The thing is that in 3.x high levels are a ton of paperwork for the DM and any prepared-spell caster (and tons of dice rolling per round for everyone). This was a massive improvement from 2.x, where high levels were completely unplayable and you had to rewrite the XP tables to reach them, but still not great. I suspect that a lot of the things 4e tries to fix with high-level play weren't addressed in 3e mostly because most people had so little experience with 10th level and higher games going in.
3.5 breakdown at high levels?
the Jester
Legend
When I was dming my epic-level 3.5 group, I would routinely spend more time prepping than actually playing.
I've spent about 3 hours on 4e prep so far and it has lasted 8 games so far!! That's prolly 50 hours....
I've spent about 3 hours on 4e prep so far and it has lasted 8 games so far!! That's prolly 50 hours....
taliesin15
First Post
hussar wrote:
That said, I'd like to offer two caveats. From someone who has DM'd original D&D, AD&D (i.e. 1st edition), 3.0, and a combo 3.0/3.5/houserule version, just remember, it gets easier the more you do it. Honestly. Be patient with the math you have to do, just focus on building a strong foundation based on a good understanding of the rules, your houserules you bring to the game, and common sense. Statting high lvl NPCs and advanced Monsters is a piece of cake for me because I've been doing it for a while.
The other thing to keep in mind is what kind of game you run from the beginning. When you start off a campaign, you are laying the groundwork for what could either be a perpetual nightmare or something fun and rewarding. I personally think that too much hack and slash is monotonous. Much of what I dislike in gaming too much resembles videogames. I use a healthy amount of political intrigue and subtle plot points and use of riddles and puzzles. These kinds of things force the players to role play or think for themselves. I typically use a brain puzzler at a crossroads point in a dungeon that involves no saving throws, spells, combat or any of the stats people are complaining about.
Personally, I think all the complicated stats are kind of beside the point in the game; clearly for others, it is the end-all, be-all.
hjorimir wrote:
these are very fair points to bring up as DM burnout has an issue with D&D...speaking as someone who usually DMs and whose best campaign as a player basically stopped because it was too much work for the DM.
That said, I'd like to offer two caveats. From someone who has DM'd original D&D, AD&D (i.e. 1st edition), 3.0, and a combo 3.0/3.5/houserule version, just remember, it gets easier the more you do it. Honestly. Be patient with the math you have to do, just focus on building a strong foundation based on a good understanding of the rules, your houserules you bring to the game, and common sense. Statting high lvl NPCs and advanced Monsters is a piece of cake for me because I've been doing it for a while.
The other thing to keep in mind is what kind of game you run from the beginning. When you start off a campaign, you are laying the groundwork for what could either be a perpetual nightmare or something fun and rewarding. I personally think that too much hack and slash is monotonous. Much of what I dislike in gaming too much resembles videogames. I use a healthy amount of political intrigue and subtle plot points and use of riddles and puzzles. These kinds of things force the players to role play or think for themselves. I typically use a brain puzzler at a crossroads point in a dungeon that involves no saving throws, spells, combat or any of the stats people are complaining about.
Personally, I think all the complicated stats are kind of beside the point in the game; clearly for others, it is the end-all, be-all.
Festivus
First Post
Using a computer helps a lot too for higher level stuff in terms of both generating bad guys (monsterforge for example) and running combats.
My biggest problem is that you have so many choices as a player or a DM in combat, plus the number of attacks anyone is given. Add to this the random number of buffs and christmas tree magic items and voila, takes a long time to figure out things.
I have taken to using a computer to do die rolls for the bad guys because it's way faster than adding up 25 dice on the table per attack, times 5 attacks. It helps a little but not enough to convince me that I will never take a 3.5 game beyond 12th level again.
My biggest problem is that you have so many choices as a player or a DM in combat, plus the number of attacks anyone is given. Add to this the random number of buffs and christmas tree magic items and voila, takes a long time to figure out things.
I have taken to using a computer to do die rolls for the bad guys because it's way faster than adding up 25 dice on the table per attack, times 5 attacks. It helps a little but not enough to convince me that I will never take a 3.5 game beyond 12th level again.
Obryn
Hero
Yep, I started running into all of these in my 3.5 and Arcana Evolved games. AE is gorgeous, but it was particularly bad for a lot of this - especially involving saving throws.
Yes and Yes. Particularly about how long it takes to prep monsters with spell-like abilities. I got to be pretty expert at copy-pasting from the SRD.
