|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, I want to point out that I am not creating this thread because I'm trying to get anyone in trouble or anything else of the sort. That is not the goal here. An unfortunate thing happened that was outside of the control of the players and I am curious if there is any kind of remedy.
My son and I recently attended Gencon and had a great time. Well, at all but one of our games, anyway. So when we were sitting down to play Slave Master's Mirror two other players were already decided on what characters they were going to play. One was a 5th level two weapon fighter and the other was a 5th level Arcanist. My son and I were undecided coming into the table when when they were playing these characters we tried to get the characters that we closest level. We are fairly new to PFS so our highest level PFS characters were level 4. My "human" "rogue" (half-orc barbarian) and his Cavalier tank (he is built around using aid another actions to up AC).
The 5th player at the table was pretty fluid in which character he would play and since we needed a healer he narrowed his choices down to those. Due to the way subtier mechanics are figured his character choice really determined which subteir we were going to fight in. I didn't understand the full levity of his choice at the time but as he was a veteran, I think he did. He chose to play his 5th level Bard. That put our APL at 4.6 and as I understand it that is just enough to bump us up to subtier 6-7. This kinda screwed us as our 4th level characters were the front liners facing CR7+ bad guys. We truly were outmatched.
This player could have chose to play any other level character and it would have been more advantageous to the party. If he played a higher level character we would have been more survivable as a party. If he played a lower level character then we would have been down a subtier. As it was ... I don't honestly see how we could have won.
Now, that wasn't the GM mistake, though. This adventure is one with rules for table size and the GM threw at us the highest number of creatures to challenge us. He missed the part about where he was supposed to remove creatures from fights. He was asked this by another player during the game but said he couldn't find anything in the scenario that talked about it. After the game the other player asked to look at the scenario, found the rule and pointed it out to the GM. The GM acknowledged his mistake but it was too late. The damage was done.
My son's PC died. The Arcanist died. Everyone except the Bard was knocked unconscious. My character was 2 points short of death in unconsciousness which was a very lucky place to be as a Barbarian who went down while raging.
After the deaths occurred the GM went to the front coordinator's desk and talked to a woman named Tanya whom I was told is one of the front runners to take over for Mike Brock. Tanya acknowledged the mistake as well and gave him a way for the surviving PCs to make it out alive and for resurrection attempts to be made. The Bard's player had a boon that allowed him to resurrect a character and was happy to do so realizing that his choice played a huge part in the challenge we faced. My son used all of his money and prestige points, all of my character's money and some of the other players' to pay for his raise dead and restorations.
I was going to bring it to my local venture lieutenant but was told by someone else that I shouldn't bother as she wouldn't be able to do anything about it. I don't know my local venture captain very well yet, I have only met him once and it was at Gencon. I am going to be playing in another small convention that he is running next weekend but didn't want my first real interaction with him be basically about me b@~*%ing about some bad experience at Gencon. So instead I decided to bring it to the boards... logical, right?
Anyway, are we just SOL? I mean, the near TPK was in large part due to the GM's mistake. I'm not saying he should be punished either. It was an unfortunate situation. I don't think anyone should be punished but least of all the players. I considered not bringing this up at all and I was hoping it would stop bothering me but it hasn't. My son is bothered by it to the point of not wanting to even play the character anymore (he was close to making a big purchase but now all of his money and prestige are gone). We are both pretty disheartened by the experience.
I have talked to other PFS GMs since then and they all have given pretty much the same feedback: they have told me that if they were running and had made this kind of mistake and it lead to this kind of issue that they simply would have retconned it as they wouldn't have wanted to be responsible for a TPK that was avoidable due to their mistake.
Does anyone have any advice for us?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to hear about your experiences.
This would have been a much better discussion to have in person at GenCon, though.
Weeks later, on a public forum, without all parties present, probably won't be able to address anything.
I'd suggest seeking out your VC and explaining it to them, though.
|
|
So you are saying that I should have taken the issue over Tanya's head? To Mike?
I did happen to meet Mike at the convention. Heck of a nice guy. I honestly didn't feel the need to bother him with such a (relatively) petty issue.
