|
When people say, "my spellcaster ended the fight on round 1" all I can think is that spellcasters are the strongest classes in the game. What happens when you don't have a spellcaster with those sorts of spells or an enemy that is immune or has immense SR? This does happen.
I've seen the same fight over before the monster gets to act that tpked the next table over. It's all about the spellcasters, and the rolls on the saves.
I had a experienced Dm that was really scared of the BBEG tpking our party, as he'd seen it before. Well, the BBEG got his suprise action off, was rendered unconscious by a spellcaster and then was coup de graced.
I still think this was a hard mod, but any hard mod can be made easy with a good spellcaster and/or bad saves on the part of the enemy.
In one mod, a hard one that I've seen parties really struggle with, we played 6-7 with a VC running it. My level 3 caster allowed the two main monsters to get like 1 round of actions total over 2 encounters.
|
|
That's true of a lot of corner cases. The scenarios are written for the majority of players and using fewer sources than the players have. So you end up with concepts that have are very strong because their weaknesses are not utilized by the scenario. This was one of the issues I had with synthesis summoner (no need for a debate on the merits of the archtype). It's major weakness was catching the player without their suit on or using banish/dismissal. Neither of these was common at all (I have yet to see an NPC caster with Banish or Dismissal). So a player choice which is balanced in a home game because GMs can change things up and adapt becomes more of an issue in a PFS game.
|
|
When people say, "my spellcaster ended the fight on round 1" all I can think is that spellcasters are the strongest classes in the game. What happens when you don't have a spellcaster with those sorts of spells or an enemy that is immune or has immense SR? This does happen.
I've seen the same fight over before the monster gets to act that tpked the next table over. It's all about the spellcasters, and the rolls on the saves.
I had a experienced Dm that was really scared of the BBEG tpking our party, as he'd seen it before. Well, the BBEG got his suprise action off, was rendered unconscious by a spellcaster and then was coup de graced.
I still think this was a hard mod, but any hard mod can be made easy with a good spellcaster and/or bad saves on the part of the enemy.
In one mod, a hard one that I've seen parties really struggle with, we played 6-7 with a VC running it. My level 3 caster allowed the two main monsters to get like 1 round of actions total over 2 encounters.
Yep...that big bad earth elemental was Dismissed by our cleric on the first round.
|
If you walk up and hit stuff, I want you to have a 16+ strength (or weapon finesse)Hmm. So it's bad that my most recent barbarian only has 14 strength? This is the problem with setting arbitrary limits on people's concepts.
I agree with this post as well. even if it is refuting my point :D
Arbitrary restrictions and expectations aren't truly fair, however I believe your barbarian to be much more than someone who walks up and hits things.
If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because you're small (offsetting the hit penalty) and your social skills (perhaps enforcer/intimidator). Also while raging your strength is increased offsetting the lower strength. I also presume you have a ranged weapon, and you're making use of the higher dex for versatility. It's not even unlikely that you are TWF build which would be another good reason for lower strength :D
Arbitrary numbers/expectations are the absolute baseline I expect from newer players that really don't know whats going on beyond walking up and hitting stuff :D. I guess I didn't qualify that well enough.
At somepoint I'm going to make my dex 7 lazy, fat, conjurer. why am I dumping dex? so I can buff cha! social skills baby, it's more fun :D but on paper that dude is going to look awful. -2 init modifier so pro :D
|
At some point I'm going to make my dex 7 lazy, fat, conjurer. why am I dumping dex? so I can buff cha! social skills baby, it's more fun :D but on paper that dude is going to look awful. -2 init modifier so pro :D
Alexander Damocles, Holy Risen Librarian of Abadar, has done this. Dex 7 Wis 7. Early levels were....interesting (Sorcerer 8/ Oracle of Lore 1/ Paladin 2). Its fun and can definitely be played for laughs.
|
|
At somepoint I'm going to make my dex 7 lazy, fat, conjurer. why am I dumping dex? so I can buff cha! social skills baby, it's more fun :D but on paper that dude is going to look awful. -2 init modifier so pro :DNoble Scion of War! Then you get to use that CHA you pumped for init instead of Dex!
haha, I like it :D
|
I have yet to GM a pathfinder scenario I think was "hard" for players. Additionally questions surrounding difficulty in scenarios will never have a happy ending because there are many different preferences and play styles. Personally I think a party wipe should be a strong possibility in at least a quarter of scenarios. Other people would prefer their character be near invincible and actually have fun when they just thrash a monster that was literally no challenge. Neither is wrong.
