I've never willingly played a character past 13th (in 20 years of gaming).
Some say the problem is iterative attacks.
I personally think spells are a mess.
Some say that rounds take too long to make up your mind.
Pathfinder's made early levels playable by boosting class features, HP, etc. But I think many people see this as potentially contributing to the high-level problem. This is a frequent topic of conversation, and many people allude that potential fixes don't address "the greater problem."
I know they're working on it, too. And I trust them to get it right. So by way of making their lives easier, I'm taking an informal poll: What is the "greater problem" with higher levels?
If you could keep it to ONE central issue, in the spirit of the If you could change one thing about Alpha 3... that would be good.
|
The Game Mat or "Battle" mat.
The biggest problems stem from this: counting squares for movement three or four times to see what's best before moving. Counting squares for placing area-of-effect spells. Drawing things on the mat (or building dungeons with other products that still make a grid). Erasing things off the mat when the PCs leave that room or level. Positioning for flanking, cover, etc.
-W. E. Ray
|
|
Spells
Managing high level spells requires more time than any other single part of the game.
I have played in high level games where the cleric and wizard require an hour to choose all their spells. Then when it hits their turn it requires a few minutes to sort through the list and cast the spell. Then the Spell resistance has to be checked, the saving throws, the damage, the effects listed and written down.
My complaint is simply too many spells to manage simply and the effects are too complicated.
Creative Director
|
Having run several high-level D&D games (I'm running one right now, in fact; my group's just starting "Into the Maw" for Savage Tide and is nearing 17th level), I'd have to say that one of the big problems with high-level games is the staggering number of options PCs have each round. There's SO many things they can do that if a player's not particularly aggressive and too worried about not making the Perfect Choice that everything'll fall apart.
But if you get into the rhythm of high-level, in my experience it's not THAT bad at all, actually. The GM just needs to work at keeping the pace going, and if a player takes too long on his turn, the GM needs to step in and force a decision or, in some cases, force a delay to the character's initiative.
One thing that's REALLY slowed the game down (and this is at ALL levels), though, were the sudden bloom of swift and immediate actions we saw near the end of the 3.5 cycle. All of a sudden, players could do three or four or more things in a round if they set their mind to it... but those actions don't take a correspondingly short time to adjudicate. Basically... swift and immediate actions let players take multiple turns rather than just ONE turn on their initiative rank, and that reduces the percentage of time other players have to act in the course of a round. It's effectively adding a phantom player or two or even three to the table. Immediate actions are the worst, in fact, since they FORCE a player to interrupt the flow of the game. A player or (usually) the GM is going through his turn, making decisions and suddenly a player busts in with an immediate action, and suddenly the "flow" of the game is disrupted in the same way a conversation is disrupted if a loud and brazen lout interrupts you to derail your story with his own story.
|
Damage output turning combat into initiative roll "tests".
Starting around 11th level damage output from various sources, be it save or die spells or full attacks, becomes high enough that the vast majority of combats are determined solely by who wins initiative. Nobody ever goes "second"
Casting anything but a save or die spell is a waste of an action, with the sole exception of using d-door because you know the power fighter goes next and you want him to full attack.
Moving up to melee is suicide as it trades one attack by you to eat three or more from whoever you attacked.
Improved Initiative becomes mandatory for survival.
Other splat book material (the spell nerveskitter, a belt of battle or other items that give an initiative bonus) assume disproportionate value.
Tactics are virtually irrelvant.
Knowledge skills become critical to identify immunities, or you need to memorize the monster manuals.
As combats become initiative roll contests, the power war feedback loop intensifies, while overall satisfaction drops. One shotting a mega-critter with a crit is fun. One shotting everything with below average damage is not. Dying because you rolled one short on initiative, or did not roll a 20 to save is definitely not fun.
Of course the reverse is true as well, and a 50 round, ten hour, slugfest as the "average" combat at high levels is a constant exercise in tediousness and boredom. (And it is worse if you make it that way at all levels, which is the "fix" they are trying with 4E.)
I think Krome is almost there, its not spells exactly, but what spells, and a host of other effects, do:
Modifiers. Or, to use WoW terminology, buffs and debuffs. Low level is easy, a +1 to attack and damage from bardic music, and a +2 from flanking. It rarely goes past that kind of simple math at low level. Worst modifier set to an attack roll that I ever saw in the low level range was flanking + prone + tanglefoot bag + bardic music + aid another + power attack for the world. Even that wasn't too bad.
Most people share the same buff (bardic music) or are all capable enough of getting the buff that they can rely on each other for knowledge of it (flanking, aid another). Many buffs are also mathematically simple, running on a scaling +1 or +2 paradigm.
But at high level, the list becomes much more diverse, and much more specialized. A mage can have caster level X, x+3 in his specialty, x+4 for spell pen, unless its his specialty in which case it is x+7, but he can use an item for an extra +2, blah blah. Clerics can Transbuff and Roll Out with Divine Power, Righteous Might, and in the absence of a bard and access to the spell compendium, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful. The degrees of buffs become so varied yet so class specific that each player becomes an solitary repository of knowledge for buffs, rather than a party member collective. As a result, tactics also seem to degrade, because the other players don't know what your buffs do, so they can't plan around them mentally. Some buffs stop being as mathematicall simple, especially when they interact with each other (Stoneskin + shield other, throw in subdual damage and a lesser vigor spell for kicks)
A good example of this is in my SCAP game, the knight now has a "come and get me" ability, that is broken by attacks made by others. As a result, the party is now shifting their tactics to launch their own debuffs before the knight does hers. But even at level 8, its taking a while for the paradigm to shift. I can only imagine how bad it will be by level 16.
