XP and Gold Rewards outside of APL range [Archive] - Wizards Community

XP and Gold Rewards outside of APL range [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JamesMaissen
02-02-06, 01:40 AM The xp and gold rewards for each given APL seem fairly standardized now. Instead of penalizing the poor 5th level that finds himself risking life and limb at APL 8 because a 6th person bumped the table up playing for less rewards than if he played down, could we come up with a better system?

The goal was stated to prevent the 1st level from being dragged through an APL 14 module and getting insane gold. Well the 1st level dragged through an APL 14 module gets 3300 gold with the current rules. That still seems insane. Heck wait til he's 2nd level, drag him through, let him die, pay for his raise with over the cap gold and he's a rich 1st level character.

Rather why not simply state that you get the lesser of standard rewards of APL played at and of the APL that is up to one higher than your current character's level? (ie a 1st level character would always get APL 2 rewards, a 3rd level character would get APL 2 if that were played, or APL 4 if anything higher was played).

Then all you would get for playing up would be harder fights and increased chances of death!

It would seem not that hard a rule to implement and would also seem to address issues more smoothly and appropriately than the current rule. Is there something I'm missing?

I'm sure it would also make setting up tables easier as the penalty for playing up would not be as extreme (unless of course the amount played up was extreme, which only seems right).

-James
serraphin
02-02-06, 07:58 AM If I'm understanding this right (forgive me - I'm a bit groggy today), you're saying that you cap a 2nd lvl characters earning if (s)he joins an APL 6 game? So that they can still only get APL 2 rewards?

Would it not be better just to set an upper limit? Much as a higher level character can only join an adventure 6 (6? Running from memory here) levels below him and no lower, why not just state that you can only join a game 4 levels higher (or cap at four levels higher?).

As an example - A low level group can bump their APL up to 4 from 2, with the addition of a couple of horses and dogs. This can often make a real difference to the obstacles they face, but would seem unfair to penalise them.

Hope that made sense!! ;)
paigeoliver
02-02-06, 08:25 AM I like the old rules better.

I would personally LOVE taking the shot to try and make a level 1 or two guy survive at APL 14 for the big payoff.

I think the half rewards are already restrictive enough. Once you are playing up 4 levels or more you are taking a very serious risk of getting your character killed. So what purpose does it serve to remove the reward for said risk?

I got stuck playing APL 6 when I was second level once, under the current system that gave me half XP and gold, giving me the same XP and treasure that I would have gotten at APL 2. I felt cheated to say the least, since playing it at APL 4 would have given me more than playing at APL 6 did.

For that matter I think the APL system is flawed, the part about adding a level for a full table scales very strangely, and there seems to be no way for 4 people tables to play without being underpowered.

I would like to suggest a TOTAL level system as opposed to an APL system.
vvincent
02-02-06, 08:42 AM The problem with what you describe is that people would take their 1st level characters at APL 14, hang back and do nothing, and reap the rewards. I've personally seen players whose 4th level characters have over 140,000 gp worth of equipment due to previous abuse of this.

The purpose of the rule is to encourage you to play within your APL range.

Vernon L. Vincent

I like the old rules better.

I would personally LOVE taking the shot to try and make a level 1 or two guy survive at APL 14 for the big payoff.

I think the half rewards are already restrictive enough. Once you are playing up 4 levels or more you are taking a very serious risk of getting your character killed. So what purpose does it serve to remove the reward for said risk?

I got stuck playing APL 6 when I was second level once, under the current system that gave me half XP and gold, giving me the same XP and treasure that I would have gotten at APL 2. I felt cheated to say the least, since playing it at APL 4 would have given me more than playing at APL 6 did.

For that matter I think the APL system is flawed, the part about adding a level for a full table scales very strangely, and there seems to be no way for 4 people tables to play without being underpowered.

I would like to suggest a TOTAL level system as opposed to an APL system.
paigeoliver
02-02-06, 08:50 AM Ah, well I wouldn't want to ABUSE it, but I certainly wouldn't mind taking a shot at it once. I wouldn't want to risk any characters who were past level 1.

