Well I think this is a very important idea, so Jason can fix some of the problems. We as a group have never had a problem with the higher end of the game we have had 3 games end at or above 20th level and the ones that didnt, broke down way before 15th to 20th
So why do games break down before this, most of my group thinks its the Dungeon Masters dont know how to create or run high level games (thats why the 1-20 APs were so great) I think it is very difficult to DM high level (its fun to play for our group and no more challeneging then any other part of the game)
So from you experinces why do they fail and dont just say cause we didnt want to play high level what are the mechanics reasons
The following is just my opinion and isn't meant to harass or disparage anyone. =)
High level game play breaks down usually because the DM isn't as prepared as he or she needs to be. This can take the form of not having enough time to adequately build the adventure, not having the time to learn all the rules, to learn the characters, or all of the above. It can just be that the particular DM hasn't *had* enough time to absorb all of the rules. Lets face it- even splatbook aside, the 3 books are a *lot* of information to assimilate and while each character only really has to know his stuff, the DM has to know -every single- character ANd all the NPC's, Monsters, all the various rules for *everything* plus run the campaign story arc. Its just a ton.
Campaigns fall because the DM fails in one or more of those areas. Sometimes willfully, othertimes they just make mistakes and some think they can handle it when they can't.
Most of the "breaking down" points aren't really something Paizo can repair. It just takes DM's to stand up to the plate and either 1) spend the necessary time to prepare OR 2) end the game earlier.
It is worth noting that some folks actually do not -want- to deal with High level campaigns. That is fine too. the solution for them is the same as with the other- stop the game earlier.
As a player, I would 10000times end the game at 10, 13, or whatever level than to go into territory the DM is unwilling or unable to go into. Stop the campaign while folks are having fun. ;)
What should Not happen is for Paizo to nerf high level play to the extent that it is where "medium" level play is now, in order to allow those folk who can't DM it, to "Dm" it at a lower level. Being as powerful at 20 as I am at 13, but with a bigger number in the level line isn't particularly appealing.
-S
If high-level play stops working, it's not because of problems unique to high-level play, it's because of problems inherent in the entire system.
Or, if high-level play doesn't work, it's because the system as a whole doesn't work, and its inherent problems simply become more pronounced as the game progresses into high levels.
Thus, to fix high-level play, one would have to fix the system as a whole.
-Matt
The playtesting for the system by WotC was an utter joke. 90% of their time class wise was Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. And except perhaps the Rogue player, all of them were pretty incompetent. Come on, elf wizards with Toughness focused on blasting and healbot clerics with 2/2 skill feats (so they have a -3 modifier instead of a -5 modifier to ACP affected skills) combined with Fighters who think the Weapon Focus line is worth a crap, and in the other case (they tried two different types) that holding a shield was worth a crap beyond... the first level. Maybe the first two levels. And that's only because 1d8+3 will one hit most stuff at levels 1-2 just as well as 2d6+4, or if it takes two hits it would take two hits from either weapon, therefore you actually aren't losing any offense and AC still matters.
More to the point, level wise 90% of their efforts were focused on 1-10. Which is why as early as 11 it completely falls apart as they had essentially no feedback, competent or otherwise to go on until well into splatbook season when they finally got a clue.
Had they actually tested, they might have noticed such very basic things as beatsticks are either one trick ponies and irrelevant otherwise, or simply irrelevant from the start due to the fact that they cannot deal with foes that have actual options. They also might have noticed they were spamming SA immunity left, right, and center which combined with spells > skills and traps not scaling beyond CR 10, most of the threatening traps being magical and thus better dealt with via magic, and the most dangerous non magic trap being something like... DC 27 means the Rogue isn't too far behind. Though they did at least have a Rogue player with some sense in their head. Lidda was the best done of all the iconics.
But they didn't test, which means you have to patch it yourself (make sure your Rogues can bypass immunities, replace core melees with the better done later versions, etc) or just deal with it.
|
High level play represents a serious step up in terms of time commitment from a DM.
I'm currently running a level 15 soon to be 16 game (Age of Worms) and the last game session required me to learn the full plot (easy enough), the basic stats and abilities of a large number of critters all working together (not so easy), all the spells available to the enemy casters (not so easy), learn all their gear (some of which is unique) and have an understanding of how they would work together to present a challenge to my players.
The sheer quantity of stuff to learn is daunting (but doable), the ability to learn it at a level where I can play my NPC enemies inventively and creatively is nigh impossible without investing huge amounts of time (which I don't have).
I'm experienced enough to wing encounters and plot changes, but we're now talking high end play where one spell can end a life, a full attack progression can end a life, even simple slip of the dice or a failed save can end a life. All of this makes it hard to DM effectively and still enjoy yourself.
Couple this to the sheer length of time required to run high level combats (they may or may not go for more than 3 - 5 rounds still, but seem to take much longer as people have more choices to make, particularly casters). This, in our games, seriously slows down plot progression.
Having looked ahead in the AP I can see more massive fights, some of which wil represent entire sessions of play for us. This becomes a bit draining on the players so is going to need careful handling by myself.
