|
I've run through the intro scenarios with my group and we're about to start Season 3. The problem I'm facing is the group is 6 players, plus a tiger the druid has with him. Now that the group is level 2, they are insanely powerful for a group of this level, and the scenarios are just far too easy for them.
During the intros they passed just about every skill check, and combat encounters were a joke, they last maybe three rounds at best and I can only inflict minor damage on the PC's, which ends up being a little pointless as the Cleric's have basically free cure wands (2 PP) with 50 charges each that easily heal the party up completely between encounters.
Now I've got a Zen Archer Monk with +6/+6 ranged flurry, a Fighter with an AC of 22, a Druid with a very strong melee attack, and his Tiger, with two Cleric's buffing, and healing everything. Everyone upgraded to masterwork weapons and armor.
So my question is: Is it permissible to adjust the difficulty of a scenario without going to the next tier? If a scenario has 1-2 and 4-5 tiers, can I adjust it slightly so it would more likely be a Tier 3? This would help me increase the challenge of the scenarios and make them more fun for everyone.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
No, you really can't, the way the rules are written. (Remember, though, that a table of 6 increases the APL by 1. So your table of 6 2nd-level PCs is APL 3, and can play up to Subtier 4-5.)
But this sounds like a home campaign. Is there any reason you feel bound to run everything Organized-Play legal? If not, use your judgement to make play fun.
|
Right now, the only thing you can do is give all the monsters max HP - this helps a bit. No adding creatures or making them stronger is allowed. Season 3 mods do seem a bit harder than previous ones, but not a lot. [EDIT: can't find Josh's post on this, so maybe even this isn't allowed anymore?]
Some guidelines on this may be forthcoming, but until then it's too much of a wild card, and adds too much variation between tables.
Some suggestions on what to do now:
* try and KILL them. Gang up on one guy. Have them flank and use Aid Another to hit that AC 22 fighter, to to boost the AC of the boss. Don't spread damage around; it's too transient to matter (as you pointed out). Play smart, even when that's not strictly correct (like with mindless undead).
* find 2 more players and another GM and split into 2 tables of 4. The mods are designed for 4-player average parties, and breaks down with 6-player, min-max'ed characters. It's a lot more fun with a smaller table.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Chris!
|
|
I have 7 players in the rotation now, and I already came up with the idea to split them up, and play a pregen on the table that would be short, and/or get another player which might happen. But so far, only 6 players have signed up for the next session, so I'm going to keep them together.
I must have missed that rule about adding 1 to the APL for 6 players, maybe I can convince them to play up, although that will be very challenging for them.
If this was a normal campaign we'd be fine, but everyone wants to play PFS, so we'll stay within the rules.
|
|
I have 7 players in the rotation now, and I already came up with the idea to split them up, and play a pregen on the table that would be short, and/or get another player which might happen. But so far, only 6 players have signed up for the next session, so I'm going to keep them together.
I must have missed that rule about adding 1 to the APL for 6 players, maybe I can convince them to play up, although that will be very challenging for them.
If this was a normal campaign we'd be fine, but everyone wants to play PFS, so we'll stay within the rules.
On the first steps scenarios. They are supposed to be easy. They are the easiest of the scenarios I've run into. They are a true tier 1 trilogy.
That being said, there are some situations that can create some very deadly combats within them, even for the most cohesive and min-maxed 6 or 7 player groups.
|
|
Well, since your group are six level 2 players, they're APL 3 and can play up to subtier 4-5. Depending on the scenario, things can get deadly, but I'll leave that for you to figure out.
Just make sure you don't softball it, if they're playing up it's ok to kill someone, because they're still making more money than at subtier 1-2, even with a death, as long as they share the cost.
If you're so inclined (and don't want to tell us about it, wink wink), you can make other changes as well. Such as:
1) Change the listed tactics to something more optimal. This is the first thing I do.
2) Change spell selections. Sometimes spell selections are terrible and doesn't allow the NPC to be effective or sometime's even thematic.
3) Change terrain or the environment, so it's more defensive for the enemy.
Climbing, jumping, difficult terrain, squeezing, range, can provide a lot of challenge, especially at low level.
