Well, my party failed to bring Horgus around with diplomacy and he left shortly after the abandoned temple. I'm trying to decide if I should give them another shot at him even though it will take some really good diplomacy rolls, the question is just how important is Horgus in the future.
I've gotten my Sword of Valor pdf and it looks like he's helpful but you can live without him.
I know the AP assumes he is around to help but do you think future books will be able to be done without him as well?
Thanks for your input.
You can live without him, but things will be harder for the PC's. Their interactions with the NPC's do matter, without destroying the AP storyline.
Which, by the way, is an almost ideal way to do things with important NPC's in my opinion. Very good work by Paizo on integrating the NPC's without them just being luggage to be taken care of. I'd still like their storylines to be expanded a bit more than they are (so far) after the first module, but that can be done by the GM, too.
Horgus is as important as you want him to be :)
Okay, here's what I'd do in this circumstance.
If the party successfully gets Horgus back and negotiated for him, have Horgus end up now neutral diplomatically, and maybe even Friendly depending on what they say to him after they recover him. After all, if they successfully negotiated for him and aren't dismissive of him then that should help. If they browbeat him afterward, he should go back down to Unfriendly (but not Hostile, not yet).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to steal a line from the Baldurs gate PC game:
"Don't touch me! I'm super important!"
Horgus is as important as all the NPCs, pretty much. Not necessarily in combat, but to the overall story, all the NPCs have important roles to play in supporting the PCs in future adventures.
James,
Thanks very much for your input this is what I needed to know.
From what I've seen in reading part 1 of Sword of Valor they can live without him but it would be much easier with him. I'm going to give them another chance I think.
Tangent,
Thanks for the advice great idea, wish I had thought of it. Unfortunately, Horgus' first chance to run away was when they were fighting the darkmantles and we ended for the night right after killing the mad dwarf.
I'm thinking somehow Horgus snuck by the dwarf and the "mole people" and will now be encountered stuck halfway down the crevice they have to cross. That will give them a chance to save him to give a bonus on the Diplomacy saves as to beat the DC 24 the best diplomat has to roll 18+.
We'll see how it goes tomorrow ( we play every other Sunday)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Horgus is as important as all the NPCs, pretty much. Not necessarily in combat, but to the overall story, all the NPCs have important roles to play in supporting the PCs in future adventures.James,
Thanks very much for your input this is what I needed to know.
From what I've seen in reading part 1 of Sword of Valor they can live without him but it would be much easier with him. I'm going to give them another chance I think.
Tangent,
Thanks for the advice great idea, wish I had thought of it. Unfortunately, Horgus' first chance to run away was when they were fighting the darkmantles and we ended for the night right after killing the mad dwarf.
I'm thinking somehow Horgus snuck by the dwarf and the "mole people" and will now be encountered stuck halfway down the crevice they have to cross. That will give them a chance to save him to give a bonus on the Diplomacy saves as to beat the DC 24 the best diplomat has to roll 18+.
We'll see how it goes tomorrow ( we play every other Sunday)
Well my party now has Horgus back.
Since I have 5 in the party I decided to throw in 2 "random" encounters from the list. I had 5 dire rats running down the corridor "chasing" Horgus.
The tiefling paladin let Horgus by but the aasimir ranger behind him just couldn't let him pass and stuck a foot out and tripped him (that player seems to have issues with any annoying NPCs as I've seen him react poorly to them in the past.) The catfolk rogue came out tops in the initiative and when she saw rats the first thing that came into her mind was "Oh something to play with", walked up 25 feet, critted on claw attack, with her sneak attack damage she did 15 points on a 5 hp creature. Next the paladin walked past her and critted the next one in line. The ranger couldn't hit with his bow, the elven wizard used his bow to hit the 3rd one and killed it. Every single one was killed by a crit or a one shot bow hit from the wizard. I explained this as them being more afraid of what was behind them, the dire bat!
