Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder and high level play

[Dragonblade]

So, I made this post over in the huge thread bitching about the end of Dragon and Dungeon. But I didn't want my response to get lost over there so I'm making a new thread since this is a different debate.

I asked if Paizo could please take the Adventure Path to 20th level. And they were kind enough to respond to me:

We've heard a lot from fans of the previous Adventure Paths that things kind of get to be too much in the last few adventures. So Rise of the Runelords is sort of an experiment as far as that goes. We're certainly leaving a lot open for sequels or expansions, although the 1st-15th level arc we have for this Adventure Path is complete and self-contained. It won't feel like it's missing much.

But as for adventure paths that go from 1st to 20th level? Pathfinder will CERTAINLY feature adventures that cover that range sooner or later.

Thanks for the reply. Thats good enough for me.

So now my rant, and this is not directed at Paizo.

But it is directed at the D&D community. It is so frustrating that people would complain about high level adventures. Personally, I'm sick and tired of low level adventures. I have been playing D&D for 20 years and I have played in literally dozens of campaigns that always started at level 1 and ended somewhere between 10 and 15. I have done or experienced every single low level adventure plot/combat/character that can possibly be done. I want to explore an area of D&D that often gets neglected.

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. And its an Adventure Path so they don't even have to try to shoehorn it into an existing game. They are already running the campaign!

So WTF is the problem, people?!! I just don't get why people would complain. If YOU don't like to play at high level, then don't play at high level. But to complain that it shouldn't be offered at all seems to be the heighth of selfish arrogance.

After 20 years, I have seen everything in this hobby. From Lorraine Williams tenure, through the TSR crash, the Hasbro sale of WotC, 3.5 edition, etc. I will even weather the departure of my beloved Dragon and Dungeon. But after 20 years, I can just no longer play games that start at level 1. I suffer through it now, because I know that the Adventure Path will take me to the high level play experience that I have not gotten enough of.

But now even that might be taken from me if Paizo gives in to a request that I just don't understand. If that happens, then I give up. I have nothing more to look forward to anymore.

 

[delericho]

But it is directed at the D&D community. It is so frustrating that people would complain about high level adventures. Personally, I'm sick and tired of low level adventures.

While I'm not sick of the low levels, I do like high level adventures. And the relative lack of prepublished ones is quite painful, since those are the levels where the adventure prep is the most painful. So, I agree.

I have been playing D&D for 20 years and I have played in literally dozens of campaigns that always started at level 1 and ended somewhere between 10 and 15.

I think part of the issue is that by the early teens you've been playing the same campaign for months. At a certain point, people are ready to move on and do something new. So, even very successful campaigns tend not to get all the way to 20th level, and the last few adventures of any Adventure Path may well feel like a bit of a slog.

What I think would be really interesting is an Adventure Path running from levels 10 - 20 or so. Let the PCs come in as experienced heroes, paragons of their races, champions of their faith, and go from there.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Regardless of whose doining the initial work, high level play is more complex and requires more time.

This is a fault of the 1-20 model where older editions would keep players in the 'sweet spot' a lot longer with a much higher xp ranking system.

Perhaps 4th ed will go from 1-40 with a lot more 'mid-level' adventure potential in between there.

 

[Agamon]

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.

 

[Agamon]

Perhaps 4th ed will go from 1-40 with a lot more 'mid-level' adventure potential in between there.

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

 

[S'mon]

I love high level adventures, but I hate having to deal with insane amounts of number-crunching. Keep it to no more than what I'm dealing with at 8th level, then great.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I think there are really only 2 things that prevent high level play from going smoothly at this point.

First is the ever increasing number of variables that apply to attack and damage rolls. 3rd edition did try to deal with this a bit by stating that same typed bonuses could not stack. But that seems to have resulted in huge numbers of effects that duplicate one another aside from one adjective.

The other is that for a game that is based on dice, they become much less important as time goes on. At 15th level, a fighter could easily have a number of bonuses that add up beyond 20. A change of a few points can be very signifigant. If you can hit the opponent on a 15, a 5 point change can make the opponent either nigh impossible to damage, or nearly trivial.

Both things can be managed though. And having more content at the high end of the game can only be a good thing.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Steel_Wind]

I got to be honest here. I'm running Age of Worms and enjoying it.

However, I would have been happier with an AP that spent more time at lower levels, and less time at higher levels.

I still like the 1st to 20th (or even 21st) idea, but the sweet spot for me is 5 to 10th. I prefer more of the game in that zone.

That doesn't make the OP wrong and make me right. It makes him right and me right. How could a preference be wrong?

The problem for the OP is that there tends to be more people who prefer lower to mid level as the sweet spot. Sorry about that.

FWIW I'd settle for an AP that serves us both - 1st to 20th, but is a little "bulkier" in terms of the time it spends in the 5th to 10th level zone.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Personally, I like the attention that the low levels get.

 

[Aeric]

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?"