3.5 breakdown at high levels?

[Fenes]

I guess some of the problems with high level play come from the focus, maybe even fixation on combat displayed here. Once the challenge is not so much figuring out how to beat someone, but figuring out who to fight in the first place, and when and where, the game changes its dynamic.

For combat, I often approach combat encounter design by focusing on the PCs. I take stock of what PCs there are, then design encounters for their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Rechan]

I don't mind doing these things but I have to ask: why must I do any of these particular things to make a challenge to a 17th level party?

This is why:

But I must state that if you want this type of challenge then it will be time consuming to create

The point of the challenge is that you have to, in order illustrate how much number crunching can be involved with higher level play.

And no, I don't mean with skill points or any minutia. Just in crunching the saves, feats, and abilities.

In a normal game, no, you won't ever have to do that all at once, but it's an example of what happens when you don't pluck things out of the MM wholesale at high levels. Many DMs like to use NPCs as adversaries, not monsters, and at higher levels that becomes utter torture.

Also I don't expect anyone to actually do it, I was just illustrating the point.

 

[Fenes]

Fudging it works as well. Unless you have a player who demands that every nook and cranny is used in NPC design, you do not have to cover every detail.

Also, there are several PC generators who crunch the numbers, as well as databases with high level characters available.

 

[Rechan]

Fudging it works as well.

To which I quote Hussar's post above:

I think this illustrates his point quite nicely. The stock advice for designing high level encounters is, "Just fudge it". Ignore the actual rules and come up with something close.

That is not a strength of a system that is designed to have actual rules for each step along the way.

Sure, I can fudge it. But, that's not the point. If I have to ignore the rules, or if the rules make my job harder, then those are bad rules, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Spatula]

The point of the challenge is that you have to, in order illustrate how much number crunching can be involved with higher level play.

If you chose to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Many DMs like to use NPCs as adversaries, not monsters

You can use NPCs as adversaries without using wacky obscure rules that you're not intimately familiar with. Aside from spellcasters, NPCs are only as complex as you, the DM, choose to make them.

 

[Runestar]

You must do that because I made the challenge, to illustrate how much number crunching can be involved with higher level play.

That's the issue. How much can be involved, not how much need be involved. Sure, I could take a lot of time to slowly stat out a complex array of npcs, but the point here is that I do not need to. If I am pressed for time, I can simply pluck out some random cr17 monster from the MM and maybe throw in a few mooks as meatshields.

 

[Rechan]

That's the issue. How much can be involved, not how much need be involved. Sure, I could take a lot of time to slowly stat out a complex array of npcs, but the point here is that I do not need to. If I am pressed for time, I can simply pluck out some random cr17 monster from the MM and maybe throw in a few mooks as meatshields.

And what happens when you want to use core races as antagonists, instead of random CR 17 monsters?

Here's an easy example. I was running a 4th level adventure. The PCs were on the trail of a cult, comprised of nobles. The cult consisted of normal humans, elves, dwarves, etc, that had been warped by chaotic energies, and had gained new, varied, and creepy abilities (just re-flavored class powers). Which meant I needed multi-classed X/Warlock, X/Psy warrior, X/Barbarian, or X/Soul Knife (all classes, sans the PsyW, which are not complicated). All of them were merely 2nd to 4th level.

I had lots of time. But then after:
1) comparing the different combinations of classes, trying to figure out what would hit and what would just be a pointless sack of HP and a +1 to hit,
2) seeing how much time it was going to take me with each one,
3) realizing they would only last 2-3 rounds in combat at most,

I gave up in disgust.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If I am pressed for time, I can simply pluck out some random cr17 monster from the MM and maybe throw in a few mooks as meatshields.

I never want to feel forced into a situation where I just take some random monsters to make an adventuring day. This sounds wrong on way too many levels.

When creating adventurers, I usually try to stick to a theme. The theme can be as simple as "Kobold Lair", or require a little more work when it combines the themes "Spider" and "Crystals". But I don't like mixing random monsters together.

Am I making my life harder by it in 3E? Maybe. But just hand-waving stuff, making up a more or less random selection of monsters, or ignoring major parts of the system just are not my style. I am tempted to say I have higher standards, but I certainly don't have high standards for an RPG, since I love hack & slash and lots of combats.
Player character gets interesting and often combat related abilities at high levels. And they expect to get to use them and see them a play a lot, too. Since that are the mechanically defining abilities for them.
Sure, leading armies, political intrigue, and what-you-have, they are also necessary ingredients - but they don't utilize the mechanical aspects much, and that is important for me, and it is important for the other members of my group. We just like this stuff.

So anyone that wants to know if high level D&D will break down for him has to wonder:
How "gamist" am I - how much do I want to use my player character abilities? Do I just care about the story that is told, and am fine with avoiding combat for the most part at higher levels? D&D probably won't break down for you, even at high levels. You will not spend that much time on this stuff, anyway.
If you love running lots of high level combat, with varied (but possible thematically still fitting) opponents, utilizing all your characters mechanical abilities (in addition to your smarts), you will notice the break down. I don't think the game will ever become unplayable, but you'll spend a lot of effort for preparing it and for running it.

 

[Fenes]

And what happens when you want to use core races as antagonists, instead of random CR 17 monsters?

Here's an easy example. I was running a 4th level adventure. The PCs were on the trail of a cult, comprised of nobles. The cult consisted of normal humans, elves, dwarves, etc, that had been warped by chaotic energies, and had gained new, varied, and creepy abilities (just re-flavored class powers). Which meant I needed multi-classed X/Warlock, X/Psy warrior, X/Barbarian, or X/Soul Knife (all classes, sans the PsyW, which are not complicated). All of them were merely 2nd to 4th level.

I had lots of time. But then after:
1) comparing the different combinations of classes, trying to figure out what would hit and what would just be a pointless sack of HP and a +1 to hit,
2) seeing how much time it was going to take me with each one,
3) realizing they would only last 2-3 rounds in combat at most,

I gave up in disgust.

Your problem is that you took the wrong approach. You did not need multi-classed characters at all to reach your goal.

I'd have done it much simpler: I'd have taken stock NPCs, and added a funky special power or two to each - a template, in short. Basing the special powers on spells and psy powers also would have allowed me to quickly gauge its effectiveness.
The rest would have been flavor description.

3E has a ton of tools to use for a DM. Templates are one of the tools that, if used right, greatly reduce complexity.

 

[Fenes]

I never want to feel forced into a situation where I just take some random monsters to make an adventuring day. This sounds wrong on way too many levels.

When creating adventurers, I usually try to stick to a theme. The theme can be as simple as "Kobold Lair", or require a little more work when it combines the themes "Spider" and "Crystals". But I don't like mixing random monsters together.

Am I making my life harder by it in 3E? Maybe. But just hand-waving stuff, making up a more or less random selection of monsters, or ignoring major parts of the system just are not my style. I am tempted to say I have higher standards, but I certainly don't have high standards for an RPG, since I love hack & slash and lots of combats.

The average monster is just a bunch of stats. The specific fluff gives it a distinct feel and look. So, it's entirely possible to just grab a bunch of random monsters, and change the look and fluff to what theme you have in mind. A crystall spider, for example, could start as some vrock. The vrock's dance would be changed in description to some crystal web vibration effect, special attacks get a crystal/poison/web look, and so on.

That's not ignoring the system, that's using the system.