Hello,
one of the biggest issues in D&D 3.5 was that the most enjoyable Levels of gameplay was from about Level 6 to 12.
How is Paizo going to solve this problem?And are you people even aware of it?Guess so.But if you look at the Alpha 3 i cannot see "any" sign of improvement.
Of course the powerlevel has been set higher so players a bit more apealed.But the key issue is not solved in any way.
Wotc went with the 4. Edition an interesting path.So what is Paizo doing??
Love to all beings of earth,
sincerely mightyjules (the one and only):)
They are writing awesome adventure paths.
Serioulsy, though. having some extra hit points at first level, and having better options for core classes, and making the CMB cover anything interesting in combat, all add to the game. I see the sweet spot as first to eleventh level. Others say game begins at twenty.
If they fix the CR and ECL headaches, there will be more fun for all, at every level.
They are writing awesome adventure paths.
So what? That does´t really fix the the issue that the Pathfinder lacks on the problem i just stated.
|
If you look at the Alpha Releases you will notice things like: Fighters getting something at every level, Wizards and Sorcerers getting bonus abilities and extra spells. While playing with my group, we are quite enjoying these changes. It is impossible to make every single level of a class (FORGET THE EDITION) interesting and enjoyable to everyone, but I would say that Paizo has gotten very close to reaching that impossible.
They do ahve awesome APs, though I hope the next few have more talking situations. My PCs got a little bored in RotR.
Hello,
one of the biggest issues in D&D 3.5 was that the most enjoyable Levels of gameplay was from about Level 6 to 12.
How is Paizo going to solve this problem?And are you people even aware of it?Guess so.But if you look at the Alpha 3 i cannot see "any" sign of improvement.
Well, the addition of a few "at will" abilities for 1st level spellcasters, some interesting low-level abilities (for rogues & barbarians, e.g.), and a few extra hit points might make levels 1-5 a bit more interesting.
I don't know if levels 13-20 will be any less complicated than they were before. There's been some effort to reduce the power of spellcasters (by nerfing certain spells, e.g.) and increasing the power of non-spellcasters; whether that will make level 13-20 play better is hard to say. You can always try it out and judge for yourself! :-)
Hello,
one of the biggest issues in D&D 3.5 was that the most enjoyable Levels of gameplay was from about Level 6 to 12.
How is Paizo going to solve this problem?And are you people even aware of it?Guess so.But if you look at the Alpha 3 i cannot see "any" sign of improvement.
Of course the powerlevel has been set higher so players a bit more apealed.But the key issue is not solved in any way.
Wotc went with the 4. Edition an interesting path.So what is Paizo doing??
Love to all beings of earth,
sincerely mightyjules (the one and only):)
So far, everything has just been power creeped up and repackaged. I haven't seen any real solutions to anything yet, apart from the 3.5 fighter's front-heaviness.
I am curious. Since it really differs from what I feel during gameplay, why do people think levels 1-5 and 13-20 are less fun than others?
My opinion:
- At levels 1-2, a wizard spends too much time firing a crossbow and not enough time using magic.
- At levels 13-20, gameplay starts bogging down because of the number of options. Also, spellcasters generally outclass non-spellcasters in that level range.
I'm sure other people have different complaints. Pathfinder has adressed #1 (somewhat), but I don't know about #2.
|
Maybe an anser for the skill point system is for the DM to use the original system Jason proposed in Alpha 1 for NPCs. I liked that system and was disappointed when they went back. I have kept all of the Alpha versions so if there was something I liked more than the final I could just insert it. Say, take the skills system from A1 and put it directly into my binder of rules.
What the OP is talking about is NOT the player side of the game but the DM side of the game. While the increased options for players is nice, the real problem for most games wasnt the number of options for players but the actual RUNNING of the game for the DM.
My take exactly. Having done 3 campaigns in 3E to 20th level it is an experience I never, as a DM, want to have again. It became impossible to challenge the party without killing them all. And prep time skyrocketed to the point where I was doing an hour of prep work for every hour of game time. I just don't have that kind of time so i started cutting corners and slapping stuff together just to have it ready.
I'd really like to see something being done to help DMs run those high levels.
I do think Paizo has solved a lot of the difficulty for the players at low levels where they haven't got that 'cool thing' that they can do reliably. Watching a wizard fire a crossbow or a cleric 'save' his spells for cures (only) was a pain I do not want to watch again.
|
" glass cannon"...I like that one...
I just don't see how the high level play can be adjusted without serious change to the rules or a serious adjustment at around 13-15th level...I like the WOTC 20th level pcs they posted after Gencon 07( I think...their Dungeon Delve pre-gens)...
They streamlined the pcs....streamlined spells...adjusted damage( using some variation of average damage). I liked it a lot...and so did my players. I would suggest checking them out at the wotc site if interested.
I think at high level the game play needs to change...can this be done with the backwards compatibility stance Paizo has...don't know ,but I would wish them the best if they tried it. I believe 4e found a solution to this ...ie, balance at high levels...but the character classes just suffer from sameness...that's just not my cup of tea( no flame intended)..I do like the tiers and think that or some other similar idea might be used to make a significant change to the game play in 3.5 from say 1-5 to 6-15 and then again 16+ ,but I'm no game designer.