I was hoping that by bringing it here to the boards that I would be given information on a method of resolution. I didn't realize that the only option was for someone to take care of this issue only when it happens. Honestly, that seems like a poor policy. We were all (everyone at the table) pretty upset about the issue right then and I think it probably would have been the WORST time to have talked about it. Tensions were high and all that.
So now is it true that because we didn't seek resolution at the time that some unwritten policy wasn't followed? If that is true, I honestly have to say that I am let down by lack of player support from the PFS community.
...I guess I will bring it to my VC, though. I appreciate your input.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I concur - talk to your VC about this. Don't think of it as b****ing - this error had a major impact on you and your son's experience at Gen Con and in PFS as a whole.
At best, the VC might be able to authorize a reimbursement for the prestige/gold incurred after checking with John, Linda, and/or the next campaign coordinator. At worst, the VC will be able to help make sure that you have far better experiences in your local lodge!
I'm sorry that you had this kind of experience, and hope that everything is better from here on out!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd take it to the VC they have some methods of recourse that may help.
As a GM, I make mistakes they happen. If they are in the players favor, I let them go and move on with the scenario. If they aren't I will do my best to fix them. While not everyone feels this way many do, if I had mistakenly killed your PCs I would want to find a way to fix it, too. Your best recourse is your local VOs. If you feel better talking to your VL they can pass the info onto the VC.
Best of luck, if I can be of any help feel free to PM me.
Edit: And ninja'd by my own VC by 1 second.
|
|
...actually, now that I'm thinking about it that reasoning doesn't make an awful lot of sense. Why would it matter if it was brought up after the fact? Is it because there would be some doubt cast upon the situation? Why? All of this information is recorded on sheets and is reported on the paizo site. It could easily be looked into if someone so desired. The GM's name can be found, the other players can be found, the levels of their characters can be verified. Heck, I just looked it up on the Paizo site myself and can see the GM's board name. (I'm not going to post it here as there is no point to it now.)
And, honestly, what reason would anyone have for mistruths in this scenario? It would bring no gains to someone who hadn't lost anything.
edit: oop, this came a bit late. This was meant to be in reply to Nefreet.
|
|
This isn't so much a "policy". Rather just good practice. Like anything else IRL, it's better to address things when they happen, when everyone's there, rather than weeks later.
We, reading this, weren't there, and don't know all the minutiae of what happened or what was done.
Talking to your VC is also just "fewer hands in the pot".
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This issue as you describe it never should have left the table. The GM knew he screwed up and could have fixed this by retconning.
The only reason to escalate it to HQ is if GM and players had a disagreement (like: The one extra minion wouldn't have mattered as all damage was done by the BBEG anyway). In this case you would go to HQ and they would try and find a solution that worked for all involved.
Excalating it above HQ would have been futile.
Talk to your VC.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
VCs probably handle it differently, but for me, if a character death results from a gross error on the part of the GM (and in your situation, that would meet my thresshold), I would have those characters restored and reimbursed any resources used to be raised.
When the death is directly attributable to a mistake of the GM, the players shouldn't pay the price. Minor mistakes can be absored and players can move on. Critical mistakes, and this is one (if your APL was 5 in a Tier 3-7 scenario, you would have played higher tier with the 4 player adjustment - that isn;t a rule of the scenario, that is a rule of organized play.)
The GM could have fixed the issue at the table. And while a local VC may not feel empowered to correct that mistake, it's at least worth asking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...actually, now that I'm thinking about it that reasoning doesn't make an awful lot of sense. Why would it matter if it was brought up after the fact? Is it because there would be some doubt cast upon the situation? Why? All of this information is recorded on sheets and is reported on the paizo site. It could easily be looked into if someone so desired. The GM's name can be found, the other players can be found, the levels of their characters can be verified. Heck, I just looked it up on the Paizo site myself and can see the GM's board name. (I'm not going to post it here as there is no point to it now.)
And, honestly, what reason would anyone have for mistruths in this scenario? It would bring no gains to someone who hadn't lost anything.
edit: oop, this came a bit late. This was meant to be in reply to Nefreet.
