Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
So stop doing that.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
3.5 high level woes and Paizo's hand in it.
- Thread starter cangrejoide
- Start date
So stop doing that.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
3.5E games with my groups will break with or without my influence, as I described in the statement you quoted. When I play D&D(or any RPG), my playstyle is that of the ass-kicker. If people are using system mastery to break the game, I must do so as well to fulfill my playstyle, as I am not about to kick less ass.
To me the difference was between playing a vanilla Crusader/Warblade/Psychic Warrior as I would normally be inclined to do, or in response to other people powergaming playing a Abjurer/Master Specialist/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils or DMM Melee Cleric.
Last edited:
Saracenus
Always In School Gamer
Hello Erik,
Good to see you poking around here, sorry I probably won't be able to attend your DM panels at NorWesCon this year (if you are going).
Actually, I am finding that I can incorporate 4e rules into my 3.5 campaign and it works ok, but the effort I need to expend to bend that system into 3e still makes it too much work.
So, far I my feel for 4e is that it scales much better than 3e and I am pretty sure that my players would not be distracted by all the shinny options that seems to paralyze some of my players.
So, instead of stealing from 4e, I am just going to move over to it and simplify my life.
I did take a look at Pathfinder RPG Beta and I just don't see the problems with 12th level plus play going away. It also isn't saving me prep time.
I wish you guys well at Paizo, the stuff you guys do is creative and brings out some of the best parts of the 3e system but I am done with it.
Good to see you poking around here, sorry I probably won't be able to attend your DM panels at NorWesCon this year (if you are going).
Actually, I am finding that I can incorporate 4e rules into my 3.5 campaign and it works ok, but the effort I need to expend to bend that system into 3e still makes it too much work.
So, far I my feel for 4e is that it scales much better than 3e and I am pretty sure that my players would not be distracted by all the shinny options that seems to paralyze some of my players.
So, instead of stealing from 4e, I am just going to move over to it and simplify my life.
I did take a look at Pathfinder RPG Beta and I just don't see the problems with 12th level plus play going away. It also isn't saving me prep time.
I wish you guys well at Paizo, the stuff you guys do is creative and brings out some of the best parts of the 3e system but I am done with it.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, TCO. I have a better understanding of where you're coming from, and it was nice to read a post that didn't seem to hold Pathfinder or its fans in a highly negative regard. I appreciate that. I hope that even in the height of edition wars we can realize that we all come to EN World because we love gaming, and we all have a LOT more in common than all of us might think.
I think I drew a stronger line in the sand on certain late-era splat books in my own campaigning than you may have. For example, whereas you say you would cause World War III at your table if you didn't allow the Spell Compendium, in my opinion that book had some of the lowest quality control of anything rules-based that I ever saw come out of Wizards of the Coast, and when one of my players (usually Bulmahn) wanted to use a spell from it, I immediately grew suspicious that the spell was broken and would lower everyone at the table's enjoyment of the game. Jason was kind enough to prove me right on several occasions, so I took a "you must get each individual item from this book approved" approach to that one, which mitigated its otherwise ruinous effect on my campaign. Likewise the magic item book, which was more just lame and uninspired than unbalanced.
Jason and I both come out of the RPGA tradition, so I can assure you that we both have a great deal of experience with players who try to squeeze every iota of juice out of a system's corner cases, exceptions, and badly edited rules. A LOT of the stuff that drove you batty has been addressed in one form or another in the rules. Again, I'm uncertain whether the way we addressed them will appeal to you personally, but then you seem pretty happy playing fourth edition, so it seems like you're in good shape one way or the other.
I hope you'll give it a look when the final comes out. Even if you ultimately decide to stick with 4.0 (which I assume you will), you might enjoy seeing how (or if) we addressed some of the issues that ground your campaigns to a halt.
--Erik
I think I drew a stronger line in the sand on certain late-era splat books in my own campaigning than you may have. For example, whereas you say you would cause World War III at your table if you didn't allow the Spell Compendium, in my opinion that book had some of the lowest quality control of anything rules-based that I ever saw come out of Wizards of the Coast, and when one of my players (usually Bulmahn) wanted to use a spell from it, I immediately grew suspicious that the spell was broken and would lower everyone at the table's enjoyment of the game. Jason was kind enough to prove me right on several occasions, so I took a "you must get each individual item from this book approved" approach to that one, which mitigated its otherwise ruinous effect on my campaign. Likewise the magic item book, which was more just lame and uninspired than unbalanced.