Horgus actually thanked them for saving him so I gave the party a +5 bonus on the diplomacy check for him. I also changed the way I did it. Instead of having several different characters tying to make a check, I had 1 try and any who wanted to help make an aid another check. The ranger didn't want to try so there were 3 successful aid another checks and a 12 rolled on the die. So with the characters +6 and the +6 from aids and the +5 bonus they moved Horgus from hostile to indifferent.
We ended the night hitting level 2 just as we're ready to enter part 2.
So, I'm currently running two tables of this. One table, everyone is playing nice and trying to help the NPCs.
The other table is the exact opposite. Two of the characters (not the players) are a little rougher and of the type that they don't put up with anything. They've had a few spats with Horgus, threatened him, intimidated him, pulled weapons on him and the like. So, naturally, Horgus responded in kind by hurling vile words and slander at them. Their response? They just pulled weapons and attacked the man. In surprise attacks they just took him to -1 hp. Yeah. That's definitely going to come back and bite them in the long run. Big time, as now Anevia and Aravashnial aren't going to want to be around them (unless some intense and amazing diplomacy is used). No way they're getting Horgus back, now.
It's funny, early on the party detested Horgus (but still managed to keep him alive and mostly happy). Now that he left the party, they're remarking he was one of their favorites and he is still coming up in conversation and remarks rather often. I guess he sort of grows on you. ;P
Horgus is as important as all the NPCs, pretty much. Not necessarily in combat, but to the overall story, all the NPCs have important roles to play in supporting the PCs in future adventures.
I find this confusing. During my initial read-through I noted that there seemed to be many opportunities for one of the NPC's - particularly Horgus - to wander off (or storm off) on their own and end up dead. That's all well and good but it seemed to signal that they were unlikely to have important roles to play long term if they can so easily become lost so early on.
When you say 'important roles', do you mean the sort of roles that they HAVE to be around for that are central to the plot, or do you simply mean that they are a potential asset that the PC's might find valuable, like a magic weapon or spellbook that could easily go overlooked. I don't want to make any seemingly minor changes early only to have them come back and bite me down the road because I mistook the author's intent.
I believe in the past - and I could be wrong about this - that certain NPC's who were important to the story had little warnings attatched to them so that, even if they wouldn't know exactly why, GM's would be sure to know that they shouldn't be arbitrarily killed or written out of the story.
I'd say it's because the NPCs are "human" and thus apt to do more than just cluster like a rhemoraz safely under the shark-PC's flippers. If the PCs fail to effectively use their Diplomacy then the NPCs risk leaving. That said, I think any GM that chooses this path should allow one of the PCs to notice the NPC leaving and give an opportunity to stop it... and a private roleplaying diplomacy option to try and stop this.
So it's up to the GMs. And let's be honest: the fine folks at Paizo have stated "it's best to wait for the entire AP to be released before running it" on more than one occasion. :)
James already said that losing one of the NPC's won't be crippling to the story, but that each of them who survives and is helpful to the party will contribute in future installments of the AP.
Now I am imagining how the party drags a terrified Horgus with them into the Abyss. "We need you, you are much too useful!". :p
Creative Director
|
Horgus is as important as all the NPCs, pretty much. Not necessarily in combat, but to the overall story, all the NPCs have important roles to play in supporting the PCs in future adventures.I find this confusing. During my initial read-through I noted that there seemed to be many opportunities for one of the NPC's - particularly Horgus - to wander off (or storm off) on their own and end up dead. That's all well and good but it seemed to signal that they were unlikely to have important roles to play long term if they can so easily become lost so early on.
When you say 'important roles', do you mean the sort of roles that they HAVE to be around for that are central to the plot, or do you simply mean that they are a potential asset that the PC's might find valuable, like a magic weapon or spellbook that could easily go overlooked. I don't want to make any seemingly minor changes early only to have them come back and bite me down the road because I mistook the author's intent.
I believe in the past - and I could be wrong about this - that certain NPC's who were important to the story had little warnings attatched to them so that, even if they wouldn't know exactly why, GM's would be sure to know that they shouldn't be arbitrarily killed or written out of the story.
