Obviously the ideal solution would be for both to be maintained but what if the only way to 'fix' high level play was to break compatibility with 3.5 would you say go-for-it or stick with the current game?
For example, if magic was drastically nerfed starting at 5th level to level the playing field a bit and some monsters were rewritten with that in mind. (Note this is an example not a suggestion)
Which is more important to RPGers out there, keeping the game backwards compatible or ensuring high level play is improved?
Personally I would say improving high level play is more important. In my opinion when it boils down to the idea that it's better to have a great game than it is to remain compatible with what is commonly acknowledged to be broken.
If you don't think high level play is broken then it's perfectly acceptable to say "Keep compatibility high level play is fine".
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm kind of half-and-half.
At some level, it's a false dichotomy, because "backwards-compatable" refers to the written stat blocks, while "fixing the problems" involves table play. You can change table play without changing the written stat block.
As I understand the problems, high-level play can get (a) very slow during combats, due to (a1) lots of options and (a2) in particular lots of swift and immediate action options; (b) swingy combats with lots of single-roll effects, making it hard to write adventures that are challenging but not lethal; and (c) casters making everything else irrelevant.
So, how should Pathfinder be "backwards-compatable"?
A) None of the core SRD spells, or Pathfinder spells, are swift or immediate actions. Pathfinder can eliminate these and it will only affect compatability with non-SRD spells and class features. And I'm pretty sure that Pathfinder isn't trying to be compatable with every line of every 3.5 sourcebook.
B) A lot of the Pathfinder versions of single-roll spells have that mechanic changed. So a 3.5 stat block can reference a spell that's "swingier" in 3.5 than Pathfinder. Still "backwards-compatable", because Pathfinder and 3.5 can still use the same stat block transparently, but the problem is fixed in Pathfiner's interpretation of that stat block.
C) Will Pathfinder have beefed up the warrior classes enough to provide some real participation at high levels? We'll wait and see.
You can change table play without changing the written stat block.
Fix high level play.
Chris Mortika is right, If the spell names are the same (or similar enough) then it's a small matter to just look up all the spells in pathfinder.
There are some things you can fix without hurting backward compatibility, and spells are one of these things.
Fix high-level play. By August 2009, backwards compatibility will (and should) drop a notch or two on the design goal list, IMO.
I'm kind of half-and-half.
At some level, it's a false dichotomy, because "backwards-compatable" refers to the written stat blocks, while "fixing the problems" involves table play. You can change table play without changing the written stat block.
Well it is indeed a false dichotomy for more than one reason. First, it assumes that one must be sacrificed for the other which is not necessarily true. The intent of my question is to focus more on what people's priorities are.
A) None of the core SRD spells, or Pathfinder spells, are swift or immediate actions. Pathfinder can eliminate these and it will only affect compatability with non-SRD spells and class features. And I'm pretty sure that Pathfinder isn't trying to be compatable with every line of every 3.5 sourcebook.
I really like swift and immediate actions though. In particular it's nice for martial-casters like the ranger, paladin, and psychic warriors to be able to cast a spell that affects an attack in the same round. Also, spells like time stop which enable even further spell expansion during a single round.
That said, I wouldn't gripe (too much) if a one spell per round rule were adopted. Or perhaps a 9 levels worth of spells per round (so a quickened 1st level plus a 4th level spell would be ok).
B) A lot of the Pathfinder versions of single-roll spells have that mechanic changed. So a 3.5 stat block can reference a spell that's "swingier" in 3.5 than Pathfinder. Still "backwards-compatable", because Pathfinder and 3.5 can still use the same stat block transparently, but the problem is fixed in Pathfiner's interpretation of that stat block.
This is a really good point.
C) Will Pathfinder have beefed up the warrior classes enough to provide some real participation at high levels? We'll wait and see.
I'm not sure this would work. It seems to me that having super powered fighters would only make the combats even shorter and swingier. How about moving thing the other way and nerfing the high level casters a bit. Fagh... I don't want to debate specifics, I was just trying to get a general feel for where everyone else's priorities were.