Sometimes you don't really have a choice about playing up though. Its either play 4 levels up or drive home.
Sceadeau
02-02-06, 08:50 AM His suggestion isn't really about LOWERING rewards, but raising them (except in cases of abuse). A 5th level character, being forced to play up to APL 8, would recieve lesser reward (xp/gold) than he would if he was playing APL 6. Usually, that 5th level character is contributing just as much, and shouldn't be penalized so much xp/gold for increased danger. That is the crux of his argument. If the side effect is that people can't take level 1 characters through APL 14 mods to get insane money, well, yay for the system.
paigeoliver
02-02-06, 08:52 AM Yes, the playing up 3 or 4 levels and getting the same or less than you would at a lower level does seem kind of unfair.
Elfen_Archangel
02-02-06, 09:12 AM I do think that if you play up you should get the next APL above your range in gold/exp. So if you were level 7 and played APL 10, you would get the APL 8 rewards rather than 1/2 and 1/2 of the APL 10 rewards, which would be worse than playing APL 8.

But I do not believe that we should go back to the old rules where a level 1 could play APL 14 or APL 16 and get full gold. At a con I sat down at a table and it ended up being 5 15th level casters and me with my 5th level wizard. They told me they'd keep me invisible and flying and I was to just stay out of the fight and collect the AR at the end. While I was all for it, I knew it wasn't fair. There's a very large amount of room for abuse.
balakus01
02-02-06, 09:24 AM Why not make all characters receive there APL in gold and XP regardless of which APL they play, like how it's done with interactives.
Mommy was an Orc
02-02-06, 09:30 AM Rather why not simply state that you get the lesser of standard rewards of APL played at and of the APL that is up to one higher than your current character's level? (ie a 1st level character would always get APL 2 rewards, a 3rd level character would get APL 2 if that were played, or APL 4 if anything higher was played).

Don't you mean the APL that is 2 higher than your current level? A 2nd level character playing an APL 4 mod currently gets APL 4 treasure/xp. But I like the idea a lot - I've been sorely tempted to play a character that can contribute at high levels just for the half xp/gold - regardless of the game, a Marshal or Bard can be useful.
balakus01
02-02-06, 09:58 AM No that's not what I meant. What I referring to is the same way XP and Gold are determined when we play interactive's. If we are worried about abuse with the system then maybe we should remove it completely. This unfortunately doesn't do anything for players who would want to play up but it would stop the problem. If you play down You would then just get the lower APL's XP and Gold. That last part is not how interactive's are done by the way.
Mommy was an Orc
02-02-06, 10:17 AM I wasn't referring to your post...

No that's not what I meant. What I referring to is the same way XP and Gold are determined when we play interactive's. If we are worried about abuse with the system then maybe we should remove it completely. This unfortunately doesn't do anything for players who would want to play up but it would stop the problem. If you play down You would then just get the lower APL's XP and Gold. That last part is not how interactive's are done by the way.
redgamer
02-02-06, 10:21 AM I never got why adding a sixth player add to the APL but a fifth did not. Tables with only four players should subtract one (or at least .5) from their final APL. Also I realize its inherent in the word average but I find it strange that a group of 5s and 6s who feel too week can add another player (level 2) and suddenly find themselves week enough to play a lower APL. Adding in a Total Charatcter Level modifier for 2 of the 3 table sizes instead of 1 of the 3
would almost completely solve this problem.

I like the old rules better.

I would personally LOVE taking the shot to try and make a level 1 or two guy survive at APL 14 for the big payoff.

I think the half rewards are already restrictive enough. Once you are playing up 4 levels or more you are taking a very serious risk of getting your character killed. So what purpose does it serve to remove the reward for said risk?

I got stuck playing APL 6 when I was second level once, under the current system that gave me half XP and gold, giving me the same XP and treasure that I would have gotten at APL 2. I felt cheated to say the least, since playing it at APL 4 would have given me more than playing at APL 6 did.

