Where's the sweet spot?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


In my experience, there are a wide variety of opinions regarding what levels are the most fun to play D&D/PF at. Some folks love the low-powered early levels, when orcs are nothing to laugh about. Others like the super-powered high levels (or even epic levels) when characters have near demi-god status and can challenge the powers of the universe, and there are many who like the stuff in between. Me, personally, I've always liked what I call the mid-levels, 5-10 or thereabouts, when the characters begin to have some serious power and many different options, but when there are still a lot of things out there that outclass them.

My question, solely for my own interest, is to find out where others in the PF community fall on this, and whether it is different in PF than it was in the various previous editions of D&D. One massive change, of course, is that in 3.X/PF, you can advance in levels much, much more quickly than in 1st and 2nd editions. Indeed, it as rare to get a character much beyond 12th level, even with years of play, in 1st edition. That change, however, really came about with 3.0. Has PF changed the dynamic much?


I would have to agree with you and say that around 5-10 is my favorite. I do like lower level play, but anything below 5 and you're more or less at the mercy of dice rolls. One lucky crit by an orc and you're toast. I like that sense of risk, but I prefer the tactical options unlocked from 5-10, where you have more tactical options and can really use teamwork to devastate the foe, but being stupid will still kill you, and smart enemies will still prove to be a thorn in your side. Or just being unlucky can kill you. My 7th level ranger was very nearly killed by Russet Mold because of multiple successive failures on the Fort save.


Brian Bachman wrote:

In my experience, there are a wide variety of opinions regarding what levels are the most fun to play D&D/PF at. Some folks love the low-powered early levels, when orcs are nothing to laugh about. Others like the super-powered high levels (or even epic levels) when characters have near demi-god status and can challenge the powers of the universe, and there are many who like the stuff in between. Me, personally, I've always liked what I call the mid-levels, 5-10 or thereabouts, when the characters begin to have some serious power and many different options, but when there are still a lot of things out there that outclass them.

My question, solely for my own interest, is to find out where others in the PF community fall on this, and whether it is different in PF than it was in the various previous editions of D&D. One massive change, of course, is that in 3.X/PF, you can advance in levels much, much more quickly than in 1st and 2nd editions. Indeed, it as rare to get a character much beyond 12th level, even with years of play, in 1st edition. That change, however, really came about with 3.0. Has PF changed the dynamic much?

I think it is around level 15, but it can be extended with the right DM and group. Some DM's find things really difficult above 15 because they are not used to the abilities, and players "get over", not because they are cheating, but it is hard for a DM to counter what he does not know about.


I prefer levels 1-15ish. After the mid teens it just seems the numbers tend to break down.

A lot of the thematic drama is killed.

Two guys pointing lt crossbows at a 15th level fighter are laughable. Thats what? 2-16 points damage (4-32 on a crit) if they hit. Alot of the roleplaying and story devices drop away simply because the numbers have gotten so big that common things dont threaten the PCs. It seems you have to load the bad guys up with magical loot just to make them a threat. In the end who ends up with the magical loot? The players meaning the next encounter has to be ramped up too.

I think more of my issue is with the availibility of magical items. The fact that the base rules makes them simply purchasable as long as you have the cash.

I prefer lower end games with a lower degree of magical items availible.


Kalyth wrote:

I prefer levels 1-15ish. After the mid teens it just seems the numbers tend to break down.

A lot of the thematic drama is killed.

Two guys pointing lt crossbows at a 15th level fighter are laughable. Thats what? 2-16 points damage (4-32 on a crit) if they hit. Alot of the roleplaying and story devices drop away simply because the numbers have gotten so big that common things dont threaten the PCs. It seems you have to load the bad guys up with magical loot just to make them a threat. In the end who ends up with the magical loot? The players meaning the next encounter has to be ramped up too.

I think more of my issue is with the availibility of magical items. The fact that the base rules makes them simply purchasable as long as you have the cash.

I prefer lower end games with a lower degree of magical items availible.

I like your crossbow example. At higher levels in the D&D/PF system, characters get so super-powered that only equally super-powered opponents can threaten them, and they can survive ridiculous situations. The classic example was the character who would jump off the 100' high cliff just to get to the bottom faster because he new his character would survive the 10d6 damage. There are ways, as a DM, to work around this, like using the critical hit and fumble decks (or if you are really mean, going back to the old 1st edition critical hit and fumble tables) to bring bakc in the chance of "the golden BB" or houseruling certain situations like terminal velocity, but they do sometimes break the sense of immersion, for me at least, when characters no longer need have any fear of a loaded heavy crossbow aimed at their head.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, my ideal range is probably 5 - 15 (maybe more like 5 - 12 or so)

I also like lower magic games as a rule ...

Thant's not to say I don't enjoy a good high level game now and then, but in general my sweet spot for fun and balance is in the 5 - 15 range.


