Exactly. I can see that it's reasonable demand more support for the "DM homeworks" but different levels SHOULD play differently IMHO.That's fine though. If the game didn't change as levels increase then there would be little point in levelling up. It's a bit silly if a group of low level PC's against an ogre plays out exactly the same as a group of high level PC's against a balor, just with the numbers all scaled up.
+1
and glad im in agrement with most of you guys
Oh, plenty of us noticed, plenty of us made suggestions/comments/observations based on playing high level 3x campaigns. Many of us were completely ignored.
Or they simply disagreed with your suggestions. But, hey, spin it however you want if you want to feel ignored.
|
You can't change the D&D high-level play without rewriting the game itself from ground sup. And that's something that Paizo wasn't interested in. Because if they did, nobody would ever buy it. Fantasycraft and Trailblazer both went out to "reinvent" and "revolutionize" the game and now they are ... *watches tumbleweeds* yeah, that's where they are.
It is a subjective thing. If you're in the right mindset as a GM to meet the challenge of the game fundamentally changing, then it's actually the opposite of broken. It's a story that changes as things go along, characters really seem to "grow" instead of just continue.
Sometimes that's not what I want. I've kept my players at 8-10th for maybe three times as long as even the Slow XP track would have them. If you know what your "sweet spot" is, and you know that moving on too quickly will detract from the player's enjoyment, that's what you need to do! (of course, the players know and if they complained I would consider fixing that — ask my players before making any tyrant GM accusations)
At mid levels, now that teleport and scry are in the picture, I have to start looking at the whole overland map (Varisia in this case) as my dungeon. The players can reliably access only places they have been before, so that controls their access to encounter sites. They can teleport to someone scried, but scry is limited enough that a good BBEG can turn it to his advantage. Any BBEG who observes the players secretly possesses the "scry advantage". The players have to be insanely cautious in every task, and they can't easily counter-scry because they have never seen the enemy. I know that when the BBEG eventually shows himself, the conflict has to resolve quite soon afterward. Forearmed with this knowledge, I was careful not to tip his hand too early!
By carefully managing the new tools in the hands of NPCs, and making sure they use the same tools that are available to PCs, you can create dramatic tension. If you fail to do this, the PCs will use the tools like monkeys with bone-clubs against monkeys without bone-clubs.
Another observation: high-level play changes from round-tactics and encounter-strategy to encounter-tactics and adventure-strategy. The PCs are powerful enough to determine the course of the adventure, and so they should be choosing their encounters, rather than pushing through a series of encounters in order. Embracing this view helps a GM cope with several challenges in high level GMing, especially when casters are involved!
So... while I think discussing high-level GM advice is quite apropos, I'm sure some people feel it is off-topic or a "GM fiat" argument. It suffices to say, yes, it is more work for the GM to run a game that fundamentally changes all the time. Those who want a game that stays in their sweet spot should really consider changing the XP rules to stay in that spot as long as it is fun. I personally love the fundamental shift, and I think it's a gem unique to this ruleset.
|
I have just opened a new thread for the GMs with experience with high level games (15 and up) could tell:
a) what are the biggest challenges the GM can face with high level characters (15 and up)
b) and the way he/she deals with that problem.
I thank you all the responses in advance. Here is the link:
GM HELP: THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS FROM LVL 15 TO 20 AND HOW TO DEAL WITH IT?
|
|
Hello there!
I have read around here that high levels are broken. Badly designed.
I can't believe this to be true. Pathfinder has had around 50.000 beta testers! How can be broken an important part of the game like the high levels game? 50.000 beta testers hasn't noticed that? Pretty difficult to believe.What do you say? Are the high levels broken?
I'm pretty sure that many (if not most) of these beta testers never played high levels before the beta testing ended, or they never reported any feedback about high levels. Usually they have time to play low level games only or just make some builds of high level characters.
There are issues with high level gameplay but IMO Pathfinder has improved that part of the game.
You assume quite incorrectly, actually.
And Pathfinder put a band-aid on a heavy shrapnel wound, frankly.
There were not 50000 guys sending feedback during the betatesting, and some of them recognized that they never played and will never play a high level game (for many reasons that aren't always tied to game mechanics).
I agree with the second sentence, but I still prefer the band-aid to the "let him bleed to death" attitude shown by WotC.
All I am saying is quite a few of us did playtest high levels, played high levels in 3x, and understood the issues with high level play. We were roundly shouted down by those who didn't have any experience with high level play, and more or less ignored by the devs. Of course, "backward compatibility" hamstrung Paizo from jumpstreet when it came to fixing the more glaring problems with 3x at all levels, but high levels in particular.
But, true, the patches do make houseruling a tad easier.
|
|
High level play isn't 'broken', it is very different and requires more skill and knowledge from both player and GM.
Is the game 'breakable' at high levels? Yes, it is. But honestly, it's breakable at low levels as well, just not so easily.
True, to a degree.
Be glad I had to run that encounter cold. If I had time to prep (it was an ambush after all), y'all would have seen what an 18th level wizbang could really do against y'all ;-)
Of course, I was stuck with an evoker, so that saved your bacon too!
|
|
Or they simply disagreed with your suggestions. But, hey, spin it however you want if you want to feel ignored.
Oh, plenty of us noticed, plenty of us made suggestions/comments/observations based on playing high level 3x campaigns. Many of us were completely ignored.
I'm sure they did. No worries. High level Pathfinder is no different than high level 3x. Same problems.
Evil Lincoln wrote: "The game doesn't play the same at high levels as low levels, so the GM needs to change the way adventuring works."
Ok, yes. This is 100% accurate as far as it goes. But, some people have little time to invest in all of that. So they turn to prefab adventures. And, frankly, when professional game writers cannot make a decent high level adventure that takes the change in paradigm into account, maybe the system does have flaws after a certain point.
|
|
And, frankly, when professional game writers cannot make a decent high level adventure that takes the change in paradigm into account, maybe the system does have flaws after a certain point.
