Make APL calculations optional [Archive] - Wizards Community

Make APL calculations optional [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Timlagor
02-06-06, 09:52 AM I'd like to see the APL calculations based on character levels be made a purely optional device. Let people choose what APL they play at freely.

I imagine that this will mostly be used by people to choose to 'play down' giving them an easier time when they have relatively weak tables but I see no problem with people playing down with strong tables so long as they accept the reduced rewards.

People who consider modules too tough could play down and those who complain about cakewalks could face tougher opposition if they chose (though the 1/2 xp&gp is a pretty strong disincentive).

[I would combine this with some limit to the reward PCs could gain from playing wayyyy up with high level parties.]
A'Talsen
02-06-06, 11:42 AM The problem is that the characters should be a 'certain level' to experince the 'challenge' of a module. I.E. they 'should' play the APL closest to their character's level. We already have a method for determining the APL (or closest APL) for a table.

The problem with being able to choose is that it allows groups to play at a level other than the expected one.

For a group playing down, the challenge is almost gone (I could care less about that if done voluntairly, but apparently others do care).

For a group playing up, they get more gold and XP, and their ratio of gold to XP improves. With the exception of intro mods, the range of low APL games tend to have a 1GP to 1XP ratio, and as you get higher the ratio changes gradually (1.5gp:1XP, 2gp:1xp, etc - you can check that against almost any AR to see the ratios improve as you get higher).

Granted, in playing up, the group must both survive and succeed, but I know that I can put together a table that can comfortably play up one APL, sometimes more depending on the mod. I'd definately risk playing WAY up ocasionally just to get the higher level access if given the choice.

I'd like to see the APL calculations based on character levels be made a purely optional device. Let people choose what APL they play at freely.

I imagine that this will mostly be used by people to choose to 'play down' giving them an easier time when they have relatively weak tables but I see no problem with people playing down with strong tables so long as they accept the reduced rewards.

People who consider modules too tough could play down and those who complain about cakewalks could face tougher opposition if they chose (though the 1/2 xp&gp is a pretty strong disincentive).

[I would combine this with some limit to the reward PCs could gain from playing wayyyy up with high level parties.]

IMO, the limits we have right now are suficient.

Mciahel "F'ish" Murphy
Moryath
02-06-06, 12:16 PM The main problem is that it allows for powerleveling and powermoneying.

A group of level 8's get together with a level 4, and decide to play APL 4. The level 4 character doesn't have to do anything because the 8's cakewalk the mod, but the 4 gets full gold and XP. Meanwhile, the 8's take half XP and full gold.

No, leave the APL system as is.

The problem is that the characters should be a 'certain level' to experince the 'challenge' of a module. I.E. they 'should' play the APL closest to their character's level. We already have a method for determining the APL (or closest APL) for a table.

The problem with being able to choose is that it allows groups to play at a level other than the expected one.

For a group playing down, the challenge is almost gone (I could care less about that if done voluntairly, but apparently others do care).

For a group playing up, they get more gold and XP, and their ratio of gold to XP improves. With the exception of intro mods, the range of low APL games tend to have a 1GP to 1XP ratio, and as you get higher the ratio changes gradually (1.5gp:1XP, 2gp:1xp, etc - you can check that against almost any AR to see the ratios improve as you get higher).

Granted, in playing up, the group must both survive and succeed, but I know that I can put together a table that can comfortably play up one APL, sometimes more depending on the mod. I'd definately risk playing WAY up ocasionally just to get the higher level access if given the choice.

IMO, the limits we have right now are suficient.

Mciahel "F'ish" Murphy
SteveMND
02-06-06, 12:23 PM I don't see this as likely to change, since this is one of those "very significant changes" that I don't think the Circle is willing to entertain in these last few days of discussion.

And while I'm not big on the idea of unrestricted playing up (such an idea is just rife for abuse), I do think that it would benefit the campaign greatly if tables were allowed to choose to play down if they wished (taking, of course, the appropriately-lower rewards in terms of XP, gold and item access).

The reason for this is as such: much has been made about the so-called 'escalating threat' of the campaign over the last couple of years due o the emphasis on dangerous combats, and for many, if you don't have a character that is optimized for combat, you're often seen as 'not pulling your own weight.'

Which is true, for the most part. Fewer and fewer "role-playing" characters (those with, say, extraneous skill points in Crafts and professions, non-optimized weapon proficiencies, etc.) are being seen, simply because with the nature of the campaign, it's much harder to suceed if everyone isn't giving 100% in each combat.

By allowing tables to play down if they wish, a table with one or more non-combat characters to still enjoy the module at a level they feel they can handle. Of course, they will not get the rewards they might otherwise have if they had played a higher APL, but at least the option is there.