Like many other things in life, a mistake is usually easier to correct at the time or reasonably close to the time the mistake is made. At the time, the GM is still there so HQ or whomever could have talked with the GM, etc.
So, addressing the issue at the time is far better than doing so a month later.
|
Looking at the scenario in question, since I recently ran this one:
I know that about 1/3 of the way through season 6, they've started throwing encounters with full-blown builds on the monsters, instead of just generic fights with a monster of that type. Instead of generic NPC humanoids, you're fighting things that you'd expect to see on a PC; including some teamwork feats. It sounds like you could have played other characters as well once APL was looked at. It sounds like the final fight is what got you, and the boss is significantly weaker in the lower tier. I'm not sure what your local VC can do at this point, but it sounds like the HQ at GenCon gave some slack to the party due to the mix-up with 4-player adjustment.
I know character death sucks, as I've had my own when he was unable to rez. I've even been GM to a couple TPKs, when the dice just weren't with the PCs. Push on, develop the character having known death, and gotten stronger from it. There will always be the risk of death, but don't let one PC discourage you. Build another, or even make a Jr. character. I've got 22 PCs at this point, and I have a blast playing all of them. Of those 22, I've had 4 deaths. Only one was permanent.
|
|
IMHO if a GM makes a mistake its on the GM to fix it if possible
I have 2 different examples from personal experience both times I was a GM
1st was Legacy of the stonelords at paizocon last year, a PC Died at my table and even I wasnt 100% Comfortable with how it happened, I decided to research things over the next several hours even into the next day
I found that I had indeed made the right call and spoke to the player explaining my process - he was ok with it
2nd was during a Bonekeep game - I had killed a PC in 1 particular encounter, later while discussing it with some people a friend of mine reminded me of how the mechanic that killed the player actually worked,
I showed up to the FLGS the next week with a red pen and overruled the death myself
I do agree that weeks later on a public forum is probably a bit late to the party
but IMHO the best way to police something like this is from the GM himself -
unfortuinatly in a con setting due to time constraints and everything it makes that difficult
tho I would beg for more details ... what was the option presented to you from the HQ Table ? I dont think Ive seen that listed
and one with as extensive as yours Im not sure how I would handle it
|
|
You made me go look that up.....freaky.last night:
Gibbering mouther. Page 154... go to page 154. Weird eyeball thing with a different name. Ok, must be one of those copywrited 3.5 monsters It attacks you for....wait, 154 hit points? OH! I'm holding bestiary 4....
Me too...it's much more aggressive than it's Japanese namesake...
|
|
Whatever happens, don't be too hard on the DM. Sometimes those 4 player adjustment things are pages after the start of the fight (and the rules for when you do or don't play with the 4 player adjustment are a little complicated)
Mistakes happen all the time in PFS, but of all the points made BNW makes the most important one in my opinion. The organization of some scenarios are pretty pathetic which creates even more headaches for a GM and leads to more mistakes.
Can I get a show of hands, how many GMs here have wasted valuable time flipping from front to back to find some important bit of information that should have been included pages earlier? We all have at some point.
You can fault the GM for messing up. You can fault the Event Organizer for not catching it or getting a workable fix instituted. Both of these options seem fair. But ultimately you might have to resolve yourself to just chalking it up to being a part (a not so tasteful part) of the PFS style and format- random GMs running pre-writen scenarios which might have some undiscovered and/or organizational flaws in them. It can be very different from a home game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
For future reference:
The party was 3 level 5s, 2 level 4s. They had no one in the upper tier. Therefore they should have been offered the choice to play down (per the guide, if no one at the table has a character in the range for the upper tier, the table may always play down.)
It sounds like this was GM error on several points. Contact your local VO, ask him to reverse it.
|
|
For future reference:
The party was 3 level 5s, 2 level 4s. They had no one in the upper tier. Therefore they should have been offered the choice to play down (per the guide, if no one at the table has a character in the range for the upper tier, the table may always play down.)
It sounds like this was GM error on several points. Contact your local VO, ask him to reverse it.
As the guide is written, that is only for seasons 0-3. This scenario was from season 6.
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
FLite: I came across a similar problem recently and I had the same thought.
