Devil's Advocate time
ashockney said:
Here's a quick recap of the pitfalls identified thus far in the thread...
Pitfall: The number of attacks rolled at higher level becomes difficult to manage (with multiple heroes and villains).
For PCs, this is usually a Player's decision between "Do I move and only get 1 attack, or do I stay still and get X ?" The Player is the one who should know how many attacks his/her character can get, and is the one who makes the call.
For enemies, the DM has the same choice: Move and get 1, or stay and get a Full Attack ? Since all attacks are rolled at the same time, this is not that hard to keep track of.
In both cases, managing the base numbers and patterns is not that hard. The information should be on the sheet. That's a matter of organization ... having the information you need when and where you can find it.
AoOs take place outside the usual order of events, and use your "current" full BAB ("current" meaning adjusted for any voluntary modifiers you took) -- that is, again, up to the Player to know for PCs and up to the DM for foes, and is a matter of organization.
Even at lower levels, remembering to adjust for PA or CE can be a "problem"; it has nothing to do with high-level gaming, specifically.
Only the ability to make multiple AoOs in a round adds any real complexity to this issue.
I use an initiative log sheet, and record what each combatant does each round. It makes writing up a session summary easier later. This is as helpful at lower levels as it is at high.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: Instead of spending time doing more complex character development, playtesting an adventure, or writing additional background for the campaign or characters, the high level DM is forced to "build the adventure".
This is a style issue more than a flaw in the rules above 10th level.
Building custom enemies with character levels and templates always takes time proportionate to the overall power level. That is why many campaigns save such for the "key" encounters, and use standard monsters/NPCs for most minor encounters.
Much of the time spent in creating such opponents, though, goes into selecting the Templates, Classes, Prestige Classes, and/or Gear they have. The proliferation of these choices is squarely under the DM's control. Anything, from the Core books to various 3rd party supplements, is within the DM's purview to disallow. Failing to do so wisely is a larger contributor to these problems than anything else.
I have a database with "stock opponents" (typically the monster straight out of the SRD, or a basic level X classed creature) that I use as the seed to populate my encounters. It also has a list of the allowed Feats, PrCs, Spells, etc.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: A noticable absence from most high level modules (12th level plus) the aforementioned "stat blocks" with different levels of buffs. By "building" they must stat out on an extensive spreadsheet, each encounter so that it is ready at game time.
When you say modules, do you mean published modules ? I think most people would see the long stat blocks as a detriment - they would be viewed as taking up too much space. The DM should not be running an adventure where s/he does not understand the villains' abilities well enough to work out alternate stat blocks on his/her own.
This is less a flaw than a marketing decision, a recognition that some people would feel ripped off by a module that was "all stat blocks".
ashockney said:
Pitfall: There are too many types of modifiers, with differing degrees available for different modifiers, which becomes very difficult to track. Stacking/Non-Stacking works to place necessary ceilings, but may cause more confusion than it’s worth. (It may also grant too many bonuses at lower levels.)
As stated before, the presence of "too many types of modifiers" is largely the responsibility of the DM. The DM can disallow things (feat combinations, etc.) that prove overwhelming in the campaign s/he wishes to run.
The theoretical difficulty in tracking these many modifiers is subjective. Any party that uses charges from magic items and many spells in order to maximize their effects in a single combat is making a style choice. Intelligent opponents will note this, and exploit it as a weakness.
The DM who faces PCs with "too many bonuses at lower levels" is a DM giving out too much magic, or too many different magic items. Not every potion in a hoard of 12 needs to be differnet. It would make sense to find multiples of the same type together... perhaps 6 of the 12 are healing.
On the other hand, DMs who face PCs who find ways to use even the most innocuous treasure for a combat advantage are not looking at a rules problem as much as they seeing very clever players at work.
To provide a consistent feel for my homebrew world, I *never* roll up treasures. I select every magic item placed in a treasure pile, and I usually "save" the good stuff for later. My low-level PCs all run across the same type of items when facing the same types of foes, for some reason.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: Although there are some class combinations that work at higher levels of D&D, not all classes are built equally.
This is true. It is another reason why the DM needs to exercise judicious use of the phrase "No, that's not an option in this campaign." It has much less to do with high-level gaming than it does with the campaign the DM wants to run.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: Not all prestige classes build effectively (caster level is king).
This is also true. The problem with caster level is a "known issue" that the designers acknowledged in the Q&A thread before the release of 3.5 Ed. Of course, it becomes a more pronounced problem as you reach higher levels, less because it is a specifically high-level problem than because a higher number of levels makes the differences more obvious. It can still be a problem for an 8th level character with 4 levels of each of 2 PC classes.
Again, judicious use of "No" and "Yes" can help. Unearthed Arcana presents one variant that allows a Magic Effect Rating to stack from class to class for purposes of the Effects of spells (but not access to higher level spells). Complete Divine presents a feat that helps compensate for "gaps" in the effective caster level for the same purposes.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: There are too many enhancements, and stacking becomes overly cumbersome: 17 enhancements to BAB, 23 enhancements to armor class, 16 enhancements to Base Saving Throws.
I don't think it is fair to indict the system twice using a different phrasing. "Too many modifier types" was already covered, and a lot of this overlaps with that.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: There are 45 unique "tactical" conditions, each with unique modifiers to combat. At higher levels, you are exponentially more likely to require multiple tactical conditions, affecting a variety of the players and villains during a combat.
