|
There seems to be an ongoing discussion/argument claiming that overly optimized characters are too powerful and are damaging to organized play. Some posters argue that it is not that optimized players are too strong, it is that PFS scenarios are too weak.
My admittedly limited experience differs. I find the most important variable to be the size and level of the party relative to the tier being played.
Recently I played 2 different tier 1-2 scenarios. In the first we had 2 first level characters and 2 second levels. It was the most exciting PFS game I have ever played. For several rounds I thought we were facing a TPK, and we all felt like heroes when we defeated the bad guys. In the next game we had 2 first levels and 4 third levels. Yes, we elected to play down. It was the most boring PFS game I have played. We massacred the bad guys without really trying.
Consider that the tier 1-2 scenario is supposed to work for anything from four first level characters to 6 characters of mixed levels one, two, and three, up to 5 third levels playing down. This is asking a lot.
Consider the difference between 4 players and 6, all of the same level. The group with 6 is 50% stronger, is it not?
Consider the difference in levels, would it not be fair to say that a second level character is roughly 50% more powerful than a first, and a third level twice as powerful?
If this very rough math is correct, then the "Power" the scenario must deal with ranges from 4 (4 first levels), all the way up to 10 (5 third levels). So the strongest party a scenario must handle is 2.5 x stronger than the weakest.
Is my math screwed up, or I am just arguing something that is already obvious? In any case it seems to me that this imbalance is the key problem in organized play, more so than optimized players.
|
Agreed. I'm not an adventure designer, but I imagine it is incredibly difficult to design something that would pose a challenge to 5 level 3 characters that wouldn't mop the floor with 4 characters at level 1. Chances are they just target a sweet spot, say 4-5 level 2 characters.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, characters of extremely different levels playing together causes more problems than a table of optimized, or gimped, characters of the same level.
|
In my limited experience (my bard is now 4th) I have had great games and not so great games. The group I play with has great support and we have lots (30+) show up for our monthly game and it seems to me that 3-5 players at the table works best. It's just the right fit for risk vs reward, when you get to 6 and even a 7 person table things tend to get unbalanced. Even more so when 3 of the 7 are druids with animals! But our GM's are wonderful and always make it a fun and enjoyable.
|
Just adding to your point Brother Mortimer, but I believe there are several factors that lead to some imbalance between character power and the challenge level of the scenario.
They include (copied and edited from a previous post):
1) Lots of new, less-than-playtested content is released on a regular basis, creating more options that leads to power creep; plus...
2) Boons and related quirks (like T-shirt rerolls and the nice boons from the Grand Melee, book boons, etc.) that increase the power level; plus...
3) A wealth curve (that includes purchases via PA) that can lead to most character being above the WBL (especially in cases of playing up); plus...
4) A growing community of players who are consistently getting better, sharing tricks, and playing at a higher level with every passing day; plus...
5) The basic nature of some players to want to maximize their character's effectiveness within the rules; plus...
6) Little or no leeway given to judges to disallow 'broken' content (however anyone defines it) within their playgroup (like a GM might do for their home campaign); plus...
7) Scenarios/Modules written for 4 players often being played by 5, 6, or even 7 players; plus...
8) Alex Draconis' Excellent Point about the nature of groups, feedback, and competition. (I wish I had wrote that, it's a brilliant observation.) This can really depend on your playgroup.
However, Mike Brock knows this and has asked for patience while he works to improve the campaign. I'm happy to give it to him.
-Pain
|
Uh...
So much of the discussions that have been ongoing make me wish that people would develop a sense of not wanting to ruin other people's good times with a need to have some false sense of order imposed from on-high.
I understand your point. I think it is important to bear in mind that PFSOP is an organized community. Every community needs a framework within which to operate. The "order imposed from on-high" can be viewed as unfortunate, but I think it at least as fair to say it is fortuitous, in that it is what gives our community the structure necessary for episodic play...which is what allows us to game at conventions with strangers and/or friends who live far away. In addition, it makes it possible for people who for whatever reason can't commit to a regularly scheduled on-going campaign to play when they can in a flexible format they can come and go from as they please without negatively impacting others.
So I applaud the guys who have worked so hard to establish this framework, and keep it fine tuned and balanced as much as possible. They make it possible for me to enjoy a game I have loved for many many years, but for a long time have not been able to partipate in because of the demands a campaign-style game represents.
|
|
Uh...
