|
I wonder if anyone has actually tried this method out. Roll one attack roll for all three attacks with that weapon this round! Since BAB is -5 for each iterative attack, you can reverse logic that to say if you hit the AC by 5 or more - two attacks hit - and 10 or more - all three attacks hit.
Oh! I like that!
Of course the only downside to this would be if you roll a critical threat - ALL attacks are critical threat, and if you roll a 20 ALL attacks automatically hit!
I'd probably rule critical damage on the "first" hit but increase the attack's normal crit by one (x2 becomes x3). Roll damage as normal for the other two "hits". Still a heck of a lot of damage.
|
|
Action points are Open Game Content in Unearthed Arcana.ACTION POINTS
Also, are Action Points copyrighted? Because I believe it would be a great idea to add them to Pathfinder-- but perhaps you could make them dependent not on character levels, but based on the Races or the Classes.
Great as an option.
|
Many of the issues addressed on here for things that 'slow down' combat and the game cannot be resolved by game design IMO.
some things can, and each that does will of course contribute to speeding things up.
However, many of the issues such as people forgetting about which bonuses stack, spending bookoo minutes figuring out which buffs, forgetting apects and buffs in effect and remember them after the fact etc etc...
Most of these falls on the DMs shoulders to be either overly draconian, or overly permissive, or some sweetspot in between.
I dont allow players to sit and hem and haw over their characters actions. Combat is suppose to be hectic and frantic. Players have 10 secs to decide. If they don't have their actions ready, or need to look something up - they're delaying until they're ready.
I have players announce their total they add to a dice before its rolle. "I attack with my longsword - I have a +24 to hit" I then know since the target has a 31 AC, the roll needs to be a 7. As soon as I see the dice stop I can stay "hit or miss" And I dont allow the "Oh, I forgot I'm hasted - I actually add 25!"
Thats the whole point of having the number announced ahead of time - to avoid this. Have the total ready roll the dice. No space-time-continuum issues going back in time.
Rolling for multiple attack?: Roll color coordinated 20s w/ damage dice at the same time. All that miss remove - add everything else up. While they're adding go on to the next persons actions - you only have to wait if their action is hinged on how much damage the last person did.
If a PC does 86 points of damage, and the creature is an unimportant fodder etc, and has 88 hit points - just remove him - he's dead. Whats the point of having it hang around. Remove it, move on.
Definitely do not allow players to sit and discuss their actions out of character. "I'm going to do this...." player 2 "no you should really do this." player 1 "well I'm thinking if I do this, then next round I can do this...."
As DM half the battle is laying the groundwork ahead of time of what is and is not tolerated and what your preference is. But the groundwork has to be laid, and has to be adhered to early on - that way when 12th level comes around - they're already in the habit of doing it agreeably with how you would prefer it.
The game mechanics is another beast. Paizo seems to be helping some of those things. I have to say I have very little experience playing or DMing over 12th level myself; so there's a lot of the specifics or the experiences that I cannot fully comment on. My SCAP campaign are all 12th level now - two games from 13th - so I'll soon see just how "ready" we are. I have been DM for a long time and know the rules quite well; so I'm sure that I have at least a good chance of making it enjoyable and not as gruelling as some have illustrated. (at least I hope.)
Robert
|
|
Hey Robert:Part of my problem is that I don't have a lot of high level experience. As a matter of fact, 16th level is the highest level of PC that I have ever had. So a lot of the rules, spells, feats, etc. were really new to me. Couple that with having the audacity to run a large mass combat with over 20 high-level NPCs as my campaign finale, and I was probably doomed from the beginning. :)
Thanks Lisa for responding and sharing. As I posted earlier - I don't have any experience beyond 13th level in ANY edition of my 25+ years of D&Ding. Thats about to change in SCAP soon, though.
High level NPCs would absolutely be THE hardest thing to try out - especially in large numbers.
One of the things that I do differently from many: I'm very restrictive on what I allow - although this isnt' viewed favorably by all or many, (core 3 books only - feats and SOME Prestige Classes from the first 4 complete books. No races and no classes and no spells outside of the PHB.). I follow the same personal guidelines when I make a character.
The last time I played a game (coincidentally it fell apart after we all hit 12th level - the one before that at 13th level by the same DM), there was a Catfolk (ranger), a Goliath (fighter), A Whispergnome (rogue), a (half-elf) Factotum, A (human) Warlock, a (gnome) Marshall, and a Aasimar (cleric). My character: A human paladin.
Regardless, my restrictions are a bummer for the "sweetspot" levels for many - but once we start hitting 10+ level - thats when it pays off - as there are so many "broken" combinations (individually I don't see many feats/spells/PrCs etc as broken) that players can min/max together that simply unbalances too much!