I ran an epic 3.5 game with truly uber pcs ( equivalent to about 40th-50th level characters RAW) ,but with significant house rules. It went well and am still thinking about how I might tweak it ,but the game changed dramatically at 15th level and again at 21st. My prep time as a DM dropped drastically when I just decided to give monsters/foes what they needed to make for a cool/good fight for the pcs...didn't bother with the details. The players seemed fine with it. Other groups likely would not be okay with that.
Sorry rambling a bit.........game on !
I loved the play of 3.5 between levels 1-12 actually, although spellcasters do not have many options, this is true. While the new rules appear good for players, DM's get virtually no new help in running higher level games.
Statting up NPC's and customer monsters is just as difficult as it was before. Magical equipment is relied upon just as much, and spells and abilities become so numerous at higher levels that a DM is constantly having to resort to the fudging of rolls to keep things challenging.
I actually cancelled my Savage Tide campaign after my group hit level 15. Why? Because we had a warforged psychic warrior who could plow through almost anything the adventure threw at him, a sorcerer/favored soul/mysthic theurge who had about 40 spells per day and the most hit points in the party, a wizard/rogue/arcane trickster who rolled about 10 dice after each shot of his longbow, and a dread necromancer who would walk around and raise all the dead guys as zombie meat shields.
So while I love Paizo's new setting and adventures, I will stick with other rules systems that make my life as a DM easier and put my 3.5 woes to bed.
I've only run Pathfinder at 1st level so far, but it is definitely more fun. I'm running the age of worms with 5 PC's, and they were able to adventure through most of Whispering Cairn without resting. Also, without endless cantrip Acid Splashes, the campaign would have been over.
The AP's actually do make running a high level game much easier, since GM's don't have to create all of those beasties. If you really want to tweak something or create something, you can take the time, but otherwise you are set. My only issue is that combat slows down due to multiple actions, but that can be ameliorated if everyone is on their toes.
Honestly, I really hope that high level spell casters never stop "outclassing" non-spell casters at least to some degree. It is a staple of heroic fantasy that spell casters are SUPPOSED to be more powerful at their peak than non-spell casters. If you over balance a game you take away most of the thrill and the feeling of going up against insurmountable odds (LotR anyone???)with only a chance of being victorious. Play a non-spell caster because that is the roll you want to play in the game, because you like the sword instead of the spell not so you can have magical ability with "Martial" skill... (intentional 4th edition jab there).
Charles
I am curious. Since it really differs from what I feel during gameplay, why do people think levels 1-5 and 13-20 are less fun than others?Hogarth pointed out some of the problems.
One other common facet of both low and high ends outside of the "sweet spot" is the rocket tag nature of the game. Basically, he who wins initiative just plain wins. Personally, I don't believe this is inherently wrong, but I think such a paradigm should only be tied to a system where character creation is quick and dirty (namely 1e and pre-kit/S&P 2E). Definitely not with post 2E S&P/3E/4E.
Pathfinder looks great for the players who want "options, more options etc" but from a DM standpoint? I already cried uncle with 3.5, but Pathfinder looks tough on DMs.
Two examples come to mind, the return of the skill point system AND the introduction of rage points. Ugh, talk about "make more work for the DM" syndrome.
CEO
|
Hey y'all:
My biggest beef with 3.5 is high level play also. I ran my Shackled City campaign until 16th level and it actually had me in tears at one point I was so frustrated. I've told Jason that this is one of my top priorities (the other was fixing mechanics and spells that were simply broken) for the Pathfinder RPG. Since we are still a year away from the release of the final rulebook, I really think that we can attack this problem as a community. Just because we haven't solved it yet doesn't mean that the Pathfinder RPG can't before we send it to the press next year. This exact problem is one of the main reasons why we went with the open playtest...I want to get the largest number of brains working on these problems. Jason was under a very crazy time crunch to get the Beta out by GenCon, and that didn't allow a lot of creative time to tackle the toughest problems. But now we have time going forward. I would encourage all of you to help us tackle this problem. Otherwise I will only be playing campaigns to about 12th level or so before starting a new one. And that would be really, really sad to me. :/
-Lisa
|
|
My prep time as a DM dropped drastically when I just decided to give monsters/foes what they needed to make for a cool/good fight for the pcs...didn't bother with the details.
That's pretty much what I do. Does I need to cross every "t" and dot every "i" for every monster/npc that I'm throwing at the PCs? Nope. Just look at the average stats, max the hitpoints, add a feat/ability or two to make interesting (level drain is scary!) and throw two of them at the PCs. Two as in per PC :)
Low level play is much better. Higher hit points, plus things for the casters to do other than shoot the crossbow (actually I'm never really understood why firing the crossbow has been such a horrible thing but whatever). A 2 player group of 1-2 level charcters I'm DMing is lasting much longer and it's just more fun not having to break after 10 minutes because the fighter took one hit or the sorcerer cast his 4 spells.
One thing I like is the new level progression tables. If you have a group that doesn't meet very often you can put them on the fast progression and they see their character progress. Groups that meet more frequently you can put on a slower progression so they stay in the sweet spot longer.
He also has some guidelines for groups that use less or more magic than standard.
I'm not very familiar with high level play, from what I understand PfRPG has not really addressed that much. That said, I don't think they will change it too much. I know there are some people who eat up high level play and would be quite upset if it was nerfed.
