|
I'd love to see High Level Play improved. In the group i'm playing with now, one of the PCs have a few levels of a base class, and levels in two or three other classes, and his saves are ridiculous.
One of the main things for me, that need to be fixed for high level play, are the rate the characters saves improve when multiclassing.
This was kind of fixed in Unearthed Arcana - using the fractional progression of saves. It is in there near the Gestalt rules. It works very well and you don't have people getting this weird +2 to one (or more) save(s) stacking up just for changing classes.
|
Backward compatibility is a must-have, and a dealbreaker for many players.
I am all for backward comaptibility, don't get me wrong. I just don't believe that High Level Play is playable given all the options. I therefore think High Level Play needs to be streamlined more than any part of the game. This will require serious thought and a few broken eggs. As it stands, I won't play high level or epic because its ridiculous! I know this is my opinion so don't think I speak for everyone, but I want to enjoy High Level Play and Epic play because there would be some great opening of legendary play no one has seen before. As it stands now, that is pretty much fenced off to most of us. Cumbersome gaming is just NOT FUN, and a nightmare for the DM. And since most of us here are all DMs, we know what it is like to read for 20 minutes during the live adventure. Nothing snaps you out of a game like that.
"Wait one minute guys, I have to look something up...."
Cheers,
Zuxius
Backwards compatibility is everything. Anything else is just frosting on the cake.
If this is the case then it sounds like the best solution is to stick with 3.5 SRD. There are many cases where Pathfinder has already broken backwards compatibility.
Agreed. Any other opinion is ill informed or ill intentioned.
I was asking for opinions and I appreciate your thoughts but lets not turn this thread into a big debate.
Backward compatibility is a must-have, and a dealbreaker for many players.Agreed. Any other opinion is ill informed or ill intentioned.
Backward compatability is the cornerstone of Pathfinder. Alter this, make Pathfinder non-backwards compatabile, and you will sink Pathfinder. Pathfinder's core demographic are people for whom 4e is "too different from 3.5." Make Pathfinder as different from 3.5 as 4e and, when 4e is done with Pathfinder, there won't be much left. To survive, Pathfinder must be backwards compatible and everything else comes a distant second. Do not forget it.
This said, fixing high level play would be a HUGE feather in Pathfinder's cap and is a worthy goal to pursue so long as backwards compatibility is maintained.
I agree with both of these statements; however, I think a number of people have come to the conclusion that there is no fix that won't affect backwards compatibility. Further, some people say that there is no problem. So here's the please everybody option: Optional rules. Rules that will affect backwards compatibility for those who have a problem with it. For everybody else, a few tweaks are made to make the game a little easier to play within the existing framework. Things like limiting the number and duration of buffs that can be in play at one time.
I think, for purposes of discussion, it would be very helpful to identify exactly WHAT about high level play is deemed the problem under discussion. Just saying "high level play" can encompass a host of issues. For example, one might be most concerned with the "save or die" phenomenon; then again, one might be concerned about the magic item "Christmas tree" syndrome most evident at high levels, or one might be concerned about how play can slow at high levels as stat blocks become pages in length etc.. All of these could fit under the rubric of "high level play." Saying, "Yes, all of the above" is of absolutely no value as each is a different and distinct issue. In fact, "high level play" without more is almost a useless term.
The alpha rules address save or die to my satisfaction, so that's one thing down, several to go. I'm all for finding ways to reduce stat block size (my first suggestion is to eliminate the spellbook),
Iterative attacks being useless is another point. The martial classes simply don't need their last two attacks as written because all of their opponents are going to have high ACs and the last couple of attacks will simply not hit at all unless they roll a 20, which is statistically improbable enough that it's almost not worth having them in the game.
Optional rules from splat books is another problem because many of these rules are overpowered when compared to the core classes. I think the overall higher power level in Pathfinder core classes helps fix this, so this problem might already be dealt with (the only way to say for certain is with playtesting).