For that matter I think the APL system is flawed, the part about adding a level for a full table scales very strangely, and there seems to be no way for 4 people tables to play without being underpowered.

I would like to suggest a TOTAL level system as opposed to an APL system.
redgamer
02-02-06, 10:26 AM Also the last time I was at a five person table I wanted to play my cohort but that would have forced a higher APL. In my experience only the cohort from Red Tide is strong enough to justify playing a higher APL. They have bad stats, bad equipment, and a lower level.
jboerj
02-02-06, 11:24 AM I like the idea of a cap for playing up. Here's why. We've all got stories of the Level 4 PC with 75,000 gold in his pocket. Funny? Yes. Ridiculous? Yes. Cheating? Probably. Now, should we do away with playing up? No.

In convention/game day play the idea of a 1st level PC adventuring with a level 14 party is possible if only because you have no idea who may show up.

In home play, you absolutely have control of that and having a 1st level PC show up to play with a level 14 party seems just another way to cheat and get a lot of gold.

You want to enable the first case but not be gratuitous about it and you want to discourage the second case. So put in a cap of PC level + 3 round down (or up) for how much gold you can get and don't penalize them with the half gold half XP penalty.

Then folks can play up if they have to but don't get ridiculous gold. After all, how much does a Level 1 PC contribute to an APL encounter?
Samwise
02-02-06, 11:29 AM I never got why adding a sixth player add to the APL but a fifth did not. Tables with only four players should subtract one (or at least .5) from their final APL. Also I realize its inherent in the word average but I find it strange that a group of 5s and 6s who feel too week can add another player (level 2) and suddenly find themselves week enough to play a lower APL. Adding in a Total Charatcter Level modifier for 2 of the 3 table sizes instead of 1 of the 3 would almost completely solve this problem.

If you do some arcane numerology with the Core rules:

The standard party is supposed to be 4 characters.
If you double the number of creatures in an encounter, you add 2 to the CR.
Thus, a party of 8 characters (twice the usual) should have an APL 2 higher than otherwise calculated.
Therefore, 6 characters (halfway between 4 and 8) should have an APL 1 higher than otherwise calculated.
A groupd of 5 characters shouldn't really get the boost.

Peculiar, but there you go.

And yes, the peculiarities of an "average" party level interacting the bump for 6 players produces some peculiar results. However, trying to calculate the "most common party level" would be much more difficult.
chrispedersen
02-02-06, 11:55 AM But I'd like to refine it.

You earn access and gold according to *your* apl *or* the usual apl access whichever is *less*. Sometimes you have to add an odd level character to make a legal table - and I don't want to make it harder to muster tables.

So, if you're Level 1 at an apl 14 table on a mod that has apls 10-14 - you get apl 2 rewards, and no access (since presumably the mod won't list any).

Secondly, the agree with all the posters that observed the following two points.

a). Tables of 4 are death.
b). The APL system breaks down at high apl tables usually due to the disparities in player gold and equipment vis-a-vis npcs.

I have no real solutions:
There are weighted mean averages that could be calculated (5,5,5,5,9,1 could return a weighted average of 5. I also agree that total levels offers advantages in some occassions.

We adjust for animal companions.. I'd love to see adjustments for gold.
Using the afore mentioned 1rst level char with 140,000 gp - perhaps if your
gold value is equivalent to a higher apl.. you should add 1/2 the difference to your char level.

For example, if the effective gold for a 2nd level char was 2000-4000, and the effective gold for a level 5 character was 14000-20000.. and you were a 2nd level char with 14,000 gp - when the ref asked your effective apl level you would say 2 + (trunc((5-2)/2)) = 3

Its nice - cause it means the refs don't have to do any calculations. But it makes up for those that craft a lot being strong at apl, and those that play alot over apl.

C
jboerj
02-02-06, 12:07 PM a). Tables of 4 are death.
b). The APL system breaks down at high apl tables usually due to the disparities in player gold and equipment vis-a-vis npcs.