Sound of a Thousand Screams by Richard Pett and Witchwar Legacy by Greg A. Vaughan are both high-level adventures of very high quality written by people who do take the paradigm into the account.
Granted, Sir Pett and Mr. Vaughan are likely the best freelance D&D adventure writers out there, but still. It can be done, as long as there are no clueless amateurs involved.
Evil Lincoln wrote: "The game doesn't play the same at high levels as low levels, so the GM needs to change the way adventuring works."
Ok, yes. This is 100% accurate as far as it goes. But, some people have little time to invest in all of that. So they turn to prefab adventures. And, frankly, when professional game writers cannot make a decent high level adventure that takes the change in paradigm into account, maybe the system does have flaws after a certain point.
HD — yep, I'm one of those people actually. That's why, as I said, I've frozen advancement in my campaign (or rather slowed it a LOT) so that I get to play in a certain mode for longer.
I know it seems like a cop-out to some, but it really is the best solution. I recommend it because I do it and it works.
The time will come when I want to kick it up to the next "phase", high level play, toward the end of the campaign. It will probably happen when my campaign has run long enough for normal people to be well into "epic" levels... and it will feel like epic levels.
But in the end, a GM needs to look at the powers that PCs have, and run the game accordingly. Yes, high-level means you just can't rely on published adventures anymore, because the whole format of adventuring changes. You can't publish an adventure when the course of the adventure is defined by the PCs. It is more work. You are correct. :)
At the same time, I don't think I want that problem fixed, since it would necessarily require constraining the nature of high-level play. There is a lot that could have been fixed, but frankly, I think they need to work on supporting what's there, not dumbing it down.
I definitely feel the same problems as you mention, but the solution to me will always be to play the game at the levels you like. If you hate the other levels, change XP to target the sweet spot. E6 is great for people who love low-mid. I've got my players moving very slowly through the mid levels (and we blazed through 1-5).
It isn't broken, unless you define broken as "more work". And that's a totally legitimate viewpoint.
And, frankly, when professional game writers cannot make a decent high level adventure that takes the change in paradigm into account, maybe the system does have flaws after a certain point.
I think this due less to flaws in the system (though they do exist) and more with the lack of "Oh, My Favorite Fantasy Writer did it this way, how do I co-opt the ideas to fit the mechanics?" There are just not that many legends, stories, etc about creatures with these levels of power. Someone upthread mentioned Demi-gods, and I would agree with that, except that the 12 labours of Hercules would have been done by level 12, ya know? I alwyas look at higher level play as a forum not to test what the PCs CAN do (darn near anything) but rather what SHOULD they do? Politics, intrigue, the fate of nations should rest on their actions, and countless innocent lives held in the balance.
Or you can run dungeon crawls and whine about how broken things are.
|
|
Evil Lincoln wrote: "The game doesn't play the same at high levels as low levels, so the GM needs to change the way adventuring works."
Ok, yes. This is 100% accurate as far as it goes. But, some people have little time to invest in all of that. So they turn to prefab adventures. And, frankly, when professional game writers cannot make a decent high level adventure that takes the change in paradigm into account, maybe the system does have flaws after a certain point.
HD — yep, I'm one of those people actually. That's why, as I said, I've frozen advancement in my campaign (or rather slowed it a LOT) so that I get to play in a certain mode for longer.
I know it seems like a cop-out to some, but it really is the best solution. I recommend it because I do it and it works.
Not really a "cop out", per se. More of an admission of the game not working out well at high levels.
Again, Gygax got this (and to the dude above talking about Ftr 20/ MU 20 dual class, check out the next statement), and designed his game to pretty much end at level 12 or so, with the "big guns" only to be dusted off if some earth shattering events were going down. Wizards were supposed to be locked in towers doing research, fighters had baronies to run and lands to clear, clerics had flocks to attend, and thieves had guilds to run. His end game was far different than "epic" 3x.
And, frankly, when professional game writers cannot make a decent high level adventure that takes the change in paradigm into account, maybe the system does have flaws after a certain point.
You can't publish an adventure when the course of the adventure is defined by the PCs.
I almost wonder if a high-level "adventure" should really be fundamentally different in format from a low-mid level one. We're talking about how the game changes on a fundamental level in this type of game. Maybe a high-level adventure should really be a "high level theme", where the players are expected to control the course of the adventure.
In that way, you can focus on lightening the GM's load from a different angle... rather than providing encounters on a fine level of detail with a set course, you give people the components to build high level adventures quickly. Food for thought.
[ Politics, intrigue, the fate of nations should rest on their actions, and countless innocent lives held in the balance.
This, I think, is a big part of the key to it: at high levels, in a vacuum, getting the jump on a well-played party or pinning them down long enough to be in a real fear of dying or running out of resources becomes very hard. So don't (usually) play that losing/uninteresting game, but give the characters something or somethings to care about that help tie their hands.
The tarrasque is perhaps the perfect example of this -- at the levels that characters could reasonably expect to fight it, it's trivial to avoid dying to the tarrasque. You cast fly and now what does the tarrasque have? It has no chance to kill you at all -- but that misses the point. It can't kill you if you stay out of its range, but you also can't stop it from murdering a thousand people and destroying a city.
It's the same kind of thing -- it's almost impossible to put high level characters in a situation in which they cannot rest, but you can put them in a situation in which they won't want to rest. They need to get X done by midnight or bad thing Y happens, and so on.
|
|
And, frankly, when professional game writers cannot make a decent high level adventure that takes the change in paradigm into account, maybe the system does have flaws after a certain point.I think this due less to flaws in the system (though they do exist) and more with the lack of "Oh, My Favorite Fantasy Writer did it this way, how do I co-opt the ideas to fit the mechanics?" There are just not that many legends, stories, etc about creatures with these levels of power. Someone upthread mentioned Demi-gods, and I would agree with that, except that the 12 labours of Hercules would have been done by level 12, ya know? I alwyas look at higher level play as a forum not to test what the PCs CAN do (darn near anything) but rather what SHOULD they do? Politics, intrigue, the fate of nations should rest on their actions, and countless innocent lives held in the balance.
