|
High Level Play, for me, equates to A Serious Time Commitment.
That means no XBox 360, no pleasure reading, no screwing around on the internet being lazy.
Instead, I pour through the DMG, PHB, and Spell Compendium, as well as the adventure I'm running (if running a pre-gen), looking for the proper balance of threat, easy success, traps, monsters, etc...
This gets a little crazy if you're doing a game every week, which is why we eventually switched to one game every other week. Even then, if you have to tweak things you end up spending 15-20 hours prepping for a 6-8 hour game.
That's simply not worth it to me.
Now, I run pre-gen adventures almost exclusively (Thanks, Paizo!) and spend my free-time playing OTHER games, doing things other than DnD prep, and basically NOT studying like I'm going for an exam.
All that time is not wasted, per se, as I have a good grasp of the rules of DnD, can optimize to a mid-point-baseline very rapidly and easily, and can present unique and interesting encounters to my group. However, this is not my idea of fun times, pouring over "game" books and spending almost as much time prepping for a game as I do in my job.
-t
|
High Level Play, for me, equates to A Serious Time Commitment.
That means no XBox 360, no pleasure reading, no screwing around on the internet being lazy.
Instead, I pour through the DMG, PHB, and Spell Compendium, as well as the adventure I'm running (if running a pre-gen), looking for the proper balance of threat, easy success, traps, monsters, etc...
This gets a little crazy if you're doing a game every week, which is why we eventually switched to one game every other week. Even then, if you have to tweak things you end up spending 15-20 hours prepping for a 6-8 hour game.
That's simply not worth it to me.
Now, I run pre-gen adventures almost exclusively (Thanks, Paizo!) and spend my free-time playing OTHER games, doing things other than DnD prep, and basically NOT studying like I'm going for an exam.
All that time is not wasted, per se, as I have a good grasp of the rules of DnD, can optimize to a mid-point-baseline very rapidly and easily, and can present unique and interesting encounters to my group. However, this is not my idea of fun times, pouring over "game" books and spending almost as much time prepping for a game as I do in my job.
-t
Agreed,
While my high level games are still fun for my players (at least that's what they tell me) the prep time and pure mental fatigue at the end of it all makes it very little fun for me. The last two level 20 campaigns I ran I didn't have kids and my job was far less demanding.
This time around, we've pushed to playing alternate games and we only play fortnightly. This gives me a month to Prep in the time available to me. And I need it if I want to keep the pressure up, adjust combats according to party strength (variable number of players between sessions), and still play the baddies to the best of thier abilites.
It's a month i need all of really, to prep properly and maintain life and family balance.
Cheers
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.
Do you really believe this? I don't think that's how this works.
It's not as though there's some great secret to building a Paizo AP, they basically stick to the D20 formula and work to elevate the quality of the product as a publishing company. The only thing stopping me from doing the same thing is time and money. It isn't a magic trick.
However, they can sell me tools that make it easier for me to custom build a campaign that lives happily alongside their other products.
Just because I have to tools to build something doesn't mean I have the time to build it. APs are about laziness for me. That's something you can always count on in a consumer.
So what is the problems you think with the CR system? I really like the CR system and dont see the flaws with it
Goodness, I just spent 90 minutes crafting an explanation only to have it get eaten... that's what I get for not copy-pasting before clicking Submit, so here's the Down & Dirty version:
-Challenge Rating is built for single-monster encounters. Which stop working very quickly, simply because the single monster has an inherent action disadvantage. Four standard actions (some of which become full-attacks) will most often overwhelm one.
-Challenge Rating is built for a very sub-par party of four. The rules offer no guidance on how to adjust encounters for different party sizes. Six or seven PCs can take on different classes of encounters than parties of two or three. Also remember that Challenge Rating is built for a party of the Four Iconics, the absolutely horrible party that gave Toughness to Mialee.
-Challenge Rating, and its daughter Encounter Level, assume the party will face four encounters in a day. The rules offer no guidance on how to tweak encounters when the party will face fewer or greater numbers of them, aside from the tiny table on Page 49 of the 3.5 DMG that uses terms like "Challenging," "Very Difficult," and "Overpowering" as its guidance. Also note that often, the party has a measure of control over the number of encounters it faces in a day, as the party can often choose to rest. Also, since different campaigns place a different emphasis on number of encounters per day, this fact means that Challenge Rating is, by definition, inconsistent among campaigns.
