RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I vote for 0. High level play can get fairly gonzo, and a lot of GMs could use advice, but I vehemently object to any changes that would make it just like lower level play. The craziness is part of the fun. When I design home adventures for level 16+ characters, I make them impossible. It's up to the players to figure out how to solve the problem with their vast resources. The players have enough magic that they can handle a tomb with no entrances that is impenetrable to scrying and exists on multiple planes at once and so forth. The players will think of something I did not. At high levels the gloves are off.
Level 0 - 25 votes
Level 1 - 18.25 votes
Level 2 - 9.5 votes
Level 3 - 1 vote
To create this tally, if a poster specified "x or y" I added 1 to both levels. If a poster said "maybe x" I added .5 to that level. Kaeyoss just had to be a pain in the ass, so that's his .25 in there.
A considerable number of people said 0 or 1 — if you treat all of their votes as 1 votes instead of multiple selections, it appears that level 0 and level 1 are running pretty even, with a slight favor toward level 1.
EDIT: If you break it down as people who want Level 0 vs people who want or will accept Level 1, it's:
Just Level 0 - 12
Level 1 or 0 - 16
And I had to throw a bunch of results out, of course, "maybes" and whatnot. So far, Level 1 is winning if you pin people down to a single choice, Level zero if you allow multiple selections, and both are waaaay ahead of levels 2 and 3.
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."
Those issues have nothing to do with high level though. And it doesn't fit your original example. Robots, lasers and joking are all out of character things. A characters ability to create light is a totally legitimate ability. Light is a first level cantrip, I expect the characters to cast it. To do horror at high level you have to have mind bending horrific things.
Last time my players cast daylight to expunge the deeper darkness in an area I told them yes, you can now see in a sphere around you. And just past that sphere is a wall of darkness. You can hear movement in the darkness. Rogue, make a fort save. The necromancer in the darkness just cast destruction on you.
|
For 13-20 I would probably lean towards a 1 or 2, cleaning things up and making it more intuitive but not going so far as such a re-write that really breaks backwards compatibility.
Now if they get to the epic rules(which I assume will come one day even if not priority), I really hope it is massively different from 3x. We tried a campaign from 1-30 and only made it to about 24 before it ground to a halt because we found the epic rules painful and how much it bogged down just about everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those issues have nothing to do with high level though. And it doesn't fit your original example. Robots, lasers and joking are all out of character things. A characters ability to create light is a totally legitimate ability.
But that's not the point. Sure, characters can cast light spells, and I'm actually fine with that. What I don't like is:
a) I will interrupt DM's attempt to set the mood
b) I'm trying to 'win the game' as though the DM is working against the players
c) I'm so involved with how great my character is that I can't be bothered to create light in a way that ADDS to the creepy tomb effect, instead of SUBTRACTING from it.
If a player said "With an eldritch gesture and a few cryptic words, my illusionist creates a glowing amber light, scattering shadows in every direction", I'd happily give them a sticker.
I see this as the advanced version of "you can't be a robot". Know what you're doing at the table, and help to make the game better for the other people there.
As far as high-level play is concerned, I'm more interested in everyone understanding that this is a shared, collaborative storytelling enterprise, than I am in having them know what's on page 177 of the rulebook.
*Of course, if you ALSO know the grapple rules, that's even better*
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.
Level 0, with some Level 1 options (perhaps some 5-level prestige classes that only 12th-15th level characters can qualify for, some modifications to streamline play, etc.).
For the most part, high level play is just as managable as mid-level play; in my experience, though, it requires much more preparation from the players to be successful. High level PCs should be adopting a proactive mindset and have definite goals that drive the main campaign storyline; at this stage, the GM should be developing each session from the existing setting information, consequences of the PCs' previous actions, and the PCs' stated intentions at the end of the last session. Also, it's critical that the players do their homework about their PC's abilities, so that they don't have to disrupt play by looking up each feat, maneuver, or spell. Note cards or high tech equivalents can help a player to have that information (literally) at their fingertips; with a little more effort, they can even track changes to AC, attack bonuses, etc.
For the most part, high level play is just as manageable as mid-level play; in my experience, though, it requires much more preparation from the players to be successful. High level PCs should be adopting a proactive mindset and have definite goals that drive the main campaign storyline; at this stage, the GM should be developing each session from the existing setting information, consequences of the PCs' previous actions, and the PCs' stated intentions at the end of the last session. Also, it's critical that the players do their homework about their PC's abilities, so that they don't have to disrupt play by looking up each feat, maneuver, or spell. Note cards or high tech equivalents can help a player to have that information (literally) at their fingertips; with a little more effort, they can even track changes to AC, attack bonuses, etc.
Based on my experience, I agree with all of this wholeheartedly.
I would still also say, however, that GMs do have more prep work to do at higher levels, and I felt that the guidelines for GMs provided by the existing rules became very, very loose by that point--felt like I really had to make everything up as I went along (and ironically, though I felt in many ways I had to prep more, once I did have certain things in place, it was sometimes best to wing the plot or adjust encounters on the fly--there's a weird duality of needing to be really prepared and yet really able to make things up on the spot). Maybe that was just me, though.
My vote would = 0
What I would prefer is they do some adventure paths in the 13-20 range that could be adapted to most of the other AP's that end in the 13-15 range.
Reasoning follows:
-Easy to introduce optional rules, also easy for a GM to use or veto.
-Players get to use characters they are already invested in and understand. . .
-Easy outlet for Suggestions for high level play without setting new rules in stone.
-Prebuilt market/ easy sell.
I would still also say, however, that GMs do have more prep work to do at higher levels, and I felt that the guidelines for GMs provided by the existing rules became very, very loose by that point--felt like I really had to make everything up as I went along (and ironically, though I felt in many ways I had to prep more, once I did have certain things in place, it was sometimes best to wing the plot or adjust encounters on the fly--there's a weird duality of needing to be really prepared and yet really able to make things up on the spot). Maybe that was just me, though.
Nope, not just you.
I don't bother doing anything except grand plot much ahead of time; with the mobility of the characters and the chance they'll take a left turn at Albuquerque at any given moment, it's hard to prepare anything that looks like a "module" at high levels.
I do find that it's really important to script the NPC and monster actions, as that saves me from bringing the game to a screeching halt while I figure out, for example, what spells the 25 ethergaunts cast in a round, or which 24 rays the gibbering orb throws.
|
I'll go with 1, tops. I'd be Ok if strictly-superior-at-high level kits were made to make melees better. But honestly somewhere in 2014 I expect Pathinder 2.0. It will be similar, but maybe have more options for melees and viable skill-monkeys. A lot of the issues with high level play (and rogues) is the source material (3.5) had these problems.
Those issues have nothing to do with high level though. And it doesn't fit your original example. Robots, lasers and joking are all out of character things. A characters ability to create light is a totally legitimate ability.
