Sometimes game mechanics have to get in the way of flavor, but usually the two coincide.
Aside from the whole "i don't think its necessary" thing- which is admittedly just my opinion- the rule also doesn't make any actual sense at all.
The fighter (barb, rogue, ranger, whoever) has no choice on whether or not an afflictive spell is cast on him, but somehow- mystically, he can choose from a list on what beneficial spells currently affect him?
huh?
"gee, mage armor or haste.. hmm.." -mentally scratches out Mage armor and it dispels from around him-
I'm sorry- but this really, really makes absolutely no sense.
I do also agree with the idea that fewer buff spells tends to mess with just exactly what items the players carry- but that subject in general is so murky and campaign specific as to be difficult to carry on a meaningful discussion about.
-S
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
The more I read this thread and think about it, I think I'd prefer a solution that eliminated and consolidated some of the bonus types, but not to an extreme degree.
Off the top of my head, I'd say eliminate luck and competance bonuses. These to me are really no different from an enhancement or morale bonus. I know you can make arguments that they're different, but for me at least, they're pretty much the same.
I'd also argue that sacred/profane should become an enhancement bonus, since this really just defines the source of the bonus, not the type of bonus.
By reducing the number of bonus types, you'll also reduce the number of buffs that are up simultaneously, since stacking rules will eliminate the need for additional buffs.
1. I actually liked the change from 3.0 to 3.5 stat-boost spells from hours per level to minutes per level.
2. I also don't quite see the aesthetic superiority of "everyone being bedecked in stat-bonus spells" over "everyone being bedecked in stat-bonus items."
3. Or you stack superior resistance (resist) with mass conviction (morale) and prayer (luck) plus whatever item it is that I can't remember the name of right now that gives you (competence) bonus to saves.
4. I'm just wondering whether the solution there, if it turns out to be a lone outlier, would be a simple change to Arcane Strike rather than a revision of the hard rule.
Jason, thanks for your reply. In response to the points you raise,
1. I heartily approved of that change as well, because the hrs/lvl bull's strength was too good. See comments above re: scaling buff spell levels realistically. Rather than declare things to be impossible, whenever practicable I like to allow them, but balance them as well -- you want an oddball bonus type? It'll cost you. You want hrs/level instead of rds/lvl? It'll cost you.2. Right, it's a lousy deal either way. Having buffs be all spells, with items on top, isn't good, but simply shifting it from spells to more items doesn't really help.
3. Agreed! There are too many bonus types, without any sense of limitation on them. But if something like a sane spell-level scaling system were implemented, a short-duration conviction would be at least 5th level, and hrs/level one would be 9th, mass conviction would be 9th, and a mass one lasting hours would require epic-level spells.
4. Arcane Strike is the only one I can think of in the Beta offhand, but looking at supposedly "compatible" 3.5e sources, all the reserve spells (+1 caster level to X spells) would go out the window, and a large number of others.
Having rules for spell level for buff spells that could be easily applied to 3.5e sources ("We can use conviction, but since it's a morale bonus we need to jack up the level by 4.") would address most of the problems we're seeing; at high levels, people would have to pick which stacking buffs they really wanted, as opposed to being able to just take dozens of low-level ones.
That, and my growing hatred of the solid fog + blade barrier combo, of course... :-)
I'm sure you meant this in partial jest, of course, but like Jason Nelseon suggested in painful detail, what is a buff?
This is a subject that requires careful consideration, and something I must consider as I write the magic rules section in my own home-grown game.
I must say that as much as I despise 4e, they really nipped this problem in the bud.
Creative Director
|
That, and my growing hatred of the solid fog + blade barrier combo, of course... :-)I'm sure you meant this in partial jest, of course, but like Jason Nelseon suggested in painful detail, what is a buff?
This is a subject that requires careful consideration, and something I must consider as I write the magic rules section in my own home-grown game.
I must say that as much as I despise 4e, they really nipped this problem in the bud.
Off the top of my head: A buff is a spell that gives you a bonus to an existing number, be that number Strength, speed, attack rolls, saves, or whatever.
Alternatively, it could be ANY beneficial magical effect that goes onto a creature and persists. That's probably the easier solution.
Even more alternatively, perhaps the high level game isn't as broken as folk think? Perhaps it's just not enjoyable to most players? I actually think this might be at the root of things as well. I'd be curious to hear in particular from players and GMs who currently enjoy high-level play WHAT they enjoy about it and why they enjoy it, and what (if anything) they think needs to change.
If everyone hates high-level play, then yeah, it needs to change. But if there are folk who like it a lot and the folk that hate it are folk who just happen to prefer low or mid level games... maybe it doesn't need to change at all? Kind of like how if someone doesn't like chocolate... you don't spurn your chocolate fans and re-engineer the flavor of chocolate just to satisfy those who don't like it... that's the type of thinking that got demons and devils banned from D&D back in 2nd edition's day.
At my table we use the rule of 3. It works great. No complaints from DM or players.
I'd be curious to hear in particular from players and GMs who currently enjoy high-level play WHAT they enjoy about it and why they enjoy it, and what (if anything) they think needs to change.
Honestly, calculating buffs is absolutly the least of what I dislike about high-level play. The fact that all non-combat challenges have to be extremely contrived to avoid being easily circumvented is endlessly annoying. The fact that combat is more easily scaled means that, all of the sudden, the world needs to be frequently invaded by legions of epic-level beings all the time, which is just as contrived and even more annoying. A successful effort was made to get around this in the Dungeon adventures "Diplomacy" and "Enemies of My Enemy," but that plot line can only be used so many times -- if Diplomacy is the only skill that scales into high levels, we've got problems.
Really, at epic levels it seems like combat should be more rare, because of the relative scarcity of such powerful beings. But because the other types of challenges are more easily circumvented, they're less often used.
|
Hmm, from my personal experience, tracking buffs at high level seems to vary from person to person. I've participated in high level games where everyone has a half dozen personalized buffs (Bull's Str, Divine Favor, etc.) with a hoard of group buffs (Prayer, Mass Resist Elements, etc.) and no one bats an eye when Dispel Magic wonks things up.
Of course, I've sat at tables where players with first level characters panic because the bard starts singing and that screws up their carefully formulated hit and damage calculations.
That being said (written?), putting a limit on buffs might be useful for some tables - although keeping it simple would be key. Defining a buff as any effect that can be dropped by dispel magic may help. I would discount magic items generating a standing effect (Belt of Bull's Str; Banded Mail +2) but include magic items that generate a temporary effect (Potion of Invisibility; Wand of Endure Elements).
