But we also don't help ourselves, by becoming a combat-heavy organization either. It sounds and looks already that Season 5 is going to keep that same tradition of "hit to kill first and then roleplay" later. Which while combat is an important part of the game, it looks and seems like it's going to be the primary focus of next year. Which makes balancing out the Bond's and Rips more difficult.
My area already, have plans to beef up the optimization just because they have seen all the heavy combats in Season 4, and are fearful of death going into Season 5. And my area, are some of the most creative build players you might meet, so it's a little nerve wracking to hear of all these high "to hits" and AC's and the reason they are doing that is because Season 5 is "going to get worse so, sorry Lady Ophelia, you should get used to our builds". That's promoting "stats and dice play" not "roleplay" to me.
But what happened in stories like "The Blakros Matrimony"? The fighter who spent all their days maximizing for combat, all of a sudden felt like they are incredibly out of place because they "dumb" stat their CHA bonus to a 8. A player has a greater challenge because they know that their mission involves "roleplaying" and not whether or not they can hit hard enough.
Real challenges don't always require dice. And it would be nice to see that as part of the solution for this problem in Season 5 and beyond.
Thanks for listening.
|
I find it amusing that the OP assumes that the power gap is there because of the splat books. Core only, you will have that gap...and that gap doesn't actually get all that much bigger with the splats. What the splats generally does is let you have the gap in different ways honestly...which means for the most part, paizo has done a good job of the splats. So the REAL issue is that some people like to make ubers and some like to make gimps...which will be out of whack for the general gaming community. The solution? IGNORE THEM. Bad bad things happen when you start to cater to the extremes.
|
|
People need to know what they're getting into.
Players (if they really want) do know what they're getting into, if they:
1) Read reviews; or2) Their GM or local group let advises them accordingly.
Hypothetically, a challenge rating would be really nice. However we've already had discussions that this would be difficult (if not impossible) to do. The pregens are so bad they can't even be used as a baseline anymore.
A rating would only be useful if each subtier were rated separated, and this challenge rating could be changed by Paizo (or reviewers) after the scenario is released.
The rating itself could be based off a consensus of VCs/VLs.
If that was done, it might work, and would be limited extra effort since Paizo could just add some rating text into the scenario blurb on the scenario's web page.
|
I'll throw one in here, I don't mind challenges but I dislike intentional killer modules. Its not limited to season 4, but it seems to me as throughout the last part of season 3 and 4 there are more trick modules and designated killer enemies out there. If the intent was to provide a higher challenge, because of certain tricked out characters, the result is creating a batch of tricked out characters to deal with trick fights.
|
|
Smart play always beats smart builds.
Anyone can go into the advice forum get very powerfull character classes.
Does this mean you will win easier? Depends the player. Knowing they have uber damage bow fighter may make them play stupid and die just as easy. I have seen player play stupid once they have an "elite" build they stole off the forums, and them say "my character is powerful enough to handle it" and then die.
Being creative and not rushing into fights and preparing before hand makes it insanely easier. If you read almost any adventure with a spell caster they almost always prepare for the PCs to make it much harder.
I approach the game that death is behind every door/corner. So I treat the areas I do not know as a threat on my guys life. The only time I have come close to dieing so far was when two party members(in my opinion purposely) exposed me to the enemies alone and then pulled the next fight and fled. I have learned that lesson and never expose myself with people I do not trust.
I prefer challenges. I also think the party should have serious trouble if they walk into the adventure without looking ahead and charging blind into each encounter. You have a table full of people playing against the script one person wrote. Your table full of people should be able to outwit that one person.
If you feel the game is too hard. Find people that say it is too easy. Learn from them. Steal their ideas and make them your own. I like to say steal from the best with pride. There are tons of advice items, tricks, and neat strategies that can make the game much easier. Find those and apply them. Every encounter has an easy way out.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a much easier thing to do then to figure out a complicated method of difficulty of a Scenario or adjusting how scenarios are written, provide more resources to teach GMs how to deal with different types of players in a group.
By far the greatest impact of the perceived difficulty of a scenario is based on the experience/knowledge/skill of the GM. Providing advice/tactics/training for GMs would go much farther in providing enjoyment of all players no matter the type of player then working on a complicated near impossible rating system.
I think a much better project that Mike/John could work on is to provide the next level of the GM 101 training and finding methods of encouraging GMs to attend/read them. Also a Monthly PFS GM Advice Blog would go a long way as well.
|
Why not take out all combats? *entire thread gasps*
I like this!