Someone has to dissent so it might as well be me. I feel I can manage combats well enough at high levels to thwart anything the PCs might come up with. I would rather see my collection of books stay more relevant over the long run.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
C) Will Pathfinder have beefed up the warrior classes enough to provide some real participation at high levels? We'll wait and see.
How about moving thing the other way and nerfing the high level casters a bit?
Given the Alpha documents, I feel confident in saying that the Pathfinder team isn't interested in lowering the power of any class.
Fix high level play. By definition, mods in the levels 15-20 range are going to affect the least gamers and the ones that would be affected are unlikely to change rules on their characters after so long. Hence, fixing high level play has minimal costs and possible gains by making it more playable to more people.
Given the Alpha documents, I feel confident in saying that the Pathfinder team isn't interested in lowering the power of any class.
Hmmm, Druid? Plus I've seen some nerfage of individual spells. Polymorph for starters. You can keep the classes the same but nerf them simply by changing the spell lists and spell effects. In general though I would have to agree with you.
|
Given the Alpha documents, I feel confident in saying that the Pathfinder team isn't interested in lowering the power of any class.Hmmm, Druid? Plus I've seen some nerfage of individual spells. Polymorph for starters. You can keep the classes the same but nerf them simply by changing the spell lists and spell effects. In general though I would have to agree with you.
Clerics have gotten nerfed as well, at least in terms of doing anything but healing, thanks to the domain changes. Now Channel Energy has increased their healing flexibility, but it's their other abilities in and out of combat that have been somewhat decreased. And of course the spell changes have greatly nerfed them as well, though not beyond what I would call an unreasonable degree. CoDzilla needed taking down a notch or two.
Reverse compatibility is the priority now. I do not mean 'no changes'. I mean reasonable changes that a DM can figure in his head. Similar to 3.0 to 3.5 but even more aggressive. 3.5 fixed broken components of 3.0. PfRPG needs to go beyond just fixing the broken stuff.
In order, I think PfRPG should concentrate on; Reverse Compatibility, Aligning similar systems with 4e and Fixing High Level Play.
1- Reverse Compatibility. They need to pacify the 3.5 community and demostrate that 3.5 can be improved. We have lots of things that can be made better.
2- Aligning similar systems with 4e. Long term Paizo needs to bring in players from the 4e base. The natural progression in complexity seems to be; DDM, 4e, PfRPG. Build on this and make as many systems similar as possible. The best example I can give of this is movement. Use the 4e Standard Action, Movement Action, Minor Action system. PfRPG will still use 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement versus 4e 1-1-1 diagonal movment. Another example is area of effect. PfRPG uses cones instead of 4e square bursts for areas of effect. But why not make PfRPG cones not produce AoOs? Make it as easy as possible to upgrade to PfRPg without re-learning everything by compromising on the stuff that we don't care about.
3- Fixing High Level Play. We are still trying to find the problem. We have too many solutions to go in one direction. I am personally in favor of optional rules that will make high level play easier. But even now the Beta is making advances to make high level play better. This should be a focus of the Beta playtesting however.
|
Obviously the ideal solution would be for both to be maintained but what if the only way to 'fix' high level play was to break compatibility with 3.5 would you say go-for-it or stick with the current game?
If you don't think high level play is broken then it's perfectly acceptable to say "Keep compatibility high level play is fine".
I would say keep "compatibility high level play is fine", if it meant nerfing backwards compatability.
-DM Jeff
In principle, I'd say fixing high level of play should be more important than backward compatibility (especially since so many publishers avoid high level material, including Paizo). However, in practice, I don't really have many problems with high level play, so I don't see a lot to fix.
But in the more greedy sense, if Paizo makes deeper changes to "fix" high level play in their minds, and consequently start writing adventures for levels over 15, then I'm 100% all for that. :)
I agree that writing for high level is a pain. DMing for high level, especially for someone like me who is willing to fudge a little for fun's sake, isn't much more difficult than any other level.
Aligning similar systems with 4e
I just don't see this as a concern. If 4e has some good mechanics that make sense to implement then great, lets 'borrow' it. Doing something merely to make PfRPG more 4e like? No F*ing way. Lets just focus on making Pathfinder better.
I would say keep "compatibility high level play is fine", if it meant nerfing backwards compatability.
