Going through the most recent scenarios, I've noticed that starting from 1-18 they had advice regarding the use of challenge points and on which subtier to choose.
However, the table of how to convert player levels to challenge points contains a difference to the one printed in the guide:
While the guide assigns 2,3,4,6 challenge points to the possible player levels from lowest to highest, the table printed in every one of the recent modules only assigns 5 challenge points to the highest level.
In one case, that almost would have made an actual difference in the sub-tier-selection of a game I played (it ultimately didn't, because one player chose to play a different-level character on short notice).
I don't recall seeing an official announcement about this, so this begs the question:
is this the new norm and the guide (last updated in March) just doesn't reflect this yet,
is this a typo that has accidentally been copied over to every new module, or
is this a variation from the norm valid just for the adventures it's printed in?
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Scenarios 18, 19 and 20 actually have 2 tables, one with the "highest level = 5" challenge points and one with the "highest level = 6 points"
Given that scaling still goes up to 32+ and the maximum you could get with "highest = 5" is 30, this is probably just a typo. Scenario 21 is the only one with just one, incorrect, table. All others have both the correct and the incorrect one.
True, they put the new table right on the same page as the text with the conflicting information for the first few adventures. I didn't even notice that.
They did change the table to adjust the actual player levels according to each scenario, so it's not likely a straight copy-paste issue, and in 1-21 they did remove the conflicting (and possibly correct) text in favor of the (wrong?) table.
I wouldn't be surprised that this was just a mistake by whoever made the table that just was never noticed, and it's not an intentional change. If it was, an official clarification would be helpful though.
|
I'm pretty sure there was an official correction listed somewhere for -18-/19, but I'm not finding what thread its in. It was saying just use the normal table we're use to from the guide. I haven't seen an explicit correction for -20/-21, but I'm pretty sure those are cut & paste errors from the previous ones. The challenge point scaling system would fall apart at the high end with the currently printed in scenario numbers.