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

[ProfessorPain]

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.

CRs were kind of useless in 3E. But most methods for creating balanced encounters are flawed. THis is something that GMs need to experiment with on their own in a way. CRs are great guide posts, but like you say, sometimes really weak multiclassed foes, or templated monsters end up with CRs that are way too high. And player tactics are also a consideration. Some 5th level parties can handle EL 6 encounters no problem. Others get creamed. I always took that section of the book with a grain of salt.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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

I'm saying that there are issues with 3E, but some people like the system enough that those issues don't matter. Pathfinder from what we've seen is not dealing with those issues, saying that they are, and people to whom these issues don't matter rejoice about the "fixed" system.

 

[billd91]

I'm saying that there are issues with 3E, but some people like the system enough that those issues don't matter. Pathfinder from what we've seen is not dealing with those issues, saying that they are, and people to whom these issues don't matter rejoice about the "fixed" system.

But if PF is dealing with things we think do matter then it is, in fact, a fixed system... from our perspective.

 

[Rechan]

It's easy to test the 4e epic level play. Grab some PCs, Dungeon Delve, and spend an afternoon putting it through the paces.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It's easy to test the 4e epic level play. Grab some PCs, Dungeon Delve, and spend an afternoon putting it through the paces.

As much as I am a proponent of 4E, I have noticed from experience that starting fresh at higher levels is difficult, as higher level characters involve a learning curve for the players involved. Still, Dungeon Delve can give a rough approximation of epic play.

 

[Rechan]

As much as I am a proponent of 4E, I have noticed from experience that starting fresh at higher levels is difficult, as higher level characters involve a learning curve for the players involved. Still, Dungeon Delve can give a rough approximation of epic play.

Learning curve is expected, sure.

On the plus side, with the Character Builder, the heavy math is done for you.

 

[joela]

4e high level

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.

What's the highest 4e game y'all have played so far? I played in an 18th level one-shoot from WotC which I played someone's else PC (warforged barbarian). Until then, the highest PC I've played was 4th.

I found the 18th level actually quite easy once I figured out his powers. One thing I like about 4e is the consistency of the rules, from the classes and races and monster to their powers. I'll admit, though, combat took a while: everyone has too many hitpoints!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm saying that there are issues with 3E, but some people like the system enough that those issues don't matter. Pathfinder from what we've seen is not dealing with those issues, saying that they are, and people to whom these issues don't matter rejoice about the "fixed" system.

I share those concerns-- but at the same time, realize that no one system is going to please everyone.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm saying that there are issues with 3E, but some people like the system enough that those issues don't matter. Pathfinder from what we've seen is not dealing with those issues, saying that they are, and people to whom these issues don't matter rejoice about the "fixed" system.

The problems with 3.5 matter to me. A lot. I'm moving from mid- to high-level play in the game I DM, and the prep time and PC power disparity and slow-down of play seems to be doubling with every two or three sessions. As a player in a 17th-level campaign, I'm frustrated by the slowness of play (much of which, but not all, is a function of the system).

So, again, I care. A lot.

But 4E broke more than it fixed, for me. I can't stomach the changes. I'd honestly rather play 3E from 1-10 than play 4E from 1-30. It's not even close.

What we saw in Pathfinder Beta and on the boards wasn't extremely encouraging to me. I think more can be done to mitigate 3E's issues than has been done, even while maintaining 3.5 compatibility.

But ... I do think Pathfinder has made more mitigating changes than people give them credit for. Many of those changes are subtle, woven into high-level spells and class abilities, for instance. I also accept that the Beta isn't the finished product, and I'm willing to trust Erik and Jason when they say that the final rules will have much more to address these concerns. (I'm not giving them a free pass, because I do think these really tough issues should have been tackled more head-on in the playtest. So I'm not buying Pathfinder sight unseen, as I did the Beta. But I'm also not going to write it off, as i once thought I might have by now.)

 

[BryonD]

But 4E broke more than it fixed, for me. I can't stomach the changes. I'd honestly rather play 3E from 1-10 than play 4E from 1-30. It's not even close.

What we saw in Pathfinder Beta and on the boards wasn't extremely encouraging to me. I think more can be done to mitigate 3E's issues than has been done, even while maintaining 3.5 compatibility.

I've said before that, for me, the changes do more to put a fresh spin on things rather than really "fixing" things. I certainly agree that at the highest levels the complexity reduces the value of play. I wouldn't go remotely as far as some many others talking about pain and such. I still find 3E quite fun at L20. It is just less fun than lower levels. I'd like to see that end shored up and I'm not sure I see it.

But I don't mind much at all. I still love the game.

I'd rather play 3E at levels 5-15 than 3E at level 20. But I'd play 3E at L20 before 4E at any level whatsoever. The comparison of effort required to value gained is overwhelming.