It would also be of great help to convention tables and other places where you may not always be able to ensue that you have a 'well-rounded' table. A table that ends up with no fighters or clerics could opt to play down, since playing at the 'normal' APL otherwise would very likely be too deadly without a strong sword or the ability to heal.
Moryath
02-06-06, 12:37 PM The reason for this is as such: much has been made about the so-called 'escalating threat' of the campaign over the last couple of years due o the emphasis on dangerous combats, and for many, if you don't have a character that is optimized for combat, you're often seen as 'not pulling your own weight.'

Which is true, for the most part. Fewer and fewer "role-playing" characters (those with, say, extraneous skill points in Crafts and professions, non-optimized weapon proficiencies, etc.) are being seen, simply because with the nature of the campaign, it's much harder to suceed if everyone isn't giving 100% in each combat.

By allowing tables to play down if they wish, a table with one or more non-combat characters to still enjoy the module at a level they feel they can handle. Of course, they will not get the rewards they might otherwise have if they had played a higher APL, but at least the option is there.

It would also be of great help to convention tables and other places where you may not always be able to ensue that you have a 'well-rounded' table. A table that ends up with no fighters or clerics could opt to play down, since playing at the 'normal' APL otherwise would very likely be too deadly without a strong sword or the ability to heal.

I can agree with this one.
If your table is technically 10.5 but your front-line people are level 9, and you have six people, right now you're forced to play apl 12. There are plenty of builds that don't optimize 100% for combat.

I'd say that you ought to have your pick of APL right up until you actually cross the numbers.
zigspatty
02-06-06, 01:04 PM The problem is that the characters should be a 'certain level' to experince the 'challenge' of a module. I.E. they 'should' play the APL closest to their character's level. We already have a method for determining the APL (or closest APL) for a table.

<snip>

For a group playing down, the challenge is almost gone (I could care less about that if done voluntairly, but apparently others do care).

Unfortunately the APL doesn't always accurately represent the sort of challenge that is appropriate for some groups. A table of 4 - no matter how well-balanced - is always going to experience a greater challenge than a larger table of 5. A table of 6 can be forced to play an APL higher than any character at the table solely because of the +1 bump. A table that is missing one or more of the basic class roles or that has a couple less optimal characters, or less tactical players will usually have a far more difficult time meeting challenges appropriate to their APL when you go exactly by the numbers.

Has LG become a game solely for experts so that such groups MUST play the higher APL solely because the numbers say that's the appropriate level of challenge? Not all characters of every level are exactly equal. How is anyone else's fun decreased if some parties are allowed to play down for less xp/gp? Shouldn't they have that option?

Patty
wagnert
02-06-06, 01:36 PM How about making it simpler by just rounding down.
- A party of 6 (9/10/10/10/10/10) works out to 9.82 plus 1 giving 10.82 meaning you round to 10.
- A party of 6 (9/8/8/8/8/8) works out to 8.16 plus 1 giving 9.16 meaning you round to 9.
- A party of 6 (8/9/9/9/9/9) works out to 8.82 plus 1 gives 9.82 meaning you again round to 9.

The first party is clearly a level 10 party. The second party is mostly level 8 but with 6 players rounds to 9 giving the option to play down to 8 or up to 10. The third party is mostly level 9 but with 6 players still rounds to 9 giving the option to play down to 8 or up to 10. The third party is far more likely to want to and be successful at APL 10 than the second party. The first party looks fine for APL 10 but APL 12 would just be mean to them.

Tom Wagner
Reylance
02-06-06, 02:20 PM I could certainly support allowing a table to play at the APL one below the calculated APL. For example, three 8th level and three 9th level PCs are forced to play APL 10, and those PCs are likely not ready for some APL 10 challenges. If the goal is to make players happy and appropriately challenge their PCs, then APL 10 probably doesn't help meet those goals.

Standard rules about half XP would still apply.
Timlagor
02-06-06, 08:09 PM The main problem is that it allows for powerleveling and powermoneying.

A group of level 8's get together with a level 4, and decide to play APL 4. The level 4 character doesn't have to do anything because the 8's cakewalk the mod, but the 4 gets full gold and XP. Meanwhile, the 8's take half XP and full gold.

I don't see why this bothers you.
The 8th level characters will take much longer to advance (and not get a noticeably better xp:gp ratio than if they played at-APL and reached APL10)
and the 4th level player won't be going any faster than he would if he played with a group of his own level.

If playing modules with effortless combats makes them happy that doesn't bother me in the least. Some people may end up with unusually wealthy characters for hteir level but they will have played those characters for much longer and there are already plenty of ways to achieve this: most obviously death and multi-classing (xp penalty).

