I'm currently playing and enjoying 4th ed but feel alienated from the WoTC boards. It seems like they've become very anti 3.5 over there and several other longtime poster iI respect there seem to more or less have disappeared (my join date was April 2001). I really like 3rd ed ition as a whole although most of my games crashed an burned around level 11 dur to high level games kinda sucking. If Paizo can fix high level play I may return to Pathfinder instead of 4th ed. The one thing 4th ed done brilliantly IMHO is make the DMs job alot easier than 3.5.
I'm the DM. Although I like 4th ed its not exactly perfect s the classes are a bit bland. I'm kinda sitting on the fence about playing Pathfinder but will likely at least buuy it. I thought Dungeon was the best it had ever been under Paizo or at least the best it had been since the late 90's. Dragon ws going downhill a bit but that was more due to it being around at the end of 3.5.
To many pro and anti 4th ed people at the boards over at WoTc and I don't really feel welcome there anymore- for the 1st time in 7 years.
Welcome Zardnaar!
I have the same hope. Right now I won't play above 10th and I'm the DM.
I anticipate that one of my betters will confirm or disconfirm this: Simplifying higher level play is one of the goals of PFRPG, and I recall Lisa Stevens posting her displeasure over high level mechanics somewhere which by itself tells me that Jason is certainly taking this seriously.
But again, from me that's heresay - someone who is following PFRPG developments a little more closely can probably give a more veracious account of what's planned for higher levels. Or maybe one of the Paizo overlords will pop in and straighten me out.
Hello Zardnaar, and welcome to the boards.
Streamlining high-level play is indeed one of the things that Paizo want to accomplish before the official release of Pathfinder RPG. Since it's an open playtest, and the rules for Pathfinder RPG Beta will be available as a free downloadable PDF after GenCon (the alpha version is already available) my advice is to download them so you can participate. The more people that participate and post their feedback and ideas in the playtest boards the likelier it is that the final version of the rules will solve the major problems with 3.5.
Don't feel alone Zardnaar!
I too am a fan of 4E and Pathfinder (along with many other game systems and settings). I was the DM for our 3.5E/Pathfinder hybrid group until recently when I got burned out on running it (made it to 8th level). I'm excited to see what Paizo does in the beta rules for Pathfinder and, at the same time, I'm really enjoying what I'm reading in the 4E core rulebooks and I hope to get the chance to run it.
I agree though that on most messageboards, it feels that if you say one positive thing about either of the above games, the fans of the other immediately perceive that as an attack on them or their favorite game. It's weird that I've only ever seen it with these games though. Nobody is upset if you like True20, d20 Modern or something else derivate of D&D 3.5. I guess it just speaks to the passion that many fans have for the old warhorse of the hobby.
|
Don't feel alone Zardnaar!
I too am a fan of 4E and Pathfinder (along with many other game systems and settings). I was the DM for our 3.5E/Pathfinder hybrid group until recently when I got burned out on running it (made it to 8th level). I'm excited to see what Paizo does in the beta rules for Pathfinder and, at the same time, I'm really enjoying what I'm reading in the 4E core rulebooks and I hope to get the chance to run it.
I agree though that on most messageboards, it feels that if you say one positive thing about either of the above games, the fans of the other immediately perceive that as an attack on them or their favorite game. It's weird that I've only ever seen it with these games though. Nobody is upset if you like True20, d20 Modern or something else derivate of D&D 3.5. I guess it just speaks to the passion that many fans have for the old warhorse of the hobby.
How dare you even mention True 20, d20 Modern or something else derivate of D&D 3.5 on here! You %#*$ #%*@% (#(^#
feel better :)
Hiya Zardnaar :)
CEO
|
Simplifying higher level play is one of the goals of PFRPG, and I recall Lisa Stevens posting her displeasure over high level mechanics somewhere which by itself tells me that Jason is certainly taking this seriously.
Absolutely! I really hate high-level play in 3.5 and will push Jason and the rest of the team to try to fix this problem. Since it isn't an easy problem, I am guessing it is going to take the combined might of all the Beta playtesters and lots of caffeine and brainstorming in the coming months, but I feel confident that we will make high-level play much more palatable.
-Lisa
Welcome to the MBs. I'm like you - I enjoy 4E and play both 3.5 and 4E. I'm a fan of Paizo. And even though my group is migrating to 4E, I'm still planning on running the Pathfinder series and I already own a lot of their gaming aids.
