|
An objective approach to all editions, to be sure. However, there should be more to the story on the whole "hate" thing. I can understand his distaste with the grappling rules and with the AC to CR problem.
But I don't think he can blame any one company, be it Paizo or Wizards, for implementing/creating the rules as they were. The author seemed to be quite favorable of Paizo and its works, and I didn't quite get the vibe that he "hated" 3e. There needed to be more venom in his writing for that to come across, and in its place there was a soft undertone of disappointment and annoyance.
Further, he wasn't fauning over 4th edition either, naming some of its possible faults as compared to previous editions. Certainly there are good points and bad points to all editions, and 3.x's was grappling and a few others.
More venom and anger next time, sir, and include a little more evidence as to the source of your hate.
Otherwise, relatively well put.
Honestly I agree with alot he says, as grappling in 3.x does kind of suck but can be fixed, rogues to tend to suck against 2/3 encounters but outshine the other 3rd, Bards seriously need a facelift, and ac and damage resistance doesnt really seem to factor into cr sometimes.... But I also agree 4E doesn't feel like a finished game, but more like a Beta, that looks promising. In the end though I chose to go back to 3.x and probably to 3.P as Paizo is doing some amazing things and I like 3.x enough that witha few tweaks it will be everything I want from D&D for now...
More venom and anger next time, sir, and include a little more evidence as to the source of your hate.
Strikes me as he's being facetious to a significant extent. Paizo is at fault because they made a campaign that was so cool that it meant I played the whole thing and therefore came across various issues with 3.5.
I think he makes some well articulated points about the differences and similarities in between the editions. He also makes perhaps the most convincing argument for me to include a grappling, enlarged dire bear in my game. Well argued, sir.
Hiya.
Like so many other players I talk to (or read from) nowadays, he's stuck in the mindset that 3e propagated: Damage, damage, damage. That's what everything boils down to in 3e. Oh sure, you have a lot of non-damage/combat type things, but I had yet to find one situation in any of the 3e games I played (over 2-3 year period) that couldn't be resolved with "I attack!". For example, look at the Bard. Everyone poo-poo's the bard in 3e. Why? Because it's a class that is NOT based on damage in any real meaningful way. The bard in 3e is what it is; a 'jack of all trades'. He can do a lot of things, but nothing expertly. Ergo, when the current situation, whatever it is, finally gets to the inevitable conclusion of "I attack!", the bard can help out, but isn't going to compare to the other guys simply because his skills are not 'combat based'. The same thing goes for wizards, rogues, etc. Wizards "run out of spells", and are 'useless' (mind you, 3e has a LOT to blame on this; they specifically singled out useful tactics for spells that were developed over the 1e/2e days and specifically mentioned that you can't do that now). Rogues are usually referred to as 'sucking' because they can't out-damage the professional fighter or that they 'suck' because if the opponent is an undead, for example, they can't use their backstab; ergo, their damage potential goes down and now they suddenly 'suck' or are somehow 'broken'.
But I digress. The bottom line is that this guy seems to think in terms of +X vs. +Y, and not in the overall place of each class, race, or even rule in the context of an ongoing campaign. He had a large beef against grappling in 3e, claiming that it was basically "silly" that the barbarian couldn't grapple against a giant hell worm thing. By his logic, I guess the rules should be different so that it would allow his strong-man to successfully grapple a fully loaded semi-tractor trailer. because that's basically what's going on; a barbarian trying to "out-grapple" something the size, strength and weight of a modern day rig.
Anyway, my point is this. It's not the rules, adventure or whatever that seems to give rise to all these complaints about "class X sucks" or "rule Y is stupid". It was WotC's design of 3e that caused people learning the game to accept what was presented as "normal rpg'ing"; with the focus on mathematically balanced rules and damage vs. resistance to the exclusions of most other elements that truly make an RPG and RPG.
But I digress. The bottom line is that this guy seems to think in terms of +X vs. +Y, and not in the overall place of each class, race, or even rule in the context of an ongoing campaign. He had a large beef against grappling in 3e, claiming that it was basically "silly" that the barbarian couldn't grapple against a giant hell worm thing. By his logic, I guess the rules should be different so that it would allow his strong-man to successfully grapple a fully loaded semi-tractor trailer. because that's basically what's going on; a barbarian trying to "out-grapple" something the size, strength and...