A three buff limit seems a bit low in this case (since it would encompass defensive, offensive and movement buffs), so I would probably raise the buff limit to five for this concept.
Thanks for reading.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
That, and my growing hatred of the solid fog + blade barrier combo, of course... :-)I'm sure you meant this in partial jest, of course, but like Jason Nelseon suggested in painful detail, what is a buff?
This is a subject that requires careful consideration, and something I must consider as I write the magic rules section in my own home-grown game.
I must say that as much as I despise 4e, they really nipped this problem in the bud.
Off the top of my head: A buff is a spell that gives you a bonus to an existing number, be that number Strength, speed, attack rolls, saves, or whatever.
Alternatively, it could be ANY beneficial magical effect that goes onto a creature and persists. That's probably the easier solution.
What did you think of my explication of what's a buff in the earlier post in this thread? The easiest ones are the "give you a bonus" spells (though I excluded skill boosters from the list), but I think a good number of "give you an ability" spells/abilities should be buffs as well.
Even more alternatively, perhaps the high level game isn't as broken as folk think? Perhaps it's just not enjoyable to most players? I actually think this might be at the root of things as well. I'd be curious to hear in particular from players and GMs who currently enjoy high-level play WHAT they enjoy about it and why they enjoy it, and what (if anything) they think needs to change.
There's the million-dollar question.
I like high-level play because I like the challenge of it. You have a lot of options and a lot of resources to manage and a lot of ways to approach problems, with a lot of alternate resources if your first attempt doesn't always work.
What I don't like as well is the binary nature of "I win" abilities, which seem to proliferate at higher levels, where if one person has it the other person can't do anything about it unless they have the magic key that serves as the precise countermeasure. Things like:
death ward makes undead a million times less scary
mind blank makes mind-affecting useless
freedom of movement makes grappling monsters impotent, whether a kobold sumo or a fiendish kraken
wall of force/forcecage is absolutely, completely indestructible by anything... why? Where is it written that force objects are indestructible? Smoe force things you can attack (Bigby's...), some you can't. Make it a wall with hardness 20 (so adamantine can't ignore it) and 10 hp/caster level, heck make it 20 hp/level. Still super-strong, even undispellable... but breakable.
heroes' feast makes poison a joke at high levels
evasion... yeah, I know some disagree, and maybe it depends on the campaign and the party, but this ability seems to come up all the time at high levels for a pretty cheap price and pretty much makes ref effects pointless.
It's like a game of Russian roulette - "Who's got the immunity?"
If you have it, you win.
If you don't, you lose.
Even more alternatively, perhaps the high level game isn't as broken as folk think? Perhaps it's just not enjoyable to most players? I actually think this might be at the root of things as well. I'd be curious to hear in particular from players and GMs who currently enjoy high-level play WHAT they enjoy about it and why they enjoy it, and what (if anything) they think needs to change.
I enjoy greatly that PCs have the ability to do some meaningful recon and prep themselves for situations they know are coming. All of those buffs can be the reward for planning. This starts out at low levels, of course, and some buffs are much less situational than others, but fundamentally PCs get more options and are given more chances to use those options. Essentially, being able to precision-buff is a reward for smart play. I know what when my party does it, I tend to throw some things that their buffs are effective against because those buffs are up. They get a little reward in every point of fire damage resisted, every energy drain that bounces off a death ward, etc.
What I dislike about high-level games is the proliferation of outright immunities. SKR lays out the basic issues and some fixes but the plain fact is that the game can turn into a guessing game or rock-paper-scissors with everything and everyone trying to find something the opposition isn't immune to. I'd much rather all immunities and such be turned into some kind of static, if sometimes large, bonuses and resistances. At low levels it would look much the same, but a wizard who has specialized in fire magic for a good ten or fifteen levels should be able to do something with his main artillery. It may not be the optimal course, but it's not a total waste of time either. In my book, the same reasoning that applies to sneak attacking undead should apply to the various immunities that proliferate in the late game.
|
I played in and still on occasion play in a long running campaign. Krome is now level 22 and a fighter type (fighter/rogue/ranger).
James wanted to know what I liked and disliked about high level play.
I will start with what I liked.
Game play shifted over time from save the town to save the kingdom to save the world and now it is time for us to look for our own place in the Pantheon. We have shifted to quests from primordial powers of the multiverse to prove our worth and value. The vast majority of game play is now on roleplaying, puzzle solving and social interactions. There is generally one maybe two combats per level and they are massive.
Things I dislike about high level play (and there are a few).
The primary dislike I have for high level play is dependence upon gear. One of our quests was to fight without using ANY magic items. Once we stripped all the magic gear off of our sheets we realized our characters were really not so amazing. Still pretty good, but no where near what I call epic level though. The classes really need to be able to stand on their own and magic should be an enhancement, a little extra edge, and not the defining source of abilities.
My second complaint about high level play is the agonizing time it takes for spellcasters to go through their spell lists. I can blow my full attack with ALL my iterative attacks in less than a minute, then wait half an hour before it is my turn again. From a combat point of view this drives me crazy more than anything else.
Now, specifically regarding buffs, my opinion is that at higher level play they are the least of my worries. As a fighter type a caster tells me what my buff is and how long it lasts. I write it down and then have a LOT of time to calculate my numbers.
Now I also have a definite opinion (as if anyone would doubt I would) as to what the problem with high level play is. The primary problem I see is the random, unorganized way spells are designed and assigned to levels, and the lack of foresight in balancing classes.
For spells, let me say that I prefer the GURPS method of spells. If you want to cast a fireball, you first MUST learn to create fire. Then you must learn to control fire. Then you learn to shoot a bolt of fire. And then finally you can cast a fireball. The amount of damage the fireball does is directly related to the Power you put into the spell. Spells become very specialized and focused and have a logical rhyme and reason for leveling.
Now this does create a lot of lower level spells that are often unused at higher levels, but then we have that problem anyway. These many lower level spells become quite useful for roleplaying, however. The answer does not ALWAYS rely upon a fireball. Sometimes just setting the guard's hair on fire will do as well.
As for class balance Pathfinder has done a much better job than D&D did, but there is room for improvement. As a fighter class I am extremely dependent upon my gear. There is just no way to generate the damage a Rogue or Wizard can otherwise. Feats are designed to work best for levels 7-12. Their effectiveness becomes laughably minor at higher levels, let alone Epic ("another +2 to hit... yippee... I still missed by 35. Oh, look the wizard just nailed it for upteen hundred points of damage again.")
