| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The following is copied from another thread, but i hope it helps start/continue the discussion about the playability of high end content in pathfinder.
"After reading the spell description for Divine Vessel, it's clear this is a Hero Lab error. Your points about spell effects that change size not stacking is also clearly stated in the divine vessel description. So i should have let the issue drop. Yet...
the game at higher levels is so cumbersome as to necessitate some software support for number crunching which leaves me thinking either Paizo needs to trim down the rolling and number crunching associated with high level play or work more closely with herolab to facilitate full game play...lvl 1-20!
if you have kept an eye on the RPG superstar feedback you may have seen SKR's comments about a lvl 14 Faction leader being too high for most campaigns and thus out of place for the superstar contest. this strikes me as odd, if lvl's 15-20 exist and not much content is available at those levels (particularly in society play)then there seems to be lots of room for development here , esp from a marketing perspective.
End Rant: as this devolves let me summarize: Fix mid-high level play or simply remove it from Core"
It depends on how you define broken. I was in the other thread, and for their statement it can be broken, depending on how good you are at quickly doing math.
He listed a 20 minute time for figuring out debuffs. It would take me 3 minutes at the most for the same situation.
There are things that could be done better at high level, but I don't think it is broken(FUBAR) since I have ran games at high levels without much of an issue. At the same times other people have issues with it so the answer will vary from group to group, and person to person.
consider:
20th lvl monk
flurry
power attack
haste
heroism
good hope
weapon focus
bane on amulet
Ki expenditure
Finesse
ioun stone
lots of calculations to arrive at 9 attacks of 4d8 + 2d6 + static...
...... then anti-magic field hits.....
without software assistance this can easily be a 10-20 min intermission to unravel spell effects from non-spell effects for those that don't track carefully.
AT THIS POINT THE GAME BECOMES ACCOUNTING
This is meant to be consideration for the developers and users of the content. I am voicing my opinions and concerns because i think the game could be made better for higher lvl play. So, while no one is making me play the game, paizo does need to foster a desire to play the game. If the answer is to be, " just stop at lvl 6 cause it's easier" then the desire to play isn't being fostered, clearly; but i suspect someone will fill the niche for a viable high lvl tabletop campaign...still hopeful it will be paizo.
interesting, sunbeam. i don't know what BECMI is, but i am interested to hear any comparisons that would be relevant to our discussion for high lvl play.
Once you get past some arbitrary level (which is different for different people) the game becomes something other than "high fantasy" and enters the realm of "super hero fantasy". Whether it is "broken" or not depends on what you mean by "broken."
It's "broken" to me because it's not fun for me to play at that level. If I want to play superheroes, there are games designed specifically for that. So level 14 is about as high as I've ever played the game, except in a few special cases where we wanted to go fight Azmodeus or Thor or someone, just for kicks.
consider:
20th lvl monk
flurry
power attack
haste
heroism
good hope
weapon focus
bane on amulet
Ki expenditure
Finesse
ioun stone
lots of calculations to arrive at 9 attacks of 4d8 + 2d6 + static......... then anti-magic field hits.....
without software assistance this can easily be a 10-20 min intermission to unravel spell effects from non-spell effects for those that don't track carefully.
AT THIS POINT THE GAME BECOMES ACCOUNTINGThis is meant to be consideration for the developers and users of the content. I am voicing my opinions and concerns because i think the game could be made better for higher lvl play. So, while no one is making me play the game, paizo does need to foster a desire to play the game. If the answer is to be, " just stop at lvl 6 cause it's easier" then the desire to play isn't being fostered, clearly; but i suspect someone will fill the niche for a viable high lvl tabletop campaign...still hopeful it will be paizo.
Flurry, power attack, weapon focus, ki expenditure, finesse and ioun stone are all either features of your character, feats, or permanent effects, and thus should be recorded on the weapon attack bonus stats on your character sheet to begin with, so there is nothing to figure out for them. That leaves haste, heroism, good hope and bane (I don't know what you mean by "on amulet", bane is an area spell, and does not take an item as its target). If keeping track of 4 spell effects in addition to the permanent effect to your attack bonus is difficult, I'm not sure how you usually play, because it is not uncommon for my 4th level character to have that many spell effects to keep track of. (buff and debuff)
On the other hand, it is quite possible for high level characters to have upwards of 10 temporary effects to keep track of, and that can be quite time consuming, but over the years I have learned that launching into combat with fewer buff spells can often time be more optimal, given the correct buff spells, and additionally, I can only recall a handful of times that I have been able to cast all the buffs I want, and start combat after on my own terms. I would say, at any level, if you are able to run through your whole gamut of buff spells before wading into the majority of combats, then your dm is being way too nice to you.
