APL+3 vs. APL-3 [Archive] - Wizards Community

APL+3 vs. APL-3 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
bitznarf
03-23-07, 06:18 PM I'm curious why there is an upper cap on the level of PC's playing at a particular APL, while there is not a similar cap on the lower end of things. If someone has some insight into this, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Jay_Ibero_911
03-23-07, 06:20 PM I'm curious why there is an upper cap on the level of PC's playing at a particular APL, while there is not a similar cap on the lower end of things. If someone has some insight into this, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Probably because of how the APL calculations work. It's less dangerous for a party as a whole to have the APL dragged down by a low level character than it is to have the APL dragged up by a high one.
paigeoliver
03-23-07, 06:59 PM That second level bard playing at APL 8 never gets dominated and then kills the whole party.

However, that 8th level character playing at APL 2, can totally do that.
Japangirl
03-23-07, 07:19 PM Lower level people complained about it a lot more, also, so the Circle probably felt it was a bigger problem regardless of reality.
Grantor
03-26-07, 06:33 PM Because the possibility of character death acts as a deterrent to playing a low level character in a higher APL. There no similar deterrent for playing down.
clannagh
03-26-07, 07:10 PM Interestingly adding a level 1 to an APL14 table as man number 6 can bump the whole table up a level in some situations.

The level 1 playing 14 may not necessarily endanger the rest of his party but the prospect of abuse is still there .. its feasible for a level one to play APL14 and hang around at a safe distance for any investigative components but pretty much otherwise "staying at the inn" to avoid most of the combat encounters (other than the obligoratory " your all ambushed in your rooms overnight" encounter) and come out with amazing access and still get close to APL2 gold and XP even after taking half xp/gp and missing most of the combat.
Timlagor
03-27-07, 04:37 AM If he misses the combat he's not getting the xp for it ...except that makes the gp abuse even worse
cycloptic_squirrel
03-27-07, 06:43 AM Interestingly adding a level 1 to an APL14 table as man number 6 can bump the whole table up a level in some situations.

What situations? I can't think up with any.
paigeoliver
03-27-07, 07:15 AM No character is going to be able to get away with that trick more than a few times. Firstly there aren't that many adventures that even support the high APLs AND the low APLS (needs to support all APLs in order to get a 1st level character at APL 14), then he has to find a table full of high level characters to drag him along, and then not die, and then try to do it all over again.

Also, There is no math I can find that would make adding a 1st level character to a high APL table bump it up.
GrahamWills
03-27-07, 08:37 AM If anyone -- in any mod, regardless of level -- does not play the ful mod and experience it fully, they should not get full experience.

If a character elects to skip a fight, they do not get the XP for that fight. They never experienced it, they don't get experience. Now, if they do it for role-playing reasons, I'd probably give them the credit for it, since they are effectively defeating the challenge as they see it, but if it's just 'cos they're scared of dying, then the "no pain, no gain" adage creeps in.

I would however give them the gold. The rest of the party has effectviely agreed to subsidise them.
Timlagor
03-27-07, 11:26 AM There is no requirement that a module cater to APL2 in order for a 1st level character to play it.

Giving a 1st level character at APL14 the gp bu not the xp is the orst of both worlds in terms of twinking them: that's an infinite gp/xp they're getting. If they aren't at the fight at all you might try denying them the gold as well but that's rather more dodgy: the simple solution is not to DM such a table if it bothers you.
kenobi65
03-27-07, 02:03 PM What situations? I can't think up with any.

Indeed. Show your math, clannagh.

Here's how I figure it.

Table of 5, wants to play APL 14. The highest possible total levels they could have and do this is 77 (divided by 5 = 15.4, round to nearest whole number = 15, can choose to play APL 14). If they had even one more level as a 5-player table, their APL would round up to 16, and they'd have no choice but to play APL 16.

Then, add a 6th PC at 1st level. Total levels are now 78. But, now, you're dividing by 6 (the new number of players) and you're at an average level of 13. Add one for a six-person table, and you're at APL 14, no questions.
paigeoliver
03-27-07, 09:31 PM Except that a 5 person table with 77 levels is not possible, remember that characters get retired at 16th level. 75 levels is the most you can get with 5 players.

75/5 = 15, choose to play 14.

Add a 1st level character. You now have 76 divided by 6 plus 1 and that total is 13.66. Which is APL 14, no choice.

And unless the rules have changed a character still must meet the minimum level given in the module in order to play it.
kenobi65
03-27-07, 09:53 PM Except that a 5 person table with 77 levels is not possible, remember that characters get retired at 16th level. 75 levels is the most you can get with 5 players.

