| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothetical: Paizo releases a high-level play guide that (among other things) aims to make levels 13th-20th more appealing to players and GMs.
Please tell me, just how much change would you be comfortable with?
Level 0 - No change at all. This should be advice and GMG-level resources to make high level games easier.
Level 1 - Minor changes. Includes optional rules that might produce a different mechanical result, but speed up gameplay or fine-tune class balance.
Level 2 - Major changes. Actually reworking large aspects of the game to make higher level play more intuitive and faster. This might include, for example, constraints on highest-level spells and well-known trouble-spells like Planar Binding, Greater Teleport, etc.
Level 3 — Total Overhaul. You've totally given up on play in double digits, and you wouldn't mind seeing something radically different.
Please express your opinion at length, including what you think ought to be done about high-level play (if anything), but for God's sake don't berate other people for their opinion or so help me I shall rage at thee.
0 or 1.
Incidentally, I would be okay with levels 1 or 0 — maybe 2 if it were really inspired and well-done.
I have seen rules hacks (Level 1 above) that really make a difference at high levels without changing much about the game... Bad Axe's Trailblazer rules' take on iterative attacks (closed content, sadly) would be exactly the kind of option that I would like to see in a high-level guide.
These kind of rules, that improve the game without changing the feel or the result, are of special importance to me. There's definitely some room to remove the cruft from the upper half of the Pathfinder experience, IMO.
For example, if they came out and said "Here's an alternate take on tracking effect durations that we think is more fun" I'd definitely check it out.
I fully expect that many people feel differently, BTW. So let's hear those opinions (and keep the harping on the opinions of others to a minimum).
Definately 0 or 1. I dont like the idea of a total rework because if it isn't going to scale like the rest of the game then there isn't a need for it in the first place. There is no need to remake e6/e8, its a fine system all on it's own. And I certainly down want high level play have a different design then the rest of the game. Personally I like the crazy stuff that can be done at high levels, and if you want to restrict that, there isn't really a purpose to high level play in the first place, just use something like E8.
As an "official" book I'd be surprised at anything more than #1, but in my own game I would go for #2 via houserules.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Level 0 - No change at all.
0 change
I'm a firm believer that all of the people that hate high level player, don't play high level.
I play/run almost exclusively high level (except PFS since PFS is low level since the highest level is 12) and I don't have the majority of the problems people usually attribute to high level play.
Combats are usually fast (often less than 2 rounds) and each players turn is as fast if not actually faster than low level play. There often is less stress over making the "perfect" play you see in low level play.
Level 0 - No change at all.0 change
I'm a firm believer that all of the people that hate high level player, don't play high level.
I play/run almost exclusively high level (except PFS since PFS is low level since the highest level is 12) and I don't have the majority of the problems people usually attribute to high level play.
Combats are usually fast (often less than 2 rounds) and each players turn is as fast if not actually faster than low level play. There often is less stress over making the "perfect" play you see in low level play.
I agree with your comment on the "perfect" play at lower levels, but also it comes down to who you play with. I've played 2 higher level games with the same people, and I would not do so again. They were slow, didn't know the rules associated with the spells they were casting, and didn't make decisions before it was their turn. It was terrible.
I would only go for 0 or 1. I'd love to see an "Epic Level Gamemastery Guide." that gives advice and tips and tricks to deal with 15+ level play. Getting you to the epics and then giving you ideas on what to do after that. Giving you alternate die rolling rules or alternate ways to deal with attacks, like what was mentioned up this thread with Trailblazer. Only alternate possibilities that would speed up play
I really need to start blogging my experiences running a high level game. I'm a GM for a game that has gone from 1st level to now 17th level. The only problems I've had are those of my own making. Maybe its that my players are on top of things, or that they grew to their power level gradually.
Do they come up with creative uses of magic to solve problems? Yes. Does it surprise me and sometimes short circuit part of my planned adventure? Yes. Is that a problem? No. The key to a good high level game is to be flexible. I find I bog things down more not knowing what every NPC can do than my players. On the other hand, pick one of the highest level available spells to cast is always a good option.
So when it comes to post 20th level play, I'm all for possibly drastic changes. If those changes are good and make things interesting. But I don't know if there is that much need to drastically alter levels 15-20.
