You're right-they did also put on superfluous buffs to soak up Greater Dispel Magic. The more I look thru the hardcovers the more I like this idea-it limits buffs without going too far.
I could have introduced Mage's Disjunction earlier, especially for bosses. I did use it though, especially at the end. But if that spell was somehow ubiquitous at the end game we don't need to have a 'making high level campaigns tenable' discussion, it's true. The party could just retire.
The thread is about making Pathfinder more tenable at high levels but I like Headfirst's comments. I looked up E6. Maybe not my cup of tea. Maybe some usable ideas.
One particular issue about monster design is the fact that a Great Wyrm Red Dragon, say, as part of it's increase in power gets 24d10 fire for it's breath weapon. Wow! Of course, the party has been essentially immune to fire since L11. By the time they face a CR22 they are also protected from the most likely energy types of her spells. Under this system you would have to choose one energy protection and could not also have Freedom of Movement. And party actions in combat would be taken up by some damage mitigation during the fight and not just adding to the offensive total.
You can choose Dispel Magic as a spell to be immune to. I had an encounter where the minions were a group of dispelling casters that was fun. Some high level creatures have dispelling auras or you can give it to them. But a good chance to remove 6 spells is not as powerful at high levels because as a gentleman pointed out earlier, characters will have over 20 buffs.
Spell Immunity, Greater; L8. Once they've identified these spells they choose a suite of high level spells that just don't work. So, Maze, Implosion, etc. were good for an encounter or two. I used Clash of Rocks to great effect on one of the end bosses. I guess I didn't get across that we did have challenging encounters and a lot of fun-it was just a second job to do it because running most published adventures? They'll just walk thru 'em. I had the 'army of minions' encounter, The Teleportation Trap, chases, blindsight, dispelling auras, resource-soaking run up encounters. I didn't say my campaign was a failure; it was great. I hope no one is suggesting that you can set up fights where "oh, this just doesn't work" too often and keep players interested.
I took your advice several times. As I said, it was a blast and we had some interesting, challenging combats. By the end they were stacking useless buffs to soak up Greater Dispel Magic and were immune to the high level spells that had been used against them in prior encounters.
No they fought them at different times; difficult combats and they lost some party members. Under this system a party could certainly be ready for an Dragon's breath weapon, but not also his Cone of Cold, Chain Lightning, etc.
Sir Jerden wrote:
Thanks for the response! I think that the players should already be keeping track of everything that is needed for the system to work. Durations, when spells were cast, what school they are. And there should be less bookkeeping because for instance, you couldn't have Haste and Fly at the same time unless one was a class ability that's not spellcasting. You couldn't have Haste, Fly, Bull's Strength and Enlarge person at all, which would be a pretty common 9th L Fighter setup.
My gaming group and I just finished a campaign where I was GM and everybody finished around level 18. We had a blast, but the amount of work I had to do to challenge a party that had such high level resources was sometimes daunting especially since I work full time. I had promised to 'go to L 20' but they honestly conquered every foe both in the published material and the ones I came up with, including two gods. A party with high level non-detection, clever hideouts and the ability to teleport multiple times is a tough nut to crack. When prepared, they're damn near immune or close to it to everything. High ACs, saves, healing output and condition mitigation. Of course we have a number of house rules outlawing certain archetypes, spells, Feats, etc.; too many to list here. I have some time before I'm up
Brother Fen wrote:
In comparing the Pathfinder Guide books to the City State of the Invincible Overlord, the only difference between the two is that the CSOTIO has small descriptions for each building and a one line NPC briefing. The Guide to Absalom has just as much backstory, rumors, encounter tables, and economic information as the oversized city state book. It's the next best thing to having a full breakdown of the city. If we really want a detailed Absalom, then someone should start a thread with a link to the map and we can start assigning buildings one by one until its done. Saves Paizo the effort and we're all happy.
I would totally support that sort of thing! Just don't know how much real interest there would be. A lot of work but worth it.
Well, at least every single person of more than moderate means in every campaign world will no longer be wearing iron conical caps at all times, in the loo, at the royal ball, etc. Perhaps floppy hats will be the next fashion to sweep the continents! They go so well with nightgowns! Oh, I mean, 1 headband, 1 pair of gloves, 2 rings, 1 necklace, 1 vest, 1 suit of armor, 1 cape...
Hey, my name is Brooks aka Sepherum and I lost my wallet w/everything in it. I have an eticket for paizocon and I'll be there on Friday morning. I do have an expired passport in good condition that the airline is going to accept for the domestic flight(I called to make sure). Is that cool to pick up my badge or should I copy the webpage or something from my home computer?
Richard Pett wrote:
Mr. Pett-your creation may become the quintessential Pathfinder City, as I read it can be placed in any campaign world that needs a little...spooky.
