|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Yawn to say the least, though I admit this is not really the DM's fault if that is how the module is written...
I completely disagree here. It is up to your DM to make the game feel dynamic, even during an Adventure Path. If your character wanted to investigate the sunken ship, you should have been allowed to, even if that scene is not ready for the module yet.
Remember that the writers of the module only have about 40 or so pages to work with and D&D being what it is, they can't throw in every single eventuality that could possibly occur; this is why we have living, breathing DMs to adjudicate our games, after all.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Got to agree with Nameless - the adventure describes the boat and gives a way of getting there. The wererat you met is just A way of finding out about the boat. It's up to individual GMs to change these things and tweak it for their party if they want to/have time to. Say a module says that the characters are asked for help by a Good Cleric, but all the characters are evil, that'd something the GM would have to notice and change during his prep. If your character wants to go himself, or whatever, it's up to the DM to allow that. The railroad feeling, as you describe it, is what comes from being forced to use the game intro to a location rather than your own idea. That's not the fault of the module. Maybe your GM liked the wererat, or never had time to create another encounter, or thought you'd all die if you went there 5 sessions ago.
Plus - an adventure path is not a campaign. It's railroady by nature - there's an epic storyline that your characters follow. Sometimes with sandboxy periods, but frequently more like a book unfolding.
|
As for DM style. I am not going to comment on that at all for obvious reasons. This is more about how the Adventure Path is written. I just hope it opens up some in the module or in later modules.
I'm obviously not condoning this now, as you are currently a player, but you can search on these boards and find what happened when things like this happen, it can lead to either some real good roleplaying situations or a TPK it's possible that your DM thought the later and prevented you from going early for that reason... its a DM's job to make the pieces fit, even if he needs to take out a saw to fit a square peg in a round hole. But it's also his job to keep your characters alive and having fun. There are a few choices that some PCS will try to make in this AP that would be straight up suicide, and cause the rest of the parties life a living hell.. but you need to convince the player of that fact without saying "you can't" - I liken DMing to the movie 'the negotiator'
|
|
This topic came up before. It's obvious that in an Adventure Path, there's a main story line that's described as the most likely "path" the PC's are going to take. In the amount of space available, the authors can't cover all possibilities. So in a way, indeed, the players are being railroaded to some extent. But many times, a skilled DM can present the situation to the players to make them think they chose their own destiny, while in fact they just followed the default path described in the adventure. ;)
But as was said before, if the Adventure Path mode is something you dislike because it feels like you're being rail-roaded, maybe you should play different adventures that are more of the "sandbox" type.
In the case you describe, I think the DM could have allowed you guys to explore the ship earlier, and then modified the wererat part of the adventure accordingly. OR, he might've come up with believable reasons why the ship could not be found.
|
My party wanted to check out the boat too. I gave them their 'road maps' (clues from the NPC's) and they went a different direction. When they got to the boat one of my players was all "See! I told you!". If they would have went earlier characters would have died. (I can only fudge so many die rolls...)
Yeah, CotCT is a bit "yellow brick road" but most prewritten modules are.
It's still a great adventure.
Yes, there will be a few more forks in the roads coming up where the party gets to do stuff. In the end though, the road leads where it leads...
In the old 2E "Hall of the Stone Giants" or whatever it's called, the party goes into a stone giant fortress, where most of the giants are having a feast in the main room.
Imagine that the party goes in, kills several giants, get dangerously low in HPs, and manage to beat a hasty retreat. They escape the fortress, rest for a day, heal up, learn new spells, and go back.
A day later, the giants are still having a feat in the main room exactly where the party left them, with the rotting corpses of their compatriots lying where they had fallen. Why? Because the module says that when the PCs arrive, most of the giants are having a feast in the main room.
Now, is it the case that this is a poorly-written module? Or is the case that the GM has failed to apply common sense and allow the giants to react in a realistic way? Any GM who thinks he can just pick up a pre-written adventure and run it straight out the book, no creative thought required, is fooling himself and cheating his players. And his usual excuse when his players complain is to blame the module, because he is forced to do exactly and only what the text tells him to do.
