Keep an eye on Rise of the Runelords threads for all kinds of specific ideas and advice for scaling the adventures.
It has been my experience that a smaller group of characters is able to confront challenges only a little lower than normal. If you made use of the gestalt option the group would have more versatility to confront various challenges.
Rappan Athuk isn't too bad either. My group didn't dig it so we stopped but it's still a good megadungeon.
For modules there is Crypt of the Everflame which is a really fun dungeon. It's kind of short though and for 1st level. Shattered Star is an entire AP of old school style dungeons and from what I've read it's a lot of fun.
I apologize if this has already been suggested, I am in a hurry and had to skim the thread. I suggest allowing a gestalt build so she has access to both combat and utility such as trapfinding. Also, if she does not choose cleric as part of her build to let her have access to healing wands that she can use without Use Magic Device. The APL-3 is a good thing to keep in mind too though with gestalt you should be able to make encounters with more variety and she will still have fun.
As has been said, solo games can be a lot of fun and I have enjoyed the ones I have run for my current and past girlfriends though expect a lot of roleplaying and don't ever call her a meatshield. lol
The above ideas are solid ones. You can let them move through an area that has been cleared (perhaps on a rescue mission to recover a lower-level group) or mix it up with some lower CR foes and enjoy the power of 12+ level.
If you want to skip the levels entirely that's easy enough to do. You can add a teleportation device of some kind like a wizard ports them in and they need to port out when they are done, which if they have a wizard should not be an issue. Maybe the dungeon has Diablo style waypoints that allow for fast travel from different areas once activated.
Removing the lower levels entirely is also an option. Just have the exterior entrance go directly to the appropriate dungeon level entrance. This shouldn't ruin the logic of the dungeon and your players will never know there were levels above.
From what I gather Gallowspire is a high-level megadungeon so if you use that you may not need to change anything as far as levels are concerned.
Depending on the DM you should be able to collect your caltrops afterward.
Here is my advice:
You have an archer and a cleric so use the strengths of those characters to your advantage while trying to minimize the weaknesses. Your primary weakness is your duo doesn't have a front line fighter. A front line fighter can go toe-to-toe with your enemies while archers and rogues and whatnot do their thing. You don't have that option so rely on your range. You have the right idea with caltrops. Slow them down while you fire from cover and the cleric stands ready to offer spell support in the form of buffs and healing.
When you set up your hide make the ogres move through an open area while you have cover and do as much to that area as possible to slow them down. If you have the time to set up more than caltrops do so, especially if those things cause damage. Ogres have long legs and are fast so this is important. Through all this make sure you have a melee weapon handy in case you have to mix it up. Whatever you do, drop the bow if they get too close and you can't fall back. Ogres also have long arms and can hit you from 10 feet out if you try to shoot them.
When the ogres get close to your position fall back to another set up and do the same thing. You are going to find yourself in all combats doing the same thing, deal as much damage from range as possible before falling back and doing it again. I played in a group once that was an archer ranger, sorcerer, and rogue. We spent a lot of time attacking then falling back so the enemy had to pursue.
I hope this helps.
I never use training as part of the gameplay either. I consider characters to be gradually improving and learning new things and at some point their improved skills warrant a mechanical bonus. There are no sudden revelations or anything of the sort that the characters can perceive. I think this approach is more fluid and realistic and more akin to the way people grow and improve through experience.
To return to the OP, just so my comment isn't completely off topic, I like the idea of an evil Buddhist and kind of want to play one now. lol
Keep me posted about how the lower level party vs higher level adventure goes. If it doesn't pan out so well I might try the advanced template thing to boost the encounters a little in my Reign of Winter game. I like that idea because I really dislike tracking XP. Of course, if my players are going to be inconsistent in their attendance than I will be forced to go with XP so some players aren't benefiting for things they didn't participate in.
In my opinion, the best way to balance a large group against an AP is to hand out experience as it is described in the adventures. I am not a fan of XP awards and much prefer to choose set points to have everyone level up. However, that becomes problematic with a large group because the power level is harder to scale. If you hand out XP it will be spread thinner and the power levels will even themselves out by the end of the first book. Your party will end up overpowered for the first level or two but the math in the game will correct the imbalance.
My Reign of Winter game has six players with a possible seventh coming on board. The game has been fun so far, though running so many characters is tough. This is the same group I played Skulls and Shackles with and we were challenged the whole time.
The big factor here, for me, is that this group is not terribly organized and has no sense of tactics, despite the best efforts of the tactically minded players. This lack of tactics or organization leads to greater challenges. I still hand out XP in case they suddenly get their act together, but this is still their biggest issue.
