High Level Play: Please Define the Problem


Alpha Playtest Feedback General Discussion

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

QXL99 wrote:
replace Wizards with Sorcerors.

Wow... I sure wouldn't want to play in THAT campaign!

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
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.

That hasn't changed in 4E.

I recently had a chance to play in two 5th level adventures. Due to both the simpler actions, greater number of powers, magic items, and on-going effects, combat is sometimes an almost dizzying array of strike-counter-strike like CCGs. My wizard, for example, was able to do five different actions on his turn using an action point and my knowledge of the action system (roll on three spells, heal himself with a potion, and cause additional damage to a target). There's four rolls alone. And I used interrupts myself to change the outcome of hits (thank the gawds). If the Pathfinder RPG continues to use swift and intermediate actions in the future, PLEASE be clear what they are, when they're used, etc. I can't tell you the number of times I watched DMs and knowledgeable gamers stopped games to argue some gawd-damned rules minutiae (can someone say AoO?).

Dark Archive

Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:
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....

Then you're going to limit the game. I'm personally comfortable winging any encounter but I either currently play or have played in several games where the DM needs every NPC or monster's hit point correct, every skill rank accounted for, and every requisite ability accounted for. Outside of rules lawyers, do they think the players care?


QXL99 wrote:


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.

Yes, I think this makes sense, especially for Wizards and Divine Casters.

Spell Glut is a huge slowdown for even organized players. We just implemented "Spells per Day as Spells Known" as part of this Magic Point House Rule, and point system aside, all the characters are instantly easier to manage.

We could run into problems, but so far it's a very attractive solution. (That is, Spells Known for all classes. Magic Point may or may not be your cup of tea).


toyrobots wrote:
QXL99 wrote:


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.

Yes, I think this makes sense, especially for Wizards and Divine Casters.

Spell Glut is a huge slowdown for even organized players. We just implemented "Spells per Day as Spells Known" as part of this Magic Point House Rule, and point system aside, all the characters are instantly easier to manage.

We could run into problems, but so far it's a very attractive solution. (That is, Spells Known for all classes. Magic Point may or may not be your cup of tea).

Actually, my DM, hallowed be his name, instituted a rule that said that casters could draw on approved splat books for spells only if they removed a spell that they could cast from their spell list. So, if you wanted Benign Transposition, you had to choose to dump something like Burning Hands from your caster list. (Which means you can't use wands of Burning Hands without a UMD check, for example.) You also can't drop a spell from a banned school.

It makes things very manageable while allowing players to customize their spell lists to taste. Good RP, promotes choice, limits complexity... I'm a fan.


roguerouge wrote:


Actually, my DM, hallowed be his name, instituted a rule that said that casters could draw on approved splat books for spells only if they removed a spell that they could cast from their spell list. So, if you wanted Benign Transposition, you had to choose to dump something like Burning Hands from your caster list. (Which means you can't use wands of Burning Hands without a UMD check, for example.) You also can't drop a spell from a banned school.

It makes things very manageable while allowing players to customize their spell lists to taste. Good RP, promotes choice, limits complexity... I'm a fan.

As far as my opinion counts (not at all), I think they should try and slip that rule into Beta before they all come off the presses. I don't want to imagine the sort of player who would complain about that.


Prime Evil wrote:

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...

I agree with the problem, but I'm not so sure I agree with the solution. Right now, at level 20, you have the +12 base save for your good save. You've also now had the ability to increase abilities 5 times, so there's a better than average chance that the ability your good save is based upon is now a 20 (+5), which means that your good save is really going to be a +17 or better (feats and magic items also increase your saves). Now, take your not so good saves, remember that you probably didn't waste abilities to boost them up, so let's say that you have an average of +2 (+1 per ability and +1 misc) for that ability. You now have an actual spread of +19 (good save +5 ability +2 misc) for your good save and +11 for your bad saves (+9 +1 ability +1 misc). That's still a difference of 8, or 40%.

Suppose instead that base saves are the same across the board and that they are only modified by the associated stats. Your "good" save would still be good because it would be determined by where you allocate your abilities. Say that you take an average between the current good save and bad save rounded up as the base save. At level 20 you would have +9 as the base save across the board. Now add your +7 (+5 ability +2 misc) and you end up with +16. Your bad saves would be +11 (+9 base +2 misc) for a difference of 5, or 25%.

It would also be difficult to get the saves up to a point where success was basically assured and the problem of one class being vulnerable to another class wouldn't entirely go away, but it would be mitigated. The other thing you would want to do, of course, is make mechanical changes to save or die spells so that they are either easier to save against or have slightly less lethal effects.


Wow. Just one? That's tough. No, it isn't. I think I've got it.

As power scale goes up, the world has to become more and more a charactature of itself to keep up with it.

Let me explain that. Normal games have several kinds of badguys. There's the ones that are fun to fight in droves, the ones that worry you a bit because they can do some cool things, the colorful fun badguys who aren't as tough as they are memorable, minibosses, subbosses, bosses, and BBEGs.

In an epic game, there's nothing fun to fight that would reasonably exist in the world. Normal stuff doesn't last long enough to merit notice. So you have to yank up the difficulty so ludicrously high that suddenly there's whole armies of giants and whatever wandering around. It's like you've fallen off the regular world and have landed in looney VVWHAKOOM world where you need to be a super sayan to even show up on radar.

Just look at the APs. Rise of the Runelords starts out great, but by the last couple of issues it's full of stuff that's huge beyond credibility. It doesn't even feel like Golarion anymore.

The inverse problem is that you get plot exposition that's rich and meaty, but the authors have to appologize that this part of the game not really worth an encounter at the PC's level, but is just too necessary to the story and sadly there's no no more uber, level appropriate way to present it. There's something wrong if you have to appologize for not being able to tell a story because of the level of the adventure. You end up power inflating everything just to get enough fight out of it, but then the consistant feel of the setting begins to fall through.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

[moved to Pathfinder RPG forum]


This has been said before, but I'll throw it out there again. Conditional modifiers across attack and defense, which includes buff spells and debuffs.

Bascially, you get a situation where every player on his or her turn is calculating and recalculating their attack roll, their AC, their saves -- every stat. Based on what's coming at them. Everyone's excited. Everyone wants to do their best. No one wants to die...

"Wait wait wait...I forgot Heroe's Quest. Waitwaitwait...is this a mind effect? Waitwaitwait...I forgot I had the super power of walloping that only works on thursday, is this a thursday? I failed my save? Waitwaitwait...I killed someone last round, so I forgot my necklace is active. [asked mid action of the next person in the initiative order] That's +6 more, did I still fail my save? Waitwaitwait, you said the enemy was short? Is that like, dwarf short? Because if so, I'll switch to my +5 hammer of short-like-a-dwarf walloping! Whadya mean its for dwarves only? The text says... Waitwaitwait... and so on and so on..."

It takes FOREVER to get around the table and to go a second time.

This is really about the confluence of a vast array of conditional options, not just options. Options that only come into play under certain conditions. Way too many for most players to keep in their heads.

