| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that might be better accomplished with a different game. Pathfinder has roots in war games, high power fantasy, and mythology it's not going to be well suited to a game that is only 10% combat and where you don't want to fight big world threatening monsters.
I personally like Powered by the Apocalypse systems for less combat heavy stories but I don't know if there is a good Powered by the Apocalypse hack for fantasy intreague. Monster of the Week works well but it's by default set as an urban fantasy, could probably be modified though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the game will work just fine for less combat-heavy games. The one I'm setting up now is very Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild-inspired, in that a lot of it is going to be exploration, survival, and uncovering ruins and things (all of which I'll give XP for, in addition to combat), that kind of thing.
But I like high fantasy, so I wouldn't want to really get rid of it. What you do is take inspiration from bigtime mythological stories and other media. If the PCs are now like gods, cool, get them involved directly in the machinations of the gods as peers, rather than mere uppity mortals who challenge them. Have them take on more abstract challenges. Starvation, wars over resources, plagues, natural disasters (on a vast scale). Have them go to other realms and do the things high-level PCs do. They can still face challenges that you can't just beat up and still need strategy to overcome, such as a league of gods, social upheaval, or that kind of thing.
Even at lower levels, I don't tend to run games that are one fight after another. Not that there's anything wrong with such a game, but what I enjoy most is immersion in a high fantasy world, so I really strive to help bring it to life through exploration, interaction, and so on.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isnt Pathfinder like fork from DnD?
And D&D forked off of a wargame.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, D&D really was forked from the wargame of miniatures. The original game was called Chainmail.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've run games at high levels throughout 3e, 3.5, and PF1, and the game breaking down at high levels always occured IN combat and less so outside of it.
You can absolutely run games with less combat (and I know that I do, because 4 hours of rolling dice against AC starts to wear on the soul). How does the game break down for you outside of combat? It sounds like you're looking for a very specific game or DM.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isnt Pathfinder like fork from DnD?And D&D forked off of a wargame.I dont consider a DnD or Pathdfinder a Wargame, Wargame is completely another genre.
Warhammer, Infinity(altho this could be more of a tactics game), historical wargames and so on.
To me wargame or tactics game is a game where you dont have a close attachment to the army or squad you are using, there is no leveling but point buy, nor any kind of social interaction with the world, you are simulating a battle or skirmish on a map against other people in a competitive manner.
Chess is probably oldest wargame in existance
Pathfinder and D&D certainly aren't wargames now. But Kraege and Fobok are right, D&D had it's roots in a wargame, Chainmail. Gary Gygax's innovation is that you could marry a story with it and give depth to the experience.
If you're looking to tone down high-fantasy, you need another game mechanically. I'd look at the One Ring - (not the 5e version, but the system unique version). Tolkien done right really is a low-magic game. You could also look at the RPG based on George Martin's Song of Fire and Ice. It's another low-magic game. Both would let you focus on the story and intrigue and less on the tactical combat.
Part 6 Doomsday Dawn in the Playtest was designed to specifically test intrigue-type scenarios at high level. Sure, there were combats, but most of it was focused around running a heist without anyone finding out what you were up to.
I think it will be quite possible to run RP-first campaigns with the 2e ruleset, but it will be done in the assumed high-magic setting. So many of the solutions will revolve around the use of magic or superhuman abilities of the player characters.
You can probably adapt the system for low magic, but those types of setting work much better at low levels, IMHO.
I think shadowrun is also a good example of balanced not over the top RP game, i dont know any pure fantasy game like that, as you bassicaly start as finished charachter, and all the karma(xp) and money you get is basically just to expend your options, at the end of the day no matter how much stuff you did, you are still just as helpless dude in a dangerous world :DIsnt Pathfinder like fork from DnD?And D&D forked off of a wargame.I dont consider a DnD or Pathdfinder a Wargame, Wargame is completely another genre.
Warhammer, Infinity(altho this could be more of a tactics game), historical wargames and so on.
To me wargame or tactics game is a game where you dont have a close attachment to the army or squad you are using, there is no leveling but point buy, nor any kind of social interaction with the world, you are simulating a battle or skirmish on a map against other people in a competitive manner.
Chess is probably oldest wargame in existancePathfinder and D&D certainly aren't wargames now. But Kraege and Fobok are right, D&D had it's roots in a wargame, Chainmail. Gary Gygax's innovation is that you could marry a story with it and give depth to the experience.
