I am curious to know if people would be interested in playing an AP that started at 4th level and carried the party all the way to 20th level? Personally, I'd be quite willing to trade playing levels 1-3 in exchange for playing 18-20 at the end of an AP.
Levels 1 and 2 are much more fun for me and my group than levels 19 and 20 are. Not a good swap at my table.
Same with me, I really love the low levels and don't like the high levels.
But it seems like a good opportunity for a 3rd party publisher to create some adventures that can be easily tacked onto the end of an AP.
Here's a 3PP Adventure Path that goes from 7th through 20+
Slumbering Tsar
Um, skip book one?
I have some players who like the early levels the best, I have some who prefer it when we skip to at least 3rd, preferably 4th for the beginning. Basically it would please some and disappoint others.
Levels 1 and 2 are much more fun for me and my group than levels 19 and 20 are. Not a good swap at my table.
What he said!
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
I believe JJ has said before that if they stay with their same 6 book model for the APs (which is working great for them), you'd be looking at more like missing level 1-7 to fit in level 18-20.
This is due to high level characters having many more options available to them which requires the adventure to plan for many more options. This takes up extra space/word count. Also the stat blocks for high level opponents are MUCH bigger and take up more space as well.
So either they switch to a 7 book AP to start at level 4 (and at that point, why not make it 8 books(ish) and cover levels 1-20?) or they start at level 7(ish) to get to level 20.
Me personally? I'm not a huge fan of level 15+ play. I'd be irritated if an AP dropped the lower levels just to get to high level play (that I'd probably read but never get to use).
|
while I understand the frustraition over starting "yet another 1st level character". However I also think that, if you skip those first three formative levels, where you are struggling and worried about loosing your character, you miss out on the sense of accomplishment and achievement you get when you get your character to third level.
so I would not like to see an adventure path where the first three levels were cut out.
Perhaps the Module line might be a place to look for for adventures, Or another idea might be to use the PFS scenarios.
Last year they did the "year of the Shadow Lodge" which could be a very interesting campaign arch.
just my two cents.
Personally, I find the first 5 levels of play to be the most fun but I also enjoy the sense of accomplishment I get from taking a character all the way through a campaign to 20th level. I wouldn't want Paizo to drop the early levels from the APs but I'd support expanding the paths to 8 books so they could accommodate the full run from 1-20.
When the Pathfinder RPG first got released, we saw a mini adventure path in the form of three modules. Maybe doing something like that but on the high-level end would appease some fans clamoring for a high-level adventure path.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the Pathfinder RPG first got released, we saw a mini adventure path in the form of three modules. Maybe doing something like that but on the high-level end would appease some fans clamoring for a high-level adventure path.
Back then modules were monthly, try as I might they wont go back to that, instead moving the companion line to monthly which infuriates me. They seem to think the pfs scenarios fill the niche. I bailed on pfs in season because the adventure quality was awful and formulaic.
Point is the bi-monthly module schedule line means we will not see linked modules again.
When the Pathfinder RPG first got released, we saw a mini adventure path in the form of three modules. Maybe doing something like that but on the high-level end would appease some fans clamoring for a high-level adventure path.Back then modules were monthly, try as I might they wont go back to that, instead moving the companion line to monthly which infuriates me. They seem to think the pfs scenarios fill the niche. I bailed on pfs in season because the adventure quality was awful and formulaic.
Point is the bi-monthly module schedule line means we will not see linked modules again.
If I remember correctly, the Price of Immortality modules were released when the modules line was on a bimonthly schedule. Crypt of the Everflame released in August, then we didn't see Masks of the Living God until January (with Carrion Hill released in between). Then City of Golden Death wasn't released until May.
|
|
If I remember correctly, the Price of Immortality modules were released when the modules line was on a bimonthly schedule. Crypt of the Everflame released in August, then we didn't see Masks of the Living God until January (with Carrion Hill released in between). Then City of Golden Death wasn't released until May.When the Pathfinder RPG first got released, we saw a mini adventure path in the form of three modules. Maybe doing something like that but on the high-level end would appease some fans clamoring for a high-level adventure path.Back then modules were monthly, try as I might they wont go back to that, instead moving the companion line to monthly which infuriates me. They seem to think the pfs scenarios fill the niche. I bailed on pfs in season because the adventure quality was awful and formulaic.
Point is the bi-monthly module schedule line means we will not see linked modules again.
