...So make scenarios have a fixed difficulty and rewards and allow any level of PC to play? With the idea that low level optimizers and high level casuals can all get in?
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
...So make scenarios have a fixed difficulty and rewards and allow any level of PC to play? With the idea that low level optimizers and high level casuals can all get in?
That doesn't address the concern expressed in the podcast that low-level characters are getting ahead of the wealth curve by playing up; in fact it makes it worse, by removing the restriction on only being able to play up by one subtier.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
James, a quick question.
If your proposal allows 6th-level characters to play in a Tier 1-5 scenario, with, say, a bunch of 2nd-level compatriots, what *is* the hard level for the most powerful character that would be allowed to play? Is there? Could my 9th-level monk play in a Tier 1-5 scenario under your proposal?
Do the guys playing 2nd-level popcorn get a say in the matter? (Put another way: if a really popular player wants to play his 10th-level kitsune enchanter in a Tier 1-5 adventure, is it up to the other (maybe newbie) players at the table to force him to do something else?)
|
James, a quick question.
If your proposal allows 6th-level characters to play in a Tier 1-5 scenario, with, say, a bunch of 2nd-level compatriots, what *is* the hard level for the most powerful character that would be allowed to play? Is there? Could my 9th-level monk play in a Tier 1-5 scenario under your proposal?
The limit would be 'don't be a jerk'. This is a stop gap that the campaign already relies upon.
If the 9th level monk is *so* bad that he is actually challenged by a 5th level scenario, then you likely have problems and in any other organized campaign would have to scrap the character and start from scratch. This might not be acceptable for your situation, but there you go.
However, I would expect someone looking to bring in something like that would have a word with the DM. Consider it something 'non-standard' like playing the scenario having already judged it. We already have this in the later case, and it is on a moderated honor system. If that has not failed, then I think you can trust the players to self police a bit here.
If you have the Rog2/Sorc4/Oracle4/MT1 character that was not made optimally and has say died a few times and is as a result under wealth... you have an 11th level caster that doesn't have access to 3rd level spells. You very well might be in a scenario with level 7 characters and might still not contribute as much as the next person.
On the lower end of the extreme, you can have many characters that would otherwise fall into being unplayable. I personally would not place hard limits, but rather let the table make those calls.
What is the motivation anyway for such activity? Likely it is to ruin the fun of the other players. If a player has this motivation, then there are a myriad of ways that they can look to accomplish this. If we remove the threat of 'bad acts', and focus on how it handles under good faith, I don't see a problem. Do you?
-James
So...basically completely and utter undoable in organized play then. What one DM says okay to another may not. That is no way to play organized play. Your idea is based WAY too much on human element that is just too varied. You simple idea is the most complicated you could possible make it because it's based on human interaction and judgment...and not just one, but...umm how many play PFS again? The variables involved is astronomical...just no.
|
|
James, a quick question.
If your proposal allows 6th-level characters to play in a Tier 1-5 scenario, with, say, a bunch of 2nd-level compatriots, what *is* the hard level for the most powerful character that would be allowed to play? Is there? Could my 9th-level monk play in a Tier 1-5 scenario under your proposal?
Do the guys playing 2nd-level popcorn get a say in the matter? (Put another way: if a really popular player wants to play his 10th-level kitsune enchanter in a Tier 1-5 adventure, is it up to the other (maybe newbie) players at the table to force him to do something else?)
Chris
I try to keep a max of three level - 1-3, 2-4, etc similar how modules are done. That keeps characters closer together. Especially problematic are level 1 as they are outshone by a level 3 - so in this case I even try to have 1-2 if possible.
You notice I say 'try'. I do exemptions if I feel they aid the overall fun and are rules legal. Yes - I admit I even placed once a level 5 together with three or four level 1. This was temple of Empyrial Enlightenment. The level 5 was my daughter who is a weak player, plays laid back. The other players were a group of new players who knew each other.
It worked a treat as the group integrated her while the first 2 or even 3 hours developed into pure role play without a single fight. The level difference didn't matter. And when it finally got tough it was the overpowering level 5 who rescued the rest.
The whole party had a blast of time at the table. Important is - I checked before play and the group was okay with it.
Am I a hippocrite ?