If you're looking to tone down high-fantasy, you need another game mechanically. I'd look at the One Ring - (not the 5e version, but the system unique version). Tolkien done right really is a low-magic game. You could also look at the RPG based on George Martin's Song of Fire and Ice. It's another low-magic game. Both would let you focus on the story and intrigue and less on the tactical combat.
Then check out World/Chronicles of Darkness games. You can build completely Horizontally or Vertically and still be relevant. It’s designed around lethal and quick combat with out of combat solutions being just as viable.
Maybe you can keep the level down like at max lvl 5 and let the players get acess to the more advanced feats in the story, class feats and the other feats in the game to allow more options than power increase.
If you're looking for a system that's tamer at high levels, 5e -might- be for you. Numbers in that game go up WAY slower and it results in a dynamic when even a high level party can be threatened by a significant number of low level enemies. You get stronger abilities and MUCH stronger spells as you level, which means some builds and classes definitely can dominate large numbers of weaker foes, at least to a point, but there are still ways to make more modest threats a threat still.
(That said, 5e has its issues. In particular I hear monsters are criticized for not having much in the way of interesting abilities and character customization is found to be too simple or too similar from character to character for the tastes of some, myself included. It's still great for a lot of people though.)
I played 5e for some years, currently playing one campaign as well... the game fall apart at high levels, the cracks begin to show at lvl 9 and break at level 11-13, have a reason why the game is mostly played at levels 3 to 12.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised no one has recommended E6 sub-rule set yet. It seems perfect for what you want to do.
Here's the original thread dating back to DnD3. Here's a Pathfinder conversion of that rule set
I'm the type of player who let the dice fall where they may, not enforcing "acting out" dialogues but rather have the mechanical rules interact with the PC and the in game world so the log of all that happens end up being a more organic "story". And I really like power fantasy, as in casually freaking out the local young dragon with a random display of your power while sleepwalking and making them give up their own treasure in a funny interactive event kind of stuff. It's the main reason why I play a roleplaying game where everything in quantified in an universal metric (Level in D&D and PF's case, CP if GURPS) rather that a so-called "storytelling" game.
On the topic though, if the preferrence of power fantasy problem is cleared, I think that real life time constraints on keeping a long campaign is the main reason why high level games won't last long. If such, why not start the game from a high level (11+) to begin with? Why not slaughter that sacred cow of having to start with Level 1?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't what you're looking for called Pathfinder E6? Google that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just what I was thinking, wasn't sure how to put it. XDI can never find it but somewhere I heard a scale of thematic escalation by level for PF that I really liked.
Level 1-5 you're doing largely minor stuff, simple adventurers ranging from helping or saving individuals to maybe aiding a whole city.
Level 6-10 you're making a name for yourself and your adventures should be aiding or saving cities, maybe even aiding a whole kingdom or region.
Level 11-15 you're a force to be reckoned with, your adventures are typically on a scale of aiding or saving whole kingdoms, even reaching worldwide scope at the latter end.
Level 16-20 you are a legend, your adventures are typically worldwide or even outright multi/extraplanar in scope.
Something like that. Might bear tweaking in PF2 but I like the model.
5E formalized this into Tiers: 1-4, 5-10, 11-16, 17-20.
The tier breakpoints coincide with spellcasting prowess: you can have 1st level, 3rd level, 6th level, and 9th level spells at those tiers, so adventure authors have some sense as to potential capabilities. Also, because of 5E's bounded accuracy, it's OK to have adventurers intermix within a tier, while PF2's math will want tighter bounds on adventurer levels (so a 5-8 mod with a low tier and a high tier, not 5-10 where the level 10 is +5 better at attacks/AC/DCs than the level 5 character). Neither is better or worse, they're just different.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So funny story, my old campaign got to level 20 it was amazing but here is the thing story and RP comes from a dedicated DM and players. Players who become dedicated to caring for NPCs and the world around them which would make games more RP intensive. Also, I don't think the OP issue lies with the game but more with those playing with them. In my said level 20 game our bard died because an NPC who they had known and cared for since early on had poisoned their dinner. The bard failed their save and that was it, dead. It came out that the NPC's family had become thralls to a high level vampire and to save them she had to take out the bard. In the end the NPC died, her family died, and the vampire died. But again that came from the DM spending the time to seed the NPC into our campaign the player building a friendship and all of us being invested in the world. Its a two way street, as a player you gotta help the DM and as a DM you need to help the players. Also we only play bi-weekly so that gives our DM time to really work on the game.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about D&D's roots in war games that doesn't get mentioned as much is that, up until 3rd Edition in '99, it was assumed in the rules that PCs would get involved in kingdom building and politics around 9th level.