I recall the buffs running on just my character at the end showdown in Age of Worms. It was ridiculous, and when combined with the overlapping effects from other PCs, it became even more so.
|
|
I'm curious as to what Jason's biggest complaint is.
The number of crappy Nirvana cover bands he encounters in Seattle.
(or were you referring to biggest complaint with high-level play?) ;-)
For me - its the amount of modifiers, numbers to add, to dice - number of dice needed to roll and add, and the way that you need to scale up the same modifiers to stay with the power curve (Deflection, Natural, Resistance).
Robert
The "big problem" seems to be the game focus shift despite people (either some players, or the DM) not wanting it to.
In the early levels it's the "dungeon Crawl". This can either be a literal dungeon, or a relatively linear-with-small-deviation type adventures where the players have choice but the DM ultimiately has decided what will happen. Lets face it- that's what a dungeon is. The Dm knows what every room holds and while the players have some "choice", what will happen is ultimately already decided.
It then moves into the "middle" levels where players have some small ability to side step this- and the DM can take some steps to keep them in line (largely by designing adventures with broader scope and by keeping what the players can do in mind when designing). Players have "more choice" at these ranges, and more ability to totally derail what the DM has planned. This is the range where PC damage tends to ramp up due to feats and class abilities and also tends to be where some SOD's begin to poke their heads up regularly and repeatedly.
It then moves into "high level" where the PC's largely have "Huge" options at their disposal both in combat and out and can for the most part do whatever they want. It Can mean alot of freedom for the DM too, if they view it that way. (mention the dragon 4 kingdoms over, and the PC's can just teleport there.. no need to write a 4 part adventure on crossing the globe). With this increase in power though comes a vast increase in DM responsibility and with that comes an exponential increase in the time needed to prepare for any given game session. Lets face it- even for a very well schooled DM it takes awhile to prepare when the PC's can do nearly anything.
The "problem" really shows though when the DM tries to continue play in stage 3 while treating the game as though it is in stage 1 or 2. The DM designs a classic dungeon crawl and tears hairs out when the PC's ignore it or disintegrate walls to get to the end, Windwalks through the place or Scry/teleports to the end.
I break it up into 3, but others could break it up into other chunks: the problem remains that the game gets "problematic" when the DM doesn't evolve with the change in game paradigm between one "stage" and the next.
my .02
-S
For me, the game is driven by (1) character development, (2) plot, (3) exploration of cool locales, and (4) combat, in roughly descending order of importance. High-level gaming takes a lot of items 2 and 3 and throws them out the window, more or less, leaving only half as much interest in playing, for me.
Plot and exploration suffer because, let's face it, there aren't many things that high-level characters can't do. In order to make a challenge for them, you need to really stretch things, or else nerf their abilities (in which case, you might as well just play lower-level games). This limits the types of plots avaliable. Example: espionage scenario between rival cities, one behind an "iron curtain." Low- to medium-level: meet contacts, intercept couriers, cross border, infiltrate enemy city, successfully bluff way past secret police, penetrate objective, somehow cross back to friendly territory. High level: cast legend lore to gain all info needed, then scry and teleport to the building, wind walk past most obstacles, and refuge back home. Or, simply openly attack the enemy city and lay it waste -- an easy task for a group of 20th level characters. A mini-campaign becomes a 10-minute exercise.
Arbitrarily declaring the entire enemy nation an anti-magic zone populated exclusively by 20th level fighters and psions might work once, but you can't keep pulling that trick and expect people to keep playing. Sure, you can come up with other ideas, but it's hard going.
The options.
And I'm not even talking about options for actions in combat. I'm talking about the gazillion character building options nobody really needs but nobody wants to miss out on either. Too many things are handled via feats or class abilities, and there are too many things players want by level X. Having to choose is not necessarily bad, but if there are too many class abilities and feats that are central to a specifically themed character it gets more frustrating for the players than necessary. It's also more than a little annoying for the DM, since he has to keep in mind all these mechanics if he wants the NPCs to be able to do something specific, and if he wants to allow the players to use the abilities they got, and if he plain simply doesn't want his encounters made pointless by some obscure mechanic (or combo of mechanics) out of the veritable arsenal there is to be had at high levels.
Obviously there's a simple solution: restricting non-core material. But the chore involved in reviewing that material to decide whether to allow it or not and whether to use a different solution to integrate mechanics ruled by that material is just as big and annoying, and it's off-putting for many players if you cut a lot of non-core options (or worse, if you put in a lot of effort to really pick what you think is useful and what isn't, and it - always - turns out what you don't care for is what they love).
D&D has far too many extraneous mechanics, and the higher you go in level the bigger the problem they become.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Having run several high-level D&D games (I'm running one right now, in fact; my group's just starting "Into the Maw" for Savage Tide and is nearing 17th level), I'd have to say that one of the big problems with high-level games is the staggering number of options PCs have each round. There's SO many things they can do that if a player's not particularly aggressive and too worried about not making the Perfect Choice that everything'll fall apart.