I do think Paizo's NPC creation system is better than what it was in the DMG. I also think the simplified skill point system is much better. For example a 5th level character put 5 ranks in x+INT skills add Class skill bonus... done. Personally I lean heavy on tools like PCGen to do the heavy lifting on NPC creation and they are working on Pathfinder already.
|
|
Hey y'all:
My biggest beef with 3.5 is high level play also. I ran my Shackled City campaign until 16th level and it actually had me in tears at one point I was so frustrated. I've told Jason that this is one of my top priorities (the other was fixing mechanics and spells that were simply broken) for the Pathfinder RPG. Since we are still a year away from the release of the final rulebook, I really think that we can attack this problem as a community. Just because we haven't solved it yet doesn't mean that the Pathfinder RPG can't before we send it to the press next year. This exact problem is one of the main reasons why we went with the open playtest...I want to get the largest number of brains working on these problems. Jason was under a very crazy time crunch to get the Beta out by GenCon, and that didn't allow a lot of creative time to tackle the toughest problems. But now we have time going forward. I would encourage all of you to help us tackle this problem. Otherwise I will only be playing campaigns to about 12th level or so before starting a new one. And that would be really, really sad to me. :/
-Lisa
Thanks for chiming in, Lisa. I think we all know subconsciously in our hearts that you and Paizo ARE indeed working on all of this - we know it's a work in progress, and have faith that most of the major hang-ups throughout the 3.5 system will be addressed at some point and to some degree. Will everything be to everyone's liking? No - of course not; most people know that everyone can't be pleased all the time - but so long as the majority of issues for the majority of people are resolved, the rest will just fall naturally into place.
I have a few questions for the contributors of this thread: (the answers to them may help generate feedback and ideas to resolving various pieces of the whole)
Lisa, what was frustrating you so much? The number of options available? The adjudication of complicated rules? spells? Astronomical numbers?
Psychotic Warrior (and others); what is so time-consuming about the game planning that you're speaking about? Was it NPC design? Scaling monsters to APL? LOOKING for the right creature? Was it all due to combat prep - or just stroy-writing?
Lisa, is this the reason that the new Pathfinder APs are geared towards about 15th level - where-as the previous three APs went to 20?
Robert
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I am curious. Since it really differs from what I feel during gameplay, why do people think levels 1-5 and 13-20 are less fun than others?
Let's recast this a bit too.
Is the problem that some levels are "less fun", or that they are "not fun" (or at least not much fun)?
Low levels are still fun to me. High levels start to drag. So I'd put the attention high.
I phrased it the way I did because I want to be sure that in the process of trying to make some levels more fun, we don't make the best levels LESS fun. Some levels are always going to be more fun to play.
Fun fun fun.
|
|
I phrased it the way I did because I want to be sure that in the process of trying to make some levels more fun, we don't make the best levels LESS fun. Some levels are always going to be more fun to play.Fun fun fun.
And of course, "fun" is relative. I will agree that with most D&Ders that I've ever met the favorite "sweet spot" for levels (as you all coined it) is about 5-12.
I'm running Shackled City right now for 6 players. They're just over half-way done - they just hit 12th level - going into chapter 7. So I'm about to hit the power-level curve that you're all concerned with. To date, I've never ran a 3.5 game over 12th level. As a player, I played in 1 game that reached over 12th and it ended shortly after that. In 3rd edition, I had two different campaigns get us to 14th and both campaigns fell apart after that.
Prior to 3rd edition, I dont think we ever had a game or character go past 13th. Most DMs simply wouldn't/couldn't run them.
Robert
|
|
IMO, the sweet spot exists because at those levels, PCs have survivability and a good mix of abilities to choose from without becoming overwhelmed with the number or complexity of the options available. Most combats and encounters at these levels are fairly fast paced and dramatic.
At low levels, PC's have neither survivability (a crit can take them out in one hit) or options. Buffing their survivability somewhat and giving them a few more options (as we've seen in the Alpha) should drop the bottom end of the "sweet spot" to beginning characters.
At high levels, PCs still have survivability (although the prevalance of save-or-die effects can quickly change that), but often are overwhelmed with their options. Tracking multiple buffs, using multiple abilities per round, using spells and effects that require referencing charts or the monster manual...all of these add to the complexity of the encounter even tho any single one wouldn't be too bad, in combination, it adds up quickly. Multiply that by several players and more powerful creatures for the DM and high-level combats become quagmires that can take a long time to resolve and are seldom fast-paced. In addition, at these levels you see spells and character-builds that pretty much invalidate teamwork. A single player or spell effect can routinely steer an entire encounter (or entire campaign, leaving the rest of the players feeling like they are playing "Superplayer and his Mediocre Friends").
So far, the only things I've seen in the Alpha that really addresses the increased complexity of high-level play are the changes to the polymorph spells and the suggestion of capping the number of spell effects a PC can have at one time (which I will probably adopt as a hard rule in the future). The main things I suggest to further streamline high-level play are to go over spells with a fine-toothed comb to find others that take unusual amounts of time to adjudicate and adjust them appropriately.
|
Creative Director
|
To paraphrase Lisa a bit... we have about a year of playtesting of the Beta right now. The alpha was the place to test out some of the more extreme ideas we had, and it was a rolling buildup (but not a complete game by any means) to the Beta.
I've said this elsewhere: The playtests for the Beta are, I feel, the MOST important part of the equation. We'll be starting up a few Beta RPG playtest games in the office very soon, and at Gen Con that'll be expanding out into the world for everyone and anyone who wants to help. One of the goals during this section is to, hopefully, have lots of folk actually RUN 1st to 20th level campaigns. Every time something that's not fun happens, hopefully those playtesters will let us know and we'll do our damnedest to fix it. Can we fix it? I hope so! I think so!