Saving Throw spread is yet another problem. The numbers are so spread out at higher levels that one character class might never miss the save while other character classes might never make it. Just look at the difference between the good and poor saves at 20th level: +12 and +6. Now, let's assume that the character with the high save has put some ability points into the ability for that save, so let's give them another +4. Now add in a feat that buffs it up even further and they get another +2. So let's just say that a 20th level paladin has a Fort save of 18 and they've buffed their other saves a bit and they now have a +8 in Ref and Will. That's a 10 point spread. Now suppose that the save DC was 25. They would have to roll a 7 or higher on Fort or 17 or higher on their Ref or Will. Not good odds if it's a Ref or Will save. Since it's high level, odds are pretty good that the save will be in that range, however.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Saving Throw spread is yet another problem. The numbers are so spread out at higher levels that one character class might never miss the save while other character classes might never make it. Just look at the difference between the good and poor saves at 20th level: +12 and +6. Now, let's assume that the character with the high save has put some ability points into the ability for that save, so let's give them another +4. Now add in a feat that buffs it up even further and they get another +2. So let's just say that a 20th level paladin has a Fort save of 18 and they've buffed their other saves a bit and they now have a +8 in Ref and Will. That's a 10 point spread. Now suppose that the save DC was 25. They would have to roll a 7 or higher on Fort or 17 or higher on their Ref or Will. Not good odds if it's a Ref or Will save. Since it's high level, odds are pretty good that the save will be in that range, however.
I think it's not quite as bad as that. While the spread might be the same, if you're using a 20th level example, there should be a cloak of resistance +5 (I know, must have magic items is another issue, but for now, it's part of the rules at a price you can't beat for high level play.) This would make the saves in your example +23 for fort, and +13 for will and reflex. Against a DC 25, the fort only needs a 2, and the others need a 12, which is certainly within reason.
Here's a thought that would help regarding iterative attacks. What if we were to introduce high level combat feats that instead of requiring that you meet conditions such as using a full-round action or something, you introduced feats that 'spent' iterative attacks. This would allow for a fix to martial classes that would help to address the uselessness of the lower range iterative attacks without completely removing the flexibility of having the second attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Here's a thought that would help regarding iterative attacks. What if we were to introduce high level combat feats that instead of requiring that you meet conditions such as using a full-round action or something, you introduced feats that 'spent' iterative attacks. This would allow for a fix to martial classes that would help to address the uselessness of the lower range iterative attacks without completely removing the flexibility of having the second attack.
You mean like Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike from Pathfinder Alpha? :)
|
|
My vote goes for fix high level play....
but id like to point out, that high level play is and should be vastly diferent than games of mid to lower level. This is the biggest issue i see. Folks get used to playing a 'certain' type of game...but when characters get to what used to be 'titled levels' in 2ed and earlier...
Archmage, Lord, High Priest, Grand Master, Guildmaster, Great Druid...The game used to change...it went in the direction of 'finding components to make that ultra great magic item, or running a keep, or establishing a temple, or keeping order in your woods...
'dungeoning' pretty much came to a halt, except for the really rare high level death trap dungeons...
Why should 3.5 be any diferent...
There needs to be better guidleines on how to run a high level campaign..ive done it effectively in 2nd ed many times. and once in 3.5. Its tough. But the kind of game HAS to change to make it fun and challenging.
I think Paizo would be well served to creat one adventure path in maybe 5 that ran from 15th-20th.... Youd need that to put the neccessary materials in to make it challenging. Leveling up once per 'book'
my 2 cents.
You got my 2 cents worth. Always loved the Titles Lord, Guild Master, High Priest, etc.
Here's a thought that would help regarding iterative attacks. What if we were to introduce high level combat feats that instead of requiring that you meet conditions such as using a full-round action or something, you introduced feats that 'spent' iterative attacks. This would allow for a fix to martial classes that would help to address the uselessness of the lower range iterative attacks without completely removing the flexibility of having the second attack.You mean like Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike from Pathfinder Alpha? :)
Exactly, taking that concept and expanding on it has enormous potential. Giving up spell slots, attacks, ac, etc to use / take higher level feats could very well be the key. Higher dc skill tricks that don't break the game have been seen before but I would like to see it expanded upon. I think that high level play can be balanced with backwards compatability.
|
This was kind of fixed in Unearthed Arcana - using the fractional progression of saves. It is in there near the Gestalt rules. It works very well and you don't have people getting this weird +2 to one (or more) save(s) stacking up just for changing classes.I'd love to see High Level Play improved. In the group i'm playing with now, one of the PCs have a few levels of a base class, and levels in two or three other classes, and his saves are ridiculous.
One of the main things for me, that need to be fixed for high level play, are the rate the characters saves improve when multiclassing.
Oh, I'd completely forgotten about that, thanks!
Edit: i just looked at it, and it actually makes their saves higher.. hmm
. . . So here's the please everybody option: Optional rules. Rules that will affect backwards compatibility for those who have a problem with it. For everybody else, a few tweaks are made to make the game a little easier to play within the existing framework.I agree with this idea 110%. In a way, Pathfinder would be well served IMO if it set a record for "most sidebars in an RPG."...
