Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On another point, I really enjoyed their first 3 APs in Dungeon Magazine, pre pathfinder. They went to 20ish and were very long as a result (12 or 13 issues worth but still clocking in at something akin to 40 pages IIRC) I haven't seen a lot of games hit those levels and definately not many APs survive the whole thing. Also sometimes the encounters are just more than casual players can handle
Yup; the Dungeon APs were overall longer in the adventure department, but shorter in the support material.
A typical Dungeon AP ran for 12 months, with adventures that (if memory serves) were on average about 25,000 words, for a total of 300,000 words in all. In the end we were doing about 2,000 words a month in Dragon of support, for a total of 24,000 words of support, and a total AP offering of 324,000 words.
A typical Pathfinder AP runs for 6 months, with adventures averaging at 37,000 words each, for a total of 222,000 words. About 3/4 the overall space we had for a single AP back in the Dungeon days. But then, a single AP also has, on average, about 20,000 more words (not counting the fiction, which is another 5,000 words or so), for a total of 120,000 words of support, which ends up being about 342,000 words per AP. And that's not event touching any additional support we do in the form of additional books (like Rule of Fear for Carrion Crown, or the player's guides, or the Samurai/Ninja sections of Ultimate Combat for Jade Regent, etc.).
SO! Long Story Short—the individual adventures in a Pathfinder AP are longer, but the overall APs are shorter by 1/4 than the Dungeon adventures... which is obvious when one notes that Pathfinder APs generally end at about 15th level or thereabouts. But you get a LOT more help in expanding your campaigns these days.
Anyway... thought folks would like a glimpse behind the scenes at word counts and the like...
And due to the way XP works and how higher-level encounters take up more space... if the hope was to have an AP that reaches 20th level... I suspect we'd have to start at like 10th level to get there.But the MAIN reason we don't start them at above 1st level is that we've NEVER done so, and the popularity of the AP line continues to increase, so that tells me we're not doing much at all wrong with it, so I'm very hesitant to make significant changes like not starting at 1st level.
The "easiest" way I can see to extend an AP into the highest levels would be to make it a double feature. By that, I mean two APs with overlapping story arcs that combined make a double length AP, where the first goes from Lvl 1 to 12/13 and the second goes up to (or past) 20. I believe it would be less risky from a business standpoint than simply starting an AP at 10th, since you can still keep the steady progression from 1st.
|
Level 1 also tends to be kind of fickle, it's very easy to die at level 1, and thus your character is wasted. Not only that but several of the fun abilities PC have start coming around level 3-6.
Just because the adventure path assumes characters all start at level 1 doesn't mean they have to start there. You could easily have the players make 2nd or 3rd level characters and run the adventure path as written.
If you don't want to re-balance encounters, just start the characters at 3rd level with 0xp, then have them raise levels normally. The first couple levels tend to move pretty quickly anyway so your players probably wouldn't notice a difference. They'd just dominate the first third or so of the first adventure more than they normally would. Or you could start them at 3rd with minimal XP and then eliminate or reduce story awards so they don't get too far ahead of the curve.
That being said, I would very much like to see more non-adventure path adventures that are linked together. Especially for areas/concepts that I would personally love to see in an adventure path but are niche enough that I understand why Paizo would hesitate to invest a whole AP in them. Things like Sword & Planet adventures, Alkenstar, or Numeria.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "easiest" way I can see to extend an AP into the highest levels would be to make it a double feature. By that, I mean two APs with overlapping story arcs that combined make a double length AP, where the first goes from Lvl 1 to 12/13 and the second goes up to (or past) 20. I believe it would be less risky from a business standpoint than simply starting an AP at 10th, since you can still keep the steady progression from 1st.
The use of the word "easiest" up there is hilarious and frightening. There's nothing "easy" about building an Adventure path, and two different Adventure Paths that have overlapping story arcs on a monthly basis would probably require two developers to work 80 hour weeks for six months. Which would result, in the end, in NO adventure paths since both developers would have had nervous breakdowns well before finishing the project.
|
Creative Director
|
That being said, I would very much like to see more non-adventure path adventures that are linked together. Especially for areas/concepts that I would personally love to see in an adventure path but are niche enough that I understand why Paizo would hesitate to invest a whole AP in them. Things like Sword & Planet adventures, Alkenstar, or Numeria.