Unfortunately, since you are playing in the AP, you can't look in the campaign journals section and read some of the different ways GMs are running this campaign. But I have, and I can assure you that there are many people playing CotCT whose GMs are allowing them to take initiative and do things in different ways.
|
|
I think that this is a case of reading the "before combat" sections of the stat blocks and thinking that it always happens before combat. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. The wererat definatly would have been buffed... The hag, it depends on when she notices the party.. if she had 2 rounds then yes, she would have both buffs on. less than that, prolly not.
Have you tried telling your GM that you'd prefer a less railroady game?
|
Stuff
This still doesn't sound like one of the issues of the AP as written, but rather the GM not allowing the game to be affected by players decisions. Consider it this way: If you had gone down that tunnel as the rogue wanted, the GM very well could've changed the layout of the dungeon so that you ran across that were-rat any way. Because he didn't, it seems to suggest to me that the problem isn't with the AP (which is mostly just a series of possible events), it is what the GM's expectations are for the encounters and games.
Have you considered how much fun your GM is having? He obviously wants to the run the AP, from what you're describing. Is deviating from the path so necessary for you to have fun?
|
Have you tried telling your GM that you'd prefer a less railroady game?To be honest yes I have. I suggested to him and everyone else that maybe we should leave town for a couple days and seek our fortune (or borrow by force) the fortune of someone else, AKA good old kill the monsters raid the dungeon.
The DM very quickly said that this was not the adventure path and that we would not be deviating from it. The "in-character" explanation is that we all love the city so much that we would not even think of doing anything except help the city every waking second of our lives. Unfortunately that requires us to sit around and wait for the next NPC to knock on our door and ask us for help. I am starting to think I should have made the DnD version of Michael Weston and call all these NPCs my clients. I could even complete the image by getting myself burn-notice backstory by getting kicked out of the city guard.
No offense but this right here to me suggest it is the GM's problem that is the real problem and not the adventures. It sounds like s/he is saying this is how it is and thats it. Of course it will feel railroady with that mindset. I have played in Vampire TM games like that too. Flexible GM's that use common sense can work with any adventure and let players have lots of leyway and nudge them back when needed with just a bit of prep work and listening to the players.
|
|
I'm with others here, it sounds like the GM is just reading the AP and going 'as is'.
Yeah, if the PC's triggers alarms and such the bad guys have time to buff. That shouldn't always happen. (Except in my group, Team Home Invasion Local 42, they are like a burning bear in line at a perfumery...)
I love the idea of making noise and waiting around.
Do some silent scouting, get a layout of the joint, come back and make noise, leave and wait, go back (either repeat it a few more times) and be ready for a fortified defensive fight.
|
|
Consider it this way: If you had gone down that tunnel as the rogue wanted, the GM very well could've changed the layout of the dungeon so that you ran across that were-rat any way.
Heck, you don't even have to go that far. Just have Grizzt sneak up while they're fighting the otyugh, and stab somebody...which is basically what Grizzt's tactics block says he does anyway.
So, not only is this GM refusing to deviate from the text, he's not even reading the text correctly.
That said, learning to keep players on the path without ramming the path down their throat is a very delicate skill, and one that your GM will learn...IF he puts the effort in. I cringe when I think of some of the things I did to my players when I was young. 15 years later, I'm not the most talented GM in the world, but I'm a very practiced one.
Take the shipwreck for example: my players immediately asked about salvage operations. I laughed and said "The guard's not going down there...do you think water breathing grows on trees? Plus the darkness, the sharks, the devilfish..." and the players took the hint. If they had pushed the point and wanted to go down? Then they get to go down, and I'd have to roll with it. Either punish them by running it as written and hope they don't get killed, or throw some sharks and whatnot at them while they search, and then give them the ship without the hag.
