3.5 high level woes and Paizo's hand in it.

[Sagiro]

I can recommend a couple of things real quick (but knowing Sagiro, he's on to these tricks already):

PREP WORK/DM SIDE

1) Skill points for NPCs don't matter.

To be more precise, the skill ranges for NPCs exist to provide a challenge for the PCs-- so just put them where they need to be to serve that function. For most monsters, the DCs of all their natural abilities (eg, poison DC) are set at 10 + 1/2 HD + ability mod. I recommend the same for monster/NPC skills.

2) Use the new statblock format. I get a lot of mileage from this site:
http://mikael.borjesson.net/dnd/monster-list.asp

Pick a monster-- any monster-- and print a sample page. You should get the new format on the top half of the page, leaving you a whole half a sheet for notes. My game prep consists of about 5 minutes of printing out those statblocks (one for every monster that might possibly make an appearance), and maybe 10 minutes of making notes for anything that deviates from the raw statblock.

(Most of my game prep is spent making maps for my projector, which is a much more fun way to spend my prep time.)

AT THE TABLE/PLAYER SIDE

3) Ignore attacks of opportunity caused by moving into melee. I want my players in combat. My players want to be in combat. I remove obstacles that cause them to hem and haw about how to move to get into combat. Basically, if you start your turn in a non-threatened square, you can do anything you want that turn without provoking an Attack of Opportunity, including moving into/through threatened squares.

4) Use my "fix" for iterative attacks.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-rules-discussion/248004-iterative-attacks.html

That fix allows for batch rolling all attacks at once.

If Sagiro has anything else specifically that I can help with, let me know.

While these are good ideas, my worries aren't really about at-the-table logistics, but adventure design in general. My party of mostly-spellcaster 19th level PC's has reached the point where they can pretty much do anything they want at any time, so it takes increasingly long to design adventures that can't be trivially short-circuited in any number of ways.

I know it can be done, since I watched Piratecat do it successfully for several years (heck, mine was the PC with miracle), but it's not really my strength as a DM. I don't want my players to start feeling that I'm placing arbitrary restrictions on their ability to flex their near-epic-level muscles, but I also need to keep them challenged.

I feel like the sweet spot is shrinking with every level.

 

[drothgery]

Heh. I'd argue that is definitely a high-level issue.

A Clr1/Wiz1 is not nearly so hamstringed as a Clr10/Wiz10.

I thought of that later, but it's a noticeable problem even with a Clr 3/Wiz 3.

 

[Storminator]

While these are good ideas, my worries aren't really about at-the-table logistics, but adventure design in general. My party of mostly-spellcaster 19th level PC's has reached the point where they can pretty much do anything they want at any time, so it takes increasingly long to design adventures that can't be trivially short-circuited in any number of ways.

I know it can be done, since I watched Piratecat do it successfully for several years (heck, mine was the PC with miracle), but it's not really my strength as a DM. I don't want my players to start feeling that I'm placing arbitrary restrictions on their ability to flex their near-epic-level muscles, but I also need to keep them challenged.

I feel like the sweet spot is shrinking with every level.

I think you should make adventures that require near-epic-level muscles. Rituals that span 2 continents and 3 planes simultaneously, that sort of thing. Make them move the moon, or put out the sun, or go back in time and finish the world creation ritual.

Or plan a wedding.

PS

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

While these are good ideas, my worries aren't really about at-the-table logistics, but adventure design in general. My party of mostly-spellcaster 19th level PC's has reached the point where they can pretty much do anything they want at any time, so it takes increasingly long to design adventures that can't be trivially short-circuited in any number of ways.

Fair enough. You know me-- I'm a mechanics guy.

And your problem is fundamentally a story problem.

I'm usually happy to solve that primarily by curtailing the big three (Raise Dead, Divination, and Teleport-- expressed in any iteration, at any level) by fiat.

(And FWIW, Piratecat certainly used his share of arbitrary restrictions. During the time that I played the Dead Gods/Ghouls of the Underdark portion of his campaign, there were restrictions on divination, raise dead, and teleport all three-- all skillfully curtailed through story rationale.)

 

[kibbitz]

Fair enough. You know me-- I'm a mechanics guy.

And your problem is fundamentally a story problem.

I'm usually happy to solve that primarily by curtailing the big three (Raise Dead, Divination, and Teleport-- expressed in any iteration, at any level) by fiat.