It's late I can't add much but to say I so completely agree with what you just said pming. I hope 3.p doesn't steer too far the way of 'every class must have a way to deal combat damage equal to every other class'. I guess if it does..there is always 1st edition... :)
Hiya.
Like so many other players I talk to (or read from) nowadays, he's stuck in the mindset that 3e propagated: Damage, damage, damage. That's what everything boils down to in 3e. Oh sure, you have a lot of non-damage/combat type things, but I had yet to find one situation in any of the 3e games I played (over 2-3 year period) that couldn't be resolved with "I attack!".
Seems to me that around half his complaints don't really fall into this category and for the many that do - well its not like 'I Attack' is a completely foreign concept in a Paizo adventure path. In essence the solution of 'I Attack' is not te players fault and its only the DMs fault because he choose to run them through an Adventure Path. Once he did that there was going to be a lot of combat simply because Paizo Adventure Paths have a lot of combat.
One might argue that a big part of the problem is that the DM is using an adventure path and therefore getting into a lot of hard fights that showcase problems in 3.5. However the solution to this problem then becomes 'don't play Adventure Paths' which seems like a pretty sub par solution to me.
There are bits and pieces I find interesting.
In particular, his point that 3.x built more powerful characters doing more damage I think is absolutely correct. IMO D&D has suffered from an inexorable power creep, perhaps catering to the power-gamers -- arguably because there are lots of them in the marketplace. Certainly a 10th level fighter from editions 1 or 2 could do far fewer things and deal out much less damage than its 3e counterpart.
The higher-level end of an AP will naturally showcase the higher-level flaws in the system.
4e has, to its credit, tried to reverse that trend -- which means that players don't get too uncontrollably powerful in a few levels.
Two more cents :)
|
|
I don't know. I really feel like the DM needs to have more control than what he seems to have.
Our group is going up against Dragotha on Saturday. I don't like the Balakarde +10 to whatever ability and have greatly modified it for my group. With that in mind, I really need to modify Dragotha.
Should the barbian been able to win a grapple check against the worm -- probably not. Should the DM allowed the Barbarian the ability to get his weapon -- sure. Regardless of what the rules say -- how does that hurt anything.
Having fun should be the most important thing -- not following the rules to the letter. People really need to take a breather and figure out what works best for their group.
And that includes 4e, 2nd edition, AD&D or whatever.
|
Having fun should be the most important thing -- not following the rules to the letter. People really need to take a breather and figure out what works best for their group.And that includes 4e, 2nd edition, AD&D or whatever.
I agree with you that fun should be the main goal of any RPG. However, when its comes to following the rules to the letter I think you come to a slippery slope.
I say this because I think consistancy is probably more important than playing with the RAW.
If your going to set the rules aside during an adventure then the player's are going to try and use that experience at another time during the game and argue that because thats how you ruled the last time they should be able to do the same thing this time. So I think if your going to have a house rule or exception to the established rules you need to continue to run the game and always rule that way.
Hey...here's another Joela show-n-tell from the past.
Now we know that Paizo broke 3.x with one AP, thus forcing the creation of 4e, and then with another AP they drove people to 4e. Hmm...
I'm confused.
Paizo broke 3.X with AoW, but drove people to 4E with SC.
When did they develop the technology for retroactive temporal developments?
Reggie.
With a big implied =)
Reggie, for having revealed the development of top secret Paizo technology, you will soon receive a special visit.
The explanation is so simple, a smurf could explain it with a roll of masking tape, three pieces of string, some eggs, and a basket of apples. Oh and scissors. Plus a really large barrel and however long it takes.
[irreverent smurf explanation] Paizo published Age of Worms, people ran it immediately, and discovered for the first time what a problem high level play was. They complained, and loh 4E was the result. Since 4E had come out, RPG shops across the land started holding sales of 3.5 material, and those DM's who had complained of Age of Worms for some reason picked up copies of the hardcover for Shackled City cheap. Maybe the recession which some goverments and banks said was never ever going to happen again meant that they were bargain hunting. They then ran Shackled City, and their players instantly revolted, resulting in frayed tempers and broken eggs. They are now sour smurfs that they have had to sell off their third homes to buy a set of 4e and are sounding off about the situation. [/irreverent smurf explanation]
Mmm. Sour smurfs. Bad apples. Sour apples. Broken eggs.
