What's wrong with high-level/epic play?

[Upper_Krust]

Ah, memories! The gang's all here from the old 3rd Edition high level threads! Although PC's here to stop fights not start them this time. ; )

I will second the notion that 4e is at least worth a playthrough to check out the high level stuff and how it's being handled in this game differently. That's what I'm doing.

I have went over it and as far as I can see the 4E system is more than capable of handling high-level gaming.

Just wait until I have your PCs wrestling a 10,000 mile long Jormungandr while facing down a throng of a million angels that sally forth from the beard of a retired Supreme Being.

UpperKrust, howdy mate!

Merry Christmas amigo!

It's always good to post-a-logue with you.

You always know where to find me.

I am also intrigued at the unique approach you took to accomplish very similar goals (coming from the MM side of the equation). I'd like to see/read more about your goals in doing that work and development, to see if you were headed in the same direction as Kerrick and I.

I've spent SO much time trying to fix high/epic level 3E that in the end I believe its an impossible task. To make it work you would have to change so much that the system would be unrecognisable.

If you created a big list of problems with high level 3E then cross reference them with 4E you will see that it has already solved all the problems making (high-level) 3E redundant in the process.

You know, it occurs to me that we may all three (along with everyone at Paizo for Pathfinder...) be trying to head in the same direction. It may be worth a dialogue to see if we could accomplish more by working together. At a minimum, I would be happy to spend some time discussing the work that's been done today in a faster format. I'd recommend Skype, and it might be fun to record for podcasting purposes.

I'd be up for that - assuming I can use my 360 headphones on my PC...?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Merry Xmas Kerrick mate!

Bah... I can't afford 100+ dollars for the 4E books even if I wanted them,

I don't even think they would be that expensive now, maybe $70 or less for the set on amazon or ebay.

and I have little inclination to learn a new system.

Then you can't in good faith expect people to feel anything but apathy about your changes...though I know they are prmarily for personal use.

I'm sure 4E high-level play is smoother, but like ashockney says, it shouldn't be that hard to port some of the ideas back to 3.x.

Then you won't be playing anything that looks like 3E anymore.

Fixing it on its own, without touching the rest of the system? No. Working from the ground up and restructuring the entire framework of the game? Possibly. It is a lot of work, but I was bored and needed something to keep me busy.

It seems like you are putting in a lot of effort when the answers are already in front of you...4E.

UK (if I may speak for him) is mostly adding new content, but since the faults in epic have their foundations in the lower levels (IMO), there's only so much he can do to "fix" epic play.

Indeed.

Okay, getting late - I will come on again tomorrow (I see a few posts addressed to me), until then Merry Xmas all.

 

[Spatula]

4e seems pretty rock solid at epic level. Can you provide speciifc examples of what's broken?

There is a scaling issue caused by the ablity-score boosting mechanics. By 30th level you have +8 to two scores (+10 with demigod) and +2 to the other four. Or perhaps you spread out the increases some for +8 to one, +4 to two, and +2 to three. This creates a bonus disparity that affects your defense scores (one, possibly two of them are going to be in bad shape) and skill bonuses (which makes it hard to set reasonable skill DCs for challenges and the like). I don't know if the disparity is as big a problem as it is in 3e - for one thing, it only affects certain parts of the system instead of everything - but there's definitely some auto-hit potential there when facing "boss" monsters in the epic tier. The paragon feats that boost your defenses (lightning reflexes, etc.) are almost required for your weak defense.

I've kinda wondered if the cheesy defense-boosting items in AV were a response to this.

As an example, consider something like a 30th level halfling Cha-based rogue/demigod. Using the standard array to start and a +6 neck/cloak item, you end up with
Fort 33 (10 + 15 level + 6 item + 2 [13 starting Str or Con, boosted to 15 from levels])
Refl 42 (10 + 15 level + 6 item + 2 class + 9 [18 starting Dex, boosted to 28 from levels/destiny])
Will 39 (10 + 15 level + 6 item + 8 [16 starting Cha, boosted to 26 from levels/destiny])

Any attack bonus that has a 50% chance of hitting the rogue's Reflex defense (that would be a +31) has a 95% chance of hitting the same character's Fortitude defense. Now look at Orcus, who has a +33 vs Fort attack and a +38 vs Fort attack.

 

[Imban]

Let's say I have a warlord in the party who uses a power such as Warlord's Favor that grants me a bonus to hit such as 1+INT. Let's assume that the Warlord starts with an 18 in their INT score even though STR would be their primary and let's assume that the Warlord increased INT every level the way my example Fighter did. So the Warlord gives the Fighter a bonus to hit of +10. Pretty good. So for one round, the fighter can hit on a 3 or higher.

No sir. Lead the Attack lasts for your entire party for the rest of the encounter. So for the rest of the encounter, if the Warlord hits with Lead the Attack, you're hitting the dragon on a 3 or higher. If he whiffs, you're hitting on a 13 or higher. This has some balance implications, though they're not as dire - there are plenty of sources of temporary power bonuses to attack which are available, so you're not entirely in the doghouse if Lead the Attack misses.

