In Dragon #364, James Wyatt doesn't mince words about 3rd edition (and by extension, Pathfinder):
"One of our goals in designing 4th Edition was to extend the "sweet spot" across all 30 levels of play. There's a general sense among 3rd Edition players that the game hits a sweet spot around level 5 and stays good up to level 12 or so. Below level 5, characters are too fragile, and above level 12 they're too complicated. But I contend that another reason for that sweet spot is that, utterly by coincidence, that's the range of levels where a mostly arbitrary system of damage, hit points, and attack and saving throw numbers align to make the game work reasonably well."
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Do the Alpha revisions address these concerns?
I'm biased toward 3rd edition and earlier, but I would contend that the "sweet spot" issue that is often brought up is not a reflection of the math not working right in D&D, but rather the fact that all levels are not intended to play the same.
The "sweet spot" that is often described is usually the ideal level for traditional dungeon crawling adventures. At lower levels, the game serves itself toward a grittier, more dangerous feel, and at higher levels the characters are out of place in a dungeon crawl and better suited for ruling a kingdom, leading armies, or other adventures that effect a larger picture. That's not to say that low-level characters can't be beefed up a bit or that high-level games could be somewhat streamlined, but I don't think it's an inherent problem with the math of the system, as is so often claimed these days.
4th edition does indeed smooth out the power curve and offer a game where all levels of play can work in a traditional dungeon crawl. That's the type of game WotC seems to prefer, which is fine. However, I don't think that older editions of the game are meant to play the same at all levels. In my experience, at least, the "sweet spot" problem is quite overblown.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There's nothing to agree with, or to rebut; there's no meat to Mr. Wyatt's argument.
He says "There's this sweet spot that we enjoy playing. And the mechanics work well there."
My first question: work well ... how? He mentions hit points as part of the well-working mechanics, but he's already said that characters are "too fragile" until 5th Level, which is mostly an issue of hit points.
I think a lot of this "sweet spot" talk comes from the players themselves. Meaning that it isn't a systemic issue, or a math issue; it's how the game is approached and played by the players.
I myself understand the sweet spot. I've had talks with other players about it; how the game gets really fun around 6th, 7th, or 8th level. Your not a weakling that one or two good hits will kill, but not superhuman, so some major encounters are still challenging. The issue Charlie Brooks brings up is case-in-point: many players I've known aren't interested in "ruling kingdoms or leading armies", and as such campaigns end at 12th to 16th level and new lower-level characters are drawn up. So the sweet spot isn't the fault of the game mechanic, it's the fault of the people playing the game. So building a game that makes dungeon crawling at 26th level is more understandable, not because it's the game style WotC prefers, but it's what WE prefer.
I myself was not all that enthused about 4E, but I bought the core books to see what they did with the system. I'm not really sold on the new rules, but I'm not horribly disgusted by them either. Some changes are good (skills mechanic, a slowly progressing base AC) others not so much (spell durations, ritual casting mechanic). But I could see myself having fun playing a 4E game. I'll probably be bouncing back and forth between 4E and PFRPG, which I still fully support.
Just my $0.02. Feel free to rip me a new one for my audacity. :~)
DogBone
|
I think the point is that, at lower levels, the PCs are still within a similar range of scores for their BAB, AC, skills, saves, etc.
A creature, that the Fighter can hit reliably often, is still hittable (though less often) by the Rogue, Cleric and Wizard.
The optimised mid-level Rogue with Hide+18 can still be detected by a guard with Spot+0, albeit 1 time in 400. It won't happen often, but the fact it can happen adds tension to the attempt, and forces the player to make a decision whether to deplete a Silence resource, rather than treating every attempt as a foregone conclusion.
A level 7 caster with an 20 stat forces a DC 19 save with their best spell. This is still achievable by an opponent with an average stat on their poorest save (+2). It sounds hopeless, but that's actually a 20% chance, before any protection effects. Unlikely, but achievable, without hoping for the 'natural 20' rule.
At high levels, the disparity between PCs in their element, and those out of their element becomes so large that to challenge the former makes an impossible task for the others, or to challenge the latter is to make an encounter trivial to the expert.
That's what 4E proposed to alter, and whether you like the idea is very much a subjective matter, depending on what feel you want for your game. Do you want a game where everyone is considered an all-round adventurer, able to handle a variety of situations, or would you rather have each PC as a specialist, given a chance to shine over the others in their area of expertise?
|
For those who may not remember when... characters used to attain 9th level and get the title of lord. Oftentimes, PCs would then settle down into a small barony or otherwise acquired parcel of land, and the game would make a shift from seeking adventure and acquiring power, to having attained a small amount of power and trying to keep it, nurture it, and grow it against the threats of "adventures" in which adversity would come their way.
Back in the day, actually playing PCs from levels 14-20 was rare. I'm sure several of us on these messageboards have done it. But to be clear, there were less modules avaialable locally in stores in those days during OD&D, and AD&D... and we didn't have the internet for instant access to the stuff that was made. Historically, there was a genuine sense that adventuring from level 1 to level 13 was a huge achievement. And, if DMs were actually honoring the XP system, was a very big achievement because it meant years of dedicated play, and character development.
While I've always felt that 20 levels were sufficient, I understand the newest system extends play to 30th. One of the reasons many players never advanced to the higher levels in years past, involved class or racial restrictions on certain PCs, preventing them from obtaining the highest levels. And if one was multi-classing, well, the idea of 20th level was just a distant thought.
So, for anyone newer to the game, my hope has been to put into context the notion that prior systems weren't exactly pressed to higher limits, and it may be a bit anachronistic to say previous systems including 3rd edition were inherently flawed, however, if this is mere semantics - I could see why someone would put it that way. In the Gygaxian traditions, one can see that the highest levels of play were reserved for major NPCs and epic heroes of great power and prestige. I am unsure whether I find palatable the notion that in 4e, my PC would still be crawling in sewers and caves, pulling jems from Otyugh dung piles? I much more envision that beyond 9-12th level, the PCs have become refined and while their "adventures" might involve the occasional Otyugh Lifeleach, their perspective on the world and themselves has grown beyond the typical model.
