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

[Runestar]

With regards to the article on revised crs by Upper Krust...How do I interpret the final cr? For example, a balor is cr31 (and there are still the golden/silver rules)...how do I convert it to 3.5-cr?

 

[ashockney]

I've posted some of my proposed solutions in the forums for 3.5 revisionists. That's pretty fun! Great idea, and I hope not too much work for you.

Kerrick - I'll try to contact you after Christmas, while I may have a little free time.

 

[Storminator]

THIS.

A thousand times THIS.

A 28th level, with six characters, two pets and two followers, combined with stacking powers from classes, prestige classes, magic items, spell effects and who knows what else, the math became tedious in the extreme. Then factor in conditional bonuses, combat options, feats and terrain effects....GAH.

This was my favorite 25th level session:

Beginning of Round 1: Vampire cleric casts Mordenkainen's Disjunction.
Rest of session: Recalculating character sheets...

See you next week for the rest of Round 1!

PS

 

[Kerrick]

With regards to the article on revised crs by Upper Krust...How do I interpret the final cr? For example, a balor is cr31 (and there are still the golden/silver rules)...how do I convert it to 3.5-cr?

The Golden Rule applies before you calculate the final CR. The Silver Rule is just the final CR * 0.83 (or, if it's 20+, CR -3). If you want to take an existing 3.5 monster and convert it to UK's system, just multiply by 1.5 (or dragons x2) - it's a rough estimate, but it mostly works. I've found that WotC's and UK's CRs are the same or very close up to about CR 5, then they start to diverge.

This was my favorite 25th level session:

Beginning of Round 1: Vampire cleric casts Mordenkainen's Disjunction.
Rest of session: Recalculating character sheets...

See you next week for the rest of Round 1!

PS

 

[Kraydak]

Ahoy there Piratecat!



Apologies if necessary.

What I actually meant to say was stop wasting time trying to 'fix' high-level 3/3.5E because 4E has already solved all the problems of high-level gaming.

I wasn't trying to suggest you shouldn't play 3/3.5E in its totality - although yes, in my opinion, 4E is by far the superior system.

I fear you may be missing the forest for the trees. 4E has its own high level gaming problems, and they are less tractable:
a) per-level scaling is off (noticeably by paragon, hugely by epic, absurdly past that)
b) +/-extra stat to d20 roll breaks by epic (and can be broken by paragon)
c) you can only pump 2 stats (yes, that is more than 3e, see below).

3e solved the scaling problems by putting huge scatter into the system. Who cared if your class had bad will saves and you weren't pumping Wis? Toss on Mind Blank and it was all good. The multitude of options for 3e made life messier, but they also allowed one to fill in the potholes. Sure, if people didn't actually *want* to play, then the system broke, but the same goes for 4e. On the other hand, 4e doesn't give you the tools to cover the potholes if people do want to play.

If you want to play demi-gods, note that even systems designed from the ground up to do so, Exalted, Scion etc..., break into a million pieces if people don't play nice. The fix for them breaking into a million pieces when you do try to play nice that people settled on is to provide a huge range of optimization levels/fiddly bits and let groups settle wherever they found it comfortable. Removing the fiddly bits may make the mechanics easier, but it makes avoiding the inherent problems with playing at the demi-god power level harder to dodge.

 

[Dragonblade]

I fear you may be missing the forest for the trees. 4E has its own high level gaming problems, and they are less tractable:
a) per-level scaling is off (noticeably by paragon, hugely by epic, absurdly past that)
b) +/-extra stat to d20 roll breaks by epic (and can be broken by paragon)
c) you can only pump 2 stats (yes, that is more than 3e, see below).

3e solved the scaling problems by putting huge scatter into the system. Who cared if your class had bad will saves and you weren't pumping Wis? Toss on Mind Blank and it was all good. The multitude of options for 3e made life messier, but they also allowed one to fill in the potholes. Sure, if people didn't actually *want* to play, then the system broke, but the same goes for 4e. On the other hand, 4e doesn't give you the tools to cover the potholes if people do want to play.

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

And 3e didn't solve anything, unless you think the escalating game of unbeatable attack countered by invincible defense was a good thing. I don't like rock-paper-scissors combat.

Epic level 3e was basically each side pulling out a trump card to outdo the other until one side pulled out something the other side couldn't match and then you were dead. Most often this occured within 1 or 2 rounds. I don't consider that good design.

 

[Kraydak]

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

PC vs. NPC scaling by level: PCs scale at about -1/7 levels slower than NPCs, in d20 roll categories which they are stat pumping. This hits -4 at around lvl 30, and 4 is where things *break* on d20s. It gets worse in non-pumped rolls, and there 4e doesn't give you ways to end-run like Mind Blank.

+Extra stat on d20 roll abilities start giving things like +/- 8 by the Epic tier. This can take you from 50% success rates to 0/100% success rates. Witness the Orb wizard. Or, more simply, compare the party whose warlord landed Lead the Attack (lvl 1 ability!!) against a solo to the party whose warlord failed to land it (or the party without the warlord at all). +8 to hit will at least double the party's melee output. In 3e, the assumption was that *everyone* had *multiple* ways to hit the needed damage output, and would use them until they worked. 4e doesn't give you enough similar options to make them reliable.

And 3e didn't solve anything, unless you think the escalating game of unbeatable attack countered by invincible defense was a good thing. I don't like rock-paper-scissors combat.