As i read through previous threads on the topic and gather my thoughts, 2 areas of focus emerge in this idea that the game is "broken" for high lvl content.
1: PC's outpace the monsters considerably as they near ECL 20.
Traits like Dangerously Curious combined with the imbalanced UMD system for scrolls gives considerable access to high lvl spells. this alone can tip the scales and make a well crafted encounter boring and brief.
2: The game gets bogged down by too many choices, too much rolling, and too many modifiers to track traditionally.
See 20 lvl monk ex. above.
This is the only definition of 'broken' I really heed.
It's "broken" to me because it's not fun for me to play at that level.
LoL
Fair enough, but it's too subjective a criteria to use in this type of discussion.
And sorry for the shorthand confusion, Mabven the OP, i was referring to bane the weapon enchantment placed on amulet of mighty fists (Dragon Bane)
Once you get past some arbitrary level (which is different for different people) the game becomes something other than "high fantasy" and enters the realm of "super hero fantasy". Whether it is "broken" or not depends on what you mean by "broken."
It's "broken" to me because it's not fun for me to play at that level. If I want to play superheroes, there are games designed specifically for that. So level 14 is about as high as I've ever played the game, except in a few special cases where we wanted to go fight Azmodeus or Thor or someone, just for kicks.
See, that's funny. Just the other day I was toying with the idea of 14th level as a CLASS level cap, but keeping 20th level as a CHARACTER level cap... mostly because I find the 8th and 9th level spells to be gratuitously-powerful, rather than the combat mechanics being problematic (though I've been discovering how brok -- ahem -- awesome some of the high-end combat feats are).
But it's interesting to see other people opting out of the high end, when I've been pottering around, hammering on various bits of the system to see how well a truncated version would work.
with regard to
1: PC's outpace the monsters considerably as they near ECL 20.
More monsters in the Bestiaries could have feats or SU:
Heavy Fortification,
Evasion,
and some type of self Healing (many e.g. from PC classes: lay on hands, renewed vigor, and wholeness of body)
giving monsters a shallow blend of PC abilities would go far to close the gap in power between PC's and monsters at high levels.
High level play is the most fun to me, and certainly not broken in any way.
|
Not "broken" per se; but terribly hard to upkeep (so many effects going on at all times), longer attack routines, and people trying to pick through their gargantuan spell list. All to come down to a few key die rolls determining pretty much your entire fate. So while it is what it is, what it is not is FUN. And the lack of fun more than anything else prevents ms from wanting to play high level campaigns ever again.
5-10 were the sweet spots in 3.5; same is true for Pathfinder, though possibly a little wider (like 3-12).
|
interesting, sunbeam. i don't know what BECMI is, but i am interested to hear any comparisons that would be relevant to our discussion for high lvl play.Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, (Immortal) D&D. The alternative system to AD&D 1st edition, which arguably was closer to Original D&D. 1-36 levels, with the Immortal stuff on top of that. Roughly speaking, at BE levels you were an adventurer, much like current characters. At Companion levels, you'd probably start onto the domain-ruler path, and your time on adventuring would decline. And if you reached Master levels, then it was probably time to start thinking about your legacy, what you'd leave behind that people might remember you for, and whether that would be something that might get you into the Immortal club.
One interesting thing about BECMI is that, despite being the "Basic" version, as compared to AD&D, it tackled a few issues that AD&D, 2E, and 3E never really did, or at least not to the same extent (at least in the core rulebooks). The big topics were mass combat, weapon mastery, and ascension to godhood (or immortality, to use the term used in the Immortals set).
The mass combat system was, at least in my nostalgic memory, pretty comprehensive...far more than anything else I've seen for 1E, 2E, 3.X, or Pathfinder. The weapon mastery rules showed a lot more gradients of mastery than are possible in Pathfinder as well. And I believe that the Immortals set is the only offical D&D product to detail a process for BECOMING a god/Immortal.