So, the reason I believe most high level games fall apart is DM burnout. I've DM'd 2 campaigns to level 20 and will tkae this one through as well, but I usually need a month or two off after that to get my DM batteries recharged enough to invest the time and creativity into something so big.
Cheers
So wouldnt more high level write ups help to stop some of the DM break down
Such as APs going 1-20
|
This, while looking to be a simple question, is actually far more complex.
Why do games break down at high levels?
Everything I will be expressing is my own personal opinion here, and not meant to criticize anyones method of play or character building.
My answer: Because of Time, Boredom, and the Dynamics of a Gaming Group...not because of flaws with the system.
High level campaigns end...they don't really break down. Break down implies something wrong and really there isnt anything wrong.
What really happens is one of 5 things...
1) The DM doesnt have the time to put into designing intricate adventures for characters that can do almost anything....and so the players opt to go back to lower levels where there are more pre-gen adventures avaialable (this is more a lack of avaialability of pre-gen'd high level adventures.)
2) The DM loses interest with creating yet another 'monster slaying adventure' (because indepth high level non-monster slaying adventures require a lot more thought) and he stops the adventure.
3) The Players get bored with being able to 'do things that aren't challenging' and drift to either a diferent game or ask to start a new one. (once more going back to DM's not having the time to create well thought out high level campaigns)
4) The Players begin to split apart as a party because of opposing views on where the high level campaign should be directed....High level characters start wanting to do diferent things...some want to be political, some want to be world shakers, some want to be explorers...High level characters don't 'Need each other' as much...and as such will frequently go solo (or with henchman) and as the party splits, to keep the 'gaming group' together...they start a new game.
5) 'Munchkinism' drives the game into insanity. If the impossible is regular, whats the point? Players and DM's become antagonists and the campaign as a whole suffers causing a split in the gaming group.
I think if more high level adventures were created, then you'd see more high level games.
simple.
So wouldnt more high level write ups help to stop some of the DM break down
Such as APs going 1-20
I've seen high level adventure paths, the 1-20 ones in particular.
I tried to run Age of Worms once. They would have TPKed in fight one of part 1, except a new guy who was slow in making his character joined at the last second and saved them. They got a bit further, then actually did TPK.
Another group (different players, different characters) built for a lot more power also needed a timely arrival of a new PC to stop a TPK. Then they got destroyed by fight 2. Oops. To be fair, this one was because they screwed up very badly, not because they were simply outclassed and beaten down as was the case in fight 1.
And it gets worse from there. The high level parts put CR 20 something stuff in when you're around level 15. Not as something you aren't supposed to fight, but as something you're specifically intended to fight. Yup, here's a dragon with 10 levels on you. Have fun.
End result is they require max optimization from the get go just to not get torn apart. Now I make some mean encounters sometimes, but these 1-20 adventure paths force a lot more mechanical competence than that. Which means if people are having issues with high level requiring too much optimization, having the whole damn game be like that isn't really a solution.
My belief is that the Encounter Building rules need an overhaul.
All monster CRs need to be methodically re-tooled (which I think is already slated to happen). More nuanced encounter types need to be accounted for— interactions between monster abilities, spells available to a given party, etc.
Beyond that we need specific encounter building rules for high levels, and we need more functionality for handling Ability Score, Class, and Equipment interactions.
Many people believe that high level game failure lies with the GM, and they are right in a sense. However, the rules fail to give new GMs the tools to navigate high level play.
The SRD's encounter building rules simply nod at things like Equipment and Ability scores, a kind warning that the GM might want to account for things. I think any encounter-balancing system worth its ink nowadays has to do more... If it doesn't account for the role of flight with specific solutions for GMs, it has already failed. Likewise for any of the other benchmark transformations that occur during the life of a campaign (teleportation is definitely another).
|
|
So wouldnt more high level write ups help to stop some of the DM break down
Such as APs going 1-20
The write ups actually increase the learning time as you're learning someone elses work.
Writing them yourself increases the prep time but you know your critters better.
The crunch comes in game when as DM you're suddenly running four or five (or many more) high level critters with unique abilities against people running only character with unique abilities.
The math gets huge, the variables get huge, the pressure steps up. I like my fights to be challenging and stick within a world realism. Monsters that are smart should be played smart. IT gets very shaky at around level 14 or so to do this without wiping parties completely. Not because my players are bad (they aren't) but because high level play requires only one mistake for a player to die and then its just as likely the rest of the party will get overwhelmed. Its a tricky juggle and is quite draining during a live session.
The best high level fight I've ever run was over a play by mail using mapping software. It really gave me as DM enough time to run high level critters as they should be. Took us three weeks to play out 12 rounds but we still talk about that fight.
Time comitments kill high level games in my experience.
|
Also... the player's are part of the reason too. If they are not paying attention to what is going on and then someone has to explain the last 10+ actions PC and creatures have taken so they can then decide what to do...
Not being prepared and looking up spells in their books, making the play drag on even more.