On the other hand, no matter how practiced you are, you'll never have the players under mind control. It turns out my PCs took the hint too hard, and declined to search the wreckage even after they got the wererat hint.
So, talk to your GM...explain that you don't want to derail his story, but you do want to feel like your PC has some influence in what happens. There's got to be some give and take, on your side as well as his.
The more I read your situation, it sounds like the GM is not letting your actions determine changes to the story. As others have pointed out, a module has railroady elements to it as an author cannot possibly predict everything that a group of players will do in a given situation. (This is a common cause of frustration for myself when I'm writing a scene - I get caught up in the "what ifs.")
If your enemies are constantly buffing themselves, have your character respond accordingly. Presumably, your character would have learned from prior encounters - make a Spellcraft roll to determine how long they would have to wait after your "false alarm" for their spells to wear off. Making a lot of noise at the back entrance and then going to a side or front entrance while the guard(s) are distracted is another valid tactic.
If your attempts at thinking outside of the box are still thwarted by your GM's attempts to play it precisely as written, then I think the fault still lies with your GM.
|
|
@evilvolus
You're quite correct. I used it as the example that would lead them to him and his appropriately set up ambush... >:D
@ OP
One of the other things you might consider is that the GM sounds like he may not want to actually run his own materials. If there are new materials that you would like to play with though, perhaps you should consider asking if you can take over the responisiblities of being the GM.
|
|
I dont want this to be bashing the DM. I am more curious if this Adventure Path as written is going to deviate from the current pattern.
NPC #1 shows up and gives mission.
NPC #2 shows up and gives mission.
Kroft summons party and gives mission.
Friendly neighborhood cleric shows up and gives mission.
NPC #3 shows up and gives mission.
End Module.
Rinse and repeat for next module.
That and the constantly buffed and preped enemies is getting annoying.
In short: Yes, it should become more fluid.
In long: That is a matter for you and your DM to discuss still. Just because the adventures themselves might become more open doesn't mean that your GM has to change the pattern at all. You still need to talk to him to make sure that it is still the game you want to play. The discourse you have will give you a much better idea of the actual direction the campaign will go.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I dont want this to be bashing the DM.
No-one is bashing the DM, we're simply saying that the adventure as written is a framework. How that translates into a game for you and your friends depends on the skill, desire and free time of your GM as he works to make a game that everyone has fun at. The more you all talk about the sort of game you enjoy, the more everyone can enjoy themselves.
Bashing = negative
Talking about expectations and offering tips and advice != bashing
|
|
That and the constantly buffed and preped enemies is getting annoying.
I just can't understand why this is a problem. Buffing is part of the game; if the players are allowed to buff, then it stands to reason that the mosters have just as much a chance to do so, if they have potions or spells. It's up to the PCs to change their tactics, or, if it's really that much of a problem, then you should talk to your GM about it.
I've never read a published module that didn't have an NPC or monster buffing when it logically would, it would make no sense.
I would say this is the GM's responsibility. He should have gone one of two ways:
The harder way — let the players interact with the setting and reward their thoughtfulness and interactivity. Find create solutions to hide the plot points that must absolutely stay hidden, but break from the adventure as written when the players choose what seems like a logical course of action.
Of course, that's a lot of work, and requires insight that you can't always force. Man I wish it were as easy I made it sound.
The easier way — let the players know at the outset that the reason you're using an AP is to save yourself prep time. The game will be a railroad if the GM is unwilling to do invasive surgery on the plot. If the players are okay with that and can agree not to make too much work for the GM, happiness can be achieved.
The Pathfinder APs do a very good job of giving an intrepid GM enough information to play it by ear and run the "harder" way. However, GMing is hard work, and I often just don't feel like doing things the harder way. So if you're sitting behind a copy of the PHB and not the DMG, then I advise you to be grateful that someone's putting the effort in to run at all. Cut the guy a break, railroad or not!
The problem has been that every single major foe has been fully buffed, often by spells that only last a few minutes, even though said foe does not know exactly when the party is going to arrive.