It's silly to bring up. Besides just playing up, maybe there could be a way for a table to decide to opt for easy or hard encounters. Those who opted for harder encounters during their scenarios could reap higher rewards. Mild to downright deadly... Thoughts?
|
|
Isn't that exactly what playing up is though. You take on increased CR encounters compared to your relative table strength and for that you get increased loot and access to an expanded set of chronicle items.
This is fine if the table is on the cusp of being able to to take this on but I see an issue with letting players decide to play up no matter what their table strength is. You will get a big peer pressure effect where one or two players want to play up and others agree to it to keep things cordial and friendly. Then when the table runs into problems you end up killing the player who wasn't really into playing up. This is why I like the rules as they are (limited playing up). It helps mitigate the temptation of pushing your luck too far and ruining some other players day.
|
|
I understand what you're saying Lab Rat but how do you play up when you are at the scenarios level cap? Also maybe just two levels of difficulty isn't enough to ensure a good challenge more often.
Personally I believe there is already tension and peer pressure at table because simple differences in personality and factions. Also if losing a character in a Pathfinder scenario ruins someones day they should turn on the news and realize a day of gaming really wasn't that bad.
Don't get me wrong. I understand the argument but I respectfully disagree.
|
|
now zoplo, that is a bit of a red herring. just because bad things happen in the world doesn't mean losing your character isn't going to make your day suck.
We had a game day saturday where 3 of us wanted to play up, 1 player was against it, and the other 2 were ambivalent, it was certainly more challenging then I expected from a season 2, but we prevailed, nobody died, and we were rewards with showers of bonus gold!
Afterwards I read the scenario, just curious as too how much of a difference it would have been, Playing up was a pretty big jump in that one. Playing down would likely have been a cakewalk.
I found it really fun and exciting, but I think others may have found it stressful. As one of the people that wanted to play up I realize that I should try playing lower level characters if I want to challenge myself more instead of convincing everyone to play up.
|
|
If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because you're small (offsetting the hit penalty) and your social skills (perhaps enforcer/intimidator). Also while raging your strength is increased offsetting the lower strength. I also presume you have a ranged weapon, and you're making use of the higher dex for versatility. It's not even unlikely that you are TWF build which would be another good reason for lower strength :D
You got one thing right. He's small.
His stats are 14/18/18/7/7/5, so your social skills guess is a *bit* off.No ranged weapons yet.
No real plans to make use of the high dex. Something this character he was born with.
|
|
re: Benrislove It's the epitome of a problem unique to "first world" countries if you really allow your imaginary character's death in a game to affect your day. Seriously. I have enjoyed characters thoroughly in games prior. I understand attachment to a character but I revel in a characters death and often see it as more glorious than surviving to retirement. The epic fail in battle of a barbarian trying to hold back a troll is awesome as is the "whoops that trap was rough". On the idea of playing lower level characters to ensure a challenge... I agree entirely level 1-3 play is my favorite. The vulnerability creates a realism that I enjoy a lot.
|
|
well at least you have really high AC and lots of HP making you a very viable tank :D.
Like I said, the rage offsets the strength penalty a lot, and the size the hit penalty!
Your improved dex allows you the option of picking up a bow even if you haven't yet :D
Well just being in melee makes use of the high dex, AC and reflex saves, initiative. 15 AC naked/featless, I don't think there is much to complain about here... goblin?
besides, Goblins love alchemists fire... because... fire! so that is something to use the dex on! haha that character looks awesome.
I wasn't thinking of non-standard races when you mentioned him, so I assumed gnome or halfing, my bad :D.
|
|
re: Benrislove It's the epitome of a problem unique to "first world" countries if you really allow your imaginary character's death in a game to affect your day. Seriously. I have enjoyed characters thoroughly in games prior. I understand attachment to a character but I revel in a characters death and often see it as more glorious than surviving to retirement. The epic fail in battle of a barbarian trying to hold back a troll is awesome as is the "whoops that trap was rough". On the idea of playing lower level characters to ensure a challenge... I agree entirely level 1-3 play is my favorite. The vulnerability creates a realism that I enjoy a lot.