But that's not the point. Sure, characters can cast light spells, and I'm actually fine with that. What I don't like is:
a) I will interrupt DM's attempt to set the mood
b) I'm trying to 'win the game' as though the DM is working against the players
c) I'm so involved with how great my character is that I can't be bothered to create light in a way that ADDS to the creepy tomb effect, instead of SUBTRACTING from it.If a player said "With an eldritch gesture and a few cryptic words, my illusionist creates a glowing amber light, scattering shadows in every direction", I'd happily give them a sticker.
I see this as the advanced version of "you can't be a robot". Know what you're doing at the table, and help to make the game better for the other people there.
As far as high-level play is concerned, I'm more interested in everyone understanding that this is a shared, collaborative storytelling enterprise, than I am in having them know what's on page 177 of the rulebook.
*Of course, if you ALSO know the grapple rules, that's even better*
Completely different issue unrelated to high-level play. Disruptive, annoying players exist at all levels of play.
Completely different issue unrelated to high-level play. Disruptive, annoying players exist at all levels of play.
While that's undoubtedly true, I find that this compounds with the issue above. Because the players NEED to be so much more organized for high level play, and so much more aware of what their characters can do, the same actions are more disruptive at high levels than at low.
With 10+ spell effects active, and more attacks to make and more dice to roll, the concentration demanded of the players is greater.
level 3
level 3
Since you are one of a handful of level 3 advocates, could you do me the honor of expounding upon your choice a bit?
Level 0 or 1 at most. Suggestions and ideas are good, optional rules for groups who just can't stand one aspect or another? Okay.
But high-level play just takes *practice*. Watch a group of first-time players playing 1st level characters. It takes a long time! Watch a group of newish players get handed 6th level characters - it will take a long time.
Have a group of rather experienced players build 20th level PCs? It will take a short while to nail down all the bonuses, but the game will *ROLL* (witness the L20 After-Con game this year). Exact numbers (while I like them) aren't vital in the first instant. Some of our group was missing half their attack bonus for half the game (with so many spells and such flying around) - didn't hurt.
High-level play takes experience to execute it, and practice to perfect it.
0
I play a lot of high level, and it is the levels I prefer to play.
Level 1 or 2, leaning towards 1. I'd accept a 0 or 3 book though, just because I trust Paizo to do ok by it no matter what they decide on.
0 or 1.
For me, playing a high level game would be most fun if gotten there organically.
in other words, I want my 3rd level fighter to eventually BECOME high level.
As such come the 13-15th level, i do not want to overhaul my whole character to fit in with 'high-level' play. It has to be the same game... with the same abilities... Basically, the same CHARACTER that I love and have watched grow.
High level should be more about 'keeping the game going' then it is about retooling.
If i was JUST playing a high level game... starting the character at 13-16... then I really wouldn't care what system we were using and could work as wanted...
however any book they release for pathfinder... should be compatable with the rules we already have and let you continue the characters you already have.
Level 13-15 isn't high level, that's mid level. 16+ is where they start really getting powerful, and it works fine.
One complaint - APs are really well done, but they stop too soon. They need to go to epic - finish at 20th. Biggest complaint from my group, just as their PCs are getting really interesting, the AP ends and they have to start new PCs for the next one.
+1
I know looking through the classes and getting really excited about those high level abilities... only to find out our AP will PROBABLY only get us to 16... was disappointing.
1
As a GM and Player I prefer high single digits.
A few simple alternate options might be good like a "mode" where fly/teleport is largely ungettable. This makes a lot of plots viable at high levels.
Also an idea to get rid of more than 4 attacks per rounds is much appreciated.
I can't say for sure if those changes would convince me to master more high level campaigns. I would have been perfectly happy if Pathfinder only had taken the first 10 levels of classes and later posed the other 10 as epic levels with subtler rules.
|
|
3. The game above 15th level is a superhero game using mechanics that are already wobbly by 10th level. It can take more time to create a single NPC or high level monster than it takes to create an entire low-level adventure. High level play is a time sink into which I pour precious time I could better spend doing things that are actually fun.
I gave a +1 to what The Ogre formerly known as Dennis had to say.
I haven't played much beyond 15th level, but many aspects of playing at the higher levels don't appeal to me.
-
Everything attacking a half dozen times per round with every roll a different double digit bonus added to a hand full of dice.
-
Spells that end encounters. While this can be an issue at all levels, there are just too many "auto-win/bypass" spells getting thrown around at high levels that eliminate many types of encounters. Considering the number of gated outsiders/created undead/dominated creatures as wells as cohorts with crazy abilities at the parties fingertips, most encounters types are over before they begin.
-
Buffs/Equipment - Everyone has enough powerful magic items to fund a medium sized kingdom for a year. Buffing up takes 10 rounds and enables the party to add an extra 3-4 to the encounter levels they can handle. Buffs also totally change encounters- one spell, and the monsters are useless against the party.
-
Opponents become difficult to find, and usually end up taking a page or two to list their abilities.
- D20 becomes too limited to handle the range of saves and to-hit rolls. When the rogue has a +25 reflex save, and the cleric is rocking a +7, it isn't really up to luck anymore. I also began playing when 18 was just about the highest ability score you could get, and hp got capped at higher levels. Some of the numbers in higher level play start to seem, I don't know, a little cheesy to me.
These things can be fun, but they are not what I would want to play all the time. So I guess that puts me in the 2-3 range, as I feel that substantial changes would need to be made to make me what to spend much time playing and perhaps especially GMing at higher levels.
I gave a +1 to what The Ogre formerly known as Dennis had to say.
I haven't played much beyond 15th level, but many aspects of playing at the higher levels don't appeal to me.
Everything attacking a half dozen times per round with every roll a different double digit bonus added to a hand full of dice.
Personally, I've recommended to my players they use average damage. In the long run it makes no difference, and in the short run it saves LOTS of time. That's what I typically do except for corner cases where I want to be rolling 40d8 or something.
Spells that end encounters. While this can be an issue at all levels, there are just too many "auto-win/bypass" spells getting thrown around at high levels that eliminate many types of encounters. Considering the number of gated outsiders/created undead/dominated creatures as wells as cohorts with crazy abilities at the parties fingertips, most encounters types are over before they begin.
There's some of those, but it's not as common as you'd think; high level opponents can have nice stuff too.
Buffs/Equipment - Everyone has enough powerful magic items to fund a medium sized kingdom for a year. Buffing up takes 10 rounds and enables the party to add an extra 3-4 to the encounter levels they can handle. Buffs also totally change encounters- one spell, and the monsters are useless against the party.
Only if you allow that level of magic. Just because the ELH says that a level 21 character has 975,000gp worth of gear doesn't mean they have to in your campaign. I believe the characters in the game I run have gear roughly equivalent to 11-13th level characters, and they're 4-5 times that high. It really changes the tone of the game.
Opponents become difficult to find, and usually end up taking a page or two to list their abilities.
D20 becomes too limited to handle the range of saves and to-hit rolls. When the rogue has a +25 reflex save, and the cleric is rocking a +7, it isn't really up to luck anymore. I also began playing when 18 was just about the highest ability score you could get, and hp got capped at higher levels. Some of the numbers in higher level play start to seem, I don't know, a little cheesy to me.