I personally prefer higher level games of levels 12 and up. Low level games bother me because you have so few options and your character dies from a lucky battle axe stroke. I prefer to have more options as to that my character can learn and do. I also like the more heroic feel of high level games. I know they're a lot more work to prep for, but the payoff is worth it I think.


Personally, I like everything short of Epic play. It's a lot of fun watching the players evolve from "Crap, they've got us covered with their heavy crossbows. Nobody do anything stupid!" (lvl 1-3) to "Tell your men to put those away before we kill everyone in the room and tear that gold plated tin crown from your severed head," (lvl 9-12) all the way up to "You're going to need a bigger army" (17+).

The key, I think, is allow much of the world to remain fairly static as the players advance. That way, when they visit someplace they've been before, or re-encounter some previously overwhelming obstacle or opponent, they get a real sense of how much they've progressed.

Certain important recurring villains should keep pace or even exceed the player's advancement, but these should be rare. Mooks should stay mooks.


Mynameisjake wrote:

Personally, I like everything short of Epic play. It's a lot of fun watching the players evolve from "Crap, they've got us covered with their heavy crossbows. Nobody do anything stupid!" (lvl 1-3) to "Tell your men to put those away before we kill everyone in the room and tear that gold plated tin crown from your severed head," (lvl 9-12) all the way up to "You're going to need a bigger army" (17+).

The key, I think, is to allow much of the world to remain fairly static as the players advance. That way, when they visit someplace they've been before, or re-encounter some previously overwhelming obstacle or opponent, they get a real sense of how much they've progressed.

Certain important recurring villains should keep pace or even exceed the player's advancement, but these should be rare. Mooks should stay mooks.


I prefer low-lvl, like 3-7. Where you have some spells that are versatile, but you have to make the best of it to survive. At that level you can't brute force every battle, but you have some resources you can choose yourself.


Lathiira wrote:

I personally prefer higher level games of levels 12 and up. Low level games bother me because you have so few options and your character dies from a lucky battle axe stroke. I prefer to have more options as to that my character can learn and do. I also like the more heroic feel of high level games. I know they're a lot more work to prep for, but the payoff is worth it I think.

Interesting. Does it bother you a lot any time your characters die, or just when it is from bad luck/low hit points? No judgment meant or implied. I take character death hard myself sometimes, particularly when they die in less than heroic ways (Switch in The Matrix "Not like this").

For me, character death, or at least the threat thereof, is a vital element of the game, though. Without that danger, there is no real dramatic tension. That said, as DM I have been known to fudge the dice to keep characters from dying just due to colossally bad luck. No problem killing them when they're being stupid or make a bad mistake.

However, I don't always do it, and we do use the critical hit desk and now the critical fumble deck, which can be deadly (or at least the type of incapacitating that quickly leads to deadly). I kind of like the random "golden BB" element - the fact that, if he gets lucky enough/takes the most perfect swing of his life, that lowly goblin warrior can put a serious hurting on that arrogant paladin. Last game session my players were laughing at some pathetic kobolds until the cleric took a critical hit sling stone to the noggin for double damage and 1d4 bleed. He got serious quick then.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

As a player, 5-12 is my personal favorite range. You aren't so fragile that you have to play super careful and you have a range of options and capabilities to bring to bear on any given problem.

As a GM, most GMs do better at lower levels. PCs almost always know their own capabilities better than the GM does, so it can be difficult to run encounters that aren't either too easy or overwhelmingly difficult. More experienced GMs can handle higher-level stuff. It helps to have played as a PC at higher levels, as well. Personally, I love to GM at higher levels because I can take the kid gloves off, pull out all the stops, and truly rock some awesome stuff that the players look back on and say, "wow, we really did that!"

For adventure design, low levels (1-4) and very high levels (15+) are the easiest to design adventures for. At low levels, you can basically assume the PCs have very limited capabilities. At very high levels, you can assume they have any capability, plus some stuff you didn't think of. It's the levels in between that are hardest to balance. You can't be sure that the PCs will have certain capabilities: flight, teleportation, plane shift, various divinations, freedom of movement, water breathing, etc.

Grand Lodge

9 -- 12 is my favorite with 7-14 still glots o' fun.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I don't have a strong preference and will play at any level, but would say I like level 5+ -- by level 5 you have a really strongly established character and have had time to devise a notable combat style, suite of skills, etc. And going up from there just gets fun. But I also like being level 1 and cowering from a kobold.

As a GM, I find level 1-3 and level 18-20 have a similar problem--the party tends to either go through combat without a scratch, or people get killed instantly. At low levels, it's usually due to unlucky attack rolls--critical hits are often instant death at low levels. At the high end, it's usually due to failed saves (nearly lost our Shadowdancer to a Destruction trap. I decided not to disintegrate his body, as it would have been a pain for both me and the party to lose that character at that particular matter). Or a series of unlucky attack rolls rather than just one, but at level 19, those attack rolls could be coming in succession from a single Advanced Marilith or some such horror.