What I mostly need to support my high level game is more pre-statted high level NPCs. More CR 16-25 monsters. More high level traps and hazards. And more high level adventures to steal the above from.
I really need to start blogging my experiences running a high level game. I'm a GM for a game that has gone from 1st level to now 17th level. The only problems I've had are those of my own making. Maybe its that my players are on top of things, or that they grew to their power level gradually.
Do they come up with creative uses of magic to solve problems? Yes. Does it surprise me and sometimes short circuit part of my planned adventure? Yes. Is that a problem? No. The key to a good high level game is to be flexible. I find I bog things down more not knowing what every NPC can do than my players. On the other hand, pick one of the highest level available spells to cast is always a good option.
So when it comes to post 20th level play, I'm all for possibly drastic changes. If those changes are good and make things interesting. But I don't know if there is that much need to drastically alter levels 15-20.
What I mostly need to support my high level game is more pre-statted high level NPCs. More CR 16-25 monsters. More high level traps and hazards. And more high level adventures to steal the above from.
I would be hard pressed to better state how I feel about high-level play then this. I also agree with Mr. Risner in that I have to wonder if many of the people who have issue with high level play have in fact played at high levels. I have known people that complain about how unbalanced and out-of-control high level play is, yet have never truly played in a high level campaign, rather they simply read or hear about the possible issues and dismiss it out of hand.
Personally I think the rules are fine more or less how they are and would be wary about any major changes to how the game works at higher levels.
However I wouldn't be opposed to some more opinions for higher leveled characters. At first level there is a great deal of opinions for character development and play style, but it seems that as you get higher and higher level the opinions get fewer and fewer. Prehaps it just me but it seems like the closer one gets to level twenty the more the game forces characters into the 'one true way' to maintain a stable mechinical party dynamic.
Let it be known that I am a fan of prestige classes and would like some more of those. Maybe something like was done in D20 Modern were there are special classes just for really high level (15+) characters.
So, overall I guess I'm for option 1. I wouldn't object to some minor tweeking of the rules but I wouldn't want anything drastic. Also I don't think the classes need to be anymore 'balanced' then they already are, so I would be against that.
Hypothetical: Paizo releases a high-level play guide that (among other things) aims to make levels 13th-20th more appealing to players and GMs.
Please tell me, just how much change would you be comfortable with?
Level 0 - No change at all. This should be advice and GMG-level resources to make high level games easier.
Level 1 - Minor changes. Includes optional rules that might produce a different mechanical result, but speed up gameplay or fine-tune class balance.
Level 2 - Major changes. Actually reworking large aspects of the game to make higher level play more intuitive and faster. This might include, for example, constraints on highest-level spells and well-known trouble-spells like Planar Binding, Greater Teleport, etc.
Level 3 — Total Overhaul. You've totally given up on play in double digits, and you wouldn't mind seeing something radically different.
Please express your opinion at length, including what you think ought to be done about high-level play (if anything), but for God's sake don't berate other people for their opinion or so help me I shall rage at thee.
I choose 0, and you know someone is going to correct someone else. It is the nature of the boards. :)
0 or 1 here. I could handle 2 at need, but 3 is right out. Advice is always good, and fixing things I can deal with, but massive revision? No thank you.
Hypothetical: Paizo releases a high-level play guide that (among other things) aims to make levels 13th-20th more appealing to players and GMs.
Please tell me, just how much change would you be comfortable with?
Please express your opinion at length, including what you think ought to be done about high-level play (if anything), but for God's sake don't berate other people for their opinion or so help me I shall rage at thee.
For me the answer is clearly 0.
No need to discuss it at length - while a book full of useful information about how to use the rules we have in level ranges 13-20 strikes me as a good thing, a set of variant rules for the same level ranges strikes me as a bad thing.
I really need to start blogging my experiences running a high level game. I'm a GM for a game that has gone from 1st level to now 17th level. The only problems I've had are those of my own making. Maybe its that my players are on top of things, or that they grew to their power level gradually.
And your ability to adjucate such stuff grew along with it. Heck, everyone knows I run a campaign with (apparently) ridiculous levels, but we didn't start that way. We started at level 4, five years ago. I'd have never been able to run the game I do now without that experience under my belt.