Or you can run dungeon crawls and whine about how broken things are.
Fluff is fine. Mechanically, the game beaks down. The d20n doesn't scale well past a certain point. When the RNG only exists to roll the occasional "1", its existence is irrelevant.
4e went the boring route, making level 20 play exactly like level one, only now with more attrition! Not a solution, really.
"...and whine about how broken things are"? Cute. No one is talking about dungeon crawls.
And how, exactly, is a 12th level fighter rerouting rivers (in less than a day, no less), holding the entire sky on his shoulders and a few other things he needed to finish the tasks? I guess that 12th level fighter has about 20 levels in wizard as well...
...I guess that 12th level fighter has about 20 levels in wizard as well...
What yours don't?
;)
I've run a number of high level games, and the only problem I've ever run into was the players deciding they wanted to change characters every third session. Oh, and a player who thought he was a power-gamer, but built such horrible flaws into his characters that I accidentally killed the characters in passing. (A level 28 wizard dies instantly to the breath weapon of a Young Adult Red Dragon? Seriously?! It happened.)
While it is possible to run games like you did at low level, you have to take far more variables into account, such as teleportation and flight, something that often takes more time than some people would like. As an example, a three part obstacle that makes flight difficult to use. Vast pit in a dungeon 150 feet deep, and filled 20 feet deeper than that with acid. You have a stone bridge crossing it, but the bridge beyond 20 feet is an illusion (masked with Magic Aura if you're feeling evil) and halfway across the 300 foot pit is a wall of Dispel Magic. If they want they can challenge it, but my party chose to take the two other routes I'd built into the place, as none of them had a way to earth glide or teleport yet. And yet, the place made them think about how to bypass the situation.
But at the highest levels, in my experience, it isn't about threatening the characters directly. Yes, I could threaten them, but anyone who can do that constantly would be able to kill them outright in a single massive assault. No, instead you target things they care about, you don't give them a single target to smash with a meteor. The bad guy uses proxies with Death Throes to make sure they don't give out information. He lures them into traps, but always always makes certain he has cutouts and escape routes that would scare the PCs to death if they knew them. Does it take work? Hells yes. But I've done this on the fly before, for a group of 18th level, and it was among the best games I have ever GM'd.
There seems to be a great emphasis on the DM having to adapt and accept a greater workload, but unless the players are willing to do the same, a high level game will not survive. Players are at that point mini DM's each with their own pet projects and groups that need managing; just showing up at the game and having people tell you what dice you need to roll and when is no longer sufficient. Nor is expecting to beat every challenge just because your character is a demi god, since at that point, your character's actual combat abilities really only matter when it comes to the climax of the campaign, after the minions, allies, and supporters have set the stage for the main heroes to engage in the final combat.
|
|
It can be done, as long as there are no clueless amateurs involved.But isn't this in part the point? Shouldn't amateurs be able to create high-level games that challenge their players without first acquiring a doctorate in D&D?
If Paizo hasn't solved this problem—and creating their own adventure paths doesn't do so for people who've no interest in running or playing pre-packaged scenarios (many don't)—then it seems to me that modestly to moderately adroit DMs have a legitimate complaint.
Ok, this goes against my generally egalitarian view of gaming, but seriously? Pen and paper PGs have a certain amount of game mastery requirements built in. This isn't really a "plug and play" hobby. That's what computers and game consoles are for. And everyone starts out as an "amateur". I did in '79 when I started. It took a few years before I knew what I was doing, but that journey was part of the fun.
There should be a degree of game mastery involved to make things work. That doesn't excuse poor game design, but players and GMs should have an understanding of how things work. The problem is, even professionals have trouble understanding how the high level game works and what can be accomplished. That is a symptom of bad game design.
Creative Director
|
I've played in and run many high-level games for 3.5 and Pathfinder over the past decade or so.
The ones that work well and aren't a mess are, in almost every case, ones where the GM and players started playing at 1st level and worked their way up to high level.
Simply jumping in to the game at high level when you don't have a lot of experience playing a particular character with a particular mix of other characters is tough, but doing so organically (say, as part of an Adventure Path, or a homebrew campaign) is actually pretty cool and workable. At least, in my experience.
And yes, the game DOES change dramatically at higher levels. That's the whole point of getting to higher level, actually. What makes for a good adventure at low or mid level does not make for a good experience at high level, and I suspect that trying to force low- or mid-level plots (such as linear dungeon crawls) into high-level games is part of the problem some folks have with high-level games.
Taking dungeon crawls in particular—the best way to do these at high level is to go in with eyes open and to NOT expect a linear exploration. PCs have so much mobility at high level that they can take a dungeon apart at the seams. It's popular to put in a huge mountain of anti teleport, anti passwall, anti everything magic on high-level dungeons, but that kind of ruins the fun, I think, of being high level. What's the point of being able to cast passwall if you can't bypass walls? When running a high level dungeon crawl, it's important to know all of what's going on in the dungeon so the GM can react to whatever hair-brained scheme the PCs come up with to infiltrate it, but at the same point it's important not to try to force the PCs into "gather the keys" quests to make them explore the dungeon in a pre-defined route.
