What is the minimum number of players required at a table for PFS play? What is the maximum? How does one calculate the "APL" or level of play for the table?
I believe the minimum is 4 and the max 7, however 4 would be hard-pressed to survive the amount of combat in the scenarios in my opinion.
The Scenarios are Tiered with two tiers so far. Tier 1&2 and Tier 4&5. It was explained to me at the event that if you were level 3 (the party that is) you would be permitted to choose which Tier you would like to run through.
|
What is the minimum number of players required at a table for PFS play? What is the maximum? How does one calculate the "APL" or level of play for the table?I believe the minimum is 4 and the max 7, however 4 would be hard-pressed to survive the amount of combat in the scenarios in my opinion.
The Scenarios are Tiered with two tiers so far. Tier 1&2 and Tier 4&5. It was explained to me at the event that if you were level 3 (the party that is) you would be permitted to choose which Tier you would like to run through.
Min is 4 players and one DM (and we did it with silent tide, so its possible) Max is 6 players and one DM
|
What is the minimum number of players required at a table for PFS play? What is the maximum? How does one calculate the "APL" or level of play for the table?
Average the parties levels together by adding them up and dividing by 4 (this was WOTC idea of APL).
At Gen Con the least you could have at your table was 4 and the most you could have was 6. That was set out by Josh on Wednesday night before the con.
Having read the adventures, 6 should be more than plenty to ensure that they have enough to survive. I have run one of the adventures for a home group that only had 4 players and they got through it fine.
7 can be done, but it seems to me that you are playing havok with the XP that is awarded. But that might work itself out with some math.
A party of six 2nd level players should move through most of the tier one adventures without a problem. Adding a seventh really just makes combat go longer, so for con play, that's not desirable. But for a home game that's not as much of a consideration.
If you had 7 level 2s, and you divided by 4 you get a APL of 3.5 and depending on the gear they bought, they could stand a pretty good chance of handling a tier 4 game.
One of the parties I had included two clerics. They had a pretty easy time of it. If you have a party like that with seven, chances they would be fine. Keep in mind, all of the characters start with a bonus feat so they are already more powerful than your standard character and have more points than a standard point buy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Min = 4
Max = 6
These numbers do not include the GM.
Fair enough, I'll be sure to add that in 1.2.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Question, then:
We had a group show up for a Pathfinder Society game and had eight people show. (This is not a math problem, and isn't a hypothetical.) The GM ran six of us "officially" and a seventh who played his character but volunteered to not get credit for the scenario.
Did we do it wrong?
Should I have volunteered to be a second GM and split the group to two tables of 3 players?
Should we have just sent someone home?
(If that last solution is the "right" one, I'm sort of glad we didn't make the right choice. Everyone had fun, and most people came in couples. I don't think anyone would have liked us keeping one person from play.)
|
|
We had a group show up for a Pathfinder Society game and had eight people show...
That's actually a really good question, Chris, and points out a possible flaw in the "min=4, max=6" rule: having 8 or 9 people show up for a store game (or game day).
Is there any way for a GM to NPC maybe one of the Iconics for the session and not have that NPC's count?
Or mayb the right answer is to run the game so everyone can have fun, but discount that session a valid because they exceed (or fail to meet) the number of players rule?
-Skeld
From my perspective, the rule is flexible on the top end, not flexible on the low end. How you handled it is fine--we'd rather people play than be turned away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I should clarify:
Four is the absolute minimum--if you don't have at least four, you don't run. Running with less than four would be suicide anyway for several of these scenarios and quite hard for the rest.
Six is the maximum. If you have seven players (not counting GMs) show up, then you can run seven so long as everyone is okay with it. I see seven as being the farthest you can stretch upward since eight would be two tables of four.
IE, I don't want a table of 8 players or more to be a regular or official thing. That's too many and around twice what the scenarios are designed for.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Also, even with 7 players (and certainly with 8 or more) the game is just not that fun, and that reflects poorly on the campaign. We want people to enjoy their Pathfinder experience. If you are starting to muster 7-player tables in your area, it's a sure sign that it's time for more judges.
|
Previous experiences when 9 people show up (8 players), the tables are split. One DM running two tables simultanously. Hard, but with dungeon crawls without some very tricky murder solving mysteries it's doable.
Of course, in all cases it'd better be to make sure people know who should come and when. It's mainly an issue of misinformation and lack of communication.