Best of luck. I think the setting, while seeming odd considering the classic Greyhawk intention, is well-suited for the gritty and dark tone the campaign flaunts. I say this, but I am running it right now as a modern World of Darkness game. The campaign is fantastic and I have been wanting to run it for quite some time now.
I have completely removed the entire AoO mechanic from my games and it doesn't have any negative effect at all in the games I run. There are some feats that become useless, such as Mobility, but they can be removed without issue.
The gameplay didn't speed up as much as I thought it would but it certainly freed the players up to start thinking about fights more cinematic and dynamicly instead of figures on a tabletop. I don't use figs so I remove the fig rules. It makes for fun, fast gameplay but it still isn't as streamlined as AD&D.
I started a technique where I map based on the number of ranks that each character has in Survival. The number is based on the highest number of ranks for a single character. With 0 ranks I draw no maps and the party runs the risk of getting lost during overland movement. With 1 rank they do not run the risk of getting lost and I draw rough wilderness maps but no dungeon maps. With 3 ranks I draw detailed wilderness maps and rough dungeon maps. 5 ranks gets them detailed wilderness and dungeon maps. With 10 ranks I will draw them a side view map to better understand how the levels fit together.
I thought it would be a neat method of having the characters grow and force them to be a little more cautious of getting lost in the dungeon. They are delving now at level 4 (in Banth's Lab no less) and getting only rough maps. They are being cautious to not get lost because they can't really rely on the maps as much as if they were drawn to scale on a graph paper grid.
I'd say hands down Crypt of the Everflame. It provides a good hook, the adventure is great, and the play slow introduces new concepts and encounters allowing players time to adjust to the game as they play. Bonus for being Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 like Hollow's Last Hope, which is a pretty good adventure as well.
You've got just about everything pretty clear. Saving Throws have also been simplified and follow the same d20 + modifiers core mechanic. The only other thing I can think of that warrants mentioning is that Barbarians, Monks, and Half-Orcs are back after their departure during the switch to 2nd Edition and there is a new magic using class called a Sorcerer.
if the game seems muddied a bit compared to AD&D it is. The inclusion of Skills and Feats adds more complexity and nuance to the characters but nothing dramatic. It's the tactical rules that really muddy up the game. I remove the tactical rules entirely and it plays a lot more like AD&D only with an intuitive core mechanic, which was sorely lacking in the game before 3rd Edition.
Just like the title suggests, I am looking to convert the Summoner over to 2nd Edition. I would like to do this as simply and straightforwardly as possible. If there is a simple wizard kit or something along those lines that will do the trick that would be great. I'd rather not have some complicated custom class if I can avoid it. I considered just using a specialist mage with an animal companion but that doesn't really capture the eidolon very well.
The reason I'm asking is I am planning on springing a surprise on my Pathfinder group by taking their character sheets and showing up the following session and letting them all know we are rolling the game back 20 years and hand them their characters in 2nd Edition. We will play a few sessions and really get the nostalgia kick. I want to remember what it was like to play the game back then and learn if it is only fuzzy nostalgia that makes me remember the old rules so fondly or if they really were pretty solid. Well, everything except THAC0, that is still counter-intuitive.
The group consists of a Paladin, Bard, Druid, Cleric, Summoner, Rogue, and Gunslinger. All of the classes except the Summoner and Gunslinger convert over smoothly. The Gunslinger I just rebuilt as a Thief with a musket. I'm not sure what to do with the Summoner, however.
I absolutely agree that there is untapped demand for adventures that tie in with Distant Worlds. We are seeing a steampunk adventure soon so perhaps this means we will start seeing some experimental concepts, such as Numeria.
We have a lot of conventional material as it is and an AP isn't always feasible to do the more experimental stuff that might not go over as well. Perhaps we will see some more in the revamped module line.
Age of Worms is what got me into Dungeon Magazine when I got a bunch of issues from a friend. I found out about the APs and discovered I had all of the AoW issues. I tracked down all of the Shackled City issues and grabbed the remaining Savage Tide issues as they came out.
I followed along with Paizo after that and now am a avid fan of the company and the line. It is no exaggeration that AoW is what made me a fan.
Paizo has learned a lot about AP design over the last seven or eight years and it shows. Age of Worms is absolutely dripping with atmosphere from beginning to end and I recommend it but it does have a few flaws. The plot is a bit of a bait and switch in that it leads the players to believe it is about one thing then drops the plotline and goes in a very different direction, leaving the first plot hanging.