I know sometimes it is with the GM (me) but I can 'wing it' and no one notices... :) The player's can't.
To help me I make a quick script for the bad guys so I know what they will do in advance. I review what they can do and what they can cast.
I give the player's a time limit to make their action. (Usually a minute or their INT in seconds or some such.)
The sheer options of the game help make high level drag. If you are organized and paying attention the game goes smoothly.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Some of the things that lead to fatigue at high level:
Too much time spent buffing, and going over how to buff
Too much handling certain spell effects, particularly greater dispel magic
Too big a range between good saves and bad saves at high level, coupled with a higher change of a failed save being outright lethal
Problems with character survivability, related to the above - the "high defense" type characters (paladins and monks in particular) become hard enough to kill that just the peripheral damage can kill the low defense classes (sorcerers and wizards in particular). Related to this issue is that the difference between a well optimized and a poorly optimized character grows as the level of the game increases, so the less optimized characters tend to get wiped out, while the well-built ones aren't challenged.
Fight durations, the upper end of which increases by level, get out of hand - 2-3 hour fights are not unheard of at high levels
Many options that in theory exist in the game almost have to be put into either an implicit or explicit armistice. For example, "teleport away and heal", for both PCs and foes. Likewise, scry/buff/teleport can easily wind up in an armistice, although I find this to be less common. Disjunction is another common effect to take off the table. This is because these options, if used against PCs, tend to eliminate any enjoyment of the game.
Just some musings...
I have to agree with most of what has been posted, but have to stress that most of it revolves around combat:
- Critters are lethal at higher levels. Just one failed save can often leave a hole in the party which leads to a TPK.
- Published adventures often assume a certain mix of classes or level of player expertise, which will kill a group who is unprepared, inexperienced or just not paying attention.
- Class power levels get way, way out of wack in the teen levels. Thus creating the "I'm a spell caster and you are now all just henchmen" effect which can get quite boring for anyone not a mage/cleric/druid.
- Critters have just too darn many abilities. Unprepared DM's don't use them, which makes all the combats easy = boring. Prepared DM's use them all which means combats take hours of real time to resolve 30 seconds of game time.
With all that said, I've found with a half prepared DM, high level play can be really, really fun.
What can Pathfinder do to help fix some of the problems?
1) Try to balance spell casters vs non-casters. Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Monks and Paladins fall squarely into the "henchmen" category when it comes to high level combat. Yes, you can create specific builds which are one-shot cannons which can kill 90% of the critters in the MM in 2 rounds, but most of the time F/B/R/M/P's try and block the path to the casters, till the casters have disabled or blasted them to death.
2) More "Here is how you run this monster" type of text for higher CR critters. In addition, Published Adventures should have combat play blocks which list how an encounter should play out from the critters side. How they co-operate, what spells/abilities would work well against what class types, etc.
I don't think game designers spend much time on high level play because few people ever reach that point. And those who do are experienced enough that they work with the DM to patch up all the holes.
Too big a range between good saves and bad saves at high level, coupled with a higher change of a failed save being outright lethal
Problems with character survivability, related to the above - the "high defense" type characters (paladins and monks in particular) become hard enough to kill that just the peripheral damage can kill the low defense classes (sorcerers and wizards in particular). Related to this issue is that the difference between a well optimized and a poorly optimized character grows as the level of the game increases, so the less optimized characters tend to get wiped out, while the well-built ones aren't challenged.
Fight durations, the upper end of which increases by level, get out of hand - 2-3 hour fights are not unheard of at high levels.
Damn forum glitches screwing up my posts when I'm about to send them, resulting in lost content.
In a nutshell... I'm with you on most points. However the quoted bits... Keep reading.
The range between good saves and bad saves is 6 points at level 18, less at lower levels. This is big (30%) but probably not as big as you think. The difference may not even matter. For example I regularly see casters auto passing saves against their so called weakness (Fortitude). Unlike most examples of this sort, it isn't limited to casters. I see melees doing the same with Will saves, and everyone doing it to Reflex saves. Auto pass = succeed on a 2 or better, because 1s always fail.
Monks and Paladins are not 'high defense' characters. They are trap characters. To elaborate: Monks may have 'all good' saves but they are tied to secondary stats (Dex/Con/Wis) on an extremely MAD character. In fact Monks are tied for most MAD class in core, and probably still hold that title even if you bring all the splatbooks into it. As such, their saves are not actually that great. Especially when you consider they are even more gear dependent than Fighters to overcome their innate ineffectiveness, therefore they are stretched even tighter for staples such as a Cloak of Resistance. The saves are their strongest suit, yet it's still crap. Do the math. MAD = Multiple Attribute Dependency. In D&D, this is a synonym for being less effective, or not effective at all depending on the severity. Needing 5 stats out of 6 qualifies as a very harsh case.
Paladins are a little better off despite being tied for most MAD with the aforementioned Monk, mostly because of that Charisma to saves bit. Though since Paladins only have one good save, the end result is they just end up with one decent save and two average to bad saves. However given the fact that like all Core melees it is extremely front loaded and offers nothing of real value for class features it requires no special effort to challenge the Paladin. He may not be dying, but he also isn't threatening the enemy. Cool. He gets to survive, while the enemy tries to make everyone else die. Then it can finish the Paladin off at its leisure once successful.