Most of them I do are about one page. Significant opponents are 2-4, but that's because I explicitly list out all special abilities and feats and a few likely spells.
As for the cheesiness - if you're looking for realism you're playing the wrong game. There are RPGs based on realism out there; Pathfinder isn't one of them.
Plus, the range in save modifiers, etc. is part of what makes it interesting. Yeah, you might have the rogue taking no damage from the fireball while the cleric takes the full 10d6 damage - but it's only 10d6 damage, and when you're that high, it is indeed "only" 10d6; a 15th level character (even a wizard) should be able to shrug off 10d6 damage (it only averages to 35) pretty easily.
These things can be fun, but they are not what I would want to play all the time. So I guess that puts me in the 2-3 range, as I feel that substantial changes would need to be made to make me what to spend much time playing and perhaps especially GMing at higher levels.
Perfectly understandable. High-level play is not everyone's cup of tea, and I wouldn't expect everyone to like it as much as I do - just like I will never get the huge fascination with Eastern adventures.
However, a more important point is that many people confuse high-level combats with high-level adventures. I've been doing this for a while, and even I think high-level combats can get old. High-level adventures, on the other hand, can be pretty cool.
Oddly enough, 0, 1, or 3. Allow me to explain myself.
The Paizo team has so far not disappointed me with regards to balance, playability, or similar matters - I daresay that they could take the heaping mound of excrement that was the 3.x official Epic Level Handbook and turn it into a work of art, because after Misfit Monsters Redeemed how could one doubt? That said, if the state of progression was given grand examples to properly illustrate the growth of characters along the way, avoiding explicit spikes of power rather than representing the gradual growth of the heroes, villains, and miscellany in question, then 0 would be most acceptable - adding in a few sliding scale variables and options for sake of flavor and 'feel' would trend towards 1, but this too is not a bad thing.
3 is envisioned in my head as, strange as it may sound, a sort of sequel-ish game, Pathfinder in line and/or spirit, but frankly a wholly different game that basically uses pre-existing characters for purposes of generating your personal Destroyer of Worlds. I've a few rather insane ideas for how I would personally design epic level play, but that's because to me it tends to rapidly devolve into un-fun munchkin masturbatory session, likely a byproduct of having done higher end gaming with people who just aren't really suited to it, and seeing the attitudes of many who want that sort of play here as being not entirely dissimilar. I try to keep from 'badwrongfun'-ing at them, because there actually IS a situation where I think that mindset is appropriate, useful, and potentially entertaining.
(Un-?)Fortunately, that situation is also what I see as my own personal inspiration on how I would personally do 'Epic/Mythic' game play - specifically, when it gets to that point, instead of changing the system, it becomes a matter of abusing the system properly, in both directions, until one manages to get what can only be described as Disgaea-esque levels of absurdity, as though preparing to go on a 'Let's go kill Baal!' runs in post-game. By this point, PCs have worked their hindquarters off to save the world/establish their empires/get things JUST so. The last thing they want to do is have to hold back because poor, fragile reality is not necessarily sturdy enough to to support their overpowered shenanigans.
This is why I would want to take things into either other worlds, or into pocket spaces within the existing world, or other planes with their home worlds being their base of operations and recuperation. It would make sense to change damage of the past to damage that appropriate reflects the scale of insanity now encountered. It stands to reason that places where the rules of reality are flexible enough to endure the rather vigorous rogering that any casters would be prepared to distribute would be the preferred battlegrounds.
In theory this could be done with the existing Pathfinder rules.
In application, I'd be more inclined to revamp Kingmaker's rules for purposes of planar conflict, multiverse conquests and defenses, and to accurately reflect the scale of the PC's presence when traveling among 'mere mortals'.
You are now envisioning Priny Rovagug. Manually, dood.
ROFLMAO!!!! You win the thread!
You are now envisioning Priny Rovagug. Manually, dood.ROFLMAO!!!! You win the thread!
The saddest part is I'm not even trolling.
I would actually commission some artist familiar with both reference pools to make me a Prinny Rovagug.
Also, the inference of item/person worlds came to mind in the form of Birthright, in a sense, and the physical deified form of the characters becoming, effectively, worlds unto themselves, so that when they are retreated to their own personal worlds they are collapsed upon themselves, and when they move to involve themselves in the affairs of the multiverse their own sort of Lovecraftian scenario occurs as they wake from 'dreaming' to go kick butt and take names. And loot.
Then again, maybe in their own world-place they exist as lesser avatars of themselves, and the most rapid path to empowerment is to send your own little avatarselves to go invading other nascent deities and mining them for power.
Personally, I've recommended to my players they use average damage. In the long run it makes no difference, and in the short run it saves LOTS of time. That's what I typically do except for corner cases where I want to be rolling 40d8 or something.I gave a +1 to what The Ogre formerly known as Dennis had to say.
I haven't played much beyond 15th level, but many aspects of playing at the higher levels don't appeal to me.
Everything attacking a half dozen times per round with every roll a different double digit bonus added to a hand full of dice.
That's really not a bad idea. I didn't have a huge problem with people rolling a lot of damage, but it could save a lot of time. I guess for DR you'd just subtract it from the average of each hit (or subtract #hits times DR value from the total).
On the other hand, I know there is a visceral satisfaction in actually rolling the dice and seeing what they result in.
Spells that end encounters. While this can be an issue at all levels, there are just too many "auto-win/bypass" spells getting thrown around at high levels that eliminate many types of encounters. Considering the number of gated outsiders/created undead/dominated creatures as wells as cohorts with crazy abilities at the parties fingertips, most encounters types are over before they begin.There's some of those, but it's not as common as you'd think; high level opponents can have nice stuff too.
In my campaign that I finished running, I found that the only "auto bypass" spells are spells like dismissal and banishment versus outsiders (which unfortunately, seem to comprise about 50% of easily useable high CR encounters). And the thing is--when that's the case, you just have to accept the fact that the party has that in their arsenal, expect its use, and plan accordingly. For example, make an encounter half outsiders and half NPC spellcasters: that way if the outsiders get banished, the NPC spellcasters still can fight on (and indeed, summon more outsiders). Or make your fight with outsiders a speed-bump fight and if it ends quickly, fine--more time to move the story along. And if you really need them to fight outsiders without those spells--either slap a forbiddance on the area (bearing in mind it means the outsiders can't teleport or summon), or bring the PCs to the outsiders' native plane.
Sometimes if a high level party does something crazy that just ends the fight at once, you just let it end--fine--there should be more to the story than just the fight, as gbonehead notes.
Honestly, if there IS a problem with auto-win spells at high levels--it's not the SPELLS, it's the available CREATURES. As noted, there are a lot of great anti-outsider spells at high level--but a large number of high CR encounters are outsiders.
The others are largely undead--bypassable easily enough with a good cleric at hand and manageable with a number of other easily available resources at high level--or dragons. And dragon encounters are hard to design--they're big, you've got to have a story reason for them to show up or for the party to seek them out (they aren't as easy to write in as an outsider or an undead), and if all you throw at the party are dragons, something's wrong (or it's a really cool story idea maybe, but probably the party will get sick of it, not to mention start crafting dragon bane weapons as soon as they get the chance).