The problem there is that, when you discount the RPG Superstar entry, we have only 5 modules a month. That's only five chances to support the 10+ Campaign Setting books or the 2 Adventure Paths or the Pathfinder Society a month. Each one of those modules that links up to a multi part adventure lessens those opportunities even more. Not something we're keen on doing while we're only doing 6 modules a year—and we've certainly got no plans (or resources) to do more than 6 a year at this time.
It does seem odd that these epic quest always seem to fall upon the shoulders of complete rookies. Even if they aren't aware of the full import of what they've gotten themselves into at the start. It's an approach that has it's good points, like the fact that the players get to ease into they're characters. However it seems to me that certain scenarios would in fact begin with more seasoned adventurers getting involved.
|
|
The problem there is that, when you discount the RPG Superstar entry, we have only 5 modules a month. That's only five chances to support the 10+ Campaign Setting books or the 2 Adventure Paths or the Pathfinder Society a month. Each one of those modules that links up to a multi part adventure lessens those opportunities even more. Not something we're keen on doing while we're only doing 6 modules a year—and we've certainly got no plans (or resources) to do more than 6 a year at this time.
I'm sorry James, I've read this twice and I honestly don't think I understand. Specifically the part about "supporting the 10+ Campaign Setting books or the 2 Adventure Paths".
How do modules support the Campaign Setting books or Adventure Paths? Looking through the module list I can see how some of the modules tie in with other products (like We Be Goblins/Goblins of Golarion) but I don't see that for a lot of others.
For example, how do Academy of Secrets & The Feast of Ravenmoor support the other lines? They could kind of tie in with an adventure path or guide from a couple years ago (Curse of the Crimson Throne, Guide to Korvosa, etc) but do they support something more recent that I'm missing?
As for linked adventures, I was referring to something similar to the Crypt of the Everflame series (two of which are set in Nirmathas, a country that hasn't really been touched outside of the general overview in the world guides) or the Falcon's Hollow modules that all take place in the same general area of Andoran. The adventures that could be played separately, or strung together into a sort of mini-campaign (that has gaps you can fill in with your own adventures). Were those linked adventures not popular enough or did they not sell well enough to do more?
My impression of the non-adventure path, non-$4 PFS modules was that they were a way to revisit areas already covered elsewhere, and also a way to "test the waters" for new areas. Like Cult of the Ebon Destroyer giving us a taste of Vudra, The Demon Within giving us a bit of the Worldwound, Curse of the Red Raven showing off some Galt, or the upcoming Midnight Mirror giving us a little taste of Nidal.
I could obviously be wrong. It's just that modules seemed like more of a place for you to take risks and gauge player interest since you can't really take that risk with an adventure path.
Either way, I'll amend my previous statement to "I would very much like to see more modules that may or may not link together covering areas and ideas that are otherwise too niche for a full adventure path, such as Sword & Planet adventures, Alkenstar, or Numeria."
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem odd that these epic quest always seem to fall upon the shoulders of complete rookies. Even if they aren't aware of the full import of what they've gotten themselves into at the start. It's an approach that has it's good points, like the fact that the players get to ease into they're characters. However it seems to me that certain scenarios would in fact begin with more seasoned adventurers getting involved.
Kind of like how Frodo was a complete rookie? I'm not seeing a problem with it.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry James, I've read this twice and I honestly don't think I understand. Specifically the part about "supporting the 10+ Campaign Setting books or the 2 Adventure Paths".
How do modules support the Campaign Setting books or Adventure Paths? Looking through the module list I can see how some of the modules tie in with other products (like We Be Goblins/Goblins of Golarion) but I don't see that for a lot of others.For example, how do Academy of Secrets & The Feast of Ravenmoor support the other lines? They could kind of tie in with an adventure path or guide from a couple years ago (Curse of the Crimson Throne, Guide to Korvosa, etc) but do they support something more recent that I'm missing?
Academy of Secrets can serve as a side-adventrue in a Curse of the Crimson Throne game, but also could interact with the magical school rules from Inner Sea magic. Feast of Ravenmore can do the same for Jade Regent or Rise of the Runelords or even for Second Darkness.
But at the same point, they're intended to be one-shot adventures—that's another category (the PRIMARY category, in fact) of module we like doing, and that's the "one shot adventure where we explore a site or location or story that doesn't HAVE to be part of a big plot. By doing a 3 part adventure, we have much fewer opportunities to do these adventures.
It does seem odd that these epic quest always seem to fall upon the shoulders of complete rookies. Even if they aren't aware of the full import of what they've gotten themselves into at the start. It's an approach that has it's good points, like the fact that the players get to ease into they're characters. However it seems to me that certain scenarios would in fact begin with more seasoned adventurers getting involved.