The bolded section was especially horrifying in Arcana Evolved, all its promises to the contrary. Although there were fewer save-or-dies, there were tons of save-or-sucks (I hate Resilient Sphere with a burning passion), and AE casters are way better than 3.5 casters at boosting save DCs and crushing spell resistance.
That's nice and all. I've been DMing for ... wow, I think about 25 years? ... and DMed 3.x from the time it was released until pretty recently, at levels from 1 to 15. And I'd like to say that I disagree completely. If I am statting mid-to-high-level NPCs or adjusting monsters and I don't have access to (Hero/Monster)Forge, I hate it. Between adjusting hit dice and figuring out how the creature's BAB/Saves are affected; changing sizes and ability scores, and the numerous cascading effects therefrom; possibly adding feats; and changing all the ability save DCs... Yeah, I'm no dummy, but if you find it easy to do without computer aid, you have a way better math brain than I do. Even concentrating on the stuff you think will be needed and ignoring the stuff that probably won't, it's a chore.
I am sorry to report that it basically burned me out on 3.5 before 4e was even announced. I think the breaking point for me was when I needed chorrim (think intelligent, militaristic Arcana Evolved giants/ogres/whatever) of various levels to challenge my PCs. I churned through the stat blocks, looked at how much time that took me, and more or less decided there and then that it was time for a game change.
I started running SWSE (which is excellent) and WFRP2 (which is even more excellent). I also started up a new low-level 3.5 game, which was also quite enjoyable.
I don't find your argument that the best way around the clunkier portions of an otherwise elegant rules set is to basically ignore them (by concentrating on puzzles and political intrigue) compelling. While this is certainly the case, I could be playing any RPG at that point. I like a rules-set to help me and work with me when I'm actually using its mechanics.
-O
Kerrick
First Post
This is spot on. By the time you're hitting epic levels, you're not going to be doing dungeon crawls all the time - you're going to be involved in high-level politics and intrigue, research, and RP in general. When we played epic, we didn't do more than about 1 fight per session (partly because they took so blasted long...). Course, it was an RP-heavy campaign, too, so YMMV.
As far as the problem with high-level play:
The ELH. Just... the ELH. And the epic system in general.
The proliferation of bonuses (though again, our group never had that problem with rampant dispels - either we never thought of it, or we tacitly avoided it).
The rest has already been covered by the other folks in this thread.
MrGrenadine
Explorer
Hey, thanks for the responses, everyone. The problems are starting to come into focus.
Lets see if I'm understanding you.
1. Auto success or auto fail:
In terms of battle resolution, it looks like some monster stat tweaks may be needed in 3.5, but it also seems that having the party fight multiple monsters--as in 4e--would help. If an encounter has a high damage/ high hp/ low AC enemy, a high AC/ low hp/ low damage enemy, one that flies, one that has to get up close and personal, etc., that seems like that would give both high BAB and low BAB folks, and the melee and ranged folks something to do (successfully) during the fight. True?
Also, I like that 4e added Dex to ranged damage, so perhaps use the same mechanic for spells: Add Int mod to attacks and damage from Intelligence based spells, (or somehow bump up the area of effect, or duration?), and Wis mod to Wisdom based. That might help the low BAB folks connect with higher level targets.
I know, I know--thats more math. Ok forget it.
In terms of saves, again, 4e might have this right with adding 1/2 level. But how to reduce the spread between best and worst saves? Completely redo the save progression table? Allow more magical enhancements to just one type of save, (to balance high and low)? Or again, do monster and spell stats need to be adjusted in regard to save vs.?
2. Too many choices slow down combat:
Modifying the 4e powers template for 3.5 spells and attacks would help--everything laid out clearly and no flipping through books!
I also make it a point to list to hit and damage for each weapon, and also for each weapon or spell when buffed and/or when using different feats. At high levels, its a long list, but I'd rather scroll down to see "Greatsword, PA 5, Bull's Strength", followed by the appropriate attack and damage mods than have to do the math every time. Which brings us to:
3. Too much math:
I think buffs, level drain, conditions and all the other modifiers that can affect ability scores and attacks make 3.5 combat fun. There has to be a way to keep all that, make it all easier to track and make the math easier to figure on the fly.
Maybe a limit on the number of modifiers on any one target? Some sort of digital tool would be great--just select the target, then add the effect from a drop-down, and all abilities and modifiers are adjusted.--like how Kloogewerks does it.
