| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game needs GMs. The publisher should make their life as easy as possible.Hmm... is there anything inherent to such a guide which a third-party publisher would be unable to include? It sounds like this sort of project is far from Golarion-specific.
-Matt
Sure, it could all be third party. But since they feel like missing pieces of the game to me, I think I would rather have it in a big beautiful table reference like Ultimate Equipment has proven to be.
But yeah, if you've got the moxy, make it so.
Dotting. As a player, I've wanted to play high level, but it just seems so unreacheable. I'm going to start GM-ing soon, and obviously I'll start at lower levels. But it would be nice to have the tools that would allow me to GM up to higher level. A good start would be:
1) Player Management: from my own experience as a layer, I dont want to GM a group larger than 3-4 players. Despite that, there can be massive amounts of info to process. A lot of things mentionned earlier (and in the alpha thread) are important, namely: tracking buffs, init, general power, etc.
2) Plot management: How to manage spells/powers that make certain threats seem arbitrary. Maybe a list of commonly used spells/powers (like scry & teleport) that can be troublesome. Ideas of how to limit them without seeming arbitrary would also be nice.
3) Electronic support: I know many people prefer to rely on books, but my experience with roll20, combined with the d20pfsrd, makes rules verification easier & quicker (and cheaper). I've seen a few tools around (I'm fond on myth-weavers for character sheets). I was tempted to get herolab before, but when I realized they charged quite a lot for everything, it just didnt seem worth it. (several 100$ for all the packages just doesnt seem worth it)
Basically, as a player, I'm really interested in being able to use those high-level powers/abilities etc. that I find most interesting. The easiest way would be to GM high-level myself and convert others, but that's a whole thing in itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dotting. As a player, I've wanted to play high level, but it just seems so unreacheable. I'm going to start GM-ing soon, and obviously I'll start at lower levels. But it would be nice to have the tools that would allow me to GM up to higher level. A good start would be:
1) Player Management: from my own experience as a layer, I dont want to GM a group larger than 3-4 players. Despite that, there can be massive amounts of info to process. A lot of things mentionned earlier (and in the alpha thread) are important, namely: tracking buffs, init, general power, etc.
2) Plot management: How to manage spells/powers that make certain threats seem arbitrary. Maybe a list of commonly used spells/powers (like scry & teleport) that can be troublesome. Ideas of how to limit them without seeming arbitrary would also be nice.
3) Electronic support: I know many people prefer to rely on books, but my experience with roll20, combined with the d20pfsrd, makes rules verification easier & quicker (and cheaper). I've seen a few tools around (I'm fond on myth-weavers for character sheets). I was tempted to get herolab before, but when I realized they charged quite a lot for everything, it just didnt seem worth it. (several 100$ for all the packages just doesnt seem worth it)
Basically, as a player, I'm really interested in being able to use those high-level powers/abilities etc. that I find most interesting. The easiest way would be to GM high-level myself and convert others, but that's a whole thing in itself.
William, I'm risking sliding us off topic, but having run a lengthy, very high level campaign (15-19), here's some unofficial and unsolicited advice:
1. You are right not to want to have a large group, especially if PCs have other allies, cohorts, companions, etc. to track. Tracking things like buffs are made easier with things like the GameMastery Condition Cards and Buff Cards--these are PHENOMENAL at any level but especially help when you start stacking a lot of stuff. If you can't afford the official ones, I suggest making your own.
2. Managing powerful abilities/teleport/"cheat" spells: I've heard this concern many times and the trick is not to consider these spells obstacles to you or to consider severely limiting them---the trick is to turn your thinking around so you're thinking about how to make these abilities work for you and your story. Remember EVERYTHING in the game is the tool for a GM to use and that includes the PCs' own abilities. Teleport or any other similar spell shouldn't be seen as a way for the PCs should bypass the plot---it should be seen as a way for the GM to get them to it. The party can teleport? Great, start the adventure where they teleport to, forget about the middle. Or have them be plucked out of the ethereal by a god when they teleport. Have the bad guy set up a contingency spell whose conditions are "If PC wizard casts teleport, then..."
These powerful abilities must be treated as additional building blocks to plot, not detractions from them, because they will only "ruin" the plot if you let them. I will note, you do have to be willing to prepare for a lot of "what if the party does x?" contingencies in a high level game (or with my players, an any-level game); flexibility and the ability to adapt on the fly is a paramount feature of a GM for a high level game (and again, any game, really).
When you do set limitations to the abilities, do so in-game, in the narrative, where it makes sense. For example, in my campaign, I had the party travel through a very magically competent, magically secure, ancient empire. The government mages set up contingencies to detect and track anyone who traveled by magical means--you can obtain a permit to do so (a device which exempts you from tracking), but that takes awhile to arrange (or you can arrange to have a permit forged, with all the risks that entails). The party, powerful and probably able to face the consequences, still chose to travel via a more mundane means -- and I was prepared to deal with whatever route they chose (i.e., they didn't have to travel slow, I would have just reacted with another storyline if they had teleported, and either way some interesting stuff would happen). Also, in appropriate, high level areas, certain areas were protected by things like forbiddance spells. The game has adequate "limitations" to such spells if you look for them, so don't invent more. And all such limitations again should happen only occasionally, when it makes sense. It makes sense to have the King's Vault magically protected against teleportation. It does not make sense to have the local farmer's house protected thusly (unless the farmer's got his own secrets).
Of course, this is exactly the kind of advice we need in a GM's strategy guide from Paizo..... but anyway.
3) Electronic support: Everything you need as a GM is right here: www.combatmanager.com. This is HANDS DOWN the BEST electronic GM tool I have ever seen. I got it toward the end of running my high level game and it made running combats and referencing rules DRAMATICALLY quicker. It is free, but if you've cash to spare I recommend a donation.
It does NOT include a character generator, but I normally just nab monsters and NPC stats from the Pathfinder Reference Document right here at Paizo.com, or if I generate beforehand, use either sCoreForge or PCGen, both free, to create them. Both programs can do just about anything HeroLab can do--not as pretty, but with a price that can't be beat (I believe PCGen is still a little behind on supported books, but has most of the RPG line--they do take longer to update, but with a volunteer unpaid staff that is understandable). PCGen also has some GM tools, but Combat Manager is much better for that.
Good luck!
"this is exactly the kind of advice we need in a GM's strategy guide from Paizo"- exactly. And, to some extent they have, but they need more.
We have a house rule- no more than two "PC"s for any one player at a time, this includes cohorts, combat familiars, summoned creatures, mounts that fight, etc. No more than one summoned creature per side at any one time, this limits the DM's BBEG ability to spam summons also. Hugely speeds up the game.
Also, one Player needs to assist the DM and run Init, telling folsk who is up and who is next, etc.
...
Thanks for the advice deathquaker, it's definitly appreciated. I do however wish there was a cheaper version of herolab, because since I've started playing pathfinder, one of the things I've had the most fun doing is maeking "theoretical" builds. But tracking everything becomes a hastle, and i'd have of them are less than 3/4 finished because of it. It's nice to have everything centralized.
Does herolab have customization options? IE, if I want to add a feat, I can? This could allow me to buy the cheaper version and add the occasional oddity.
I think I will take you homerule DrDeth,the "no multiple companions rule" (IE, 1 cohort OR animal companion OR familiar etc.) seems very sound and reasonable. Though it does limit certain kinds of play (like construct crafter for one).
...Thanks for the advice deathquaker, it's definitly appreciated. I do however wish there was a cheaper version of herolab, because since I've started playing pathfinder, one of the things I've had the most fun doing is maeking "theoretical" builds. But tracking everything becomes a hastle, and i'd have of them are less than 3/4 finished because of it. It's nice to have everything centralized.
Does herolab have customization options? IE, if I want to add a feat, I can? This could allow me to buy the cheaper version and add the occasional oddity.
