|
All scenarios with a sub-tier 1-2 are not treated equally, and they run the gambit over difficulty. To be fair though, this unevenness is present in all sub-tiers. A certain adventure recently played at tier 4-5 with our group of 6 level 3's (we were required to play at 4-5) nearly ended in a TPK because of the multiple 6D6 fireballs thrown at the party. And nothing is more exciting than being level 1 and finding the adventures with the three ghouls as a "standard" tier 1-2 encounter (I think you have roughly a 20% chance of encountering one of these modules).
I've played my share (six to be exact) of sub-tier 1-2 scenarios and I've GMed 4 of them and they're tough, but if your group plays intelligently, they're certainly not "impossible". Our group is a healthy mix of optimizers and non-optimizers and we range regular play with 4-6 players.
I think what you're seeing also has a lot to do with players and classes too. A group of six that show up with all rogues and monks is going to play very differently than a group of four (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue).
A certain adventure recently played at tier 4-5 with our group of 6 level 3's (we were required to play at 4-5) nearly ended in a TPK because of the multiple 6D6 fireballs thrown at the party.
Hrm.
Your exact situation is actually not the intent of the Society's APL calculation. Just like I don't want a group of six level 5s who show up to play a Tier 1-5 to be told they can't because their APL is 6, I really don't want a group who is between sub-Tiers to be forced to play up. Sub-Tier 4-5 is really designed for 4th level and higher players. Six 3rd level players will have a very difficult time.
I have some language in the Guide now that's similar to this:
We don’t
want the above table showing up for a Tier 1–5 scenario,
something they’re all the appropriate level for, and being
told that they can’t play after their APL calculation. APL
is a loose rule for determining your appropriate level of
play—it should be followed as often as possible and broken
only when following it would oddly bump characters from
a scenario (as noted in the example above).
In 2.3, I'll add some language that deals with your specific example MisterSlanky. My intent wasn't to force those in between sub-Tiers to play up. :-/
As for the difficulty level of sub-Tier 1-2:
In Season 0, they were VERY swingy. In Season 1, I nailed down a set of guidelines for for that sub-Tier in particular. They are designed with 4x level 1 PCs in mind every single time. Every once in a while, something weird might get through development that makes a sub-Tier 1-2 encounter more challenging than intended, but starting with the Season 1 scenarios I think the "swinginess" of that sub-Tier has been severely reduced.
|
|
In Season 0, they were VERY swingy. In Season 1, I nailed down a set of guidelines for for that sub-Tier in particular. They are designed with 4x level 1 PCs in mind every single time. Every once in a while, something weird might get through development that makes a sub-Tier 1-2 encounter more challenging than intended, but starting with the Season 1 scenarios I think the "swinginess" of that sub-Tier has been severely reduced.
I have a rather small sample size, but this perfectly matches what I've seen.
Season 0 ranged from one that was easy enough for our 4 PCs that my Fire Domain cleric could get away with using Turn Water Creatures on creatures that were actually just aquatic (and other such RP-based things that were poor combat choices) and we would still easily win to one where our 6 PCs nearly TPKed at least twice despite pretty much optimal tactics from the PCs.
Season 1 was consistently easy at a very stable level for a 1st-level group of 4 PCs, probably because we had a Cleric, Sorcerer, Rogue, and Barbarian and the expectation is that you might not get such a favourable party mix. Also, I think you wrote most of the few Season 1 scenarios we played but not the Season 0, which likely contributes to the tighter sense of balance.
The first two scenarios I ran were 7 players (6 + iconic for a noob) and they were total cakewalks.
Another scenario that I ran was a total cakewalk with 5 1st and 1 3rd.
I'm a player tonight in a game with 4 players (all 1st). I fear for my life..as you mention.
The tier system is all screwed up. It should be:
1st
2nd-3rd
etc.
The difference between a beginner scenario and all other tiers is COMPLETELY screwed up.
jh
|
|
Your exact situation is actually not the intent of the Society's APL calculation. Just like I don't want a group of six level 5s who show up to play a Tier 1-5 to be told they can't because their APL is 6, I really don't want a group who is between sub-Tiers to be forced to play up. Sub-Tier 4-5 is really designed for 4th level and higher players. Six 3rd level players will have a very difficult time.
(stuff)
In 2.3, I'll add some language that deals with your specific example MisterSlanky. My intent wasn't to force those in between sub-Tiers to play up. :-/
To be fair Josh, half the group would have wanted to "play up" anyway simply because we have found that in nearly every case when we're playing with 6, it's more fun and while challenging, if one plays smart and with a reasonably balanced party, you'll likely survive. Unfortunately when you're talking about a fairly average hit point total at level 3 of 21 going up against an average damage of 21 on 6D6, completely by surprise things add up quickly.
