What's wrong with high-level/epic play?

[Runestar]

For example, If I was an epic level Human Fighter who spent an action point (giving me another +3 because I have Action Surge) next to my friend the Warlord with Inspiring Presence (for another bonus between +3-+5) flanking with a Rouge (for another +2) hitting a solo with my super cool high level daily, that can really turn a battle. Or I am optimizing too much here? I believe that the designers assumed that PCs would be doing stuff like that but I could be wrong though.

That could be another problem as well, because it assumes that you do have a warlord in your party to boost your to-hit rolls (and going by existing trends, it seems that a warlord seems almost mandatory at epic). What if there is no leader in your party? Since warlords have to hit with their attacks, you are all but encouraged to action-point-->buff/debuff to ensure that it misses only on a natural 1.

 

[AllisterH]

I always assumed the dropoff between monsters and characters in 4E was because the designers assumed that magic items and better powers would make up the difference...

Was I wrong?

 

[Kraydak]

I always assumed the dropoff between monsters and characters in 4E was because the designers assumed that magic items and better powers would make up the difference...

Was I wrong?

Sort of. All the (decent) "PCs fall behind NPCs" calculations take magic items into account. Powers are more complicated (from my PoV, it is the smokescreen the WotC apologists hide behind, but they'll view it differently ).

Powers suffer from two problems:
a) some of the bonuses are +extra stat to d20 roll. This reverses the problem, but there remains a problem. (at this point, bonuses grow too fast)
b) the flat bonuses don't really grow (so they don't really change the picture)
c) assuming that you have a leader who can buff you the way you need... (ie. assuming you have a warlord with the right build) is problematic in and of itself.

 

[Spatula]

Well powers are going to have an effect. The difference between high level and the lower levels is you have more powers, and thus more buffs/debuffs, to throw around per fight.

However, it would take a lot of bonuses and/or penalties to turn that +38 vs Fort attack of Orcus' into anything other than a 95% auto-hit against that 30th level rogue's 33 defense.

 

[AllisterH]

Sort of. All the (decent) "PCs fall behind NPCs" calculations take magic items into account. Powers are more complicated (from my PoV, it is the smokescreen the WotC apologists hide behind, but they'll view it differently ).

Powers suffer from two problems:
a) some of the bonuses are +extra stat to d20 roll. This reverses the problem, but there remains a problem. (at this point, bonuses grow too fast)
b) the flat bonuses don't really grow (so they don't really change the picture)
c) assuming that you have a leader who can buff you the way you need... (ie. assuming you have a warlord with the right build) is problematic in and of itself.

But looking at my copy of ADV, many of the magic items don't have STATIC bonuses but TIERED bonuses. Similarly, many of the powers are TIERED so that it isn't a flat bonus.....



EDIt: Auto-hit

Spatula's last point is interesting....Do people prefer the auto-success/failure nature that high level play tends to have? Many people don't like 4E's solution where basically PCs are always around the 40-60% success/failure range when facing down appropriate opposition.....

So are we assuming that the "no need to roll the dice" nature for high level play is a BAD thing?

 

[Stalker0]

However, it would take a lot of bonuses and/or penalties to turn that +38 vs Fort attack of Orcus' into anything other than a 95% auto-hit against that 30th level rogue's 33 defense.

A few things to keep in mind.

1) Its a level 30 rogue vs a level 33 solo. This could be the capstone of the game, the guy is going to be insanely awesome.

2) The +38 is nothing but a little bit of damage. The burst attack of Orcus really isn't anything to write home about. The real attack is the +33 fort attack (the touch of death). So in that case, anything that boosts the rogue's defenses or penalizes orcus' attacks has a BIG impact on the rogue's ability to escape it. It is also reach 4, meaning the rogue may not want to be staying toe to toe with Orcus. Leave the defender in there with his much better fort save.


I'm not wholly defending the high level discrepancy between PCs and Monsters, but I think its definitely a playtest required discussion, not one you can base on theory. You all know I love a good theorycraft discussion, but nearly all the ones I see pay minimal attention to powers (for good reason, they are really variable and hard to put in a mathematical model). But you cannot ignore the effects of powers at high levels, they are too strong and too prevalent a force.

Now take a few 30th level pcs, throw them against orcus, and get back to us. How often was orcus autohitting the party, etc.

 

[Stalker0]

Powers are more complicated (from my PoV, it is the smokescreen the WotC apologists hide behind, but they'll view it differently ).

To me it works like this. We all see the discrepancy at high levels between pcs and monsters. There are two main possibilities:

1) The power system is what makes up the gap. The designers correctly designed the numbers taking powers into account, so high level play works as advertised.

2) The designers got it wrong. The powers system doesn't address the issue, there is in fact a problem at high levels.


My take is until proven otherwise, always assume the designers got it right. There are some smart guys (and gals) working on the system, why not give them the benefit of the doubt. And since the power system is pretty complicated and not easily tracked using theory (unlike some other aspects of the system), then the best way to determine the success of the system is through playtest experience.

 

[Merlin's Shadow]

The last high level 3.5 combat I played in against enemy spellcasters resulted in one party member going permanently insane, one petrified, two planeshifted against their will (and they were warriors with no way of getting back), and two dead, all within 3 rounds of combat. One party member escaped, but he also was a warrior class with no method of retrieving our fallen characters, or rescuing those of us stranded on another plane. It was an anti-climactic end to our last 3.5 game and a campaign that had been going for 2 years. But it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Everyone sitting around the table pretty much looked at each other and said, "This game sucks."

I see the problem, but allow me to play devil's advocate.

Shouldn't you (or whomever was the GM) have checked out the enemy's spells before hand to see what they were capable of? If the possibility was there for this to happen, couldn't steps have been taken to mitigate this (e.g. changing what spells the bad guys knew, providing a magic item that allowed plane shifting ahead of time)?

Also, couldn't the end result have been spun into an exciting adventure in itself? Maybe the one character who escaped had to make a pact with some evil spellcaster to get help in rescuing his allies. Maybe a celestial of some sort is able to cure the character's insanity, but in exchange the party must complete some quest.

I completely understand the frustration and I have taken steps to mitigate some of the save or die/suck aspects of 3.x, but I usually try to find solutions within the game whenever I can, turning bad outcomes into an excuse for further adventure.

 

[Stalker0]

I think this summarizes a lot of people's issue with high level 3e. Its not that the system is unplayable, if it was unplayable....no one would play it! Its that generally it takes a lot of smart dming to make high level work.

You can't just throw some appropriate CR monsters at a party and expect things to work out. You need clever use of spells, specific magical defenses, good understanding of how to abdicate high level divinations and illusions, etc.

That takes a strong understanding of the system....and it also takes a lot of time and mental energy on the dm's part. Some dms thrive on that, and some absolutely hate it.

 

[Shroomy]

Whenever this topic comes up, I never really see the +2 bonus to hit from combat advantage taken into account (if someone already has, I apologize). Between flanking, powers, and all the conditions that can grant combat advantage, especially at higher levels, this +2 to hit should come up quite often. It does in my game, and we're only 6th level.