|
Would adding in a bit that says what average party level each of the various portions of the adventure expects be a good thing?
Yes.
I remember you already posted where players should level-up in Burnt Offerings but can't find the thread. I made a note so that I could keep my players up to speed with the occasional xp boost if I needed to.
If any of the writers want to let us have the same information for already published adventures, that would make me a happy bunny :D
Would adding in a bit that says what average party level each of the various portions of the adventure expects be a good thing?Yes.
I remember you already posted where players should level-up in Burnt Offerings but can't find the thread. I made a note so that I could keep my players up to speed with the occasional xp boost if I needed to.
If any of the writers want to let us have the same information for already published adventures, that would make me a happy bunny :D
I humbly second this idea. Having similar benchmarks in Savage Tide has made my life as a DM much easier, as I've gone with just telling my PCs when to level up as opposed to giving out XP, and want to do the same thing with Rise of the Runelords.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Dalesman
"Bringing Big D**n Justice to the Bad Guys Since 1369 DR"
Creative Director
|
For Skinsaw, then:
PCs should be 4th level before they start the adventure.
PCs should hit 5th level during (or even before) Foxglove Manor.
PCs should hit 6th level about the point they head into Magnimar.
PCs may (but probably won't) hit 7th level by the end of the adventure.
Generally, you'll note that a Pathfinder adventure breaks down into large chapters or main "areas" of adventure; whenever it shifts from one to another (Sandpoint to Thistletop, for example, or Foxglove to Magnimar) there's a good chance that's intended to be a level-up zone.
Yes.I remember you already posted where players should level-up in Burnt Offerings but can't find the thread. I made a note so that I could keep my players up to speed with the occasional xp boost if I needed to.
If any of the writers want to let us have the same information for already published adventures, that would make me a happy bunny :D
I think this is it, or at least there is a link there to the original advancement rate proposed by Mr. Jacobs.
|
I have the same problem with Karzoug.
He is NOT a CR21 Creature, he has a 57 point spreed matrix with all his wishes (which cost him 125.000 xp). I expect to kill everyone there.
Except that Karzoug will never cast Wish, as per the "During Combat" descriptor on page 60. If you play a villian like he's a PC, then the party will always get wiped.
Also, no, if you retro her AC it's 30 after the buffs.Before buffs:
AC 26: +1 Armor (Snakeskin Tunic), +1 Deflection (Ring of Prot), +6 Dex, +9 Nat, -1 size.Haste adds +1 Dodge, and Mage Armor adds +4 Armor, which overrides the tunic.
You missed her shield spell. Thats another +4 shield bonus for an AC of 34.
I think even if your players do everything up to the clockwork tower
they will be at best 6th level not 7th.
Nothing wrong with BBEG with minions but I must say I like the single bad guy who kicks butt a lot as well. Your right though that this type of battle has a pretty strong chance of going to one extreme or the other.
|
My reasoning is that if the adventure states "for characters of 4th to 6th level",...
Interestingly enough, if you take a look at the credits page in SM, there is stated that "by the end of the adventure,characters should reach 8th level." Which seems impossible to do based on the adventures alone. I run RotRL for a group of 6 PC (without giving out xp), so before I begin adapting encounters to the group size I scanned through the adventures and listed all encounters (including received XP as an ad-hoc-reward) to see when a group would normally reach level X. and if I didn't miscalculate anything a group of 4 SC would hit level 7 just before the Ironbriar encounter. Which makes Xanesha very hard nonetheless.
|
Actually I've 5 players
Just to point out the obvious, you know that 5 players will each get less XP per encounter, and hence be lower level after each volume than the equivilent 4 char party?
But also that the 5 char party of lower level, should be equivilent to the 4 char party of slightly higher level, yes?
