+1 more.That's funny, because I've run several campaigns that have gone past 9th level (and played in a campaign that went to epic levels) and not had any significant problems. Maybe I've just got the best group of players ever. /shrug+1
Adding yet another +1
If you want to watch the excitement of a combat die, than watching a math impaired player attempting to role 9 attacks for a hasted two weapon fighter will do it. You'll probably be jamming a pencil in your eye by the end of his turn.
Why can't someone else do the math for him?
Truth of the matter is, in typical high level play, unless your sending a big (at least double the party's size) group that uses solid tactics against the party, encounters are over in 2 or 3 rounds at most. The game, if not handled propperly, can easily turn into an initiative battle, with the team with the arcanist winning initiative winning the fight.
This isn't true in all cases, but it's a pretty solid generalization.
I understand that high level combats take fewer rounds - what I mean is that, from my (admittedly limited) experience, it takes longer to play those rounds out. It is entirely possible that I'm not doing it right - nonetheless I've never heard anyone argue against the claim that high level combats requires more prep-time and take more game time to play out.
For example, you say you have to be careful to avoid the "whose mage goes first" pitfall - which is part of what I meant by requiring a longer prep time. Balancing the encounter to make it a challenge without being a coin toss to see who drops dead takes more time than with 3rd level characters.
I would be surprised (for example) if people can play the final battle in the RotRL AP6 quicker than the battles at the end of AP1, AP2, AP3,... etcetera. It might be over in fewer rounds, but doesnt it take longer to play it out?
It might be over in fewer rounds, but doesnt it take longer to play it out?
I haven't found it to be so.
As long as the players are paying attention, know what their characters can do (that is don't have to look up x things before they make the decision) and don't spend a lot of time going over their options.
It takes longer when there are more opponents, not their level.
Well it was actually another poster higher up that first mentioned the fighter with 9 attacks in the round. I was just concurring with him because I've seen that happen.
The busted foundation is the fact that the challenge posed by the monsters and their CRs doesn't properly match with what PCs are capable of at higher and often even lower levels of play. This isn't a huge deal because dms can adjust for it, but it becomes an issue with published adventures because those tend to used this messed up system of encounter balancing/design, which results in often requiring the dm to retool most of the encounters to make them work. I had to do this constantly when running Savage Tide, and I don't blame it on the players, as their characters were well within the rules (if somewhat optimized). That is a problem with how the game is designed. If you as a dm you run your own material and ignore the system for calculating challenges and generating xp, then the system can work fine, though combat can certainly bog down at higher levels when multiple attacks are a constant issue etc.
QUOTE="nexusphere"]
If you want to watch the excitement of a combat die, than watching a math impaired player attempting to role 9 attacks for a hasted two weapon fighter will do it. You'll probably be jamming a pencil in your eye by the end of his turn.
There's your problem, stupid players. Don't play with people who can't do simple addition and you won't have these problems.
You talk about the 'busted foundation' of 3e, but near as I can tell from my 1e game and the 3.p games I'm running, there is no busted foundation - just the result of scaling. 1e addresses this by higher lethality, and pathfinder reins in some of the most serious abuses and problems of high level 3.5 play.
But it's still D&D and D&D is still rolling dice and adding single digit numbers together. D&D is paying attention, and prerecalculating your abilities.
I see you mentioned 4e. If that's what you're playing - they why are you posing about it in a pathfinder high level thread. If I wanted fisher price color coding, and high level play that was just the same as low level play along with all the other things that make 4e so far from the game I've been playing for 25 years and love, well, I'd be posting on a different message board.
-Campbell
Isn't the fact that paizo basically refuses to touch adventures over 14th level a testament to the fact that the system has issues at higher level of play? That's 6 our of 20 levels of play that they are essentially ignoring, and they've pretty much flat out said that they don't do it because it's just too much of a pain in the butt in terms of adventure design and having room in their products for the huge stat blocks required at high levels.
Isn't the fact that paizo basically refuses to touch adventures over 14th level a testament to the fact that the system has issues at higher level of play?