I know quite a few people out there played 1E or 2E, but imported those sub-systems from BECMI into their games.
This is the only definition of 'broken' I really heed.
It's "broken" to me because it's not fun for me to play at that level.LoL
Fair enough, but it's too subjective a criteria to use in this type of discussion.
An excellent point.
However, I believe there is no-such thing as objective discussion of high-level play. There's tons of folks who believe it to be entirely "broken" with varying definitions of broken, and there's others who are 100% sure it isn't "broken," likely with entirely different definitions of broken.
As far as I'm concerned, if a table can play and have fun, it's not broken. Saying high-level play is broken is like saying Candyland or Chutes and Ladders is broken.
I think that 16th is a good stopping point for PCs, with the levels through 20th being "villain levels".
Stories that require bigger power themes, like interacting directly with gods and the like, would generally benefit from an entirely different game system. The further you get from the optimal playtest situation, the less accurate CR and all of the encounter balance mechanics become.
Epic 6 is a happy fun solution that seems to scratch most people's "itch" for fixing the rules. But when it comes to actually playing and not designing rules, you pick a threshold of levels that works, and you run a campaign for those levels, then call it done. You don't need rules for extending 6th level forever if you just end the campaign at 7th.
No.
There is definately a learning curve in both playing and running higher-level of play and those with less experience often get more bogged down than those who have done it quite a bit.
Most folks I know of that run / play higher level games tend to use their own formatting conventions to help with similar situations to the "monk & anti-magic shell" issue above.
As Catman indicated above, not all high-level games are about trying to gank deities or archfiends. Most of the ones I've been involved with become more RP-focused than combat focused as you get into "epic" levels.
-TimD
This is the only definition of 'broken' I really heed.
It's "broken" to me because it's not fun for me to play at that level.LoL
Fair enough, but it's too subjective a criteria to use in this type of discussion.
Its subjective from the start, after all theres a thread up right now with a group planning 90th level characters. No, Seriously.
|
Its subjective from the start, after all theres a thread up right now with a group planning 90th level characters. No, Seriously.This is the only definition of 'broken' I really heed.
It's "broken" to me because it's not fun for me to play at that level.LoL
Fair enough, but it's too subjective a criteria to use in this type of discussion.
oh link please! this i must see.
First up, could it have been done "better"? Yes. Is it a big deal (to me)? No.
The way I see it, we're talking about an arbitrary number. At level X, that's when you, or you, or the other guy decides things have "become accounting".
I've got a player for whom anything over about level 3 fits that description. The only reason he can play a barbarian is because I've printed his sheet including stats for "when raging" and "when not raging". If someone cast bull's strength on him at 2nd level, it would be up to the rest of the group to do the math for him because - I kid you not - d20 + whatever number is on your character sheet for your to-hit... requires a calculator.
There's no question if high-level play gets complicated. It does. But it's not broken. It's absolutely playable... to some. But 10th level may not be playable... to some. We're talking arbitrary here.
What I suggest is learning to allow some flexibility in your gaming. I don't need to know my player's AC is exactly 37 right now because of fifteen different buffs and magic items. I know that my monster's attack in the mid-40s probably hits. If my bad guy gets debuffed, I'm okay with being off by a few. On-the-fly deal with the obvious values and work from fundamentals. If a high-level monk with a bunch of magic goodies walks into an antimagic field, it's a good bet that his AC is in the realm of 20-25. Roughly. If the bad guy is still hitting mid-40s, it really doesn't matter what the exact value is. Same thing with saves, skills, and everything else. If a number comes within say... 5 of actually mattering, THEN take a minute to figure out "okay, so did your Will save work out to 18 or is it maybe 19? It matters."
All I'm saying is that the answer to high-level play is: approximate. Most of the time it works really well.
As far as I'm concerned, if a table can play and have fun, it's not broken. Saying high-level play is broken is like saying Candyland or Chutes and Ladders is broken.
Are you kidding me!? Those games are like the brokenest games ever! If you can even call them games. You have absolutely no input to affect your destiny without cheating. And since fate hates me with a passion, I always lose at those games. ;_;
I ran a home game in 3.5 from second level 2 to 30 give or take 3 levels. What I seams to become apparent is a nat 20 or a 1 has more impact than any other factors. Even more so when rolled back to back. I think the spell Destruction has led to many high level character deaths. Second to ego, checks. Third Rogue/Assassin Halfing Vampires.
