|
Short version: At tier 3-4, which of these two two-parters is more challenging?
Long version: I've been co-ordinating a small Pathfinder Society group since November 2011. I've been the GM so far, but we're looking to start rotating GMing duties soon. We've been planning what we want to play over the next few weeks, and the two-parters 'Before the Dawn' ('The Bloodcove Disguise', 'Rescue at Azlant Ridge') and 'The City of Strangers' ('The Shadow Gambit', 'The Twofold Demise') both look likely. Most of the group are parallel in levelling up their main characters, and will end up playing one of these two-parters at 3rd level, and the other at 4th level. Is either one of these known for being either a cakewalk or a meatgrinder at tier 3-4? If one two-parter is well known as being more difficult for an average party than the other, then I can make sure that we play that one second.
Any advice?
|
I assume you mean challenging for the PCs, not the GM?
RAW, "Before the Dawn 1" is not hard at all, it's very easy (roleplay makes up for it). Part 2 is extremely combat heavy with very little roleplay. It's not a death trap, but it's a bit of a meat grinder in the sense that there's a lot of combat.
Not sure about City of Strangers beyond the reviews, which say Part 1 is extremely easy and need the GM to spend extra time reading the book "Pathfinder Chronicles: City of Strangers" to make it good.
|
Short answer: Situational
Long answer: Ive GMed both sets of adventures, and played through Before the Dawn. While I agree with Evan that BtD might be more difficult, I think its a situational difficulty.
If you have an intelligent, well-rounded party, they should be able to handle most of BtD1 without much issue, and depending on their skills, might get out of it with very few Awareness points. Doing so makes BtD2 even easier. BtD2 might not be a cakewalk, but even with all the bad guys you could possibly have, it's no meatgrinder, again assuming intelligent well-rounded party.
City of Strangers, on the other hand, is moderately difficult and the ending of one of them (though I forget which one) with a party v party fight can make a difficult encounter.
On the other hand, if the GM runs the waves of enemies of monkeys in BtD2 together, or doesnt take into account that the horses at the beginning arent trained, it can be much more difficult than anything CoS can throw at you. Similarly, if the GM has bad party tactics with the party v party encounter, it can be kinda disapointing.
Overall, but are very good. I suggest everyone play both sets.
|
|
I think that Bloodcove is harder, not to difficult though.
City of Strangers is one of my favorite mods, more rp centered. I would also pick up the Kaer maga book.
If your group has more interest in combat, Bloodcove has a higher degree of complex encounters. At higher tiers the combat in these can be harder for a GM to run if, not familiar with the APG classes.
|
|
Before the Dawn is harder. City of Strangers is more interesting.
I agree with Doug, but only up to Subtier 3-4. As previous posters said, this is mostly due to Azlant Ridge, though Lura can be either challenging (when I ran the mod) or over immediately (when I played the mod) depending on people's Knowledge (planes).
Interestingly, CoS is noticably more difficult than BtD at 6-7, but that is mainly due to the 6-7 of Azlant Ridge being poorly scaled to handle a party with flying capability (the big battle that takes up >50% of the scenario's combat is full of enemies that can't attack you past thrown weapon range). This is combined with a big increase in difficulty of CoS II due to a reliance on NPC spellcasters who get some good AoE effects (nearly TPKed my group with the final encounter of 6-7 CoS due to a bevy of bad Will saves, though the Zen Archer fled the fight and then soloed the encounter on his return since the enemy ran out of spells defeating everyone else, and I had previously killed the archer in another encounter earlier in the mod with a bunch of AoE spells after he rolled incredibly poorly on several Reflex saves).
RAW, "Before the Dawn 1" is not hard at all, it's very easy (roleplay makes up for it).
We almost got torn to pieces by the
in Before the Dawn, Pt 1. So obviously our experience was different from yours!
I haven't played Pt 2, so I can't really comment on the series as a whole.
|
|
RAW, "Before the Dawn 1" is not hard at all, it's very easy (roleplay makes up for it).We almost got torn to pieces by the
** spoiler omitted **
in Before the Dawn, Pt 1. So obviously our experience was different from yours!