This is basically saying better scenario design can help curtail combat-monsters, which I heartily agree with.
Sometimes the main combat of the scenario could be gated behind social intrigue, like sneaking into a "Fight Club" of a sort. Or the Pathfinders have one of their group selected for a noble duel, but the criteria for that selection is to pick the middle party members, and leave the combat-monsters to have to do behind the scenes "infiltration" while the joust/tournament/duel goes on.
It's not a complete solution, but it gives the optimizer personalities something else to strive for besides finding the quickest way to end traditional combat encounters.
|
|
.. average damage of 19 at first level. Lets give a supposed boss 3d8 hitpoints, and give him a 14 con. Average hitpoints will be 20 hp. That is within striking distance of a single hit killing them, and that is nothing but a basic first level barbarian.
I absolutely have seen a long string of anti-climatic boss fights, which is a bit sigh-worthy when they take place. Although even a non-optimized PC could get lucky and roll a critical hit and end the fight very fast.
While in some part, PFS restricting ridiculously broken mechanics gets us partway there, I think there's two other variables that can be controlled.
#1) Give GMs some flexibility to respond to the capabilities of the party at their table. This is ultimately the secret sauce of tabletop gaming in non-organized play -- the fact the GM is empowered to dynamically adjust an encounter.
This could be codified as fairly strict rules.
If a party completes encounters #1 and #2 in under 2 rounds each (and they were originally planned to last ~4 rounds), then this unlocks "boosts" that the GM can use in the final ~3 encounters at their discretion.
This could be as simple as the GM gets to apply an extra DR5/weapon type to one monster/boss, or a Toughness mechanic (+1HP/HD, even if the creature already has toughness), or a swift action "jinx" that the boss can use on one attacker.
#2) PFS could come up with a set of 5-6 PFS feats that scenario writers can use in their adventure design to safeguard against certain yawn-worthy, anti-climatic endings.
For example, a feat that if taken negates any physical damage taken by an attacker greater than 10 damage X their HD. If you have a 30HP boss, this ensures 3 hits are required to drop them. The feat could even be worded that it can only be used once per day, lasts 5 rounds and requires Toughness as a pre-req (which seems to be the default feat on bosses).
Another feat could set the DC for a saving throw that renders the target unconscious, paralyzed, etc at no more than 12+HD of the spell's caster. This one could be activated as an immediate action 1X/day and once again requires that Toughness feat as a pre-req that all bosses seem to have.
I'm sure there's a half-dozen feats that could be used to smooth out the game. And once the min/maxers realize these are being used fairly often for the fights that matter, they care less about maxxing their average damage from 15 to 20 per swing, stop themselves at 15, and start thinking about a secondary thing to be good at.
These feats could be restricted to NPCs by having an alignment requirement of Evil, something no PCs in PFS can be. Really, feats for NPCs/monsters/bosses are abysmal so this gives a nice stable of defaults for scenario writers.
|
|
I have rarely seen GMs that are good sat adjusting challenges. So if your un-optimized player get a lucky crit in an earlier adventure he is now in hard mode?
Your scaling is horribly broken. For exampel barbarians usually make it a war of attirtion. I do more damage to you before you do more to me. Raging drops their AC and they usuallyu just take hits believing they can out DPR the bad guy. If you adjust that to last x rounds that eliminates that strategy. If they built their character that way sucks to be them.
Plus SOS spells are what can end fights before they begin. If you adjust the monster to freely save you screw that caster that depends on their spells to drop the monster.
They do have great mediators in the game. The chase scenes are a great example. Also they have scenarios that damage will not help you succeed. Survive maybe but succeed, no.
These kind of changes would cause me to leave PFS.
|
|
Wow...one HORRIBLE idea after another there wake.
First, lets write the scenarios in a manner where the person with the worst "saves" must roll a save or lose. Skills as used in PFS are SAVE OR LOSE. Oh and because we like to kick puppies, the guys who may not really like the combat portion can do the combat part...alone...while everyone else just sit around. Having everyone do what they really don't enjoy is a sure way to have a fun game...right?
Then lets scale the encounter based on how lucky they are the first couple of fights?!? Seriously?!? Oh and give bosses cheat codes to basically nullify the big damage hitter (because your 3 hit feat won't save you from the archer or TWF) and the SoD/SoS classes. How about we just ban the THFers and caster classes instead? Would that make you happy?
|
|
I really didn't expect such a harsh response to spit-balling... although this is the Internet.
I'll reiterate my thoughts.