Ok, Jeff, and anyone else with this POV. What changes would be too over the top? One thing I've noticed is a lot of things people seem upset about at high level play are things that were introduced outside of core, Swift and Immediate actions are one thing. Persistent spell, night sticks are another abuse I've heard about. Much of the druid abuses have been nipped in the bud, druid is still tough but not druidzilla anymore.
So what is a sacred cow of high level compatibility? I'm thinking that one of the big issues with high level play is a lot of the spells, if the spells are tamed down would you still consider that breaking backwards compatability?
What about time stop, can we seriously nerf time stop? Maybe just drop it altogether or have it stop the instant you cast a combat spell.
|
|
I would say, fixing high level play is more important than backwards compatibility. The problem is that if players start to get burnt out on games around 12th-15th level or DMs without a lot of spare time, like myself, can't easily throw together a high level adventure; then all the backwards compatibility at that stage is worthless because it never gets used by most people. The challenge that 4th edition tried to take on is to keep the game fresh and exciting at all levels of play. I personally don't think they succeeded, but if Pathfinder can do that then they will have a product that nearly every one wants to play and be a part of.
|
|
What about time stop, can we seriously nerf time stop? Maybe just drop it altogether or have it stop the instant you cast a combat spell.
well, it's already part of the spell description that you cannot target others with your spells, and all other creatures are immune to your attacks and spells.
So needing the spell to end once you cast a combat spell is irrelevant since it wouldn't take effect anyways.
Use it for the 3 or 4 rounds to cast some prep on yourself, or escape, or summon something to help you - but you can't directly affect anyone until the spell ends.
No need to change it IMO.
Robert
BOTH!
:)
Hopefully this is possible. I merely meant this as a hypothetical exercise.
well, it's already part of the spell description that you cannot target others with your spells, and all other creatures are immune to your attacks and spells.
Shows how often I play high level games.
|
I'd like to recommend a controversial option:
Given that Paizo's adventure paths all run from 1st through 12th levels, and Pathfinder Society characters retire at 12th level, and Paizo's purpose in publishing PRPG is to support their highly popular adventures - why not publish PRPG core with character levels 1 through 12 only, and spend another year working on getting high-epic-levels smoothed out - an PRPG Advanced edition.
The PRPG is already bursting at the seams (couldn't fit all the spells in). Anyone playing higher than 12th-level isn't using Paizo's current line of adventures. 1 through 12 isn't as daunting a purchase for newbie gamers and could attract new players. Release PRPG core to support the levels most people currently play.
Anyone truly playing 12+ likely already has access to the PHB or EHB, or could play 1-12 for another 12 months until Paizo publish a truly awesome high level sourcebook.
Just a thought.
|
|
I'd like to recommend a controversial option:
Given that Paizo's adventure paths all run from 1st through 12th levels, and Pathfinder Society characters retire at 12th level, and Paizo's purpose in publishing PRPG is to support their highly popular adventures - why not publish PRPG core with character levels 1 through 12 only, and spend another year working on getting high-epic-levels smoothed out - an PRPG Advanced edition.
The PRPG is already bursting at the seams. Anyone playing higher than 12th-level isn't using Paizo's current line of adventures. 1 through 12 isn't as daunting a purchase for newbie gamers and could attract new players.
Anyone truly playing 12+ likely already has access to the PHB or EHB, or could play 1-12 for another 12 months until Paizo publish a truly awesome high level sourcebook.
Just a thought.
I am all for truly awesome. I think high level and epic should evolve into something beyond everyone's expectations. Maybe even playable?
|
|
I'd like to recommend a controversial option:
Given that Paizo's adventure paths all run from 1st through 12th levels, and Pathfinder Society characters retire at 12th level, and Paizo's purpose in publishing PRPG is to support their highly popular adventures - why not publish PRPG core with character levels 1 through 12 only, and spend another year working on getting high-epic-levels smoothed out - an PRPG Advanced edition.
The PRPG is already bursting at the seams. Anyone playing higher than 12th-level isn't using Paizo's current line of adventures. 1 through 12 isn't as daunting a purchase for newbie gamers and could attract new players.
Anyone truly playing 12+ likely already has access to the PHB or EHB, or could play 1-12 for another 12 months until Paizo publish a truly awesome high level sourcebook.
