Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT
|
Out of curiousity, can you provide more details on this game- the party composition, tacticts, scenario, etc? I think that a majority of society scenarios aren't built that those levels would be steam rolled going high tier, but there are a couple of scenarios that are just more rough in general.
I have seen many games go high with lower levels, and have seen groups blow some adventures out of the water (also dice rolls could be a factor?)
In situations like that there could be multiple things to consider, one maybe being that the 4th level character could play something closer to the other PCs?
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to hear more - the CP system is an evolving system and the current version may not be perfect yet.
But on the other hand, if this is just an unlucky run, or an overtuned scenario (there are a few), or one player playing down from on high in a big group - those might not be good enough reasons to change the system. To really sell a revision, you have to show that the current system is pervasively wrong, not just incidentally.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some scenarios can be a bit rough, but in my experience, that table would have been well served with a properly scaled high tier table.
Of course, tactics and group composition can affect the group's performance.
Maybe talk a bit more about the scenario and your group in a spoiler, since I know exactly one scenario, where playing up and running from the final boss could have been the right call.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because of the way numbers scale in PFS2 is can be extremely frustrating playing up against higher level boss type monsters where you're directly comparing your numbers against each each other, especially if you're not at the maximization curve.
Other roles it feels less important, your buff spells still work, you can still heal and aid your allies.
I've played and GMed at several tables with similar numbers to Derek's specific example and while they haven't ended in catastrophic failure yet they've been remarkably close on numerous occasions and feel like both the hardest and the least fun. They aren't hard because they have fun and engaging mechanics, they're just hard because you need to roll high numbers to get your stuff to land and the boss crits you on an 11
AC 24; Fort +14, Ref +11, Will +17
HP 99
Speed 25 feet
Melee [one-action] +18 (agile, finesse), Damage
2d6+4 slashing
Primal Prepared Spells DC 24, attack +17; 3rd fear, heal,
hydraulic push; 2nd enlarge, heal (×2); 1st fleet step, magic
fang (×2); Cantrips (3rd) guidance, produce flame, ray of
frost, tanglefoot
Against said boss I saw things like Level 2 rogue, trained in intimidate with a 16 cha, rolls a 19 (+7) Intimidate 26! Fail.
If you're a level 2 fighter with an 18 strength and your +1 weapon, attacking at +11 vs AC 24 isn't too bad, but if you're that 16 str champion that hasn't bought their +1 weapon yet attacking at +7 feels pretty bad.
When playing up with my wizard, which I've done several times now I've scrapped my normal spell preparations and replaced most of my offensive slots with Magic Missile, one of the best offensive spells for enemies above your level.
The champion above doesn't have that option.
Also if you're trying to use spells with the Incapacitation trait playing up vs playing down is a huge difference in usefulness of said spells.
While I'm not sure that adding additional complication to the CP chart is the right way to go, I do agree that there are problems at the edges of CP.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT
|
Thanks for the quick replies.
Yes, this was a scenario whose reviews say the low-CP high tier is tough, as I read later. It might have been bad rolling, or just con fatigue (it was the final slot on Sunday), so that's why I'm asking for other players/GMs to weigh in:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks!
Yes, I think from knowing the others that have responded, I can confidently say that this was the adventure that we were referring to as being abnormally difficult in comparison to the other adventures in society play. Do you have much experience in society otherwise? I reccommend a few more adventures and maybe you can see that outside of this, the CP adjustment is more fair, if not cuddly. Also worth noting, the GM can make a huge difference in using discression to advise players of potential issues before/during the adventure,
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, all. I think I was the GM for this scenario. >.<
I was surprised myself when I calculated the CP and found that they were playing up and had an adjustment. I asked everyone at the beginning if they were okay with that and if anyone wanted to switch characters. I suspected the level 2s didn’t have higher level characters. The level 4 didn’t want to change, and it was his choice.
I could have done a better job of warning people to save their first level spells in the earlier easy fights.
As for the rest, when the party was feeling overwhelmed, I let them know they had fulfilled their primary mission objective, if they wanted to walk away, and I let them retreat. They had a discussion about whether they wanted to rest and continue, and we agreed that if anyone wanted to stop, we would stop. I told them they could private message me their opinions so that no one would feel pressured, and someone stated openly that they wanted to stop.
I think that this was an unlucky case of party composition, though I agree with the OP that 5 level 2s and a level 4 playing high tier seems... off.