The flaw, in my opinion, are not major but they are there. The AP does have a great old school feel and offers a lot to those with a touch of nostalgia. However, it still works great for younger gamers who perhaps don't get the old school references. Some of the hooks need a lot of work and the usage of NPCs is a little clunky at times. The boards here offer a lot of suggestions for fixing these issues.
If you have this AP, I say run it. It's hella fun and well worth the effort.
James Jacobs wrote:
Space issues are certainly an issue in a high level adventure, but not really because the stat blocks are bigger. Yes, they're bigger, but that's not the problem. At high level, characters have a MOUNTAIN of options available to them in how the tackle problems, and as such, the designer needs to include a lot more information about the area on how the GM can react when the PC does something unexpected.
I hadn't thought of character options as a factor for increased word count but it certainly makes sense. When it comes to high-level stat blocks I always think of the 40 page Kyuss stat block. lol
Despite the fact that the game tends to slow down at higher levels I still enjoy the romps. I run a stripped down version of the rules so it plays a little closer to 2E without the counter-intuitive rules so that makes high level speed up considerably.
James Jacobs wrote:
Now, that all said, I'm eager for us to publish more high level adventures, because I really think that the reasons that they are perceived as not as popular is a self fulfilling prophecy—if no one publishes them, of COURSE they can never be as popular!
Ultimately. I am glad to hear that, as a developer, you are interested in some high-level adventures. I was concerned that we would see even less of them but that has been directly addressed.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Okay, if you say so. I just dont get it.
I am really interested to see what happens. If the products don't sell and thus don't make good business sense I will gladly admit I was incorrect.
a high level adventure in my opinion needs to assume that the PCs are movers and shakers.
I agree to a certain extent. This falls on the writers to understand that the game is fundamentally different as far as scope and motivation, not just ability and options, is different for characters at different levels.
The adventures seem to have generally favorable reviews but I haven't read them, though I have been considering getting The Witchwar Legacy. I don't have much disposable income at all so I have to be very discerning with my purchases. I was really interested in the concept of The Moonscar but the reviews do seem a little lukewarm now that I read them. Of course I have come to learn that lukewarm Paizo products tend to still be pretty damn good in my opinion.
The problem with most high level adventures is the space constraints. Post DMG2 stat blocks take up an absurd amount of page space and get bigger the higher CR the critter being statted. This turns a lot of high-level adventures into a 'go fight this stat block and go home' format and that drives me nuts. Writing a high level adventure takes effort and requires a little more thought on the part of the writer given the wide array of abilities and options available to a party. However, writing a good adventure is writing a good adventure regardless of the level range.
With more space I am very interested to see what they do. I especially want to see some post 15 or post 17 level adventures. This larger format is just the space they need to make it really good and, as I've already said, I really don't want to see the fewer modules released model turn into virtually no high-level support.
So I just did out a spreadsheet and crunched the numbers because I am a rampaging dork like that. Of the 32 page modules the spread is roughly 40% low-level, 40% mid-level, and 20% high-level. If the spread is changed from 1-5, 6-12, and 13-20 to 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 the proportions are roughly similar.
So it seems that Paizo was already publishing high level adventures in the proportions I suggested. Way to steal my freely offered business model years before it was suggested Paizo. *shakes fist in the air*
I guess my suggestions and conversations come to a close (foiled/justified by math) with a request to the powers that be. Might we see a few higher level adventures? Perhaps in the 18-20 range? kthxbai
Steve Geddes wrote:
Where in golarion did you place it?
I placed Rappan Athuk in the Mushfens between Sandpoint and Magnimar, giving the party not only Zelikor's Ferry but also Sandpoint and Magnimar as resources. I also used the explanation that the dungeon was created by the Runelords for some unknown purpose before the cult of Orcus moved in in the dark ages that followed the fall of Thassilon.
Jeffrey Palmer wrote:
...stuff about random encounters...
I pretty much just roll when it seems appropriate. It's a total rough guess of the passage of game time but I go for about the time the text recommends.
You will get your share of 15+ die rolls and low rolls on encounter checks.
Of this I have no doubt. It's just frustrating when I talk up the lethality of the adventure and then can't roll a single random encounter. Seriously, the only random encounter they have had was one that I chose to throw at them because I didn't want their slog through the swamp to be uneventful.
Of course, with the exception of a ninja disembowling in a PFS game I was running last weekend my dice have been pretty uncooperative lately.