A lot of the time, GMs and players aren't even using the rules for ranged combat properly. They aren't including the range modifiers, allies in the way providing cover for the enemy, cover, etc.
4) Some people have added more mooks to the combat. I don't do this, but it works for some GMs.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
2) Change spell selections. Sometimes spell selections are terrible and doesn't allow the NPC to be effective or sometime's even thematic.
This one makes me nervous. I once overheard a PFS GM mention that he added scorching ray to the spells known of the BBEG sorcerer because the sorcerer (apparently) was focused on non-blasting spells and "what kind of a sorcerer doesn't use damage-dealing spells?"
Hearing that made me uncomfortable because in a previous scenario (months prior), that GM had killed a level 3 fighter PC with a scorching ray at CL7 (that's right, two rays) from near-full HP to dead.
|
|
I worry a lot about actually permanently killing a PC in PFS before raise dead becomes an option for them. If I kill a PC in PFS they are not permitted to recreate a new character at the same level as their old one, so they might not be able to play with the group anymore as the levels diverge, that would be uncomfortable and a disappointment if I lost players because of it.
It's always seemed a bit wrong to me to keep hitting on a downed PC when other targets are available. A lot of time and effort goes into building these characters. Am I too soft? Should I be actively trying to kill PC's outright?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You should be playing the opposition with the level of intelligence, ruthlessness, pity, skill, and insight that the scenario expects.
In one scenario, the PCs may have burst into the NPCs' temple, looking to loot it of sacred relics. The high-Wisdom NPCs would fight desperately, using all the forces they can bring to bear. In another encounter, the NPC might want to kidnap the PCs to random back to the Grand Lodge, or might be too angry to see his best strategy, or too clever by half.
If a PC dies, I would recommend that the rest of the party switch to slow advancement for a level or two, to let the replacement PC catch up. (It's also a good idea, when everybody reaches 3rd level, to spend a few sessions introducing secondary characters.)
|
|
I've run through the intro scenarios with my group and we're about to start Season 3. The problem I'm facing is the group is 6 players, plus a tiger the druid has with him. Now that the group is level 2, they are insanely powerful for a group of this level, and the scenarios are just far too easy for them.
Cupcakus, I will freely admit that I will adjust the difficulty of the scenarios when necessary.
I strongly encourage you to increase the difficulty when appropriate, as appropriate, for your group. As long as you don't adjust the gold/XP/rewards, you should be fine. There is no Paizo ninja force that is going to come take away your judges. You have the right to create a fun and fair environment for your players.
The basis for not allowing adjustments is based on a few false premises and I hope this is addressed as a future time.
It does your playgroup little good to cakewalk over everything and to run things as they are actually adds substantial burden to your DMs (as they need to over try to create challenges).
Do what is best for your playgroup while following what should the core tenets of PFS.
You can find some notes on this in the "On Difficulty Level" section of THIS POST.
-Pain
|
|
This one makes me nervous.
Keep in mind this is a HOME game (it's not a convention where you run things straighter) and he wants to make things more challenging. Like any good GM, you don't necessarily throw the book at the group, you tweak here and there.
Regarding death, at subtier 1-2 you gain arond 500g, at subtier 4-5 you gain around 1500g. If you have 6 players, as a group they're gaining around 6000g extra by "playing up". If one of them dies (5000g out of party treasure), it's not the end of the world because they're still making more money than if they played the regular subtier.
|
Regarding death, at subtier 1-2 you gain arond 500g, at subtier 4-5 you gain around 1500g. If you have 6 players, as a group they're gaining around 6000g extra by "playing up". If one of them dies (5000g out of party treasure), it's not the end of the world because they're still making more money than if they played the regular subtier.
I think it is a good idea for the GM to make sure that the PC's are challenged, but your idea of 5000gp handling a death is a little off. First a raise dead is isn't 5000gp, it is a 5000gp diamond + the cost of a 5th level spell caste by a minimum 9th level caster, 450gp. Plus this leaves the character with 2 permanant negative levels. The cost to restore those, 1280gp per level.
|
|
I think it is a good idea for the GM to make sure that the PC's are challenged, but your idea of 5000gp handling a death is a little off. First a raise dead is isn't 5000gp, it is a 5000gp diamond + the cost of a 5th level spell caste by a minimum 9th level caster, 450gp. Plus this leaves the character with 2 permanant negative levels. The cost to restore those, 1280gp per level.