Venture-Agent, Finland—Tampere
|
I mean the way CP system works is that while it allows for more nuance, the minimum for higher tier assumes "four level 3 characters". in case of tier 3-4. So tier encounters without cp adjustments are designed for all characters actually being in the tier.
It's why I'm terrified of playing up, but if I play down then scenario is really easy even if its normally tpk worthy(with exception of one scenario where boss auto crits even in low tier)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I somewhat recently played at table where the level spread was 4,2,2,2,2,1 (20ACP) so 3-4 in a 1-4 and the combat was pretty miserable.
With a particularly low AC of 16 on my wizard getting ambushed in difficult terrain by the grabbing melee monster with +15/2d6+7 who could save against my best spell on a 2 and had reach and an AoO unsurprisingly quickly dropped me unconscious despite paladin damage prevention, a heal spell and the shield spell.
We succeeded at the encounter eventually but I was so incredibly outclassed by the monster it didn't feel like there was much I could do.
|
Venture-Agent, Finland—Tampere
|
Not honestly sure what you can do with it besides just telling players to acknowledge how dangerous playing up in this system is.
Like, its good now that by rules, 6 level 2 players are in lower tier instead of higher tier designed for 4 level 3 characters. But I think its gonna be too complicated to try to make rules so that no under any circumstance party of level 1 or 2 characters end up in higher tier, its gonna be really hard to avoid lower tier just being super easy because of too many higher tier characters and such.
Sooo its gonna be easier to just avoid playing up if possible
(in paizocon I played level 4 character in tier1-4 scenario and party ended up being level 1, 2, 3 and 4 character with lower tier. It was scenario with boss having tpk reputation and they died in two rounds due to party composition)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in this case we had multiple things that weighed against the party:
- Unhappy distribution of class roles, with not a lot of frontline. Remember, when there's no frontline the backline is the frontline. In a six-player party you'll either be playing up, or down with additional enemies; in either case, a large party where the frontliners are the lowest levels, things will not go easily.
- A particularly hard scenario. Actually the place where your group faltered wasn't the worst; you avoided the very worst bit. That said, it's a scenario where you could retreat, regroup, and come back. The enemies aren't going anywhere. (When we played, we had to play up with a 17 CP entirely low tier party and bailed when we saw the final boss. We would have TPK'd if we'd fought. All the fights before that weren't so hard though.)
- Players unwilling to compromise in the face of the tier calculation. I would have personally tried leaning on the L4 player, because I don't think it's a good thing to pull the other players into high tier when you're the only one. However, if that player is unwilling to compromise, the other players could have also decided to switch to L3 pregens instead (remember, always use the pregens for the tier actually being played). In general, we'd of course like people to play the character they most want to play, but we should also be considerate with each other and try to find a happy choice for everyone.
---
That doesn't mean the system as it currently is always works well, but this incident seems like it was a pile of things that conspired to force an unhappy outcome. Not enough on its own to make changing the system necessary. I would certainly take this incident as a learning moment for the group, to better consider party composition.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Has anyone else found the high subtier too hard with a 6-PC party of mostly 2nd-level characters in Tier 1-4 scenarios, or mostly 4th-level characters in Tier 3-6 scenarios? If so, what do you think about this suggestion?
Thanks for reading.
Testing the hypothesis...
Other players and GMs: If you have you played or GMd a 6-PC table with 19-21 CPs -- in a variety of scenarios and party compositions -- has the game seemed harder than when you played with other numbers of PCs and CPs?
If it isn't an isolated case, then it might warrant adding the extra step between low and high subtier. Thanks.
These are good questions. My own finding is that it really varies a lot per scenario. The worst offenders are scenarios with a single high-level boss. To take an example,
Q5 has a main boss that's brutal for a L4 playing up. Q7 and Q8 playing with the same character, also up, were not problematic. Q9 also with that character this time in-tier was still spicy.
I think in the not-overwhelming majority of cases, a mixed-levels large party playing up does alright, because superior numbers can definitely count, especially if the party cooperates well with supporting each other (healing, flanking, buffing). I'd expect steady parties where the players have a good idea of what the other characters are adding, do better at this too.
As a GM I always try to be as open as possible about whether a scenario is friendly to playing up, or whether the party really should try to shove everyone inside the same tier.