The truth of the matter is - the further one removes themself from the CORE rules, the more apt to find broken combinations one is. For no other reason than when the original rules were designed no one could have had the precognition of everything that would be released in the years to come and how everything would work in unison with it.
Book of 9 Swords, and Magic Incarnum are all fine and dandy - in and of themselves - but inserting them into a normal standard campaign where everyone else is adhering to, and suddenly things begin to get out of hand and get broken!
So - one of the ways I protect myself from hair pulling and having one 'army of one' character in the bunch because he's simply better and the min/maxing loop-hold finding than everyone else, is to give them less potential to do that by minimizing the options. Less is more.
I am eagerly awaiting trying my hand w/ the high-level SCAP and see how it all turns out. I will say that characters are not overly powerful despite their level. In fact their probably behind the curve of about 80% of characters you'd see people playing at that level; but they're balanced and fair and I haven't had to do any upgrading to the module in order to challenge them.
Robert
|
|
Third: Avoid large numbers of high level NPC's at all costs (unless Paizo stated them out for you :-)) as figuring the various tactics each would employ is devilishly tricky. Remeber, the PC's have a lot more free time to engineer tactics for their characters than you have for monsters/npcs. Less is more.FP
I like that. I couldn't have said it better myself. ;-)
Robert
Would that I could, but that's exactly my gripe with high-level play: it seems like the monsters scale, but nothing else does. Almost no trap is even a slight challenge for 17th level characters. Terrain and natural hazards are all easily ignored. Exploration is completed in minutes using greater prying eyes and wind walk. There's just not any support for anything except combat at those levels.
I agree, the basics of the game are combat oriented. My motto is ' when in doubt, make sh#$ up'. Create sentient traps, or mod the rules, or political social situations the PCs must deal with because they are famous but have no real ability, or little ability to handle ( a general one of my characters had once had to deal with his daughter wanting to marry a scribe, who was thoroughly evil, but no match combat wise; what's a father to do?). Things like that. Obviously this doesn't just come from you, the players can help by not just focusing on beating monsters and taking their stuff. In other words, more role-playing or giving hooks for role-playing. I had another guy spend most of a session trying to create a unique magic item to win the favor of a foreign king ( he was in competition from other mages as well and there was espionage but little actual combat).
I know this takes some getting used to, but trust me friends, it can work.
I know this takes some getting used to, but trust me friends, it can work.
Yes, I agree -- I've made it work. But the sheer amount of effort it takes is vastly more than at lower levels, because it's so easy for godlike PCs to nerf your scenarios. It seems to me that it takes ten times the work to prepare a good 18th level adventure as it does to prepare a 15th level one. When I said there's little "support" for other-than-all-combat high-level adventures, I mean from publishers, to spare me some of that massive effort. Dungeon has had one or two excellent high-level adventures that weren't 99% combat-oriented, but honestly, how many times can you run "Diplomacy" with the same group of players? Outside of that, and maybe a bit of alliance-building at the end of "Savage Tide," it's really hard to find an adventure for 17th level+ that's NOT a slug-fest.
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.
I think it should be level divided by four. Every time a player gets a stat bump, they get to use an extra buff. First to third level characters can only have one buff...
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I have players announce their total they add to a dice before its rolle. "I attack with my longsword - I have a +24 to hit" I then know since the target has a 31 AC, the roll needs to be a 7. As soon as I see the dice stop I can stay "hit or miss" And I dont allow the "Oh, I forgot I'm hasted - I actually add 25!"
Amusingly, the whole point of THAC0 was arriving quickly at the number needed to hit a given AC, because indeed knowing what you need on the die is the fastest way to go.
One of the things that I do differently from many: I'm very restrictive on what I allow - although this isnt' viewed favorably by all or many, (core 3 books only - feats and SOME Prestige Classes from the first 4 complete books. No races and no classes and no spells outside of the PHB.). I follow the same personal guidelines when I make a character.
I am very much the same way. Things just become more complicated with the addition of new material. Some people are fine to include anything, while other's want to be more restrictive. I'm one of those people that would rather be more restrictive.
Part of the reason is because I don't want to have to learn a bunch of material that I will most likely NEVER EVER use. It's not like the game is really going to hurt because I don't allow a lot of material from additional books.
I think it should be level divided by four. Every time a player gets a stat bump, they get to use an extra buff. First to third level characters can only have one buff...
Why hurt low level characters when the problem is for high level characters?
Overall I'm just glad that Lisa and James recognize this is a high priority issue with the game.
I like the idea of using that feat which limits iterative attacks by making a singular attack stronger.
Along those lines, I was thinking that part of the player slowdown comes from having iterative attacks that all have different attack bonuses. (Seriously, my group is REALLY bad at math.) What if for a full attack the attack bonuses for all of the character's attacks was averaged? The level chart would then list only a classes BAB while a table by the common XP chart would show the breakdown of Full Attacks by BAB.