I don't believe a) to be a general rule. I like full tables of 6 but I play plenty of 4 player tables and see no sign that it is a guaranteed TPK or even single PC K.

I'm not sure what you mean by b)

We adjust for animal companions.. I'd love to see adjustments for gold.
Using the afore mentioned 1rst level char with 140,000 gp - perhaps if your
gold value is equivalent to a higher apl.. you should add 1/2 the difference to your char level.

Adjust for animal companions? Er ... not the APL. Your Druid/Ranger/etc Animal Companion is already part of the PC class and does not raise your APL.
chrispedersen
02-02-06, 12:27 PM Erg.

I meant the average menagerie that accompanies many low level tables, aka riding dogs, horses, mules etc.

Not the class feature of druids and rangers.

C
Mommy was an Orc
02-02-06, 01:04 PM If you do some arcane numerology with the Core rules:

The standard party is supposed to be 4 characters.
If you double the number of creatures in an encounter, you add 2 to the CR.
Thus, a party of 8 characters (twice the usual) should have an APL 2 higher than otherwise calculated.
Therefore, 6 characters (halfway between 4 and 8) should have an APL 1 higher than otherwise calculated.
A groupd of 5 characters shouldn't really get the boost.

Actually, a relatively easy way to do it would be with the rounding. A party of 5 or 6 rounds up from APL +.5. A party of 4 could choose to round down if they're below APL.

As an example, a party of 3 6th level characters and a 5th could choose to play at APL 4, because they're only at 5.75. 4 6th level characters would have to play APL 6. 3 6th level and 2 5th would have to play APL 6, because they're at 5.6.
bronzmonkee
02-02-06, 03:29 PM Seconded.

- A character that is (APL +/- 2) gets reward based on party APL as normal

- A character that is (APL - 3) or less gets reward based on character level (similar to how interactives work)

I'm not sure whether a character that is (APL + 3) or higher should be penalized or not. They are earning less XP/TU (and for level 10+ characters, considerably less GP/TU).