3e solved the problem of huge power scales (and, with character specialization, huge power differentials) by providing large numbers of ways to solve any given problem. It is a solution. It isn't an elegant solution. I am largely convinced that there *is* no elegant solution. If you want a gaming system that works at the demi-god power level, that doesn't channel everyone into being clones, it will get messy. Accept it and work with it.

Epic level 3e was basically each side pulling out a trump card to outdo the other until one side pulled out something the other side couldn't match and then you were dead. Most often this occured within 1 or 2 rounds. I don't consider that good design.

You mean like Lead the Attack to (possibly) triple your side's DPR, leading to unbalanceable fights from the DM's perspective (if the fight is balanced with LtA and it misses, TPK, if it is balanced w/o LtA, it becomes trivial with it)? Demi-god ED+(lots of things) to insta-gib your foes?

 

[Dragonblade]

PC vs. NPC scaling by level: PCs scale at about -1/7 levels slower than NPCs, in d20 roll categories which they are stat pumping. This hits -4 at around lvl 30, and 4 is where things *break* on d20s. It gets worse in non-pumped rolls, and there 4e doesn't give you ways to end-run like Mind Blank.

+Extra stat on d20 roll abilities start giving things like +/- 8 by the Epic tier. This can take you from 50% success rates to 0/100% success rates. Witness the Orb wizard. Or, more simply, compare the party whose warlord landed Lead the Attack (lvl 1 ability!!) against a solo to the party whose warlord failed to land it (or the party without the warlord at all). +8 to hit will at least double the party's melee output. In 3e, the assumption was that *everyone* had *multiple* ways to hit the needed damage output, and would use them until they worked. 4e doesn't give you enough similar options to make them reliable.

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.

So, lets go worst case scenario (for the dragon). Let's assume that due to ally buffs, or imposed status conditions and whatnot, that we hit the Dragon every round. I'll assume that generally a level 30 fighter will do 5W every round with their different powers. Let's say I'm optimized with a +6 Bastard Sword and thus do 5d10 + 10 STR +6 magic weapon +9 power attack +3 Weapon Focus, let's throw in an additional +10 misc bonus for damage boosting powers and such. So on average thats about 63 damage per hit, assuming no crits.

At 1,390 HP that would take my Fighter, by himself, 22 rounds to kill the dragon. That's a pretty epic fight. But since a level 30 Ancient Red Dragon is a solo, let's assume a I have a party of 5 level 30 characters to help out. If they all generally average out to the same damage and everyone ALWAYS hits EVERY single round, that is still 4.4 rounds to kill the dragon. Assuming the dragon just stands there and gets hacked on without attacking back.

I see absolutely nothing broken about 4e's math in my example. Assuming that misses and crits balance out, I'd say 4.5 to 5 rounds for a party of 5 level PCs to defeat a challenge equal to their level is exactly right on target with how 4e's math is designed to work. Even if we assume the PCs miss half the time, the combat now takes between 8 and 10 rounds. Again 4e is designed for a standard encounter of the PC's level to take between 5 and 10 rounds. So again we are right on target.

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

 

[Dragonblade]

Rereading your post, are you trying to say that the math breaks because un-optimized PCs can't keep up with challenges of their level?

I suppose I could sort of see that, but I don't think its possible to balance a game so that those who deliberately make sub-par choices are as equally effective as those who make optimized choices. It is far more reasonable to assume that players of fighters will make feat and stat boost choices that make them better and more effective fighters. The same thing could be said for players of any class.

Or are you comparing PC stats to NPC stats, which is a worthless comparison in 4e since 4e NPCs aren't built using the same rules as PCs. NPC stats exist purely to provide an appropriate challenge to PCs of equivalent level. Minions are the best example of this. Legion Devils don't have 1 HP because a cat can kill them, they have one hitpoint because at the level where PCs face them, the PCs should be "badass" enough to take them out with one hit. The fragility is purely a function of the needs of dramatic storytelling. 4e dispenses with simulation for cinematic play. This has been debated to death since 4e came out. I like that, some people don't. But it is what it is.

 

[Dragonblade]

I suppose I could sort of see that, but I don't think its possible to balance a game so that those who deliberately make sub-par choices are as equally effective as those who make optimized choices. It is far more reasonable to assume that players of fighters will make feat and stat boost choices that make them better and more effective fighters. The same thing could be said for players of any class.

Thinking about this some more, I could see why you find the binary save or die of 3e epic level combat as a solution to this. In such a system it doesn't matter whether you squeezed every +1 out of your feat and stat choices because you will either have some invincible defense like Mind Blank, or you won't and then its basically save or die. Die if you are making a save with a poor save like 3e fighters making Will saves, or save if you are making a save with a good save like Fort.

But like I said before, I find such binary rock-paper-scissors combat completely unsatisfying. Since it renders much of the choice I made in building my character pointless. I either have the unbeatable defense, or I don't.

Like Mike Mearls said in the Are 4e Monsters are Scary thread, I prefer the slow burn of 4e combat to the sudden shock of 3e combat. Especially, given the amount of time I put into characters, and also the time I take out of my life to attend games. I want to play the game if I go to my friend's house to play. Not sit out the rest of the night because I failed a single save, or didn't anticipate which monster we were facing and thus didn't prepare the ultimate defense spell and ended up dead/petrified/disintigrated or what have you in the first round of combat.