But if you get into the rhythm of high-level, in my experience it's not THAT bad at all, actually. The GM just needs to work at keeping the pace going, and if a player takes too long on his turn, the GM needs to step in and force a decision or, in some cases, force a delay to the character's initiative.
One thing that's REALLY slowed the game down (and this is at ALL levels), though, were the sudden bloom of swift and immediate actions we saw near the end of the 3.5 cycle. All of a sudden, players could do three or four or more things in a round if they set their mind to it... but those actions don't take a correspondingly short time to adjudicate. Basically... swift and immediate actions let players take multiple turns rather than just ONE turn on their initiative rank, and that reduces the percentage of time other players have to act in the course of a round. It's effectively adding a phantom player or two or even three to the table. Immediate actions are the worst, in fact, since they FORCE a player to interrupt the flow of the game. A player or (usually) the GM is going through his turn, making decisions and suddenly a player busts in with an immediate action, and suddenly the "flow" of the game is disrupted in the same way a conversation is disrupted if a loud and brazen lout interrupts you to derail your story with his own story.
Umm, yeah, that'd be me. Stupid Beguilers... :)
one of my all-time favorite James quotes:
Me: "I cast swift etherealness."
James (without so much as a pause): "Swift etherealness is BANNED FROM THE CAMPAIGN!"
He relented after thinking about it for a few minutes (but again, this just proves his point above about swift/immediate spells interrupting the flow of the game), but it was really bleeping funny.
The "big problem" seems to be the game focus shift despite people (either some players, or the DM) not wanting it to.
This is a good paradigm shift of how to view the problem. This is the part of the problem that is least commonly discussed.
The big problem is that the casters dominate the game, rather than there being parity.
For example, my Hill Giant sized gnome barbarian/legendary dreadnought in my epic game does a staggering amount of damage, but he kills something maybe once every two combats. He's certainly never decisive in the combats.
He's useful, in that he blocks for the glory boys in the back row, but let's just say that I empathize with the way that offensive linemen feel towards their QB.
Seconding the complexity problem...
I have a 17 page character sheet for my epic character that explains where every bonus comes from and what bonus it is, what my known spells do, what 3 different levels of PA and rage do to my attacks, what my equipment does etc. It's designed to be completely comprehensible to anyone who reads it.
And it's consistently misread by the other players when I miss a session simply because there's so much information.
|
|
Seconding the complexity problem...
I have a 17 page character sheet for my epic character that explains where every bonus comes from and what bonus it is, what my known spells do, what 3 different levels of PA and rage do to my attacks, what my equipment does etc. It's designed to be completely comprehensible to anyone who reads it.
And it's consistently misread by the other players when I miss a session simply because there's so much information.
Holy Smoke! 17 pages. I can't remember where all my bonuses come from. They are in the ball park though... I may try to do that. Just to see what happens. It'll be a nightmare to write.
Maybe I will post it on here just to torture you guys. >;)
Interesting idea here, as I threadjack back to my own post, and an idea that spawned in my brain reading someone elses Charisma thread.
What if your charisma mod determined the number of actively running "buffs" you could have on you? Would that suitably kill the dump stat paradigm? Would it help with overcomplexity issues at high level from multiple buffs and such?
Just figured Id toss that out there.
|
|
Example: espionage scenario between rival cities, one behind an "iron curtain."
Change it from cities. High level PCs are supposed to be focused on world altering events. Instead try espionage scenario between rival planets or planes one behind an "Mana Curtain."
I know you were saying that you don't like the shift in focus, but it is a natural thing for the power level. Unless you want to add super high level NPCs everywhere I can't see how to get around that, in any edition.
For a dungeon crawl, try using a demiplane created by an ancient demigod where he retreated to nurse his wounds from a battle with a demon lord. The wounds were too much and he perished. The demiplane shifted its nature to reflect the demigod's agony as he was dying.
*hey I like that... and it was off the cuff... I may try writing that one up*
Change it from cities. High level PCs are supposed to be focused on world altering events. Instead try espionage scenario between rival planets or planes one behind an "Mana Curtain."
But you have the exact same problems, just with different names. Yes, you can assume the plane behind the "mana curtain" is a giant antimagic field (or has laws inimical to the PCs' encounter-bypassing spells), and all the planar dwellers are super-powerful. In essence, you're nerfing the PC's abilities with respect to their spells, and pumping up their combat opposition to match theirs. Calling them different "planes" makes the players more likely to swallow it, but doesn't change what you're actually doing.
Try coming up with several unique scenarios that assume that all spells work normally, and make sure these adventures don't simply involve combat and/or instant-death super-traps. "Diplomacy," in Dungeon, was one (and "Enemies of My Enemy" followed the same model). I'm at a loss for others.
IMO, the "problem" with high-level play in D&D is the level of commitment required by both the DM and the players. If both the DM and the players are organized and know what the NPCs and PCs can and can't do (either off the top of their head or by writing it down ahead of time) in relation to the campaign and adventure setting, high-level play can be enjoyable and almost as easy to run as a mid-level game.
However, this level of commitment is not common. Similar to Shadowrun, everyone needs to be on the same wavelength or the wheels come off. I always recommend that people watch Bruce Willis in The Jackal for how a shadowrunner is supposed to act; however, you tend to get at least one individual who wants to play Shadowrun like they're Neo from The Matrix.