From an in world point of view that makes sense, but from a RL perspective it is not worth the financial risk to disrupt what works.
Individual modules can be linked by a GM if he wants to start higher.Bumping the end boss of book 1 of an AP up to a higher CR is also an option, and I plan to do that with the next AP I run since I plan to start at level 3, just to avoid the level 1 repeat.
It does seem odd that these epic quest always seem to fall upon the shoulders of complete rookies. Even if they aren't aware of the full import of what they've gotten themselves into at the start. It's an approach that has it's good points, like the fact that the players get to ease into they're characters. However it seems to me that certain scenarios would in fact begin with more seasoned adventurers getting involved.Kind of like how Frodo was a complete rookie? I'm not seeing a problem with it.
More like Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli and Legolas.
More like Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli and Legolas.It does seem odd that these epic quest always seem to fall upon the shoulders of complete rookies. Even if they aren't aware of the full import of what they've gotten themselves into at the start. It's an approach that has it's good points, like the fact that the players get to ease into they're characters. However it seems to me that certain scenarios would in fact begin with more seasoned adventurers getting involved.Kind of like how Frodo was a complete rookie? I'm not seeing a problem with it.
True. But one of the reasons Frodo and Sam succeed is because they are nobodies, i.e., start at 1st level (Two hobbits sneaking into Mordor? what? that's insignificant. The ring must be with Aragorn...). If I was an evil mastermind (not saying I'm not, mind you) I'd wipe out everyone that could be a threat but wasn't yet. But taking out every 1st level character out there would be kind of a big deal. In fact, I've run campaigns where the characters "inherited" a quest from a more experienced team that got killed off, possibly by encountering the last survivor. As near-commoners, they fly under the radar just long enough to become a surprise threat later on.
|
Creative Director
|
More like Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli and Legolas.It does seem odd that these epic quest always seem to fall upon the shoulders of complete rookies. Even if they aren't aware of the full import of what they've gotten themselves into at the start. It's an approach that has it's good points, like the fact that the players get to ease into they're characters. However it seems to me that certain scenarios would in fact begin with more seasoned adventurers getting involved.Kind of like how Frodo was a complete rookie? I'm not seeing a problem with it.
None of them showed up at the start of the book. They're more like "more players joined the group, go ahead and have them make 5th level characters and we'll go from there."
That might work, if Aragorn and the others were of a similar "level" to the hobbits when introduced into the story. My point is that before Aragorn and the rest got involved in the quest of the Ring they had had extensive adventures previous. Why not have seasoned adventurers getting involved in the epic quest? Were the Argonauts all first level when Jason gathered them together to find the Golden Fleece? Where the Knights of the Round Table first level when they went to find the Grail? Luke Skywalker might have been first level during a New Hope, but what about Obi-wan, Han, Chewie, Leia and the droids? Heck, in the first ever D&D adventure path, the Dragonlance modules, the main characters did not start at 1st level.
|
Creative Director
|
That might work, if Aragorn and the others were of a similar "level" to the hobbits when introduced into the story. My point is that before Aragorn and the rest got involved in the quest of the Ring they had had extensive adventures previous. Why not have seasoned adventurers getting involved in the epic quest? Were the Argonauts all first level when Jason gathered them together to find the Golden Fleece? Where the Knights of the Round Table first level when they went to find the Grail? Luke Skywalker might have been first level during a New Hope, but what about Obi-wan, Han, Chewie, Leia and the droids? Heck, in the first ever D&D adventure path, the Dragonlance modules, the main characters did not start at 1st level.
Because we'd still need to cover what happened before the seasoned adventurers joined the quest.
Fellowship of the Ring would have been a lot more confusing and probably a lot less compelling if everything up to Rivendell wasn't even part of the story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the most enjoyable parts for some players is building their characters (mechanically). For those players, building a 4th level character to start a campaign would be much more fun than building a 1st level character.
That might work, if Aragorn and the others were of a similar "level" to the hobbits when introduced into the story. My point is that before Aragorn and the rest got involved in the quest of the Ring they had had extensive adventures previous. Why not have seasoned adventurers getting involved in the epic quest? Were the Argonauts all first level when Jason gathered them together to find the Golden Fleece? Where the Knights of the Round Table first level when they went to find the Grail? Luke Skywalker might have been first level during a New Hope, but what about Obi-wan, Han, Chewie, Leia and the droids? Heck, in the first ever D&D adventure path, the Dragonlance modules, the main characters did not start at 1st level.Because we'd still need to cover what happened before the seasoned adventurers joined the quest.
