|
Last night I opted to to not play a game of Way of the Kirin because we had seven players. I'm fine with that; I value the enjoyment of a game rather than the quantity of games played. However, we also had a second GM available and could have split to a table of four and a table of three plus NPC. What I found interesting was that I realized I didn't care to do this either; the short-handed season four mods I've played so do make me leary of doing so again. I don't think the adjustments for four players are sufficient.
So, I might just be picky, but I'm finding myself wondering if the Season Four six player assumption hasn't reincarnated the seven player problem. Anyone of like mind or am I just over thinking things into being a wimp.
|
It really depends on the players, and how well made there characters are. There are tables that will walk though even season 4 scenarios. There are tables that have a lot of trouble with even easy scenarios.
There are players that I will not play up with. There are players that I want to play up because there at the table.
|
It is Amazing how peoples experience may vary...
This is how it works in my Experience for season 4 scenarios..
3-4 players - I have found that the reduction of the encounters to accommodate 4 player tables neuters the encounters making them more then easy for a 3 player table with Kyra or a 4 player table. If you want easy this in my experience is the sweet spot.
5 Players - This is where I have seen the tables have the most problems and the most deaths. You have the difficulty of a 6 player table but not the 6 players. If you want hard this in my experience is the sweet spot.
6 Player Tables - Though not always easy I have seen some difficulty here. Most of the time players are able to pull through in exciting encounters. As a player and a GM I enjoy this size table the most. If you want just right this in my experience is the sweet spot.
7 Player Tables - I have no experience with 7 player tables in season 4, we don't allow them at our local games and that has been the same at all the conventions I go to.
|
|
It really depends on the players, and how well made there characters are. There are tables that will walk though even season 4 scenarios. There are tables that have a lot of trouble with even easy scenarios.
There are players that I will not play up with. There are players that I want to play up because there at the table.
This. I just GMd a party with an APL of 9 through a 7-11 scenario on the lower tier. It was a mistake, they should have played up -- not because of the two level 11 characters, but because of the level 8 dragoon/gendarme who makes things explode. The horseman's player has a history of making ridiculously broken characters and I knew this specific character is very, very broken, so I should have made them play up, but eh. The scenario was, fortunately, still fun. The combats were just made pointless by this single character.
The sweet spot really depends very much on the party makeup, how well the players know each others' characters (and their abilities, gear, and so on), how well the characters know each other, and the scenario being played. I played one Season 4 scenario recently with five players, and it went downhill fast, partially due to terrible rolls when it counted (my scout type rolling a 1 means it doesn't help that his Stealth is +21 at level 6) and partially due to the party not knowing everyone's tricks ("what do you mean your body, which is laying next to the monster, has an arrow-catching shield on it"). I'm GMing it next week with (hopefully) six players and roughly the same APL, so I'm interested to see if they'll hit the sweet spot instead of dying horribly.
|
|
There is a huge difference in tire 6-7 compared to 3-4. I have DM this scenario. I'm more surprised if the DM ran the option ya'll lived though it.
In tire 3-4 it's two CR 5 Oni. Vs. Tire 6-7 where is it one CR 8 Orger Magi. As the Orger Magi can cast invisibility at will stay hidden for a few rounds fast heal up and then start attacking again. With his fast heal of 5 it will only take 2 to 4 rounds to heal up any damage you do to him.
|
I agree, however I really think it depends on group make-up. Depending on the degree of optimization and/or synergy, a group of 4 players can make even playing up seem trivial. However that assumes some system mastery. I have had more close calls with 4 person groups playing at tier where 2 players didn't have a firm grip on their character's ability, then in 5 person groups playing up.
|
There is a huge difference in tire 6-7 compared to 3-4. I have DM this scenario. I'm more surprised if the DM ran the option ya'll lived though it.
** spoiler omitted **
See Invisibility
Invisibility Purge
Glitterdust
Seeking
Blind-fight
Of all those, only Seeking might not be easily accessible, since that is a +2 enhanced ranged weapon.
Area effect attacks, especially ones that shut down Fast Healing, like a fireball if it isn't immune to fire...