I think "ruin someones day" is hyperbole but it can be a bummer to lose a character, especially if you have played it 25-30 times, I mean that's between 100-150 hours invested to watch the feller die!
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Alexander Damocles, Holy Risen Librarian of Abadar, has done this. Dex 7 Wis 7. Early levels were....interesting (Sorcerer 8/ Oracle of Lore 1/ Paladin 2). Its fun and can definitely be played for laughs.
At some point I'm going to make my dex 7 lazy, fat, conjurer. why am I dumping dex? so I can buff cha! social skills baby, it's more fun :D but on paper that dude is going to look awful. -2 init modifier so pro :D
I want to make an Elf Dual-Cursed Oracle with 5 CON and the Lame and Wasting curses, and have another character push him around in a wheelchair everywhere.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Also if losing a character in a Pathfinder scenario ruins someones day they should turn on the news and realize a day of gaming really wasn't that bad....
It's the epitome of a problem unique to "first world" countries if you really allow your imaginary character's death in a game to affect your day.
While I agree with some of your sentiments here, Zoplo, I feel like they're a little out of place in this discussion.
We wouldn't have a 350+ post thread on the issue of scenario difficulty if it wasn't something that people cared about. You wouldn't have GM'd 10+ games to get that star I see by your name if you really didn't care about it. Sure, we all know it's a game, and we all know that it's not going to ruin a persons life to see Bob the Barbarian die to that ogre -- but it still sucks for some people.
Also, your second statement regarding "first world" countries and their problems versus problems elsewhere in the world opens up a lot of doors that really don't belong in this thread.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "ruin someones day" is hyperbole but it can be a bummer to lose a character, especially if you have played it 25-30 times, I mean that's between 100-150 hours invested to watch the feller die!
This is maaaybe a theoretical question, but ... why? Why is it a bummer? You've spent 100 - 150 hours telling a story, socializing with friends, and engaging in a fun hobby. Is that only compelling if the character lives through it at the end?
I mean, for the character, it's a bad day. But if it's a good death, and makes for a good story, why isn't it a good day for the player?
---
Now, I'm not being fair to Benrislove. He stated that it "can be" a bummer, and I'll agree with that. If a character died through the GM making the scenario more challenging than intended, or through the malevolence of other players, or right before you get to play an adventure that would really suit the PC, that might suck royally. But so would living through a lousy session with unpleasant players, or inadvertantly levelling out of a tier where you want to play an adventure with the character. (When my Razmiran monk hit fifth level just as the rules for module-play changed, and I hadn't gotten a chance to play him through "Masks of the Living God", I felt bitter pangs of regret.)
|
|
Also if losing a character in a Pathfinder scenario ruins someones day they should turn on the news and realize a day of gaming really wasn't that bad....
It's the epitome of a problem unique to "first world" countries if you really allow your imaginary character's death in a game to affect your day.While I agree with some of your sentiments here, Zoplo, I feel like they're a little out of place in this discussion.
We wouldn't have a 350+ post thread on the issue of scenario difficulty if it wasn't something that people cared about. You wouldn't have GM'd 10+ games to get that star I see by your name if you really didn't care about it. Sure, we all know it's a game, and we all know that it's not going to ruin a persons life to see Bob the Barbarian die to that ogre -- but it still sucks for some people.
Also, your second statement regarding "first world" countries and their problems versus problems elsewhere in the world opens up a lot of doors that really don't belong in this thread.
Fair enough. I get what you're saying. The only reason I went down that road was to address the argument of character death being a bad thing somehow (and it ruining a day was the reference used). In my opinion it's part of the game. It's also an instrumental part of making the game fun for a lot of players. The "danger" it poses makes "winning" more rewarding of an experience. So back to what I was saying in my original post I believe Pathfinder scenarios are often too easy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summery post! Also very long :-/
A few major questions have been raised. some have been answered.
Are the newer scenarios harder? - Yes, yes they are.
Are they unbeatable? - No, obviously they are not.
Are they too hard? - debatable
Do you need "uber" builds to succeed? - Nope.