Ian Seale
Sultanate of Zeif

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JamesMaissen 02-02-06, 01:40 AM	The xp and gold rewards for each given APL seem fairly standardized now. Instead of penalizing the poor 5th level that finds himself risking life and limb at APL 8 because a 6th person bumped the table up playing for less rewards than if he played down, could we come up with a better system? The goal was stated to prevent the 1st level from being dragged through an APL 14 module and getting insane gold. Well the 1st level dragged through an APL 14 module gets 3300 gold with the current rules. That still seems insane. Heck wait til he's 2nd level, drag him through, let him die, pay for his raise with over the cap gold and he's a rich 1st level character. Rather why not simply state that you get the lesser of standard rewards of APL played at and of the APL that is up to one higher than your current character's level? (ie a 1st level character would always get APL 2 rewards, a 3rd level character would get APL 2 if that were played, or APL 4 if anything higher was played). Then all you would get for playing up would be harder fights and increased chances of death! It would seem not that hard a rule to implement and would also seem to address issues more smoothly and appropriately than the current rule. Is there something I'm missing? I'm sure it would also make setting up tables easier as the penalty for playing up would not be as extreme (unless of course the amount played up was extreme, which only seems right). -James
serraphin 02-02-06, 07:58 AM	If I'm understanding this right (forgive me - I'm a bit groggy today), you're saying that you cap a 2nd lvl characters earning if (s)he joins an APL 6 game? So that they can still only get APL 2 rewards? Would it not be better just to set an upper limit? Much as a higher level character can only join an adventure 6 (6? Running from memory here) levels below him and no lower, why not just state that you can only join a game 4 levels higher (or cap at four levels higher?). As an example - A low level group can bump their APL up to 4 from 2, with the addition of a couple of horses and dogs. This can often make a real difference to the obstacles they face, but would seem unfair to penalise them. Hope that made sense!! ;)
paigeoliver 02-02-06, 08:25 AM	I like the old rules better. I would personally LOVE taking the shot to try and make a level 1 or two guy survive at APL 14 for the big payoff. I think the half rewards are already restrictive enough. Once you are playing up 4 levels or more you are taking a very serious risk of getting your character killed. So what purpose does it serve to remove the reward for said risk? I got stuck playing APL 6 when I was second level once, under the current system that gave me half XP and gold, giving me the same XP and treasure that I would have gotten at APL 2. I felt cheated to say the least, since playing it at APL 4 would have given me more than playing at APL 6 did. For that matter I think the APL system is flawed, the part about adding a level for a full table scales very strangely, and there seems to be no way for 4 people tables to play without being underpowered. I would like to suggest a TOTAL level system as opposed to an APL system.
vvincent 02-02-06, 08:42 AM	The problem with what you describe is that people would take their 1st level characters at APL 14, hang back and do nothing, and reap the rewards. I've personally seen players whose 4th level characters have over 140,000 gp worth of equipment due to previous abuse of this. The purpose of the rule is to encourage you to play within your APL range. Vernon L. Vincent I like the old rules better. I would personally LOVE taking the shot to try and make a level 1 or two guy survive at APL 14 for the big payoff. I think the half rewards are already restrictive enough. Once you are playing up 4 levels or more you are taking a very serious risk of getting your character killed. So what purpose does it serve to remove the reward for said risk? I got stuck playing APL 6 when I was second level once, under the current system that gave me half XP and gold, giving me the same XP and treasure that I would have gotten at APL 2. I felt cheated to say the least, since playing it at APL 4 would have given me more than playing at APL 6 did. For that matter I think the APL system is flawed, the part about adding a level for a full table scales very strangely, and there seems to be no way for 4 people tables to play without being underpowered. I would like to suggest a TOTAL level system as opposed to an APL system.
paigeoliver 02-02-06, 08:50 AM	Ah, well I wouldn't want to ABUSE it, but I certainly wouldn't mind taking a shot at it once. I wouldn't want to risk any characters who were past level 1. Sometimes you don't really have a choice about playing up though. Its either play 4 levels up or drive home.
Sceadeau 02-02-06, 08:50 AM	His suggestion isn't really about LOWERING rewards, but raising them (except in cases of abuse). A 5th level character, being forced to play up to APL 8, would recieve lesser reward (xp/gold) than he would if he was playing APL 6. Usually, that 5th level character is contributing just as much, and shouldn't be penalized so much xp/gold for increased danger. That is the crux of his argument. If the side effect is that people can't take level 1 characters through APL 14 mods to get insane money, well, yay for the system.