So when it comes to post 20th level play, I'm all for possibly drastic changes. If those changes are good and make things interesting. But I don't know if there is that much need to drastically alter levels 15-20.
What I mostly need to support my high level game is more pre-statted high level NPCs. More CR 16-25 monsters. More high level traps and hazards. And more high level adventures to steal the above from.
Don't be so sure about drastic changes being necessary. Our group has run without drastic changes for years and had fun with it. It all comes down to what your group wants to accomplish. For us, we're happy with more of the same, just at a much higher power level.
A 0 or a 1
Even with the "Epic" or "Mythic" or what ever James and Eric decide to name 21st-36th. I don't want an entire game rewrite, just what needs to be done to fix the highest level stuff. ( I have never played past 22 level so I dont know the high high problems
2 or 3
We tend to play E6 or E8.
Zero.
I'm perfectly happy with the game as it is. Streamlining is dangerously similar to "dumbing down". Not always, but it's a gateway drug. There's a reason why I run this edition of the world's most popular role-playing game.
0.25 at most.
0 or MAYBE a 1. (I do not mind innovation and new options... but do not throw out the baby with the bath water.) ;)
I personally have zero problem with high level play as it stands now. Our group all has a mini PC with Hero lab running so changing math mid-game due to status changes, buffs, dispels, etc is as simple as clicking a check box or two. High level play works fine in my opinion if the players and DM understand that the things that were a challenge at level 2 are not the same things that are a challenge at level 18.
I would say 0, with options a la Unearthed Arcana that go into the complexity of 1 and even 2. That gives support for the existing rules, but also options for those looking to explore other ways of resolving the system without changing the final feel or outcome.
With how the option are defined, either 0 or 2.
This. Give me either good advices or a good set of optional rules. Something in the middle would be yet another incomplete part of a book I would never use.
big fat 0. the high level stuff gets boged down a bit here and there, but high level has alot going on and if youve plyed your character from low level, then you should be good. as a GM i prefer high level stuff cause theres no punches pulled and the fights become so rediculous.
You'd need a "2" to get me to want to play high level. Can't write classic plots otherwise, and combat is way too swingy and clunky. I would not purchase a book that was merely a "1" - and there's a ton of online guides that tell us how to pull off a "0" already, no need for Paizo to do one.
I agree that "3" sounds like you're just purchasing a different product.
|
1 would be interesting. 0 would be boring. The trick to DMing high level games is to realize that you are playing a super hero game of cosmic scope set in a series of cascading alternate realities. If you can dig that, the pathfinder rules (perhaps with the occasional house rule or two) work splendidly.
1.
For my own campaign, I house rule a few things that impact higher level play, I think to make things more manageable.One is I cap the addition of new HD and instead apply something like the old AD&D HP progression (full HD through level 9, I use level 10, and then a flat +1, 2, 3, or 4 depending on the HD of the class for further levels, plus Con Mod of course). This keeps my PCs from having the massive buckets of HPs that make battles into long sessions of attrition at higher levels.
Second, I insist that PCs figure out all the dice they will need for their full round of combat before I call on them and that they have it all rolled out at once. High-level games call for organized thinking by the PCs and I have noticed that this is often a challenge for neophyte gamers.
Another is that I increase the XP for RP and decrease for straight monster kills. That reduces the emphasis on combat and increases the emphasis on creative approaches to plot problems and big-world issues, much more suitable for high level play, IMHO. Making that shift is a pretty minor one for rules but it has a HUGE impact on the playability of higher levels.
Finally, I think that DMs in general need to put more down-time into their high level campaigns. Rustling up a band of orcs to slaughter shouldn't take any group of adventurers long but finding the lair of the long-sleeping great wyrm black dragon in the Swamp of Utter Despair should have the PCs minions out investigating for months and leave our high level PCs time to build castles, engage in politics, scribe scrolls, and do other such things rather than spend all their time on horseback looking for random acts of violence to commit.
I suppose I don't really think the rules need a lot of tweaking but a book that shows how they can be tweaked to make high-level adventuring more satisfying would be very good.
One is I cap the addition of new HD and instead apply something like the old AD&D HP progression (full HD through level 9, I use level 10, and then a flat +1, 2, 3, or 4 depending on the HD of the class for further levels, plus Con Mod of course). This keeps my PCs from having the massive buckets of HPs that make battles into long sessions of attrition at higher levels.