As a player, perhaps some of you have done this: retire your character somewhere between 9th and 12th level. To the point of some previous posts, it is not so much that the system has failed to produce happy play beyond these levels, but instead, the fabled "sweet spot" might refer to the classic style of play in which PCs attained a level of power that required them to change their adventuring lifestyle in exchange for something more sedentary, such as control of a barony or kingdom.
Just my 2cp.
"But I contend that another reason for that sweet spot is that, utterly by coincidence, that's the range of levels where a mostly arbitrary system of damage, hit points, and attack and saving throw numbers align to make the game work reasonably well."
Surely this is not the last sentence of the article! I'd expect a a few concrete examples to back up that claim.
It is true that monster hit points scale up faster than damage done, for instance. Same thing with monster saving throw bonuses and spell DCs (to some extent). And melee attack bonuses scale up faster than monster ACs.
I agree that the original quote was pretty vague. I hear the sweet spot 5-12 talk, but even the critics on these boards, by-and-large seem to agree that PF improves the "fragility" of lvls 1-4. That means, the major 'problem' remaining is dealing with 13-20, and all that's said here is that those levels are too "complicated." The other thread on how to make PF enjoyable at all levels discusses this at great length, with the consensus being that there isn't much consensus on exactly what aspects of gameplay any particular player thinks is too complicated. So, you could do what WOTC did, and scrap the whole thing, or you could do what Paizo seems to be doing, which is taking a stab at figuring out which parts are worth changing and which aren't. For those of us who think WOTC over-streamlined and gave us a pad-and-paper Diablo, 3E, 3.5E, and PF all seem like more palatable approaches.
As for 'arbitrariness,' arbitrary in relation to what? Maybe 1d6 (or 3.5 average damage) is an arbitrary amount of units to pick for the damage a mace would do to a person in real life, but the numbers certainly aren't arbitrary in relation to one another in the sense that they all scale from that initial 'arbitrary' point (ie-a greatsword does 2d6, because it would probably do significantly more damage than a light mace in real life). And of course game balance comes in in some places to keep certain options from being categorically better, even if they might be in real life. In any event, in the sense that they're a system designed for balance and scalability, they certainly aren't arbitrary.
|
I like the sweet spot. I think the fact that the game plays very differently at different levels is a big contributor to the D&D "feel". I *like* that you have to be *really* careful at the early levels, as a sort of a crucible for "amateur" characters to get through, and once they've proven themselves, they can relax a little as professionals, and then ultimately, at higher levels, the game becomes really intellectual with the number of options. It really gives you three different feels along the character's lifetime arc, and I like it. I'd hate it if all levels played the same way.
I like the sweet spot. I think the fact that the game plays very differently at different levels is a big contributor to the D&D "feel". I *like* that you have to be *really* careful at the early levels, as a sort of a crucible for "amateur" characters to get through, and once they've proven themselves, they can relax a little as professionals, and then ultimately, at higher levels, the game becomes really intellectual with the number of options. It really gives you three different feels along the character's lifetime arc, and I like it. I'd hate it if all levels played the same way.
This pretty much sums up what I was trying to get at above. 3rd edition and earlier caters to gamers like this. WotC has determined that said gamers are in the minority these days, but I don't think that means the math is flawed -- it's just designed for a different style of game.
|
I agree that there can be problems with playing above level 12 or so. The Forgotten Realms campaign that I am playing in has reached that level and it is really becoming less fun than it was at lower levels. The problem in our case is two fold. One we have nine members in our party which makes it difficult to put together challenging encounters that are not overpowering. The other is that our DM, while inventive, is also caught up in old school dungeon crawl gaming. Either that or we get so caught up in political intrigue that there is not enough action for the hack and slashers in our party. The only problem I have with the political intrigue is that it always centers around the character played by the DM's daughter's off and on boyfriend.
|
|
At high levels, more than ever, IMO, the physical fights aren't the core of the game. In a way, it's the final stage of the evolution:
* At low levels, physical combat is extremely dangerous
* At mid levels, physical combat is about average
* At high levels, physical combat becomes trivial
Personally, that's how it *should* shake out, IMO. When your characters have killed dragons, physical combat *should* gradually become a trivial nuisance to them. It's a different type of game. And if your DM is old school dungeon crawl, and if part of the gaming group prefers hack and slash (and are dissatisfied with how trivial that part of the game is becoming to them) maybe it's time to start a new party at lower levels?
IMO, high levels provide the most interesting stuff for the type of player who prefers complex moral choices, heavy plot with deceptions and counter-deceptions, and all kinds of problems that can't be solved with a +5 longsword.
I think there are three options:
* the gaming group adapts to that style of play if they want something different than before
* the gaming group starts a new game at lower levels if they don't want to explore a different gaming style
* the gaming group will be dissatisfied
Pick one. :)
|
In the older versions of D&D there were distinct levels of play and style of play that disappeared with 2E.
In olden days :) low level characters were meant to work well on a local scale of threats, then they advanced to threats to the kingdom, then to the world, then to the planes and if they wanted they could advance to godhood.
In every version of the game there is a "Sweet Spot." That Sweet Spot exists in 4E as well. The Sweet Spot is where players are fighting their favorite mosters and on a scale that is most popular.
These boards will attest to the fact that many people do not like world threatening events. So, even 4E metrics cannot avoid that.
To eliminate the Sweet Spot would require a game where a kobold is a threat to a level 30+ character, and a Collosal Red Dragon can be dispatched by a level 1 character.