So much of the discussions that have been ongoing make me wish that people would develop a sense of not wanting to ruin other people's good times with a need to have some false sense of order imposed from on-high.
Alright, who let the Andoran in here? ;)
The sense of order 'imposed' upon PFSOP is no more "false" than the sense of order imposed by the CRB itself. There's nothing stopping you from getting together with your friends and playing "Cops and Robbers", or some other free-form RPG. But if you want to be part of something bigger than your close group of friends, you have to accept certain restrictions so everyone is playing by the same rules.
And you have to have a way to respond to people who refuse to develop that sense of respect you, and I, think is so essential to having fun with other people.
-Proud to be a Rules-Lawyer since the days of "I shot you!" "No, you didn't!"
|
|
Just adding to your point Brother Mortimer, but I believe there are several factors that lead to some imbalance between character power and the challenge level of the scenario.
They include (copied and edited from a previous post):
1) Lots of new, less-than-playtested content is released on a regular basis, creating more options that leads to power creep; plus...
2) Boons and related quirks (like T-shirt rerolls and the nice boons from the Grand Melee, book boons, etc.) that increase the power level; plus...
3) A wealth curve (that includes purchases via PA) that can lead to most character being above the WBL (especially in cases of playing up); plus...
4) A growing community of players who are consistently getting better, sharing tricks, and playing at a higher level with every passing day; plus...
5) The basic nature of some players to want to maximize their character's effectiveness within the rules; plus...
6) Little or no leeway given to judges to disallow 'broken' content (however anyone defines it) within their playgroup (like a GM might do for their home campaign); plus...
7) Scenarios/Modules written for 4 players often being played by 5, 6, or even 7 players; plus...
8) Alex Draconis' Excellent Point about the nature of groups, feedback, and competition. (I wish I had wrote that, it's a brilliant observation.) This can really depend on your playgroup.However, Mike Brock knows this and has asked for patience while he works to improve the campaign. I'm happy to give it to him.
-Pain
Painlord, I certainly agree that there are many factors at work. What I am suggesting is that the single most important factor is the number and level of PCs compared to the scenario.
As a corollary to this I would suggest that on a tier 1-2 scenario four optimized first level characters would work just fine, while five average third level characters would reduce the combats to a boring slaughter of the bad guys.
I noticed last night that I was annoyed at the summoner with the arch-type allowing him to run multiple dogs. But when I thought about it I realized that it didn't really matter, even without the dogs we had the monsters so outclassed that we would have mopped the floor with them anyway. I wonder if we are distracted by the trees (meaning the optimized combat characters), and missing the bigger picture (scenario combats becoming boring due to high numbers and levels of PCs).
So my question is, of all the factors, what is most important in creating the problem of unchallenging combats in scenarios?
|
|
Agreed. I'm not an adventure designer, but I imagine it is incredibly difficult to design something that would pose a challenge to 5 level 3 characters that wouldn't mop the floor with 4 characters at level 1. Chances are they just target a sweet spot, say 4-5 level 2 characters.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, characters of extremely different levels playing together causes more problems than a table of optimized, or gimped, characters of the same level.
It appears to me - and I am interested in what others thing - that the tier 1-2 is designed to be difficult but doable by four first level characters.
Certainly it is more difficult to design a scenario allowing more variations to account for party size and level, but I am not sure it need be "incredibly difficult." I gather that some GMs already do so, unlawful though it may be. But that might be a discussion for another thread.
|
Consider the difference in levels, would it not be fair to say that a second level character is roughly 50% more powerful than a first, and a third level twice as powerful?
I agree with you, obviously level and table sizes are also big factors. The difference between level 1 and level 2 PCs is significant. There’s also a significant difference between 4 players and 7 players. It would be nice to be able to make a slight adjustment for those two circumstances.
Consider the difference between 4 players and 6, all of the same level. The group with 6 is 50% stronger, is it not?
6 PCs raises the APL by +1, allowing you to play up often, which of course increases the challenge.
In the next game we had 2 first levels and 4 third levels. Yes, we elected to play down. It was the most boring PFS game I have played. We massacred the bad guys without really trying.