paigeoliver 02-02-06, 08:52 AM	Yes, the playing up 3 or 4 levels and getting the same or less than you would at a lower level does seem kind of unfair.
Elfen_Archangel 02-02-06, 09:12 AM	I do think that if you play up you should get the next APL above your range in gold/exp. So if you were level 7 and played APL 10, you would get the APL 8 rewards rather than 1/2 and 1/2 of the APL 10 rewards, which would be worse than playing APL 8. But I do not believe that we should go back to the old rules where a level 1 could play APL 14 or APL 16 and get full gold. At a con I sat down at a table and it ended up being 5 15th level casters and me with my 5th level wizard. They told me they'd keep me invisible and flying and I was to just stay out of the fight and collect the AR at the end. While I was all for it, I knew it wasn't fair. There's a very large amount of room for abuse.
balakus01 02-02-06, 09:24 AM	Why not make all characters receive there APL in gold and XP regardless of which APL they play, like how it's done with interactives.
Mommy was an Orc 02-02-06, 09:30 AM	Rather why not simply state that you get the lesser of standard rewards of APL played at and of the APL that is up to one higher than your current character's level? (ie a 1st level character would always get APL 2 rewards, a 3rd level character would get APL 2 if that were played, or APL 4 if anything higher was played). Don't you mean the APL that is 2 higher than your current level? A 2nd level character playing an APL 4 mod currently gets APL 4 treasure/xp. But I like the idea a lot - I've been sorely tempted to play a character that can contribute at high levels just for the half xp/gold - regardless of the game, a Marshal or Bard can be useful.
balakus01 02-02-06, 09:58 AM	No that's not what I meant. What I referring to is the same way XP and Gold are determined when we play interactive's. If we are worried about abuse with the system then maybe we should remove it completely. This unfortunately doesn't do anything for players who would want to play up but it would stop the problem. If you play down You would then just get the lower APL's XP and Gold. That last part is not how interactive's are done by the way.
Mommy was an Orc 02-02-06, 10:17 AM	I wasn't referring to your post... No that's not what I meant. What I referring to is the same way XP and Gold are determined when we play interactive's. If we are worried about abuse with the system then maybe we should remove it completely. This unfortunately doesn't do anything for players who would want to play up but it would stop the problem. If you play down You would then just get the lower APL's XP and Gold. That last part is not how interactive's are done by the way.
redgamer 02-02-06, 10:21 AM	I never got why adding a sixth player add to the APL but a fifth did not. Tables with only four players should subtract one (or at least .5) from their final APL. Also I realize its inherent in the word average but I find it strange that a group of 5s and 6s who feel too week can add another player (level 2) and suddenly find themselves week enough to play a lower APL. Adding in a Total Charatcter Level modifier for 2 of the 3 table sizes instead of 1 of the 3 would almost completely solve this problem. I like the old rules better. I would personally LOVE taking the shot to try and make a level 1 or two guy survive at APL 14 for the big payoff. I think the half rewards are already restrictive enough. Once you are playing up 4 levels or more you are taking a very serious risk of getting your character killed. So what purpose does it serve to remove the reward for said risk? I got stuck playing APL 6 when I was second level once, under the current system that gave me half XP and gold, giving me the same XP and treasure that I would have gotten at APL 2. I felt cheated to say the least, since playing it at APL 4 would have given me more than playing at APL 6 did. For that matter I think the APL system is flawed, the part about adding a level for a full table scales very strangely, and there seems to be no way for 4 people tables to play without being underpowered. I would like to suggest a TOTAL level system as opposed to an APL system.
redgamer 02-02-06, 10:26 AM	Also the last time I was at a five person table I wanted to play my cohort but that would have forced a higher APL. In my experience only the cohort from Red Tide is strong enough to justify playing a higher APL. They have bad stats, bad equipment, and a lower level.
jboerj 02-02-06, 11:24 AM	I like the idea of a cap for playing up. Here's why. We've all got stories of the Level 4 PC with 75,000 gold in his pocket. Funny? Yes. Ridiculous? Yes. Cheating? Probably. Now, should we do away with playing up? No. In convention/game day play the idea of a 1st level PC adventuring with a level 14 party is possible if only because you have no idea who may show up. In home play, you absolutely have control of that and having a 1st level PC show up to play with a level 14 party seems just another way to cheat and get a lot of gold. You want to enable the first case but not be gratuitous about it and you want to discourage the second case. So put in a cap of PC level + 3 round down (or up) for how much gold you can get and don't penalize them with the half gold half XP penalty. Then folks can play up if they have to but don't get ridiculous gold. After all, how much does a Level 1 PC contribute to an APL encounter?