We've got a year to try, at the very least! :)
EDIT 1: To give just one example of one thing I think could be done to make high-level play less onerous: Limit the number of "buff spells" a person can have on him to 3 or 4. Makes it easier to track, makes it easier to handle dispel magic attempts, and I suspect it'll add an interesting tactical element to combat preparation.
EDIT 2: As for the low level end of things, I'm pretty sure that the changes we've made to increase the power level of PCs will help with survivability and choices here as well, especially since several of these increases aren't of the power increase level that scales as PCs level up. In other words, having more hit points at level 1 isn't as
"overpowered" compared to 3.5 at 1st level as it is at 20th level. Same goes for the increased racial ability score mods.
Hey y'all:
My biggest beef with 3.5 is high level play also. I ran my Shackled City campaign until 16th level and it actually had me in tears at one point I was so frustrated. I've told Jason that this is one of my top priorities (the other was fixing mechanics and spells that were simply broken) for the Pathfinder RPG. Since we are still a year away from the release of the final rulebook, I really think that we can attack this problem as a community. Just because we haven't solved it yet doesn't mean that the Pathfinder RPG can't before we send it to the press next year. This exact problem is one of the main reasons why we went with the open playtest...I want to get the largest number of brains working on these problems. Jason was under a very crazy time crunch to get the Beta out by GenCon, and that didn't allow a lot of creative time to tackle the toughest problems. But now we have time going forward. I would encourage all of you to help us tackle this problem. Otherwise I will only be playing campaigns to about 12th level or so before starting a new one. And that would be really, really sad to me. :/
-Lisa
Oh boy - can I ever sympathize. And you have eased my concerns at least. It is nice to know that one of the main impetus' behind PF is making high level play fun again! YAY!
|
|
I've had a lot of experience as a DM (over 20 years as full-time DM regardless of player circle - of all editions 1st - 3.5), and over such time I have developed a number of strategies, tips, tools, and philosophies that I feel have helped me be better at DMing.
1) "Less is more!" When designing games, etc, I use as few books as possible. I'd rather be saged in three books, than apprenticed in 10! RARE is a day that an encounter involves a creature not in the MM. When I do, it's usually because the publsihed module/adventure I'm running has put in a monster from another book. If the creatures complete stats/listing is available in the mod, I'll use - but if it's not, I'm just as likely to swap it out for one I am familiar with in the MM. I don't even take other monster books with me, or off the shelf when playing. Similarly, RARE is the day that I use a spell outside the PHB. In fact were at 12th level in SCAP, and I haven't used a single spell not in the PHB so far. The games are no less challenging, either - but they're a whole lot simpler because I KNOW what I'm using and how - without a lot of research and look-ups during game and during game-planning. I'll use some of the feats that I am familiar with in the Complete Books - but I have more a chance to be familiar with them, since some of the popular ones (Leap Attack, Practiced Spellcaster) are used frequently by the players.
2) "Its not an audit!" No one is going to notice or probably even care that a creature's jump check is 1 point too high for his level. No one is going to notice the NPC barbarian's rage points should have ran out a round earlier. No one is going to notice that the Haste spell should have been 9 rounds instead of 8. Essentially, when planning encounters, and creating/buffing creatures I don't worry about the little things. Hit points? Meh - give it a total - i'm not going to roll them all out. Thanks to Paizo, I think the new skill system makes encounter building easier: no more assigning a bunch of points here this level, or there that level - just level + 3. Simple. The point is - so long as the little oversights and things purposefully being ignored don't wind up being lethal and over-bearing, it's not going to make or break the bank - dont' mess with it a whole lot and game on. I learned long ago it's the story that matters the most (to me); and so I'm not going to waste a bunch of time on stat blocks etc, and instead work on the story and how it interacts and evolves with the PCs and their actions. Which is why I am so in love with Paizo's material. Comparing that to WotC published adventure - look at the Expedition Modules and most of the later miniature-based adventures; its so drab: Encounter; Set-up; tacticts; move on - next page - new encounter - rinse and repeat. Paizo's adventures have a STORY! The counters are there to support it.
3) I use a laptop - and a program called DMs Familiar (thanks DMFTodd) that makes running games 100 times easier - especially with higher-level play where the numbers get exponentionally higher, the number of attacks, the creatures and their numerous attacks, keeping track of combat, intitiative, damage, spell durations, and exorbitant amount of damage being dealt! The program does ALL of that instantaneously for me. I love it, and I zip through combat rounds - not to mention all the SRD material is there at a click of the mouse within the program (don't remember what "Blasphemy does? Just click on it - there it is!) - and custom content is easily done and shared by other users. I Imported all the stat blocks of the Shackled City camapaign just by downloading it from their online community support.
4) I created an EXCEL spreadsheet tool that automatically updates/advances most of the specific stats/numbers of creatures when "advancing" their HD. I just enter the original HD, select the creatures original size, and new size (if different due to advancing), select the creature type (Dragon, Elemental, Aberration...) and voila! it automatically gives me an output of "avg hit points to add," "Number of skill points to add" "Number of new feats to add" "Increase stat points and saving throws by x amount" etc. It even has templates! I updated a winter wolf to a super advanced (added like 12HD to it) half-white dragon winterwolf - and took 3 minutes to update it - by selecting it's new type (dragon) it did all the level progression math for me - i just plugged the added amount into the existing stat block.