Again, PC Gen and sCoreForge (which is Excel-based) are good character generators and are free. You can't get any cheaper than that. I do most of my theory builds with either of those. The downside of PC Gen is that the developers are slow to update it (that's what happens when you have a free program run largely by volunteers) -- but they DO update it in time. The downside of sCoreForge is being Excel-based and running on lots of macros, it can be very slow to load.
HeroLab, PC Gen, and sCoreForge (which is Excel-based) all have customization options (although I think the devs of PC Gen are re-working theirs to make it a little easier to work with, IIRC--the current version it may not be working, to be honest--but if you contact the team they may be able to help with custom stuff you need). It depends on how comfortable you feel working with the datasets within those programs.
If you do decide to purchase HeroLab, and you feel comfortable editing your own data packages, you can actually custom-add all the official material as well as custom material you like, precluding you from having to buy the add-ons--but that takes a lot of time and you have to feel comfortable making the packages. It also takes away one of the benefits of HeroLab--they are very fast at putting out the new datapacks when a book comes out (you just have to pay for them). I own Hero Lab, but I bought it to use with Mutants and Masterminds so I can only use the Pathfinder version in demo mode (they do so love to nickel and dime you). I've also used the Pathfinder version on another friend's computer. It is a decent program but I don't feel it is strongly better than the free generator programs--and in many cases, I actually get frustrated with the interface. It is prettier looking and in some ways well-organized but I actually find it easier to find certain things I am looking for in the other two.
Having used HeroLab as nearly extensively as I've used PCGen and sCoreForge I feel perfectly happy using the free generators for all my Pathfinder chargen needs. And again, for GMing, nothing comes close to Combat Manager. Your mileage may vary significantly, of course. (Now, for Mutants and Masterminds, I do recommend HeroLab because tracking all that point buy is made a lot easier.)
The latter is a problem Paizo actually recognized (Lisa Stevens wrote a memorable post during the beta playtest about just that) but chose not to effectively address during the playtest period.To be fair, the Paizo team DID address the issue, proposing a change. Problem is the fan community rejected the idea of buff limits.
You have to keep in mind that there is a major divide between those who want to address "option paralysis" and those who want to maximise the number of options available without limit.
True enough on how Paizo handled the situation. It was actually what I was trying to bring across with "Paizo chose not to effectively address" the problem, although I did so in an imperfect way.
Option paralysis is another problem than buff limitations, though. Options are great, but players need to be able to handle them. If some players need five minutes to decide which of their spells to cast, that is not the same problem as having to apply 15 buffs on your character before combat (or 4+ NPC characters, which is a fricking nightmare).
A lot high level play issues concern scrying, teleportation, and planar travel. And there isn't a lot of guidance in print as to how to make that stuff challenging. I worked it out for my campaign, but that is based on a lot of experience. I can see the value of such a book.A lot of the lack of challenge is simply not making use of the standard rules regarding each.
1. Scrying. In terms of spells alone, there are plenty of defenses against scrying, defenses for rooms, and single persons and groups. (mind blank communual, anyone?) There's a fine balance between denying players ANY useful use of these spells and letting them short circuit the entire campaign, but it's doable.
2. Teleportation. The 5th level spell has a strong random element that many DMs handwave away. This is also true of plane shift which can land you up to 500 miles away from your desired target.
A lot of this is experience from leveling a campaign from the bottom to the top levels and at least some of the adventure paths, such as the current one Wrath of the Righteous, will take you on a guided tour of running a campaign from 1st to the ultimate level that Pathfinder has rules for right now, 20/10.
I've always found it remarkable how readily people will accept obstacles to overland travel, but it never occurs to them that severe weather interferes with flight, and teleportation would logically be very sensitive to a number of things. It would seem weird for "normal" castles to have lots of exotic features, but I've always assumed that in D&D worlds, most would have some lead-lined rooms. Using a series of lead-filled pillars in the throne room blocks almost all divination spells.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot high level play issues concern scrying, teleportation, and planar travel. And there isn't a lot of guidance in print as to how to make that stuff challenging. I worked it out for my campaign, but that is based on a lot of experience. I can see the value of such a book.A lot of the lack of challenge is simply not making use of the standard rules regarding each.
1. Scrying. In terms of spells alone, there are plenty of defenses against scrying, defenses for rooms, and single persons and groups. (mind blank communal, anyone?) There's a fine balance between denying players ANY useful use of these spells and letting them short circuit the entire campaign, but it's doable.
2. Teleportation. The 5th level spell has a strong random element that many DMs hand wave away. This is also true of plane shift which can land you up to 500 miles away from your desired target.
A lot of this is experience from leveling a campaign from the bottom to the top levels and at least some of the adventure paths, such as the current one Wrath of the Righteous, will take you on a guided tour of running a campaign from 1st to the ultimate level that Pathfinder has rules for right now, 20/10.
These are pretty good points, but I'll elaborate on both teleport and scrying a bit.
Scrying Limitations
Even before getting to the long list of things that can defeat scrying within the rules as written (everything from lead lined walls to nondetection to mages private sanctum to mind blank), and before touching on things that fall inside the GM’s playbook for shutting it down (strange energy fields in the area, weird cosmic alignments, ect), the largest limitation of scrying in the general sense is that it only works if you know who you are scrying – that is specifically. You can’t simply scry “the raiders” or “the pirates”. You can’t scry “the evil wizard”. With that in mind, at its core you have to have a lead to begin with. Whether or not scrying requires an individual’s real name, as opposed to an alias or title (e.g. “John Smith vs. Lifetaker”) is up to GMs, but certainly false identities can quickly lead you astray if they are sufficiently vague.
Beyond having to know who you are scrying in the general sense, there comes the issue of providing relatively large bonuses to them if you don’t have some kind of first-hand connection to the target. Scrying the evil guy you fought before isn’t as difficult, but scrying the Rob the Slayer based on witness accounts inflates even Bob the Fighter’s save quite a bit. At high levels the planar aspect can also come into play, where you provide an extra +5 on a save if they are on another plane. The short version of this is that bad guys the PCs haven’t faced directly present relatively difficult targets for scrying, regardless of their class.
This also affects good guys the party wants to get in touch with. Suppose you are fighting a near epic level evil fighter (let us call him Warduke) and you are outmatched. Getting in touch with his nemesis, the epic level paladin (let us call him Strongheart) is not as simple as picking up a phone if you’ve never met him, even if you know of him.
Compounding relatively easy saves for many beings, scrying carries a few more limitations. The most obvious of them is that it has a long casting time and a component that may not always be on hand. Next comes the 1/day clause, where even if you had the resources to spam someone with scrying spells hoping for them to roll badly, you can only do so once per day. Over a long enough period a PC spellcaster can probably force a natural one out of an enemy who takes no other steps to protect himself, but we are talking about days or weeks on average. A cunning GM will find plenty of ways to make the scry spam unappealing to a party, whether it is reprisal from the villain, the use of something like detect scrying, easy means of mitigating scrying attempts, or the plot moving ahead while the party sits on their hands.
Even if you succeed, scrying has a relatively short duration, requires constant attention, has a (relatively high) chance of being spotted, can be dispelled, and only provides you with vision on 10ft. around the target. You might get to see a room, if it is a very small one. In short, a lot can go wrong, and while scrying can be useful if used properly it is not by any means some kind of auto-win button for the party in the information gathering department even when it does work. That 10ft. sight also comes into play rather strongly when we are talking about scrying then teleporting to a location. Laying aside you face a relatively high chance of a misteleport with only limited scrying to scout the area, you may find yourself with only a relatively small area in which to teleport – because that is all you’ve seen. You don’t know if you are teleporting into a trap. You don’t know who is waiting at the edges of the room. And, again, the DC to detect a sensor is relatively low, which means intelligent enemies at high level will likely react – laying their own buffs, beefing up security, and so forth (even if they fail the save on your first scrying attempt).
Greater scrying removes some weaknesses – casting time, duration, and component, but entails a greater use of resources while still requiring the same knowledge as the original spell, still having the same limitations in terms of requiring attention, and still only provides limited knowledge. If scrying is ruining your game, you are letting it do so.