Ouch. that comment hurt me right in my wallet.
And my shoulders, which will ache from bearing the weight of the increased page-count.
Optional rules are nice, but they are "optional". Everyone can house-rule, and the tomes of optional rules such as Unearthed Arcana are still useful with Pathfinder. I'd rather have one, stable ruleset that I can change myself than an amorphous collection of variants— especially since variants often need as much work as the systems they're trying to correct, or more!
|
|
{....} but id like to point out, that high level play is and should be vastly diferent than games of mid to lower level. This is the biggest issue i see. Folks get used to playing a 'certain' type of game...but when characters get to what used to be 'titled levels' in 2ed and earlier...
Archmage, Lord, High Priest, Grand Master, Guildmaster, Great Druid...The game used to change...it went in the direction of 'finding components to make that ultra great magic item, or running a keep, or establishing a temple, or keeping order in your woods...
'dungeoning' pretty much came to a halt, except for the really rare high level death trap dungeons...
While I'm voting for backward compatibility, I want to say that this is an extremely good point that tends to get overlooked.
For me, though, that's no biggie. Even in 2E, I didn't much care for high level (12+) campaigns... my enjoyment level topped off mostly between 5th and, say, 9th. Yes, I'd also be fond of seeing high level adventures get "fixed," but it would be more important to me personally to be able to continue getting use from my current slew of adventures, cretaures, and-- if I so desire-- splatbooks with a minimum of fuss.
While I'm voting for backward compatibility, I want to say that this is an extremely good point that tends to get overlooked.
The premise of this thread assumes that we can't have it both ways (a few have mentioned this).
Instead of "fix" high-level play, perhaps "support" high level play. Give us some structure for the kind of games that always get mentioned when we talk about whether high-level play is or isn't broken.
Pathfinder RPG should stare this problem in the face directly. Tell us what level the GM might think about leaving dungeons for other challenges, or offer the options to make dungeons viable again as well. Give us rules to govern armies, the wax and wane of opinion held by the city populace, how to handle high level magic.
It may not be broken, it just needs a home!
|
|
I agree with both of these statements; however, I think a number of people have come to the conclusion that there is no fix that won't affect backwards compatibility. Further, some people say that there is no problem. So here's the please everybody option: Optional rules. Rules that will affect backwards compatibility for those who have a problem with it. For everybody else, a few tweaks are made to make the game a little easier to play within the existing framework. Things like limiting the number and duration of buffs that can be in play at one time.
I like this idea a lot, but I think I'd be happier if it were pursued as a separate, full book. UA is of course one good example of this, but I'm actually thinking more along the lines of Green Ronin's Mastermind's Manual for M&M as a way it could really be done well. A book with a slew of homebrew, variant, and reimagined rules, all to pick from or disregard at your leisure. Maybe it even includes rules and fixes dreamed up by the alpha playtesters Paizo's asked for feedback from here. All in a softcover format, to keep cost down.
I think backwards compatibility is very important.
I haven't looked over the 2nd and 3rd iterations of the Alpha yet, but I felt the 1st version strayed quite far in the direction of incompatibility, to the point where personally I'd consider sticking with 3.5 rather than "upgrading" to the Pathfinder rules system. I want to be able to use my old material (both published and house-rules), and I don't want to learn a new rule-set that is nearly as foreign as 4e.
That said, there is a lot of scope for making small changes to subsystems that won't upset the applecart. I'd say this is particularly true of spell descriptions, but could be applied in other ways--some of the suggestions above would work well toward redressing the imbalance between casters and non-casters (if such exists) without pulling the rest of the game out of whack, such as more high DC skill tricks, feats powered by burning iterative attacks, etc. Some limitations on how many buffs can be in place at once, and some other things that make tracking and game math easier would also not detract too much from backwards compatibility. But a lot of these things can be dealt with by house rule and DM fiat in the interpretation of spells.
Ultimately, though, I think high level play is bound to be relatively complicated. It's in the nature of a game in which the options and powers of the players grow in proportion to their level. (If you limit these options too much, then you're merely finding another way to make high-level play unenjoyable--because it's no different from low-level play.) Some people revel in the complexity and enjoy high-level play enough to master it. Others don't, or haven't yet. Choose the part of the game you enjoy and stick with it--maybe push the boundaries a bit, but be prepared to either go into "stronghold-builder mode" with your campaign, or "happily-ever-after mode" (i.e. retirement) when the game gets too far beyond your comfort zone.