The example above was the were-rat. By our actions the were-rat should have buffed himself then had them all wear out since we approached right up to the room he was in then left and went another direction for what had to be 30 minutes or more of real time. If he didnt buff then but later then how did he know exactly when to buff since our halfling thief actually snuck up on him without being spotted. Sure he could hear the big loud barbarian in the distance but that doesnt tell him we are going to attack them any more then. It would have looked just like the first time and if he didnt buff the first time then why did he buff the second?
This is an issue you're going to have to take up with your GM. It has nothing to do with the module as written. The adventure says he drinks potions when he hears fighting in the next room. If your GM gives him extra potions or makes them last as long as it takes for you to go back to him, that's a choice he's making that has nothing to do with what's in the AP.
EDIT: Maybe he doesn't want to do the math to "unbuff" the stat blocks?
I would say this is the GM's responsibility. He should have gone one of two ways:
The harder way — let the players interact with the setting and reward their thoughtfulness and interactivity. Find create solutions to hide the plot points that must absolutely stay hidden, but break from the adventure as written when the players choose what seems like a logical course of action.Of course, that's a lot of work, and requires insight that you can't always force. Man I wish it were as easy I made it sound.
The easier way — let the players know at the outset that the reason you're using an AP is to save yourself prep time. The game will be a railroad if the GM is unwilling to do invasive surgery on the plot. If the players are okay with that and can agree not to make too much work for the GM, happiness can be achieved.
The Pathfinder APs do a very good job of giving an intrepid GM enough information to play it by ear and run the "harder" way. However, GMing is hard work, and I often just don't feel like doing things the harder way. So if you're sitting behind a copy of the PHB and not the DMG, then I advise you to be grateful that someone's putting the effort in to run at all. Cut the guy a break, railroad or not!
I'm going to agree with this completely. Adventure Paths, all of them, are by their very nature railroads. A skilled DM can do some work in hiding the railroad tracks.
That said hiding the railroad tracks is not just the DMs job. Probably he should have informed the players about the nature of Adventure Paths prior to running it and made you sign a contract saying you'd work with the DM to hide the railroad tracks. So when the Dm says 'you love the city to much to leave it' thats not just a dictate from on high - that just became part of your character concept...run with it.
So if your main question is - will the adventure more or less be about getting adventure ops from NPCs etc. and then going on those adventure ops then the answer is yes - that is exactly what the campaign will be about. Occasionally for short stretches you might have the opportunity to deviate and choose from a couple of different options but these will only be for short stretches. There are two fundamental constraints built into Adventure Paths that force this issue. One is that each of the six instalments of the Adventure Path are self contained stories. So there are only so many options on the table. Even a very talented and experienced DM will find that the constraints imposed by this are tricky to hide. For DMs that are not quite so talented or experienced (or any DM with a limited available prep time) the boundaries or going to more difficult to hide and the players will have to step up to the plate more often to help him (or her) explain them away.
The other is that its the nature of D&D that challenges are only challenges for a set level. So you mention above that you wanted to leave the city and go do some good old fashioned dungeon delving...and what gain 4 levels? Then what - have the next two installments of the AP be boring pushovers because your 4 levels too powerful for them? Or will the DM then modify the entire AP so that its four levels higher then it currently is? Just how much prep time does your DM have? I figure a skilled DM that was good with the rules and could modify every single encounter in the adventure in maybe 60 hours - a lot of work to satisfy ones players with some throw away dungeons.
Seems to me your DM could improve his DMing by trying to be a little more dynamic and you could improve yourself as a player by trying a little harder to work with your DM.
APs have a real strong point in that they outline what is usually a really excellent story but in order to tell that story the players have to follow along with the plot. For some players the inclusion of a really good story is worth the freedom sacrificed. For others they'd rather not have the story but be able to have their characters roam where ever they want and do whatever they want.
In RPG theory an AP is 'Story Before' - a story has been created and you and your fellow players will follow that story. It works in some sense like your characters are part of a book.