Good point, though a DM could rule that your warhorse counts towards the APL calculation, which would push the level count up. (Though, if a DM is ruling that a warhorse is of "significant benefit in combat" at APL 14 or 16, you've got other problems... :) )
paigeoliver
03-27-07, 10:04 PM I have trouble keeping stock mounts alive at APL 8, much less APL 14. I lose a riding dog every time an area effect spell goes off. :D
clannagh
03-27-07, 10:41 PM Yeah I didnt really think out the maths on the effect of a level one as a 6th PC at high level. At best you get to play at the same APL not get bumped.

Still assuming you do play at APL14 with a level 1.

Also assume the GM decides thay only successfully complete a half of the tasks in the mod.

In which case .... one half of typical APL14 gold halved again for playing up gives 6600/4 = 1650 gc, pretty good for a level 1.
bitznarf
03-27-07, 11:36 PM And unless the rules have changed a character still must meet the minimum level given in the module in order to play it.

I wasn't aware of this ever being a rule. Can you point it out for me?
paigeoliver
03-28-07, 12:03 AM Yes, the bit on the cover of every module where it states what levels of characters can play the module. It doesn't seem to be a suggestion to me, especially since other versions of the LGCS have went out of their way to mention bits about being able to play higher level characters if the adventure supports APL 12.
clannagh
03-28-07, 12:27 AM Yes, the bit on the cover of every module where it states what levels of characters can play the module. It doesn't seem to be a suggestion to me, especially since other versions of the LGCS have went out of their way to mention bits about being able to play higher level characters if the adventure supports APL 12.

You are referring to the comment on the front cover that summarises the mod as " A one/two/fifty round xxxx adventure set in yyyy for characters of level x to level y "" ??? .... where "level x" is always 2 levels below the lowest APL for the mod and "level y" two levels above the highest APL offered ????

I have never come across that enforced as an actual restriction, it seems to get interpeted more as a suggested suitable PC range, but that might just be a local regional interpretation.

