Suggested Starting Level Question

[Mistwell]

My D&D group is currently contemplating the Spider Queen adventure with 7 players. From what our DM has said, it is intended for a starting level of 10th for 4 players.

WITHOUT giving away even a hint of a spoiler about the adventure, what level do y'all think the party should start at?

Right now we have three methods under consideration:

1) "HIT DIE" BASIS. Our DM suggested that we do it on a per-hit-die basis. That is to say, the adventure is intended for 40 HD, so we split 40 HD among the party. Given that would result in 6th level, I think he is now thinking maybe bumping us up to 8th level, but still feels that is a bit too high on a per-hit-die basis, and is worried the adventure will be a cake-walk for us.

2) "SUGGESTED LEVEL" BASIS. I have suggested we stick with 10th level regardless of the number of players for three reasons: a) We are less organized and experienced (two new players to third edition, two more players who have experience but have almost never cracked the players handbook, and three who are moderately experienced) than most groups and therefore our increased numbers are not often much of an advantage and sometimes even a disadvantage; 2) We will get creamed if we face encounters intended for a 10th level group because, even though we may be able to kill our opponants faster, our opponants will likely bite our heads off faster as well before we will kill them, resulting in people having to make new characters on a fairly regular basis which will make everyone grumpy; 3) We will all gain experience much slower than the adventure likely intends since we will be splitting it 7 ways, and that means (if the adventure is intended to last a while) we will eventually be lower than the expected level for the challenges we face anyway. I don't know if the adventure is intended to last a while or not.

3) "DMG FORMULA" BASIS. The DMG implies that you decrease average character level by 1 for every two PCs over 4, such that 4 PCs @ 10th lev = 6 PCs @ 9th lev = 8 PCs @ 8th lev. This is the method i suspect most modules use to determine challenges for the PCs. If the adventure is intended to only last for a few levels (meaning there will not be a span of time where things will even out over many levels of play in the same adventure) then I suspect this would be the most fair method. Again, i don't know if the adventure is intended to last a while or not. I also don't know if this means for this group of 7 players that we should be level 8, level 9, or 8th level but with 50% of the experience necessary for 9th level.

We would dearly like advice on this issue, supporting one of those proposed ideas or a different basis.

 

[Crothian]

I'd start you all at 8 or 9. 7 players makes a very huge difference over 4. Plus if it relaly turns out to be to hard, the DM can just level everyone up.

 

[darkbard]

i'd probably keep you at 10th level. as you point out, splitting experience will slow your advancement over the pace expected, so though some of the earlier encounters may be easier, later ones will be more difficult--at which points your players will be more experienced and able to cope.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I'd split the group in 2.

Seriously, I'd start everyone at level 8th. The first encounters will be too easy, IMO.

OR

Start everyone at 10, and tell the DM to adjust the encounters by adding a couple of creatures here and there to compensate.

AR

 

[devilbat]

I'd start the group at 8th. Doubling up the intended number of players will make a big difference, on the adventure as written. So, at 8th, you should be ok.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Start everyone at 10, and tell the DM to adjust the encounters by adding a couple of creatures here and there to compensate.

This is the best piece of advice up there. If the adventure is for 10th level, then you should be 10th level for the whole "monsters chewing our heads off because our AC and HP are just slightly lower than they expect" reason.

The reasons this suggestion is good are many:

1. I have found as a DM that it is really not that hard to add a few extra monsters to compensate for a large party. It takes a wee bit of practice at the beginning to figure out how much to add, but it won't take the DM too long.

2. By adding a few more monsters, your party will actually keep pace with the expected XP gain/wealth gain. Thus, the discrepency down the road is now a non-issue, too.

3. More monsters will mean more things for each party member to do. Nothing worse for a secondary fighter (cleric, rogue, bard, etc) that to face up against two or three monsters and have nothing to do. Because in a party of 7, I am pretty sure you'll have at least two tanks - or at least two melee people. More than likely, you'll have more. and that isn't even counting any summoning that your wizards may be doing! But by increasing the number of monsters, it will help everyone feel a little useful. [This does have a downside, though. More monsters means longer drawn out combats. But with 7 players, it isn't like they aren't going to be drawn out anyway!]