I run RotRL for three players. There was near TPK with Nualia in Burnt offerings, but after that they got cautious. In the encounter with Xanesha they were Duskblade 5, Ninja 3/ranger 2 and Dragonfire adept 6. They wiped her out. Not easy, but no casualities. Of course with some better dice rolling from my part would have caused TPK, but hey, that's D&D... =)
That said, I do find it a bit funny too that
That said, I do find it a bit funny too that ** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I don't know about you, but that's changed in my game...
Not really, you can get a straight run at Xanesha, while Boss ogre is in fortress full of ogres, you have to expend resources just to get to him, compared to the flesh golem and the bell trap.
I consider EL/CR to be largely academic, they're not important to me, I mostly ignore them. I don't believe this makes me a bad DM when recommended character levels are printed clearly on the product cover. All I'm suggesting, and I don't believe this an unreasonable request, is to provide suggested level bumps, for those who wish to use them, within the actual adventure.
One of the biggest porblems I've seen with the adventuring path so far is that they run out of space. PF2 and 3 seem to both suffer from rushed endings to fit page counts. Honestly, I dont want to waste more of the space for DMs who won't look at the EL. The EL is way above your party level, do you need numerous sentences to confirm this? I do think the level marks for each adventure are off and that should be fixed in the future. Skinsaw was definitly 4-7.
Having said that I do believe that part was kind of insane. When I first read it the fact that characters are 6th level facing an EL10 after two combats (and that golem was crazy too) I thought TPK. However, my group was 7th level and 6th level and outfitted themselves with spells and potions with repsect to a tower battle enviroment.
Having said that I do believe that part was kind of insane. When I first read it the fact that characters are 6th level facing an EL10 after two combats (and that golem was crazy too) I thought TPK. However, my group was 7th level and 6th level and outfitted themselves with spells and potions with repsect to a tower battle enviroment.
I think it's really more about how your players interact with their environment and environment based obstacles.
I fully expect my players to do something like stockpile a whole lot of Soften Earth and Stone and Stone Shape scrolls, as they've got a druid and an archivist (which was a concession to my "only SRD material" mandate, but probably a more tame option than the cloistered cleric variant, and more interesting as the party has no undead turning options). I fully expect them to bring Xanesha, or at least the tower, down to them.
James, you seem to be saying two things:
PCs should be 6th level going into the endgame of Skinsaw. (And indeed, with normal play this is likely to be the case.)
The last encounter in Skinsaw was designed for 7th level characters.
These don't go well together. The problem's exacerbated by the fact that Xanesha is a very, very strong CR10 in a highly advantageous position.
I have become, after multiple bad experiences, very suspicious of Paizo boss encounters. I encouraged my player to do legwork, find Xanesha's hunting grounds, set up an ambush, recruit powerful NPC allies, and generally do everything he could to make this survivable. It was still a very near thing--for 5 6th level PCs and two 7th level NPCs with the advantage of surprise, on level ground. I am fairly sure the tower would have been TPK.
For a long time afterwards my player was telling me, "This scenario is too hard for my PCs. You asked me to make balanced PCs and not exploit rules, but the scenario is too hard--what now?" It's gotten better since, as the difficulty hardly increased in #3 (in fact nothing in #3 was as hard as Xanesha, and the PCs went up three levels so they were much stronger). But in retrospect I wish I'd cut her down even further.
She wasn't just a bit too strong for us, she was overwhelmingly too strong.
The CR system is iffy enough that I would never recommend relying on it, especially for monsters with advancement. Most of our AP disasters have involved advanced monsters.
Mary
|
|
Collected thoughts:
1) Just finished first part of Magnimar on Sunday night, My players are totally delighted with the campaign so far.
2) They will be 6th level by the time they confront Xanesha. I have stripped her just a bit of things. Fly and haste, actually. The rest they will have to deal with!
3) While some may think the second half of Skinsaw is less than the first, I'm finding the opposite: the Magnimar chapter itself is LOADED with stuff for DMs to expand on depending on the interest of their players. Just a little work with a printout and a highlighter and I had plenty of them to get wrapped up in. Don't forget to make heavy use of the Magnimar chapter!