I have no interest in playing that game. It sounds boring.
I think the whole "sweet spot" thing is a matter of players and GMs missing the real issue. Many players have trouble letting go of their characters and want to play the same "dual wielding elven ranger" forever. GM's are used to writing for a certain group of characters or maybe have tons of story ideas they want these characters to go through since they know how they would do it. Honestly, after you done a certain amount of character development and growth and leveling it is time to set that character to the side and make a new one. I'm not saying they get mothballed, but maybe they become an NPC or trusted adviser or something other than the main PC focus. The plus side is, you can on occasion pull them out for "special adventures" and you'll be surprised how much fun that can be, jumping back into a character after you have played a different one for awhile. You will really feel like your character has developed while you were away simply because you have had different player experiences running a different character, especially if you went in a different direction in character class and race type.
Characters don't have to die, but sometimes they do need to step out of the spotlight.
Also for the DM's, this helps your world develop and grow. If you are using the same world, it can be fun for the newb pcs to go to familiar haunts of the old PCs and see the results of their handiwork. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. Either wya though, it gives you tons of new material from old.
Think about it, seriously.
|
|
I agree that there can be problems with playing above level 12 or so. The Forgotten Realms campaign that I am playing in has reached that level and it is really becoming less fun than it was at lower levels. The problem in our case is two fold. One we have nine members in our party which makes it difficult to put together challenging encounters that are not overpowering. The other is that our DM, while inventive, is also caught up in old school dungeon crawl gaming. Either that or we get so caught up in political intrigue that there is not enough action for the hack and slashers in our party. The only problem I have with the political intrigue is that it always centers around the character played by the DM's daughter's off and on boyfriend.
This sounds more like a problem with the group that is playing rather than the mechanics. The game was always designed for about 3-5 players in mind. 9 People is difficult to handle no matter what. The style of the DM is not conducive to every one in the game. The rules cannot help these problems.
|
|
I think the whole "sweet spot" thing is a matter of players and GMs missing the real issue. Many players have trouble letting go of their characters and want to play the same "dual wielding elven ranger" forever. GM's are used to writing for a certain group of characters or maybe have tons of story ideas they want these characters to go through since they know how they would do it. Honestly, after you done a certain amount of character development and growth and leveling it is time to set that character to the side and make a new one. I'm not saying they get mothballed, but maybe they become an NPC or trusted adviser or something other than the main PC focus. The plus side is, you can on occasion pull them out for "special adventures" and you'll be surprised how much fun that can be, jumping back into a character after you have played a different one for awhile. You will really feel like your character has developed while you were away simply because you have had different player experiences running a different character, especially if you went in a different direction in character class and race type.
Characters don't have to die, but sometimes they do need to step out of the spotlight.
Also for the DM's, this helps your world develop and grow. If you are using the same world, it can be fun for the newb pcs to go to familiar haunts of the old PCs and see the results of their handiwork. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. Either wya though, it gives you tons of new material from old.
Think about it, seriously.
Put very well.
Our group played for quite a while. The GM was moving out of town so he wrapped up the campaign quicker than he had wanted. He comes back a couple of years later and we start a new group. We pull out the old guys every now and then and have a blast with them. The first group is now around lvl 23 and played occasionally. The current group is about 14 and we are winding down the campaign and will start a new one soon.
We'll still have games with the first and second group on occasion.
I don't know about how long it takes you guys to level, but it takes about 2 years for us to go from 1-15ish. That is a LONG time with one character.
To eliminate the Sweet Spot would require a game where a kobold is a threat to a level 30+ character, and a Collosal Red Dragon can be dispatched by a level 1 character.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
When I think Mr Wyatt means by "sweet spot" is that (for examples):
- Fighters can defeat weak opponents in one or two hits, but tough opponents last longer
- Wizards have a reasonable chance of affecting a monster with a spell -- not too high and not too low a chance
- Spells are better than melee attacks, but not so much better that melee attacks are pointless
- Skill DCs are high enough to pose a challenge to trained characters but not so high that they're impossible for untrained characters
I'm sure you could come up with other similar examples.
|
|
This sounds more like a problem with the group that is playing rather than the mechanics. The game was always designed for about 3-5 players in mind. 9 People is difficult to handle no matter what. The style of the DM is not conducive to every one in the game. The rules cannot help these problems.
I agree, the problem is that Wizards seems to think that they can use rules to fix it, hence the quote the OP brought up initially. The whole purpose of 4th edition seems to be to take bad DMing out of the loop by making everything combat focused and equal throughout all levels.
|
|
I'll preface this by saying that I'm sure James Wyatt is a fine gentleman. However, he works for Wizards and Wizards has a new product to sell. Wizards sells the new product (4e) by convincing the people that bought their previous product (3e & 3.5e) that the old product is, well, old and inferior to the new product. All companies do this to some degree when they produce a new version of a staple product and discontinue the old verion.
You're not going to see alot of quotes by 4e R&D staff saying that 3.5e is in any way, shape, form, or fashion superior to 4e. You will see them extoll the problems of 3.5e and discuss the design philophies they used to correct those problems to make 4e a vastly superior product.
Due to the above, James Wyatt's quote is nothing more than a sales pitch. There's nothing more to discuss.
-Skeld
To add to the above discussion about level sweet spots...
Does anybody actually begin their character and say, "I can't wait until I reach the highest level humanly (or gnomingly, orcishly) possible so i can start a new one and wash, rinse, repeat."
I've always played and DMed until:
1.)Characters died
2.)Campaign goals accomplished
3.)IRL players move or get married etc. etc.
I personally have a 'hall of fame/shame' of characters that have done awesome/horrible things dating back to 2ed. Like the forest gnome ranger who got deformed by the Far Realm (Gates of Firestorm Peak)with a tentacle growth that shot a 1st level magic missile 1/day (happened 6th level). He retired after saving his old home from an invasion of monstrous spiders lead by an evil druid. Or the super high powered Barb 5/Fighter 6 that got turned to stone by a medusea then bullrushed off a 30 foot balcony (my own fault).