4. Psychologically the game will be more enjoyable, too. If everyone is more involved, advancing on track, and in general enjoying the game - you'll feel more like playing. Trust me, nothing gets more boring than "The group of seven smites the two monsters that were called for." Even if you do start off at a lower level. But if everyone is involved because there is more to do - suddenly the "victory" is no longer a guarantee but instead it is earned!



The only real problem I can see with this solution is things like traps, which are hard to increase. Sure, you could put in more traps. But probably the best solution in this respect is to have something "double trapped." Now there are two traps on the door - one just in case the other is discovered. Bith traps target different zones of the room, so even though there are seven party members, simply hanging in the back isn't a "safe" bet anymore!

Anyway, there's my two coppers worth.

 

[Mistwell]

Without giving anything important away, has anyone actually run this module, or adventured in this module? If so, I'd value that opinion pretty highly.

Also, for those suggesting level 8 characters, how would you propose the DM keep the party up with the amount of treasure? Remember, the treasure in the module is set to keep PCs vaguely on par with what they should be for their levels and up.

For the first few levels the PCs might fair well, treasure-wise (if they live). Actually, they might not even then, as the jump in treasure from level 8 to level 10 is from 27K to 49K. Does anyone actually think this module will provide 154,000 gp worth of treasure (the gain needed to be on par for 7 characters) for those first two level gains, which will go fairly quickly because the ELs will be way higher than normal (even though split 7 ways)?

And it will get even worse after several levels of splitting treasure 7 ways and catching up to the level the party should be at, it's likely to leave the party drastically under-treasured. Particularly since the one thing the DM did tell us is that there is very little down-time during this adventure (meaning there will not be a lot of oppotunities to turn-in treasure and buy appropriate stuff), meaning that even if the party does find the appropriate amount of treasure, it will not be converted into the appropriate expected equipment for that level on a regular basis.

I just cannot imagine reducing the party level down by 20% is a workable solution. Eventually the module will result in a crushing of the party one way or the other. Either for lack of treasure, or because PCs will be killed way more often because all their stats will be lower than than expected for those opponants, or more likely both. Eventually, those balance flaws inherant in the adventure must catch up with the PCs. And for a game with two relative newbies, that's a bad senario.

The increasing the number of opponants idea makes a lot more sense to me. However, it also means a lot more work for the DM, who is intentially using a prepared published adventure so he doesn't have to tweak it a lot (it's being run in Klooge, the computer-driven DMs aid where he just has to download and/or cut and paste info into it). In particular I don't see him increasing the treasure amount to go along with increased mobs, as that would take even more work that just adding an extra opponant identical to one already there.

I dunno. I am startng to think that we just need to cut players.

 

[FEADIN]

We started around level 9 in this adventure, we where 6 and the first encounter was easy but after that everything seemed ok even for 6 players and a powerful npc with us.
I don't know if the dm beefed up the encounters but I don't thing so.
We never finished the adventure, some player's disponibility problems.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is the best piece of advice up there. If the adventure is for 10th level, then you should be 10th level for the whole "monsters chewing our heads off because our AC and HP are just slightly lower than they expect" reason.

The reasons this suggestion is good are many:

I'm not too impressed with this suggestion. It forces a lot of work on the DM to adjust the module and it makes the battles huge.

Plus, the more monsters you have, the higher the chance of PC death (due to the fact that with more monsters attacking, more of them could attack and kill the same PC). Anything which increases the difficulty of this module should be carefully considered.

Without giving anything important away, has anyone actually run this module, or adventured in this module? If so, I'd value that opinion pretty highly.

I ran the module for 5 characters around 9th level. It went well (we also did not get totally through it due to one person going to Iraq and another leaving the state).

I suggest 8th level characters as well. After the "first few levels of the dungeon", most of them should be close to 9th level (and some may have access to 5th level spells).


A suggestion for your DM. Don't take the PC raids lying down. Get good sized groups of Drow to counterattack and ambush. Also, have a high level priest Drow cast an Earthquake spell underground. It wrecks havoc for PCs who have never encountered this tactic before.

Magic using Drow should always rely on magic first, melee second.

 

[Mistwell]

A suggestion for your DM...

While I appreciate the suggestion, that's the sort of "no spoilers of any kind" stuff I was talking about. PLEASE do not discuss anything in this module. It spoils our fun. And given this is a thread I was intending to send to the whole group to look at so we could make our decision, it spoils the fun of a lot of other people as well. I'm just looking for advice on party starting level, not DM tactics for particular creatures in this particular module.