4) A little DM verisimilitude with all the clues you are left on to how the cult works and what they are up to and how they do it are just waiting. I recall someone saying how the cultists themselves seemed too wimpy. I made the actual major killers the faceless agents! Much scarier and it explains how so many were murdered so easily - by duplicates of their own servants or family members.
-DM Jeff
|
Creative Director
|
James, you seem to be saying two things:
PCs should be 6th level going into the endgame of Skinsaw. (And indeed, with normal play this is likely to be the case.)
The last encounter in Skinsaw was designed for 7th level characters.
The PCs should be 6th level going into Magnimar. There's a pretty good chance that PCs'll be 7th, though.
The last encounter was indeed designed to be tough... but keep in mind also that even though it's a menace at CR 10 (admittedly too high), lone creatures are always at a disadvantage in a fight against a party of PCs. So when you have a single creature encounter... it's generally best to make them tough.
Again, I admit that Xanesha's TOO tough.
Actually I've 5 playersJust to point out the obvious, you know that 5 players will each get less XP per encounter, and hence be lower level after each volume than the equivilent 4 char party?
But also that the 5 char party of lower level, should be equivilent to the 4 char party of slightly higher level, yes?
I'm running with 6 players, but I'm also vastly increasing the number of foes they're facing. I think I about quadrupled the number of goblins in the raid on Sandpoint. There's some other modifiers I'm adding to the XP they'll be getting from this fight, but they'll ultimately be coming out a little ahead of where a four person party would from the first fight.
It's something I'll be monitoring carefully, but the party has already proven they can face very overwhelming odds and come out on top. They can expect to continue to be outnumbered in encounters. I think they will continue to find it tough, but fun.
I'm not sure how I'll handle Xanesha with them yet, but that's still a ways off. It's a PbP.
I would much prefer to have a weaker boss with minions. The EL would be the same , the fight might be longer but there would less be a chance of instant killing .It would probably be more dynamic and exciting too. I second this.
I believe this has been mentioned before, but the lamia matriarch from HMM has levels in rogue. She still gets some SLAs but not as many buffs. Might be worthwhile just to switch the two. I'm still considering doing it for my campaign.
|
|
I believe this has been mentioned before, but the lamia matriarch from HMM has levels in rogue. She still gets some SLAs but not as many buffs. Might be worthwhile just to switch the two. I'm still considering doing it for my campaign.
I thought of this, but Xanesha's fly spell really really adds to the flavor.
Except that Karzoug will never cast Wish, as per the "During Combat" descriptor on page 60. If you play a villian like he's a PC, then the party will always get wiped.I have the same problem with Karzoug.
He is NOT a CR21 Creature, he has a 57 point spreed matrix with all his wishes (which cost him 125.000 xp). I expect to kill everyone there.
Karzoug has already cast Wish. That's what Robin is saying. He cast it repeatedly (presumably, 10K years ago) to get those stats, which are far above any normal monster-build array. This is mentioned explicitly in his description.
And "never play a villain like a PC" is a rule that works for some groups and not others. My player really hates it if I play villains dumb; I am expected to do my best within the limits of the villain's personality, goals and resources. We have had too many bad past experiences with GMs whose creatures suddenly got dumber (or weaker) when the PCs were having a bad time. If this happens often, for us it sucks all accomplishment out of the game.
I would personally prefer Paizo to put in encounters that core rules PCs of the stated level can beat in a fair, if hard, fight. Not encounters that require the monster to act dumb, the GM to fudge heavily in play, or the PCs to be heavily optimized splatbook builds.
Mary
|
Creative Director
|
Karzoug has already cast Wish.
Any NPC that has levels of sorcerer or wizard and can cast wish should have, to some extent, stat bumps like these. It's as much a part of their CR as is a barbarin's hundreds of hit points, a druid's animal companion, or a demon's ability to summon other demons to help out. Not having Karzoug take advantage of his wish-casting capabilities is short-changing him.