I also agree it's not so much a rules problem as a style-of-play problem. High-level play should be dealing with mythic (not necessarily world-shattering or "Epic," but legendary) foes, magic, situations, and themes. Because such things should be rare, DMs have basically two options when the party starts reaching around 12th-15th level to avoid having their campaign fill up with so many high-level "bits" that it more or less collapses under it's own weight (the Fogotten Realms were moving in this direction before WotC blew them up for 4e):
1) "Semi-retirement." The party becomes nobles, church leaders, guildmasters, merchants, etc. (i.e., they do become some of the movers and shakers of the campaign) and spend most of their time as NPCs (influential positions in society leave little time for adventuring) while the players start a new group of PCs (possibly associated with the old PCs, possibly in an entirely different area of the campaign world). Occasionally, the old PCs will get together again to deal with something suited to their abilities and social positions in a single adventure or short series.
2) "Long pauses." The party spends long periods of time (months to years) between adventures. This can be used with the same premise as "semi-retirement" where the PCs spend most of their time dealing with the day-to-day issues of their influential position. This can give the DM opportunities to add a lot of intrigue and politics. The BECMI D&D modules CM1 Test of the Warlords and CM3 Sabre River, as well as the 1st Ed AD&D Bloodstone modules (H1-H4) are pretty good examples of this sort of campaign style.
However, there are a lot of people who just want to keep "churning" to gain more levels and gear as fast as possible in game time without "tying their characters down" with responsibilities. Beyond a certain point, things just break down under that style.
With all that said, high-level play could use some streamlining (i.e., number of bonus types). Also, the scalability of feats, skills, and spells is a concern.
The "big problem" seems to be the game focus shift despite people (either some players, or the DM) not wanting it to.This is a good paradigm shift of how to view the problem. This is the part of the problem that is least commonly discussed.
Agreed. Could changing our own expectations be the fix? Is 13th level the new 20th?
Adjust your campaigns accordingly? Should Paizo consider a "super slow" xp progression, and sub-levels that drag out those first 12 in stages somehow. Sounds silly, but, that seems to be one of a very limited set of options.
|
|
He's useful, in that he blocks for the glory boys in the back row, but let's just say that I empathize with the way that offensive linemen feel towards their QB.
Good analogy!
Ha - I used to BE one of those offensive lineman.
(which reminds me a little anecdote when I reported to spring training for the first time).
Coach: We think you'd make a good lineman
me: An Offensive lineman?
Coach: ALL lineman are offensive!
Robert
Agreed. Could changing our own expectations be the fix? Is 13th level the new 20th?
Adjust your campaigns accordingly? Should Paizo consider a "super slow" xp progression, and sub-levels that drag out those first 12 in stages somehow. Sounds silly, but, that seems to be one of a very limited set of options.
I would find it to be a very poor implementation to simply say "go until 13th, after that level every 20 sessions".
First off, that doesn´t solve the problem, it just makes you play *longer* with them, because eventually players will get into those high levels.
Secondly, the material is there to be played, not to be disregarded. I see the problems people are having, but there should be a better solution than to just not play.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
There are many problems at high level that have already been addressed. High-level-play basically takes pre-existing problems and magnifies them in time-consuming ways.
As a DM of a high-level game the ones that bug me most are:
NPC creation
- choosing feats. Making sure chosen feats work with other feats and prerequisites.
- choosing equipment. Making sure they have all the needed gear to stay competetive (or at least fulfill their role.).
- checking gear value against assumed NPC wealth at that level. (if it's a published adventure, the developer HAS to do this.)
- choosing spells. Making sure spell choices fit the flavor of the NPC
- skill allocation. Again, published adventures can't get away with leaving this out.
Monster Advancement rules don't really work well.
- the only things that scale with increased HD are physical attributes and special abilities directly tied to HD.
- this quickly outpaces the PC's abilities to save against these effects.
- even then, base damage of special abilities rarely scale. breath weapons, poison damage, etc.
- have to look to non-core sourcebooks for options to increase caster level for SPA's
- the "non-associated class" rule is nearly always broken, once you've played around with it long enough.
- a "one size fits all" advancement rule is fundamentally flawed.
- monsters advanced using these rules rarely work at the CR the system places them at. In a published adventure, if the numbers don't work as expected, you have to waste space explaining why.
There is a lack of good high-level adventures
- I blame space constraints, because statblocks are bloated, cumbersome beasts, and no one has put out a generally accepted "abbreviated statblock" into the OGL universe yet.
The thing that killed most of our AP games at high level was sheer accumulation of bookkeeping, particularly of bonuses. Other things were going wrong as well, but having everything move so glacially slowly exacerbated all other problems. I'm much more likely to forgive a boring or imbalanced combat if it takes 30 minutes than if it takes 7 hours.
I have not seen this as a player organization problem. I have a single very organized player who comes to game with tons of notes. He seldom takes long to decide on an action for any PC. But the fights still take forever. If the enemy casts Dispel on his PCs we need to roll 40-50 times and then recalculate all bonuses. Next impulse they do it again. There is no way to make this fast. Or fun, or interesting.
The second biggest killer is GM prep. My player would have liked to do a follow-on adventure to RotRL involving drowned Bakrakhan. But I felt myself completely unable to write it. I can write low-level adventures, but making even one NPC at 17th blows most of my evening. And there is no commesurate payoff. High level play is so much more work, it would have to be much more fun than low-level to be worthwhile for me; but it's significantly *less* fun in almost every regard, as player or GM.