Fellowship of the Ring would have been a lot more confusing and probably a lot less compelling if everything up to Rivendell wasn't even part of the story.
Why would you, if that isn't a part of the quest? If the quest started with higher level characters, then "whats happened before" would be a matter of the characters' background.
I thought RPGs were about the story and not the stats? I have just as much fun at 1st level as any higher level. Not only that, 1st level is very short lived to begin with. Our group focuses on RPing and not "optimization" or who can do the most damage, etc. When the game becomes more about the numbers than the RPing, something is lost imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see that James points out that among the many reasons why Paizo starts the AP's at first level is the reasoning that they can assume certain things about what the character has done before. This makes sense to me. As a story-writer/publisher, the folks at Paizo have no idea what sort of party a given DM's players will put together, but knowing that they'll start at 1st level, they can pretty much set things up to be interesting & challenging as well as serving to tell the story.
It seems to me that if players & their GM don't like starting an AP at 1st level, then there's nothing to stop them other than an unwillingness to adapt the adventure to better fit their preferences. As a DM, you are in a much better position to know what kinds of character your players will make, what they will tend to do & what sorts of things they like. So it's up to you (Mr. DM/GM) to make the changes to customize your group's experience.
In all my years of gaming, I've never seen a GM who's been happy with an adventure as published & who hasn't done something to make it more to their liking. Why then should Paizo need to stick their neck out to suit someone's personal preference when most people will be adapting it in some way anyway?
As I said before, each GM is in a better position to know what their players will like & enjoy. The AP's give you the elements of a story to take your players through & can be thought of to provide sample encounters that help tell & move the story along. The AP's also have provided new specialized, customized mechanics that have been tailored to the story they are attempting to tell. Some GM's will look at these as useful tools for stories they have been wanting to tell but didn't quite have the right infrastructure to support it.
All in all, the AP's provide quite an awesome amount of campaign support and should be appreciated for that extra oomph they provide instead of as merely a linked series of adventures.
That's my opinion anyway.
I thought RPGs were about the story and not the stats? I have just as much fun at 1st level as any higher level. Not only that, 1st level is very short lived to begin with. Our group focuses on RPing and not "optimization" or who can do the most damage, etc. When the game becomes more about the numbers than the RPing, something is lost imo.
Why does that mean that APs should always start at first level?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought RPGs were about the story and not the stats? I have just as much fun at 1st level as any higher level. Not only that, 1st level is very short lived to begin with. Our group focuses on RPing and not "optimization" or who can do the most damage, etc. When the game becomes more about the numbers than the RPing, something is lost imo.Why does that mean that APs should always start at first level?
Well, most often, 1st level is where the main story starts and I'm ok with that. Moreover, I submit the story actually starts before 1st level. It starts with your character's back story or background which leads up to the current events of the campaign start.
Sorry but there's no compelling reason to start at a higher level other than personal choice. If that's what you and your group want to do then go for it. Some people are implying that the fun doesn't begin until at least 3rd level and I just don't subscribe to that philosophy. It's what you make of it.
Why would you, if that isn't a part of the quest? If the quest started with higher level characters, then "whats happened before" would be a matter of the characters' background.
Because it would start like this...
"Some time ago, two nobodies who nobody knows about found something (MacGuffin) that nobody remembered and, through harrowing circumstances only one of your happened to see, you all were gathered for a meeting. Your job is to escort the nobodies with the MacGuffin of Forgetfulness, because none of you, despite your high level, has the will-power to resist it, because you're all fighters (except you, who's a ranger/paladin)."
Also, because they were all, like, fifth level and never really got much beyond that (they were using the slow advancement track with only a 10% or less appropriate XP-hand outs).
Joking aside, the One Ring being a required very Small People to find it to build up the sense of importance (because at first the hobbits simply weren't capable).
I'm not saying the above scenario couldn't work. It could. What I am saying is that the story would be much weaker if the GM/players just presumed a bunch of important, scenic stage-setting backgrounds, because the people involved simply don't have as much invested. They haven't seen the build-up. It took a while for Gimli et. al. to understand the depth of the threat and how big the adventure was, because they weren't there at the beginning, and even if they were, the threats, relative to themselves, were weaker, meaning they didn't feel the full brunt of it until later.