Arcanists are not 'low defense' characters. Depending on play they either have respectable defenses, or are only topped in the defense department by the Cleric and Druid because CoDzilla gets better spells for this purpose.
You are correct about the differences between optimized and not. I left it in not because it needed a correction, but because it referenced the first part so I preserved the context. This is simply because at the lowest levels your choices don't really matter, enemies die in 1-2 hits regardless. The higher you go, the more the junk options get filtered out.
Lastly, this is more an elaboration than a correction but... In terms of round count, high level combats are likely lower. Such is the nature of Rocket Launcher Tag. Get one effect to work and you win. Even if it has a low success rate between you and your party you get multiple attempts a round. Meanwhile they're 1-2 rounding you, so you have to be quick about it or you face a cascade bound for a TPK. Each round does take longer though, and several hours is not that unlikely if you built a stalling encounter, or the players can't make up their minds. Though it depends on how on the ball your players are. They could just as easily resolve a round in 5 minutes or less. Multiply that by 1, 2, or 3, and you have your combat duration.
Many options that in theory exist in the game almost have to be put into either an implicit or explicit armistice.
Hadn't thought about that in awhile. Sundering can probably also go on that list; I know I'd hate to have a 54,000gp Rod of Maximize Spell sundered. Sundering/disarming spell component pouches and holy symbols has always been something to groan over. Destruction can also go on that list, due to how expensive and difficult it is to come back from that.
Antimagic Field can also be really nasty to resolve.
On a different note, the thought of "full attacking > just about everything else" can turn the game into figuring out how to get full-attacks if you're an attack-for-damage character. But that's just bad design; full-attacking scales upwards while, say, bull-rushing, doesn't.
-Matt
Why exactly do monks need five statistics? Surely they don't need either Int or Cha in the same way that they do Str, Dex, Con and Wis. Besides which, Dex/Con/Wis can hardly be all called secondary stats, especially when you're dealing with the monk.
What should Not happen is for Paizo to nerf high level play to the extent that it is where "medium" level play is now, in order to allow those folk who can't DM it, to "Dm" it at a lower level. Being as powerful at 20 as I am at 13, but with a bigger number in the level line isn't particularly appealing.
That's pretty much what happened to Morrowind when Oblivion came out. I definitely don't want to see anything even remotely resembling auto-levelling - after all, greed is no fun when its results are not obvious!
Yeah, I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that managed to persist past about level 16. The two main reasons:
Too much work for the DM. Prepping uber complex foes, trying to remember the monsters' 20 different immunities/powers/equipment/etc... It gets hard, but doable, for a dedicated player to keep track of all of their options at level 20, but a DM has to do it for what, 10 different monsters/NPCs a game session? At the end of our last campaign, I definitely saw DM fatigue, we'd get in a fight and he'd always be figuring out the monster had SR/immunity/something several rounds too late (it doesn't help that they moved stuff like that around in each successive Monster Manual).
Damage (including things like save or dies) outstrips defenses at higher levels. Combats are over in 1 round at level 20, as either a TPK or a woundless victory. As a corollary, the difference between optimized character and unoptimized characters (and monsters/encounters/NPCs) becomes too wide a gulf. One guy can only do d6+4 damage on a hit and another can easily do 10d6+22. It's both too variable (high likelihood of dying) but it's also not as fun with such a low time to resolution. "Flip a coin, heads you die. OK, next encounter!"
|
|
For me the game breaks down completely after 10th level, and I really don't like it after 7th/8th level. It's not the game, it's the number of options and effects and other nonsense that I have to juggle in my head, especially with all the splatbooks.
It can't be fixed. Not unless paizo is going to include some crazy Johnny Mnemoic memory enhancing brain implants with the books.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Some feedback/elaboration...
Not sure how you can arrive at paladins not having good saves - Divine Grace tends to mean even a paladin's Reflex save (nearly always their worst) is fairly strong at high levels - probably not as good as the rogues, probably better than almost everyone else.
Monks are a high defense class, when built well, because they have good across-the-board saves and insanely good ACs. High multiclassing can beat their saves, of course. Monks tend to have decent stats in every save category except Fort, and the across-the-board favored saves leaves them (like dragons) with no weak spot.
While you *can* build a wizard/sorcerer for defense, in my high-level play experience, they are the most likely classes, along with rogues, to have a bad Fort save, which is probably the easiest way to die. And they are far more likely to draw a Fort save than a rogue. Note that min-maxers recognize this, and do indeed build for making that Fort save. But this was an article about what breaks down, not character optimization - honestly, character optimization as often results from what breaks down as causes a breakdown.
As far as combats potentially being short at high levels - of course, that's why I said the upper end grows longer, not that fights are always longer.