(And FWIW, Piratecat certainly used his share of arbitrary restrictions. During the time that I played the Dead Gods/Ghouls of the Underdark portion of his campaign, there were restrictions on divination, raise dead, and teleport all three-- all skillfully curtailed through story rationale.)

Could you or PC share details of this curtailing? Would be interesting to hear, and maybe a few of us could borrow some ideas.

 

[Primal]

I think Paizo made something of a tactical error by not including (or at least foreshadowing) their fixes to high-level play in the PF beta.

Everyone knows system breakdown during high-level play is a big issue in 3.5. Paizo release a beta ruleset that doesn't address this at all, but mention in various messageboard posts that they'll get to it later.

Big mistake for a number of reasons:
- People who download the rules and give it a cursory look-over or maybe a quick playtest (but who don't haunt the messageboards) will conclude that it doesn't solve the high-level problems of 3.5, and some may be turned off it for that reason.
- The promised fixes to high-level play will not get the benefit of the open beta playtest. Given the delicacy and thoroughness required in balancing high-level d20 stuff, the relatively short timescales involved, and the relatively small Paizo employee base available for playtesting, this has got to be asking for loopholes and rules glitches to slip through the net.
- It just plain looks bad. If Paizo were planning to fix 3.5e, then making the first priority tiny tweaks of class features, skill lists, and minor power boosts, while leaving the massive numerical breakdown problems of the entire system at high levels til a seeming afterthought doesn't inspire confidence. Surely you'd fix the big, systemic stuff first, and leave the minor details of class balance for later? It smacks of a disorganised approach to design, and a project lacking in clear strategic goals or any sort of overarcing plan.

I'd love to be wrong, but for the above reasons I'm adopting a very wait-and-see approach to Pathfinder, no matter how much I usually love Paizo stuff.

If I remember correctly, Erik and Jason have said that there was a lot of "stretching-the-boundaries" type of stuff that they wanted feedback on in the Beta (in the similar vein but on a smaller scale that WoTC did with ToB). And, I don't know if dramatic changes to high-level play would have been better than subtle changes, because the fact is that only a fraction of playtesters apparently got to try high-level play, and the rest of us just tried to voice our opinions how it should be changed from 3E; the system all of us had played for years. That way Paizo got some actual feedback on the minor changes, and could decide which way to go on basis of that feedback *and* the suggestions of the fans.

Also, let's remember that it's a free preview of the rules, and if I was in their boots, I wouldn't put all my best ideas into a free preview. After all, if everyone already got them for free, why would they pay for the actual product? All in all, I think it was a class act from Paizo, and an exciting project to participate in, and my group is once again excited about D&D.

 

[DaveMage]

Spellcaster multiclassing?

Bah - that's easy.

Play gestalt PCs.

 

[Qualidar]

I think Paizo made something of a tactical error by not including (or at least foreshadowing) their fixes to high-level play in the PF beta.

I think when the beta was put out they really hadn't solved those issues. It was still on the to-do list.

4) Use my "fix" for iterative attacks.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-rules-discussion/248004-iterative-attacks.html

I love that. I've been mulling the same sort of concept for a while, but I don't have the statistical chops to do it right. Nice work.

 

[Voadam]

Also, let's remember that it's a free preview of the rules, and if I was in their boots, I wouldn't put all my best ideas into a free preview. After all, if everyone already got them for free, why would they pay for the actual product? All in all, I think it was a class act from Paizo, and an exciting project to participate in, and my group is once again excited about D&D.

Wrong on two counts I believe. There was a print edition of the beta rules for sale, only the pdf was free. I believe they have said the final rules would also be released as a free srd in addition to the full color deluxe for pay hardcover. At least last I heard they were discussing that for the final rules and leaning that way.

Think about the precedent from WotC with 3e D&D. Did you go entirely off of the free srd or did you buy the books?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Could you or PC share details of this curtailing? Would be interesting to hear, and maybe a few of us could borrow some ideas.

The adventure involved the death of a goddess, whose portfolio was being picked up by another deity (or two).

All of the action took place deep in the Underdark, which interfered with teleportation; and because of all the deities involved divination/commune was highly suspect. (We were never sure who was providing the answers...)

I don't recall anyone actually dying during this time, but because of the portfolio involved (Death) I seem to recall being pretty uneasy about the afterlife (what happened to souls, what bargains would be required, what entities might try to ride piggy-back on a resurrected soul, etc.)

Either Piratecat or Sagiro can fill in the details better than that, I am sure.