Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6435112" data-attributes="member: 22424">There's a lot of truth in that. And with two Paths per year, it's very likely most, if not all, of them will head for those high levels.Still, while high-level characters should change the world with their adventures, it doesn't necessarily follow that they have to save the world. A good example would be Pathfinder's &quot;Kingmaker&quot; path (excluding the last adventure) - over the course of which the PCs establish a brand new kingdom of their own. (Indeed, one could readily see WotC doing their own version, should they ever produce some suitable realm-management systems.)Other possibilities might be a path that culminates with one or more of the PCs achieving divine ascension, or a path in which the characters first acquire an Ultimate Helm and then sieze control over the Spelljammer. My most recent (Eberron) campaign ended with the PCs finding themselves in a position to extinguish the Silver Flame, to relight it as-is, or to enter the Flame and combat the demon bound there and thus purify the Flame - no worlds were saved as a result, but the decision made did change the world.All that said, I think it's likely most paths will indeed wind up as &quot;save the world&quot;, if only because that's the most obvious approach to take. Even then, though, the manner in which it is saved is important - saving the world by preventing the BBEG entering the world is rather different from saving it by mustering and leading the armies of Elves and Men.And all that said, I'm actually less bothered by campaigns that culminate with &quot;save the world&quot; than I am by adventures that boil down to &quot;kill everything in the dungeon&quot;. Thus far it does look like 5e has done better in that regard than other recent editions, but it's early days yet...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6435112, member: 22424"] There's a lot of truth in that. And with two Paths per year, it's very likely most, if not all, of them will head for those high levels. Still, while high-level characters should [i]change[/i] the world with their adventures, it doesn't necessarily follow that they have to [i]save[/i] the world. A good example would be Pathfinder's "Kingmaker" path (excluding the last adventure) - over the course of which the PCs establish a brand new kingdom of their own. (Indeed, one could readily see WotC doing their own version, should they ever produce some suitable realm-management systems.) Other possibilities might be a path that culminates with one or more of the PCs achieving divine ascension, or a path in which the characters first acquire an Ultimate Helm and then sieze control over [i]the[/i] Spelljammer. My most recent (Eberron) campaign ended with the PCs finding themselves in a position to extinguish the Silver Flame, to relight it as-is, or to enter the Flame and combat the demon bound there and thus purify the Flame - no worlds were saved as a result, but the decision made did change the world. All that said, I think it's likely most paths will indeed wind up as "save the world", if only because that's the most obvious approach to take. Even then, though, the manner in which it is saved is important - saving the world by preventing the BBEG entering the world is rather different from saving it by mustering and leading the armies of Elves and Men. And all [i]that[/i] said, I'm actually less bothered by campaigns that culminate with "save the world" than I am by [i]adventures[/i] that boil down to "kill everything in the dungeon". Thus far it does look like 5e has done better in that regard than other recent editions, but it's early days yet... [/QUOTE]

Verification