Inherent Limitations of Teleport
Let’s start with the obvious - you have to have seen the location you are seeking. If you haven't found someone to scry on there (and that has problems as detailed under scrying), you can't go until you start using greater teleport. That means, for instance, you can't teleport to the bad guy's evil lair of "Secret Mountain Castle" from which no one has ever returned alive. You can't teleport to lost ancient sites, you can't even teleport to the closest city unless you've been there once or twice (this came up on one of my own games, win the party wizard couldn’t find someone to buy a given magic item and thought to teleport to the next closest major city to find another buyer).
So, just as a start, the argument that teleport immediately kills plots by letting PCs freely skip ahead to the end of a given adventure is nonsense. Until 13th level (minimum) you cannot go somewhere you have not been at least once (and places you have not been frequently have relatively high chances of failure). There are plenty of reasons and reasonable plots that involve a party being waylaid along the road or while traveling. Random encounters do remain very much a real thing. Even after 13th level, when you are using greater teleport, you have to have a reliable description of the area. How reliable and detailed may vary by GM, but this can be a tremendous stumbling block even for relatively mundane destinations that are not far off. Let’s go back to the city example from earlier – you have to find someone that has been to that city or find a detailed account of a specific spot. Depending on where you start, that can be difficult or time consuming. Not impossible, just not as mundane as some people would have you believe (I personally think this provides a great opportunity for the rogue to go out and use his gather information skills to find someone in the city who can provide a description, if one exists – it can provide an even better hook for him if you are trying to teleport to an illicit or well secured area that underworld contacts might know more about than laypeople).
Laying aside the issues of just being physically capable of teleporting, up until greater teleport each teleportation has a chance of failure. Large or small, this should weigh on the decision to use this method of transportation without hesitation. Teleport carries with it a risk. Even laying aside landing in a similar area (that could be hazardous) or off target area (that could be even more hazardous!), there is the mishap, which on a particularly bad series of rolls (and especially on a false destination) can feasibly kill familiars, low level companions (nobles, merchants, kings), wounded party members and so forth.
Regarding things like the good old scry + teleport rescue, or scry and fry, even laying aside the limitations of scrying as discussed above, there are all kinds of ways teleportation can fail or prove dangerous even at very high levels. Spells like forbiddance can render entire castles immune to teleportation effects. Locations on the outer planes are flatly immune to teleportation unless you are already on that plane. Areas can be trapped with things like teleport trap (a truly terrifying spell), and that is before getting to purely GM related tools (astral storms that make teleportation risky, dead magic, ect). The great thing is, the party doesn’t have any means to know why a given attempt failed. Extraplanar fortifications can from the inside appear to be on the material plane. Forbiddance is not obvious to scrying. It might really shut down a party for a day or more to have finally scried successfully, fully buffed up for scry and fry, then found that the teleport failed and all those buffs were wasted.
Then there is the issue of the number of beings you can teleport. When you gain access to teleport (at level 9 or 10) you can teleport yourself and three other medium creatures. Hope the druid doesn’t have a companion. Hope it isn’t large. Really better hope you took an arcane bond item instead of a familiar. Finally, god forbid you have cohorts or a larger than 4 person party. You can get around the party size limitations, but not without expending lots of resources (multiple teleports there and back to ferry an entire party) or potentially putting yourself in an awkward circumstance (e.g. party members or companions in extraplanar spaces – I wonder did you budget that portable hole into your careful spending for maximum combat power). That number scales, but not quickly. A 20th level wizard’s greater teleport transports himself + 6 others (including familiars, companions, ect) if they are all medium. If you have a larger than average party you now face a new challenge – do I scry and fry, leaving all our allies behind, or do we do a normal assault in strength? Perhaps you can teleport in to save the hostages, but now you are locked in the bowels of the prison with no means of getting them out because they inflated your numbers. As a final note, things like dimensional anchor can be hard counters on the quick and easy retreat. You don’t even have to tag an entire party or even the spellcaster. Many parties won’t abandon a party member to teleport away (with good reason). The suggestion that a high level party has no mechanical reason to ever take a fight in which they don’t hold the advantage doesn’t hold water, and that is before we get to plot related things (e.g. defending someone else, protecting something else, with allies that will die if they flee, ect).
My point in all of this, so it isn't lost, is not that teleport and scrying are bad spells. They are actually really good spells that add a lot to the game and a character. I can't imagine playing my 15th level wizard without teleport, because it would have shut down an entire two year arc of our current campaign and would dramatically alter the next couple years of planning / play. I also don't think that GMs should go out of their way to shut down teleport and scrying all the time. I think that sometimes scrying, teleport, even scry and die should work - because it adds variety to the game and lets high level characters play with high level toys.
My point is that even within the rules themselves these spells are not unlimited in their power, and they are relatively easy to work around in terms of adventure building if you play them within the rules.
Edit Typos.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Divinations are at issue as well.
I really think a great GM's primer requires a selective treatment of every benchmark spell.
That includes things like wall of force, disintegrate and the relationship between the two. Includes the whole hierarchy of dispelling, like why some spells can only be broken by other spells.
In another thread, a poster called out wish. I think it's a perfectly fine spell, but it's also one hell of a benchmark. What do the game's designers expect a player to do with that spell? I think GMs ought to know.
The GMG is a fine book, with some useful tools and good advice. But frankly, I think that GMs need the details.
Options for speeding up and slowing down the game are important.
Since my current players are relatively new to high level play, and most are arithmetic challenged, here's what I've got.
Two attacks a round, as per Trailblazer rules
Crits do max damage, as per 4e
Buff deck to track spells
Condition deck to track conditions
New spells must be learned, as per 1e
And I'm debating moving from round/level to encounter spells, like 4e
Most importantly, action does not wait for you. If you can decide what to do, tough. You're on delay, and it's the next player's turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There needs to be an entire chapter dedicated to using index cards. Seriously, those things are the best tool any GM could ever have.
But, a chapter on using cheap but effective tools around you to make GMing easier would be awesome.
These are pretty good points, but I'll elaborate on both teleport and scrying a bit.
..
This is a really great post. Some keep saying that "scry & fry" makes high level games unplayable and spellcasters HUGELY more powerful than not. Well, in our 12th level game, we haven't managed more than one "scry & fry" and our fighter is far and away our most dangerous PC.
Other high-powered divination spells, such as contact other plane, commune, find the path, and legend lore, are a lot more game-changing than mere scrying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other high-powered divination spells, such as contact other plane, commune, find the path, and legend lore, are a lot more game-changing than mere scrying.
Oh my god, those are my FAVORITES as a GM. Such GREAT ways to get a story going and feed the party what they need to know to get hooked on the plot...
... or distracting a party or confusing them or leading them straight into exactly where you want them to be to smit- er, reward them for their bravery...
Upon closer inspection, DQ's halo is a gold-painted tin circlet resting on a small pair of horns jutting from her forehead.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At one time, a "buff slots" limitation was considered but ultimately rejected (due to fan complaints, according to what James said).
Actually... that wasn't rejected due to fan complaints. It was never integrated into the game to begin with because it was too different from D&D, I believe. The idea of "buff slots" has never really been playtested or put out there as far as I know.
But yeah... my take on buff slots was that the total slots you could have was set by your level and MAYBE adjusted by your Charisma mod, to give more stuff for Charisma to do, but the idea never really went that far. I'm tinkering with a variant of it in my little Unspeakable Futures rules but haven't gotten far with it yet, due to no time to work on those rules syndrome...
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are pretty good points, but I'll elaborate on both teleport and scrying a bit.
..
This is a really great post. Some keep saying that "scry & fry" makes high level games unplayable and spellcasters HUGELY more powerful than not. Well, in our 12th level game, we haven't managed more than one "scry & fry" and our fighter is far and away our most dangerous PC.
My take on "scry & fry" is that you can't.