Our current AP-based game is capped at 12th; we'll just abandon the later modules.
Mary
There is a lack of good high-level adventures
- I blame space constraints, because statblocks are bloated, cumbersome beasts, and no one has put out a generally accepted "abbreviated statblock" into the OGL universe yet.
I think this, once again, strikes at the heart of the matter. I don't know the mind of the 3e designers, but I imagine that after a certain point they expected High Level characters to receive tailored campaigns, hunting down antagonist NPCs, managing campaign resources, etc. Unless the campaign is a long and highly ambitious module (not beyond Paizo), and the GM sticks to it verbatim, you just can't have a high level published module.
|
3.5 High level play problems
1. All the bonus types and stacking can get encombursome. Even when a DM is prepared it still can get slow with it. I think that PF:RPG would best be served by reducing the number of "types" of bonuses.
As a DM I force my player to know what bonuses are in effect and have that info ready on hand for me when it hits the bad guys. If not the spell or effect is countered. Its harsh but I run a 8-11 man group and if a DM is prepared its only fair to ask the players to be as well. If I screw up then players get rewarded somehow. No bonus should stack so people don't have to remember what stacks with what.
2. Swift actions and immidate actions
One of the worst ideas brought into the game. Breaks the flow, iniative can be a mess with it, and I sometimes wonder if all of it was play tested enough. I am close to banning them myself to help game flow.
3. Getting the CR balance right
Sometime you think you throw to much and the party wipes it. You throw a "easy" fight and damn near kill everyone if if you "fix" the bad guys dice rolls to help the group out. There is no such thing a perfect CR in high levels it is all educated guesswork for the most part.
2. Swift actions and immidate actions
One of the worst ideas brought into the game. Breaks the flow, iniative can be a mess with it, and I sometimes wonder if all of it was play tested enough. I am close to banning them myself to help game flow.
Oddly enough, I've always kind of wished that there were more swift actions in the game. I really don't think that it breaks the flow, at least in games that I've seen. Immediate actions can, potentially, but most immediate actions I've seen are spells, which will limit when they can be used and by whom.
I notice that almost all of the problems listed are combat-specific. Is that because other people don't find exploration to be problematic? Or because their games become progressively combat-heavy at higher levels? The latter, to me, is a problem in and of itself.
|
|
I notice that almost all of the problems listed are combat-specific. Is that because other people don't find exploration to be problematic? Or because their games become progressively combat-heavy at higher levels? The latter, to me, is a problem in and of itself.
I have to agree. The problem I have seen is that we seem to believe combat should be as common at higher levels as it is at the lower levels. We think this despite the fact that the higher level iconic figures of fantasy (even Conan) fought less and less as they hit higher levels--each combat was significant. Consider:
King Arthur--Almost never unleashed Excalibur but his climactic struggles with Launcelot/Guinevere and Mordred/Morgan absolutely set the scope of his kingdom in his hands. A fighter forced to rule and reign, with the power to defeat any warrior and yet, so rarely was the sword available as an answer.
Gandalf--This mightiest of wizards in fantasy actually only had two battles in his time orchestrating the War of the Ring--with Saruman an equally powerful archmage and on the fields of Pelennor with the Witch King of Angmar. He applied his knowledge and insight constantly but wasn't slinging fireballs left and right, such simple conjurations being beneath the Stormcrow.
Achilles--In the whole of the Iliad, Achilles participates in three battles. He lands with the Greeks, he fights one battle sweeping away the Trojan defenders, and he fights Hector one on one. This mightiest of warriors spends the tale struggling with his ego, vanity, and not with decimating the horde of enemies. He is no king or commander, and yet the war hinges upon the times when he deigns to give battle.
I am sure there are many more examples to consider but the core is this:
combat at high levels is slow and complex because we are talking about tremendously potent powers. Such battles should be rare and epic.
When we DM games as if each session should involve the same 6-9 encounters as a low level game, we fail to embrace what a high level game can do. I think the lack of high level modules reflect the inability of game designers to present open-ended conundrums for a hero to solve rather than a series of combats to face. A truly high level module would tend to take on some 'choose your own adventure' tones as the designer presents decision trees where each main course selected results in significantly different outcomes, long before a blade is drawn or a spell cast. A module isn't really up to that task.
For that, you need a DM.
One other suggestion: at higher levels, it is essential for a DM to be comfortable winging it. Because the players have more options, no amount of prep work is going to be able to keep up with them.
I love higher level campaigns because the players have had enough levels/treasure/equipment to truly express their character concept without the limitation of scarcity. It is at the higher levels that the personality of a character is revealed, as well as the fatal flaws of that character that a DM can exploit for endless amusement.
Interesting idea here, as I threadjack back to my own post, and an idea that spawned in my brain reading someone elses Charisma thread.
What if your charisma mod determined the number of actively running "buffs" you could have on you? Would that suitably kill the dump stat paradigm? Would it help with overcomplexity issues at high level from multiple buffs and such?
Just figured Id toss that out there.
I don't think that would be effective, and be unbalanced toward certain classes like the sorcerer, which is already the fourth most powerful class in the game. Characters that are already effected by MAD would be the worse off in this change, and they need all the help they can get already.
Still, the idea of a buff cap has some merit. Maybe limit it to three buffs, and provide feats to increase the number available. Alternately, start with a small cap, and let it get progressively bigger as you level, though then you'd run into the same problems again as you approach higher levels.
