Has PFS gone too far into "hard mode"?

[Sammy T]

Netopalis wrote:

You wouldn't walk into a scenario without a melee fighter or any sort of healing at all. Why should you expect to be able to walk into a scenario without somebody who can talk or pick locks?

Sometimes you have no control over who you sit with and what options they can (or will) play. Just this past Monday I played a Zen Archer grouped with a Musketmaster, an Arcane Archer and a GM pregen Kyra to give us a fourth for a legal table.

The Mantis' Prey:

Poor Kyra never had a chance against that Red Mantis Assassin.

[Netopalis]

Well, that's one reason that I try to build all of my characters with more than just one thing in mind. Focusing on ONLY DPS or ONLY AC or ONLY Diplomacy is a recipe for disaster. A skillful PFS player manages to cover multiple bases.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed some off-topic posts.

[godsDMit]

Edited to remove already removed post info, so the rest of my post doesnt get removed...

Anyway, on topic, I do kinda agree that some scenarios this season have gone a bit further than I would have liked to have seen them go. Even to the point where I think the combat overshadows the story for what is remembered.

Take Wrath's Shadow for example. I really liked the location, and remember beign really excited about the stuff we were finding there, but all I remember now is almost dying more than once over the course of the scenario cause the combats were so difficult. Not that I dont like it, cause it is good.

Compare that to Disappeared and Blakros Matrimony. The combats only help to emphasize the story, I think, which I really think helps make the scenarios shine.

[TriOmegaZero]

Seth Gipson wrote:

Take Wrath's Shadow for example. I really liked the location, and remember beign really excited about the stuff we were finding there, but all I remember now is almost dying more than once over the course of the scenario cause the combats were so difficult. Not that I dont like it, cause it is good.

Compare that to Disappeared and Blakros Matrimony. The combats only help to emphasize the story, I think, which I really think helps make the scenarios shine.

My experiences were reversed with Wrath's Shadow being the memorable one. I'm looking forward to rerunning The Disappeared at PaizoCon and seeing how different approaches and running in the proper tier change things.

[Renitent Rover]

Netopalis wrote:

Well, that's one reason that I try to build all of my characters with more than just one thing in mind. Focusing on ONLY DPS or ONLY AC or ONLY Diplomacy is a recipe for disaster. A skillful PFS player manages to cover multiple bases.

And when role-playing in character, a skillfull pathfinder agent wants to cover those bases as well. His organization keeps sending him out on murkily defined missions, against odds that outnumber him, and with people he's never worked with before. If the agent wants to bring his butt back alive (and has an INT and/or WIS above 8), he'll quickly realize he needs to develop the attitude of being a top tier special agent himself and use team work. By the time he's 4th or 5th level, he's had 40-50 combats under his belt. From a role-playing persepctive, he'll definitely want to optimize some to survive those...as does any real world profession that engages in like activity.

That being said, for the OP, I've only seen one player death in PFS and that was in Day of the Demon.

Spoiler:

It happened because we the party could not deal with the optional encounter's darkness beyond one scroll (which was dispelled). If any of the 6 PCs had darvision, or a damn 300gp potion of darkvision, it would have been a very different encounter. And my PC now carries a minimum of two of those on his person.

As for teamwork, it also means learning to let others do the work for the good of the group and taking a step back:

Spoiler:

Recently played through the whole Path to Perfection trilogy as well. In the final module we had two tables (1x up and 1x down). The top tier sat on the walls and shot everything as it approached, while the newbies at the lower tier went out on foot to fight the mounted attackers. At the high table, this even left 3 of the 6 PCs doing nothing for the first three waves till the owlbear appeared, but that was the common sense action taken by a veteran survivor and not a glory hound.

[Mike Mistele]

Renitent Rover wrote:

That being said, for the OP, I've only seen one player death in PFS and that was in Day of the Demon.

I can handle character deaths. Player deaths concern me greatly.

