Shocklok
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without Doubt, our entire table was in agreement. Over 100 years of collective gaming experience, players each with over a decade of game play. The entire table without one exception, including the GM, felt the adventure was filled with mechanics that guaranteed death. Here is some feedback and recommendations from a table of very experienced play testers with decades of play knowledge. We love this game, this adventure is not written in the spirit of this game. Its actually an embarrassing example of the failures of the editing team to manage an overly zealous module writer that is clearly hell bent on punishing characters, especially spell casters.
SPOILER
The area of effect damage effect at the end guarantees death. Not even our tank survived the encounter. If an effect is not capped, it kills.No saving throw effects are against core rules. The damage dealt to every individual in the group was greater than a disintegrate cast by a 16th level wizard. We were 7-8. Using average damage lone, 33d6 damage is over 110 hit points of damage. The average 8th level barbarian with 18 con would have 93 hit points. Add "no saving throw" That is guaranteed death. There should be a tiered "cap" on how many d6 can apply. There is presently no cap. 15d6 at 7-8 (~52 damage) or 21d6 at 10-11 (~73 damage) should be the damage cap.
The number of effects that "trigger" 3d6 damage include the consumption of alchemical (non-magical) effects such as anti-plague. This clearly makes no sense as consuming alchemical objects would no further "disturb the balance" as drinking a glass of water. The ONLY reason to put that in this section is to GUARANTEE a less than optimal group synergy to face a group of monsters buffed by 6 artifact level items. Further, the skill check requirement is extremely high. Players should be DISCOURAGED from participating in the ritual, not REQUIRED to participate. Characters are actually PUNISHED for helping. The sages all being helpless is absurd. Seriously? Dreamscapes should be pushed into the minds of one of the players, especially the one that survived the prior dreamscape, to help facilitate that "option", one that is NOT CLEAR, not in the slightest. There should be time between the option to jump into the dreamscape and the area effect blast. There should be events in the dreamscape that reduce the amount of damage the characters would be exposed to. There should be opportunities to "cure" failed skill checks that insta-kill the party. This encounter is putative.
The final encounter's ghost is mechanically broken. Final monster's regeneration effect, combined with being incorporeal, and automatically making every saving throws casting three spells a round. Right... it breaks core rules. The damage output on that one creature alone must reach 100hp of damage a round just to offset the healing effect of the monster at 7-8. Players have no way of knowing to destroy the gems, or even that the gems are triggering these effects. There should be a clearly visible "magical" effect flowing into the ghost from the gems so the players can elect to sever the link somehow.
THE PLAGUES BREAK CORE MECHANICS
Paladins are immune to disease. Period. End Stop. Have the NPC Paladin "fall from grace" then be subject to the plague. But to make it so that monks and paladins that are immune to disease are not immune to this disease again breaks core rules.
Targeting spell casters (elementals, effriti, etc) in the way that is targeted by increasing their weakest saving throw by 4, where the saving throw is so high to begin with, is impossible and again just unfair.
ALL SECONDARY AND TERTIARY PLAGUE EFFECTS ARE AGAINST CORE RULES. I don't care how much story you create, breaking core rules to the level where casting a spell forces the caster to gain 1d2 permanent negative levels is not a mechanic any game system can "balance" prepared to recognize as legitimate. Making that effect "incurable" is a guaranteed permanent death of the character. Not even a wish? Seriously? We know there is a way in the adventure to "cure" this "incurable" effect. There should be, at the least, a prestige amount that allows for Pathfinders that have "survived" the scenario to "cure" the effect in the event a player fails to secure this "cure" during the scenario. Anything else is ridiculous. I am stunned that Paizo authorized it. This should be retooled, PERIOD.
TRAPS V. TRICKS (This isn't 1st Edition D&D)
The acid effect in the pool room was also "not a trap" so no way to "perceive" it. This "not a trap but a trick" was corrected due to much player feedback. If a rogue can detect a magic trap, one without any visible effects, but can't detect acid pool concealed underneath water using the same skill, there is a problem with the encounter.
THE INITIAL OBELISK ENCOUNTER
The obelisk has boxed text that says we are to disable the device but when you reach the device , the skills required to disable the obelisk have nothing to do with disable device or use magic device. In fact its not a device at all. But the term "device" is used. Other words are required in the boxed text, specifically words like "The Obelisk must be dismantled, but this is no mere device as clearly significant mastery of the arcane and religion is essential to breaking it down" or something along that line. Choosing grandmaster torch is the instinct in this encounter with the text as written. But the module doesn't even give Grand Master Torch "bardic knowledge" its ridiculous. There is no need for "SAND" and "GRAPPLE CHECKS" to stop or impede movement. To create a swarm encounter with paralysis with an environmental effect that locks down movement is punitive. Combine this with the range limitations of swirling sandstorms and strong winds the effects are cumulatively putative, leading to many character deaths.
PLAYERS WILL BE DISCOURAGED FROM PLAYING PATHFINDER BECAUSE OF THIS ADVENTURE. At least one player said he would not play pathfinder ever again, he was so upset. If the developer's goal is encourage purchases, from a mere business judgment purpose, this adventure demands retooling. From a gaming planner's perspective, its not even written with a WARNING label when less difficult modules do come with a warning label. Its just not finished. This adventure could be better, much better, but it needs to be completely retooled.
I normally get paid to review materials, but I am giving this feedback to help Paizo figure out what the hell is going on. When this many players complain about an event, there is a problem. Of 21 players, only 7 managed to "survive" the final encounter. The remaining people either quit the adventure or failed altogether with a complete wipe.
This is NOT where Pathfinder should be heading. There are no bragging rights for module writers that "count the heads of characters permanently claimed in their scenario." If this is what Pathfinder wants, then they will lose their player base to satisfy the sadistic few eager to see suffering in a game.