One of the INTENTIONAL challenges that we want to face the PCs with in their interactions with the 3 NPCs is keeping them alive. There's lots of ways we do that, and one of them is that now and then, some of them make some pretty bad and foolish and ultimately life threatening decisions. MOST of those are on Horgus, because unlike the other two (who are both physically wounded), Horgus is pretty unhinged and frightened by the events. He's got mental and emotional wounds, but is pretty hale and fit physically. That's why he does things like storm off from the party. Furthermore, by making him the least agreeable and most argumentative and unpleasant of the 3, we try to set up a situation where some folks might just say "Fine... he's a jerk... LET him wander off!" That's 100% intentional, because it's one of many ways the campaign tests the inherent goodness of the party. A good party turns the proverbial other cheek and deals with his bad attitude and keeps him safe and eventually makes him into a friend once he finally starts to trust them... and if the good party does so, they will be rewarded several times as the campaign progresses.
It's HARDER to be nice to Horgus and keep him alive than it is to let him go into the dark to get killed or lost, and that's why there's XP awards and other rewards for rescuing him despite himself.
When I say "Important Roles" I mean that these NPCs have built-in roles to play in the upcoming books, as both sources of boons and aid to the PCs, and as in continuing story elements that the GM can use to make the whole campaign feel more alive. With a few exceptions (mostly related to Galfrey and Arueshalae) the adventures themselves do not ASSUME that any of the NPCs still live or are even allied with the PCs... but if they are, the story is richer and the PCs get more help. The inside front covers of each volume will continue to provide a few hints on how, and as it becomes appropriate in the adventures themselves, the text of the adventure will expand on that.
In the past, important NPCs to the AP were not indicated well as such at the start, so GMs who ran an AP without having full access to the entire run did indeed have a chance of putting themselves in a confusing situation.
For Wrath of the Righteous, we combat that in 2 ways:
1) Being obvious and up front, literally (inside front cover literally), about which NPC allies figure prominent roles, so that the GM knows which 8 he should be watching out for as soon as he opens the book.
2) Building the AP so that as few as possible key plot points beyond the adventures in which the NPCs first appear exist, so that if an NPC dies or is lost early, it's relatively easy and painless to adjust future events to come.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, let me say that I am very happy that you guys heeded the feedback from (for example) Jade Regent and included those minor story arcs for the NPC's. From what I've seen from the first two modules, this AP is rife with great roleplaying opportunities for the entrepeneuring party which wants to go beyond the normal limits of adventuring.
Now, I only hope that the high-level + mythic play is not running away from you in terms of encounter balance, i.e. that the next four modules will have challenging encounters from start to finish. ;)
Well, let me say that I am very happy that you guys heeded the feedback from (for example) Jade Regent and included those minor story arcs for the NPC's. From what I've seen from the first two modules, this AP is rife with great roleplaying opportunities for the entrepeneuring party which wants to go beyond the normal limits of adventuring.
Now, I only hope that the high-level + mythic play is not running away from you in terms of encounter balance, i.e. that the next four modules will have challenging encounters from start to finish. ;)
From the hints that have been dropped, the challenges being underwhelming doesn't seem very likely... quite the opposite in fact.
From the hints that have been dropped, the challenges being underwhelming doesn't seem very likely... quite the opposite in fact.Well, let me say that I am very happy that you guys heeded the feedback from (for example) Jade Regent and included those minor story arcs for the NPC's. From what I've seen from the first two modules, this AP is rife with great roleplaying opportunities for the entrepeneuring party which wants to go beyond the normal limits of adventuring.
Now, I only hope that the high-level + mythic play is not running away from you in terms of encounter balance, i.e. that the next four modules will have challenging encounters from start to finish. ;)
Yeah, well. "Wished for difficulity" and "real difficulty" have been often wide apart in AP encounters when the high levels arrive. I am just skeptical that the writers will give us appropiately difficult encounters when I've seen so many AP's encounters just jump off the rails as soon as level 11-12 were passed. And when the endgame came about, the only thing left to do was to combine four to five encounters into a single one, so as to keep the fight somewhat interesting.
And in this AP the "endgame" of other AP's happens in module four, with two entire modules coming after that. Mythic will not help a single bit with making it easier to keep the many, many encounters an AP has competitive for the monsters.