Do you alter high level spells as well? Because at that rate, any of the Power Word spells are easier to pull off against any class. That turns a bunch of high level spells back into Save or Die.
I'm pleased to check in after a few hours and see that people have kept it constructive. Except Wraithstrike. :) I see what you did there.
I would really love to add to the level definitions at this point to make things more clear, but... I know nobody will read this far without posting first, so forget it. It is what it is.
I would add that at level 2, I had intended level 2 changes to include changing the saving throw and hit point calculations. Those are both changes that I feel are called for, but I would probably stop short of actually making those changes literal.
Still, it's stuff that comes up in real discussions about high level play, so I wanted to clarify (even though I'm not pushing for that, I believe some people do).
Thanks for keeping it cool, guys.
2 or 3
We tend to play E6 or E8.
Not being a jerk how much high level pathfinder or even 3.5 have u played?
You know, actually, I would like to answer 'none of the above'.
What would be cool are ideas for high level environments, challenges, traps, adventures, adversaries, and encounters.
Like the fortress of an evil cloud giant clan that is constructed within a cloud of astral haze (brought into this universe through a foul ritual that involved the ground bones of children). Astral haze has the property that its very difficult (or perhaps impossible) to correctly teleport or scry within its confines.
Moon glum, in the the interest of normalized data, I'll put you down for a Level 0, since it sounds like that's your thing.
Also, I highly recommend you look at Monte Cook's Pathfinder Module Curse of the Riven Sky, seems like it would be right up your alley.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My feeling is the game isn't changing much. There are a fair number of people who enjoy high level play as it is, the rest of us don't like it.
The amount of change it would take to make high level appealing to people like me is quite large and would likely make it far less appealing for the people who enjoy it now. Fortunately there is more than enough stuff going on below 14th level to keep most people happy, so high level doesn't need to change to suit me and like minded folks.
My feeling is the game isn't changing much. There are a fair number of people who enjoy high level play as it is, the rest of us don't like it.
The amount of change it would take to make high level appealing to people like me is quite large and would likely make it far less appealing for the people who enjoy it now. Fortunately there is more than enough stuff going on below 14th level to keep most people happy, so high level doesn't need to change to suit me and like minded folks.
+1
It'd take a 2 for me to really want to delve back into high levels. Ive ran two epic campaigns and played in a third. While fun I prefer the simplicity and grittiness of low level play. My new game is switching to E6 to give it a try so I'm not too concerned with high levels. I'm happy with people being able to enjoy their styles as they are. Granted once you're past level twenty I'd be interested in Pathfinders take on it.
Put me down for a 0 -- (maybe 0 and a half, if the optional rules are worth it) in terms of levels 13-19 -- and all about new rules for "Mythical" play (20-36).
The key to a good high level game is to be flexible.
I think this is one of the keys. It's incredibly important to be flexible at high levels. If you're already there, then that's great.
For those of you who do NOT feel like you are flexible, what would you need to help you become so?
I wish I knew better ways to teach this.
Another thing that's important, and seldom discussed is how to work WITH other people. At high levels, it's really important, because characters have the ability to so change the environment.
Ex)
DM: Ahead of you lies the Great Sarcophagus of the Tomb King, made from the bones of a dead god. As you approach, your path winds through the shadows around its base.
Player 1: I cast extended daylight
Player 2: What are you doing? The DM is trying to conjure a mood.
Player 1: I counterspell
Player 2: *sigh*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Even though it seems basic, ideas on how to be an organized player, and how to NOT destroy the DMs prepwork would be welcome.
Another thing that's important, and seldom discussed is how to work WITH other people. At high levels, it's really important, because characters have the ability to so change the environment.
Ex)
DM: Ahead of you lies the Great Sarcophagus of the Tomb King, made from the bones of a dead god. As you approach, your path winds through the shadows around its base.
Player 1: I cast extended daylight
DM: The runes and frescos about the base of the Great Saracophagus are made clear, and you see something disturbing about them - they seem to be images of you - of your group descending into a hidden opening, but with no signs that you ever emerge ...