Other styles of campaigning are 'Story Know' - this usually involves some kind of a limited local which the DM knows really, really, well. There is not necessarily any real over arcing story just a large caste of NPCs and such and the players decide what they want to do - if they go on a robbing spree then the DM knows that the Thieves Guild and the Watch probably don't like that and has an idea of how they will react. Usually the story develops because the PCs make NPC allies and enemies - they might graduate from being just thieves to forming a rival thieves guild and maybe they have some noble allies or etc. Fundamentally the story is one that the players create and the DM reacts too.
Finally there is 'Story After' - which tends to be just 'we go dungeon delving' or whatever and then after the fact the players and the DM kind of try and make up a story about the various things the players did. Adventure of the Week campaigns are often like this.
|
|
Then quite frankly this is a very poorly designed series of modules. There are lots of ways to lead characters by their noses in an adventure path without going to RPG version of Inspector Gadget and the explosing mission note at the beginning of every "episode" of the adventure.
Thanks for the information. Basically I can sit back, let the scenary go by and defeat the monsters it drops off in front of me.
One would think though that an Adventure Path based around a city with the complex relations that exist in the city would deviate from this path at least a little bit. But obviously that was too complex an idea.
One might think that... but that is just a thought. That doesn't have to be the case at all. In fact, if you play the rest of the AP I wonder if you wont become surprised. Quite possibly, you might be very wrong just maybe sorta kinda.
No Spoilers though
you'll just have to wait and see.
I am just going by what another poster said, that being lead by our noses by NPCs is the modus operandi for the entire path throught the modules. I would be very happy to learn that is not true.
Its usually NPCs but all APs run along this line - there is a hook and when you follow that hook you go on an adventure op. It might be a big clue you found at the end of the last adventure or the hook might come into the possession by some other means - for example you could be on a ship that will, for sure, sink leaving the players to explore the nearby coastline but one way or another there will be a hook that leads to the adventure op and adventure ops will, more or less, run in a specific order.
The constraints of Dungeons and Dragons forces this - if you can deviate to far from the order then the system can't handle the players gaining levels. Every adventure Op is designed for a specific level - go on it to early and the party will die, go to late and it'll be a boring pushover.
In terms of a 3.5 AP your going to gain a level probably after 6-8 encounters so there is not that much room to maneuver between when the Worg Riding Goblin Raiders part of the story can take place - if its made for a 3rd level group its optimum if it happens during the course of the 6-8 encounters that are going to take place while the PCs are 3rd level. If it happens before the players are 3rd level it has a high probability of being lethal, or at least very disruptive to the story when teh PCs totally fail and flee screaming and it could well lead to an unfair TPK - one where the players are questioning why the DM threw something so obviously overpowered at them. By 4th it will be rather easy and note that exciting, by 5th it'll be a joke and might damage the feel of the story.
The exact contract I specify with my players for Adventure Paths is that your PC must be willing to answer a call to adventure. These are not sandbox campaigns, and they really can't be unless the GM puts in a sandbox amount of work. At that point, why bother with a module.
I'm disappointed that you think it is a "poorly designed" series. I challenge you to explain how a serial of six modules could possibly supply the sandbox experience you're asking after. It sounds like you would be much happier in a custom built sandbox style campaign.
Good luck to you!
|
|
Then quite frankly this is a very poorly designed series of modules...Basically I can sit back, let the scenary go by and defeat the monsters it drops off in front of me.
I think it's tragic that inflexibility, whether on the part of your GM or the players (I suspect both) has lead you to this conclusion. Crimson Throne (particularly the first half) is without exageration, the finest series of D&D modules I have ever owned, read or heard described in my life. It is brilliant, hands-down.
I do not wish to disparage your GM. I suspect (or at least hope) that his inflexibility is the result of inexperience. That can only be corrected by practice, coaching, and honest (non-hostile) feedback from his players.