One of the problems of classes is that they are not defined. I know many people do not like the defined role of classes in 4E, but it makes a LOT of sense. If I want to play a Tank with my fighter, it is easy. I can can manage to get a really high AC and amazing HP. But there is almost no way I can make a BBEG focus on me instead of the low AC and low HP wizard, because essentially the fighter is a nuisance at best- and this applies to more than the fighter.
3rd edition was designed with an emphasis on playing from 7-12ish. Very little thought was given to how everything fits together at higher levels and what roles the various classes would play.
Ok, that is my opinion.
|
|
Even more alternatively, perhaps the high level game isn't as broken as folk think? Perhaps it's just not enjoyable to most players? I actually think this might be at the root of things as well. I'd be curious to hear in particular from players and GMs who currently enjoy high-level play WHAT they enjoy about it and why they enjoy it, and what (if anything) they think needs to change.If everyone hates high-level play, then yeah, it needs to change. But if there are folk who like it a lot and the folk that hate it are folk who just happen to prefer low or mid level games... maybe it doesn't need to change at all? Kind of like how if someone doesn't like chocolate... you don't spurn your chocolate fans and re-engineer the flavor of chocolate just to satisfy those who don't like it... that's the type of thinking that got demons and devils banned from D&D back in 2nd edition's day.
I do think this also reaches a fundamental level of the problem with high level play. Back in the day (pull a stool youngsters) the nature of the game changed as the characters leveled. I think that in 3rd edition the idea is that play is the same at all levels. Someone above mentioned it gets old and seems contrived to worry about Epic level critters assaulting the kingdom or world yet again . That's just it, in the older games, the characters didn't worry about such mundane things. At high and Epic levels your playground was the multiverse and your nemesis might just be a deity, or something even worse! I mean what is the mundane concerns of a few million demons attacking Gollarion when the VERY FABRIC OF REALITY ITSELF IS THREATENED!
Epic level play is not as popular simply because there is very little to inspire play at that level. I think it stems from a limitation of our ability to really grasp something THAT Epic. Almost every fantasy book I have ever read can take place in the 7-12 level. I can't think of many stories that I read and say "That dude is Epic." In fact I cannot think of one.
In the duration of 3rd edition, has there been a GOOD published Epic adventure? Are we, as an industry, as a group of educated imaginative people, that unimaginative?
What I think, is that high level needs some tweaking *see above* and then SOMEONE *cough Paizo* NEEDS to publish an Epic level adventure that grabs the industry by the throat and says "SEE PEOPLE THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE!
These past few weeks, I've been designing a new character sheet in Excel that is primarily focused around being used on a computer rather than being printed. It's nice and automated so that if you receive a buff with a particular type of bonus, you can just type the number in the appropriate field and everything recalculates.
Now I thought it was bad enough that BAB can have about 5 buffs: circumstance, divine (replaces sacred and profane), insight, luck, and morale.
Skills are actually worse: circumstance, competence, insight, luck, morale, racial.
Saves get 7: circumstance, divine, insight, luck, morale, racial, resistance.
MERCY!
The one that really hits it out of the park and into the realm of absurdity though is Armor Class: armor, circumstance, deflection, dodge, divine, insight, luck, morale, natural, shield...
That's just ridiculous — I don't see how people can keep track of all that along with durations (and the fact that some bonus types are self-stacking) without the benefit of a computer.
While I like the idea of limiting buffs to 3/creature, perhaps a more sane approach would be to limit the buffs to 3/stat:
Have more than 3 bonuses to Acrobatics? Only the 3 strongest stack and the weaker ones (while still there) are ignored.
It's great that some of the other DMs here don't mind all the bookkeeping that goes into high-level play. Maybe it's because my Generation Y players weren't taught basic mathematics in school, maybe I'm too detail-oriented for my own good, but the bookkeeping aspect of simply becomes a bigger and bigger problem as the party level increases to the point where I end up feeling like an accountant rather than a DM.
When the game becomes more work than fun, that's when I cry foul.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Wow this thread blew up pretty qucikly!
The reason I asked was I'm close to finishing the STAP (on Wells of Darkness now) and my Players are juggernauts and I don't want to lose control of them in CoCT. AC and attack bonuses can jump up from 5 to 10 points with just a few buffs thrown around. Access to all the various supplements of 3.5 doesn't hurt either.
Now I've been DM'ing for over 15 years but honestly this is probably the 4th campaign that's reached 15th level or higher and I can say that I think it's partly me not knowing how to run high level foes effectively. A Player gets to practice and organically build his character over weeks and months but I have a week or two to become familiar with what a monster or High Level NPC can do and how my PC's will react to it... or more appropriately how I'll react to my PC's tactics.
Take Red Shroud for example in WoD... She's fairly powerful, but her guardians are chumps. Four regular Hezrou and a Nalfeshnee!?!? One of my PC's could defeat them on their own without breaking a sweat and I have 6 PC's. Adding mooks and minions works at low to mid levels, but if I added 6 more hezrou it wouldn't matter as they literally can't hit my PC's AC's. I could spam Unholy Blights till the cows came home but it'd be a moot point, the BBEG is toast before they even care about the mooks.
Even Iggwlv at all of her Archmaginess is gonna be sorely pressed if my PC's decide just to geek the mage. One goliath barbarian at 40 str and the mage slayer feat equals squishy archmage.
|
|
Oh and one more thing that really deflates high level/Epic play...
Feats!
We hit level 21 and MADE IT! We opened the Epic level book and got ready to pick our feats... that not one of us could possibly qualify for. So back to the same old feat lists as always (toss the Epic Level Handbook aside as a waste of money).
The difference between level 22 and level 20 is maybe a +2 or thereabouts. There were no feats or powers designed for fledgling Epic characters. You need a +45 STR for that feat! Ok I can get sort of close, but unless I min/max the whole way it just isn't going to happen!
In fact if you take the term Epic out of it, there really is almost no difference at all as far as mechanics are concerned.
So, without a source of inspiring material, without adventures to play in, and without any tangible beneficial mechanics, High Level play will ALWAYS be lacking.
I mean do you guys remember the black labeled adventures... the ones designed for Immortal Play?
Let's put it this way... if D&D was on a scale of 1-20 and no one made feats, spells, adventures, stories or mechanics that inspired playing above level 7, would anyone play above level 7? Nope.
OK end rant
/rant
|
|
Wow this thread blew up pretty qucikly!
The reason I asked was I'm close to finishing the STAP (on Wells of Darkness now) and my Players are juggernauts and I don't want to lose control of them in CoCT. AC and attack bonuses can jump up from 5 to 10 points with just a few buffs thrown around. Access to all the various supplements of 3.5 doesn't hurt either.
