RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
(warning: very imho)
The way I see it, D&D lacks balancing mechanism of active defense against spell saves, spell effects, highly damaging criticals, super competent grapple users.
Here is why I think so: The higher level, the bigger difference between character strong sides (like spell save requirement) and weak sides (like save defense bonus). Once the difference passes 10 points, the chance to actually survive becomes nonexistent, since, in the best of traditions, opponents will target each other weaknesses while attempting to use their best attacks.
Fighter 20 (Elite Array, all advancements to Str): 20 Str, 13 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes; amulet of health +4, belt of giant strength +6, gloves of dexterity +4, headband of wisdom +4; Fort +16, Ref +11, Will +11 before taking into account the cloak of resistance +5
If people don't use the options available, is it the system's fault?
In addition, if we're talking 20th level wealth, there's the Stone of good luck and the pale green prism ioun stone that give a luck and competenece bonus on saves (as well as other things). With this sample character, that boosts his weak saves to +18, more than enough for most situations.
The Pathfinder version of Forcecage now has a save, so you don't have to worry about that particular spell any longer.
Didn't even catch that. Good stuff though! I was about the question the usefulness of it over resilient sphere, but it seems that spell has been removed.
I have mixed feelings about my favorite spells being taken away, but I know its for that best.
At any rate, it seems that the Pathfinder team already has high level play quirks like this in mind, so I'll vote for backwards compatibility, because I'd love to keep my Paladin a Pious Templar, and my Wizard an Ultimate Magus. =D
(warning: very imho)
The way I see it, D&D lacks balancing mechanism of active defense against spell saves, spell effects, highly damaging criticals, super competent grapple users.
Here is why I think so: The higher level, the bigger difference between character strong sides (like spell save requirement) and weak sides (like save defense bonus). Once the difference passes 10 points, the chance to actually survive becomes nonexistent, since, in the best of traditions, opponents will target each other weaknesses while attempting to use their best attacks.
Fighter 20 (Elite Array, all advancements to Str): 20 Str, 13 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes; amulet of health +4, belt of giant strength +6, gloves of dexterity +4, headband of wisdom +4; Fort +16, Ref +11, Will +11 before taking into account the cloak of resistance +5
If people don't use the options available, is it the system's fault?
For the record there is no longer an amulet of health nor gloves of dexterity under pathfinder. Im sure the same effect can be done with the belt and headband under Pathfinder.
|
It would be possible to say you keep the base saves from your first class, regardless of any later class you take (like class skills).
Has anyone actually tried this? How well does this work? It looks like a very interesting option, one that I might try. Then again, I should be more patient and see what PFRPG is going to do about these issues.
I tend to lose interest in D&D games after about 10th-12th level. Things get too swingy and encounter design becomes a real headache. Power level just tends to get out of control. I've accepted long ago that D&D was never really designed to play past "name level". 3E tried, but failed to correct this.
So for me, backwards compatibility is the higher priority. As far as I'm concerned "high level" stuff is there for making bad guys to challenge the players, not so much for the players to actually achieve that level of power.
|
lol maybe 3e was never meant to but both 1st and 2nd I had no problems in the 10 years of running games of high lvl like we have in 3e it seems, i ran games for 5 years in the 20+ and still had little problems with both keeping my players on the their toes and creating fast easy to run encounters that had my players talking about them for days after. as i said i am just getting into running 3e games now and right now my low level party has really enjoyed my encounters, tested each of them to the max, and they sometime are surprised they win(and so am i heh). its a shame that it looks like a design flaw of 3e is the death of high lvl play. Saying that some ppl dont have a problem with it so i guess i will find out what problems there are when we reach them as a group. But i do hope PF fixes these problems so many ppl seem to have with high lvl play cause i love running 15+ lvl games and playing in them. There nothing like fighting off a horde of demons at 18th lvl with your adventuring friends of many years, i hope 3e does not take this away from me....I tend to lose interest in D&D games after about 10th-12th level. Things get too swingy and encounter design becomes a real headache. Power level just tends to get out of control. I've accepted long ago that D&D was never really designed to play past "name level". 3E tried, but failed to correct this.
So for me, backwards compatibility is the higher priority. As far as I'm concerned "high level" stuff is there for making bad guys to challenge the players, not so much for the players to actually achieve that level of power.
It's not that it's impossible to run enjoyable games at high level in 3.0/3.5. You just have to be prepared to put more work into encounter design, if you build encounters yourself and expect significant encounters to take 3 hours or so in real time to resolve. It's also important to realize that making challenging encounters becomes more difficult. It's harder to find that middle ground between TPK, and just a speed bump the PC's steamroll over. It's not impossible. I've run a campaign up to 18th level, and the players seemed to enjoy it a lot all the way through. There were some headaces, but in the end it was worth it. High level play does have a lot of issues. They aren't insurmountable, but they are more work than many people want to do just to play a game.
|
Which is more important to RPGers out there, keeping the game backwards compatible or ensuring high level play is improved?
I never really had problems with high level game play. I think it does ask for a good understanding of one's character sheet and a good organization though, as well as a fine tuning of the DM's knowledge of potential pitfalls at high levels (particularly in spell effects as they relate to adventure and campaign building, for instance).
I think all this can be resolved by a thorough explanation of high level game play, what to look for, what spells to know, what elements to take into account in building high level adventures, how to manage empowered characters, tips to keep track of all sorts of bonuses, boosts and the like. This is not really a rules problem.
I think it would necessitate a specific guide/handbook though (and no, I don't mean the kind of stupid "add to the pile" supplement the Epic Level Handbook was... this was a calamity in that regard. More of the same... but with more dice. Greatly Epic.../sarcasm).
So, in my mind, what really matters is backwards compatibility. Then, you add to the core what's never been there: the guidelines for DMs and Player to be able to handle high-level game play. Pathfinder RPG is in a position to do this.
|
As someone who's never gone higher than level 16 in an actual game, I don't have personal experience in the really high-level play (Well... Once someone tried to start a game at 21st level. It was nuts and ended after a few sessions.)
I think that having something fun to play is probably more important than compatibility -- That said, look for ways you can have both (like that other person's comment on changing 'swingy' spells in Pathfinder), and try to keep as much compatibility as possible though fun comes first.
That said, all the people decrying swift and immediate actions as 'troublesome' bother me. I _like_ those, they're an awesome idea, especially for those of us who play fighter-mage types. The only other way to make fighter-mage types viable is to cast a bunch of buffs on yourself pre-battle, which is both more combat bookkeeping and means you suck when you don't have time to prepare. Swift/immediate actions are your friend, keep them in! And for that matter, I hope they're trying to keep warrior-mage types viable in Pathfinder.