![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Gold Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/gold.jpg)
I have a lot of experience playing up, I've played up maybe 25 sessions. I have no regrets either, my optimal PC was threatened in maybe 1 scenario. With non-optimal PCs, I generally don't play up.
In seasons 0-2 (and most of season 3), you could play up with no fear and unless your table was horrible and was missing DPR. Playing up made the session both challenging, fun, and rewarding.
In season 4 if you play up, you had better bring your "A game", because if you don't you're going to die horribly. I would strongly consider playing down in season 4, unless you have at least 2-3 PCs who can carry the table, are prepared, and have players with experience.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Private Avatar Bob](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/private/Private-RVC-Bob.jpg)
When it isn't clear if the party should play up or not I usually let the lowest people at the table decide if they want to risk their characters. They are after all most likely to be the ones in need of a raise dead after the adventure.
I used to do this (sort of). I did not give the players with sub-tier appropriate PCs a vote since they want to play in tier whenever possible. My idea was that they would not be at risk playing the lower tier so they should not carry undue influence on the lower-level players to play up. I have since changed that approach due to a particular table. It was a tier 3-7 with six players of which two were level 7 and the rest 3 or 4. With the APL, they had the option to play either sub-tier. As it turns out, the two higher level players wanted to play down. Their issue was that they had been "forced" to play in the higher tier three sessions in a row and despite their being sub-tier appropriate, the others at the table were not. They experienced a huge drain on resources attempting to defeat the challenges with lesser support and having to help restore the lower-level PCs to healthy again after encounters. Everyone wants to help out and be a team-player, but it was affecting their WBL. Preparing to move into the tier 7-11 range is not the time to discover you are short on cash/resources.
So now, I am back to leaving it completely up to the entire table with only my single recommendation as described above. However, I do pay attention to the discourse as the table decides looking for anyone who appears to be "forced" into making a decision they are not comfortable with. As the GM, I reserve the right to veto a decision to play up (or down) if I feel the table cannot agree and someone/s are not okay with it.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
The season 4 modules are definitely riskier, especially if played with only 4 players. I would advise the average player not to play up unless they can they are willing to have a much higher chance of their characters death to gain greater reward. If your character is optimized and is adventuring with a balanced and tactically experienced group, then the risk is somewhat lessened. In our New York group, we've had very few character deaths over the years. Maybe it's because of the high skill level of some of the players ( some of whom have become Venture Captains, Venture Lieutenants, or have graduated to work and/or write for Paizo).Anyway, i'd just like to take this moment to express appreciation and thanks to our group members, our GM's, Venture Captains, and to our group coordinator, Helen Keier.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Psionic](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/57-Psionics-Maenad.jpg)
The season 4 modules are definitely riskier, especially if played with only 4 players.
While it's possible the authors in season 4 have been writing more challenging scenarios, mathematically four player tables are unaffected by the change. Season 4 is tougher for six player tables, but four player tables this season are facing the exact same challenge ratings they faced in Season 3.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Count Saleno](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/4.Count-Saleno.jpg)
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:The season 4 modules are definitely riskier, especially if played with only 4 players.While it's possible the authors in season 4 have been writing more challenging scenarios, mathematically four player tables are unaffected by the change. Season 4 is tougher for six player tables, but four player tables this season are facing the exact same challenge ratings they faced in Season 3.
Provided GMs remember to adjust the adventure for them.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Psionic](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/57-Psionics-Maenad.jpg)
Dennis Baker wrote:Provided GMs remember to adjust the adventure for them.Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:The season 4 modules are definitely riskier, especially if played with only 4 players.While it's possible the authors in season 4 have been writing more challenging scenarios, mathematically four player tables are unaffected by the change. Season 4 is tougher for six player tables, but four player tables this season are facing the exact same challenge ratings they faced in Season 3.
They are even tougher when people are playing low tier and the GM uses the high tier stat block*.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Lolth](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Spider-queen.jpg)
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:The season 4 modules are definitely riskier, especially if played with only 4 players.While it's possible the authors in season 4 have been writing more challenging scenarios, mathematically four player tables are unaffected by the change. Season 4 is tougher for six player tables, but four player tables this season are facing the exact same challenge ratings they faced in Season 3.