Full Attacks by BAB:
BAB .. Full Attack (# of Attacks × Attack Bonus)
+1 .... 2 × -2*
+2 .... 2 × -1*
+3 .... 2 × +0*
+4 .... 2 × +1*
+5 .... 2 × +2*
+6 .... 2 × +3
+7 .... 2 × +4
+8 .... 2 × +5
+9 .... 2 × +6
+10 .. 2 × +7
+11 .. 3 × +6
+12 .. 3 × +7
+13 .. 3 × +8
+14 .. 3 × +9
+15 .. 3 × +10
+16 .. 3 × +11**
+17 .. 3 × +12**
+18 .. 3 × +13**
+19 .. 3 × +14**
+20 .. 3 × +15**
* 2nd Attack added to get players used to thinking about the tactical advantages of a single vs. full attack from the very start. This also provides greater worth to the flurry-style abilities.
** 4th Attack dropped to keep Full Attack average within 5 of BAB.
Concerning Buffs...
In the interest of salvaging high level play, I would be in favor of limiting the number of active buffs on creatures. While characters would no longer have the benefit of having every spell in the book active, neither would their enemies. It would also make many class abilities more useful...
CONCURRENT BUFFS:
There is a limit to the number of buffing spells that can be concurrently applied to a creature. Limits are as follows:
2 Short duration spells (minutes or rounds per level)
1 Medium duration spell (10 minutes or hours per level)
1 Long duration spell (daily or hours per level)
Special
- Creatures may have 1 additional buff active in addition to the above limits. This buff may belong to any one category, chosen at the time a new effect is cast.
- When a new buffing spell is cast, each creature who would be affected may opt to end an existing buff in favor of accepting the new one.
- Persistent effects, such as from a Paladin's aura or the consecrate effect on a permanent shrine, do not count against these limits.
- Magical effects that must be maintained via concentration, such as Bardic Music, do not count against this limit.
- A summoned creature counts as the creature's one additional buff and is not grouped with other categories. A spell that summons multiple creatures still counts as only a single buff.
- Short duration spells now last for an entire encounter.
- Dispel magic affects all spells of a single duration category (or a summoning spell) selected by the caster. If it succeeds, all spells of that category are dispelled.
2) See if you can romance Janik at DMGenie (www.dmgenie.com) to support Pathfinder. I cannot stress enough how simple his program is for referencing spells, feats, and monsters on the fly. And his program is open enough that users can code new monsters, npcs, spells, magic items, conditions, etc.
Yeah, I have used DM Genie for a couple of years, and it really saved my game. When I started running Shackled City I was doing it the traditional way, and it was a pain. Then I found DM Genie and converted to that and even when the party passed 16th level it wasn't all that hard to keep track of things. When using DM Genie you can put a duration on effects, and when the duration ends the effect automatically goes away.
The only thing we still have trouble with is flying, and we haven't really found a good solution to that.
All I can say is that after you've tried DMing with software support, it's hard to go back to anything else. Granted, DM Genie requires a bit of scripting to get it to work the way you want, but there's good support on their forums for that if your code-fu is bad.
|
|
I am going to add my comments as I think this is an important element of the game that needs to be addressed.
As many of the posters have noted, what makes high level gaming (levels 15+) challenging is the number of options, and the number of activities that can be going on at one time. The record keeping can really bog things down, especially for large groups. I think this is a real weakness of 3.5.
A couple of notes:
1) I thought that AD&D played very well at high levels, as high level characters had a controled number of options, and it seemed that combat moved along and did not get bogged down. This is partly due to no feats, no splat books, and fighter types only had a base of 2 attacks a round (UA increased this to 5/2). This makes a big difference in the speed of play.
2) I think the old paladin build is on the right track. Abilities are front loaded, and then additional abilities are spaced out at higher levels. The basic issue with D&D is that low level characters are too fragil and high level characters have too many options. I think front loading character builds and spacing out the high level additions might actually result in better game play.
3) IMO, the sweet spot is 5-12. After that the game starts to break down. I am ok with Paizo taking a chain saw to abilities/feats/BAB after 10th and start spacing them further apart. An extreme suggestion would be to scale back BAB's, and dump the 4 attack/round progression and limit this to 3 attacks per round through 20th before adding 4 attacks.
To summarize, at the higher levels, less may equate to more fun!
Won´t happen. They want it to be backward compatible.
What I find frustrating at high levels are:
- Save-or-die effects, which can finish a boss encounter in one roll
- The possibility to specialize characters in ways that make it difficult for me as DM to challenge that one player ( like stacking AC modifiers so that the player just can´t be hit anymore, if I don´t want the monsters to auto-hit every other player ) while being fair to the others.
