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

[Spatula]

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

I thought that getting rid of that was one of the design goals of 4e - the math was supposed to keep the game in the same "sweet spot" range for levels 1-30. Rolling dice is fun, we want to roll dice.

It could simply be that this sort of thing was deemed to not be a big problem because of the escape abilities that epic-level characters have - the "once a day, when you die" type stuff. Sure you got auto-hit, but you can negate it, or ignore it, or spontaneously recover from it.

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.

Skill challenges!

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.

Yeah, I'll buy that. It looks problematic but I can definitely see how it might turn out otherwise in play.

 

[Merlin's Shadow]

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.

And, as I said, I do think that 3.x needs some tweaking to work, however, if a system takes all effort out of the DMs hands so that he or she can grab any stat block without looking at it and run it without effort, then it seems some of the "soul" is lost. I think a DM should check out a stat block and say, "Wait, this guy can disintegrate a PC permanently if he blows his save" before combat starts so that changes if necessary can be made.

Again, I'm not trying to say that 3.x works as written for high-level play. But I don't think a system can take away all judgment from the DM and still be fun. At that point, the DM might as well be a computer IMO.

 

[MichaelSomething]

And, as I said, I do think that 3.x needs some tweaking to work, however, if a system takes all effort out of the DMs hands so that he or she can grab any stat block without looking at it and run it without effort, then it seems some of the "soul" is lost. I think a DM should check out a stat block and say, "Wait, this guy can disintegrate a PC permanently if he blows his save" before combat starts so that changes if necessary can be made.

Again, I'm not trying to say that 3.x works as written for high-level play. But I don't think a system can take away all judgment from the DM and still be fun. At that point, the DM might as well be a computer IMO.

Once again, it's a scale. How much work should the DM do to make a good, fun combat? How much system mastery is needed? How many equations must be performed? If 3.5 requires too much and 4E not enough, where is the sweet spot then?

 

[Merlin's Shadow]

Once again, it's a scale. How much work should the DM do to make a good, fun combat? How much system mastery is needed? How many equations must be performed? If 3.5 requires too much and 4E not enough, where is the sweet spot then?

I think this is a question that can only be answered by individual GMs. If I knew, I'd probably be a famous designer or something.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And, as I said, I do think that 3.x needs some tweaking to work, however, if a system takes all effort out of the DMs hands so that he or she can grab any stat block without looking at it and run it without effort, then it seems some of the "soul" is lost. I think a DM should check out a stat block and say, "Wait, this guy can disintegrate a PC permanently if he blows his save" before combat starts so that changes if necessary can be made.

Again, I'm not trying to say that 3.x works as written for high-level play. But I don't think a system can take away all judgment from the DM and still be fun. At that point, the DM might as well be a computer IMO.

I don't think that's true. I can have a lot of fun with a system that is so completely balanced that I can take any Level 30 creature and know that it is the perfect monster for my level 30 party. My fun comes from making decisions for the monsters and creating tension for the party.

I'm not sure I understand how having to make these decisions before the game starts is the "soul" of the game. To me, it just seems like needless work. What is it about having balanced monsters that removes the "soul" of the game? If you are sorting through all of the monsters of a certain CR and removing all of the monsters you don't think are balanced or appropriate then why would it be worse if someone had already sorted through and removed those for you?

Or are you saying that there SHOULD be a bunch of overpowered monsters in the list so that it makes the DM feel like they are doing something?

 

[Merlin's Shadow]

I don't think that's true. I can have a lot of fun with a system that is so completely balanced that I can take any Level 30 creature and know that it is the perfect monster for my level 30 party. My fun comes from making decisions for the monsters and creating tension for the party.

Except that I don't think there is any such thing as a "completely balanced" system.

I'm not sure I understand how having to make these decisions before the game starts is the "soul" of the game. To me, it just seems like needless work. What is it about having balanced monsters that removes the "soul" of the game? If you are sorting through all of the monsters of a certain CR and removing all of the monsters you don't think are balanced or appropriate then why would it be worse if someone had already sorted through and removed those for you?

As I said, I don't think that a perfectly balanced system. For me, part of the fun of being a GM is seeing how a monster's abilities match up against the PCs, how it can challenge them, how it plays to their strengths and weaknesses.

Or are you saying that there SHOULD be a bunch of overpowered monsters in the list so that it makes the DM feel like they are doing something?

Sigh. This is clearly not what I was saying. I think the game designer's should work to create a system as balanced as possible, but that the attainment of such is an impossibility, unless you make all outcomes hinge upon a coin toss or something similar.

I don't expect everyone to have similar tastes, but I, personally enjoy reading through monster/NPC statblocks to see how they compare to my PCs. I never grab one at random and run with it. YMMV.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Except that I don't think there is any such thing as a "completely balanced" system.

I agree. There's no such thing as completely balanced. There is a difference between "Roll a saving throw, if you don't get a 20, you are dead" and "Roll a saving throw, if you get over 14 you take 15 damage, otherwise you take 30."

It's a matter of degrees.

As I said, I don't think that a perfectly balanced system. For me, part of the fun of being a GM is seeing how a monster's abilities match up against the PCs, how it can challenge them, how it plays to their strengths and weaknesses.

It's all math, however. Often the math is lost when you are looking at a monster that is so complicated you can't calculate it easily in your head anymore. This is what tended to happen when I ran high level games in 3.5.