In theory, yes, but in practice, sometimes the downward adjustment for 4 players, while it weakens the CR appropriately in theory, doesn't make the encounter very much easier, especially compared to having 1.5x as many heroic PCs. Like a very tough boss with three worthless mooks that can't hit the party reduced to a very tough boss with one worthless mook that can't hit the party.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Ezren](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9269-Ezren_90.jpeg)
Don Walker wrote:Don, in your experience, has that made a difference?
Provided GMs remember to adjust the adventure for [4-member parties].
It has for me. I ended up running <Season 4 Scenario Redacted> on short notice and had about 30 minutes to prep. It was my first Season 4, so I forgot about the 6->4 player adjustments. The group of 4 (all level 2 or 3) wanted to play up.
That meant that two Imps became two Bearded Devils. With no silver weapons and only one martial character, they were about to get slaughtered. I advised them on the tactics they would need to employ to escape the room and allowed them to continue at the lower sub-tier.
ETA:
For this particular group, they still would have died with the 4-player adjustment. But I'm confident that a more optimized/better prepared party could have made it through.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Syntira](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Syntira.jpg)
I'm far less concerned about the party choosing to play up than when the rules give them no option. I think every bad experience that I have had with playing up has been when we were forced to do so.
Had that happen yesterday - six player (tier 1-7) table where one player had to play a 2nd, one could play a 2nd or a 3rd and one could play a 2nd or a 6th. The other players had a variety of characters, but six players and the character selections where people had no choice pretty much dictated that we would be tier 3/4. We even considered playing tier 6-7 and forcing people to play pre-gens. Eventually we ended up with three 2's and three 3's because my bringing my 7 sorcerer or another player bringing his 6 fighter would undoubtedly dominate combat and cut into the other players fun. That decision was called into question when the first encounter was a large air elemental. We'd probably still be fighting it if the DM had kept using flyby attack despite our grouping up. That was the most difficult fight in the module.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Black Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Black-Dragon.jpg)
Chris Mortika wrote:Don Walker wrote:Don, in your experience, has that made a difference?
Provided GMs remember to adjust the adventure for [4-member parties].It has for me. I ended up running <Season 4 Scenario Redacted> on short notice and had about 30 minutes to prep. It was my first Season 4, so I forgot about the 6->4 player adjustments. The group of 4 (all level 2 or 3) wanted to play up.
That meant that two Imps became two Bearded Devils. With no silver weapons and only one martial character, they were about to get slaughtered. I advised them on the tactics they would need to employ to escape the room and allowed them to continue at the lower sub-tier.
ETA:
For this particular group, they still would have died with the 4-player adjustment. But I'm confident that a more optimized/better prepared party could have made it through.
4 PCs all level 2 or 3 means their APl was less than 3. They can't play up in that case, whether they want to or not.
Are people allowing this as an option? If so, it needs to be stopped.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Cayden Cailean](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/cayden_final.jpg)
4 PCs all level 2 or 3 means their APl was less than 3. They can't play up in that case, whether they want to or not.
Are people allowing this as an option? If so, it needs to be stopped.
Agreed, but it is legal. Total number of levels equalling 11 divided by 4 equals 2.75.
In order to determine which subtier a mixed-level group of PCs should play in, you must determine the group’s average party level (APL). Divide the total number of character levels by the number of characters in the party. You should always round to the nearest whole number.
Had a group I calculated at 2.67 for APL. So technically they were APL 3, which let them choose between 1-2 and 4-5. Should have vetoed it.
I think the rounding comment should be removed, or made into an explicit mention to always round down.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Arodnap](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Arodnap.jpg)
That's not a case of low subtier or high subtier. For Season 4, there are specifically sidebars about changing encounters to allow for 4 PCs. I'm not familiar with the scenario that redward is talking about, but I'm presuming that 5 or 6 PCs would face Bearded Devils, and the sidebar instructs GMs to change the Bearded Devils to Imps if there are only 4 PCs.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Jason Wu |
![Qilzar Agha Bagoas](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PF23-12.jpg)
In general, the most painful combats I've seen are ones where character's primary fighting specializations are nullified or at least reduced in effectiveness.
So it is a good idea to have alternate ability to function in those cases. Carry special material weapons or at least weapon blanches for DR. Always have a ranged attack available. Grapple-accesible weapons for when you get grabbed. Potions or other items to remove pesky conditions. And so forth.
A little prep work can ease difficult situations by a LOT.