Why exactly do monks need five statistics? Surely they don't need either Int or Cha in the same way that they do Str, Dex, Con and Wis. Besides which, Dex/Con/Wis can hardly be all called secondary stats, especially when you're dealing with the monk.
What should Not happen is for Paizo to nerf high level play to the extent that it is where "medium" level play is now, in order to allow those folk who can't DM it, to "Dm" it at a lower level. Being as powerful at 20 as I am at 13, but with a bigger number in the level line isn't particularly appealing.That's pretty much what happened to Morrowind when Oblivion came out. I definitely don't want to see anything even remotely resembling auto-levelling - after all, greed is no fun when its results are not obvious!
Mostly because I was thinking of Int so they can actually use the skills available to them. Doesn't need to be great, but can't be ignored either.
Some feedback/elaboration...
Not sure how you can arrive at paladins not having good saves - Divine Grace tends to mean even a paladin's Reflex save (nearly always their worst) is fairly strong at high levels - probably not as good as the rogues, probably better than almost everyone else.
As stated before, they are a little better off than Monks, but not much. That Divine Grace may give them what is effectively 'good' Reflex and Will saves (provided their Cha mod is at least their level / 3), however these are still tied to secondary stats. To get saves that actually are good, you must have a good save progression tied to a primary stat such as Rogues > Reflex > Dexterity or CoDzilla > Will > Wisdom. Alternately, you must be a caster, so that you have the resources to boost these things to the necessary levels. They do end up with a decent Fortitude save due to good save + Cha + whatever, however how often do intelligent enemies target the full plate guy with Fortitude effects? Exactly.
However being one of the weakest classes in the game means they need gear a lot more to offset that. Therefore, instead of having to spend most of their cash just to get basic staples to keep up leaving almost nothing for anything else, they end up having to devote all or more than all to the basics. As a result, there's a chance they lose out on save boosting gear.
Now consider he is a non threat offensively, and you just have some silly little 5' square of difficult terrain turtle that gets ignored.
Monks are a high defense class, when built well, because they have good across-the-board saves and insanely good ACs. High multiclassing can beat their saves, of course. Monks tend to have decent stats in every save category except Fort, and the across-the-board favored saves leaves them (like dragons) with no weak spot.
Incorrect. They have an even harder time getting their ACs up than anyone else. As I have already proven, you can spend well over 300k on getting your AC up and still get auto hit by every melee brute, along with a good deal of the creatures that are Just That Badass to tear you apart in melee, and get some neat tricks. Because variety is the spice of life. Like Dragons for example. Anyways, 64k Bracers > 1.65k full plate. The rest ends up costing the same. Therefore, Monks have to pay even more to get the same ineffectual 'benefits'. The saves have already been addressed, as again they must spend even more wealth to overcome their innate suck such as a Belt of Mighty Fists so they can actually hit something on occasion for their piddly damage. End result is the Monk ends up with saves around... +14, then whatever from items. That gets him 20. Maybe. In other words, his so called good saves are inferior to other classes BAD saves. And saying +20 is being generous, because that Mighty Fists item is a hell of a lot more expensive than a regular weapon.
Since all their saves are progressing at the same rate, and tied to a different stat... if Fort is falling behind it means you are neglecting Con, and therefore screwing yourself up worse.
End result is you end up with even more of an ineffectual turtle than the Paladin. Why? Because even if the Monk hits something with his crap BAB, Strength diluted by MAD, and no enhancement bonus his damage is inferior even to that of a one handed weapon. He's supposedly a caster killer, yet even they can laugh, light one up, take a piss, then kill him while he happily swings away for ineffectual results. This assumes an unoptimized caster. Comparing an optimized caster to a Monk is like comparing that guy who holds the World Record for fastest runner with a paraplegic patient. It's so unfair as to be unkosher, even by my standards. So I won't go there.
While you *can* build a wizard/sorcerer for defense, in my high-level play experience, they are the most likely classes, along with rogues, to have a bad Fort save, which is probably the easiest way to die. And they are far more likely to draw a Fort save than a rogue. Note that min-maxers recognize this, and do indeed build for making that Fort save. But this was an article about what breaks down, not character optimization - honestly, character optimization as often results from what breaks down as causes a breakdown.
Rogues and Wizards have the same base progression and the same base Con. The latter is likely to get his Con boosts sooner due to that whole crafting thing. He also has the resources to boost his saves much higher than this. It doesn't require a specific effort for Fortitude saves. It simply requires you recognize saves are a real weakness, and block them off. They are more likely to draw such an effect due to being more of a threat. That part is correct. However the correct term for those who build their characters to be strong is optimizers. Min maxing is simply using finite resources in the most efficient manner. Ever played a game where the DM used a PB less than 32 and that you were not a caster? Congrats, you're a min/maxer right from character creation.
Just for reference purposes here are some save lines from my game:
Fortitude: 19 (level 15 caster, 24 vs most effects), 27 (level 12 beat stick), 25 (level 16 beatstick), 25 (level 13 beatstick), 25 (level 15 caster), 21 (level 15 caster, forgot to pack a Con booster item).