Yes, it's 5450g, I was just approximating.
You don't get negative energy levels when you die in PFS btw.
My point is, even if the party has a death, when playing up they're still ahead.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You don't get negative energy levels when you die in PFS btw.
That actually changed in v4.0 of the Guide.
Also, the dead level 3 fighter I referenced was in subtier 3-4. She was considered level-appropriate, and got one-shotted. If I were to find out the GM had added that spell or, God forbid, added that last caster level to get the second ray, I'd be pretty upset.
|
|
Scenarios are tiered they way they are, because Paizo wants things to be as equal as it can be across the board.
Not everyone plays min-maxed characters, nor does everyone play with a typical group of min-maxed characters, where everyone can also min-max the party of characters as well as individually.
Some people only play as game days are available or as their schedule allows, and get thrown into parties that lack optimization to the extreme.
So, Paizo wants to make sure that an unoptimized party of 4 unoptimized 1st level characters can survive an encounter just as well as an optimized party of 6 optimized 2nd level characters in tier 1-2. Will the later party perhaps cake-walk the encounters? Sure. Will the former party maybe experience a character death? Possibly.
That's organized play folks. That's how it works.
If the tiering structure needs to change, then we need to come up with a viable alternative that won't cost page count or development time on the part of Paizo. We need to make it cohesive and comprehensive if we want them to even look at it.
GM's increasing the challenge arbitrarily is not the answer. All that does, long run, is ensure that each table plays a different scenario than the last, and that in the name of "fun" (for whom are we referring, the GM who wants to really challenge his players, or the players who want more of a challenge?) characters may die when they wouldn't have if run the way the scenario was written.
There are ways to increase the challenge of an encounter within the context of the scenario and how it was written. This requires no changes to the scenario by the GM. It just requires extra prep time so that the GM knows the scenario like the back of his hand and has pre-thought out tactics and strategies or how he will present some of the encounters and NPCs.
If you want to ensure combat with Maurit, then she jumps directly in front of them, at least one PC will most likely have seen her and get to react in the surprise round. She doesn't get to talk (which mind you, if you like silly voices like me, actually getting to roleplay her was a blast for me, the players in all 5 tables I ran, and in some cases those others in the store who didn't know what was going on), will get killed in a round or two, albeit will probably be somewhat of a difficult fight if she gets her paralysis off at all.
If you want to ensure at least a little dialogue and the possibility of a social encounter and a more deadly encounter later on, then she leaps onto the 15 foot pile of rubble (which makes more sense anyways, because if she leaps down 20 feet, even with an acrobatics check, she will probably take at least 1d6 falling damage--and a 5 foot jump will do none). The characters can't charge her, because the rubble is difficult terrain, and indeed requires climb checks to ascend. So you will at the very least get her first line of scripted dialogue out. If the characters are wearing pathfinder insignia (why wouldn't they, they aren't on a mission in which disguise or anonymity is necessary) then she also will get her 2nd line of dialogue out. Despite Colson Maldris imploring the characters to free undead from the "worst kind of slavery", this will intrigue most players and they will at least want to talk to her for a little bit and find out what happened, what dangers are inside, etc. If this dialogue goes well, she will show them a secret entrance into the tower, and possibly even give them a map of the place.
But, then she runs off and comes back later (shadowing the characters) and attacks them during another battle. I've had this happen against the Kobolds and against the Blindheim. The Blindheim/Maurit battle almost TPK'd them, but nobody ended up dying. One guy was 1 point from death against the Kobold/Maurit battle, because he was hurt by the kobolds and had to retreat out of the room, right into the hiding and waiting arms of Maurit. So nearly dead already, he had to face her by himself. She was hungry, didn't see another threat, so started to eat his unconscious body.
There are ways to make things more challenging without changing a scenario at all. The scenario in question above is inconclusive about where Maurit lands "in front of the characters" and so as a GM it is up to you to make the appropriate decision.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's organized play folks. That's how it works.