-Inconsistent circumstances behind encounters. The rules provide no guidance about how to tailor Challenge Rating and Encounter Levels to various circumstances. An encounter that takes place behind the great double doors, where the PCs can load up all their rounds/lvl buff spells, is a wildly different level of challenge than an encounter that takes place in the middle of the night, when two-thirds of the party is sleeping.
-Inconsistency among monsters with a given Challenge Rating. One can take two monsters of equal challenge rating, and often one will be more powerful, more Challenging, than the other. A quick look at the back of the 3.5 Monster Manual shows that an Ogre Mage and a Nine-Headed Hydra are both CR 8.
-Inconsistency within the monsters themselves. For several reasons, the first of which goes hand-in-hand with Inconsistent Circumstances: A Human Cleric15 is a wildly different challenge when he's pre-buffed than when he's unbuffed.
-Challenge Ratings do not take into account monster equipment, which a monster can have, but is most often is not factored into its Challenge Rating. For example, if I give a Babau a Chain Shirt, its AC goes up by +4, with no adjustment to Challenge Rating. If I give a Glabrezu a melee weapon, it suddenly can switch out its two Claw attacks (+18/+18 - 1d6+5) for three weapon attacks (+20/+15/+10 - weapondamage+15, reduces pincer attacks to +18), significantly increasing its ability to damage PCs just by picking up a weapon of negligible GP value.
-Monsters have varying levels of optimization of their stat blocks for their Challenge Rating. That same Glabrezu from the previous example has Persuasive as one of its five feats. If I switch Persuasive out for, say, Weapon Focus (glaive), its ability to hurt PCs, its Challenge, increses, with no adjustment to Challenge Rating.
-The monster advancement rules are busted. As I've posted previously, if your DM touches the monster advancement rules, his or her monsters will be significantly more powerful than their Challenge Rating shows. For example, did you know that if a monster is given one nonassociated class level, its CR increases by 0.5, effectively nothing due to rounding, yet more importantly, the monster receives the Elite Array (base stats of 15/14/13/12/10/8 instead of 11s and 10s) for free?
My previous example post on the matter showed how quickly an advanced monster scales for its Challenge Rating by using an Advanced Otyugh, and how, for +3 CR, it would go from 6HD to 18HD, and all the crazy amounts of benefits it would receive. Page 292 of the 3.5 Monster Manual uses a 15HD Otyugh as an example of advancement, which actually makes a good example of my point. Take a look at it, but as you examine it, note that its CR only increases by +2. Yes, its attacks do go from +4/+4/-2 - 1d6/1d6/1d4 to +14/+14/+11 - 1d8+4/1d8+4/1d6+2, yes, it gains 79 hp, yes, its saves go up by +7/+2/+4, and yes, it gains two attribute bumps and three (two of which are suboptimal) feats, all in exchange for a mere +2 CR.
So in conclusion, Challenge Rating and Encounter Level are in desperate need of repair, and the problems inherent to them are present in all levels of play; high-level games simply have a way of making those problems very clear. No matter how much Pathfinder fixes the PC classes, if it doesn't fix the challenges they face, the system will still be riddled with problems.
-Matt
That's where I see the problem. Our higher level campaigns actually start to shift away from the fighting for the most part. Instead our players start taking on leadership rolls, training new troops, watching out for intrigues in the wizard's college, guarding against assassination threats to the king, rescue work (much harder when they are using the hostages for shields), etc. It's no longer about who can cast the bigger fireball/deal the most damage, but who can be effective at other stuff other than killing. In such an atmosphere every still has a place, doing things similar to what they use to, however it evolves into more than "do quest x here", "save kingdom y there". Of course for this to work the players and DM have to have good conversations on what each of them want, and where things might go. Sometimes our sessions turn into us sitting down in character going over lists of priorities, and seeing where we can do what, planning out our next move. The DM helps us here by reminding us what is feasible, and what NPC's might or might not be willing to do to help.
Goodness, I just 90 minutes crafting an explanation only to have it get eaten... that's what I get for not copy-pasting before clicking Submit, so here's the Down & Dirty version:
-Challenge Rating is built for single-monster encounters. Which stop working very quickly, simply because the single monster has an inherent action disadvantage. Four standard actions (some of which become full-attacks) will most often overwhelm one.
-Challenge Rating is built for a very sub-par party of four. The rules offer no guidance on how to adjust encounters for different party sizes. Six or seven PCs can take on different classes of encounters than parties of two or three. Also remember that Challenge Rating is built for a party of the Four Iconics, the absolutely horrible party that gave Toughness to Mialee.