DM: The runes and frescos about the base of the Great Saracophagus are made clear, and you see something disturbing about them - they seem to be images of you - of your group descending into a hidden opening, but with no signs that you ever emerge ...Another thing that's important, and seldom discussed is how to work WITH other people. At high levels, it's really important, because characters have the ability to so change the environment.
Ex)
DM: Ahead of you lies the Great Sarcophagus of the Tomb King, made from the bones of a dead god. As you approach, your path winds through the shadows around its base.
Player 1: I cast extended daylight
You can clearly see a runic inscription.
Hypothetical: Paizo releases a high-level play guide that (among other things) aims to make levels 13th-20th more appealing to players and GMs.
Please tell me, just how much change would you be comfortable with?
Level 0 - No change at all. This should be advice and GMG-level resources to make high level games easier.
Level 1 - Minor changes. Includes optional rules that might produce a different mechanical result, but speed up gameplay or fine-tune class balance.
Level 2 - Major changes. Actually reworking large aspects of the game to make higher level play more intuitive and faster. This might include, for example, constraints on highest-level spells and well-known trouble-spells like Planar Binding, Greater Teleport, etc.
Level 3 — Total Overhaul. You've totally given up on play in double digits, and you wouldn't mind seeing something radically different.
Please express your opinion at length, including what you think ought to be done about high-level play (if anything), but for God's sake don't berate other people for their opinion or so help me I shall rage at thee.
1 or 2. Some mechanics simply do not pan out well at high levels (Poison is the one that immediately comes to mind, but also Crafting with special materials and mechanical traps of the non-Ranger variety). We all know about some of the more powerful spells of the high levels and their "wonderful" effects in game, as well.
I'm of the mindset that enough of the game needs work at the higher end of the existing spectrum that a book covering 13-20 is more useful than 20+ at this time. I think the existing APs tend to show that quite well.
I think the game tends to stay pretty solid up to about 10, then starts getting a bit wobbly by the mid teens, and then the endgame gets a little...odd. When people are making their own demi-planes we have sort of moved on to something else.
It would take a lot to drag me into a high end game again to be honest, they lost lustre for me a long time ago - either they have ended up as 'still a dungeon crawl - but with bigger monsters', or the GM was off on some trip best described as Michael Moorcock on (even more) acid as we wander the universe seeking meaning.
Plot, and how to manage the mundane with so much of the fantastic becomes the challenge.
Last true endgame I enjoyed was allllll the way back in 1st ed as we went from level 1 to invading the Demonweb Pits :)
I would say 0...though I could live with 1...who knows some of the optional stuff could be niffty.
But the number 1 advice for running high level games I think is to stop running it as a low level game. I mean if your plot can be blown up by a teleport spell or divination magic...than rethink the plot.
Though the rest of the book should be filled high level options for both players and GMs.
I would like a 1 or 2. I don't like high level play very much because the players just kind of curb stomp the monsters unless I start dropping save-or-dies and save-or-sucks, and the second one hits, the PCs tuck in their tails and run or the game grounds to a halt now that the fighter is a panda bear cub.
I've had really menacing monsters dropped in one round more often than not and it just kind of sucks the fun out of the game, for everyone. You can just kind of see the look on people's faces when they roll low init-- "Alright, I'm gonna get up there and do this and this..." and then as the round progresses it just kind of becomes "C'mon, stay alive so I can do something in this fight!"
Bad guy comes out, drops a PC, the PCs drop him in six seconds. It's less like a dramatic and final conclusion and more like a real life gun fight. And the only real way to make him stick around? Well, he's got to be a full casting class with all of these defenses...
I could never run my own high level game, so I'm going to continue to rely on Paizo's APs as a crutch to help me limp around level 14+.
The amount of change it would take to make high level appealing to people like me is quite large and would likely make it far less appealing for the people who enjoy it now. Fortunately there is more than enough stuff going on below 14th level to keep most people happy, so high level doesn't need to change to suit me and like minded folks.
+1
Something between 0 and 2, I guess ( which not necessarily means I want 1 ).
On one hand, I love how player characters have come into their own at the higher levels and finally get to use all the cool stuff available to them.
OTOH, PC's popping one Horned Devil per round annoys me. It'd be really nice if high CR monsters would stay alive for more than six to twelve seconds, so that the encounter feels a bit more epic, like what we'd see in a movie or read in a book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
0.
