Would Golarion be better as a 1st-10th level setting?


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose this thread has already been bashed about somewhere out there, but if so I missed it -- and I keep finding myself thinking about this.

Would Golarion be more coherent, more narratively logical, and more fun as a setting that capped out at 10th or maybe 12th level?

You could still allow the worst/fiercest bad guys to have CR's sneaking up into the 14-15 category, so you wouldn't have to lose the archvillain vibe.

And you could still have some really ferocious beasties with even higher CRs that are best avoided -- demi-gods and the like that keep the background of plots and stories.

But a 10th level cap would avoid a lot of the awkward mechanics that begin to intrude at later levels of the game.

And they would avoid the issue of "fantasy" genre games morphing mid-stream into "superhero" genre adventures.

My take on this is admittedly subjective. I took up D&D again with 3.0 and have played consistently through 3.5 and PF.

Our gaming group has almost never risen beyond 12th level -- only one campaign took us into that territory and it wasn't very satisfying.

Generally we use the first several books of Adventure Paths and then create our own narrative ending after the second or third book...

Usually, that's about the length of our attention span for any one campaign anyway...so this would be another advantage.

APs would be two or three book arcs, rather than six book arcs.

How many people out there actually play regularly at levels 10+?

--Marsh


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Me too. :) This is the way I prefer the game. I don't like the super-hero levels. I feel very uncomfortable with levels above the 8th-10th, so the last two parts of the APs usually are beyond my reach. I would be very happy with a more "believable" campaign (6 parts but for levels 1-12 maximum).


I'm not so sure. I'm with you in that the Adventure Paths are a little long for my tastes. I'm also a big fan of the lower level ranges (a certain player resents me for it, and I endure no end of b%~&!ing.)

However, I've never seen what's quite so gamebreaking about the higher levels. I'm not a huge fan of the disparity between common NPCs and your heroes, but the options the players get aren't really THAT earthshattering, compared to the encounters of their level.

All in all, I think it's simply a matter of taste. I dont think you should be afraid of leaving the "sweet spot" around level 5-7. Your players will love all the new options that would be otherwise denied them. They've put a lot into these characters. They deserve to grow.

Just my two cents.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Answer that question by playing Pathfinder Society...it caps at 12th.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No.
Most of the "problems" you depict are born by your limited experience in running high level campaign and by the already limited support for high level campaigns.
Removing play above 12th level will not make your play time better but can make mine worse, so I would resent that.


Diego Rossi wrote:

No.

Most of the "problems" you depict are born by your limited experience in running high level campaign and by the already limited support for high level campaigns.
Removing play above 12th level will not make your play time better but can make mine worse, so I would resent that.

In my experience you'll find a good amount of responses like Diego's and just as many as your own. The level spread and the "sweet spot" have been subjects of debate for as long as their have been levels. Each one really gives a different game and the diversity works. I agree with you that high level play is tougher and more complex, but it has alot to do with the fact that most games end by 10th or so level. However I like there being rules and a setting for all of the above for the times I want to try my hand at it so to speak. I agree with Diego that there isn't enough high level content, and that kind of perpetuates the issue. If I want to build a low level adventure there are tons of resources to look at for stats and for structure and for ideas, but only a handful of high level ones.

Now having said that, there isn't anything wrong with YOUR Golarion being level capped. There is the aforementioned pathfinder society adventures to support a level cap of 12 so theres no end of adventures for you to buy, and rebuilding high level baddies and npcs is easier when going down the scope.


I agree
i do not enjoy ANY game run over the 10-12th level in d20 rules as written. That said, that is a subjective taste and I can equally imagine a player who does not enjoy any game run below said level threshold.
In other words "there is no accounting for taste"


level 12+ can be done, its just a lot harder. thats the turning point when things start going from 'resistant' to flat-out 'immune'. This means non-standard parties can get chewed up by some creatures (We had a party of pallys slaughtered by a flesh-eating ooze. it was the right CR, but its supposed to be faced with arcane support we did not have.)

Its like a sequel to your favorite movie. It sounds awesome, you want to go, but if something is wrong, it spoils the whole experience.


default wrote:

level 12+ can be done, its just a lot harder. thats the turning point when things start going from 'resistant' to flat-out 'immune'. This means non-standard parties can get chewed up by some creatures (We had a party of pallys slaughtered by a flesh-eating ooze. it was the right CR, but its supposed to be faced with arcane support we did not have.)

Its like a sequel to your favorite movie. It sounds awesome, you want to go, but if something is wrong, it spoils the whole experience.

+1. Below level 10, there seem to be multiple ways for parties to deal with problems. If they don't have a particular spell or the right weapon to overcome DR, they can usually still manage. Above level 10, if the party doesn't have an full caster, they're screwed if they're running through a published adventure.

I've seen this myself with my players going through Second Darkness. Through book 3, they cruised right along with only a bard and a multiclassed ranger as spell-casters. In book 4, they started running into things that assumed they had more arcane resources than they had. Books 5 and 6 I'm going to have to modify heavily to avoid guaranteed TPK.