So what do I try to say?
A) follow the rules - they are there for a reason
B) in regard to level spread - less is better
C) if the spread gets higher as I feel is good then I check if someone can swap characters or even a table
D) I also check with the player outside of range to get a feel if he can cope / turn it down
E) I check with the rest of the group if they are okay with it
Sometimes it just doesn't fit. In this case everyone needs to be flexible - the GM, the player outside the range and the group.
This is not an endorsement of playing up or down - especially not in a systematic way. Ideally you play at level. But I'm adult enough to recognize that sometimes a deviation can be to the better of everyone.
|
|
So...basically completely and utter undoable in organized play then. What one DM says okay to another may not. That is no way to play organized play. Your idea is based WAY too much on human element that is just too varied. You simple idea is the most complicated you could possible make it because it's based on human interaction and judgment...and not just one, but...umm how many play PFS again? The variables involved is astronomical...just no.Umm.. since organized play already relies upon all of these factors, your conclusion is that no one plays the game and that it currently doesn't work?
I think you're wrong here and that your opinion of the players in PFS is far too low,
-James
PS: Could you adjust the grammar? It was hard to read your post.
Wait, the current PFS is rule is the GM can pick who gets to play and who does not currently? News to me. Or are you talking about the fact that GMs have a blanket can make judgment calls on stuff not covered by the rules because no set of rules can possible cover EVERYTHING. Or maybe you mean that GM make mistakes and make bad calls sometimes. You do realize that neither of those is the same as giving how the game is played and who gets to play it into the hands of the GM even remotely the same right? The first is...well a practical matter. Second is something we ACTIVELY WANT TO AVOID. Making a system as bad as your saying and saying it's okay because this other bad thing we do not want happening happen already is a HORRIBLE reason to okay your system. With your current system, somebody could make a touch alchemist (which I admit is cheesy as all hell) and have the GM dislike it and say, no your too power, you need to play in the level 10-11 game so I can kill you off. Or even a basic wizard...just because some GM does not like them. And the GM would be 100% supported by the rules of the system for such actions. Yeah don't be a jerk fixes a lot of issues...like say the major issues of pressure to play up under current system that Mike seems pretty interested in dealing with. Since that IS AN ISSUE CURRENTLY, your assertion of well if your not a jerk, it works okay is gonna FAIL as we already have enough jerks in this community where it is an issue that reached the DEV heads.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
The upshot to all this is that playing up in 4th season is a lot deadlier than the previous seasons. With the up curve in difficulty having been creeping in each succeeding season, it still out of place in this current season compared to the ramp up between the seasons previous.
I really hate the Darkness confusion (rules and use on battlefield) and have avoided using it with my Tiefling specifically because it would screw the other party members in my team.
|
How can there be an arms race when a n11th leve fighter is luicky to have a +3 weapon and armor and one other items form the big six the cr system is built around? Right now it seems to me that mike and mark want to have almost no magic game between low gold awards and high fame requirements this is throttling what a player can buy. So even if one could play up all the time you will not have enough fame to buy high tier items
On average you have to spend 20 percent of your wealth on consumables then you have spend 5000k on raise dead at least once on average over 11 levels that makes up to25 percent of your wealth and there is no crafting to balance this. I really have not see any problem with playing by having a PC having too much money. The main problem that I have seen is experiment players dominating encounters with optimized builds.
|
|
I played Veteran's Vault and My Enemy's Enemy recently. Both were easy-minimally challenging. This was with a four and then five person table with characters that were no where near optimized. My table for My Enemy's Enemy was a 4.6 APL (three 3s and two 7s). This included a level 7 pregen.
I'm still waiting to see where this 'Season Four is too hard business' is coming from.
|
|
We played that one with two 6s and two 8s.
Does that count?
No GM ran that wrong.
|
|
I don't know about the damage. I know nothing about the creature as I haven't run the mod yet.
He did mention forgetting one of the attacks for a good chunk of the encounter but he did not forget the DR. He performs math involving it here.