Reflex: 23, 20, 27, 26, 19 (evasion), 16 (forgot Dex item too). Numbers are in the same order.
Will: 22, 23, 23, 17, 22, 28.
In a different format...
Level 15 caster: 19 (24 vs most stuff)/23/22. Will is kind of low due to that 12 Wis thing.
Level 12 beatstick: 27/20/23. His Will save is that good because he's applying his Con mod to it instead of his Wis mod. He also has some classes that boost it better. Only one thing stops him from being a turtle and therefore ignored. That's the two negative levels on every hit.
Level 16 beatstick: 25/27/23. High saves all around, because he doesn't have to buy weapons or armor and therefore has plenty of cash. Downside is he can't make use of special properties all that well so his offense sucks. See turtles.
Level 13 beatstick: 25/26/17. Will save comes out low due to only having 9 actual HD, the rest being LA. Lots of dipping Will bad stuff doesn't help. At least she's always immune to stuff as Protection from Evil.
Level 15 caster: 25/19 (evasion)/22.
Level 15 caster: 21 (forgot Con item)/16 (forgot Dex item)/28.
Monks can't touch that. Paladins aren't much better off. Note the level 20 Monk presented above can't touch these level 12-16 characters. Not even the non casters.
Good news I think
Last night on the Paizo Chat James Jacobs said that Erik Mona is very interested in doing a source book on how to play and run high level DND 15th-20th not epic
I think this can really help alot of players and DM who strugel with high level play
Good news I think
Last night on the Paizo Chat James Jacobs said that Erik Mona is very interested in doing a source book on how to play and run high level DND 15th-20th not epic
I think this can really help alot of players and DM who strugel with high level play
Sounds good. Although at this point, I think they should go for a full Game Master's Guide. I think a lot could be done to fix 3.5 on the GM's end.
Sounds good. Although at this point, I think they should go for a full Game Master's Guide. I think a lot could be done to fix 3.5 on the GM's end.
Yeah it very well could be a Pathfinder RPG book to come out down the road
Good news I think
Last night on the Paizo Chat James Jacobs said that Erik Mona is very interested in doing a source book on how to play and run high level DND 15th-20th not epic
I think this can really help alot of players and DM who strugel with high level play
Good news... but all the instruction books in the world won't fix a Challenge Rating system that doesn't work, to name one core problem. I'd much rather see an entire sourcebook about overhauling the monsters, if that's what it takes to fix them.
-Matt
I'd also like to see Epic, though...
Erik and James have both said Epic handbook was one of the worst books put out by WOTC I think if they ever do anything epic it will be from scratch
Good news... but all the instruction books in the world won't fix a Challenge Rating system that doesn't work, to name one core problem. I'd much rather see an entire sourcebook about overhauling the monsters, if that's what it takes to fix them.
-Matt
So what is the problems you think with the CR system? I really like the CR system and dont see the flaws with it
|
Erik and James have both said Epic handbook was one of the worst books put out by WOTC I think if they ever do anything epic it will be from scratch
If that's what's needed, fair enough. I just want to see it.
As for the CR system, I think that Matt's pointing out that it doesn't work in the sense that you can't just throw together a bunch of CRs and get a level-appropriate encounter as per the DMG. Also, making your own monsters to a given CR is a pain in the arse.
The CR system is hell of alot better then what you use to do in 2nd ed
just take a guess at what would be a good challenge for the PCs
As for the CR system, I think that Matt's pointing out that it doesn't work in the sense that you can't just throw together a bunch of CRs and get a level-appropriate encounter as per the DMG. Also, making your own monsters to a given CR is a pain in the arse.
Erik and James have both said Epic handbook was one of the worst books put out by WOTC I think if they ever do anything epic it will be from scratch
In 20 years of gaming, I have never had cause to play epic levels. I have never personally seen an epic level game that wasn't started at mid to high levels (which I find distasteful). I really just don't see the point, although I'll grant that some people seem to like the idea.
I've been whining for a totally Paizo-built encounter system for weeks now. If they make it easy for lazy and new GMs to build encounters of AP quality, then many problems are solved. Especially since they seem less dungeon-obsessed than WotC was in their adventure design.
|
|
In 20 years of gaming, I have never had cause to play epic levels. I have never personally seen an epic level game that wasn't started at mid to high levels (which I find distasteful). I really just don't see the point, although I'll grant that some people seem to like the idea.
I've not played it either, because it looked like it wouldn't work (and in 1e your character would get old before you got there, most likely...). I'd have to loved to have done it, though, if it could be made to work. The Epic Level Handbook appears, however, not to have been that product.
Experience
I think that is the biggest problem that keeps getting mentioned if you just DM and work on the high levels you will get better at DMing High Levels.
The main problem I have with high-level campaigns is the duration of the combats. Several times I was faced with the problem that one of my players had to catch the last train home and the combat that started at the beginning of our playing session had not yet finished.
The other problem that I have is that there are not enough high-level adventures and you always have to invent your own.