Really though, it's not just buffs. It's class and PrC-granted encounter-specific abilities as well. The game would benefit from some simplification, certainly.
-Steve
Really though, it's not just buffs. It's class and PrC-granted encounter-specific abilities as well. The game would benefit from some simplification, certainly.
There's the rub.
No simplification (usually) with backward compatibility.
I think we have to call these "bugs" "features", and start documenting/supporting their functionality.
Really though, it's not just buffs. It's class and PrC-granted encounter-specific abilities as well. The game would benefit from some simplification, certainly.
There's the rub.
No simplification (usually) with backward compatibility.
I think we have to call these "bugs" "features", and start documenting/supporting their functionality.
Well, technically, the game has been massively simplified. Paizo can only use material available on the RAW, and suppliment it with their own work. They *cannot* specifically address bad game design put forth by WoTC in the official D&D suppliments.
-Steve
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
At this very moment, I am statting up three CR23 "boss" encounters for my 19th level game tomorrow.
I have been slow to realize this, but I have come to loathe templates. They started out fine, and I use 'em every which way I can, but they have a fatal flaw:
They come with too much front-loaded garbage that I don't want. Almost all of them modify ability scores, add an ability or three, do something fiddly with natural armor, energy resistance or SR, and are static once applied.
Half-Dragon? you're stuck with +8 to STR and a 6 damage die breath weapon that becomes painfully useless at high levels.
What if all I want is to understand how high a STR score I should give my advanced monster for its CR, and what a scaleable breath weapon adds to that number. I don't care about claws, I don't want wings, I don't care about the fiddly +2 INT and CHA.
The monsters I end up with end up looking nothing like the templates that I started with.
I wish we could get smaller, more modular ability packages instead of bulky templates full of things you don't want. I also want a la carte cable TV, so perhaps my expectations are unrealistic.
|
|
You are right, of course, in order to quote some song lyrics I made a weak point.
A certain type of heroism which we might call; "wild courage" is actively discouraged, which is a shame.
Or we might say that a certain type of character rebuilding that we might call "character suicide" is made obvious, which is an issue because of the related game balance issues.
When we DM games as if each session should involve the same 6-9 encounters as a low level game, we fail to embrace what a high level game can do.
I have to second that statement. Of course, it also depends heavily on your player's gaming style.
One of the most interesting higher level adventures I have seen was The Prince of Redhand by Richard Pett. It is an adventure for 15th level characters that is largely a social event. My players love it. The whole situation creeped them out, but they loved having to deal with social encounters instead of combat ones. It allow them to use skills and class abilities in unusual ways to accomplish what needed to be done. It also really helped set the tone for the campaign, given things that are learned in later AoW adventures.
I wish we could get smaller, more modular ability packages instead of bulky templates full of things you don't want.
While it this may not be exactly what you are looking for, the extraterrestrial template from d20 modern may give you some ideas.
EXTRATERRESTRIAL (TEMPLATE)
The term “extraterrestrial” is used to describe creatures from other worlds. Extraterrestrials capable of space travel can be encountered almost anywhere. Some present themselves as friendly explorers, while others are interested primarily in conquest or colonization. Others are simply predators that make their way from one world to another.
TEMPLATE TRAITS
“Extraterrestrial” is an inherited template that can be added to any living creature (referred to hereafter as the “base creature”). The creature retains its original type. It uses the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
Challenge Rating: Same as base creature, with modifiers as noted under Special Qualities, below. If the total CR modifier is a fraction, round up or down to the nearest whole number; for example, an extraterrestrial that gains a breath weapon (+2/3 CR), improved natural armor (+1/3 CR), and power resistance (+1/3 CR) has a total CR modifier of +1.
Speed: The extraterrestrial can replace one of the base creature’s modes of movement for another, gaining the ability to burrow, climb, fly, or swim.
Burrow: The extraterrestrial can burrow at a speed equal to one-half its base land speed.
Climb: The extraterrestrial can climb at a speed equal to its base land speed. It also gains a +8 species bonus on Climb checks.
Fly: The extraterrestrial has wings and can fly at twice the speed of its base land speed (poor maneuverability).
Swim: The extraterrestrial can swim at a speed equal to its base land speed. It also gains a +8 species bonus on Swim checks.
Special Qualities: An extraterrestrial retains all the special qualities of the base creature. It may also gain one or more special qualities, chosen from the following list:
Special Quality (CR Modifier)
Acidic blood (+1/3)
Blindsight (+1/3)
Breath weapon (+2/3)
Damage reduction 5/– (+2/3)
Death cloud (+2/3)
Energy resistance 10 (+1/3)
Fast healing 5 (+2/3)
Improved natural armor (+1/3)
Poisonous bite (+2/3)
Power resistance (+1/3)
Psionics (+1/3)
Scent (+1/3)
Acidic Blood (Ex): The extraterrestrial has acidic blood. Each time it takes damage, it deals acid damage to all adjacent creatures and objects as it splatters its blood on them. The amount of damage equals 1d6 per 3 Hit Dice of the creature (rounded down), to a maximum of 5d6 points. A successful Reflex save (DC 15) halves the damage. Acidic blood increases the creature’s CR by +1/3.
Blindsight (Ex): Blindsight increases the creature’s CR by +1/3.