So, I vote for prioritizing backwards-compatibility and massaging the 3.5e system to make high-level play smoother only to the extent that you can do it without compromising that basic goal.
|
. . . So here's the please everybody option: Optional rules. Rules that will affect backwards compatibility for those who have a problem with it. For everybody else, a few tweaks are made to make the game a little easier to play within the existing framework.I agree with this idea 110%. In a way, Pathfinder would be well served IMO if it set a record for "most sidebars in an RPG." Sort of the PH mets Unearthed Arcana under a single set of covers. Lay down the base PF rules, then present in sidebars alternative applications. Give people a core set of rules _and_ lots of options to vary those rules for different sorts of play.
It would be my thought that the basic PF "core" rules would need to be largely backwards compatible - as in a 3.75 sense, recognizing that Pathfinder will not, is not intended to be, and cannot succeed as simply a reprint of 3.5, but will still be backwards compatible in a 3.75 sense like 3.5 was backwards compatible with 3.0. Then, the sidebars would present more "radical" rules options that might not be backwards compartible in a 3.75 sense. Cake and eating it too.
This said, even without presenting "radical" options, sidebars with alternative 3.75 backwards compatible options would still be the way to go IMO. I don't think Pathfinder can go wrong with options in sidebars, whatever their precise nature. Again, the PH meets Unearthed Arcana in a single book.
Alternatively, if "high level play" requires something more thorough going, maybe an Appendix is the way to go. It is another option.
Backwards compatibility in a 3.75 sense must, however, remain the primary core design criteria.
I think this is, ideally, the way to go and is Paizo's only real option to both "smooth out" some of the rougher areas of the game and keep Pathfinder mostly backwards compatable. Keep the core rules fairly close to the 3.5 SRD, and have suggestions or optional rules for "fixing" some of the problem areas in sidebars or an appendix. Maybe even have a whole chapter devoted to play after 12th level.
|
|
. . . So here's the please everybody option: Optional rules. Rules that will affect backwards compatibility for those who have a problem with it. For everybody else, a few tweaks are made to make the game a little easier to play within the existing framework.I agree with this idea 110%. In a way, Pathfinder would be well served IMO if it set a record for "most sidebars in an RPG."...Ouch. that comment hurt me right in my wallet.
And my shoulders, which will ache from bearing the weight of the increased page-count.
Optional rules are nice, but they are "optional". Everyone can house-rule, and the tomes of optional rules such as Unearthed Arcana are still useful with Pathfinder. I'd rather have one, stable ruleset that I can change myself than an amorphous collection of variants— especially since variants often need as much work as the systems they're trying to correct, or more!
I don't understand this. If the optional rules are in sidebars or an appendix, they will be easy for you to ignore if you don't want an amorphous collection of variants, but they will be there for those that want to use them. It's the best of both worlds. The only downside is increased page count. I guess if it gets too big, they can publish it as a separate book like Pathfinder's version of Unearthed Arcana.
I don't understand this. If the optional rules are in sidebars or an appendix, they will be easy for you to ignore if you don't want an amorphous collection of variants, but they will be there for those that want to use them. It's the best of both worlds. The only downside is increased page count. I guess if it gets too big, they can publish it as a separate book like Pathfinder's version of Unearthed Arcana.
I've got some little experience with publishing and layout, and let me tell you, sidebars and appendices count. They add pages, and pages add cost.
I'm not against optional rules whatsoever, I've penned quite a few myself. It's more important to have one complete book of basic rules. A followup softcover for options would be wonderful.
I want to use all the ink I pay for, and if the room that would be used by sidebars I might use, I'd rather see more feats, spells, and equipment I will use.
I don't think it would take more than a page or two of optional rules to fix high level play, if we went the route of stopping combat related character progression at 15th level and then came up with a new mechanic to provide other types of rewards beyond that point.
The only real problem I can see with that approach is that it wouldn't let you play many prestige classes to their natural conclusion. I guess that would have to be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to implement that set of optional rules.
...a lot of well reasoned things in rebuttal of toyrobots...
It's all good, GVD. I'm just expressing my preference. I don't begrudge yours being different than mine. :)
Very few variant rules fit well with the game as written. By and large they are "seems like a good idea" type of rule, that is never thoroughly play-tested and leaves the GM in a constant state of adjudication. Paizo should have it's hands full testing the canon rules, and proper playtesting on a large number of options is unlikely to take place on schedule.
I trust Paizo to an extent, but I would rather they focus on a solid product without getting carried away with variants. All my other books of variant rules, not to mention my house rules, can be applied to Pathfinder RPG with little effort.