Are strong players with strong builds still cakewalking? - yup.
Are they too long (time slot wise)? - still up in the air, I think yes.
*To the point that I cannot run them on my weeknight sessions, as the ability to finish in 3.5-4 hours is just very slim.*
Does the difficult excite players or push them away? - Some of both.
Is ramping up the difficulty being done in the right way?
(this one is mostly mine, I think no, personally). I don't like making BBEGs harder is the correct way to ramp difficulty, I like making mooks better, and increasing the number of them, this helps with the action economy problem, without making people feel like they are "worthless" because they can't roll about a 15.
Here's the big question though: What aspects of these things are going to grow, or shrink the community.
At the end of the day, is the difficulty increase good or bad for PFS?
Here's my belief on the whole issue, atm. I have played a lot of games, ultimately the top 5% always feel like it's "too easy" there is no avoiding that. You have to design for the masses. If you design for the top 5% the other 95% don't have fun or can't complete content. I'm going to point to how completely WoW dominated the MMO market with the "easy MMO"
You will never make a challenge for the true "uber" players. If there is a group of 6 folks who are all "ubers" and know each other well no scenario is going to touch them, while still being even remotely beatable for normal players.
This brings me to the "Arms race" discussion.
Scenario writers vs Optimizers
How do you win that as a scenario writer? you ignore the optimizers. they either smash their scenarios and have fun being super strong OR they don't and either stop optimizing or stop playing PFS.
If you design for those players, it quickly becomes too difficult for the "norm" and you lose your playerbase, obviously we want MORE people playing.
I think overall things are a little tougher than they should be, I also think seasons 1-2-3(first half at least) are a little easier than they should be. expanding those encounters for 6 players would probably put things in a good place.
TL;DR - I think these scenario's are too long, and probably a little to difficult for the masses. Optimizers are going to smash anything so ignore them whining about "easy"
|
|
I think "ruin someones day" is hyperbole but it can be a bummer to lose a character, especially if you have played it 25-30 times, I mean that's between 100-150 hours invested to watch the feller die!This is maaaybe a theoretical question, but ... why? Why is it a bummer? You've spent 100 - 150 hours telling a story, socializing with friends, and engaging in a fun hobby. Is that only compelling if the character lives through it at the end?
I mean, for the character, it's a bad day. But if it's a good death, and makes for a good story, why isn't it a good day for the player?
---
Now, I'm not being fair to Benrislove. He stated that it "can be" a bummer, and I'll agree with that. If a character died through the GM making the scenario more challenging than intended, or through the malevolence of other players, or right before you get to play an adventure that would really suit the PC, that might suck royally. But so would living through a lousy session with unpleasant players, or inadvertantly levelling out of a tier where you want to play an adventure with the character. (When my Razmiran monk hit fifth level just as the rules for module-play changed, and I hadn't gotten a chance to play him through "Masks of the Living God", I felt bitter pangs of regret.)
hehe, no worries :D I think death and the risk/fear of death is essential to making the experiences fun. If my character dies doing something challenging that sounds like a good day to me :D.
GMs altering encounters to make the more challenging if that killed a character I could get annoyed :-p
|
|
If I don't die occasionally, I don't feel like I am being challenged. Nothing is worse that running a character all the way to 12th or 14th level or whatever and never being at risk of death. With no risk of death Pathfinder/D&D becomes like the old GI Joe cartoon or the A team. Everyone is fighting but no one is getting hurt.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you win that as a scenario writer? you ignore the optimizers. they either smash their scenarios and have fun being super strong OR they don't and either stop optimizing or stop playing PFS.
I agree. Mostly. ;-)
*puts on author hat*
One of the things we can do is provide options. Options to both players and GM's. For example, the BBEG at the end of Rats of Round Mountain Part 1 breaks the Season 0-3 CR maximum. The reason I could do this is because I included multiple ways for the PCs to overcome the challenge. I provided additional foreshadowing, allowing the PCs to be better prepared. I provided role playing options to positively affect the encounter. At the same time, I provided solid tactics and a big challenge for those who want it.
Essentially, what we can do as authors is give GMs the tools to provide the appropriate level of challenge for each table within "RAW."