I don't think the game is meant to be power gamed - min/maxed, yes - but the game was not meant to played from fetus level until the character reaches deity status.
|
|
To eliminate the Sweet Spot would require a game where a kobold is a threat to a level 30+ character, and a Collosal Red Dragon can be dispatched by a level 1 character.
Hey that can be true. 'The Drow War' is a 1-30 campaign by mongoose publishing, and in the book that does the 20-30 part there is a plane inhabited by kobolds who have the paragon template. Its impressive to see a kobold that is like a warrior 1 or sorceror 5 give a 22nd level character some trouble because they have so many boosts that they can hit and are hard to hit still.
-Tarlane
I've always played and DMed until:
1.)[Player Characters] died
2.)Campaign goals accomplished
3.)IRL players move or get married etc. etc.
Those are the normal "Epic Destinies" of my games as well. :)
Well I have been a DM for a campaign that went up to level 15, using just 3.5 WotC books in Eberron. I shelved the campaign because it was way too complex for me to run as a DM. This may have been due to the fact that we had 4 spellcasters in the group (or classes with lots of spell-like powers) but that is no excuse for a rules engine to break down. It should be able to handle situations like that without making the gameplay 10-times more difficult. Having to deal with monster stat-blocks that take up over a page (sometimes 2), each PC with 4-5 ongoing buff spells active at all times that I had to remember and keep asking about, and many other problems definately turned me off of playing past level 12 with 3.5.
|
|
Well I have been a DM for a campaign that went up to level 15, using just 3.5 WotC books in Eberron. I shelved the campaign because it was way too complex for me to run as a DM. This may have been due to the fact that we had 4 spellcasters in the group (or classes with lots of spell-like powers) but that is no excuse for a rules engine to break down. It should be able to handle situations like that without making the gameplay 10-times more difficult. Having to deal with monster stat-blocks that take up over a page (sometimes 2), each PC with 4-5 ongoing buff spells active at all times that I had to remember and keep asking about, and many other problems definately turned me off of playing past level 12 with 3.5.
Ok monster blocks can be a pain in the ass to deal with. I can agree with that in a heartbeat! Higher level ones especially. However I see that in many ways as a good thing. Higher level PCs have a range of powers available and many options. If monsters are pigeon holed (that is a stupid phrase) into only a couple of options then they will never present a challenge for higher level PCs. It is more complex, but quickly is overcome with experience.
Someone asked what I meant about the kobold being a challenge to lvl 30 and a collosal dragon taken out by lvl 1... which is more entertaining and challenging and EXCITING to fight? A kobold or a collosal red dragon? I would say the dragon. So, to eliminate the sweet spot, a level 1 party must be able to defeat a collosal red dragon but it must remain a challenge to a lvl 30 (4E-lvls here since they claim there is no sweet spot) party. To eliminate that sweet spot the kobold, which is a challenge at level 1 must also be a challeneg to a level 30 party.
When every single critter is a challeneg at every single level, then and only then has the sweet spot been eliminated.
and in reference to another post... an adventure with kobolds ranging 1-20 is AWESOME
Someone asked what I meant about the kobold being a challenge to lvl 30 and a collosal dragon taken out by lvl 1... which is more entertaining and challenging and EXCITING to fight? A kobold or a collosal red dragon? I would say the dragon. So, to eliminate the sweet spot, a level 1 party must be able to defeat a collosal red dragon but it must remain a challenge to a lvl 30 (4E-lvls here since they claim there is no sweet spot) party. To eliminate that sweet spot the kobold, which is a challenge at level 1 must also be a challeneg to a level 30 party.
I don't understand this at all. Yes, there should be exciting, level-appropriate creatures to fight at all levels. Why do all of those creatures need to be collossal red dragons? Or kobolds?
I think the idea is that a fight against an appropriate creature at level 1 should be similar in terms of how it runs to a fight against an appropriate creature at level 20. Whereas in 3.5 edition, a level 1 fight runs roughly like:
"Wizard casts Sleep, fighter performs coup de grace; if wizard is out of Sleep spells, wizard does nothing while fighter attacks."
And at level 20, a fight runs more like:
"Wizard casts various buff spells on himself and on fighter, then fighter tries to look busy while wizard casts spells."
|
Contributor
|
I am going to go against the trend here and agree with the comments. I know (I believe) exactly what he is talking about and it has to do with "swinginess." I have been aware of this problem for a long time.
The issue is that below ~5th level, your d20 roll has more impact on the game than any variance on your abilities. The difference between a +4 to hit vs. AC 12 and a +1 to hit AC 12 is pretty minimal, and it feels like your stats are irrelevant. Then at about 5th level it all comes together and you start getting reliable results.
After 12th level, you get into a different problem, which is that the variance is too wide and the results are too reliable. A spell with a will save that even remotely challenges the party wizard defeats the fighter pretty much every time. This also corresponds with an increase in the number of save or die and save or lose effects. It becomes impossible to build a balanced encounter that has any kind of interesting effects, because an effect that is balanced for one PC is either a cake walk or an autokill for someone else in the party.
In 4E the baseline math increases more evenly over the 30 levels. specifically the BAB and 'save' progressions are consistent except for corollary bonuses. This means that a balanced encounter is potentially kind of easy or kind of tough depending on the character, but not off the scale.
Note that there are other problems with this fix in my opinion, and there are other benefits to the way 3E works. I really hope that Pathfinder does something to alleviate the increasing scaling that causes this problem, but I'm not sure how that can happen without damaging backwards compatibility.
|
|
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Do the Alpha revisions address these concerns?
