I don't know, whether this was discussed earlier, but, upon reading the first three adventures of the Second Darkness AP, I cannot help, but notice, that, besides them being too short, thanks to devoting parts of the softcovers to sidequets, they seem unsatifsyingly easy. As in, way, way less lethal, than previous APs. So far, I have failed to notice any encounters, that (barring very optimized PCs) are likely to brutally TPK you, if you're stupid enough to run into them headlong, instead of using a smart approach (such as Malfeshnekor; attacking Aldern with exhausted party; walking through Xanesha's front door; or charging in the middle of fort Rannik). Enemies also are much weaker in general. Just look at the end bosses of second or third adventures in RotRL and CotCT APs or compare Thistletop with the final catacombs in the "Shadow in the Sky". I don't know about everyone else, but I'm disappointed. Is reducing the difficulty for this AP a deliberate decision? Or, maybe, I'm missing some mechanical details?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Uh, I for one consider "Children of the Void" anything but easy. What specifically strikes you as "pulling punches"?
Ok, there is no Xenesha in Second Darkness (yet...), but that encounter was frankly just over the top. Other than that, I see a solid mix of easy and harder.
In "Children of the Void", you can, barring bad party or seriously bad luck, handle all areas by simply charging in and slaughtering everything, AND also can get help both in Clegg's camp and drow dungeon. There are few truly lethal opponents, and greated focus on enemies with character levels, instead of monsters (monsters usually are tougher at the same CR). There are no dungeons that will surely slaugher you, if you try to beat them in one go and, in general, the potential to bite more than you can chew is lower. That's why I think, that the overall lethality is lower. In "Skinsaw Murders", if you attack Aldern, without first sending Iesha's revenant after him, you have high probability of dying (unless you have fully rested, but resting after invading the dungeon is a risky idea, unless we assume that he, or other monsters, absolutely never leave their rooms - they can gang up and hunt you or simply run). And fighting your way through the Xanesha's tower, instead of being smart, and sneaking or flying in is a very bad idea, unless PCs are really hardcore
There are some similar comments cleverly hidden in another thread:
AP Difficulty Too Easy?
Long story short -- Mr. Jacobs says "yes, it's deliberately easier".
Ehhh... A pity, that. I allow most of non-core material and play with houserules that bring core fighty types a bit closer to spellcasters, so, even though my players seem to refrain from cheese and Xtreme builds, encounters in Second Darkness seem a bit too weak to ever really challenge them. Perhaps if you make them less passive and more willing to use alarms, fall back to the main lair and gang up on PCs... Adding mooks also might work, I guess (I give XP on basis of party's successes, instead of calculating values for every monster, so that should not unbalance the game). Well, and changing prepared spells, particularly for opponents that have some idea about what they're going to face, can make wonders, too.
Like you said, it's easy enough to make an encounter tougher:
-add some more HD/levels to the enemies
-add some more mooks
-play the enemies smarter
-add a template
-assign spells & feats in a more optimal way
Making an encounter easier is a little more finicky, I think.
|
Well, Id say that the drow tactics at the end of Children of the Void are pretty brutal- the drow guards have decent ACs and good SR for mooks, the battlefield is fairly restricting, and everyone is always b*~&*ing about how overpowered clerics are, and look what we have here: a drow cleric. plus, one of her tactics is to make people "take a swim." with a charmed orca. Id say, give her a few more suggestion spells, or give her another way to push people into the water, and you have a nice, lethal encounter to work with. toss a few more levels on her and optimize her build, if you want. I did. conversion to 3.P rules powers her up real nice.
also, the party will likely have to also face a wounded shadow-demon as well in this area.
I agree, though. there should be more crazy creatures like Xaneesha and Malfeshnekor, and even erylium. Dont give up on them just because a few people complain-find a way to make them work.
Creative Director
|
It's also worth keeping in mind that what's easy for one group is a TPK for another group. Setting the difficulty for adventure paths is a constant learning process for us; we've had feedback that the first two Pathfinder APs tended to be be a bit too rough, so we toned down some elements in Second Darkness. If we continue hearing feedback that Second Darkness is too easy, then expect Legacy of Fire to be tougher.
But in the end, it's impossible for us to perfectly tailor each adventure to each game group. The author, developer, and editor are only 75% of the team. The last 25%, and probably the most important 25%, is the GM, since he or she is the one who ultimately makes the game fun for his or her players. It's the GM's responsibility to understand the capabilities and interests of the players, after all, and therefore the GM's responsibility to adjust the pre-written adventure to suit the players.
|
On reading feedback from Dungeon Magazine adventure paths being particularly lethal, I allowed my players a generous 32 point buy. They think Burnt Offerings has been a tough adventure, but I feel it has been cleverly written to seem that way, the opening goblin raid being a prime example of a thrilling encounter that looked more dangerous than it actually played out to be.
They also dispatched the sinspawn quicker than I had a chance to reveal their special attacks, so I added another encounter where sinspawn attacked the Sandpoint schoolyard.