;-)

[Renitent Rover]

Just breaking up these so not to have a 1/2 screen long post:

Tier 4 is a definite improvement. At it's heart, every table-top RPG is a tactical game of how to solve X problem. Not always with combat, but danger is part of the game and what makes it entertaining. Some PCs are built along the lines of the 'reluctant participant' who is dragged into big events, but most go looking for it. Even the adventurers that don't go looking for it should quickly (in game and OOC) come to the realization that to overcome obstacles, you have to have the right skill set...and then do some level of optimization to make sure you do...as a PC hwo wants to live through the delve, and as a player who wants to contribute effectively at the table.

The CR system is NOT all encompassing, and it can't help Kyra be the front-liner when she has two archers and a musketeer as the rest of her party, The GM has some responsibility in such a lop-sided scenario of telling the players that their party composition could have problems. However the CR system is a baseline and it helps A LOT! Try to run an ongoing living campaign with 1ed or 2ed rules when no CR system existed.

As for new players and bad initial experiences; I don't imagine most new players won their first monoploy game either, and RPGs are a lot more complicated with a 1/2 dozen core rule books.

I think the devs could certainly do some earmarking on tier 1-5 scenarios to mark them as challenging or easy so that newcomers to the game could pick their level, however for the upper tiers, I would expect that most that decide to stick with it are learning from other players, the messageboards, etc, to not make such differentiation a problem.

[Renitent Rover]

Mike Mistele wrote:

Renitent Rover wrote:

That being said, for the OP, I've only seen one player death in PFS and that was in Day of the Demon.

I can handle character deaths. Player deaths concern me greatly.

;-)

Well, the GM was his dad, so I'm not sure how that went down at home!

Probably just fine, they're both good people.

Edit: And I was in no way saying your wrong, just experiences differ for a vast number of reasons. My area has a host of experienced players and GMs with a few new folks. I don't see many straight martial builds here, or full casters for that matter. I see lots of PCs that try to fill at least two roles at the table effectively with Bards, Rogue/martial multi-classes, alchemists, inquisitors, etc. If they are playing a narrowly defined role, they usually cover it completely with failsafes.

[WalterGM]

Netopalis wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'll believe Season 4 is too hard when I see it. So far, I have not seen it.

The only Season 4 game I've played in that's had me sweating every minute, with the difference between my character living or dying balancing on a razor's edge, was Fortress of the Nail.

** spoiler omitted **

Well, it's only fitting that Fortress be that difficult, given what you're doing. Personally, I am not concerned about fatalities in 5-9s and 7-11s. They happen with some frequency at those levels. In 1-5, it is a much bigger issue, as the resources simply aren't there for a single character to handle it, and having an entire party pitch in is difficult. That's why I have a Cyphermage Dilemma chronicle with -250ish GP. 1 XP and 2 PP.

Understandable. I was posting that more for TriOmegaZero's benefit, since he's been having an easier time of it ;)

[Mike Mistele]

Renitent Rover wrote:

As for new players and bad initial experiences; I don't imagine most new players won their first monoploy game either, and RPGs are a lot more complicated with a 1/2 dozen core rule books.

True enough, but if a new player's initial experience with PFS (or Pathfinder in general) is "the monsters beat the tar out of us, and we all died", for a lot of those new players, it's going to leave a bad taste in their mouths, and be a serious disincentive to try again.

[TriOmegaZero]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Understandable. I was posting that more for TriOmegaZero's benefit, since he's been having an easier time of it ;)

My group finally reached 5th level collectively, but I only had one session left before the move. I chose The Fabric of Reality instead of Fortress of the Nail. I guess if I hadn't I could have gotten my first kill as a Society GM. :)

[TetsujinOni]

Seth Gipson wrote:

Edited to remove already removed post info, so the rest of my post doesnt get removed...

Anyway, on topic, I do kinda agree that some scenarios this season have gone a bit further than I would have liked to have seen them go. Even to the point where I think the combat overshadows the story for what is remembered.

Take Wrath's Shadow for example. I really liked the location, and remember beign really excited about the stuff we were finding there, but all I remember now is almost dying more than once over the course of the scenario cause the combats were so difficult. Not that I dont like it, cause it is good.