Let's just say that I am worried. A lot. :-/
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this a thousand times, but here's the thousand and first.
We can't make our adventures perfectly challenging for every party, because every party is incredibly different in skill of players AND composition.
The BEST we can do is aim at a consistent baseline, so that the more you play our adventure paths, the more you get used to and develop mastery of adjusting the APs to match the skill level of your players.
If you find that our APs are consistently underpowered in the higher level, you'll need to go into that with an open mind knowing you'll need to adjust things. You know your group better than us, so you'll know better how to adjust things to make their play experience better.
But we can't and won't suddenly shift how powerful we make our adventures, because until a GM makes an adventure is own... the adventure is used by thousands of other GMs. We need to maintain that baseline.
If we were seeing a wide and common range of comments/feedback that our adventures were always too easy, then yes, we'd adjust that baseline. At this point, I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing a pretty good mix of "too easy/too hard/just right" across the board, so I'm hesitant to change something that overall seems to be working fine for the most part.
THAT said... keep the feedback coming! It's all helpful! Your feedback on how we've handled NPCs in previous APs is very much the reason why we're devoting so much more adventure space to NPC backgrounds and motivations this time. ...of course... that's started to annoy some other folks as well... It's a delicate balancing act, I guess!
Well, I try my best to be useful in that regard. :)
But what I've seen over the last three AP's has been so consistent that I can't take it as a coincidence anymore. The problem with the PC power/opponent power discrepancy is not a problem specific to AP's but rather to the CR system. It really seems like the damage output of individual characters just outstrips the hitpoint pools of enemies, with the same happening with PC to-hit numbers and opponents AC's and PC save DC's and opponents saving throws.
A lot of this is a problem of buff synergy and there non-standard size parties really are a problem the GM has to deal with. But since some easy-access builds (like archers), even from just core still manage to reach almost similar damage numbers, I have to conclude that maybe the problem is that hitpoint pools of CR 11+ monsters were not calculated high enough for actual gameplay. It happens far too often that an opponent doesn't even get his turns, since boosting initiative is a favorite of about every group I've seen. And while I can admire a well-oiled party taking care of things fast, opponents regularly not even getting their turn substantially undermines any feeling of excitement and danger combat normally should bring.
Now, what has me worried so much for this AP is that combats in the later part of the AP might increasingly not challenge the party. The RP and story aspects have so far been phenomenal, but if the later parts have this power discrepancy problem for all encounters, it will make my job so much more harder.
I've long felt that average hit points are far too low for monsters. Which is why I tend to increase hit points to 3/4ths maximum usually... or higher if the characters prove especially lethal (as a barbarian with a starting Strength of 19 (17 base) and a two-handed sword tends to be while raging and buffed with Bull Strength).
I will say, I very much like this ruling people have come up with limiting the number of buffs a character can have. In fact, having it be 3 plus your Charisma modifier sounds like a good method and would even provide a reason not to have Charisma as a dump stat.
As for suggestions of how to bring Horgus back into the fold, I could see him either begrudgingly coming to assist the PCs in book 2, under the guise of actually helping the army that gets sent with them, or possibly being asked or otherwise influenced into assisting them by Queen Galfrey. This would also give the PCs a second chance to get Horgus on their side.
|
Well, I try my best to be useful in that regard. :)
But what I've seen over the last three AP's has been so consistent that I can't take it as a coincidence anymore. The problem with the PC power/opponent power discrepancy is not a problem specific to AP's but rather to the CR system. It really seems like the damage output of individual characters just outstrips the hitpoint pools of enemies, with the same happening with PC to-hit numbers and opponents AC's and PC save DC's and opponents saving throws.
A lot of this is a problem of buff synergy and there non-standard size parties really are a problem the GM has to deal with. But since some easy-access builds (like archers), even from just core still manage to reach almost similar damage numbers, I have to conclude that maybe the problem is that hitpoint pools of CR 11+ monsters were not calculated high enough for actual gameplay. It happens far too often that an opponent doesn't even get his turns, since boosting initiative is a favorite of about every group I've seen. And while I can admire a well-oiled party taking care of things fast, opponents regularly not even getting their turn substantially undermines any feeling of excitement and danger combat normally should bring.