When the players wanted to check out the shipwreck and he gave you a flat "No, you don't know where it is," he was wrong to do so. The GM has a story to tell (and that's all the modules are, outlines to a story) but he should be working with the players, not against them, to tell that story.
All that said, you are also part of the problem:
I suggested to him and everyone else that maybe we should leave town for a couple days and seek our fortune (or borrow by force) the fortune of someone else, AKA good old kill the monsters raid the dungeon.
A disease of incredible virulance and lethality has struck your home. The sick and dying crowd the temples and hospices. Wagons of bodies pass you on the streets, lined with shuttered and barred homes. The southern sky is perpetually darkened by clouds of smoke rising from corpse bonfires. The Queen's elite guards march the street, escorting black-cloaked healers from home to home, struggling and apparently failing to stem the tide of death.
And in the face of all that, you propose bugging out of town for a few days and whacking some orcs for their pocket change?
I realize that your suggestion was the product of frustration with what had been presented to you. But it's also a sign that you lack investment in the story of the adventure. That's something that will require additional effort on the part of both the GM and the players.
So, as I see it, you have two choices. You can listen to the advice of the many people who have posted above, and sit down with the GM and other players and have a frank discussion about expectations, flexibility, and above all: what everybody thinks SOUNDS FUN. Or, you can sit back and kill whatever drops in front of you.
I can't predict the future, but the former sounds like a path toward greater enjoyment for everybody involves, while the latter sounds dreadfully boring. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
How do you know that every bad guy is buffed?
I wondered the same, and upon checking noted that the wererat in question was blurred, the hag was barkskinned and the harlequin was invisible. Those are all pretty obvious. From the OP's stories, only Griggiz seems to have been inappropriately buffed, though.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Then quite frankly this is a very poorly designed series of modules.
After reading the enormous screed of text from people trying to help you have fun, it's a shame that this is your conclusion. It seems like this was your conclusion before the thread started too, and I'm getting the idea that you just want someone to say you're right. I hope you're willing to be more open minded, and if not I recommend you offer to run the game YOU want to be a part of.
If talking to your GM is "GM-bashing" then doing it yourself that's the only way you'll get the type of game you want.
As many other already commented, the "pre-buffed problem" you seem to be having is probably more due to your DM's approach to the AP than a problem with the AP itself. It is quite reasonable that, upon hearing intruders, enemies with spellcasting abilities will buff themselves. The APs merely state that and present the pre-buffed stats. It is obvious that, should the PCs go unnoticed or, in some way make the buffs useless, the DM is supposed to readjust the stats.
Moriarrty:
Passes a glass of tasty beverage.
- Welcome to the boards! Virtual cookies may, or may not, be forthcoming.
- The problem as you are describing it, to me, is that the GM comes across as running the AP out of the book - and said GM is very clearly only barely paying attention to what is written in the book.
- How new is your GM?
- Be glad your GM did not apparently have access to RotRL #3 - that would have been where I let your PCs wander off to with a smidgen of filing off the location serial numbers.
- I would recommend that you actually read the material once you conclude the CotCT campaign and reassess your opinion, comparing how it is *actually* written to how your GM ran it.
- Had you and the other players told the GM that his/her/its previous home brew material spews dog vomit? Or something analogous, as the GM (based on your descriptions thus far) seems to be perhaps resentful of having to run the AP instead of some spiffy somethingorother...
- As a thing to consider - what level is this barbarian with a +14 attack bonus? Character level? Rules set (3.5, PF Beta or)? What other factors are entering that attack bonus as compared to the far-more-normal +6 attack bonus Monk?
- Does your GM have a standing rule to the effect of 'the nastier your characters the nastier the baddies'?
Welcome to the boards! Virtual cookies may, or may not, be forthcoming.
I knew I was forgetting something.
*offers fresh n' warm cookies and an icy cold glass of milk*
I think it's tragic that inflexibility, whether on the part of your GM or the players (I suspect both) has lead you to this conclusion. Crimson Throne (particularly the first half) is without exageration, the finest series of D&D modules I have ever owned, read or heard described in my life. It is brilliant, hands-down.