Almost every instance I have seen on these forums that says 'level 10+ is bad mmmmmkay?' seems to be a direct result of parties not being played with a group of people that don't have a balanced group. (i.e. missing a cleric or a wizard) OR people who are complaining that encounters at that level are either too easy or too hard to deal with for the party. Personally, I think that it is a matter of some groups not understanding that the gameplay is designed around having a balanced group of adventurers as well as a variety of challenges...many things can be circumvented, but with careful planning on the part of the campaign GoD(yes, I like Game Operations Director...it makes me happy), high level campaigns are some of the most entertaining to run, because they present challenges for GoD as much as they do for the players.

No, you can't just assume that you can make a BBEG and a horde of dimwits to support him and call it a campaign.

Yes, you can expect to put hours of design into a gameplay session that may only last half the amount of time that you put in to it.

But - even given those things, high level adventures give people OPTIONS for their characters that aren't possible at lower levels. Campaigns can start to span entire continents without having to take months of off time for travel, and adventurers can break hordes of low level monsters and show off their abilities. Some of the most memorable gaming sessions come when a character manages to do something in a creative way that GoD didn't expect.


Now I'm not saying that level 20 is the posterchild for game balance, but I for one abhor playing or DMing through levels 1-4, and it really takes until about level 7 before the parity between party resources and the challenges they face becomes optimal. Playing by the book, really low levels are too heavily skewed towards the GM, and extreme high levels (15+) tend to be skewed towards the players.

Dark Archive

Apart from Pathfinder Society ... isn't it already a 10-12th level setting? At least when I run it, characters more powerful than that are hard to come by, and when the party exceeds those lofty heights they are playing at mythology and legend.

The APs tend to run up to 15th level or so anyway. I don't think any of them work with the assumption that the PCs need to be levels 18-20 to finish.

Liberty's Edge

I think my group has more memorable encounters above level 10, so count me as one that likes the higher level availability. With a solid group at 15 I can get my money's worth out of some of the really cool high level creatures.

Being able to play with dangerous dragons just seems like more fun than limiting yourself to the lower CR stuff.


As a rule, I'm not a fan of any system that will tell me when the game 'ends.'

While the rules may fall down when they get higher... I like the OPTION of continuing if the characters are awesome and the game is going great.

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:
default wrote:

level 12+ can be done, its just a lot harder. thats the turning point when things start going from 'resistant' to flat-out 'immune'. This means non-standard parties can get chewed up by some creatures (We had a party of pallys slaughtered by a flesh-eating ooze. it was the right CR, but its supposed to be faced with arcane support we did not have.)

Its like a sequel to your favorite movie. It sounds awesome, you want to go, but if something is wrong, it spoils the whole experience.

+1. Below level 10, there seem to be multiple ways for parties to deal with problems. If they don't have a particular spell or the right weapon to overcome DR, they can usually still manage. Above level 10, if the party doesn't have an full caster, they're screwed if they're running through a published adventure.

I've seen this myself with my players going through Second Darkness. Through book 3, they cruised right along with only a bard and a multiclassed ranger as spell-casters. In book 4, they started running into things that assumed they had more arcane resources than they had. Books 5 and 6 I'm going to have to modify heavily to avoid guaranteed TPK.

Maybe not having a cleric or oracle has much more to do with that than not having a arcane spellcaster.

That AP can be done without the need of a arcane spelluser doing the artillery job but you will have more problems doing them without the protection/support spells of a full divine spellcaster.
A strong archer can do the artillery role.


It is not really the setting, it is the rules set. With each new set of D&D rules it has seemed that the higher levels become less fun to play and more tedious with the detailed planning and minutia that has to be taken into account to survive beyond 10th level. You can also get away with more in a home brew campaign where the GM can tailor encounters to fit the party. For example, a group of 4 or 5 various martial-type characters can survive much better in a home brew module than in published modules without the GM having to make major adjustments to the module or AP.

Scarab Sages

No it would not.


No, it's better the way it is now. If something breaks the system the GM can change it.


Captain Marsh wrote:


How many people out there actually play regularly at levels 10+?

I and all my groups do...I actualy never get why people would stop at 10th(or 12th level).

So I would actualy like to see alot more higher level stuff in Golarion.


I am not asking PAIZO to change the way the APs are designed. I am happy they decided to go with 1-15 levels in Pathfinder, instead of the 1-20 (like the first three APs in Dungeon magazine).

1) In general I do not like the zero-to-hero campaign. I am a simulationist-type GM. I cannot see a character to fight rats in the beginning and archdevils after a few months. It is too gamist-type campaign for me. The only way to accept it in my campaigns is to include large down-time between chapters or include a good explanation of what power or rare event let the characters break the caps at e.g 6th and 10th levels.

2) 20th level archvillains or monsters are unstoppable. As a simulationist I think that a lot of the great details of the Pathfinder world I enjoy the most (social structures, political balances, culture, economies ) are without meaning if such monsters walk around.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Would Golarion be better as a 1st-10th level setting? All Messageboards

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