Breath Weapon (Su): Once every 1d4 rounds, the extraterrestrial can breathe a 30-foot cone of cold or fire, or a 60-foot line of acid or electricity. The breath weapon deals damage of the appropriate energy type to all opponents within the effect, and the amount of damage is equal to 1d6 per Hit Dice of the creature, to a maximum of 15d6 points. Targets who make a successful Reflex save (DC 10 + 1/2 creature’s HD + creature’s Con modifier) take half damage. A breath weapon increases the creature’s CR by +2/3.
Damage Reduction (Ex): The extraterrestrial gains damage reduction 5/–. Damage reduction increases the creature’s CR by +2/3.
Death Cloud (Ex): When it dies, the extraterrestrial expels a cloud of poisonous gas that fills its fighting space and all squares within 10 feet. Any creature in the cloud must succeed in a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 the dead creature’s Hit Dice + the dead creature’s Con modifier) to negate the initial and secondary effects (1d6 points of Constitution damage each). The death cloud increases the creature’s CR by +2/3.
Energy Resistance (Ex): The extraterrestrial gains resistance 10 to one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic/concussion). Energy resistance increases the creature’s CR by +1/3.
Fast Healing (Ex): The extraterrestrial has fast healing 5. Fast healing increases the creature’s CR by +2/3.
Improved Natural Armor (Ex): Increase the base creature’s natural armor by +3. This increases the creature’s CR by +1/3.
Poisonous Bite (Ex): The extraterrestrial’s bite attack is poisonous. (Only creatures with a natural bite attack can gain this ability.) A successful Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 the creature’s Hit Dice + the creature’s Con modifier) negates the effect. The poison’s damage can vary, as shown below; either roll randomly or choose the type that best suits the creature. A poisonous bite increases the creature’s CR by +2/3.
Roll d% (Initial Damage/Secondary Damage)
01–17 (1d6 Str/1d6 Str)
18–34 (1d6 Dex/1d6 Dex)
35–50 (1d4 Con/1d4 Con)
51–67 (2d4 Wis/2d4 Wis)
68–84 (2d4 Cha/2d4 Cha)
85–100 (None/Paralysis 1d6 hours)
Power Resistance (Ex): The extraterrestrial gains power resistance equal to its Hit Dice. Power resistance increases the creature’s CR by +1/3.
Psionics (Sp): The extraterrestrial gains the use of one psionic power of 2nd level or lower. It can use this power three times per day. This ability increases the creature’s CR by +1/3.
Scent (Ex): This ability increases the creature’s CR by +1/3.
Feats: An extraterrestrial may replace one of the base creature’s feats with the Planetary Adaptation feat. If the base creature has no feats, it does not gain Planetary Adaptation as a bonus feat.
My campaign is just about done with the Rise of the Runelords AP, as the PCs are fighting through the last of the guards to confront the final BBEG (trying to avoid spoilers) and are all 15th level.
I have two problems with high level play:
1. Flying. I hate the fact that (thanks to the party sorcerer) no one walks anywhere anymore. I have real problems with trying to keep battles fast-paced and exciting while simultaneously dealing with three-dimensional movement and combat. I have started to limit flight in certain circumstances (10' high tunnels, for example) and am working on a more free-form set of rules for tracking altitude and distance, but it's a hassle and don't enjoy it. It also doesn't make much sense from a traditional fantasy standpoint. Even in high-magic fictional fantasy worlds, you only ever see the wizards flying themselves around not the whole party zooming across chasms and up the sides of mountains. Perhaps the fly spell should be Personal?*
2. Hand-fulls of dice. With 6 PCs, my combats tend to last for an hour, at least. I have finally trained my players to be somewhat efficient in die-rolling (rolling damage with to-hit, for example), but the amount of math and sheer number of dice involved are absurd. For example, the 15th level dwarf duskblade with a flaming waraxe, shield bash, and the ability to attach a shocking grasp to each swing rolls: 5 d20s to hit, 1-4 d10s plus 1-5 d6s for damage, followed by 1-4 d20s for spell penetration (inevitable at this level) and 1-4 times 5d6 for shocking grasp damage, every round. This could conceivably total 38 dice, which doesn't mention the math and buffs that have to be considered for each die. God forbid the target has concealment or anything wacky. (actually, I'm lucky he doesn't have Great Cleave). By the way, he has the ability to cast a buttload of swift spells, which adds to the fun. Now, luckily, he's one of the worst in the group (the halfling thief with the ring of blinking and the palm throw ability might be worse), but we're talking about minutes of time just for one round AFTER the player has decided what he wants to do and without any role-playing or description of his actions. This is not fun.
Unfortunately for the Pathfinder RPG, I don't really see it improving either of these two areas, which is why I'm moving to 4th edition. I don't want to derail this thread into a debate about the pros and cons of 4th edition, but I do think it has made some progress in patching these broken areas.
O
* In all fairness, flying did allow for one of the most entertaining solutions to a combat I've seen in a while. In order to kill the blue dragon that was about to munch on his buddy, the flying dragon shaman let himself fall and crash-landed on the dragon's back, doing 25d6 damage to both, severely wounding the shaman and killing the dragon. That was fun.
Ahh - so heres where they are hiding the really hard core pro 4E threads. I keep looking in the 4E section for them. I'll have to make sure that CWM drops by to enjoy the wonderful ambiance you guys have going here.
Ahh - so heres where they are hiding the really hard core pro 4E threads. I keep looking in the 4E section for them. I'll have to make sure that CWM drops by to enjoy the wonderful ambiance you guys have going here.