The high CR encounters that aren't undead, dragons, or outsiders tend to be creatures which are often gargantuan or colossal--and therefore very difficult to use in a number of types of terrain. If you choose to use such creatures, you're often making a very strict limitation on where your story can take place.
The final option are high level NPCs and while they can be ANYWHERE, they take a lot of time to create, and the GMG only provides a handful of high level NPC templates, and those only up to CR 12 (which are still fine for a group fight at high level, but still is limiting). There are fan made NPCs on the Web, but then you have to a) hope they fit your story, and b) hope they were built right.
Buffs/Equipment - Everyone has enough powerful magic items to fund a medium sized kingdom for a year. Buffing up takes 10 rounds and enables the party to add an extra 3-4 to the encounter levels they can handle. Buffs also totally change encounters- one spell, and the monsters are useless against the party.Only if you allow that level of magic. Just because the ELH says that a level 21 character has 975,000gp worth of gear doesn't mean they have to in your campaign.
Although if your players are like mine, they will complain--with all due respect to my players, whom I adore--repeatedly that they are not meeting WBL. This wasn't a huge problem but it still makes the game less fun for the GM as they have to deal with disgruntled players and reassure them you're taking that into consideration.
And my problem with WBL wasn't with giving them the treasure, it was getting them to find it and coming up with treasure caches that made sense. The fact that NPC wealth is much lower than PC wealth doesn't help (and I think I needed to stop ignoring those guidelines long before I did)--NPCs can't afford gear that PCs should have, so where the hell are NPCs going to get gear that the PCs "should" according to WBL guidelines have available to them?
THAT SAID--I also disagree with Fergie: a LOT of high CR creatures have dispel magic and greater dispel magic, and they should be using that against the party whenever possible (at least if you're not like me and can manage to roll higher than a 2 on your caster level check). Not to mention--buffs run out, and the party isn't always going to be able to anticipate when they buff. Plus you mentioned taking 10 rounds to buff--that's 1 minute of game time, a minute when someone can overhear spells being cast and catch them off guard. Plus and most importantly--DON'T FORGET TO BUFF YOUR ENEMIES. PCs can buff, there is nothing in the rules that says the enemies can't. If the enemy is a spellcaster or a creature with spell-like abilities--and most high CR creatures are--chances are they have at least a few buffs in their arsenal--and if not that, magic potions! Generally, if the party is taking the time to buff--that means the bad guys have time to buff too. Often for every round of buffing the party does, I would give the enemy a buff they had available to them as well. For a long time, I thought that wasn't fair, and then I realized--those abilities are in the statblock for a reason, and there's no reason to not use them.
Opponents become difficult to find, and usually end up taking a page or two to list their abilities.
D20 becomes too limited to handle the range of saves and to-hit rolls. When the rogue has a +25 reflex save, and the cleric is rocking a +7, it isn't really up to luck anymore. I also began playing when 18 was just about the highest ability score you could get, and hp got capped at higher levels. Some of the numbers in higher level play start to seem, I don't know, a little cheesy to me.
Most of them I do are about one page. Significant opponents are 2-4, but that's because I explicitly list out all special abilities and feats and a few likely spells.
As for the cheesiness - if you're looking for realism you're playing the wrong game. There are RPGs based on realism out there; Pathfinder isn't one of them.
Plus, the range in save modifiers, etc. is part of what makes it interesting. Yeah, you might have the rogue taking no damage from the fireball while the cleric takes the full 10d6 damage - but it's only 10d6 damage, and when you're that high, it is indeed "only" 10d6; a 15th level character (even a wizard) should be able to shrug off 10d6 damage (it only averages to 35) pretty easily.
I personally also had trouble tracking monster abilities for a very long time--until I discovered Kyle Olson's Combat Manager. This brings up monster stats and has a built in spell and feat look up, making it much easier to make sense and use of a high CR statblock. To which my high level GMing advice here is: use tools!
My problem is I often can't remember what many special abilities are without typing them out, and the Bestiaries are specifically designed to have brief references to things they are expecting me to memorize, which on top of all my world information and plot information, I just am not going to be capable of remembering. But the electronic tools help a lot in that department.
With saves--yes, the PCs will save. A lot of high CR monsters will too. For every time I felt like my monsters were useless against the PCs because they just kept saving every damn time, the PCs felt the same way--and both of us often forgot about the times our respective abilities actually worked in favor of being frustrated. Looking back, through a combat, everyone failed a save about half to a quarter of the time, and that's actually about right.
These things can be fun, but they are not what I would want to play all the time. So I guess that puts me in the 2-3 range, as I feel that substantial changes would need to be made to make me what to spend much time playing and perhaps especially GMing at higher levels.Perfectly understandable. High-level play is not everyone's cup of tea, and I wouldn't expect everyone to like it as much as I do - just like I will never get the huge fascination with Eastern adventures.
However, a more important point is that many people confuse high-level combats with high-level adventures. I've been doing this for a while, and even I think high-level combats can get old. High-level adventures, on the other hand, can be pretty cool.
This is an excellent point, gbonehead. The most fun part for me about running at high levels was just being able to go OVER THE TOP with story ideas. Here: stop a civil war. Also, hell is breaking through to the prime material. Deal with that too. You can do amazingly fun, indeed, EPIC things at high level. Absolutely, sometimes it's also fun to play a farmer fending off a lone kobold with a broom handle, but sometimes it's fun just to play with your world and go ALL OUT and see how your superheroic PCs handle everything.
And really--I think maybe one of the best things guidelines for high level play could include would be NON-combat encounters. Expound upon puzzles and hazards that only a legendary hero could solve or survive. A lot of people think of combat as the only viable way to challenge a party or get them XP, and I admit myself, I'd sometimes throw some monsters at the party just because I couldn't think of what else to do. But when I think about my favorite challenges that I designed for the PCs, there wasn't a monster in sight. Advice for GMs about building other kinds of challenges would be phenomenal to have (and indeed, at all levels, for that matter).
Personally, I've recommended to my players they use average damage. In the long run it makes no difference, and in the short run it saves LOTS of time. That's what I typically do except for corner cases where I want to be rolling 40d8 or something.That's really not a bad idea. I didn't have a huge problem with people rolling a lot of damage, but it could save a lot of time. I guess for DR you'd just subtract it from the average of each hit (or subtract #hits times DR value from the total).
On the other hand, I know there is a visceral satisfaction in actually rolling the dice and seeing what they result in.
Absolutely, and it can be a subtle form of intimidation as well ... "That's a lot of dice!" On the other hand, it can be a clue that an attack is weak as well. But in the long run, it's usually not worth the time. The fighter will say "884 damage from 4 hits" and I'll go "okay, cool. You can tell the damage is slightly reduced; in your opinion probably 10-15 per hit."
Honestly, if there IS a problem with auto-win spells at high levels--it's not the SPELLS, it's the available CREATURES. As noted, there are a lot of great anti-outsider spells at high level--but a large number of high CR encounters are outsiders.