For a party that is ready for this kind of thing, it can go down fast, even if invisible.
|
I was the level 7 ninja in that game with bigdaddyjug. The other ninja was ninja 6/sorcerer 1, so it was two 7s, a 6, and a 5.
The optional encounter hit us hard. Cone of cold off the bat. The ninja that was killed did manage to get a sneak attack in before he dropped, and bigdaddyjug's inquisitor did a lot of damage quickly due to bane and rapid shot. I forget which one of us dropped it. I think maybe the rogue got a flank/sneak attack off while I became the target. Either way, we dropped it before it could go invisible again. I think the inquisitor has see invisibility, and my ninja carries powder, but it wouldn't have been great if he'd disappeared again. I was more afraid it might have another cone of cold. That could have dropped us all.
In the final fight, the inquisitor again did the most damage. The rogue went negative, but not dead. I managed to get a sneak attack off to drop the main enemy. I think that was the sequence. The tactics of the alchemists in that fight worked in our favor. Smoke cloud? So the oracle gets a 20% miss chance, and I can stealth? And I have shadow strike. It turned into a much easier fight than the optional encounter.
Without having looked at how the scaling works on this one, I think it was a little better than a lot of season 4 scaling. In some of the early scenarios, scaling down only means removing one or two of the minions, and the BBEG doesn't change. That can sometimes spell death for a 4 member party, since the minions aren't usually the problem.
And yes. At level 5, have some way to deal with invisibility. Or flying. Or darkness.
|
|
Also, 7 player tables tend to turn even some Season 4 scenarios into easy scenarios. My general rules of thumb for Season 4 are:
4 player table - Play in-tier. If you fall between tiers, play down. Never play up unless half the group or more is in-tier.
5 player table - Avoid it if possible. When not, play in-tier. Play up at your own risk. It depends a lot on what that fifth character is. If you're throwing a tier-appropriate Kyra on or a 5th character in-tier in general, you'll probably be ok. If you're adding a 5th character that's between tiers or playing up from low-tier, they may not compensate for the increase in difficulty.
6 player table - Consider playing up if 4 players are in tier or 3 players in tier and 1 between tier. But only if your low-tier players are experienced and ok with the possibility of dying from an area effect spell or unlucky hit. Do not play up if you only have one player in-tier who is pushing the APL up.
7 player table - Avoid it if possible, but if 4-5 players are in-tier, you should be fine to play high tier, since in theory 5 PCs in-tier should be able to handle the scenario by themselves.
On scenarios with a reputation as easy or hard, adjust accordingly.
So, to me, 4 player or 6 player are comparable. 4 can be tough depending on how the scaling works, so 6 is probably more "ideal" from a balance standpoint. But it's been my experience 4 player tables allow each character to shine more, and I like a challenge.
|
5 players is fun, because you get 6 player scaling but only have 5 PCs, putting it at a pretty fair level for the monsters, however it also depends on the average optimisation of each PC
What kind of crazy powergamers are you playing with, to find the 5-player "number-of-death" season 4 scenarios, "a pretty fair level for the monsters"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The beauty of a 3 or 4 player table vs a 6 or 7 player table is that each player is more likely to play their part. This is true for both PFS and any regular campaign.
It is incredibly easy for characters/players at a 6 player table to be overlooked; what I usually see happening works like this:
- 1 (or 2) "leaders"
- 1 (or 2-3) "followers", who have some input where they can
- 2 (or 3-4) "stragglers", who go with the flow, providing input only when necessary
I've been in all 3 roles, and I can tell you that being a straggler is always less fun than being a leader or a follower, but it's not usually the fault of a straggler in having less decisions - it's just that those decisions are already being made, so there's nothing left that needs doing.
This is a big trap where veteran players try to get newbies involved but end up taking on the leader roles and newbies are accidentally forced into being stragglers. What we want to be doing is training newbies into being able to become leaders.
Slightly related, in long running campaigns, having less players means those players are more likely to stick around for the long-term, and more likely that all of the players will end up being (or rotating between being) leaders and followers.