I haven´t had the problem of players stacking incredible numbers of buffs on themselves or other stuff like that, but that is because my players are much more casual than me, I guess. None of them has ever visited the CO boards of Wizards or looked at some guides on how to build broken characters.
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.
What about simply changing dispel magic? More effective dispel would learn players to spend too many spells in advance, and would change the dymanic of prep-time and combat.
What about simply changing dispel magic? More effective dispel would learn players to spend too many spells in advance, and would change the dymanic of prep-time and combat.
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.
My guys are min-maxers extradinare (sp?). Two campaigns ago, we ended with a Drow module (10-17 about) where they had to infiltrate a conquered Drow City, take out the Drow House, without getting trounced by the conquerors of the city (I forget the title). Since I had told them it was the last one and we would start over at 1st level, they asked if they could finally get to face a dragon that had been harassing them the whole time in the underdark. I said sure, but then brought the dragons momma along, as well as a couple of dragon kissing cousins.
For the final battle, 6 pcs, 3 of them spellcasters (18th sorcerer, and 2 17th clerics) had *** FIFTY *** spells on them when they left for that final battle. My son, who is an excel wizard, had a spreadsheet (thank goodness), to keep track of it all.
While the battle went well, we spent a ton of time prepping. The guys spending about 10 hours outside of game, and me spending at least 3.
Worth it, yea, but only for the ok, here is your last shot to use all these spells, potions, scrolls, magic items, etc., because in two weeks when we meet next, you are new 1st level characters.
So, limiting buffs, and making dispel magic better, or maybe "Best Dispel Magic" spell that is higher level then disp magic, greater, would help a lot
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
|
The thing with buffs is, players love them and they'll find a way to get them.... 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).
I like this idea, but would rather see the durations of spells made less level dependent, and have durations that were listed as "day", "encounter" and only occasionally listed in rounds/level. I'd especially like to see the defensive buffs changed to have simpler durations. Mostly I'd like to see the death of the minute/level, 10 minute/level, and hour/level.
Spells like Bull's Strength, Protection From Evil, etc. should definitely have "one encounter" as a set duration.
|
|
The only thing we still have trouble with is flying, and we haven't really found a good solution to that.
If the problem is keeping track of height and altitude, I'd highly recommend picking up some of Alea Tools magentic markers. They make a light blue and dark blue marker, with the light blue representing 5' of height, and the dark blue representing 20'.
I have about ten of each, and flying is never a problem for us.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'm sorry, but that's...absolutely, completely, UTTERLY wrong. A 9th level spell trap starts at about CR10. By CR17, we're approaching traps that EASILY cause saveless instadeaths. As in sets of 10 energy drains, all hidden to well nigh impossible-to-attain search DCs. High-level traps cease to be fun, if anything, by virtue of being TOO lethal.
I think this grew out of a desire to not give too much xp for "easy" traps, and is a design flaw in 3E/3.5E that PFRPG should address.
My approach would be to make a power word kill trap should be something aproaching the CR of what it takes to make it (i.e. CR 17), but fix the XP issue by giving less xp (probably 1/2) for a trap than you get for a foe.
So two traps of your level = xp for one monster of your level. Most standard traps in 3E would go up in CR under this system.
I'm sorry, but that's...absolutely, completely, UTTERLY wrong. A 9th level spell trap starts at about CR10. By CR17, we're approaching traps that EASILY cause saveless instadeaths. As in sets of 10 energy drains, all hidden to well nigh impossible-to-attain search DCs. High-level traps cease to be fun, if anything, by virtue of being TOO lethal.
The problem is, of course, that the Rogue will *always* find and disarm the trap at this level, unless he rolls a 1. There is a real mechanism to make the DC´s harder in the DMG ( page 75, Table 3-15 ), but the stat blocks of the "normal" high-level traps don´t take that into account at all.
Of course you can simply let the trap just trigger when somebody even gets nearby, but that gets old, *very* fast.
Dungeonscape had some very nice traps ( and poisons! ) for high-level challenges. And was written by Jason Bulman and Richard Burlew, to boot. :P
Considering that the trap listings in the DMG don't go above CR10, if you're making a CR17 trap, you're ALREADY using those advancement tables. Unfortunately, those tables don't provide a CR alteration for scores above 30 (that is, the listed CR difference between Search DC 30 and Search DC:256,000 is exactly nil). Which is what you should be talking about for traps of that magnitude.
Dungeonscape has expanded rules for trapmaking, also including how to set the CR. Very well written, all of it. :)
|
The problem is, of course, that the Rogue will *always* find and disarm the trap at this level, unless he rolls a 1. There is a real mechanism to make the DC´s harder in the DMG ( page 75, Table 3-15 ), but the stat blocks of the "normal" high-level traps don´t take that into account at all.