Compare that to Disappeared and Blakros Matrimony. The combats only help to emphasize the story, I think, which I really think helps make the scenarios shine.

Funny, Wrath's Shadow was a cakewalk for my table.

The Disappeared has a combat that one of the softballed season 0-2 groups is likely going to get eaten alive by at tier 4-5, if it is run reasonably fairly. A well prepared pathfinder agent team will eat it alive, though. Well prepared, in this case, involves mostly "remembering what you learn in First Steps 1". At tier 1-2, there's still some serious threat around in the combats due to how the party is likely to split to do the Mission: Impossible game.

The majority of the risk of TPKs comes from the players at the table and the decisions they make, both in how they prepare their PC and in how they play the scenario, as long as the GM isn't cheating.

[David Bowles]

I'll admit that on the scale of character effectiveness, those towards the bottom will be suffering in season 4.

[Serum]

TetsujinOni wrote:

The Disappeared has a combat that one of the softballed season 0-2 groups is likely going to get eaten alive by at tier 4-5, if it is run reasonably fairly. A well prepared pathfinder agent team will eat it alive, though. Well prepared, in this case, involves mostly "remembering what you learn in First Steps 1". At tier 1-2, there's still some serious threat around in the combats due to how the party is likely to split to do the Mission: Impossible game.

Spoiler:

In a 4-person 4-5, two characters entered her room while the others were stuck somewhere else, accidentally sprung the trap, started swearing vociferously, then used slumber. Turned the potential mission-fail around real quick, but that didn't stop the players from sweating as they stared at the die I rolled for the Will save. The next encounter didn't go nearly as well for them.

[Sammy T]

Netopalis wrote:

Well, that's one reason that I try to build all of my characters with more than just one thing in mind. Focusing on ONLY DPS or ONLY AC or ONLY Diplomacy is a recipe for disaster. A skillful PFS player manages to cover multiple bases.

Which brings us back to the point that you can only do so much as an individual in a team environment. You cannot control who you sit with, what they play and how well they play it.

This is the character I played at the previously mentioned 3 ranged, 1 pregen cleric table.

My Zen Archer 6/Inquisitor 1:

Offensively: Can spend a ki point and flurry for 4 shots/round with Deadly Aim and Point Blank shot at +12/+12/+12/+7 for 1d8+10. AND I can Perfect Strike on the last shot.

Defensively: AC 20. AC 27 with Barkskin and Mage Armor. AC 34 if I fight defensively and spend a Ki Point. Also, due to Point Blank Master I can wade into combat and set up flanks and not worry about triggering AOOs.

Saves: My saves are +9 Fort, +8 Ref and +14 Will...and with Steel Soul I get an additional +4 if it's a spell or spell-like ability.

Socially: Diplomacy & Bluff +19. Sense motive +12.

Utility: Perception +16, Disable Device +17, Survival +12, Heal +10.

Selected Gear: Alchemist Fire, Liquid Ice, Holy Water, Arrows and Blanches for all DRs, Oil of Bless Weapon, Potion of Air Bubble, Potion of Fly, Oil of Daylight, Potion of Remove Blindness/Deafness, Elixir of Spirit Sight (and, yes, I own the book for it).

I built a character that can bring the hurt, AC tank (as an archer), be the party face AND a poor man's rogue. I have a slowly-growing potion supply to deal with specific situations. This guy is unashamedly optimized for S4 (and beyond) play but...

...as I said back on page 3, "The one negative thing I think S4 has done, for me personally, is that it has made me worry about the capabilities of other characters at the table--no matter how well I build my character it's still a group endeavor. S1-S3 scenarios: I'm not too worried who I sit with. S4 scenarios: I definitely size up the abilities of both the players and their characters I game with...and I don't want to do that."

I played the upper tier of Day of the Demon at a con this past weekend. Party of 6, with one L4 barbarian playing up. The other L7 barbarian we had? 2 encounters in we realized he didn't know if he had a magic weapon or not. His chronicles were a hot mess and he was sitting on like 30K unspent gold. Luckily, someone found a chronicle showing the barbarian had bought 2 magic weapons.