The fight was rough but it didn't feel overwhelming or especially hard. We were an underleveled party using poor tactics. Even with the additional +2? damage I wouldn't qualify that encounter as 'too hard' for an actual 8-9 table.
|
|
By 'your' I assume you mean the tiefling? I wasn't raging for most of that encounter. Yes, he does have raging vitality. What buffs? The only one buffing was my sorcerer and the only buffing he did was spamming his level 1 bloodline ability.
Our less-than-ideal tactics includes the rogue and the inquisitor attacking the beasty ineffectually instead of supporting the character that can hurt it. For example, the inquisitor could have approached from an angle and healed the tiefling early, negating that extra 2 damage per attack that seem to keep coming up.
Ultimately, we were a pretty awful party for the encounter. We lacked the knowledge skills and means to overcome the DR properly. We lacked a proper tank to suck up that damage. We lacked a dedicated healer/support to mitigate the incoming damage. Despite all that, we still got through it purely with one character full attacking and another supporting with his level 1 bloodline ability.
I fail to see this (an underleveled ill-prepared group that still manages to complete the encounter/mod) as an example of season four being 'too hard'.
|
|
Feral
It would have been TPK if Ashur would have gone down round 2.
The GM did spread the damage instead of ignoring the ineffective characters and focus on the ranger/barbarian. There would have been another 54 damage on Ashur in round 2. Still - the barbarian went down to 2 HP at some stage.
Your strongest character got boosted +6/+6 attack / damage - with 4 attacks that isn't too shabby. Add in his own boosts and he was on +10 / +10.
The rogue was down and you had to take the beast out or someone would have died.
And we are not talking the extra monster attack that the GM forgot. And it seems to me the GM attacked the character with most HP left twice (out of the four attacks) to ensure the most even damage spread possible.
And a group of sorcerer, ranger/barbarian, rogue and cavalier is not unbalanced.
It is disengenius to showcase this as an example how easy season 4 is.
|
|
As I understood it, the mod author specifically included tactics to the effect of 'the monster spreads out its attacks'. Can someone verify this?
And a group of sorcerer, ranger/barbarian, rogue and cavalier is not unbalanced.
If that isn't an unbalanced party. I don't know what is.
It is disengenius to showcase this as an example how easy season 4 is.
It wasn't my choice necessarily. Napalm mentioned a group playing Fortress of the Nail up would be an example of a module that was too hard. I just happened to have played through that exact situation.
I agree. Feral your party got off easy. The GM missed several things that would have made it much harder. Not to mention those questionabley stacking boosts to STR.
I've been reading Fortress of the Nail for a few weeks. Its going to be my PFS GM debut. It was cool to read through that final fight for experience's sake. So thanks for linking.
|
|
There are no questionable stacking boosts to strength.
Touch of Rage is a morale bonus to attack and damage rolls. Rage is a morale bonus to strength. It's no different than having an enhancement bonus to strength and an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Would you suggest that a strength belt doesn't stack with a magic weapon?
Yes, the DM admitted to missing a couple of attacks and apparently his damage was off by 2 per hit. We were a poorly balanced group, using poor tactics, playing up. Things should have been challenging which they were. I'm waiting for a good example of season four being 'too hard' or hard in general.
Can someone verify the attack splitting thing? I'd like to address the claim that the DM was softballing by splitting up his attacks.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Hard stuff in Season 4...
This is for a single creature encounter in the 6-7 subtier.
Size: Large; Init: +1; Senses: darkvision 60 ft; Perception +15
AC: 24; touch: 10; Flatfooted: 23
hp: 105
Fort: +10; Ref: +15; Will: +9
Defenses: DR 10/magic
Nothing too bad here. Just something pretty tanking, but not overly so. It'll likely die in two rounds of combat.
Speed: 40 ft; Fly 60 ft.
Melee: bite +15 (1d8+6), 4 claws +15 (1d6+6/19-20), gore +15 (1d4+6)
Reach: 10 ft; Rend (1d6+6)
Well that's scary. But it gets worse when you include the creature's power attack. That gives us 6 attacks at a +12 to hit, that do dice+10 damage, not to mention the free rend on top of that. Average of 89 damage from full attacks will drop most level 6-7 characters; unless they're optimized for HP. With reach, and the fact that this guy is a construct that remains motionless until people enter his effective territory, means that he might very well be able to five foot step on his first turn and take full attacks. Now you're looking at one person dropping a round. And he's going to take probably two to drop. More if you're loosing your damage dealers each round.