Another thing to note is that if the party were two level 3's and two level 4's (meaning APL 4), the 6D6 fireball thing still would have likely wound up in a good chance of two deaths fairly early on. If your intent isn't to force players to play up a tier, I'm curious what you could do to protect those players. Smart players can play it fairly safe and reasonably well in most encounters, but an AoE damage spell like that for the lower level characters can spell immediate (and completely out of the blue) disaster.
|
It would be great if there was some kind of latitude given to the GM to be able to increase the number of opponents in an encounter so that the encounter's difficulty "widens" rather than really "raises." That way you don't have six players, plus two pets, plus a mount jumping on top of the opponent and making the encounter far too easy to overcome.
I wholely support this notion. Some sort-and-simple "Large Party Rules" for each tier/encounter. For example:
For parties of 6 or larger, instead of 2 Red Great Wyrms, use 3.
|
In my experience probably 2/3rds of all the mods are easy to moderate. Now I freely admit I am spoiled as we usually have a table of 6 and barring that then 5.
My gripes arise from an extreme over abundance of healing available in most mods. I think there has been half a dozen times in 35~ mods we have received 6 or more potions of curing as treasure during the mod. Also at least 4 or 5 mods were you can grab a wand of cure light during the mod. I understand giving bad guys some healing to use just as players have some but realistically the party captures it most of the time and then free heals after combat not even losing treasure for AR purposes.
My other problem is with scaling up modules by simply adding more low level mooks to a higher tier. Even the low level cannon fodder should scale up when a tier goes up not just adding 2 or 3 more. Face it, it is fairly easy for a 4th lvl wizard to handle 3 3rd lvl fighters and even easier for a 6th lvl wizard to wipe 5 or 6 3rd lvl fighters. Several adventures I have seen so far use this strategy of simply adding a few extra lower level guys to the next higher tier and then slap an extra 2 levels on the BBEG. At least add 1 extra level or so onto the goons. Also there is no reason to have creatures in a mod that are below 3 levels under the tier of the mod unless there is more than a dozen or two of them and they can actually hurt the party.
I would also second the idea that in the future mods might have a small suggestion area in each encounter for a table of 5 or 6 players facing the encounter in question. Nothing big just something like "For a party of 5-6 add one extra 3rd Orc Barbarian to this encounter." or "For a strong party of 5-6 add 1 4th lvl lieutenant to this encounter." Or simply suggesting add one or two HD to the BBEG.
FYI I do love and have really enjoyed almost every PFS adventure. You guys are doing great just need a few tweeks. I would also humbly suggest switching to 4 adventures to gain a level. No adjustments needed to the PFS scaling of wealth or PA needed. Simply stretch the same gold out over 4 mods instead of 3 and make a few extra 1 PA mods and a few less 2 PA mods. This way you still wind up with the same overall wealth and PA at any given level. Three mods to a level is simply to quick and to few play opportunities IMO.
My gripes arise from an extreme over abundance of healing available in most mods. I think there has been half a dozen times in 35~ mods we have received 6 or more potions of curing as treasure during the mod. Also at least 4 or 5 mods were you can grab a wand of cure light during the mod. I understand giving bad guys some healing to use just as players have some but realistically the party captures it most of the time and then free heals after combat not even losing treasure for AR purposes.
I consider this a feature, not a bug. Probably because, more often than not, I play in a group with no cleric or any other divine caster. I can see how some people might find it a little too much, though.
My other problem is with scaling up modules by simply adding more low level mooks to a higher tier.
I've played in a few modules like this, and I agree sometimes it feels like: "A bunch of 1st level warriors? Is that all there is?"
But as a DM, I tend to be a big softy, so I can appreciate erring on the side of lenience.
My gripes arise from an extreme over abundance of healing available in most mods. I think there has been half a dozen times in 35~ mods we have received 6 or more potions of curing as treasure during the mod. Also at least 4 or 5 mods were you can grab a wand of cure light during the mod. I understand giving bad guys some healing to use just as players have some but realistically the party captures it most of the time and then free heals after combat not even losing treasure for AR purposes.
This is hilarious because it was just this time last year that I was fielding complaints about a lack of these items in scenarios. :-)
My other problem is with scaling up modules by simply adding more low level mooks to a higher tier.
This was prevalent in Season 0. This has not occurred very often in Season 1.
would also second the idea that in the future mods might have a small suggestion area in each encounter for a table of 5 or 6 players facing the encounter in question. .
It's something I've considered for a while now. No plans yet.