5) "Never underestimate the power of 2!" If you're not sure about a rule/concept action and what to do - just add (or subtract) 2.
Some of the things I think Paizo is doing/done to make things work even better:
1) for players - all core classes are worth advancing in completely - less need to min/max multi-class class cherry-picking level dipping
2) CMB! What a concept! easy, streamlined, and universal. Thinking outside the box, so many things can be done by using this: Yank a rug out form under someone. Flip a table over that someone is standing on. Slam a door into someone knocking them over/back. Swinging a chandellier to knock someone off a balcony or a large pulley/hook at a dock to knock them off the boat or off the dock into the water....
3) Remove much of the threat of the Save-or-die spells that make scaling up to higher levels of play very difficult - to the point that its (as someone pointed out) "he who wins initiative, wins"
4) Skills: made it MUCH easier as a DM to adjudicate scaling/leveling up creatures and NPCs.
5) CMB!
6) Helped cure the 15 min adventuring day - at least far more than it was.
7) did I mention how cool teh CMB is?!?
I know the above philosophies, and tactic/tips don't work for everyone - but they are a good practice to at least try. Ultimately it's about the individual DM and how he/she can make the system work for them. The main thing that can be done individually for speed and ease is to learn to be more lax with every minute detail and stressing over all the stats. I'm not advocating free-form non-adherrence to the rules - just not so overly concerned with every possible aspect/stat/modifier under the sun. Less is more.
Robert
I have a few questions for the contributors of this thread: (the answers to them may help generate feedback and ideas to resolving various pieces of the whole)Lisa, what was frustrating you so much? The number of options available? The adjudication of complicated rules? spells? Astronomical numbers?...
Psychotic Warrior (and others); what is so time-consuming about the game planning that you're speaking about? Was it NPC design? Scaling monsters to APL? LOOKING for the right creature? Was it all due to combat prep - or just stroy-writing?
Lisa, is this the reason that the new Pathfinder APs are geared towards about 15th level - where-as the previous three APs went to 20?
NPC design was always a big one for me. I rarely use a monster as written out of the MMs it was always scale up or scale down (mostly up). When I went to actually write an adventure I had to take into account all of the spells, abilites and magic items my group had at their disposal. Creating a mystery based adventure is worthless after 10th level (commune). Political intrigue is still viable but still suffers when the PCs scry and walk around under Zones of Truth all day.
I guess it is a combination of combat prep and tailoring an adventure to be challenging without being too hard or a cakewalk because I forgot about spell X in book Y. My groups are notorious min/maxers (and so am I but I'm one guy vs 4-5 of them).
Lisa, what was frustrating you so much? The number of options available? The adjudication of complicated rules? spells? Astronomical numbers?...Hey y'all:
My biggest beef with 3.5 is high level play also. I ran my Shackled City campaign until 16th level and it actually had me in tears at one point I was so frustrated.
-Lisa
I have to second this.
Can't work up a solution without knowing exactly what the problem is.
Is it:
1) Creating high-level NPCs?
2) Creating engaging scenarios that are immune to high-level game-breakers? (Scry-Buff-Teleport, Find the Path, Commune, Resurrection)?
3) High level combat? (Save or die? Buffs and debuffs?)
And finally-- is it safe to say that most of the problems with high level play are on the DM side of the screen?
I think the feat alternatives to iterative attacks are a step forward. Feats like Vicious Strike and Improved Vital Strike allow players (or the DM if he decides to make it a mandatory house rule) to take some of the time out of high level play.
Has anyone really addressed what the high level play problems are? It seems to be a constaint theme that a reasonable percentage of the population preceives it as a problem. The 4th edition Design Team seems to have thought it was so bad that they created the 'Forced Ranking Power System' (All levels have only 2 At-Will powers, Encounter powers range from 1-4, etc.). You can switch powers, but you only have limited choices in combat once you design the character. But how much of the high level play problem is 'too many choices?' Someone must have a thread out there.
snip tons of excellent advice
I agree 1000000000% with everything you posted here. I too have DMed for a long time (around 1982 or so) and even I don't do everything you listed. It really comes down to I like new books and new options but sometimes my all inclusive philosophy really hurts the ability to run a good game. I am loathe to give up those extra options though both as a player and DM.
I admit I haven't given the Alpha 3 rules as close a read through as I should have but CMB is an outstanding rule.
I was in an amazing campaign that ended recently at 17th level because the DM just couldn't handle it. The preparation was killing him. It was a large party, and he couldn't get the concept that he needed to have more foes in each combat... but maybe because that was due to him not wanting to spend forever prepping and statting up those foes.
- We had a druid that could end the world if he tried... he was reduced to really not doing much at all because all of his really cool powers were so gamebreaking... shapechange anyone
- A barbarian fighter that several times did over 100 pts of damage to foes on one critical hit by power attacking with his improved critical shocking burst thundering greataxe
- A psion that could schism then just go nuclear
- A cleric that had some totally broken spells out of the Eberron Forge of War book (it was an undead campaign, and there are some spells in there that produce completely broken combos)
- Another cleric/monk with the Vow of Poverty
- A fairly lame rogue build
It just gets out of control, with disintegrates flying around, nuclear psions, power attacking barbarians doing 40 to 50 pts of damage on a hit.
Baseline foes don't have enough hit points in 3.5, generally, unless they have SR and/or DR, but...