One solution I've come to like for this is to build dungeons so that there's an optimal way to tackle the encounters; if the PCs take them out in the order the dungeon's layout expects, then the tougher encounters aren't as heinous. But if they do things like "scry and fry" or passwalling through the entire thing, they'll be far more likely to bring numerous encounters down on their heads. In other words, the boss monsters won't come to help the minions, but the minions sure as hell will come to help the bosses.
|
|
Pen and paper PGs have a certain amount of game mastery requirements built in.There should be a degree of game mastery involved to make things work.Granted, and never in dispute.
That doesn't excuse poor game design, but players and GMs should have an understanding of how things work. The problem is, even professionals have trouble understanding how the high level game works and what can be accomplished. That is a symptom of bad game design.I'm not certain, then, why you [seemingly] took a disdainful and adversarial tone. By no means did I say or even imply that one should be able to concoct an engrossing scenario ten minutes after arriving home from the bookstore with Paizo's Pathfinder Core Rulebook. But there seem to be a number of vastly experienced GMs (you among them, unless I'm mistaken), who think the learning curve is unreasonably steep.
Perhaps you misinterpreted my use of "amateur" as "someone not at all steeped in the game's nuances" when I meant "experienced, but not a professional game designer." You and I both qualify as amateurs, according to the usage I employed (and assuming, of course, that you haven't done this for a paycheck sometime in your past), since I too began playing and DMing in the late 70's.
I simply meant that it seems the learning curve is too steep for many, even those who would like to enthusiastically game. That, in my opinion, is a problem.
The game design problem is the numbers don't work, and player power varies from increasing linearly to exponentially depending on the class.
The game mastery issue comes from the ability to think outside the box. No amount of game design is going to overcome linear thought.
|
|
The game mastery issue comes from the ability to think outside the box. No amount of game design is going to overcome linear thought.I can't speak to the problems of 3.0/3.5/3.75 with anything approaching expertise, so I'll defer to your opinion on the matter, as least as applies to your own experiences.
Do you think these issues existed in the editions that preceded those I mention above?
They did at high levels in all editions. Less so in 1e AD&D though, due to the mechanics (particularly with fighter saves, action economy, spell casing in combat rules, a general flattening out of power after 10th level or so - except for spells) and the general assumptions about the end game. You heard about high level games back then (like 20th +), but most "serious" AD&D gamers usually dismissed them as munchkin games (which applied to just about anyone playing Arduin, I think). What's the point of playing that level when the meanest evil dragon had 88hp?
1e was a different game, with different expectations. It did some things better (I prefer 1e combat assumptions and spell casting difficulties), but 3x did some things better (character customization).
The best thing may have been 3x flexibility with 1e sensibilities, but that wasn't going to happen with Monte (coming from an I.C.E. system background) and Skip (who pretty much hated AD&D as far as I can tell) at the helm. Oh, well, could have been good.
|
|
I do not see any real problem with *most* spells, just the ones that must, by necessity of concept, be save-or-die or save-or-you-might-as-well-be-dead.The basically have a problem with the only part of high level play that makes high level play more desirable than low level play.
Save or die effects (and unfortunately to a large extent PF diminished these) are what makes the game fun for me.
Being high level means you sort of become a flower that can be crushed (mentally I'm thinking back to my AC 38 HP 300+ Cleric type with my weakest save a +18 Reflex who was fully undamaged and due to an unfortunately act by a rabid Wild Shaped Druid fully attacking a Gargantuan Black Pudding, I died in one round from 6 split puddings recently split by said Druid.) This wasn't a save or die spell, but it certainly was a danger zone. It's not often that character died, but there wasn't anything I could do about 6 grapple damage attacks from the ooze. Had I used FoM, I'd have lived.
In short, when you win a combat at high level you win because you:
1) Made no mistakes
2) Applied your effects better than your opponentsIt's what makes the game awesome.
In contrast to low level, where you have less risk and less fun.
You seem to misunderstand my entire point here.
My point was that these should not be automatic effects, where it either does everything or nothing. There should be some level of gradient to the possible outcome of these events.
Maybe Freedom of Movement adds +20 to your CMD (and CMB for escaping) and prevents the opponent from auto-succeeding grapple checks. This gives it *mostly* the same effect in this regard without making it impossible to bypass.
Maybe Imprisonment, instead of either working or not, can have "fail" / "can't move (legs trapped)" / "fully trapped" instead of just fail/trapped.
Maybe those instant-death effects just do a lot of damage, with two saves to that each reduce damage (Pass 1 of 2 and take half, pass both and take quarter). Most people would make one of the two and come out just hurt, with those who fail both being royally screwed.
Maybe "death ward" grants a form of energy resistance versus death effects "Death Resist 100" that reduces the damage from the above spell.
Basically, big effects should be earned not granted. You should instant kill something not because the ability says "it dies," but rather because you just did that much damage. You should be able to avoid grapple not because the spell says "it just does," but because it grants a high enough bonus to make it essentially impossible to grapple you.
It is, to me, a basic flaw of design to have such absolutes be available when the only way to make such a thing so absolute is to completely rewrite the physical laws of the universe when applied to your character* (which would be epic if not Deific magic). I'm fine with seemingly insurmountable circumstance bonuses, or huge resist numbers or large damage quantities with "death effect" attached, but not with "It Just Does." At least then an epic character could bypass the defenses of a level 9- caster through brute force, even if it isn't the most efficient path.
Hopefully I've gotten my point across here...
* I'm aware that most people probably assume that this is exactly what magic does at any level, but this (again) causes extremely strange balance issues and seems unfair to the fighter who can never do such a thing. If the fighter can only "get a bigger number" or utilize fallible stratagems before epics, then why should the caster be any better?
It can be done, as long as there are no clueless amateurs involved.But isn't this in part the point? Shouldn't amateurs be able to create high-level games that challenge their players without first acquiring a doctorate in D&D?
I would say "no", actually. It takes time for GMs and players to learn characters. A game played after 15 levels of development is very different from a group drafting 15th level PCs for a lark. There is a lot to be said for the difference between the organic approach and the artificial approach.