When I ran the mod, she was an utter terror, though mainly because the team depended on their Heavens Oracle, and I had good luck on Lura's Will saves against Color Spray. She managed to take out everyone on the team but the Inquisitor, but he used a rat from a Bag of Tricks to sniff her out and find the right square to attack her.
** spoiler omitted **
We almost got torn to pieces by the
** spoiler omitted **
in Before the Dawn, Pt 1. So obviously our experience was different from yours!
In our game:
|
|
In our game:
** spoiler omitted **
So basically you had no DPS. It's a wonder you made it out alive.
|
|
In our game:
** spoiler omitted **So basically you had no DPS. It's a wonder you made it out alive.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
I ask not as a gotcha, really, but more as a general question about potion-drinking as a listed NPC tactic in PFS for any round except Round 1, as without heavy CC, the PCs generally always have a flank by then and do some maneuver on the potion.
EDIT: I suppose if their damage to her was low enough she could have also moved out of their threat range and provoked two AoOs, which is what I usually do if the enemy thinks they can make it, but Lura's HP is low enough to make that risky if we're looking at least 21 sneak attack from the flanking sneakers from 1d6 + 2d6 alone.
** spoiler omitted **
I think I see the discontinuity -- for you, a fight that takes down half the party is "very easy" and for me that means the party is "torn to pieces". It's just a matter of terminology!
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
To answer your question.
Lura didn't know the PCs were coming (all thugs were dispatched silently in 1 round and their bodies hidden, they then went to the Sanguine Pit after), so she didn't have the potion palmed (or magic fang cast). I thought it was appropriate that Mage Armor was cast while she worked. So she got the potion (move action, AoO) and drank it (std action, AoO if you have combat reflex). She was unable to move and drink, which is what she would have done if she palmed the potion. In addition, she was actually surrounded (by foes, tables, tank, and Bellu) and couldn't 5' step, so she was really screwed if the PCs decided to disarm/sunder her.
The rogue and ninja didn't disarm or sunder her (they took their regular attacks, which almost killed her btw), that's why she was able to turn invisible.
I was going to advise them to Disarm / Sunder... but it was more exciting that she turned invisible imo.
I think I see the discontinuity -- for you, a fight that takes down half the party is "very easy" and for me that means the party is "torn to pieces". It's just a matter of terminology!
Yes and no. It's not a big boss fight if at least one PC doesn't go down, right? ;)
When I played it, Lura went down in 2 rounds. I think Bellu did 15 damage to me. Not exactly scary considering we had 6 PCs.
When I GMed it, as mentioned above, the PCs screwed up and should have used disarm/sunder, it also would have been over in 2 rounds. So it still *could* have been easy. Also, they still don't have anything to counter invisibility (or darkness). Also, the sorceror got lippy with Lura and was standing right beside Bellu (with 10 AC), that's why he got smacked around, it was his own fault! The fighter rolled very poorly against Bellu. So, bad decisions, combined with bad planning, and bad rolls creates situations where PCs go down. But that's fine, without a challenge the game is boring.
Having said that, Lura was the most challenging encounter in the entire scenario, I don't just whether a scenario is easy or not based on one encounter. The other encounters provide no challenge at all, RAW, done in 1 round (maybe 2) each, even for a party with 2 rogues.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **To answer your question.
** spoiler omitted **I think I see the discontinuity -- for you, a fight that takes down half the party is "very easy" and for me that means the party is "torn to pieces". It's just a matter of terminology!Yes and no. It's not a big boss fight if at least one PC doesn't go down, right? ;)
When I played it, Lura went down in 2 rounds. I think Bellu did 15 damage to me. Not exactly scary considering we had 6 PCs.
When I GMed it, as mentioned above, the PCs screwed up and should have used disarm/sunder, it also would have been over in 2 rounds. So it still *could* have been easy. Also, they still don't have anything to counter invisibility (or darkness). Also, the sorceror got lippy with Lura and was standing right beside Bellu (with 10 AC), that's why he got smacked around, it was his own fault! The fighter rolled very poorly against Bellu. So, bad decisions, combined with bad planning, and bad rolls creates situations where PCs go down. But that's fine, without a challenge the...