Checking the guide and noting how it has different paragraphs for seasons 0-3 and 4+: it seemed that the rule we were thinking of is now only applicable to season 0-3 scenarios where: in a table of 6 or 7 PCs with an APL between sub tiers play up.
I fear it does not apply when a table of 5 or 6 PCs in a season 4+ scenario are between sub tiers, rather you play up with the 4 player adjustment. If there are just 4 PCs you play down but without the 4 player adjustment.
I would not be unsympathetic to having the "fringe case" described int the guide apply across the board. I just not sure it is the case at the moment.
I have put the text from the guide at the end of the post!
On the main issue. If you make a mistake as a GM then you should fix it to the best of your ability at the table. It depends on how severe the distortion of the end result was and to some extent how foreseeable that distortion was.
I don't lose any sleep over players expending an extra charge (or two) of a wand of CLW because a genuine mistake by a GM. I would though encourage "retconning" the situation if someone has died or even used a very special one off boon as a result.
e.g. Accidentally running the higher sub tier mooks with their 7 extra HPs thus the players having to use a couple of extra heals: not worth losing any sleep over. Missing the 4 player adjustment the other hand is another kettle of fish and needs remedial action.
The guide says:
In order to determine which subtier a mixed-level group
of PCs must play in, calculate the group’s average party
level (APL). Divide the total number of character levels by
the number of characters in the party. You should always
round to the nearest whole number. If you are exactly at
0.5, let the group decide which subtier they wish to play.
Starting with Season 4, scenarios are designed for six
characters and contain instructions on how to adjust the
scenario for four-character parties. When the APL of a table
is between two subtiers (like APL 3 for a Tier 1–5 scenario),
a party of four characters must play the lower tier without
any adjustments for party size. A party of five to seven
characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play
the higher tier with the four-character adjustment.
For scenarios written in Seasons 0 to 3, when the APL is
in between subtiers, a party of six or seven characters must
play the higher subtier. Parties with four or five characters
must play the lower subtier. In the fringe case where there
are no players that are high enough to have reached the
subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters),
the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier.
|
|
It makes sense that this rule applies only to season 0-3. In seasons 4 and beyond, scenarios are written for 6 players, with 4 player adjustments. Seasons 0-3 have no such adjustment, so it would in theory force a table to play high tier without adjustment. So, the "save" for that is to allow the table to play low if no character is of a level in that higher tier. The rule is different for seasons 0-3 because the encounter design is specifically different in later scenarios.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FLite: Yeah, we weren't given the choice. The GM just did the math to find the average and made the decision. I would have chose to play down a teir as our front line (my character and my son's character) were the lowest levels. If it was the other way around having the front line be higher level I may have decided differently.
And just so everyone knows we are not upset at the GM, the Event Organizers or anyone in particular. We recognize it as an honest mistake. The only thing we are a bit upset about is that it didn't seem like after the mistake was caught that it was handled well from there. But mostly looking for resolution than any kind of justice.
*UPDATE*
My VC contacted me on his own. It seems that he saw this thread and recognized me from the description (having just met him at Gencon and going to another Con he is running next weekend). He looked up my posting name, saw my alias with my real name and has told me he will correct it.
Problem solved. Thank you all for your input. My son doesn't know yet as he is still sleeping but I'm sure he will be happy.
Thanx, PFS community!
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Mark, absolutely, I think that clearly is the intention!
The question is which is better for 5 lvl 3 PCs: play a series of subtler 4-5 encounters with some of them having 4 player adjustment or having a choice to play the 1-2.
Given that PFS scenarios are generally not that deadly I am reasonably content with the rule.
I can see the DCs and some full strength monster SAs (which are often toned down in 1-2) etc. in a 4-5 being a bit much for PCS with 6 XPs so I would not lose any sleep if there was some flexibility.
W
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
There are several issues in this thread.
First, the person that told you the local Venture Lieutenant couldn't help you was wrong. They are the first line of assistance, followed by the Venture Captains, then capped by the Campaign Coordinator. When there are issues, you should always start with your local person.
Second, the time elapsed. I am the "Tanya" in question and I do remember having a conversation with a GM over a potential TPK in this scenario. A month later, I do not remember the particulars of the conversation. That is why time is of the essence in resolving issues and keeping problems from devolving to "he said, she said" a month later.