What counts as a doctorate in D&D? Playing levels 1-15. :)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I suspect that trying to force low- or mid-level plots (such as linear dungeon crawls) into high-level games is part of the problem some folks have with high-level games.
I think you are totally right, since most of the time I see people who dislike high level and their objections come from trying to mitigate Teleport, Passwall, and other high level abilities.
Maybe Freedom of Movement adds +20 to your CMD (and CMB for escaping) and prevents the opponent from auto-succeeding grapple checks.
The whole point (in my mind) of high level is to have high level abilities. If we go about changing these from "auto win this situation" to "I might win" then it isn't high level. It is just low level with higher numbers.
I have just opened a new thread for the GMs with experience with high level games (15 and up) could tell:
a) what are the biggest challenges the GM can face with high level characters (15 and up)
b) and the way he/she deals with that problem.
I thank you all the responses in advance. Here is the link:
GM HELP: THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS FROM LVL 15 TO 20 AND HOW TO DEAL WITH IT?
Great idea!
Now I can leave this moshpit and go to the fern bar.|
|
I suspect that trying to force low- or mid-level plots (such as linear dungeon crawls) into high-level games is part of the problem some folks have with high-level games.I think you are totally right, since most of the time I see people who dislike high level and their objections come from trying to mitigate Teleport, Passwall, and other high level abilities.
Maybe Freedom of Movement adds +20 to your CMD (and CMB for escaping) and prevents the opponent from auto-succeeding grapple checks.The whole point (in my mind) of high level is to have high level abilities. If we go about changing these from "auto win this situation" to "I might win" then it isn't high level. It is just low level with higher numbers.
Making things auto-win screws the progression, though. Having a spell available to a 7th level caster that de-facto shuts down an entire strategy for any opponent (even if they're 1000th level) is a flaw, not a perk.
My proposal is to make the bonuses high enough to act as auto-win (or at least 95% win) when used against CR appropriate foes, but wane into "quite nice" against those much higher. Maybe they take an 95% grapple chance down to a 5% chance instead of to 0. That's still very very nice without shutting down the strategy outright. Fight a great wyrm red dragon at 9th level? Sorry, you're probably going to be grappled, though FoM (converted version from previous post) might at least give you a chance.You may think that auto-win is the hall-mark of high level, but I see it is as the hall-mark of bad design, with its flaws specifically limiting or removing strategies from itself as the progression continues.
If auto-win was the hall-mark of high level then by 30th level adventures would be completely impossible because you're immune to everything, and so is your opponent. I know that Pathfinder is not currently designed to go that far, but I'm trying to point out where that form of design leads. At this point its "immune to nothing" at first level flowing gently to "immune to a few things" at 20th. I'm all for hard-to-get abilities granting a single immunity, but spells granting immunities gives a single character access to far too many of them.
In short, all strategies must be capable of having counter-strategies, which in turn must be counter-able. There should not be an infallible counter (short of maybe a "one per 20 levels" case, like capstones).
TL;DR - Auto-win and overwhelmingly good are not the same thing, with the latter allowing the strategy to remain in play in higher levels and the former not. Both, however, achieve the goal of seeming immunity at the level they would enter.
The game can definitely break down at the margins if "optimal" gameplay is carried through to it's logical extent. Further I intensely dislike a game world where the NPCs are purely reactive and they only go "aggro" on PCs within a tight area.
For instance one of the most problematic forms of gameplay commonly experienced in many 3.x games is the scry-n-fry game of rocket tag where Nova casters scry from a secure location (typically a magnificent mansion or rope trick), buff the party to the gills, teleport past all the easy mobs and the mid-tier bosses and straight into combat with the BBEG. Due to the action economy they can often overwhelm encounters several CR levels higher than they are. Further because the duration of encounters is so short it's hard for the BBEG to summon adequate assistance. The PCs then teleport out, rest up and then begin skinning the onion from the inside out.
This is a style of play that seems to dominate many groups, some people like it but I personally feel that it's kinda anti-heroic and furthermore relies on a high level of metagaming, i.e. that NPCs of a level appropriate nature are available to bushwack and that higher level casters aren't jut monitoring lower level casters like the PCs looking for the opportunity to bushwack the PCs especially before the PCs can effectively use scry-n-fry strategies. If I were an evil high intelligence caster or dragon or outsider you know that I would be watching the surroundings looking for potential challengers or easy targets and I would zap them when their pants are down.
But being paranoid, hiding in a extradimensional refuge 24/7/365 isn't really the type of fantasy I grew up on (not genre appropriate) so I basically decided that one or another natural feature inhibits common scry-n-fry tactics. I like scrying (crystal balls are in genre) and teleportation is a useful tool so there needs to be something that allows it to be used for transportation and some combat applications but prevents it from being used to bypass every encounter.
I could use gorgon's blood, or living walls (both have been used in various settings to hamper transport spells) but I tend to use a mixture of ley lines (teleport talks about how powerful magic or natural energy can hamper or prevent teleport) which tend to prevent safe teleportation and become natural sites for BBEGs to build their lairs and custom magic items and rituals that provide mobile BBEGs (such as an army general) a wide area dimensional anchor and private sanctum effect. That way the PCs can get close to the BBEG and even penetrate the outer layer of defenses, scout ahead, etc but they can't immediately port to the end boss and bypass all the encounters.
Other people seem to like caster dominance and rocket tag but having end boss encounters largely dependent on init rolls isn't a particularly fun style of play for me and furthermore doesn't really emulate the style of fantasy that I seek to create.
For instance one of the most problematic forms of gameplay commonly experienced in many 3.x games is the scry-n-fry game of rocket tag where Nova casters scry from a secure location (typically a magnificent mansion or rope trick), buff the party to the gills, teleport past all the easy mobs and the mid-tier bosses and straight into combat with the BBEG. Due to the action economy they can often overwhelm encounters several CR levels higher than they are. Further because the duration of encounters is so short it's hard for the BBEG to summon adequate assistance. The PCs then teleport out, rest up and then begin skinning the onion from the inside out.