Basically, I think there are too many variables. If you have a foe with DR 20 / adamantine, that helps UNLESS you have a PC with an adamantine shocking burst thundering greataxe.
A CR 20 creature could be mincemeat for one 20th level party that just happens to have the right stuff to fight it or it could roll over another 20th level party that doesn't. This puts a huge burden on the DM.
Glass Cannon is a great term for a high level PC. The game gets majorly swingy at high level.
|
|
I think the feat alternatives to iterative attacks are a step forward. Feats like Vicious Strike and Improved Vital Strike allow players (or the DM if he decides to make it a mandatory house rule) to take some of the time out of high level play.
I think full-action feats are a good move, too, but they have to be worth it (ie. produce comparable damage to a full attack) -- most of the Alpha combat feats weren't worth the trade-off, although there's still plenty of time to fix them.
I actually dislike putting a cap on the number of buffs a PC can have active at one time. My issue with buffs isn't the number, it's the book-keeping of tracking durations and recalculating bonuses in a short period of time. A cap is just going to make that more common as PC's are forced to sub out buffs for new ones on the fly.
The thing with buffs is, players love them and they'll find a way to get them (I also don't dig the move to consolidate ability-enhancing magic items on the waist and head slots, for this reason). So why not accept that, and make them simpler. A lot of buffs (magic armor, etc.) might as well be given a daily duration. Assume the PC casts them each morning and leave it on the character sheet. Everything else should have a duration that's roughly equal to one encounter (so 1 round/level or one minute, whatever).
As for DMing high level games, one thing I always do (and I can't claim credit, read about somewhere) with high-level NPC spell-casters is to just pick their highest-level spells, leaving the low levels blank and just picking a spell on the fly if they need it. They're mostly going to "nova" with their most powerful spells anyway, and I figure an NPC wizard with a 22 Int has the foresight to memorize "feather fall" even if I didn't anticipate it. I also add in all buffing (spells, rage, etc) for NPCs ahead of time. Even if the PCs somehow get the jump on the NPC, no one's likely to know the difference.
Another idea (I think from Monte Cook's blog) I haven't tried yet is to change metamagic feats (or add as an option) so that instead of increasing the spell level, you sacrifice extra spell slots of the same level (or maybe even lower). So rather than an empowered fireball being a 5th-level spell, it instead costs two (or three) 3rd-level slots. An extended mage armor uses two 1st-level slots, etc. This would really cut down on the number of spells available to high-level casters, reducing some of their complexity, while offering a decent trade-off.
Otherwise, I think Paizo's already on track addressing some of the more glaring issues (save-or-die, polymorph, etc) at high-level play.
Oh -- and as far as ki pool or rage points -- for NPCs, I think I'll probably just "spend" the points ahead of time. So rather than tracking rage points on the fly, I'll figure out ahead of time that the orc barbarian can rage about 5 rounds and use "XXXX blow" three times before he runs out of points. He'll probably be dead long before that, anyway.
|
|
NPC design was always a big one for me. I rarely use a monster as written out of the MMs it was always scale up or scale down (mostly up). When I went to actually write an adventure I had to take into account all of the spells, abilites and magic items my group had at their disposal. Creating a mystery based adventure is worthless after 10th level (commune). Political intrigue is still viable but still suffers when the PCs scry and walk around under Zones of Truth all day.
I guess it is a combination of combat prep and tailoring an adventure to be challenging without being too hard or a cakewalk because I forgot about spell X in book Y. My groups are notorious min/maxers (and so am I but I'm one guy vs 4-5 of them).
While not wanting to be sound like I'm minimizing your concerns: your personal choice to not use monsters as written is a choice you (and others) make; with the consequence of having to do more work. It would be unfair to blame the game for this. Pragmatically speaking - the work was alreayd done for you - you opted to change it. The game designers did put in handy tools to help you know what and how often things scale as you change them (a BIG advantage over trying to advance creatures in 2nd edition) but you still have to do the math. Simply opting to use the monster as written would mitigate much of the hassle I'm thinking. Its like people who choose to buy an SUV and then complain about how much money they're spending on gas....
I think one of the things game designers/publisher can do - is provide three columns of stat blocks for most scaleable creatures. Say for instance the Winter Wolf: Have the standard CR 4 version, but include a CR2 and a CR6 version as well. That provides an exponential amount of other options for DMs easily. Also, if someone need the wolf to be CR8, they can just look at the difference between the CR4 and the CR6 and double the differences.
As for intrigue and intrigue-bursting spells etc - the spells as written still provide some ability to be vague with answers. If you as DM lay the ground work early on, that you're not going to all the spells to do all the work for the PCs, then they'll come to use them as tools, and not gospel. I get around alot of that - by making cities have governing laws about magic. It makes sense: in a world where credit card fraud, Identity theft, and Internet crime is rampant, we find ways to make such things harder to be done. In a world of magical ability to charm, suggestions, detect, etc, it makes sense that governing bodies will intervene and put limitations on the abilities for peoeple to magically alter/affect another 'free-will'. Making someone tell the whole truth all the time would be a violation in all but the most draconian "Children of Light" (Robert Jordan reference) societies. Not to mention, the very polititcians themselves would want to be sure not to have to contest with such. Furthermore, if such a community knows that its common practice to have people walking around all the time with such magical coercion etc, they would find ways creatively to thwart it, simply not talk, or refuse to answer unless they're in a magic-dead area - etc. Scry is easy to thwart - by those you know need to thwart it. (churches, government buildings, etc).