I do not believe that Paizo has basically refused to do high level adventures.
High level adventures take more time to write, edit and fact check.
You have alluded to one of the reasons in your previous post, where you had to retool some of the encounters based on the capabilities of your players.
There is such a large variety of capabilities for characters that a TPK for one group is a cakewalk for another one, yet the next encouter could be a cake walk for the previous TPK group and a killer for the previous cakewalk group. Yet all of that has to be taken into consideration when writting the adventure, offering suggestions to the GMs, etc.
The lovely section in the stat block that Paizo puts in, the tactics section, helps out a lot, but takes more work at higher levels, due to the larger selection of options for each opponent.
Isn't the fact that paizo basically refuses to touch adventures over 14th level a testament to the fact that the system has issues at higher level of play?I do not believe that Paizo has basically refused to do high level adventures.
High level adventures take more time to write, edit and fact check.
You have alluded to one of the reasons in your previous post, where you had to retool some of the encounters based on the capabilities of your players.
There is such a large variety of capabilities for characters that a TPK for one group is a cakewalk for another one, yet the next encouter could be a cake walk for the previous TPK group and a killer for the previous cakewalk group. Yet all of that has to be taken into consideration when writting the adventure, offering suggestions to the GMs, etc.The lovely section in the stat block that Paizo puts in, the tactics section, helps out a lot, but takes more work at higher levels, due to the larger selection of options for each opponent.
This is a big part of what I meant. The prep time required to DM high level play is a significant problem for some, although not everyone.
I also thought it was pretty much agreed that high level combats took longer to play out, even though they take shorter in game time. I'm happy to concede that is not a universal thing. Does anyone dispute the extra DM prep time for high level adventures though? Because that seems significant enough.
Isn't the fact that paizo basically refuses to touch adventures over 14th level a testament to the fact that the system has issues at higher level of play?
You mean besides the last module in all four adventure paths to date? And wait, I thought the problem was with everything over ninth level -- and Paizo's published tons of modules over 9th.
Regardless, no it isn't. It's a testament to the fact that it's easier to sell books that you can just pick up off the shelf and use immediately, which is always the case with 1st level adventures. You can only really sell a 15th level adventure to someone who first has or will have a party at 15th level and second isn't running their own campaign at that point. Given that it can take several years of steady play to reach 15th level in a campaign, and that few people generate characters that start at 15th level, that drastically narrows down the number of people they can sell a 15th level module to. It's got nothing to do with whether the rules are broken.
Please note that I am not trying to be sarcastic or insulting in my responses. If it comes across that way, please accept my apologies.
1. Limiting the number of buffs active on a creature simultaneously. Keeping track of the 20 buffs on Kharzoug when I ran RotRL was painful. Too painful.I dislike this idea. It penalizes players and NPCs. There are better ways of keeping track of buffs, as well, a lot of PCs and NPCs at high level have items that give them those buffs.
Not to mention while PCs might have Buffs, monster don't always, but are built to deal with the PCs as if they did have that many buffs, so this would very much hinder the PCs MORE.
This is a big part of what I meant. The prep time required to DM high level play is a significant problem for some, although not everyone.
It does take a bit more time, but not necessarily sitting at the table working out all the variants. I often work out the broad lines and tactics of the opponents while I walk to and from work. Makes my walks seem much shorter. :)
I have known others who have done so on the bus.
|
3.) Use minions. Fantastic 4E concept that a lot of rules-lawyers hated. Simply put, have creatures that you've assigned HP to in only very rough numbers: "high single digits". "low triple digits". Let them die when it seems appropriate for them to. They're not important for the CR of the combat, particularly, but help to round out combats.
I tried this out one battle. It did not do so well. The PCs wasted time mowing through the minions while the real threats whittled down their HP.
The setup certainly played into that fact, of course. Three PCs with no arcane caster, and invisibility using bad guys. Add player inexperience into the equation, and it wasn't the best time to try this.