Now, that's not necessarily gritty intrigue. They become actual movers and shakers in the setting. But if they've been in the shadows for the first half of their career, being able to move out into the light is a nice progression.
Personal power is another reason for NPCs to actually give start-up adventurers the time of day, divinations and improved skills give access to evidence needed to make informed decisions, and teleportation means you can meet face-to-face with contacts anywhere in the world. In a political game, all that power cuts through a lot of non-political time.
Obviously, this can get boring if no-one else in the world has the same level of power, but I've personally found high-power systems lead very naturally into political games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about D&D's roots in war games that doesn't get mentioned as much is that, up until 3rd Edition in '99, it was assumed in the rules that PCs would get involved in kingdom building and politics around 9th level.
Now, that's not necessarily gritty intrigue. They become actual movers and shakers in the setting. But if they've been in the shadows for the first half of their career, being able to move out into the light is a nice progression.
Personal power is another reason for NPCs to actually give start-up adventurers the time of day, divinations and improved skills give access to evidence needed to make informed decisions, and teleportation means you can meet face-to-face with contacts anywhere in the world. In a political game, all that power cuts through a lot of non-political time.
Obviously, this can get boring if no-one else in the world has the same level of power, but I've personally found high-power systems lead very naturally into political games.
And now i’m thinking of Log Horizon; when combat becomes trivialized the real issues become the powerful movers and shakers bumping shoulders and creating tangible political issues.
|
Isn't what you're looking for called Pathfinder E6? Google that.
This. In PF2 it might be E8 or E10 but i'm sure it wont be long until folks who like a less gonzo fantasy game find the right place to cap.
Im fine with that myself, because while I believe the folks who like high level gonzo fantasy are in the minority, they make up a big enough group that deserves that style game too.
Ah, this old chestnut :)
As with Pathfinder, I probably won't switch to Pathfinder 2 from Pathfinder 1 until they have high-level matertial that makes it actually worth the effort to switch.
Didn't switch my home campaign from 3.5e to Pathfinder until the mythic rules came out, and I see something similar happening here.
I'll be curious to see how that conversion turns out.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My solution to the epic power levels at high level play in Pathfinder is to concentrate on the intrigue, planning, avoiding fights, and finding alternative solutions. The players have fun making plans.
I've run games at high levels throughout 3e, 3.5, and PF1, and the game breaking down at high levels always occured IN combat and less so outside of it.
You can absolutely run games with less combat (and I know that I do, because 4 hours of rolling dice against AC starts to wear on the soul). How does the game break down for you outside of combat? It sounds like you're looking for a very specific game or DM.
It is as Ruzza says. Combat is the part hard to balance. Despite Scrying, Charm spells, and high Sense Motive rolls, learning about a hidden enemy is always a compelling puzzle. And my players love the careful roleplay of not letting the enemy know that they know about the enemy.
The first Paizo adventure path I ran, Rise of the Runelords for D&D 3.5, had a reputation as a combat grind. However, my party was loaded with information gatherers: a detective-like ranger, a charismatic rogue, a divination wizard, a lyrakien bard with divine connections, a journalist-like dwarf bard, and a enchanter sorcerer (not all at the same time). The heavy hitters were few. Thus, I adopted a habit of letting them use information to their advantage, finding all the secret entrances, learning their enemy's numbers and tactics, talking enemy hirelings into quitting, and making allies of the enemy of their enemy. The players liked outsmarting their opponents more than combat.
For example, in the 6th module, Spires of Xin-Shalast, instead of fighting their way through the giants and lamia, they used their connections among the lamia to start a civil war between the giants and the lamia. Lamia matriarch Xanesha had been a double agent sometimes working for them since a side quest between the 3rd and 4th modules. With the party's help, she made sure the conflct was to her faction's advantage (I had to invent four factions among the lamia to set the stage for this).
Likewise, politics and intrigue became important in Jade Regent and Iron Gods. One does not simply put the lost heir on the throne of Minkai without forging political alliances first. And the party simply walked into the city of Starfall despite being on the Technic League's most wanted list by leaving their high-level gear behind and disguising their names.
