Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6336182" data-attributes="member: 18">Am I right in thinking that unless we find an adventure that specifically, in text, not subtext, not by implication, calls out the need for "optimized" characters, you won't accept it as an example? If so, fair enough, but let's be clear on that.I've not read Age of Worms, but I have PLAYED Age of Worms, and our DM knew that it was very hard, and had somehow become aware that PCs were expected to be very tough (presumably from reading through and seeing it expected the same PCs, not replacements, but I have no idea), and he is very much NOT a person who reads message boards or the like. So that information about difficulty was communicated somehow - presumably in the text.We brought not just semi-optimized PCs to the table, but Gestalt PCs (If you remember those rules), and man, that adventure was HAIR RAISING (we didn't finish the campaign because the DM had to move away, sadly).Also, re: your "Accidentally hard" theory. Uh. No. AoW was not accidentally difficult - the difficulty was SUSTAINED across an entire AP (well, across all I saw, and everyone I know who has played the rest seems to concur). It wasn't just the "Whoops!" difficulty of the goblin encounter in KotS (where the goblin "boss" can potentially cause a TPK very easily), it was tough through and through, which is a big part of why people liked it, actually. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So I find it hard to believe that whoever wrote the adventure, where he assumed PCs would be alive, not replaced, wasn't aware of this.</blockquote>

Verification