I don't get high-level D&D (merged)

[A'koss]

Originally posted by WizarDru:
Which begs the question, what DO you think Epic Adventuring should be like?

I can tell you that several things don't work the way you expect. For example, the 'lots of money' clause only works when you build a character from scratch. As often as not, the players have significant upkeep, have been spending their loot the whole way up the chain, and turn most of it around to procure items to allow them to survive the threats they face. Things like the Improved Invisibility-Fly-Bombard tactics are less effective under 3.5, but were not nearly as effective at high levels as you might think, particularly against the high-CR opponents. The same applies with SBT tactics. As for the easy Resurrections...well, you and I have a differing defintion, most likely. My players have been ressurected several times...and I don't think any of them would have defined it as 'easy'. Never mind the requirements for said spells, which are often overlooked in the case of most high level spells.

WizarDru, you're missing the point. You may argue the effectiveness of certain D&D magi-combo tactics & their inevitable countermeasures but you can't ignore the fact that it is the D&D style of high level play. It doesn't try to mirror any sort of cinematic flavor, it's D&D gaming and nothing else. If that works for your campaign, kudos for you, but it doesn't mirror the style that some of us want for our campaigns. The fact that most PCs use their immense wealth to procure new magical toys does not preclude the fact there is a ton of money out there. Enough that it a single high level adventure could wreak havok some small nation's economy. A single high level / epic level character literally walks around in gear valued in the hundreds of thousands to millions of gold pieces. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Now as far as what Epic Adventuring should be like, of course we'll all have our own ideas, but I'm sure you'll find a lot of commonalities in the things we want and don't want to see. Personally, I'd like high level bouts to last longer (against appropriately challenging foes) to really give you a sense that the battle can shift, the tide can turn, and gives characters a chance to showcase a variety of tactics and strategies. That means lowering the general damage output considerably. I'd remove any Save or Die/Nerf spells, Teleportation, Spell-based Flight (flying mounts are the mode of travel for high level PCs), and most spells over 6th level. There would be no Save for None spells either, all magic would have at least some minor effect even if a Save was made. Magic Items would be far less common and each would be unique and treasured. Vancian magic would be dumped for something more flexible and fun. Classes would not be so magic item dependent and re-geared to be more flexible in mirroring different cinemtatic styles (the armorless characters, weapon styles, etc). You could flesh out class-specific feats (like d20 Modern Talents) for that. Class-based AC bonuses would be in, no class has fewer than d6 HD and some of the high level disparities would be compressed to make it easier to design high level adventures around (Saves, HPs, BAB, ACs).

I would seriously curb the number of different powers an individual high level monster could possess. Some beasts (and NPCs for that matter) are such stat abominations that you have to sit and plan well in advance just to wrap your brain around what they are capable of doing, especially when they possess intellect and wisdom far exceeding your own. The more time spent on stuff like this means less time developing the campaign.

A'koss.

 

[Piratecat]

It's repeated over and over again. A good DM doesn't railroad. So you try not to railroad. You present a rich tapestry and let the players choose how to approach it. Or not at all. What do you get then?

Consequences.

Whether or not players take the bait, the plot still happens and the villians succeed or fail based on who happens to interfere with them. This tends to reinforce that the world continues whether the PCs help or not, so they darn well better stand up for the causes they believe in. This also adds superb verisimillitude to your world, because the involvement (or lack thereof) of the PCs will literally change the world around them.

 

[BSF]

I cannot agree with Piratecat more! I try to design my villians nefarious plots for what will happen *if nobody interferes*. I try to leave it to my players to care about that. They can choose to ignore the villians, they can choose to take direct action themselves, they can choose to bring it to somebody else's attention while they go on with a different thing entirely. In the last campaign I ran, I tried to throw enough possible threats out there that the players knew they couldn't deal with all of them. They had to make decisions on what they would handle and more decisions on if they could do *anything* about the ones they could not. It made for a game where the players felt like they had an impact on the world and that their decisions, good or bad, had an impact. It was very cool! It was also something that I worked at from 1st level, all the way through the end of the game, which was 15th for the highest level characters. I had been hoping that they would make it to the 15-17th level range before the end, but the characters spent downtime in certain areas while the BBEG's plans were moving forward. Still, they managed to save the day and had a lot of fun doing it.

