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

[Khairn]

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).

Those over the top, very maximized, near impossible end battles can be easily toned down to a more appropriate level of difficulty.

Should they be tough? Sure. Should they have the potential for character deaths? Sure.

Should they be TPK with little chance of survival? No.

Agreed. And thanks for stating what should be the obvious, but sadly gets missed far too often.

I'm not going to sit here and say that 3.5 RAW isn't broken in some places. It is. And any adventure (AP or not) that includes higher level encounters are going to illustrate some of those problems. And I'll also conceed that in some Paizo AP's the power creep got a little heavy. Of course that's why as a GM I read & review an adventure and fine tune it for my group before I play it.

Having said that, any GM and any players who are not aware of the characters capabilities or the rules to the point that a combat which lasted for only 4 rounds took hours to play, needs to get some help.

I know this is based on personal experience, but I never had a problem with the combat time of my 3.5 games. The players all knew that they had a limited time (1-2 min max) to make their decision and take their actions. And as a GM I was on top of all the NPC's and if there was a question about the interpretation of a rule, I made the call at that moment and then reviewed it after the game was over. With those few simple guidelines, even boss fights usually took less than an hour.

If I can run a game that way, I really don't see what is preventing others from doing the same.

 

[DaveMage]

I had a blast playing and DMing gestalt 26th level PCs, so high level play was fun for me.

The only thing about it that is (potentially) an unfun issue is the time combat takes - especially when opponent numbers are greater than 4. It's even worse when both sides summon creatures.

The idea that the Paizo adventures burned out some GMs is interesting, though. I'm a big Paizo fan, but I have only skimmed through the adventure paths - not run or played them. This may have factored into Paizo's decision to change the AP from a 1-20 level deal to a 1-15 range that they have for Pathfinder APs.

The #1 problem I have with 3.x is the time it takes to both prepare for and play. The problem is, I don't want to give up the options of 3.x, so if the choice is faster play, but give up options vs. quicker play with less options, I'll take the former. I think some of what Paizo is doing with the Pathfinder RPG will speed up higher level play, but to what degree, I have no idea.

 

[cangrejoide]

3.x for us solved the earlier problems of high level play only to open up another set.

I am curious what problems from high level play did 3E solved over previous editions?

Having said that, any GM and any players who are not aware of the characters capabilities or the rules to the point that a combat which lasted for only 4 rounds took hours to play, needs to get some help.

I know this is based on personal experience, but I never had a problem with the combat time of my 3.5 games. The players all knew that they had a limited time (1-2 min max) to make their decision and take their actions. And as a GM I was on top of all the NPC's and if there was a question about the interpretation of a rule, I made the call at that moment and then reviewed it after the game was over. With those few simple guidelines, even boss fights usually took less than an hour.

If I can run a game that way, I really don't see what is preventing others from doing the same.

My group could quote mostly any rule from the book by memory and we had all the combat stats totals written out before hand ( yes we used power cards back then ), and still the combat rounds tended to drag on. A simple boss combat could last from a couple of minutes to hours. The disparity of High end 3.5 really was troublesome.

As a DM fudging an encounter could really speed it up, but not all groups like extreme fudging.

 

[S'mon]

For us, 3.x was head and shoulders better at high level play than the previous 1e AD&D and 2e AD&D editions.

It's strange, I found super high level 1e/2e infinitely easier to run than 3e. Part of it, I was younger and my brain worked better, but the system itself was so much simpler. I could challenge a 117th level Lesser God PC in 1e a lot easier than I could do a 16th level adventure in 3e.

 

[demiurge1138]

Personally, I suspect that Paizo aren't directly to blame for a lot of the problems people have seen at the high levels of their APs, but rather that for many people those APs represent the bulk of their high-level experience in 3.5e. They're certainly the bulk of our shared high-level experience. So, I suspect they may be uncovering and highlighting the existing problems, rather than being at the root of those problems.

I would have to agree with this sentiment. I've run a lot of high level D&D, both Paizo paths and non-, and the same problems were present in both to roughly the same degree.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I am curious what problems from high level play did 3E solved over previous editions?

The levels being playable at all? I never minded doing so, but the entirety of my experience with AD&D involved treating the levels above 11-12 as if they didn't exist. That being said, I'd say that I'd prefer doing so to dealing with 3.5E at any level at this point.

 

[S'mon]

I know this is based on personal experience, but I never had a problem with the combat time of my 3.5 games. The players all knew that they had a limited time (1-2 min max) to make their decision and take their actions. And as a GM I was on top of all the NPC's and if there was a question about the interpretation of a rule, I made the call at that moment and then reviewed it after the game was over. With those few simple guidelines, even boss fights usually took less than an hour.

If I can run a game that way, I really don't see what is preventing others from doing the same.

I could and did - actually I expect players to declare their actions immediately, or at least within 6 seconds, unless they have a query re AoOs or some other rule. But I don't really regard an hour for 1 battle as satisfactory. It might have been if the system could accommodate 1 battle per session, but playing like that with 1 only 1 fight in a game-day further overpowers the casters.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The idea that the Paizo adventures burned out some GMs is interesting, though.

It got my attention, too.

If the choice is faster play, but give up options vs. quicker play with less options, I'll take the former.

Thank goodness you chose "faster play, but give up options" over "quicker play with less options."

Tough call.

 

[cangrejoide]

The levels being playable at all? I never minded doing so, but the entirety of my experience with AD&D involved treating the levels above 11-12 as if they didn't exist. That being said, I'd say that I'd prefer doing so to dealing with 3.5E at any level at this point.

Hmm well because your GM and your group decided never to play those games doesn't make it a problem.

 

[BryonD]

Thinking more on this, it really was not just Paizo. The fact that you had a whole E6/E8/E12 movement indicates that 3E had high level issues beyond the APs.

I don't think this is a correct correlation. To the best of my memory every conversation about E6 (etc) as about its merits at converting D&D into a much lower powered, low fantasy version of gaming.

It may certainly be that many people who loved E6 also thought that high level D&D was a pain. But E6 was about game style and power level preference, and that would be the same even if high level ran easier than low level.