For the rest: yes, it takes a lot of preparation, but it is rewarding. I used tactics sheets for my NPC's and planned their tactics in advance, assuming they were so clever that they knew which spells and attacks were most effective for the PC's. Works OK.
At the moment I am still running an epic campaign, but we play at our leisure, so that I have plenty of time to prepare and get inspired for new adventures. So we also started the savage tide last year, and alternate between the two.
In the epic campaign I still managed to scare the players with an encounter at level 22, and they are still interested in my storylines, so I have told them that we keep running the campaign until we get bored with it. It has yet to happen.
If they (Paizo) make it easy for lazy DMs to make AP quality adventures, they ruin their own business by no longer being able to market said APs. Why buy something you can get for free? A magician never reveals their secrets. I could keep going with that analogy thing, but I think you get the point.
I am reminded of something though. Squirreloid had done some playtests a while back, and posted them here. One of them was for a high level site based adventure he happily tore apart by pure accident because it had so many weaknesses due to the author not understanding high level play, or even internal consistency it's not even funny. I forget who he said the author was, but the name 'Erik Mona' sounds familiar. If that was him, suffice it to say I have little confidence in the viability of that project. If it was some other guy it's still pretty troubling. Just less so.
Anyone remember who the guilty guy was? Because even the strongest detractors of those who made statements to the effect of 'that guy sucks at adventure design' such as Squirreloid and others agreed that was a very weak high level adventure. When even your opponents agree with you despite their personal feelings, it's a good sign you're right.
|
If they (Paizo) make it easy for lazy DMs to make AP quality adventures, they ruin their own business by no longer being able to market said APs. Why buy something you can get for free? A magician never reveals their secrets. I could keep going with that analogy thing, but I think you get the point.
I am reminded of something though. Squirreloid had done some playtests a while back, and posted them here. One of them was for a high level site based adventure he happily tore apart by pure accident because it had so many weaknesses due to the author not understanding high level play, or even internal consistency it's not even funny. I forget who he said the author was, but the name 'Erik Mona' sounds familiar. If that was him, suffice it to say I have little confidence in the viability of that project. If it was some other guy it's still pretty troubling. Just less so.
Anyone remember who the guilty guy was? Because even the strongest detractors of those who made statements to the effect of 'that guy sucks at adventure design' such as Squirreloid and others agreed that was a very weak high level adventure. When even your opponents agree with you despite their personal feelings, it's a good sign you're right.
It was Matters of Vengeance By Darrin Drader, playtested and posted here
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Anyone remember who the guilty guy was? Because even the strongest detractors of those who made statements to the effect of 'that guy sucks at adventure design' such as Squirreloid and others agreed that was a very weak high level adventure. When even your opponents agree with you despite their personal feelings, it's a good sign you're right.
Alternatively, when even people who agree with your point, critique the way you make it, it's a good sign you lack tact.
Anyhow, since Drader is not producing any of the adventure paths AFAIK, I'm not sure what your point is.
|
|
One of them was for a high level site based adventure he happily tore apart by pure accident because it had so many weaknesses due to the author not understanding high level play, or even internal consistency it's not even funny.
To be fair, it wasn't so much Drader's inability to understand high-level play that Squirreloid was getting at; Squirelloid merely thought that Drader was a moron:
...Darrin Drader is a moron. Its not his inability to understand high level D+D (although he doesn't), its his inability to understand simple geometry or his own writing.
(from this post, in the spoiler under "Warning: Epic fail is epic")
I wish Squirreloid would come back.
One of them was for a high level site based adventure he happily tore apart by pure accident because it had so many weaknesses due to the author not understanding high level play, or even internal consistency it's not even funny.To be fair, it wasn't so much Drader's inability to understand high-level play that Squirreloid was getting at; Squirelloid merely thought that Drader was a moron:
...Darrin Drader is a moron. Its not his inability to understand high level D+D (although he doesn't), its his inability to understand simple geometry or his own writing.(from this post, in the spoiler under "Warning: Epic fail is epic")
I wish Squirreloid would come back.
Well, the module did have internal inconsistencies and map errors in addition to that lack of understanding. Moron is entirely accurate. Not the nicest term, but an entirely true one. Especially when you are employed to do these things at a professional level and make amateur mistakes.
Back on topic, cool then. If that Erik guy had nothing to do with that it looks a bit better.
My point was I forgot who the author was, and was asking. Simple as that. I do not lack tact, I just choose not to employ it here because as has been proven many times I need to keep my points very simple and very repetitive to be understood. Otherwise I will get lots of direct responses to my posts that indicate a complete failure to read and understand said post prior to formulating a response to it. Were I being tactful, I would have even more issues getting others here to understand simple issues. It's called knowing and playing to the expected audience.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Anyone remember who the guilty guy was? Because even the strongest detractors of those who made statements to the effect of 'that guy sucks at adventure design' such as Squirreloid and others agreed that was a very weak high level adventure. When even your opponents agree with you despite their personal feelings, it's a good sign you're right.Alternatively, when even people who agree with your point, critique the way you make it, it's a good sign you lack tact.