I'm certianly going to agree with this. Excellent modules - especially #1-#4.
I do not wish to disparage your GM. I suspect (or at least hope) that his inflexibility is the result of inexperience. That can only be corrected by practice, coaching, and honest (non-hostile) feedback from his players.
I'm guessing at inexperience - but a lack of prep time could also be part of the issue. The adventures can work as a frame work upon which to build a more in depth campaign but APs are also very popular for a DM that just does not have enough prep time and is using a good story based series of modules to do the heavy lifting in terms of prep work.
Even if the DM is using the adventures as a frame work many DMs are not going to want the players gaining any significant amount of XP outside of the frame work because it means redoing all the stat blocks. Certainly I'd be avoiding that. Hence building on the frame work becomes a matter of developing NPC interactions and relationships with the PCs and working with the players on their characters sub plots. Thing is many groups don't necessarily focus on that instead preferring to stick to the meat of the game - getting cool luchre and gaining levels and power. Nothing wrong with this but it could well mean that trying to set up a love triangle between two PCs and the chick who is their contact with the Watch may not be what the players are looking for.
Fundamentally there may not be any reasonable way the DM can build on the frame work if what the players are looking for is a way to rip off some orcs for their pocket change or get an even bigger axe for their uber bad ass Barbarian since building up the framework can't be allowed to become a method for the players to gain more XP or gold outside of whats available in the adventure itself - it can only really be increased immersion in the plot through development of the NPCs and the local.
When the players wanted to check out the shipwreck and he gave you a flat "No, you don't know where it is," he was wrong to do so. The GM has a story to tell (and that's all the modules are, outlines to a story) but he should be working with the players, not against them, to tell that story.
Tricky this. I read these modules many months ago so I don't recall all the details but the foreshadowing regarding the boat would have occurred right near the beginning of the adventure and yet its conclusion is right near the end as I recall. That means there is likely two - maybe three levels difference between the time of first hearing about the boat and its investigation. If its the climax it'd be a tough fight for even a party that just made the final level in this installment if its anything like how most of the APs end.
Bottom line here is you don't want the players ending up finding this immediately - especially if you have zero time to even look at that part of the adventure before the intrepid players are going to head into an encounter that, as written might be designed to be a really, really tough fight for a party three levels higher then they currently are.
I've not bothered to look because whats really at issue is a 'what happens if the PCs skip to the end?' type situation so the specifics maybe are not so important.
Thinking about this - presuming that my players did not hit me with this out of the blue (if they did blind side me with this its perfectly possible I might screw up and say - "uh, err, your not sure where it is!" myself) I'd probably handle the whole thing with smoke and mirrors.
"Sure you can look for the boat. No Problem! - give me a gather information check" then have urchins and seedy underground contacts doing this and that while the PCs orchestrate the search...but all of this will take a while and while your waiting you might as well follow up on all of these other adventure hooks. I'd finish it off by having 'updates' on the search for the boat take place at opportune times during the course of the adventure. I can't recall what actually leads them to the boat but whatever it is throw that part out and instead have all the PCs hard work developing a info gathering network and bribing government officials etc. pay off with a big reveal that they have finally found the boat! "Such smart players - here's your cookie and make sure to level your characters for next session 'cause that boat is bad news".
Are we going to be able to pull off the end portion of this module at our current level?
End of the series should see a group of 4 at 15th to 16th level. A group of 5, presuming no adjustments by the GM, will be a bit behind on level due to dilution of XP by 20%. You group will probably be, at the latter stages, about a level behind where a group of 4 would be. The end portion of the current module I would estimate the group at a level higher than present - you can pull it off, with good team work.
The transition points to the next four spell levels (4th, 5th, 6th and 7th) could be rough. This will depend upon precisely when you get enough XP to transition to the relevant character level.
Of course, all of this discussion is moot if your GM is doing a "you gain a level now" approach.
Are we going to be able to pull off the end portion of this module at our current level?