I do think there's a weird hard cut at 19 CP. Consider: a level 4 party has a pretty smooth level/CP/difficulty curve. Add a level to a character, see difficulty go up a little bit. But for a 5+ party, there's a sudden transition from 18 to 19 CP where you don't go from "lots of low tier" to "bare high tier", you go to "high tier with 3CP over minimum", so usually already one extra bit of opposition.
|
I haven't run into the exact example, but I did switch tables at ConCurrent in a 1-4 when I saw that I was the level 4 who would put the table at 19CP. I did that well before the game, and it was a convention, so there were plenty of opportunities to change tables. I didn't want to be the one to bring an entire table up a tier.
The other example is that I played up as a level 4 in a 3-6 and had a similar experience to Rob with the end boss. We had a couple of level 6 characters, and no one below 4, so we weren't borderline. But when the creature was +20 to-hit against my 21/22AC, it felt like things could have gone very badly very quickly. If not for excellent play from the level 6s, and some lucky die rolls, it would have gone much worse than it did.
It's really feeling like at high tier, if you're in the low tier, something in the scenario is going to hit you on anything better than a 1, and crit you on an 11 or better. And most of those crits will also drop you.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
I don't think we will ever have this CP scaling set perfectly. There will always be a scenario it doesn't work well for one way or the other. We are just going to have to accept that playing up doesn't work well for some scenarios and situations. In the case of a party of low level characters with one character in the upper tier that causes the scaling to push the session into the upper tier, the proper thing to do is for the player with the higher level character to play a pregen, a different tier appropriate character, or to drop out of the session.
No, there is no right answer. Somebody is going to have to make a choice in the best interests of a party. However, we can continue to explore the CP repeatedly and we will never get it right. I for one do not want to turn the low tier into boringly easy sessions with no challenges. That is what the CP is meant to prevent.
|
|
I don't think the issue is as much with the CP/level as with the overtuned single end boss.
Paizo is definitely getting better but some of the early scenarios definitely had an end boss who was just overtuned. Level +3 is brutal even for characters at level, its just totally not fun for characters who are a level behind.
|
|
I was also at the table this weekend with Derek and Eliandra (and seriously, for the record: Eliandra handled this situation skillfully. We were absolutely high tier by the numbers and when the group was considering fleeing, I believe she handled the difficult situation very deftly).
It's true that this is a particularly challenging scenario; I purchased it after our session so I could read it and multiple encounters could TPK a 19-21 CP 2nd level party. This is because of the math in 2e and how party level+2 or party level+3 encounters work.
This particular scenario aside, I like Derek's suggestion that the number of players at a table contribute more to how tier is selected, especially in the case where there are 6 players.
Under the current system, the following 6-player tables will be high tier in a 1-4 scenario:
- (2+2+2+2+2+3) = 19 CPs
- (2+2+2+2+2+4) = 21 CPs
The issue is that, party composition aside, the 3-4 high tier will typically have combats that overwhelm either of the above two parties. Take for example the encounter design rules on page 489 of the CRB. "Party level" in the above two examples are 2.16 and 2.33, respectively. Let's say an author is designing a moderate high tier encounter for four 4th level PCs. The encounter budget is 80XP. The encounter could have two 40XP Creature-4s. However, for the 2nd level parties, these same two creatures would be equivalent to 160 XP (two Party Level + 2 creatures). A severe encounter for 6 2nd level PCs would be 180 XP. Our 2nd level party playing up will probably hit multiple severe difficulty encounters and such a party would regularly encounter extreme difficulty encounters...which is probably not what the author intended.
FWIW, the encounter in question was not the final one. By the CRB guide it was easily an extreme difficulty encounter....
The monsters in this encounter for 19-22 CP were 2*(level+2), 2*(level-3), 3*(level-1). This works out, for a 2nd level party, to 160+30+90=280 XP, above the XP budget for even an extreme encounter for 6 PCs! (240 XP).
By assigning the low subtier to 19-21 when there are six players, the above party level distribution would have more appropriate challenges.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe letting players apply the mentor boon to level 2 characters could help - while the level 1s would for example get +2 on skills, level 2 could get a +1.
While that does depend a bit on the available mentor boons, it is a bit silly that a boosted level 1 char could have higher hp than a normal level 2 character (with the appropriate mentor boon used).
Another approach could be to look at the scaling, particularly looking at the lowest level and the second-lowest.
That said, that particular scenario and party composition is a bit of an outlier, and I have yet to see character death at any of my PFS2 tables.
---
While this would require a fair bit of work, we could also consider boosting everyone to [second highest scenario level] and try to find some way to give spellcasters/alchemists a couple of bonus spells/let them chose pathfinder training items based on that boosted level.
That said if we go that way, we likely have to add a couple more CP to account for this giant boost.