Four 3rd level PCs? That was your fault, with the exception of very few scenarios selections (and party mixes), you should always play up, your group was technically APL 4.
|
|
Its possible I guess that GM comes into play as well
Definitely agree I've had lenient GM's and not so lenient GM's so that even my optimized PC has died in a scenario.
I feel most of the difficulty level is in how the mods are written and the sorts of encounters you come against along with party composition
This is key I once played a scenario with 2 casters(no cleric), 1 rogue and 1 tank(my optimized fighter) and although we finished the scenario we had used the majority of our consumables just to stay alive(and of course we have the benevolent GM).
Had I ran it I would not have pulled punches like he did and we would of had at least two PC deaths(myself included),possibly a third. So GM's definetly factor in this as do player composition.
|
|
I suspect how survivable scenarios are when you are playing up relates more closely to who the GM is than any specific scenario details.
That hasn't been my experience and I've played up a lot (for example, 6 out of 8 sessions at Gencon last year, mostly 4-5 star GMs. But also a lot in general) and all judges have judged consistently.
It has a lot more to do with:
1) The PCs (weak concept PC? bad class mix? missing the ability to at least use CLW wands? too many casters and not enough DPS? PCs not prepared with consumables?)
2) The players (do they know PF rules? do they know tactics? do they do stupid crap? I've seen powerful PCs ruined by bad or inexperienced players),
3) And perhaps the GM (but I've found they've been remarkably consistent).
I read scenarios afterwards a lot (because I GM also), and write down stats during the game, so I would know whether a GM is softballing or not. None that I've seen. I also detect cheating, adjusting, making scenario changes, or mistakes. More often than not, GMs make honest mistakes when they're GMing 5+ scenarios at Gencon (which I would do too, if put in that situation).
So far, I've never had a problem playing up, but I've had several problems where we should have played up and couldn't or didn't (Ex. This weekend in Wonders of the Weave 2). As James noted, our APL was 6.75, technically too low to play up (because we're forced to play down), but we really could have and should have played up because of our particular party and playre composition.
I've never seen an instance where four level 3 PCs couldn't do a subtier 4-5 scenario, but there are scenario exceptions, bad PC builds, and different players, so anything is possible.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to change the way the tiers work to be based on the sum of the characters' levels, rather than the average. I realize that the guide does this somewhat already by having you add +1 to the APL for a 6-player party, but it might be more flexible to (for example) sum all the levels and divide by four (rather than divide by the number of players).
Say you have a table with two 3rd-level characters and three 2nd level characters. That would be a Level Sum of 12, divided by 4 = 3.
I don't know whether this would be a good idea or not, but it might bear consideration.
|
I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to change the way the tiers work to be based on the sum of the characters' levels, rather than the average. I realize that the guide does this somewhat already by having you add +1 to the APL for a 6-player party, but it might be more flexible to (for example) sum all the levels and divide by four (rather than divide by the number of players).
Say you have a table with two 3rd-level characters and three 2nd level characters. That would be a Level Sum of 12, divided by 4 = 3.
I don't know whether this would be a good idea or not, but it might bear consideration.
Probably not, since it doesn't take into account the relative abilities of the PCs.
If both Level 3s are knowledge-specialized Bards, with very little combat ability, they might not contribute that much more than the three level 2s to the game.
I have, in the past, changed which PC I was playing because of the composition of the rest of the party. 7-11 scenario, my 10-11 level archer, a 10th level rogue/bard, and 2 7th level pregens. Instead of playing 10-11 with that mix, I swapped to my 7-8 level maneuver fighter, and we played 7-8.
Indeed, the rogue/bard player, because of the way he has built that PC, had no objectons to that, or playing "down" with that PC. PC is very RP heavy, not optimized much, and very, very heavy into consumables, instead of much in the way of permanent items. She is definitely not much of a contributor in combat...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
played up...6 out of 8 sessions at Gencon
Playing up was never intended to occur anywhere near that often and can lead to unreliable data/experiences. Constantly playing up can net a character upwards of triple the normal wealth which perpetuates their survivability in playing up. Then, when playing in scenarios where they would ordinarily be outmatched, their excessive wealth, over the average, gives them the edge to overcome CR's typically beyond the skill of a character at their level. And they get rewarded, again, with wealth beyond the average, and the process continues to break.