This is what I did for my SCAP. The city of Cauldron has strict laws (as does many of my other large cities etc) that govern magic use - starting with beuracracy of spellcasters having to be registered in what they can do (in case a spell-related crime occurs they have a record of who could have done this). This fix isn't ideal for every society - but cities of nobility and beuracracy and those having money (like Cauldron) are perfect for such things - especially when those in charge who make the laws have something to hide.....just like Cauldron!
As for remembering X spell in Y book - my simple solution as I commented before is - "less is more" some people get amazed at just how functional and effective one can truly be by just becoming really mastered at the few spells etc and how they work - especially when synergized with others - and just stick to what you know you know.
Robert
|
|
While not wanting to be sound like I'm minimizing your concerns: your personal choice to not use monsters as written is a choice you (and others) make; with the consequence of having to do more work. It would be unfair to blame the game for this. Pragmatically speaking - the work was alreayd done for you - you opted to change it. The game designers did put in handy tools to help you know what and how often things scale as you change them (a BIG advantage over trying to advance creatures in 2nd edition) but you still have to do the math. Simply opting to use the monster as written would mitigate much of the hassle I'm thinking.
That opinion only applies if you and, more importantly, your players have a campaign similar to the designers. Most adventures, from what I've seen, read, and played, work around the classic foursome -- cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. What happens, though, when you have no cleric (very common) or the magic-user is an optimized sorcerer who focuses on conjuring spells? Add other classes like swordsages, warlocks, and scouts changes the encounter. What if there are only 3 players? Or 6? And don't even get me started about metagaming players who can spot the adventure's Big Bad a mile away....
|
|
I think full-action feats are a good move, too, but they have to be worth it (ie. produce comparable damage to a full attack) -- most of the Alpha combat feats weren't worth the trade-off, although there's still plenty of time to fix them.
I think the full-action feats are a GREAT move. They aren't a good replacement all the way - yet! But I believe they can be. To threadjack this a little - the one change I would like to see is make a lot of them be able to be part of a charge action (still only getting one attack, but making movement possible.). I hope Paizo continues to build on this and make MORE and better options for this. Iterative attacks ARE a game-slower - especially with any weapon or special ability that has multiple dice to roll and effects to adjudicate.
As for DMing high level games, one thing I always do (and I can't claim credit, read about somewhere) with high-level NPC spell-casters is to just pick their highest-level spells, leaving the low levels blank and just picking a spell on the fly if they need it. They're mostly going to "nova" with their most powerful spells anyway, and I figure an NPC wizard with a 22 Int has the foresight to memorize "feather fall" even if I didn't anticipate it. I also add in all buffing (spells, rage, etc) for NPCs ahead of time. Even if the PCs somehow get the jump on the NPC, no one's likely to know the difference.
See thats exactly what I was talking about. Something to remember: MOST (and I say most as in 99%) of all NPC/creatures/encounters that are designed are MEANT to be killed/destroyed. That's why they were designed - to be fun, challenging and to die - so PCs can move on to the next thing. There's no reason to spend bundles of time filling in every minute detail -many of which will never be utilized in the 8 rounds (virtually 48 seconds) of their existance in the PCs lives.
Otherwise, I think Paizo's already on track addressing some of the more glaring issues (save-or-die, polymorph, etc) at high-level play.Oh -- and as far as ki pool or rage points -- for NPCs, I think I'll probably just "spend" the points ahead of time. So rather than tracking rage points on the fly, I'll figure out ahead of time that the orc barbarian can rage about 5 rounds and use "XXXX blow" three times before he runs out of points. He'll probably be dead long before that, anyway.
I agree with your thought on Paizo on the right track. Polymorph is a good example.
As for NPCs w/ Ki/Rage points, that is an ideal way to go about it. Just like the above wizard with not all spells chosen - no one will really even notice - so long as you're consistant, fair, and not abusive of it (in other words - have a convenient answer to everything the party throws all the time - that would become obvious and will lead to frustration).
Robert
|
|
To give just one example of one thing I think could be done to make high-level play less onerous: Limit the number of "buff spells" a person can have on him to 3 or 4. Makes it easier to track, makes it easier to handle dispel magic attempts, and I suspect it'll add an interesting tactical element to combat preparation.On a related note, I would encourage limiting the number of spells wizards can add to their spellbooks and the number of spells clerics are able to access. Casters that prepare spells should have to pick spells from a limited number of spells known, not an entire spell list that spans multiple splat books. Otherwise, high-level spell preparation consumes way too much game time.
That'd work. Select 1-3 per category (alteration, conjuration, etc.) per level and designate availability to PCs. The rest, though, require a LOT of cash (preferably in magic items) or, my favorite, a quest.
|
|
Regarding high level play - I hate to say this, but alot of changes made in 4E are quite well suited to fixing the complevity of play outside of the sweet spot, and Paizo could do worse than adopt a few.
I think there are a few aspects worth exploring - though I wouldn't suggest too much mining - otherwise whats the point of playing this edition - we could just play 4th. But I agree there's no point in being too close-minded and there are some aspects that are universally adaptable.
Another concept you didnt mention is a minions-like template (i've desingned one - compatible with 3.5 that works well), and could help make high level encounters easier to navigate - with the inclusion of easily discarded meat-shield fodder.