So in essence, I may not be playing PF, Paizo is still getting my cash to invest in making it a success.
And I'm definately tempted to go back to 3E if they simplify the DM's life and higher-level play. I'm happy with most of what they've done for lower-level play already.
|
I'm currently playing and enjoying 4th ed but feel alienated from the WoTC boards.
Welcome, Zardnaar. Your handle looks familiar. I think I've replied to a few of your posts here in the past.
Anyway, like you, I play 4E and enjoy it as well. Check out the 4E forum here when you have a chance. I also enjoy 3.x (currently in two such campaigns where I DM at least one game) and am a player in a Pathfinder RPG campaign (Curse of the Crimson Throne).
|
I am guessing it is going to take the combined might of all the Beta playtesters and lots of caffeine and brainstorming in the coming months, but I feel confident that we will make high-level play much more palatable.
Indeed, I keep thinking somewhere there's going to be a simplified, unified mechanical fix to high-level play that'll speed it up, make it easier to calculate things, and ease bookeeeping, like some magical rule we all just overlooked these past few years. We'll all have to work together to summon this bad boy.
-DM Jeff
Welcome, Zardnaar. Your handle looks familiar.
I think Zardnaar was in the Dark Sun forums, ne?
Then again, I may just be imagining things.
Indeed, I keep thinking somewhere there's going to be a simplified, unified mechanical fix to high-level play that'll speed it up, make it easier to calculate things, and ease bookeeeping, like some magical rule we all just overlooked these past few years.
It's the Flip system, published by the U.S. Mint.
...but feel alienated from the WoTC boards.
I also play in a 4e game and find it quite entertaining. The DM seems to have a fine time getting things together for the game, and I think his biggest difficulty is coming up with the next part of the story and not finding the rules!
I run a 3.5 game still and am planning on switching to PRPG Beta. Recently I had a question (strictly RP related) that I posted over on the WoTC boards. In the past I had found the "What's a DM to do?" board incredibly useful. After a few days i checked my post and found it to be full of fairly weak-kneed, bland ideas -- something that came as a shock. It is just one experience, but I totally agree with you about the alienation.
Hi Zardnaar! Welcome to the boards! Have some cookies!
*passes out the cookies*
I've been on the WoTC boards for years and I used to spend most of my time in the Dark Sun boards. I've posted here before. Paizo at least has forums that work. I used the same name there as well.
Simplifying higher level play is one of the goals of PFRPG, and I recall Lisa Stevens posting her displeasure over high level mechanics somewhere which by itself tells me that Jason is certainly taking this seriously.Absolutely! I really hate high-level play in 3.5 and will push Jason and the rest of the team to try to fix this problem. Since it isn't an easy problem, I am guessing it is going to take the combined might of all the Beta playtesters and lots of caffeine and brainstorming in the coming months, but I feel confident that we will make high-level play much more palatable.
-Lisa
Am I the only person in the world that didnt mind high level play?
Hehe
Ignatz
I never had much problem with it personally. I still haven't seen anyone identify what the problem is exactly.
|
|
Am I the only person in the world that didnt mind high level play?
Hehe
Ignatz
I didn't mind it. Of course, the last time I played high level in 3.5 was when I (and my other gaming buddies) was just starting out so I didn't do anything incredibly crazy with the epic system (my highest skill modifier, for example, was around 35 or 40 (we were playing level 29 characters)).
I can see it (high level play) becoming tedious with people that have characters with dozens of buffs on them and everything.
|
|
I didn't have a problem with high level play. However, creating NPCs was nightmarish, and some aspects of the game did break down.
- massive damage saves should scale - otherwise it becomes a 'roll a 1 and you die' - I solve it in my game by making the save DC 15 + 2 per 10 points above the massive damage threshhold
- Spellcraft to identify spells, Tumble, Concentration all become over-easy and should scale up in difficulty
- Poison and Disease become simplistic (solved in Pathfinder Alpha 3)
- Iterative attacks become tedious and ineffective by the 3rd attack - rather than have a feat, allow a combat option like fighting defensively, let's say 'Cautious Striking' - for every iterative attack that is forgone, all attacks gain a +2 to hit and +2 to damage - just my suggestion.
- AC is far outstripped by attack modifiers - this might be solved by Dodge scaling up, feats that chain up from Dodge, and such. The fighter's armor training is certainly a step in the right direction
Those are my thoughts ...