Even so, it is a good lesson to keep in mind when you try this. Minions eat up player actions, while the bad guys aren't hampered slightly. Beware enemies with SoD attacks.
This is a big part of what I meant. The prep time required to DM high level play is a significant problem for some, although not everyone.It does take a bit more time, but not necessarily sitting at the table working out all the variants. I often work out the broad lines and tactics of the opponents while I walk to and from work. Makes my walks seem much shorter. :)
I have known others who have done so on the bus.
I think we're agreeing. I was making my initial point in response to the poster who suggested that the quality of players may explain why he'd had no significant problems with high level play. I think the amount of time you have available is also a factor.
I play in a campaign where the DM has an hour per week to prepare (if he's lucky) - for him the added prep-time of high level play is a problem. His encounters need to be able to run straight out of the box.
I must admit that I'm amazed that others dont find high level combats slower to play through - the options available and interactions of all the different variables take us ages to work through. I guess we must be doing it wrong. :)
I know in our high level games, we just don't have enough dice to go around for some rolls.What is the problem with rolling multiple colored dice?People may not want to go having to buy dice to have enough colors. Or they could be playing online where you don't have dice colors.
Just trying to provide some perspective.
I've settled for "average" on a lot of rolls for the sake of time. I'll admit that it's a time-saver, but isn't as exciting as the random effects of real rolls.
Rolling 25d6 at once, while satisfying, can be disappointing, or the dice go all over the place and have to be scooped up, picked up off the floor, etc., then you have to count them up while everybody waits.
For most intents and purposes, average is fine. If the player really wants to try to do more than average damage, he can roll it. Sometimes, though, he ends up with less than average. Enough so, that most of the time we don't bother.
In my experience most players at the table get very interested when someone pulls out 25d6 to roll :D
And they are all interested to see what number comes from it.
In my experience most players at the table get very interested when someone pulls out 25d6 to roll :D
And they are all interested to see what number comes from it.
Seconded. I don't know how you run death in your games, but 20d6 is very relevant at my table.
-Campbell
I think we're agreeing. I was making my initial point in response to the poster who suggested that the quality of players may explain why he'd had no significant problems with high level play. I think the amount of time you have available is also a factor.
The quality of the players and the GM will affect all play, not just high level play. But I will admit that it has a greater effect in high level play.
I play in a campaign where the DM has an hour per week to prepare (if he's lucky) - for him the added prep-time of high level play is a problem. His encounters need to be able to run straight out of the box.
That can be a problem, even for lower level play. Has anyone else considered GMing for a bit?
I must admit that I'm amazed that others dont find high level combats slower to play through - the options available and interactions of all the different variables take us ages to work through. I guess we must be doing it wrong. :)
I think part of it is making a decision fast. Even a wrong decision at the right time is better than the "best" decision too late.
When I run high level campaigns, I tend to make fast decisions on what the opponents are doing, make the rolls and move on. If there was a better option for the opponents (often there was) then so be it. People make mistakes in combat (even the 20 intelligence people).
I force the players to do the same or they delay. On a regular basis, there is head slapping when the players realize that there was a better move that they could have made.
Another trick to speed the play is to have the players make some of the high number dice rolls. I needed two fireballs (one quickened, one empowered) and had the players make the rolls for me while I made some melee attack rolls. It is amusing to watch a player yell out "YES!!" for a minimal fireball roll - but understandable when it is a fireball that is hitting them.
I tried this out one battle. It did not do so well. The PCs wasted time mowing through the minions while the real threats whittled down their HP.
That's the point of minions, for the record.
I tried this out one battle. It did not do so well. The PCs wasted time mowing through the minions while the real threats whittled down their HP.That's the point of minions, for the record.
At least partly the point anyway. They're also intended to be a credible encounter threat that you can deal with quickly - level-appropriate hitters but with glass jaws. You can't ignore them because their offense is dangerous, but they won't be trouble for long if you devote resources to taking them out.
So, mowing through them isn't a waste of time, in theory, because they're still real threats. They're just not the Main Event.
