Savage Tide AP not intriguing me

[johnnype]

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?

To be honest, no, that doesn't interest me as much as, say, a campaign going from 6th to 15th level. You said it yourself, the first five levels the characters are a bit fragile. I find 10th to 15th more interesting. It's the period where PC's really start shining and power and skills come to the fore. What's D&D if not about character development?

As far as advancing only one level per adventure, it will make for slow going and will feel like a drag after a while. I know having 12 adventure story arcs sells magazines but I'd rather see shorter arcs. 3 episodes being ideal and I wouldn't mind up to 6.

Just an opinion of course.

It's a terrible thing that space considerations are crimping your creativity. I wish there was some easy solution.

It really is a shame. Dragons making up 20% of high level CR is so sad! I know they are central to the game but I'm so tired of dragons right now I could puke. this presumption that players out there only own the 3 core rulebooks, although true, sure limits the enjoyment of the game sometimes. Sad. Very very sad...

 

[JoeBlank]

Another vote in favor of 1-12th level adventure paths!

I followed the threads on the "sweet spot" and agreed with a good portion of the conclusions. Great idea.

 

[Ryltar]

As far as advancing only one level per adventure, it will make for slow going and will feel like a drag after a while.

I'll have to disagree with you there - different gaming philosophies, I guess. It'd be a good thing to just leave be the core assumption of 13 encounters (iirc) per level, thus forcing you as an adventure designer to "hand out" another level up even when it (perhaps) wouldn't be dramatically appropriate, and design an adventure that has a fixed number of encounters, but gives you just enough XP to level up once no matter how you solve it.

YMMV.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Hell, I'm hoping for a "Return To Cauldron" 20+ level adventure for Dungeon.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Part of the problem is that the CR system falls apart once you require too many monsters.

<snip>

These are just some examples and I'm sure there are counterexamples.

I can't counter the fundamentals of your argument-- it slows down play, and area-of-effect attacks can be a problem-- but I would point out that there is a big difference between 8 orcs and 8 giants. Some of the "area of effect" concerns that exist with low-HD (low-CR) creatures disappear beyond a certain threshold (certainly at the >10 HD mark).

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.

I guess the question, then, is whether you want to "bore" your players with longer combats against multiple opponents, or bore them with another extraplanar threat.

Your starting premise does seem to be that longer, more complicated battles are necessarily a bad thing.

I'm not sure Scourge of the Slavelords would have been more interesting if the half-dozen sundry Slavelords had been a single Pit Fiend.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Bear in mind that a theoretical 1-12 AP would be the fourth or fifth published by Paizo. There probably are people out there who have already blown through Shackled City AND Age of Worms AND will have blown through Savage Tide by the time AP4 is out, but I suspect they'll be in the minority. Three 1-20 campaigns is a pretty good amount of high level content. (And yeah, there's nothing preventing short arcs that feature "Return to" the previous AP locations, which I think is a great idea.)

Alternating the level ranges wouldn't be the end of the world at that point, IMO, and it would allow the APs to have even more variety in what sort of adventures they feature.

 

[ericlboyd]

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.

They aren't significantly more complex.

They are significantly cheaper in word count.

The latter is my point.

--Eric

 

[RichGreen]

Bear in mind that a theoretical 1-12 AP would be the fourth or fifth published by Paizo. There probably are people out there who have already blown through Shackled City AND Age of Worms AND will have blown through Savage Tide by the time AP4 is out, but I suspect they'll be in the minority. Three 1-20 campaigns is a pretty good amount of high level content. (And yeah, there's nothing preventing short arcs that feature "Return to" the previous AP locations, which I think is a great idea.)

Alternating the level ranges wouldn't be the end of the world at that point, IMO, and it would allow the APs to have even more variety in what sort of adventures they feature.

Good point! I haven't run any of them yet and am torn between which one to pick. I'm going to let the players choose, I think!


Cheers



Richard

 

[GwydapLlew]

Hell, I'm hoping for a "Return To Cauldron" 20+ level adventure for Dungeon.

I'm right there with you. I've been tinkering with something along those lines, but I'm not sure if it's still too close to the original AP to be considered for publication.

 

[ericlboyd]

I guess the question, then, is whether you want to "bore" your players with longer combats against multiple opponents, or bore them with another extraplanar threat.

Very good question. My answer depends on the strictures of the design. What I really want to do is spend the word count on the adventure and not on the stat blocks, but I want interesting, unique foes.

Your starting premise does seem to be that longer, more complicated battles are necessarily a bad thing.

No, I like longer, more complicated battles, but in moderation. I think the bulk of encounters should be with a smaller number of foes. This is strictly personal preference, but I don't think I'm the only designer with this preference.

I'm not sure Scourge of the Slavelords would have been more interesting if the half-dozen sundry Slavelords had been a single Pit Fiend.

This is an excellent example. I absolutely agree that 9 unique Slave Lords is much more interesting than a single pit fiend. However, that's only half the story. The trade-off is 9 stat blocks vs. 0 stat blocks and whether the adventure gets more interesting because of the added word count. In 3.5e, I would probably recommend 3 unique Slave Lords as a good compromise, as the stat blocks are so darn long.

However ... given another set of design constraints, say "you must detail every stat block" or "you must fit on a single sheet of paper", my argument would change entirely, as there would be an entirely new set of pressures on effective adventure design.

If you look at this article:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a

you might infer why I bring this up. I have worked on 2 adventures which will be published in 2007 (one by Paizo, one not) where I selected the monsters and the environment. If you compare the two, you'll see I took 2 entirely different strategies towards maximizing my word count spent on the adventure. Neither is better, but both significantly impacted the resultant adventure.

--Eric