And, with respect, it's not enough to say, essentially, that if a group plays a certain way (more agressively, less tactically, whatever) the problems are mitigated; because not everyone plays that way. And the rules need to support a variety of play styles with the D&D spectrum.

2 cents delivered.


I think this is a really important thread, that cuts to the chase of where dozens of other threads are going.

To me, it seems like the complexity/delay of high level combat is the problem most people are talking about here. I think, though, that it's a disease with multiple causes, and by a few more precise fixes might solve the problem without resorting to a 4E-like overhaul.

James Jacobs wrote:
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.

This is definitely true, swifts and immediates add turns, which make individual turns much longer and screw up other people's plans, forcing them to change their intended actions and take more time. There are also other spells and feats that simply allow for extra actions and combos, like the Hustle psionic power and that wiz/sorc spell that also gives an extra action. So, removal of these would directly address the problem by cutting down actions.

Some of this problem also surely comes from players who don't have everything ready when their turns come up -- like all attacks rolled and ready to report numbers, and spell selection looking for the perfect move. Like a chess match, there has to be a time limit -- at least no longer than 2 minutes. Maybe we can come up with a sort of reverse action point system to use as a penalty for 2 minute violations. This, I think, is the main problem with iterative attacks. Awake players should never delay gameplay with iterative attacks, even if they're high-level rangers.

Also, recalculation always causes delay. This, I think, varies by group. We don't usually have a huge problem with this, using notes sections on our paper to keep track of active buffs and rolling handfuls of d20s to deal with dispels. But I'd certainly be open to a buff-cap, either hard, or soft depending on the level of the buff-ee. As for dispel, you don't want to nerf this so it only affects one buff, because it'd make buffs too powerful (I would be interested, however, in seeing people be able to use the 'reverse' of a spell to debuff as well as to counterspell-so dispel isn't such an automatic choice).

Also, I think the specific rewording of several problematic spells, which PF is already starting to do, will help speed things up. Polymorph and similar buffs have a lot to do with it. Particular uses of Telekenisis are another example. I know there are others that I can't think of at the moment.

Simplifying combat maneuvers will help, as CMB does.

Finally, as much as some people will dislike this, anything that gives you another thing to control, whether by summoning, mind control, familiars, or cohorts, slows down combat and makes things more complex for the same reasons as the swift/immediate action discussed above. I don't really have a solution to this, as I think summoning, mind control, familiars, etc. are core aspects of D&D, but I thought someone should mention it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
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 more and more combat-heavy at higher levels? The latter, to me, is a problem in and of itself.

I feel like I need to re-iterate this question. Grimcleaver and others have said it very well: if all you're doing at high levels is fighting ridiculously powerful creatures that shouldn't exist in those numbers anyway (like, more than your entire game world can realistically support), there's something very wrong already -- BEFORE you start tracking conditional modifiers or throwing dice.


Selgard wrote:

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". <snip>

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). <snip>

It then moves into "high level" where the PC's largely have "Huge" options at their disposal <snip>

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. <snip>

I'd have to agree that this problem certainly can come up. I know it has in some of my campaigns, but what I generally did was just roll with it and let any encounters bypassed just slide away. The worst thing you can do at this level is to railroad players back on to a dungeon crawl that they skillfully bypassed.

I think that this problem can be handled by a good discussion in the DM's section of the game with some good examples of situations that could arise and suggestions for handling possible problems.

One other area that I see a problem is managing a grand melee with dozens of opponents on the opposing side. I find it all too easy to set up a situation in which the players tactics triggers a grand melee involving several high level NPCS and their many minions (and we're not talking 4E style minions) that the players certainly can handle, but that take a huge amount of time on the DM side to manage simply because of the huge number of options/powers and abilities. What I need is a really good way of organizing things so that the DM turns don't take too long and start to drag the game down.

I suppose I could build encounters by adhering strictly to the DMG suggestions, but I find that results in a somewhat boring game. Also, when players are higher levels, they can easily escalate a situation to draw in more opponents (and conversely they can also surprise me and shut down a situation early on that I had expected to escalate with a well placed spell, attack or other power).

That's actually one thing that I've found really disappointing with 4E. Everything is so wrapped around encounters that it becomes much more dangerous to allow multiple encounters to merge so you need to do some hand waving at times to explain why the king's elite hussars don't respond when the gate house is attacked. If things worked logically and an encounter somehow escalated as more groups join the fray, the players would quickly exhaust their per encounter abilities and they might not be able to spend sufficient healing surges to recover damage before the next wave hits them. At least in previous versions of the game you had the option of blowing everything in one grand melee if you had to - you didn't need to take 5 minute breaks to reset things. You simply can't play the game that way with 4E or you'll start to see TPK. The encounter focus can be a bit of a straight-jacket.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I like the idea of grand melees being possible at high levels, but I need some tools so that I can keep things running quickly on the DM side of the fence.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
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.

The published modules become increasingly combat-heavy at higher levels, so that's where I have the personal experience. I have never had a homebrew campaign go past 10th; I doubt I ever will. So the combat unplayability is what I really notice.

We did have some decent political intrigue in the late stages of SCAP. I cherish the confrontation between Rhiavadi and his daughter. (Yes, I know Rhiavadi was supposed to be female, but the GM didn't agree.)

Exploration and non-combat mystery solving lose viability at the high levels, though removing a bunch of spells (Commune, Contact Other Planes, etc.) helps somewhat. Removing Fly and Teleport, as we did for RotRL, helps even more. Past 15th, though, it's still a wasteland as far as I'm concerned. But then I've never been the one in our group who's pushing for high-level play; that's my husband, who enjoys tactical combat. Even he tends to call it quits, though. We bailed from the last two modules of AoW, and we've done City of the Spider Queen *twice* with him saying "Never mind the endgame" both times. (I made him play it out the second time; he was right; better to skip it. Not interesting in any way.)

Personally, I would never allow a campaign meant to focus on problem-solving or intrigue to get that high level in the first place; it's purely destructive. But it's sad that even combat, the one thing high-level play ought to be good for, isn't fun for us either.

Mary


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I feel like I need to re-iterate this question. Grimcleaver and others have said it very well: if all you're doing at high levels is fighting ridiculously powerful creatures that shouldn't exist in those numbers anyway (like, more than your entire game world can realistically support), there's something very wrong already -- BEFORE you start tracking conditional modifiers or throwing dice.

But what else is there to do? The PCs gain essentially no abilities relevant to non-combat play at the high levels, except for ones which tend to break non-combat scenarios.

_Prince of Redhand_ was a complete, utter failure in my hands. I think I could have run it with excellent success at 8th, but not at the level for which it was written. It just came across as arbitrary and forced, and the PCs refused to participate. It didn't seem like bad roleplaying either; I understood totally why the player wouldn't do it.

It also turned out to be the case that the heavy-handed "monsters who keep the plot on the rails" could in fact be defeated by the PCs fairly safely, with a little tactical finesse, thereby exploding the whole plotline.