A close reading of teleport and scry makes the scry-n-fry tactic quite complicated. For starters, you need a connection of some sort to the BBEG before attempting this tactic, and a good BBEG who is sensitive to these concerns will generally not end up in this position. BBEGs can easily use disguises to conceal their identity even at such times they are forced to interact with the PCs directly. And those situations ought to be pretty rare, and the can get a lot done without ever giving the PCs the means to scry on them. Any villain who understands scry will do most of their work through a proxy and keep their own identity completely secret. Players will have to dig deep in order to gain even secondhand knowledge of their enemy enough to scry them, and then there's the bonus on the will save, and simple measures like non-detection that most BBEGs can spam.
As a GM, if they ever visually identify the BBEG or collect some means of scrying him/her, I know the gig is up. So the conflict is about who attains that tactic first, and the consequences of using it. Certainly for the first few levels, teleport is costly enough that PCs need to think twice before putting themselves in a dangerous position.
I guess a lot of people seem to think scry-n-die is some kind of super-tactic, and a lot of GMs let themselves get steamrolled by it. The cure for this is to follow behavior to its logical conclusion: if you can do it, so can they. They will try to stop you from doing it, and PCs should consider expending some resources to stop them from doing it. It's an arms race, not an auto-win.
Players will quickly find themselves wondering if it is ever safe to sleep while their enemy still lives, and that is actually a tone that I find appropriate for high-level campaigns.
Personally, I'm more a fan of the first 6 levels of the game (E6). I feel that most epic stories can really be told without the characters advancing much higher than that. See The Alexandrian: Calibrating Your Expectations for why I say this.Excellent read, thank you for posting :) I don't agree about lowbies (I hate 'em!) but it does give a solid perspective on relative power levels. Personally, I like about 6-12: parties are really coming into their own and the game is shifting. Lower and it's "What now? Cultist? Orcs? A baby dragon? *Pllfffttt*" and higher it's "Yup you killed the Bad Guy!" or "The good news about a TPK is that we all get to roll up new characters!"
*shrug* I just enjoy playing, mostly ;)
GNOME
You're welcome. And, you're right about a TPK... Sometimes it is FUN to roll up new characters!
Making things auto-win screws the progression, though. Having a spell available to a 7th level caster that de-facto shuts down an entire strategy for any opponent (even if they're 1000th level) is a flaw, not a perk.
My proposal is to make the bonuses high enough to act as auto-win (or at least 95% win) when used against CR appropriate foes, but wane into "quite nice" against those much higher. Maybe they take an 95% grapple chance down to a 5% chance instead of to 0. That's still very very nice without shutting down the strategy outright. Fight a great wyrm red dragon at 9th level? Sorry, you're probably going to be grappled, though FoM (converted version from previous post) might at least give you a chance.You may think that auto-win is the hall-mark of high level, but I see it is as the hall-mark of bad design, with its flaws specifically limiting or removing strategies from itself as the progression continues.
If auto-win was the hall-mark of high level then by 30th level adventures would be completely impossible because you're immune to everything, and so is your opponent. I know that Pathfinder is not currently designed to go that far, but I'm trying to point out where that form of design...
Well said and well thought, Sir.
|
|
I normaly play what most people would consider low level games( under level 10). Having played the game since first edition, this seems to be the comfort zone for me and my gaming group.
We have recently decided to give higher level play a try, and instead of restarting at lvl 10 we decided to just continue and give high level play a chance.
So far it has been a challenge, most of the pc's are currently lvl 11(we have 7 players in the group).
Creating encounters and challenges for this level of play can be hard , and my prep time is definitely higher now.
I went on a buying spree and purchased every monster manual/book I could get my hands on from 3 and 3.5/pathfinder and the variety of monsters has helped with keeping things fresh.
We have always been a very "tactical" group so using clever and creative tactics for creatures encountered helps to create a sense of danger when encountering foes in game.
Some of us are surprised at the deadly powers, dmg output of some of the characters in the group. But I think the players are enjoying the "power" :)
I plan to keep going until the game becomes unmanagable, if it takes hours to do one combat thats not really ideal as we only play once a week for about 3.5 hours.
that might be true, that it doesnt do it well.
To come up with a challenge at these levels requires the GM to think of completely different things. He has to imagine a plot that will challange demigods, and that really is quite hard. I wouldnt write this down to a failure of the system, but the supposed power of the PCs at this level, compared to people in our world. The GM has to think like, what sort of challange would be hard to solve, even for the old Greek gods? cause this is almost the power level of the PCs at this time.
In short he has to think outside of the box, so yes level 15 and up are hard to GM, because of a lot of things, and not every GM can come up with stuff that will be a test to someone at this level. If you dont want your PCs to be demigods, and do stuff real mortals can hardly imagine, then stay away from these levels.
I think that most people in this forum post actually agree on a lot of things, the game mechanics is not broken, its only that the system doesnt compensate the fact, that the GM needs to be increasingly inventive with the plot. Whether this makes the system broken, or just hard to GM at high levels, seem to be the issue here.
I agree.
Ryan Stoughton, creator of E6, wrote the following a while back:
Earlier this year a fellow named Ryan Dancey suggested that d20 has four distinct quartiles of play:
Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: SuperheroesThere’s been some great discussion at EN World and elsewhere about how to define those quartiles, and how each group eventually finds the quartiles that suit them best.
To me, it's amazing that one system can support so many different styles of play.