Now I've been DM'ing for over 15 years but honestly this is probably the 4th campaign that's reached 15th level or higher and I can say that I think it's partly me not knowing how to run high level foes effectively. A Player gets to practice and organically build his character over weeks and months but I have a week or two to become familiar with what a monster or High Level NPC can do and how my PC's will react to it... or more appropriately how I'll react to my PC's tactics.
Take Red Shroud for example in WoD... She's fairly powerful, but her guardians are chumps. Four regular Hezrou and a Nalfeshnee!?!? One of my PC's could defeat them on their own without breaking a sweat and I have 6 PC's. Adding mooks and minions works at low to mid levels, but if I added 6 more hezrou it wouldn't matter as they literally can't hit my PC's AC's. I could spam Unholy Blights till the cows came home but it'd be a moot point, the BBEG is toast before they even care about the mooks.
Even Iggwlv at all of her Archmaginess is gonna be sorely pressed if my PC's decide just to geek the mage. One goliath barbarian at 40 str and the mage slayer feat equals squishy archmage.
Ok one more rant
The CRs for high level monsters are a joke. When we play high levels we don't even bother with book monsters anymore. In fact we don't even bother to write them down. If the GM needs that critter to have X ability it does, if the GM wants the fight to last about 10 rounds, it has enough HP to last about 10 rounds.
Book monsters at High level look pretty on paper but rarely stand up to a fight. The Dragons, if run thoughtfully can be a real challenge but not many others. I guess that is why it was Dungeons and DRAGONS! lol
ok
/rant
I think the problem is that- folks who are unwilling to put in the time and effort that it takes to play a high level game (time invested in knowing the game- thoroughly-, being familiar with the PC's, the critters, the various rules, the spells, the items.. the.. well.. everything), see High Level play as a daunting task. Instead of *not doing it* they instead try it without being prepared, and then it bogs down and problems commence.
High level DM'ing requires a *ton* of time. A Ton. Literally. A ton, of time. Measured to the last ounce.
If you don't have it (or don't want to, or don't have the indepth knowledge and/or don't want it) then the solution is to not play in high levels.
Let your game end earlier. It makes everyone so much happier than to extend the campaign into territory you are incapable (through the devotion of time) to successfully accomplish.
There is *no* stigma attached with ending your campaigns at level 9, 12, 13, 14, or wherever that problematic "break" is, in your view of the system.
I just ask that the game designers as a whole don't destroy high level play for those of us who do have DM's who can and will run it. (whether by blocking the increase of power, or by limiting spells working on each person, or whatever other drastic mechanical limitation will come along next to "speed up play").
-S
/me buys Krome another round to keep the fiery dwarf's throat from going hoarse
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
The CRs for high level monsters are a joke. When we play high levels we don't even bother with book monsters anymore. In fact we don't even bother to write them down. If the GM needs that critter to have X ability it does, if the GM wants the fight to last about 10 rounds, it has enough HP to last about 10 rounds.
Book monsters at High level look pretty on paper but rarely stand up to a fight. The Dragons, if run...
But at that point I'm not playing the game anymore, I'm just arbitrarily making stuff up. What's the point of the system if we do that? That can't be the answer.
The CRs for high level monsters are a joke. When we play high levels we don't even bother with book monsters anymore. In fact we don't even bother to write them down. If the GM needs that critter to have X ability it does, if the GM wants the fight to last about 10 rounds, it has enough HP to last about 10 rounds.
Book monsters at High level look pretty on paper but rarely stand up to a fight.
Let's take a step back for a moment.
My own point-of-view of high-level play is that any problems high-level play displays are in actuality problems that the system as a whole suffers from; they only start revealing themselves at high levels.
Challenge Rating is one of these problems. So are Encounter Levels and Monster Advancement. And so are buff interactions. The problems are inherent; it only seems like a problem at high levels because the core issues have had a chance to grow out of control.
High-level play is merely an expression of issues the whole system suffers from. Thus, to fix high-level play, you really have to get down into the core of the system and revise it from the ground up, at all levels.
-Matt
After watching my last campaign nearly fall apart from the overuse of buff spells (and the resulting mess of multiple dispel magic spells) by the time the characters reached 11th level or so, I was forced to implement a system very similar to the one Jason posted on the first page (and I allowed 4 buffs instead of 3, and no bonuses from spells were allowed to stack with each other at all).
This solution worked well enough that we were able to continue the campaign for awhile, at least until 16th level or so, but the first time someone cast a 9th-level spell (as it happened, it was an NPC that cast gate) that was the end of the campaign, as both myself and the players lost interest in a system that had become, essentially, who can get their uber spell off first.
In general, I agree that a system of limited buffs can be very helpful in reducing both the tedium and time intensive nature of high-level D&D, but I was bothered by 2 things. First, that the solution was a very obvious band-aid to cover up a glaring flaw in the underlying magic system, and as a result the solution felt both artificial and incongruous. And second, I had to spend a lot of time adjudicating on the fly which effects counted as a "buff" and which did not. It also had some unintended side effects.
The problem bothered me sufficiently that after my last campaign ended, I spent a great deal of time reinventing the entire magic system with the "buff problem" in mind before a started another campaign. So far, things have gone pretty smoothly, but the characters are still only level 4 or so, so it obviously hasn't really been tested yet.
|
Creative Director
|
Even Iggwlv at all of her Archmaginess is gonna be sorely pressed if my PC's decide just to geek the mage. One goliath barbarian at 40 str and the mage slayer feat equals squishy archmage.
Point the First: The Mage Slayer feat is poor design. It's broken in ways that should have never seen it in print.
Point the Second: I'm pretty sure that Iggwilv could stand up to any non-epic PC with relatively little problem. When I was building her stats back in the day for Dungeon #149, I did a pretty sneaky thing—I asked these boards for advice on how to defeat a high-level wizard, and then made sure that Iggwilv had foils for all those tactics covered. :-P
|
Creative Director
|
The reason I asked was I'm close to finishing the STAP (on Wells of Darkness now) and my Players are juggernauts and I don't want to lose control of them in CoCT. AC and attack bonuses can jump up from 5 to 10 points with just a few buffs thrown around. Access to all the various supplements of 3.5 doesn't hurt either.
Now I've been DM'ing for over 15 years but honestly this is probably the 4th campaign that's reached 15th level or higher and I can say that I think it's partly me not knowing how to run high level foes effectively. A Player gets to practice and organically build his character over weeks and months but I have a week or two to become familiar with what a monster or High Level NPC can do and how my PC's will react to it... or more appropriately how I'll react to my PC's tactics.
