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

[Spatula]

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.

The numbers are intrinsically tied into the mechanics, though. Like UK says, you can probably "fix" things but you're left with something that doesn't look like 3e anymore. For example, just about all monster numbers are based off of HD. Monster HD scales faster than party level, in such a way that monsters "work" at lower levels and then "break" as party level increases. You could change the calculations so that the numbers are based off of CR instead (this is basically what 4e did), but that doesn't work either since the upper CRs aren't correct. And either way you're left re-designing monsters from the ground up, and pretty much re-writing the monster books. You might as well be playing a different game at that point.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Merry Xmas all!

As regards the infered problems with high level 4E, it seems to me that its more of a case of "well this power can be problematic" or "this item will lead to trouble" rather than a case of "these rules are bad". I certainly agree that you need to keep an eye out for powers that last an entire encounter, they should definately be weaker than those which only last until the next round. I certainly would watch for Ability Score Modifier boosts that last an entire encounter. I don't think they are a good idea.

The main problem I have encountered with high-level 4E is the stunning of solo monsters (or to a lesser extent elite critters). However, the solution was presented in Draconomicon with regards Tiamat's stats, in that she auto saves against each effect the round after. So even if you do Stun her it will only be for one round...and in Tiamat's case that only works on one head anyway, but thats a different matter altogether.

I would suggest the auto save after one round be applied to all solo monsters. With perhaps an auto save after two rounds for elite opponents.

The other minor problem (the ability score disparity) I had already noticed and in my early builds of my Legendary Tier through to Sidereal Tier (31-60) I have doubled the ability score bonus to +2.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Merry Xmas all!

Fröhliche Weihnachten!

The other minor problem (the ability score disparity) I had already noticed and in my early builds of my Legendary Tier through to Sidereal Tier (31-60) I have doubled the ability score bonus to +2.

What bonus did you increase to +2? The n1st level bonus?

One thing I thought about (without thinking about going beyond level 30) was "Perfection" abilities (typically for Epic Destines) that basically only raised your lower ability scores. This will usually positively affect your defenses, and it feels "right" in the sense that an epic level hero just might overcome his weaknesses.

 

[Kerrick]

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.

Hmm. I never noticed. I'd forgotten about that thread, too - thanks for pointing that out. I need to do some revisions.

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."

Yugh. That would suck.

The numbers are intrinsically tied into the mechanics, though. Like UK says, you can probably "fix" things but you're left with something that doesn't look like 3e anymore. For example, just about all monster numbers are based off of HD.

Basing anything besides ability saves off HD (like things that are affected by a word of <alignment>, or the polymorph spell) simply doesn't work. ECL is a much better measure of relative power. Take the polymorph spell or druidic wildshape, for instance - I figured out a long time ago that basing available forms on CR instead of HD makes those two MUCH more balanced.

You could change the calculations so that the numbers are based off of CR instead (this is basically what 4e did), but that doesn't work either since the upper CRs aren't correct.

That's why I'm waiting on UK to finish v6 of his Challenge Ratings document.

And either way you're left re-designing monsters from the ground up, and pretty much re-writing the monster books. You might as well be playing a different game at that point.

Not really. I've worked my way through most of the MM, and the changes I've made are pretty small, overall - mostly it's just adjusting natural armor bonuses, fixing caster levels, and (soon) fixing ECLs.

 

[Spatula]

Not really. I've worked my way through most of the MM, and the changes I've made are pretty small, overall - mostly it's just adjusting natural armor bonuses, fixing caster levels, and (soon) fixing ECLs.

Then I guess I don't understand what you're doing. How are natural armor bonuses an issue? Or even linked to HD? You decoupled attack & grapple bonuses, saves, ability DCs, and (less problematic so maybe not) skill bonuses from HD and the numbers didn't change? Because those (aside from the skills) are the problem areas, especially with monsters that get a lot of HD per CR. Or if you didn't decouple them, then I'm not seeing how you're actually fixing anything.

 

[Kerrick]

Then I guess I don't understand what you're doing. How are natural armor bonuses an issue? Or even linked to HD?