The explanation is so simple, a smurf could explain it with a roll of masking tape, three pieces of string, some eggs, and a basket of apples. Oh and scissors. Plus a really large barrel and however long it takes.
Personally, I think it's surprising that it took until AoW for the poster to recognize some of these problems with 3.x. Granted, AoW does shine a great, big spotlight on some of the system's biggest warts. However, these are all issues that my players and I recognized a long time ago.
By the way, something the poster didn't mention, which I think is absolutely relevant, even with a d12 for Hit Dice, undead don't have a lot of hit points. This, combined with the fact that their Base Attack is the same as a wizard's, means that they don't typically stand up all that well in melee. Paizo certainly made some good calls by adding new abilities like unholy toughness, and martial calling to make up for this fact. However, the fact that they had to make these ad hoc adjustments makes the problem pretty obvious.
You know, I think high level play in 3e broke down because people gradually figured out how to exploit the gradually building imbalances that are by definition going to creep into any level-up based rules system. If you make each class's powers unique, they end up not balancing against each other at some point, under some circumstances. Players will exploit that, as will DMs trying to challenge PCs that seem sometimes to be invincible. It is then the DM's job to try to figure out how to fix the problems that they and their players create, or make sure that the circumstances aren't repeated.
4e seems to have taken one route toward fixing this underlying issue, by making most classes gain access to and utilize their powers in a similar fashion. Not everyone likes the feeling of sameness this creates. In any event, I am skeptical that 4e has fixed high-level play, because I doubt that that end of the game has been as thoroughly playtested as the low end. I suspect that people will start discovering the problems with high level play in 4e when more people have played 1st-30th level campaigns. I'm sure a few people have made it there already, but assuming that most people will start playing a new edition at 1st level, even with very rapid advancement (say 1 level per session), only the most active groups will have played into the 25th-plus level range by now.
I think there are still many of us who think 3.5e works as well as any other game system, when used by reasonable players who are mindful that the game should be more about fun than strict adherence to a set of rules. Most of us build up a large corpus of house-rules over time to fix what we see as glitches or points in the rules that take away from our enjoyment of the game. I've DM'd AoW up to 14th level (still working on the campaign intermittently), and the main problem I've found at this upper-mid level of play is that combat bogs down a bit as more complicated effects come into play regularly (flight in particular) and as it becomes tempting to get buffed with eight or ten spells a piece when anticipating a major combat. The math for saves begins getting wonky around these levels, which further encourages buff-o-mania (magic circle, death ward, multiple protections from energy, mass bear's endurance, etc.)
Some of the things pointed out by the blog the OP pointed to, though, are unique to Age of Worms (and to a particular group of players and characters in that AP), rather than faults of the game as a whole. And some have to do with what happens when you run a published AP. The AP has a theme (undead in this one), but the players come into it with no idea (or limited idea) of what they'll be facing, so they come up with what seems to them a cool character concept (Stealthy the Rogue, Grapplemeister the Barbarian) that may not be at all optimal against the key enemies they'll face. If they don't adapt, they're bound to be disappointed. In a homebrew campaign, this is less of a problem because the DM has more leeway to tailor the campaign to the cool character concepts the players are attached to, and give them challenges that will make them feel like badasses instead of bumblers.
I don't think APs (or AoW in particular) broke 3.5e--au contraire, they have allowed me to enjoy the full possibilities inherent in the edition and helped me to grow as a DM--both in terms of designing my own material and in terms of learning how to run the game. And I don't think it is at all correct to say that 4e was developed because of the problems discovered by thousands of players playing the APs from 1st to 20th level. By their own admission, WotC was working on 4e starting not long after they put out 3.5, and it is clearly part of their business model to make money by putting out new editions, like Microsoft.
Maybe if 3e had advancement slowed by 10-20x, and treated "high level" the way 1e did (at 12th, you'll be ruling a kingdom and mostly retired), then all the problems with 16th+ level play would become moot?
Maybe if 3e had advancement slowed by 10-20x, and treated "high level" the way 1e did (at 12th, you'll be ruling a kingdom and mostly retired), then all the problems with 16th+ level play would become moot?