Third, death happens. It is a part of PFS and I agree it is not great when you are the receiving party. But without the chance of death, for many people, the enjoyment of the game is greatly reduced. Because of the extenuating circumstances of your table, from what I recall, we came up with a remedy that took a TPK to a PPK and reduced the costs for all people involved.
Going forward, even if you are not buddies with your VL or VC, taking the problem to them is the correct first step. Working with the system provides more opportunity for resolution, allows for parties close to the issue, with first-hand knowledge, to work towards a solution on the spot. Bringing it up to the court of public opinion is not going to solve anything.
|
|
Mark, William: I don't think it would be as big of an issue for a 1-5 but when it is a 3-7 there is a fair amount more difference between low subtier and high subtier. Level 4 melees have no business contending with multiple CR7 bad guys. The fight in question had I think... 7 bad guys?
So we were outmanned, outgunned and the bad guys started with a huge advantage being within their base.
To his credit he managed to survive until we could get inside. If it hadn't have been for my character being a Breaker/Liberator Barbarian and broken down their door with my adamantine greatsword it would have went MUCH worse. Unfortunately he was so low once we got to the other side that he wasn't going to be much help in the fight. The bard couldn't get to him to heal and couldn't have dropped a large enough cure on him to have made a big difference anyway.
Even without that unfortunate event happening I can't see any way we could have beat the encounter. The gnoll leader in that encounter was rediculously strong for our APL. If it wasn't for a couple lucky crits on my part and the TWF's part it would have went even worse. I know this is only anecdotal evidence to any reader here but let me tell you once we were involved in that encounter it was easy to tell that an error had been made. It was hopeless.
|
|
Mark, William: I don't think it would be as big of an issue for a 1-5 but when it is a 3-7 there is a fair amount more difference between low subtier and high subtier. Level 4 melees have no business contending with multiple CR7 bad guys. The fight in question had I think... 7 bad guys?
You'd be amazed at how little difference there sometimes is between the different tiers, even in a 3-7.
In the encounter I *think* you are speaking about, at Subtier 6-7, with the 4 player adjustment, you should have had:
Encounter B1:
2 creatures
Encounter B2: (which could trigger during or immediately following B1):
2 creatures
That's a potential total of FOUR creatures (assuming you had to fight them all at the same time.
That would have been the most difficult in terms of numbers of creatures. The final encounter (which is not this one)can be tough, at either tier.
|
|
Tonya, I think you may be mistaken on some of the details.
First of all, I did not have ready access to my VL or VC when I was at Gencon. It was not an option for me to take the issue to them. I have to abide by the rulings made at the table. While I am happy that the GM took the issue to you I do not believe it was handled correctly at the table or after the game.
The group that I am part of meets every two weeks so I knew I would be seeing my VL the next time we played so I was going to bring it to her there. I spoke to someone who knew her better and they told me she wouldn't be able to do anything anyway so I didn't bother. I don't know my VC at all but was going to bring it to him next weekend which would be the first and only time I would have seen him outside of a brief meeting at Gencon. Luckily he has approached me on his own after seeing this post.
The remedy that you are referring to still cost the lives of two characters. The costs at the table were not reduced at all. As I stated my son still had to pay for the full cost of being raised in both all of his gold, all of my gold and some of other player's gold as well. He also paid the full cost for two Restorations. His animal companion also died but that is mostly a non-issue.
The end results are the same though, Tonya. It was a near TPK due in large part to a mistake made by the GM. Everyone involved acknowledges this. I'm not upset at the GM. I am not upset at you. I just do not think that it is fair to stand by a near TPK due to that mistake. From the people I have spoke with (both on and off this message board) it seems like they agree. And while we were told at Gencon that there was likely nothing we could do about it, I was told afterwords that there is.
I have been playing Pathfinder from it's inception. I played D&D and several other RPGs for years before that. I have had characters die. So has my son. We do not tend to take it personally. But when it was due to an error (even an honest one) that could have been retconned after it was pointed out ... well, this time it stuck with us. The threat of death is one thing. The inevitability of death due to facing too hard of a threat is something else entirely.