And most important, know when to run!
-j
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Black Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Black-Dragon.jpg)
That's not a case of low subtier or high subtier. For Season 4, there are specifically sidebars about changing encounters to allow for 4 PCs. I'm not familiar with the scenario that redward is talking about, but I'm presuming that 5 or 6 PCs would face Bearded Devils, and the sidebar instructs GMs to change the Bearded Devils to Imps if there are only 4 PCs.
Nope. The sidebar changes it from two creatures to one. Interestingly, I think it hastes the single creature, as well, if I recall correctly.
TriOmegaZero: I thought there was something in there saying round down. If not, you're correct - it should be added.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Private Avatar Bob](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/private/Private-RVC-Bob.jpg)
I think the rounding comment should be removed, or made into an explicit mention to always round down.
I disagree. There is nothing wrong with the rounding rules. Round to the nearest whole number with the players getting to choose at 0.5 leaves room for adjustment should it be necessary. forcing all rounding down could mean an optimized group has to play down a sub-tier and get less enjoyment from cake-walking. Leave the players some options is almost always the best idea.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Ezren](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9269-Ezren_90.jpeg)
Nope. The sidebar changes it from two creatures to one. Interestingly, I think it hastes the single creature, as well, if I recall correctly.
It does. And for this group, that might have actually killed them more quickly, due to the layout of the room.
It's entirely possible that I messed up the APL; like I said, I was more than a little frazzled trying to get everything figured out. Season 4 scenarios should not be run on short prep. But I believe it was legal. And entirely ill-advised.
My rule of thumb is that it's usually safe to play up in Season 0 and 1, with a moderately competent (good balance, somewhat optimized characters) group. Usually okay in Season 2 with a good group (good balance and/or 1 or 2 min-maxed combat characters or a slumber witch). Risky in Season 3. Never, ever in Season 4.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Tengu](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9240-Tengu.jpg)
So here's my mathematical concern. When playing a Season 0-3, you find the APL and make your tier decision. For a group of 6-7 players, you add one to the APL, since the scenarios are designed for only 4.
Consider an early 1-5 scenario.
Four 1st levels = 4 HD
Four 2nd levels = 8 HD
Four 3rd levels = 12 HD
Four 4th levels = 16 HD
Four 5th levels = 20 HD
A group of six 3rd level PC's have 18 HD, which fits perfectly into a tier 4-5. They play up with some hope of success. APL+1 makes sense.
Consider a Season 4 1-5 scenario using the same logic.
Six 1st levels = 6 HD
Six 2nd levels = 12 HD
Six 3rd levels = 18 HD
Six 4th levels = 24 HD
Six 5th levels = 30 HD
A group of four 3rd level PC's have 12 HD, which fits perfectly into a tier 1-2. They play down with some hope of success.
Why doesn't a table with four players get a -1 to their APL in a season 4 scenario? I think comparing HD is a perfectly valid way of looking at the offense/defense of a party. Even with the (often extremely) mild changes for a four-player party, I'm not sure why four PC's should even get the opportunity to play up in season 4.
(I'm sure that has all been hashed out on the boards before, but I'm in a mood today.)
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Psionic](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/57-Psionics-Maenad.jpg)
Why doesn't a table with four players get a -1 to their APL in a season 4 scenario? I think comparing HD is a perfectly valid way of looking at the offense/defense of a party. Even with the (often extremely) mild changes for a four-player party, I'm not sure why four PC's should even get the opportunity to play up in season 4.
Maybe I'm not following you.
Are you aware that in Season 4 scenarios GMs are given specific instruction to alter encounters for 4 player parties? They don't get a -1 to their APL because they are facing CR -1 encounters.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Helmet](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Plot-helmet.jpg)
Specific instructions to alter -some- encounters for four player parties.
Roleplaying or skill challenges, ones in which the number of bodies does not tend to matter as much, tend to not be altered. I cannot recall a season four scenario that doesn't alter all of its combats for parties of only four players; can you name one?
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Tengu](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9240-Tengu.jpg)
Arkos wrote:Why doesn't a table with four players get a -1 to their APL in a season 4 scenario? I think comparing HD is a perfectly valid way of looking at the offense/defense of a party. Even with the (often extremely) mild changes for a four-player party, I'm not sure why four PC's should even get the opportunity to play up in season 4.Maybe I'm not following you.
Are you aware that in Season 4 scenarios GMs are given specific instruction to alter encounters for 4 player parties? They don't get a -1 to their APL because they are facing CR -1 encounters.
I realize that these modifications to the scenarios exist, but that seems to mitigate the idea that four characters OF TIER should have an easier chance. Even so, I don't see those changes as significantly altering an encounter in such a way that four 3rd level characters have a chance against a tier 4-5 BBEG with fewer minions. My experience in S4 games so far suggests to me that players should be dissuaded from the option to play up with fewer than six players.
The PFS Guide is designed so that in earlier seasons, six or more players were encouraged to play up by APL mathematics. I suggest that similar things should happen for Season 4.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Psionic](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/57-Psionics-Maenad.jpg)
Specific instructions to alter -some- encounters for four player parties.
My understanding is all combat encounters should have adjustments based on party size.
I realize that these modifications to the scenarios exist, but that seems to mitigate the idea that four characters OF TIER should have an easier chance. Even so, I don't see those changes as significantly altering an encounter in such a way that four 3rd level characters have a chance against a tier 4-5 BBEG with fewer minions. My experience in S4 games so far suggests to me that players should be dissuaded from the option to play up with fewer than six players.
Again, for a 4 player group, there is zero difference between the CR of a S4 final encounter and the CR of a S0-3 scenario. If there is a difference, it's not a systemic change. My suspicion is it has more to do with the change of the guard in scenario authors. Season 3-4 has seen a lot of new faces writing PFS scenarios and I think many of them are writing tougher scenarios than earlier seasons.
I would suggest a 4 player party facing the finale of Sewer Dragons is likely to have just as much trouble as a 4 player party facing a season 4 tier 3-7 scenario. I've only written tier 7-11 for S4 so far, but if I were to write a tier 3-7, it's not going to be tougher for 4 player groups than GMG.
The PFS Guide is designed so that in earlier seasons, six or more players were encouraged to play up by APL mathematics. I suggest that similar things should happen for Season 4.
Maybe it would help if you had some examples of encounters that were tougher for 4 player groups than 6 player groups and why.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Tengu](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9240-Tengu.jpg)
Quote:The PFS Guide is designed so that in earlier seasons, six or more players were encouraged to play up by APL mathematics. I suggest that similar things should happen for Season 4.Maybe it would help if you had some examples of encounters that were tougher for 4 player groups than 6 player groups and why.
I see we're disagreeing on lowering the CR's for four players, but I want to reiterate that my focus is on four players who choose to play up beyond their tier.
When I see the four player option entail dropping minions while the BBEG can still use Ultimate Magic inspired mass damaging options, I have to question whether basing things on CR is still appropriate. As anyone who writes any kind of homebrew encounter can attest, it's easy to design TPK experiences at the correct CR level. And one of the easiest ways to do it is allow for full throttle power creep.
I enjoy that the new scenarios allow for just as many creative and amazing options as players have, but I also think that it's easy to get around what CR means. I don't think that level increases are in any way linear, which means that dropping a CR because of level isn't the same as dropping CR because of a number of party members. Putting these together, as we are in season four, means that playing up with four people is a serious double punch to the groin.
In 4-02, the final boss is a melee beast AND has Quick Channel. Two of his ghast minions are removed at high tier. He still almost TPKed an at-tier group.
In 4-12, if there are four PC's the mid-boss loses the ability to use an ability which probably won't work anyway.
In 4-12, the final boss does lose some important meat shields, but again has a pile of wildly destructive abilities, along with the ability to summon more meat shields.
Every non-boss encounter I've looked at seems appropriate, because in these cases, removing a number of enemies clearly reduces the threat. I don't have each scenario with me, so I can't provide more examples.
Six players of whatever level allows for more roles and more responses to abilities. More likelihood of healing and buffs, and an ability to damage the enemy a little quicker. If writers are keeping this in mind, then a four person at tier is going to have a tough time already. Four players under tier should be warned away by the system.
One final point is that an APL -1 adjustment would still allow four characters of the correct level to still play that level. They would round down and then "choose to play up." This is only an idea that would keep a party of too-few, low-level players from having a TPK.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Tengu](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9240-Tengu.jpg)
On that note, my gaming group strives to play these scenarios with six and an APL that fits tier, because we know we'll get whooped any other way. Even so, I'll admit that a lot of the "evidence" I'm working with is based on my experience. I'd love to hear how this stuff gets talked about at the professional level. Whether there are a list of scary options that increase things out of CR a little too much, or what additions to put in to tune CR's to six people. Things like that.