If a lone, super-optimized character is derailing the fun of the rest of the table, the GM should be able to have some flexibility to adjust the scenario so everyone has fun. Hopefully everyone agrees to this.
In the example I gave, if there was a character doing obscenely higher than average damage than the rest of the group (and I did not mean to penalize someone who simply rolled a critical hit with a heavy pick), I really don't think the GM adding Toughness (or a second stacking Toughness) or even the Advanced Simple Template to the end boss so it lasts 3 rounds instead of 2 rounds should make someone quit PFS forever. Seriously, for a 5HD monster, it's 5HP -- this may let one more person at least hit and feel like they did something that night.
If instead, it was a particular "save or die" spell causing the table imbalance, I really doubt a spontaneous addition of Iron Will would cause similar issues.
I focused on two problematic min/max issues.
#1. The guy who uses a "save or die" spell to one-shot the climatic end villain.
PCs have an option to take feats (was it Heroic Destiny?) that let them re-roll a failed save once a day. I really don't see an issue with the end villains starting to have these or things similar to these (Villainous Destiny?)
#2. The guy who has "DPR" that is grossly above his CR.
Ultimately if you have a 30HP end-villain for a level 1 adventure, it would be nice if he doesn't die to a single regular hit from the powergamer. It would be nice if he takes at least 3 hits from 3 different players to validate their existence.
There's monsters that are immune to critical hits. There's monsters immune to flanking. Why can't there be monsters that are resilient to so much damage from a single source within a timespan of 6 seconds?
A monster or bad guy with "resiliency 10" simply could have the ability to not take more than 10 damage from a single source in a single round. It's just another game mechanic. The end fight could've be with something that's incorporeal or a swarm. In this case, it was just a "tough bad guy". This kind of feature/ability gives your average Cleric of Groetus (or whatever) a chance to live a little longer so a few players can hit him.
**
I'd like to find a way that you guys could be constructive... how about this?
It's the climatic end encounter of the scenario. It's that insidious jerk that everyone at the table wants to get a piece of because he's been foreshadowed to be this real big evil baddie.
Let's say it's Tier 1-2. Let's say your the GM.
Let's say there's a single, super-optimized character. He's dominated every fight, and he's level appropriate (call him 2nd level).
How can you ensure the end fight lasts a few rounds, so that all the players at the table feel like they had an equal shot to participate?
I'll make you a promise, too - whatever you suggest, I won't say it's horrible because there's no such thing as bad ideas.
|
|
1) There VERY MUCH ARE BAD IDEAS. Kicking over a hornet's nest while naked...BAD IDEA. Riding a bike 200 MPH without a helmet...BAD IDEA. Drinking 2 bottles of absolute and going for a drive...BAD IDEA.
2) The solution is easy. Don't mess things up for the 90% of the player base to deal with the 10% extremes. Are a majority of the PFS tables having fun? Well I only have anecdotal evidence, but I would say that all but one table I have sat at so far had fun. That seems like a good majority to me. So do we change things up for the off case at the cost of the core case? NO...we leave it alone.
3) You have one regular who optimizes and ruins the game for the other 3-6 players? Well instead of changing how the game is written for everyone or doing massive rules changes, how about, you all...locally have a chat with the guy and explain to him/her that s/he is making the game not fun and could s/he please tone it down a notch. You don't need a systemic solution to an individual problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we cannot measure the subjective (character builds, tactics, luck), we must measure the objective. What can we measure? All we can measure APL and CR (which Paizo and PFS may already do).
Bear with me for a moment:
Consider the CR per encounter for two scenarios taken from Season 4 and let's compare, simply from an APL vs. CR standpoint:
Spoiler
-Both are levels 3-7
-Lets look at the 3-4 sub-tier (the end numbers are the same for the higher tier)
-Consider a 6 person party whose APL is 3.5 (so a 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4)
Now, with the APL in mind, subtract the CR from the APL.
For the first, "easier", scenario, we have the following:
CR2 (subtract) APL 3.5 = -1.5
CR5 (subtract) APL 3.5 = +1.5
CR3 - APL = -0.5
CR5 - APL = +1.5
CR7 - APL = +3.5
Sum up the difference and we get 4.5. Dividing this by the 5 encounters, the total CR for this adventure is 0.9 over APL. I don't have my book in front of me for the level of challenge that 1 over your APL represents (challenging?).
