Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 6090365" data-attributes="member: 98255">This might be veering a little off the main topic, but this caught my attention.I had no idea that the Pathfinder APs were so deadly! I guess that can be an issue when writing an adventure for a system with such a wide range of variability in PC effectiveness - where is the &quot;sweet spot&quot; to design around?You could make it such that almost any group of unoptimized characters could win out, but then the CharOp crowd is facerolling through, requiring the DM to work a lot harder to challenge them, or you could do the opposite, as they apparently have, and make it near-impossible to beat without a min-maxed group, similar to WotC's own Lair Assault series of Organized Play modules, but then everyone who doesn't care to optimize is left banging their heads into a wall.I can see how it might be pretty satisfying to the CharOppers that want to be challenged, even moderate ones, but there should be some kind of guideline for adjusting the encounters for &quot;weaker&quot; parties, or even mixed ones as I imagine most are.Getting a back to the subject at hand, I absolutely agree that min-maxing doesn't necessitate pawn-stance. I once thought it did, until I learned to open my mind a little more. I think that back when I subscribed to the Stormwind Fallacy, my experiences were coloured by those CharOp folk that I knew, who did not roleplay much and mostly took pawn stance all the time, and even exhibited other playstyles that I found undesirable at my table, such as &quot;turtling&quot; and generally rules-lawyering the DM to death.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nemesis Destiny, post: 6090365, member: 98255"] This might be veering a little off the main topic, but this caught my attention. I had no idea that the Pathfinder APs were so deadly! I guess that can be an issue when writing an adventure for a system with such a wide range of variability in PC effectiveness - where is the "sweet spot" to design around? You could make it such that almost any group of unoptimized characters could win out, but then the CharOp crowd is facerolling through, requiring the DM to work a lot harder to challenge them, or you could do the opposite, as they apparently have, and make it near-impossible to beat without a min-maxed group, similar to WotC's own Lair Assault series of Organized Play modules, but then everyone who doesn't care to optimize is left banging their heads into a wall. I can see how it might be pretty satisfying to the CharOppers that want to be challenged, even moderate ones, but there should be some kind of guideline for adjusting the encounters for "weaker" parties, or even mixed ones as I imagine most are. Getting a back to the subject at hand, I absolutely agree that min-maxing doesn't necessitate pawn-stance. I once thought it did, until I learned to open my mind a little more. I think that back when I subscribed to the Stormwind Fallacy, my experiences were coloured by those CharOp folk that I knew, who did not roleplay much and mostly took pawn stance all the time, and even exhibited other playstyles that I found undesirable at my table, such as "turtling" and generally rules-lawyering the DM to death. [/QUOTE]

Verification