-Challenge Rating, and its daughter Encounter Level, assume the party will face four encounters in a day. The rules offer no guidance on how to tweak encounters when the party will face fewer or greater numbers of them, aside from the tiny table on Page 49 of the 3.5 DMG that uses terms like "Challenging," "Very Difficult," and "Overpowering" as its guidance. Also note that often, the party has a measure of control over the number of encounters it faces in a day, as the party can often choose to rest. Also, since different campaigns place a different emphasis on number of encounters per day, this fact means that Challenge Rating is, by definition, inconsistent among campaigns.
-Inconsistent circumstances behind encounters. The rules provide no guidance about how to tailor Challenge Rating and Encounter Levels to various circumstances....
Thouse are all very good points i wish I could of read the 90 minute version. I see all the problems you are pointing out really what my thought about CRS is they are a great guide line to expand from, but they do need some work you are correct.
But I dont think they cause high level games to break down
Matt:
Hells yeah.
I haven't heard any opposition to the idea of reworking CR from Paizo, but I doubt they will have room for proper encounter tools in the Beta. A high level guide seems like a start, but an all-levels guide would be better.
Perhaps an "Encounter Building Tools" discussion is in order? We could get our suggestions in order before the "Running" chapter playtest rolls around.
-The monster advancement rules are busted. As I've posted previously, if your DM touches the monster advancement rules, his or her monsters will be significantly more powerful than their Challenge Rating shows. For example, did you know that if a monster is given one nonassociated class level, its CR increases by 0.5, effectively nothing due to rounding, yet more importantly, the monster receives the Elite Array (base stats of 15/14/13/12/10/8 instead of 11s and 10s) for free?
Yes, yes. A thousand times yes.
A Worg advanced from 4 to 12 HD goes from CR2 to 5, and gains +14 to attack over these 3 CR bumps, along with tripling it's hitpoints. +21 to attack is going to give every level 5 party a problem. Can you find a CR5 monster with +21 to attack elsewhere in the MM? Taking dire animals and plants and doing the same also results in a big pile of broken. Vermin already are statted with advancement, and have nasty, nasty results.
The problem is that the monster advancement rules are the only real way to generate a CR13-20 challenge which isn't all outsiders, dragons, and lower level stuff with class levels.
Has anyone used these rules? How well do these rules work as they are now?
I'm using them for custom encounters in my Runelords campaign.
So far they are better, but they do not begin to cover the interactions of Ability Scores, Equipment, Specific power benchmarks like teleport and fly, monster advancement... etc. You know, all the stuff that a seasoned GM takes into account while ignoring CR but isn't integrated into the system.
I want a Pathfinder DMG so bad.
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.Do you really believe this? I don't think that's how this works.
It's not as though there's some great secret to building a Paizo AP, they basically stick to the D20 formula and work to elevate the quality of the product as a publishing company. The only thing stopping me from doing the same thing is time and money. It isn't a magic trick.
However, they can sell me tools that make it easier for me to custom build a campaign that lives happily alongside their other products.
Just because I have to tools to build something doesn't mean I have the time to build it. APs are about laziness for me. That's something you can always count on in a consumer.
You just answered it yourself. The only thing stopping you is time and money. The market for adventure paths is to lazy DMs, aka those that 'can not' devote their time and money to doing it themselves. It is a very small extrapolation to carry that over to 'will not'.
If they released tools that made it possible for lazy DMs aka the 'can nots' to make adventure paths that means it no longer required significant time and money, therefore even the aforementioned lazy DMs could do it. Following the tiny extrapolation to the 'will nots' aka those that could but choose not to for any reason (that would be you) they too get their own adventure paths with an acceptable resource expenditure, which means they can no longer sell APs to you as they destroyed their own market.
Which again returns us to 'a magician never reveals his secrets'.
By the way, Squirreloid simply got bored of the place and left.
Eh.
I'm a paying customer, and I would buy both.
There's always a level of customization, even in an AP, and having access to the nuts-and-bolts is always a good thing.
Plus, we're not talking about a brand new set of tools: this is stuff that already exists for 3.5, it just needs to be refocused, clarified and improved.
Eh.
I'm a paying customer, and I would buy both.
Aren't the "lazy" DMs just running 4E?