I'm more interested in a solid rule-set that I can alter as I always have to suit my needs. When I buy the final hardcover, I'm not interested in optional rules that try and please everyone.
A certain number of variants, mind you, are welcome under the auspice of "GM Leverage". But it is very easy to get carried away with options, at the expense of simplicity— so I can't stand behind a statement like "Pathfinder RPG should break the record of most optional rules." (meaning no personal offense to that poster)
I am all for backward compatibility. I have no problems with the game at high levels.
|
|
I am all for backward compatibility. I have no problems with the game at high levels.
<Grimace>
Glad we are getting good feedback on this thread. Nice to hear so many have no problems with High/Epic Level play.
I certainly wish the "let's change it folks" would pipe in. As a DM I detest the way it stands at present. 3rd Edition has one very good trait about it: Fantastic Options for the Players. There has never been an Edition that has allowed this many options to the players. And all those wonderful options come home when I am planning everyone's adventure, and pulling my hair out trying to consider them all.
This was not the D&D that I played in 1st or 2nd Edition. The character sheets were fairly stale and had little punches (back then). I also easily grasped what it took to challenge my high level parties.
Today is a whole other ball game. My players see through the eyes of "once upon a time" Magic the Gathering players. They look at all the spells and feats and skills and abilities, and engineer fairly horrific combos that just about break the game. I marvel at their ingenuity at tripping me up and using the rules to the letter, but this is plain aggravating. I can't house rule against this everytime we meet. As it stands though, the more "options" they attain, the less I feel competent as a GM. As a near 40 something, I really don't have the time to backward examine the possibilities and prepare for "counters" to these "God Players". I would definitely prefer at least an Option to ditch the system as it is currently written. I think a system could be developed to "turn-in" all the options for more potent powers that don't require endless lists of sorting. I would also welcome being able to understand what my player's potentials are. I highly second the idea of changing the nature of the High Level players as to build and rule, ala King Conan.
Anyhow, running levels 1-9 I think works fairly well, but it would be nice if an Optional system was in place to swap out the tedium and "Magic Combos" once the game begins to slow or lose its focus as roleplaying.
Cheers,
Zuxius
Today is a whole other ball game. My players see through the eyes of "once upon a time" Magic the Gathering players. They look at all the spells and feats and skills and abilities, and engineer fairly horrific combos that just about break the game. I marvel at their ingenuity at tripping me up and using the rules to the letter, but this is plain aggravating. I can't house rule against this everytime we meet. As it stands though, the more "options" they attain, the less I feel competent as a GM.
That is because your way of playing. My players don’t engineer fairly horrific combos, so they do not break the game. As DM I find easier to say: "No, you can not create this combo" than to change the whole system.
To play at high levels and low (but mostly at high) must be done with a healthy mentality. My players play for fun, not to be very powerful. So they enjoy the many options at high levels, but do not abuse the system by creating fool combos.
As DM I do not have problems with high levels. I encourage people to try them, but not fearing to say "no" to fool combos.
Sorry for my poor english :(
|
|
That is because your way of playing. My players don’t engineer fairly horrific combos, so they do not break the game. As DM I find easier to say: "No, you can not create this combo" than to change the whole system.
Alas, to be that firm would turn my players off. I am not so sure they are wrong in what they are doing, because they know their stuff real well. It seems a little wrong to tell them they can't use the rules "as they are written" because you are "doing it again!"
Yes, I do believe certain groups play differently. The least informed players usually make the best ones because they find that role playing is their best escape from the rules. However,....oh well. Forget it.
Cheers,
Zuxius
|
|
I hear ya 100% on that note about the least-informed players. I myself try NOT to dig too much into the game just to keep that fresh sorta perspective on it. I have a good buddy of mine who is really into DnD a lot more than me (though he has no money for books lol). He's always helping me do a bit of customization and planning for my toons when we play in the same game.
But yeah, there were some sick things he was describing with monks and some chain using PrC that I straight up said I just wouldn't allow in my game. I think it all just comes down to who you're gaming with and what sorta relationship you have. The crew I used to run with were all my good friends and we got em into DnD, so they never took it THAT serious and would roll with the punches. They knew when I ran that if they played hardball with their toons and powergame too much I'd just roll their corpses across the ground somehow.
I've heard a lotta complaints about high end DnD, enough to say that although I haven't experienced it much I would be wiling to throw my lot in with those saying that we need to fix it somewhat. Small optional rules perhaps, or a later released set of optional rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
One thing about some of those 'killer combos' that can be put together at high levels. Many of them don't actually work. I've run into many that fellow players have used, and upon researching them determined that if you read the relevant rules carefully, there's a hole in their plan somewhere.