I would enjoy an Ars Magica style game of kingdom building or magical research; I know, I've run two of them. But not with the D&D rules. High level is so strongly biased toward combat that I have not really been able to do anything else with it. The other things I enjoy at lower levels rapidly become irrelevant, unless you start removing spells by the truckload. (The broken Diplomacy rule is also a problem here.)

Can one of you who does non-combat high level play explain what a plotline looks like for you?

Mary

The Exchange

The Black Bard wrote:

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.

I fully agree and also add that creating and playing encounters that will challenge characters is time consuming and pretty much blindfold dart throwing. Running, creating and reacting to high level encounters is just....aaaaaaah. Even if you have everything prepared and ready to go, it unravels so fast as the PCs cast spells that totally change your stats and your effectiveness to run the encounter "truthfully". There is no way a pencil and paper encounter will go forth credibly once the stats are undermined. The calculations to the loss of constitution or intelligence is just plain mind boggling. You have to have a computer crunching this if you are going to run the encounter by the book. Otherwise you just fudge the thing and it feels cheap.

I find the PC's are much better at fighting as a well thought out unit, and the GM is(depending on his/her experience) just about paralyzed to think about how his group of critters should proceed.

I don't mind high level being Epic, but I rather have the game simplify this transition so it plays like a more predictable D&D experience rather than "we wiped the GM's butt again" by knowing better on how the rules interact. Clever GMs know the rules well and can think fast on undermining PCs in high level play, but the not so swift GMs who GM high level play can only consider a real powerful single baddy that may either kill the party or just go down in smoke.

I think Epic Play should play like 7th level in amount of creation time as well as complexity. I do not like the fact that high level play must be left to the players and GMs that have vast knowledge of the game. Creating epic level characters should take no longer in the creation process than a mid level PC. Creating an adventure should not take longer for 20th level as it would for 7th level. If high level is to be viable, it should work just as well for a dummy GM as it would for an expert GM. I think things should be simplified at High Level play as much as possible before proceeding to add more complexity in future leveling up. I have said this in three different posts, but here goes again.

I think the High Level/ Epic Level books should be tossed out. They are a great torture to my immune system and causes continued hairloss after work. We need to open up this gendre of gaming so it feels epic without creating the epic cumulative headache that has come with it. I think trading many small powers/spells/feats/abilities for mega abilities would simplify and free up some new paths that have yet to be explored in Epic Gaming. To be honest, having the epic wizard with a spellbook that is so heavy that it could sink a battleship doesn't sound too epic (to me).

It sounds ok if you like to out-fight something in combat (your GM's challenge encounter born from a sleepless night before game night). And so what, if your wizard smokes another failed GM attempt at creating a high level challenge. Anything meaningful there?

Eventually encounters become: GM trying to create a challenge vs. Mini-PC Gods. And is that epic play or high level fun? I realize the nature of the game is adventuring and melee combat, but I think high level play begins to test the mold of what is viably fun or plain over engineered tedium.

In my opinion, high level and epic play should be the starting point for some really epic stories that have a lot of armies, Gods, and world tettering events clashing on an unimagineable scale. The PCs should have temples, castles, armies, followers and the like. I think that is why the Epic system needs to be simplified, so that complexity can be added again with the cadre of Epic options that create an epic setting character. I am not saying that the game should turn into a wargame, but the system should sport the ability to handle an epic game on what is epic/high level in scope.

It would be nice to give the PCs something to work towards other than more and more of the same till you can't stand it.

Cheers,
Zux


Zuxius wrote:

Even if you have everything prepared and ready to go, it unravels so fast as the PCs cast spells that totally change your stats and your effectiveness to run the encounter "truthfully". There is no way a pencil and paper encounter will go forth credibly once the stats are undermined. The calculations to the loss of constitution or intelligence is just plain mind boggling. You have to have a computer crunching this if you are going to run the encounter by the book. Otherwise you just fudge the thing and it feels cheap.

I find the PC's are much better at fighting as a well thought out unit, and the GM is(depending on his/her experience) just about paralyzed to think about how his group of critters should proceed.

I don't mind high level being Epic, but I rather have the game simplify this transition so it plays like a more predictable D&D experience rather than "we wiped the GM's butt again" by knowing better on how the rules interact. Clever GMs know the rules well and can think fast on undermining PCs in high level play, but the not so swift GMs who GM high level play can only consider a real powerful single baddy that may either kill the party or just go down in smoke.

Could you explain this problem a little more specifically? I don't want to get into the whole smartDM/dumbDM thing, but can you give some examples of how PCs can completely trounce your NPCs again and again? My DM seems able to understand the combat strategies we set up and often work in elements to specifically deal with them. Also, he turns the table on broken spells and combos, which works as a natural deterrent. So, I'm curious as to exactly what the problem is in your experience, since a lot of people seem to bring this up.

If it's certain spells, like fly/teleport/etherealness, PF is working on changes for some and could include DM tips for dealing with them. If it's save or dies, perhaps those need to be nerfed. If it's info spells, like contacting gods and spirits, you get to decide what info they get, so that's sort of in your hands. (it's not cheating to refuse to give them the exact info they need to break the adventure.)

Or is it some feat/power combo/build that's causing problems, like a persistent cleric or the "King of Smack"?


In order to keep things on track, I think we must discount Player/GM error, even though we can all agree it contributes. There is consensus that things can be systematically improved, so no fault should lay with the user until those measures are taken (even though in nearly all cases, the fault does lie with the user).

The feeling is that the users are not shifting style of play in the upper levels to conform with PC capability. Rather than "bad user, turn in your dice" I think Pathfinder's principle duty now is to make an infrastructure around higher level play, to take the load of the GM somewhat.

This means support for national diplomacy, better rules for followers, movements, cults, army-level battles, etc. It means a higher level CR system, or at the very least a candid admission of CR's failures at upper levels. It means spelling out the challenges actually required, using story awards, and not pretending that the same system can address the needs of 3rd and 17th level characters— at least not without help.

The infrastructure solution is a backward compatible one.

Some nerfing is called for, to deal with the option glut. I'd say top priority is streamlining spells to eliminate overlap, but even there people will disagree. My instinct says the Domains/Arcane schools are a step in the wrong direction, since they offer more options to the people who have the most— and they are not optimal choices, so they save us no effort in the decision process each turn. But the truth shall be borne out in gameplay.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:


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.

If you check the Forgotten Realms novels Elminster, particurlarly in novels in which he's not the main character rarely goes into direct confrontations and at least one occasion explains why he and others like him typically send agents instead of acting directly, mainly that there simply is too much at stake in him just simply being there to counter similar folks like Manshoon on the other side and that Manshoon operates similarly for the same reasons.

High level modules however tend to be written the exact same way low level ones are with upgunned features instead. Home games however need a transition to different themes at the upper levels in which combat is reserved for those few times that it MUST be engaged in.