Level 15 and up fits into the last two quartiles of Wuxia and Superheroes. Players and Pathmasters need to take this into account in their expectations and planning for high level adventures. Trying to fit adventures from earlier quartiles into higher level play is likely to be frustrating without proper preparation on the part of both. Some things that are challenging at the Gritty and Heroic tier aren't nearly so much of a challenge to characters of the Wuxia and Superheroes tier.
Ryan Stoughton, creator of E6, wrote the following a while back:Earlier this year a fellow named Ryan Dancey suggested that d20 has four distinct quartiles of play:
Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: SuperheroesThere’s been some great discussion at EN World and elsewhere about how to define those quartiles, and how each group eventually finds the quartiles that suit them best.
To me, it's amazing that one system can support so many different styles of play.
Level 15 and up fits into the last two quartiles of Wuxia and Superheroes. Players and Pathmasters need to take this into account in their expectations and planning for...
I agree that there are stages, but I wouldn't demarcate them in the same way as Mr. Stoughton (though I respect his E6 thing immensely).
My main issue is that, well, you're dealing with comic-book superheroes WAY before 15th level. I would actually say that the mid levels starting around 7 are where the game becomes a "super hero game". I would use those rules to play a super-hero team game in a modern setting in a heartbeat. In fact, the rules are much better suited to that pacing and style than they are to medieval fantasy, IMO.
I would rename the levels thusly:
1-5 Adventurer
6-10 Hero
11-15 Superhero
16-20 Mythic
I'll also note that the Mythic quartile is best reserved for villains, so that they can be thwarted by a gang of several lower level PCs. Not a hard and fast rule, but certainly that how the APs seem to be.
Note: Due to time constraints I haven't read the whole thread, so my apologies for those whose messages I have missed.
I've run a number of high level games (which generally started as low-level games). One of my favorite games began at 1st level and ended at 25th level due to time constraints (the players were wanting more but I had a lot on my plate at the time outside of gaming).
The posters who note that the game changes are correct. It takes a certain level of understanding of just how powerful high level characters are, what kinds of resources they have access to, and what sorts of things are challenging. One of my favorite things about higher levels is the sheer amount of options players have to deal with things with. A party can inflict negative levels (enervation or a life-drinker weapon, for example), attack ability scores (I deal 37 damage and 2 points of Constitution damage), or destroy enemies outright (as the sands of time pass over thee, let your form remain still, cast in form of flesh made stone), and so forth.
One of my major beefs with the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook is they took a really cheap way out by trying to make relatively weak enemies immune to everything and the kitchen sink, which actually dumbed down the best parts of epic level play, requiring you to just go back to dealing excessive amounts of raw hit point damage. Gross...
But back to the topic...
Level 15 and higher can be amazingly fun, but like everyone mentioned the challenges have to change. It truly takes a more knowledgeable GM to handle that level of play because enemies tend to have a lot of options. Go look at the Balor and Pit Fiend creatures. Look at their spell like abilities, the treasures they have access to, the resources they draw upon, the treachery and trickery they are capable of. A CR 20 Balor can insta-stun anything with 150 hp or less for 1d4 rounds, no save. They're not even wearing armor! The balor as presented is NAKED, lacking magic items, buffs, or armor - all of which the balor can afford with his treasure allotment.
Meanwhile, there are a handful of high CR creatures in the Bestiary, but this is because the Bestiary (and the 3.x rules) give rules for advancing creatures nearly infinitely. A mid-level creature (or even a low-level creature) with a lot of racial hit dice or NPC class levels can often challenge higher level opponents more effectively, because CR scales much slower than HD or NPC class levels. Pathfinder complicated advancing monsters a bit (but also give more details I guess). Generally every 2-4 HD should result in a +1 CR, depending on the creature. Every 2 HD you will generally find: better saves, BAB, HP, save DCs, and caster levels for spell-like abilities. Better BAB also translates to more damage via Power Attack and the like.
When building creatures at high levels, don't be afraid to make them heavily resistant to forms of attack. Notice I didn't say immune. If you want a brutish enemy who's supposed to survive the onslaught of a high level party for multiple rounds, then build them to survive, not for raw destruction. A creature with a solid Con modifier, tons of hit dice, armor class, regeneration, damage reductions, fast healing, spell resistance, high saving throws, and so forth can be appealing for a boss fight. However, making it immune to everything is just dull. Making it hard to put down even with your options is fine.
Back on the player's side of the screen, people need to realize that the higher the level the more fantastic a campaign. You need to throw your "low-magic lord of the rings" fantasy out the door if you want to deal with high levels. High level play involves characters who could intentionally dive into the a volcano to retrieve an artifact, swim through the magma and then scale the cliff while on fire from the burning lava. We're talking godlike beings. Magic permeates their very way of life at this point. Even the fighter who has no actual magical abilities of his own should have access to an arsenal of magical options in the form of magical equipment. Sorry, but a +1 sword and a suit of masterwork chainmail isn't going to cut it here.
Players need items like armor that allows them to enter a freedom of movement state a few times per day, energy resistances, provide continual minor buffs like protection from evil (to ward vs mind-control), wear equipment that allows them to fly or even teleport short or long distances a couple times per day, have death ward armor and wield a +5 life-drinker so every attack inflicts 2 negative levels on enemies in addition to damage. Something to give you see invisibility or true sight 1/day as a command word item.
Armed with an arsenal like this, which is entirely within the WBL for a 20th level character, means even the fighter will be able to resist the ravages of a high level spellcaster far more effectively (no getting invalidated by solid fog, black tentacles, grappling summons, illusions, mind-rape, and so forth), while dishing out extreme amounts of physical punishment and status ailments.
Back on the GM's side of the screen, you need to learn to not fear your player's power. Yes, your characters are godlike beings. Yes they can probably destroy a 40 HD advanced kraken in a fair fight. Yes they can read minds, teleport across the world, and traverse the planes. That's OK. You just need to take that into account. It's a harder job because there's more to deal with, but knowing that players can use divination spells to find out who killed a guy means you can now make the adventure a chase, where Epic Villain is trying to carry out his evil scheme and the party chasing him with their teleports.
