Fair enough, but surely there could be a general bump? For example, I allow (most) 3.5 stuff as well as most PF sourcebooks. Enough that I feel that (combined with the player involved and their general aptitude for and interest in min/maxing their characters) it's fair to consider a blanket +1 to APL.In that case, yes, up their APL and send harder challenges after them, by all means. It's what I do when I feel like the party is breezing through things.
However, you can't really say "+1 APL per X books" because books don't linearly increase power like that. One book might have something really good for one class, and some neat but not any more powerful than already released stuff for everyone else.
A blanket +1 to APL seems applicable to your group, yes,
However, that has little to do with the number of splatbooks you allow, and more to do with how good at optimizing your players are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that allowing more source books can increase the power level of the party, there isn't any strong correlation between what is allowed and how powerful your party will be.There is if your players are reasonably competent min/maxers.
I can't see anywhere yet in this thread where you've talked about your players.. Which is odd, because to me, this is an issue of you being concerned about how powerful your players will be.
ARE they reasonably competent min/maxers? If yes, regardless of how many source books are available to them, they will build something useful/competent/potentially strong.
I know I've had character concepts that could not be fully realized with what was just available in the CRB. All over the boards you can find information on "trouble" classes and archetypes, such as the gunslinger, synthesist (and summoner in general), zen archers, etc. Maybe do something along the lines of "CRB, UM, UC, all allowed explicitly, anything else must be run by me first". That way everybody is satisfied.
This. Unless you plan to allow pun pun in your game.
A group of competent players who have decided to play at the bleeding edge if the power curve can leave your encounters shredded to bits even at APL +4 with CRB only. Adding extra books may allow those players to shred APL +5 encounters too. The distinction at that point is purely academic. If your players refused to be challenged then they won't be.
If, however, you play with reasonable, normal people, then don't worry about trying to impose a strict level/xp adjustment and just play the game.
I'm going to agree -- although I personally would not raise APL, as it will just make the party rocket up in level. I would raise encounter levels and then award xp as if the encounters were lower than they actually were.Best advice so far in this threadWhile I agree that allowing more source books can increase the power level of the party, there isn't any strong correlation between what is allowed and how powerful your party will be. In my experience if they breeze through APL encounters then make then APL+1. If that's not enough then APL+2. If that's not enough APL+3. So forth and so on until you get to the challenge level you desire for the party.
And there are lots of way to achieve this. More monster, higher level monsters, terrain, traps (in the combat area). There's actually a good guide on here, GM’s Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters.
You realize the more books you use the more options your monsters (and other npcs) have to pull from as well right? So CRB only encounters are equivalent to CRB only encounters in the same way all book encounters are equivalent to all book encounters. Not sure why this is even an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You realize the more books you use the more options your monsters (and other npcs) have to pull from as well right? So CRB only encounters are equivalent to CRB only encounters in the same way all book encounters are equivalent to all book encounters. Not sure why this is even an issue.
If you look upthread you'll see that I wrote:
"Of course it goes both ways -- if I allow 3.5 books and then give my giants the Brutal Throw feat instead of (say) Improved Overrun, they gain a clear and present bump in power against the PCs. But in those cases where I just leave the monsters as they are, the party is going to get more powerful (on average) the more sourcebooks I allow the players to draw from when making their characters."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some seem to be insisting that the number of sourcebooks allowed has nothing to so with the average power level of the party. I personally think this is silly.
Others are pointing out that allowing more sourcebooks won't NECESSARILY result in an increase in party power level, and are offering plausible examples of the allowance of more material actually resulting in a LOWER party power level. While I think this has some merit, it seems a case of trying to use an outlier to set policy -- not generally a good idea. I could provide any number of real world analogies, but shouldn't have to.
Some are saying that it's OK for a GM to artificially raise APL when dealing with a sufficiently min/maxed party. There is some disagreement on whether or not it would be OK to (for example) use APL+2 encounters and consider them to be APL encounters for the purpose of EXP awards. I think this boils down to personal taste and in the end is probably no more "wrong" than using the slower advancement table offered in the core rules.
The most level headed responses indicate that it really depends on party composition and the players involved. Fair enough.
I will maintain that -- all else being equal -- the greater the number of sourcebooks allowed, the higher the power level a party will tend to have. You can have your outliers -- they will not disprove this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core Only?
better build another Cleric, Druid, Wizard or Sorcerer because the majority of the Problem Spells that make other spells into problem spells, are in the core rulebook
it's not blood money itself that's an issue, it's using magic jar and a bunch of buffs to possess a creatures with 51+ strength to exploit blood money. in other words, the problem isn't blood money, but the synergy of stacking all these circumstances to milk the maximum effect from blood money
the core spells, are loaded with game changers, haste, glitterdust, slow, color spray, planar binding, wish, limited wish, permanancy, flesh to stone and a variety of others.
oh yeah, don't forget the charm and dominate lines, and the 2 good healing spells, heal and mass heal.