Also as a GM, working with core rules, I find it's easiest to design adventures for about level 5-12. Some of the most fun monsters are in that CR range (or multiples of lower CR monsters), the players aren't too fragile, and so it's easier to come up with a variety of challenges. Designing an NPC spellcaster doesn't take 4 hours, but you can still make one that does more than spam magic missile. Most guides and supplementary materials also support this level range the best, so you can ease up on prep and use precreated stuff. You want to run high level campaigns (which I have learned, as I am running an 18th level game right now) prepare to either prepare a LOT, or learn to wing it like crazy (I tend to do a mixture of both).

But again... I'm happy in general with most of it throughout.


Brian Bachman wrote:
Lathiira wrote:

I personally prefer higher level games of levels 12 and up. Low level games bother me because you have so few options and your character dies from a lucky battle axe stroke. I prefer to have more options as to that my character can learn and do. I also like the more heroic feel of high level games. I know they're a lot more work to prep for, but the payoff is worth it I think.

Interesting. Does it bother you a lot any time your characters die, or just when it is from bad luck/low hit points? No judgment meant or implied. I take character death hard myself sometimes, particularly when they die in less than heroic ways (Switch in The Matrix "Not like this").

Depends on the character. The more invested I am in a character, the more it bothers me. But at high levels, you can revive the dead, which helps. I don't like the fragility of low-level characters, as it's really obvious fragility. Yes, a melee brute at high level kills you just as quick as one at low level, but when you look at your hp total, it doesn't feel as obvious. More important to me are the options available to a character. Higher level characters have more options available than lower level characters (more skill points, more feats, more magic items, more spells, etc.). I want to have to think about what I'm going to do from all my options. At low levels, it's often simple: swing at enemy. Cast one of a few spells. I'm happier when my decision must come from a longer list of options. It helps to enable my creativity.

In the current campaign, I was killed a couple sessions ago. Was I happy about it? No. But in the end we, the party, made some poor tactical decisions (though my character would definitely have qualified as biased and much too close to the case, as they say in crime dramas). But I was revived by a quick visit to the nearby temple of a god we weren't fighting with, and now life goes on. Admittedly, my character ended up in the afterlife and briefly saw her patron deity--Death, who the GM (and I) keep thinking of as Death of the Endless--so she managed to get through the performance review with minimal fuss. Now, several sessions later, my character is dealing with the aftermath of that event. And heaven help the demon that killed her if we cross paths again, or the the idiot that summoned him!

Low level characters die when someone Power Attacks with a greatsword and rolls decently. Well, OK, if they aren't helped at that point. It'll often take more swings to kill a higher level character, at least in our campaigns, but still doable in one round. But each swing represents a chance of survival. Or of a critical;) But you might have spells like blur, displacement, mirror image, etc. to help you avoid some of those attacks. At 1st level, not likely.

Another reason I like higher-level games is that the odds of reaching those levels in our campaigns aren't necessarily great. The current campaign broke the level 16 glass ceiling that'd existed for me throughout 3.0 and 3.5. Other campaigns were at 11th, or even 7th. Since it's rarer to reach high levels and get to enjoy them, I in turn enjoy them more when I can. Next campaign we may all be 1st level again;)


Low level, low magic games can be a lot of fun. I'm playing in one right now and it's a blast. High magic epic level games can be a blast as well, I have some experience there.

I think from 8th to about 15th is my favorite. For some reason no matter what kind of character I try to play, it takes about til 7th level for my build to really pay off. 4th level spells for casters, 2 attacks for damage dealers, you can be in a prestige class by then if that is your goal. And as some people have pointed out around 15th level is when stuff starts to break down.

Dark Archive

e6


Personally I like around 8-20 myself. I definately like things on the higher end of the scale, but I admit that most of my games start at relatively low levels. Not because of a mechanical preference (i like high powered enemies and players as both a player and dm) but instead as a story telling preference. I like when the party comes up from relative obscurity together. If parties are formed at mid levels, I feel like the bonds between characters are never as strong as they could have been.


meatrace wrote:
For some reason no matter what kind of character I try to play, it takes about til 7th level for my build to really pay off. 4th level spells for casters, 2 attacks for damage dealers, you can be in a prestige class by then if that is your goal.

Do you think that is inherent in the PF system or unique to the way you build characters? In other words, are you deliberately making choices that are less advantageous to the character at low levels but pay off later? I have to say I am only a mediocre optimizer myself. I loathe doing math, so I take a lot of feats and skills just because they fit my character concept, rather than because they are going to give me the best bonuses down the road, and I get bored with making the same build choices repeatedly just because they are the best mechanically.