That being said, there are many powerful combos that DO work, so I'm not trying to hand wave the issue away, but you definately have to re-read the relevant rules in high level play for anything that seems a bit too good to be true, since it often is.
The other point about high level combos is that many of them rely on splatbook material, and some of that material itself is often the problem. If there's a combo out there that relies on a particular spell from the spell compendium, you have to make a DM call on deciding if that spell as written is allowed in your campaign, at least without a modification. Quite frankly, there's some broken stuff out there that you shouldn't allow without fixing. When I DM, I generally use the rule of thumb that any player can use any WOTC book or even 3P book once I've read through it, however I reserve the right to ban or change specific items, spells, prestige classes, etc. 95% of stuff doesn't need a ruling, but some things do. A friend of mine, when he DMs, only allows the core 3 books, plus specific bits that you have to sell him on, since he doesn't have a vast library of gaming books and doesn't know all of what else is out there.
As DM I find easier to say: "No, you can not create this combo" than to change the whole system.Alas, to be that firm would turn my players off. I am not so sure they are wrong in what they are doing, because they know their stuff real well. It seems a little wrong to tell them they can't use the rules "as they are written" because you are "doing it again!"
Zuxius
I understand both sides of this argument since my guys can, and have, broken everything at one time or another. It finally boiled over when we had an at the table "discussion" about the Dodge feat, and then continued it via email. Even though we only play twice per month, I ended up canceling the last session in July and all of August because that was the "straw that broke the camels back" and the game was no longer fun for me, the DM.
My last note to my players was that we would pick up the game in September, finishing off the current campaign in two sessions then start another (RotRL) using the Pathfinder Beta rules. 1st question came back as to what other books, and my response was *none*. I also added a "house rule" that I never had before. They have a minute to show me where in the books they disagree with a ruling, and if I agree with their interpretation as stated in the book, ok. If not, we do it my way and I investigate further *after* the session. The added part was, anyone that continues arguing after I make my final ruling, leaves for the night (we play at my house).
I understand what you are saying Zuxius, but the game has to be fun for the DM also, and constant over the top characters and rules arguing makes it not fun for the DM.
-- david
Papa.DRB
What *is* backwards compatibility?
From my DM perspective, it is being able to make minimal changes to the mooks, lieutenants and the BBEG as written in current 3.5 modules and running with them.
mooks (aka cannon fodder) - add a hit die or two at higher levels
lieutenants - add hit die, maybe some spells or items
BBEG - I usually re-write them to be more effective and be the same power level as my guys anyway.
Stuff to change: CMB, perception skill, some spells, some magic items.
So for me as a DM, unless the Beta rules go *way out* their isn't much work to be done, so they are backwards compatible enough for me.
-- david
Papa.DRB
High level play problems. What are they, *exactly*?
Save or Die spells - I think that one has been handled.
"Broken" character combos - That is a table problem, that I won't put up with anymore at my table.
Too many options - see above. Like I said in a couple of posts above, I am limiting the books to the D20 SRD, the Pathfinder Beta rules, and the couple of PrCs in the Campaign Setting.
Others?
-- david
Papa.DRB
ps. All the above is *NOT* a slam or insult to anyone. This is how *I* am now running my game, since the old way was no longer any fun for me the DM. While my guys are great guys (ages 33 to 50+), when I let them use every WotC book out there, including splat, complete, compendiums, races, etc. they could always find something that breaks the game open, and I just don't want to deal with it anymore, because it leads to arguments and no fun for me at all.
|
|
Like I said in a couple of posts above, I am limiting the books to the D20 SRD, the Pathfinder Beta rules, and the couple of PrCs in the Campaign Setting.
As it is now, anything is game in our group. And right now the cleric is REALLY annoying with his one immediate action spell that basically prevents death. There are other issues, but I have a question for you. I would personally like to limit the books to SRD and Pathfinder (and the campaign setting, once i can afford it). Exactly how do I go about this without them blowing up in my face, or trying to sneak in other sources, or just taking feats/spells/etc. without my permission anyway? How did you do this?
You're the DM. Rule Zero trumps everything else. Period.
True.
A softer way of explaining the same thing is the GMing is hard work, and as good players they should be willing to help you work less to give them more good sessions.
If the GM burns out, there's no game.
Like I said in a couple of posts above, I am limiting the books to the D20 SRD, the Pathfinder Beta rules, and the couple of PrCs in the Campaign Setting.Exactly how do I go about this without them blowing up in my face, or trying to sneak in other sources, or just taking feats/spells/etc. without my permission anyway? How did you do this?