*takes off that stinky hat* *puts back on Super Evil Genius GM hat*
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
You did great Kyle, and since I'm as bald as Cogswell Cog, don't worry about the hat!
I think Kyle is right. We do need to provide more solutions to hard encounters.
Like everything, it comes at a cost. Word count thy name is Satan. We want special items, better missions, more roleplaying situations, alternate resolutions to hard encounters. And we have to get it all in 12,000 words. And we're having scenarios run too long as Kyle pointed out.
I find it pretty darn challenging. I have not always succeeded.
THAT BEING SAID,
I'm starting to wonder if one less minor encounter would serve us better. Keep the word count where it needs to be, and allow us to do these extra touches that some encounters deserve.
Not my call, that is a Development instruction to authors. Yet its a thought that is coming out of this conversation.
|
|
The issue with getting to strict on encounter number is that it leads to a heavy dose of meta-gaming. A lot of scenarios follow the 4 encounter rule and players catch on to this. You then see players saying things like "Well we are only on encounter 2 and so I should hold on to this spell/ability until encounter 4 that has the BBEG."
Edit: I would like to say that the newer seasons are much better at not doing this and I have in fact seen players mouths drop open when they find out they are not done after 4 encounters.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
The issue with getting to strict on encounter number is that it leads to a heavy dose of meta-gaming. A lot of scenarios follow the 4 encounter rule and players catch on to this. You then see players saying things like "Well we are only on encounter 2 and so I should hold on to this spell/ability until encounter 4 that has the BBEG."
My pardons, Lab Rat, but I wasn't suggesting a rigid number of encounters. Merely that perhaps we're trying to fit too many encounters in.
Such that the session runs long, and we're not able to polish other encounters as well because of word count.
As for holding back for the big finale, how would you avoid that? It seems inherent to the system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found reading through many of the season 4 scenarios, that they could easily "skip" an encounter that isn't massively important and save a lot of time.
Because Wrath's Shadow saw so much play at gencon, it's the famous example at this point.
This is just my opinion. Hopefully the development staff sees this and shortens the adventures (or allows you to flag an encounter as optional)
12000 isn't a lot of words to fit in great story and tactics. I personally would rather have an easy scenario with tons of really awesome roleplay/story than a meat grinder, and I LIKE challenging combats :D.
|
|
My pardons, Lab Rat, but I wasn't suggesting a rigid number of encounters. Merely that perhaps we're trying to fit too many encounters in.
Ok. I think I may have miss interpreted you a little. I guess my worry was that depending on how you cut you may get to what is the bare minimum of encounters and if this was done across the board it may make things predictable again. One of the things I like about the newer seasons is that the encounter numbers are variable. I think as long as it's a small encounter, like some have said, that you are trading for a more polished scenario as a whole then it is a good thing.
As for holding back for the big finale, how would you avoid that? It seems inherent to the system.
No way around it really. Although some scenarios tend to be a ramp up in difficulty. Some of the better scenarios I have enjoyed have been a big gut punch in the first encounter, followed by a slack in difficulty, and then another big one at the end.
All in all, the newer seasons are much less predictable and I enjoy the variability that writers have shown in their encounter designs. If I can keep that and get a more polished story I will be a super happy player / GM.
|
|
I was at that table, and holy frijoles! If we didn't have the falcata weapon master at the table, we would have been toast. The table was four PCs (might as well have been three with the part of the pregen played by my rogue; level 5 playing tier 7-9, baby! Ryan said he didn't fudge any dice rolls. I'm not sure I believe him...)
I did not fudge any rolls. You survived that scenario by the fact that you had Bogdan.
|
|
I break far too many modules with my shadow projected familiar these days. Just the sheer amount of stat reducing stuff I put out, completely destroys most pfs mods.
Optimization is one thing, picking a few spells that will catastrophically alter game mechanics is another. Any mooch can do hp damage, but it takes someone some skills to have a critter doing 1d6 strength damage, 1d4 dex damage, and the caster doing 1d4 con damage with a bite attack.
Rawr
I had fun playing with your characters this weekend ... here is the one thing I wished could have gone differently .... have cheat cards for the GM when you drain stats.
I don't care how seasoned the GM is, adjusting ability scores and by extension stats in the middle of combat w/out stopping entirely to try and figure it out only stresses out the GM and puts a tone on the combat/scenario that doesn't really need to be there.