Now, what has me worried so much for this AP is that combats in the later part of the AP might increasingly not challenge the party. The RP and story aspects have so far been phenomenal, but if the later parts have this power discrepancy problem for all encounters, it will make my job so much more harder.
Out of intrest is it the same group of players for the past 3 adventure paths? Same for ones before it?
Yes. We added another player at the end of Carrion Crown to bring the group from 5 to 6 players, but she is getting her characters designed by one of the more optimization-savvy people in the group.
The exact same problems cropped up with 5 players during the endgame of Curse of the Crimson Throne, so they don't just come from the 50% more players scenario.
|
I think the problem comes from magnuskn assuming that his party of 6 highly optimized PCs is something that should be taken as baseline for APs.
The APs must be geared towards an "average" party. Apparently most people run parties of 4 not-so-much-optimized PCs, and that's where the AP design aims. If your gaming group is way outside of the design goal, you gotta accommodate.
It depends on the players. A skilled veteran group of players may easily breeze through encounters. Newer players may not.
I do like the idea bandied about for limiting the amount of buffs that can be put on someone. I'm not quite sure as to how to do it. Three buffs plus the Charisma modifier might be good; I might also rule that any buffs the person casts on him or herself count as half (and perhaps also that potions count as half so to encourage potion making/buying).
Thus a 10 Charisma Fighter could have 3 Buffs (Bard Song, Prayer, and Bull Strength, for example). With the above example, if the Fighter had drank a potion of Bull Strength then he could also drink a potion of Heroism and be at the full "three" buffs allowed.
I've implemented a buff limitation in this campaign, although I am yet unsure if this is the right campaign to try it. The mythic rules are sure to distort the power level very much and could undercut that limitation dramatically.
My solution is 3 buffs for the group as a whole (Haste, Blessing of Fervor, etc) and the people casting the buffs spells can have unlimited buffs on themselves. Bardic music is a class ability and therefore wouldn't count into the limit. That way classes which depend heavily on self-buffing (melee Clerics, for example) will not get unduly punished by the buff limitation, while the overall effect on the party will hopefully bring the buff synergy effect down a bit.
My players are on the low edge of optimization (no real cheesy broken stuff, just picking their class, race and ability well) and they still just roll over even heavily enhanced encounters.
Another aspect of that I haven't yet mentioned and which is much more germane to AP's in general is that normally the advantage of picking the time of an encounter is on the side of the party. If they can go fully buffed into an encounter and the opposition can only react, that gives another large advantage. Maybe AP's could try to tailor better opponent dynamics into the text, with Perception DC's and reaction times until reinforcements arrive?
AP's may be tailored for "average" parties, but I've never yet seen explained what an "average" party is supposed to be. Are they supposed to never use divinations? To never use unusual methods of entry (Gaseous Form, Teleportation, etc)? To never buff themselves? Because that is something every smart party routinely does. I.e. is the average party supposed to be a "kick in the door" group?
|
|
My players are on the low edge of optimization (no real cheesy broken stuff, just picking their class, race and ability well) and they still just roll over even heavily enhanced encounters.
You mentioned in other thread that your players went into the final Jade Regent fight with 10-16 buffs each. That's turbo optimization. Overkill optimization, I'd say.
Face it, you're playing Turbo Rocket Tag Hyper 50% Extra PCs Action Economy Bonanza Edition and you assume that everybody else does so and APs should be written with such groups in mind. Since they aren't, there are two possible explanations: either you are a vocal minority, or the APs are missing their intended audience by a mile. I think it's the former one, because the AP difficulty level has been pretty much the same since 2007 and it's still the core product. You just need to work on challenging your players more instead of expecting the writers to take fringe play styles into account :)
Gorby, 10-16 buffs at endgame is nothing. That's just common use of standard buffs like Haste, Blessing of Fervor, See Invisibility, True Seeing, Mage Armor, Shield, some Resist Energy, some Protection from Energy, Protection from Evil, Air Walk and so on. Those are standard spells which, depending on level and WBL, may be already on players.