Just a thought.
I made the point when the Alpha was released of why did they even bother to have rules for character levels above 15th. Pathfinder cycles run up to 16th level or so (the last chapter of each series starts at level 14), but even the Paizonians themselves have little to no enthusiasm for higher (16+) level gaming, let alone the utter insanity that is Epic. The response was that the rules were there for backwards compatibility, even if they'll see little to no support in print.
If the choice is backwards compatibility OR high level play being manageable, fun, and still demonstrably different than lower-level play, then to the ninth circle of Hell with "compatibility". There's already a bit of work that has to be done with any 3.X adventure to use under PfRPG, with skills and feats (and more with the changes in equipment values, one of the sneaky little gotchas not many have noticed about 3.X-Pathfinder cross compatibility), so wholesale changes in higher level mechanics aren't really that much more to deal with, at least IMO.
I've DM'd both Shackled City and Age of Worms, the PCs each time ending up at low Epic levels (21-24) and I'm now trying to come up with things to actually challenge the PCs that defeated Kyuss... It's not easy at all, and takes so much prep time that I don't know how on Earth I can keep up with it if we actually gamed more than twice a month on average. Not saying that it's not fun or completely without reward, but it takes a long, long time to get ready.
|
|
I've DM'd both Shackled City and Age of Worms, the PCs each time ending up at low Epic levels (21-24) and I'm now trying to come up with things to actually challenge the PCs that defeated Kyuss... It's not easy at all, and takes so much prep time that I don't know how on Earth I can keep up with it if we actually gamed more than twice a month on average. Not saying that it's not fun or completely without reward, but it takes a long, long time to get ready.
I totaly understand this. You work hard at it like it was some movie production without any discernable understanding as to what the "talent" will do. Within 30 minutes of running the encounter that took a week and a half to create, you see the whole thing going down the tubes in one of two ways:
a).The PCs look at each other like they couldn't believe how easy it was.
or
b). TPK
Either one of the above is a big miss compared to finding that small hit that becomes ever more elusive the higher the PC levels get. I hope to God someone can come along and make High Level encounters simple and available to everyone who does not have the benefit of a PhD at D&D University or having worked for Paizo or WotC. The shear weight of options are nearly incalculable for running an NPC anti-party of "like PC characters" versus the actual PC characters (such as the good gang versus the bad gang).
Cheers,
Zuxius
|
|
I'd like to recommend a controversial option:
Given that Paizo's adventure paths all run from 1st through 12th levels, and Pathfinder Society characters retire at 12th level, and Paizo's purpose in publishing PRPG is to support their highly popular adventures - why not publish PRPG core with character levels 1 through 12 only, and spend another year working on getting high-epic-levels smoothed out - an PRPG Advanced edition.
The PRPG is already bursting at the seams (couldn't fit all the spells in). Anyone playing higher than 12th-level isn't using Paizo's current line of adventures. 1 through 12 isn't as daunting a purchase for newbie gamers and could attract new players. Release PRPG core to support the levels most people currently play.
Anyone truly playing 12+ likely already has access to the PHB or EHB, or could play 1-12 for another 12 months until Paizo publish a truly awesome high level sourcebook.
Just a thought.
I never even considered that, it's a neat idea though I'm liking it.
|
I'd like to recommend a controversial option:
Given that Paizo's adventure paths all run from 1st through 12th levels, and Pathfinder Society characters retire at 12th level, and Paizo's purpose in publishing PRPG is to support their highly popular adventures - why not publish PRPG core with character levels 1 through 12 only, and spend another year working on getting high-epic-levels smoothed out - an PRPG Advanced edition.
The PRPG is already bursting at the seams (couldn't fit all the spells in). Anyone playing higher than 12th-level isn't using Paizo's current line of adventures. 1 through 12 isn't as daunting a purchase for newbie gamers and could attract new players. Release PRPG core to support the levels most people currently play.
Anyone truly playing 12+ likely already has access to the PHB or EHB, or could play 1-12 for another 12 months until Paizo publish a truly awesome high level sourcebook.
Just a thought.