Similar things happen with players: it takes some time to get into an "epic adventure" and to really feel the scope of it and their characters. That's what those early levels are for. For a (very vulgar and crude but otherwise) fantastic example of this, see Dungeons and Doritos. At the beginning, they were nothing but romping, crude, misfits. Now... well, they still are, but now they're romping, crude misfits with a sense of identity as a group... and far more into the story than the rampant combat (in fact, that's one reason for their switch to a different gaming system - to get a better story-telling feel). Part of that is that they've been playing together for some time in this game, and they've become more enmeshed with their characters.
Now, all that aside, James made his point: they can't damage their flagship product by experimental elements that are just as likely to blow up in their faces. If they manage to test the waters with one-shot adventures or the like (which requires more resources than they currently have available), and the waters seem fine, they'll go for it.
Personally, I'd love me some "Official" psionics/mind-magic (especially non-Vancian, 'cause Vancian's terrible), and Epic/Mythic/Whatever-you-want-to-call-post-20th-level rules content, but if Paizo can't do it for financial considerations, while I'd be disappointed with them, I wouldn't blame them in any regard. I'd like to see APs that start later myself... but as it stands, you can do that anyway, sort of: just pick up a later AP, or beef up the enemies (the former if you're starting pretty high, the latter if you're starting only a few levels up). It works with most of them. It's just not going to be the full "six adventures long" experience 'cause you're starting at a later level.
EDIT: to clarify, Dungeons and Doritos is not safe for work. Especially the first, say, three episodes, but also in general. It's not that there is artwork, but the sheer amount of foul language kind of makes me ashamed that I somehow managed to listen to the first three episodes to get to the "good" stuff... which still has pretty rough language in it, but less so (so, you know, still not safe for work).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do adventure paths begin at level 1? I been looking through the various Adventure paths and I noticed that they all begin at Level 1, which I find to be the most boring level
Um... because many people like those levels. Low level play requires smart tactics, and encourages improvisation and creative use of resources. In other words, fun.
Why are people presuming that just because some folks would like to start an AP at a higher level that they would be using brand new characters with no history? My PbP group began Serpent's Skull at about 4th level and we had somewhere around 5000 posts across an RP Tavern, Crypt of the Everflame, and a homebrew story arc before we ever set sail for Sargava.
As I see it, the reason why some of us want to start an AP at something other than level 1 is because we already have established characters we want to continue roleplaying, and it would break continuity to simply reset them back to 1st level. Also, I can assure you that even with a tool like Combat Manager, ramping up each encounter is not only a pain in the neck, but it can have some decidely unexpected results.
Mind you, I understand JJ and Paizo's reasons for not taking this chance, and I can't fault them on it. My response is predominantly aimed at those who don't understand why some of us want to start at a higher level — it's because we already progressed thru the low levels in other stories.
Why are people presuming that just because some folks would like to start an AP at a higher level that they would be using brand new characters with no history? My PbP group began Serpent's Skull at about 4th level and we had somewhere around 5000 posts across an RP Tavern, Crypt of the Everflame, and a homebrew story arc before we ever set sail for Sargava.
As I see it, the reason why some of us want to start an AP at something other than level 1 is because we already have established characters we want to continue roleplaying, and it would break continuity to simply reset them back to 1st level. Also, I can assure you that even with a tool like Combat Manager, ramping up each encounter is not only a pain in the neck, but it can have some decidely unexpected results.
Mind you, I understand JJ and Paizo's reasons for not taking this chance, and I can't fault them on it. My response is predominantly aimed at those who don't understand why some of us want to start at a higher level — it's because we already progressed thru the low levels in other stories.
I can see that what I wrote could be taken that way, however that's not how I meant it, if I'm included with "those people".
Rather, the characters certainly have history, but that history is in no way tied to to the current game. Aragorn had a deep, rich, important history that tied into the story... sort of. Not the main story, mind you, about the Hobbits who found the ring, but the kind of meta-story. So did the rest of the Fellowship, only less so. Their back-stories were tied into the major story later... but that's only because the broad scope of the war for the One Ring included everyone on the planet, and really had nothing to do with the content of their actual back-story, so much as they happened to be part of Middle Earth, and so were affected later.
Now, while it's possible that you tie a current game into your pre-established back stories (something I've done for some games I've run), you really don't have that option when publishing an advanced level AP. The AP can't be written for your back story, because everyone will have a different one, unless the GM has a very heavy hand.
And that's part of the difficulty. With 1st level characters, you can say "well, they get tied into this because they don't have any other major history of adventuring" whereas with starting at higher levels, you can't do that.