If there is a writer-side protocol that does the same thing as my APL suggestion, I'd be happy to shut up. This is really just another step in my thoughts on the "holy crap this is hard" trend I've noticed this season.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Gem Inspector](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9029-Gems.jpg)
Again, for a 4 player group, there is zero difference between the CR of a S4 final encounter and the CR of a S0-3 scenario. If there is a difference, it's not a systemic change. My suspicion is it has more to do with the change of the guard in scenario authors. Season 3-4 has seen a lot of new faces writing PFS scenarios and I think many of them are writing tougher scenarios than earlier seasons.
Arkos does hit on a rather important point here, regarding de-powering encounters for four-man tables.
Bumping CRs up by one is a simple solution to the problem of six-man tables being the norm, but it is not an elegant one. CR itself is very wonky, and it is based on a four-man balanced party. Thus, bumping it by one does not scale the encounter for six players; instead, bumping it by one is fitting for a four-man balanced party one level higher. And as we all know, six PCs of level X are, on average, significantly more powerful than four PCs of level X+1.
Since CR is very wonky, and the Season 4 scenarios are written for six-man tables, the inefficiency of that +1 can be made up through other means. The first four Season 4 scenarios are examples. As Dennis mentions, authors are writing tougher scenarios; the expectation of six-man tables serves as an "unleashing" effect, giving the authors "more license" to build tough fights.
The problem lies in the reverse. Four PCs of level X are, on average, significantly less powerful than six PCs of level X, to the point where a single CR drop often does not cover the gap. Arkos's examples, as well as Golemworks Incident, demonstrate this. Just as encounters built for four do not scale up well, encounters built for six do not scale down well. It's a crapshoot at best.
Then we add another layer of trouble with an APL falling between two Subtiers, and we've got a "chain of error" here.
I do wish Paizo had decided to be a bit more innovative with building encounters for six-man parties, instead of just working within the CR system. But that's just wishful thinking; this sort of innovation would probably require a Pathfinder 2ndEd.
-Matt
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Psionic](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/57-Psionics-Maenad.jpg)
When I see the four player option entail dropping minions while the BBEG can still use Ultimate Magic inspired mass damaging options, I have to question whether basing things on CR is still appropriate. As anyone who writes any kind of homebrew encounter can attest, it's easy to design TPK experiences at the correct CR level.
Which essentially touches on the main point of my last post. Much of what you are describing is author variance, which doesn't really relate to the way the guide is written and APL is calculated.
Unfortunately, CR is a crude metric.
One final point is that an APL -1 adjustment would still allow four characters of the correct level to still play that level. They would round down and then "choose to play up." This is only an idea that would keep a party of too-few, low-level players from having a TPK.
I guess this is where I don't follow you. If you have a tier 3-7 scenario, and force 4 player groups to use APL-1 then 4 5th level players would be forced to play down while 6 5th level characters have the option to play up.
As far as I know, you can only 'choose to play up' if your APL is between subtiers. If your APL is 4, you have no choice, you play subtier 3-4.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Private Avatar Bob](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/private/Private-RVC-Bob.jpg)
Often times intended tactics make up for a mismatch in CR vs. APL. For example...
"Once combat begins, Tholrist casts unholy blight on the party, followed by chaos hammer. He then targets any obvious casters with blindness/deafness, following up by casting command or hold person to hinder the PCs’ approach. If any casters have a summoned outsider aiding them, Tholrist uses dismissal to eliminate that threat. If PCs get close enough for melee, he attacks with his claws and bite, augmented by his fury of the Abyss ability from the Demon domain, and sometimes casts offensive touch spells like bestow curse. Tholrist uses his channel energy ability, augmented with Quick Channel, to quickly heal himself and his minions rather than using it to attack the party unless he’s surrounded by three or more PCs. Tholrist ignores any creatures he successfully paralyzes until the battle is over."
First, he spends a lot of rounds casting spells before turning to his channeling, and even then, he is supposed to focus it for healing rather than harming. It is obvious to me that the author recognized the tpk potential and drafted the tactics to compensate.