That Paizo thought it a smart idea to introduce the "X, Communal" spells in Ultimate Combat just made it easier to pass resistances and Air Walk all around. That's why people (and not just me, if you had payed any type of attention) are wanting to try out the buff limitation idea which James talked about (frankly that should be a rules variant which should be in the Strategy Guide or a similar book, btw).
That my group is okay with optimization (far, far away from what some of the real rule-abusing people are posting on the three main boards when talking about their characters) makes it of course necessary to adjust the AP. And I've done that in spades. Advanced templates, double advanced templates, adding 50% enemies, maxing out HP, combining four encounters into one. All at the same time, btw. You can't tell me that mildly optimized characters, even if they are 50% more than they should be, should wipe the floor with that type of encounter.
And the problem remains that player damage and monster hitpoint pools are not congruent and neither are player attack bonuses/opponent AC's and player spell DC's/opponent saves.
I ask again, what is an "average party" supposed to be? How is it supposed to behave in terms of tactics and spells used? It's always nice to put that "average party" out in front to deflect cricitism of how the game mechanics break at the upper tier of an AP (which in this particular AP will be after module 2 or 3 already, not after module four as usual). But at least I'd like to have a baseline which tactics are supposed to be "average" behaviour. Divination spells? Unusual entry methods? How many party buffs? Which type of party buffs? For what kind of group does the Paizo team write?
Question: Are your players multiclassing or staying with one class all the way through? I suspect that may have a difference as well. For instance, both of my current games (WotR is currently in limbo though I'll be designing a sign-up sheet to recruit players from the local comic/game shop and start it up maybe after Halloween) have multi-classed characters going toward Prestige classes, and a couple solo-class characters. As such, the characters are (despite high stats) running into problems (with the exception of a high-strength Barbarian) so far. Though admittedly none of my groups are past 7th level at this point.
Amusingly enough, I suspect I'm the optimizer of the group, and I'm the GM. Then again, I also consider it a GM's duty to recommend to a player certain feats and the like which may allow the character to be more effective (like the rogue with a blowgun - I'm suggesting to her to take Deadly Aim so the darts can actually DO damage).
Single-classing it, all of them. Which makes sense, multiclassing is pretty terrible in PF.
But if staying in a single class already now is seen as a sign of powergaming, I fear the game has even more problems than I thought. ;)
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AP's may be tailored for "average" parties, but I've never yet seen explained what an "average" party is supposed to be. Are they supposed to never use divinations? To never use unusual methods of entry (Gaseous Form, Teleportation, etc)? To never buff themselves? Because that is something every smart party routinely does. I.e. is the average party supposed to be a "kick in the door" group?
Well... for one thing, an average party is 4 players. We also assume the classic combo of 1 dedicated melee/ranged character, one dedicated divine caster, 1 dedicated arcane caster, and 1 dedicated tactical/skill/diplomacy character.
Once you add more than 4 players, the action economy REALLY starts to favor the players a lot, and you really need to both add a lot more mooks to battles as well as increase hit points across the board. And if you have a more specialized group, certain elements of adventures become easier while others become harder or even impossible.
The skill level of your players is a harder thing to analyze though. "Average" in my mind, though, means familiar with the mechanics of roleplaying but not to the extent where you're spending hours on end building and refining a character build. The amount of skill a player has after completing 1 campaign is about right, I suspect; that more or less translates into about 6 months to a year of regular gaming.
Another thing too to keep in mind is that if your group consists of the same players over the course of several campaigns, not only will they be more skilled at playing the game, they'll be more skilled at playing with each other, knowing the others' tactis and all that.
