My group has played through Act I and are part way through Act II. We have 3 players, 2 heroes and 1 overlord.

The one big issue that we have is that the monsters are pretty much immortal. There is very little point in actually killing a monster. In most quest, every time you kill one, another of the same monster just shows up and attacks you again.

Are we misinterpreting the reinforcement rules? Assuming we are playing it right, it makes one of the key aspects of the game, killing stuff, very unsatisfying.

Lord_Nikon said:

First of all, note that some quests have no reinforcement available.

Secondly, keep ind mind that reinforcements (at least during Act I, have not read any Act II yet) are limited to either 1 monster from one group, or sometimes 1 monster from each group. So, if you're only killing 1 monster (or in some cases 1 monsters per group), then yes, I can see how that would be frustrating. Keep in mind, also, that reinforcements enter at a certain point. There is certainly still value to killing a monster in the middle of the map if it has to come back at one of the ends.

Lastly, this game is not about killing monsters, it is about achieving your goal. Sometimes achieving that gold is made much easier by killing monsters (for example, the Goblin Arches in Fat Goblin. Can't steal crops of they're dead).

When I first saw the subject line, I thought it said "Immoral Monsters"… hahaha.

Interesting observation. If the heroes manage to take out 2 or more monsters per turn, then they will get ahead of the curve.

Who is winning most of your quests?

jwdenzel said:

It has been a mix on who is winning. They seem to vary wildly in difficulty. I've had one quest where I won in 2 turns, and one where the heroes won in 2 turns.

However the players have been very, very frustrated. Part of it may be that there are only 2 heroes, and oftentimes it is difficult to drop multiple enemies in one turn with 2 heroes. If they only drop one, the monster immediately returns and starts beating on them again. It is essentially pointless because if they just ignored it, they are no worse off than killing it. It's been frustrating to them because doing something that should improve your position, I.E. killing en enemy, does not help you in any way in many cases.

The players are quite satisfied with the morality, or lack thereof, of the monsters though.

Lord_Nikon said:

I've been playing in a two hero game, and have not had this problem as much. Without watching you play to see how you're doing it, I'm not sure what insight I can offer.

I can say that when there are only two heroes, using Fatigue to move can be the difference between killing 1 monster, and killing 2.

There have been rounds where I've killed 4 monsters a turn with 2 heroes.

KristoffStark said:

Using fatigue to move (in order to save actions for other things, namely attacks) was definitely a key tactic in 1e. I haven't had a chance to play 2e yet, but I would expect that it's still important here.

If your group is the three of you and you are on the fence about two-hero play, consider playing four heros and see if that is more satisfying.

Rico said:

First I should note that I have yet to play Descent 2e, but have had it for about a week to 10 days. Going to be playing it starting this Monday. Anyway, I noticed that many of you have mentioned playing with less than 4 heroes. I know that wehn we played Descent 1e, it was often impossible to even have a chance at success for the heroes unless you played with 4. In fact, even though there may have only been 2 players (the OL and 1 hero), I would often simply just run 4 heroes all by myself.

We had figured to do the same thing in Descent 2e. Now, in theory, Descent 2e is suppose to be better balanced to allow for fewer heroes. Anybody other than the OP actually running just 2 heroes? Is it balanced for what you have seen to date? Or am I better off just running 4 heroes?

any2cards said:

I've heard a handful of reviews from people playing 2 or 3 heroes and it still seems relatively well balanced, overall. I've even heard a couple of people talking about campaign games where they added (or removed) a hero mid-game and it didn't seem to cause too many problems. I'm still up in the air about whether it's "better" to play with 4 heroes all the time, but it sounds like it's at least possible to play 2 or 3 heroes without the OL having an easy victory. I suspect, however, that selecting appropriate hero archetypes will be more important with fewer heroes. Two warriors might dish out a lot, but may not be able to recover quickly enough from being whittled down by the monsters, for example. A Healer and a Scout might have good lasting potential, but may not be able to do enough damage to clean out monsters efficiently, etc. (This is all just theory, mind you.)

Personally, I suspect the new reinforcement rules make a pretty big difference in this regard. 1e spawning rules made it easier for the OL to fill the board with monsters in a game with fewer heroes simply because they couldn't cover as much of the map with LoS as a party of 4 could. So, in addition to the heroes having fewer attacks in general, the OL was also able to get more monsters on the board more easily.

The 2e method, that brings monsters on from defined entrance points regardless of LoS, and which restricts the total number of monsters that can be on the board based on the number of heroes, is much better at maintaining a challenge equal to the power output the heroes can provide, IMHO.

Well said. 'Nough said.

Yes, we play with four heroes, and reinforcements were not a key issue. Also, having four characters gives you four unique sets of special abilities to exploit, which can be critical: stun, mobility, damage, and healing, for example. I suspect that the game was playtested during creation most often with 4 characters.