I would personally prefer Paizo to put in encounters that core rules PCs of the stated level can beat in a fair, if hard, fight. Not encounters that require the monster to act dumb, the GM to fudge heavily in play, or the PCs to be heavily optimized splatbook builds.
This is something that you can expect to come more and more into play the further we get from the Dungeon days, to be honest. We can't use any of the WotC books to further enhance our NPCs and monsters like we did in Dungeon; to a certain extent we can do that on our own or with open d20 products, but overall I suspect that a heavier assumption that the "Core is the Core" is a good thing to design by.
But again, in the end, it'll still fall on the individual GM to tailor the adventures to his or her group. My favorite example is the encounter with a half dozen CR 3 shadows. A CR 8 encounter by the books... but if your party is mostly low-strength rogues with no cleric at all... those shadows are gonna TPK the group.
|
|
But again, in the end, it'll still fall on the individual GM to tailor the adventures to his or her group. My favorite example is the encounter with a half dozen CR 3 shadows. A CR 8 encounter by the books... but if your party is mostly low-strength rogues with no cleric at all... those shadows are gonna TPK the group.
Gallery of Evil spoilers
Those constructs hurt.
I would personally prefer Paizo to put in encounters that core rules PCs of the stated level can beat in a fair, if hard, fight.This is something that you can expect to come more and more into play the further we get from the Dungeon days, to be honest. We can't use any of the WotC books to further enhance our NPCs and monsters like we did in Dungeon; to a certain extent we can do that on our own or with open d20 products, but overall I suspect that a heavier assumption that the "Core is the Core" is a good thing to design by.
Yay! Thank you thank you thank you! I am so tired of "you're not really a good GM unless you've mastered 25 splatbooks worth of variant rules and can catch all the problems therein."
But again, in the end, it'll still fall on the individual GM to tailor the adventures to his or her group. My favorite example is the encounter with a half dozen CR 3 shadows. A CR 8 encounter by the books... but if your party is mostly low-strength rogues with no cleric at all... those shadows are gonna TPK the group.
Monsters with extreme strengths and weaknesses can be tricky, and large numbers of them particularly so. You might consider, when looking at such an encounter, if half shadows and half something else (ghouls, maybe, or big skeletons, or a wight) would be a more generally balanced encounter at about the same CR. Probably for simplicity, the AP encounters tend to be homogeneous. While mixed groups are harder to rate and harder to run, they often make for better fights.
But yes, the GM will always have to tailor adventures. The shadows in #1 were a deeply problematic encounter for my group; I turned then into a shadow and a bunch of skeletons.
Accurate CRs would really help here. I know what the rules say about Mokmurian, but--! Take a human necromancer CL14. He's a CR14; a weakish one, perhaps, but still by the rules a CR14. Now add 14 HD of giant to that. +1 CR? Do you think so? I don't think it's an accident that every notorious AP TPK-gnerating encounter I'm aware of involves an advanced monster; the CRs are just not accurate for these. (In this case, I think the reasoning breaks down because the rules consider this a giant fighter with some extra abilities--but if you look at it as a wizard with some extra abilities, it's immediately apparent that the CR is wrong.)
Mary
|
|
I haven't played that part of the campaign yet, but I think something that strongly plays in Xanesha's favor is also the fact that, most likely, the party will have completely wiped the floor with the cultists. So they'll be in a state of "we are invincible" euphoria, which could make them approach the clock tower in a reckless manner. :(
I'm thinking about moving the golem to the sawmill, protecting the cultists, to make that encounter more challenging. That would also allow the PC's to reach Xanesha in a fresher state. That probably won't be enough to prevent a TPK unless I also make other modifications, but it should help.