There are more examples of enemies restricted from using their full abilities or it is listed that they already burned their once daily use power earlier in the day. And even after all of that, the GM does not need to bring the entire power of the enemy to bare if he does not think the PCs will have a chance against it.
you must play down
I am always against a black and white rule like this. There are plenty of players out there that can handle playing up just fine and should not have their fun deterred by an arbitrary rule intended to protect players from their own bad judgement or that of the GM. It seems fairly clear season four has an increase in challenge, but that does not mean the sub-tier options need to be changed. Players need to understand the inherent dangers playing up and make better decisions. At the same time, GMs need to be more responsible running the enemies and not crush the PCs just because the scenario gives them the power.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Tengu](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9240-Tengu.jpg)
I guess this is where I don't follow you. If you have a tier 3-7 scenario, and force 4 player groups to use APL-1 then 4 5th level players would be forced to play down while 6 5th level characters have the option to play up.
As far as I know, you can only 'choose to play up' if your APL is between subtiers. If your APL is 4, you have no choice, you play subtier 3-4.
That's actually exactly what I mean. If you're playing Season 4, and your party is in between APL's so that you would otherwise get to choose whether to play up or play down, and you don't have six players, you must choose to play down.
Just like in early seasons, if you are in between APL's and have six or more, you must choose to play up. (APL 3.2 gets bumped to 4.2 or whatever).
I think the game should be challenging without being downright depressingly hard. And I do think that four level 5 characters have no business playing up in a Season 4 3-7 scenario with the current difficulty as it stands. I suppose YMMV based on author variance, but I think the game should err on the side of fewer TPK's.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() |
![Katapesh Sailor](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/sinbadsailor2.jpg)
How many people have had their party, having had to choose high tier and low tier, chose high? What were the consequences?
I've got a character who's played up her first 5 scenarios. On several of those, most of the group was playing up. (3 of the 5 scenarios the group average was between tiers.) She has burned through nearly an entire wand of infernal healing preventing multiple TPK's. Had her eidolon go -10 or lower on 3 occasions. Been knocked down to 1 hp on two occasions. Had to purchase remove blindness mid-scenario.
I've not had so much fun in a long time.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Tengu](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9240-Tengu.jpg)
Often times intended tactics make up for a mismatch in CR vs. APL. For example...
And even after all of that, the GM does not need to bring the entire power of the enemy to bare if he does not think the PCs will have a chance against it.
Sorry, I realized I had misunderstood a post I was replying to and ended up deleting that post. Whoops!
However, I wanted to mention your point that the GM doesn't need to beat down the PC's. I like that the new season is more challenging. I really enjoy that people need to be on top of their game or find themselves in serious trouble. Which is why I'd rather have a hard and fast rule than softball an encounter to allow underpowered PC's to succeed. There's a reason I'm not playing a cooperative, storytelling game. Sometimes, I want the players to feel satisfied and relieved in a victory. If each scenario is a walkthrough, then why are we playing?
I realize I'm probably putting words in your mouth here, but I want to illustrate my point.
Full disclosure, I'm a math teacher. I often offer advanced courses and create arbitrary rules (Algebra 2 required!) to keep people out until I feel they are prepared for the material. If someone was already taking a tough schedule and had to apply to college on top of it, I may recommend that they don't take my advanced class. Why? Because I think it's too hard, and it's possible they may not be up to the challenge. When people fail to meet my challenges, that's fine. When people take on far too much and fail because of it, and I didn't take the opportunity to advise them back at the start, then that's total crap. I've failed them.
However, if they take my advanced class against my advice, and then I take it super easy on them when they skip half my assignments, do I pass them anyways? What does that say about my class? Or my judgment as a teacher?
I'm over-thinking this, because I've been doing way too much the last few weeks, but this is just the way my brain works. It's a silly little rule for a game, but for some reason it's really stuck in my head.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Private Avatar Bob](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/private/Private-RVC-Bob.jpg)
I guess I don't understand why soo many players are quick to blame the authors or the tier system or CR vs. APL, whatever. In my experience (somewhere around 300+ sessions of PFS), CHOOSING to play up is the #1 cause of dead characters with poor decision-making by the GM being #2. That is not to say the GM intentionally meant to kill a PC, just that they did not recognize the lethality of the tactics they were using.
