After a day of playing with two heroes (disciple and berserker) on campaign mode we have yet to win any quests what so ever, and now we are entering the interlude. Are others experiencing the same thing? We played fat goblin, cardinals plight, castle daerion.

Personally this has put us off playing the game again as everything we try doesnt seem to matter to the overlord winning.

You could double up your heros and try a few quests with four - two each. Then you could determine if 2 heros is too difficult.

Muppetbrown said:

Is your berserker the dwarf? if so that's a big problem. Berserker basically has no mobility powers and the dwarf is much to slow to be of use without some.

And if the berserker is not in combat taking care of buisiness then you Disciple won't be doing much as he wont have anyone to heal, and puts oput minimal damage.

If You have the female fighter, use her movement encounter power early every match to get where you need to be fast.

If you are saying we are losing because we chose the wrong hero this feels like there is something wrong with the game. if I feel that the only way to play the game is to have heros with mobility then why give me heroes of any other type as I have to play those particular heroes.

Update: for the interlude we went up to three heros (I played two) and we won by an extremely lucky roll (strength with a 1 strength hero)

But in act2 we lost again with the desecrated tomb. There was absolutely nothing we could do to win as lord Alaric moved to the dragon and killed it in one turn.

It's the same whether you use two, three or four heroes.

MasterBeastman said:

The OP can get another view of the game by reading this 4-hero campaign post -- http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=256&efcid=1&efidt=685780

Hero choice and luck with dice can have an unbalancing effect on your chances of success , but "winning" encounters isn't the whole point of the game. It seems like D2E, aside from speeding up the game, was going for more of the character development (RPG) aspect while trying to provide a storyline. For some people, 'tis better to have delved and lost, than never to have delved at all. There are other games out there with different design goals (I didn't buy them, because they weren't what I was looking for).

I've started working on solo / co-op rules that try to use as much of the existing mechanics as I can. I think of it as a way to learn the rules (beyond the intro quest), and/or allow easy one-shot dungeon crawls. I'll also house rule the parts that I personally find annoying.

I am currently running as the Overlord with two friends playing the same characters your group is (Dwarf Berserker and Disciple). They are having a difficult time as well, and have lost most quests. Even with fewer minions out there, it just seems that there aren't enough hero actions available to take care of the quest objectives. Yes, the monster numbers and lieutenant stats scale with the number of heroes, but the objectives and monster stats do not.

Mind you, this is not a complaint. We're having a blast, and luckily (2 of us at least) understand that it more about the story and progression of the players than it is about the heroes easily winning each quest. One of my favorite things about this campaign mode is that win or lose, the story continues. A challenging and balanced (we've had many encounters come down to the very last rolls deciding who would triumph) game leads to far more replayability as well.

Muppetbrown said:

The knight has multiple abilities that give you mobility. The dwarf just makes a really terrible Berserker, but he is a good knight. Saying every hero should be just as good as every class is insanity. Looking at my conversion kit there are plenty of heroes that are far better as one class over the other and that's just how it works when you have choices. Jaes and Runemaster for example, Can Jaes be a necromancer? Of Course, but he is built to be a runemaster and is far better and more viable as one. In the same vein, not every monster is made for every single encounter you can use them in. You have to use some strategy in the game and that is a good thing.

Also, how did Alaric move 17 spaces (before fatigue) with a 3 movement and then deal 15 damage through the dragon's Grey/Black defense in one turn? I honestly don't know what, but it sounds like you were playing something very wrong.

Muppetbrown said:

Though I understand what you are saying, remember that Descent 2e is a tactical game. Therefore your choices (both in game and during setup) in light of the adversity you face will have an impact on the difficulty. With two hero games, the main hurdle is clearly mobility and lack of actions. I don't think it impossible to win with the two heroes you chose, but I do think that they are probably the most difficult to play in combination at that number of heroes.

Played "The Mascarade Ball" this morning with RedScorpion (Thief) and Corbin the Axe Bearer (Berserker). Heros managed to escort one of the possible two guests out and managed to roll one shield to reveal the named. This meant Lady Farlow had to test against every door in the second episode. We caught up to her in the first room of monsters (Medusas) and as she failed to answer the riddle three times our heros, down to one health for Red Scorpion and four health for Corbin managed to pound her into oblivion. Victory - two heros.

I have played the same quests ( except fat goblin). While not all were two players, the heroes have had a great deal of success. There are two things that can really make a difference in the game.

1) How you equip your heroes. Effectively utilizing the shop is very important. Having well equipped heroes allows for you to manipulate the board in ways you need to.

2) Overlord vs player experience. This game is really about effective movement and positioning. Killing things is great, and often necessary, but if the overlord can effectively goad the players into attacking things (even for one or two turns) he often gains the opportunity to win the quest. Conversely a hero group who is experienced enough to plan a few turns in advance or even just come up with an effective begining turn, may allow them to confound an inexperienced overloard ( especially if the overlord does not utilize the mosters as blocking meat shields effectivly).

I feel like there have been a wide variety of experiences on the boards. Having such a wide variety of experiences leads me to believe that the game is as "balanced" as one might hope to have it. The disparities most likeley come down to the experience of the players involved and disparities there-in.

( I know often times one player of my group only seeks to kill things, thus we end up severely handicapped during the quest…)

Muppetbrown said:

Just because certain heroes are better at the game doesn't there's something wrong with the game. Look at fighting games, there's usually a few characters that are head and shoulders above the rest of the cast. There are also sometimes characters too gimped to really consider playing competitively. Doesn't mean that the game is broken.

TheRedEye said:

I don't even think it goes that far. In a two to four hero game it is impossible to have every hero be equally balanced at all variables at all times. Both the heroes mentioned shine in four hero games. It's just a case of making the bet decisions with what you know.

I am currently playing in two 2 players campaigns, one as OL, and one as the heroes.

In the game where I am OL, the two heroes are a Berzerker Grisban, and a Disciple Avric. Our victory total is 0-2 in favor of Heroes (they won Fat Goblin and Death on the Wing).

In the game where I am the heroes, I have a Berserker Syndriel, and a Necromancer Leoric of the Book. Our victory total is 2-2 (I won Masqurade Ball, and Fat Goblin, OL won Castle Darion and the Interlude the Shadow Vault)

I never count First Blood, because there's no reward either way.

What I find, especially in two players, is that if the heroes get a couple rounds of bad die rolls, they're toast.

KristoffStark said:

This is a very good point. From what I can remember in our play through the OL was rolling very well and we were missing more than 1/6 of the time. More heroes are more forgiving in this manner as they balance our the probability distribution of the roles meaning that a string of misses while bad won't just lose you the game.

Draffut said:

The berserker does have the charge ability for additional movement, but that's it.

As for 2 hero games, the main disadvantages I see are that some necessary attribute tests will be harder to pass as your bases aren't all covered, and the shopping phase will reveal fewer items and limit choices beyond what gold they may have to spend.

Some synergies are also more useful with more heroes.

We have played one and are nearly finished with our second 2-player campaign and so far the heroes have been having a rough go at it. On some quests it was poor choices, on some it was bad rolls, and on the rest it just seemed that the heroes were outnumbered. The second encounter in "The Twin Idols" quest stands out for me as it was the last quest we did last night. It plays out like a game of capture the flag and both sides were just pushing the other side back then they were being defeated and the process repeated itself until we finally decided to call it quits since it would have taken hours longer to resolve. I'm sure if a side managed to get really good rolls on a turn it would change quickly but so far 2-player games seem to be very difficult and the slightest mistake or bad roll can end in defeat for the heroes. It's very scary.