Btw, we have a party of 4 characters using only the core books, who should be L6 by the time they attack Xanesha, and I can't picture them winning that fight. I am going to try to give them a few NPC's to help them. Hopefully, they won't be too proud to refuse their help. :)
|
|
Paizo does not playtest nor require their authors to playtest. The logic is that their game is built on a system that is supposed to be balanced, but in this case I think a party who fought Xanesha would have quickly said 'Yes, this is a bit too much'.
Paizo, did anyone playtest Xanesha before she was printed? If so, what was the feedback?
We don't playtest in-housebecause we don't have time to do so. It's unfortunate, but true. The responsibility of playtesting adventures falls squarely on the shoulders of the adventure writer.
For the most part, the CR system works pretty well at helping balance encounters, and after developing hundreds and hundreds of encounters, you get to be pretty good at eyeballing things yourself... but it's far from a perfect system, and now and then things get through that are too tough (or too easy). And honestly? In theory, that's where the final "quality control" check, the GM, kicks in. I know it's a bit of a cop-out to say that it's the GM's responsibility to make sure an adventure or encounter is appropriate for his group, but it's also true. You know your group better than me.
That said, do keep posting to these boards when you encounter something that seems over the top. We've had a LOT of feedback saying Ironbriar was too easy and Xanesha was too tough, and I've taken that feedback to heart and applied it to Pathfinder's current encounters. Hopefully with each volume, the crazy encounters will be getting less and less. Or at the very least, we'll be able to run a designer's note sidebar that acts as a warning: "BEWARE: THE FOLLOWING ENCOUNTER IS ROUGH!"
Phuut! So what if the heroes die? All powerful villains have no problem snapping the neck of some angry villager who comes at them with a rollingpin...why should PCs be able to swan into an adventure thinking lets fight to the death when they should retreat and peck her to death from a distance.
If you stand in front of the Tank, dont be surprised when it crushes you under the tracks.
Sidequests should not be required to run these adventures; that's the whole point of the adventure paths. If a DM wants to add sidequests maybe to better flesh out a PC back story or something, kudos to him. The books though should be written with the idea that only the information in the book is being used.
I find this to be an unrealistic expectation for any published gaming product. APs will drastically reduce the amount of work any DM needs to do, but to assume zero DM responsibility for providing supplementary material means serious pitfalls should be anticipated.
No written gaming material, whether prepackaged or jotted down in a notebook by a DM, is ever going to survive contact with the players.
Nor will every player survive written product. Particularly when DMs ignore existing labels that tell them the difficulty level of the encounter the party is about to face.
How many CR10 book monsters have AC30 (not to mention AC34, which she should if played by the rules)?
In my experience most unimproved book CR10's can be taken by a well prepared 6th level party after a hard fight, but the AC, SR and mobility of this one are well out of line for her CR. Advanced monsters are a notorious problem.
Anyway, having a TPK with a sign on it saying "TPK--don't run this encounter" is only marginally better than having no sign. You still have a boss encounter that is not suitable for the module it's in.
I guess I'm touchy about this because very similar encounters in AoW and SCAP basically ruined those games for us. Player morale never recovered. Each time, it was a monster with class levels--the CRs for those appear very iffy. The modules indicated CRs which the PCs should have been able to handle, but that didn't turn out to be the case.
Mary
I thought of this, but Xanesha's fly spell really really adds to the flavor.
I believe this has been mentioned before, but the lamia matriarch from HMM has levels in rogue. She still gets some SLAs but not as many buffs. Might be worthwhile just to switch the two. I'm still considering doing it for my campaign.
Yes, but lamia matriarchs get fog cloud, iirc, which works well with a rogue who has a high tumble skill and mobility based feats.
I believe this has been mentioned before, but the lamia matriarch from HMM has levels in rogue. She still gets some SLAs but not as many buffs. Might be worthwhile just to switch the two. I'm still considering doing it for my campaign.
That's my plan, I was going to introduce it last night, but they did a lot of role-playing and didn't quite get that far.