To continue a response that's less snarky... ;P
The main reason we're doing Pathifnder APs only up to 15th level or so is because of the fact that after that point things DO get difficult to provide challenges for. Pointing out that a player gets to practice for months with his character is a great observation, though, and one that's worth noting. Not only is a player character played to 15th from 1st going to be better geared than a PC created specifically at 15th... but more importantly, the player will be much better at that character. That's something that I'm not sure much game designers take into account.
Honestly, I'd almost like to say that a requirement for a writer to write a high-level game is to have played a character from 1st to 20th level or so. Writing high-level adventures is really tough, especially if you approach them like you do low or mid level ones...
But again, the GM has had just as long as his players to get used to their tactics. And that's the secret weapon tabletop RPGs have, honestly. A GM can take a pre-published adventure and MAKE it work for his group. He should. That's what he's supposed to do.
This was kind of a ramble... I'll go back to writing the outline for Dungeon Denizens Revisited now...
1) Make less buffs that stack with each other (none of this 'this adds a morale bonus,' 'this adds a luck bonus,' 'this adds a sacred/profane bonus,' 'this adds an enhancement bonus,' etc. nonsense, allowing for a half-dozen different spells to modify the same trait)
IMO, this would work better than arbitrary (and it is arbitrary) limits on the number of buffs. Consolidate the bonus types to deflection (AC only), enhancement (ability scores, general saves, movement, natural armor, objects such as weapons/armor, resistances), and morale (most other bonuses). Get rid of divine, insight, luck, profane, sacred, etc. Leave in force effects that take act as objects, but can't be improved by enhancement bonuses (mage armor, shield, spiritual weapon, etc.).
This would allow the retention of almost all core spells and magic items while limiting the number of bonuses that stack. It also keeps players from attempting to get 3-5 effects each to stack for AC, attack rolls, saves, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Even Iggwlv at all of her Archmaginess is gonna be sorely pressed if my PC's decide just to geek the mage. One goliath barbarian at 40 str and the mage slayer feat equals squishy archmage.Point the First: The Mage Slayer feat is poor design. It's broken in ways that should have never seen it in print.
Point the Second: I'm pretty sure that Iggwilv could stand up to any non-epic PC with relatively little problem. When I was building her stats back in the day for Dungeon #149, I did a pretty sneaky thing—I asked these boards for advice on how to defeat a high-level wizard, and then made sure that Iggwilv had foils for all those tactics covered. :-P
Oh don't get me wrong James, Iggwilv having spells from the SpC and items from MIC certainly help a TON! I won't have her go down like a punk even if I have to lie, cheat, and steal from children to accomplish it... Red Shroud OTOH is in trouble if I don't severely tweak WoD.
Mage Slayer is nothing compared to it's little brother Pierce Magical Protections... Auto dispel? No check? Seriously?
I've had to really reach deep into the barrel of tactics to mess with my party. The Shadow Demon and Dread Wraith encounter would've been a TPK if the Cleric hadn't blown a Miracle to get a Ghost Trap Spell up. I've also gotten a double take from the above Goliath Barbarian when I hit him with Avascular Mass! It wasn't the gory mess of webbing that hit half the party so much as losing HALF his hit points! His Ring of Freedom of Movement allowed him to get out of the mess but only after a round of stunning his Nat 1 fort save bought him!!!
However it is getting old that the only things that really hurt them are Energy Drains, Spam Targeted Greater Dispel Magics, and Vile damage... they really hate Vile Damage!
Things I dislike about high level play (and there are a few).
The primary dislike I have for high level play is dependence upon gear. One of our quests was to fight without using ANY magic items. Once we stripped all the magic gear off of our sheets we realized our characters were really not so amazing. Still pretty good, but no where near what I call epic level though. The classes really need to be able to stand on their own and magic should be an enhancement, a little extra edge, and not the defining source of abilities.
This is, I fear, a problem inherent in the D&D game system. It used to be worse in 1st and 2nd Ed. AD&D. DMs had limited guidance on what amount of magical gear was too little, appropriate, or too much for a given character. There was a wide variation of power level between characters of the same class and level simply from the gear they had.
My second complaint about high level play is the agonizing time it takes for spellcasters to go through their spell lists. I can blow my full attack with ALL my iterative attacks in less than a minute, then wait half an hour before it is my turn again. From a combat point of view this drives me crazy more than anything else.
In my experience, this is a player problem, not a system problem. The player of a spellcaster should be organized and ready to state actions when they come up in the initiative order. A spell shouldn't take more than a minute to resolve, either. Index cards that list the information (range, target, effect, DC, duration, etc.) for each spell are a great resource to speed play.
Now, specifically regarding buffs, my opinion is that at higher level play they are the least of my worries. As a fighter type a caster tells me what my buff is and how long it lasts. I write it down and then have a LOT of time to calculate my numbers.
Tracking all buffs (and recalculating if hit with a dispel magic) can be a bit of a pain. Writing down each separate buff spell and the granted bonus(es) on a piece of scratch paper can help a lot, especially if the bonuses that stack are organized in columns.
|
|
We have the three buff rule at our table too. Buffs are described as any beneficial spell that has a range of personal or touch that lasts more than one round. This include spells that are the mass versions of spells that require touch in their lower level form. Haste and enlarge person are included.
Our (very loose) in game reasoning is that, like rings, these spells occupy the same magical 'pattern space' and can conflict with one another.
|
Creative Director
|
Oh don't get me wrong James, Iggwilv having spells from the SpC and items from MIC certainly help a TON! I won't have her go down like a punk even if I have to lie, cheat, and steal from children to accomplish it... Red Shroud OTOH is in trouble if I don't severely tweak WoD.
Mage Slayer is nothing compared to it's little brother Pierce Magical Protections... Auto dispel? No check? Seriously?
I've had to really reach deep into the barrel of tactics to mess with my party. The Shadow Demon and Dread Wraith encounter would've been a TPK if the Cleric hadn't blown a Miracle to get a Ghost Trap Spell up. I've also gotten a double take from the above Goliath Barbarian when I hit him with Avascular Mass! It wasn't the gory mess of webbing that hit half the party so much as losing HALF his hit points! His Ring of Freedom of Movement allowed him to get out of the mess but only after a round of stunning his Nat 1 fort save bought him!!!
However it is getting old that the only things that really hurt them are Energy Drains, Spam Targeted Greater Dispel Magics, and Vile damage... they really hate Vile Damage!