In a situation like that, where your table is basically down 2 players as one is a martial character playing up and the other is a martial character is not geared for tier, no matter how well-built and geared your individual character is, if the remaining players aren't at least competent or their characters effective you are in deep trouble in S4...and you have no control over what they're bringing to the table, how well they are built or how skillfully they are played.

And Irori forbid if that table had been a 5- or 4-person game...

I don't envy the writers trying to balance scenarios. I do like the idea of built in options ("dials" for lack of a better term) that lets GMs, outside of NPC tactics, adjust the difficulty as needed:

"If the party is struggling with DR, they find a Cold Iron melee weapon in the treasure cache. The specific weapon is left to the GM's discretion."

"If the party has high melee DPR, add one additional minion to slow them down."

etc.

[N N 959]

calagnar wrote:

The problem is not at the lower levels of play. Non-optimizer, casual player, and the new player have few problems pre mid levels. The problems only come to the surface when you start getting to the mid levels and the game starts to change. When this happens the new player gets left behind as it is new to them. At higher level play the game changes again. This change is the most dramatic. It removed most of the effective tactics from the lower levels due to spells going off all the time. Along with making some ability's really shine most of them have not ben used much up till now. This is where the casual player drops off as they know what to expect but are unprepared to take care of the problem.

You have to do some optimization to be effective at levels 9+. If you don't you will see a drastic drop in your characters effectiveness. The level of optimization needed is low. If you are not prepared for how the game changes there is no way to prepare for it. So there is no easy fix for new players. The only way for them to bypass a lot of the build mistakes. Is to discus there character creation with a experienced player that is good at building characters. So they can help point the new player in the right direction.

Optimization is not bad. It is needed for Pathfinder be it for a home game, or PFSP. None optimized characters don't last long. As they are unable to preform the job they player made them for.

Excellent insight. This is a fascinating topic for me. I think your observations are spot on and I believe it is intrinsic to the build method in the ruleset. Let me see if I can expand on this.

Back in D&D 1e. You had no build options unless you were a spell caster. And even then the DM determined what spells you had available to you. This made it easier for a game designer to anticipate the abilities of the characters that might play a module. Magic items and spells were still wildcards, but you knew what the Fighter, or Ranger, or Paladin was capable of as a baseline.

With 3.5/PFS and the proliferation of source material, the range of character efficacy has become very broad. You couldn't make a "gimp" Paladin in 1e unless you rolled a 1 for HP's every time. You certainly can build a gimp a character in 3.5 and PFS because there aren't even stat requirements to make a Paladin. A player could be running around with a 7 STR, 7 CHA 7 WIS 7 CON Paladin with 18 dex in Hide Armor using a sap as his main weapon with Acrobatic and Athlete for 1st level feats. Probably doesn't happen, but the point is any player could be anywhere along the spectrum of efficacy (and that's assuming there was some standard about what makes a character effective).

As you've observed, low levels aren't the problem. Higher levels are. The reason seems self-evident. The more options characters have, the more variability you will have in character efficacy. What's more, the feats/spells/traits/weapon build options can create resonances or convergences in efficacy. Some people call this a sweet spot. It's basically places where the character tools seem to have a multiplicative benefit.

So the very nature of the 3.5/PF ruleset gives rise to these problems. One way to mitigate this problem is to come up with broad metrics for measuring party effectiveness e.g. Max damage per round, max damage in melee, max at range, max damage to 2 or more targets, highest DC needed to resist a save or suck spell for the NPC, highest modifier for a Diplomacy (or other skill check), Highest armor class of the party, lowest armor class of the party, number of animal companions, etc.

There would need to be a quick and easy method to ball park groups and then have the scenrios adjust based on that instead of party size or level. But it would never be perfect and it would cost more to implement. Giving more discretion to GM's wouldn't make it perfect either, it might make it worse.

[N N 959]

Dennis Baker wrote:

I don't see how you can have a system where it's challenging for a typical group and survivable for a "sub-optimal" group.

The simple answer is you cannot. Even more to the point, it's not about challenge, it's about what constitutes something as personal and nebulous as "fun."

