|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did a couple searches on party size differences for the Rise of the Runelords forums to try and answer my question and decided to simultaneously attempt to start a thread to gather all the advice for the topic.
I personally have 6 players for RotR and am wondering what I should change to accomodate this. I've been adding 50% to the number of enemies on mook encounters, and have only had one sub-boss type so far and just gave that NPC more HP on the fly. Should I add more AC, hit, damage, & saves, maybe by adding an appropriate level or two? Should I add more magic items to the boss types so that A) they're tougher and B) there's more treasure to spread around the group? Would it be better to, instead, leave everything as is, which would cause the players to be lower level than intended during some parts, and hope that their greater numbers make up for it?
If anyone has other questions along this line, general tips for these situations, specific tips to answer any questions posted (in particular those pertaining to the Rise of the Runelords adventure), or links to other locations with the aforementioned, please contribute to the thread. Or, if there's one of these out there already for Rise of the Runelords and I just failed my perception roll, a single link to that thread would be great so I can move my post over.
I think it depends on your players. If they are good at tactics and built solid characters then you may want to bump things up only slightly. If they are more lenient and made characters with flaws I'd keep things as is.
Thanks, the advise from both of you makes sense. In a fight with a solo boss would you add a couple of extra fitting enemies based on other encounters in the area?
That's pretty reasonable. It is usually better to face the increased number of actions more PCs bring with an increased number of actions on your own side - and that means a few more creatures. If you get worried about grindy encounters in mid to upper levels, just give the extra creatures 1 or 2 hit points per hit die. They'll go down faster but still absorb the attention (and actions) of a few PCs.
If, for some reason, that's difficult or impractical for the particular encounter, I would suggest increasing the hit points of the targets from average to about 75% or so, maybe even max for a few cases. I wouldn't do much, if anything, to increase their AC or saves.
|
So happy to see this post. We plan to start a RotR campaign in about four weeks with 6 players as well (1 experienced, 3 novice, 2 new to PF). I have GMed other PF modules but first time for me to take on an AP. As Redrin stated my concern is how best to scale the encounters?
I understand that the best approach for multi-foe mook encounters is to add numbers and keep everyone occupied and interested. So I'll use the 50% increase in number and tweak bad guy HPs and damage along the way as needed.
In the past however our problem has been the single solo boss encounters. I say this because our players tend to play the glass-canon damage dealers. Result being either 1 -2 PCs wipe out the solo boss quickly or they themselves are wiped out--very anti-climactic and boring. I've used all sorts of barriers, terrain, spells, etc., to hold off the charge long enough for the solo boss to engage other PCs but with only mixed results. My players tent to whine and complain when they are made ineffective for a long period during a battle. I would prefer to have more involved interactions between the solo boss NPCs to develop storyline & mood and vary the battle dynamics. But can imagine this will become more difficult with x6 PC actions to deal with each turn.
In particular I am worried about how to best handle some of the iconic RotR solo boss encounters and keep them epic but not more deadly than they already are. In short my players are pretty foolhardy and not so experienced or resourceful.
Other steps I'm considering to curb the foolhardiness and improve survivability & play of the group: 15pt character build (previously used 20pt), 75% max HP, critical hits limited to max weapon damage. Also considering having bag guys only deal average damage per attack (never tried this before).
All input welcome.
|
With larger parties, more critters is a must. But IMO pumping some of the bosses is a must too. More actions can be directed at the bosses in large parties, and thus taking them out much quicker if you do not pump them too. Maxing out the hps is one way. But with some parties, you may need to add levels to the bosses too. This takes more work, but it could result in a more challenging and thus more satisfying encounter.
Cheers,
Mazra
Generally for a party of 6 we increase the mooks by 50% and max out the BBEG's hit points. That's usually more than enough to keep everyone occupied - also, this is a particularly deadly campaign so you don't want to over-do it.
Yeah I'm about 5 games into the Anni RotRL's I'm also am running a 6 player party. My players are extremely good optimizers and also good with tactics. And for the record out of a group that has played for 12 years this is the most balanced party I have ever seen us create. (except our previous DM who was a DM for 12 years so he's surprisingly not the greatest at optimizing a PC...but, it sure is funny to hear him b*~#@ though).
Increasing the mooks by 50% is a good starting point but, ultimately I've had to boost some of the named bad guy's who are not the BBEG. One quick thing you can do is give the bad guys the advanced template.
For example in the Catacombs of Wrath I've given Koruvus 2 levels of fighter increased the number of sinspawn and left Eryliumm alone. Seriously shes fine as is. She just needs meat bag allies. So far the party has been into the cathedral of wrath where I had 3 sinspawn and Eyrlium summoned both a giant rat and a giant spider which the party walked through. Now to step it up. Erylium has escaped and now has flown to Koruvus where they had a secondary defense plan of releasing the zombies...
Increasing the mooks by 50% is a good starting point but, ultimately I've had to boost some of the named bad guy's who are not the BBEG.