What exactly are you objecting to and why? How does it affect you?
redgamer
02-07-06, 02:55 AM Would adding in a sentance saying: If all the players are below the calculated APL (such as three 8s and three 9s being APL 10) the players can choose to play the APL one teir below normal. make APLs too confusing? Would it have other bad side effects?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Timlagor 02-06-06, 09:52 AM	I'd like to see the APL calculations based on character levels be made a purely optional device. Let people choose what APL they play at freely. I imagine that this will mostly be used by people to choose to 'play down' giving them an easier time when they have relatively weak tables but I see no problem with people playing down with strong tables so long as they accept the reduced rewards. People who consider modules too tough could play down and those who complain about cakewalks could face tougher opposition if they chose (though the 1/2 xp&gp is a pretty strong disincentive). [I would combine this with some limit to the reward PCs could gain from playing wayyyy up with high level parties.]
A'Talsen 02-06-06, 11:42 AM	The problem is that the characters should be a 'certain level' to experince the 'challenge' of a module. I.E. they 'should' play the APL closest to their character's level. We already have a method for determining the APL (or closest APL) for a table. The problem with being able to choose is that it allows groups to play at a level other than the expected one. For a group playing down, the challenge is almost gone (I could care less about that if done voluntairly, but apparently others do care). For a group playing up, they get more gold and XP, and their ratio of gold to XP improves. With the exception of intro mods, the range of low APL games tend to have a 1GP to 1XP ratio, and as you get higher the ratio changes gradually (1.5gp:1XP, 2gp:1xp, etc - you can check that against almost any AR to see the ratios improve as you get higher). Granted, in playing up, the group must both survive and succeed, but I know that I can put together a table that can comfortably play up one APL, sometimes more depending on the mod. I'd definately risk playing WAY up ocasionally just to get the higher level access if given the choice. I'd like to see the APL calculations based on character levels be made a purely optional device. Let people choose what APL they play at freely. I imagine that this will mostly be used by people to choose to 'play down' giving them an easier time when they have relatively weak tables but I see no problem with people playing down with strong tables so long as they accept the reduced rewards. People who consider modules too tough could play down and those who complain about cakewalks could face tougher opposition if they chose (though the 1/2 xp&gp is a pretty strong disincentive). [I would combine this with some limit to the reward PCs could gain from playing wayyyy up with high level parties.] IMO, the limits we have right now are suficient. Mciahel "F'ish" Murphy
Moryath 02-06-06, 12:16 PM	The main problem is that it allows for powerleveling and powermoneying. A group of level 8's get together with a level 4, and decide to play APL 4. The level 4 character doesn't have to do anything because the 8's cakewalk the mod, but the 4 gets full gold and XP. Meanwhile, the 8's take half XP and full gold. No, leave the APL system as is. The problem is that the characters should be a 'certain level' to experince the 'challenge' of a module. I.E. they 'should' play the APL closest to their character's level. We already have a method for determining the APL (or closest APL) for a table. The problem with being able to choose is that it allows groups to play at a level other than the expected one. For a group playing down, the challenge is almost gone (I could care less about that if done voluntairly, but apparently others do care). For a group playing up, they get more gold and XP, and their ratio of gold to XP improves. With the exception of intro mods, the range of low APL games tend to have a 1GP to 1XP ratio, and as you get higher the ratio changes gradually (1.5gp:1XP, 2gp:1xp, etc - you can check that against almost any AR to see the ratios improve as you get higher). Granted, in playing up, the group must both survive and succeed, but I know that I can put together a table that can comfortably play up one APL, sometimes more depending on the mod. I'd definately risk playing WAY up ocasionally just to get the higher level access if given the choice. IMO, the limits we have right now are suficient. Mciahel "F'ish" Murphy
SteveMND 02-06-06, 12:23 PM	I don't see this as likely to change, since this is one of those "very significant changes" that I don't think the Circle is willing to entertain in these last few days of discussion. And while I'm not big on the idea of unrestricted playing up (such an idea is just rife for abuse), I do think that it would benefit the campaign greatly if tables were allowed to choose to play down if they wished (taking, of course, the appropriately-lower rewards in terms of XP, gold and item access). The reason for this is as such: much has been made about the so-called 'escalating threat' of the campaign over the last couple of years due o the emphasis on dangerous combats, and for many, if you don't have a character that is optimized for combat, you're often seen as 'not pulling your own weight.' Which is true, for the most part. Fewer and fewer "role-playing" characters (those with, say, extraneous skill points in Crafts and professions, non-optimized weapon proficiencies, etc.) are being seen, simply because with the nature of the campaign, it's much harder to suceed if everyone isn't giving 100% in each combat. By allowing tables to play down if they wish, a table with one or more non-combat characters to still enjoy the module at a level they feel they can handle. Of course, they will not get the rewards they might otherwise have if they had played a higher APL, but at least the option is there. It would also be of great help to convention tables and other places where you may not always be able to ensue that you have a 'well-rounded' table. A table that ends up with no fighters or clerics could opt to play down, since playing at the 'normal' APL otherwise would very likely be too deadly without a strong sword or the ability to heal.