There is something extremely unusual about your circumstances. Perhaps it is a combination of weak GM'ing and uber-optimized characters. Honestly, I do not know. But in the overall scheme, I have experienced 200+ tables of PFS as well as watched dozens more as an organizer/spectator. While I agree there are a few scenarios that tend to be "light" on the danger, more often than not, a competent GM can challenge a group playing out of their sub-tier and frequently it leads to PC death if not a TPK.
My advice to anyone playing this game is that if none of the group's PC's are actually in the level range of the higher sub-tier, but the APL would allow them to play up, don't do it. I do not recall a single table with that arrangement fail to lose a PC or get TPK'd. And if your group is succeeding with this arrangement more than an extreme rarity, there is something wrong.
I've never seen an instance where four level 3 PCs couldn't do a subtier 4-5 scenario
Again, this concerns me. If the "norm" is playing up, then there is something wrong. Most of the games in my region and those of neighboring regions are not playing up all that frequently because death seems to follow.
IMO, the single biggest impact on successfully playing up is the number of players at the table. When you outnumber the BBEG 6 or 7 to one, economy of actions can largely overcome most any situation.
In the end, the problem is the scenarios are static and the players are dynamic. Basically what were are doing with the "run as written" rule is providing the GM with roughly 20 pages of content to use, while allowing the PC's thousands of pages over the course of every legal HC/SC book from which they can draw. The inability of the author to tailor a scenario to fit the strengths and weaknesses of all character types/group mixes will continue to lead to, at least, some level of dissatisfaction for nearly every player except the "average" one.
|
|
I've never seen an instance where four level 3 PCs couldn't do a subtier 4-5 scenario, but there are scenario exceptions, bad PC builds, and different players, so anything is possible.
Just after Christmas I had a very near TPK in exactly the situation you describe (four third levels playing up to a tier 4-5) two characters died and two were in negative hit points (the samurai limped out at negative 5 hit points and returned later to recover the other unconscious party member). On several other occasions I've pulled punches to avoid a TPK for groups who have opted to play up with a marginal party.
The biggest reason I coach against players playing up is because almost every time I've had players play up when they have marginal parties, I kill someone's character or wind up softballing something which really irritates me to no end.
I'm not going to argue with your experience but I will say that in the vast majority of tier 4-5 scenarios the tools are there. That you haven't encountered it could be coincidence, luck, or simply GMs softballing things because they don't like to kill characters (and there are a bunch of them, including some four star GMs).
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
This is one area where I think D&D4e Encounters works better than Pathfinder. In particular, they adjust the number of monsters based on the size and/or levels of the player group at a finer-grained level than just the sub-tier and the number of players.
They do this even though a 1st-level 4e character seems to me to be somewhat more viable than a 1st-level PFS character, and the fact that if there is more than one table all tables are playing at the same subtier, so party make-up can often be shuffled around to make sure that all roles are covered at every table.
Low-level PFS scenarios are a particular problem for the designer. The scenario has to be survivable for a randomly-selected collection of four fresh-out-of-the box characters, and yet provide a credible challenge to a group of six experienced optimised higher-level characters who could well have chosen classes, feats, skills, etc. in the expectation they would be adventuring together. That's an almost impossible challenge to overcome; I'm amazed the scenario designers manage as well as they do.
|
|
Playing up was never intended to occur anywhere near that often...
There is something extremely unusual about your circumstances.
At big conventions, you almost always have 1-2 players playing up at tier 1-5. Why is that?
1) All tables are booked at 6 players per table in subtier 1-5.
2) There are more players at level 1 than high levels, especially a lot of new players.
3) This leads to low level tables being too full and subtier 4-5 being empty and needing players, especially players of level 2+.
4) When asked, almost all players are too scared to play up (especially new players), so someone has to step up.
And that's how someone ends up playing up so often, someone has to do it. It has nothing to do with optimized PCs or s%*$ty GMs, it has to do with scheduling.
Perhaps it is a combination of weak GM'ing and uber-optimized characters.
First of all, you're way off topic. The fact that I have a lot of experience 'playing up' was only to point out that I have experience in that area.
Second, you're passive-aggressively attacking my experience (or my GMs). It bothers me that people always jump to the (wrong) conclusion that something is wrong with the GM or player (me). As I've shown you above, nothing is wrong with either, it's a byproduct of scheduling and filling tables at conventions.