The biggest thing to remember is that by 10th level a typical PC is equivalent to a natural disaster. A 10th level human fighter could probably route an army if he put his mind to it (and that's including all the army tricks like hurling huge amounts of acid, fire, and boulders at him). By 17th level, a wizard can replicate every act of god in the Christian Bible including parting an ocean!
That's why most high level to epic games involve characters hobnobbing with deities and powerful outsiders, because short of saving the world or people and places important to them from some dire doomsday event, such things are now beneath them. That's why many high level games involve planar travel, deities, and that sort of thing. You're not in Kansas anymore.
Ultimately, this can be harrowing for both GMs inexperienced with high level play, and also PCs inexperienced with high level play. I once ran a game that began at 20th level for a group pf players by request. The group all said they were definitely skilled enough for a high level game, but here they were, a party of some 6-8 20th level PCs and their minions getting railed by enemies who weren't even supposed to be challenges (we're talking things like succubi, stuff 10 levels below their CR) because they didn't really know or understand how to use their own abilities and resources. A rogue dominate person or charm monster would take one of the fighters out of combat, when a 1st level spell would have prevented it (a spell that only costs some 4,000 gp to have continuously on your armor).
None of them were ready for high level play. They weren't even comfortable with their own abilities yet, let alone have to adapt to the kinds of terrors that are fair in a high level game. If you didn't think to pack some deathward that room with 30 CR 3 shadows with strength draining touch attacks probably seems like the meanest damn thing your GM could throw at you, despite the fact it's actually a trivial encounter with only modest amounts of preparation.
I once saw a player who said that his GM was unfair because an enemy at 20th level could fly out in the open, and the ranger hadn't invested in flying magic items, and thus the fight was unwinnable for him (running away apparently wasn't an option for this guy). That's a player who isn't ready for 8th level play, let alone 20th.
Ultimately, high level play can be a fun and rewarding experience, but it can be tough on both the players and the GMs, and it takes the game in completely new directions. More often than not, it's not really that it's unbalanced, it's more that it's not balanced for low-level playing styles. It's a completely different animal. It can also be much more challenging for the GM, since unless he's comfortable with multiplying HD with a calculator (best way, IMO) then building opponents can be difficult and time consuming, and taking into account abilities can be tricky as well.
But if you're wanting level advancement plus low-level gameplay, then you should go with an E2, E4, E6, or E8 game. Higher level games require a different mindset, different stories, different challenges than low level games. That's pretty much just the way it is.
*applause to Ashiel*
A thing i would to add: adding Character Class to monsters.
In PF, it can be far more interesting. Adding 10 levels of barbarian to a Troll does not make it simply an enraged troll with uncanny dodge.
Things like Beast Totems, or Smahser, or Superstitions can dramatically change how the monster works, increasing a bit the complexity BUT expanding in a very rewarding manner the ways you can customize the enemies, making them in the same time working with the same rules of the PCs.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Making things auto-win screws the progression, though. You may think that auto-win is the hall-mark of high level, but I see it is as the hall-mark of bad design, with its flaws specifically limiting or removing strategies from itself as the progression continues.
I couldn't disagree more with your first half and I don't believe it is bad design.
While I don't think all problems should have auto-win fixes, most of the troubling ones (Freedom of Movement) should exist. We differ in opinion, nothing to be done about it.
Instead of ramping up the power level even more past 20th level (like ELH did), level the power curve out. Essentially, make an E20 system.
I could agree with this. I never liked Epic rules because everything was so much like a different game. There is no reason item cost rules needed to change, among other seemingly random changes.
While I don't think all problems should have auto-win fixes, most of the troubling ones (Freedom of Movement) should exist.
Given this, I would say:
Do you view a grappling character as a "trap" build that players with moderate system mastery will avoid?
If so, do you think this is good game design?
If not, can you justify how it's not?
To be clear, I think the extreme feast or famine swing of core 3.X rogue in combat based on whether or not the enemy was sneakable was terrible game design, and note that PF moved away from it.
Auto-win buttons aren't particularly great designs for a variety of reasons. One people have unequal access to them making martial characters even more dependent on casters/gear. Further the classes have unequal access to ways of dealing with the I win button.
For instance let's go with a dedicated grappler monk or fighter. Once freedom of movement is available my entire build is basically trash against anyone with a freedom of movement effect up. Unless you allow people to retrain martial characters to keep their abilities relevant to the current level of play the grappler character is now often irrelevant. Considering they are already feeling a burden because a larger and larger percentage of the opposition are significant larger in size this seems like a bad solution.
Pathfinder has already acknowledged that I win cards can be problematic because they can help out the party but they can also make the individuals feel powerless. Protection from Evil is less of a blanket buff, mind blank no longer provides blanket immunity to mind affecting spells (thus screwing over several schools of magic), find traps no longer invalidates rogues, etc.
Stuff like Freedom of Movement should provide a substantial benefit to grapple checks because being grappled can be the kiss of death but it shouldn't completely invalidate builds or complete nuke classes niches. The I win buttons I feel exacerbates the issues with the martial characters becoming very deadly can openers but essentially just a can opener while the casters can be a can opener, scissors, screwdriver, knife, magnifying glass, etc. If the caster has "I can emulate but not surpass the other specialists" then I think the design of spells and abilities is closer to balanced.
|
|
Whew, I thought I was alone on the anti-auto-win thing for a second there.
But hey, thanks for keeping it civil, everyone.
The problem I have with removing auto-win options is that it usually increases die rolling, slowing play even more.
True enough. Personally, I'd rather roll a few more dice a session and be able to avoid issues like the "trap builds" mentioned above or the inequality of their source (i.e. spell-casters) and everyone else.