 

[Altalazar]

I cannot agree with Piratecat more! I try to design my villians nefarious plots for what will happen *if nobody interferes*. I try to leave it to my players to care about that. They can choose to ignore the villians, they can choose to take direct action themselves, they can choose to bring it to somebody else's attention while they go on with a different thing entirely. In the last campaign I ran, I tried to throw enough possible threats out there that the players knew they couldn't deal with all of them. They had to make decisions on what they would handle and more decisions on if they could do *anything* about the ones they could not. It made for a game where the players felt like they had an impact on the world and that their decisions, good or bad, had an impact. It was very cool! It was also something that I worked at from 1st level, all the way through the end of the game, which was 15th for the highest level characters. I had been hoping that they would make it to the 15-17th level range before the end, but the characters spent downtime in certain areas while the BBEG's plans were moving forward. Still, they managed to save the day and had a lot of fun doing it.

Yes yes! And this can be even more fun and interesting if there is MORE THAN ONE BBEG moving forward with sometimes cross purposes. Perhaps the players are even working for one directly - perhaps it is the lessor of two evils - perhaps it is a "marriage of convenience" - or even more diabolical, perhaps NEITHER big plot is by a BBEG, it is more the usual machinations of States and Princes, with the PCs either choosing sides (and making appropriate friends and enemies) or doing nothing (and making approrpriate friends and enemies) - perhaps this even affects them directly - maybe that ruined castle they wanted to explore for a specific item rumored to have been lost there is in lands about to be overrun (or already overrun) by another power - do they then try and join up to get access, do they try and sneak across? Do they join the other side and try and help them conquer that area so they can gain access that way? So many possibilities. All you need is a well developed, moving world and PCs who have some sort of internal motivation, be it revenge, greed, wanderlust, or bloodlust - or anything else, for that matter.

 

[WizarDru]

WizarDru, you're missing the point. You may argue the effectiveness of certain D&D magi-combo tactics & their inevitable countermeasures but you can't ignore the fact that it is the D&D style of high level play. It doesn't try to mirror any sort of cinematic flavor, it's D&D gaming and nothing else. If that works for your campaign, kudos for you, but it doesn't mirror the style that some of us want for our campaigns. The fact that most PCs use their immense wealth to procure new magical toys does not preclude the fact there is a ton of money out there. Enough that it a single high level adventure could wreak havok some small nation's economy. A single high level / epic level character literally walks around in gear valued in the hundreds of thousands to millions of gold pieces. I could go on, but you get the picture.

I didn't miss that point, but I did disagree that it is the only style of high-level play. That was part of my reason for pointing to several different story hours. Sepulchrave uses pretty much standard D&D with a handful of house rules...but I doubt you would describe his game in the same terms as Shark's story hour, which embraces D&D idiosyncracies with reckless abandon. I agree that D&D doesn't model any particular cinematic flavor...that's the DM's job, IMHO. Pointing to D&D and saying that it isn't representative of any particular sytle is similar to saying that a loaf of bread doesn't invoke a particular sandwich. It's true, but not entirely accurate, I think. The 3E design team knew that individual DMs would customize the game in this way, and steered away from pigeon-holing the system to much in any one direction.

That isn't to say that I don't understand and agree that what you're saying isn't valid. What I'm saying is that it isn't the only way that high-level play operates. The problems you cite are possible ways the game could operate, not the only ways. D&D is a game first, and to be a balanced and relatively fair game (in that each character plays by the same rules and enjoys the same opportunities), some measuring stick is required. Are GPs a good system for that? I honestly don't know. But D&D has never claimed to be an accurate economic simulation or even necessarily a logical one, from a verisimilitude standpoint. I can understand why that would bother foiks (and I'll admit it doesn't exactly thrill me), but I don't think that really determines the feel of the game, one way or another.

Now as far as what Epic Adventuring should be like, of course we'll all have our own ideas, but I'm sure you'll find a lot of commonalities in the things we want and don't want to see. Personally, I'd like high level bouts to last longer (against appropriately challenging foes) to really give you a sense that the battle can shift, the tide can turn, and gives characters a chance to showcase a variety of tactics and strategies.

Now here's what I'm talking about....this is how my high-level game plays. Take a look at my players most recent battle against the Githyanki Lich Queen, and you'll see that it was a long battle, no one had a clear advantage throughout the conflict, the players were cautious, threatened and off-balance during the entire encounter. How did they win? Superior tactics, teamwork and clever strategies. And that applies at all levels of D&D.

I would seriously curb the number of different powers an individual high level monster could possess. Some beasts (and NPCs for that matter) are such stat abominations that you have to sit and plan well in advance just to wrap your brain around what they are capable of doing, especially when they possess intellect and wisdom far exceeding your own. The more time spent on stuff like this means less time developing the campaign.