Do the same for the "harder" scenario and we get:
CR6 - APL 3.5 = +2.5
CR5 - APL 3.5 = +1.5
CR5 - APL 3.5 = +1.5
CR6 - APL 3.5 = +2.5
CR5 - APL 3.5 = +1.5
CR7 - APL 3.5 = +3.5
Summing we get 13. Dividing by the 6 encounters we get 2.16. This is past the "hard?" challenge and slowly working its way to "epic?" challenge form the CR table.
So, simply comparing the two scenarios, the former is going to be easier than the latter.
I would say that using this tool based solely on the objective and what we can measure, we could slap a purely objective label on a scenario. The label would simply be based off the CR. So we can say that this scenario, or mod or AP is harder than this one, all things being equal.
Now, the subjective is another story and there is no easy way to deal with that, nor do I think should we. Builds, tactics, player knowledge, GM knowledge, the random party make-up of the sit-and-play style of PFS and at the end of the day, pure and simple luck will be the largest determining factor of how easy or hard any mod will be.
PFS scenarios have to take into account that any group of characters can sit down at a table together. Sure, there are going to be broken builds and sometimes players will walk through scenarios. But why cater to the 1%, when the vast majority are fine with the way things are. All we are hearing are the squeaky wheels.
|
|
I will post a simple small suggestion if my comment even means much in such a long debate.
Instead of focusing on numbers trying to evaluate the strength of scenario a simple, very simple description could be added at end of every scenario stating how can encounters be easily or hard done. This small description wouldn't be too long (a quarter of page) yet it would provide good enough insight for Game Masters to see the difficulty of mod.
This could even go further as simply splitting the encounters and setting a small score by the side from 1 to 5 which the Game Master can use if he desires to personally make a quick difficulty check for his players. This is however optional completely and would possibly require more then a quarter of page.
- Malag
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the entire point of this is to say that everyone needs to learn how to swim better.
I also don't believe that anyone should be put aside or talk to because they're play style differs and if that's the case... that those people and their play style doesnt mesh with somebody because they play a certain way is a failure of coordinators and well your own personable skills. All you have to be able to say hey we all want to particpate . I don't believe anyone will say no. Anyway I'll come back and re edit this as it is talk to text off a droid. 8)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) You have one regular who optimizes and ruins the game for the other 3-6 players? Well instead of changing how the game is written for everyone or doing massive rules changes, how about, you all...locally have a chat with the guy and explain to him/her that s/he is making the game not fun and could s/he please tone it down a notch. You don't need a systemic solution to an individual problem.
I agree - I think one problem though is that people often want the optimizers to stop optimizing as the solution. Well - they won't stop as that's what they enjoy about Pathfinder.
What you may be able to do is convince them to optimize something sub-par or perhaps optimize a support class. That's what I tend to do as I enjoy bending the rules to the extreme, but I don't want to be 'that guy'.
Convince him to optimize a bardic buffer or some such. He gets to optimize and really know that he's behind much of the group's success without dominating the spotlight.
|
|
I find it amusing that the OP assumes that the power gap is there because of the splat books. Core only, you will have that gap...and that gap doesn't actually get all that much bigger with the splats. What the splats generally does is let you have the gap in different ways honestly...which means for the most part, paizo has done a good job of the splats. So the REAL issue is that some people like to make ubers and some like to make gimps...which will be out of whack for the general gaming community. The solution? IGNORE THEM. Bad bad things happen when you start to cater to the extremes.
I don't assume that and never said that. I'm talking about the Ultimate books too, and I already said that the problem has always existed. My point is it's only getting and only can get worse. And I find it amusing that you think that "ignore it" is a legitimate solution to the problem.
|
|
I really didn't expect such a harsh response to spit-balling... although this is the Internet.
It's not just the internet. Cold Napalm, specifically, is just pointlessly naysaying everything in a condescending tone. That's right, I'm calling you out, CN! We will settle this like men, in the squared circle! Thanks for your suggestions, Wake. I do like a lot of them.
As far as I can see, the best and most easily implemented solution that people are offering is to let the GMs decide what levels of characters are allowed into the game they are running. The tier then becomes more of a helpful guideline than a hindering shackle.
|
|
I agree - I think one problem though is that people often want the optimizers to stop optimizing as the solution. Well - they won't stop as that's what they enjoy about Pathfinder.
What you may be able to do is convince them to optimize something sub-par or perhaps optimize a support class.
You are completely right. The fact that people ignore the real issue and just want optimizers to stop optimizing IS a major part of the problem, or at least a major stumbling block to finding a good solution for everyone.