GM's increasing the challenge arbitrarily is not the answer. All that does, long run, is ensure that each table plays a different scenario than the last, and that in the name of "fun" (for whom are we referring, the GM who wants to really challenge his players, or the players who want more of a challenge?) characters may die when they wouldn't have if run the way the scenario was written.
** spoiler omitted **...
All in the name of "fun". As if fun is a dirty word. Idk, I have a problem with this attitude towards organized play. Essentially, you're trying to enforce the rules as if this was COMPETITIVE play. So what if characters die in the scenario because of modifications? Does that really matter if they were having more fun doing it? We're not all racing to the top with our characters, if people want a harder/more fun experience I think DM's owe it to players to try and make that experience possible. Instead of just trying to stick to the rules as printed and be chronicle sheet factories.
At some point, you need to trust that your DM is doing the right thing for your table. Because honestly, even a DM that's "following the rules" can totally mess up a table and kill people were another DM wouldn't, even following the same encounter tables. DM's have so much power that its silly to believe that you can build a module that completely removes them from the equation and makes everything "fair/the same".
So, accepting that DM's have the power, it seems pointless (to me) to try and knee cap them when they try and come up with creative solutions to increase/decrease difficulty so that their players have a more enjoyable time. ESPECIALLY when they actually fully understand the capability of the players and have gamed with them before.
PFS needs to lighten up and accept that DM's are an important part of shaping whats printed. If you follow the print so stringently every time, you're robbing people of your personal creativity and possibly having a much more enjoyable experience.
(added: Sorry for 'attacking' what you wrote. It just struck a cord somewhere).
|
|
Scenarios are tiered they way they are, because Paizo wants things to be as equal as it can be across the board.
Yar. Although I recognize that they might have said that, I hope it's not what they currently believe. We need to move beyond that approach into something that works better for local coordinators across the board.
Not everyone plays min-maxed characters, nor does everyone play with a typical group of min-maxed characters, where everyone can also min-max the party of characters as well as individually.
Some people only play as game days are available or as their schedule allows, and get thrown into parties that lack optimization to the extreme.
Exactly. Which is why local coordinators should be able to adapt to their playgroups. You make a good point in favor of finding a good set of guidelines.
So, Paizo wants to make sure that an unoptimized party of 4 unoptimized 1st level characters can survive an encounter just as well as an optimized party of 6 optimized 2nd level characters in tier 1-2. Will the later party perhaps cake-walk the encounters? Sure. Will the former party maybe experience a character death? Possibly.
That's organized play folks. That's how it works.
Uhm, nope. That's not how it has to work. There are better ways. If you are running the exact same scenario for a table of 4 new lvl 1s and 5 lvl 2s, you're doing a great disservice to the game in the name of a false, unnecessary ideal.
You should be running scenarios to be fun and challenging (as appropriate) as you'll only get one shot to play them and they should be the best that they can be. Feel free to change things to fit your group. I trust you to do it right. (Core Tenets, if you need guidance.)
If the tiering structure needs to change, then we need to come up with a viable alternative that won't cost page count or development time on the part of Paizo. We need to make it cohesive and comprehensive if we want them to even look at it.
We agree that we need more discussion on this issue. I choose to hope that Mike will get to it at some future time.
GM's increasing the challenge arbitrarily is not the answer. All that does, long run, is ensure that each table plays a different scenario than the last, and that in the name of "fun" (for whom are we referring, the GM who wants to really challenge his players, or the players who want more of a challenge?) characters may die when they wouldn't have if run the way the scenario was written.
It is an answer. The difference is that I choose to trust my judges to play fairly and intelligently within the spirit of PFS.
I don't like to make decisions based on fear. That a few rotten apples may ruin things happens now and will happen in the future regardless of whether people change mods or not.
What I do have control of is my gaming group, the judges that I play with, and the training and oversight that I can offer to them as local coordinator. I choose to educate and work with my judges to make every scenario run as good and fun as they can be.
-Pain
|
|
That's organized play folks. That's how it works.
