D&D 5E Avernus Any Good?

[Sacrosanct]

You are well advised to skip the opening section of SKT. It gets progressively worse at it tries to get you from level 1 to 5 as quickly as possible. The adventure proper starts with the next chapter.

SKT is unusual because it is best played with a group doing little quests in the region from level 1. At level 5, they help a town when it’s attacked by giants. And then they return to their little quests. However, now they slowly realise (through encounters while travelling) that the giants weren’t just attacking that village; they are everywhere!

And then, at level 7 or 8, Harshnag turns up and the adventure proper begins.

I think SKT is very clever in its structure, but works a LOT better when played as part of a campaign starting with the Starter Set or Essentials Kit adventure. The giants should begin as background, and only gradually become the threat the party are called to stop!

Cheers,
Merric

Merric's Musings

Reviews and Play Advice for Dungeons & Dragons

merricb.com

When I ran SKT, after the goblins attacked the village, the party tracked them back to B3, Horror on the Hill. We played that old module because I felt leveling was way too fast in SKT.

 

[CapnZapp]

True but the 5E adventures are effectively APs sold all at once at the same rate as Paizo.

They copied the rate and generally the format of Paizo.

They suffer the same problems as the Paizo ones as well. Never hit the heights Paizo did though.

They're about half the size though.

I've read and GMd both WotC adventure campaigns and Paizo Adventure Paths.

I would say they differ considerably in significant ways. I can't think of a single WotC adventure that fits your description.

At least PF2 APs are ruthlessly railroaded combat dungeons that come in clear chunks of 3-4 levels. Each level clearly present about a dozen challenging combats. Paizo PF2 modules are strictly regimented, something I don't see at all in 5E.

Maybe the very first WotC campaigns could be repackaged that way. Something like Curse of Strahd can definitely not.

I don't see much if anything of APs in 5E modules. I do see a lot of 2/3E in them, though.

 

[pukunui]

When I ran SKT, after the goblins attacked the village, the party tracked them back to B3, Horror on the Hill. We played that old module because I felt leveling was way too fast in SKT.

My DM did that too. When I ran SKT, I had the PCs be Lords' Alliance agents based out of Waterdeep. They did "Trouble in Red Larch" (from PotA) as their first mission, then I ran an updated version of the playtest Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure as a follow-up. During that adventure, they heard rumors about giant activity, met with the cloud giant in the funny Mickey Mouse castle, and so on. After defeating the Red Wizard threat and having a bit of R&R in Waterdeep, they were then sent to Goldenfields.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've read and GMd both WotC adventure campaigns and Paizo Adventure Paths.

I would say they differ considerably in significant ways. I can't think of a single WotC adventure that fits your description.

At least PF2 APs are ruthlessly railroaded combat dungeons that come in clear chunks of 3-4 levels. Each level clearly present about a dozen challenging combats. Paizo PF2 modules are strictly regimented, something I don't see at all in 5E.

Maybe the very first WotC campaigns could be repackaged that way. Something like Curse of Strahd can definitely not.

I don't see much if anything of APs in 5E modules. I do see a lot of 2/3E in them, though.

I said Pathfinder not Pathfinder II.

Things like NPC portraits, extra material in the back of the books, various factions etc.

They also test sub mechanics in the APs just like Paizo used to.

The format is more reminiscent of say Savage Tide/Rise of the Runelords than say AD&D.

Much like Paizo execution is hit and miss. They're a lot more formulaic now.

Generally you avoid the complete garbage of say The Forest Oracle but it's also hard to hit the heights of some of the late 3.5/Pathfinder APs.

Paizo themselves can't seem to hit those heights anymore either so go figure.

 

[CapnZapp]

I said Pathfinder not Pathfinder II.

I made my comment in 2020, when "Adventure Paths" refers to Pathfinder 2 unless more context is provided.

Literally my only point is that anytime someone refers to a WotC campaign as an AP, that merits a comment, since they likely don't mean what they say, since few if any 5E campaigns resembles a current AP.

That is all. (No really!)

Have a nice day