In short... the longer you play the game with the same players, the easier the game gets due to growing system mastery, and the more you'll need to either adjust the adventure (by increasing encounter difficulty) or the more you'll need to adjust the player character baseline (by using slow XP progression, reduced treasure awards, or perhaps the simplest one of all, requiring them to build PCs using 15 or even 10 point buy).
|
Creative Director
|
That Paizo thought it a smart idea to introduce the "X, Communal" spells in Ultimate Combat just made it easier to pass resistances and Air Walk all around. That's why people (and not just me, if you had payed any type of attention) are wanting to try out the buff limitation idea which James talked about (frankly that should be a rules variant which should be in the Strategy Guide or a similar book, btw).
This in particular brings up a good point. The MORE books you allow your players to use, the more specialized they can become. This is an unavoidable side effect of option expansion. Even if EVERY option in newer books are perfectly balanced against one another (something I feel that is an admirable goal to strive for, but an impossible goal to reach), the fact that each option lets a player further specialize to do better at his chosen role means that the resulting character becomes more powerful, especially if the player knows what sort of campaign he's heading into.
The buff limitation (which I really wish got into the game, not only since it'd help manage the complexity of the game play at higher levels but because I think it adds a really interesting and fun tactical element of resource management) is one way to fight this. Perhaps an easier way is to limit the number of options your players can have. It's okay to say some or all of a book is off limits... but if a player purchased a book primarily because he wanted to use those options, he'll get frustrated and angry, so take care to keep that in mind.
All of which says that, further, an "Average" party is one who doesn't use a stack of books to make a character, but uses only the core rulebook or whatever additional rulebook is needed for their base class. Remember... a lot of players out there don't even know all the options in just the Core Rulebook!
|
Creative Director
|
But yeah. From what I'm hearing, Magnuskn... your players are VERY far into the expert end of the scale, and quite far from average. It's no real surprise that they're finding the endgames of an AP easy. Which means that the onus is increasingly on you to up your side of the game to continue challenging the players. My best advice there is one that your players might not like... limit their options and resources.
You can perhaps approach it as suggesting they try out playing the game on "hard mode." 10 point buy for stats, slow XP progression, and reduced treasure are great ways to put a game into hard mode.
Actually, James, I'd like your perspective in a balance perspective as to how much to modify the game for each additional player beyond four.
For instance, I figured it would be simple enough with a 15-point build but six players to just increase enemies by 50% - if an encounter calls for two giant maggots, instead go with three. If there were three Mongrelmen, then add two (just to be sure).
But from what you're saying, it seems almost like 6 PCs need more than a 50% increase (despite it being a 50% increase in what is expected for a player base).
There is a related factor to this: how significant is each Cohort and how much should I increase the difficulty of an encounter for the Cohorts? I know Paizo ignores Cohorts, but I've noticed that when my group increased by one additional player and two cohorts, things suddenly became easier for the players (despite the Cohorts only being 5th level compared to a 7th level group). I'd thought I'd compensated for the one player (who is running a Sorceress); it seems likely the cohorts have further unbalanced things.
Admittedly, I can just fudge things on the fly. I know some players start frothing at the mouth at the concept of a GM "cheating" the dice, but I've long been of the opinion the dice aren't God, and that you should "cheat" if it makes an encounter more interesting and enjoyable. Both for and against the players. But I also would prefer to just build encounters that are more balanced to the number of players even if it's a larger number than "expected" for the AP.
But yeah. From what I'm hearing, Magnuskn... your players are VERY far into the expert end of the scale, and quite far from average. It's no real surprise that they're finding the endgames of an AP easy. Which means that the onus is increasingly on you to up your side of the game to continue challenging the players. My best advice there is one that your players might not like... limit their options and resources.
You can perhaps approach it as suggesting they try out playing the game on "hard mode." 10 point buy for stats, slow XP progression, and reduced treasure are great ways to put a game into hard mode.
Thanks for all the great responses, James. The majority of my players have been actively playing TTRPG's for longer than I have, which already is 15 years by now, and 3rd Edition + Pathfinder for 13 of those years. So, yes, system mastery has been assimilated by sheer osmosis even by the two guys who don't really pay attention to the rules.
I guess my problems are once again a case of limited perspective, since all people I play with (in both groups) have been playing roleplaying games for more than a decade. If I understood you correctly, the average group consists of players who have only played for one or two years.