It is a neat idea - but the APs run you through to 16th - 18th level, I believe. :)
|
|
It is a neat idea - but the APs run you through to 16th - 18th level, I believe. :)
Umm ... you might be right :(
Pathfinder #6—Rise of the Runelords Chapter 6: "Spires of Xin-Shalast": For characters of 14th to 15th level.
I'm not sure where I got the 12th-level-cap impression from? Damn, and I thought I was onto something :(
|
|
It is a neat idea - but the APs run you through to 16th - 18th level, I believe. :)Umm ... you might be right :(
Pathfinder #6—Rise of the Runelords Chapter 6: "Spires of Xin-Shalast": For characters of 14th to 15th level.
The last issue of each cycle starts with 14th level PCs and ends at about 16th level.
|
|
This is kind of off topic, but if WotC had done their jobs in the first place, and actually play-tested high levels more than a few times, we might not be even having this conversation now. I guess it was more important to them to immediately start pumping out splatbooks and working on 4th edition than to make sure their game actually worked properly at "all" levels.
|
|
This is kind of off topic, but if WotC had done their jobs in the first place, and actually play-tested high levels more than a few times, we might not be even having this conversation now. I guess it was more important to them to immediately start pumping out splatbooks and working on 4th edition than to make sure their game actually worked properly at "all" levels.
Oh, come on. The 4e behind the scenes work didn't even begin until 2005. Now why they didn't playtest high-level 3.0 more or attempt to fix it in 3.5, though, those are valid complaints.
You might wonder why they gave us the Epic Level Handbook, too.
It is a neat idea - but the APs run you through to 16th - 18th level, I believe. :)Umm ... you might be right :(
Pathfinder #6—Rise of the Runelords Chapter 6: "Spires of Xin-Shalast": For characters of 14th to 15th level.
I'm not sure where I got the 12th-level-cap impression from? Damn, and I thought I was onto something :(
Well I think they could cap it at 15th level and still run all the existing material. That seems unlikely to happen though.
I think it's a great idea for a reboot but find it unlikely. For every one of us who say go for it there is likely a couple people lined up saying no way.
|
It is a neat idea - but the APs run you through to 16th - 18th level, I believe. :)Umm ... you might be right :(
Pathfinder #6—Rise of the Runelords Chapter 6: "Spires of Xin-Shalast": For characters of 14th to 15th level.
I'm not sure where I got the 12th-level-cap impression from? Damn, and I thought I was onto something :(
Well I think they could cap it at 15th level and still run all the existing material. That seems unlikely to happen though.
I think it's a great idea for a reboot but find it unlikely. For every one of us who say go for it there is likely a couple people lined up saying no way.
Yeah but it is a good idea anyway.
Unfortunately I don't see how to make high level play better without nerfing lower level play. The most common complaint is that high level is too complex with too many powers and options. These are all things that have been acquired over the levels. Short of reducing how many spells, and how many feats and abilities are gained, I don't see how high level is going to be fixed.
Though that is my priority too. I would like to see 3.P games run to level 40 and such... that would be awesome.
I'm for fixing high level play rather than going strictly for compatibility.
So here's a few thoughts.
First, iterative attacks. I've heard that many DMs hate them because they're worthless. The first -5 is manageable, but the odds get increasingly greater per roll that you're going to actually hit with your extra attacks. My solution to this is either drop it down to a 3 attack maximum, or reduce the penalty per successive iterative attacks to -3. So a level 20 fighter attack bonus would look like this: +20/+17/+14/+9.
Second, 15+ and epic level play. All the moving parts and epic level play being pretty much nuts seem to be the major problems. Let's say that a level 15 cap were to be implemented, you would completely lose access to all 9th level spells. Some people will be fine with this, but what about the game changing spells that you base campaigns on, like wish?
So here's my proposal. Advancement that affects combat effectively ends at level 15. Alternatively, you can slow down character progression so that levels 1 - 10 work the same as they always have, but by level 20, you are at the same power level as a normal 15th level character in 3.5 (actually I think this is my preferred option). For now, we'll refer to it as level 15 though.