Hi Zardnaar,
I'm also a recent newcomer to the boards. I've always kind of avoided the WotC boards, but I've been an ENWorlder for years. At any rate, I feel that we've reached a point where D&D has forked. I'm in the 'I don't hate 4th edition, but I don't love it like I love 3rd edition' category. In my opinion, they should have fixed third edition rather than completely changed it for the new edition. I do appreciate the steps they took to make the DM's job easier, but that's more than offset by the lack of depth for characters. Besides, I know a few shortcuts that make the 3.5 DM's job preparing just as easy (I don't claim to have the answer to high level play).
At any rate, it's good to see another name around here. I hope you decide to stick around after you see how amazing the community is here and how the Pathfinder RPG is shaping up.
Maybe my group is strange, but in the long time I have been playing with them ( 9 years by now ), we have had six campaigns, which *all* went to level 20, and we never had those problems which Lisa mentioned ( too much buffs to keep track off, etc. ). Okay, strike the first of them, which was still 2nd edition. :P
Then again, I don´t have *real* power-players in my group, just some who know how to build their characters and select good spells, but no-one who absolutely min-maxes. Also, when I was beginning to DM back then, I normally just selected stock monsters from the MM's or did only stat the basic stuff for NPC', because I did notice the immense heaps of time one has to put to create fully statted and PrC'd NPCs. Keeping it simple cut back a lot on the prep time back then.
I´m changing that nowadays, but resources like the PHB2 help immensely with statting NPC's. Oh, well... after level 10 I want it this time to be a really different thing anyway, with the PCs getting a large city ( Laothkund in the Wizards Reach in the Forgotten Realms ) to rule, and more political stuff than just adventuring... who knows what will come out of that?
Limiting the number of buffs on a character should already help a lot with what frustrated Lisa so much in her own campaign, the real challenge, IMO, will be cutting down on prep time for the DM, balancing spells from level 7 - 9 and still keeping it backwards compatible.
When I´m on it, making the Monk less MAD susceptible would be my next high priority as a designer. ;) Sorry, nothing to do with the topic, but as someone who actively plays one in my second group ( or a variation of it, better said ), it is something which irks me to no end.
Small question...what does MAD stand for??? I have seen it a few times in posts now and I cannot get it's meaning using the context which it is used.
Multiple Ability Disorder, i.e. that your character requires multiple high ability scores to be effective. The paladin is the paragon of MAD.
|
Multiple Ability Dependency, or something similar. Referring to the fact that some classes are dependent on several stats to function so tend to be less powerful as one or more of those stats will have to take a hit for the others. Monks and Paladins being the worst offenders.
[EDIT] GAH! Beaten to it. :P
Multiple Ability Dependency, or something similar. Referring to the fact that some classes are dependent on several stats to function so tend to be less powerful as one or more of those stats will have to take a hit for the others. Monks and Paladins being the worst offenders.
[EDIT] GAH! Beaten to it. :P
The flip side to this is that such classes gain a greater benefit from the incredible ease in buffing stats. ie the costs to get an item to buff 4 stats by +2 is the same as buffing 1 by +4, but not every class will benefit much from buffing 4 stats
Multiple Ability Disorder, i.e. that your character requires multiple high ability scores to be effective. The paladin is the paragon of MAD.Not so much anymore in Pathfinder, as he now uses Charisma as his main attribute for spells, i.e. he only needs a good Strength, Constitution and Charisma to be really effective.
Monks still need Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom, leaving him the last class with real MAD.
|
|
Am I the only person in the world that didnt mind high level play?No, I don't mind it either and neither do my players. I do however feel for those that do have issues with it and as long as it doesn't invalidate my rules or vastly change how I game 3.5/Pathfinder then I'm on board.
-DM Jeff
We have a part time Epic game going now (by part time we only get to play once a month or so). Even higher teens on we never had a problem. Our GM in that game and I share the same thoughts on high level games. Why stat out the NPC? You, as a GM, know you want him to have X for saves, and does Y damage and has about Z HP. He might be able to do a few spells you are going to choose. So, why bother doing the rest. You know what is about right for the level. Believe me, for the 5 minutes he is on the table no one is ever going to know he has 12 ranks in Craft- Pottery. :)
At most we write down are the imporant stuff we will refer to again and again, AC, HP, Saves, Damage. Spells and abilities I'll wing for what feels right.
And teh game just flows along...