My advice to any artist...create something you would enjoy. If you worry too much about trying to make everyone else happy, you're probably not going to make anyone happy, not even yourself.

[Alexander_Damocles]

Brett Cochran wrote:

Speaking from the GM perspective, I have always found it easy to make tactical adjustments or NPC choices to adjust an encounter from deadly to epic or memorable.

I could be wrong, but I believe that doing so is strictly prohibited. I agree, I *could* make a scenario easier or harder. But the guide says I am not allowed to, and that I need to follow the tactics block. If we don't run the listed tactics, then we can't compare experiences.

[BigNorseWolf]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Brett Cochran wrote:

Speaking from the GM perspective, I have always found it easy to make tactical adjustments or NPC choices to adjust an encounter from deadly to epic or memorable.

I could be wrong, but I believe that doing so is strictly prohibited. I agree, I *could* make a scenario easier or harder. But the guide says I am not allowed to, and that I need to follow the tactics block. If we don't run the listed tactics, then we can't compare experiences.

The listed tactics are hardly exhaustive or cookie cutter, there's a lot of room there to work with.

[Netopalis]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Brett Cochran wrote:

Speaking from the GM perspective, I have always found it easy to make tactical adjustments or NPC choices to adjust an encounter from deadly to epic or memorable.

I could be wrong, but I believe that doing so is strictly prohibited. I agree, I *could* make a scenario easier or harder. But the guide says I am not allowed to, and that I need to follow the tactics block. If we don't run the listed tactics, then we can't compare experiences.

The guide explicitly authorizes using less deadly tactics than those listed if necessary.

[james maissen]

TetsujinOni wrote:

Your concept of let everyone choose their challenge level and advance at the 1xp/adventure-3xp/level rate would make this capability-check even worse when you present things which ARE supposed to be major challenges, like Runecarved Key or Blood under Absalom.

What is a major challenge to one person is overwhelming to another and underwhelming to yet another still.

Trying to get all 3 together to enjoy the same game will mandate a bit of a change in thought, however.

You can either say that two of them are doing it wrong and must change, in which case you need to pick which two. In this case that choice seems to be changing, and that's what you're experiencing here. You can hear those saying diverging responses as a testament to that.

Instead of telling two of them that they are playing wrong, you can let them all play together. To do that, you will want their characters to be at different points in their careers. That way they all can be appropriately challenged without one being overwhelmed while another is left still wanting.

-James

[TriOmegaZero]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Brett Cochran wrote:

Speaking from the GM perspective, I have always found it easy to make tactical adjustments or NPC choices to adjust an encounter from deadly to epic or memorable.

I could be wrong, but I believe that doing so is strictly prohibited. I agree, I *could* make a scenario easier or harder. But the guide says I am not allowed to, and that I need to follow the tactics block. If we don't run the listed tactics, then we can't compare experiences.

The listed tactics are hardly exhaustive or cookie cutter, there's a lot of room there to work with.

Indeed, I avoided killing a PC in Fabric of Reality simply by having the final boss turn its attentions to the fresh summon that had just attacked it. Was that out of line?

[TetsujinOni]

james maissen wrote:

TetsujinOni wrote:

Your concept of let everyone choose their challenge level and advance at the 1xp/adventure-3xp/level rate would make this capability-check even worse when you present things which ARE supposed to be major challenges, like Runecarved Key or Blood under Absalom.

Instead of telling two of them that they are playing wrong, you can let them all play together. To do that, you will want their characters to be at different points in their careers. That way they all can be appropriately challenged without one being overwhelmed while another is left still wanting.

-James

The fact that different people perceive a given challenge differently is not a bug in the campaign or encounter design.

There does not seem to be a mandate for the change in thought you are suggesting.

I can say that NONE of them is doing it wrong - the one who is overwhelmed may be able to lead the charge in a different encounter. The one who is underwhelmed is likely challenged appropriately by a differently designed similar CR encounter.

This is the reason this is a team activity, and becomes more pronounced as levels advance.

This is also a feature, not a bug.