It's not perfect, and might not have saved that group from the nasty final boss, but it is a topic worth discussing.
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Something to keep in mind with the CP method: It is evolving as we play and report. Part of the job of the writings and developers is to understand how the mix of the challenges impacts the CP process.
I believe they are learning, just like us, on how to scale these adventures.
And we, as GMs, need to look at the GM discussions to understand that the possible pitfalls of an adventures that we are prepping.
I don't see a need to make the change suggested. We already adjusted 16-18 CP because of experience. I am sure more small changes will come.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Closest I have had to a TPK in PFS2 was a game where I ran 7 2nd levels, which pushed it up to Tier 3-4 at the time (not sure it does now). End boss had multiple AoEs. Fortunately, even though 4 of the 7 where dying, one of the fighters got a crit and finished the boss just in time to get everyone stabilized (I think 2 had hit Dying 3 at that point). So it was close.
I will say, having played in 6 organized play campaigns over the years, boss monsters with multiple AoEs are the biggest problem when playing up in any organized play campaign I have been in. When the boss casts a Fireball that catches everyone in it, number of party members is irrelevant.
I have played in PFS2 games where I played up with a first level and was mostly useless. There were no deaths, but several party members were preparing for the final round to be their last (either because they expected to die, or expected they were going to have to run away) when the boss finally dropped.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have noticed that groups with one high adventurer and bunch of low levels are incredibly dangerous. It does help if the higher level players purchase mentor boons, but I've gotten to the point of warning players when I see that the characters are that far apart in levels.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have noticed that groups with one high adventurer and bunch of low levels are incredibly dangerous. It does help if the higher level players purchase mentor boons, but I've gotten to the point of warning players when I see that the characters are that far apart in levels.
Hmm
One really, really good thing that I've noticed is that the other players REALLY try and help out the low level character.
I've seen people buy a mentor boon as soon as they realize that there is a minimum level character at the party. There are often 1 or 2 glyph GMs handing out hero points as well. People try and set up flanks or flat footed. Etc
Not a solution but its nice to see the community come together like it does
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Closest I have had to a TPK in PFS2 was a game where I ran 7 2nd levels, which pushed it up to Tier 3-4 at the time (not sure it does now).
It would not, as 7 player tables are now illegal, and 6 2's would be CP 18, which is the upper section of low tier (18=low because of the changes to 16-18, where only 4 PC parties would go high)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree neither with the proposal to change the scaling, nor with the proposal to just wait because others will adjust.
1. It's really hard to fine tune when multiple people are adjusting all at once, and very easy to overadjust.
2. 20-something data points per year isn't enough, statistically, to determine whether there's a problem or not.
Rather than try to get authors, developers, GMs, and players all to agree on a single system, it is way easier to allow more flexibility in the current system.
Levels don't tell the whole story. An optimized level 4 champion can more easily carry a 4/2/2/2/2/2 team against a CR 6 boss than an unoptimized level 4 divine sorcerer.
My counterproposal: Allow GMs to use discretion to add or drop a CP (or a number of CPs equal to their glyphs, if there is worry about novice GMs doing it inappropriately). Audit this with transparency, any game so adjusted has to be manually reported - so OPF has a record if any GMs are consistently abusing the system.
|
|
Levels don't tell the whole story. An optimized level 4 champion can more easily carry a 4/2/2/2/2/2 team against a CR 6 boss than an unoptimized level 4 divine sorcerer.
The APL for that party is only slightly above 2, at 2.33. Should a clearly APL 2 party of six be forced to play high tier?
The articulated intent in Organized Play guide is at odds with the reality of the current Challenge Point system. This is what it says:
Parties with 16-18 play in the high subtier only if they have 4 PC. If they have 5 or more PCs, they play in the low tier. This allows small parties of high level adventurers to play in the high tier, while large parties of low level adventurers play in the low tier.
(emphasis added)
If "large parties of low level adventurers play in the low tier" how does having 2/2/2/2/2/3 and 2/2/2/2/2/4 being forced to play high tier make sense?
|
|
We don't have optimization in PFS2. Hopefully, we never will.
Oh yes we most certainly do.
Even now, there are notable differences in character efficiency. And those differences WILL grow over time.
Now, it is most definitely true that those differences are less than in PF1 and it is FAR easier to reach a baseline level of efficiency.
And in PF2 tactics are far more important and can more easily compensate for build.
But look at how effective a martial with a 14 in their stat is before saying that there is no optimization (not hypothetical. One was playing at a table I was at just yesterday).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't have optimization in PFS2. Hopefully, we never will.
