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

[AllisterH]

Isn't this simply because of the spread in effectiveness between characters of the same class at different levels?

An unoptimized 5th level cleric is going to be almost as effective as an optimized 5th level cleric simply due to the lack of options. Contrast that with a 15th level cleric and how much of a spread there is between unoptimized and optimized.

 

[DaveMage]

Curses!

In that case we disagree.

(Although personally I am on a sliding scale... some options matter, some don't.)

I am generalizing, in the comparitive sense between editions. 1E, 2E, and 4E all are much more limiting when it comes to options than 3.x. (4E may get there one day, but that would probably be after Player's Handbook 10 is out.) 1E and 2E are much faster in play, but 4E, by many reports, actually takes longer in combat than 3.x (by the RAW). I like the speed of 1E/2E, but would never go back to them for more than a one-shot beacuse they don't have the options (or rules changes) that I've grown to really like. 4E has changed too many things that I like about D&D for me to give it serious consideration (alignments, fluff changes, powers for all classes, etc.).

Now, I could certainly be convinced to limit specific options if it led to a more fulfilling experience, but in a general sense, I prefer having options to faster play.

 

[cangrejoide]

There are a lot of good points and excellent observations in this thread... many of which were the same good points and excellent observations that led us at Paizo to choose to limit Pathfinder's adventure paths to the 1st–14th level band, or thereabouts.

So Pathfinder solution to High level play is not to play it?

 

[baradtgnome]

Eventually, I clued into making a new creature sub-type, "Unit," which was like a swarm, but for large (25-person) military units. Dealing with four units in a combat is a heck of a lot easier than having 100 individual warriors on a battlefield.

Brilliant. Do you or someone have an example of that somewhere abouts? I think that is a good mitigating tool for some higher level problems. I hate to take 'armies' out of my story line - but they are so onerous to run.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I am generalizing, in the comparitive sense between editions. 1E, 2E, and 4E all are much more limiting when it comes to options than 3.x. (4E may get there one day, but that would probably be after Player's Handbook 10 is out.) 1E and 2E are much faster in play, but 4E, by many reports, actually takes longer in combat than 3.x (by the RAW). I like the speed of 1E/2E, but would never go back to them for more than a one-shot beacuse they don't have the options (or rules changes) that I've grown to really like. 4E has changed too many things that I like about D&D for me to give it serious consideration (alignments, fluff changes, powers for all classes, etc.).

Now, I could certainly be convinced to limit specific options if it led to a more fulfilling experience, but in a general sense, I prefer having options to faster play.

1. Options--1E and 2E had less options. 3E has infinitely more options than 4E, but if you only look at non-worthless 3E options, combined with how subtle differences can be in 4E in actual play, they are a lot closer in terms of options than you'd think
2. 1E/2E are the fastest RPG systems I've ever seen played. 4E is faster paced than 3E, but resolving combat takes about the same amount of time. 3E is faster than 4th at lower levels(1-5), and gets much slower at higher levels(11+). In my experience, 4E runs about as fast as 3E does during the 6-10 level range, but with quicker turns keeping everyone more involved. 4E and 3E are both far slower than 1E/2E, and its not even close.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Now, I could certainly be convinced to limit specific options if it led to a more fulfilling experience, but in a general sense, I prefer having options to faster play.

Well... Just off the top of my head, are skill points for NPCs really the key to a fulfilling experience?

How many of them matter in combat? Concentration? Tumble? Spot?

And... I'm spent. You tell me.

 

[James Jacobs]

So Pathfinder solution to High level play is not to play it?

To this point, that's been the Pathfinder Adventure Path's solution. We haven't written one yet using the Pathfinder RPG rules, though, since they're not done yet.

EDIT: of course... the actual level ranges of our Adventure Paths have varied in Pathfinder (Runelords goes from 1st to about 17th, Crimson Throne 1st to about 16th, and Second Darkness 1st to about 14th.)

FURTHER EDIT: Is there a market for high level adventures anyway? Six years of being in the Adventure Market make me think that answer is, unfortunately, no. From a customer viewpoint AND from a game designer viewpoint... High level adventures were ALWAYS hard to get folks to write (and write well) for Dungeon. The most popular level was 7th level.

 

[Storminator]

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

Back in those days we never would have dreamed of making a PC at anything other than 1st level. We never made it past 12th (and that only for one PC).

I never saw anything that made me think it couldn't be done, but we never got there.

PS

 

[ProfessorPain]

This thread will die a beautiful death.

 

[Man-thing]

The most popular level was 7th level.

We have always played campaigns in the 1-12 range, most ending sometime naturally around 7 or 8. One of the things that we found hurt our high level play was iterative attacks. It just slows, everything down.