[thaX]

TetsujinOni wrote:

thaX wrote:

I have only one thing to add....

King of the Stoval Stairs needs to be retired!!

End of Line...

thaX: Based on your contentless assertion regarding it - I think the party you played with has more fault than the scenario.

King of the Storval Stairs is definitely balanced to "hard mode". No question. It is beatable - handily, even - by a party that is prepared to engage combats for its tier.

Many PFS groups do not appear to be able to play at-tier for CR8+ encounters.

I hope to have an easier time losing the bad things in Storval Stairs this GenCon after people have been educated through Season 4 on How Things Change between First Steps (A THF hitting hard autokills everything!) and the Storval Stairs.

I played it at Gen Con, good sir!!

It was with a fellow Indie gamer and a very well done ranger.

After the battle with the fliers that pepper characters from well above and a dead Ranger, we hid, turned invis, and otherwise tried to do what we could. A bard... (B.A.R.D.!!!) had the things, after a time, regulated into non-combatents, then Mommy came.

We ran after that. Keep in mind, the GM actually had a hard time with all the games he ran with it, having three TPK's in the con.

It is as bad as the Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch. It can even be said to be worse.

[Drogon]

thaX wrote:

It is as bad as the Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch. It can even be said to be worse.

O.o

Are you saying Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch was a TPK scenario? Huh. I wonder what the hell I played that day, then...

[james maissen]

TetsujinOni wrote:

There does not seem to be a mandate for the change in thought you are suggesting.

No, it seems as if they are yet still trying to find that mythical sweet spot where everyone is happy with the challenge presented to them.

Yet you can see in this very thread that this is simply not possible.

People don't have their characters advance at the same pace as others. This too is not a bug.

The bug is when you ignore that this is the case.

-James

[Netopalis]

Drogon wrote:

thaX wrote:

It is as bad as the Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch. It can even be said to be worse.

O.o

Are you saying Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch was a TPK scenario? Huh. I wonder what the hell I played that day, then...

The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch:

In addition to being a terrible scenario, this can end in a TPK in two spots - if the party uses fire in the spice refinery or if the party can't seem to deal with the loss of their weapons/magic in the Secure Market. For many parties, it's no big deal, and monks laugh the whole thing off. Additionally, many GMs neglect to mention the makeshift weapons which can be used. Note that this is generally only a TPK for Tier 1-2, and usually even level 2s are OK.

[Cold Napalm]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Understandable. I was posting that more for TriOmegaZero's benefit, since he's been having an easier time of it ;)

My group finally reached 5th level collectively, but I only had one session left before the move. I chose The Fabric of Reality instead of Fortress of the Nail. I guess if I hadn't I could have gotten my first kill as a Society GM. :)

Only if they played in tier 8-9. The 5-6 didn't seem that bad from what I saw of it after running the 8-9 with my level 5 (that was fun). The 8-9 is pretty dang brutal tho if you don't have a good full caster around.

[thaX]

Lets see... Items that spawn creatures that is well above the groups CR, with Trample and ....

Yeah, it is a killer when it goes wrong.

[TetsujinOni]

james maissen wrote:

TetsujinOni wrote:

There does not seem to be a mandate for the change in thought you are suggesting.

No, it seems as if they are yet still trying to find that mythical sweet spot where everyone is happy with the challenge presented to them.

Yet you can see in this very thread that this is simply not possible.

People don't have their characters advance at the same pace as others. This too is not a bug.

The bug is when you ignore that this is the case.

-James

Unrealistically low expectation of challenge was the bug. The bug is currently fairly 'fixed' in that it reflects CRs appropriate to the common table sizes reported to campaign leadership.

I hear your view. I understand your view. I am not ignoring your view. I think your view is wrong for PFRPG in the long run.

Fortunately, MJM get to decide how to apply either of our viewpoints to the campaign, not either of us, eh?

[Cold Napalm]

thaX wrote:

Lets see... Items that spawn creatures that is well above the groups CR, with Trample and ....

Yeah, it is a killer when it goes wrong.