That being said, I don't know if I am sorry that I brought it to the boards. Actually, in this circumstance it looks like "Bringing it up to the court of public opinion" has helped. I did not know the correct way to seek resolution and now I do. My VC saw my post and is looking to help. I would think, if anything, this shows that the boards are another tool in the box to help the community. The system works. This is good. I didn't come here to air an issue, get the community fired up and to seek vengeance. Please read the first paragraph of my first post. I came to find how to seek possible resolution for something we felt wronged on.
Perhaps it might be better to discuss this further in private messages? I don't want this discussion to bring down the boards especially after prior to your post I thought things were going very well. I'm sure there were misunderstandings involved on all sides. As it looks like this is moving the right way maybe even locking the thread would be helpful?
|
|
Actually, now I am a bit concerned that this was more than a mistake about both fighting out of subtier and without table size consideration. Would anyone mind greatly checking this scenario and answering a couple of questions for me?
Mark said that there would have been a total of 4 creatures? Is that including the final encounter?
How did we end up fighting 6-7 bad guys? As I said, we fought a gnoll archer atop a parapet, 2 gnoll grunty guys, one gnoll leader and 2-3 giant (large sized) hyeana things.
Were these not included in that scenario? Could anyone tell me the CR of the things that we fought at the subtier we fought at?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Yeah, sounds like the combat was run correctly enough. There are ways for the PCs to make it easier, but that depends on the players succeeding in the earlier parts.
(Side note. I love those Hyenas. The flavor on them is awesome.)
On the APL thing, I missed that. Is that a change from last season? I think last season that was all one paragraph. Even with the 4 player adjustment, there are a lot of scenarios where the upper tier boss has abilities that the lower tier PCs can't cope with.
|
|
@Yuri: Thank you, that is very helpful.
So encounters b1 and b2... are they meant to be fought together?
The gnoll lieutenants are like the ones listed here? That seems like exactly what they were.
What about the gnoll boss? What is he? Is he the gnoll warden on that same page? I think he was. He had favored enemy humans. He had a potion of invisibility that he used.
If that is true then that is a CR10!! Surely no one thinks that 4th level characters should be facing CR10 with his CR6 lietenants, and CR4 large sized hyeanas. Do they?
That thing auto hits my level 4 character on any roll except a 1. Even against our tank (my son's level 4 character) he hits on a 8. The one in this scenario was using a battle axe rather than a scimitar. I'm not sure if this was a change the GM made or was printed in the scenario. That gnoll boss can kill him in 2 attacks or one crit. That IS what happened by the way, my son's character was crit and dropped to negative in that one hit. He was then CDG by one of the other gnolls.
If it was down a teir what would we have been fighting instead?
|
|
@FLite: Well, it wasn't run correctly. We should have been given the opportunity to choose a lower tier as stated by Mark and William. The rule states:
"A party of five to seven characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play the higher tier with the four-character adjustment."
and
"In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier."
Neither of those were followed. There was no four-character adjustment and no choice in playing down a tier.
I think with just the four-character adjustment it still would have been far too difficult. Fighting a CR 10 as level 4 characters is not good for their health. And even so it sounds like they are supposed to be two separate encounters?... that could have made a difference.
...there are a lot of scenarios where the upper tier boss has abilities that the lower tier PCs can't cope with.
But no one in our party was upper teir. None of us were and none of us could cope with the boss's abilities.
|
|
@Yuri:
But from your description we faced B1, B2 and the Pack Leader together? So this was not intended?
So from the sounds of it, there were three mistakes that happened:
1. There was no four-character adjustment.
2. We were not given the option to play down a tier when we had no one in the tier that we fought.
3. The GM combined 3 encounters (compounding mistakes 1 and 2; with too many and too high tier) into one which was not part of the scenario.
Is that more or less correct?
|
|
@FLite: Well, it wasn't run correctly. We should have been given the opportunity to choose a lower tier as stated by Mark and William. The rule states:
"A party of five to seven characters whose APL is between two subtiers must play the higher tier with the four-character adjustment."
and
"In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier."Neither of those were followed. There was no four-character adjustment and no choice in playing down a tier.