The others are largely undead--bypassable easily enough with a good cleric at hand and manageable with a number of other easily available resources at high level--or dragons. And dragon encounters are hard to design--they're big, you've got to have a story reason for them to show up or for the party to seek them out (they aren't as easy to write in as an outsider or an undead), and if all you throw at the party are dragons, something's wrong (or it's a really cool story idea maybe, but probably the party will get sick of it, not to mention start crafting dragon bane weapons as soon as they get the chance).
The high CR encounters that aren't undead, dragons, or outsiders tend to be creatures which are often gargantuan or colossal--and therefore very difficult to use in a number of types of terrain. If you choose to use such creatures, you're often making a very strict limitation on where your story can take place.
The final option are high level NPCs and while they can be ANYWHERE, they take a lot of time to create, and the GMG only provides a handful of high level NPC templates, and those only up to CR 12 (which are still fine for a group fight at high level, but still is limiting). There are fan made NPCs on the Web, but then you have to a) hope they fit your story, and b) hope they were built right.
I've found no hard and fast rule, but since I virtually never use a vanilla creature, I have a lot of leeway. Note that since spell save DCs tend to lag saves, spells with a save are usually not an issue. I'm typically dealing with spell save DCs in the 30s, maybe in the 40s on occasion, so something like banishment is not a huge issue.
Also, everything is heavily advanced by HD, templates and/or class levels (though that's my least favorite due to the extra effort). I do not use the Pathfinder monster advancement rules, they are way too labor intensive for the CRs I'm looking at, and since it's all an approximation anyways I just stick with the 3.5e version which is significantly faster, even if not quite as precise.
Only if you allow that level of magic. Just because the ELH says that a level 21 character has 975,000gp worth of gear doesn't mean they have to in your campaign.Although if your players are like mine, they will complain--with all due respect to my players, whom I adore--repeatedly that they are not meeting WBL. This wasn't a huge problem but it still makes the game less fun for the GM as they have to deal with disgruntled players and reassure them you're taking that into consideration.
Never been an issue for me, but maybe that's because from day one the characters had specific tasks they needed to get done, first in their occupation as employees of the king, and then later once they realized what the big picture was, in their self-made occupation of saving the world.
In fact, I found out recently that my players view it almost as a badge of honor - they enjoy not only describing what level they're playing at, but how little wealth they actually have.
And my problem with WBL wasn't with giving them the treasure, it was getting them to find it and coming up with treasure caches that made sense. The fact that NPC wealth is much lower than PC wealth doesn't help (and I think I needed to stop ignoring those guidelines long before I did)--NPCs can't afford gear that PCs should have, so where the hell are NPCs going to get gear that the PCs "should" according to WBL guidelines have available to them?
Exactly. One of the main reasons there aren't caches of +5 weapons and staves of the magi and such kicking around is that it makes no sense. Why would such things exist?
That's another reason I like creatures over NPCs - NPCs have stuff, creatures typically don't.
Ironically, probably the most treasure I gave out ever at one time was 6 vorpal swords wielded by a ragewind; ironically they walked away from it, as they were (a) preoccupied with their mission and (b)I think they assumed it was a creature ability. I even had the thing reform and come after them again with the same swords (retrieved from the debris of the first) and they did it again. Amazing.
THAT SAID--I also disagree with Fergie: a LOT of high CR creatures have dispel magic and greater dispel magic, and they should be using that against the party whenever possible (at least if you're not like me and can manage to roll higher than a 2 on your caster level check). Not to mention--buffs run out, and the party isn't always going to be able to anticipate when they buff. Plus you mentioned taking 10 rounds to buff--that's 1 minute of game time, a minute when someone can overhear spells being cast and catch them off guard. Plus and most importantly--DON'T FORGET TO BUFF YOUR ENEMIES. PCs can buff, there is nothing in the rules that says the enemies can't. If the enemy is a spellcaster or a creature with spell-like abilities--and most high CR creatures are--chances are they have at least a few buffs in their arsenal--and if not that, magic potions! Generally, if the party is taking the time to buff--that means the bad guys have time to buff too. Often for every round of buffing the party does, I would give the enemy a buff they had available to them as well. For a long time, I thought that wasn't fair, and then I realized--those abilities are in the statblock for a reason, and there's no reason to not use them.
Yes, I love disposable magic. And one thing to realize - once your caster levels are above 30, the dispel spells are worthless and you've got to go with disjunction., since they allow a max +20 to the dispel check, versus 11 + caster level.
If it makes sense, I'll drop disjunctions 1/round on the party - but only if it makes sense for the creature to be capable of casting 9th-level arcane spells - and I'm not going to give every divine caster two levels in Pathfinder Savant just so it can pick up a disjunction - I'm striving for a realistic world that makes sense, not an endless stream of challenging combat encounters.
I personally also had trouble tracking monster abilities for a very long time--until I discovered Kyle Olson's Combat Manager. This brings up monster stats and has a built in spell and feat look up, making it much easier to make sense and use of a high CR statblock. To which my high level GMing advice here is: use tools!
My problem is I often can't remember what many special abilities are without typing them out, and the Bestiaries are specifically designed to have brief references to things they are expecting me to memorize, which on top of all my world information and plot information, I just am not going to be capable of remembering. But the electronic tools help a lot in that department.
I do everything in Word. Encounters, campaign information, and especially the spell and feat compendiums I've built over the years - hundreds of pages of advanced monsters, etc. It still takes me a few hours to do a new creature from scratch (I've gotten really good at ALT-TABing betwee Template-Paragon(Epic).doc and whatever monster I'm working on :) ... but very often I can take something I've already used and just tweak it. OR use it as is - just because the characters are uber-high level doesn't mean everything is - the myconids they run into from time to time are the same ol' CR 1/2 to CR7 myconids they ran into when they were 9th level.
With saves--yes, the PCs will save. A lot of high CR monsters will too. For every time I felt like my monsters were useless against the PCs because they just kept saving every damn time, the PCs felt the same way--and both of us often forgot about the times our respective abilities actually worked in favor of being frustrated. Looking back, through a combat, everyone failed a save about half to a quarter of the time, and that's actually about right.
Yes, we've come to terms with that. I've explained to the ranger character (the newest in the group) that there's little reason to advance as ranger over scout - he's never going to get the save DC vs Death of Enemies high enough to matter, so it's mainly intended for attrition - every once in a while an opponent will roll a 1, and with 6-7 arrows per round, that's about once every three rounds. Not really terrible, and the 13d6 skirmish damage per arrow is more effective long term than trying to boost the DC.
The most fun part for me about running at high levels was just being able to go OVER THE TOP with story ideas. Here: stop a civil war. Also, hell is breaking through to the prime material. Deal with that too. You can do amazingly fun, indeed, EPIC things at high level. Absolutely, sometimes it's also fun to play a farmer fending off a lone kobold with a broom handle, but sometimes it's fun just to play with your world and go ALL OUT and see how your superheroic PCs handle everything.Perfectly understandable. High-level play is not everyone's cup of tea, and I wouldn't expect everyone to like it as much as I do - just like I will never get the huge fascination with Eastern adventures.