FYI I do love and have really enjoyed almost every PFS adventure. You guys are doing great just need a few tweeks. I would also humbly suggest switching to 4 adventures to gain a level. No adjustments needed to the PFS scaling of wealth or PA needed. Simply stretch the same gold out over 4 mods instead of 3 and make a few extra 1 PA mods and a few less 2 PA mods. This way you still wind up with the same overall wealth and PA at any given level. Three mods to a level is simply to quick and to few play opportunities IMO.
Well, it actually would affect the math a great deal, especially the rate of wealth accumulation. And once you change the rate of wealth accumulation, you essentially have to retire every scenario before that point as they were all design around a different rate.
I appreciate your feedback! Thanks especially for the kind words there in your last paragraph. :-)
|
|
would also second the idea that in the future mods might have a small suggestion area in each encounter for a table of 5 or 6 players facing the encounter in question.It's something I've considered for a while now. No plans yet.
Love this idea. I GM a wide range of tables sizes - from 3 + a pregen that barely goes off to 7 where we have to turn someone away. I love small tables because everyone stays engaged. With big tables it sometimes end up being 6 or 7 PCs on 3 bad guys. Everyone get a shot or 2 and it's over. I'd really appreciate a way to increase number of bads without necessarily upping the tier.
...I GM a wide range of tables sizes - from 3 + a pregen that barely goes off to 7 where we have to turn someone away...
Now you do know if you are having to turn someone away, meaning you have the GM and 8 players show up, you really should get one of them to run also so that you would have a table of 4 and a table of 3 plus a pregen so that no one has to go away unhappy.
|
|
In all honesty Joshua my biggest gripe would be to switch it to 4 mods a level. More play opportunities per level per character would be greatly appreciated. 3 as you progress seems really fast.
Officially adding a small blurb to upscale a bit for 5 or 6 would be great because there are some players and DMs that would require an official suggestion like that otherwise they get a little bent out of shape if the DM does it on his own. Also consider giving those mooks a couple of alchemist fires or acids instead of healing potions.
I am very happy with PFRPG and PFS. I am back to gaming after almost 2 years of nothing after 4.0 rolled out. Thank you guys /bow
|
|
While we're slightly on the topic, I'd love to see a progressive XP rate.
- Levels 1-3 require 3 chronicles to advance (9 to reach level 4)
- Levels 4-6 require 4 chronicles to advance (21 total to reach level 7)
- Levels 7-9 require 5 chronicles to advance (36 total to reach 10)
- Levels 10-12 require 6 chronicles to advance (54 total to reach 12)
Scenarios designed for levels 5-9 and 7-11 would have to increase in numbers, but this would give everyone more time to develop their character. The argument of "Make another character" isn't appealing to everyone, and in my limited experience it isn't appealing (or at least favorable) to a large percentage of players.
|
|
Now you do know if you are having to turn someone away, meaning you have the GM and 8 players show up, you really should get one of them to run also so that you would have a table of 4 and a table of 3 plus a pregen so that no one has to go away unhappy.
Yeah, but that assumes one of those eight is willing to GM. I agree that two small tables would be ideal.
|
|
While we're slightly on the topic, I'd love to see a progressive XP rate.
- Levels 1-3 require 3 chronicles to advance (9 to reach level 4)
- Levels 4-6 require 4 chronicles to advance (21 total to reach level 7)
- Levels 7-9 require 5 chronicles to advance (36 total to reach 10)
- Levels 10-12 require 6 chronicles to advance (54 total to reach 12)
Scenarios designed for levels 5-9 and 7-11 would have to increase in numbers, but this would give everyone more time to develop their character. The argument of "Make another character" isn't appealing to everyone, and in my limited experience it isn't appealing (or at least favorable) to a large percentage of players.
Although a graduated system sounds good I believe it would become a monster to adjudicate. How do you handle playing up or down? If I play up at 3rd level would that mean it still counts as one of my 3 or would it count as 1 of four for that higher tier? I think graduated would be very difficult. I do not mind the flat system just STRONGLY feel 4 mods per level would provide much more play and adjustment for a player. Honestly if Joshua and the fine folks at paizo were to ever consider this - now is the time. It will only get harder say 2 or 3 years from now to make such a change.
|
|
While we're slightly on the topic, I'd love to see a progressive XP rate.
- Levels 1-3 require 3 chronicles to advance (9 to reach level 4)
- Levels 4-6 require 4 chronicles to advance (21 total to reach level 7)
- Levels 7-9 require 5 chronicles to advance (36 total to reach 10)
- Levels 10-12 require 6 chronicles to advance (54 total to reach 12)
Scenarios designed for levels 5-9 and 7-11 would have to increase in numbers, but this would give everyone more time to develop their character. The argument of "Make another character" isn't appealing to everyone, and in my limited experience it isn't appealing (or at least favorable) to a large percentage of players.