GM Rednal wrote:
Yeah my gaming groups' plan is to finish Sword of Air, then do Iron Gods, then Hell's Rebels, then Hell's Vengeance, then whatever Paizo is putting out re: the two aforementioned parties squaring off; and then I will personally GM a Blight campaign of mindblowing proportions. We're set for like threeish years.
Burnt sourdough toast with peanut butter and strawberry jam...aahhh. Yeah, I would throw my money at a big Pathfinder city book/box set. If it's never going to happen I wonder if there'd be interest in doing an online contributor city compatible with Pathfinder.
As soon as I get my next paycheck I'll support the Blight Kickstarter by Frog God Games. Can't resist me a cool-sounding city campaign. It's going to have more pages than the Slumbering Tsar even, with a fully detailed city and an adventure to Pathfinder L 10 (on the slow track, with accommodation for medium advancement if the DM wishes). I'm running the Sword of Air right now and it's a lot of fun. Hopefully this book will avoid the editorial errors I'm finding but it's no big deal. No reason Paizo can't do something like this. Spin-off soft covers, fan-generated content on zee interwebs, an AP separate but based in the city, ALSO an included adventure, each district of say, Absalom with a different author maybe. Oh, wait, am I repeating myself? Sorry for the necro thread!
My gaming group did an epic Ptolus campaign; that's the kind of product I'd like to see from Paizo. Oh wait, with even MORE! Probably only Absalom could support a sourcebook + AP of that size. But a Sandpoint box set would be a great way to start off.
Now that I think about it, I used Saltmarsh as the battleground for a campaign-ending mega encounter a long time ago. I'd forgotten. Good times.
I thought that to not have trainers with names and a little lore to impart (alluding to future factional conflicts perhaps) was a mistake. I think that people believed the first 4 classes as part of the 'mvp' would be further along in development and not require a 'university' to understand. The WoT seemed like an immersion-breaking, desperate gimmick to me. There certainly is a chicken-and-egg problem involved with the pure sandbox: You must have a large, engaged, motivated and knowledgeable community to create the world to attract your large, engaged community. And pay for the privilege! I don't know if the organic rise of EVE can be copied on purpose.
I think the product differentiation aspect can be handled skillfully at next years'various cons. I mean that there is a new cRPG on the horizon that has nothing to do with the Pathfinder MMO; which could never shake the "unrestricted ganking" label. Even among my friends. Even after I spoke to them numerous times. Then an alpha test was presented as 'mvp' that people had to pay for and the 'war of towers' (which was what soured me). I think a Golarion-centered cRPG full of adventure and deep character creation will sell a million copies if it is presented from the beginning as having nothing to do with Pathfinder Online.
AvenaOats: I have long thought you had valuable things to say about perspective and playability, even the business model itself. But I think a cooperative game for Pathfinder ought to be based on online modules created by fans for a single player and/or party-based RPG. MMOs have hard sledding right now. I think that world-building features should be designed in conjunction with the peeps who make POS systems for restaurants. I'm serious. I once walked into a fine dining gig in downtown San Francisco and taught myself the Aloha system as I was bartending a busy restaurant. Command sequences that make sense to the average person, redundant screen popups and an intuitive interface so a neanderthal such as myself can make online Pathfinder adventures. Advanced users of course could shut off that stuff and make more refined inputs (outputs?).
I'd like to thank Goblinworks for the attempt; the vision and the hard work. If a buyer is found there is no guarantee what direction they will go-if not,well there it is. The next obvious step for Paizo is a Pathfinder game along the lines of The Witcher, Dragon Age Origins, and especially Pillars of Eternity. There's no need to rush anything and there is a built-in market for the game and a rich world to exploit. A game whose mechanics are intuitively easy to follow for TT fans is still very possible without violating the OGL. A world building machine, cooperative online play, pvp, etc. I look forward to it. Game companies will be lining up for a shot at this opportunity.
Yeah, I read that too- but the entry is for subjects who are mounted. Clearly there are different rules for making attacks while on a steed. Pounce in the Bestiary doesn't mention riders one way or the other. The FAQ got it wrong on this, imho.
I've never understood all the arguing over this. It clearly states under Mounted Combat in the Core Rulebook that "If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack." It also seems that the grammar of the entry continually refers to a single attack when charging. I believe it's a homerule to allow the rider to make a pounce at the end of a charge, not the other way around.
James Jacobs wrote:
There's a release schedule for 'all the years to come after that.'? I'm kidding. Perhaps there's a site where fans could do a free cooperative project that doesn't break any business rules?
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Of course any release can be a 'spice rack' for the GM. Nice analogy, by the way. But Paizo put out a hardcover for 40 bucks with 20/10. I don't think they release hardcovers intending to sell at 'niche' numbers. And, as I said, I like the ideas of the ACG (I own it). I intend to check out Occult Adventures myself. Here's hoping the feats and archetypes are fun, balanced and can survive actual play.