As a study in noise reduction, I have paraphrased the critical arguments of all the posts so far. I hope this helps people to locate the trends:

Spoiler:

toyrobots
- Spells are a mess

Molech
- Battle mat, counting squares

Krome
- Spell management

James Jacobs
- Number of Options to PCs o turn
- Swift and Immediate Actions

Samuel Weiss
- Damage Output making it an Initiative contest

The Black Bard
- Modifiers, buffs and debuffs too diverse at higher levels

Robert Brambley
- Number of modifiers
- Scaling the same modifiers to keep up (Deflection, Natural,
Resistance)

Selgard
- Shift of Gameplay Focus, GMing style

Kirth Gersen
- High level characters too powerful to challenge

Pangur Ban
- Character building options
- Restricting core material

Jason Nelson
- Commentary on Swift and Immediate Actions

Duncan & Dragons
- Seconds Selgard's "Paradigm shift" observation

Roguerouge
- Casters dominate.
- Complexity, 17 page character sheet.

Krome
- Seconds the 17 Pages

The Black Bard
- Charisma to nerf buffs?

Krome
- Gameplay shift

Kirth Gersen
- No scenario options for high levels

Dragonchess player
- Player/GM commitment too high
- Style of play problem
- Gamplay shift

Toyrobots
- Seconds the paradigm shift
- Try to "widen" the sweet levels somehow?

Magnuskin
- Don't slow progression
- There's a better solution than "don't play"

raidou
- choosing feats, equipment, gear value, spells, skill allocation,
for NPCS
- Monster advancement broken
- No good high level adventures

Mary Yamato
- Bookkeeping. Bonuses in particular.
- GM Prep

Daiurs Silverbolt
- Bonus types stacking
- Swift an Immediate actions
- CR balance

KnightErrant
- Defends the honor of Swift/Immediate actions

Kirth Gersen
- Many complaints are combat specific

Sutekh the Destroyer
- Combat should be less common, like iconic heros
- GM improvisation

Subversive
- Charisma to nerf buffs not viable.
- Buff cap has some merit
- Class and PrC granted encounter specific abilities.
- Can't address bad design by other companies.

raidou
- Templates front loaded with useless
- Smaller packages instead of loaded templates

GeraintElberon
- No more heroes— straightforward melee not viable at high level

Thraxus
- Seconds failure to embrace high level opportunity
- Extraterrestrial D20 modern template as modular

Stephen Hume
- 2e had a good XP/CR monster advancement

Arcesilaus
- Flying is problematic
- Handfulls of dice

Pop'N'Fresh
- Disallowing Splat books

Jeremy MacDonald
- Sorcerer Can't keep pace if Wizard can't tap out all his spells

Luna eladrin
- Prep time
- combat length
- no adventures

Prime Evil
- Saving throws are broken at high levels, change to 3/4

QXL99
- Spells
- One magic buff per character
- limit spells known for all classes

Kirth Gersen
- Don't limit spells known

Joela
- Swift / immediate actions still problematic in 4e

Toyrobots
- Seconds the Spells Known for all casters

RogueRouge
- Divine Casters must eliminate spells from Core to gain Splat

Darrin Drader
- Saves broken, alternate solution

Grimcleaver
- world gets silly to provide challenge for supercharacters

Lou
- Conditional Mofdifiers

The Mailman
- Slow combat is a frequent complaint
- Swift immediate actions
- Recalculations
- Problem spells, combat maneuvers, pathfinder fix
- Familiar, Mount, Cohort, Animal friend, etc slow things down

Kirth Gersen
- Combat heavy high level games a stand alone problem

Zil
- Managing grand melee, dozens of combatants
- Characters massing encounters to their benefit

Mary Yamato
- Published modules combat heavy at high levels
- Exploration and mystery not viable

Zuxius
- Modifiers, buffs, debuffs
- up the scale on story

Toyrobots
- Pathfinder needs high level infrastructure.


Mary Yamato wrote:
But what else is there to do? The PCs gain essentially no abilities relevant to non-combat play at the high levels, except for ones which tend to break non-combat scenarios.

Yeah, that was my sense of it as well. I was hoping with enough interest, we could get the good folks at Paizo to put their minds to this -- surely Monte, Sean, and Jason working cooperatively would be more than adequate to the challenege! Failing that, I fear that you may be correct; unless you just want a lot of long fights, stay out of high-level play.

Using sub-optimized characters and slightly nerfed spells, Prince of Redhand turned out to be a ball for us (no pun intended).

Spoiler:
One of the PCs left with Lashonna; the other three decided to try and assassinate Zeech; found out about his bodyguard the hard way, but cut through them and almost had Zeech himself -- who leaped on his nightmare and took off. Chasing him out the front, they encountered 8 more blessed angels, attracted by the commotion, and ended up in the Birdcage. The next adventure started with a better-optimized group rescuing those three and telling them to stay home next time.

Anyway, Mary, thanks for your insight.


toyrobots wrote:

Kirth Gersen:

- High level characters too powerful to challenge

Let me correct that: High-level characters too powerful to challenge outside of combat.

Anyone can add more HD or levels to monsters, or jack up the save DCs for traps. But short of nerfing spells by thinly-veiled DM fiat ("well, it's a plane where no conjurations or divinations work..."), the characters' abilities render exploration (and most plot lines) meaningless.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
toyrobots wrote:

Kirth Gersen:

- High level characters too powerful to challenge

Let me correct that: High-level characters too powerful to challenge outside of combat.

Anyone can add more HD or levels to monsters, or jack up the save DCs for traps. But short of nerfing spells by thinly-veiled DM fiat ("well, it's a plane where no conjurations or divinations work..."), the characters' abilities render exploration (and most plot lines) meaningless.

Yeah—

I dropped some OT posts and Editorialized a bit. Note that original posts stand on their own, I have poor insight. This is just a digest for people who might want to break in to the conversation...

Shadow Lodge

Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


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:

<good examples omitted>

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.

Hey, this is about what I was going to write, more or less. The paradigm shift, and the fact that players and DMs don't shift, or don't want to shift lies at the heart of the problem. At high levels players should be taking on armies, defending cities, masterminding or eliminating major plots, not digging around in the dirt for the upteenth time.

Games with complicated rules exist, and they don't have nearly the supposed problems that high level D&D seems to entail (something I've never actually seen in high level play, only heard about, but I have seen in low level play curiously). Blaming complicated rules is just a crutch: have your players learn their spells, hold them to a minute or so to make up their mind, force the issue and it won't be an issue. That's my take and philosophy at least.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
toyrobots wrote:

Dragonchess player

- Player/GM commitment too high
- Style of play problem
- Gamplay shift

You overstated my intent slightly.

I, personally, don't think the the player/GM commitment is "too high." However, players and GMs need to be aware that high-level play demands more investment/involvement from the participants than low- and mid-level play.

The style of play at high-level needs to be different, in large part because of the wide scope of options available to the party. Whether or not that is a problem is dependent on the group involved.

The game plays differently at high levels. This is something that needs to be taken into account when designing scenarios and planning actions.

Could high-level play be improved by making it a bit simpler to keep track of everything? Yes, it could. Paizo seems to be making a good start with the Pathfinder Alpha releases on pruning back on some of the problematic spells (polymorph, etc.). However, I don't want to see the richness of high-level play gutted in the process.