Well, as others have said, Rule 0, but that is harsh, so I told them only those 'books'.
It was not fun anymore, too many arguments, too many rules, too many books, too much stuff to worry about, and not only from my side of the table, but sometimes the *players* didn't know what their characters could do ("let me look this up") which is, in my opinion, the bane of high level play.
I *really* enjoy DM'ing and bringing a world, or town or just one NPC to life and interact with these guys, but I would give it up and just do a PbeM or not all rather than go back to "everything goes" and the constant arguing and bickering that inevitably happens.
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
|
It was not fun anymore, too many arguments, too many rules, too many books, too much stuff to worry about, and not only from my side of the table, but sometimes the *players* didn't know what their characters could do ("let me look this up") which is, in my opinion, the bane of high level play.
I understand perfectly, our group is currently level 15, and the cleric is already on his 3rd prestige class. He doesn't have a character sheet, it's a character tomb; pages upon pages of stuff. He's always looking up his abilities/spells several times per session. That's just one example, there are more, too many to list.
I've already told them when it comes to my turn to DM a game (we take turns DMing our own campaigns), it'll be Pathfinder RPG rules and Pathfinder Campaign Setting. So far no hassle, but then again, it's too early to tell.
|
|
If high level rules worked, there should be no need for a "sit down" between players and DM where everyone agrees there is an issue and decides how it will be addressed.
I totally agree! And I also know that most of these instances are never truly revealed till you are in the "gaming night" and it is sprung upon you.
Let's face it, all of us are experts at low-level play. High Level play on the otherhand is not a usual run of the mill decision to run. I have rarely heard people say, "Let's make a 12the level party to run a high level campaign." Well, to make memorable storylines for high level campaigns the DM has to make a 12th level party challenge. You can do it with some "biggy" monster but that get's old. Real villians (the movers and shakers) are much more like the party that plays the game. The only difference is that the GM has to breathe life into an Anti-Party that is so complex that you need individual humans to run each NPC (if you want to get the entire gamut and range of options). Players get a whole round of combats to consider their next move, the GM on the otherhand get's an initiative nightmare or a huge chunk of dense decisions. My group tends to move the GM hat around between each other, so we are all players and GMs. Only two of us are really rules smart, and those two usually script out three rounds of fighting before they come to the game. One GM actually went home from work and sat up all night making the encounter from NPCs to the Magic Items and skills and feats and spells. It was an Eberron Campaign so he had to use Eberron stuff, so he couldn't use some SRD proggie to whip it out. He then went to work again and drove an hour to our game. He looked like hell and after the first round of combat his scripted plan was shot by a banish spell. Who would have thought the Inspired could be removed from an encounter that fast.
Anyway, perhaps the High Level/ Epic Level stuff isn't broken. Perhaps the rules work. Perhaps a real good program will come along to validate that and speed the game back to where it should be. As it stands for me, as it appears for many....it just isn't worth the time. I think the goal of High Level play should be to have it run as it would for any level encounter, fast and effective Roleplaying. If I can credibly start a party at level 12 and work them to level 28 and have the same prep time and enjoyment at low-level campaigns, then I think World of Warcraft people might be interested in how this is accomplished. As it stands, I believe everyone is thinking that a highly complex game needs a computer to run it. I am definitely on the computer crowd's side. If I have to have a laptop to run High Level, then I will use it.
My prefernce though, is that I hope Pathfinder will find a ....path..(forgive the pun) so we can enjoy High Level play in a more simplified form. I would prefer that Pathfinder go off the tracks to be honest and take High Level play to a completely new level. Trade out all those feats (as in 3 for 1) and create a Super Feat. Drop off all those Skills and focus the remaining skills into something an Epic Hero needs, such as a talent tree for Focused Skills. Trim those spells down so there is room for a hybrid spell that is new and powerful. Melt down those mini artifacts and magic items to forge an epic item. In otherwords, dumb the game down so we can build the complexity back up again for Epic Level.
I am sure this sounds like quite a deviation, but it is a whole new territory that would dispel the idea that 3.5 is a dead end system once you are 16th Level and beyond. I firmly believe Paizo could create such a game and open a whole new door to storytelling on mythic proportions. As it stands now, how does one at Paizo create an adventure that is high level around a party that is high level themselves. The nice part about Adventure Paths is the control of the actual party advancement (magic items in particular). However, if you create a high level module, who is to say what the party will be carrying into the mod. Some artifacts and spells can make some nearsighted encounters seem silly and poorly written.