GM's increasing the challenge arbitrarily is not the answer. All that does, long run, is ensure that each table plays a different scenario than the last, and that in the name of "fun" (for whom are we referring, the GM who wants to really challenge his players, or the players who want more of a challenge?) characters may die when they wouldn't have if run the way the scenario was written.
** spoiler omitted **...
All in the name of "fun". As if fun is a dirty word. Idk, I have a problem with this attitude towards organized play. Essentially, you're trying to enforce the rules as if this was COMPETITIVE play. So what if characters die in the scenario because of modifications? Does that really matter if they were having more fun doing it? We're not all racing to the top with our characters, if people want a harder/more fun experience I think DM's owe it to players to try and make that experience possible. Instead of just trying to stick to the rules as printed and be chronicle sheet factories.
At some point, you need to trust that your DM is doing the right thing for your table. Because honestly, even a DM that's "following the rules" can totally mess up a table and kill people were another DM wouldn't, even following the same encounter tables. DM's have so much power that its silly to believe that you can build a module that completely removes them from the equation and makes everything "fair/the same".
So, accepting that DM's have the power, it seems pointless (to me) to try and knee cap them when they try and come up with creative solutions to increase/decrease difficulty so that their players have a more enjoyable time. ESPECIALLY when they actually fully understand the capability of the players and have gamed with them before.
PFS needs to lighten up and accept that DM's are an important part of shaping whats printed. If you follow the print so stringently every time, you're robbing people of your...
No problem. And as my long explanation of First Steps Part II showed, my personal creativity was NOT hampered in the least by following the rules as written or the scenario as written. My creativity just shines in the way I portray the NPC’s or the way in which I improvise based on character decisions that don’t fit within what the Scenario has considered.
I also tried to present ways in which scenarios can stick strictly to what is written, and still have vastly different outcomes based on how the GM chooses to interpret a simple phrase. And sometimes this phrase (as long as it isn’t creatively/purposely misinterpreted—many of the best intentioned folk seem to “misinterpret” the way something is written so that it falls within what they want it to mean, so doing this should be done carefully with comprehensive thought to how it affects the entirety of the scenario) is not worded with strict language.
As for the use of the word “fun” seemingly derogatorily, that was not my intent. But too often you find GM’s who think they know what “should” be fun. They often go with what they think is fun, rather than what the players think is fun. There is no test to become a PFS GM. Anyone can pick up the mantle. So just because they are GM’ing for PFS doesn’t mean they are automatically qualified to make these types of decisions. Sure, you should trust your GM. And if the GM shows they cannot be trusted, you have the option to never play at their table again. But this doesn’t help you at another GM’s table, if the last GM decided to have some “fun” by modifying the scenario and thus killing your character. In a PFS game run from your home with largely the same players, this type of adjustment may be ok, especially if the players typically don’t play their character with any other GM’s or at conventions.
But if they do play with several different GM’s and at conventions, then you as a GM choosing to up the challenge have now skewed the CR of the scenario. Your characters may now have to expend more consumables, which cost money. So at a convention or with a different GM you now could have a weaker (or stronger if the opposite is true—a GM creating a weaker scenario) character equipment wise, than everyone else playing. Then that player may feel a lack of fun at a different table, because he can’t contribute as well.
Your decisions, as a GM, to modify a scenario as written, has far greater implications than simply the “fun” or “creativity” at the specific table in question.
|
|
It is an answer. The difference is that I choose to trust my judges to play fairly and intelligently within the spirit of PFS.
I don't like to make decisions based on fear. That a few rotten apples may ruin things happens now and will happen in the future regardless of whether people change mods or not.
What I do have control of is my gaming group, the judges that I play with, and the training and oversight that I can offer to them as local coordinator. I choose to educate and work with my judges to make every scenario run as good and fun as they can be.
-Pain
Actually, it would be better if a different tiering system was created to handle some of these issues. If it is tier 1-2, for example, it is obvious that 6 highly optimized 2nd level characters will fair much easier than 4 un-optimized 1st level characters. How difficult would it be for the scenario to include (# Monsters = to APL + X). Or to make other subtle variations to the encounter based on APL and # of characters.
You give too much leeway to modify a scenario, then how does that translate to “prizes” for factions that do well by year’s end?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How difficult would it be for the scenario to include (# Monsters = to APL + X).
