Fireflash51 |
To those who have seen/played both adventures:
Which one do you think is the best as an intro to PF2?
I know Hellknight Hill is the first part of an adventure path and plaguestone isn't. This does not really factor in my decision. I'll probably branch off to homebrew quests afterwards.
What I'm mainly concerned about is overall fun factor and the ability to showcase different kind of encounters that allow different kinds of characters to have their time in the spotlight.
Thanks!
NielsenE |
I've skimmed both, and dived a little deeper into Hellknights Hill for prepping. I'd say both could work well. Plaguestone feels a touch more varied in encounter types/exploration mode, HH feels more classic dungeon crawl. Plaguestone I feel works better as a "introduce the system, then the PCs move on to new places", HHs works better for 'introduce the system, then the PCs have a home base", so that depends on which style of homebrew you want to lead into.
While both have an initial combat followed by some RP investigation, I think HH's is a bit more interesting initial combat (alternate stuff going on), but a simpler investigation. HH I think highlights the differences between 1e and 2e a bit better in that.
The Diplomat |
I'm going to be running Plaguestone.
Firstly, from the reviews I've read and listed to, it sounds like it's going to be a good exploration of all the new rules.
Secondly, because it's a self-contained adventure, it's a good opportunity for players to experiment with building their first character without then being tied to their first (experimental) character for two or more years.
Once a player has played it, they can choose to play that character again in future adventures or they can tear it up if they didn't like it. Either way, they can build on their experiences from Plaguestone when creating their first Adventure Path character.