1. Limiting the number of buffs active on a creature simultaneously. Keeping track of the 20 buffs on Kharzoug when I ran RotRL was painful. Too painful.
Against.
Don't want 20 buffs on your NPCs? Don't do it. Don't want 20 buffs on your PC? Don't do it? Don't want other people to have 20 buffs on their characters? Tough luck.
This isn't a board game with arbitrary rules like that. I don't want it to be. If you want it to be, houserule it.
2. Lumping large numbers of attacks in a round into a single attack with super high to hit and damage mods. Watching a lvl 17 dual wielding ranger, hasted, make his ungodly number of attacks, some on a favored enemy and some not (so the bonus' had to figured differently) is beyond painful. Its torture for the player, the DM, and the rest of the gaming group.
Yeah, it's torture. Pure anguish. That's why people try to get as many attacks as possible. They're all Zon-Kuthite masochists. :P
3. Limiting the information in a stat block to only that which is critical to an encounter.
No way in Hell! It's a Role playing game. There's more to the game that combat.
I like how statted characters can be more than just a combat encounter.
4. Use averages for dice rolls involving large numbers of dice. Nobody that I know really enjoys rolling 20d6 and adding it all together.
What? Half the fun of playing a wizard!
(a range from 1-6 should result, over a large sampling of an average of 3.5 but who wants to multiply that?)
I do. I have no problem with doing fractions.
6. Show examples of cool ways to highlight high level PCs' prominent position in their corner of the world. One of the downside of low level adventures is that the PCs are, by and large, chumps.
No, they're not. You can be town hero by, say, 3rd level (1st level really). Heck, you can become a national hero after a couple of encounters.
The rules don't decide that sort of thing, the GMs do.
Get the players (and the DM) excited about high level adventures, not dreading them, for Pete's sake!
Have you played Paizo's higher-level adventures?
Oh, and PLEASE don't implement the above with the same mechanics that 4th edition did or we'll hate it. Just saying....
Imply? Heck, I'll just say it: You described 4e. Well, some of its worst aspects: Arbitrary rules, dumbing down the math as if the average roleplayer was too dumb to count to three, ignoring non-combat aspects...
The DnD 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder rules cover 20 levels. Since 2000 I would guesstimate that the range for most published adventures is 1-12
Pathfinder Adventure Paths go higher than that.
I think you start to notice more imbalance in the game around 9th level, but I don't think that it really gets too cumbersome until around 13th-15th. I agree that a big part of the reason they don't publish that many high level adventures is because there isn't a huge demand for them (for the reasons you have mentioned), but I have also seen postings where they have stated that it is partially because of space things like stat blocks take up at high levels, and that is a directly tied to the rules of the system. If you've built a system where your stat blocks are taking up too much space than I'd say that there might be a problem with the system. That being said, I enjoy a big juicy stat block, but I've certainly heard them gripe about trying to do stat blocks for villains like Kyuss, Dragotha, Iggwilv, Demogorgon etc..., Unfortunately, 4E has gone a little too far in the opposite direction with that for my taste, ie many of their stat blocks for villains (particularly spell casters) are too watered down, so I tend to give the a few extra abilities, but doing that is pretty simple and painless within that system.
Isn't the fact that paizo basically refuses to touch adventures over 14th level a testament to the fact that the system has issues at higher level of play?You mean besides the last module in all four adventure paths to date? And wait, I thought the problem was with everything over ninth level -- and Paizo's published tons of modules over 9th.
Regardless, no it isn't. It's a testament to the fact that it's easier to sell books that you can just pick up off the shelf and use immediately, which is always the case with 1st level adventures. You can only really sell a 15th level adventure to someone who first has or will have a party at 15th level and second isn't running their own campaign at that point. Given that it can take several years of steady play to reach 15th level in a campaign, and that few people generate characters that start at 15th level, that drastically narrows down the number of people they can sell a 15th level module to. It's got nothing to do with whether the rules are broken.