His statement of opinion matters pretty little to me, as I almost never encountered the problems he mentioned. Experience comes first, opinions of designers second.
When the problems happened (the few times) in high level play (only), it was with a DM not familiar with the rules, who had not read the module, and was struggling to decipher the english text, so I don't think the problem came from the rules.
Perhaps, I am lucky enough to play with the best players in the world ?
who knows.
|
|
Someone asked what I meant about the kobold being a challenge to lvl 30 and a collosal dragon taken out by lvl 1... which is more entertaining and challenging and EXCITING to fight? A kobold or a collosal red dragon? I would say the dragon. So, to eliminate the sweet spot, a level 1 party must be able to defeat a collosal red dragon but it must remain a challenge to a lvl 30 (4E-lvls here since they claim there is no sweet spot) party. To eliminate that sweet spot the kobold, which is a challenge at level 1 must also be a challeneg to a level 30 party.I don't understand this at all. Yes, there should be exciting, level-appropriate creatures to fight at all levels. Why do all of those creatures need to be collossal red dragons? Or kobolds?
because I do not believe the "Sweet Spot" has anything to do with mechanics. It has to do with play. The Sweet Spot is where you face the iconic monsters, and do the iconic adventuring.
To eliminate the Sweet Spot, your iconic monsters must be able to provide a challenege to every single level. Not just kobolds at low levels and BIG Red at high. Kobolds must challenge every level and BIG Red must be defeatable at every level. Because some critters are just preferred over others. If preferred critters are available at a certain level range, then THAT is the Sweet Spot.
Mechanics have nothing to do with it. At low levels your enemies are as frail as you are. A lucky hit either way kills you. At high levels your enemies are as lethal as you are. A lucky hit or roll either way and it's over.
All levels require spell casters to manage their resources. Melee classes must watch their HP as well. So what spells are availabe is not an issue either. Playing high levels is not difficult if you played all the way up. You have had 20 levels to learn your abilities (which took our group over 2 years to do). If you can't remember what you can do in that time, there's no hope for you :)
As long as the iconic monsters and iconic events of adventuring are scaled for certain levels then there is a sweet spot. And fighting a baby red dragon is not the same as fighting BIG Red.
|
|
In Dragon #364, James Wyatt doesn't mince words about 3rd edition (and by extension, Pathfinder): Below level 5, characters are too fragile, and above level 12 they're too complicated.
I wonder if how this reflects on my group, who have always enjoyed this exact thing? What's wrong with proving yourself in the early stages and then seriously kicking tail after the legendary level 11 or 12? We love it!
If Pathfinder does some minor tweaking to make high level play a little easier to manage we won't complain, but we enjoy it as is now. Hmm.
-DM Jeff
At level 1...what happend to the cantrips, which have telling effect at level 1 and the bonus spell the caster almost certainly has. How about that crossbow or darts the spell caster is packing for times he has run out of spells?
At level 20, why is the fighter just standing there trying to look busy? She's a killing machine with some sweet magic items that has just been buffed up by her friend the wizard.
There are far wider range of playing stlyes and tactics offered in FRP than weak artillery with jr tank and later soon to be retired tank accompanying tac-nuke armed artillery.
Well, it sounds like you're mostly happy with how fights go from level 1 to 20, so the "sweet spot" for you would be the whole range, I suppose. There's nothing wrong with that, naturally.
|
|
At level 20, why is the fighter just standing there trying to look busy? She's a killing machine with some sweet magic items that has just been buffed up by her friend the wizard.
nooooo wizards don't buff... clerics buff. Wizards are selfish little brats who try to hog the scene all to themselves and have no sense morality nor ethics.
Oh wait that is my cleric class coming out again... sorry :)
|
|
Of the three major campaigns (ie running more than 2 years each) that we've run, I've noticed that each has imploded about level 12-15. This seems to be from attrition (only 1 original PC left of a group of 6), IRL disintigration of the gaming group (core of 3 players, the rest fade in and out), or DM boredom (game becomes bogged down as CR 12-20 NPC's take an hour or more to create and it takes an hour to run a 6 round encounter). The level "sweet spot" seems to hold true, but only the last reason seems to fit the pattern. Just throwing in my hat. ;)
What I did in my 3.5 campaign was start at lvl 2 and give everyone the 'toughness' feat free. That meant that worst come to worst a con 4 wizards still has 5 hitpoints not 2. And realistically would have about 9 or 10. It helps to avoid fudging things (not that fudging is bad) but you dont want people to feel like they are made from paper.
A solution to the problem would be to make everyone around level 10 and then all the advancement comes from items instead.
|
|
For those who may not remember when... characters used to attain 9th level and get the title of lord. Oftentimes, PCs would then settle down into a small barony or otherwise acquired parcel of land, and the game would make a shift from seeking adventure and acquiring power.... Back in the day, actually playing PCs from levels 14-20 was rare.
I have a couple of minor issues with this summary...the picky one is that only fighters became Lords at 9th level; IIRC, magic-users became Wizards at 11th level, and I can't remember the other class high-end titles.
OK, now that I've got that out of the way, I have to say that in my experience no one played that way. Yes, it was obvious that EGG's intent was to have characters retire somewhere in the L9-L12 range (and it's worth noting that in the original 3 books, magic spells topped out at 6th level, so a L11 magic-user didn't have much to look forward to with higher levels. IIRC, the fighter "to hit" table topped out at a similar point). Thing is, though, that in gaming (as in other places) the end user--the DMs and the players--are the ones who decide how the game is played, and in my experience the "encouragements" to retire fell by the wayside pretty quickly*. Incidentally, that was one of the things that bugged me about 1st Ed. AD&D--it seemed as though EGG was trying to push things in that direction, against the wishes of the player base, with spells that aged the caster & recipients (really, Haste ages you a year?); that, and his sermonizing on the sanctity of the RAW. Sorry, another old hot button.
