Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silveras" data-source="post: 1648878" data-attributes="member: 6271">Devil's Advocate timeFor 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Classed goblins, classed orcs, classed elves, classed .... IllithidsRakshasaLich, Wraith, Mummy, etc. undeadIn my campaigns, most of the really dangerous things are the same size as the party, and don't usually have reach. 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. Hmm. 5th go-round for "too many modifier types". 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. 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. 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" ?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. 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. 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). 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.</blockquote>

Verification