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

[thecasualoblivion]

I had a similar experience running Age of Worms in my own campaign, at about the level you are referring to, and coincidentally I also had 8 players. While I agree that 3.5 has some crazy abilities, the biggest problem here is that you are running an adventure with 8 players. The game is not really designed for that many players, and the usual result is that the people who are not addicted to the game start to do something else, like read, doodle, knit, etc.

With 10 players, the problem is exacerbated even more. With 28, it is virtually unplayable.

Speaking as Paizo's publisher, we're mindful of the problems with 3.5 at high levels and willing to hear about people who think our encounter designs make it worse. But 8 players is too many. It was too many for second edition, it's too many for 3.5, and it's too many for 4.0.

It's just too many.

A minor nitpick, but eight players was not too many for second edition. I ran two years of 2E campaigns at my FLGS back in my 2E days, and those games were 8 players minimum. 2E was quick and easy enough to make that work, at least in my hands. 8 players could overwhelm a table, or the DM, but it did not overwhelm the system. The system handled it just fine, just as it handles our Dragonlance game with 11pcs(played by 5 players), some dependent NPCs, fighting against bands of monsters that outnumber them 2-1 or even 3-1. Encounters that still run faster than 3E or 4E battles. 11 players was pushing things, but 8 players ran just fine.

 

[kitsune9]

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

I agree. If my players were half as unfocused, I'd quit running.

 

[Storminator]

You're bad at analogies.

You specifically named multiple trouble spots caused by options and play styles that simply do not exist in the new game.

I note that nobody's mentioned sweet spot scaling, nobody's mentioned encounter design, nobody's mentioned the rest mechanic, nobody's mentioned monster design, etc.

You know: the things that 4e provides actual solutions for.

Instead of just taking your toys away from you so you don't hurt yourself.

Ah! You had a point. Sorry, I missed it.

Iterative attacks are a method for helping melee guys scale with spell casters, but it's an awful one. Doing 6[W] with a single attack is much, much better (or close burst melee attacks, all with a single attack bonus). This is the point of my TWF example.

Summoning and cohorts and animal companions that add to your action pool is thematic, and "simulationist" but is a nightmare at the table. Having your companions eat up your actions is much, much better, and doesn't scale completely out of control. Your turn takes about the same amount of time. Hence, Druid example.

Long term buffs and the Christmas tree effect intersect with dispels in ways that are simply nasty at the table. Wiping out the animal buffs and making the rest have tight, defined durations means recalculating takes a few seconds, not hours. Disjunction example.

Can you really see the only design changes as taking away options?

PS

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I agree. If my players were half as unfocused, I'd quit running.

Its a chicken or the egg problem. Players being unfocused was in our case, a direct symptom caused by it taking 30-45 minutes for their next turn to come around. I'm sure being unfocused added to the time encounters took, but encounters being way to slow was an unacceptable problem to begin with.

As for this direct quote, I did quit running 3E, and players being this unfocused was a big factor in that decision. I run 4E now, and this problem does not exist. The game is too fast paced to go ADD to the degree I saw in 3E.

 

[Treebore]

I don't know what pages 2 through 8 of this thread says, but high level 3E play sucks, period. Its the rules, not the adventures, that are the problem. Its also why I am not even going to look at Pathfinder yet. The 3E rules set needs some serious rewriting to make high level play work. When Paizo gets around to doing that with PAthfinder, then I will get excited.

One of the reasons I am not interested in 4E is that I see very similar problems to why high level play won't work in 4E either. Streamlined monsters will help things a bit and definitely lesson the stress, but the mechanics are still going to cause overload.

So I'll stay with C&C because it allows me to run high level games like I did in 2E, and I learned to run successful high level games in 2E.

 

[Voadam]

No, it falls under, "I thought buying adventures was supposed to help me, but I just spent an hour adjusting this encounter down from a certain TPK to a likely TPK. Why am I paying for this again?"

I would expect the adventure itself to help the DM do this, at least by offering advice on how to scale the encounter down... or preferably, given a choice, up. I don't recall whether the Dungeon-era AP's did this, but it's patently unfair to blame anything except the adventure (and to some extent the system) for this problem.

The Dungeons I have from Paizo (which includes some Shackled City AP) all have advice on scaling the included encounters up and down.

Goodman Games DCCs all did as well.

 

[Piratecat]

Ah! You had a point. Sorry, I missed it.

Pete, please re-read my post #150 and consider whether this was necessarily the best way to phrase things.

Ahem.

Okay, folks, carry on.

 

[Erik Mona]

I don't know what pages 2 through 8 of this thread says, but high level 3E play sucks, period. Its the rules, not the adventures, that are the problem. Its also why I am not even going to look at Pathfinder yet. The 3E rules set needs some serious rewriting to make high level play work. When Paizo gets around to doing that with PAthfinder, then I will get excited.

A fair amount of Jason's time has been spent on this issue post-Beta, and we just completed the high level portion of the playtest, which resulted in numerous changes and modifications. These are, to some extent, patches rather than complete rewrites, however, as the game is meant to update 3.5, not tear it down to the ground and start from the beginning.

I'm very eager to see how the high-level changes in Pathfinder affect the perception that high level play is "broken". I am sure they will satisfy some people, and disappoint others. But I like what I have seen so far, and I think a lot of other people will too.

--Erik

 

[ProfessorPain]

A fair amount of Jason's time has been spent on this issue post-Beta, and we just completed the high level portion of the playtest, which resulted in numerous changes and modifications. These are, to some extent, patches rather than complete rewrites, however, as the game is meant to update 3.5, not tear it down to the ground and start from the beginning.

I'm very eager to see how the high-level changes in Pathfinder affect the perception that high level play is "broken". I am sure they will satisfy some people, and disappoint others. But I like what I have seen so far, and I think a lot of other people will too.

--Erik

You guys did a great job in the beta. My only complaint is the Skill Section could be more explicit (there was some confusion in our group over how many skill points characters are supposed to have). Can't wait to see what kinks you work out in the final version. My group is playing a Pathfinder game and we love it. I hope you guys stay with the updating model, as the whole reason we started pathfinder was to use our old 3E settings, modules and supplements (and purchase new ones as they come out).

Honestly, I am not a big fan of high level play in any game; I just don't enjoy playing uber powerful characters. And in 3E I think it was the splat books created unintended consequences that really destroyed high level play. If I were you, I place more emphasis on responsible use of prestige classes and new feats. And identify broken combinations and dissallow them. Or just have a flat rule that asks people to employ common sense on the issue.

 

[Treebore]

A fair amount of Jason's time has been spent on this issue post-Beta, and we just completed the high level portion of the playtest, which resulted in numerous changes and modifications. These are, to some extent, patches rather than complete rewrites, however, as the game is meant to update 3.5, not tear it down to the ground and start from the beginning.

I'm very eager to see how the high-level changes in Pathfinder affect the perception that high level play is "broken". I am sure they will satisfy some people, and disappoint others. But I like what I have seen so far, and I think a lot of other people will too.

--Erik

Yes, I do follow your guys' design blogs and forum posts, so I know you are addressing what you can, I also understand why you cannot do a complete rewrite at this time. You have to stay largely compatible with the 3E core rules.

So what I am hoping to see is you guys do a "High level PF D&D Game Book", that does completely rewrite what needs to be rewritten and does allow for an enjoyable, and challenging, high level game.

To make high level play work best is a complete rewrite that changes the whole scaling of power with levels. To do that you would have to rewrite 3E from the ground up, and I don't see Paizo ever doing that, but I wish you would.