3.5 high level woes and Paizo's hand in it.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In your opinion, 3E is dead? Really?

System mastery is such a weird concept. On the one hand, I want the fact that I know the rules pretty well to have some bearing on my enjoyment of the game (including in creating characters). On the other hand, I don't want someone new to the game -- or just a more casual player -- to get screwed.

Then you've got the idea of deliberately built in rules mastery, where the "traps" are pretty obvious to folks that are paying attention. On the other hand, if designers try to eliminate that, they create a situation where it actually takes more skill to recognize which options are less powerful, because the gap is smaller and less obvious.

And thus it doesn't hurt as much if you fail to see the best options or even decide against using i.

If you and your group just want to play, without worrying about character optimisation then... why not just play and not worry about character optimisation? The game rules don't actually require you to painstakingly search all those books in order to eke out every possible +1 bonus, you know.

Maybe it is because people still want to play published adventures... like those from Paizo...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

IMHO System mastery is what killed 3e. We want to play, not just have to plan out and methodically select everything optimized for our character.

Perhaps I've used the term a bit too loosely, then.

I don't mean squeezing every last bit out of an optimized character.

I mean knowing what your character is capable of, and how to use those rules, regardless of how he may be optimized.

(For example, the first time a paladin is able to turn undead, he has a new set of rules to learn.)

System Proficiency.

Better?

 

[vagabundo]

Of course, it's entirely possible that all of that goofing off and not paying attention contributed somewhat to those 30 combat rounds.

Of course, but I think the slowness of the combat round leads to disengagement from the game and that exacerbates the problem. A vicious circle.

It can be hard to get higher level 3.x combat rounds to go at a good pace, very hard. It is one thing that 4e got right, to some extent. While the overall time spent in combat may not have changed greatly, the number of rounds has increased, players dont have to wait as long for their round and engage more in the scene. YMMV of course.

Some of these gains, for my group anyway, is to do with prep; I've printed out power cards and they were a big time saver. Now I've doing up sheet per level on the character bulder and it does all the maths wonderfully. Similar tools for 3e might help.

@OP: For the record I do not think Paizo are to blame, it is just something that is inherent in the system.

 

[Rechan]

There was talk of grindiness. How's this different from 4e grind? 4e high level monsters have like, 800-2000 HP. While high-level damage output is...4-6[W] + Strength mod. Difference?

The difference between 3e and 4e grind:
3e: Each round takes a long time, real-time, to resolve. The aforementioned three-round combat taking two hours.
4e: Each round is shorter, real-time, to resolve but each battle consists of more rounds.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

You cannot blame it on system alone - the Paizo adventure paths have a certain way of creating and managing encounters that is highly problematic if combined with 3e high-level play. I loved the idea, the concept of the adventure paths. The execution using 3e, less so.
A good GM fits the adventure into the preferences and abilities of his group. A good adventure writer fits the game system into the basic goals of his idea.

 

[Grimstaff]

No offense to anyone, but I wouldn't blame Paizo for this...I'd blame the DM's. As a DM you have to know what your players can handle, and what constitutes a balanced or tough encounter for them. (and when to recognize an impossible encounter).

That's the inherent problem with "Adventure Paths" though. The characters and DM have to suit the adventures to make it through, rather than the adventures suiting the players and DM.

Much better, imo, to run modules as you go through the campaign, such as DCCs, choosing them as to what's appropriate for your group.

 

[delericho]

Maybe it is because people still want to play published adventures... like those from Paizo...

You know, I did actually address that. In fact, in the paragraph immediately after the one you quoted.

If the DM gives out more XP than the PCs 'should' receive, they'll gain levels faster. Over the course of the campaign, this will naturally compensate for the 'optimisation gap' between the characters they have and the characters that the adventure assumes.

Still, it's a moot point now. Groups wanting to "just play" would probably be better served by 4e anyway.

 

[BryonD]

Above level 8 or so, 3.5E combat tended to involve a lot of:

1. Text messaging
2. 2 people getting together to optimally create/manage characters for other games, or one person doing the same alone
3. Surfing the internet on laptops
4. Playing video games on laptops, handhelds, and phones
5. Knitting
6. Reading comic books from the stacks of the store we were playing at
7. Writing adventures for another game they are DMing
8. Crossword puzzles
9. Tuning out the world while listening to an iPod
10. Simply reading D&D sourcebooks brought to the game

I have honestly seen every one of these occur during 3.5E combat, and on multiple occasions. It just comes with the territory of 30 minute turns before your next chance to act.

That just screams bad DM to me.

If the DM can't keep the players involved in the story then you you have a problem.
I can believe that players may stay more focused on the minis battle if the game is a fast and easy minis battle type game. And there are certainly games that do that better than 3E. But if the story isn't there in one system, it isn't going to be there in another. And if the tactical battle alone is what keeps people focused, then you are playing a different kind of game than what I think of as an RPG. Not that my definition is the one truth of roleplaying. But different game styles will require different mechanics.

 

[Storminator]

Never played high level before. Started 3.5 and soon after 4e came out. Besides spellcasters kicking ass, which, I don't have a problem with since that is what the Wizard is all about, what other problems are there?

It seems to me like melee fighters in high level just do multiple attacks. Roll like, what, 4 d20s and then damage.

Ah Plissken... you poor naive waif!

Let's discuss the high level hasted, two-weapon fighter, with multiple attacks with both hands, each with a different modifier, each weapon with a different special ability that interacts with the monster's DR differently...

You roll 8 d20, add a different number to each one, calculate and report each one's damage individually, including the special abilities that go with each roll! Then the DM subtracts a different number from each roll, totals the results and reduces the monster's hp. And if the monster has regeneration or fast healing, there's a possibility those separate damages have to be tracked separately for the entire combat. Hopefully this high level fighter isn't a dervish, with movement in there between each attack, attacking different enemies on each (or some!) roll.

Oh, or a druid with an animal companion, 6 summoned creatures (all with multiple attacks... each one different...) and special conditional attacks like Rend, which depends on whether or not some of the base attacks hit. This player might need to move 8 allies (including himself) and make up to 20 attacks (all with different modifiers, damages, and damage types) and resolve a high level spell each turn.

4 or 5 PCs like that and it'll be half an hour to get back to your turn.

PS

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, I did actually address that. In fact, in the paragraph immediately after the one you quoted.

If the DM gives out more XP than the PCs 'should' receive, they'll gain levels faster. Over the course of the campaign, this will naturally compensate for the 'optimisation gap' between the characters they have and the characters that the adventure assumes.

Still, it's a moot point now. Groups wanting to "just play" would probably be better served by 4e anyway.

But, lacking system mastery, to what extend do I need to increase the advancement?