Though I shudder to admit it, however, Cold Napalm is right to some degree too. There might always be a need for good old fashioned dialogue between player and DM when there's friction for whatever reason.
However, that's no reason to ignore the problem and stop looking for system based solutions. Furthermore, dialogue based, interpersonal solutions are doubly problematic in a standardized play situation. People don't know each other, and the "offending" player can always cite RAW for support of his position. The DM really has no power to say what the player can or can't do beyond enforcing Paizo's guidelines.
My suggestion, again, is to empower the DM in one specific way. Make it official that he can decide what characters he will allow into the game, and let those characters be of whatever level he thinks is appropriate regardless of the tier of mod he is running.
The one thing I do disagree with is that optimizers optimizing support classes helps the problem. Maybe it helps a little, but honestly having a cracked out bard that's making the mod super easy is not really that much of a step up from the cracked out Kensai or whatever that was doing the same.
That said, I want to reiterate that I do not blame the optimizers. They're just doing, in a sense, what they've been silently told to do by the books. And as you say, it's what they enjoy about playing. Who are we to say that's wrong? I don't want this thread to turn into a scapegoating session against optimizers.
The problem is the system, specifically the fact that CR does not actually equate that well to level anymore, if it ever really did.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
why not just have a discretionary allotment of extra enemies the GM can throw into the module, with notes like "If the players were not challenged by this conflict, you may choose to use 2 discretionary points to add these units to the next encounter"
So, if a GM only kills one character, and thinks he should have killed 3 with the last encounter, should he be allowed to add some extra enemies to every encounter to the end of the scenario? If you have a 5th or high per level PC, who for whatever reason doesnt have the gold or PP to raise dead, are you ok losing your character permanently because the GM decided he needed to give you more of a challenge, wasn't able to gauge properly, and TPKed the party? Because, there are GMs out there who would do such a thing.
And before anyone says, well people just won't play with that GM in the future, consider this. What if you only have one 5th level PC, have spent hundreds of dollars to go to a convention, only to die in the first slot. They signed up for all tiers higher than 1 and are now left with their entire con schedule being unable to play because one GM decided he wanted to give the party a bigger challenge and TPKed.
|
|
So, if a GM only kills one character, and thinks he should have killed 3 with the last encounter, should he be allowed to add some extra enemies to every encounter to the end of the scenario?
This doesn't mean a discretionary option by the GM is a bad idea, it just means when and what merits further vetting to prevent abuse by malicious GMs.
I'd think this could be solved by having very strict conditions upon which the GM could employs the extra options. I took a stab in a new thread with an idea for enabling a GM to give a single creature a single "villain feat" to counterbalance a single character, with specific conditions that enable said encounter tweak (i.e. an optimized level 5 playing in T1-2 and preventing the other players from contributing).
I'd like to think it should be pretty clear that if a member of the party has already died, heck - if he's even been rendered unconscious - that there's some degree of challenge that evening and no "enhancing" is needed. We should be focused on when the scenario is a blow-out, zero damage has been taken by anyone, and the enemies haven't even reached their initiative count yet in a combat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many DMs I have played with I would not trust to change the scenario on the fly. That is not a viable solution to this issue. Too many DMs still don't understand things like grapple or how some spells interact to be able to make these kinds of calls on the fly.
Personally, I'm pretty pleased with season 4. Seasons 0-3 suffer horribly in the challenge area when 6-7 people are present at a table. The BBEGs just get drowned in a sea of actions.
Seasons 0-3 had way too many snore-fests without any optimized PCs involved. ACs were too low, damage output too low, etc. And all enemies basically had -2 AC from being perma-flanked. I won't get too much into how stupidly powerful pets and eidolons are in season 0-3. But I will say I played a season 1 where my dwarf fighter literally didn't get to take a swing because of pets/eidolons.
I still think that PFS scenarios could further modulate difficulty with a "hard mode" or "easy mode" for each subtier of each scenario. Templates for NPCs in the side bars would make this pretty easy to implement, and fighting templated NPCs is always cool! Nothing like mooks with cleave and power attack to get the PCs attention. Also, more non-trivial spell casting NPCs make combats much more interesting. It's almost not fair having the PCs jacked up blessing of fervor running around pwning everything. NPCs often need their own spell support, and they just have it very often.
Also, if its any indication, for homebrew games I pretty much ignore the CR system and make encounters I think are appropriate and challenging. I tend to use two hard fights per evening than five mook-fests.