Considering that CR of your APL is considered an average encounter, challenging encounters should be APL+2 and boss fights APL+4...I don't see an issue with something above your APL. With the current assumption that the table size is 6, your APL is at +1 to boot. So a party of level 4 in a current 4-5 game should expect the boss fights to be CR 9-10. The problem is that the encounters tend to be built with one VERY large critter with almost no mooks. The scenerios needs to be written more like the AP encounters where you have valid mook threats on top of the boss. That will lead to a lot less, round one, somebody dies scenario. A lot less it was a cakewalk scenario too (because a lucky SoS/SoD or one of the no save I win combos make thinks pretty dang anti-climatic).

[thaX]

1D6 creatures though? Really?

[Jason S]

Sammy T wrote:

My Zen Archer 6/Inquisitor 1:

I built a character that can bring the hurt, AC tank (as an archer), be the party face AND a poor man's rogue. I have a slowly-growing potion supply to deal with specific situations. This guy is unashamedly optimized for S4 (and beyond) play but...

I just want to point out your character (and most Zen archer builds) are really twink. The problem with it, is that some players consider these builds "optimized" meaning that almost every other build doesn't stack up.

I don't think builds like that should be setting the standard for PFS play in any way. It either challenges your PC or kills most others.

[David Bowles]

That's why each scenario needs risk factor as well as a tier. One size fits all is beginning to unravel I think.

[Jason S]

I'd like to add a "risk factor" to scenarios as well, if possible.

However, I think it would be really hard to do.

One of the problems is that the subtiers are often so radically different, you can't make a risk factor the entire scenario. For example, King of the Storval Stairs is a fun time at subtier 7-8, but at subtier 10-11 it's twice as deadly. How would you rate that? I guess by the most challenging subtier? When someone makes a rating, does that mean the author/developer needs to increase/decrease the challenge level so it's more in-line with the challenge level of the subtier that the rating is based on?

Also, the rating is completely biased of course. You'd have to find someone to rate the scenarios that's "the middle of the road" as far as PC optimization goes (or is aware of her bias).

This would take more development time from Paizo, which I don't think they have. They'd have to enlist volunteers if they wanted this to happen I think. Even if they had great volunteers, I'm not sure they have the time to add another step into the process. It would be nice though.

[Netopalis]

How about a community-based, informal difficulty rating system that would provide difficulty levels for each tier?

[godsDMit]

Netopalis wrote:

How about a community-based, informal difficulty rating system that would provide difficulty levels for each tier?

That would be kinda cool. I dont know how well it would work on these forums since it couldnt be constantly updated, unless a Paizo employee did it for us.

If this did work, this would be a way to do those spoiler type tags (heavy RP, heavy combat, puzzles, etc) that someone suggested be added to scenarios awhile back.

[Netopalis]

Seth Gipson wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

How about a community-based, informal difficulty rating system that would provide difficulty levels for each tier?

That would be kinda cool. I dont know how well it would work on these forums since it couldnt be constantly updated, unless a Paizo employee did it for us.

If this did work, this would be a way to do those spoiler type tags (heavy RP, heavy combat, puzzles, etc) that someone suggested be added to scenarios awhile back.

I was actually thinking of an off-site Google Doc, much like the GM resources database. It would have, in the backend, a form and a spreadsheet. I'd be willing to set something up if there's interest.

[Drogon]

Netopalis wrote:

Seth Gipson wrote:

Netopalis wrote:

How about a community-based, informal difficulty rating system that would provide difficulty levels for each tier?

That would be kinda cool. I dont know how well it would work on these forums since it couldnt be constantly updated, unless a Paizo employee did it for us.

If this did work, this would be a way to do those spoiler type tags (heavy RP, heavy combat, puzzles, etc) that someone suggested be added to scenarios awhile back.

I was actually thinking of an off-site Google Doc, much like the GM resources database. It would have, in the backend, a form and a spreadsheet. I'd be willing to set something up if there's interest.

Why don't you get together with PFCBG and get it placed on the GM resource page?

Or would that keep players from seeing it? Is that a goal? Not sure, here...