When you scry someone, you look at them... NOT their location. You get a little information about where they are but not much. In my games, you can't scry & fry unless the person you're scrying on happens to be in an area you recognize; if they're somewhere you've never heard of before, you can't use teleport. Greater teleport would work but only if while you scry them they talk about or otherwise reveal exactly where they are.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other high-powered divination spells, such as contact other plane, commune, find the path, and legend lore, are a lot more game-changing than mere scrying.
As before, when played even strictly within the bounds of the spells with no outside plot elements (e.g. planar conjunctions, ancient energy fields, ect) these spells are not really damaging to the game as a whole and instead provide excellent opportunities for a GM to reveal information that can be useful to the game or can expand upon the world, ancient history, and so forth. They are only changing to the game in that a GM has to be aware of them. They can slow down play if used without any expectation - forcing a GM to play on the fly.
If an unexpected use is really giving a GM grief I'd suggest a brief pause (5-10 minutes) between uses to allow a GM to quickly sketch out some notes. I know many games (most games) tend to break every now and then for bathroom breaks, smoke breaths, or to get drink refills or order food, so this doesn't necessarily have to interrupt the pace of play any more than anything else.
Contact Other Plane
This is actually one of the most limited divination effects in the game. Lets start with the obvious. Ten minute casting time means this isn't as simple as a 'yes' 'no' answer whenever you have a question (in the same way that sending isn't just picking up a phone, but we'll talk about that later). This spell answers questions with one word answers. You can ask one question per two caster levels.
The answers you get are skewed by the specific beings you ask (per the text) which can result in very swingly chances of getting true, false, random, or no answer. In short, the spell has a built in clause for the GM to screw with players if they are using this spell a great deal in an abusive way. The spell also explicitly states that the spell can be blocked entirely by certain deities or forces. That's explicit text within the spell.
Laying that aside, at best the spell has an 88% chance of getting you a correct answer. Doing so risks 5 weeks of 8 Int and 8 Charisma (along with a loss of spellcasting). This is not simply damage or drain, and there is not an explicit way within the rules to cure it (short of, perhaps, wish or miracle). Even seeking answers from powers that are exceptionally weak risks a week or more of that state. The risk varies by the being you are asking, and also by your own intelligence score. It can be mitigated with things like rerolls, but until very high levels it is difficult to have an intelligence bonus sufficient to have a better than average chance of success. The penalties, once again, are extremely stiff for failure.
To recap - this spell can be countered by gods and other powers (vague), often gives you wrong or misleading answers, and risks weeks of complete loss of spellcasting and loss of intelligence and charisma.
Commune
Once again we have a relatively long casting time, and this time we add a costly material component. You explicitly ask your deity, and your deity may explicitly not have knowledge to answer that question. This is an easy escape from this spell being plot breaking. Gods are not omni-potent. They have enemies. They have domains and portolios where they likely have answers for you but may have limited access to information outside of those. To borrow an example from a campaign I play in, we had a chance to actually speak with aspects of the two gods of the two party clerics. Both were extremely helpful in terms of providing information to the party. Both were limited in the information they had because the beings and locations we were talking about fell outside of their portfolios and in a region where they had no worshipers, shines, or temples.
The spell also explicitly states that the being answering the questions in ways that further its own purposes. This can mean gods may refuse to directly answer questions not related to their own goals (or may give directed answers) or questions that may lead their cleric away from their duties (in one game I'm in a 15th level cleric has been unable to receive any answers regarding her long lost mother from her goddess because she either doesn't know or doesn't want one of her most powerful priestesses running off and potentially ruining a plot of hers or abandoning all of her responsibilities in favor of a personal quest).
Even if your deity is inclined to provide completely honest, forthright, and direct answers there are limitations of yes or no questions. With sufficient castings you could probably badger out complete answers, but we are talking about enormous time and resource commitments under ideal circumstances.
In short, this spell can be as game breaking as a GM wants. I don't think it should be shot down all the time, or even most of the time, but if it is damaging your game or ruining plots rather than advancing them, there are tools built into the spell to avoid that.
Find the Path
This spell is actually quite good, but again I fail to see the plot / campaign breaking aspects of it. Like scrying, the largest weakness is that you have to actually know where you are going. You need a name and the location has to be prominent. Now, prominate is going to vary a bit depending on who is GMing (some for instance might say a city lost a thousand years ago where no living creature has walked is no longer prominent – having been lost to history there are no longer any paths to it), so I won’t touch on that in too much detail. I will say however that the spell allows for some leeway in terms of what kind of ancient or lost locations can be found with its very word choice.
Beyond that, Find the Path is a 10 minute per level spell. When you gain access it lasts for a couple of hours. Even extended at high levels it doesn’t even last a full day. The spell provides a direct physical path, not a magical path, and thus works only via physical movement. That’s flying carpets, phantom steeds, on horseback, or on foot. It doesn’t let you bypass an adventure by any means, and instead creates an adventure in and of itself in the form of a journey to a location on foot (how many threads have I seen with Gms lamenting that their party no longer travels conventionally?).
The travel location must be on the same plane. The spell cannot react or predict the guardians you may face. It leads the party on the path of least physical resistance. Surely GMs can see the opportunities here, with Find the Path leading the party down the specifically prepared nightmare, monster, and trap filled path to a secret location? This is another very useful spell, especially for finding local ruins, cities, locations and such, but it is not campaign breaking. It has strictly defined limitations, ways around it, and the potential to create adventures. The story of a spell that leads a party on an epic journey’s across the world in search of their goal through its traps, trials, and guardians seems more the stuff of an epic campaign, and not the stuff of ruin to me.
Legend Lore
Legend Lore and its partner vision are probably the strongest divinations in the game when utilized correctly, but even then they have inherent limitations that keep them from being game breaking. These spells are somewhat unique compared to the other spell’s I’ve examined, in that they call for a far greater degree of GM adjudication than the others. Legend lore provides no simple yes or no answer, and instead requires some degree of preparation.
These spells bring to mind ‘legends about an important person, place, or thing’. In the very first line of the spells you see one of the largest weaknesses of them. They only work on legendary creatures and items. Later on the spell goes on to define legendary characters as being generally 11th level or higher, being items 11th level characters would be interested in (read, major magic items), and places that are interesting to them. If you target something that is not legendary, you get no benefit from the spell and instead waste not only the spell slot and component, but also a lot of time.
That time is the second major weakness of legend lore. Even if you are at an ancient location, standing over a defeated legendary foe, or holding a legendary item you need between 10 and 40 minutes to cast the spell. If you have ‘detailed’ information about them – the kind I might consider supplied afer extensive research on them – you get your information in 1d10 days. If you don’t have detailed information legend lore takes 2d6 weeks. During those times you cannot craft magic items. You can’t fight – not even a street fight. Depending on how your GM interprets ‘routine’ this could even prevent you from having meetings, conducting negotiations, and training apprentices. Whether you can even cast spells during this period may be up to your GM (I would lean towards yes, but again this spell requires more adjuration). If this spell is damaging your game enforce these limitations more strictly. If it is underused apply it less strongly. In either case, there is flexibility for a GM.
Next we come to what this spell actually gives you. It provides legends under the best circumstances – e.g. item in front of you. Let’s look at the definition of legend, shall we? Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a legend (in our context) as “a story coming down from the past; especially: one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable” and “a popular myth of recent origin”. What this means for GMs is that even under the best circumstances this spell gives information that is not complete and may be inaccurate. It is stories and tales, rather than facts. It is the opinion of this writer that when providing the results of legend lore (and vision) you should do so in the form of stories or visions, not simply as blocks of information, because that is what the spell is intended to provide.
It might tell you of an ancient legendary wielder of an item or the ancient ruler of a location. It might show you that leader at scene of some legend, using that legendary sword towards some great purpose (slaying a monster or rival for instance). It does not tell you that the sword is a +4 flaming burst longsword, or that the guy is a fighter 18, or a cleric 17, or a barbarian18. This spell has the potential to unravel games only when Gms hand out too much information with it, beyond the scope of what it provides.