Robert
|
|
That'd work. Select 1-3 per category (alteration, conjuration, etc.) per level and designate availability to PCs. The rest, though, require a LOT of cash (preferably in magic items) or, my favorite, a quest.To give just one example of one thing I think could be done to make high-level play less onerous: Limit the number of "buff spells" a person can have on him to 3 or 4. Makes it easier to track, makes it easier to handle dispel magic attempts, and I suspect it'll add an interesting tactical element to combat preparation.On a related note, I would encourage limiting the number of spells wizards can add to their spellbooks and the number of spells clerics are able to access. Casters that prepare spells should have to pick spells from a limited number of spells known, not an entire spell list that spans multiple splat books. Otherwise, high-level spell preparation consumes way too much game time.
I allow spells outside the PHB (which we only use the first four Complete books) to be "known" only if researched (and paid via research cost). They are not automatically known to the cleric, (they have to research old cannon tomes to be able to be memorized as part of their faith), and wizards cannot add them as their two automatic spells per level that they gain.
The PHB in my campaign represent the "known and understood world and its physics." Things outside that are less known. The same concept was used with the MM. A character couldn't for instance polymorph into a creature not in the MM - unless the character had encountered it before (which rarely happened since I don't use many creatures outside the MM). Knowledge checks of such creatures were also nigh-impossible.
Its makes DMing so much easier IMO if you dont try to pull stuff from everywhere.
Robert
|
|
I think there are a few aspects worth exploring - though I wouldn't suggest too much mining - otherwise whats the point of playing this edition - we could just play 4th. But I agree there's no point in being too close-minded and there are some aspects that are universally adaptable.Regarding high level play - I hate to say this, but alot of changes made in 4E are quite well suited to fixing the complevity of play outside of the sweet spot, and Paizo could do worse than adopt a few.
Personally, I have no problem mining 4E to further improve PRPG since many 4E stuff can be found in other, older games. Minion rules? Feng shu, miniature wargames. Powers? Superhero rpgs, CCGs. Someone even saw Skill Challenges in some game.
|
|
I allow spells outside the PHB (which we only use the first four Complete books) to be "known" only if researched (and paid via research cost). They are not automatically known to the cleric, (they have to research old cannon tomes to be able to be memorized as part of their faith), and wizards cannot add them as their two automatic spells per level that they gain.
The PHB in my campaign represent the "known and understood world and its physics." Things outside that are less known. The same concept was used with the MM. A character couldn't for instance polymorph into a creature not in the MM - unless the character had encountered it before (which rarely happened since I don't use many creatures outside the MM). Knowledge checks of such creatures were also nigh-impossible.
Its makes DMing so much easier IMO if you dont try to pull stuff from everywhere.
Robert
Actually, it's the opposite for my poor players. I LOVE using new stuff while they're content with the Corebooks. However, I'm willing to reign in the new stuff if it's obvious it'll be TPK not involving PC stupidity.
In my opinion lower levels have been more or less addressed already. They are now much better than they used to be. Now on higher levels the DM should show some foresight. As others have said it makes sense to employ the level of detail you need and not more. Its not necessary to fully flesh out NPC abilities and such, You can always make it on the fly IF the need arises. And who's going to argue? On another note I have been maxing the HPs for monsters and adversaries as the PCs rise in level. IT was always worked wonders with no problems whatsoever.
Now for the spell lists; I don't agree with what has been said by joela. It will probably remove a lot from spellcasters and they have been toned down already. What can be done is to designate the availability of the spells as Common, Uncommon and Rare. Something that had been done in 2nd ed. WSC. Adventures, quests, etc are nice ways to allow casters access to these not so common spells.
|
|
That opinion only applies if you and, more importantly, your players have a campaign similar to the designers. Most adventures, from what I've seen, read, and played, work around the classic foursome -- cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. What happens, though, when you have no cleric (very common) or the magic-user is an optimized sorcerer who focuses on conjuring spells? Add other classes like swordsages, warlocks, and scouts changes the encounter. What if there are only 3 players? Or 6? And don't even get me started about metagaming players who can spot the adventure's Big Bad a mile away....
Well, for myself, since I only use the PHB - I dont have to worry about warlocks, or scouts or (I dont even know what) swordsages (are).
Regardless, I'm not sure how the variant classes 'changes the encounter' to the point that you can't run it as written. By that logic, there's no point in published modules - if encounters have to always be designed around which four classes you have. If those other classes changes the dynamics to the point that the encounters don't work (whether too powerful of a party or too weak), then i have to say that this is design flaw in the other classes.
I taught my good friend Michael years ago when he was trying to become better at DMing and planning the "power of 1". If you have a creature it's CR is geared towards a party of 4 and you only have 3 players - just reduce the D20 mechanics by 1. Attacks, saves, skills, and AC - all lower by one. Add one if theres 5 players. Add an extra creature is there's 6. There's no reason to over-complicate the things - especially when (as I said before), the creature is there to be disposed of. Don't worry about the details. Thats for the IRS to do.
As for spotting the BBEG a mile away - most gamers who pay attention can do that. There's nothing you can do to prevent that. Thats the reason that the move Sixth Sense was so popular! Its a rare gem when you can really pull off such a surprise successfully. Most of the time, people see whats coming. You just have to hope that you have players that are good at seperating character knowledge and player knowledge, and that as DM, you reward that behavior and/or penalize those that choose to meta game against that.
Robert