wilcoxon wrote:
Personally, I'd love to see 8 mission BIs with slightly longer per mission (or else stat blocks split by rank).
Our table had three 1.7 and three higher (1.9, 2.2, and 2.5 iirc). Our biggest frustration was the time constraints for the heavier battle ones. We even tried being reckless and going straight for the objectives but we simply could not hit regularly enough and deal enough damage to take them down in the time given. Our only other frustration was the Giant King who did massive damage wounds pretty much every time he hit.
Generally speaking, I really enjoyed the BI. Scott Reid did a great job of running it to make us feel there was significant danger without actually killing anyone (1 or 2 dropped from wounds and various people dropped from Stamina relatively often).
I agree with this to a large degree. We had a ball, and I really enjoyed the BI, but we rarely succeeded. In most cases I think we would have succeeded with more time, but generally there were just too many NPCs. Our table had several new 1.5 PCs at it, and I think the highest level PC was 1.9. Because of this we had problematic ranged area of effect spell support (elemental bolt rather than the tier two elemental tempest) and thus the ability to just blast away dwarven crossbowmen minions didn't exist in our party.
It was my understanding that the BI was written assuming a 2.0 party, which didn't really seem appropriate. Is the PCI team considering a different tier bump (to 2.0, rather than 1.5) to keep people up with their modules, or was the lack of support for lower tiers just a fluke of the rush to get the BI completed?
All that said, I think our judge did a great job adjusting the threats. I think the table did some great tactics (usually), and I had a great time. Like I said, I think we would have won almost every encounter....eventually.