Now, that is under the best of circumstances. Lets look at with only ‘detailed’ information. You get less complete and specific information – for instance about the battle where the above legendary character fought, rather than about his contribution specifically. If you have only rumors you get vague and incomplete lore – unfinished lines, names omitted, ect. There are all kinds of ways to play this spell, but none that fit within the scope of it are ‘broken’. It provides information, but not highly detailed information that should undermine a given plot. The largest use, in my opinion, is in providing history on beings that you capture or defeat that might lead you to who sent them or where they come from. It might reveal for instance that this mystery attacker is actually an ancient assassin who served an ancient lord now returned in undeath. That sounds more plot-building than destroying to me though.
There is also of course, the implicit weakness of legends. You can get false information from this spell – that is the nature of legend. This is especially true of beings ancient or powerful enough to spread some deception about their origins or nature. If you want some great inspiriation for this kind of stuff take a look at The Black Company and its associated books (especially the Books of the North and Books of the South).
Vision
This spell works much like legend lore above, only without the same kind of time limitations. You still receive the same limited information, but now regardless of your success you are fatigued. That isn’t a huge deal for characters of 13th level or greater, but it does represent a loss of resources from patching that up as well. This spell requires a caster level check, which is relatively easy against creatures on hand (65% chance of failure at level 13), quite difficult for creatures you know a lot about (45% chance of success at level 13) and almost impossible if you have only rumors (20% chance of success at level 13). Even at high level getting information on beings you know little about is difficult, though much easier and less time consuming than legend lore.
Again though, the same weaknesses in terms of information exists. You get legends. Legends can be false. They can be incomplete. They can be of limited use. Legends might let you know what you are fighting in a general sense, but because of their nature not give you the information you need to prepare for some less well known aspect.
These are pretty good points, but I'll elaborate on both teleport and scrying a bit.
..
This is a really great post. Some keep saying that "scry & fry" makes high level games unplayable and spellcasters HUGELY more powerful than not. Well, in our 12th level game, we haven't managed more than one "scry & fry" and our fighter is far and away our most dangerous PC.
My take on "scry & fry" is that you can't.
When you scry someone, you look at them... NOT their location. You get a little information about where they are but not much. In my games, you can't scry & fry unless the person you're scrying on happens to be in an area you recognize; if they're somewhere you've never heard of before, you can't use teleport. Greater teleport would work but only if while you scry them they talk about or otherwise reveal exactly where they are.
This is a completely valid take in many circumstances. Even if the party does know the location (perhaps having attacked before and been forced away), the ease with which a scrying senser can be located means that the buffing / preparation can easily go both ways.
I was working strictly within the rules as written for the most part - which many of the strongest advocates for 'game breaking spells' adhere to (e.g. simulacrum provides a copy with all spells and powers - which I believe is patiently ridiculous), but depending on a given GM this can be all kinds of shot down (and I'm happy to see some Paizo guys agree).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<half of the high level play book, it seems!>
Honestly, that's exactly the kind of things I'd like to see covered in such a book.
IMC, we're beginning to enter this range again, so I'd thought I'd reflect here on a few things. First, on the "require them to use these spells", I have several of my players groaning when I use this tact, and to some degree I can see where they're coming from. "Requiring" that they use spells or resources to amount to what is essentially plot-point connecting aids (i.e. used as necessary steps to get from Point A to Point B) can be frustrating b/c it's not necessarily the same thing as "being able to do awesome stuff" (i.e. doing fun stuff in spontaneous ways). So I feel the strategy of requiring spells to be used to solve scenarios or to get from Point A to Point B is best use sparingly, because overuse of this strategy can make using the spells a routine chore (and then we get into the same conundrum as thwarting them too often- why have them at all?)
Beyond simple spells, I think the combined use of spells should be examined. Often it's not a single spell that complicates things (unless it's simulacrum) that's tricky, but rather several spells laced together. With the amount of spells out there, it's pretty darn difficult for a DM to know what to expect in their combinations.
There's also the time/effort factor in dealing with spells and other high level abilities, not just the challenge of it. Legend Lore/Vision, for example, potentially unloads a massive info dump onto the players. And keeping up with the all treasure and NPC details (spells, etc) can be a hassle (even with automated tools like PCgen and combat manager). Alternate or more simplified means of developing stat blocks or even streamlined character progression might help here. As a quick and dirty alternative, some development on reskinning statblocks of monsters/NPCs from one form to another could be used like in the third-party "Filing Off the Serial Numbers" PDF. Particularly since all the prefab high level challenges are almost always outsiders, dragons, NPCs (heavily trending towards spellcasters), or creatures of Huge size or greater. While we're at it, an expanded list of high level critters that AREN'T one of the above is another thing I'd look forward to in a high level book.
Regarding expanding the reach of play beyond focusing on the PC as an individual (going into dominion level play, etc), I'm not sure this can work as a main element of high level play. Any such endeavor will requiring working with subsystems that can appear to be unwieldy and off past a certain point (I wouldn't enjoy having to rely on a kingdom spreadsheet after a certain point). Beyond that, a dominion level or similar focus would entail a lot of ad hoc challenges (ad hoc in the sense that they aren't as structurally governed as combat is). Dominion level play as the high-level campaign focus might work better if ad hoc assigning CRs to noncombat challenges was more systematically dealt with.
One of main things I think a high level book will need to address is the NPC (and possibly PC) creation time/complexity issue. This is hard because it comes from the "NPC rules equal PC rules" standard built right into the foundation of d20. Unless this primary conundrum is somehow addressed, I think high level play will always be no more than a tertiary focus.
|
The problem with such book is that it would generate an endless "Is this the way the game is supposed to be played?" thread.
If the book would be about tamer, storytellingish games, the gamist crowd will laugh it out as a "yet another example that Paizo doesn't know how D&D is played".
If the book would be about Dungeons & Dragons Hyper Fighting Edition, the narrativist crowd will laugh it out as a "yet another example that Paizo doesn't know how D&D is played".
If it hits anywhere in between, it gets flak from both sides. Imagine that the book says "Cleave is a nice feat for a Fighter". One side goes "ROFLCOPTER, Cleave ahahahaha Failzo hands out faildvice to failzils again, lol nobody with half a brain cell uses Cleave or plays a Fightard" and the other side goes "Oh great, once again we're told that the game is all about combat and numbers, where did the wonder days of Gygax go? Thanks for listening to all those MMO anime gunslinger kids Paizo! Thanks for letting us TRUE GAMERS down!".
You really want that? :)
The problem with such book is that it would generate an endless "Is this the way the game is supposed to be played?" thread.
If the book would be about tamer, storytellingish games, the gamist crowd will laugh it out as a "yet another example that Paizo doesn't know how D&D is played".
If the book would be about Dungeons & Dragons Hyper Fighting Edition, the narrativist crowd will laugh it out as a "yet another example that Paizo doesn't know how D&D is played".
If it hits anywhere in between, it gets flak from both sides. Imagine that the book says "Cleave is a nice feat for a Fighter". One side goes "ROFLCOPTER, Cleave ahahahaha Failzo hands out faildvice to failzils again, lol nobody with half a brain cell uses Cleave or plays a Fightard" and the other side goes "Oh great, once again we're told that the game is all about combat and numbers, where did the wonder days of Gygax go? Thanks for listening to all those MMO anime gunslinger kids Paizo! Thanks for letting us TRUE GAMERS down!".
You really want that? :)
As much as I hate to admit it, the bag speaks the truth here. I wouldn't go as far as to say it'd be impossible to write the book in such a way as to keep most people happy, but it would certainly present a challenge by having to ensure across-the-scale coverage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One side goes "ROFLCOPTER, Cleave ahahahaha Failzo hands out faildvice to failzils again, lol nobody with half a brain cell uses Cleave or plays a Fightard"
Just my opinion, but anything that pisses off that lot is probably a good move. They're such an irrelevant minority that mainly aim to feel superior to other people. That's bad for attracting new players, and anything that drives them away is probably good for the game.
As for pleasing the other crowd, a lot depends on the actual quality of the rules.