Ooooh, I think you might be on to something here.
Many encounters will have a small handful of identical mooks, with a single statblock whose title says "[Mook Name] (X)" with X being the number of mooks. Simply replacing X with "X+APL" would allow very easy auto-tiering. So for a battle that includes 2+APL mooks, the group of 4 freshies will face 3 mooks, while the 6 level 2's will face 5 mooks. Not bad, not bad!
Alternatively/additionally, we could create some term referring to a harder version of something, with a defined reason for using it (more than five players, high APL, etc) and a concise shorthand for implementing it.
For instance, perhaps we call it "Hard Mode" and give certain parameters under which it's implemented. If you encounter a skill challenge whose DC isn't set by core rules, then maybe you list the DC as "DC 15 (HM 20)" to mean that it's normally DC 15, but if your table qualifies for Hard Mode you up it to 20. Similarly, the number of mooks in a fight could be listed as "3 (HM 5)" for a similar effect. You could add HM notations for things like the BBEG's HP or AC as well.
This would allow balanced difficulty adjustments that wouldn't rely on the GM's on-the-fly guesswork (less work for him, less risk for the players) and also would have a negligible effect on the scenario's word count.
I think there's potential for this idea. Thoughts?
|
|
You give too much leeway to modify a scenario, then how does that translate to “prizes” for factions that do well by year’s end?
I give too much leeway? Not sure what to make of that statement. :(
I trust my judges. I trust local coordinators to trust their judges. I trust that the PFS community, as a whole, can accommodate reasonable and intelligently planned guidelines for adjusting scenarios.
As far as the 'prizes' go, that is so far down on the list of important stuff that I don't worry about it. When I personally adapt scenarios, I don't change faction missions, so I can't imagine any impact at all on the 'prizes'.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You give too much leeway to modify a scenario, then how does that translate to “prizes” for factions that do well by year’s end?I give too much leeway? Not sure what to make of that statement. :(
I think there was an implied "if" at the beginning of that sentence, with "you" being in the generic, nonspecific sense. So I think it was meant to be read as "If a person gives too much leeway..."
At least, that's how I read it.
|
|
You give too much leeway to modify a scenario, then how does that translate to “prizes” for factions that do well by year’s end?I give too much leeway? Not sure what to make of that statement. :(I think there was an implied "if" at the beginning of that sentence, with "you" being in the generic, nonspecific sense. So I think it was meant to be read as "If a person gives too much leeway..."
At least, that's how I read it.
Ah. That makes much more sense. :)
Answer stands, but I like having the question clarified.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You give too much leeway to modify a scenario, then how does that translate to “prizes” for factions that do well by year’s end?I give too much leeway? Not sure what to make of that statement. :(I think there was an implied "if" at the beginning of that sentence, with "you" being in the generic, nonspecific sense. So I think it was meant to be read as "If a person gives too much leeway..."
At least, that's how I read it.
Ah. That makes much more sense. :)
Answer stands, but I like having the question clarified.
At the risk of sounding self-focused, any thoughts on my "Hard Mode" idea above?
|
|
You give too much leeway to modify a scenario, then how does that translate to “prizes” for factions that do well by year’s end?I give too much leeway? Not sure what to make of that statement. :(
I trust my judges. I trust local coordinators to trust their judges. I trust that the PFS community, as a whole, can accommodate reasonable and intelligently planned guidelines for adjusting scenarios.
As far as the 'prizes' go, that is so far down on the list of important stuff that I don't worry about it. When I personally adapt scenarios, I don't change faction missions, so I can't imagine any impact at all on the 'prizes'.
