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

[Treebore]

Heh well I posted without actually reading those red posts. I'll go back and delete them.

-Edit: There any material that maybe considered against red post is gone.

Cool. Just keep in mind its best to never respond in a negative manner. No matter the provocation. Its not easy, but it can be done, and it helps to keep a thread going with more positive feedback, rather than crashing and burning.

Since you seem to want more discourse, keep yourself in check, so we can all keep talking.

 

[Treebore]

I'm more concerned with the reality than the perception. More often than not, people who say they are fans of what Pathfinder is doing are the same people that say that 3E isn't "broken", at high levels or otherwise. That being said, I don't think it can be done within the constraints you are working under. The problems with high level play are fundamental to the system itself. Summoning, buff stacking, rolling insane amounts of dice plus iterative attacks either by themselves or in combination, spellcaster/nonspellcaster balance issues, save or die mathematics, et cetera can't be solved without tearing the system down to the ground and starting over.

I'm in full support of you guys trying to keep the flame alive for 3.5E, regardless of my own feelings for that system. I'm just uncomfortable with advertising something that in my opinion can't be delivered, at least outside of preaching to the choir.

Well, with Pathfinder they HAVE to preach to the choir. Thats why I am hoping down the road they will do a book with real rules changes. I also agree from the ground up will allow for the best improvement. Hopefully the future will conspire to allow Paizo to do such a thing.

 

[cangrejoide]

Sure, they haven't changed the power scale issues. High level games are still going to be long drawn out head aches because of the multitude of special powers, resistances, and immunities are going to pile up and overwhelm the game very much like they do in 3E.

The only hope I have for further improvement in 4E is the fact that they capped the levels in 4E at 30th level. So they might actually keep things scaled nicely, but considering how powerful the game starts at just 1st level, I am not holding my breathe. I will keep an eye on it though.

Well IMHO I dont think this will be the case, a huge ( and common factor) regarding earlier posts was the huge ammounts of actions between players. In 4E no matter the level you still have 3 actions ( standard, minor, movement) at level 30. Even those powers that target multiple opponents do so with the same attack modifier and same dmg. Most buffs are just minor additions ( like + 1 to dmg ) even those are either for 1 round or for the rest of the encounter so mostly fire and forget buffs. Conditions are way more easier to track.

Yeah I admit there maybe an increase in complexity(very minor), but nothing compared to its ealier editions.

Then again my gaming group is only at level 12th right now and it will be like 3 more months until they reach the epic levels. But this is my general perception of what epic level gaming will be: NO CHANGE.

 

[Treebore]

Well IMHO I dont think this will be the case, a huge ( and common factor) regarding earlier posts was the huge ammounts of actions between players. In 4E no matter the level you still have 3 actions ( standard, minor, movement) at level 30. Even those powers that target multiple opponents do so with the same attack modifier and same dmg. Most buffs are just minor additions ( like + 1 to dmg ) even those are either for 1 round or for the rest of the encounter so mostly fire and forget buffs. Conditions are way more easier to track.

Yeah I admit there maybe an increase in complexity(very minor), but nothing compared to its ealier editions.

Then again my gaming group is only at level 12th right now and it will be like 3 more months until they reach the epic levels. But this is my general perception of what epic level gaming will be: NO CHANGE.

Well, PM me if you find that to be the case. I only played up to 3rd level, nearly 4th, and have only read the rules, but playing it is the only solid way to find out for sure.

 

[cangrejoide]

Well, PM me if you find that to be the case. I only played up to 3rd level, nearly 4th, and have only read the rules, but playing it is the only solid way to find out for sure.

Cool, but lets not wait 3 months for that. There has to be some forumites that have already experienced epic level play in 4E.


Anyone wanna share your experiences?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, PM me if you find that to be the case. I only played up to 3rd level, nearly 4th, and have only read the rules, but playing it is the only solid way to find out for sure.

I've played up to 16th at this point, and I can say that the game at level 16 runs just as good as it does in previous levels. In fact, our 16th level party, which is basically us rolling up brand new characters to run the WotC adventure Demon Queen's Enclave, is the smoothest and fastest 4E game I have been involved in.

I haven't played more than a few experimental stabs at Epic, but most of the issues I and others have seen is that the math gets a little funny at high levels, with PCs not keeping up with monsters in terms of attack bonuses and defenses. PHBII has feats which eliminate these discrepencies.