What about a trap that requires two triggers, far apart, to be disabled simultaneously?
Then the other PCs and cohorts get involved, albeit with some advice from the main trapsmith.
What about a trap that requires two triggers, far apart, to be disabled simultaneously?
Then the other PCs and cohorts get involved, albeit with some advice from the main trapsmith.
Under "normal" conditions other PC´s normally can´t disable traps at all, if it involves a Search and Disable Device checks.
Under "normal" conditions other PC´s normally can´t disable traps at all, if it involves a Search and Disable Device checks.
In many cases, a Disintegrate spell does just fine (for example).
2) See if you can romance Janik at DMGenie (www.dmgenie.com) to support Pathfinder. I cannot stress enough how simple his program is for referencing spells, feats, and monsters on the fly. And his program is open enough that users can code new monsters, npcs, spells, magic items, conditions, etc.
While you're at it, try to seduce Janik into creating a version for Macs. Or is there an alternate version out there ?
I would like to suggest sticking a little box in the character creation page for players to easily add in different types of buffs. On my current character sheet, I modified the AC box to have more than just the basic (10+ARMOR/SHIELD+DEX+MISC) because I had trouble keeping track of all the numbers. Instead I have space for (10+ARMOR/SHIELD+DEX+DEFLECT+NATURAL+INSIGHT+TEMP) and then write the rounds/days that the temporary AC lasts. I also have a small Temporary HP section. With pathfinder's decreased amount of skills, this can all fit on one page quite easily if there are only 2 weapon slots listed on the first page.
QFT.
Character sheets have to change when you get to high level. The two page base character sheet is designed for low-level characters. It would be lovely if PRGP were to put out a character sheet for its character classes and, if it did, one for low and one for high level.
I know this takes some getting used to, but trust me friends, it can work.Yes, I agree -- I've made it work. But the sheer amount of effort it takes is vastly more than at lower levels, because it's so easy for godlike PCs to nerf your scenarios. It seems to me that it takes ten times the work to prepare a good 18th level adventure as it does to prepare a 15th level one. When I said there's little "support" for other-than-all-combat high-level adventures, I mean from publishers, to spare me some of that massive effort. Dungeon has had one or two excellent high-level adventures that weren't 99% combat-oriented, but honestly, how many times can you run "Diplomacy" with the same group of players? Outside of that, and maybe a bit of alliance-building at the end of "Savage Tide," it's really hard to find an adventure for 17th level+ that's NOT a slug-fest.
yeah, and the reason for this is supply and demand because most people 'want' combat because combat is easier. It is the easiest thing for new players to understand, the easiest way for players to improve their understanding of the rules and easier for DM's new or old to run. Easier does not mean better though, so it really does come down to effort, but it doesn't always have to involve alot of game preperation- stat block wise- for the DM.
For example, if you decide to stay 'on world' and wish to keep the game going, perhaps they have to use their skills to stop a war without fighting, or solve an economic collapse that could lead to chaos ( epic level curse on produce for example). for creatures to match them, even outside of combat, I found tweaking NPCs from other books useful or even the PCs themselves.
Hey, how about a struggle against their own PCs from an alternate prime?
Again, it really comes down to taste of the players because fun is the bottom line, and it would be hard to do this time and again in the same campaign, but it is worthwhile doing to keep a high level campaign from just being a slug-fest ad infinitum.
Considering that the trap listings in the DMG don't go above CR10, if you're making a CR17 trap, you're ALREADY using those advancement tables. Unfortunately, those tables don't provide a CR alteration for scores above 30 (that is, the listed CR difference between Search DC 30 and Search DC:256,000 is exactly nil). Which is what you should be talking about for traps of that magnitude.Dungeonscape has expanded rules for trapmaking, also including how to set the CR. Very well written, all of it. :)
I'm shocked, considering that Cityscape was a godawful waste of money. Guess the authors really do tell.
-Steve
I'm curious, since the designers of the game are clearly reading and utilizing these forums for feedback on game play and ideas for design:
Would it be helpful if we broke this discussions into seperate [Think Tank] threads for brainstorming different elements of streamlining higher level gameplay? For example, a thread on Skill use, a thread on speeding up gameplay, etc...
Any thoughs/takers?
-Steve
|
|
Look, I don't like 4e, and I would be very happy to see Paizo come out with something that would fix 3e's problems.
But nothing I've seen so far makes me think they are going in the right direction. It looks like they are making the problems I had with 3e worse.
If I thought deeply about it I'm sure I could come up with more than the items in this list:
1) Caster/non caster balance. Pathfinder is making it worse. I think much worse.