Local player, fighter with wizard dedication. Able to cast true strike and shield. Carries around either bastard sword or greatsword. Very powerful melee.
Overly optimized no.
Able to do some amazing damage with high levels of accuracy. Yes.
With that said, are people saying that they would rather have cake walk scenarios with no possibility of death. What sort of adventurer would want that. Half the fun is knowing you might die...or am i the only one who thinks like that?
|
|
With that said, are people saying that they would rather have cake walk scenarios with no possibility of death. What sort of adventurer would want that. Half the fun is knowing you might die...or am i the only one who thinks like that?
Previous discussions have shown that different players very definitely want different levels of danger, both real and perceived.
Personally, I like the illusion of death but don't really like character death (either as a player or GM). I acknowledge that an occasional death is unfortunately almost always necessary to maintain that illusion
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
We don't have optimization in PFS2. Hopefully, we never will.Oh yes we most certainly do.
Even now, there are notable differences in character efficiency. And those differences WILL grow over time.
Now, it is most definitely true that those differences are less than in PF1 and it is FAR easier to reach a baseline level of efficiency.
And in PF2 tactics are far more important and can more easily compensate for build.
But look at how effective a martial with a 14 in their stat is before saying that there is no optimization (not hypothetical. One was playing at a table I was at just yesterday).
I disagree completely. There is no reason for differences to grow over time if the designers do not put in ways to abuse the system. The math is different for PF2 and that allows for more expansion. PF1 math was not friendly to expansion as noted by the designers.
In PF2, to get something you have to sacrifice something else. If you want to build a wildly unbalanced character you can...and you'll be a detriment to the party most of the time.
A martial with a 14 in their stat is someone playing a character they want to play. They might have designed the character to do something else other than straight up damage which is perfectly fine. The three action economy is more than just damage output. Anyone who judges the effectiveness of their character by damage output is missing out on half or more of the game.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like the illusion of death but don't really like character death (either as a player or GM). I acknowledge that an occasional death is unfortunately almost always necessary to maintain that illusion
With that said, are people saying that they would rather have cake walk scenarios with no possibility of death. What sort of adventurer would want that. Half the fun is knowing you might die...or am i the only one who thinks like that?
Agree 100% on this statement.
The few scrapes with death I have witnessed in 2ed were glorious. It lead to heroic moments and had the players thinking strategy. Not just go in and destroy. And the elation on the players faces when a lucky swing defeats the big bad, priceless.
I do expect more changes to come to the Challenge Point system, but hopefully nothing too drastic.
|
|
Party makeup has as much or more to do with the strength of a challenge than character level. Chopping up the tier ranges into smaller and smaller groups is not going to eliminate the effect character choice and build has on the strength of a party. Melee vs ranged, dedicated healer, spellcasting/lack thereof, etc can push a party’s effectiveness up or down more than the difference between level 2 vs 3. Not to mention swings in dice rolling and the effect of battle tactics. We have to come to the realization that sometimes we are going to fail vs a challenge and sometimes we are going to steamroll a scenario. Neither of those situations means we must rework the guidelines for tier distribution.
|
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
I was also at the table this weekend with Derek and Eliandra (and seriously, for the record: Eliandra handled this situation skillfully. We were absolutely high tier by the numbers and when the group was considering fleeing, I believe she handled the difficult situation very deftly).
It's true that this is a particularly challenging scenario; I purchased it after our session so I could read it and multiple encounters could TPK a 19-21 CP 2nd level party. This is because of the math in 2e and how party level+2 or party level+3 encounters work.
This particular scenario aside, I like Derek's suggestion that the number of players at a table contribute more to how tier is selected, especially in the case where there are 6 players.
Under the current system, the following 6-player tables will be high tier in a 1-4 scenario:
- (2+2+2+2+2+3) = 19 CPs
- (2+2+2+2+2+4) = 21 CPs
The issue is that, party composition aside, the 3-4 high tier will typically have combats that overwhelm either of the above two parties. Take for example the encounter design rules on page 489 of the CRB. "Party level" in the above two examples are 2.16 and 2.33, respectively. Let's say an author is designing a moderate high tier encounter for four 4th level PCs. The encounter budget is 80XP. The encounter could have two 40XP Creature-4s. However, for the 2nd level parties, these same two creatures would be equivalent to 160 XP (two Party Level + 2 creatures). A severe encounter for 6 2nd level PCs would be 180 XP. Our 2nd level party playing up will probably hit multiple severe difficulty encounters and such a party would regularly encounter extreme difficulty encounters...which is probably not what the author intended.