If they put out a book for advanced levels it needs to be epic. They already have more than enough rules for 1-20 and they work fine.
If people want a book on advice on how to run the campaigns into the mid-to-later levels I'd be ok with that, but Not if it was just a big ole book of rules changes from the core rule book and APG to 'fix' things that don't need it. IMO, too many people want the characters stuck at E6 but want to play to level 20, pretending the PC's are still level 6.
It doesn't need a fix.
We just need epic rules :)
-S
Hypothetical: Paizo releases a high-level play guide that (among other things) aims to make levels 13th-20th more appealing to players and GMs.
Please tell me, just how much change would you be comfortable with?
Level 0 - No change at all. This should be advice and GMG-level resources to make high level games easier.
Level 1 - Minor changes. Includes optional rules that might produce a different mechanical result, but speed up gameplay or fine-tune class balance.
I am speaking as a GM who just finished running a 2 year or so campaign, using Pathfinder rules from levels 16-19 (it started a little lower level than that, but in 3.5).
My answer is 1 (but still with a focus on guidelines over rules).
HEAVY emphasis on new guidelines for GMs. A lot of the guidelines for wealth and encounter design in the main rulebook fall apart for high levels. It's very hard to figure out where and what kind of treasure creatures should have and/or should be found in treasure caches--the general wealth guidelines are nowhere near enough. CR guidelines can fall apart completely (often with hordes of low CR monsters being extremely difficult--more than the effective CR reflected--but hard to run, and high CR monsters just not being challenging enough for PCs that can warp reality by blinking). There is a LOT you have to make up as you go along, and a lot of adaptation to individual party strengths and weaknesses, moreso than in lower levels (though such adaptation is likely present in any level).
There are some rules or rules options I wouldn't mind seeing. I find that DR and SR in particular just become annoying speedbumps which slow down combat rather than challenging monster traits. Eventually, at that high a level, DR and SR both get bypassed pretty easily and aren't really a factor in what makes a creature challenging; when they aren't bypassed it still slows down the game to do the math or make the check before the fight can continue. What high level creatures really do need, in my opinion, is sometimes better saves (or save gimmicks, like evasion) and more hit points or healing. In other words, yes, there is a need to make a creature tough to hurt and/or tough to ensorcel, but DR and SR don't cut it. It needs to be simple, like the monster gets to heal back a decent amount of damage (small doses of fast healing aren't enough), so the math only needs to be done once.
Along with the previous, some variant monster rules would be great--maybe archetypes for creatures, of a sort. Swap x spell-like ability for y spell-like ability. In general--de-buffs can be way more effective than things that deal direct damage, and high CR creatures often have useless damage dealing abilities and/or too-circumstantial debuffs (e.g., blasphemy, which often high level PCs are immune to).
I don't think classes need much work. Although guidelines to give bonus abilities in place of gear reliance would be PHENOMENAL.
Most new rules should definitely be OPTIONAL--mostly in the form of trading different things for another. Other mechanical material should be things like tables which help guide the GM better in adventure design.
O and/or 1.
I play Pathfinder because it continues and improves the system I have played and loved for almost 31 years now. If I wanted to do drastic change I would have gone with 4.0 or another totally different FRPG.
I do however always love to see new idea's and options, which is why 1 is fine. If the idea's are good then the game gets better but no where is it ironclad that you HAVE To use any suggested changes. Hence why I love table top RPG's.
New idea's can often spur your own creativity to come up with stuff that fits perfect for YOUR group as well, even if you don't actually use the new idea/rules that isnpired you to begin with.
Another thing that's important, and seldom discussed is how to work WITH other people.DM: The runes and frescos about the base of the Great Saracophagus are made clear, and you see something disturbing about them - they seem to be images of you - of your group descending into a hidden opening, but with no signs that you ever emerge ...
Yes, you're absolutely right, a good GM can adapt. But even better would be if everyone could cooperate because they shared an idea about what the campaign was about.
So, In that sense, I'm for a limited version of 2. Some voluntary guidelines to say "Look, this is a horror scenario about an ancient Osirian tomb, so certain things are inappropriate. No robots or lasers please. No jokes that disrupt the mood I'm working so hard to create."
Other than that, I'm for 1. I feel that we have working rules, and they are pretty good. Tricks that help players and GMs adapt are useful.