Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder and high level play

[Wik]

If any adventures should be published, it should be the high level ones. Anybody can crank out a night's worth of goblin bashing and caravan guarding. An adventure challenging to high-level characters is a lot of work, which IMO is what turns most DMs off to high level play. I know I've read several of the high-level adventures in Dungeon and thought to myself, "wow, how cool would that be to play?"

But have you actually played them?

Most D&D groups are not high level. High Level content just doesn't work for them. Hell, two out of three times, I don't even fully read DUNGEON's high level adventure, because I know there's little in it I can use (I wind up taking a room's trap and reworking it, maybe). I really only like high level games that are part of adventure paths, because if I was running my own game, when the group hit high level, they'd be too involved in campaign-centric goals for me to really throw out an unrelated high-level DUNGEON module.

 

[DM_Jeff]

I can understand why a lot of DMs don't like to run high level games if they have to do all the work because it is a lot of work. But in this case, Paizo is providing all the material. All a DM has to do is read and run it. So WTF is the problem, people?!!/QUOTE]

Some folks don't like doing a little math, I guess. Some folks collapse when having to run more than one monster type vs the PCs, and some DM's just decide they're not as good 'players' as the players are at those levels, who are intimately knowledgeable about their PCs while DMs only read the BBEG a few times.

Me, I have no problem at all. It's another level of play for the game. It's different and sometimes more challengeing, if done right. You won't hear me complainin' about high level modules if Pathfinder gets there. Good for them.

-DM Jeff

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Every AP available right now is L1-20 (and not just the Dungeon ones). This is the first one to stop before L20. Also, every Dungeon published in the last couple of years has a High level adventure included. I can understand the arguement to want to try a 1st to 15th AP, but the arguement the other way is a bit baffling.

Mongoose's Drow War AP goes from Level 1 to 30.

Olaf the Stout

 

[James Jacobs]

Pathfider's first Adventure Path goes from level 1 to level 15 or 16. That's just one Adventure Path; we'll be doing a new one every six months, and it'll run from whatever level range the campaign's story requires. Some might even start at levels higher than 1st. Some might end at level 10. Some might go epic. I'm aware that high-level adventures are quite popular in some circles, and I have no intention of abandoning them, but the fact remains that low and mid level adventures are the most popular ranges to play the game at. That's the main reason Runelords is stopping at level 15.

That said... it also sets up all manner of possible sequels. The possibility of a "Rise of the Runelords II" adventure path is certainly out there!

 

[Kelleris]

But have you actually played them?

Most D&D groups are not high level. High Level content just doesn't work for them. Hell, two out of three times, I don't even fully read DUNGEON's high level adventure, because I know there's little in it I can use (I wind up taking a room's trap and reworking it, maybe). I really only like high level games that are part of adventure paths, because if I was running my own game, when the group hit high level, they'd be too involved in campaign-centric goals for me to really throw out an unrelated high-level DUNGEON module.

Hmm, my experience is exactly the opposite. Most low-level adventures are, IMO, quite dull, and the ones in Dungeon get a quick skim from me and that's about it. The encounters, roleplaying, and general situations in mid- to high-level ones are much more interesting. And even in some of the low-level adventures that I do like, it's because they should really be mid- or high-level adventures. As an example, the recent Cynidicea adventure, which got a fair amount of praise around here, takes more suspension of disbelief than I can stand to make sure that these 1st-level nobodies are actually relevant in saving the revelers. Everyone in the town is stipulated to be at the party, the PCs happen to get the cups with the antitoxins, everyone else (already weirdly low-level) happens to fail their saves, the Cynidicean leader happens to be a wimpy low-level cleric, there don't happen to be any actual competent people around to deal with a bunch of unclassed goblinoids abducting a bunch of supposedly powerful nobles... Ugh. The more recent "Distraction" adventure I found dull for largely the same reason - I was hoping for a clash against some significant threat, but it turned out to be a matter of saving a small fort in an insignificant border dispute. Feh. The structure of the adventure is great, but it's hamstrung by the teeny scope of characters of that level. I'd rather keep the plot-line and make the adventure for PCs of around 6th-level, as it should be.

I'd love to see a Pathfinder adventure that starts around 6th and ends at 20th-25th level. I love Red Hand of Doom to a disgusting degree in no small part because its set up in that way.

 

[JoeGKushner]

That's a scary thought...they'd have to smash the game down into its atoms and rebuild completely, I think.

Not really. It's only a few key spells that 'screw' up the game so to speak. Extra hit points and minor spells aren't going to throw the game off it's balance but it you didn't get stuff like teleport till 14th level and wish until 20th level...

Heck, does anyone still have the old character conversion rules from 2nd to 3rd? I could've sword a 9th level character in the old system was like 14th in the 'new' one of the time. Artificial displacement of levels via slow level advancement in the past.

 

[Quartz]

I'd like to see an Epic level Adventure Path, levels 20-40, but one where players start with rounded, not focussed, characters. Say, max of 5th level spells. E.g Rog 10 / Sor 10, rather than Rog 20 or Sor 20.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Quartz!

I'd like to see an Epic level Adventure Path, levels 20-40, but one where players start with rounded, not focussed, characters. Say, max of 5th level spells. E.g Rog 10 / Sor 10, rather than Rog 20 or Sor 20.

You know I have a great idea for an Epic Adventure Path that I was going to submit to Dungeon magazine. Of course I was in no hurry, I mean Dungeon magazine was going to be around for years to come...right!?

Another annoyance was that it used a pretty famous D&D icon (who was integral to the story), so it could only be done with WotC's consent. So I can't even submit it to Paizo now...and given WotC's support of epic material I can't envision them being interested regardless of how good it was.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Hey Quartz!



You know I have a great idea for an Epic Adventure Path that I was going to submit to Dungeon magazine. Of course I was in no hurry, I mean Dungeon magazine was going to be around for years to come...right!?

Another annoyance was that it used a pretty famous D&D icon (who was integral to the story), so it could only be done with WotC's consent. So I can't even submit it to Paizo now...and given WotC's support of epic material I can't envision them being interested regardless of how good it was.

Something that relies soley on a D&D icon is probably not a good adventure. I mean, saving Elminster only goes so far anyway right?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi JoeG!

Something that relies soley on a D&D icon is probably not a good adventure. I mean, saving Elminster only goes so far anyway right?

If anything its more to do with the title of the adventure than overtly requiring that particular character.

The title is just such an interesting hook that it would pain me to compromise on it.

...and no, its not Elminster.