Venture-Agent, Pennsylvania—Philadelphia
|
Prepping the scenario. It seems that upping the needed worthiness points to 9 at a six player table for a boon is a bit excessive. Unless i am reading it wrong each challange in a room can only be attempted once.Considering that each challange in a room can only be attempted once the PCs at a 6 player table needs to crit succeed on 4 of the 5 room challanges rolls for a boon. While 4/5 player tables only need to crit succed 1 of the 5 checks per room to get the boon.
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
I had the guard who escorted them suggest that they try to overachieve in each room as there could be extra goodies to be had for more successes, and that merely succeeding in a room might not be good enough to win the gauntlet if their opponents succeeded but did it better than them. Indeed their secondary objective depends on doing more than the bare minimum in each room.
Avram, I’m not sure what you intend when you say they can keep attempting. Master E is entirely correct. Yes, if they best two challenges in a room (obtaining enough points to exit) they can still attempt the other three, but as you can only attempt each challenge once, a party of 6 must succeed on all 5 challenges and critically so on 4 of the 5.
|
Venture-Agent, Pennsylvania—Philadelphia
|
It seems to me with the writing the only way it could be otherwise is if you took the reading that each PC attempt each challange once. However i am not getting that from the reading of the text. Seems like 1 check per chllangw. The reading of one check per PC would also trivialize the secondary objective as there would be 20-30 worthiness point per room up for grabs
|
Venture-Agent, Pennsylvania—Philadelphia
|
And on the point of the secondary objective they also increase the amount of point need for that at a 6 player table. From 16 to 20. That means that a 4/5 pc table can fail 4 checks and get the 2ndary objective but a 6 player table cant fail any. Becuase of the one check per challange reading 6 players dont really have more role then a 4 or 5 player table. It seems harsh to penalize them then into need 4 more success on the same number of attempts
It seems like there might have been an intention to allow more then once check per challange but im just not seeing it based on my reading and the "each challange in a room can only be attempted once" phrase
|
Venture-Agent, Pennsylvania—Philadelphia
|
The only other way i can see to read it is based on the whole idea thay it is supposed to take place in "resolution rounds". The idea might be that each pc can attempt a givin challange. But once any number of pcs attempt a challange that challange is gone. That reading ia becuase it says at the beiging of each round a pc ia supposed to chose a check to challange, aid on or abstain. In that case, say when the 6 pcs first enter a room there are 5 challanges availble. 2 pcs try to attempt one challange. 2 attempt a differenr chllange and the two remaining pcs aid. After that round of rolls the two attempted challanges are gone with three remaiming. That sort of flow would keep the idea of each challange can be attmpted once but also make sense with the scaling based om PC number
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
I’ll agree that was an odd way to give an example. However, it doesn’t limit attempts if the party chooses to address each challenge one at a time, with the whole party rolling, aiding, or abstaining on each.
My experience so far is only for a table of 5 at high tier. They accumulated very close to 20 and possibly more, I don’t recall exactly how many since it didn’t matter at that point. They critically succeeded on quite a few challenges.
|
|
The class calls in the gauntlet challenges seem very arbitrary and not necessarily in theme with the challenge. I don't know if these are supposed to be pop culture references or something?
As per the recent changes in the GM guidelines, I guess we are allowed to be lenient with regards to those (it won't increase the difficulty!) to make it more reasonable: Replacing Ranger by "Wilderness themed character" for example, Bard by "Performance themed character", etc. I suppose I'd make the choice based on a Background or a Class/ sub-class/ Dedication.
Any feedback from the Organized Play team would be appreciated.
|
The class calls in the gauntlet challenges seem very arbitrary and not necessarily in theme with the challenge. I don't know if these are supposed to be pop culture references or something?
As per the recent changes in the GM guidelines, I guess we are allowed to be lenient with regards to those (it won't increase the difficulty!) to make it more reasonable: Replacing Ranger by "Wilderness themed character" for example, Bard by "Performance themed character", etc. I suppose I'd make the choice based on a Background or a Class/ sub-class/ Dedication.Any feedback from the Organized Play team would be appreciated.
I guess we could also use minimum expert proficiency in the specific skill could unlock the alternate option?
|
|
I guess we could also use minimum expert proficiency in the specific skill could unlock the alternate option?
Actually I think that's even better. I'm going for Expert in the skill for tier 7-8 and Master for the 9-10.
As to the missing Survival check DC, I'm going for a level based DC of 24 (low tier) or 27 (high tier).
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
(Played this yesterday, no GM experience with this yet.)
I'm not sure. I agree that the specific callouts feel weird, but on the other hand, allowing you to substitute your (probably) best skill for any other skill feels weird. It's like being rewarded even more for doubling down on one skill. It's like answering a maths test with a three-page essay about why you think you deserve an A on this test.
Not necessarily disagreeing, just saying it's not flawless.
Hell, I would maybe allow it as-is, but at a higher DC. That allows a broader range of characters to try it, but still keep the playing field even.