For this campaign the wine already has been spilled, we are playing with 20 points and the normal XP progression, but I'll keep your ideas in mind for the campaign after that. Nonetheless, if I may dare make a suggestion, I think it should really be tried out by the development team if player character power doesn't surpass comparable opponent power (monsters or NPC's) too much at the later half of the game.
Point is, I do have a second group which is perfectly within the limits of an AP, four characters with a 15 point buy, and even pretty poor character builds. And while they have struggled a lot in Jade Regent in the lower levels, by now (level 9, next session very probably level 10) I am already seeing signs that they also are easily surpassing difficulty expectations.
Maybe Paizo could publish a GM book one day, something like "Advanced Tactics", which deals more in depth with things like high-level gaming, unusual party sizes and so on. Until then, I guess I'll have to make do with advanced templates, additional monsters and maxed out HP.
But AP's really could do with less "lots of CR-2 monsters" encounters, which especially at the later levels really don't do much other than eat game time. Also less opportunities for PC's to get the drop on opponents and better initiative values for the opposition side, especially if they are NPC's. I already fear that with mythic rules Deskari will go dead last and not even get his turn in module six. :-/
There is a related factor to this: how significant is each Cohort and how much should I increase the difficulty of an encounter for the Cohorts? I know Paizo ignores Cohorts, but I've noticed that when my group increased by one additional player and two cohorts, things suddenly became easier for the players (despite the Cohorts only being 5th level compared to a 7th level group). I'd thought I'd compensated for the one player (who is running a Sorceress); it seems likely the cohorts have further unbalanced things.
From my experience, cohorts can really be destructive to a campaigns balance. In Curse of the Crimson Throne, the party took two NPC's as cohorts (a Bard and a Cleric, the former being even recommended by the AP) and that plugged about every weakness the party had. So far it seems like Wrath is not giving the party cohorts, rather providing them with temporary allies. But if you have cohorts, it definitely distorts the game balance. Depending on the cohorts class the distortian can be very significant. Bards are especially bad in that regard.
|
|
I had to do alot of creative work to get things to work right for a party of that size. Basically started things off before i got book 1. played three adventures before hand. got the book, spent a week rewriting it for variable party size. Blah blah blah.
The PCs are different. we have a pool of 13 characters.. nobody knew what they wanted to play, just that they did. So i took input from them and created a d12 cast of heros.
Herors 1 -3 heros havnt yet to be rolled up for what a person is playing that day. So they are off doing their own GMquestArc.
Heroes 4 5 6 7 8 Through some time travel events ended up arriving at Kenabres a day in advanced.. and set up some defenses for the town. Actually were successfully in driving up the demon attack (after evacuating the women and children folk before the attack happened)
Then I got book I of the path. And for whatever reason my 11 players became 3, than 4 mid way through the adventure.
So i had three PCs down in the caves. along w the three NPCs. They were in the temple to Iomedae ( i changed it cuz even the dwarfs worshiped her) They had just taken out the Heckva Elite i had in the Temple. They were rededicated it (and gaining their first devotion point before even leaving part I ) When player 4 strolled in, a couple hours last. I was in the middle of screaming at myself (with anevia & horgus fighting) I could think of no way for a 4th PC to show up there without ruining the tale. So i offered him a choice to play one of the three NPCs that adventure..
..End part 3 & tie in the heroes 4-8 together. Player 4 that ended up playing Horgus that day. and for the next couple weeks. hes actually grown to like horgus more then any 0f the other 13 Heroes i generated (4 were created with his advice).
So i am in a strange quandry. I have a player that wants to be Horgus more then any other character.
I think that I will let him do it. Right now they are resting and preparing for part 4 of book 1. While we kick off a 2nd edition campaign set in greyhawk that our characters got to by tossing a bag of holding into a portable hole. So i wont be back to GMing until November. So ive got some time to think.
Is there anything wrong with giving a NPC to a player to play as a player character? I know horgus will have some insider information.. But game breaking. Weird twist? it will be interesting.
Spoiler tag cuz some of players come to the boards. Guys.. PAT dont read the spoiler.
Heroes 4 5 6