Not that it matters in many cases as a lot of mods go from APL 2 all the way to APL16 and hence that text will read characters from level 1 to 15.
_metz_
03-28-07, 12:35 AM I imagine the for character levels xx to yy would refer to the characters that will get optimal enjoyment out of it. LGCS would be the definitaive factor on what could play or not, though trying to force a DM to allow you to play a certain character that is not of the correct level is always going to create tension.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bitznarf 03-23-07, 06:18 PM	I'm curious why there is an upper cap on the level of PC's playing at a particular APL, while there is not a similar cap on the lower end of things. If someone has some insight into this, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-23-07, 06:20 PM	I'm curious why there is an upper cap on the level of PC's playing at a particular APL, while there is not a similar cap on the lower end of things. If someone has some insight into this, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts. Probably because of how the APL calculations work. It's less dangerous for a party as a whole to have the APL dragged down by a low level character than it is to have the APL dragged up by a high one.
paigeoliver 03-23-07, 06:59 PM	That second level bard playing at APL 8 never gets dominated and then kills the whole party. However, that 8th level character playing at APL 2, can totally do that.
Japangirl 03-23-07, 07:19 PM	Lower level people complained about it a lot more, also, so the Circle probably felt it was a bigger problem regardless of reality.
Grantor 03-26-07, 06:33 PM	Because the possibility of character death acts as a deterrent to playing a low level character in a higher APL. There no similar deterrent for playing down.
clannagh 03-26-07, 07:10 PM	Interestingly adding a level 1 to an APL14 table as man number 6 can bump the whole table up a level in some situations. The level 1 playing 14 may not necessarily endanger the rest of his party but the prospect of abuse is still there .. its feasible for a level one to play APL14 and hang around at a safe distance for any investigative components but pretty much otherwise "staying at the inn" to avoid most of the combat encounters (other than the obligoratory " your all ambushed in your rooms overnight" encounter) and come out with amazing access and still get close to APL2 gold and XP even after taking half xp/gp and missing most of the combat.
Timlagor 03-27-07, 04:37 AM	If he misses the combat he's not getting the xp for it ...except that makes the gp abuse even worse
cycloptic_squirrel 03-27-07, 06:43 AM	Interestingly adding a level 1 to an APL14 table as man number 6 can bump the whole table up a level in some situations. What situations? I can't think up with any.
paigeoliver 03-27-07, 07:15 AM	No character is going to be able to get away with that trick more than a few times. Firstly there aren't that many adventures that even support the high APLs AND the low APLS (needs to support all APLs in order to get a 1st level character at APL 14), then he has to find a table full of high level characters to drag him along, and then not die, and then try to do it all over again. Also, There is no math I can find that would make adding a 1st level character to a high APL table bump it up.
GrahamWills 03-27-07, 08:37 AM	If anyone -- in any mod, regardless of level -- does not play the ful mod and experience it fully, they should not get full experience. If a character elects to skip a fight, they do not get the XP for that fight. They never experienced it, they don't get experience. Now, if they do it for role-playing reasons, I'd probably give them the credit for it, since they are effectively defeating the challenge as they see it, but if it's just 'cos they're scared of dying, then the "no pain, no gain" adage creeps in. I would however give them the gold. The rest of the party has effectviely agreed to subsidise them.
Timlagor 03-27-07, 11:26 AM	There is no requirement that a module cater to APL2 in order for a 1st level character to play it. Giving a 1st level character at APL14 the gp bu not the xp is the orst of both worlds in terms of twinking them: that's an infinite gp/xp they're getting. If they aren't at the fight at all you might try denying them the gold as well but that's rather more dodgy: the simple solution is not to DM such a table if it bothers you.
kenobi65 03-27-07, 02:03 PM	What situations? I can't think up with any. Indeed. Show your math, clannagh. Here's how I figure it. Table of 5, wants to play APL 14. The highest possible total levels they could have and do this is 77 (divided by 5 = 15.4, round to nearest whole number = 15, can choose to play APL 14). If they had even one more level as a 5-player table, their APL would round up to 16, and they'd have no choice but to play APL 16. Then, add a 6th PC at 1st level. Total levels are now 78. But, now, you're dividing by 6 (the new number of players) and you're at an average level of 13. Add one for a six-person table, and you're at APL 14, no questions.
paigeoliver 03-27-07, 09:31 PM	Except that a 5 person table with 77 levels is not possible, remember that characters get retired at 16th level. 75 levels is the most you can get with 5 players. 75/5 = 15, choose to play 14. Add a 1st level character. You now have 76 divided by 6 plus 1 and that total is 13.66. Which is APL 14, no choice. And unless the rules have changed a character still must meet the minimum level given in the module in order to play it.
kenobi65 03-27-07, 09:53 PM	Except that a 5 person table with 77 levels is not possible, remember that characters get retired at 16th level. 75 levels is the most you can get with 5 players. Good point, though a DM could rule that your warhorse counts towards the APL calculation, which would push the level count up. (Though, if a DM is ruling that a warhorse is of "significant benefit in combat" at APL 14 or 16, you've got other problems... :) )
paigeoliver 03-27-07, 10:04 PM	I have trouble keeping stock mounts alive at APL 8, much less APL 14. I lose a riding dog every time an area effect spell goes off. :D
clannagh 03-27-07, 10:41 PM	Yeah I didnt really think out the maths on the effect of a level one as a 6th PC at high level. At best you get to play at the same APL not get bumped. Still assuming you do play at APL14 with a level 1. Also assume the GM decides thay only successfully complete a half of the tasks in the mod. In which case .... one half of typical APL14 gold halved again for playing up gives 6600/4 = 1650 gc, pretty good for a level 1.
bitznarf 03-27-07, 11:36 PM	And unless the rules have changed a character still must meet the minimum level given in the module in order to play it. I wasn't aware of this ever being a rule. Can you point it out for me?
paigeoliver 03-28-07, 12:03 AM	Yes, the bit on the cover of every module where it states what levels of characters can play the module. It doesn't seem to be a suggestion to me, especially since other versions of the LGCS have went out of their way to mention bits about being able to play higher level characters if the adventure supports APL 12.
clannagh 03-28-07, 12:27 AM	Yes, the bit on the cover of every module where it states what levels of characters can play the module. It doesn't seem to be a suggestion to me, especially since other versions of the LGCS have went out of their way to mention bits about being able to play higher level characters if the adventure supports APL 12. You are referring to the comment on the front cover that summarises the mod as " A one/two/fifty round xxxx adventure set in yyyy for characters of level x to level y "" ??? .... where "level x" is always 2 levels below the lowest APL for the mod and "level y" two levels above the highest APL offered ???? I have never come across that enforced as an actual restriction, it seems to get interpeted more as a suggested suitable PC range, but that might just be a local regional interpretation. Not that it matters in many cases as a lot of mods go from APL 2 all the way to APL16 and hence that text will read characters from level 1 to 15.
_metz_ 03-28-07, 12:35 AM	I imagine the for character levels xx to yy would refer to the characters that will get optimal enjoyment out of it. LGCS would be the definitaive factor on what could play or not, though trying to force a DM to allow you to play a certain character that is not of the correct level is always going to create tension.