Lastly, didn't I say they were 4-5 star GMs? You were even one of them last year, so was Cactus Jack (who marked your post as a favorite). Despite your theory, you guys weren't weak btw. ;)
My advice to anyone playing this game is that if none of the group's PC's are actually in the level range of the higher sub-tier, but the APL would allow them to play up, don't do it. I do not recall a single table with that arrangement fail to lose a PC or get TPK'd. And if your group is succeeding with this arrangement more than an extreme rarity, there is something wrong.
In your substantial games GMed and played, you don't recall a single game where someone didn't die or TPK playing up where no PC was in the subtier? Really? Fair enough, that hasn't been my experience at all, I can recall several off the top of my head.
Most of the games in my region and those of neighboring regions are not playing up all that frequently because death seems to follow.
That's too bad. There are times to play down (and I have), but there are also times to play up. Playing up is risky, but at least it isn't boring.
IMO, the single biggest impact on successfully playing up is the number of players at the table. When you outnumber the BBEG 6 or 7 to one, economy of actions can largely overcome most any situation.
Exactly, which is one of the reasons I feel scenarios should be designed for 6 players and modified for 4, instead of the other way around.
Just after Christmas I had a very near TPK in exactly the situation you describe (four third levels playing up to a tier 4-5) two characters died and two were in negative hit points (the samurai limped out at negative 5 hit points and returned later to recover the other unconscious party member). On several other occasions I've pulled punches to avoid a TPK for groups who have opted to play up with a marginal party.
I guess they made the wrong choice and overestimated themselves? At least they weren't bored. It's definitely not going to always work out.
The biggest reason I coach against players playing up is because almost every time I've had players play up when they have marginal parties, I kill someone's character or wind up softballing something which really irritates me to no end.
Yup, I'd strongly recommend marginal parties not play up, and I'd *strongly* suggest that (to them) if I was GMing. If they choose to ignore, I have no problem TPKing.
I'm not going to argue with your experience but I will say that in the vast majority of tier 4-5 scenarios the tools are there.
It really depends on a lot of factors and it's not as simple as saying you should always or should never do it.
|
|
At big conventions, you almost always have 1-2 players playing up at tier 1-5. Why is that?
Are you suggesting 1-2 players at every table or across all the tier 1-5 tables in that slot? There can be a huge difference between those metrics.
it has to do with scheduling
I agree and I hold the organizer accountable for this. I take it as a partial failure whenever a player has to be the "someone has to step up" guy. If there are a few players over an entire slot that needs to play out of their sub-tier, it happens. What I have a problem with is when it happens to the same players all the time, or at least at the 75% rate you suggested.
As I've shown you above, nothing is wrong with either
Perhaps, but if playing up is happening that much there is a problem somewhere. I am saying that it is largely not a problem with the scenarios or the system. There are plenty of regions that have no problem maintaining "normal" play experiences. Are there exceptions sure, but they are exceptions and even then should not happen all, or even most, of the time. Again, IMO, this is the fault of the organizer.
Despite your theory, you guys weren't weak btw
I do appreciate the comment, thank you. If I contributed to you playing up at the rate your describe than I am just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I don't take much notice to playing up at my table because it is a relative rarity, as is playing down. I try very hard to ensure that characters are seated at level-appropriate tables. If what you described occurred regularly at GenCon, then I hold Mark and the muster'ers (of which I was one) accountable for it. We need to do a better job than that.
That's too bad. There are times to play down (and I have), but there are also times to play up. Playing up is risky, but at least it isn't boring.
I don't understand what boring has to do with it, but I agree that there are times to play up, just not regularly, or when the entire table is playing out of sub-tier. I'm sorry, but if a group regularly plays up a sub-tier with no one in the group at level appropriate, there is a problem. It could quite possibly (although no guaranteed) be the GM is not employing all the tactics/advantages that are available to the monsters. That's not passive-aggressive, that's honest opinion. I don't like to say that because it borders on "BadWrongFun."
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Lastly to address Bob's comment on wealth.. simply award wealth based on PC level regardless of tier. That way the system can't be gamed. Sure people could elect to play 'easy' and 'survive' to higher levels, but they won't be ahead of anyone else. Honestly they likely will be behind in that they won't be used to pushing themselves, etc.