Isn't the fact that paizo basically refuses to touch adventures over 14th level a testament to the fact that the system has issues at higher level of play? That's 6 our of 20 levels of play that they are essentially ignoring, and they've pretty much flat out said that they don't do it because it's just too much of a pain in the butt in terms of adventure design and having room in their products for the huge stat blocks required at high levels.
No, it isnt. There are less high level monster as you level up. Since there are less monsters availible it becomes hard to find encounters, and monster of such high level are not commonplace, and finding a reason to have them be on the same team, when they are possible BBEG's in their own right is a problem in it self. The other issue is monetary. If they can make as much money writing a level 16 adventure path, then why lose money writing a 20th level one. Shackled City and its followers are still being played, so I doubt selling them(20th level adventures) would be an issue, but a 6 month AP gives them the opportunity to stick with a schedule, and the writers can start over with something new.
Okay then, so maybe another problem is that the monsters aren't properly divided up among the 20 level spread, and the last 6 levels have been neglected.
The fact that higher level adventures don't sell as well could be partially attributed to the game not playing as well at high levels.
|
There's something about picking up 15d6 and obliterating all of the miniatures on the table as your dice scatter everywhere that people just can't resist.I would submit that picking up and rattling a handful of dice with the anticipation of some massive number is one of the "thrill points" of a session and is a plus of gaming, not a minus. Other people have (in other threads) frequently suggested just taking averages, or standardizing on one sort of die type for damage, or whatever, but for me, I *like* having different shaped dice and having to use different ones in different situations and I *like* both getting to roll a handful of dice, and feeling the tenseness when the DM picks up a big massive pile of d6's and says, "you get a whiff of sulfur in the air a moment before a massive WHOOSH! sound erupts" <rattle rattle rattle> [big ass pile of dice hits the table] <count count count> "crap I'm dead".
For me, *that* is D&D.
Ah.... yes.......... this is something we call the "Death Dice" experience. Gotta love it when the GM pulls out the death dice!
Okay then, so maybe another problem is that the monsters aren't properly divided up among the 20 level spread, and the last 6 levels have been neglected.
The fact that higher level adventures don't sell as well could be partially attributed to the game not playing as well at high levels.
I think its hard to make higher level monsters that are CR appropriate, plus it makes sense to have less high level threats in any world. I would try to give the players obstacles, for lack of a better word, and/or give XP just for completing certain parts of an adventure path.
|
I think part of the reason that high level adventures (20+) aren't as popular also has to do with the fact that if you invest that much time and energy into a character, you are missing all the cool opportunites to try out a lot of splat book material that gets released while you are rising to power. IMO, thats what drives everyone in a gaming group wanting to start a new adventure, several people have some new character concept of idea they want to try out.
Well I agree that it doesn't make sense to have too many high level threats in the world, though I think there are plenty of monsters in the game that might be well suited to being higher level monsters. For example, a chimera or behir or bulette could all be much higher level monsters without really changing the game world that much.
You're right it is hard to make monsters that are CR appropriate, but part of the reason for that is because the system starts to fall apart at the higher levels- ie. the characters have so many resources at their disposal that it is very tricky to create monsters that can challenge all the different kinds of abilities they can pull out. Now I realize that as a player it can be pretty darn cool to run a mage with access to all the crazy kinds of spells that a high level 3E mage has, but if the dm can't challenge the mage because he has no easy access to appropriate threats, and such threats are hard to design, than it doesn't give the dm much incentive to run a game for your kick ass wizard- so then what's the point of devoting so much effort to designing all that material (ie. why not just cap the game at level 10 or 15?), to me that's a problem with the system, and if you are going to go to all the trouble of releasing a new version of the game (ala pathfinder) I think that as a designer you should address such an issue.
I think its hard to make higher level monsters that are CR appropriate, plus it makes sense to have less high level threats in any world. I would try to give the players obstacles, for lack of a better word, and/or give XP just for completing certain parts of an adventure path.Okay then, so maybe another problem is that the monsters aren't properly divided up among the 20 level spread, and the last 6 levels have been neglected.