I will also admit that the difficulty level scheme might have some issues as not everyone at the table will understand immediately what everyone else can do. Sometimes it takes a fight or two for the table to realize that one optimized guy is doing 75% of the damage and killing entire encounters in two rounds. By then, its too late.
|
|
I find it amusing that the OP assumes that the power gap is there because of the splat books. Core only, you will have that gap...and that gap doesn't actually get all that much bigger with the splats. What the splats generally does is let you have the gap in different ways honestly...which means for the most part, paizo has done a good job of the splats. So the REAL issue is that some people like to make ubers and some like to make gimps...which will be out of whack for the general gaming community. The solution? IGNORE THEM. Bad bad things happen when you start to cater to the extremes.I don't assume that and never said that. I'm talking about the Ultimate books too, and I already said that the problem has always existed. My point is it's only getting and only can get worse. And I find it amusing that you think that "ignore it" is a legitimate solution to the problem.
I don't think the power creep is even detectable in Pathfinder. You can do sick builds for PFS just from the CRB. The summoner, to me, is weaker than the druid, for example. Yes, there are some breakable archetypes, but the archetypes aren't any more broken than broken builds from the CRB.
|
|
So, if a GM only kills one character, and thinks he should have killed 3 with the last encounter, should he be allowed to add some extra enemies to every encounter to the end of the scenario? If you have a 5th or high per level PC, who for whatever reason doesnt have the gold or PP to raise dead, are you ok losing your character permanently because the GM decided he needed to give you more of a challenge, wasn't able to gauge properly, and TPKed the party?
Yep, that's what it means. It's really not a big deal. What is strange to me is that we treat the idea of possibly failing at this game as some kind of insane concept to be avoided at all costs. Have we really been so much infected by the age of Zynga and easy-win video games that are impossible to lose at? Some of us actually prefer Dark Souls to Skyrim. I know I certainly do.
In fact I should start a special interest group called The Warriors of Lordran or something dedicated to pursuing the interests of all those who want to be actually challenged by this game (kidding...kind of). I should also point out that being really challenged means the potential for character deaths, TPKs, all out retreats and the overall possibility of just not being able to complete a mod.
As it stands I've played in, run and/or witnessed over two hundred of these games and I have never had one of my characters die. I have seen maybe three character deaths and not one TPK. And I should mention that I play in a large city with a large and rotating player and DM base. And I have never, ever seen anyone die without enough gold or resources to bring the character back (except one guy who died on his character's first game). I have also rarely if ever been unable to complete a mod, or seen another group be unable to complete it. Maybe once I saw that. I've rarely ever even failed to complete all my faction goals. And by the way, I've "played up" every time but once that it was an option.
The bar is, currently, extremely low, and there is virtually no consequence for character death after level 4. We're wrecking these mods, even at the high tier, even playing up, even with good DMs and even when the party isn't all that optimized. I like to compare playing Pathfinder to eating Korean food. When the bulgogi comes, nobody talks because everybody's eating from the same plate and you won't get any food if you delay. That's how fights feel in PFS. I'm not really competing against the other monsters. There's not much chance of failing to beat them. I'm competing to do my damage and my cool stuff to the monster before the other PCs wreck it first.
Take last game I played in, Rise of the Goblin Guild. Here's how the final encounter went for my ninja/paladin:
Round 1- shadow clone, move action into the room, smite the boss
Round 2- spend ki for speed bump, move action to jump over traps and flank boss, hit boss once for about 12 damage
Round 3- spend ki for extra attack, full attack action, score one hit and one critical and start to add up my damage when the GM waves his hand dismissively and says "Look, is it more than five damage? Because if it is she's dead."
It was round three of my very efficient rounds and the other players had already pwned the boss. Seriously??? And that's on what is actually a relatively tough encounter, wherein one member of the party was already immobilized by the traps and another member got taken out immediately by a hideous laughter. And the other two people in the party STILL rolled the boss in three rounds before I could basically do much at all. And before you all start, yes, it was a competent GM and everything was legit. But, hey, that's exactly what I show up expecting. So why do I show up at all? Simply because it is, as the man said, the only game in town. If I want to play organized play D&D, PFS is it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[soap box]Not to nay-say (I've seen where that can go), but why? All of this: why? So the super death-machine characters roll over combats..... so? And the Diplomacy +147 characters roll over social encounters.... so? And the trap-finders.... you get the idea.