Advancement continues, but the only real benefits that you get are an increase in hit points and access to what we'll call rituals. Rituals are currently 9th level spells, and none of them would be worth anything in combat (those that are are nerfed). These are the spells that explain why the dead animate as a natural occurrence in Geb unless you take steps before death to prevent that from happening, and how you can have entire dungeons where dimension door and teleport don't work, except for special exceptions reserved for the person who owns the place, and how to get enormous city sized chunks of land to float in the sky.
All classes would get some sort of non-combat advantage for post-15th level advancement, and a separate mechanic would be invented that probably involves the accumulation of points and the things these points can be spent on, such as political allies, army recruitment, etc.
The advantage to taking this route is that you still get to advance to a fairly high power level, but real advancement stops at the point where the game starts to mathematically break down. After that, your rewards are that you get to use your powers to significantly influence the world around you.
One advantage of this system is that it eliminates epic, but it allows for unending advancement.
A special path to godhood could also be added as a means of retiring characters on a high note.
Myself, I don't think it has to be "either/or" but if it came down to it I think i'd rather see gameplay improved, rather than to hold onto some belief that the game must be "backward compatible".
I'd rather have a superior product and have to do some reworking of old stuff, than to have bad (or mediocre) product just to save some time.
-S
I haven't had any problems with high level play.
I would rather have it be backwards compatible.
This fits my sentiments. Keeping out all the non-core garbage I was able to keep running my game through 30th level without trouble.
|
|
I'd love to see High Level Play improved. In the group i'm playing with now, one of the PCs have a few levels of a base class, and levels in two or three other classes, and his saves are ridiculous.
One of the main things for me, that need to be fixed for high level play, are the rate the characters saves improve when multiclassing.
|
|
This fits my sentiments. Keeping out all the non-core garbage I was able to keep running my game through 30th level without trouble.I haven't had any problems with high level play.
I would rather have it be backwards compatible.
If I were to keep out all the 'non-core garbage', I'd have a mutiny on my hands! Exactly how do you tell the players "Core Only!" without them beheading you?
If I were to keep out all the 'non-core garbage', I'd have a mutiny on my hands! Exactly how do you tell the players "Core Only!" without them beheading you?
Heh... yeah it's tough to tell people their $500+ library of books is worthless in your game. My group was all new players when I started and none of them have a big gaming budget. Even so one of them buys some new splat about once a month.
I think the only way to do it is make it clear before the game starts that you are doing core only. This is much tougher with an existing group.
I've been toying with the idea of letting players 'buy' non-core material. I'm not sure what the currency would be though. Perhaps spend a feat and you can open up a non-core class, 2 non-core feats, or 5 non-core spells. Obviously a total house rule but it's an interesting thought experiment.
If I were to keep out all the 'non-core garbage', I'd have a mutiny on my hands! Exactly how do you tell the players "Core Only!" without them beheading you?
Simple. Tell them that all non-core material must be approved before it's allowed into the game. If they present something that involves a quick, swift, or some other troublesome type of action, nuke it from orbit. There's a lot of non-core stuff that will work just fine. Also, since the power level of Pathfinder is a little higher than standard D&D, the later core classes that they released after power creep had taken hold should be about balanced.
Since Pathfinder isn't truly backwards compatible anyway (CRs are completely thrown off and stat blocks require heavy modification), high-level play is probably more important.
|
|
My vote goes for fix high level play....
but id like to point out, that high level play is and should be vastly diferent than games of mid to lower level. This is the biggest issue i see. Folks get used to playing a 'certain' type of game...but when characters get to what used to be 'titled levels' in 2ed and earlier...
Archmage, Lord, High Priest, Grand Master, Guildmaster, Great Druid...The game used to change...it went in the direction of 'finding components to make that ultra great magic item, or running a keep, or establishing a temple, or keeping order in your woods...
'dungeoning' pretty much came to a halt, except for the really rare high level death trap dungeons...
Why should 3.5 be any diferent...
There needs to be better guidleines on how to run a high level campaign..ive done it effectively in 2nd ed many times. and once in 3.5. Its tough. But the kind of game HAS to change to make it fun and challenging.
I think Paizo would be well served to creat one adventure path in maybe 5 that ran from 15th-20th.... Youd need that to put the neccessary materials in to make it challenging. Leveling up once per 'book'
my 2 cents.