The fact that higher level adventures don't sell as well could be partially attributed to the game not playing as well at high levels.
I think part of the reason that high level adventures (20+) aren't as popular also has to do with the fact that if you invest that much time and energy into a character, you are missing all the cool opportunites to try out a lot of splat book material that gets released while you are rising to power. IMO, thats what drives everyone in a gaming group wanting to start a new adventure, several people have some new character concept of idea they want to try out.
Good point. Another possibility is that at 17th level or so, each character is a powerhouse unto themselves, compared to 99%+ of everyone else. FR gave us stats for Elminster, Drizzt, and others who were pretty tough customers in and of themselves.
If Elminster took a few other high-level NPCs along with him all the time, like the PCs tend to do, he'd be even harder to mess with.
I like the notion that with their notoriety, the PCs start to grow apart, with their own responsibilities. The cleric is probably a respected member of his clergy, even if he's not high in the pecking-order, and in demand by his faith. The rogue has all kinds of people vying for his talents, and the fighter, the wizard, and so on.
They might take long breaks, only reuniting to take on challenges worthy of their caliber. You could start a new campaign in the same world with low-level characters, pulling out the bad boys when the GM introduces a new threat to the world. The low-levels' mission might be to find one of the big bad characters to warn them about the new threat, then participate in a meaningful way at a level they can handle.
Just a thought, and not particularly original. It just feels sorta 2e. Or 1e.
I play in a campaign where the DM has an hour per week to prepare (if he's lucky) - for him the added prep-time of high level play is a problem. His encounters need to be able to run straight out of the box.That can be a problem, even for lower level play. Has anyone else considered GMing for a bit?
Yeah - we alternate on a monthly basis or so. I have a little more time, so run pathfinder/3.5 and have the luxury of preparation time. When he runs the game though, he prefers 4th edition or other 'quick and easy' systems - the primary reason being it is so much easier for him in a preparation sense. My initial point was merely that 'skill' of players and DM is only one part of what makes a high level game run smooth - it's much easier to mess up in a high level combat than in a low level combat. Prep time is a significant way to mitigate that risk of a fatal error (for both players and DMs). I think you and I agree about that in general - though I dont speak messageboard very well, so who knows.
I've learnt much more from being disabused of my other point...
I must admit that I'm amazed that others dont find high level combats slower to play through - the options available and interactions of all the different variables take us ages to work through. I guess we must be doing it wrong. :)I think part of it is making a decision fast. Even a wrong decision at the right time is better than the "best" decision too late.
When I run high level campaigns, I tend to make fast decisions on what the opponents are doing, make the rolls and move on. If there was a better option for the opponents (often there was) then so be it. People make mistakes in combat (even the 20 intelligence people).
I force the players to do the same or they delay. On a regular basis, there is head slapping when the players realize that there was a better move that they could have made.
Another trick to speed the play is to have the players make some of the high number dice rolls. I needed two fireballs (one quickened, one empowered) and had the players make the rolls for me while I made some melee attack rolls. It is amusing to watch a player yell out "YES!!" for a minimal fireball roll - but understandable when it is a fireball that is hitting them.
I think when my campaign next reaches the higher levels I will definitely be implementing some of the suggestions in this thread. Thankyou and the other posters with suggestions on how to make it run smoother. I must confess to still being skeptical - nonetheless, if I can maintain the tension it would definitely improve the game. Cheers.
I've been running a 3.5 campaign that started at 14th level, and the PCs just hit 17th. I've been enjoying myself, and my players haven't left me yet. (For the record, and or if you like reading campaign journals, one of my players has been chronicling the campaign here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/campaignJournals/toSl ayTheImmortal3XHomebrew)
While I've certainly hit the issue of "PCs will tear through it or it will kill them," that issue has not been constant nor overwhelming. I do have trouble with remembering all the abilities that some powerful monsters have, but that's not the rules' fault, and more the designers fault for not remembering to keep certain things simple (monster spell-like and abilities especially give me a headache, especially when a lot of the abilities are "as x other spell" which means i have to then reference another spell in another book and ... argh. Usually this results in me writing up my own statblock because published statblocks are just entirely inadequate/useless. I'll be curious how the statblocks in the Bestiary look.)