In the Gygaxian traditions, one can see that the highest levels of play were reserved for major NPCs and epic heroes of great power and prestige.
That's something else that seriously bugged me about D&D and 1st Ed.--the idea that "the highest levels of play were reserved for major NPCs...." I tend to like a PC-centric gaming style, and even if the major NPCs set a very high standard, I prefer as a player to know that there's a way to meet and exceed that standard.
*Of course, at the time I was gaming with a fellow who'd moved from California to the Midwest, carrying a copy of the Arduin Grimoire with him. I sometimes wonder what Dave Hargrave would be doing these days, had he survived...
At level 20, why is the fighter just standing there trying to look busy? She's a killing machine with some sweet magic items that has just been buffed up by her friend the wizard.nooooo wizards don't buff... clerics buff. Wizards are selfish little brats who try to hog the scene all to themselves and have no sense morality nor ethics.
Oh wait that is my cleric class coming out again... sorry :)
Seriously, the smart high-level wizard starts throwing around save-or-die spells in standard 3.5. At 20th level, they start throwing around Wail of the Banshee. With options like that, buffing the fighter is a sub-optimal tactical choice.
At high levels, more than ever, IMO, the physical fights aren't the core of the game. In a way, it's the final stage of the evolution:
* At low levels, physical combat is extremely dangerous
* At mid levels, physical combat is about average
* At high levels, physical combat becomes trivialPersonally, that's how it *should* shake out, IMO. When your characters have killed dragons, physical combat *should* gradually become a trivial nuisance to them. It's a different type of game. And if your DM is old school dungeon crawl, and if part of the gaming group prefers hack and slash (and are dissatisfied with how trivial that part of the game is becoming to them) maybe it's time to start a new party at lower levels?
IMO, high levels provide the most interesting stuff for the type of player who prefers complex moral choices, heavy plot with deceptions and counter-deceptions, and all kinds of problems that can't be solved with a +5 longsword.
I think there are three options:
* the gaming group adapts to that style of play if they want something different than before
* the gaming group starts a new game at lower levels if they don't want to explore a different gaming style
* the gaming group will be dissatisfiedPick one. :)
The problem is that if WotC wanted to design such a system, they should have included more specific rules for non-combat XP and other advice on how to run such adventures. Instead, they acted like 3.x was going to be all about dungeon crawling from levels 1-20.
I have not chosen to purchase the 4th edition books, instead choosing to spend my hard earned money on Paizo products. Therefore, please enlighten me about how 4th edition streamlines the sweet spot. To me higher level requires more time to create a character(or NPC), more choices for said character (magical or special abilities), and more magic items to add to the character. While some headway can be made regarding these issues, I find it difficult to see how 1st to 30th level can have an even sweet spot as suggested by Mr Wyatt. I am just a bit skepical.
|
|
Thanks Charlie for expressing what I think on these issues as well. Key points,
I would contend that the "sweet spot" issue that is often brought up is not a reflection of the math not working right in D&D, but rather the fact that all levels are not intended to play the same. .. I don't think that older editions of the game are meant to play the same at all levels.
The whole joy of playing low level (1-4) PC, especially casters, is to steer these fragile creatures against misfortune. The whole joy of DMing such campaigns comes from designing challenges for such creatures - see for instance James Jacob's comment on the goblin's "campaign role" in Classic Monsters Revisited. A 4E-adherent could term this "winging the game experience to an inferior mechanics" but I'd say I enjoy that game experience.
As for 4E's "revolutionary" step to enhance low level PC, well it's one of the first things the HackMaster team altered when redesigning AD&D 1st edition. All monsters and PC get a hit point boost by 20, combat matrices then are spelled out in terms of hit die/dice, and all runs smoothly and fairly. As I said, personally I enjoy playing low levels without a safety net. The accomplishment of bringing a caster to higher levels, of a paladin surviving early challenges he can't flee - these are the game's tropes and to wipe them out for reasons of a misunderstood game mechanics is simply anachronistic. It's to cater for people who never cared for such tropes. How convenient that they now have a whole game to themselves.
High level campaigns is something else entirely. DMing them in 3.5 requires more effort than the game experience rewards.
The problem is that if WotC wanted to design such a system, they should have included more specific rules for non-combat XP and other advice on how to run such adventures. Instead, they acted like 3.x was going to be all about dungeon crawling from levels 1-20.
Bingo. The reason 4th edition is so great for WotC is that it's the first version of D&D where the system is designed to be played as they (and presumably the majority of their players) want it to be.
3rd edition cleaned up a lot of the fiddly bits of earlier AD&D, but it was still largely based on the core assumptions that drove those older versions. WotC's products, on the other hand, were often counter to the way the system was built. Many of the perceived flaws of the system are a result of the system not matching what those gamers prefer.
A lot of it depends on perspective. I don't think the math of 3rd edition is broken. It just encourages a different style of game than what WotC tried to promote through their products. 4th edition, by contrast, seems to have solid math to them because D&D is finally meshing with the tone of the adventures and supplements they plan on putting out.
|
|
High level campaigns is something else entirely. DMing them in 3.5 requires more effort than the game experience rewards.
Agreed, I think we need to all brainstorm to fix this. I feel dumbing down the game to the essence of a level 1 Epic Lord of the Land would be the way to go.
Dumbing it down removes the complexity and headache we currently have. I think trading in 3 Regular Feats for one Epic Feat would be a good example. The power of the player is not lost, just the mathematics in figuring how it get's there. This would also free up the DM to create an encounter faster.
I also prefer that the PCs follow suit with their classes such as owning a castle, building a temple to their God, or becoming a master of a monastery. In the bard's case, starting a theatre troupe. Something that is more Epic and real.