4. DM prep time:
Templates for NPCs, or hell, just a big book of pre-rolled NPCs of different types and challenge levels sounds like it would help. And pre-packaging the same monsters for different challenge levels should also help speed things up. But is the time suck more about "What would be a good challenge for this party?"--walking that thin line between "just challenging enough" and TPK?
Am I in the ballpark with any of this?
Lets see if I'm understanding you.
1. Auto success or auto fail:
In terms of battle resolution, it looks like some monster stat tweaks may be needed in 3.5, but it also seems that having the party fight multiple monsters--as in 4e--would help. If an encounter has a high damage/ high hp/ low AC enemy, a high AC/ low hp/ low damage enemy, one that flies, one that has to get up close and personal, etc., that seems like that would give both high BAB and low BAB folks, and the melee and ranged folks something to do (successfully) during the fight. True?
Also, I like that 4e added Dex to ranged damage, so perhaps use the same mechanic for spells: Add Int mod to attacks and damage from Intelligence based spells, (or somehow bump up the area of effect, or duration?), and Wis mod to Wisdom based. That might help the low BAB folks connect with higher level targets.
I know, I know--thats more math. Ok forget it.
In terms of saves, again, 4e might have this right with adding 1/2 level. But how to reduce the spread between best and worst saves? Completely redo the save progression table? Allow more magical enhancements to just one type of save, (to balance high and low)? Or again, do monster and spell stats need to be adjusted in regard to save vs.?
2. Too many choices slow down combat:
Modifying the 4e powers template for 3.5 spells and attacks would help--everything laid out clearly and no flipping through books!
I also make it a point to list to hit and damage for each weapon, and also for each weapon or spell when buffed and/or when using different feats. At high levels, its a long list, but I'd rather scroll down to see "Greatsword, PA 5, Bull's Strength", followed by the appropriate attack and damage mods than have to do the math every time. Which brings us to:
3. Too much math:
I think buffs, level drain, conditions and all the other modifiers that can affect ability scores and attacks make 3.5 combat fun. There has to be a way to keep all that, make it all easier to track and make the math easier to figure on the fly.
Maybe a limit on the number of modifiers on any one target? Some sort of digital tool would be great--just select the target, then add the effect from a drop-down, and all abilities and modifiers are adjusted.--like how Kloogewerks does it.
4. DM prep time:
Templates for NPCs, or hell, just a big book of pre-rolled NPCs of different types and challenge levels sounds like it would help. And pre-packaging the same monsters for different challenge levels should also help speed things up. But is the time suck more about "What would be a good challenge for this party?"--walking that thin line between "just challenging enough" and TPK?
Am I in the ballpark with any of this?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I'm not really sure it's luck... unless you consider luck the governing force behind your play group composition. If there are times when a round slows down in my games, it's almost always because of particular players in the rotation.
I've found that's true with most games, actually. And it's typically the same players in any game, whether D&D, Ticket to Ride, Arkham Horror, or Settlers of Catan.
Hussar
Legend
QFT. Unfortunately. :/
But, the point still remains, I've seen the poor knight in our campaign go right around the twist after the artificer taps a couple of buffs on her and then the cleric steps in with enlarge. And that's at pretty low levels. (campaign ended at 9th)
There's a few spells out there that really cause the game to come to a grinding halt.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I'd say you're in the ballpark.
1. Interesting encounter design and adventure design should, ideally, give every character a chance to shine at some point. The D&D group is a show with an ensemble cast, not a star vehicle. This could be accomplished with providing different types of foes - some that need to be ground down by the fighter, some that need spells, some that are best taken out with stealth, or some other special ability.
FWIW, I kind of like adding Dex damage to ranged attacks as well. Nice analog to the strong melee character's strength bonus. It feels a little on the "out-there" side of believability, but not badly so.
Saves: I'm not sure what really to do. Is the 2-point+stat differences gap between saves really enough? Is the 2-6+stat differences point gap really too much? I'm not entirely convinced it is, but I'm not convinced it isn't either. I'm starting to trend toward a lower gap.
2. I'm loathe to get rid of choices, in part, because there are plenty of ways that organized players and DMs can lessen the impact of choices. Copy out the spells and put them on cards. Keep cards of buff stats for a character who uses lots of buffs and lay them on the table when the buffs are in effect.
3. PF has tossed out the idea of limiting the number of buffs on a character to something like 3. Add another and one of the previous ones must be selected to go away. Not a bad idea. If 3.x went too far in any direction, I believe it was in adding too many buff-type spells. Cleric, I'm particularly looking at you.
Similar Threads