My players know their own class abilities. They should; two of them have been playing their characters from a previous campaign that started at 2nd level, and the other two are D&D vets anyway. They plan their tactics together well, and it doesn't take 8 years for them to roll dice. A lot of them take short cuts, like rolling all your attack dice together.
The only time combat went noticeably slowly, two things happened:
1) One of the characters failed a save versus an Outsider's Fear aura, and fled. (This was also frustrating because the player was then essentially out of the entire fight--not only did they lose a key meleer who could have helped keep things going, but the player had nothing to do. This makes me think there's a specific problem with Fear effects, but not high level play in general--if anything, usually high level characters don't have to worry about Fear, and this was a fluke.)
2) Players and I were rolling an average of a 3 for every single roll. I wish I was joking. It was just one of those damned things that defy statistics, and rules really can't account for something like that.
And both of those things could have happened at any level.
I can't say I designed the adventures perfectly (and if you read the journal, you can probably tell I made some issues overcomplicated) but things seem to be going well overall. I must be doing something wrong.
Now, really, I do feel the OP's pain as far as--yes, there's a heck of a lot to remember.
But I've been roleplaying for years, and there's not a game I haven't played where there's more rules, more crunch to track at higher power levels than lower ones. D&D isn't alone in that, by a long shot. You just have to work with a smart, mature gaming group and expect everyone to pull their weight and learn how their character operates. Sure, if you can't handle that, stick to lower levels, but extra rules doesn't mean it's wrong--there's just more to think about when dealing with a lot of power, AND THERE SHOULD BE. If you don't have a lot of guidelines for how to handle powerful situations, you're going to be crying.
I think the key issue is just not to sweat it. Try to remember what you can and if you forget something, move on and just remember next time. I fall back to the golden rule of using increments of +2/-2 if something should be easier or harder, rather than always double checking specific permutations of every single thing going on.
The other thing is to let go of the idea that if PCs choose a different path than what you planned--sometimes you should let them. I think this should be the case for any level, but obviously at high levels, the "path" chosen can involve wacky magic and other hijinks. But let players be creative, and reward them with that. If they find a legitimate (and possibly even amusing) way to skip out half the dungeon--yes, it sucks giant undead donkey balls that you spent a lot of time designing that dungeon and they skipped it, but just put it aside and use it in a later campaign, or redesign it slightly for a later challenge. If they skip over an event that you needed to happen, just make it happen later, or account for the consequence that it didn't happen. Even if it's a big consequence. (Oops, you skipped past the Holy McGuffin, so Freddy the Uber Mummy Lord has risen. Let Freddy do a rampage and let them deal with it--or not.)
High level PCs don't need handholding down a plot. As someone else mentioned, it's better to have a broad, well designed setting as a background, so you can adapt as they find different routes to their goals. Ultimately, they'll find what they're looking for one way or the other, so just make it a well-described, interesting journey.
And very importantly, don't forget that combat is only one part of the challenges PCs should face--again, at any level, but high level PCs should be chasing more challenges than just "kill the dragon." High level PCs are POWERFUL--they possibly even are famous and have influence. Getting them involved in intrigue and politics gives them a whole other kind of challenge (and remember actions have consequences and remind your players of that; "Yes, you can kill the king by spitting at him, but are you really ready to cause an entire civil war?" And then if they say yes, have fun designing a civil war. That's a whole new great story right there.). Puzzles, research, getting the right people or items at the right place at the right time, all things you can do to have fun without constant bloodshed. At a high level campaign, you're playing HEROES; story should be a really major part of the adventure.