I'd look at a monster and it'd have 10 different spell-like abilities, 5 different resistances, a weakness or two. 4 special abilities, and a bunch of stats that ranged from 3 to 50. Did the fact that it had +32 to hit mean it was going to win or not? It would certainly hit 5 out of 6 of the party on a 2. But one of the fighters had an AC of 42. Plus, the monster only does 1d8+8 points of damage per hit...but it gets 4 attacks per round. It's weakness is also something the party wizard might use against it. But it's possible that the wizard gets lost in attempting to hit it with the things its resistant to. Its special ability might stop the fighter from engaging in melee...but it only has a 25% chance of succeeding. It also has another attack that could kill the entire party if they don't succeed on a 3 on their saving throws.

And when you have to consider all of those factors then its effectiveness against the party is pretty much a flip of a coin anyways. Purely random whether it wins or loses based on a couple of die rolls(possibly as little as 1 die roll). On the other hand, if you simplify the math to the point where it is a lot more predictable, you can fairly accurately say how likely a monster is to kill someone while still leaving things to chance so it isn't 100% certain.

I don't expect everyone to have similar tastes, but I, personally enjoy reading through monster/NPC statblocks to see how they compare to my PCs. I never grab one at random and run with it. YMMV.

That's fine. There's certainly nothing wrong with enjoying that. I love going through stat blocks when I have time as well. I just didn't like the unpredictability of it all. Sometimes it was fun to look at a monster and think, "Ha, it has enough fire resistance that the wizard in my party who ONLY uses fire spells will be useless against it. And its AC is too high for the fighter to hit. And it's only CR 14. I could use it against my party and it would probably wipe them out, even though they are level 16. And I could claim I even used a weak monster against them if they complain that I tried to wipe them out."

And sometimes I'd say, "I don't have time to look through this in detail, but I know they are going to the elemental plane of fire, the flavor text on this creature says its native to that plane and it's CR 14, so it should be pretty weak. It'll give them a taste of the plane...and I can use 4 of them, that'll only be EL 18. Perfect." And then I'd easily wipe out the party.

 

[WizarDru]

I'd look at a monster and it'd have 10 different spell-like abilities, 5 different resistances, a weakness or two. 4 special abilities, and a bunch of stats that ranged from 3 to 50. Did the fact that it had +32 to hit mean it was going to win or not? It would certainly hit 5 out of 6 of the party on a 2. But one of the fighters had an AC of 42. Plus, the monster only does 1d8+8 points of damage per hit...but it gets 4 attacks per round. It's weakness is also something the party wizard might use against it. But it's possible that the wizard gets lost in attempting to hit it with the things its resistant to. Its special ability might stop the fighter from engaging in melee...but it only has a 25% chance of succeeding. It also has another attack that could kill the entire party if they don't succeed on a 3 on their saving throws.

That was, to me a signature problem of 3e/3.5e high-level play. Too much stuff. When you get into near-epic and then epic level play, stat-blocks become cumbersome and voluminous. Creatures have so many abilities, special qualities and power that often I would tend to forget them, sometimes until after the combat. ("Oh, it turns out he had Spell Resistance 20, but SR24 versus light-based spells. D'oh!{/i}")

That isn't to say that 3e/3.5e high-level play was unplayable or unenjoyable. I wouldn't have run a game in the epic-tier for over two years if that were the case (and with some players still wanting to revisit those characters even now). But the rules became more cumbersome at higher levels, encouraging me to use them more as guidelines to speed play. It is my hope that 4e play suffers less from this.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Mustrum!

Apologies for the slow reply - part time job kept me busy past 3 days.

Okay. I see why you did that.

Basically, the 4E system creates a difference over 30 levels between monsters and PCs.

PCs get +15 from their level, +6 from enhancement, and +4 from ability score bonuses, for a total of +25 vs +30 for monsters (that simply scale linearly from level.) (or a ratio of +8.33 per tier for PCs vs +10 per tier for NPCs and monsters)

Exactly.

I can't believe this was a "mistake" by the designers, so I assume they wanted to compensate by using powers and feat abilities.
Do you think that will become unworkable at higher levels?

I think it was purposeful because the designers wanted to make the game get slightly harder and they hadn't contemplated taking the game above 30th. Personally I'm only planning on going to 60th (at least initially), which will take PCs up to Overgod status.

I think the game (math) will work at any level, but I think one 'problem' with 4E is the greater dependency on (multiple) monsters for encounters. Which means you need more monsters. So I plan on having three new tiers (Legendary, Immortal and Sidereal) packed with monsters rather than ten new tiers and spread the monsters out too thinly. I only have about 300 monster ideas (although with variants thats about 2000) and I'll be trying to cover the epic tier as well as my three new tiers.

If you increase the ability score bonuses to +2 instead of +1, you get an extra +3 bonus onto everything instead of the usual +1.5 per tier from ability scores, achieving a 9.85 per tier. Still not identical, but close enough.

It'll do for me.

(That's an interesting observation in its own right, if we're looking at removing magic items with enhancement bonuses from the game.)

Are you?

Do you add more dailies and encounters after level 30, or do you only grant better powers? I think at some point, the system will become unwieldy if there are too many powers. (There is a reason why you retrain old class powers instead of keeping them around.)

I am planning on letting people retrain powers. While feats can be supplanted by Divine Abilities (these abilities are roughly about twice as powerful).

There will be a few small additions (Aura being one) but I don't want to really add anymore complexity than you would have at around 30th-level.

 

[bykov]

Out of curiosity, is there an ETA on v.6?

Thanks!

Both the above problems are easily correctible (and have been sorted for version 6 of the CR/EL document).