Sorry, "You" was figurative, not literal.
|
|
some leeway,like being able to max hp on some creatures or add one or two more thugs in thug encounters would be nice in some situations.
i usually encourage groups to play up when they can especially in lower level mods ( below 5th its usually cake with 6 PCs ).
as a player, i usually feel gipped if i DON'T get to play up or get talked out of playing up. I'd rather die trying to play up, than have a vacation and spend time playing an easy game and feel i wasted my time playing late for a sub par game/reward.
as a Gm, i just try to play smart. You're usually given incredibly suboptimal enemies to work with. If you'd like to challenge them, run them through #2-21, the Dalsine Affair. mwahahaha.
|
|
some leeway,like being able to max hp on some creatures or add one or two more thugs in thug encounters would be nice in some situations.
i usually encourage groups to play up when they can especially in lower level mods ( below 5th its usually cake with 6 PCs ).
as a player, i usually feel gipped if i DON'T get to play up or get talked out of playing up. I'd rather die trying to play up, than have a vacation and spend time playing an easy game and feel i wasted my time playing late for a sub par game/reward.
as a Gm, i just try to play smart. You're usually given incredibly suboptimal enemies to work with. If you'd like to challenge them, run them through #2-21, the Dalsine Affair. mwahahaha.
Well there are certainly rules for playing up as well. You can't play a 4-5 tier with 2nd level characters unless you have 6 all 2nd level.
|
Isn't there a simpler legal way to make it harder if you are in a home game or if you know in advance the rough party APL: Always choose a scenario that allows your group to be in the bottom level of a sub-tier. For example with characters of level:
L1 play subtier 1-2
L2 "play up" to subtier 3-4 in a Tier 1-7 scenario
L3 play subtier 3-4 or play up to subtier 4-5 in a different scenario
etc
Also vary taking normal and or slow XP to make the most of the scenario subtiers available.
This does of course mean you always have to have 2 scenarios prepped and they may get a little ahead of wealth by level.
|
L1 play subtier 1-2
L2 "play up" to subtier 3-4 in a Tier 1-7 scenario
L3 play subtier 3-4 or play up to subtier 4-5 in a different scenario
Maybe I am confused here, but are you saying people should play up? You can not 'Choose' to play up, you can only play up if the APL allows you to. If you have a group of 4 Level 2s in a group the APL is 2, they are not allowed to play up to sub-tier 3-4 in a 1-7 tier scenario.
|
|
Maybe I am confused here, but are you saying people should play up? You can not 'Choose' to play up, you can only play up if the APL allows you to. If you have a group of 4 Level 2s in a group the APL is 2, they are not allowed to play up to sub-tier 3-4 in a 1-7 tier scenario.L1 play subtier 1-2
L2 "play up" to subtier 3-4 in a Tier 1-7 scenario
L3 play subtier 3-4 or play up to subtier 4-5 in a different scenario
Sorry, I was not clear, there is an implied "play up if your APL allows" in there.
More succinctly always choose a scenario where your APL will put the party in the lower level of a sub-tier and you get hardness without massive risk.
|
|
some leeway,like being able to max hp on some creatures or add one or two more thugs in thug encounters would be nice in some situations.
i usually encourage groups to play up when they can especially in lower level mods ( below 5th its usually cake with 6 PCs ).
as a player, i usually feel gipped if i DON'T get to play up or get talked out of playing up. I'd rather die trying to play up, than have a vacation and spend time playing an easy game and feel i wasted my time playing late for a sub par game/reward.
as a Gm, i just try to play smart. You're usually given incredibly suboptimal enemies to work with. If you'd like to challenge them, run them through #2-21, the Dalsine Affair. mwahahaha.
Thats not a challenge so much as a nukeler ambush. This from a PC who died, and GM who killed 2 PC's.
Maybe I am confused here, but are you saying people should play up? You can not 'Choose' to play up, you can only play up if the APL allows you to. If you have a group of 4 Level 2s in a group the APL is 2, they are not allowed to play up to sub-tier 3-4 in a 1-7 tier scenario.
I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that you could always play up (if you're that sadistic) and have done so in the past. More risk, more rewards. As long as the group agrees, I don't think there is a top cap to the subtier. Then again, I wouldn't advise it outside of a group of expert players with good builds that know how to work together.
|
|
I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that you could always play up (if you're that sadistic) and have done so in the past. More risk, more rewards. As long as the group agrees, I don't think there is a top cap to the subtier. Then again, I wouldn't advise it outside of a group of expert players with good builds that know how to work together.
No, you can only play up if the APL allows it. If you APL is 2 you can not play Sub-tier 3-4.