I agree completely. That's why I started doing the things I mentioned above. However, since combat occurs with less and less frequency, it's usually more work on individual set-piece battles as opposed to a succession of encounters. But that would apply at lower levels, as well. If my players are trying to defeat the evil necromancer in his lair at 5th level, or Gulthias in Nightfang Spire at 10th level or the Lich Queen in "Lich Queen's Beloved" (one of the best high-level adventures available)...I still have to assume they've given more thought to their defenses than I have. The biggest difference is that at high-level, the problem becomes more concentrated.

 

[mmadsen]

I agree that D&D doesn't model any particular cinematic flavor...that's the DM's job, IMHO. Pointing to D&D and saying that it isn't representative of any particular sytle is similar to saying that a loaf of bread doesn't invoke a particular sandwich. It's true, but not entirely accurate, I think. The 3E design team knew that individual DMs would customize the game in this way, and steered away from pigeon-holing the system to much in any one direction.

The problem isn't that D&D is generic and bland, and that with more detail it could model, say, The Lord of the Rings better. The problem is that D&D, particularly at higher levels, has a very strong flavor -- and that flavor doesn't match anything except D&D itself. Many of the best (and thus most common) tactics within the game (e.g., Scry-Buff-Teleport, Improved Invisiblity-Fly-Bombard) don't match any fantasy story; they're not generic fantasy.

 

[Endur]

In high-level 3eDnD, buffing is like brushing your teeth. Novelists don't normally keep track of how often characters brush their teeth, so the novelists can also be expected to ignore buffing.

On the other hand, I do agree that Raise Dead (otherwise known as pressing the "Reset" button) is far too common in D&D games compared to novels.

I'm not sure, but the problem with D&D spellcasting compared to novels may be that the spells are too frequent and not powerful enough compared to novels. A wizard in a novel might cast one big spell in a day versus the 50+ spells a D&D wizard casts in a day.

The problem isn't that D&D is generic and bland, and that with more detail it could model, say, The Lord of the Rings better. The problem is that D&D, particularly at higher levels, has a very strong flavor -- and that flavor doesn't match anything except D&D itself. Many of the best (and thus most common) tactics within the game (e.g., Scry-Buff-Teleport, Improved Invisiblity-Fly-Bombard) don't match any fantasy story; they're not generic fantasy.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by WizardDru:
I didn't miss that point, but I did disagree that it is the only style of high-level play... I agree that D&D doesn't model any particular cinematic flavor...that's the DM's job, IMHO. Pointing to D&D and saying that it isn't representative of any particular sytle is similar to saying that a loaf of bread doesn't invoke a particular sandwich.

Now hold on there... I wasn't saying that it was the only style of high level tactics, just examples to illustrate a point. As mmadsen correctly points out - high level D&D creates it's own flavor - teleportation, lots of divination, death as an easily remedied condition, easy healing magic, lots of magic items... it's part of the ruleset and it creates a very distinct flavor to a campaign setting.

More importantly, a campaign world is more than just the 4-6 PCs who live in it and their BBEG opponent du jour. It's about the setting itself and the impact that the rules have on it.

The 3E design team knew that individual DMs would customize the game in this way, and steered away from pigeon-holing the system to much in any one direction.

On the contrary, it very much directed to a specific style of play - the D&D style of play. And you really notice it at high levels. It may not be trying to impose a specific setting, but it very much geared towards the campaign having distinct D&D conventions. You can't just "go low magic" in D&D as it creates a domino effect throughout the game. The game is dependent on you having truckloads of magic. And I'm not saying that this is a bad thing necessarily but you can't mirror anything close to a lot of popular fantasy cinema or mythology with it.

Now here's what I'm talking about....this is how my high-level game plays. Take a look at my players most recent battle against the Githyanki Lich Queen, and you'll see that it was a long battle, no one had a clear advantage throughout the conflict, the players were cautious, threatened and off-balance during the entire encounter. How did they win? Superior tactics, teamwork and clever strategies. And that applies at all levels of D&D.

Well, you are definitely in the minority then. Most of us find that high level battles last about 4-5 rounds (if that) before one side or the other has to give it up or are dead. It's brutal and it's fast with a plethora of Save or Die/Nerf magic getting tossed around. Is strategy important in D&D? Of course... however, I don't consider a 4 round battle particularly epic, grand or wondrous.

Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[WizarDru]

On the contrary, it very much directed to a specific style of play - the D&D style of play. And you really notice it at high levels. It may be trying to impose a specific setting, but it very much geared towards the campaign having distinct D&D conventions. You can't just "go low magic" in D&D as it creates a domino effect throughout the game. The game is dependent on you having truckloads of magic. And I'm not saying that this is a bad thing necessarily but you can't mirror anything close to a lot of popular fantasy cinema or mythology with it.
Well, you are definitely in the minority then. Most of us find that high level battles last about 4-5 rounds (if that) before one side or the other has to give it up or are dead. It's brutal and it's fast with a plethora of Save or Die/Nerf magic getting tossed around. Is strategy important in D&D? Of course... however, I don't consider a 4 round battle particularly epic, grand or wondrous.

Well, I don't agree with all of what you're saying, but I definitely see your point. I don't think the number of rounds is necessarily indicative of the epic nature of the combat, but I can agree with some of the problems that you've identified...heck, I mentioned some of them above.

But I also point that I don't agree that play is forced into that style. Take a look at Sepulchrave's story hour, and you can how 'scry and fry' doesn't always work out well, or to PC or my story hour as to how it doesn't even prove that effective against enemies who are properly entrenched. You could rightly point out that this is more a point of campaign setting than the ruleset, and I'd agree, since that was my point. What I'm trying to point out is that BST is not a universal technique that all high level parties must employ. But you are right that it can be bothersome to verisimilitude to have to take such issues into account.

I do agree that D&D will not mold most fantasy archetypes that well without significant work, and that there are times when it would be nice if it could. However, I haven't run into a game system that does, necesarily, as fiction and movies have different requirements and constraints than a game. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 

[Barastrondo]

Consequences.

Whether or not players take the bait, the plot still happens and the villians succeed or fail based on who happens to interfere with them. This tends to reinforce that the world continues whether the PCs help or not, so they darn well better stand up for the causes they believe in. This also adds superb verisimillitude to your world, because the involvement (or lack thereof) of the PCs will literally change the world around them.

Excellent advice, although I'd add the caveat that it's always good to keep a sharp eye on pacing, and on the tastes of your players. I've played in a game that followed this guideline for several years, and it wound up feeling almost more like a chore than like a game toward the end — we certainly felt that we had to keep our PCs involved in hunting things down, to the point that we almost never got to do anything that our PCs would have enjoyed or seen as fun. Things that we as players would have enjoyed as well! No mingling and socializing at a fancy affair, no taking a week off to go fishing, certainly no time to pursue romantic entanglements — if we weren't out there making progress against the antagonists, we'd be sorry in no time sharp. The ramifications of one particular mistake we made were still kicking us around by the time my wife and I moved away to WNC and left the campaign on a regular basis, and continue to do so whenever we visit/are visited by our friends and had time to game with them again.

Now, this is certainly one of the better games I've ever played in, and it was great for making us feel empowered — even at lower levels, entire noble households were rising and falling based on what we were doing. But because the pace kept on picking up as we got to higher and higher level, and the threats kept rising in scope, we started feeling as though we'd never get to enjoy the fruits of our labors, and the power-ups of new levels and magic items couldn't compete with what we were missing. This may not be a problem for all groups — some people would be much happier with that kind of unrelenting pace — but it should definitely be said that the pacing should complement the players' tastes to some extent.

I'm not sure, but the problem with D&D spellcasting compared to novels may be that the spells are too frequent and not powerful enough compared to novels. A wizard in a novel might cast one big spell in a day versus the 50+ spells a D&D wizard casts in a day.

This is hardly scientific reasoning, but I think that another reason that D&D spellcasting doesn't match up with literary magic use is because novels cannot afford to let magic get too repetitive if they want to keep the wonder, while a certain amount of repetitiveness is unavoidable in a roleplaying game. In a novel, a particular trick can only be used a few times before it isn't really that interesting to the reader any more; that's why you often see magic systems where spells (or magical effects) are spontaneously created to deal with the situation at hand. But in a game like D&D where spell effects are clearly defined and ranked and categorized ahead of time, once you find a particular spell or spell combination that works really well, it's in your best interests to use it as often as required. The game often assumes that you'll be using the best tools for the job, even if it means repeating yourself.

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, because a player has a lot more fun casting sonic-substituted fireballs again and again than a third party would have reading about another sonic-substituted fireball going off in a book. But it is a difference, and it does mean that the game probably won't match the expectations a person brings from other fantasy media. (Note that I don't say the game will be lesser than those expectations — it just won't match them.)