Woah... really? Where's Pierce Magical Protections from? And Avascular Mass is definitely one of those out of control spells too. Some of those late-WotC books really got out of hand... :(
Anyway... Red Shroud wasn't really supposed to be a combat encounter anyway, otherwise I probably would have put a few more monsters in there to watch over her. Of course, the proper way to run that battle is for her to teleporta way and then have her start sending wave after wave of demon against the PCs from afar. She's not a combat brute, but she DOES have a way with words.
[
Woah... really? Where's Pierce Magical Protections from? And Avascular Mass is definitely one of those out of control spells too. Some of those late-WotC books really got out of hand... :(
Anyway... Red Shroud wasn't really supposed to be a combat encounter anyway, otherwise I probably would have put a few more monsters in there to watch over her. Of course, the proper way to run that battle is for her to teleporta way and then have her start sending wave after wave of demon against the PCs from afar. She's not a combat brute, but she DOES have a way with words.
About 2 broken pages after Mage Slayer. Right along with Ignore Magical Concealment. Besides the buff monster is countered by a wand or Scroll of Slashing Dispel (Hurts real good), A scroll of Reaving Dispel (all your magic are belong to us) and a myriad of other techniques. Buffs aren't ridiculous at all and if there must be a limit I'd make it consistent with Contingent Spells. The number of them you can have on you is your hit dice.
In the duration of 3rd edition, has there been a GOOD published Epic adventure? Are we, as an industry, as a group of educated imaginative people, that unimaginative?
Dungeon published two: "The Storm Lord's Keep" (#93, 21st level) and "The Quicksilver Hourglass" (#123, 30th level). There are also some that could be adapted for Epic play with just a little work: "Root of Evil" (#122, 18th level), "Gates of Oblivion" (#136, 18th level), and "The Heart of Hellfire Mountain" (#140, 20th level) to name three.
The problem is that generic high-level (15th level and up) adventures are both difficult to write and don't sell as well as low- and mid-level adventures. High-level and Epic play really needs to be grounded in a campaign where things can be foreshadowed and hinted at (long) before they actually appear. Also, having epic foes pop up every week or even once a month in game time tends to strain the suspension of disbelief (if they were that common, why haven't they already conquered/destroyed the world?).
Oh and one more thing that really deflates high level/Epic play...
Feats!
We hit level 21 and MADE IT! We opened the Epic level book and got ready to pick our feats... that not one of us could possibly qualify for. So back to the same old feat lists as always (toss the Epic Level Handbook aside as a waste of money).
There are quite a few Epic feats that 21st level characters can qualify for. Granted, some of them required that you planned ahead so you could meet the prerequisites.
Armor Skin, Augmented Alchemy, Automatic Silent Spell, Bane of Enemies, Beast Wild Shape, Blinding Speed (possible for an elf or halfling without tomes or wishes), Bonus Domain, Chaotic Rage, Combat Archery, Damage Reduction (16 Con and a manual of bodily health +5), Deafening Song, Dextrous Fortitude (see Blinding Speed), Dextrous Will (see Blinding Speed), Diminutive Wild Shape, Distant Shot, Epic Fortitude, Epic Prowess, Epic Reflexes, Epic Reputation, Epic Skill Focus, Epic Speed, Epic Spellcasting, etc. are all attainable at 21st level. Even if you don't qualify for a "cool" Epic feat, Great Charisma, Great Constitution, Great Dexterity, Great Intelligence, Great Strength, and Great Wisdom are hardly a waste.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Woah... really? Where's Pierce Magical Protections from? And Avascular Mass is definitely one of those out of control spells too. Some of those late-WotC books really got out of hand... :(
Anyway... Red Shroud wasn't really supposed to be a combat encounter anyway, otherwise I probably would have put a few more monsters in there to watch over her. Of course, the proper way to run that battle is for her to teleporta way and then have her start sending wave after wave of demon against the PCs from afar. She's not a combat brute, but she DOES have a way with words.
Yeah but I had to go and make it hard on myself by converting the STAP to a Planescape based campaign!
My STAP
So at 10th level I breezed them across Krigala (HTBM) to the Forbidden Plateau standing in for the Isle of Dread. In ToD, Farshore was a Sign of One colony and Lavinia was the daughter of Factol Darius who as a seer foresaw the coming of Demogorgon's foces in the fallen divine realm of Thanaclan where his first Savage Tide destroyed a Pantheon! TLD took them into Pandemonium where Big D's forces could collect the raw essence of evil and madness! CoBI took Sword back to the summit of the Forbidden Plateau to fight Khala. After the aspects defeat, a death knight and Umbra's succubus mother (standing in for Lanarra)were sent to Sigil to abduct the alu-demon (the significant other of Sword's aasimar paladin).
SoS took place in and around Plague-mort on the Outlands and the Crimson Fleet was replaced by a sub-faction of the Doomsguard. From Into the Maw the Sword chased down Umbra and slaughtered nearly every faction in Divided's Ire (Belshamoth managed to escape and Urgosh's spirit got sent back to Abyssm). Now I just have to dangle the Wells of Darkness clues in front of them or I will have the joy of letting Malcanthet, Orcus, or Iggwilv thrash them for being lunk headed do gooders!
|
|
The CRs for high level monsters are a joke. When we play high levels we don't even bother with book monsters anymore. In fact we don't even bother to write them down. If the GM needs that critter to have X ability it does, if the GM wants the fight to last about 10 rounds, it has enough HP to last about 10 rounds.
Book monsters at High level look pretty on paper but rarely stand up to a fight. The Dragons, if run...
But at that point I'm not playing the game anymore, I'm just arbitrarily making stuff up. What's the point of the system if we do that? That can't be the answer.
Yep that is the point. We SHOULDN'T NEED to have to make things up at this level. The monsters as designed should do a better job of present challenges. Monsters need to be rebuilt to support that level of play. Right now they don't.
|
|
In the duration of 3rd edition, has there been a GOOD published Epic adventure? Are we, as an industry, as a group of educated imaginative people, that unimaginative?Dungeon published two: "The Storm Lord's Keep" (#93, 21st level) and "The Quicksilver Hourglass" (#123, 30th level). There are also some that could be adapted for Epic play with just a little work: "Root of Evil" (#122, 18th level), "Gates of Oblivion" (#136, 18th level), and "The Heart of Hellfire Mountain" (#140, 20th level) to name three.
The problem is that generic high-level (15th level and up) adventures are both difficult to write and don't sell as well as low- and mid-level adventures. High-level and Epic play really needs to be grounded in a campaign where things can be foreshadowed and hinted at (long) before they actually appear. Also, having epic foes pop up every week or even once a month in game time tends to strain the suspension of disbelief (if they were that common, why haven't they already conquered/destroyed the world?).