In a turn-based combat system, you only work on one situation at a time, and you can take as long as you need. As much as it may dismay a DM that there are so many options, there are just as many players, if not more, who *live* for exactly that kind of flexibility.
Much of this can also be handled by judgment calls. A confident DM who knows the basics of the rules (when to give a bonus) should be able to ballpark the correct modifier (hint: the modifiers are usually in increments of 2, so the overall modifieris likely to be 2x the number of conditions that apply).
Keeping track of this is what the inside of the DM's screen is for. If you find the commercial ones do not have the references you need, you can make custom reference sheets and clip them to the inside of the screen.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: There are a variety of feat and class abilities that can affect combat, each with unique modifiers (or variable modifiers) to combat. At higher levels, you are exponentially more likely to encounter multiple feat/class modifiers, affecting a variety of the players and villains during a combat.
Yup. And, for many, this is a Good Thing. Good players keep accurate note of what is going on, and can help the DM adjudicate these situations.
Again, though, this comes back to being a third repeat of the "there are too many different modifier types" and "there are too many enhancements" complaints. Listing the same complaint 3 times does not make it into 3 different issues.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: What do you fight above 12th level that doesn't have AT LEAST a 10' reach?
Classed goblins, classed orcs, classed elves, classed ....
Illithids
Rakshasa
Lich, Wraith, Mummy, etc. undead
In my campaigns, most of the really dangerous things are the same size as the party, and don't usually have reach.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: The combinations of types of defense and modifiers to defense are challenging to track, and become exponentially more difficult as you go up in levels. (Examples: AC, Touch, Incorporeal Touch, Concealment, etc.)
4th go round for "too many modifier types".
Concealment gives a "miss chance", not an addition to the AC of the target. Separating the AC into "normal" vs "touch" vs "flat-footed" was actually done to simplify things. You write down the ones that apply to 90% of the encounters you face. The rest, you modify from those as you need to. Again, organization on the part of the players and DM helps streamline this.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: Remembering and adjudicating the ways different defenses interact.
Hmm. 5th go-round for "too many modifier types".
ashockney said:
Pitfall: Combat at higher levels becomes about identifying and exploiting your opponents weakness, and not about exercising your character’s abilities. By epic, defenses become so strong, it is very difficult to affect opponents.
Uhm, perhaps for some. My players typically rely on found magic items, so I have good control over what is available to them. My villains are often in the same boat (ie., they have the same sorts of equipment). Again, judicious use of "not in this campaign" helps to make this less of a problem.
Disclaimer: My players often suffer a TPK around 8th-9th level because they do NOT adjust to the changing abilities of their opponents.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: Armor’s Dex Bonus Maximum isn’t necessary.
Necessary ? No. Desirable ? Yes. It helps keep some balance in the game, so that more dextrous characters can wear lighter armor and still remain nearly as well-protected as their more heavily-armored colleagues. The many, many requests for a system to allow a light- or no- armored swashbuckler- type character point to a desire to maintain this flavor difference.
This one is so easy to keep track of that including it in a list of complaints about the complexity of high- level combat is like complaining that you have to remember that most modifiers are +/-2.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: The dramatic increase in effectiveness that the right enhancement combinations can have on high level characters can be overwhelming to manage as a DM, and anti-climactic in game play for the characters (Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Assassins Senses, Keen Weapon…). Further, characters become overly dependent upon their enhancements, and one effective dispelling of enhancements can be overwhelming to the players.
This is true at low-levels, too. Again, judicious use of the phrase "not allowed" takes care of most of this.
Hmmm... and is that the 6th go-round for "too many modifier types" ?
ashockney said:
Pitfall: The average player is horrible at keeping maps.
That is an over-generalization based on the anecdotal comments of 1 or 2 people. It is hardly a universal experience. As it stands, the average player in my experience is quite good at mapping.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: As players are granted access to extremely powerful movement spells, items, and abilities, mapping becomes an enormous waste of time/resources. Dungeons/Encounters above 12th level need to each present considerable magical AND natural obstacles in order to not provide a well-played group with a significant tactical advantage.
Note that this begins with "As players are granted access to...".
A plethora of choices also includes the choice NOT to use them. The DM is free to run a campaign that either does not include such magics, or one that never reaches such levels. How well this will go over with the players is, of course, dependent upon their preferences. For some, the *point* of the game is to be able to do this stuff.
ashockney said:
Pitfall: AOO's. The whole system, especially at high level. 5D movement (3D+invisible+ethereal), most creatures have reach 10' or 15' plus, and keeping track of multiple AOO's.
Heh. invisible is not another dimension. Ethereal may be, but it does not add another dimension of movement -- ethereal creatures still move in the same set of 3D co-ordinates as everyone else.
That being said, AoOs are (usually) risks characters choose to accept in order to take actions in a tactically-advantaged position. Generally, a creature gets 1 or its Dex bonus in a round.
For keeping track, I use my initiative roster and make a tick mark in the box for that round when a creature has used its AoO(s).
ashockney said:
Pitfall: Wizards in armor. Another mechanic. Another roll, more complexity.
Oh, yes, that states the case well.
This is a balanc-vs-realism issue, and has little or nothing to do with high-level gaming specifically. Previously, wizards were just not allowed to wear armor at all. This offended the 'realism' sense of many, so this mechanic was introduced to keep it balanced.