There's actually a good guide on here, GM’s Guide to Creating Challenging Encounters.
In retrospect, Claxon -- thanks, this has been a good read.
Attempting to drown out some of the angst in here and get back on track.
More books tends to open up more opportunities. This in turn opens up more combinations that can be effective, or can boost the effectiveness of existing combinations or builds. The more books you have in play, the harder it is for Paizo to make the correct checks and balances against every class to make SURE that everything is balanced and equal in there and that feat X from UM plus feat Y from UC doesn't end up with an Uber death machine. Even ignoring abilities interacting with eachother, there are always solid choices from each book and choices that are sub-par. At the very least, if there are more options / books in play, there should be more 'solid' choices in play for people to use instead of good (but less good) ones from other books.
To a degree.
Remember, everything though has to be paid for in one form or another. Finding a spare feat for wizard to take 'Intensify Spell' because they believe it is powerful can be challenging and can end up making your char vastly more one dimensional and less flexible as you tear out other 'general' feats for it. Where this theory falls down slightly is when it comes to casters and when spells get buffed. They just need to wander into town, find the magic shop and buy a scroll of it to scribe in. For Divine casters it's even easier of they just pray for the thing the day after the book is released. Yes, it means that they have less other spells around, but casters get almost all of their flexibility straight up without having to rebuild.
Ultimately, though it will depend on your group. If they look at the books as opportunities to min max, then guess what? They will use them to min max, and you might have power creep. The good news is that they were probably more effective than they should have been anyway. OTOH, if someone looks at things like betrayer and wave strike and thinks to themselves that a social / surprise attack rogue would be an awesome char and effectiveness be damned, then no, your not going to have power creep.
If you allow more then just core and want to power bump, make sure your players are aking the most of the extra books personally.
Theres a huge difference between allowing APG and the players:
All take the Summoner class.
or
All take the Cosmopolitan feat.
In the former case, Idd bump the power by +1 hands down, the latter? eeeeeh no.
I'm not sure I buy the premise of this thread that
It is self-evident that the more books allowed in a campaign, the more powerful the PCs will be.
because the Wizard are in the CRB, and it seems even more "self-evident" that the Wizard are is the apex of PC power.
And I am honestly of the opinion that having a wide variety of archetypes and base classes makes it easier to choose sub-optimal classes (read: anything other than a wizard). I mean, there is also the fact that core classes are often played out and tired. Opening up the feild to different classes doesn't displace the maximum power level (CRB wizard), but does diversify the intermediate power levels below.
because the Wizard are in the CRB, and it seems even more "self-evident" that the Wizard are is the apex of PC power.
I think this is far too simplistic a view. Wizards being the apex of power are based on high levels and strict WBL guidelines.
I can tell you that at lower levels, through years of playing, very few people like wizards or sorcerers in my group. As such, I don't consider wizards or sorcerers the apex of power. The most powerful characters at low levels (1-5) are ones with a very high AC or a very high attack roll and damage roll.
Wizards at these levels tend to be hit or miss - if the enemies roll poorly on their saves, the wizards can be very effective. If the enemies roll well, wizards are not very effective.
As such, adding additional material tends to power up the PCs.
Lastly, potential power in most cases means actual power. For a large percentage of players, if you offer them a feat or class that is more powerful than other feats or classes, they are going to take the more powerful one. So while it is possible that a player given more powerful options will choose the less powerful options, it is far less common than the opposite.
It is self-evident that the more books allowed in a campaign, the more powerful the PCs will be.
[Examples of how book allowance is defined . . . .]
A group of PCs built with the original PF book only are going to be inferior, on average, to a group of PCs whose players were free to use all core books and all 3.5 books including the Magic Item Compendium and the Spell Compendium.
Question -- about how much of a power bump does allowing more books grant to a party?
[ . . . ]
+1 to the party LA if 3.5 material is allowed?
+2?
[Rambling]
You get my drift. What do you think?
First off say "NO" to 3.5. Yeah, you heard me, there are a lot of retarded feats you can pick up in 3.5 that can make a group stupidly unbalanced.
Book of the Nine Swords, and anything with Psionics just to name or suggest a few.You can allow use of all of the Pathfinder books without giving a level adjustment.