They're two different games. I play lots of different games.
Pathfinder's at least as different from 4e as either one is from Shadowrun, or Fudge.
I'd like it if this didn't degenerate into another versus thread.
The splat books are also a big problem with 3.5 and high level play. They were the ones that introduced the immediate/swift actions and a lot of the game breaking mechanics that I saw. Even the psionics handbook was kind of a game breaker. All of a sudden all the spellcasters wanted to be psions because they didn't need to use verbal, somatic, and material components anymore.
If I ever run a 3.5 campaign again, maybe a PFRPG game who knows, I will not be allowing any of the splat books for PC use. As a DM they might be ok to throw in something unexpected, but that's it.
The splat books are also a big problem with 3.5 and high level play. They were the ones that introduced the immediate/swift actions and a lot of the game breaking mechanics that I saw. Even the psionics handbook was kind of a game breaker. All of a sudden all the spellcasters wanted to be psions because they didn't need to use verbal, somatic, and material components anymore.
If I ever run a 3.5 campaign again, maybe a PFRPG game who knows, I will not be allowing any of the splat books for PC use. As a DM they might be ok to throw in something unexpected, but that's it.
PFRPG will presumably work fine but if its 3.5 then you'll face a couple of play balance issues. Fighters run out of 'good' feats at around 12th. Essentially the fighter player has already chosen all the feats that he really likes and he's now down to picking over ones he long ago rejected.
The Sorcerer also faces a problem. Their schtik is to be able to blast spells all day long but from a limited selection. The problem is that higher level wizards have tons of spells as well. You essentially get to a point where the wizard has 40 spells and the Sorcerer has 60 but the wizard is clearly the better class because its nearly impossible for the Wizard to even use all 40 spells in any given day. Since neither class can possibly sue up all their spells the Sorcerer looses out sense he can't really make use of the fact that he actually has more spells then the wizard - Its a moot point when neither can really run dry even if they cast their spells with wild abandon.
The biggest problem I have with high-level games is 1) the enormous amount of preparation time for adventures and especially high-level combat (strategy and tactics) 2) the length of combats: most of the game sessions are one long combat session with only 2 or 3 rounds of actual combat 3) the fact that there are so few high-level adventures commercially available (especially epic-level adventures).
I am DM-ing an epic level campaign at the moment, and the players and I agreed to play it as long as we have fun. And we still do. The problems such as teleporting and gating PC's I can work around. I construct the adventures in such away that they cannot solve them without using these spells. I even ran a fight in which they needed to do a time stop because otherwise they would have been overwhelmed by the number of enemy actions. They might even need a wish to solve a problem sometimes. So far this works out fine.
Because of the enormous amount of preparation time I now alternate between two campaigns for the same players: we play an epic adventure, then we play a low-level adventure with other characters, then an epic adventure again etc.
This is the only way I could solve the problem mentioned above.
|
IMHO, the saving throw system is broken at high levels.
All characters - with the exception of the monk - have a good saving throw and a poor saving throw. For example, a Fighter's Fortitude save is good and his Will save is poor. Typically, the value of the poor saving throw is equal to 1/2 the value of the character's good saving throw (rounded down). Thus a level 10 Fighter has a base Fortitude save of +7 and a base Will save of +3.
The problem is that as characters progress beyond level 10-12, the gap between their best saving throw and their worst saving throw becomes so large that an an effect that members of one character class can shrug off with ease becomes incredibly deadly to members of a different character class. This is coupled with an increase in the number of Save or Die effects that the characters face - often leading to situations where an encounter is either a cakewalk or a TPK, depending upon the composition of the party.
The solution?
Set the value of the character's worst saving throw at 3/4 of his or her best saving throw (rounded down). This ensures that the disparities between saving throw bonuses at high level are reduced, but not entirely eliminated.
Let's look at the maths.
As the rules currently stand, at level 6 a fighter has a base Fortitude save of +5 and a base Will save of +2 (a gap of 3 points); at level 9, a base Fortitude save of +6 and a Will save of +3 (a gap of 3 points); at level 12, a Fortitude save of +8 and a Will save of +4 (a gap of 4 points); at level 15, a Fortitude save of +10 and a Will save of +5 (a gap of 5 points); and at level 20, a Fortitude save of +12 and a Will save of +6 (a gap of 6 points).
Under my proposal, at level 6 a fighter would have a base Fortitude save of +5 and a base Will save of +3 (a gap of 2 points); at level 9, a Fortitude save of +6 and a Will save of +4 (a gap of 2 points); at level 12, a Fortitude save of +8 and a Will save of +6 (a gap of 2 points); at level 15, a Fortitude save of +10 and a Will save of +7 (a gap of 3 points); and at level 20, a Fortitude save of +12 and a Will save of +9 (a gap of 3 points).
This means that different character classes still have clear strengths and weaknesses, but the gap between the two doesn't grow so large that it is crippling at high levels.
High level spellcasting! Too many options to consider when 'memorizing' spells, and keeping track of multiple buffs is a pain.
My (proposed)solutions: one magic buff per character (either the first one is the default buff, or the most powerful buff dissipates all others); also make all buffs last for the encounter.
Go back to *strictly* limiting how many spells a Magic User can learn in a life time (ala 1st ed). Alternatively, replace Wizards with Sorcerors and Clerics with Favored Souls.