I was going to run The Wizards Amulet and follow it up with Crucible of Freya but I realized the adventure was written for 6 PC.
My problem...I have 4 players.
Adventures published by WotC and Dungeon Magazine uses adventures meant for 4 PCs.
CR for monsters is based on them taking on 4 PCs.
Why does Necromancer games have 6 as the default party size?
|
Why does Necromancer games have 6 as the default party size?
Maybe that's the size of their average playtest or home play groups.
Crucible of Freya can be done by 4, I have run it with that few. If you are worried, throw in a few sidetreks/encounters between the TWA and CoF so that the PCs are 2nd-3rd level by the time they get to the 'dungeon' in Crucible.
I tend to be a forgiving DM and the harder encounters set for 6 people makes the four person party feel threatened.I was going to run The Wizards Amulet and follow it up with Crucible of Freya but I realized the adventure was written for 6 PC.
My problem...I have 4 players.
So just kind of fudge rolls and make it a nasty battle they will still win? I can do that. :)
|
So just kind of fudge rolls and make it a nasty battle they will still win? I can do that. :)I tend to be a forgiving DM and the harder encounters set for 6 people makes the four person party feel threatened.I was going to run The Wizards Amulet and follow it up with Crucible of Freya but I realized the adventure was written for 6 PC.
My problem...I have 4 players.
no - i usually just say "you can use anything from WOTC or Paizo" when there are less than the recommended number, if its the right number of PCs, then its "the 3 core books until level 10, then branch out to all paizo and at level 13 branch to all paizo and all wotc"
but fudging rolls works too!
So you feel by limiting the players to just the core books it makes them weaker.
If you allow characters to use classes, feats magic ect from other books its makes them more powerful?
I was under the impression it was all suposed to be balanced.
So you feel by limiting the players to just the core books it makes them weaker.
If you allow characters to use classes, feats magic ect from other books its makes them more powerful?
I was under the impression it was all suposed to be balanced.
A little time spent wandering the boards here at Paizo will net critiques of pretty much any book you could ask for and any prestige class or alternate base class. Several of them have been noted as underpowered (I recall the hexblade for this), and other books have overpowered classes (frequent comment about the Book of Nine Swords). You will have to judge each one by your own standards, but you can find plenty of info here if you like. The same logic applies to spells (a few in Spell Compendium may be a bit too powerful) and feats and magic items.
|
|
So you feel by limiting the players to just the core books it makes them weaker.
If you allow characters to use classes, feats magic ect from other books its makes them more powerful?
I was under the impression it was all suposed to be balanced.
The more options you give people, the more chances that you can find a combination that will break the bank for a particular adventure or campaign. Comparing the Warlock to a core spellcaster .. the warlock outshines the spellcaster 9 times out of ten.
Same with spells - I had a druid and a monk in AOW who first round the druid would cast the spell to give the monk 2 extra arms, and then the monk would grapple the biggest opponent, or flurry of blows with rend if he hit enough times ( I may have the tactics a little mixed right now as its been 2 years since that group - but the monk would wade in and rip apart an opponent each round).
|
I was going to run The Wizards Amulet and follow it up with Crucible of Freya but I realized the adventure was written for 6 PC.
My problem...I have 4 players.
I ran both of them (actually they were my first 3.X adventures ever) with a 4 PC group, and they had no specific problem related to encounter balance/overall difficulty.
'Cause I just happen to think that 5 to 6 PCs in the group is the way I like to play D&D. I dont like the 3E convention of 4 PCs. I've never had a party with just 4 PCs. Maybe you guys do, I dont. That's all part of the first edition feel that we represent.
And look at that. It looks like 4E will be presuming 5 or 6 PCs in a group. And we will be fighting more monsters in 4E! Finally, the pendulum swings back to 1E feel. I personally think that 4E will have many things about it that was more like 1E than 3E had.