A game where you can only do pretty much the same thing at high levels as you did at low levels (apart from facing tougher opponents) is not a feature, IMO. It's a big flaw.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
toyrobots wrote:

Kirth Gersen:

- High level characters too powerful to challenge

Let me correct that: High-level characters too powerful to challenge outside of combat.

Anyone can add more HD or levels to monsters, or jack up the save DCs for traps. But short of nerfing spells by thinly-veiled DM fiat ("well, it's a plane where no conjurations or divinations work..."), the characters' abilities render exploration (and most plot lines) meaningless.

A common "trick" to challenging high-level characters outside of combat is to require that they use their powerful abilities to even find out who the opposition is, where to find them, how to defeat them, and travel to the various locations they need to go to accomplish this. This is part of the changing style of play required: Don't limit abilities, make their use important.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
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 more and more combat-heavy at higher levels? The latter, to me, is a problem in and of itself.
I feel like I need to re-iterate this question. Grimcleaver and others have said it very well: if all you're doing at high levels is fighting ridiculously powerful creatures that shouldn't exist in those numbers anyway (like, more than your entire game world can realistically support), there's something very wrong already -- BEFORE you start tracking conditional modifiers or throwing dice.

Althought I agree with this mindset in theory - the reality and pragmatism of it goes out the window at higher levels. This is because MOST non-combat encounters/story-lines/intrigue etc are short-lived and often times - easily and quickly foiled and spoiled by the players and their character-capabilities.

Its hard to have any sort of non-combat encounters meant to test the characters or fool them: they have access to true seeing, contact outer plane, and commune for divine answers, teleportation for travel, plane shift for more elaborate travel, etc etc etc.

The point is, the easiest thing for DM to scale and provide a long-lived challenge for is a direct conflict - not espionage, sabotage, or political intrigue.

I sure like those aspects of a game - but they really start to break down after 9th level - and especially after 12th.

Thus combat is more of a standard for high-level games, and thus most problems/issues that are being commented on are with the aspect that we have the most historical experience with.

The other areas are an issue as well - but not nearly as easily correctable IMO, withough destroying the game as is and remaining backwards compatibility. Combat seems to have the easiest aspects to correct, too.

Robert


Dragonchess Player wrote:
A common "trick" to challenging high-level characters outside of combat is to require that they use their powerful abilities to even find out who the opposition is, where to find them, how to defeat them, and travel to the various locations they need to go to accomplish this. This is part of the changing style of play required: Don't limit abilities, make their use important.

If we could see more prewritten high-level adventures that actually did this, I'd be happier about it.


When I DMed 25th level PCs, the only thing that really bothered me about high level play was the melee deadliness of epic monsters.

If an epic monster can get full melee attacks on a PC, they are likely dead in 1-2 rounds.

Otherwise, though, I had a blast with high level play.


Robert Brambley wrote:
Althought I agree with this mindset in theory - the reality and pragmatism of it goes out the window at higher levels. This is because MOST non-combat encounters/story-lines/intrigue etc are short-lived and often times - easily and quickly foiled and spoiled by the players and their character-capabilities.

And that's exactly the problem that Mary and I have with high-level play. If it can't accommodate anything more than hacking and slashing, it just ain't no fun. Seeing Paizo come up with a variety of useable non-hack-fest high-level adventures would be great (especially if they had a variety of storylines, not just variations on "Enemies of My Enemy"). Some combat is fine, but not anything like "Dawn of a New Age."

Sovereign Court

One problem?

Overstrained players.

I remember the player who was the best role player in our group but who miserably failed whenever it was her turn and she had to come up quickly with a decision on what her wizard was to do.

The problem started about level 8 to 10 and latest on level 12 it brought combat encounters to a stand still despite all of our combined attempts to help her to decide faster.

I don't blame the game rules or the player, but the speed at which you gain new levels (already discussed elsewhere and nicely addressed in the alpha rules). Some people know the rules by heart and easily cope with the new "powers" provided on each level. Others like the above mentioned player had a very difficult time to internalise the new possibilities offered.

Playing a fighter is an easier choice - but shouldn't the role playing aspect be decisive when chosing your PC's class?

- Günther


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
A common "trick" to challenging high-level characters outside of combat is to require that they use their powerful abilities to even find out who the opposition is, where to find them, how to defeat them, and travel to the various locations they need to go to accomplish this. This is part of the changing style of play required: Don't limit abilities, make their use important.
If we could see more prewritten high-level adventures that actually did this, I'd be happier about it.

If we had more well written high-level adventures, I'd be happier, too. IIRC, the "require the use of high-level abilities" paradigm was expounded in the 3.0 adventure The Bastion of Broken Souls.

Paizo has done a pretty good job, IMO, with presenting "steering" information from divinations/Knowledge checks in the various adventure paths. You could eliminate the "wise sage" safety net and rely entirely on the PCs' actions to determine if they figure something out in most cases (unless the "wise sage" is part of the plot like Iggwilv in Enemies of My Enemy and Prince of Demons).

The Exchange

James Jacobs wrote:

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.

Quickened actions; Dear God, who do I know like that?

LOL


toyrobots wrote:

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.

Buffs.

Two campaigns ago, we had a final battle with several dragons, a balor, and other demons. The group of 6 - 17th and 18th level characters knew it was coming, had set it up, and were able to prepare. Between potions, scrolls, Sorcerer 18, Cleric 17 and Wizard5/Cleric3/MysticTheurge10 they had over 50 spells going for the final, campaign ending battle.

Thank goodness my son is an excel wizard and had it on a spreadsheet. The guys spent almost 10 hours preparing, and I (DM) spent 3. The battle lasted 5 hours real time for about 15 rounds total. Party won, but were *very* badly bruised.

If the buffs were limited, changed, *something* done, the battle would have been toned down (yea, I threw the kitchen sink at them) and it still would have been fun without all the hours of preparation on both sides.

The Buff / DeBuff happened a lot, it *always* slowed down the game.

-- david
Papa.DRB

Dark Archive

Robert Brambley wrote:


Coach: We think you'd make a good lineman
me: An Offensive lineman?
Coach: ALL lineman are offensive!

Robert

They sure are!

Scarab Sages

I think that the "problem" of high level play comes from a lack of coaching and advice for DMs rather than any actual broken mechanics.

There are issues to look for. The game play changes because of the use of very specific spells, for instance (like say... Teleport. Find the Path. And other potential adventure killers). The gestion of buffs is another potential issue (building some templates of modified stats using the most common buffs, and combinations for critical situations, on cards or sheets of paper before play begins can solve this handily). Etc.

There's also a pure issue of knowledge of the rules and organization at the game table. Some things should be made clear, like players making their tactical decisions before their turn comes and such, not spending forever to always choose "ze" optimal way of doing something, and so on.

What Pathfinder RPG could really gain from is either a specific chapter in the main rulebook (or GM sourcebook, if there ever is one) pertaining specifically to identifying those issues and run with them, explaining how to build adventures for high level characters and how to deal with the most common game breakers, as well as tips of organization and conventions between players at the game table.

This has never been done by WotC. I would really like to see this happen in a "high level for dummies" way, with the required length, detail and examples for any DMs to really feel empowered on that level, in the Pathfinder series.