Moryath 02-06-06, 12:37 PM	The reason for this is as such: much has been made about the so-called 'escalating threat' of the campaign over the last couple of years due o the emphasis on dangerous combats, and for many, if you don't have a character that is optimized for combat, you're often seen as 'not pulling your own weight.' Which is true, for the most part. Fewer and fewer "role-playing" characters (those with, say, extraneous skill points in Crafts and professions, non-optimized weapon proficiencies, etc.) are being seen, simply because with the nature of the campaign, it's much harder to suceed if everyone isn't giving 100% in each combat. By allowing tables to play down if they wish, a table with one or more non-combat characters to still enjoy the module at a level they feel they can handle. Of course, they will not get the rewards they might otherwise have if they had played a higher APL, but at least the option is there. It would also be of great help to convention tables and other places where you may not always be able to ensue that you have a 'well-rounded' table. A table that ends up with no fighters or clerics could opt to play down, since playing at the 'normal' APL otherwise would very likely be too deadly without a strong sword or the ability to heal. I can agree with this one. If your table is technically 10.5 but your front-line people are level 9, and you have six people, right now you're forced to play apl 12. There are plenty of builds that don't optimize 100% for combat. I'd say that you ought to have your pick of APL right up until you actually cross the numbers.
zigspatty 02-06-06, 01:04 PM	The problem is that the characters should be a 'certain level' to experince the 'challenge' of a module. I.E. they 'should' play the APL closest to their character's level. We already have a method for determining the APL (or closest APL) for a table. <snip> For a group playing down, the challenge is almost gone (I could care less about that if done voluntairly, but apparently others do care). Unfortunately the APL doesn't always accurately represent the sort of challenge that is appropriate for some groups. A table of 4 - no matter how well-balanced - is always going to experience a greater challenge than a larger table of 5. A table of 6 can be forced to play an APL higher than any character at the table solely because of the +1 bump. A table that is missing one or more of the basic class roles or that has a couple less optimal characters, or less tactical players will usually have a far more difficult time meeting challenges appropriate to their APL when you go exactly by the numbers. Has LG become a game solely for experts so that such groups MUST play the higher APL solely because the numbers say that's the appropriate level of challenge? Not all characters of every level are exactly equal. How is anyone else's fun decreased if some parties are allowed to play down for less xp/gp? Shouldn't they have that option? Patty
wagnert 02-06-06, 01:36 PM	How about making it simpler by just rounding down. - A party of 6 (9/10/10/10/10/10) works out to 9.82 plus 1 giving 10.82 meaning you round to 10. - A party of 6 (9/8/8/8/8/8) works out to 8.16 plus 1 giving 9.16 meaning you round to 9. - A party of 6 (8/9/9/9/9/9) works out to 8.82 plus 1 gives 9.82 meaning you again round to 9. The first party is clearly a level 10 party. The second party is mostly level 8 but with 6 players rounds to 9 giving the option to play down to 8 or up to 10. The third party is mostly level 9 but with 6 players still rounds to 9 giving the option to play down to 8 or up to 10. The third party is far more likely to want to and be successful at APL 10 than the second party. The first party looks fine for APL 10 but APL 12 would just be mean to them. Tom Wagner
Reylance 02-06-06, 02:20 PM	I could certainly support allowing a table to play at the APL one below the calculated APL. For example, three 8th level and three 9th level PCs are forced to play APL 10, and those PCs are likely not ready for some APL 10 challenges. If the goal is to make players happy and appropriately challenge their PCs, then APL 10 probably doesn't help meet those goals. Standard rules about half XP would still apply.
Timlagor 02-06-06, 08:09 PM	The main problem is that it allows for powerleveling and powermoneying. A group of level 8's get together with a level 4, and decide to play APL 4. The level 4 character doesn't have to do anything because the 8's cakewalk the mod, but the 4 gets full gold and XP. Meanwhile, the 8's take half XP and full gold. I don't see why this bothers you. The 8th level characters will take much longer to advance (and not get a noticeably better xp:gp ratio than if they played at-APL and reached APL10) and the 4th level player won't be going any faster than he would if he played with a group of his own level. If playing modules with effortless combats makes them happy that doesn't bother me in the least. Some people may end up with unusually wealthy characters for hteir level but they will have played those characters for much longer and there are already plenty of ways to achieve this: most obviously death and multi-classing (xp penalty). What exactly are you objecting to and why? How does it affect you?
redgamer 02-07-06, 02:55 AM	Would adding in a sentance saying: If all the players are below the calculated APL (such as three 8s and three 9s being APL 10) the players can choose to play the APL one teir below normal. make APLs too confusing? Would it have other bad side effects?