Jason and I both come out of the RPGA tradition, so I can assure you that we both have a great deal of experience with players who try to squeeze every iota of juice out of a system's corner cases, exceptions, and badly edited rules. A LOT of the stuff that drove you batty has been addressed in one form or another in the rules. Again, I'm uncertain whether the way we addressed them will appeal to you personally, but then you seem pretty happy playing fourth edition, so it seems like you're in good shape one way or the other.
I hope you'll give it a look when the final comes out. Even if you ultimately decide to stick with 4.0 (which I assume you will), you might enjoy seeing how (or if) we addressed some of the issues that ground your campaigns to a halt.
--Erik
Last edited:
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I'll give it a look, out of curiousity if nothing else. I expect that 2E will be the game I turn to when I need a break from 4E though. That or something by White Wolf.
humble minion
Legend
I think Paizo made something of a tactical error by not including (or at least foreshadowing) their fixes to high-level play in the PF beta.
Everyone knows system breakdown during high-level play is a big issue in 3.5. Paizo release a beta ruleset that doesn't address this at all, but mention in various messageboard posts that they'll get to it later.
Big mistake for a number of reasons:
- People who download the rules and give it a cursory look-over or maybe a quick playtest (but who don't haunt the messageboards) will conclude that it doesn't solve the high-level problems of 3.5, and some may be turned off it for that reason.
- The promised fixes to high-level play will not get the benefit of the open beta playtest. Given the delicacy and thoroughness required in balancing high-level d20 stuff, the relatively short timescales involved, and the relatively small Paizo employee base available for playtesting, this has got to be asking for loopholes and rules glitches to slip through the net.
- It just plain looks bad. If Paizo were planning to fix 3.5e, then making the first priority tiny tweaks of class features, skill lists, and minor power boosts, while leaving the massive numerical breakdown problems of the entire system at high levels til a seeming afterthought doesn't inspire confidence. Surely you'd fix the big, systemic stuff first, and leave the minor details of class balance for later? It smacks of a disorganised approach to design, and a project lacking in clear strategic goals or any sort of overarcing plan.
I'd love to be wrong, but for the above reasons I'm adopting a very wait-and-see approach to Pathfinder, no matter how much I usually love Paizo stuff.
Everyone knows system breakdown during high-level play is a big issue in 3.5. Paizo release a beta ruleset that doesn't address this at all, but mention in various messageboard posts that they'll get to it later.
Big mistake for a number of reasons:
- People who download the rules and give it a cursory look-over or maybe a quick playtest (but who don't haunt the messageboards) will conclude that it doesn't solve the high-level problems of 3.5, and some may be turned off it for that reason.
- The promised fixes to high-level play will not get the benefit of the open beta playtest. Given the delicacy and thoroughness required in balancing high-level d20 stuff, the relatively short timescales involved, and the relatively small Paizo employee base available for playtesting, this has got to be asking for loopholes and rules glitches to slip through the net.
- It just plain looks bad. If Paizo were planning to fix 3.5e, then making the first priority tiny tweaks of class features, skill lists, and minor power boosts, while leaving the massive numerical breakdown problems of the entire system at high levels til a seeming afterthought doesn't inspire confidence. Surely you'd fix the big, systemic stuff first, and leave the minor details of class balance for later? It smacks of a disorganised approach to design, and a project lacking in clear strategic goals or any sort of overarcing plan.
I'd love to be wrong, but for the above reasons I'm adopting a very wait-and-see approach to Pathfinder, no matter how much I usually love Paizo stuff.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
The biggest.
What else compares?
As far as I am concerned every problem in the game is a high-level issue-- if only because some systemic problems aren't really a big deal until they're compounded over many levels.
I am pretty confident that bringing SKR onto the staff there (as well as having access to Monte) is about as good a sign as you could ask for-- short of having previewed it in the beta. (Which I agree, they should have done.)
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
I really agree. Sagiro and I were discussing this last night, as we've just hit 19th level in a game that still has a couple of years to go. He's starting to find it challenging to run combats and prepare for games; I found the same thing. I'm looking forward to seeing how it's addressed in Pathfinder.