IMO, the best thing we can do to reduce PC deaths is to make better decisions as players, both in choosing what sub-tier to play, as well as in-game. Too often I see the "bull in a China shop" mentality. The first few seasons largely supported just smacking the bad guys in the face. Now they are on par with the PCs and tactics have to improve.
Also, GMs are used to optimizing the enemy's tactics just to provide a challenge. Now, the authors are giving us better tools and we need to learn to ease up a bit. We don't have to try to kill PCs just to keep up.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Tengu](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9240-Tengu.jpg)
IMO, the best thing we can do to reduce PC deaths is to make better decisions as players, both in choosing what sub-tier to play, as well as in-game. Too often I see the "bull in a China shop" mentality. The first few seasons largely supported just smacking the bad guys in the face. Now they are on par with the PCs and tactics have to improve.
Hear, hear to that!
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Private Avatar Bob](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/private/Private-RVC-Bob.jpg)
Full disclosure, I'm a math teacher. I often offer advanced courses and create arbitrary rules (Algebra 2 required!) to keep people out until I feel they are prepared for the material. If someone was already taking a tough schedule and had to apply to college on top of it, I may recommend that they don't take my advanced class. Why? Because I think it's too hard, and it's possible they may not be up to the challenge. When people fail to meet my challenges, that's fine. When people take on far too much and fail because of it, and I didn't take the opportunity to advise them back at the start, then that's total crap. I've failed them.
I agree. But that does not mean you deny them the opportunity to take the class anyway. As long as you advise them of the situation, the final decision should be with them.
However, if they take my advanced class against my advice, and then I take it super easy on them when they skip half my assignments, do I pass them anyways? What does that say about my class? Or my judgment as a teacher?
Maybe I misspoke. I am not advocating soft-balling when the players chose to play up. If they make a poor decision to push their abilities vs. opponents that are designed to be stronger then they are supposed to handle, then they deserve what they get. Greater rewards incur greater risk. Let the chips fall where they may.
I was referring more to the players who are getting crushed when they are playing in the appropriate tier. Sometimes that is due to a GM being too optimized with the enemies and they need to learn to ease up a bit.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Daji the Fox](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9435-Daji_90.jpeg)
I guess I don't understand why soo many players are quick to blame the authors or the tier system or CR vs. APL, whatever. In my experience (somewhere around 300+ sessions of PFS), CHOOSING to play up is the #1 cause of dead characters with poor decision-making by the GM being #2.
While I'd agree that inappropriate decisions to play up are a big factor, I'd definitely put attempting to play a scenario without key roles being covered in the top two causes of character death. Maybe I'm fortunate, but I haven't seen bad choices by GMs as being a problem; in fact most of the scenarios that have led to character death (temporary or permanent) have been tables judged by GMs I'd happily play with again.
Perhaps by the time I've been at 300 tables I'll have changed my opinion; I'm still working on my first 100.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Psionic](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/57-Psionics-Maenad.jpg)
I guess I don't understand why soo many players are quick to blame the authors or the tier system or CR vs. APL, whatever. In my experience (somewhere around 300+ sessions of PFS), CHOOSING to play up is the #1 cause of dead characters with poor decision-making by the GM being #2. That is not to say the GM intentionally meant to kill a PC, just that they did not recognize the lethality of the tactics they were using.
Holy Cow, you really need to work on your GMing skills!!!
Maybe hit the GMing 101 at Paizocon or Gencon, maybe both.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![Shoanti Tribesman](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/S03_Shoanti_Hawk_Tribesman.jpg)
I've dropped bodies as a GM - Dalsine Affair.
I've paid for raise deads as a player - Ghennett Manor Gauntlet.
I've got a character who spent the money for a ring of resist energy (electricity) because every...single...attack that ever dropped him to negative was a blinking lightning bolt or shocking grasp spell.
PCs tend to die to "burst damage" effect spells or "save or suck" spells - anything that gets past the Death by Cheesegrater model.
I've also seen high tier parties with two gunslingers turn every combat encounter into a cake-walk, and I dread the day that some scenario writer puts a heal-bot cleric in charge of Ghoul Gunslingers with some sort of difficult terrain to keep them from getting rushed...
I generally avoid playing up, unless I'm the sole "low tier" character in the group - and when that happens I try to be The Flanking Buddy. My chief defense is looking less dangerous than the two other guys in your face.