I will begin GMing PFS scenarios early next month and I expect to regularly have 5-7 players at the sessions. Before we actually begin play, I had a few questions that I would like to ask of the more experienced PFS GMs.
Can a PFS GM 'legally' assign max HP to all opponents during combat encounters for sessions in which there are 6-7 players?
How much 'wiggle room' does a GM have when running a scenario with regards to NPC/opponent stat blocks? Can I alter spell lists or skill point assignment or feat selection, so long as the changes do not excessively alter the 'flavor' of a NPC or encounter?
|
I will begin GMing PFS scenarios early next month and I expect to regularly have 5-7 players at the sessions. Before we actually begin play, I had a few questions that I would like to ask of the more experienced PFS GMs.
Can a PFS GM 'legally' assign max HP to all opponents during combat encounters for sessions in which there are 6-7 players?
How much 'wiggle room' does a GM have when running a scenario with regards to NPC/opponent stat blocks? Can I alter spell lists or skill point assignment or feat selection, so long as the changes do not excessively alter the 'flavor' of a NPC or encounter?
The stat-blocks are already pre-defined. You can't make changes to them unless it is specifically stated that you can due to certain circumstances. What you can do when there are 6-7 players is to add +1 when calculating the APL and possibly play a higher level tier depending on the results of the APL calculation.
Also
|
|
Welcome to PFS play! I'm sure the world's only 5-Star GM* will show up and post here soon, so I'll get in before my comment is diminished in value. :)
There are two schools of thought on what you're asking:
a) Organized play is unique. The idea is that each player should have the exact same experience for a given scenario. Along with this, each character should have to use the same resources to accomplish a scenario (potions, scrolls, etc), and should receive roughly the same rewards (PA, GP, XP) for an equal amount of effort. Making changes to a scenario could mean that Player A had to spend 500 gp more to survive than Player B. Over time this can add up and will become apparent if either of those players ever takes their character to a different table (other local group, large convention, etc).
b) Organized player is unique, but it should be "fun." Often having 7 players at a table is no fun for anyone. The combat is slow and often not a challenge. Everyone is vying for a piece of the GM's attention, but there's only so much to go around. In order to increase the fun factor, small modifications to encounters are necessary.
There's plenty of discussion on this in another thread, but ultimately it's up to you, the GM.
|
Welcome to PFS play! I'm sure the world's only 5-Star GM* will show up and post here soon, so I'll get in before my comment is diminished in value. :)
There are two schools of thought on what you're asking:
a) Organized play is unique. The idea is that each player should have the exact same experience for a given scenario. Along with this, each character should have to use the same resources to accomplish a scenario (potions, scrolls, etc), and should receive roughly the same rewards (PA, GP, XP) for an equal amount of effort. Making changes to a scenario could mean that Player A had to spend 500 gp more to survive than Player B. Over time this can add up and will become apparent if either of those players ever takes their character to a different table (other local group, large convention, etc).
b) Organized player is unique, but it should be "fun." Often having 7 players at a table is no fun for anyone. The combat is slow and often not a challenge. Everyone is vying for a piece of the GM's attention, but there's only so much to go around. In order to increase the fun factor, small modifications to encounters are necessary.
There's plenty of discussion on this in another thread, but ultimately it's up to you, the GM.
I agree with this. At the game days, especially with new players, I like to run the mods as is. They are usually very well written and the monsters are scaled properly. For my weekly home game, we have several "old-timers" who like to squeeze the very last bit of cheese they can out of their characters. I routinely beef up the monsters a bit in order to make it more challenging for them.
Thanks for the candid replies. While I was aware of the +1 APL for larger parties, I had not seriously considered bumping the opponents to the next highest tier as a viable option. I was wrong. In the immediate, it might not be feasible as the characters are all new 1st level PCs, however, if I am unable to to split the group into a table of 4 and 3 (plus one GM-ran NPC) then I will immediately follow the +1 APL guideline.
Thanks again.
Maybe I silly question, but I can never seem to figure it out.
Just exactly hos does that +1 APL calculation work?
Do you add 1 to each characters level and then divide for the average, or do you get the average first, and then add 1 to that result?
|
Maybe I silly question, but I can never seem to figure it out.
Just exactly hos does that +1 APL calculation work?
Do you add 1 to each characters level and then divide for the average, or do you get the average first, and then add 1 to that result?
Total up all the levels at the table and divide by the number of players. Add 1 to the total if there are six or more players. The result is rounded to the nearest whole number, which determines the sub-tier you play at.
Example 1:
Tier 1-7 scenario. Characters are 1, 2, 2, 2, 2 & 3. Total is 12. Divide by 6 characters, result is 2. Add 1 for six characters. APL 3 plays at sub-tier 3-4.
Example 2:
Same table, but playing a Tier 1-5 scenario. Their APL is 3, so they fall in the middle and can choose to play sub-tier 1-2 or 4-5.
|
Total up all the levels at the table and divide by the number of players. Add 1 to the total if there are six or more players. The result is rounded to the nearest whole number, which determines the sub-tier you play at.
Example 1:
Tier 1-7 scenario. Characters are 1, 2, 2, 2, 2 & 3. Total is 12. Divide by 6 characters, result is 2. Add 1 for six characters. APL 3 plays at sub-tier 3-4.Example 2:
Same table, but playing a Tier 1-5 scenario. Their APL is 3, so they fall in the middle and can choose to play sub-tier 1-2 or 4-5.
One note though from a previous thread where I mentioned some frustrations of mine in a 4-5 module.
Before I start though Doug is 100% right, so this is in addition, listen to Doug. I do not want to add extra confusion over the basics of APL calculation.
1. If you have a group of six level 7's and they show up to a 1-7 module, while their APL is technically 8, they can still play the sub-tier 6-7 module.
2. In Example 1, your group can opt NOT to play in the "appropriate" tier if your APL alone forces you to play up. In essence, the APL calculation is not supposed to force players to play above their means. A group of 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 is technically APL 3. (Total is 9, Divide by 6 characters, result is 1.5. Add 1 for six characters, round = 3). Those characters, as Doug Stated, are sub-tier 3-4 when playing a level 1-7 module, but with that many 1's, it is possible that they could request to play 1-2. This becomes a big deal when there are spell effects that can wipe out nearly the entire party to dead (fireball for example).
So what you both are saying is make it challenging and fun but keep the actual level of your individual players in mind when deciding on tier. Makes perfect sense.