And yes, this has nothing to do with the primary reason, as you said.
To be clear - I like high level adventures, and would love for APs to handle them. I just don't see it happening any time soon for a large number of logistics reasons. I also didn't wish to sound dismissive with the "beef them up" comment, though that could seem it. Starting at a higher level adventure makes sense to me, though, as there's only so much "beefing up" you can do to lower-level threats to make them similar at higher levels. Still, it's doable either way, as I've done it both ways.
I wouldn't suggest that a high level AP should try to be written into any given party's backstory. That would not only be futile but it would seem kind of like reverse railroading. Rather, just like with any other AP, the author could suggest possible plot hooks that might interest a given party. That's all I would expect or even want frankly.
While Serpent's Skull started at level 1, the supplied plothooks and the faction-based nature of the AP provided the perfect platform for me (as GM) to interface with an existing scenario I'd had percolating in my head for a few years. It wasn't difficult at all to figure out a way to mesh that homebrew story arc into what JJ had already written even though it presumed brand new characters. The same should hold true for a story specifically crafted for higher-level PCs.
While I'm a firm believer in the notion that the party needs to be the center of the story, that doesn't mean that they exist in a vacuum. Other things happen in the world without their involvement. Red Hand of Doom (co-authored by JJ) was an excellent example of an EVENT that happens in the game world that existing 5th-6th level characters happen to get mixed up in because they are in the right place at the right time. I think the key here would be keeping the locale generic enough that it could easily be dropped into a number of different locations be they in Golarion or elsewhere.
Now perhaps co-opting the Adventure Path line to do something like that isn't prudent, but a single volume "mega-adventure" like RHoD every now and again might be something to think about. Hell, with all the 3PPs out there, there's nothing stopping another company or writer from doing something like this. The only challenge then is matching Paizo's production values and working around any settings-specific issues that might infringe on Paizo's IP rules.
Now perhaps co-opting the Adventure Path line to do something like that isn't prudent, but a single volume "mega-adventure" like RHoD every now and again might be something to think about. Hell, with all the 3PPs out there, there's nothing stopping another company or writer from doing something like this. The only challenge then is matching Paizo's production values and working around any settings-specific issues that might infringe on Paizo's IP rules.
Now this is a great idea (and potential setback and potential proving grounds/proof of concept) that you've brought up. I'd say Paizo would look at anything like that heavily, but if it does well, they might be inclined to do so themselves.
The rest of your post was, quite frankly, what I was (very poorly) attempting to say myself!
Level 2-3-4 with low/no XP, reduced "gold" (between starting and one or 2 thousand(s), etc...
you have some of the benefits of higher levels without being too powerful and/or getting more powerful too quickly.
I've run plenty of adventures that were written for one level but I easily increased the difficulty simply by using templates or advancing the enemy. If you have a level 1 adventure but want the party to start at level 2 and still have a challenge, then simply give all the opposition the Simple Advanced Template or the NPCs an additional level. It's quick and easy. Generally can be done on the fly. If you want more, just make appropriate adjustments.
I have done this many times in the past. Simply giving all the creatures in one adventure the half-dragon template was enough. In this case, it changed the feel of the adventure as well as the difficulty. A different template wouldn't have had the same effect. With all the tools available to create characters and monsters, this shouldn't take too much more time. The loot is easy to adjust as well, especially with Pathfinder since they have a table for how much loot each encounter should provide. The easiest way to implement this is to simply add some gold pieces to the treasure.
Another option you have is to start the characters at one level, but give them the resources of the level you want them at. They will be slightly more powerful, but they won't be overpowering if you don't go overboard (I would say a couple level difference is ok). So if you want your characters to have a fighting chance with the first levels, start them at level 3 but they have the money of a 1st level character. They will do better but not significantly better.
|
|
It seems like one of the main reasons people want to start at higher than level 1 is so they end up higher. I am convinced by JJ's math that it wouldn't work. Over in the APs You'd Like to See thread I was suggesting the PCs be minions. Maybe if Paizo did a sequel to an existing AP, you could have an AP that starts at level 1 for the initial characters, and as they work for a boss, they could make the boss level up. Just make the boss be the PCs from the first AP, and have a cameo adventure where old PCs show up and do high level stuff. Like Gandalf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like going from level one to two and getting that first masterwork weapon is still rewarding after many campaigns for me. Also shopping for magic items on wealth be level takes way too long. I like building characters but shopping for magic items during character creation is boring and takes too long. I like creating characters though.