Not a joke.
Tic Tac Toe
Now thats broken.
Just don't play at high level.
There is this weird notion with gamers, that the max level is where the game should be played at it's most optimal level. That is seldom true, maybe in Warcraft but that's it.
I find high level play dull.
The monsters are either repetitive (aw look another pack of Pit Fiends) or just weird (Tarrasque).
Combats take way to long ( I play in a large group ) and the modifiers are silly. As a DM it's a major pain in the arse to prep for hours only to have your near DemiGodlike players totally circumvent your scenario with some totally out of left field maneuver that you didn't account for. I reckon this is why high level modules are so few, designers feel the same way.
I don't find it broken, or difficult. I just don't want to run it. I'll play it, with a quickness. But it's not for everyone.
I know players that b+@#% non stop about 1st level play, because it's lame. It's also hard for completely opposite reasons than level 20 play. I don't think it's broken either.
More in notion with this thread, I dislike D&D/PF High Level play because it's all about shutting down other people's abilities. Anti-magic, Spell Resistance, Spell Penetration, DR, Overcoming DR, Immunities to all elements, immunity to critical hits (and thus sneak attacks), etc.
As far as I'm concerned, if a table can play and have fun, it's not broken. Saying high-level play is broken is like saying Candyland or Chutes and Ladders is broken.Are you kidding me!? Those games are like the brokenest games ever! If you can even call them games. You have absolutely no input to affect your destiny without cheating. And since fate hates me with a passion, I always lose at those games. ;_;
Exactly. And yet, if you're playing with a 4-year-old, does that really matter?
More in notion with this thread, I dislike D&D/PF High Level play because it's all about shutting down other people's abilities. Anti-magic, Spell Resistance, Spell Penetration, DR, Overcoming DR, Immunities to all elements, immunity to critical hits (and thus sneak attacks), etc.
I maintain that complaints about this sort of thing are more related to strategies used by a specific GM rather than flaws of the game itself. After all, a low-level GM could throw tons of swarms at a party and use nothing but Tuckerman's kobolds. Does that mean low-level play is broken?
If your GM is throwing nothing but save-or-die effects at your party, that's not a broken system, it's a limited GM.
To me, high level play is less about the GM making sure that there's an answer to the challenges and more about making the players figure it out. I stopped making sure I knew the answer long, long ago. Unlike low-level adventures, where I was always sure I knew at least two ways for the PCs to solve each challenge.
In fact, the flaw I most often see related to high-level play is both players and GMs forgetting that there's more to a good game than combat.
Oh it's not the combat that bugs me, though it really is tedious at times. (tedious combat happens at midlevels as well) It's the overabundance of options to bypass the plots and mysteries that are sort of my bag. I play with 3 VERY experienced players, and 2 more that have more than a decade of RPG experience apiece. One of these is a near encyclopedia of vague spell options and a master of wishcraft. He is a Lawyer in real life and has what some call "perfect recall".
These guys can unravel any potential mystery pretty quick, they spot and bypass most traps, even the auto loss ones. Raiding enemy lairs is old hat. I just find that challenging this core group bores the others. Some are older teens, who want the tactical simulation of the mid level game. Some want the silliness of my kid games.
This is my issue, there are too many conflicting desires in a group that frequently numbers 9 and sometimes more. We have used 2 DMs co-running games to alleviate the bog down of certain issues and facilitate prep and story exposition. This is enormously helpful in a big group. In a smaller group high level play is much more manageable.
I personally prefer for my highs level games to focus much more on RP, politics and our own mass battle mish mash. But politics isn't everyone's thing. I'm relatively secure that my Kingmaker campaign will go past clvl 20, perhaps considerably so. But we've reched the point in this one where the PC's children have leveled to the point where they can kill wyverns. So we are splitting the group into more manageable sub groups. With the core players covering 2 generations. This is not an option for everyone. And I find myself still focused here.
But the issue is combat still. While it's easy to say there is more to the game than combat that's actually a fallacy. The vast majority of the ruleset is an attempt to construct a framework where conflict can be resolved. If high level play is or could be broken it's not the roleplay it's the godawfully slow combat rules.