I think in some cases the "problem" isn't so much that new items foreign to D&D show up at this level, as much as it is that more options and events come into play, but even this, in and of itself may not be the problem, but it might be a problem coupled with other issues.

For example, an attack isn't a problem, and multiple attacks make sense for higher level characters. But each PCs now is likely getting more attacks, at least the martially oriented ones.

So both the "tank" of the party and the "skilled" guy in the party have more attacks at this level. But this isn't automatically a problem, yet.

But the casters are more likely to be able to afford metamagic feats, as well as having the spell slots to make it worth using these feats, and its not unlikely that those feats will be something along the lines of quickened spells, meaning that the "supporter" and the "blaster" of the party now both might have two "standard" actions with their spells on top of their moves.

So the game gets a little more complicated.

Still, probably manageable.

Now, if the PCs are fighting one big monster that does a lot of damage in one or two shots, then its not a big deal. But at this level, a lot of monsters that "logically" should have multiple attacks show up, like hydras and various other creatures with multiple dangerous limbs.

With those monsters having more feats, they are more likely to have improved criticals, which adds to the die rolls with confirmation rolls. They may have quickened special abilities, which adds an attack.

Also, at high levels, it makes more sense that the PCs might run into multiple "slightly less dangerous" opponents, like a giant spellcaster and a few bodyguards, which then means that the DM is running not just one monster with multiple attacks, but several.

Finally, the biggest pain in the rear is to try and throw another adventuring party at the PCs, because each character runs a little different, and has a few different options available to it.

I also think that there is kind of a "DM lack of RAM" issue when it comes to variety. Its complicated running a party of high level fighters protecting a high level wizard against the PCs, but even though there might be the same number of actions involved, running a couple of hexblades, a barbarian, and a fighter automatically "locks up" some of the "DM RAM" where it just doesn't run as smooth.

I think in some cases, the only way to deal with this and still preserve backwards compatibility is to have some really solid advice and "templates" on prepping encounters like this, and to a lesser extent, having some feats that allow for options like consolidated attacks and perhaps consolidated spell preparation that allows for these options to be streamlined "within the rules."

By coming up with some attractive, high level feats that consolidate attacks, you still have the option of taking five swings, but you make it more likely that one or two really good swings will be a viable option.

I think its been brought up before, but while it takes more space, I do think that more spells and, for example, monster powers, need to be described in full instead of referring players and DMs all over the books.

Beyond the paradigm shift of how classes gain powers and use them in 4th edition, a lot of the "simplification" comes from each power of the PCs and each power of the monsters being explain in its own entry. Its a combination of fewer powers and more explanations that "simplifies" 4th edition.

While backwards compatibility rules out preening too many powers or abilities, the kind of "redundant" explanation of spell powers or monster abilities might be a theoretical waste of space, but in practice, if I only have to look up the monster's entry and maybe one or two pages where the spell they use is detailed, it makes running the game much faster.

I know Pathfinder won't have unlimited space, but even something as simple as adding the page number of of where the spell that an ability is based on might help out a lot by cutting down on page flipping.


I added a house rule that multiple attackers, including missile weapon users, get a +2 attack bonus per attacker beyond the first attacking a single target in the same round.

It makes the lower level creatures relevant longer. I know it's a "simulationist" thing to do and it gets hairy when stacked with flanking bonuses, but to me, if you're a high level fighter and you're surrounded by 8 orcs, you should be sweating it a little bit.

Now, each orc in that pile would get a +14 bonus to his attack roll, since defending yourself in melee against 8 attackers would be a bit "dicey," even for Conan.

Some of the articles I wrote for Dungeon magazine before the magazine ceased to exist was advice on how tactics in a D&D universe would evolve to handle the threat of high level monsters and spellcasters.

For DM's anyway, worry less about the stat blocks and more about what tactics the bad guys would use. I think most bad guys would delay the sh*t out of tough opponents, to include PCs. Hit and run tactics, smoke, terrain, invisibility, illusion...get the PCs to waste their buff spells...then run away and move in when they're gone. ....then hit again and run like hell. Prepare ambushes.

Makes the game move slower and frustrates the players, but when the end result of a stand up fight is a single round flogging of your high level bad guy, it seems justified to me.


Prime Evil wrote:

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.

I think the real problem is that save or dies make the battles too swingy, but to the extent that you think saves are the problem, it's not the gap between good and bad saves that are the problem, it would be the gap between a typical bad save and a typcial spell DC.

If you look just at base saves (without attribute bonus) and base DC (without attribute bonus), characters start with a 50% success rate on their bad saves, and ultimately finish at a 40% success rate (all other modifiers being equal). 40% seems pretty fair for a bad save, since spellcasters need a reasonable chance of success at their specialty, especially when they focus on a bad save.

I think there are two problems. First, 40% seems fair in general, but hardly fair (or fun) when dealing with death (ie-save or die). Second, the 40% success rate goes way down when you take certain other modifiers into consideration. Spellcasters always have much higher prime stats than at least some of the opponent's save stats, especially when they boost that stat every four levels. Also, there are class abilities and feats that make the save DCs even better (although this was cut down in 3.5), but fewer class abilities and feats that improve saves. I think items are pretty much a wash, because although spellcasters get stat boosters for their prime stats, most players also get items of resistence, in my experience.

So, the solution is either to assume casters are going to have an easier time improving their DCs than targets will improving their saves, and so increase base saves across the board, OR, make it harder to improve save DCs and easier to improve saves. I think the latter is the better option, rather than forcing all spellcasters to min/max as much as possible.

For example, you could improve the save boosting feats, either increasing the plus above +2, or having one feat improve all saves +2 across the board and having a second improve it another +2 across the board. You essentially need something that makes it as easy for characters to increase all saves as it is for the spellcaster to improve his primary stat (since it works against all saves).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I've used this basic example in two other threads already, but:

Fighter 20; Elite array, all advancements in Str; 20 (26) Str, 13 (17) Dex, 14 (18) Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; +6 Str item, +4 Dex item, +4 Con item; Fort +16, Ref +9, Will +7

A Fort save with a 27 DC gives a 50% chance of success; a Ref save with a 27 DC gives a 15% chance of success; a Will save with a 27 DC gives a 5% chance of success. Add a +5 Resistance item, and that becomes 75% Fort, 40% Ref, and 30% Will.

Fighter 20; Elite array, all advancements in Str; 20 (26) Str, 13 (17) Dex, 14 (18) Con, 10 Int, 12 (16) Wis, 8 Cha; +6 Str item, +4 Dex item, +4 Con item, +4 Wis item; Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes; Fort +16, Ref +11, Will +11

A fort save with a 27 DC gives a 50% chance of success; a Ref or Will save with a 27 DC gives a 25% chance of success. Add a +5 Resistance item and that becomes 75% Fort and 50% Ref/Will.

Then there are the effects of stackable bonuses, outright immunities, etc. from various spells and magic items. "Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance." Of course, this is part of the different play style with high-level D&D.


