Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9192443" data-attributes="member: 6790260">These three can be treated collectively because they are essentially the same game, just with a series of greater tweaks. And, having played at high level (going into early Epic), I can answer that they play...very poorly unless both player and DM are really concerted in keeping things in a narrow band of power and, for lack of a better term, "influence." Any character can be powerful at some specific thing, but high-level full spellcasters become utterly ludicrous, especially if even somewhat optimized. Pathfinder is better-worse for this, because while it took some steps here and there to address the issues, it also added a TON more power in various ways and especially for spellcasters.And, again, I'm not talking ridiculous TO stuff where you get actual nigh-infinite loops and the like. I'm talking pure practical optimization, with conscious limits and nixing anything that would actually become infinite. Even when you close up those loopholes, 3.x is still ridiculously, hilariously broken at high levels.There's a reason 3.x spawned the "E6" movement.I have not, sadly, had the opportunity to play high level 4e. But by design, it was meant to be "all sweet spot," so to speak, and what I hear from folks who actually did play at that level, it works...with a couple caveats. Combats can run long, so it is very important for players to know the rules for their characters and to be thinking about things between their turns, so they know what to do quickly. Hemming and hawing is a death by a thousand cuts. Also, it's best if players try to limit their off-turn actions, or pick off-turn actions that are very fast and easy to process.Have neither played nor have much desire to play high-level 5e. It is, as with most things 5e-related, analogous to 3e with an extra balance pass. Which, to be clear, that should be recognized; 5e is better-balanced than 3e. It's just...3e was so bad that "better" can mean a lot of different things. "Taller than a flea" is not exactly saying much; most things are.I have not played either of these nor read their unique rules very closely. I imagine LUA5e is better than standard 5e due to improving, to some degree, the caster/martial balance. But it will likely still suffer from the same problems as 5e, they'll just be a bit blunted. I hear PF2e is much better about balance--part of why it reminds folks of 4e D&D--but I have only barely scratched the surface of its rules.</blockquote>

Verification