The episodic nature of PFS (probably my favorite aspect of it, BTW) helps to ensure that the death-machine needs to sit back and watch the super-face do his/her thing once in a while and the trap-master might be bored to bits in a scenario that has no traps. The easiest solution is player-controlled: be semi-optimized for a couple of different roles rather than super-optimized for a single role. Why do we need to warn players of the potential lethality of adventuring? Also, why do we need to warn them that the Pathfinder Society, essentially an archaelogist club, may send its members out to do something other than cut a monster in half?
Adventuring, by nature, is dangerous and unpredictable. Why try to change that?[/soap box]
|
|
The summoner, to me, is weaker than the druid, for example.
But...it's not.
Incidentally, outside of power creep not existing I agree with most of your other observations and favorited your post. Though, really, power creep isn't really the focus of this thread. I admit it's way, way, way better in PF than it was in 3.5. And I actually don't really care how much this problem is inherent and how much it's due to new books.
I want the bring the focus back to two, related ideas:
1. CR is a good indicator of rough difficulty level but should not necessarily be related to PC level.
2. PFS GMs need the power to run the CR/tier they want for whatever level of party they want, depending on their preference and on the relative experience of their players and the relative degree of optimization of those players' characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Qua??? We're not trying to change that! We want that! The exact problem is that adventuring as it stands is both safe and predictable!
Adventuring, by nature, is dangerous and unpredictable. Why try to change that?[/soap box]
I think we agree that adventuring should be dangerous. I guess what I'm trying to get across is the "unpredictable" bit. Sometimes your "quest-giver," be it Ambrus or Dreng or whoever, just chooses right and sends a group out that totally annihilates any roadblocks that come their way. Other times, they'll send a bunch of combat monsters to ask nicely for something.
So what's Paizo to do? Pretty much nothing they are not doing already, in my opinion. We already have "pushover" scenarios and "killer" scenarios. We have faction missions that some characters can't even attempt and others that are pretty much "gimmes." I think that that fits the "unpredictable" nature of adventuring perfectly.
|
|
The summoner, to me, is weaker than the druid, for example.But...it's not.
(Incidentally, outside of power creep not existing I agree with most of your other observations and favorited your post)
I don't believe the gap in abilities between the actual druid and the actual summoner is made up enough by the difference in eidolon vs AC. Don't forget that summoners have to *share* magic slots with their eidolons. That is a huge nerf, particularly in homebrew. Druids are amazingly powerful. The can turn into bears, then summon more bears and have a bear AC. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Wild shape is just amazing and they are a 9-level caster to boot!
Other than blessing of fervor, few of my staple spells come from add-on books. I don't find any of the extra classes having any extra propensity for broken builds. A huge STR, power attack, and a double handed weapon makes enough of a mockery out of many PFS scenarios. You don't need any extra books for that.
|
|
Well, as I said above, I think season 4 is pretty entertaining. There is the real threat of TPK in some scenarios if the group has a couple of particularly weak links. From what I've seen, there are far fewer mathematically futile encounters. In general, it's painful to DM seasons 0-2 and even 3 often, because I know there's nothing I can do to keep the group challenged.
|
|
Well, as I said above, I think season 4 is pretty entertaining. There is the real threat of TPK in some scenarios if the group has a couple of particularly weak links. From what I've seen, there are far fewer mathematically futile encounters. In general, it's painful to DM seasons 0-2 and even 3 often, because I know there's nothing I can do to keep the group challenged.
I agree with everything you're saying, but then we also have to consider the flip-side. People come on and post that season 4 has become too hard for them. I don't want to be dismissive of these people. Both sides are satisfied, however, if DMs have the ability to run the mods for whatever character levels they want. And if the DM wants to run a high tier mod for a lower level group and you think it's going to be too hard or don't want your character to die, don't show up for that game. It's a simple fix and doesn't require them to change anything about the way they design.
|
|
Season 4 is demonstrably *not* too hard. I see the optimizers make a mockery of it just like seasons 0-3. I suspect people in season 4 having trouble have outright dysfunctional builds. The builds need only be functional *in the most vague sense* to win in season 4. Like be able to hit non-trivial ACs. That's not asking too much. Dysfunction should be punished by deaths.
|
|
Season 4 is demonstrably *not* too hard. I see the optimizers make a mockery of it just like seasons 0-3. I suspect people in season 4 having trouble have outright dysfunctional builds. The builds need only be functional *in the most vague sense* to win in season 4. Like be able to hit non-trivial ACs. That's not asking too much. Dysfunction should be punished by deaths.
I kicked the crap out of a well prepared Venture Lieutenant with a Season 4 scenario. Not a dysfunctional build. Saying builds need to be functional only in the vague sense makes sense to you, but not to everyone.