Players don't just want to rule kingdoms. They want to defeat gods, and demonlords, and unless the power level of those guys come down 12th level would not work.
Slowed advancement is boring to some people, and the DM can do that by controlling how XP is handed out if he does not like it.
High level play is harder, but is not a problem for everyone, and the game can be broken below 10th level if that is what you want to do.
PS: I know not all players try to reach such goals(defeating gods), but it is nice to have the option.
IRT Kirth Gersen's last post:
There's nothing stopping any individual DM from running the game that way. Wrap up your campaigns at a level of play you're comfortable with. It's certainly easy enough to slow advancement down in a number of ways. You can tweak the XP column of the advancement table so that it takes 50% more XP, or twice as much XP (or substitute whatever factor you wish) to advance at each level. Or you could apply the rule only after 5th level, if you want to get past the powerless low levels to the "sweet spot." Or you could levy an "XP tax," which could be flat or could kick in at a certain level, to slow down progression. Or do away with XP altogether and advance by DM fiat when specific milestones are reached in the campaign. (There are various ways of working around the problem of lost levels from level drain or resurrections, and also around certain spellcasters' need for XP to craft items or cast spells like permanency and wish--and such spells won't come up much if you're not playing at high level anyway).
Most of the APs that I've looked through (both Dungeon and Pathfinder) have points where, with a little tweaking of the back-story, its easy enough to conclude the AP between 10th and 15th level as well.
Anyway, it is evident from these boards that some people enjoy playing high level--even epic level--3.5e campaigns, and have figured out the problems of balance and time consumption to their satisfaction. The point of high level play was never that everyone should play at that level, but to have the option open for those who want it. That's what 3.5e is all about--options. I remain skeptical that either PFRPG or 4e will solve the "problems" of high level play, and if anything the commitment to "no dead levels" in both games will make high level play more complicated, because everyone will have dozens of special powers to juggle, and it will take 15 minutes of reading through one's character sheet to find the optimal action for a given situation. I could be wrong about this--I haven't made a concerted effort to learn either game system, but while I'm waiting for reviews (and maybe a chance to use these systems as a player), I'm sticking with 3.5e. I know this system pretty well--both its rules and their weaknesses--so it's easier for me to use house rules, nerf or boost abilities where necessary, and design challenges with the system's problems in mind. My players can do the same.
Let's take grappling as an example--it was cited by the blog cited by the OP as a major reason for his giving up on 3.5e after an incident where a raging barbarian charged the overworm in Spire of Long Shadows and got swallowed and digested. Grappling has been virtually dropped from 4e, and PFRPG is making drastic changes, which, as I understand it, are supposed to keep big monsters with a size bonus from completely owning the wrestling ring. To me, it makes sense that a large creature with tentacles should completely own the wrestling ring. But there are lots of options out there to negate that ability, if players are prepared and work as a team. Enlarge person, freedom of movement and still spell/eschew materials, for starters. There's also a feat in Complete Warrior (Close Quarters Combat, I think) that allows you to thwart even big improved grabby creatures with an attack of opportunity when they try to pull you into a grapple. In AoW, my player's paladin selected this feat after Froghemoth nearly ate him and then swallowed the party cleric after she tried to come to his rescue and has largely avoided being grappled ever since. There are also ways to combat such creatures without these special capabilities or spells specifically designed to thwart them--the tumble and escape artist skills, invisibility and displacement, flying or levitating away, haste or expeditious retreat all allow you to outmaneuver such creatures or interfere with their ability to target you, then you can take them down with ranged attacks. The opposed d20 mechanic of grappling is accused of being, awkward, swingy, and favoring the party with the advantage in grapple bonus, but it does give you a slight chance of escaping something that has a grapple bonus up to +18 more than you. I don't think it works all that badly, myself. Without the aid of magic, a raging barbarian shouldn't be able to beat a creature two or three size categories larger than himself in a wrestling match. The imbalance is there to preserve a vague sense of verisimilitude--a flavor of swords and sorcery rather than Marvel superheroes. The point of such monsters is to force you to find other ways than brute strength to defeat the enemy. And if you want a campaign where brute strength always wins, then monster placement should be made with that in mind. Age of Worms is not that campaign, at least not without some serious substitution of monsters. Age of Worms is also designed to challenge experienced players--as should be evident from the large number of encounters with EL's from two to four or more above average party level.