FWIW, the encounter in question was not the final one. By the CRB guide it was easily an extreme difficulty encounter....
** spoiler omitted **...
Oof, good catch! That sidebar is in error; there's only supposed to be one of those creature 4s at the 19 CP range. So you were facing what would be appropriate for 28–32. I'll make a note for revision and post in the GM discussion thread.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under the current system, the following 6-player tables will be high tier in a 1-4 scenario:
- (2+2+2+2+2+3) = 19 CPs
- (2+2+2+2+2+4) = 21 CPs
The issue is that, party composition aside, the 3-4 high tier will typically have combats that overwhelm either of the above two parties. Take for example the encounter design rules on page 489 of the CRB. "Party level" in the above two examples are 2.16 and 2.33, respectively. Let's say an author is designing a moderate high tier encounter for four 4th level PCs. The encounter budget is 80XP. The encounter could have two 40XP Creature-4s. However, for the 2nd level parties, these same two creatures would be equivalent to 160 XP (two Party Level + 2 creatures). A severe encounter for 6 2nd level PCs would be 180 XP. Our 2nd level party playing up will probably hit multiple severe difficulty encounters and such a party would regularly encounter extreme difficulty encounters...which is probably not what the author intended.
FWIW, the encounter in question was not the final one. By the CRB guide it was easily an extreme difficulty encounter....
Spoiler:The monsters in this encounter for 19-22 CP were 2*(level+2), 2*(level-3), 3*(level-1). This works out, for a 2nd level party, to 160+30+90=280 XP, above the XP budget for even an extreme encounter for 6 PCs! (240 XP).By assigning the low subtier to 19-21 when there are six players, the above party level distribution would have more appropriate challenges.
Okay, now that we've had that clarification (there was an error in the scaling bar, there should have been one fewer creature) let's review this again.
Your party had levels 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, which counts out to 21 CP. The CRB rules for encounter math strongly assume that all PCs are the same level, so we have to figure out a conversion for your level 4 player. Fortunately, this is easy. The CP scale suggests that one level 4 character is worth two level 2 characters. The same philosophy is present in Table 10-2 where the XP value of a monster doubles about every two levels. At least at low level, I think this holds true well enough; a level 4 character has almost as many HP as two level 2 characters combined, could have as many spells per day as two level 2 characters combined, cantrips do about 1.5x as much damage and that +2 to hit/DC makes them more likely to stick. So, making that assumption, your party is equivalent to seven level 2 characters.
Note also that 21 CP is just a hair over five level 3 characters. So that implies that 2,2,2,2,2,4 = 3,3,3,3,3. Let's see if that's actually true.
Now, the encounter in question is a Severe 3 encounter, not a Moderate one. If we take the monster numbers with the proper scaling (that we've now received), the 21 CP encounter is worth 60+(3x20)+(2*10)=140 XP for a party of level 3 characters, which is slightly easy for a Severe five-player party encounter, as the target is 120+30 = 150 XP. Looks like it's off by one flunky.
for the level 2 party, it's 80+(3*30)+(2*15) = 225 XP, and the target number for a 7-player level 2 party having a Severe encounter is 210, so it's a bit harder, by one flunky.
So analyzing this, there are two issues in your analysis;
- You didn't account for the L4 being more powerful than the L2s when doing encounter math
- You were given false premises because there's an error in the scenario
With the corrected numbers, the party playing up still has a harder time of it, although not as extremely much harder as before. It does show that there's a wrinkle in the power progression just at the moment a large party flips to high tier.
I think though, that there being one too many bosses played a bigger role in this incident than the challenge points being bad in principle.
|
|
I was one of the casters at the table and Eliandra ran everything just fine. If there was a sidebar mistake that certainly explains a bit and I'm not all that upset about it. I think there was a fair bit going on in that encounter that made it harder with our part composition. The main thing in that fight is that the kobolds keep falling back to do the, welcome to another ambush thing, because... well kobold. That meant few opportunities do things like 3 action magic missle or cast an attack spell and then shield for some defense because we kept having to move. For the record I knew we were short healers so i stocked up on potions... which I don't think i needed to tap into. Anyway. I was surprised by how quickly we escalated to the upper tier but I am also less experience with 2e than 1e or SF.
Party composition is of course a major factor in the difficulty, but even then, that adventure and that encounter in particular is just very tough. Even more so with the mistake in the scaling sidebar.