Send them to new locations. The planes are awesome and full of limitless possibility (although it's only one of many, there's a reason why Planescape was oft a setting of choice for high level games), but even if you want to do that--have them find a route to a part of the world no one's ever been to before. They can encounter terrain and creatures they've never seen before and can't just know everything about--keep it new and exciting.
And when there is combat, just let a few combats be easy. Not every combat should be a risk of death. The PCs are powerful--they can and should shred through some things, let them shine a little and strut their stuff and feel good about what they can do. Then when they fight the Tarrasque with doubled hit dice, they realize the full extent of the nasty that they are facing.
I think many high level adventures are lacking because module designers just use the same design philosophy for low level adventures, and that just doesn't work, and designers are too afraid to go outside their comfort zone (or risk a financial flop) to do much different. But for high level play, it's probably best--as already suggested--to design something looser, more open ended, that details a setting and a series of situations rather than a linear path (because high level PCs will go out of their way to avoid anything linear--it's a fact, so plan for it and move on).
High level play is harder, and it definitely demands more creativity on the part of both players and GMs. But the rules are the least of the challenge, and what challenges that are worth considering are good ones.
Lack of high CR monsters? What the heck are you guys talking about? I can turn a CR 1/2 goblin into a monster that TPKs a level 20 group if I wanted to. Sure, it's not printed out for you. You do have to make him yourself but there is no lack of high level monsters. They are pretty much unlimited.
Of course this just points right back to insane amounts of prep time at high levels.
For the most part, I'm with Dr. Fever (the OP) on this one. I'll add a note to his plea for the REQUIRED use of high-level abilities to complete an adventure: yes, this is harder to design ("what if there's no druid," etc.), but, honestly, high-level PCs' capabilities far outshine what an adventure writer can reaslistically think of off the top of his head. And with the resources at their disposal, they can hire, recruit, or coerce a druid, if one is needed. And THAT is the essence of a good adventure: not just more fights, or bigger fights, or longer fights.
The main reason I absolutely hate, loathe, despise high-level play is that 99% of high-level modules ever written for 3.0/3.5/3.PF consist of essentially nothing but lists of monsters to kill. ANY chump can put together vast numbers of tough monsters. I don't need someone to sell me stat blocks; I'd rather they sell me adventures that have more to them than that. Combat should be incredibly RARE at high level, not ubiquitous. I'd welcome a high-level adventure that forced me to spend a lot of game time scrying, researching, and recruiting... rather than simply slogging through fight after fight with monsters that, left to their own devices, should long since have destroyed the universe.
In fact, I'd suggest my own "rule of three":
If there are more than 3 combats in any given high-level adventure (15th+), then that adventure flat-out is unusable to me. I don't want it, I won't play it, and I sure as hell don't want to spend good money on it.
Then I guess you wouldn't enjoy playing in my high level games Kirth.
No offense -- everybody has their own preferences -- but, yeah, it sounds like I'd quit playing in your group ASAP. You'd probably be equally unhappy at my table as well.
I prefer adventures that test ALL my capabilities, not just my combat ones. That's easy for low-level adventures, because a simple chasm provides plenty of challenge for people who can't fly. For high-level characters, it's very difficult to come up with viable non-combat challenges -- so most writers don't bother. As a result, level-appropriate combats gets increasingly more common as you get more powerful, which implies sort of an upside-down pyramid of power: most creatures you meet in that game world are at the top of the scale, and comparatively few are at the bottom. And that alone breaks my suspension of disbelief too badly for simple repair.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1. Limiting the number of buffs active
2. Lumping large numbers of attacks in a round into a single attack with super high to hit and damage mods
3. I don't care that the NPC spent skill points on Craft (weaponsmithing).
4. Use averages for dice rolls involving large numbers of dice
5. don't create adventures that stop high level players from using their powers
1-4 are called Dungeons and Dragon 4E, check it out. You will like it. None of these need to be retrofit into 3.p (or 3.5) games.
I agree with you on #5, but sometimes you need to make a "story" and a "quick fix" for the problem may need to be blocked to allow the story to continue.