|
3 years ago ::
Feb 13, 2010 - 10:54AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
This thread is intended for consolidated feedback, criticisms, and tips (for DMs) for WATE1-5 as well as questions about WATE1-5. The thread will contain spoilers but usage of spoiler blocks for significant spoilers is appreciated.
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 04, 2010 - 9:06AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I played Lost in the Fog recently, and enjoyed it for the most part. I know there's been some criticism aimed at the first combat encounter. My group and I saw the danger of theft early on, and moved to prevent it aggressively; this worked out quite well.
The second combat encounter felt overtuned. We were playing it at high; the dwarves had a high AC to start with, and adding concealment to that for a -2 on all attacks made them very difficult to hit. Our DM tuned it down by a couple of points of AC, which made it fun, and still a close fight -- my defender was at negative HP four times during the course of the battle.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 04, 2010 - 4:04PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
Intentions Spoiler:
Show
The first combat encounter rewards quick, decisive action as well as fun. If the DM starts the action when PCs are too far away, the PCs don't yell or attract the attention of the halflings, or similar choices, then it may seem like an impossible encounter to succeed at. Of course, if the PCs don't want to get involved, then the encounter ends quickly.
The second combat encounter is designed to be tough at your level, yet I have witnessed groups with good tactics and a balanced team do well (not a cakewalk).
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2010 - 10:35PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
Yeah, we died. Granted we played at a public event on high. Average level was 2.2. As a party of strangers our tactics were not perfect, but we rolled well. I know you guys put a lot of thought into these adventures. However, I'm posting here for one reason: Some math
Show
Attack modifier for a 2nd level seeker with a +1 greatbow: 4 (ability modifier) + 2 (proficiency) + 1 (half-level) + 1 (enhancement) = +9 vs. AC.
Level 7 Dwarf Hammerer: 25 AC +2 (concealment) = 27.
27 - 9 = 18: The seeker hit the dwarves on an 18+. In addition, the she could not use range to her advantage.
Level 4 Burning Sun Archer: 18 AC + 2 (concealment) + 2 (cover from the roofs) + 2 (archers dropped prone every turn after attacking) = 26
26 - 9 = 17: The seeker hit the archers on a 17+
Barrakor: 22 AC + 2 (concealment) + 2 (cover from the roofs/walls/allies) = 26
26 - 9 = 17: The seeker hit the Barrakor on a 17+ The math doesn't look much better playing on low. Now, I'm all for a good challenge. There's a difference between a challenge and a mathematical impossibility. My suggestion would be that if you're going to create adventures with encounters that make one or more characters incapable of contributing that you provide a more interactive environment with non-combat ways for players to contribute.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2010 - 4:20AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
Please note, the LFR staff does not benchmark adventures so that playing up is a safe option., especially if it is a hard combat. While common opinion may be that is the typical case, it is not the design point so I am not interested in comparing the math to play up for the purpose of evaluating the adventure. Sorry if that comes across as cold, but we design for playing at appropriate level. Spoiler:
Show
The level 2 Burning Sun Archer has an AC of 16. Gains +2 from concealment (fog) and +2 from cover (roofline). We did not recommend the tactic of dropping prone, etc. which is highly absurb with a long bow, so that is all on your DM. Net AC 20.
So if I take +8 for your PC (I don't see how you got to +9, but perhaps there was something else you did not mention), that means you will hit the archer on a 12. That is a 45% chance per shot. As they are minions, one hit takes each one out.
The Dwarf Hammers of course are the tanks and the primary threat. The better tactic is to atttack a defense other than their AC while they are pounding on a defender or two.
Absolutely this encounter was designed to be a tough combat (two levels above design point) and usage of terrain to provide maximum advantage. If you have a balanced team (role wise), normally the PCs will win. The adventure had multiple playtests and while the final combat tested as hard; it did not cause TPKs. Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2010 - 1:10AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
Please note, the LFR staff does not benchmark adventures so that playing up is a safe option., especially if it is a hard combat. While common opinion may be that is the typical case, it is not the design point so I am not interested in comparing the math to play up for the purpose of evaluating the adventure. Sorry if that comes across as cold, but we design for playing at appropriate level.
A third- and second-level PC have the same attack bonus, so I'm unsure what the intended level is here. Please, understand me: I'm not asking for the encounter to be easier. I'm suggesting that, in future combats with elements that nullify certain classes (and the number of classes that only attack AC at-will are significant), that you provide more for them to do other than attack.
|
|
|