They haven't conquered the world because at this scale the world is too minor of an issue to worry about. It goes back to the scope issue.
Low level= save the village
Mid level= save the kingdom
High levle= save the world
Epic level= save the multiverse.
When you are plane hopping and your quest givers are the deities themselves and you enemies are the deities themselves then every foe you fight had better be Epic level. The only time you ever should set foot on "the world" is when you want to rest and recover and have a nice holiday.
mmmm so what level would be x= Save the Cheerleader? :)
|
|
And I think high level adventures don't sell well because they are not expected to sell well, so no one bothers. And yes they do require a lot more work to write.
But I don't think they necessarily need foreshadowing to build up to.
If the plot for the Epic Level adventure is to sneak into Asmodeus' fortress and steal this staff and return it to Cayden, then you really don't need much foreshadowing for it.
*note to self- sounds like a fun little adventure to try someday*
IF you have an amazing product for high level play, then it will sell.
Remember, until recently no one really considered adventures that formed a complete campaign would sell well either. The whole Adventure Path thing is new and succeeds only on its quality.
When you are plane hopping and your quest givers are the deities themselves and you enemies are the deities themselves then every foe you fight had better be Epic level. The only time you ever should set foot on "the world" is when you want to rest and recover and have a nice holiday.
But I don't think they necessarily need foreshadowing to build up to.
If the plot for the Epic Level adventure is to sneak into Asmodeus' fortress and steal this staff and return it to Cayden, then you really don't need much foreshadowing for it.
If Asmodeus and Cayden are not already part of the campaign setting and history, the PCs will have a harder time working up the motivation. The required foreshadowing is not so much for the plot itself (although it may help), but for the campaign setting elements involved in the plot (i.e., Asmodeus, his staff, Cayden).
Especially in a "plane hopping," "save the multiverse" campaign, there needs to be a sense of continuity or it devolves into "what weird, unrelated BBEG are we up against this time?" If the product is tied to a specific setting, then it becomes harder to use in another setting. If it's not tied to a specific setting, then working it into a given campaign requires some adaptation to fit with existing campaign elements and some basic knowledge given to the PCs; otherwise, it will seem to come out of nowhere.
And I think high level adventures don't sell well because they are not expected to sell well, so no one bothers. And yes they do require a lot more work to write.
IF you have an amazing product for high level play, then it will sell.
Remember, until recently no one really considered adventures that formed a complete campaign would sell well either. The whole Adventure Path thing is new and succeeds only on its quality.
Unlike Adventure Paths, high level adventures have been offered since 1st Ed AD&D. It happens to be that low- and mid-level adventures sell better than high-level ones because fewer people play high-level games. Quality is a factor, and a great product may get some more sales from people who plunder it for the ideas, but with everything being equal high-level adventures give a smaller return for more work.
You know, expedition to the White Plumed Mountain was one of my favorite in Greyhawk. The giant series that ended up in the demonwebs was a fun campaign set in itself too.
Something I noticed about these were they kept going with little time to return to town, buy stuff or make items. You were generally on a schedule of sorts or the friendly areas where so far off it wasn't expedient to go back and rest. The modules also allowed for recolonization by the monsters. I know random encounters can be a pain but they can also add unexpect flair and challenge for higher level players, you have to wear them down again like happened on the lower levels and make them worry about wether or not they would survive this one. Mid level challenges before the 'big' battles help with this: The players can readily take them but it eats up resources leaving them with just a little less than they would like for the 'big' one. Don't let the players have a fifteen minute adventuring day, I had one DM force the issue once and just say no. I hated it at first but after that one time I started rationing resources better and had much more fun than before actually.
Also pay attention to those "game breaker" spells... alot of times they aren't as big and bad as they first seem becuase people overlook limitations and problems with usage. If the spell has an expensive component and the player actually has to spend for it they start worrying about always casting stoneskin for example.
|
|
I think, personally, a large part of why high level encounters fall short is because they start to feel so artificial. Let's be fair, most of our own 'mental stats' probably don't even come close to the 18s or 20s a lot of early level casters have, heck, I'd even say mine's barely a 13 or 14 (and I did pretty darn well in College thankyouverymuch). And these stats are early on. When we start getting into 15th level with monsters and PCs having feasible mental stats in the 30s, it gets to the point of "ok, HOW do I think or plan that smart?" Books can do it because the author has the time and patience to think about it, look into the future of the book, and plan things out. In games, we're constantly thinking of our own tactics, our own plans, and none of them will ever come close to matching the ones we read in stories about those high level wizards.
Epic is especially ridiculous in this regard when a DM is expected to properly role-play a GOD.
I don't think I really even need to explain that sentence further. It's just pure insanity.
Of course, this is why I love the AP's 1-15 limit. I already feel inadequate at times managing smart leaders with a lot of mooks. I spend so much mental power running the encounter, keeping track of my own buffs, who goes where, who has what HP, that I really don't do the big baddie's mind justice unless I spend a few hours writing down what they would do in a practically program-esque logic.
if players = ranged
{stuff}
if self < 50% HP
{stuff}
etc.
And it may just be me, but I end up feeling so artificial for that.
Although the one time I did it with that Lich from Age of Worms (the guy with 6 arms), he was pretty appropriately challenging...
|
|
Low level= save the village
Mid level= save the kingdom
High levle= save the world
Epic level= save the multiverse.
The penalties to your campaign of player failure would appear to get rather larger as you go down the list. Your campaign won't miss the odd village, but it's going to be hard to make do with no multiverse.
|
|
...I really don't do the big baddie's mind justice unless I spend a few hours writing down what they would do in a practically program-esque logic.
if players = ranged
{stuff}
if self < 50% HP
{stuff}
etc.And it may just be me, but I end up feeling so artificial for that.
Although the one time I did it with that Lich from Age of Worms (the guy with 6 arms), he was pretty appropriately challenging...
To be honest, I think that's a pretty good way to deal with complex encounters (and encounters with very intelligent creatures that have survived to high level are going to be complex, most of the time), so long as there's enough wriggle-room.
Not everyone believes such a rule is necessary.And some feel it's actually couterproductive. I was glad, when superior resistance became available, that people could start spending their gp from all those cloaks of resistance on something fun instead. I don't want to go back to everyone being bedecked in stat-bonus items, which is exactly what happens when a limit is placed solely on buff spells. Do you have any idea how many sets of bracers of armor the introduction of greater mage armor allowed us to get rid of? People finally have Quall's feather tokens and horns of the tritons and things.