I really don't care about backward compatibility, but I just thought up an interesting option. Suppose Paizo created a High Level Campaign book that basically converted your 3.5/Pathfinder RPG stuff into High Level Pathfinder compliant. In other words, you decide when you get off the 3.5 train and jump on to the Epic train. It would be a player's decision, not a GMs. So, you could have a 3.5 16th level Wizard fighting alongside a Pathfinder High Level 13th Level Barbarian. In this way it is a player's option to streamline the game. Naturally I would expect the GM to use the hell out of the High Level Pathfinder book while the players retain their "incalculable options". Of course I think that would still create the crazy combos, but perhaps the Pathfinder High Level book would help reduce the effectiveness of those strats by having a few broad blow powers of its own. Such as dispel all buffs permanently for the encounter, break spiked chains, etc. I might also add that if Paizo did the job right, I doubt anyone would want to stay in 3.5 High Level, because the other option would be way more cool and fun. Just a thought on how everyone can win.
Cheers,
Zuxius
|
|
a lot of stuff..
One thing, specifically, that I think needs fixed is saves. More specifically, base saves and multiclassing. The saves are cumulative, and for people who love to multiclass, their saves get ridiculous after only several levels.
Also, is Epic levels. Reaching epic levels is like reaching a new game that stacks on top of the existing one. BAB and Base saves increase uniformly, regardless of multiclassing.
Now that I think about it, and view my own post, I think multiclassing is the root of many of the problems in high level play.
I completely believe that it's possible to fix these problems in 3x, and still maintain backwards compatibility.
|
|
a lot of stuff..One thing, specifically, that I think needs fixed is saves. More specifically, base saves and multiclassing. The saves are cumulative, and for people who love to multiclass, their saves get ridiculous after only several levels.
Also, is Epic levels. Reaching epic levels is like reaching a new game that stacks on top of the existing one. BAB and Base saves increase uniformly, regardless of multiclassing.
Now that I think about it, and view my own post, I think multiclassing is the root of many of the problems in high level play.
I completely believe that it's possible to fix these problems in 3x, and still maintain backwards compatibility.
It would be possible to say you keep the base saves from your first class, regardless of any later class you take (like class skills).
The way I see it, players have far too much control at later levels, especially casters. If the GM becomes acclimated to the situation and throws high threat encounters, PCs either blow through it get wiped if they lose control. There is a very distinct rock-paper-scissors feel at upper levels that is extremely pronounced at epic and beyond. This can happen with saves, AC, spell resistance, and immunities. None of those things scale well with challenge rating in upper levels when you're advancing monsters or writing NPCs. There are other things like forcecage, that can bring things to a grinding halt, since they can only be overcome by one thing in most cases, and survival turns into a question of being prepared for the specific situation.
I love what the Pathfinder team is doing, but I really need to say, removing the 1500g material component from forcecage is a step in the wrong direction. If anything, it should have been increased. Spells that can possibly disable someone without any sort of save or check should be closely examined. Things that give the players infinite flexibility (like Sculpt Spell and Mastery of Shaping used on an anti-magic field) need to examined. The whole etherealness thing needs to be examined. Invisibility needs to have more counters. Glitterdust allowing a save each round to remove the blindness is a step in the right direction.
Speeding things up in high level play is really up to the players. They should know their abilities and what they do, and the same thing goes the DM.
(warning: very imho)
The way I see it, D&D lacks balancing mechanism of active defense against spell saves, spell effects, highly damaging criticals, super competent grapple users.
Here is why I think so: The higher level, the bigger difference between character strong sides (like spell save requirement) and weak sides (like save defense bonus). Once the difference passes 10 points, the chance to actually survive becomes nonexistent, since, in the best of traditions, opponents will target each other weaknesses while attempting to use their best attacks.
Fighter 20 (Elite Array, all advancements to Str): 20 Str, 13 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes; amulet of health +4, belt of giant strength +6, gloves of dexterity +4, headband of wisdom +4; Fort +16, Ref +11, Will +11 before taking into account the cloak of resistance +5
If people don't use the options available, is it the system's fault?
I say screw backwards compatibility to make sure things work right which they don't at mid to high levels.
I love what the Pathfinder team is doing, but I really need to say, removing the 1500g material component from forcecage is a step in the wrong direction. If anything, it should have been increased. Spells that can possibly disable someone without any sort of save or check should be closely examined.
The Pathfinder version of Forcecage now has a save, so you don't have to worry about that particular spell any longer.