Also, believe me when I say an entire party of Paladins 2-handing Great-Axes who are power-attacking are going to just destroy everything you send at them with the exception of swarms.
3.5 material was pumped out as fast as possible for profits with no concern for balance within the game's mechanics, and for this reason 3.5 failed. Paizo, I'm hoping, is actually caring about balance in some way, and I think this is a reason, bit it major or minor, why they opted to go for archetypes instead of just pumping out class after class like 3.5.
Allow me to be the first, if possibly the only, to tell you that if you allow your players to build their PCs with any combination of 3.5 and pathfinder that some of them will decide to go only for 3.5 material and create vastly superior characters than you can make in Pathfinder. The only thing Pathfinder really did was beef up the races, and make the core classes on par with stuff from the Complete series from 3.5. That said the complete series wasn't the most ridiculous stuff WotC printed.
Your problem is 3.5. Don't allow it. Instead allow people to take crafting feats and then create their own gear. I have a crafter who made a mask of vanish so he can be permanently invisible so long as he spends his standard doing so. It costs 1000-gp to make. It is still vastly inferior to the Ring of Invisibility, but accessible since we are not level 7 yet.
You could also have a dedicated NPC who is profiting on the PCs who crafts custom gear for them.
The answer to your original question about the Power Bump the PCs get from the later Pathfinder books beyond CRB:
Not much. Most of the power is sideways, instead of vertical. What I mean by that is characters are able to do more things, but at the cost of something else. Specialization is still the key to power in Pathfinder, but this still leads to the problem where characters will be too focused to do much else.
A balanced character is going to be balanced on offense, defense, utility (non combat or social), and social. However, this is not the norm. Many characters are stacked into Offense (my favorite) or defense, or utility, or social. Some characters can do both--the sorcerer is simultaneously a god at blowing things up AND social interactions--so it boils down to the DM to figure out how best to challenge the party.
The bottom line is this:
You are playing Poker with your players, and you can see all of their hands while also being able to change your hand however you wish. You can win. You can always win. If they are level 1 you can just throw a bunch of casters at them who all cast Sleep on them. Lets say 4 casts in the same round. The PCs are bound to fail sooner or later, and then it is four easy coup de graces. You win. They are mad at your bullcrap, and you are smugly looking at them because your plan worked.
However, that is shoddy DMing. Instead focus on challenging their weaknesses.
If they have only Melee build dungeons with lots of ranged units that the PCs have to charge towards. Expect a lot of "I double move towards the enemy, then I fall prone!"
If they have lots of ranged then the enemy either do the same things as above or they ambush the PCs.
If the PCs are all heavy magic users then the enemy uses anti-magic fields.
The solution is better DMing, not penalizing the Players. If you think the battle was too easy then the BBEG was scrying on the battle, and has an idea of who is powerful and who isn't. He is going to try to kill these PCs to the best of his ability, and send people who can take care of them. Perhaps he is part of a Five Bad Band and his Dragon will pay the party a visit even though he is drastically more powerful than them, but his intent is only to scare them, to rough them up, or even to recruit them after their thrashing.
The best time to punch a party is after they have defeated an important enemy, which to them was an admirable foe, and are feeling powerful. It gives them the knowledge that there are bigger, badder, and meaner enemies out there, and the one who just knocked them down and started kicking them was just the tip of the iceberg. Also, make sure they know WHO he is, let him introduce himself, his organization--bonus points if the person they just trounced was part of the organization before dying,--and all that jazz.
I agree that the 3.5 material is the problem. Pathfinder books are fairly balanced and are not much of a problem. In fact most of the more powerful options are in the Core Rulebook. If you don’t believe me try this write up two fighters. The first is only allowed to use the Core Rulebook. The second is allowed to use anything that is not in the Core Rulebook except class abilities. This means the second fighter cannot use weapons specialization or other core feats. Which fighter is going to be more powerful?
I agree that the 3.5 material is the problem. Pathfinder books are fairly balanced and are not much of a problem. In fact most of the more powerful options are in the Core Rulebook. If you don’t believe me try this write up two fighters. The first is only allowed to use the Core Rulebook. The second is allowed to use anything that is not in the Core Rulebook except class abilities. This means the second fighter cannot use weapons specialization or other core feats. Which fighter is going to be more powerful?
Ouch! That would hurt like hell. There are a ton of important feats in the CRB, for everybody. Losing access to those would kill the fighter. Like all the critical feats. And improved critical. Weapon focus. Weapon spec. Hell, I dunno what I'd do.