Dimension Door is great for leaving a room at the inn without anyone spotting the character. Disguise spells and disguise skill keep the party from being recognized. Fast transportation lets one reach a goal before a messenger with a warning. The roots of Pathfinder might be a wargame, but that simply means that if intrigue fails then the party can always resort to combat instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two actual conceptual problem with high-level play.
The first is that the power available without breaking the system and consequently negating 90+% of written adversaries and obstacles forever is far short of the mark set by basically any given high fantasy source of inspiration. It was already true in 3.5, although flexibility mitigated lack of sheer power to an extent, and every iteration since reduced or attempted to reduce powerlevels further. Not only that you can't properly stat BBEGs, I can easily name a good bunch of fantasy MCs without even touching anime, games, xianxia or whatever who are just too strong to be reflected by the current DnD mechanics without trying to squeeze a comparable amount of power juice from blatant exploits.
The second is that both available powers and opponents are all over the place and largely do not follow any clear, intuitive progression. You can equally easily meet a monster who is a big brute with a big stick at 3rd and 13th level, except in the latter case he will be somewhat taller and have better numbers. At the same time creatures who are basically immune to grunts without magical weapons forever and kill by touch appear as early as 3rd level. Some 1st-2nd level spells are straight up better than 5+ level spells, and a ton more would have been if not for artificial restrictions. Etc.
The fact of DnD keeping its main feature which makes it worth considering over any number of low-fantasy systems is absolutely not a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about D&D's roots in war games that doesn't get mentioned as much is that, up until 3rd Edition in '99, it was assumed in the rules that PCs would get involved in kingdom building and politics around 9th level.
The problem with that assumption is that around 9th level a DnD game starts moving into territory when you no longer need kingdom building or politics, unless the world artificially levels with PC and random grunts forever remain just 3-4 levels behind them. This was already noticeable in OD&D where much of the opponents still threatening to you were straight-up immune to any number of 0-level mooks with non-magical weapons, and since 3.0 it is also became relatively easy to push opponents enough levels below yours off RNG, so that king's men cannot even hit a big bad monster to find that in practice there is not much difference between total immunity and damage reduction which can only be theoretically penetrated on one attack out of 400.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So one of the interesting tricks you can do with PF2e is you can just limit the proficiency level that you allow in the game. So say you want a less gonzo game you can say players can only get Master or even Expert proficiency max in the game. You can still go up in level, but can't get most of the over the top powers. And you can set a Spell level limit to match that.
And you can set a Spell level limit to match that.
I sure wouldn't want to play a spellcaster in that campaign
So one of the interesting tricks you can do with PF2e is you can just limit the proficiency level that you allow in the game. So say you want a less gonzo game you can say players can only get Master or even Expert proficiency max in the game. You can still go up in level, but can't get most of the over the top powers. And you can set a Spell level limit to match that.
Wait, what powers are limited by proficiency? Or are you talking about Skill-Feats? Either way the same result comes about more naturally by just limiting level to a max of 6 or 8; since one of the things mentioned by the OP was high numbers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, this may not be the game for you. I think the point of PF2 is to simulate heroic play. High level characters are Fantasy Super Heroes. So a high level fighter will have a stack of hit points and shrug off blows from giants. So you could cap hit points, proficiency,or feats. At this point however. I wonder if different game would better suit your needs at that point. One approach for high level play for 5e was having level 20 characters and looking at how they did things. They could use meteor storm, but what is the fall out after words. Look at things like where the fights take place and the collateral damage. So a fight may take place, but what is the fall out of destroying half the village killing the giant.
|
I feel that removing the +level from proficiency bonuses for PCs and rolls/stats for NPCs would help reduce the massive number bloat that will cause these issues in high level play. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there are official rules for it considering how easy it would be to adjust on the fly, assuming level 0 is the lowest level enemy.
High level PF is like any level 1st edition D&D in that one bad or good roll could end a combat immediately. It's very rocket tag but with prep work. So you go well I know they are gonna fire a rocket at me but I have my protection from arrows but they know I will have that up so they will probably napalm me but I have fire shield which means I will be hit by disintegrate most likely but I have volley ready and ofcourse they will too so it will be 50/50 who gets nuked. This has always been high level play to me so it's what I expect however I wouldn't mind for it to be less rocket taggy.