The Mailman wrote:

So, the solution is either to assume casters are going to have an easier time improving their DCs than targets will improving their saves, and so increase base saves across the board, OR, make it harder to improve save DCs and easier to improve saves. I think the latter is the better option, rather than forcing all spellcasters to min/max as much as possible.

For example, you could improve the save boosting feats, either increasing the plus above +2, or having one feat improve all saves +2 across the board and having a second improve it another +2 across the board. You essentially need something that makes it as easy for characters to increase all saves as it is for the spellcaster to improve his primary stat (since it works against all saves).

I think that we've really already got that, to a certain extent. Resistance bonuses to saves are fairly inexpensive, less expensive than stat boosting items. A +5 cloak of resistance is 25,000 gp while a +6 stat booster is 36,000 gp and only raises the save DCs by 3.

But overall, I too have been grappling with the idea of the strong vs weak save. In 1e/2e, there wasn't a tidy progression of saves in any way, shape, or form. And for some classes, the difference between a strong or weak save could be very high or very low. There was a huge hodge-podge.

In general, 3e is better and more systematic. I like that. I'm not certain the system is exactly right though. I've debated going with defenses more like SWSE (and 4e). They all increases the saves to effectively be strong saves (based on 1/2 level, just like a strong save) with some bonus on the top from the character's class. It's very tempting to just go with the higher rate and give a +2 on top of any save that is considered "strong" for the class. But does the 2 point difference make up enough of an achilles heel against really powerful, high-hit die creatures? I'm not sure it does. It may make things too hard for the caster.


The biggest problem with high-level play is Challenge.

Not that there aren't challenges at high level, but the DM has to custom-make each one for the players.

At high levels, a standard dungeon romp rarely works with the PCs able to pop around, in or out of it, bypass obstacles and the like with their mind-numbingly powerful abilities. Just keeping a player's inventory of magic items in check can become a problem.

Meanwhile, the DM (and players) have to keep the from degenerating into the so-called "15-minute workday" with the level of power available to the PCs.

At higher levels, the characters have often gotten so good at the game that they have now memorized high level monster stats; the DM has to seek out unusual creations or hand-craft leveled NPCs to pit against the characters. If he uses a stock monster, few can survive the onslaught of SoD's from the group's spellcasters so the DM has to research equipment/magic items to give the creature to present a challenge to the group. And the players may have to worry about preventing the reverse.

Many times, the character's reality-warping abilities can put the DM in the spot of crafting something "realistic" vs. a caricature of the world - usually a result that requires the DM to put in extra time rationalizing the existance of many things in the adventure. It's the type of dilemma of asking "Say, how is it that this particular tribe of orcs consists of 7th level fighters and blackguards, with an 18th level wizard/shaman and a 21st level fighter orc warlord? Why haven't they overrun the nearby kingdom?"

Finally, overall crafting of adventures strains the DM's brain. He has to be fairly, if not intricately, familiar with character's abilities to craft an adventure that is neither too easy or impossible for characters to complete. This can take many, many more hours than even a moderate level module would take.


Bill Dunn wrote:
In general, 3e is better and more systematic. I like that. I'm not certain the system is exactly right though. I've debated going with defenses more like SWSE (and 4e). They all increases the saves to effectively be strong saves (based on 1/2 level, just like a strong save) with some bonus on the top from the character's class. It's very tempting to just go with the higher rate and give a +2 on top of any save that is considered "strong" for the class. But does the 2 point difference make up enough of an achilles heel against really powerful, high-hit die creatures? I'm not sure it does. It may make things too hard for the caster.

For reference, 4E basic save percentage actually helps the caster. If you just look at the basic 3.5 save bonuses (without attributes) versus basic save DCs (without attributes) you get a 60-65% chance (70% at 20th) of saving against an equal level caster's best spell for the good save and a 40-50% chance for the bad save. For 4E, it's 45% across the board.

Stephen Klauk wrote:

The biggest problem with high-level play is Challenge.

At high levels, a standard dungeon romp rarely works with the PCs able to pop around, in or out of it, bypass obstacles and the like with their mind-numbingly powerful abilities. Just keeping a player's inventory of magic items in check can become a problem.

There are threads that address teleportation, flight, etherealness problems, and I think that issue is best fixed by tweaking the spells.

Stephen Klauk wrote:
At higher levels, the characters have often gotten so good at the game that they have now memorized high level monster stats; the DM has to seek out unusual creations or hand-craft leveled NPCs to pit against the characters.

That is seriously a player problem. Any player can metagame. If they use knowledges or past combat experience to know monster attributes, then fine. But there's no fix to broken players. They're making their own game less fun.

Stephen Klauk wrote:
If he uses a stock monster, few can survive the onslaught of SoD's from the group's spellcasters so the DM has to research equipment/magic items to give the creature to present a challenge to the group. And the players may have to worry about preventing the reverse.

How many spellcasters do you have in a group? In my experience, there's one or two spellcasters, and only their highest spell levels have 50% chance success rate against equal level monster stats. They shouldn't be hurling 15-20 SoDs with realistic success ratios. And besides, if the book stats leave them still too vulnerable to SoDs, then just boost their saves a couple of points. It's a non-labor intensive solution.


My own experience with high level play is mostly positive. Yes I agree with the buff/debuff issue (there are sheets on d20srd.org that specifically deal with multiple buff types and my cleric still has to go above and beyond to track how hard he is). Yes, I agree with the immediate action issue (divine quicken, 22 turn undead attempts available and belt of battle don't help). I agree with the eternal combat round (with debuffing going on and simple decision making based on actions of the previous second). I agree with the escalation of monsters problem (the final Bloodstone module for FR was a real eye-opener in that regard). But, the main thing that I empathise with is the paradigm shift in game-playing, and the lack of focus on non-combat encounters.

My personal take on it is this:
In low/mid level encounters, the DM can easily throw monsters at a party to challenge them, but with a degree of expectation that the plot won't derail due to a TPK. He can also challenge a party outside of combat, by using various subterfuge and ploys and Machiavellian tactics by NPCs to mislead them.

At high-level, the combat factor is easily answered by upscaling (with all the attendant problems that have been discussed so far). But, with NPCs having godlike (or near) INT and WIS, or decades of political intrigue to use in order to dupe the PCs, a non-combat encounter becomes harder to write, harder to run, and can end in a TPPK - a total party plot kill - the PCs just end up in a dead end, unless they fathom out the motives of the protagonist.
Unless you've used foreshadowing extremely well (and I must admit, SCAP wasn't great at this) then you've got your PCs using endless divination spells and trying to guess the plot hook. Which doesn't seem heroic or epic or paragon to me (sorry to use a 4E term there).

In the realm of popular fiction it is covered very well (I recall George R R Martin doing this very well, as did Robert Jordan when he wasn't trying to be as pro-feminist as he could, Iain M Banks worked this out very well in terms of omnipotent AI machines: 'Excession', and all the Amber novels worked well in this respect too).

In the realm of RPGs though, we have to rely on the interplay of players and DM, and if they're not on exactly the same wavelength you end up with a plot derail or worse.