Everyone has a different opinion of what "min/maxed", "optimized", "balanced", and "dysfunctional" means. Don't assume one person's definition reaches across the board. That in and of itself is what this thread is about: people are different, and the scenarios are the same. How do we reconcile this?
|
|
Season 4 is demonstrably *not* too hard. I see the optimizers make a mockery of it just like seasons 0-3. I suspect people in season 4 having trouble have outright dysfunctional builds. The builds need only be functional *in the most vague sense* to win in season 4. Like be able to hit non-trivial ACs. That's not asking too much. Dysfunction should be punished by deaths.I kicked the crap out of a well prepared Venture Lieutenant with a Season 4 scenario. Not a dysfunctional build. Saying builds need to be functional only in the vague sense makes sense to you, but not to everyone.
Everyone has a different opinion of what "min/maxed", "optimized", "balanced", and "dysfunctional" means. Don't assume one person's definition reaches across the board. That in and of itself is what this thread is about: people are different, and the scenarios are the same. How do we reconcile this?
+1 to everything you're saying. How we reconcile it, I have come to believe, is we give DMs the power to run the mods for any level of character, and to allow or disallow individual PCs to play in the mod they are running.
|
|
+1 to everything you're saying. How we reconcile it, I have come to believe, is we give DMs the power to run the mods for any level of character, and to allow or disallow individual PCs to play in the mod they are running.Season 4 is demonstrably *not* too hard. I see the optimizers make a mockery of it just like seasons 0-3. I suspect people in season 4 having trouble have outright dysfunctional builds. The builds need only be functional *in the most vague sense* to win in season 4. Like be able to hit non-trivial ACs. That's not asking too much. Dysfunction should be punished by deaths.I kicked the crap out of a well prepared Venture Lieutenant with a Season 4 scenario. Not a dysfunctional build. Saying builds need to be functional only in the vague sense makes sense to you, but not to everyone.
Everyone has a different opinion of what "min/maxed", "optimized", "balanced", and "dysfunctional" means. Don't assume one person's definition reaches across the board. That in and of itself is what this thread is about: people are different, and the scenarios are the same. How do we reconcile this?
Not enough DMs are qualified to make this call. Too many DMs don't even understand the rules of the NPCs they are running in the printed scenarios.
|
|
So, if a GM only kills one character, and thinks he should have killed 3 with the last encounter, should he be allowed to add some extra enemies to every encounter to the end of the scenario?This doesn't mean a discretionary option by the GM is a bad idea, it just means when and what merits further vetting to prevent abuse by malicious GMs.
I'd think this could be solved by having very strict conditions upon which the GM could employs the extra options. I took a stab in a new thread with an idea for enabling a GM to give a single creature a single "villain feat" to counterbalance a single character, with specific conditions that enable said encounter tweak (i.e. an optimized level 5 playing in T1-2 and preventing the other players from contributing).
I'd like to think it should be pretty clear that if a member of the party has already died, heck - if he's even been rendered unconscious - that there's some degree of challenge that evening and no "enhancing" is needed. We should be focused on when the scenario is a blow-out, zero damage has been taken by anyone, and the enemies haven't even reached their initiative count yet in a combat.
Please don't ascribe malice to GMs who aim to provide a challenge. Also, I don't believe that it is obvious to everyone that that one death means it's challenging enough. For example, what if one lucky critical hit kills a character, but no one else gets hurt. (Happened in a game I ran last month.) Is that challenging? (The remaining party members steamrolled the other encounters in the scenario, which suggests to me that it was not.)
The only way in which something like this would work is if it's no discretionary at all - that is, if there is a checkbox list of conditions under which the change happens. At which point I'll simply say,"Please don't give GMs anything else to track duri combat.."
|
|
I look at average percentage hps on PCs after each encounter and amount of consumables used. All too often, the only consumables are CLW charges and the average percentage hps doesn't get too low.
A few minutes a the beginning of each scenario for the GM to do quickie PC audits and determine their capabilities and having a "hard" or "easy" for each sub tier is probably the best I can come up with. Engineering solutions like this are always better than some on the fly call to make things harder.
All to often PCs come to the table with archetypes that the GM has no experience with. One GM was visibly angered when some guy said "My tetori monk has +33 grapple". The reaction may not have been as angry if an audit had been done ahead of time, or the GM might have asked that PC to even leave. This would be even more useful if there was a "hard" mode to click the adventure up to.