Brian Bachman wrote:
meatrace wrote:
For some reason no matter what kind of character I try to play, it takes about til 7th level for my build to really pay off. 4th level spells for casters, 2 attacks for damage dealers, you can be in a prestige class by then if that is your goal.
Do you think that is inherent in the PF system or unique to the way you build characters? In other words, are you deliberately making choices that are less advantageous to the character at low levels but pay off later? I have to say I am only a mediocre optimizer myself. I loathe doing math, so I take a lot of feats and skills just because they fit my character concept, rather than because they are going to give me the best bonuses down the road, and I get bored with making the same build choices repeatedly just because they are the best mechanically.

I think there are lots of non-optimized ideas that dont pay off untill later. Just look at prestige classes in general. Often they have some feat tax like endurance or something else that gives relatively little benefit but is required to get into the prestige class. Then there are the mixed classes like eldritch knight, arcane trickster, and the infamous mystic theruge, which are all interesting concepts, but the process of building towards them can definately be painful.

Its one of the reasons Super Genius Games has really increased my enjoyment of low level play, they have provided a load of interesting base classes all pretty different and interesting, that I can play from level one and not have to 'build towards'.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Personally I like around 8-20 myself. I definately like things on the higher end of the scale, but I admit that most of my games start at relatively low levels. Not because of a mechanical preference (i like high powered enemies and players as both a player and dm) but instead as a story telling preference. I like when the party comes up from relative obscurity together. If parties are formed at mid levels, I feel like the bonds between characters are never as strong as they could have been.

I've started some campaigns at mid-level, and of course have done multiple one-off adventures that start there. I think the only way to avoid the feeling you describe and make the characters and their motivationms believable is to spend more time on the backstory. After all, they have more backstory to tell in how they got to those levels. That said, we did have one cool mini-campaign that was started on the premise of heroes drawn from totally disparate settings to perform a mission, so they had never adventured together before and knew each other only by reputation, if that. The DM stirred the pot by periodically releasing rumors about some PC's past (based on jointly arrived at backstories, but sometimes distorted by perspective and the rumor mill). Caused some minor internal strife, but forced the characters to explain themselves and their pasts in a way that brought them together strongly in the end.


For me it's 9~18. I like hitting those ninth level spells and getting to let loose with them... but I find that most GM's simply can't handle the high levels well, which leads to a boring game. However when I do find one of those special GM's that can handle the level 20 stuff I love it. One of my favorite games had everyone at level 20, with no more experience for anyone at that point -- we just played level 20 for months.


1-20.

I love ho the games change, from the frai level 1 to world shattering 20.

This not including epic levels, that I enjoyed a lot too.


A 20th level NPC makes a great end-of-game challenge for a party of 16th level PCs.

GMing levels 16-20 would probably require a lot of planning and customization. The majority of enemies are too weak to engage PCs of that level, and the general ability level of the PCs is complex to manage. Certainly it can be done, but I am lazy!

That's why I'll probably call a campaign finished at 16th — it's the last level I can challenge the PCs without a lot of effort.

I definitely love low-level play, though. At around 8th-9th level, the game becomes "the superfriends" which is actually quite fun, but I like survival stories best.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

@Evil Lincoln: Past level 16 you can really let the PCs drive the game. They have crazy resources and capabilities by that point. Give them an impossible objective and let them figure it out:

Destroy a level 20 lich whose phylactery is locked away in a heavily magically trapped demiplane.
Terminate an infernal contract by finding the devil's own copy in the libraries of Hell.
Plunder the mythical hoard of a great red wyrm.
Take over a layer of the Abyss.
Found a kingdom. Or steal one.

For the PCs, half the fun of adventuring at this level is coming up with The Plan. You can really feel free to make the obstacles as daunting as you can possibly make them, secure in the knowledge that your PCs will come up with some crazy PC stunt that will carry them to victory... or else they will have the capacity to bug out instantly with the likes of teleport or wish. You don't even have to give them really any substantial information, because they can use divination magic to find out anything they need to know. The thing that really makes play at this level "too hard" is when the GM plays the bad guys with too much knowledge of the PCs' activities and abilities.

Dark Archive

Brian Bachman wrote:
That said, we did have one cool mini-campaign that was started on the premise of heroes drawn from totally disparate settings to perform a mission, so they had never adventured together before and knew each other only by reputation, if that. The DM stirred the pot by periodically releasing rumors about some PC's past (based on jointly arrived at backstories, but sometimes distorted by perspective and the rumor mill). Caused some minor internal strife, but forced the characters to explain themselves and their pasts in a way that brought them together strongly in the end.

Wow. You almost described my short-lived Eberron campaign perfectly.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Where's the sweet spot? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion