Well, the verdict is in. Though I started Burnt Offerings with 6, word has gotten out about how awesome this adventure path is and 2 more will be joining us for the Skinsaw Murders.
I realize that I will be needing to revamp the encounters to match 8 third and fourth level characters, but I don't know how I should scale the encounters to present them all with a viable challenge. Should I just increase the number of enemies? If so, what do you recommend? I was actually thinking of adding templates to all the ghouls and increasing the levels of all the boss enemies (Aldern, Ironbriar, minus Xaneesha).
Would it work to run two tables of four?
Well, the verdict is in. Though I started Burnt Offerings with 6, word has gotten out about how awesome this adventure path is and 2 more will be joining us for the Skinsaw Murders.
I realize that I will be needing to revamp the encounters to match 8 third and fourth level characters, but I don't know how I should scale the encounters to present them all with a viable challenge. Should I just increase the number of enemies? If so, what do you recommend? I was actually thinking of adding templates to all the ghouls and increasing the levels of all the boss enemies (Aldern, Ironbriar, minus Xaneesha).
Easiest thing to do is just double the number of foes from what is suggested for a four person group. This might mean that the boss guy has a sidekick that just happens to be as tough as him.
The problem with just making the existing enemies tougher is that they do not get additional attacks or actions from this method. This means that while the group has to do 2x (or whatever) the damage to take them down, there are now 8 rather than 4 sets of attacks coming in at once between each of the BBEGs actions. So the threat doesn't scale well that way.
As noted above, you want to increase the number of enemies whenever possible rather than buff up the encounter much.
Honestly, my bigger worry would be how the heck am I going to give all eight players around the table their time in the spot light with out the other seven getting bored. I have never seen this done with more than 6 players (doesn't mean someone can't, I just haven't seen it) and have seen many a decent game ruined when a glut of players occured.
I would seriously consider the previous suggestion to run 2 tables of 4.
Sean Mahoney
Honestly, my bigger worry would be how the heck am I going to give all eight players around the table their time in the spot light with out the other seven getting bored. I have never seen this done with more than 6 players (doesn't mean someone can't, I just haven't seen it) and have seen many a decent game ruined when a glut of players occured.I would seriously consider the previous suggestion to run 2 tables of 4.
Sean Mahoney
having run groups this large in past campaigns, I strongly feel the need to echo this concern. It is very difficult to pay equal and adequate attention to this many players in a campaign setting (may be different in a tournament style game or an Undermountain-esque grind fest.) Social interaction becomes difficult to track and resolve and combat can rapidly bog down the AP.
Further, adding additional monsters is more of a band-aid than a real solution. In my experience, the CR/EL system for determining what is a good challenge for the party breaks down after 5 players. The end result is scenarios full to brimming with useless mooks, or TPKs.
If at all possible, you should strongly consider running two separate tables.
|
Well if the XP is being split 8 ways won't they just stay a little lower in power that would make up for it?
Ding-ding! We have a winner! The XP system in 3.5 is self adjusting. If they kill something they have to divide XP by 8 instead of 4 or 6 which means they each get less XP. They will fall behind, encounters will be tougher. All will work out eventually. This does take time though.
It may take a couple levels for them to get to where they should be so in the mean time just use better tactics for the monsters and maybe some environmental barriers (throw a low wall in a room to help the monsters gain cover)to add challenge without increasing the CR, and that should help out with some challenges, or instead of 4th level mooks, double up on 2nd or 3rd level mooks, keeping the XP rewards the same. Some other things to consider is that during a combat with 8 PCs is that sometimes all can't get into a room and have to sit out for a round or 3, maybe even the whole fight.But if you up the challenges you are just giving them more XP which will keep you trying to up the challenges all the way through the campaign. Lots of work.
|
Well if the XP is being split 8 ways won't they just stay a little lower in power that would make up for it?Ding-ding! We have a winner! The XP system in 3.5 is self adjusting. If they kill something they have to divide XP by 8 instead of 4 or 6 which means they each get less XP. They will fall behind, encounters will be tougher. All will work out eventually.
Your experience with this, then, is greatly different from my own. The CR/EL system is not this precise - a fact that Wizards implicitly accepts when they stop giving experience for creatures well below your level, even in unlimited numbers.
If you rely on the players simply getting half the experience to balance things, it will fall apart. At first, they'll do really well, by simply having so many people. There will then follow a very brief period in which things are reasonably well balanced. Then the party will get slaughtered easily, as the monsters are too strong for them to hit, or can 1-hit the players too easily.
Doubling the number of enemies is also not a great solution. The maps are, in some cases, already fairly cramped, and there simply isn't enough room for twice as many monsters, especially with twice as many players.
My answer would be to toughen up some encounters, adding templates and class levels as appropriate. Then also add some side quests so players stay roughly 1-2 levels below the suggested level for the adventure path.
Drew Garrett
Doubling the number of enemies is also not a great solution. The maps are, in some cases, already fairly cramped, and there simply isn't enough room for twice as many monsters, especially with twice as many players.
My way around the map situation for my group of ten was increasing the size of the rooms when I doubled the number of foes. It's worked for my group so far.
Ding-ding! We have a winner! The XP system in 3.5 is self adjusting. If they kill something they have to divide XP by 8 instead of 4 or 6 which means they each get less XP. They will fall behind, encounters will be tougher. All will work out eventually.
This is not my experience. I feel pretty strongly that the game breaks at mid to high levels of play with 6+ players. Things progress well enough from level 1 to about level 7, start to get shaky around level eight, and become extremely unwieldy from about level 10 on. At that point, large parties fall further and further behind the power (and wealth-by-level) curve the Challenge Rating system relies upon. In some ways, it is similar to the "Flurry of Misses" criticism leveled at one of the Monk's signature abilities.
Suddenly, most monsters have high saves, power spell-like or supernatural abilities, spell resistance, energy resistance, damage resistance, etc. You can no longer use the CR system as a guide, but rather have to increasingly rely on adding (relatively) mid level CR opponents, templates or completely re-working encounters to provide "challenging" opposition. This is fine if the DM is ready to make the commitment to doing that extra level of prep-work, but it also removes part of the benefit of having pre-generated content (i.e. modules/APs). You are no longer just tailoring the flavor and fluff of the module to fit the campaign, you are also reworking every encounter.
T
Some other things to consider is that during a combat with 8 PCs is that sometimes all can't get into a room and have to sit out for a round or 3, maybe even the whole fight.
In my mind, it would be better to have fewer players engaged during the entire session, than to have more players engaged during half (or less, depending on how the combat drags out!) the session.
I don't think that the experience reward/character level issue is the most important point. That kind of stuff can be fudged by judicious ignoring of the rules. I think it boils down to face time for the players. Particularly at mid-to-high levels the players are going to be able to do stuff that just plain takes time at the table, and they're going to want to do that stuff. Having eight players is going to get unwieldy, and they're simply not all going to get enough exposure each session.
This is all just in my experience. YMMV etc.
|
|
Well if the XP is being split 8 ways won't they just stay a little lower in power that would make up for it?Ding-ding! We have a winner! The XP system in 3.5 is self adjusting. If they kill something they have to divide XP by 8 instead of 4 or 6 which means they each get less XP. They will fall behind, encounters will be tougher. All will work out eventually.Your experience with this, then, is greatly different from my own. The CR/EL system is not this precise - a fact that Wizards implicitly accepts when they stop giving experience for creatures well below your level, even in unlimited numbers.
If you rely on the players simply getting half the experience to balance things, it will fall apart. At first, they'll do really well, by simply having so many people. There will then follow a very brief period in which things are reasonably well balanced. Then the party will get slaughtered easily, as the monsters are too strong for them to hit, or can 1-hit the players too easily....
Yes but here it is much easier to insert a small side-trek to bring the party back into the "sweet spot" than it is to continuously tweak, add-to, and customize every encounter in a campaign. Flip through a few older Dungeon mag or a couple Gamemastery modules of an appropriate level and see what fits into your campaign and viola! Back on track.
Much easier than templating, adjusting numbers, and leveling/advancing the baddies.
Much easier than templating, adjusting numbers, and leveling/advancing the baddies.
How do you propose dealing with the afor mentioned 'spotlight' issue?
Sean Mahoney
|
I don't think that the experience reward/character level issue is the most important point. That kind of stuff can be fudged by judicious ignoring of the rules. I think it boils down to face time for the players. Particularly at mid-to-high levels the players are going to be able to do stuff that just plain takes time at the table, and they're going to want to do that stuff. Having eight players is going to get unwieldy, and they're simply not all going to get enough exposure each session.
This is all just in my experience. YMMV etc.
^
What he said.|
|
Much easier than templating, adjusting numbers, and leveling/advancing the baddies.How do you propose dealing with the afor mentioned 'spotlight' issue?
Sean Mahoney
Me personally? I would never have 8 people at my table. 6 is my max. I know how to adjust power levels somewhat, but trying to divide 3-4 hours of game session into spotlights for 8 people seems like it would be hard, especially when you are bound to have overlap in certain areas.
I would probably make a suggested list of roles for the party.Arcane Blaster, Arcane utility, ranged combat, melee combat, scout(sneaky type), trapfinder, Divine assistance, Naturalist(ranger or druid type).
Then tell the group to divvy out the roles and try to fill them as best as possible so that each has a clear and defined role in the party in which to shine. Now that said, if 2 decided to be melee specialists, who cares? They should have ample time to shine. It is usually the none-physical combat roles that get lost if overshadowed so concentrate on those at first.
As I said though, I have no experience with 8 players, just 6. My six have a couple min/maxers that border on munchkinism, so my experience is more with adjusting power levels of encounters, which I am getting much better at.
Well, I've decided on several things, but I'll need some help with others.
First off, I decided to play through Foxglove Manor without a map. I will use a map in the last 'cavern portion' of the house, but I am thinking about doubling the size of the entire cavern complex.
I've also decided to make the last encounter with Aldern more challenging by having him be accompanied by 4 regular ghasts in the final fight scene. This will allow him to get in several sneak attacks through flanking, etc. Moreover, I am contemplating giving Aldern a level of sorcerer to give him some buffing spells (namely mage armor or shield, and precise strike(?) from Complete Adventurer).
Second, I've revamped the Skinsaw men, by making them Ninja 2/Cleric 1, so that they could use their ghost step ability to phase in and around the party and get in their sneak attacks. I kind of envision these fights with the Skinsaw Men to be kind of an expose' on how dangerous this cult truly is. I'm also giving good old Ironbriar one or two assassin levels.
Clocktower-wise, I don't think I'll change anything aside from giving the scarecrow golem max hp.
Unfortunately, the scenario I have the most trouble scaling is the scaregrow ghouls in the farmstead. I could just increase the number of ghouls, but I think it'll make these encounters kind of "blah." Of course, the reasonable course of action would be to make them tougher, but what do you recommend?
Then again, I could make the whole farmstead scenario resemble Resident Evil 2, with swarms of undead crawling all over the place. That could be pretty fun as well.
Anyways, my party consists of a level 4 druid, sorcerer, barbarian and a level 3 paladin, fighter, ninja, cleric, and someone who will be unveiling a lvl 3 char tomorrow when we gather to play.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Having run large groups (6-10) for the entirety of my 14 year DMing career I can agree that is is tough at High levels to balance combat and keep it moving. It's definitely the case that a larger party's combats will run really long. It was true in 2nd ed and in 3rd.
Having some shortcuts always helps like designating duties to players. We run an "On Deck" circle so the next player is ready with their actions, always have the PHB or relevant source open to anything special you are attempting or open to the spell you cast. And of course a nice pad of graph paper to track things is essential!
Preparation is the key! My rule is Know your Character. Every ability, every magic item, every spell. Be able to explain it to me or another player simply and quickly. Having a few veteran players be "side judges" helps too. They can adjucate simple things like how a bullrush works against an enemy or what the DC of a given task is while I concentrate on the big picture.
Face time is a different issue. Obviously with so many players the group can specialize in their given roles quite a bit. That being the case whenever an encounter arises that fits a given niche that specialized character comes to the fore. I've also found that my players will roleplay amongst themselves when they aren't in the spotlight. I may never see that but they're still having fun with it! Also encourage the players to initiate storylines of their own. I've had players strike up relationships with random NPC's that aren't major players in the plot of the adventure or campaign. It adds the feeling of some "player control" to the campaign.
All in all if the players find your game enjoyable they will help make it moreso if you ask them. Put some responsibility into their hands and let them help you make it an awesome game.