I disagree completely. I think Paizo has done a commendable job and continuing to strive to make it even bette.
Casters have lost their domain spell, their specialist wizard spell, and now the lethality of the save or die spells have been much reduced.
In contrast, fighters get feats at all 20 levels, rogues get cool talents much more often, the paladin has become the awsome warrior he always should have been (needs more smite evils, though), and the barabarian rage points add all sorts of good options during combat.
The playtesters and gamers I know that I play with here are preferring to sway towards the warriors more now. - which is a good thing, I think.
Robert
|
|
I'm curious, since the designers of the game are clearly reading and utilizing these forums for feedback on game play and ideas for design:
Would it be helpful if we broke this discussions into seperate [Think Tank] threads for brainstorming different elements of streamlining higher level gameplay? For example, a thread on Skill use, a thread on speeding up gameplay, etc...
Any thoughs/takers?
-Steve
Not really - I think this is following along pretty well.
|
|
Under "normal" conditions other PC´s normally can´t disable traps at all, if it involves a Search and Disable Device checks.What about a trap that requires two triggers, far apart, to be disabled simultaneously?
Then the other PCs and cohorts get involved, albeit with some advice from the main trapsmith.
True - but thinking outside the box - another character might be needed to "hold" something in place, stand on a counterweighted place just right, while the rogue does his disarm, hold a rope or something danggling the rogue down into a shaft/pit since the disarm is halfway down, pull a lever at the exact moment a rogue needs at the other end of the hall etc.
Theres alot of these kinds of a cooperation-needed tricks etc while playing DDO.
Robert
|
|
The problem is, of course, that the Rogue will *always* find and disarm the trap at this level, unless he rolls a 1. There is a real mechanism to make the DC´s harder in the DMG ( page 75, Table 3-15 ), but the stat blocks of the "normal" high-level traps don´t take that into account at all.What about a trap that requires two triggers, far apart, to be disabled simultaneously?
Then the other PCs and cohorts get involved, albeit with some advice from the main trapsmith.
I'll use an example of a trap that I put into an RPGA scenario that was nearly impossible for even high-level PC's to find.
Setup: PC's are in a fairly large room (40'x40') with statues in the corners. The ceiling height is 15'. There is a large set of metal double doors on the north wall.
The Trap: Four cone of cold traps triggered by an alarm spell centered on the 5' square on the far side of the doors. The start point for the cones is in the corners of the ceiling.
Why it works: The rogue will probably search the doors for a trap (and find none). The doors themselves were heavy enough to block detect magic thru them to see the alarm. By the time the doors are open, its too late, the PC's are in range to trigger the alarm spell.
The mechanisms for the trap are 15' off the ground. You can only search within 5' of you (according to the skill), so unless the PC's start crawling on the statues or flying around the room, they aren't going to find them. In fact, they will probably search the statues and give up when they find nothing.
Keep in mind, that this was pretty much meant to be a significant threat to the PC's. Of course, my editor (*cough* Mr. Bulmahn *cough*) thought I was a little too harsh and ended up having the trap softened a bit before it went out into the general circulation.
|
|
Yeah, that's something I may have to use. Seems like a great way to provide a non-combat challenge for character types not normally suited to such things (such as the Fighter). Example: Someone has to hold up, via strength check, a heavy stone slab so the party rogue can get to the trap gears. Failure automatically causes the trap to spring.
True - but thinking outside the box - another character might be needed to "hold" something in place, stand on a counterweighted place just right, while the rogue does his disarm, hold a rope or something danggling the rogue down into a shaft/pit since the disarm is halfway down, pull a lever at the exact moment a rogue needs at the other end of the hall etc.
Also traps that continually go off randomly that affect only the PCs.
Poison gas being emitted in a room while fighting undead. Lightnight while fighting a flesh golem (which actually heals it), Negative Energy while fighting spectres. Fire traps while fighting fire mephits or fire elemental etc.
Essentially the traps have to be dealt with WHILE the combat is going on. Someone needs to protect the rogue while someone else needs to fight.
Robert
I should point out that I consider high-level traps "not a challenge" because a DC 120 Search, quickened imprisonment in tandem with a wish that reads the characters' names and backgrounds (so the imprisonment will work) is NOT a "challenge" any more than Russian Roulette is a "challenge." It's a matter of tossing a die to determine if you throw away your character sheet. Failing against an instant-kill trap, of course, just means you awaken as a clone back home and then have to teleport back to where you were.
<wall of text>
A problem that can never be solved is player and DM perceptions about the "right levels" of game play. Everyone has a different sweet spot.
This isn't a hand-waive attempt at the issue but rather the beginning. When you start you *have* to understand what what you are trying to nail down with suggested rules changes is an objective that is constantly in motion.