Great response, thanks! Sounds like it was super-tense on both sides with the party making both some clever choices (the ambush) and some bad ones for a very memorable encounter. As an aside, I'll just point out that hogarth wrote the second quote attributed to me.
|
|
Thanks for the advice everyone. The consensus seems to be that BTD is a tougher challenge for the PCs, so it's likely we'll put that two-parter second. I've been a player for those scenarios, and I do remember the combats being fairly tough.
In case anyone's interested, here's our full schedule:
1st
Intro 1: FS-Part I: In Service to Lore
Intro 2: FS-Part II: To Delve the Dungeon Deep
Intro 3: FS-Part III: A Vision of Betrayal
2nd (4 scenarios as different players missed different sessions)
#0-01: Silent Tide
We Be Goblins!
#0-08: Slave Pits of Absalom
#0-23: Tide of Morning (last scenario)
3rd
#3-02: Sewer Dragons of Absalom (next scenario)
#1-51: TCOS-Part I: The Shadow Gambit
#1-52: TCOS-Part II: The Twofold Demise
4th
#2-01: BTD-Part I: The Bloodcove Disguise
#2-02: BTD-Part II: Rescue at Azlant Ridge
#3-05: Tide of Twilight
5th
#3-09: TQFP-Part I: The Edge of Heaven
#3-11: TQFP-Part II: On Hostile Waters
#3-13: TQFP-Part III: Defenders of Nesting Swallow
6th
...
|
|
Schedule...
I don't think you can go too wrong with that schedule, looks fun. It actually looks a lot like my scenario schedule (and scenarios I considered), including the Quest for Perfection series at level 5. I hope it's good.
I'm not sure you're going to get the same problem, but some of my players show up every session, and others are casual. What this has meant for us, are that levels 6-7 (for the consistent players) will be played in subtier 6-7 (as opposed to subtier 5-6 or 7-8), so that PCs in the level 3-4 range can play with us. I'll be playing City of Strangers at subtier 6-7... which hopefully isn't a mistake. Anyway, just something to think about when planning for scenarios!
I don't know if other GMs have experienced this (with a consistent play group), but my scenario selection is organically being planned as follows (to include casual players).
Levels 6-7: Subtier 6-7 (with tier 1-7 or 3-7 scenarios)
Levels 8-9: Subtier 8-9 (with tier 5-9 scenarios)
Levels 10-11: Subtier 10-11 (with tier 7-11 scenarios)
|
|
Wishing to be sure that I do not leave her behind, I have more characters. Other people might drop a "busy player" into the Judge slot (and have him put the judgeing ARs toward other characters) or have the "Pack Leader" PCs slip into Slow Progression for a level or two.
After all, this is not a race to retirement. It's a fun get together with friends for an adventure.
In previous threads, I actually got advise to NOT slow down the consistent players with casual players. As I understand it, the HC players made allowances to include the casual players, and then the casual players just went away after a while anyway, so it was a waste of time in the end.
I've actually seen that as well, casual players are usually casual, because they just aren't *that* interested.
I was kind of hoping that the rules for modules wouldn't change, and I was going to run 1-2 modules (maybe someone else GM) to level a new player (who is actually not casual, just new). Fubar!
Also, my players don't want to be stuck at levels 1-5 forever and want to see upper tier action. So do I. At the rate the players are going, even with their mains, it's still going to take at least another year to get to level 12. Level 12 is definitely a goal, we might move onto something else after that.
There are also a lot of problems with slow tracking that I won't go into. I think it's a really bad idea at levels 1-7. We *might* slow track at level 8-9. I wish there was some benefit, for example making it easier to get max PA, but there are only negatives.
Also, at Gencon, it's a lot easier getting into upper tier scenarios, and I have 2 friends coming with me this year at least, maybe more. So, good times.
I think playing scenarios in the order I proposed is a good compromise, it allows casuals and late starters to play with us without slowing the hardcore players down.