Would adding in a bit that says what average party level each of the various portions of the adventure expects be a good thing?
Oh, good god, yes. I'm absolutely shocked that you don't do this already (especially in an AP that has expectations of multiple level gains in a single book). I haven't read the books in exacting detail, so I was assuming you've been doing this already. You mean to say you haven't? Boooooo. :(
Again, to reiterate: Do. This. Now.
|
|
Nor will every player survive written product. Particularly when DMs ignore existing labels that tell them the difficulty level of the encounter the party is about to face.How many CR10 book monsters have AC30 (not to mention AC34, which she should if played by the rules)?
You're right, but the argument isn't about creature design, it's about DMs needing it spelled out to them what level their characters should be before a tough encounter, or atleast that's what some people have been saying.
As for level 6s taking on CR10s, I'd never do it, and even if the encounter was labeled 11 or 12 it wouldn't change the end result. They just had 2 fights prior to the CR10 and no rest (one of which was a CR8 I think).. it's craziness on a DM's part.
Again, to reiterate: Do. This. Now.
I believe you forgot to add "please."
You're right, but the argument isn't about creature design, it's about DMs needing it spelled out to them what level their characters should be before a tough encounter, or at least that's what some people have been saying.
Though in fairness, every DM has different levels of experience with the craft. For example, I'm not a rookie, but I am shakey with 3.5. I'm still learning. Mary might be a Pro, but I got to learn too.. why should it be painful?
[For the record, I avoid two tons of pitfalls by reading this board]
And, I don't need a whole lot of word count to give me a head's up (that's your concern right, excessive word count devoted to this?).. but a brief pointer isn't a horrible thing either.
EDIT: I did read that the characters should be sixth level when getting to Magnimar, so I do want to concede your point about existing labels. There was some warning in the text.
Would adding in a bit that says what average party level each of the various portions of the adventure expects be a good thing?Oh, good god, yes. I'm absolutely shocked that you don't do this already (especially in an AP that has expectations of multiple level gains in a single book). I haven't read the books in exacting detail, so I was assuming you've been doing this already. You mean to say you haven't? Boooooo. :(
Again, to reiterate: Do. This. Now.
It would have been SOOO helpful in Spires.... The structure of the adventure is such that the PCs might do almost nothing in the Lower City, or might do a heck of a lot--mine chose the latter course--and it would be really nice to have a clue what level the Upper City is written for. 16? 17? 18? Darn, that's a huge range.
I'm not tracking EXP; if I was, my PCs' unusual solution to the Lower City would probably put them higher than they ought to be. Wow, a high level party can handle a *lot* of giants. But this means I have little idea what level they were expected to be.
Mary
|
|
Though in fairness, every DM has different levels of experience with the craft. For example, I'm not a rookie, but I am shakey with 3.5. I'm still learning. Mary might be a Pro, but I got to learn too.. why should it be painful?
And as a DM, even knew, when you see something that maybe you don't know what it means.. because you're a player mostly and a first time DM, don't check the DMG or something to find out what it means?
EDIT: I did read that the characters should be sixth level when getting to Magnimar, so I do want to concede your point about existing labels. There was some warning in the text.
Yeap. Maybe I'm assuming too much for any DM to realize when they're doing their pregame reading that a CR8 followed closely by a CR10 is too much for a level 6 party.
But then again, it seems that a lot of the DMs here are against straying from the AP by doing sidequests of their own and the like.
|
|
But this means I have little idea what level they were expected to be.
They're expected to be within 2 levels lower then the EL written on the descriptor for the room. That's the whole point for having EL. Otherwise adventures would just say "your party gets 10,000xp for completing this room."
Any lower then 2 levels below the EL and your party runs dangerously low on resources before the next room.
|
But then again, it seems that a lot of the DMs here are against straying from the AP by doing sidequests of their own and the like.