But anyways, that's not an excuse to not fix the system. We've demonstrated that Challenge Rating is a core issue that deserves an overhaul, not a bandage; all the encounter-building tools in the world won't fix a busted Challenge Rating system.
-Matt
We've demonstrated that Challenge Rating is a core issue that deserves an overhaul, not a bandage; all the encounter-building tools in the world won't fix a busted Challenge Rating system.
I'm not sure if we agree or not, Matt.
I think having a single rating that tells GMs the party level appropriate for an encounter with that monster is great.
I don't think that number should be extrapolated to much else, and unfortunately it is (larger and smaller parties, multiple monsters, higher and lower CRs than party level, etc). I also think there are just too many undefined factors (like Ability Scores, items) that GMs learn to factor in, but the system just kind of shrugs its shoulders and warns: "You should probably watch out for that."
There are some definite baby steps toward a solution in the Beta— the award system has changed. But we definitely need more... and the suggestion that this would somehow hurt sales is spurious at best.
Eh.
I'm a paying customer, and I would buy both.
Aren't the "lazy" DMs just running 4E?
But anyways, that's not an excuse to not fix the system. We've demonstrated that Challenge Rating is a core issue that deserves an overhaul, not a bandage; all the encounter-building tools in the world won't fix a busted Challenge Rating system.
-Matt
4.0 requires more work than 3.5. In 3.5 you memorize the rules, then all you have to know is which apply here. So if you see something with a 'gaze attack', you just need to memorize how gaze attacks work, then plug in the variables such as save DC and effect as appropriate. In other words you do the main bits once, then you fill in the blanks.
4.0 is littered with things that are almost the same but not quite. And it doesn't tell you this, so you have to memorize every single word of every single entry so you don't get sneak attacked by this. The fact the layout and format invokes eye glazing and the terminology eye rolling only makes this more difficult.
PF is also very guilty of this, as they go and release a book like the PHB, except with unannounced differences, so you have to memorize every single word of every single paragraph to know what has actually changed. Then you have to cross reference, so you don't get sneak attacked by things like thinking the PF Fighter is actually a marginal improvement before noticing their only two tricks have been removed. Oh and then there's a lot of stuff that just isn't there. So it's like relearning to type on an entirely different and less efficient keyboard arrangement. As if relearning to type wasn't hard enough.
I'm not sure if we agree or not, Matt.
Something to share about monster advancement rules I realized recently:
Did you know that a Hill Giant Cleric16 and a Human Cleric16 can have the same Challenge Rating?
Okay, so a Hill Giant starts at 12HD, CR7.
Step 1: Advance the Hill Giant to 16HD. As as Giant, it advances at 4 Giant Hit Dice per +1 CR increase. So now our Hill Giant is at 16HD, CR8.
Step 2: Give our Hill Giant sixteen nonassociated class levels of Cleric. The Monster Manual tells us once a monster's class levels equal the monster's monster-HD, the nonassociated class rules stop applying. But with our Giant having 16HD, 16 levels of cleric are all non-associated. Thus, our Hill Giant is at 32HD, half of them from Cleric16, and is CR16.
But that's not all!
Did you also know that a Hill Giant Cleric20 can be CR19? That's right; just add another four Giant Hit Dice, then another four nonassociated Cleric levels.
The system is cah-razy, I tell you!
-Matt, well after midnight...
Well I think before we get too crazy over the CR system we look in the pathfinder beta book to see what it's been doing. They've change some stuff around already back there, and if you reapproach the monsters from where they would be using what they have... things get a little more inline. I realize that's what they are using for "homebrewed" monsters, but if those are their guidelines I feel fairly certain they will try and follow them too.
|
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
One of the main problems I've personally had with high-level play is... magic and saving throws. Not only do the PC-spellcasters usually "outshine" their fellow PCs, but the problem also occurs often when a "save-or-die"-spell hits a PC who doesn't have "maxed out" (with "buffs", feats or magic items) saving throws. Seriously, I've seen players multiclassing to two or more classes and PrCs just to rack up their saving throws at higher levels.
I can recall numerous instances in which a player spent the rest of the session reading comic books or watching TV, as his PC was stunned/dead/petrified/etc. Often this leads to the PCs retreating "back to town", but if this is not possible, then it may easily lead to a TPK.
For example, I rememeber an encounter with a group of Slaadi that left all the PCs dead, except for and my Paladin, and since we had teleported to that remote island, I had no way to bring them back alive on my own. In fact, initially it was like 'Castaway', except for the corpses of the party to keep me company...