Making decision based on the reactions you're likely to get on the internet is not an advisable practice. Make decisions based on what players need to play the game, have fun, and keep buying your products.
In this case, I think GMs need their lives made easier. A lot easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
where did the wonder days of Gygax go?
That specific sentence fragment seems kinda silly to me (for the narativists) seeing how uterly impossible I heard it was supposed to be to survive long term in D&D 1e & 2e, and that only min-maxers could survive.
While I agree bag brings up an important issue, this is an issue with ANY book that is more than just content. The moment anything comes out that does more than just say "here's a bunch of new stuff" and tries to give out some advice/share their experience, there are going to be whiners. Heck, the same thing can happen for "content books" (noticed the thread about the phooka?). Although the narrativist/mechanist divide can be a violent place. But I feel it tends to be a lot of hot air. Considering how easy it is to exclude books, they'll just ignore it and go on playing, it's not like paizo would stop supporting the rest of the game.
I'd be curious to know what kind of reaction the first game master's guide received, because it should be indicative of what kind of reception any other guide would get.
GMing procedures with appropriate depth would be advice bordering on "crunch".
Additional subsystems to flesh out other types of conflict besides combat would probably garner a lot of attention from the crunch-feasting subset of PF fans.
“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.
James, do you reconcile this with your view on scrying?
I'm not really against scry and fry as a tactic. I'm against anything being 'the perfect tactic'. I've provided a couple opportunities for scry and fry in my game, and I've also provided plenty of reasons for that to be a bad go-to tactic. The appeal of scry and fry to players (who like it) is risk minimization. The distaste of it to DMs (who dislike it) is the reduction of adventure, risk, challenge and story.
If you want to cut down on it, toss a few teleport traps. Just a couple. Not everyone. Just those who should be prepared for magic in a world with magic. Destination can be cells, or a room sealed with poison gas and ten foot thick walls.
The problem should not be with a single use of a spell or tactic to solve one adventure or riddle. The problem is when these are used for every adventure, for every riddle, all the time. The game is most fun to me when things are mixed up a bit. If that means the players have to actually break out ropes and scale a cliff at high level instead of flying or teleporting up, so be it. But letting them use their toys is fun too. I don't want to plan out six months of sailing adventures every time they leave the Isle of Dread anymore than they want to suffer through them.
|
“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.James, do you reconcile this with your view on scrying?
There is no conflict. The spell says scrying is a possibility, not a guarantee. James determines that it is not possible in his game to teleport somewhere just by scrying on it.
There is no conflict. The spell says scrying is a possibility, not a guarantee.
Hm. I admit, that reading seems strained to me. "Possibly" seems to clearly refer to the possibility that your one view was through scrying (it could also have been viewed normally, such as by having visited once); it does not seem to be indicating that you only "possibly" can attempt to teleport to a place you have seen once.
Our highest level party is 12th level, and we’re going fine. Despite the CW here, out Fighter is far and away the most powerful PC in the party. So far!
But yes, we can see a wall coming. It’s just not yet there at only 12th.
Makes sense to me. Playing my fighter through STAP, having joined the game at level 10, I recall - with regard to fighterly issues - ~10-12th as relatively golden times, ~12th-13th as times when clouds were building on the horizon, and ~14th-15th (currently) as times when limitations and mechanical issues have been, for me, in very sharp relief. I have still found the game to be playable, though. Playtesting mythic power helped for a while this past year.
On the topic of the thread, I find myself in agreement with much of what Mythic Evil Lincoln has to say about overabundance of player options already, and about how useful it would be to have a discussion of adventuring procedures from a GM's perspective and of "threshold spells" and how to handle them.
In fact, if a president is dead, can I still elect him to represent my views?
IMC, we're beginning to enter this range again, so I'd thought I'd reflect here on a few things. First, on the "require them to use these spells", I have several of my players groaning when I use this tact, and to some degree I can see where they're coming from. "Requiring" that they use spells or resources to amount to what is essentially plot-point connecting aids (i.e. used as necessary steps to get from Point A to Point B) can be frustrating b/c it's not necessarily the same thing as "being able to do awesome stuff" (i.e. doing fun stuff in spontaneous ways). So I feel the strategy of requiring spells to be used to solve scenarios or to get from Point A to Point B is best use sparingly, because overuse of this strategy can make using the spells a routine chore (and then we get into the same conundrum as thwarting them too often- why have them at all?)
Maybe I scanned too quickly, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that you REQUIRE PCs to use these spells.
As I am one of the people who said "this is a GM's tool, not a hindrance" and may have accidentally given this impression, let me clarify and expand:
1. You should not EXPECT or REQUIRE the PCs use any spell. ANY spell. Or ability. Or anything. Really, expecting the PCs to do any one thing at all is the first and biggest mistake any GMs make.
2. However, if you know the PCs are capable of casting such divination or travel spells, you should ANTICIPATE THE POSSIBILITY and prepare IN CASE such abilities are used.
3. The core of the trick is rather than thinking, "OMG, what if the PCs cast commune and get the answers they need that way, I have to stop them!" you instead think, "Okay, IF the PCs cast commune, then these are the things I will tell them, and that will help me accomplish X." In other words, the idea is to consider the POSSIBILITY of the PCs using these spells as an OPPORTUNITY, IF (and only if) they happen. It is not a requirement, it is just learning to recognize an opportunity IF it arises.
4. If you do NEED the PCs to have a certain piece of information, you always fall back on the rule of 3 --- provide 3 ways the PCs will find the information. When PCs are high level enough that they have divination spells that can provide such information, you can possibly count on them using those spells as ONE of those three ways. That means you STILL need to come up with at least two other ways of them learning that information that do not have to do with them using those particular kinds of class abilities. Same goes for things like travel--you need to get them to Plot Location. You may anticipate that they may walk OR fly OR teleport. You should have a rough plan for each scenario, plus be willing and ready to be flexible when the PCs come up with a fourth option you didn't consider.
So no, NOBODY'S REQUIRING ANYTHING. It's just about learning to anticipate and prepare for certain circumstances, just in case such things DO happen. PCs are not the enemy and neither are their abilities, and while this is essential to understand at all levels, it is especially important to accept if you are planning to run a high level game.
If for some reason you DO need a certain spell cast for your plotline to happen, then you have a friendly NPC do it in front of the party. But that should be extraordinarily rare.
The alternative is houseruling in a ridiculous number of limitations which both makes more work for you AND in fact deprives you of potential tools in your toolbox, not to mentions gimps your PCs' abilities for no really good reason. They earned high level, they should get to be able to act like the great nearly godlike heroes they are.
Beyond simple spells, I think the combined use of spells should be examined. Often it's not a single spell that complicates things (unless it's simulacrum) that's tricky, but rather several spells laced together. With the amount of spells out there, it's pretty darn difficult for a DM to know what to expect in their combinations.
Can you provide an example? I haven't encountered such a problem myself, even in the campaign where I had an 18th level cleric who frequently cast divination spells to assist the party with information.
You've just got to know your plot and know your world well enough to be able to come up with some answers.
And if you can't right away, it is totally okay to ask the players if you take a break while you think about it. Players are more understanding of the fact that GMs are fallible human beings than we give them credit for, and we shouldn't also put the expectation on ourselves that we are anything but.
There's also the time/effort factor in dealing with spells and other high level abilities, not just the challenge of it. Legend Lore/Vision, for example, potentially unloads a massive info dump onto the players.
So? They knew that when they cast it.
And keeping up with the all treasure and NPC details (spells, etc) can be a hassle (even with automated tools like PCgen and combat manager).
If you're running a high level game, you should be running with experienced players who have learned to master this sort of bookkeeping. If the players are struggling with that kind of thing, then it is indeed time to switch to a new campaign with lower level players.
But I gotta say, in the level 15-19 campaign I ran, I was the one struggling with the bookkeeping, not the players. The players were VERY good about assigning someone to track treasure, another to keep the campaign journal (for the record, it's here, called "To Slay the Immortal" posted by Lathiira; started at level 14 in 3.5 then converted to Pathfinder at level 15 IIRC), and everybody took good notes.