An individual here stated that they've had combats take multiple hours to complete. Myself, I've never had a combat take longer than 1 hour and I would wager that most of that 1 hour was wasted on idle chatter and folks not paying attention. And this is in a campaign that went up into the mid 20's before all sides decided to go back to level 1.
My point isn't to say that I think that poster is lying- quite the opposite. I believe her whole heartedly. The point is that the fix for her game is quite different than mine. Namely because I don't perceive the need for the rules to "fix" it.
High level game play is, by necessity, more complex than low level game play. Unless you seriously neuter the 16+ level category then the game will be this way. And if you neuter 16+ then you really just have 16. There will be no +. When the power level ceases to increase on gaining a level then you haven't really gained a level at all.
Again this is said not in attempt to avoid a fix- but first we need to be aware of what needs to be fixed in an overall sense.
Also: So far today I've been called "condescending". That is never my intention. The purpose of discussion here isn't to talk down at people or anything of the sort and doing so is never my intention. Please read the following in that frame of mind. Often, the typed word is very difficult to convey connotation and such in. I'm trying to be helpful, not rude or condescending or negative.
Lisa;
I've read through here looking for your posts and it seems the greatest issue that you presented is the one for which you also identified your own solution. If you are inexperienced with what high level players can do then the solution isn't to change high level play. The solution is to become familiar with the things that high level characters, NPC's, and monsters can do.
NPC's in adventure paths are very often Not optimized. They do things like repeatedly take Toughness and such and ignore obvious feat and skill choices. They are often build with ability score methods substandard to PC's and have wealth limits well below the PC's. As such, using them for final encounters will almost always lead to a PC cake walk. If you have copies of the PC's sheets, use that information to build your NPC's.
If the PC's can scry so can the enemies. Speak with Dead works wonders too. It's not a PC only spell.
(wouldn't that just send shivers down the PC's spines? to know the NPC's were goin over the dead bodies asking about the combat tactics used? great villainy there- and a great way to explain why NPC's know what the PC's have up their sleeves).
The DM most of all has to be aware of what all everyone is capable of in an encounter. Altering or changing the rules after Beta will not alleviate this. The DM has to be aware of what the PC's do even to the point of neutering some combo's that seem too powerful.
Generally:
DMing sucks. It's hard work for little pay (who gets paid to DM?) and the higher level folks get the harder and more work it is for the DM.
That having been said- changing that scenario isn't the way to go. Some things can be streamlined to make combat faster and things easier to keep track of- these aren't things that need to be "rules changes".
Rolling sets of colored dice, using white erase boards or laminated sheets, using dice as counters for initiative (using colored dice for monsters, as my current DM does regularly)- these are all things that are great ideas but really don't need to be codified as "rules".
Changing how the basic fundamental rules work at higher levels in order to make it easier. Book keeping isn't a rule.
I would encourage you, and beg you all, not to knock high-level play over the nerf tree trying to "stream line" it and "make it faster". If the problems the DM or Players are having is game speed or in keeping track of buffs, extra paper is the answer not a rule that limits the number of buffs you have.
Afterall- whether you have 2 buffs or 10, if you have to choose between them each time they are cast and select what's to be kept, you Still have to write it down to remember. And if you are using a scratch page to keep track of it, it doesn't matter whether you have 10 or 2.
Conclusion:
High level play is more complicated. It is so by necessity and design. Please don't make an executive decision to put it on the chopping block in an effort to stream line play. You are far better off proclaiming 16 to be the new 20, and to say that epic begins at 17 rather than 21.
</wall of text>
-S
I think one critical part to "fixing" high level play is to mentally accept the fact that high level play has the same problems of running and playing a super heroes type game.
The similarities are there, and they create the same problems.
High level DM's need to realize, and accept, the fact that high level play means the characters are powerful enough to change the world.
So part of what PF will need to do is scale down the power levels and spread it out among more levels.
To "fix" high level play you will have to abandon compatibility with 3.5E to a much larger degree than many would likely accept. However, if the changes fix high level issues they should rejoice!
As for DMing high level 3E, you have to cut out the details. Define the NPC or monster in general guidelines and run them from there. You only need to know what they can and cannot do. You do not need detailed lists for this. You know what the party can do, so you know what the monster or NPC needs to be able to do to challenge the party. So only worry about detailing what you know you need the creature to do.
So when you scale up a monster, just right down the changes the scaling makes. Don't worry about skills or feats unless you think you will need them. IF you didn't "update" something because you thought it wouldn't, WING IT! Winging it doesn't mean you ignore the rules, it means you come up with something that will closely, or exactly follow the rules.
So whenever you write up what you think you'll need in the game session, but then get blindsided, DON"T stop the game and look it up. You should know the rules well enough to make an on the spot judgement so that whatever you do won't be "unfair".