The Crypt/Living God/City is what pretty much made them decide to finish doing linked modules. There's threads about it in the modules forum.
|
|
I find maybe half ofbthem of any use and some to be utterly a waste of $. The two primers and goblins of golarion falling solidly into waste. The upcoming blood of series looks to be useless as well.
There are a few awesome ones though, Pirates of the Inner Sea was great, the nation ones like Andoran I loved, I look forward to the knights book. The faiths series was meh.
The fact that we arent getting the modules monthly adds hate to it also, I would be more forgiving of the line if I didht feel it was at the expense of modukes.
The fact that we arent getting the modules monthly adds hate to it also, I would be more forgiving of the line if I didht feel it was at the expense of modukes.
I think you should blame customer demand for that, rather than the companion line.
I'd love to get a monthly module, but sadly I think we are in the minority. As I understand things the module line is doing ok, but it's not breaking any records. I doubt it came down to "do we go monthly with the module line or monthly with the companions line?" I suspect it's purely a matter of high demand for player companions and more subdued demand for modules - kind of what you'd expect, really given an intuitive idea of the DM:player ratio.
I'd like a 7-20 AP, but not because I want to sip the lower levels. I just want to hold off on committing to an AP until the players get a chance to shake out their characters. I've had a number of campaigns with early PC deaths or players just deciding they wanted to change characters. That can cause some problems if those PCs are already involved in an ongoing plot.
I wouldn't skip levels 1-7, though. I would just use the excellent GameMastery modules line or the opening chapters of an unused AP.
No way would I want to give up the early levels. As others have stated, those are some of my favorite levels to GM, not to mention play! Additionally, I prefer the challenge of lower levels much more so than the upper levels. Things seem much more deadly in the beginning because you have fewer vehicles and have to use more imagination to survive. Once the powerful abilities and spells kick in, the fights become far less interesting to me. The game also seems to slow down a bit the higher you go (though this is a minor gripe).
Playing characters to 20 would certainly be the exception in my games, not the rule.
I think what they should do is leave the AP as is, but do a high level module or 2 that directly follows the 6th AP
He said before that even if they started at 3rd or 4th level the AP's due to space limitations and so on would still not pass level 17.
I quite like MerrikCales' idea... have a module or two that is optional/bought seperately but that will round out the adventure path to 20.
That way it doesnt impact Paizos business model for APs, but can satisfy those who want to go "all the way" (fnar).
I dont think it'd be necessary to have one for each AP, but one or two for the popular ones might be nice. Given #1-#6 is titled "Rise of the RuneLord*S*" , and given the reprint, that seems an obvious one to start with (even given the upcoming sequel AP, which I am very much looking forward to !)
Much as I prefer "dead tree", given printing costs and the risks involved, perhaps they might have to be PDF only...but it'd be nice to see, either way.
If people just dislike the limited options and fragility of levels 1 and 2, a radical solution is to start the party at levels 3 or 4 and slow down level advancement. This makes the PCs feel more capable at the start but in my experience does not tend to break the first AP module at all, and can in fact make it more fun. We have done this with almost all of the APs we've run. You can add a few more opponents in the early going, or just accept that the PCs will be quite capable initially.
I personally am tepid about levels 1-2--it is hard to find good opponents for PCs at these levels--but find 3-5 to be the sweet spot. I think that the high page count needed to present high-level opponents tends to lead to underdeveloped plots and settings, so I would not buy a high-level AP.
As a player, as much as I can be frustrated by the 'slog' of taking my character through levels one & up. I also find I have always been much more invested in those characters & had a much better understanding of what I could do with them. One of the things I dislike about PFS play is the 'three sessions & then level' level advancement. Particularly when I am playing with a class I am unfamiliar with cough, casters!, I like the greater amount of time it takes to increase my levels as it gives me more time to figure out the cool things I can do.
I am curious to know if people would be interested in playing an AP that started at 4th level and carried the party all the way to 20th level? Personally, I'd be quite willing to trade playing levels 1-3 in exchange for playing 18-20 at the end of an AP.
We always - ALWAYS begin play at at least 2nd or 3rd level. At 1st level (and really the second and third as well), casters spend all their time slinging or shooting crossbows which sucks for them and melee types just don't have the hit points for prolonged adventuring... the game doesn't really get fun for anyone - in our group at least - until 3rd level. Its not about playing ultra-high level content, its about not slogging through the lower levels that are almost unplayable.