Orb wizards are the big example of messing this over, though, what with their ability to give an enemy a -10 penalty (Wis 16 to start, raised at every level, chose Archmage instead of Demigod, wearing an epic Phrenic Crown) on saving throws against such conditions as "stunned", which leave the target completely useless.

A normal monster which is stunned at -10 only recovers on a 20. So it's basically a writeoff. Elite? 18-20, probably a writeoff. Even a solo needs a 15-20 and will probably be down for a few rounds.

Then you add stuff to the mix like Orbs of Mental Dominion and you quickly see enemies getting put under status against which not even Jesus could save.

 

[Kerrick]

Merry Xmas Kerrick mate! :

And Merry Christmas to you.

Then you can't in good faith expect people to feel anything but apathy about your changes...though I know they are prmarily for personal use.

Now now, be nice. There are lots of folks who are looking for a "new" version of 3.5, one that fixes the changes - why do you think Paizo has such a huge following? 4E is a far larger change to the system than what I'm doing.

Then you won't be playing anything that looks like 3E anymore.

Sure, if you take them directly over without tweaking them. So far, Project Phoenix looks a LOT like 3E to me - the base classes are still there, the feats are still there, the spells are still there... it's just that a lot of what they DO has changed. See, a lot of what breaks the system is not the spells and powers and classes themselves, but the numbers behind them. That's a lot of what 4E did - they changed the numbers: BAB and saves scale at 1/2 levels, attacks and saves work differently (different DCs), etc. What Paizo did, changing grapple from an opposed roll to a roll against a static DC, altered it it drastically and made it actually WORK. I firmly believe that once you fix the numbers behind the mechanics, everything else will fall into place. You might think it's a fool's errand; so be it. If 3.5 weren't still popular with a large portion of the gaming community, I might not have bothered, but it is, and I did.

 

[Noumenon]

What Paizo did, changing grapple from an opposed roll to a roll against a static DC, altered it it drastically and made it actually WORK.

(Warning: what follows is a threadjack because it's grapple-specific, not about high-level play.)

I'm not sure rolling against your opponent's BAB, plus his Strength, plus his size modifier, plus 15 counts as a "static DC." To me it looks like an opposed check where the opponent gets to take 15. The same system, just harder to establish a grapple, but no less impossible to get out of one.

I'd say this is a case where just tweaking numbers doesn't fix the problems with 3.5, because I tried dropping the size bonus down to 0, dropping the strength bonus down to zero, and grapples were still +20 higher than PC's could reach. Eventually I turned to not giving the defender his BAB on the roll, while Monte Cook went with a form of concentration check for grapplers. Thread here.

 

[Stalker0]

The one x factor you have to use in 4e epic player is the huge amounts of powers that add temporary bonuses or penalties. At low levels, these powers are a once in a while boost. At epic, they are very prevalent.

For example, you can't look at the base defense score of 33 and say that is what the player will have all the time. What about powers that boost defenses, or ones that reduce the enemies' attack score?

Its the equivalent of saying a 3e 20th level cleric is weak because your not including all of the buff spells that he likely has on himself.

This is the thing that is hard to measure theoretically, and something we will have to see worked in with live play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

(Warning: what follows is a threadjack because it's grapple-specific, not about high-level play.)

I'm not sure rolling against your opponent's BAB, plus his Strength, plus his size modifier, plus 15 counts as a "static DC." To me it looks like an opposed check where the opponent gets to take 15. The same system, just harder to establish a grapple, but no less impossible to get out of one.

I'd say this is a case where just tweaking numbers doesn't fix the problems with 3.5, because I tried dropping the size bonus down to 0, dropping the strength bonus down to zero, and grapples were still +20 higher than PC's could reach. Eventually I turned to not giving the defender his BAB on the roll, while Monte Cook went with a form of concentration check for grapplers. Thread here.

It depends on your definition of "tweaking" the numbers, honestly. Does it also take into account tweaking the numbers of monster? Maybe a CR 10 monster just can't have a strength score higher then 30 (or any other arbitrary number that works).

Basically, if tweaking numbers allows so many changes that you end up with 4E 1/2 level bonus (and so on), yeah, number tweaking can do it.

Otherwise, I don't believe it will work.

And seriously, all the pure attack bonus vs defense bonus scaling in 4E, you could keep it in throw the other parts of the system away and use the other 3E rules - Attacks of Opportunity, Sunder, Disarm. If you fix the bonuses granted by magical items and account for them in your system (particularly in the relation monsters vs PCs), you would be close to have a workable system for everyone but spellcasters. (So for like, 3 classes out of 8 core classes?)

Sure, Trip is still more powerful then Bullrush or Disarm, but well, maybe you'll find a solution to that, too.

 

[Kraydak]

This has been largely answered already, but:

Ok, lets say you have an optimized PC with say a 20 in your prime attack stat. Let's say I'm playing a Fighter. At level 30, assuming I always boost STR, and take the Demigod Epic Destiny, my attack bonus is going to +3 prof. +1 fighter +10 STR +15 level +6 sword = +35. Against a suitable epic foe like an Ancient Red Dragon with an AC of 48, I hit on a 13 or better. Not too difficult, but not too easy either.