I'm totally not about stomping on someones fun, I'm all about having fun... on both sides of the screen :)
|
|
I've played Rats I and Rats II, I've played Golemworks, Green Market, In Wrath's Shadows, Kortos Envoy, Storval Stairs, and Red Harvest, plus Golden Serpent, Hydra's Fang and Tide of Morning recently.
I can tell the difference between the Season 4 scenarios from the first half of Season 3 and earlier.
I've gotten to the point where my fighter just breaks a Thunderstone on his head if he sees feathers with a Survival Check. Having N harpies all force will saves to fascinate the party has gotten a little old - though that's a confluence of doing In Wrath's Shadow, Kortos Envoy and Storval back-to-back-to-back. ("Oh god, Harpies again?")
My high tier group consists of my falcata fighter, a cavalier/Hellknight, a myrmidarch Magus who does hideous touch damage at range, a musketeer with rapid shot, deadly aim and cluster shot, and a zen archer monk who can do 5-6 shots per round with cluster shot, and a fighter/duellist who can routinely hit an AC of 38.
Any combat can be dealt with by shooting things at range tends to be over...fast. The GM basically feels that the high tier group turned into a bunch of characters all competing for Most Combat Effective. Season 3 and earlier? He spends longer prepping the combats than we spend going through them.
My mid-tier group has less optimized characters in it, and we're focusing more on the social encounters. The games take longer, we're mostly having more fun.
The low-tier group is mostly new people. We're focusing on the season 1 and 2 stuff so that we can get them comfortable with the game. My character in the low-tier group is combat optimized, but I mostly stand back and wait for someone else in the party to identify the threat, and he goes in to beat on them, so I don't steal their thunder. Hydra's Fang killed one character perma-dead. Paralyzed, killed, on fire, and sucked under by a sinking boat that broke in half...
So far the most dangerous thing we've seen in a group? Dominate Person on one of the gunslingers. We came close to a total party kill in Red Harvest due to that, and had two casualties that needed raising in Golem Works due to that. In GolemWorks, my Sorcerer sat on one end of the final encounter and just threw Dazing Magic Missiles at the caster on the other side to give his party time to deal with the golem in the tank. (That was a lovely lovely encounter. Finally a spellcaster who knows they want to stay AT RANGE).
|
My gnome has a base movement of 20 feet running would be 80 feet three turns would be 240 feet. Hrrm I am sorry I do not believbe the map is that large it is a big house but not that big.
Edit. After reviewing the dalsine affair you are both wrong. ** spoiler omitted **
He was hiding out of sight at the top of the stairs when I played it. That could be a difference between high tier and the lower ones (I haven't read the module to see how his tactics are defined).
|
|
In GolemWorks, my Sorcerer sat on one end of the final encounter and just threw Dazing Magic Missiles at the caster on the other side to give his party time to deal with the golem in the tank. (That was a lovely lovely encounter. Finally a spellcaster who knows they want to stay AT RANGE)
As a small side tangent to your post at large, if the GM had the golem in the tank come out and attack you, it was a modification of the scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue Eidolon - No, the scenario wasn't modified. It's a lovely encounter.
|
|
I was at that table, and holy frijoles! If we didn't have the falcata weapon master at the table, we would have been toast. The table was four PCs (might as well have been three with the part of the pregen played by my rogue; level 5 playing tier 7-9, baby! Ryan said he didn't fudge any dice rolls. I'm not sure I believe him...)I did not fudge any rolls. You survived that scenario by the fact that you had Bogdan.
Oh, I am completely aware of how we survived that scenario. The cognitive dissonance of knowing you did not fudge rolls versus the batguano crazy fact we survived is something I have a hard time believing.
|
Monday I ran Red Harvest at T 10-11 with a four man team over IMO optimized characters in a well balanced team and it ended up being a great challenge. But in the first round of the BBEG combat, the end boss was very badly injured, had there been 1 or 2 more players it most likely would have ended in that opening round.
I use this as an example of how 5-6 man parties in seasons 1-3 are frequently overpowering the encounter. As such Im happy to see the greater challenge of season 4 matching encounters to a 6 man team.
Great work Mark and Mark