If my group follows the trail of quests I laid out for them they should be level 5 or 6 by the time they hit the Cloister. Looking at the encounters it should remain challenging for them at that level. Of course, delving too deep might get them in over their heads.
As far as the lab, they didn't even know what was down there. They just got spooked when they realized that there might be something down there.
My group is only three sessions in and they haven't even scratched the surface of the dungeon. They have spent all of their time exploring the wilderness so far and since I can't seem to roll a random encounter to save my life, or more accurately end theirs, I haven't been able to make use of the nifty obituaries sheets I made.
From the numbers you've said it seems like RA offers up a 30-40% attrition rate. Which means I should be coming up on a death here soon. Provided my dice cooperate and they don't remain so damn skittish.
My group has been really nervous about delving. They went down into the beehive on level 5 and started to explore the laboratory but got scared and took off before they ran into anything.
My party is also 6 characters with a Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, Summoner, Rogue, and Gunslinger. Not having a Rogue though, that's probably going to bite them in the ass soon. lol
I started my party at level 3 and changed the XP progression a tad. The party has a number of quests that will grant them the bulk of their experience. The receive 35% XP from keyed encounters and no XP from random encounters. This spread encourages them to do delves and not slog through the dungeon room by room turning it into a long grind.
That being said I have pointed them toward the Cloister as their first target and they have been steamrolling most encounters. They ran up against some trolls that gave them a run for their money but only because they couldn't do enough damage to amount to anything, not because they were getting hurt. I hope the random encounter tables start to turn up something threatening. Next week they are going after the gnolls and ogres outside Zelikor's Ferry and I don't see them having too much trouble there either.
I warned them endlessly that this was a killer dungeon to the pint that they got really intimidated, but now I think that might be wearing off.
The suggestion I made supports the 50/25/25 spread. I may be completely wrong in those numbers. The ratio may be more like only 10% enjoy high-level play, I'm not sure. it is true that sometimes a small group can make a lot of noise online and seem larger, so again, I admit I might be totally off base with this entire debate.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I suspect it's hard to do so without specifying actual numbers. I have no doubt they want everyone to get what they want, the trick for them is balancing pleasing everyone with keeping the line viable. High level modules sitting in a warehouse doesn't do anyone any good.
I agree, and I can't help but think of the famous mis-quote from Abraham Lincoln where he didn't actually say "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time."
Ultimately, I trust in the developers to keep the line viable and worthwhile. I just feel that there is a somewhat untapped market out there that, while smaller, is still an important market. The suggestion I made, if my number assumptions are correct, is a decent business model for supporting as many of the fans as possible with predictable regularity.
Mike Shel wrote:
As a quick aside and direct response to you Mike, I just read the write up on this one and it does look hella cool. I'm excited for the new format for the line regardless of the direction it goes. Both adventures announced so far look fantastic. Of course, Paizo doesn't produce crap or work with authors that suck so I shouldn't be surprised really. lol
I agree that it makes more short-term business sense. If Product A sells better than Product B, develop product A. However, I feel it makes less long-term business sense. If 50% of the buying public favors low level adventures and 25% favors high level adventures saturating the market to cater to 50% while ignoring and potentially alienating 25% leads to two dissatisfied customer demographics, one who feels left behind and another who is overwhelmed with options. This potentially reduces overall sales figures and that can have a ripple effect across other product lines.
These percentage figures are entirely a guess for illustration purposes, I don't know what the actual spread is though this seems about right. The undefined 25% would favor mid level adventures, obviously.
There are a number of factors that impact this discussion as well. The smaller page count tends to lead high-level adventures to trend toward a fight this stat block and go home format. PFS play only goes to 12th level and thus the ability to tie products in is no longer a selling point. Adventures traditionally sell fewer copies that supplement material for any given RPG brand.
As it stands right now, taking into account only the32-page modules, the discrepancy is pretty obvious to me. Using the Dungeon Magazine classifications of low (1-5), mid (6-12), and high (13-20) there are 9 that support low-level, 9 that support mid-level, and 4 that support high-level. Of those mid and high level products they tend toward the lower end of the spectrum.
For purely numbers based analysis the use of the ranges 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 show the discrepancy clearer. In the 1-5 range there are 9 products evenly distributed across the range. For 6-10 there are 8 products with many trending toward the lower 6-7 end. With 11-15 there are only three products, with again a trend toward the low end at levels 11, 13, and 14. In the 16-20 range we have only 2 products with one being for 16th level and the other 17th.