Samwise 02-02-06, 11:29 AM	I never got why adding a sixth player add to the APL but a fifth did not. Tables with only four players should subtract one (or at least .5) from their final APL. Also I realize its inherent in the word average but I find it strange that a group of 5s and 6s who feel too week can add another player (level 2) and suddenly find themselves week enough to play a lower APL. Adding in a Total Charatcter Level modifier for 2 of the 3 table sizes instead of 1 of the 3 would almost completely solve this problem. If you do some arcane numerology with the Core rules: The standard party is supposed to be 4 characters. If you double the number of creatures in an encounter, you add 2 to the CR. Thus, a party of 8 characters (twice the usual) should have an APL 2 higher than otherwise calculated. Therefore, 6 characters (halfway between 4 and 8) should have an APL 1 higher than otherwise calculated. A groupd of 5 characters shouldn't really get the boost. Peculiar, but there you go. And yes, the peculiarities of an "average" party level interacting the bump for 6 players produces some peculiar results. However, trying to calculate the "most common party level" would be much more difficult.
chrispedersen 02-02-06, 11:55 AM	But I'd like to refine it. You earn access and gold according to your apl or the usual apl access whichever is less. Sometimes you have to add an odd level character to make a legal table - and I don't want to make it harder to muster tables. So, if you're Level 1 at an apl 14 table on a mod that has apls 10-14 - you get apl 2 rewards, and no access (since presumably the mod won't list any). Secondly, the agree with all the posters that observed the following two points. a). Tables of 4 are death. b). The APL system breaks down at high apl tables usually due to the disparities in player gold and equipment vis-a-vis npcs. I have no real solutions: There are weighted mean averages that could be calculated (5,5,5,5,9,1 could return a weighted average of 5. I also agree that total levels offers advantages in some occassions. We adjust for animal companions.. I'd love to see adjustments for gold. Using the afore mentioned 1rst level char with 140,000 gp - perhaps if your gold value is equivalent to a higher apl.. you should add 1/2 the difference to your char level. For example, if the effective gold for a 2nd level char was 2000-4000, and the effective gold for a level 5 character was 14000-20000.. and you were a 2nd level char with 14,000 gp - when the ref asked your effective apl level you would say 2 + (trunc((5-2)/2)) = 3 Its nice - cause it means the refs don't have to do any calculations. But it makes up for those that craft a lot being strong at apl, and those that play alot over apl. C
jboerj 02-02-06, 12:07 PM	a). Tables of 4 are death. b). The APL system breaks down at high apl tables usually due to the disparities in player gold and equipment vis-a-vis npcs. I don't believe a) to be a general rule. I like full tables of 6 but I play plenty of 4 player tables and see no sign that it is a guaranteed TPK or even single PC K. I'm not sure what you mean by b) We adjust for animal companions.. I'd love to see adjustments for gold. Using the afore mentioned 1rst level char with 140,000 gp - perhaps if your gold value is equivalent to a higher apl.. you should add 1/2 the difference to your char level. Adjust for animal companions? Er ... not the APL. Your Druid/Ranger/etc Animal Companion is already part of the PC class and does not raise your APL.
chrispedersen 02-02-06, 12:27 PM	Erg. I meant the average menagerie that accompanies many low level tables, aka riding dogs, horses, mules etc. Not the class feature of druids and rangers. C
Mommy was an Orc 02-02-06, 01:04 PM	If you do some arcane numerology with the Core rules: The standard party is supposed to be 4 characters. If you double the number of creatures in an encounter, you add 2 to the CR. Thus, a party of 8 characters (twice the usual) should have an APL 2 higher than otherwise calculated. Therefore, 6 characters (halfway between 4 and 8) should have an APL 1 higher than otherwise calculated. A groupd of 5 characters shouldn't really get the boost. Actually, a relatively easy way to do it would be with the rounding. A party of 5 or 6 rounds up from APL +.5. A party of 4 could choose to round down if they're below APL. As an example, a party of 3 6th level characters and a 5th could choose to play at APL 4, because they're only at 5.75. 4 6th level characters would have to play APL 6. 3 6th level and 2 5th would have to play APL 6, because they're at 5.6.
bronzmonkee 02-02-06, 03:29 PM	Seconded. - A character that is (APL +/- 2) gets reward based on party APL as normal - A character that is (APL - 3) or less gets reward based on character level (similar to how interactives work) I'm not sure whether a character that is (APL + 3) or higher should be penalized or not. They are earning less XP/TU (and for level 10+ characters, considerably less GP/TU). Ian Seale Sultanate of Zeif