So module designers play it safe on the non-combat encounters, to ensure maximum 'plot throughput' if that makes sense, and max out on combat encounters (think David Eddings here, or Terry Goodkind)

As a for instance, a low level campaign might have the lord of the manor acting strangely around full moon, and have pet wolves and to be interesting have a daughter who is a paladin/lycanthrope - and the PCs have to work out who is killing all the village folk.
AND THE ANSWER IS: the lord's undead brother, trying to discredit the lord and hoping the PCs will kill him without thinking it through.

Simple enough. But in a high level campaign, is anything more complex?

Answers on a postcard please...


Tycho, Lord of Karran-Kural wrote:

Quickened actions; Dear God, who do I know like that?

LOL

For the vengeance of the Lord of Valour is quick and terrible! And his servants of glory shall act twicely upon the six-second duration!

And Belts of Battle shall be used, as shall Divine Quicken!

Praise be to Weordmynd!

/threadjack

Please see my previous post as my less egotistical alter ego.

Well, I do have a CHA of 33...

Sovereign Court

I'm DMing 14th level in Eberron right now. I encountered a lot of problems at first (not just one, or even one main one), as folks have mentioned, and have located some work arounds.

-- The druid PC converted to a binder. Thank gods. The binder and the warlock both have a dozen or so useful abilities that are much easier to manage than 40+ spells, with a result of many fewer random buffs too. (I wonder, is everyone in 4E a warlock? And are 3.x spells as a concept broken?)

-- Divine metamagic is BANNED.

-- Except for new base classes and some key flavor spells, most of the splat books are off limits. Way too many questionable PrClasses and feats. This was mostly to prevent abuse by the power-gamers (who are happily now off to play 4E, so I don't have to hinder them any more, YAY!). The difference between a tweaked out 14th level fighter-something-everything and a straight fighter is too much to bear.

-- We're doing lots of exploration and intrigue. Hello genies, dragons, and devils. It also helps that the party is neutral and lawful evil, so there is intra-party plotting all the time but little actual mayhem. Examples: the point isn't to kill a lich; the point is to find the lich's well-hidden phylactery, which might be anywhere in the multiverse (did I mention the lich is one of the PCs!) And the point isn't to kill an efreeti (boring) -- rather, it's dealing with two rather charming efreeti who are locked in a cold war with each other. Ah, the fun of poorly worded wishes that interlock / build on each other. Also, I use alternate planes of existence (hello, Tyrants of the Nine Hells).

-- Only using custom monsters or Pathfinder monsters (since none of the players have Pathfinder modules). This increases uncertainty dramatically and makes them do more investigation. Though word of warning: as others have mentioned, the monster progression / CR system isn't always stable at high levels.

-- Lots of hit-and-run by bad guys. I mean, if you had a 19 Int and 19 Wis, would you fight to the death whenever?!? I found that combat was dragging on a lot when the outcome was mostly inevitable; so why not just let the bad guys pop away for another day? This turned 4 hour combats into 45 minute combats. And since the players are looking for other things (lore, items, etc) rather than carcasses, it suits them fine. This is why I love Pathfinder's "morale" entry for monsters.

-- Decrease treasure by 50% (that is, I use 1/2 the values listed on the wealth tables). I've always done this, and it's even more important at higher levels. BUT, I do let PCs create a few of their own items. This keeps them happy.

-- Eliminated the battlemat and miniatures and improved weapon damage output, because frankly 3.5 has a hideous "feature", in that monster hit points greatly outpace PC damage output at high levels. A 1st-level barbarian can kill most CR 1-3 creatures in 1 or 2 hits. Good luck with that at 14th level. So upped the damage.

-- Do more prep beforehand. The DM prep time is awful (fun awful, but awful). Pathfinder has really saved me in the premade monster department. And yes, more monsters and fewer NPC foes, because NPC foes cause all kinds of problems (magic item wealth, etc).

OK, time to get back to the evening's work!


At higher levels a lot of things happen.

Mainly a lot more spells, more complicated and spells and for everyone else more abilites to work with. Lots of HP to bash through, more numerous foes, larger foes, and magic items.

A higher levels people sometimes have problems managing their characters, and for DM's it becomes a monster of task as they have to come up with numerous enemies to challenge said foes.

The "problem" with higher levels in short is how much managment time is someone willing to put in.

not to mention more powerful abilites are mor elikely to be abused more easily, as there are fewer restrictions.


James Jacobs wrote:


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.

These particular additions to 3rd edition I would concur based on the monstrosities I saw during my Savage Tide campaign as well as during Allen Stewart's Age of Worms campaign at the end as being the most singularly broken facet of the later 3E game materials. I came to absolutely HATE immediate and swift actions, especially as Sir Jacobs points out, immediate actions. These concepts need to be removed from the game completely in my opinion - and IIRC since they are not Open Game content, well, that should solve that particular problem.

The other facet of high-level play that needs to be addressed is GEAR. With the addition of so much 'built in' goodies at the highest levels of play, shouldn't this warrant reducing the 'mandatory swag at level X' syndrome that has plagued 3e since inception ? My solution to this is very simply to never again permit 'buy yer custom leet-speak-whatever nonsense items' that has been a signature of the 3e game play I've seen continually escalate since 3e's release. Too bad I hadn't thought of this some years ago...

I would recommend addressing the necessity of having 'GEAR PILE UBER' per character at level ## in revising 3e to Pathfinder. As things stand, without donning an iron gauntlet as the GM, certain things will still be just plain ugly or require resorting to tactics that simply isolate one or more players' characters from the table on a repeated basis...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MisterSlanky wrote:


Hey, this is about what I was going to write, more or less. The paradigm shift, and the fact that players and DMs don't shift, or don't want to shift lies at the heart of the problem. At high levels players should be taking on armies, defending cities, masterminding or eliminating major plots,...

Can you outline a scenario for one of those, say taking on the army?

I can think of a number of ways for a high-level party to take on an army. Doing in it combat--my player did this in _City of the Spider Queen_--is mind-destroyingly boring. I never want to see that again.

You can assassinate the leaders. This tends to be trivially easy for a high-level party unless the leaders are themselves high-level, in which case it's a high-level combat scenario with the problems we've been discussing. You can also Dominate them: same comment.

You can talk the army into going away. Too bad the Diplomacy rules are broken. In any case it's hard to make this more than a 15-20 minute scenario, after which the GM has to think of something else.

You can create natural disasters to wipe out the army. The non-casters are likely to feel bored by this approach, and there's not much challenge in it. 15 minutes again.

You can turn the whole army into replicating undead, if you have a good way to nuke the undead afterwards: my player is partial to shadows followed by Sunburst. Not much challenge in this either.

Where is the interesting, meaty stuff? This is not a rhetorical question: I'd really like to know. I could make this interesting for 8ths but I have no clue how it could ever be interesting for 16ths.

Mary


farewell2kings wrote:
I added a house rule that multiple attackers, including missile weapon users, get a +2 attack bonus per attacker beyond the first attacking a single target in the same round.

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days, and I really really like it. Intriguing concept, would make high level play very interesting! :D

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / General Discussion / High Level Play: Please Define the Problem All Messageboards