I just hate the idea of a bunch of 20th+ Level Guys holding up in a tavern with all their treasure in bags of holding waiting for the the next collosal dragon to slay.
Epic games should feel more epic but not have rules that give Epic headaches to encounters and speed of play.
The game must move as fast as a 7th level encounter with minimal refrencing. DM's should be able to create encounters for epic play with minimal time as they could with 7th level encounters.
I think rewriting the system entirely would be ok by me, because invalidating that part of my library of "the world's most popular roleplaying game" would be absolutely no loss. I would welcome a Paizo initiative to create an in house Epic Game System that doesn't follow the cumulatively complicated path that we now have.
My advice, dumb it down! Why is 7th Level a sweet spot, because it is easy to play and enjoy. The DM can make adventures fairly quick, the relationship of power between the characters is fairly distributed. The Epic system should use that as the model.
I am sorry to say, but the Epic system takes way to much into account. Here's an example, there is a 20th level party. They have all their magic items, all their spells, they have all those feats as well as a massive list of circumstantial abilities. The PC's know their combos well as they know how to muster their cumulative power. The DM on the otherhand is looking at these guys like a UFO. The DM has to backward engineer it to get a semblance of a challenge, then create like 4 more, and then run them all like a veteran player. Its like taking on 4 minds with just your one, and then the preperation is mindboggling. You over power (b/c you are afraid you can't challenge the party) and you just might kill everyone. You under power (and hours of work go down the drain in a period of just a few minutes) and you hear the jeering of the PC's saying they thought the encouter would be more fun than that.
Another example is like having a PC collect a +1 Sowrd here and there. At 14th Level the PC can attack with (9) +1 Swords. Why not smelt them down and give him a +9 sword and be done with it (instead of chasing down all these +1 swords that add up to +9).
I am sure there are those that will defend the epic system and all its nuances, but I rather adventure than become a statician. I also would like to adventure in an Epic Story that has an Epic feel. Out of all the things that can be changed, I think you all can change this one to your heart's content. It is useless and completely close to feeling like real life work. I believe if this part of the game could be fixed, there would be a whole other gendre that has never been very well explored in Roleplaying.
Cheers,
Zuxius
After 12th level, you get into a different problem, which is that the variance is too wide and the results are too reliable. A spell with a will save that even remotely challenges the party wizard defeats the fighter pretty much every time. This also corresponds with an increase in the number of save or die and save or lose effects. It becomes impossible to build a balanced encounter that has any kind of interesting effects, because an effect that is balanced for one PC is either a cake walk or an autokill for someone else in the party.
I hear stuff like this, especially with regard to the skill system, but I don't seem to get what the problem is here. Sure, by 12th level there can be a pretty fair gap between party characters (depending on builds) so that against a particular bad guy, one PC might usually be able to hit while others have only a reasonable chance to hit, and same thing with saves, one character might reliable save against certain spells but others will have a harder time. Isn't that the point of playing different types of characters? Do you think it would be a good thing if all the characters were equally killable by a cloudkill? Isn't half the strategy of being a spellcaster in combat, good or bad, having a sense of what your targets might be resistant to and choosing other things?
If you're saying that the gap is too wide, isn't that a problem of DM monster selection or PC action selection? Sure, in a big fight everyone should have something to do, but it doesn't mean that everyone has to be able to do everything everyone else is doing. So, maybe certain PCs are better suited to dealing with the BBEG's minions and others are particularly suited to dealing with the BBEG. Its the PCs' job to figure that out. On the other hand, against a particular BBEG, maybe only one or two PCs can get into melee because they have a reasonable chance at hitting and not getting hit, but then the rogue hides and uses spring attack, flanking, and sneak attack to get her licks in, and the druid summons something that's got a high enough BAB to hit but will probably not be able to take much damage, but that in turn of course helps the other fighters.
In other words, the gap issue only seems to be a problem to me when people on the low end of the gap are either being forced or forcing themselves to do the thing that the gap represents.
|
Contributor
|
The point isn't really as much about PC action selection, which can be a factor, but that's up to the PCs. It is about monster selection, but the point is that it is difficult and limiting trying to find monsters that will present a challenge to some of the party and not be too tough or too weak for the rest of the party.
And the bigger problem is enemy spell effects and choices. No cloudkill should not be equally effective all around, but if it's tough enough to be a threat to the fighter, it will pretty much autokill the wizard. Likewise will save effects that are tough enough to be a threat at all to the wizard are going to nail the fighter every time.
A more balanced system would allow the fighter to have a tough but attainable challenge while the the wizard has a lesser but still legitimate challenge.
I'm not saying the DM can't cope with it one way or another, but the rules themselves don't cope with this problem, and that is what the original comments were referring too, and whether you like the solution or not, 4E dealt with this issue. I'd personally be happier if Pathfinder dealt with it as well, it would mean less adjustment work for me when I run premade adventures.
The problem with "the sweet spot" is that it is entirely arbitrary in nature.
Some campaigns start at level 3.
Some at level 1.
Some people prefer knowing death waits behind every orc javelin and for them, that is fun and exciting. the Sweet Spot.
Some people prefer to be a little more powerful. Able to stare down a King, knowing his head is on a platter if you want it (which you don't, since you are Good.. but you *could*.. and that makes a difference..) Knowing when you hear tales of a dragon on the countryside that you have at least a small chance of success. That's the sweet spot.
Others prefer being able to scry/teleport to their destinations, to cast Find the Path and fly over virgin forests "hunting" for the object of their quest, then teleporting back to where they started to begin the hunt anew. The sweet spot.
Still others prefer to leave the Material Plane behind completely, to take the fight to the Fiends and Devils themselves. To become a major power in the Bloodwar where both sides equally try to get the PC's on their side while being loathed to meet them in battle. The sweet spot.
