Write-up of our second session is on
my blog.
A few things I took away from the session:
I'm very conflicted on how I feel about Baaz Draconians turning opponents to stone as their "Death Throes". I think its incredibly disruptive to play if the characters roll poorly on their saves. And, let's face it, for an old-timer like me, trapping the weapon is so incredibly iconic. (I note that the dwarf in our party took a warhammer
precisely because he knew about how the old draconians worked).
A big machine that does 5d10 fire damage in a 60-foot-cone against third-level characters? How exactly do you think that will turn out? I know designers like showing a threat, but that's the sort of design that can lead a DM to TPK a party. There's a real problem with some designers not thinking through what area effects can do. (I remember also a
fireball spell that can be employed against 2nd-level characters in
Descent into Avernus. Don't do that!)
The sustained nature of the battle - potentially five combats in a row - makes me long for the shorter "Short Rests" of 4E. It makes the pacing of this sort of sequence work a lot better. Guess what I've done?
Although I made sure not to incinerate the party, and gave them an opportunity to short rest in the middle, I was really pleased with the intensity of the Battle of Vogler. I do not think it would have been as fun playing the board game. Don't get me wrong, I like the board game, but it's not the same thing as playing your character.
Once again, I've included how long it took my group to complete each fight/sequence of the session.
Cheers,
Merric