Hi, James.
I think it more likely that a group of PCs who have never had to shell out for raise dead and a couple of lesser restorations, who has never had gear stolen, who has rarely needed to expend consumables, will be better equipped than a similar group that has faced considerable challenges without the commensurate rewards.
I suspect how survivable scenarios are when you are playing up relates more closely to who the GM is than any specific scenario details.
In my experience, GM difficulty and scenario difficulty both vary wildly.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A story regarding levels, table size, optimization, etc:
**WARNING: SPOILERS FOR MIDNIGHT MAULER**
I ran this with a table of six, with everyone playing 1st and 2nd level characters except for one newbie with a 4th level pregen. Adjusted APL was 3, so they played in subtier 3-4 (no choice).
When they caught up to Vilk (transformed, of course), they wanted to harmlessly incapacitate him. The sorcerer hit him with Color Spray, stunning him for one round and causing him to drop his weapon, which the wizard then grabbed. Shortly thereafter, the bard cast Hideous Laughter, and suddenly the werewolf was on the ground.
Taking advantage of him being prone, the party began grappling him: one person would grapple and the other five would all use Aid Another. (Oh, and his CMD while prone at 3-4 was 10.) So basically, they surrounded and dogpiled him, and within a couple of rounds he was completely bound and helpless.
This was with mostly newer players. One person decided to grapple him, and then others started asking what they'd need to do to help (so I told them how Aid Another worked). So they surrounded him (all six of them flanking!) and started piling successful AA's onto the grappler's efforts, making it nigh impossible for him to get out.
It was glorious. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Only problem I see is that the pregen should have been required to be level 1 for that adventure, no?A story regarding levels, table size, optimization, etc:
**WARNING: SPOILERS FOR MIDNIGHT MAULER**
** spoiler omitted **
I wasn't quite sure about that, but since:
1. He didn't really know what was going on and was just playing the pregen that the coordinator handed him, and2. I'd just been drafted to GM after I got there (another GM got sick), and
3. I was pretty sure switching to a level 1 wouldn't change the subtier
I decided not to take the time to investigate it further.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Proposed solutions:
1. Mandate that players don't make/play the characters that they would like to play. This falls into the 'don't overoptimize' or 'underoptimize' mandate.
2. Give up on level being the measure of a PC's power and usefulness to the group that is currently at the table.
I vote for number 2. There are MANY different ways to play this game. We should not demand that everyone else cater to our particular way. It's not reasonable.
That's the only really practical solution. Unfortunately you're often going to be at the vagaries of PFS scheduling; you have very little control over which other characters will be adventuring with you. This encourages player to build conservative, self-sufficient characters as much as possible. This means you may well miss out on a lot of the interesting options. For example: you're not all that likely to take most "Teamwork" feats (at least at the lower levels), because it's a wasted feat unless there's somebody else in your group with the same feat. But these feats are legal for PFS play. That gives me an opportunity that many PFS players do not have; because my wife often plays at the same table as I do, we could build a pair of characters that work well together without resorting to excessive optimisation.
|
|
Only problem I see is that the pregen should have been required to be level 1 for that adventure, no?
There are no hard n fast rule for this, but the expectation is that the pregen will be in the APL range or as close as possible. In the case described, it should have been the level 1.
The pregen should not be factored into the APL. It is selected after the APL and should not be used to push the APL up or down. The pregen player will count for the +1 mechanic, but not be included when calculating the APL. Of course, that is also not clear in the rules, so I suppose YMMV.
|
|
The pregen should not be factored into the APL. It is selected after the APL and should not be used to push the APL up or down. The pregen player will count for the +1 mechanic, but not be included when calculating the APL. Of course, that is also not clear in the rules, so I suppose YMMV.
I have never done this... I have never even seen in the rule implied this should be done...
Am I missing the implication in the rules that this should be done?
|
|
Am I missing the implication in the rules that this should be done?
This is how it was explained to me by Paizo staff back at GenCon 2009 and since there has been no discussion regarding it sense then, I have had no reason to think otherwise.
I am just saying that the pregen should not be used as a tool to shape the APL so a table can be permitted to play up when they otherwise would not have that option. As we have said, playing up should not happen often, so going out of your way to make it happen seems to be against the spirit of RAI.
|
|
This is how it was explained to me by Paizo staff back at GenCon 2009 and since there has been no discussion regarding it sense then, I have had no reason to think otherwise.