I agree... PFRPG should eliminate the dependence of stat-bonus items, not increase it.
I do not like using too many buffs on a PC / PCP, but there must be another way to regulate this.
|
|
Having come in late in this discussion, I haven't read the entire thread. With that said, I have a few simple ideas that might have already come up in the discussion. If they have, add my vote for them; if not, please consider these.
1) Make buff spells like magic item slots: one per effect. For example, you can have one buff spell to AC, one to attacks, one to an individual save, etc. You couldn't have a spell buff your armor bonus, another buff your shield bonus, another for deflection, etc. Buff spells would overlap, so you'd only get the benefit of the highest buff. This would eliminate most of the bookkeeping involved with buff spells.
2) Leave the system like it is now, but cut back on the proliferation of bonus types. How many types of bonus to AC are there? Armor, shield, deflection, dodge, armor enhancement, shield enhancement, divine, morale, luck, etc. If you cut that list back to armor, shield, dodge (which combines dodge and deflection), and enhancement (which would be to either armor or shield or from a spell), you would eliminate most of the problem for AC. All the other effects could just be reclassified to fit one of the new categories.
3) Get rid of absolutes. No immunity to poison from heroes' feast. Instead, it grants a +5 (or some other amount) to saves vs. poison. Likewise for other absolute affects. Maybe freedom of movement is a +5 or +10 to movement-hindering effects like grapple or entangle. Deathward is a bonus to saves vs. death/negative energy.
Just some thoughts.
-Skeld
|
|
I agree... PFRPG should eliminate the dependence of stat-bonus items, not increase it.I do not like using too many buffs on a PC / PCP, but there must be another way to regulate this.
Making meleers better would my favoured part of it. Sure, casters could still buff them but at the moment they pretty much have to buff them to keep them alive at the higher levels; at least that way casters could make the choice to do something more active for themselves (of course, we still have the problem that casters might nuke the encounter themselves, but that's another problem, one not best solved by occupying the casters with keeping meleers alive).
|
|
Having come in late in this discussion, I haven't read the entire thread. With that said, I have a few simple ideas that might have already come up in the discussion. If they have, add my vote for them; if not, please consider these.
1) Make buff spells like magic item slots: one per effect. For example, you can have one buff spell to AC, one to attacks, one to an individual save, etc. You couldn't have a spell buff your armor bonus, another buff your shield bonus, another for deflection, etc. Buff spells would overlap, so you'd only get the benefit of the highest buff. This would eliminate most of the bookkeeping involved with buff spells.
2) Leave the system like it is now, but cut back on the proliferation of bonus types. How many types of bonus to AC are there? Armor, shield, deflection, dodge, armor enhancement, shield enhancement, divine, morale, luck, etc. If you cut that list back to armor, shield, dodge (which combines dodge and deflection), and enhancement (which would be to either armor or shield or from a spell), you would eliminate most of the problem for AC. All the other effects could just be reclassified to fit one of the new categories.
3) Get rid of absolutes. No immunity to poison from heroes' feast. Instead, it grants a +5 (or some other amount) to saves vs. poison. Likewise for other absolute affects. Maybe freedom of movement is a +5 or +10 to movement-hindering effects like grapple or entangle. Deathward is a bonus to saves vs. death/negative energy.
Just some thoughts.
-Skeld
I can live with all this. Especially cutting back on the number of AC bonus types.
|
|
I can definitely agree that Epic level stuff can be a pain to run, and yeah I can see, regardless of the quality that there would still be less sales than lower level adventures.
I do want to comment, however, that I know a lot of gamers who don't play campaigns. They make a character for an adventure, play it and they are done. These guys might go through 10-20 characters a year! (just a note- I don't do that- would drive me nuts).
So lets drop Epic entirely. I would be happy with that. Let's make lvl 20 a hard cap. Which again would be just fine.
So what do we do about those last 5 levels?
Limiting buffs alone won't do it. Though it can help- like mentioned above, the sheer volume of AC bonus types is ridiculous.
So, let's say we have put a limit on the buffs available and tamed the AC bonus monster. What else is a problem with high level play- specifically between 15-20? What is it about those 5 levels that is so much less enjoyable to play?
Let's say, Paizo publishes spell cards and condition cards to make organization easier for players and GMs so spells and conditions can be handled quickly. What else is the problem?
A quick look at d20SRD.org's monster filter revealed there are not many evil monsters between 15-20, mostly dragons. Maybe we need more and more varied high level monsters?
hehehehe Post Monster didn't get my post... I Copied it first, then when it tried I Grappled it and scored a Crit and reposted my thoughts. Ha take that Post Monster!
|
|
I can live with all this. Especially cutting back on the number of AC bonus types.
I see #1 & #2 as mutually exclusive; just 2 different ways of doing basically the same thing. I think #1 is simpler and possibly easier to implement (especially if you don't count having to edit all the buff spells and shoehorn them into one a slot-style category).
#3 I see as vital to a high-level game. Immunity trumps options. I don't think all immunities need to be dropped. Afterall, fire elementals ought to be immune to fire because it just makes sense. But immunity for your average PC should be something their mortal magic can't obtain (although I could see artifacts that might confer immunity as flavor dictates).
Not even Achilles wasn't completely invulnerable.
-Skeld
*casts create popcorn* there you go!
*************serious (slightly) stuff now ****************
Well the only way to really fix the epic and high level stuff would to be to bring back the 1st and 2nd edition ability caps, and hit point caps. After a certain level you only get x hp a level, AC can't scale beyond a certain point, and THac0... oops wrong word, can only go so low... (err)... high again and save throws get their limits back.
There was a GOOD mechanical reason for those limits... they prevented the scaling wars that happen in 3.x
Of course there will be mass hysteria in the streets but that's what chain lightning is for.
|
|
I just had a weird thought...
One of the things I hate about high level (and bear in mind I enjoy high level play) is the dependence upon gear...
What would happen if Monsters were scaled back to a power level that PCs could defeat them without relying upon massive boosts from items?
What would happen if a level 15 monster had an AC of about 20 or so. You know something low enough that BAB and STR modifier alone gives a good chance of hitting. OK maybe 20 is too low.
I am thinking of something like BAB in this case 15, plus a modest STR bonus say 3 plus about 7 or so. So anywhere between 25 and say 30. Then the Fighter is not required to rely upon magic to hit his target.
A quick monster filter at d20SRD and I found very few monsters for lvl 15, almost all dragons. But ACs varied from about 25 to over 30.
SOOOOOOOOO that takes care of that stupid idea.
Come on you guys are smarter than me, figure it out :)