Let's say I have a warlord in the party who uses a power such as Warlord's Favor that grants me a bonus to hit such as 1+INT. Let's assume that the Warlord starts with an 18 in their INT score even though STR would be their primary and let's assume that the Warlord increased INT every level the way my example Fighter did. So the Warlord gives the Fighter a bonus to hit of +10. Pretty good. So for one round, the fighter can hit on a 3 or higher.

As noted, LtA is encounter duration. It can easily double a party's damage output. So a boss encounter either:
a) has enough hp for LtA to make it close. If LtA misses, the party wipes.
b) has enough hp to make it close if LtA misses. If LtA hits, the party stomps.
c) has indeterminate hp: the party would have been better off the the warlord had played a cleric. The warlord player will be incensed if/when he finds out.

None of these options are good. In 3e, there are enough LtAs available that you can operate under the assumption that the party will eventually land one. Messy? Yes. But it has its advantages.

So what am I missing? Where is the broken in the 4e math?

Similar things work for saves/defences. In neither edition can you keep all your defenses at relevant numbers for the full level range. The (entirely accidental I assume) genius of 3e is that *just* as the various saves/ACs start to catastrophically diverge, other effects come on line that let you bypass the issue. Whether your anti-spell defenses come in the form of saving on 2s, being immune to 90+% of the incoming effects or a massive SR doesn't really matter. What does matter is that you will bounce 90+% of the incoming effects if you spend any effort at all. In 4e, without the (messy) array of options, the DM *cannot* operate under the assumption that 90+% of incoming effects will be bounced, and some party members will be getting hit on 2s OR some party members will be being missed on 19s.

3e gives high level characters enough options (spells/day etc...) that a single spell hitting/missing is NOT mission critical. This is not the case in 4e. 3e gives enough options that having divergent saves/AC/BAB is not a major problem. This is not the case in 4e. 4e is cleaner, but that means you don't have enough fiddly knobs to tune the game to any given party.

 

[Dragonblade]

This has been largely answered already, but:



As noted, LtA is encounter duration. It can easily double a party's damage output. So a boss encounter either:
a) has enough hp for LtA to make it close. If LtA misses, the party wipes.
b) has enough hp to make it close if LtA misses. If LtA hits, the party stomps.
c) has indeterminate hp: the party would have been better off the the warlord had played a cleric. The warlord player will be incensed if/when he finds out.

I don't think so. I think there are enough high level powers that grant various bonuses that the level 30 encounter isn't going to be decided by a single failed power. Even if LtA fails and the party in my example doesn't get to autohit every round, they are still going to hit nearly 50% of the time just on straight bonuses for being level 30, and will still have buffs from other powers. So instead of 4.5 rounds to take down Orcus, it now takes them 10. Again, the the 4e math still works.

None of these options are good. In 3e, there are enough LtAs available that you can operate under the assumption that the party will eventually land one. Messy? Yes. But it has its advantages.

Similar things work for saves/defences. In neither edition can you keep all your defenses at relevant numbers for the full level range. The (entirely accidental I assume) genius of 3e is that *just* as the various saves/ACs start to catastrophically diverge, other effects come on line that let you bypass the issue. Whether your anti-spell defenses come in the form of saving on 2s, being immune to 90+% of the incoming effects or a massive SR doesn't really matter. What does matter is that you will bounce 90+% of the incoming effects if you spend any effort at all. In 4e, without the (messy) array of options, the DM *cannot* operate under the assumption that 90+% of incoming effects will be bounced, and some party members will be getting hit on 2s OR some party members will be being missed on 19s.

3e gives high level characters enough options (spells/day etc...) that a single spell hitting/missing is NOT mission critical. This is not the case in 4e. 3e gives enough options that having divergent saves/AC/BAB is not a major problem. This is not the case in 4e. 4e is cleaner, but that means you don't have enough fiddly knobs to tune the game to any given party.

You know, I played some epic level 3e games and there were no fiddly knobs. If you played a caster or a cleric you had a number of trump card spells and buffs you could have going to protect you and your teammates from various effects. But anything you didn't have a trump card for pretty much came down to save or die, and you better hope its an attack against your good save. And ultimately, even having a spreadsheet full of buffs (literally!) precast wasn't much help when the first thing any enemy spellcaster did was drop Disjunction on you. Then you either had to Time Stop to get some of your buffs back, or drop a Disjunction right back, but then hope that without buffs you would survive the 2nd round.

The last high level 3.5 combat I played in against enemy spellcasters resulted in one party member going permanently insane, one petrified, two planeshifted against their will (and they were warriors with no way of getting back), and two dead, all within 3 rounds of combat. One party member escaped, but he also was a warrior class with no method of retrieving our fallen characters, or rescuing those of us stranded on another plane. It was an anti-climactic end to our last 3.5 game and a campaign that had been going for 2 years. But it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Everyone sitting around the table pretty much looked at each other and said, "This game sucks."

We went to 4e and so far its been a far more enjoyable gaming experience.