And the electronic tools you listed helped me immensely with the bookkeeping on my end, so that was alright too.
Alternate or more simplified means of developing stat blocks or even streamlined character progression might help here. As a quick and dirty alternative, some development on reskinning statblocks of monsters/NPCs from one form to another could be used like in the third-party "Filing Off the Serial Numbers" PDF. Particularly since all the prefab high level challenges are almost always outsiders, dragons, NPCs (heavily trending towards spellcasters), or creatures of Huge size or greater. While we're at it, an expanded list of high level critters that AREN'T one of the above is another thing I'd look forward to in a high level book.
I ran my high level campaign RIGHT when Pathfinder came out. I can't begin to tell you how much easier it would have been if I'd had the just NPC Codex for starters, let alone stuff like Ultimate Equipment (for treasure generation). There ARE tools out NOW that makes this a lot easier.
That said, I do agree that it would be nice to have some more quick methods for generating or altering bad guys---such as more simple templates as seen in the first Bestiary. Also, sample treasure packages for different NPCs would be awesome.
When I ran, I did struggle to find high CR monsters that weren't outsiders, dragons, or undead. After four Bestiaries, it's a little better -- we've got a few more fey, magical beasts, and aberrations to work with. The NPC Codex also helps because we've got NPCs of every class and level to pull from, and they're easy to adjust since they're all core.
I would say one issue, and Paizo's devs are REALLY irritating with this, is it is hard to find an ample amount of high CR creatures that aren't enormous. It's fun to describe a gargantuan or colossal creature bearing down on the party, but especially depending on the terrain, the creature's size ends up becoming a hindrance to work with rather than anything helpful or frightening. High level PCs can figure out how to cope with the enormous creature's reach, and they can also be very good at hemming in the creature so, with its enormous girth, it can't move and is actually far less intimidating or challenging than its enormous size can accomplish. Also, the problem with enormous creatures is it makes little sense to have more than one on the board, and that belies the oft-repeated wisdom that multiple enemy encounters are far superior to single-enemy ones. In short, let me just say seeing Kaiju in the latest Bestiary did not make me happy. Fun to read about and look at, nothing I'd ever actually use, because what a damn pain in the ass. Total waste of space, compared to monsters actually realistically usable in most Pathfinder games.
Regarding expanding the reach of play beyond focusing on the PC as an individual (going into dominion level play, etc), I'm not sure this can work as a main element of high level play. Any such endeavor will requiring working with subsystems that can appear to be unwieldy and off past a certain point (I wouldn't enjoy having to rely on a kingdom spreadsheet after a certain point). Beyond that, a dominion level or similar focus would entail a lot of ad hoc challenges (ad hoc in the sense that they aren't as structurally governed as combat is). Dominion level play as the high-level campaign focus might work better if ad hoc assigning CRs to noncombat challenges was more systematically dealt with.
The systems in Ultimate Campaign seem to help a lot with this. Has your experience with them been to the contrary? What happened?
You also of course don't have to do high level PCs running realms, but it should be a possibility and fortunately systems are already in place for it.
You can also do things like involve PCs in OTHER realms' politics where THEY don't have to track anything but they end up with a lot of influence.
One of main things I think a high level book will need to address is the NPC (and possibly PC) creation time/complexity issue. This is hard because it comes from the "NPC rules equal PC rules" standard built right into the foundation of d20. Unless this primary conundrum is somehow addressed, I think high level play will always be no more than a tertiary focus.
While I agree, I think the NPC Codex has helped a lot with this, and I hope at some point we see another one.
What we really need is a quick and dirty system for building mooks--not notable NPCs or big bads, but support characters to help act as speed bumps in big fights. They don't need to be fully statted out, we just need HP, AC, attack, damage. Assume on any non-combat ability they always get a result of 10. Gear list for what the PCs find if they loot the bodies, if anything (but effects of gear should be pre-calculated into stats).
Personally I think a high level playbook would be quite useful for players...as others have commented, option paralysis and overly lengthy combat is as much a hindrance for players as it is GMs. not to mention dealing with cohorts or item creation.
I also like the idea of intergrating more support for kingdom/mass combat rules, new prestige classes (which perhaps increased synergy with kindom/mass combat?), as well as streamlining feats and more options for non-caster characters who may feel they are falling behind would be good. maybe some optional systems to also increase the speed of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You protest. I have no interest in learning Amber! In fact, I think Roger Zelazny was the worst author in creation!Those are valid responses, but I would reply is that the book is a tour de force in high stakes political gaming as well as the art of getting into character. If you can mine this mountain for the useful nuggets buried in it, you can bring them back to refine into your gaming style, you'll have done it by learning a lot more of the zeitgeist of gaming in the process.
I find the first little paragraph quite funny for some reason. Mining for nuggets though may not be worth it. Anything specific "popped out" at you LazarX?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.James, do you reconcile this with your view on scrying?
I reconcile it by saying that when you scry someone, you view a person, NOT a place, and thus simply ignore the bit of text that says you can scry to gain the viewed once condition. This makes for a better game play experience in my opinion.
I reconcile it by saying that when you scry someone, you view a person, NOT a place, and thus simply ignore the bit of text that says you can scry to gain the viewed once condition. This makes for a better game play experience in my opinion.“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.James, do you reconcile this with your view on scrying?
That sounds fair. There are times when I want the players to be able to teleport someplace, and there are times when I do not want them to be able to do so.
In your games, what constitutes 'viewed once' for teleport? Looking at a picture of the place?
[
3. The core of the trick is rather than thinking, "OMG, what if the PCs cast commune and get the answers they need that way, I have to stop them!" you instead think, "Okay, IF the PCs cast commune, then these are the things I will tell them, and that will help me accomplish X." In other words, the idea is to consider the POSSIBILITY of the PCs using these spells as an OPPORTUNITY, IF (and only if) they happen. It is not a requirement, it is just learning to recognize an opportunity IF...
Right. The problem is that there are a number of rather poor or experienced DMs who simply cant think that far ahead. They then conclude that the higher levels of magic in PF is broken. The actual conclusion is that they simply aren't imaginative or experienced enough to either think a few moves ahead or think on their feet.
Mind you, yes, as you move up in spell levels, it gets really hard to consider all possibilities. It is very hard to run a game where the spellcasters can do 9th level spells.
Actually if the players and DM work together, Divination spells can be an EXCELLENT DM tool as you said. I had one Cleric who had Divination as a Domain spells, so cast it every day right after Morning prayer. After a bit this allowed the DM to bait all sorts of cool adventure hooks.
JJ is right about scrying. You only see the 10' area around your target (and only if he fails, you have darkvision etc,). BBEG will then either have protections up or just have their lair look pretty unassuming. The one time it worked for us, we knew the BBEG was very likely in one of several places we had already been, so when we scryed, we were able to 'scry and fry". Not to mention we had recently got TP by leveling up, so the BBEG wasn't expecting that. So , when we 'scryed" we then were able to go "Aha! Col Mustard in the Library with the candlestick!"
The problem with such book is that it would generate an endless "Is this the way the game is supposed to be played?" thread.
If the book would be about tamer, storytellingish games, the gamist crowd will laugh it out as a "yet another example that Paizo doesn't know how D&D is played".
If the book would be about Dungeons & Dragons Hyper Fighting Edition, the narrativist crowd will laugh it out as a "yet another example that Paizo doesn't know how D&D is played".
If it hits anywhere in between, it gets flak from both sides. Imagine that the book says "Cleave is a nice feat for a Fighter". One side goes "ROFLCOPTER, Cleave ahahahaha Failzo hands out faildvice to failzils again, lol nobody with half a brain cell uses Cleave or plays a Fightard" and the other side goes "Oh great, once again we're told that the game is all about combat and numbers, where did the wonder days of Gygax go? Thanks for listening to all those MMO anime gunslinger kids Paizo! Thanks for letting us TRUE GAMERS down!".
