It really doesn't though. There's lots of things you can do on the fly, especially as an experienced GM.I really don't like making changes on the fly, it feels kinda like cheating to me i prefer to make the changes beforehand, i know it's somewhat irrational but i can't explain it better.
I'm with you leo. I don't do it either for the same reason. If I fail to properly design an encounter and it turns out too strong or too weak, I let it run. I don't want to feel like I'm cheating the players or making it too easy.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, his default tactics are awful, but the AP writer isn't out to kill the party. You, as the GM, are free to take a different approach =P
Edit: I'll second what Ssarlan says right above me. Low levels are easy to design encounters for, because low level characters are pretty consistently gooberish. High level characters have widely ranging levels of power and specialties, and a trivial encounter for one set of characters could be a near or actual TPK for another set.
Though I do think Paizo lowballed the median numbers of higher CR creatures, which becomes much more evident as you approach and go past CR 20.
Aside: I'd say that Carrion Crown is actually consistently mean all through the AP, but high level PCs are just better able to deal with it than lower level PCs, and so it becomes much less noticable. The ever-expanding toolbox of a high-level party means that they're a lot less likely to be missing the tool for an unexpected job.
Carrion Crown was tougher than a lot of APs. Big reason was the players were under wealth by level. Easy access to magic items is a huge reason APs become easy. If you limit magic items extensively, the player power levels scale slower. Carrion Crown did this very well with a tight timeline and less magic items than common for a given level. I think it made the AP more interesting and challenging. The standard Pathfinder power level doesn't work very well in a horror oriented story. You want the PCs to feel fear and tension in a horror story. Besides the last module, I thought they did that very well in the Carrion Crown AP.
Mythic is perfectly viable. Sounds like you have one of two problems:
1. Your players are twinks and squeezing every optimization out of characters.
2. You may not have what it takes to run a high-power campaign. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather a matter of fact. Some DMs just can't do high-power stuff like Mythic or Epic.
Now problem #1 is easy to solve, just adjust all the encounters by increasing the APL by 1 and cutting XP awards by 1/3. If they still stomp everything, increase the APL by 2 and cut XP awards by 1/2. If they still curb stomp whatever you throw at them, switch to the Slow advancement track as well as increasing the APL by another 1. If you still have the problem, it's probably problem #2.
Problem #2 is difficult to solve. I sometimes think you're born with it or without it. If it can be trained, you need a powerful grasp of mathematics (able to do calculations in your head strong) and play-testing to learn how to manage it.
1. I don't like to limit my players. Rules should be balanced.
2. I'm more than capable. I'd put my DM skills against anyone. I've run plenty of high powered games. Mythic is far beyond what is normal.
APL+1 does not work. You have not done the math if you think the rules as written are viable. Even a moderate power gamer can create combinations that one shot Baphomet in a single round. If you call that viable, our definition differs in the extreme.
I've already taken the time to do extensive math on how the mythic rules work. It is not viable as written unless I want every single combat to end within a round one way or the other. I can design enemies that kill the PCs in a round. The PCs will run characters that will the enemies in a round. That is not what I consider a viable game or set of rules. I consider that a waste of my time.
I have been doing calculations for what I want to happen and implementing templates that will withstand the onslaught of the PCs, while hopefully not killing them. I had to do this by going outside the mythic rule set. Thus I do not consider it viable unless rocket tag was the intended goal. It may have been. I do not know what the designers were thinking.
|
I'm using Mythic in Jade Regent specifically so the players can burn through non-critical encounters faster, and stop levelling at about 10 (since in my experience level 10+ means lots of slow combats for very little story payoff).
My original goal was they'd gain 1 mythic tier per book, but from what I've seen from Wrath of the Righteous 3rd Tier is where the game gets wobbly, and 4 is where it tips over. From what I've read of Books 4 & 5 many of the battles are already easy for a moderately optimised group.
So I'm still juggling how to handle things.
As to changing encounters on the fly. I really, really encourage it. That's what seperates a GM from an A.I. you are aware of the challenge and fun levels the players are currently at. Being rigid about it only punishes the players because you aren't precognitive or psychic and couldn't anticipate their fantastic/terrible choices.
There's been loads of times in a game where I've added a Giant or Advanced template because the Players are itching to hit something with a bit more bite. Or added spells (grabbing the spells of a similar CR NPC Guide character) to an otherwise nonspellcasting monster or NPC. It's not cheating, the GM can't cheat. It's fun calibration and it's one reason why the players are at your table instead of kiting Xvarts in Baldur's Gate.
Legendary Games is publishing 3 new books using Mythic rules. When I asked them if they are planning to offer solutions to broken or unbalanced elements, they responded:
"Yes, we'll be including a section on problematic rules and alternative solutions."
I believe some of those working on these books also worked on the original Mythic rules. I really hope they are able to make the Mythic rules more balanced and viable.