Post by King of Sunhall in Wandering Swords comments

Viewing post in Wandering Swords comments

I tried out the sample area with a party of 4 wanderers. The baseline mechanics are fun and the combat went smoother after we got the hang of declaring stances. Even with one player rolling garbage all game, nobody died and the boss was taken out in only a few rounds; I'd added one zone of 2 Inhumans and added a 3rd Frog to an existing fight to try and raise the difficulty up.

(Made 4 pre-made characters using the 7/6/5/4 stats, and while I did give 4 items each, the Arming Swords dropped and lack of needing their consumables evened out. I rolled for 90% of the enemy actions. If enemies had a personal loot pool, I rolled it each time.)

Should I have added even more enemies to account for only a 33% increase in wanderers? Should Greater Enemies have more hit points? I'm also intrigued why they would have a stance that only heals 1 Hit.

Stoneshore1 year ago(+1)

This is really useful feedback, thank you! My experiences so far are generally that fewer enemies than players = easy fight, equal number = can go either way, more = challenging. I think the more wanderers you have it gets exponentially easier, particularly with bosses, so I'll play around giving bosses more attacks which hit multiples, and place other tactical restrictions on players. In terms of how hard they hit, I was wary not to make them always deal 2+ dmg because of how low Hit Tolerance is and the condition dice mechanic! But sounds like I might be being too kind :)

King of Sunhall1 year ago(+1)

I was also noting that the greater enemy there has a stance where he can heal 1 hit from himself (out of 10hp) but it can be interrupted, which doesn't seem too useful in the fight.

I do appreciate the insights into how many enemies and players to balance around though.

itch.io

Viewing post in Wandering Swords comments