So, it looks like the consensus is to have guidelines on adding an extra mook per character for parties above a certain size.
Personally, I think it's only polite to ask the players at the table if they want a tougher adventure before tinkering around with difficulty levels. But that's just me.
|
I like the fact that the modules are tough. Of course I am a murder machine as a GM apparently (15 kills in 7 months). Now if it's a bunch of new faces at the table then they get the kiddy gloves but if there regulars and they want to play up then I play rough. When I play I like bare nickel modules where I feel like my PC is on the verge or death or glory.
As I see it challenge = FUN!
|
So, it looks like the consensus is to have guidelines on adding an extra mook per character for parties above a certain size.Personally, I think it's only polite to ask the players at the table if they want a tougher adventure before tinkering around with difficulty levels. But that's just me.
In this case, its not raising the toughness, its keeping it even along all party sizes. This also makes mods run better for small tables, while letting six man groups have everyone act before combat is over.
|
|
The Gm is not spposed to try to TPK the Party. The point of the game is to have fun for all both players and GM's.
As far as wands go they are only good through 4th el after 4th in combat healing need to be done by a healing class Cleric or Paladin as WCL only heal 1d8 per round not real effective in combat.
Alexander whats wrong with a Magus using wands? If the DEVS did not want a Magus to use Wands they would not have given them 2 arcana for wands.
|
|
The Gm is not spposed to try to TPK the Party. The point of the game is to have fun for all both players and GM's.
As far as wands go they are only good through 4th el after 4th in combat healing need to be done by a healing class Cleric or Paladin as WCL only heal 1d8 per round not real effective in combat.
Alexander whats wrong with a Magus using wands? If the DEVS did not want a Magus to use Wands they would not have given them 2 arcana for wands.
The problem is that a Magus using a wand in combat gets a bit terrifying when he can use truestrike every single round. It stems from the free wand per adventure. Sure, the pa for a raise is great, but so is a 95% hit rate.
In this case, its not raising the toughness, its keeping it even along all party sizes.
Whatever you call it, it's tinkering with the difficulty level outside of PFS rules. Maybe it's just me, but I find GM "oopsies" far more offensive than a slightly less challenging module played as written.
Now if the module had been officially and intentionally written and playtested with two different party sizes in mind, I wouldn't have any objection.
|
|
In this case, its not raising the toughness, its keeping it even along all party sizes.Whatever you call it, it's tinkering with the difficulty level outside of PFS rules. Maybe it's just me, but I find GM "oopsies" far more offensive than a slightly less challenging module played as written.
Now if the module had been officially and intentionally written and playtested with two different party sizes in mind, I wouldn't have any objection.
Oh no, I don't mean going back and altering scenarios, this thread is designed to be about how to build modules going forward.
Oh no, I don't mean going back and altering scenarios, this thread is designed to be about how to build modules going forward.
Ah, fair enough, then.
|
|
Oh no, I don't mean going back and altering scenarios, this thread is designed to be about how to build modules going forward.Ah, fair enough, then.
As to current modules, I give my more powergamey players the chance to play up for no additional reward, even if their apl isn't high enough. They enjoy the challenge and the bragging rights.
|
Regarding duhtroll's first item, it's kinda dicey. Generally speaking, fights are where Pathfinders find their loot. If I have a few wounded NPCs flee, then I can imagine the hullabaloo when the characters get their chronicle sheets with about a third of the gold awarded.
If the Pathfinders are going to pursue wounded enemies with the gleam of avarice in their eyes, then it makes sense for NPCs to keep fighting, rather than turn tail and get matching arrow wounds in the back.
Regarding your second item, that's more a question to table GMs than module writers. If the players have gone off-script, then the GM shouldn't keep the same pre-programmed enemies enacting the same tableaus.
And, at the last, at least they don't call us "maggots."
I wanted to add that even if monsters flee, PCs still receive the gold amount for those monsters. Note that in scenarios, it states: "if the PCs defeat this encounter, reward each subtler thusly:". Routing the enemy is defeating them, in my opinion. So is talking them down via diplomacy. The only time when I do not award players gold in a scenario is if they avoid an encounter entirely (by not entering the room, flying over them, what have you) or if the PCs flee from the encounter.
|
A real killer GM doesn't have to brag. ;-)
Listen, I'm trying to build a cult of personality here. It takes a lot of marketing propaganda and name recognition to do this, and I don't have a PR team yet. It's hard wo...
Oh, this isn't a private message. This is on a public board. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, folks!
/Crap
|
Listen, I'm trying to build a cult of personality here. It takes a lot of marketing propaganda and name recognition to do this, and I don't have a PR team yet. It's hard wo...
Oh, this isn't a private message. This is on a public board. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, folks!
/Crap
Who are you again?...;)
|
|
So, it looks like the consensus is to have guidelines on adding an extra mook per character for parties above a certain size.
I would agree with this, or, more to the point, have a certain number of bad guys in the encounter assuming a default party size of four, and another number if the party size hits 6.
In my experience, a party of five should get the same challenge as a party of four. It adds a little to the PCs, but not so much that the encounter becomes significantly skewed.
That assumption changes when the table goes up to six players. At that stage, the combats in PFS scenarios ALL become too easy. That's the issue which should be addressed on a go-forward basis, imo with something like this in the monster description:
Kobold Scouts (3/4*) CR 3
Indicating 3 Kobold Scouts are encountered for a party of 4 or 5, and increasing the number met with an asterisk if the table size is six (or seven).
The problem with simply adding the number of monsters can increase play times. But I think this is the best approach as it has no effect on the length of the scenario in terms of .pdf size. Adding more stat blocks for differing party sizes at each sub-tier is a non-starter, imo.
|
|
...with something like this in the monster description:Kobold Scouts (3/4*) CR 3
Indicating 3 Kobold Scouts are encountered for a party of 4 or 5, and increasing the number met with an asterisk if the table size is six (or seven).
The problem with simply adding the number of monsters can increase play times. But I think this is the best approach as it has no effect on the length of the scenario in terms of .pdf size. Adding more stat blocks for differing party sizes at each sub-tier is a non-starter, imo.
Good idea because I hear about 6 PC cakewalks a lot on these threads (and have only begun reading PFS threads recently).
I've seen variable encounters work with other published material before.Ex. Boss + 2 minions per PC, 3 Archers +1 Pikeman per PC, 5 goons +1 caster/3 PCs, etc.
It's easy enough, and easier than adjusting for level is (which modules do anyway). In some fights you could even say "Use next highest tier" for groups of 6-7. There could be a tag "NT" for next tier in place of a number, if more won't help or it's a single critter too powerful to multiply.
It seems that groups of 5 or 7 could get their own quantities too, as each PC can make a big difference.
Increased play time is more an issue on the player side having 50% more than on the GM side having 50% more goons. (One hopes, as GMs should be able to execute a goon's turn in the time it takes to roll, or less if added to a pile of dice; attack dice matching color of damage dice re: same attack.)
Re: bonuses if your allies die. Funny because you get perks for letting allies die.
"Say, if we let him bleed out, we get some free rerolls."
"All right!"
(I doubt anybody would do this, but...)
Re: Killer GMs: They kinda have to brag.
There's nobody else left to tell...
(Which is why you leave one alive, and scarred.)