They're not linked to HD, they're linked to size.

You decoupled attack & grapple bonuses, saves, ability DCs, and (less problematic so maybe not) skill bonuses from HD and the numbers didn't change? Because those (aside from the skills) are the problem areas, especially with monsters that get a lot of HD per CR.

The problem is not so much the huge numbers of HD as it is the underrated CRs. As has been discussed above, grapple (and all the other combat manuevers) was changed on its own. And I've tweaked saves a bit too.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Happy Boxing Day Mustrum!

Fröhliche Weihnachten!

What bonus did you increase to +2? The n1st level bonus?

I meant that I doubled all subsequent ability score gains from 31st-level onward.

So instead of +2 to two scores and +1 to all scores, you would get +4 to two scores and +2 to all scores at the appropriate levels.

One thing I thought about (without thinking about going beyond level 30) was "Perfection" abilities (typically for Epic Destines) that basically only raised your lower ability scores. This will usually positively affect your defenses, and it feels "right" in the sense that an epic level hero just might overcome his weaknesses.

That might be an idea. However, going above 30th, without increased scores the math of 4E is going out of whack with regards Monsters, NPCs and PCs.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So instead of +2 to two scores and +1 to all scores, you would get +4 to two scores and +2 to all scores at the appropriate levels.

Okay. I see why you did that.

That might be an idea. However, going above 30th, without increased scores the math of 4E is going out of whack with regards Monsters, NPCs and PCs.

Basically, the 4E system creates a difference over 30 levels between monsters and PCs.
PCs get +15 from their level, +6 from enhancement, and +4 from ability score bonuses, for a total of +25 vs +30 for monsters (that simply scale linearly from level.) (or a ratio of +8.33 per tier for PCs vs +10 per tier for NPCs and monsters)
I can't believe this was a "mistake" by the designers, so I assume they wanted to compensate by using powers and feat abilities.
Do you think that will become unworkable at higher levels?

If you increase the ability score bonuses to +2 instead of +1, you get an extra +3 bonus onto everything instead of the usual +1.5 per tier from ability scores, achieving a 9.85 per tier. Still not identical, but close enough.
(That's an interesting observation in its own right, if we're looking at removing magic items with enhancement bonuses from the game.)

Do you add more dailies and encounters after level 30, or do you only grant better powers? I think at some point, the system will become unwieldy if there are too many powers. (There is a reason why you retrain old class powers instead of keeping them around.)

 

[Runestar]

Do you think that will become unworkable at higher levels?

More likely unsustainable than unworkable. Currently, monsters' attack and defense ratings improve at an average rate of 1 point per level, while players' attack/defense improve by 1 every 2 levels. Stat boosts yield +1 every 8 levels, while weapon/armour enhancements give +1 every 5 levels. So for every 10 levels, the players seem to fall behind by +2.

But then again, I doubt that many people will bother about lv50+ gameplay, but that may not be as big a deal.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I would like to put out my theory that the 4E designers understand or at least are aware of the scaling in the system. For one, they made it clear that your not suppose to use a character past level 30. The system won't work pass 30 because it wasn't designed to work pass 30.

You may also need to account for other things besides the raw numbers. Things like the amount of healing, the quality of the character's powers (many higher level powers are generally better then lower level powers), bonus from other sources, and extra options from magic items, etc. Those things can all affect how well a party can do in a battle.

For example, If I was an epic level Human Fighter who spent an action point (giving me another +3 because I have Action Surge) next to my friend the Warlord with Inspiring Presence (for another bonus between +3-+5) flanking with a Rouge (for another +2) hitting a solo with my super cool high level daily, that can really turn a battle. Or I am optimizing too much here? I believe that the designers assumed that PCs would be doing stuff like that but I could be wrong though.

Yet another factor to consider is future splat. In the future, you can expect more epic level material that will power up Epic level characters even more. They could be operating under the idea that people wouldn't play tons of epic level stuff right now. By the time many people want more epic level stuff, WOTC will have said stuff out for them. Of course, this is assuming people aren't playing epic out of the gate but will in the future.