You really want that? :)
It's already going to happen when the Strategy Guide hits the shelves.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something an old GM told me once.
"Always have three ways a party can overcome an obstacle. And then prepare for them to find a fourth way to do it."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something an old GM told me once.
"Always have three ways a party can overcome an obstacle. And then prepare for them to find a fourth way to do it."
My own personal strategy has been to not have any specific ways in mind that they should overcome an obstacle. I just invent a problem and see what the players come up with. Impossible problems usually just take a few more sessions to solve.
I used to try to put obstacles between the PCs and anything I didn't want them to do. Then I realized that was backwards, creating an obstacle is just asking them to come up with some insane way of getting past it. If you really don't want the PCs doing something, make it easy and boring to achieve.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I'd really want to see with this sort of book, and how to add more crunchy bits with them:
1- Game changers. Doesn't need to be that wordy, but, a quick rundown, for the benefit of both players and GMs about when various things. When you start seeing the big gap between a single attack and a full attack, invisibility, true seeing (separate issue because it becomes common so late it blindsides people all over), flight, extra reach, nasty afflictions appearing and being trivialized, incorporeality, death being trivialized, at least one monster with a full page of special abilities in any given fight dying before its first turn, etc.
CRUNCH: Some new monsters/spells/magic items that can (gently) throw off expectations, so you can introduce these things earlier without wildly upsetting the balance of power, or help put them off for groups who don't want to deal with, say, everything level-appropriate suddenly being able to fly.
2- Pacing. Some general advice pointing out that there's an intentional learning curve, where the game gets more complex at higher levels, the importance of having downtime so people don't just go from level 1 to 12 over a single month, addressing the issue of how PCs generally start out as Those Local Kids running errands for the more prominent NPCs around them but will, eventually, dwarf those NPCs in power and prestige to such an incredible degree that they will no longer be able to treat them as people of wisdom and authority, and feel like they should be the ones calling the shots. Similarly, how adventure hooks and settings really need to increase in scope, stakes, and exotic flavor at higher levels. Advice on how to avoid the "nuke and nap" problem of having only one big encounter per day.
CRUNCH: Expansion of the environment and downtime rules maybe? Monsters and spells that help clear the board of the local mayor/sheriff/high priest in ways that force the PCs to take charge of things. Alternate rules (or possibly just two new experience tracks) for either slowing things down for the earlier levels and eventually catching up to normal speed, or for really quickly flying through low levels if everyone's impatient to start getting those cool powers, and then slowing down to enjoy them after.
3- Jumping into the deep end. A bit on the difficulties of having to introduce a new character to a high level party (or just starting the game at high levels). How to get these characters introduced in a way that even makes sense ("What's this 12th level wizard doing in this part of the world where nobody outside the party is over 6th?"), actually integrates them into the campaign ("And why should she care about our quest to stop that crazy ifrit?") and how to make them really feel like part of the group, instead of just some temporary ally with a common goal. Something to be said for giving advice on starting a campaign in the first place here too.
CRUNCH: Can't think of much here but a list of traits that reflect characters who have really been around the block. Say, Exploit Traits- Stuff specifically tied to full on adventures higher level characters accomplished off camera. Maybe even expand on Ultimate Campaign's story trait angle, let people jump on some of these with the extra traits feat if they've accomplished similar tasks.
4- Breaking the bank. Address the meat and potatoes items high level characters can generally be expected to have by the time they're in the teens (stat/save/AC boosters, bags of holding if not a portable hole), maybe point out a few class by class high end investments to consider. Definitely go into the issue of how eventually, the PCs find more loot than their local economy can absorb and how long crafting takes for the high end stuff.
CRUNCH: Some major cash sinks that aren't typical magic items (public works projects, extreme fashions, exotic pets, airships), and some option(s) along the line of the Vow of Poverty from 3.0's book of exalted deeds for when people really just don't want to deal with all the bookkeeping and shopping trips but don't want to fall behind in effectiveness.
5- A High Level Dungeon. Just... straight up throw in a mini-adventure for level 20 characters in the back, just as an example of what that should actually look like.
CRUNCH: All of it.
Appendices. I think there's honestly a huge value in just having some big ol' old school nasty number filled charts to help quickly total up some of the values that end up routinely factoring a dozen different bonuses in. In the high teens, I've seen games grind to a halt because suddenly the party realizes their buffs last between minutes and days instead of seconds and hours and cast a truckload, or someone casts greater dispel on the buff happy villain, exhaust the barbarian, etc. Having a page to quickly flip to, look at a level column, see how much inspire courage adds, columns by level for what your effective hit/damage bonus is 1/2, 3/4, and full BAB with and without power attack, extras for best-case-scenarios of fighters having the right weapon and rangers the right enemy... A quick little flowchart on how to recalculate AC if there's suddenly a need for an audit (10 + armor OR bracers OR mage armor + shield OR shield OR ring + every possible dodge bonus...), ideally in a way that highlights what doesn't apply to touch/CMD/denied-dex.
I think this could easily fill a hardcover even with a sizable minimum page count dedicated to new rules.
Not planning a solution at all is risky, but with good players it pays off. It can backfire, though.
Right. The problem is that there are a number of rather poor or experienced DMs who simply cant think that far ahead. They then conclude that the higher levels of magic in PF is broken. The actual conclusion is that they simply aren't imaginative or experienced enough to either think a few moves ahead or think on their feet.[
3. The core of the trick is rather than thinking, "OMG, what if the PCs cast commune and get the answers they need that way, I have to stop them!" you instead think, "Okay, IF the PCs cast commune, then these are the things I will tell them, and that will help me accomplish X." In other words, the idea is to consider the POSSIBILITY of the PCs using these spells as an OPPORTUNITY, IF (and only if) they happen. It is not a requirement, it is just learning to recognize an opportunity IF...
That is why we are talking about why GMs need more guidance, yes?
GMs get better with practice. Especially with this kind of thing. This is the kind of thing you have to encourage them to TRY, or they'll never be good at it. Just blanketly saying, "Well, most GMs actually suck, so we should rewrite the game entirely" just doesn't get us any further than blaming the spells for being broken.
We absolutely MUST do EVERYTHING we can to encourage GMs to try new things, break out of the box, and understand that expertise comes with time. Absolutely, some GMs just are going to be better at some things at others no matter what they do, but even helping GMs discern where their strengths and weaknesses lie also helps them become better GMs and understand what kind of campaign and run style works best for them.
ALSO, I would like to emphasize something else I said in the post you quoted, but did not include:
I don't think anyone is putting an expectation upon GMs that they must and can do any and everything at once.
And as important as it is to teach GMs, "thinking on the fly is important sometimes," it is also important to teach, "Take it slow, take a break when you need to, and ask your players for help when you need it."
If anything, this last advice is essential especially for high level GMs as is anything else. We do not need to be perfect genius masterminds, and I would never suggest otherwise.
But we do need to encourage each other to improve, and identify areas where we need to improve -- NOT write off what is very likely a temporary flaw from inexperience as an impossibility that can never be overcome.
[qupte]
Mind you, yes, as you move up in spell levels, it gets really hard to consider all possibilities. It is very hard to run a game where the spellcasters can do 9th level spells.
When I did run a game where several party members cast 9th level spells, sometimes I did need to ask for the aforementioned break.
But it's also not as hard as I think sometimes one anticipates. Even at high levels, there's only so many 9th level spells that can be cast per day and they come at various costs and consequences.
And the nearly endless possibilities of what could happen with such powerful magic in play also excited me. Playing with that level of power--because they are playing with theirs means I am playing NPCs and monsters of that level--is fun, even if it is very challenging. That's the thing that gets lost in the discussion of high level play sometime--it really can and should be and is fun--even if, yes, absolutely it can be very difficult sometimes.
Not planning a solution at all is risky, but with good players it pays off. It can backfire, though.Or the players could have five solutions and use none of them. For two hours.
That's always been the most dreaded result in our group.