 

[MACLARREN]

The adventure paths being produced by Paizo are not the problem with high level play. Adventure paths and any module for that case should be a background for a DM to run a game based upon his groups needs or wants. Modifications of it may or may not need to occur depending on the group and how they work together. We have seen enough of the adventure paths by Paizo to understand their design concepts and if it isn't for you, then you have a choice and no need to buy them or use them. There are plenty of other pregenerated modules out there to use. I personally enjoy them and like challenging things but that is just me. The problem with high level play is the mechanics involved. As stated by everyone. A lot of people have made good points as to what bogs high level play down and there we are in agreement. I can say this though, my group has played 4e as well and the tracking of the conditions for this and that and that does not make that game much different. It created a different type of pain and we chose not to play it due to our play styles. The game was just not for us and we were really high on it when we started. However, our DM and some of the others will not go back to 3.5 either due to high level burnout from our DM. Our Sins campaign ran to approx 17th level and our DM lost interest in the last several levels due to the system and power gain of the system. High level Spells (IE Teleport, Scry, Heroes Feast, etc), iteritive attacks, summoning, etc. made it difficult to pose a high threat to us at those high levels. The systems fault and not his. We could buff pop in, attack and get out.

I think PF will fix a lot of the problems we have in our 3.5 style of game. We have went back to some degree to Conan 2nd edition rules. Having a blast with it now. Part is because all of the pain in the rear DM fun sponge spells are gone as is most magic. This is working for us. We were working on our own game for a time and it was going good but was more difficult in getting to an agreement on things. It would have been good but it is now on the back burner if not dead. The one thing we all have to remember though is no matter what we are playing, we are playing a game and no game is perfect whatever it is. I have faith in Paizo and hope to go down that road locally come August if not before and I like what Wulf has done with Trailblazer from what I see as well. Just my wants.

 

[billd91]

I'm more concerned with the reality than the perception. More often than not, people who say they are fans of what Pathfinder is doing are the same people that say that 3E isn't "broken", at high levels or otherwise.

So... you're saying that people who don't perceive that 3e is broken aren't perceiving things right?

 

[Runestar]

While we can't blame Paizo for 3.5 flaws, can we blame them for blindly adhering to what are clearly problematic rules and further propagating them?

For example, if we know that high lv npcs are too weak for their cr, why then do we still stick with them, and list fighter18s as cr18 (or worse, some funny, completely unoptimized combination such as fighter4/wiz7/blackguard4 as cr15?). Should the designers not take it upon themselves to ad-hoc some changes (and maybe address them in a tiny sidebar, so we know they are deliberate, and not some kind of oversight). Maybe if they wanted a mindflayer wiz7 npc, take the initiative to revise its cr to a more resonable 12-13, rather than cr15.

If we know that certain encounters are undesirable due to all the logistics involved, then try to reduce/do away with them altogether, rather than flooding us with the need for endless grapple checks and the like. If statting out high lv wizards is tedious due to the need to account for even cantrips, then maybe stick with sorcerers or simply handwave away all spells of 5th lv and lower (and say that they are food for arcane fire or versatile spellcaster or something).

Play up what is so desirable about high lv play, while down-playing the undesirable bits.

 

[Treebore]

While we can't blame Paizo for 3.5 flaws, can we blame them for blindly adhering to what are clearly problematic rules and further propagating them?

For example, if we know that high lv npcs are too weak for their cr, why then do we still stick with them, and list fighter18s as cr18 (or worse, some funny, completely unoptimized combination such as fighter4/wiz7/blackguard4 as cr15?). Should the designers not take it upon themselves to ad-hoc some changes (and maybe address them in a tiny sidebar, so we know they are deliberate, and not some kind of oversight). Maybe if they wanted a mindflayer wiz7 npc, take the initiative to revise its cr to a more resonable 12-13, rather than cr15.

If we know that certain encounters are undesirable due to all the logistics involved, then try to reduce/do away with them altogether, rather than flooding us with the need for endless grapple checks and the like. If statting out high lv wizards is tedious due to the need to account for even cantrips, then maybe stick with sorcerers or simply handwave away all spells of 5th lv and lower (and say that they are food for arcane fire or versatile spellcaster or something).

Play up what is so desirable about high lv play, while down-playing the undesirable bits.

Why should Paizo not have to do it? Because WOTC themselves have talked many times about how the CR's don't work. Plus Paizo was under contract back then to follow the RULES. In current Pathfinder products Paizo is doing their own thing, trying out different things.

Good advice on how to ignore/handwave the rules to make running high level games easier to run though. Its been a few years, but I seem to remember doing much the same to try and make 3E worth running at higher level. Still got tired of it after awhile.