Yeah - once every 2 months when my college group meets, we try to go through an entire PF book. We do this in a marathon 8-10 hour session. If time is running short for that session, I won't run side-quests. *but* I am generous in giving RP rewards. although our parties were rather flexible (anywhere from 4-9 players depending on classes and upcoming tests) so I had to beef up some encounters and trim the fat from others. In two years with that group, semi forced into DMing, I've found that good roleplaying with innovative thinking and decent skill mods can easily take mobs higher than the party should be able to touch. I havn't run the encounter in question yet (havn't met this semester and they spent over 3 hours in the hagfish so BO took almost 2 sessions) But I plan on running it as written if I have 4-6 players and adding to it if I have more than that (what I add may depend on who's there - looking at few of the wind warriors from AOW, just to add the same flying feeling)
But this means I have little idea what level they were expected to be.They're expected to be within 2 levels lower then the EL written on the descriptor for the room. That's the whole point for having EL. Otherwise adventures would just say "your party gets 10,000xp for completing this room."
Any lower then 2 levels below the EL and your party runs dangerously low on resources before the next room.
I'm not sure how one's supposed to use these modules if the PCs should not have to fight EL=PC level + 4, as every single module ends in such a fight.
My impression is that Paizo does not agree with you on the target EL for a party of a given level.
Mary
Nor will every player survive written product. Particularly when DMs ignore existing labels that tell them the difficulty level of the encounter the party is about to face.How many CR10 book monsters have AC30 (not to mention AC34, which she should if played by the rules)?
In my experience most unimproved book CR10's can be taken by a well prepared 6th level party after a hard fight, but the AC, SR and mobility of this one are well out of line for her CR. Advanced monsters are a notorious problem.
Anyway, having a TPK with a sign on it saying "TPK--don't run this encounter" is only marginally better than having no sign. You still have a boss encounter that is not suitable for the module it's in.
I guess I'm touchy about this because very similar encounters in AoW and SCAP basically ruined those games for us. Player morale never recovered. Each time, it was a monster with class levels--the CRs for those appear very iffy. The modules indicated CRs which the PCs should have been able to handle, but that didn't turn out to be the case.
Mary
Well, any 10th level wizard PC has the ability do do that using level appropriate equipment and preparatory spellcasting time.
Though in fairness, every DM has different levels of experience with the craft. For example, I'm not a rookie, but I am shaky with 3.5. I'm still learning. Mary might be a Pro, but I got to learn too.. why should it be painful?And as a DM, even knew, when you see something that maybe you don't know what it means.. because you're a player mostly and a first time DM, don't check the DMG or something to find out what it means?
Irrelevant. You can read a rule book all you like and still not see some of the interactions of those rules until you actually run the game and get some practical experience with it.
What about providing tools to make things easier for GMs to present the material to the best of their ability? Why is there even a considerable niche for support products at all? After all, we could just study our DMGs that much harder.
Or even writing our own adventures for that matter... The entire premise of a module or an Adventure Path is convenience and ease of use.
EDIT: I did read that the characters should be sixth level when getting to Magnimar, so I do want to concede your point about existing labels. There was some warning in the text.Yeap. Maybe I'm assuming too much for any DM to realize when they're doing their pregame reading that a CR8 followed closely by a CR10 is too much for a level 6 party.
But then again, it seems that a lot of the DMs here are against straying from the AP by doing sidequests of their own and the like.
You conveniently glossed over and cherry picked this out of my post:
"And, I don't need a whole lot of word count to give me a head's up (that's your concern right, excessive word count devoted to this?).. but a brief pointer isn't a horrible thing either."
What I'm reading out of your posts is that you think any notice about the difficulty is unnecessary because if people are too damn stupid to figure it out, then too damn bad for them. It’s okay if you really feel that way, but have the courage to say it.
For that matter, the more people speak up for this the more you attack the idea. Can’t you just register your disagreement and be done with it? Does this really threaten you?