What we usually do is start everyone at 3rd level, modify the early adventures to reflect that, but still start everyone at 0 xp, so they still have to earn their way all the way to 4th. Seems to work out just fine for everyone. Ideal adventure paths for us would probably be 3rd to 16th - 18th. Epic level play is another thing entirely.
I am curious to know if people would be interested in playing an AP that started at 4th level and carried the party all the way to 20th level? Personally, I'd be quite willing to trade playing levels 1-3 in exchange for playing 18-20 at the end of an AP.We always - ALWAYS begin play at at least 2nd or 3rd level.
Same here. My group is just now starting Kingmaker and we're starting at 2nd and adjusting the AP as necessary.
I am curious to know if people would be interested in playing an AP that started at 4th level and carried the party all the way to 20th level? Personally, I'd be quite willing to trade playing levels 1-3 in exchange for playing 18-20 at the end of an AP.We always - ALWAYS begin play at at least 2nd or 3rd level. At 1st level (and really the second and third as well), casters spend all their time slinging or shooting crossbows which sucks for them and melee types just don't have the hit points for prolonged adventuring... the game doesn't really get fun for anyone - in our group at least - until 3rd level. Its not about playing ultra-high level content, its about not slogging through the lower levels that are almost unplayable.
What we usually do is start everyone at 3rd level, modify the early adventures to reflect that, but still start everyone at 0 xp, so they still have to earn their way all the way to 4th. Seems to work out just fine for everyone. Ideal adventure paths for us would probably be 3rd to 16th - 18th. Epic level play is another thing entirely.
"Different strokes for different folks" I guess. I really enjoy the challenge of playing low-level games: PCs aren't yet sure of themselves, resources are extremely limited, and you need to rely on creativity and quick-thinking more than skill.
Plus, in PF, casters can throw as many cantrips as they want, so my low-level wizards were flinging a LOT of acid splash and ray of frost. They sure tended to hit with those more often than with a x-bow!
Plus, in PF, casters can throw as many cantrips as they want, so my low-level wizards were flinging a LOT of acid splash and ray of frost. They sure tended to hit with those more often than with a x-bow!
Ain't this the truth! A friend of mine is thinking of giving the GM position a try, so he ran one of those free 16-page modules as an introduction to test the waters ("Fortress of the Fallen Something"). Usually, I'm the GM, so this was my first PF PC, and I chose to play a halfling Deep Earth Sorcerer. Had an absolute blast and never once used a mundane weapon throughout the entirety of the adventure. Acid Splash for the win, baby! Those cantrips help make spellcasters more fun, I feel, and keep them slinging spells at low levels.
Additionally, we were pretty much on edge throughout the adventure because we knew there wasn't much leeway to give at 1st level! Loved it. Personally, I'd rather not skip over that introductory period with the character because I find being low-powered just as exciting as high-powered in games. That goes for when I'm a GM too. I'd hate to give up the type of quests I can do with low level groups that just don't fit at all when the grab bag of PC power begins to escalate.
I am curious to know if people would be interested in playing an AP that started at 4th level and carried the party all the way to 20th level? Personally, I'd be quite willing to trade playing levels 1-3 in exchange for playing 18-20 at the end of an AP.We always - ALWAYS begin play at at least 2nd or 3rd level. At 1st level (and really the second and third as well), casters spend all their time slinging or shooting crossbows which sucks for them and melee types just don't have the hit points for prolonged adventuring... the game doesn't really get fun for anyone - in our group at least - until 3rd level. Its not about playing ultra-high level content, its about not slogging through the lower levels that are almost unplayable.
What we usually do is start everyone at 3rd level, modify the early adventures to reflect that, but still start everyone at 0 xp, so they still have to earn their way all the way to 4th. Seems to work out just fine for everyone. Ideal adventure paths for us would probably be 3rd to 16th - 18th. Epic level play is another thing entirely.
"Different strokes for different folks" I guess. I really enjoy the challenge of playing low-level games: PCs aren't yet sure of themselves, resources are extremely limited, and you need to rely on creativity and quick-thinking more than skill.
Plus, in PF, casters can throw as many cantrips as they want, so my low-level wizards were flinging a LOT of acid splash and ray of frost. They sure tended to hit with those more often than with a x-bow!
For me the lack of appeal is really more about the fact that at 1st and even 2nd level the character's survival depends pretty much purely on dice rolls. I don't play the game because of the drama of whether the next die roll will result in a TPK or not. Now I could stay 6th ot 8th level forever...