I feel it makes better business sense to offer a wider range of products while still catering to the majority demographic but not abandoning a minority demographic. I feel it strengthens the line and the brand overall. My suggestion in the OP was simply a logical and consistent way to offer that variety and cater to the entire potential customer base, making everyone happy to some extent.
This is certainly an interesting topic for debate and something that has been raised here and there on the forums but not in any concentrated discussion that I have seen. I'm curious what the developers have to say.
I absolutely acknowledge that there is less of a market for high-level adventures. They also require a bit more effort in the development stages. I just feel that there is a demographic in the gaming community that is not being supported and that is disappointing.
The new model for the Modules line with less releases each year seems to have the potential to have even less support for high-level play. Alternatively, with a larger product that sells better and more time devoted to the development of we have the potential to see more support for high-level play.
Right now the line has more than enough high-quality low level adventures. I would hate to see the line get bogged down with too many options for low level adventures. It seems that demographic has more than enough support.
obviously there is a market for it and there are more fans of low level play than high level play. Personally, I prefer the mid-level adventures. However, when I have a group that gets to 12-15th level, I want to have some options that I can run as is rather than have to scale up existing adventures or convert old products to the new rules.
I feel that some regular support for ALL levels and styles of play is important. There is little balance for everyone in the line as it stands right now, and I feel that is unfortunate.
I was thinking low, middle, and high the way they were defined in Dungeon as 1-6, 7-12, and 13-20 respectively. Those are just ballpark figures really so I wasn't really speaking in super specific terms. Basically, the game has different styles of both play and design at different levels and those brackets seem to do a good job of generally separating those styles. 4E has a similar style of definition in their Heroic/Paragon/Epic though the level ranges and changes in style are built into the game mechanics.
With 64 page adventures there is likely to be some crossover of level ranges and I think that sort of thing will be nice to see. I am really excited to see what happens with the new format though it does seem odd that there is enough space in 64 pages to span as many as six levels of play (but this is ultimately unrelated to my point). Higher level adventures will also, obviously cover much less range.
My point, I guess, is that as is the modules line is not stackable in that if someone were to take a bunch of modules and string them together to form a campaign they would run dry as they got up in levels. Alternatively if a group wanted to keep playing after finishing and AP, as has been mentioned a ton of times on the forums, they have few to no options in the 15-17+ range.
I would like to see adventures released with regularity that support and encourage play at all levels and styles instead of the heavy focus that we have on the admittedly more marketable low level fare. Those in the 12 or even 15+ range are rare indeed. My thought is that if a definition of level range is placed on the modules and those ranges were generally supported with regularity it would do wonders for the line.
It is important for me to point out that my comments are in no way a criticism of the adventures. I have been impressed with all of the modules I have read and purchased so far. The larger format is a very good thing in my opinion, though we may lose some of those tight little adventures we were getting in 32 pages. My concern is that with fewer releases each year we may see even less support for the higher end of the play spectrum.
I was reading the product discussion for Dragon's Demand and there was a lot of reaction and discussion about the new format. It got me to thinking and I wanted to pose a question/offer a suggestion to the developers and community.
This shift makes good business sense for a number of reasons. As a former editor and publisher myself I know that it is far easier to produce a quarterly product than it is to produce a monthly or bi-monthly product. Also larger adventures sell better to the casual consumer and most publishers know that casual sales are where the money is. Subscribers are already fans and require little effort, while casual consumers require advertising and exciting and alluring products, etc.
The quarterly release means less adventures per year, obviously, and the concern over higher level adventures has been raised a few times. I am interested in knowing if this has been addressed by the developers. I understand that the new format is still very new so it may not have been considered yet.
There has been some community concern already about the lack of high-level adventure material. With less adventures per year the potential for there to be even less support for high-level play is very much a concern.
This being said, I fully understand that high-level adventures take more design and development time and do not sell as well as lower level adventures and thus do not make as much short-term business sense to produce.
Rather than a random and unexpected release format (content-wise not release dates), formula works for a reason and I offer this as a potential approach. With four adventures released per year and GenCon being a major event I am going to assume an August-November-February-May release schedule (though this is pretty irrelevant to my suggestion). I would suggest two low level adventures every year, perhaps when the APs launch in August and January, and one mid-level and high-level adventure on the off releases.
This will allow semi-casual buyers the predictability to know that at a certain time an adventure in the level range they prefer will be released and they can head on over to their local store or favorite online retailer and grab a copy.
This will also also allow for the community to have the kind of adventures they want, alleviating the lack of high-level support the Pathfinder line has currently.