The problem is that the sweet spot is at a different "spot" for each person. It's akin to trying to design the perfect back scratcher for that "one spot" despite the fact that everyone's one spot is in a slightly different place. By taking a heavy mallet and beating the game until it's in one shape or another you are by the very nature of it excluding the other options.
4.0 sounds awesome for folks wanting to dungeon crawl for 20 levels.
What options for folks who want to see the light of day? To planar travel? To go to Sigil and kick the crap out of some unsuspecting Dustman or some such?
Not every campaign is the same and not every group has the same "sweet spot".
-S
|
|
I contend that there is a whole diferent issue at play here than a 'sweet spot'. This more an issue with Gaming in our miodern and fast paced environment and DM training.
Here's how I see it...
A game group gets together and creates a group of first level characters that are fairly limited in scope....Most 'new DM's' want to rush a character to where they can throw things at them that are fun to 'run'....instead of taking the time for character develpoment and gritty adventures....Also risk of character death is higher at these levels, and no player wants to spend an hour creating a memorable character with personality to see him drop with an orc spear thrust...
So little thought is put into creating low level characters because the risk is so high. If the players feel comfortable they will be allowed to survive then i find more thought goes into the character and more enjoyment follows.
Now we get to the mid levels...as has been stated, these are the levels where dungeon crawling is the funnest and adventures are EASY TO CREATE and EASY TO FIND IN PRINT. Our lives are so fast paced and busy, many DM's do not have the time to sit down to create modules or scenarios...that have the twists and turns neccessary for interesting play. Room by room combat is the quickest and easiest to whip together.
Hell in my heyday I could whip out a dungeon in under a half hour that was both rife with roleplaying and fun/challenging.
By now this group that got together is either running into situations where its hard to continue getting together (our modern/fast paced lives cause things to change frequently) or they are getting bored of dungeon crawls...and of course character complexity plays a small part...but I challenge, its not so much the complexity of the character...but the lack of complexity in the adventures...How many times can you say I swing my sword at the Giant before you begin to yawn.
The high levels need complex puzzles and mysteries, In depth Villains and villainous organizations, Plane Hopping, world shaking events, Grand schemes, Lands to conquer, thrones to seize. temples to run...The game evolves...and because few DM's EVER run these kind of adventures,...the talk turns to 'lets start a new adventure' instead of What do your characters want to accomplish in their career?
and Lord help you if you try to find High level aedventures....
Ive successfully ran many high level parties...and they can be a blast...but you have to be PREPARED!!!! beyond measure. Because the party can go anywhere in the blink of an eye and accomplish small goals quickly and efficiently.
The challenge I think, and what will make the game challenging at high levels for a game company...is to 'CREATE HIGH LEVEL ADVENTURE PATHS'
(shameless nudge there).
So the issues as I see them arent an inadequacy in the game system, but an inadequacy in time and training...
my 2 cents
Dread
|
Contributor
|
I just want to add that I agree with most of the other reasons that people have listed as to the reason for the "sweet spot" and I'm willing to bet that James Wyatt would too. His (and my) contention is that among the things that happen in the sweet spot and outside of it, is this additional factor, related to how the numbers interact with each other. I would even go so far as to say that many of the other 'sweet spot' factors have a bigger impact on creating it, but the math balance issue is still a valid issue.
|
|
In Dragon #364, James Wyatt doesn't mince words about 3rd edition (and by extension, Pathfinder):
"One of our goals in designing 4th Edition was to extend the "sweet spot" across all 30 levels of play. There's a general sense among 3rd Edition players that the game hits a sweet spot around level 5 and stays good up to level 12 or so. Below level 5, characters are too fragile, and above level 12 they're too complicated. But I contend that another reason for that sweet spot is that, utterly by coincidence, that's the range of levels where a mostly arbitrary system of damage, hit points, and attack and saving throw numbers align to make the game work reasonably well."
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Do the Alpha revisions address these concerns?
I think he chose a very poor word:
Arbitary
Adjective
1. based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles
I guess he feels like gratuitously insulting everyone who worked on the design of D&D, from the very beginning up to and including 3.5. That he is one of those people is . . . intriguing. Perhaps he means that all of his contributions to the design before 4E were arbitrary. If so, I would have to question the decisions behind his contributions to 4E. That still leaves a blunt assertion that previous designers worked without reason or principle behind their design. Why he would think that is in any way a reasonable comment is beyond me.
But let us assume that everything he did contribute to 4E is based on objective facts, and that he is only saying that previous design was not based on objective facts. He still has to explain away how the initial design, done by people with experience in writing miniatures wargame rules, was somehow not based on objective facts, and of course he must absolutely define the objective facts behind the design of 4E.
And let us be clear, objective facts do not include such vague things as saying there are design traps in character design, alignment is confusing, or that some classes are not fun to play at certain levels. Those are all purely subjective. For this he must define an absolute mathematical equation behind every single aspect of 4E design that he is claiming is not arbitrary. I would be most interested in seeing that! Particularly given the rather obvious issues of damage scaling versus hit points. What is the baseline for how often you should hit, the average damage you should do, how long a combat should take, and so forth. And, given the overt statement that a minion will only take one hit, and that hit should represent one-fourth of the attacks required to kill a normal creature of that level, he is going to have to do some serious explaining for that! Picking a nice high level, a dragonborn champion is a 26th level soldier with 239 hit points. A lich vestige is a 26th level minion. A hit at 26th level should deal an average of 60 points of damage, assuming you hit half the time, and need only 8 attacks to kill it compared to 2 to kill the lich vestige. If attacks are doing less, then there is something wrong with the objective facts.
Perhaps before considering whether the PFRPG needs to address these concerns he should demonstrate just how 4E actually addressed these concerns, as opposed to just replacing arbitrary stress points with other arbitrary stress points based on an arbitraraliy chosen mathematical model that was not properly tested to prove it objectively achieves all of the intended design goals.