Optimized players vs. Party size and level

[TetsujinOni]

Deussu wrote:

nosig wrote:

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.

We need a definition of 'nearest whole number' for the .5s case.

If we're using 'nearest even' or 'toward nearest subtier' you were right, if it's 'nearest odd' they should have been forced to the 4-5 table by (round to 3) (+1 table size).

This should be clarified (in 4.2 at least) because "nearest whole number" is imprecise guidance. We were using "Floor" not "round" during 4.0, and now we need to know which rounding scheme our OP uses.

[0gre]

nosig wrote:

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.

There are few fun/ enjoyable ways to run a scenario where the character levels are that far appart, particularly not at 1st and 5th. Either the 1st levels are worthless and get slaughtered or the 5th level characters turn the scenario into a joke.

The players with 5th level characters *should* have something lower level and be prepared to switch to more appropriate characters. If they didn't I would probably ask them if they would mind running pregens. (most players don't want the hit to wealth on their higher level PC anyways)

I wouldn't say you did anything wrong... just sometimes the best solutions aren't spelled out in the guide.

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Callarek wrote:

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.

So, what you're saying is that that table of 2 10th levels and 2 pre-gens (that will be 7th level) should be considered APL 10??

While I understand your approach, I think it falls down here.. but then again APL typically falls down in places. PFS sees less of it as they have a narrow range for the levels that can play a given scenario, but it's still a bad absolute metric to be using.

-James

[nosig]

nosig wrote:

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.

so, which is it? tier 1-2 or 4-5?

The players had decided to play 1-2 as the 5th levels were... not as tough as they could have been (which proved out during play, as I almost perm killed (that would be killed and eaten) one of them at tier 1-2 (he was saved by the heroic efforts of his 1st level companions).

But... I was just asking which tier they should have been playing at?

I did note that it was the addition of a 1st level character that thru them into this question - with said character added AFTER they had started playing at the lower tier. To have turned to the 5th levels and say "you two need to switch characters and put away the ones you have been playing for the past half hour and change to playing pre-gens" was not something I felt real comfortable doing.

[TwilightKnight]

james maissen wrote:

While I understand your approach, I think it falls down here

No system is perfect. So let the table decide if playing 10-11 with two 10's and two 7's is appropriate. IMO, this is one of the times when common sense needs to over-rule RAW and direct our decisions.

[TwilightKnight]

TetsujinOni wrote:

We need a definition of 'nearest whole number' for the .5s case.

Do we really? Why? Who does it hurt to just let the players decide what they are comfortable with? There is no APL calculation system that will give you the "best fit" 100% of the time. If the decimal is less than 0.5 you round down, if above round up. If it is exactly 0.5 then the nearest integer is equidistant. You are just as likely to force a "weak" table up as to force a "strong" table down. Just leave it to the table to decide.

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

But... I was just asking which tier they should have been playing at?

Honestly, it's not a fair question. Adding a player to the mix after the start of the session is an extreme rarity (I hope) and cannot be incorporated into the rules.

nosig wrote:

1st level was added...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.

Before the extra player was added, you APL was 3 (5+5+2+1+1=14 *not 13* /5=2.8 round up in this case) so assuming you are referring to a tier 1-5, they would have the choice to play down (1-2) or up (4-5) because they are exactly in the middle of the sub-tiers.

nosig wrote:

6 players levels 5,5,2,1,1,1 give a total of 15, devided by 6 for a 2.5

In this case, the base APL is correct, so you can round up to 3 or down to 2. Then you need to add the +1 for the 6th player. That puts the actual APL at 3 or 4 depending on the original rounding. Again if it is 3, they have the choice, but if 4, they are required to play at the 4-5 sub-tier by RAW. Luckily, in this case, the players still have the choice to save the level 1-2's from a possible death by just using the rounding down option.

Make sense?

[nosig]

It sort of kind of makes sense. the point five (.5) was the question - the players had decided to play in the 1-2 (the scenario was a 1-5), before the addition of a 6th player and I was very comfortable with that. then the addition of a 6th player thru a monkey into the mix. I'm pretty sure that at 4-5 I would have killed more than one of them, maybe all. But it was a Player choice - and one I was staying out of. I was just worried about a TPK if it had pushed them up to 4-5 (which is what I thought it had done, I actually figured I had "cheated" and let them play down when they should have played up).

[Callarek]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

james maissen wrote:

While I understand your approach, I think it falls down here

No system is perfect. So let the table decide if playing 10-11 with two 10's and two 7's is appropriate. IMO, this is one of the times when common sense needs to over-rule RAW and direct our decisions.

Bob,

Your system is fairly far from perfect, even without the (real!) corner case I cited.

The level of available pregens needs to be taken into account in any APL calculation.

The corner case would be APL 10 by your system, despite having a "real" APL of 8.5, given all PC levels. By your system, the people with the most to risk, the real high-level PCs, would not have had any choice as to which sub-tier to play. By the correct calculation (nothing says to ignore the level of any pregens used, although there is a tacit agreement to use those closest in level to the level of the "real" PCs involved), the table would have been at APL 8.5, with a choice of killing the pregens by playing up, or with the "real" PCs losing a significant portion of their income from the mod by playing down. Not good in either case.

Spoiler:

In the actual instance cited, I changed from my 10th level archer/fighter to my 7th level polearm master fighter. The other player with a high level PC decided to eat the lose, and we played 7-8. And barely survived. Note that, in this specific instance, the other player's high level PC was non-optimized and under-equipped; this is a PC who spends most of their money on single use consumables, and still uses a CL1 wand of Sonic Burst in combat.

[james maissen]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

james maissen wrote:

While I understand your approach, I think it falls down here

No system is perfect. So let the table decide if playing 10-11 with two 10's and two 7's is appropriate. IMO, this is one of the times when common sense needs to over-rule RAW and direct our decisions.

What RAW are you referring here?

As far as I can tell the RAW is that they would add all the levels (10+10+7+7 = 34 averages 8.5). The rounding is not specified so that's either APL 8 or APL 9.

If you agree with the spirit of adding +1 APL for a group of 6 then honestly a group of 4 is -1 APL.. you lose far more than you gain in altering from a table of 5. Mind you APL is a horrid metric anyway.

Look at nosig's example where the level 5 in the tier 1-2 was the one having trouble and was saved by the level 1s.. Level is not a good metric for what a PC is capable of handling.

It sounds like the table was properly challenged to me and that they played at what was the right subtier for their collective ability. Say nosig had heard that .5 had to be rounded up. Now the math is slightly different so the blind APL system would have forced them into an inappropriate challenge and likely TPKd them.

There's no reason for such blindness. Let the party decide the subtier that works for them, then if it goes wrong it was their choice not that some .5 had to be rounded up.. They could blame their evaluation of their capability, not that so and so made a 'worthless' level 5 that 'couldn't pull his weight', etc.

-James