However, a more important point is that many people confuse high-level combats with high-level adventures. I've been doing this for a while, and even I think high-level combats can get old. High-level adventures, on the other hand, can be pretty cool.
Part of the fun for me is not bothering to think of solutions. At low levels, I have to make sure there's a solution for the problems - at these levels, I just assume the party will figure it out. Maybe not this game; maybe they'll move on and come back to it, but I personally don't have to solve it.
|
The hardest thing I found about 3.5 and Pathfinder at high levels was GMing. Playing was fine since I only had to track my own character.
As GM, the combat dynamics changed from about 15th onwards. The players could punch well above their CR consistantly, so I had to merge combats in the AP's or adventures to provide challenging encounters.
I had only the same amount of prep time to get the game organised as I did for lower level games, but the combats and creature stat blocks required nearly three times the required time to prepare if you wanted to run them well. Even predesigned stat blocks still required me to look up or know a ton of information for gear and spells/buffs. I am no encyclopedia of rules info, so that made my combats less effective I believe.
Both of these issues can be addressed less in how the rules are written, and more in how modules and stats are provided at high level.
A book on advice to DM's for high level play would be great, but changing the game mechanics is generally not good (in my opinion).
Things that do need to be looked at would be encounter design, for the reasons I mentioned above. Additionally, traps and puzzles that cannot easily be bypassed by single spells would be great in any book. Don't use a door that can be teleported past, ideas for designing dungeons were scying isn't availble in amny areas, things that limit the effectiveness of flying as a tactic etc. Anything that lets the players use their powers, but not to the point where entire combats/situations get nullified by one spell or ability.
More detailed tactics for the encounters is also needed, to give DM's with less prep time more info on how effective gear/ability/spell combinations can be used by the critters they're playing with.
Of course, if you design all your own adventures, then the DM advice book is all you'd need.
Cheers
Personally, I've recommended to my players they use average damage. In the long run it makes no difference, and in the short run it saves LOTS of time. That's what I typically do except for corner cases where I want to be rolling 40d8 or something.
Denying the random range really does change the game a good deal, negating a lot of randomness (which is generally heavily in the player's favor).
Instead, I use a single die roll to emulate the range of results (no, not 40 x 1d8). Here's an example of the charts I use: Download LINK.
My experience (and big part of the solutions) are similar to gbonehaed.
One thing I found annoying at high level: persistent spell + the raised DCs (DCs are slightly higher in PF).
This, and the falcata + large amount of flat bonuses to damage(but of course, as a mundane thing, falcata didn't changed encounters as much as 10% of what persistent spell did).
these two things are the only ones i thing APG completely fumbled along with spell bonuses to sorcerers. The rest is OK and is very, very fun, all the things people consider messy (buffs, high power) included.
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.
You don't play high level for classic plots. You play it for plots that are impossible; the ones where the hook for the plot itself is hidden in a divination riddle that takes three visions and a commune to unravel, and a plane shift, find the path, and wind walk to reach, a phase door to enter, the ability to thread a camel through the eye of a needle to complete, and three scrolls of teleport object to carry out the loot!
Definitely a 0 for me. Paizo created the core rules to go from 1st to 20th, and if you're going to change them you might as well play another system.
Actually, that's sort of where this thread comes from (I think). In the other, I suggested that for beyond-20th to work, some changes would be necessary because the core game "ends" at 20th and pretty strongly emphasizes that end.
So, for me, I am in the 1 or maybe 2 category.
I don't want so many changes that it feels like a new game (and Erik Mona's comment along that line bothers me). One change in the 3.5 Epic rules that felt like that was "Epic Spellcasting".. which pretty much threw out the existing spellcasting structure for something utterly different.
So my thinking is that re-working levels 15-20, maybe a lot or maybe a little, is needed to "bridge" to beyond 20th.
What I picture, though, is that the core does not change. People happy with it keep playing just as they are now. The "bridge" book may make some changes to some levels, such as removing or altering the "capstone" abilities of the classes to make them seem less "final".. and in the process provides some options for people who have issues with high-level gaming as it is now as well as a means of getting to beyond 20 for those who want it.
I would actually commission some artist familiar with both reference pools to make me a Prinny Rovagug.
Today is just a sad day. I googled "disgaea prinny" and got rule 34'd. -_-
1 or 2.
There are a lot of things I'd like to see changed, such as the fighter getting something a bit more exciting than more bonuses to his damage while casters are creating demiplanes, but I still like the Pathfinder system a lot, so I wouldn't want it completely changed.
Although it ain't broken, it could use a bit of fine tuning and polishing!
|
There are many good points made in this thread.
I would vote for 0 or 1. I honestly love everything about Pathfinder, & tend to stay in the E8 version of the game. But the thing is that doing this does not require a special book or anything. It makes sense for people who enjoy high level play to have their high level stuff in the book, & I can just play to a certain point. It's already here.
Although, I did vote for 1, because it would be nice if it was at least addressed.
I would actually commission some artist familiar with both reference pools to make me a Prinny Rovagug.Today is just a sad day. I googled "disgaea prinny" and got rule 34'd. -_-
Please tell me it was the Etna cosplay chick.
Otherwise, I may have to be sad too.
I have to reluctantly say 1. It's not rule changes that are need but official nods to use things like averages or taking a range of results.
Case example. Dealing with players swarmed by a legion of freshly risen CR 1/2 Undead. Not truly a threat. There is the possibility that 1 in 20 attackers will hit.
Do you treat it like a Swarm? How do you adjudicate it say climbing over super high wall made of copper? (Because the group had a Lyre of Building and nothing better to do with all the copper coins they had so they made a small keep from it.)
It's more detailed game mangment suggestions then actuall total changes. Same goes for suggestions players can use to stream line actions choice.
I said 1 and not 0 because this may require some additional rules to help smooth things like Swarms of low CR monsters and such.
I've found no hard and fast rule, but since I virtually never use a vanilla creature, I have a lot of leeway. Note that since spell save DCs tend to lag saves, spells with a save are usually not an issue. I'm typically dealing with spell save DCs in the 30s, maybe in the 40s on occasion, so something like banishment is not a huge issue.Also, everything is heavily advanced by HD, templates and/or class levels (though that's my least favorite due to the extra effort). I do not use the Pathfinder monster advancement rules, they are way too labor intensive for the CRs I'm looking at, and since it's all an approximation anyways I just stick with the 3.5e version which is significantly faster, even if not quite as precise.
I am glad you have the time, energy, and mathematical skill to come up with your own way of doing it, not to mention the confidence that your estimations are going to suit the party the way you want. I have none of these things, and I doubt I am alone in this. That's why I so very much want some GUIDELINES for how to design high level encounters--even after running a 2 year game I barely have an idea how to "wing it"--I'm better at figuring out pulling stuff from the bestiary and using it in an effective way, but not scratch built or advanced monsters.
