Savage Tide AP not intriguing me

[James Jacobs]

Yeah... spells like speak with dead, find the path, teleport, resurrection, and wind walk can really break classic adventure plots. It's kind of frustrating. Personally, I think the game is at its strongest in the mid levels, from 5th-12th level. Before that, PCs are too fragile and you can't really use a lot of monsters. After that, things start to get so complicated that statblocks can take up a page or more, and often games turn into one long combat session.

That said, what we've got planned for the really high-level stuff in Savage Tide is pretty exciting. There's a LOT of cool cameos and interesting encounters waiting for the PCs once they head into the Abyss.

 

[Ryltar]

Chalk up another vote for a low-to-mid-level AP. I've been hoping for something like that ever since reading through the SCAP.

Hmm ... just thought of an idea to solve the space problems, should "lots of new monsters" be needed - although I don't know if it would be feasible: You might consider putting the creature's visual description inside the adventure, but offering the "stat block appendix" as a pdf download. Thus, you might ensure that only actual readers benefit from the work that was put into designing the creatures...

.. well, or something to that effect. Just thinking aloud.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yeah... spells like speak with dead, find the path, teleport, resurrection, and wind walk can really break classic adventure plots. It's kind of frustrating. Personally, I think the game is at its strongest in the mid levels, from 5th-12th level. Before that, PCs are too fragile and you can't really use a lot of monsters. After that, things start to get so complicated that statblocks can take up a page or more, and often games turn into one long combat session.

I don't want to drag the argument from the other thread in here, but as I see it, when you play from 1st-8th, your characters simply scale-- higher level, yes, but basically more of the same.

Fighters and Rogues, for example, continue to scale linearly. But spellcasters scale exponentially.

Once you hit 9th level and the spellcasters have access to 5th level spells, the characters stop simply "scaling upwards" and are instead capable of things that fundamentally change their understanding of and interaction with their world.

Again-- wholly different argument than just not having the space for interesting stat-blocks. I'm just geeking out a little bit to be validated by luminaries like yourself.

 

[Aloïsius]

Which is in and of itself an interesting question. Is there a desire for a less epic campaign out there? Perhaps one that goes from 1st to 12th level over the course of a year, and focuses more on one level = one adventure?

Yum ! One level = one adventure means less fights and dungeon crawl per adventure, and probably more role-play and social interaction.
Another good thing would be to have a longer timeline : most mega-adventure and and the adventure path usually have characters reaching level 20 in a few months of game time. I would like to see an AP lasting years, or even centuries, of game time (with elves, resurection and stuff like this, it can be done...). Or even, why not, one AP beeing the sequel of another, and involving the children/apprentices of the first AP. That would be awesome.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A 1-12 AP would be great.

 

[GlassJaw]

Yum ! One level = one adventure means less fights and dungeon crawl per adventure, and probably more role-play and social interaction.
Another good thing would be to have a longer timeline : most mega-adventure and and the adventure path usually have characters reaching level 20 in a few months of game time.

Yeah, I definitely would like to see an AP that slows down the progression. The current AP's have the players advancing sometimes multiple levels in the course of one module.

 

[Nazlith]

I prefer the higher level adventures to the lower level adventures, so capping it at 12 would not be appealing to me.

 

[ericlboyd]

Switching gears to Eric's post, there are plenty of creatures in the middle-CR range (say, CR7-CR12) that pose a meaningful challenge when presented in larger numbers-- elementals, magical beasts, giants, and undead. You don't need to go hunting around for CR18 monsters when eight CR12 creatures also works.

Part of the problem is that the CR system falls apart once you require too many monsters. In other words, I am much more suspcious about the "real CR" of an encounter with 8 CR 12 creatures than I am for 1 CR 18 monster. Adding more combatants to an encounter tends to slow down play, make the foes more vulnerable to area of effect attacks, and lower the "gear" below interesting thresholds.

Compare an 8-armed orc with 6 HD to 8 1-armed orcs with 1 HD apiece. Both are CR 6 encounters.

Both have the same number of attacks, and most DMs run combats with all the 1 HD orcs having the same initiative. However, many combat conditions and actions (readied attacks, slow spells, etc.) cause the 8 1 HD orcs to diverge in initiative order, leading to a slower combat. The best solution is to make the 6 HD orc have 1-arm with a very powerful blow, in order to speed up play.

A well-placed 5d6 fireball might kill the 8 orcs but is unlikely to kill the 6 HD orc.

The 1 HD orcs are going to have "boring" gear like masterwork weapons and armor. The 6 HD orc might actually have a unique magic item.

The 1 HD orcs require a larger battlefield, making for less logical dungeon design if repeated for the majority of encounters.

These are just some examples and I'm sure there are counterexamples. My general point is that I wouldn't want to have more than a couple of encounters at each level be with 6+ combatants. The sweet spot for me is 2-3 opponents in most encounters, and I think this is reflected in the preferences of Dungeon's editors as well.

Given that, the problem of most higher level threats being extraplanar or dragons remains.

--Eric

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Are extraplanar monsters or dragons really less complex or stat-block-bloated than a humanoid with class levels? I don't mean one with 10,000 prestige classes and templates, but simply robust NPCs of a realistic threat level.

 

[busker]

I like the high-level adventures a lot because I have trouble writing them, so I am going to vote for keeping the Adventure Paths going up to level 20. The mid-level spot that everybody seems to love so much is also the easiest to write my own adventures for. The teleporting and the "game-breaking" abilities of higher level adventurers are only "game-breaking" because most DMs have trouble making adventurers that take this into account. Dungeon magazine not only makes good high-level adventures, they also show me basically what sort of things need to be done to keep the players interested and challenged.

So keep the APs from 1-20. They are not only fun, but teach DMs what a good adventure is for all levels of play.

And to keep this on-topic, I agree that the plot of Savage Tide doesn't intrigue me as much as the Age of Worms did. On the other hand, all of my players are super-excited about it and can't wait for me to run it. Go figure.