While this would help with the "make another character" issue, it would be absolute murder trying to balance the gold amounts in modules over different levels (both a level 5 and a 7 could be playing in the same Tier 1-7 modules at sub-tier 6-7 and the level 5 would be getting extraordinary amounts of gold over the 7 for doing so.
I appreciate the struggle Josh has trying to keep gold balanced, and this would make things a lot worse.
|
In all honesty Joshua my biggest gripe would be to switch it to 4 mods a level. More play opportunities per level per character would be greatly appreciated. 3 as you progress seems really fast.
One thing that has to be considered is the different ways that OP is used.
It sounds like you are fortunate enough to be part of a regularly scheduled PFS game, whether at home or in your FLGS. For you, it makes sense to progress more slowly, and maximize the gaming experience.
There are also many players who only get opportunities to play sporadically (ie at conventions). For these players, 4 scenarios a level weakens the experience, as they would not ever get to play more powerful characters.
Similarly, a faster progression helps with introducing new players to the rules system: I recently ran 4 scenarios at a small con, had players walk up during my 1st session who were eventually able to level their characters.
I do like the idea of large party scaling, though.
|
|
There are also many players who only get opportunities to play sporadically (ie at conventions). For these players, 4 scenarios a level weakens the experience, as they would not ever get to play more powerful characters.
Agreed 100%. I don't think that the progression should change because that would take away the frequency that new players will get to level their characters and most people like that accomplishment.
As for making the higher levels need more XP to level, wouldn't that mean we would need more higher level scenarios written so that there would be enough for those players to play to actually level their characters?
Similarly, a faster progression helps with introducing new players to the rules system: I recently ran 4 scenarios at a small con, had players walk up during my 1st session who were eventually able to level their characters.
And you did a good job running the games at that convention. Thank you. (Now report the games!) ;)
One thing that has to be considered is the different ways that OP is used.It sounds like you are fortunate enough to be part of a regularly scheduled PFS game, whether at home or in your FLGS. For you, it makes sense to progress more slowly, and maximize the gaming experience.
There are also many players who only get opportunities to play sporadically (ie at conventions). For these players, 4 scenarios a level weakens the experience, as they would not ever get to play more powerful characters.
I had the impression (possibly mistaken) that some folks were complaining that "3 sessions = 1 level" is too fast based on convention playing. E.g., a person plays 6 PFS games over the course of a three-day weekend (say), and his PC goes from level 6 to 8 with barely any real-life time to savour being level 7.
Personally, I like the level progression just fine.
The XP progression is not an aspect of Pathfinder Society I'm willing to change. It negates years of planning and would throw many parts of the Society into chaos. While I appreciate the arguments for a new XP progression, it simply cannot happen.
Let's look at the two extremes of regular play here. At the slow leveling end there are those who started playing PFS when the first Season Zero scenario was released and then played each each new scenario on release. For these players it took a little over a year before that 33rd scenario came out that would make their first character 12th level, and that would be true only if the scenarios were released in a level progression, which they weren't, so it actually took at least 18 months to hit 12th level if they were only playing one character and waiting for scenarios that matched the character's level. At the fast leveling end you have players starting sometime after that 33rd scenario was released. These players could potentially sit down with a group of friends over the summer and play one scenario a day for 33 days and they would all have 12th level characters in a little over a month, and even sooner if they are really dedicated and play multiple scenarios a day.
Hm, I think I lost the train of thought I was going with when I typed all that. lol Anyway, PFS OP is not supposed to simulate the longer amount of time that is normally needed to progress at higher levels nor about the passage of time in a campaign, rather PFS is for socialization between players, a level playing field for advancement in XP, PA, and gold, and, to an extent at least back in Season Zero, friendly competition between players.
And I just also realized that the posts in this thread I was replying to are actually a tangent from the original discussion. So on that topic, yes, if you have a poorly balanced or underpowered party, then any of the scenarios will be difficult.
|
We have a Friday night gaming group. Somtimes Herald comes and is able to DM. We have between 5 and 10 [u]players[/u] every Friday night depending on who can make it. I'd love a large group blurb for encounters. More often than not we get a total of 7 or 8 people, That means one game of 6 or two games of 3 with two pregen NPC's. In this home game setting I have been known to missread hp's from time to time when dealing with larger groups of players. Everybody gets their moments to shine.
Crying over. That said, a group of 35-45 year old folks are getting together every week renewing the bonds of friendship (cue LOTR music score) and introducing their offspring to games not involving keyboards and gamepad controllers. Pretty darn awesome.