Heck, gbonehead, maybe YOU should be the one to write those guidelines. :)
Never been an issue for me, but maybe that's because from day one the characters had specific tasks they needed to get done, first in their occupation as employees of the king, and then later once they realized what the big picture was, in their self-made occupation of saving the world.
I'm glad your players don't give you a hard time about treasure; you're very lucky.
Ironically, probably the most treasure I gave out ever at one time was 6 vorpal swords wielded by a ragewind; ironically they walked away from it, as they were (a) preoccupied with their mission and (b)I think they assumed it was a creature ability. I even had the thing reform and come after them again with the same swords (retrieved from the debris of the first) and they did it again. Amazing.
Yeah, players I've noticed can be very paranoid about certain things, and often try to look gift horses in mouths. :)
Yes, I love disposable magic. And one thing to realize - once your caster levels are above 30, the dispel spells are worthless and you've got to go with disjunction., since they allow a max +20 to the dispel check, versus 11 + caster level.
We got to level 19, so CL 30 wasn't an issue. I can see how that would be an issue--but if you're dealing with caster level 30, then hopefully the spellcasters (and their enemies) are researching So Much Better than Greater Dispel Magic by that point.
I did however notice that SR was completely pointless by level 19. The only person who had trouble beating SR was the arcane archer, who didn't have a lot of wizard levels--but he wasn't a primary spellcaster, he was a warrior with spell support. And he just didn't bother firing offensive spells to creatures likely to resist.
I do everything in Word. Encounters, campaign information, and especially the spell and feat compendiums I've built over the years - hundreds of pages of advanced monsters, etc. It still takes me a few hours to do a new creature from scratch (I've gotten really good at ALT-TABing betwee Template-Paragon(Epic).doc and whatever monster I'm working on :) ... but very often I can take something I've already used and just tweak it. OR use it as is - just because the characters are uber-high level doesn't mean everything is - the myconids they run into from time to time are the same ol' CR 1/2 to CR7 myconids they ran into when they were 9th level.
I typed up all my notes in Word before I found the Combat Manager. I still struggled and things took me a long time. But again, I get the sense our respective brain-processing-abilities probably excel at different things.
Part of the fun for me is not bothering to think of solutions. At low levels, I have to make sure there's a solution for the problems - at these levels, I just assume the party will figure it out. Maybe not this game; maybe they'll move on and come back to it, but I personally don't have to solve it.
This too! Especially since I will think of three ways the party could solve a problem, and they'll come up with something entirely different anyway. Which is usually far more brilliant and hilarious. :)
That said, if I do come up with something VERY complicated, I will come up with how _I_ would solve the problem at least, so if they do get stuck, I can throw them some hints if they are roleplaying the situation well. But that I don't think has ever really been necessary.
I've found no hard and fast rule, but since I virtually never use a vanilla creature, I have a lot of leeway. Note that since spell save DCs tend to lag saves, spells with a save are usually not an issue. I'm typically dealing with spell save DCs in the 30s, maybe in the 40s on occasion, so something like banishment is not a huge issue.Also, everything is heavily advanced by HD, templates and/or class levels (though that's my least favorite due to the extra effort). I do not use the Pathfinder monster advancement rules, they are way too labor intensive for the CRs I'm looking at, and since it's all an approximation anyways I just stick with the 3.5e version which is significantly faster, even if not quite as precise.
I am glad you have the time, energy, and mathematical skill to come up with your own way of doing it, not to mention the confidence that your estimations are going to suit the party the way you want. I have none of these things, and I doubt I am alone in this. That's why I so very much want some GUIDELINES for how to design high level encounters--even after running a 2 year game I barely have an idea how to "wing it"--I'm better at figuring out pulling stuff from the bestiary and using it in an effective way, but not scratch built or advanced monsters.
Heck, gbonehead, maybe YOU should be the one to write those guidelines. :)
Heheheh. You assume that my guesses are spot on - a big assumption.
All it's taken is a lot of practice and a lot of time spent on foundation material such as documents containing monsters and templates.
Still, it typically takes me something like 2-10 hours to get ready for a session, not counting the time I spend writing the campaign log (which doubles as campaign notes and work on the history, plot and campaign world) ... another 1-4 hours.
For example, I spent from 10pm to 3am last night working on this week's game, creating the documents for the ooze elemental creature and half-celestial creature templates, making stats for several half-celestial dwarves (CR 1 and 2, mind you), writing the stats for a primal ooze elemental, and writing a page or two of plot.
I'm about to get screwed, too. I just got upgraded to Windows 7 and Word 2010, and I gotta say, Microsoft was NOT friendly to those of us who do everything with keyboard shortcuts. Virtually everything is an extra keystroke or two to get to, sometimes much more. Ugh.
I'm glad your players don't give you a hard time about treasure; you're very lucky.
Never been an issue for me, but maybe that's because from day one the characters had specific tasks they needed to get done, first in their occupation as employees of the king, and then later once they realized what the big picture was, in their self-made occupation of saving the world.
I suspect a lot of that is because they started the campaign with an actual (in-game) job, thus obviating the need for any kind of "find stuff, kill it, and take its stuff" kind of plot.
Heck, I remember the very first game, it started with them being sent to a small, poor fishing village at the request of a local noble to figure out why people were disappearing. I seem to recall there being no treasure whatsoever for at least 2-3 game sessions, as they dealt with wilderness encounters and tracked down what was going on.
I typed up all my notes in Word before I found the Combat Manager. I still struggled and things took me a long time. But again, I get the sense our respective brain-processing-abilities probably excel at different things.
I do everything in Word. Encounters, campaign information, and especially the spell and feat compendiums I've built over the years - hundreds of pages of advanced monsters, etc. It still takes me a few hours to do a new creature from scratch (I've gotten really good at ALT-TABing betwee Template-Paragon(Epic).doc and whatever monster I'm working on :) ... but very often I can take something I've already used and just tweak it. OR use it as is - just because the characters are uber-high level doesn't mean everything is - the myconids they run into from time to time are the same ol' CR 1/2 to CR7 myconids they ran into when they were 9th level.
Well, hard to say, but I'm unlikely to compare since I don't use a computer at the table, and it sounds like Combat Manager is intended for in-game use.
For each game I have a 20-40 page packet that I use; about half of it is creatures and half notes on locations, people, etc. A good chunk of it gets carried forward from game to game - it's not like I'm writing 40 pages of material on a bi-weekly basis. Typically 5-10 pages of it is new material, plus another 5-10 pages of old material and 10-20 pages carried forward. But that's just a guesstimate.
I just started using Dropbox to keep this stuff in; I've gotten paranoid about losing 5+ years of material. I'm probably going to pay the $9.99/month so I can keep all my PDFs in there too.
Yes, I love disposable magic. And one thing to realize - once your caster levels are above 30, the dispel spells are worthless and you've got to go with disjunction., since they allow a max +20 to the dispel check, versus 11 + caster level.Just a note Pathfinder dropped that... reread Dispel magic and Greater Dispel Magic they are BOTH useful in High level play.
