Preserving the Sweet Spot - A Rebuttal

[Pants]

I will agree that a third party book of modified monsters might do fairly well, even MM IV might have done better, had it been called Monstrous Encounters or some such, rather than Monster Manual.

The Auld Grump

I agree, the biggest mistake was putting them in a Monster Manual. Though I do find it puzzling that many complaints about D&D are how much prep time is involved with statblocks, then a bunch of sample, leveled creatures comes out (in, arguably, the wrong book) and the most common outcry is 'Why are these here? I can do this stuff on my own!' Gotta love the schizophrenic D&D audience.

Though I don't agree that a 3rd-party book would necessarily do better than a WotC book at all.

 

[Garboshnik]

High level characters get whacked by straight up damage LOTS. I remember seeing a 15th level monk obliterated in a single round by a CR 15 Fire Giant without any crits or terribly high rolls. High CR creatures are dumping in 100+ points of damage per round without any real difficulty. While the barbarians and the fighters are soaking that, everyone else dies. And the barbies and fighters die on the second round.

High level combat is LETHAL.

The problem with death through straight HP is that HP can be restored so quickly. At low levels you can slowly erode the party's HP to add tension to a fight. At high levels a single spell recovers 10xlevel HP, and at higher levels it will recover 170+ to the entire party! There's really no way to erode HP with that kind of healing power, so combat ends up being save/die or a crazy roller coaster of massive damage and massive healing.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with death through straight HP is that HP can be restored so quickly. At low levels you can slowly erode the party's HP to add tension to a fight. At high levels a single spell recovers 10xlevel HP, and at higher levels it will recover 170+ to the entire party! There's really no way to erode HP with that kind of healing power, so combat ends up being save/die or a crazy roller coaster of massive damage and massive healing.

To me, it's just a question of scale. In either high or low level combat, two or three full attacks will kill just about any PC. At low levels, you use cure light wounds (either spell or wand) to keep the fighters in the fray. At high levels, you use heal. In either case, you are still only a round or two from death. The only difference, in my mind, is the numbers.

 

[Psion]

I think the sweet spot is the sweet spot because the 3e ruleset is designed to accomodate a certain kind of play-- in a nutshell, dungeon delving. It feels "sweet" because the desires of the players are served almost perfectly by the design of the game.

There is almost universal agreement among high level afficionados that their games can no longer be contained by the dungeon. The needs of the players evolve-- but the rules do not evolve with them.

It's no surprise to me that folks who enjoy the "mission statement" of D&D-- the dungeon delve-- find themselves most fulfilled by the 3e rules in the sweet spot.

It's also no surprise to me that folks who enjoy high-level play don't find themselves adequately supported by the 3e rules. 3e just simply isn't very good at that kind of game. You need new rules.

In a word... meh.

I guess it may be in part because I feel no great need to lean so heavily on the dungeon delve, but I don't find any particular problem running at higher levels. Yeah, I guess if you bank on the dungeon funnelling PCs where the GM wants them to go, and you give players power that allow them to readily bypass that, then that's a problem.

But I see that as a problem with the GM becoming dependant on a limited if convenient adventure-shaping technique. If you were basing your adventure shaping on a more motivation based technique (or as Traveller refs may know it, push/pull/gimmick/enigma) to shape the flow of the game, it doesn't become a sudden problem that you are ill prepared to deal with.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But I see that as a problem with the GM becoming dependant on a limited if convenient adventure-shaping technique. If you were basing your adventure shaping on a more motivation based technique (or as Traveller refs may know it, push/pull/gimmick/enigma) to shape the flow of the game, it doesn't become a sudden problem that you are ill prepared to deal with.

The fact remains that the 3e rules don't adequately support what you want to do. In every discussion of high-level play, it's always, "Well, it works just fine if you do this, this, and this..." where "this" is any number of excursions outside the normal rules and framework of the game, and almost universally buttressed by a lot of DMing experience.

Why is it that DMs that run a good high level game are lauded? Because we recognize that it is difficult to do.

Again-- not saying folks can't or shouldn't run high level games. I'm just saying (a) the tools you need to do it aren't in the Core Rulebook toolbox, and (b) high-level play as defined around here deviates from the core "design statement" of 3e.

I think when 4e rolls around, I would expect to see it adhere even more strongly to the dungeon delve. The dungeon delve is D&D's heart; I expect (and hope) to see them play to D&D's strength.

I think "upselling" to high-level play (like the old Basic edition did) is a much better approach. When the core premise of the game changes, you should have the best rules possible to support that new kind of play.

I hope that invoking 4e isn't some kind of Godwin's corrolary.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I have a hard time imagining the alternatives to 3e for high-level play to which you are referring. The only one I can think of is (as you mentioned, Wulf) the B/E/C/M/I D&D rules, which are fantastic, although as you said, they "upsold" the ruleset to introduce complexity at higher levels at the expense of exaggerated simplicity at low levels. (Although maybe this is just a good thing...)

I like running high-level games, and I've always found that my players are fine running their high-level PCs. However, they've had the time to build those up, and each of them only has to run one character. The DM, on the other hand... yeesh. So yes, I agree with the posters on this thread who state that one key element of assisting high-level play is for there to exist a large database of prefab high-level encounters and scenarios. A new version of (yeesh) Enemies and Allies that improved upon the original and offered some higher-level challenges would be a great step in this direction.

That said, I'd love to see 4e rip out the following:
-most buffs,
-easy teleportation and flight,
-flexible polymorphing and shapechange,
-save-or-die effects.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

A new version of (yeesh) Enemies and Allies that improved upon the original and offered some higher-level challenges would be a great step in this direction.

I am a fan of Goodman Games' Power Gamer's Guide to [fill in the blank]. So far I have only seen it done for warriors and arcane casters. I'd like to see a Power Gamer's Guide to High Level Adventuring.

 

[Psion]

The fact remains that the 3e rules don't adequately support what you want to do.

Once again Wulf, I disagree. I haven't had to add any special pains or house rules accomodate high level games.

What I am getting at is that it's not the rules that don't support it -- it's the limited GMing techniques espoused by the core books and many products. If you know how to run a character driven fantasy game, it's not a problem.

In every discussion of high-level play, it's always, "Well, it works just fine if you do this, this, and this..." where "this" is any number of excursions outside the normal rules and framework of the game, and almost universally buttressed by a lot of DMing experience.

Excursions outside the normal rules - nope, not required.

GMing experience? That can be distilled into techniques that could be in the DMG, but have been given a short shrift due to the "back to the dungeon" marching orders.

Again-- not saying folks can't or shouldn't run high level games. I'm just saying (a) the tools you need to do it aren't in the Core Rulebook toolbox, and (b) high-level play as defined around here deviates from the core "design statement" of 3e.

And I hope you understand at this point that I find the "core design statement" of 3e to fall short of the mark of what D&D can and should support.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

And I hope you understand at this point that I find the "core design statement" of 3e to fall short of the mark of what D&D can and should support.

I agree here. The game has 20 levels, it should cater to all 20 of them. I must say that 3e does a better job of catering to high levels than older editions, and I have been in games and also run games in high levels, and apart from one power gamer, I had no problems.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And I hope you understand at this point that I find the "core design statement" of 3e to fall short of the mark of what D&D can and should support.

I understand. That's an easy sentiment to agree with.

But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on WOTC making the rules support even more strongly a single, unambiguous design.

You'll still get your high-level support, but I wouldn't expect to see it muddying the message of D&D's strongest statement/style of play.