If this format were to be adopted, or something similar with a wide array of level and play style support I would consider getting a Modules subscription instead of the grabbing one here and there as they strike my fancy. I am sure many agree though, admittedly, we may be in the minority.
What do you think?
I am running my primary group in a wide-open sandbox right now. It's World of Darkness set in New England. Since we are all from New England it provides a familiar environment with enough room to more so they should never wander too far outside it if at all.
All of the above advice is fantastic and I have found many of the above things to be vital. Reskinning is one I use all the time. I also have a number of small plots ready to go at any given time. As far as interrupting or delaying them I use the Raymond Chandler method of two guys with guns kick the door in. It's not always that literal but I use events they cannot ignore if they get lost or become unmotivated.
The advice about ensuring the characters don't outgrow the sandbox is an important one, especially when using a game like Pathfinder that has a steep power curve. The shallower the power curve the easier it is to run a sandbox in my opinion. In my New England there are plenty of big challenges in the supernatural power structures and the group are going to need to be quite powerful indeed if they want to tangle with the vampires and mages in Boston.
My players are accustomed to considerably more linear play so it has been interesting to see them try to adapt to dozens of hooks and threads scattered about. They seem to latch on to the clearest one and follow it until it is run dry before finding something else to do.
Sandbox play isn't for everyone and it requires a GM who can think on their feet. In my opinion however, they can be hella rewarding.
Shackled City was a ton of fun when I ran it a little while back. However, it needs copious amounts of work to make it playable. If it's run as is it's disjointed and outright nonsensical in parts (Strike of Shatterhorn anyone?). There are a lot of resources for fixing it here on the forums, however.
Ultimately, Paizo has learned a lot about writing APs so my recommendation would be to go with Rise of the Runelords AE. It is universally praised and has years of AP design behind it.
All of the above advice is fantastic, especially the bit about the clues. I always use the three-clue rule where every inportant bit of information is found in three different ways (searching, diplomacy, etc.).
I would also like to add that the adventure is about the player characters, not the NPCs. I have seen many an adventure ruined by overwhelming NPCs. Let the players be the stars and always let them be the stars.
I am always reminded of an old Shadowrun adventure where the primary plot is an ages old feud between two powerful NPCs. In the climax of the adventure the player characters sit on the sidelines and watch as the two big bads pummel each other into oblivion. Worst finale ever.
I have a couple players who have some for real OCD issues and don't like the way wealth is handled. They want a more logical and realistic approach to treasure so there will be no scenario sheets with available items and whatnot.
I tried to sell them on it but they were getting twitchy just at the abstract nature of it, despite the fact that it was designed to balance as part of an organized play network. I may try to spin it another way and see how it goes.
If they still won't go for it, I'm going to try the First Steps scenarios and see how retooling it goes. If it's too much of a headache I'll just update some old Dungeon adventures or something but I would like to get the society DM credit.
That was my concern. I wonder how easy it would be to go through the scenarios and recalculate the treasure based on the wealth by level tables. Or a rough approximation thereof.
As far as the simply appearing places, ready for adventure, my players are pretty forgiving. I'll just go with the characters being part of the Society and send them all over the place. My players really won't care. Continuity be damned! lol
The fight can get pretty brutal but it all depends on what the party does at the farm house. The adventure is very combat light and its possible that the party enters the conflict with Keigler at full or nearly full strength.
Of course, that demon mosquito is a hell of a surprise. My players thought the fight was over when Keigler dropped. The shock of giant demon mosquito bursting out of his body and showering them with gore was quite awesome.
With only two characters, gestalt or not, the action economy may put them at a disadvantage. I guess it all depends on how optimized the characters are and how good the players are at using their abilities.
I have a group who has recently decided they want to play some short sessions on the side while we take a break from the World of Darkness game I have been running and I got to thinking that PFS scenarios are designed for quick, fun sessions, plus a $4 price tag is hard to beat.
My players aren't interested in doing the game as PFS play, despite the fact that I tried to talk them into it. Using the scenarios as just adventure material is appealing to me but I am concerned that the methods for wealth distribution may become problematic.
The party will be collecting loot like a normal group of adventurers and not making use of scenario sheets like PFS characters. Is there a special way I should handle distribution of treasure if I make use of PFS scenarios?
I plan on handing out XP like PFS at a rate of one per adventure, so that isn't a concerns for me. Are there other concerns or pitfalls I should take into consideration?
If all else fails I can just run the adventures I already own, but this idea seems appealing to me.