In general, though, I'd rather adventure paths be a little more forgiving than a one-shot adventure. D0 Hollow's Last Hope ended in a climactic TPK, which everyone enjoyed. However, frequent character deaths can kill continuity and interest in an on-going adventure path that plays out over the course of a year.
Also keep in mind that these adventures are written for four players. Any more than four, and you may find they play easier than expected, in which case it could be appropriate to adjust the encounters accordingly.
As in, way, way less lethal, than previous APs.
*evil little giggle*
Not lethal.. hmm...
First attack roll after arriving on Devil's Elbow: Double Paizo threat to kill (not confirmed). From a centipede.
The rest looks better and better.
I can say with much vigor that Second Darkness is just as deadly. After the spill down the hill at Witchlight the party decided to walk around the island to the harbor and they stumbled onto... guess what?
the cave...
then they decide to explore it with everyone hurt already from the Witchlight attack and tumble. I groaned inwardly as I readily expected a horrible horrible TPK. I mean seriously... what are they thinking...
Through the front and 2 rounds later the party rogue got shredded by the darkness and the rest of the party wisely decided to retreat back out.
I can say with much vigor that Second Darkness is just as deadly. After the spill down the hill at Witchlight the party decided to walk around the island to the harbor and they stumbled onto... guess what?
the cave...
then they decide to explore it with everyone hurt already from the Witchlight attack and tumble. I groaned inwardly as I readily expected a horrible horrible TPK. I mean seriously... what are they thinking...
Through the front and 2 rounds later the party rogue got shredded by the darkness and the rest of the party wisely decided to retreat back out.
My group did okay with spill down the hill - they even kept all the wizards alive via 3 PC's able to channel energy (Cleric 2d6, Pal 1d6, Sorc/Clr 1d6).
I think my version of Second Darkness has been sufficiently dangerous, but that is because I've been converting it to 4E and modifying the encounters to make sure they offer the challenge where challenge is due. However, if I ran it as written in 3E with the characters my players would typically make I'm confident they would stomp it to bits (in most parts). Even with Savage Tide I had to make a number of upgrades to make the challenge sufficient, especially at the higher levels, and I consider it to be a tougher AP than what I've seen from Second Darkness.
However, even though I'm not a big fan of the design of many of the combat encounters in Second Darkness (too much with PCs stomping a single opponent). I still really like the story line, and it's fairly easy for me to adjust the specifics of the encounters.
I like the way the Wizards' modules have been building their combat encounters (with multiple monster types/roles in bigger areas of space with interesting terrain features), and I wish Paizo would follow this design philosophy more. However, I like the plots of the Paizo modules way better (ie. there is a story). If somehow the two could be brought together...
When the party gets to the Darklands...gugs. Rend is brutal, particularly with the Critical Hit Deck. >:D
|
Creative Director
|
I like the way the Wizards' modules have been building their combat encounters (with multiple monster types/roles in bigger areas of space with interesting terrain features), and I wish Paizo would follow this design philosophy more. However, I like the plots of the Paizo modules way better (ie. there is a story). If somehow the two could be brought together...
We already do design that way, sort of. As in, rather than assuming that all of the monsters in one area will always fight as a team, it's MY opinion that it's better to not assume that the gameplay will follow that track. Instead, we detail each room as its own "encounter in a bottle." They could certainly do one encounter at a time, but in reality, depending on how the PCs enter the encounter and from what direction they do so and how much noise they make, common sense says that the creatures in the nearby areas would come to investigate.
Rather than lock it in at a macro level and present all encounters assuming each is a grand melee with the PCs entering the encounter under an assumed set of circumstances, I prefer to present the encounters on a micro level and let things develop more organically, trusting the GM to help the encounters work out as best for his or her group's particular circumstances at the time.
Well I can agree with most of that. Having run, Shadow in the Sky and Children in the Void I've ended up with a lot of encounters that became running battles that spilled into multiple areas. In particular the final encounters with the drow in both adventures went that way, as well as the raid on the Gold Goblin and the battle in with Akatas in the Witchlight tower. I've really enjoyed both adventures and I look forward to running the next couple of installments.
I like the way the Wizards' modules have been building their combat encounters (with multiple monster types/roles in bigger areas of space with interesting terrain features), and I wish Paizo would follow this design philosophy more. However, I like the plots of the Paizo modules way better (ie. there is a story). If somehow the two could be brought together...We already do design that way, sort of. As in, rather than assuming that all of the monsters in one area will always fight as a team, it's MY opinion that it's better to not assume that the gameplay will follow that track. Instead, we detail each room as its own "encounter in a bottle." They could certainly do one encounter at a time, but in reality, depending on how the PCs enter the encounter and from what direction they do so and how much noise they make, common sense says that the creatures in the nearby areas would come to investigate.
Rather than lock it in at a macro level and present all encounters assuming each is a grand melee with the PCs entering the encounter under an assumed set of circumstances, I prefer to present the encounters on a micro level and let things develop more organically, trusting the GM to help the encounters work out as best for his or her group's particular circumstances at the time.