I am just saying that the pregen should not be used as a tool to shape the APL so a table can be permitted to play up when they otherwise would not have that option. As we have said, playing up should not happen often, so going out of your way to make it happen seems to be against the spirit of RAI.
Well without that Insight you got I don't see it as RAI in the guide at all, in fact it seems like a terrible idea since it would mean not including the Pregen would mean the APL would not actually indicate the parties ability.
|
|
If the pregen was picked based on the existing APL it would be impossible for the pregen to affect the APL except for the 6 character bit.
Yes, of course that is not the rule for figuring out the APL, and not even suggested it is supposed to be that way.
My point is if that is what Mike wanted he should have said it, right now it is not even close to suggesting that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Lest there be any confusion, we weren't trying to "engineer" anything. Six people got dumped at the table where I was standing when I got asked to GM. After the official start time came and went (as I scrambled to get an idea of how the scenario worked), I asked everyone their levels so I'd know what subtier to run. The guy with the pregen announced he was level 4, a couple of people went "huh?", and he said that's what he was given (he'd never played Society before). I decided to move on.
|
|
Only problem I see is that the pregen should have been required to be level 1 for that adventure, no?There are no hard n fast rule for this, but the expectation is that the pregen will be in the APL range or as close as possible. In the case described, it should have been the level 1.
The pregen should not be factored into the APL. It is selected after the APL and should not be used to push the APL up or down. The pregen player will count for the +1 mechanic, but not be included when calculating the APL. Of course, that is also not clear in the rules, so I suppose YMMV.
Umm, do you add up the current levels, and divide by th enumber of real PCs, or the number of players?
What do you do when you have 2 real PCs, and 2 pregens-to-be?
Especially at Tier 7-11, when the two real PCs are 10th, and the best the pregen can be is 7th?
|
|
Lest there be any confusion, we weren't trying to "engineer" anything. Six people got dumped at the table where I was standing when I got asked to GM. After the official start time came and went (as I scrambled to get an idea of how the scenario worked), I asked everyone their levels so I'd know what subtier to run. The guy with the pregen announced he was level 4, a couple of people went "huh?", and he said that's what he was given (he'd never played Society before). I decided to move on.
Been there. Someone shows up at your table as the game is starting, with a pregen in hand at the wrong subtier. I almost wish they would print them two sided, 1st and 4th and 4th and 7th. Then so long as they send the player to a legal tier you are covered.
|
|
Umm, do you add up the current levels, and divide by th enumber of real PCs, or the number of players?
What do you do when you have 2 real PCs, and 2 pregens-to-be?
Especially at Tier 7-11, when the two real PCs are 10th, and the best the pregen can be is 7th?
The way it was explained to me, determine the APL of the real prior to adding in the pregens, i.e. total levels / players. Then you choose pregens most applicable to the APL of the real players.
If there are 6 players add the +1 after that. If that pushes them into a higher sub-tier, fine, but the pregen did not influence that push up or down and s/he is a manifestation of the APL.
If you have a table of five level two's + pregen, their APL is two. So the appropriate pregen is a level 1. The sixth player ups their APL to 3. They either play 3-4 in a tier 1-7 or they can choose to play up to 4-5 knowing that none of them are sub-tier appropriate. The player of the pregen should be involved in that decision as well, regardless of it being a credit play or just for fun.
At tier 7-11 it doesn't matter anyway since the level 7 pregen is the only option.
YMMV, but that is how it was explained to me and i agree with the logic. I intend to continue to calculate it that way until Paizo or the Guide instruct me otherwise.
|
ok, somebody do the math on this one for me.
6 players levels 5,5,2,1,1,1 give a total of 15, devided by 6 for a 2.5
now... do we round up or down? and would that be 3 add 1 for a full table or 2 add one for a full table?
the reason I ask is the last 1st level was added at the last min, after the intro briefing in fact. (but before any encounters). Before the briefing they were 5,5,2,1,1 for 13 divided by 5 gives 2.6 rounds to 3 and they had decided to play down.
I went ahead and let them play down - now I'm finding out if I did it incorrectly.
I'd look at the median in that situation; and it would be 1.5.