Unfair is not defined as not being exactly how the rules say it. Unfair is making changes that makes the challenge too lopsided against the players. So as long as you can make decisions that keep things "close enough" and "fair enough" you have a good encounter.
Plus the DM needs to keep in mind, and so do the players, that high level characters are super heroes. So they are able to break the rules mere mortals cannot break.
Rather than freak out about this fact, figure out how to re-imagine the rules and make them apply to this character and their rule breaking powers.
So you essentially have to have two sets of rules. One set is for the "mere mortals", and then a set for the super heroes.
Failure to take this into account is why so many games have a melt down. There is a very significant change in the power level of the games, and the game melts down due to failure to acknowledge and accept this fact.
So it needs to be accepted and then rules establishing new parameters need to be figured out.
Let me use Teleportation for an example. This ability scares the bejeesus out of many DM's. Rightly so. how can you plan out an effective game when you don't know if they will get places by teleporting and effective use of scrying spells? You can't. You can't even rest assured they will use scrying and teleport.
The DM can control this in ways that don't involve rewriting the spell or simply throwing it out of the game.
How? Rules need to be created to show DM's mundane ways to control Teleporting. These rules need not be complex. If a DM is given simple, mundane methods for limiting teleport they are given a decent amount of control and predictability. Control and predictability are crucial to being able to design appropriate and workable encounters.
So make it official that lead, or walls with gorgons blood, or walls greater than 3 feet of over all thickness, etc... actually block teleporting, plane traveling, etherealness, scrying, etc....
The player still can use these spells to go to 90% of locations around the world, or to other planes, but the BBEG's and the big good guys, as well as the little guy, can have effective ways to counter these powerful spell effects. They just cost a lot of money. Adding lead, gorgons blood, building 3 foot thick walls, etc... are all expensive.
So poor people will be able to have a "safe room" where they can sleep at night and be safe from ghosts walking through the wall, etc...
Rich people will be able to build entire areas or complete complexes immune to such things.
The DM will just have to decide, within reason, how extensive such precautions are taken.
So now the DM has the means to predict and control how the scenario will play out. The players still have an advantage from being able to teleport, go ethereal, etc... but not a free "get in there and kill them with surprise" card anytime they wish.
It will be incumbent upon the DM to not over use, and therefore unfairly cripple, PC's, but it will also be incumbent upon the players to accept these realities so that the DM can plan out and make challenging and fair encounters.
So this over all approach needs to be applied across the gaming board, so to speak, to allow the DM to be able to effectively foresee what the players will do, and therefore design fair and fun encounters.
Also DR, Resistances, and immunities really need to be toned down. Creatures that are given 4 immunities, DR of 25, and resistances of 30 to everything they aren't immune to is rediculous.
So the whole power dynamic needs to be looked at and toned down.
Anyways, these are good starts to improving high level play.
|
|
So now the DM has the means to predict and control how the scenario will play out. The players still have an advantage from being able to teleport, go ethereal, etc... but not a free "get in there and kill them with surprise" card anytime they wish.
Good post, Robert. Other ways to "fix" teleport would be to limit it to "caster only" or "cannot travel to an area you have not physically visited and viewed."
Your comments about the ethereal reminds me of a previous post on this thread that talked about some DM feeling frustrated because the group just goes ethereal and walks through every room to find the encounters etc and knows ahead of time what's in store....
I remember back in 2nd ed, there was a spell I think was in the Tome of Magic which I think was called "Ethereal Jaunt." Once the players got ahold of this spell, that game was a nightmare - with them abusing it in this way. I was blindsighted by it's use and wasn't prepared to have an answer; they looked in coffins, chests, etc. However, by the next game I had figured out a way to "fix" it. The spell spoke nothing about being able to "see" in an area that you wouldn't ordinarily see in. So the dungeons from there on out had no lighting, nor were they able to see inside the chest or the coffins etc. Since they were ethereal their own light could not affect the 'real world' and so they were 'blind' and couldn't use ethereal to "cheat" this way.
The spell saw very little use after that - in fact - it was only used for its intended purpose after that. Which is as it should be.
Robert
|
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
Good luck. If you stick to your backwards compatability goal, this isn't going to happen. To make high level play be anything other than a chore to run you will have to have spellcasters have fewer, much simpler spells with only a few lines of descriptive text, fewer modifiers for everything, and fewer attacks for both PC's and monsters. You've already made some things like NPC generation, special combat maneuvers, and too many spell buffs better, but it will take more than that to make most people not cringe at the thought of running 3.5 past 12th level. I'm not trying to be overly critical or pessimistic, but I honestly don't see how you can pull this off and have Pathfinder be backwards compatably with 3.5.