Though I admit I have a preference for Spell immunity up for the spell "Greater dispel Magic".
As for disjunction... thats what you put in the ring of couterspelling.
Holey Moley!!
Yet another thing that never would have occurred to me to check. I gotta say, the Paizo design team changed a lot of little things like this, and it can be a real gotcha for someone who knows the 3.5e rules reasonably well.
Thank you for pointing that out! And that's a very welcome change, in my opinion.
Of course, how exactly to retcon this into a campaign that's pushing six years old is ... problematic. I'll have to give it some thought. It's not really fair to spring it on players who have been assuming for a long time that nothing can dispel their magic.
I've found no hard and fast rule, but since I virtually never use a vanilla creature, I have a lot of leeway. Note that since spell save DCs tend to lag saves, spells with a save are usually not an issue. I'm typically dealing with spell save DCs in the 30s, maybe in the 40s on occasion, so something like banishment is not a huge issue.Also, everything is heavily advanced by HD, templates and/or class levels (though that's my least favorite due to the extra effort). I do not use the Pathfinder monster advancement rules, they are way too labor intensive for the CRs I'm looking at, and since it's all an approximation anyways I just stick with the 3.5e version which is significantly faster, even if not quite as precise.
I am glad you have the time, energy, and mathematical skill to come up with your own way of doing it, not to mention the confidence that your estimations are going to suit the party the way you want. I have none of these things, and I doubt I am alone in this. That's why I so very much want some GUIDELINES for how to design high level encounters--even after running a 2 year game I barely have an idea how to "wing it"--I'm better at figuring out pulling stuff from the bestiary and using it in an effective way, but not scratch built or advanced monsters.
Heck, gbonehead, maybe YOU should be the one to write those guidelines. :)
Heheheh. You assume that my guesses are spot on - a big assumption.
All it's taken is a lot of practice and a lot of time spent on foundation material such as documents containing monsters and templates.
My apologies for overestimating your competence. I'll try not to do so again. (KIDDING! :) )
There is a certain talent for that kind of thing, I must insist. With game systems, it usually includes having a good knack for certain mathematical capabilities. That portion of my left brain is the least developed of the four quadrants. So feel a lot more confident relying on what (very little) guidelines the game provides than making it up on my own. That is all. Believe me, I have practiced and practiced and there are some things I am good at and some I am not--and I'm better at coming up with game mechanics on the fly than I used to! Practice definitely helps! But no matter what, however, I doubt I will be able to think like you (nor you like me). "Think up stuff the way I think up stuff" is also making a pretty dang big assumption, talking of assumptions.
Still, it typically takes me something like 2-10 hours to get ready for a session, not counting the time I spend writing the campaign log (which doubles as campaign notes and work on the history, plot and campaign world) ... another 1-4 hours.
I suspect a lot of that is because they started the campaign with an actual (in-game) job, thus obviating the need for any kind of "find stuff, kill it, and take its stuff" kind of plot.
I find it difficult not to read this as you assuming that I did not come up with creative motivations for my plot, and I feel a bit hurt by that assumption.
I say once again, it's not a PC issue, it's a player issue. The PCs--when the players were in character--were moving with a focused goal against a ticking clock and worked with what they had. The PCs were not complaining, because they did, in fact, have a job to do. This did NOT stop the players, outside of the game, from tallying their equipment and then saying to me, "We're below WBL." Nor did it in fact stop from commentators on our campaign journal from pointing out the same thing to me, suggesting I am a bad GM for it in the process. That I repeatedly noted that I took into account what equipment the party had when designing challenges took awhile to sink in.
There is a difference between story motivation for treasure and player motivation for treasure. Some players like the Monty Haul feel in a campaign, regardless of storyline. Unfortunately, I don't tend to run that way.
I also feel obligated to note that same players I had were ENORMOUSLY creative with the tools given them, and constantly surprised me with their innovativeness. I think it's just they're old school gamers who are used to seeing more good old fashioned treasure chest filled with loot than I was prepared to provide.
Anyway, different people are different! Who knew?
Well, hard to say, but I'm unlikely to compare since I don't use a computer at the table, and it sounds like Combat Manager is intended for in-game use.
This is true. Ultimately I have found running with my laptop is easier than not. (Also saves me from carrying 20 books to sessions, since I can just take one laptop with all the .pdfs). But that's entirely a personal preference thing. For a long time I did run using printouts from Word entirely, especially since I prefer my own custom statblock to that of Paizo's (or WotC's).
For each game I have a 20-40 page packet that I use; about half of it is creatures and half notes on locations, people, etc. A good chunk of it gets carried forward from game to game - it's not like I'm writing 40 pages of material on a bi-weekly basis. Typically 5-10 pages of it is new material, plus another 5-10 pages of old material and 10-20 pages carried forward. But that's just a guesstimate.
This all sounds oddly familiar.... :) I've been cleaning my apartment and it's amazing how many pages of campaign notes I keep finding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've found no hard and fast rule, but since I virtually never use a vanilla creature, I have a lot of leeway. Note that since spell save DCs tend to lag saves, spells with a save are usually not an issue. I'm typically dealing with spell save DCs in the 30s, maybe in the 40s on occasion, so something like banishment is not a huge issue.
I am glad you have the time, energy, and mathematical skill to come up with your own way of doing it, not to mention the confidence that your estimations are going to suit the party the way you want. I have none of these things, and I doubt I am alone in this. That's why I so very much want some GUIDELINES for how to design high level encounters--even after running a 2 year game I barely have an idea how to "wing it"--I'm better at figuring out pulling stuff from the bestiary and using it in an effective way, but not scratch built or advanced monsters.
When I'm doing quickly fudged together high level monsters (especially 'mooks' that I don't care too much about) I just use the "Table: Monster Statistics by CR" from the Bestiary Appendix.
CR 15
hp 220
AC 30
Attack +24 or +18 damage 52-70
Specials DC 23/16
Saves Good 18 Bad 13
Now that I think of it, I should paste that chart into my GM screen.
I've found no hard and fast rule, but since I virtually never use a vanilla creature, I have a lot of leeway. Note that since spell save DCs tend to lag saves, spells with a save are usually not an issue. I'm typically dealing with spell save DCs in the 30s, maybe in the 40s on occasion, so something like banishment is not a huge issue.
I am glad you have the time, energy, and mathematical skill to come up with your own way of doing it, not to mention the confidence that your estimations are going to suit the party the way you want. I have none of these things, and I doubt I am alone in this. That's why I so very much want some GUIDELINES for how to design high level encounters--even after running a 2 year game I barely have an idea how to "wing it"--I'm better at figuring out pulling stuff from the bestiary and using it in an effective way, but not scratch built or advanced monsters.
When I'm doing quickly fudged together high level monsters (especially 'mooks' that I don't care too much about) I just use the "Table: Monster Statistics by CR" from the Bestiary Appendix.
CR 15
hp 220
AC 30
Attack +24 or +18 damage 52-70
Specials DC 23/16
Saves Good 18 Bad 13Now that I think of it, I should paste that chart into my GM screen.
That's a great idea!