Anyhow, since Drader is not producing any of the adventure paths AFAIK, I'm not sure what your point is.
I do not lack tact, I just choose not to employ it here because as has been proven many times I need to keep my points very simple and very repetitive to be understood.
The 'you' in this case was the same general 'you' that you (specifically, you) employed when describing response to Squirreloid's posts. Perhaps I need to make my posts shorter and more repetitive to be understood.
... Moron is entirely accurate ... but an entirely true one ...
I do not lack tact, I just choose not to employ it here because as has been proven many times I need to keep my points very simple and very repetitive to be understood.
As I stated in the AC thread, you *do* in fact have to use tact when posting on our message boards. Please take three days to think about this.
my 2coppers on the subject...
I think that part of the problem is related to the linear power progression of the characters. By that I mean that a 16th level character is twice as powerful as an 8th level character, who is twice as strong as a 4th level character etc... While this is not absolute in every department, the underlying rules tend to go that direction. (for example, hit dice continue to stack 1 per level indefinitely, unlike previous editions where hit dice caped somewhere around level 10).
This ultimately lead to huge gaps between low level encounters and high level encounters, to the point were low level encounters can be virtually ignored by higher level characters. This is where most games either start or stop, because scaling the encounter can only go so far. Once you can walk freely in the valley of death, it shouldn't suddenly have to become the valley of deadlier death...
At one point it feels like you need to scale the whole world around the PCs (town guards, magical defenses, wilderness hazards etc) in a way that it feels illogical. There are many ways to cheat, but it oftentimes feel like cheating. Many DMs, including me, prefer to start anew or change setting for a more challenging one (planar travel etc) rather than alter the current setting.
Delaying higher levels doesn't help in the end, and admittedly, it isn't very fun. Removing options from higher characters is also not a winner's option. Adopting a non linear power curve would be better but would make backwards compatibility cry.
So that's why I think that games either start or stop around level 12-15, but I'm not sure who to fix that without a major rework in the fundamental system.
'findel
I wish Squirreloid would come back.
Where did he go?
The playtesting for the system by WotC was an utter joke. 90% of their time class wise was Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. And except perhaps the Rogue player, all of them were pretty incompetent. Come on, elf wizards with Toughness focused on blasting and healbot clerics with 2/2 skill feats (so they have a -3 modifier instead of a -5 modifier to ACP affected skills) combined with Fighters who think the Weapon Focus line is worth a crap, and in the other case (they tried two different types) that holding a shield was worth a crap beyond... the first level. Maybe the first two levels. And that's only because 1d8+3 will one hit most stuff at levels 1-2 just as well as 2d6+4, or if it takes two hits it would take two hits from either weapon, therefore you actually aren't losing any offense and AC still matters.
More to the point, level wise 90% of their efforts were focused on 1-10. Which is why as early as 11 it completely falls apart as they had essentially no feedback, competent or otherwise to go on until well into splatbook season when they finally got a clue.
Had they actually tested, they might have noticed such very basic things as beatsticks are either one trick ponies and irrelevant otherwise, or simply irrelevant from the start due to the fact that they cannot deal with foes that have actual options. They also might have noticed they were spamming SA immunity left, right, and center which combined with spells > skills and traps not scaling beyond CR 10, most of the threatening traps being magical and thus better dealt with via magic, and the most dangerous non magic trap being something like... DC 27 means the Rogue isn't too far behind. Though they did at least have a Rogue player with some sense in their head. Lidda was the best done of all the iconics.
But they didn't test, which means you have to patch it yourself (make sure your Rogues can bypass immunities, replace core melees with the better done later versions, etc) or just deal with it.
GOLD, just pure gold. QFT
So wouldnt more high level write ups help to stop some of the DM break down
Such as APs going 1-20I've seen high level adventure paths, the 1-20 ones in particular.
I tried to run Age of Worms once. They would have TPKed in fight one of part 1, except a new guy who was slow in making his character joined at the last second and saved them. They got a bit further, then actually did TPK.
Another group (different players, different characters) built for a lot more power also needed a timely arrival of a new PC to stop a TPK. Then they got destroyed by fight 2. Oops. To be fair, this one was because they screwed up very badly, not because they were simply outclassed and beaten down as was the case in fight 1.
And it gets worse from there. The high level parts put CR 20 something stuff in when you're around level 15. Not as something you aren't supposed to fight, but as something you're specifically intended to fight. Yup, here's a dragon with 10 levels on you. Have fun.
End result is they require max optimization from the get go just to not get torn apart. Now I make some mean encounters sometimes, but these 1-20 adventure paths force a lot more mechanical competence than that. Which means if people are having issues with high level requiring too much optimization, having the whole damn game be like that isn't really a solution.
Yeah I played AoW, it was horrific. I had the most character deaths than anyone else, because I chose character options that were good for RP. My two weapon sword and board, leap attacking shock trooper hexblade didn't do too well..... time.... after time.............
It wasn't till my Dive attacking duskblade dragon born, who could turn into a 12 headed hydra, did I actually start to survive.