When it takes 4 PCs forty minutes to resolve a combat against anything other than the BBEG, it's verging on dull, and Im not into gaming for dull.
Sure I could contract the group to 4(3PCS and 1DM), but it has taken freaking years to put this group together. That's paramount to all of our game planning, keeping it engaging for everyone. High level is too much for the casual funtime members. I'm kinda stressing how the KM AP will play out, there are 3 wives/gf who have gotten invested in this one. One is actually designing custom mass combat units for the Nomen and Tiger Mercenaries she prefers to command. That's a miracle in my experience.
I hear your pain, believe me. Our group is regularly 7 or 8 players, who have been playing since 2006 in this one campaign. They range in age from 11 to mid-40s, and what keeps one interested will bore others to tears.
I didn't mean to imply combat is unimportant; my point is that when all there is is combat, it gets old. I strive for something like a 50/50 average overall.
What keep them interested, and coming back, I think, is the behind the scenes stuff ... the clues they see but don't recognize, and then recall much later. That's the stuff that makes it interesting.
I think one thing that has made the campaign work are the Weapons of Legacy (from the 3.5e book). Since I define the legacy rituals, they want to go places and do things. Meditate at the Tomb of the First King? Awesome, and now they have to figure out where it is. Find the lost Obelisk of Marathea? Sure! Found a new school of wizardry! Of course! Each one of the players has their own item, with their own legacy rituals. The rituals are just enough outside of their primary goals to make them explore, but not so much outside that they feel pointless.
Thus leading the PCs (and players) to even more threads and pieces of the puzzle.
I enjoy high level. But I play it with a spreadsheet open.
This shouldn't be an issue. Any complex character build should have multiple specs set up.
It's no different than a character that summons. If the player can't be bothered to put his summons down on a 3x5 neatly, and be prepared, then he shouldn't be playing a summoner.
If your character is complex with multiple magic items and you buff often, then you should be prepared.
I have a player who plays a barbarian, and thus has lots of complex information about his attacks. He has power attack, and uses a bastard sword. So I helped him set up a table for his attacks. One row for standard attack (to-hit numbers, 1h and 2h damage columns), one row for rage attacks, one row for standard power-attacks, one row for raged power-attacks.
When you have a complex character with lots of stuff like this, especially once you get up in the 10+ range where you start hitting anti-magic fields, you should have a small stat-block of 'AM Field', with all magical bonuses gone. Another for each of your standard buffs (for example, I have a character who uses lead blades, I keep track of my weapons both with and without lead blades, my AC with and without my shield, in case I'm 2-handing for extra damage, etc).
Keep it all on a separate page, and refer to the one you need for a given situation. If your group often uses bless and bardic inspire courage, for example, keep a stat block with that calculated in and write 'Bless & Inspire Courage' at the top.
I do everything mdt suggests and i expect my players to put in what i consider to be 30 mins preperation time having their stats written down like mdt suggests since as the gm i'm spending much more time than that on preperation.
Its only accounting if you constantly have to do it, i just can't imagine a combat round at any level that takes 40 mins per round, we aim to have a "big" combat over in 90 mins, thats a suprise round and between 3 and 7 turns. I run for 5 players with a pc each, 2 companions, a umd familiar, a cohort, normally 2-4 summons on the board, possibly some planar bound/ally summons as well and often mounts. To challenge that group our most tense encounter has been 14 npcs of varying power and skill, 6 mooks, 3 pets, 3 medium bads, a big bad and a powerful summon. Normally my players have at least 3 group wide buffs active as well as up to three personal buffs and i have a similar ammount of buffs on the npc's, one pc is dedicated to debuffing and i often dispel their buffs or hit them with harsh aoe debuffs to give them a pause in combat(my favourite is hammering a double slow effect to dispel haste and force them to regroup, dispel and re-haste). These combat rounds normally take between 10 and 20 mins, normally slower in the first few rounds then faster as attack routines are repeated. If that sounds like a nightmare of high level play its level 8, i fully expect my players to keep up as we level further, we've been playing together for years and have played 20+ before.
I think overall we prefer to be in the 12-16 area of gaming but honestly with a group who know what their doing the difference between 8 and 18 is a quickened spell for casters and an extra d20 roll or two for fighting types.