Pretty rough dude all around. He's also intelligent, which means it's harder to predict his actions. I've had two out of three parties partially wipe on him (2-3 PCs dead afterwards), which lead to TPKs in the game.
This is for a creature who is supposed to ambush the PCs in the 4-5 subtier
Size: Large; Init: +2; Senses: darkvision 60 ft; Perception +0
AC: 14; touch: 11; Flatfooted: 12
hp: 77
Fort: +4; Ref: +6; Will: +9
Defenses: undead traits
Just your standard beefy undead... dragon?
Speed: 70 ft, fly 200 ft, swim 60 ft.
Melee: bite +13 (2d6+7), slam +13 (1d8+3), tail slap +8(1d8)
Reach: 5 ft (10 ft. with bite); quick strikes
Well that's a little scary. Quick strikes effectively gives him 4 attacks. So he's going to be dishing out around 33 damage a round, assuming those +13 attacks hit level 4-5 PCs. That's going to drop most non-frontliners in one round. And since he ambushes the PCs while they're investigating another room, he's coming in from the back -- right into your bank of caster/support PCs. Expect deaths. Also in the 4-5, expect people not to have enough funds to get revived if they go down.
|
Feral's DM here. I'm actually hurt by all the "disingenuous" comments without people actually looking at its tactics.
Losarkur’s loyal edavagor opens combat with its breath weapon, attempting to get as many targets as possible within the two cones. On rounds when it cannot use its breath weapon, the edavagor wades fearlessly into the largest mass of enemies it can
reach, using its size and many attacks to deal damage to as many creatures as possible each round.
DMs who play it smart are dm's who don't follow its tactics (which are easily part of its CR.)
As for the Raging Vitality issue, I don't track my PC's hps; I trust them. Because if there wasn't trust, I wouldn't bother running things for them because I don't feel like dealing with cheaters.
I'd like to get better as a GM, though I am going to follow tactics when they're given. If you all can point out the things I missed, I'd be grateful.
EDIT: I completely rebuilt the creature with the simple template (instead of the quick template), since I had the time to and that reach is a big part of his scaledown, I feel. That might be the 2 point discrepancy in damage, though I don't know if I have the files to confirm this.
|
|
You did a great job Baron, make no mistake about it.
Going outside of the pre-written tactics is a viable way to ramp up difficulty when things are too easy. Doing so unnecessarily doesn't seem representative of things being too hard.
I haven't played either of the two mods mentioned by Walter so I'm going to try really hard to not click the above spoiler blocks. =P
|
|
There are no questionable stacking boosts to strength.
Touch of Rage is a morale bonus to attack and damage rolls. Rage is a morale bonus to strength. It's no different than having an enhancement bonus to strength and an enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Would you suggest that a strength belt doesn't stack with a magic weapon?
Yes, the DM admitted to missing a couple of attacks and apparently his damage was off by 2 per hit. We were a poorly balanced group, using poor tactics, playing up. Things should have been challenging which they were. I'm waiting for a good example of season four being 'too hard' or hard in general.
Can someone verify the attack splitting thing? I'd like to address the claim that the DM was softballing by splitting up his attacks.
Confirmed on the attack splitting - the relevant tactics section reads '[the creature] wades fearlessly into the largest mass of enemies it can reach, using its size and many attacks to deal damage to as many creatures as possible each round.'
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
You did a great job Baron, make no mistake about it.
Going outside of the pre-written tactics is a viable way to ramp up difficulty when things are too easy. Doing so unnecessarily doesn't seem representative of things being too hard.
I haven't played either of the two mods mentioned by Walter so I'm going to try really hard to not click the above spoiler blocks. =P
Good man! So I'll summarize without spoiling.
Essentially, there are two creatures that deal a lot of damage per round. Around 90 in the 6-7 subtier or 33 damage a round in the 4-5 subtier. Also both critters are kind of beefy, so they'll likely get two or three full round attacks off before dying. Both fights (with their various tactics/morale/location) are ones that I can see/have seen lead to TPKs in Season 4.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My concern is that novices do not have the same access to book resources as experienced players. One of the things that drew me to Pathfinder was that I needed 2 books- the RPG and the bestiary. Now I need the APG, ultimate combat, magic and equipment to create the character. Should there be a novice track for those with less than 10 sessions?
