Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5832396" data-attributes="member: 54710">In talking about high level characters there are really three separate issues.The first issue concerns the "bigger numbers."  The key here is to figure out a way so that both PCs and enemies get tougher (so as to preserve a sense of progress) while having larger numbers of weaker enemies continue to provide an appropriate threat.  You can debate the question of "how many basic orcs are an appropriate threat for a 10th level character", but I think most of us would agree that some number of basic orcs should be a threat to a 10th level character.  Naturally, the central question is figuring out how to adjust the To-Hit vs. AC progression so these weaker enemies don't ground out to irrelevance too quickly.  IMO, 3e and 4e increased these numbers too fast.The other two issues are how high level combat differs from low level combat and how high level non-combat differs from low level non-combat.  One question is just how many options should the PCs have, but I think the more interesting questions relate to what are the issues that PCs worry about.In the non-combat context, I think high-level characters should stop worrying about things like food, travel, most physical obstacles, interference from local authorities and the like.  On the other hand, topics like domains, magical research and interplanar travel are new topics that are good subjects for high level play.  Similarly, low level combat should focus on difficult terrain, ledges, cover (corners, pillars, bushes) and whether you have a silver weapon to use against the werewolf.  High level combat should worry about flying, phasing, invisibility, tactical teleportation, walls of force, and knocking down all the scenery.  To design balanced, distinct high level play, the designers need to take these "topics of concern" and figure at what levels these concerns phase in and out.  To pick one example (all numbers are arbitrary), the designers might say that flying is inappropriate for levels 1-6, rare for levels 7-12, common for levels 13-16 and ubiquitous at 17+.  This kind of decision tells designers:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When should classes make flight abilities available?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When should flight-granting magic items be available?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At what level should flying monsters become advisable and how advantageous is that flying ability?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At what level do monsters without anti-flight capabilities become too easy?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At what level does difficult terrain and pressure plate traps become irrelevant?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At what level do flight obstacles like low ceilings and tempests become important?</li> </ul>Once you have a bunch of these charts, the difference between high level and low level play (and how the transition takes place) becomes clear.  A designer can write an 12th level infiltration encounter because he or she knows the detection, stealth and distraction capabilities available at that level.-KS</blockquote>

Verification