Yeah, I mispoke - you should max out the HP's of any named bad guys... as far as 'advancing' them, well, not every group is that well optimized.
|
|
Well, the medium XP advancement track for a 6 PC party with no other changes would doubly bad. Having 6 PCs already nets each individual less xp than a 4 person party, so that alone might actually cause the group to be a lower level and compensate for the extra members.
On page 11 of the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition it states "The PCs should reach 2nd level after dealing with the situation in the Glassworks, just before they enter the Catacombs of Wrath."
I did a calculation of the optimum XP gains for that section (from the beginning to the end of Glassworks) and came up with a total of 7,565 XP. If you divide that amongst 4 players you get 1,891.25 each while dividing it between 6 nets each person 1,260.833. Using the fast XP track, as recommended on page 11, you need 1,300 xp to gain 2nd level, so already they are a little behind even if they got all of the XP available (unless I missed something). The difference of XP each person has is already 630.4167 and the gap between the XP each person has in a 4 person party and what they would have in a 6 person party will continue to increase.
In fact, when the party of 4 reaches 6th level they will have 15,000 XP each, which means the party as a whole gained 60,000 XP. If you take that same amount of XP, 60,000, and divide it amongst 6 players they will each only have 10,000 xp which is just enough to get 5th level. So here they are a full level behind the party of 4 and this gap will keep increasing. When a group of 4 is at 15th level the group of 6th will still be at 13th: total XP gained: 425,000 each for 4 PCs = 1,700,000 / 6 = 283,333.3 XP and 295,000 is needed for 14th level.
If you were to use the medium XP track then when your group of 4 is 15th level with 425,000 xp each and your 6 PC party has 283,333.3 xp each they would still be 12th level waiting to get to 315,000 xp for 13th and now a full 3 levels behind the 4 person group.
Unfortunately I don't know how all this would actually affect encounters, it may still work, but I don't know if action economy will make up for the loss of 3 levels. The difference in XP might actually cause the 2 different party sizes to meet a balance at some point without modifying encounters.
So far my PCs just finished the Catacombs of Wrath and I've been added more mooks to encounters and when they fought the boss at the end of glassworks I gave him more hp and some mooks (the latter is mainly because I botched the previous encounter's morale). I'll keep posting how things work out for us.
Skeld's idea is interesting . . . just use the medium XP advancement track then the 6 PC party should be 1 lvl lower than the suggested lvl for each encounter? Hmmm? That might be the simple fix? Also kick in 1-2 mooks where needed?
Along those lines, in our AP's we normally just advance the party when the books say they should be advanced between gaming sessions. I would imagine if you held them back a level (or two, when the time was appropriate later on), it would make the rest of the campaign go smoothly without too much adjustment.
The problem though with holding the party back is that some monsters or bad guy's can break the party with certain attacks or defenses. I've been playing the fast track and I've been being skimpy with the XP. With the idea being it's is to give more XP later on then it is to take it away or debuff monsters
|
|
Skeld's idea is interesting . . . just use the medium XP advancement track then the 6 PC party should be 1 lvl lower than the suggested lvl for each encounter? Hmmm? That might be the simple fix? Also kick in 1-2 mooks where needed?
Just as a point of clarification: I don't use XP. Instead, I just level the party when needed. For RotRL, I'm just keeping them a level behind the recommend level.
-Skeld
|
|
Redrin, thanks for the analysis. Normally I would not fiddle around with XP either and just level up the party as per the AP (or one a lvl below as suggested for 6x PC party). The problem is that for this campaign I feel I must really use the stick-and-carrot when awarding XP as some of the players may be disruptive, make little effort, or not contribute to the overall role-play experience (the optimizer "character builder" guy in particular). I really want to run this campaign so that it covers off nicely on role-play, exploration as well as the combat scenes.
I have some new ideas on awarding and communicating XP to the players that I think might pull everyone inline. So, XP calculations must stay in some fashion. (btw happy to join an active and informative threat on this topic if anyone knows of one). I am anticipating that the PCs will have varying XP and possibly lvls as the campaign progresses.
What if I calculated the per 4x PC XP per encounter and simply used that as the base XP award (+/- for performance) awarded to each member of the 6x PC party on the medium advancement track? Wouldn't that set them about 1 lvl lower than the suggested AP lvl for each encounter and solve my 6 PC party problem without fiddling with the encounters too much?
PS: Anyone participating in any good RotR threads covering PC ties-ins, background or modifications to the AE of the AP? I have had some interesting player input in this area and would like some GM input as well.
|
|
No problem edmud. I agree that this adventure path should use the xp per what the PCs earn because there are many situations where they get xp IF they do something or do something in a particular way, so if you don't show that specific reward they won't put the effort out, but if you point out what they missed after they've moved on they might be more diligent in the future and get into things better.
As far as that XP math goes, sorry, I don't have time to figure it out right now, I'm prepping for my first PFS scenario tomorrow.