You make it sound like you need all those books just to survive. A human archer ranger straight from the Core Rulebook is still one of the most powerful builds you can possibly make in PFS.
|
|
"Essentially, there are two creatures that deal a lot of damage per round."
I find high dpr critters easier to deal with than ones with bizarro schemes. Single high dpr monster really suffer from "oops blew my save vs the transmuter's slow and now I suck" or "There's a trip master in the group who chain trips me" or "Oops a Tetori monk just grappled me with +45 to grapple and I can't roll high enough to get away".
Basically the single uber monster suffers from lack of actions in my experience.
|
I usually prefer going against high damage monsters over ones with a trippy gimmick. For example, there's a monster in one adventure that can seriously spoil your fun if you do certain actions during the course of the scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey, I wasn't setting up any dichotomies, false or otherwise. Someone implied you couldn't survive without the extra books, and I refuted it. I guess I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, and I very well may have misinterpreted your two-word response to a post that wasn't directed at you.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
"Essentially, there are two creatures that deal a lot of damage per round."
I find high dpr critters easier to deal with than ones with bizarro schemes. Single high dpr monster really suffer from "oops blew my save vs the transmuter's slow and now I suck" or "There's a trip master in the group who chain trips me" or "Oops a Tetori monk just grappled me with +45 to grapple and I can't roll high enough to get away".
Basically the single uber monster suffers from lack of actions in my experience.
Do note that the two I listed were in level 3-7 game and a 1-5 game. The two lowest tiers of play. To expect people's builds to have already peaked at the point of "+45 to grapple" or "getting chain tripped" is a bit of an over-simplification.
Yes, single creatures suffer from action economy. However, they still consistently do enough damage to probably drop a PC of their appropriate tiers from full HP to true dead in a single round. Which is why I mentioned them as difficult encounters.
They would easily instagib a pregen that happened to be playing at the table, which is probably worth noting.
|
|
I can tell you that I have been bored out my skull at way more PFS tables than going, "OMGZ this thing is too hard!". It only takes one power build to trivialize most scenarios. There are outliers, but I've seen season 4 owned just as hard as Season 0.
Level 7 characters can have some pretty strong shenanigans in play, too.
I can't help it that Paizo's pregens can't stand up in their own scenarios sometimes. But anyone with even an average level of understanding of PFS should be able to do fine.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I can tell you that I have been bored out my skull at way more PFS tables than going, "OMGZ this thing is too hard!". It only takes one power build to trivialize most scenarios. There are outliers, but I've seen season 4 owned just as hard as Season 0.
Level 7 characters can have some pretty strong shenanigans in play, too.
I can't help it that Paizo's pregens can't stand up in their own scenarios sometimes. But anyone with even an average level of understanding of PFS should be able to do fine.
I feel like we're talking past each other here....Let me expand a bit.
You're saying they aren't difficult?
Well, I disagree. I've GM'd or played through nearly every PFS game out there, and Season 4 games have deadlier creatures, locations, and win conditions than a majority of the other scenarios out there. They are harder. I will agree that people exaggerate the difficulty quite often.
You're saying that powerful builds can defeat all encounters, no sweat?
I've ran season 4 encounters for players that I would consider to be intelligent gamers and skilled character builders. There are still encounters that have proved to be difficult or unwinnable for them. In season 4 games I've run so far I believe I have...5 or 6 TPKs and a dozen or so occasional deaths. Probably a third of those are from people who's mastery of the system matches or exceeds my own.
I think Season 4 is harder than the other Seasons -- but maybe not to the hype people sometimes claim. I do think that those two encounters were a good example of the shift upward in difficulty that Feral was asking about. Which is the only reason why I posted them.
Except a well placed Save or Ferret spell!
That's why everyone needs a Bead of Newt Prevention or two in thier pocket. :)
|
|
There is one thing I find hilarious about playing up/down. I've found a handful of scenarios where the resident big bad is actually stronger in the lower tier due to a change tactics and/or being a different mob all together.