I think with just the four-character adjustment it still would have been far too difficult. Fighting a CR 10 as level 4 characters is not good for their health. And even so it sounds like they are supposed to be two separate encounters?... that could have made a difference.
...there are a lot of scenarios where the upper tier boss has abilities that the lower tier PCs can't cope with.But no one in our party was upper teir. None of us were and none of us could cope with the boss's abilities.
In your situation, you would NOT have gotten the choice to play low. That option, for those factors, only applies to scenarios from seasons 0-3. The scenario you played was a season 6 scenario, so you would have had to play high. That part the GM ran correctly. The question is whether or not the GM applied the 4 player adjustment, which he would haave been required to do.
|
|
Mark, while I understand what you are saying I disagree.
You believe that this is taken out of context: "In the fringe case where there are no players that are high enough to have reached the subtier level (such as a party of six 3rd level characters), the group may decide to play down to the lower subtier." You believe that this sentence only applies when it is a season 0-3 scenario. I do not. I understand that it is in the same paragraph as it is talking about 0-3 scenarios but I still believe that it is meant to apply to all.
If that is true then it would lead to situations where level 4 (or even 3!) characters are designed to fight against CR9+ bosses. I think that the last sentence of that is meant to apply to all seasons of scenarios.
Again, I understand what you are saying but I do not take that sentence as meaning to be applied to only seasons 0-3 otherwise you end up with the situation that we ran into.
Either way, even if you are correct on that point and I am wrong (which I admit is subject to interpretation as others have already posted in this thread with that interpretation) the four-character adjustment wasn't the only mistake here. See my above post. We fought 3 encounters in one which was not intended in the scenario as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, Lune, it's not taken out of context. That language is specifically included in the section about seasons 0-3, which do not have 4 player adjustments. As a result, the ability to choose to play low is included for seasons 0-3 as a way to lessen the impact of playing up, because there is no 4 player adjustment.
I agree that, based on what you said, it seems that the 4 player adjustment was not applied. For me, that alone would be sufficient to reimburse the players for what they paid to raise their characters.
|
|
@Yuri: Heh... "Lube". ;)
Yeah, with those changes in effect it would have been a lot easier. However, that gnoll barbarian with the axe was grim. Him, by himself, was difficult for us to deal with. It is hard to believe that it is intentional that at 4th level we are expected to contend with such a foe with all of his goons and pets present.
@Mark: So you believe it is intentional for 3rd level characters to face CR9+ bosses?
Also, the four-character adjust was not the only mistake. Even if you are correct about the intention of the "fringe" situation (which I still question for the same reasons William did) we also fought 3 encounters combined into one. That was not intended as part of the scenario.
|
I also don't agree that the sentence on no one being in sub-tier only applies to season 0-3
That sentence is included in the paragraph that alludes to season 0-3 subtier determination. The paragraph before includes season 4-7. The manner in which I parse information leads me to believe the sub tier was determined correctly. Your understanding, of course, clearly differs from mine.
In the context of the scenario itself, the way the scenario is written makes it very easy to chain the multiple final encounters together. While I agree your experience was very harsh, it does not deviate from what other tables could possibly experience.
The question of not applying a four player adjust, however, is a legitimate concern that sadly many gms have made during the heat of a session.
|
|
@Yuri: Heh... "Lube". ;)
Yeah, with those changes in effect it would have been a lot easier. However, that gnoll barbarian with the axe was grim. Him, by himself, was difficult for us to deal with. It is hard to believe that it is intentional that at 4th level we are expected to contend with such a foe with all of his goons and pets present.@Mark: So you believe it is intentional for 3rd level characters to face CR9+ bosses?
Also, the four-character adjust was not the only mistake. Even if you are correct about the intention of the "fringe" situation (which I still question for the same reasons William did) we also fought 3 encounters combined into one. That was not intended as part of the scenario.
There may be 3rd level characters in the group, but they all won't be 3rd level (if they were, they'd never play the higher tier.)
I already agreed that the the failure to apply the 4 player adjustment, for me, would be sufficient to require the situation to be rectified.