My players are good roleplayers however when I floated the idea of just leveling them where appropriate half the party was disappointed. So I'm awarding XP but, I have the players update their XP total in a google doc spread sheet and I'm basically figuring out the xp "awards" in the back ground to appropriately level them Sigh their like children sometimes
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Standard group makeup is 4, generally with 1 primary damage character and 1 primary caster. The other two slots are usually called utility characters (healers and buffers are included in this group for these purposes).
When converting modules for groups larger than 4 a good rule of thumb is this:
For every additional primary damage character, boost all enemy HP by 50%
For every additional caster, add one enemy of the same CR as the average level of the group.
For every additional Utility character, increase enemy DCs and Saves by +1.
Simply boosting enemy HD is a problem primarily because it pushes their saves, and the saving throw DCs of their abilities beyond level-appropriateness. To compensate for even one extra primary damage dealer all enemies will have to have the HD increased by about 1/2 the party's level. That's about the number of extra HP needed to provide a challenge. Unfortunately because HD is tied to so much else, it messes things up. The bad guys will be much less effected by player abilities, and players will fail saves far more frequently.
Simply adding more enemies without boosting their HP becomes a problem because player AoE will become the answer to nearly every encounter. Between Cleave and Fireball, the addition of extra enemies will barely be noticed.
I recommend ignoring XP, using the milestones stated at the front of each adventure, unless you don't mind working out the math or if your players insist on tracking XP.
Here are some other ideas:
Consider how well the party's tactics might be known. My [regular sized, though sometimes 5] group hasn't managed to remain unknown: runners escape, and so on. Tailor enemy tactics to anticipate this, if possible.
Increase CR by using terrain or circumstances favorable to the enemies when it makes sense to. A benefit is that this does not change XP at all, if you're tracking that throughout your modifications.
In moderation, of course.
Loot is a little harder. I've been tracking this closely, and assuming my math is right (it IS a lot of items), it appears the AP has a generous amount - about 120% or more of wealth by level, and by that I mean, when they hit level X, at that exact moment, they've found 1.2 * WBL(X) market value worth of loot, assuming that is how WBL is intended to be used. My calculations are through level 9 -- I'm 1 level ahead of the party. (The reason I'm doing this is to provide loot for 5 PCs, even though only 4 are usually present for a session. When all 5 are present, I play a little more relentlessly ["with a little less relent"?]), with some minor tweaks to foes.
Though the loot thing might actually be of help -- running a party of 6 through an AP with what amounts to be WBL for 5 might be enough -- the reduced wealth compensates for more party members. Er, maybe. Not quite sure.
Just throwin' ideas out. If they're bad, just ignore 'em :)
A year late, but thanks Doomed Hero. I've been using your guidelines.
Tomorrow, we lost a player, so we'll only have 3 players. Do you think reversing your rules would work? We're losing the Half Orc Barbarian, so I plan on cutting the bad guys hp by a third (increasing by 50% is multiplying by 3/2, so the opposite is multiplying by 2/3).
I had a different balancing suggestion for a fun RoR adventure path that I couldn't always attend.
My idea is that Eli (our gm) would offer up an extra 100% of the treasure, just for my visiting character. That should balance the encounters due to the challenge of making more spellcraft and magic identification rolls
Standard group makeup is 4, generally with 1 primary damage character and 1 primary caster. The other two slots are usually called utility characters (healers and buffers are included in this group for these purposes).
When converting modules for groups larger than 4 a good rule of thumb is this:
For every additional primary damage character, boost all enemy HP by 50%
For every additional caster, add one enemy of the same CR as the average level of the group.
For every additional Utility character, increase enemy DCs and Saves by +1.
Simply boosting enemy HD is a problem primarily because it pushes their saves, and the saving throw DCs of their abilities beyond level-appropriateness. To compensate for even one extra primary damage dealer all enemies will have to have the HD increased by about 1/2 the party's level. That's about the number of extra HP needed to provide a challenge. Unfortunately because HD is tied to so much else, it messes things up. The bad guys will be much less effected by player abilities, and players will fail saves far more frequently.
Simply adding more enemies without boosting their HP becomes a problem because player AoE will become the answer to nearly every encounter. Between Cleave and Fireball, the addition of extra enemies will barely be noticed.
*Fully realising that this might never be answered because the thread has just been raised from the dead by others ...*
Doomed Hero: I'm always happy to take advice on this subject, but now I'm a bit confused by your rule of thumb there.
On another thread you switched the corollaries of having extra primary casters and extra utility characters. So which is the correct set of formulas?
And out of curiosity, how would you classify characters like a Magus, Inquisitor, or Summoner? Utility all? And what about the new Advanced Class Guide base classes?
I've just started running RotR AE for a five-person party: Barbarian (invulnerable rager), Aldori Swordlord (combination of various classes and archetypes), Magus (will undoubtably do something weird/experiemental, like taking one Cleric level to get the Fate inquisition and then going Mystic Theurge), Inquisitor, and Druid (no pet, not combat-optimised, more of a sneak at the moment). I've been somewhat at a loss as to how to classify most of them with regard to the above-mentioned rule of thumb. Is any 3/4 BAB class per definition a utility class?