It's certainly easy enough to slow advancement down in a number of ways.
I've personally already done it by designing a classless xp point-buy system, with a built-in diminishing returns mechanism.
I've personally already done it by designing a classless xp point-buy system, with a built-in diminishing returns mechanism.
Yes, you could do that, too--as described, it sounds like your system is a pretty radical departure from 3.5 RAW, though. There are certainly some advantages to a class-less, modular character build system, but for me personally, I think the class is one of the things that gives D&D its particular character, and I'm not ready to ditch the concept.
To each his own, I guess. I never thought of myself as a grognard, but I think the 3.5-4e edition switch has brought out the conservative in me and made me less interested (rather than more interested) in major changes to the game design. Even PFRPG changes too much for my tastes, though I understand what Paizo is doing and why. I've come to the conclusion that using a single base set of rules, and making small and judicious evolutionary changes through house rules to suit one's own group is the way to go. But I think WotC's decision to move ahead with 4e has blown the lid off the idea of a unified D&D game, and given everyone who isn't onboard with their particular ideas about redesigning the game license to do their own 4e.
I guess I'm a royalist in a world filled with Girondins and Jacobins.
I guess I'm a royalist in a world filled with Girondins and Jacobins.
Heh. I was thinking of myself more as a Jeffersonian Republican, but no matter. I see where you're coming from.
Then again, I still think I enjoyed 1e, on the whole, more than I do 3.5... I played the latter only because Paizo was writing for it. As long as I was going to have major rules shifts (e.g., 2e vs. 3e), I figured I might as well go for broke!
Spire of Long Shadows gets mentioned as a TPK festival alot. But what I keep thinking about is that at the start of the adventure, if the group has a piece of the Rod of Seven Parts, Tenser will give each party member an item of up to 40000 gp in value. The first thought that pops into my head is: Ring of Freedom of Movement. No swallowing whole with that baby on!
Besides...what high-level fighting type isn't wearing spiked armor or spiked gauntlets?
|
|
My worry for AoW is that the big grappling creatures aren't good enough at what they do.
Freedom of Movement is far too effective; no spell should have such a blanket effect. Makes you wonder how PCs under this effect keep their clothes on, if they can't have anything tied round them?
It went under the radar in previous editions, because grappling was rare. Most creatures didn't even have a Strength score, so it was a pain to adjudicate, and the DM just resorted to 'it attacks'.
Even for the creatures that were notorious for grappling, the grappling/swallowing was usually a side-effect of rolling a natural 20.
Freedom of Movement therefore, wasn't widely used; it might have saved you from one grapple, but so would Fire Shield, which worked against all attack forms.
Now, it's a no-brainer spell for all parties of level 7+, and any spell that's a no-brainer should be re-examined.
Maybe give a +20 bonus to resist grapples, evening the odds somewhat, but not being an auto-win?
My worry for AoW is that the big grappling creatures aren't good enough at what they do.
Freedom of Movement is far too effective; no spell should have such a blanket effect. Makes you wonder how PCs under this effect keep their clothes on, if they can't have anything tied round them?
It went under the radar in previous editions, because grappling was rare. Most creatures didn't even have a Strength score, so it was a pain to adjudicate, and the DM just resorted to 'it attacks'.
Even for the creatures that were notorious for grappling, the grappling/swallowing was usually a side-effect of rolling a natural 20.
Freedom of Movement therefore, wasn't widely used; it might have saved you from one grapple, but so would Fire Shield, which worked against all attack forms.
Now, it's a no-brainer spell for all parties of level 7+, and any spell that's a no-brainer should be re-examined.
Maybe give a +20 bonus to resist grapples, evening the odds somewhat, but not being an auto-win?
I'll be honest it is really good. I have a fighter type pc in a friends homebrew who was given a relic that gave freedom of movement and there are just soooooo many grapple, stunned, paralyzing, etc effects at 12+ that I litterally am immune to the main attacks of 60%+ of what we fight, we just had a very hard fight against 3 Cadaver collectors, who would have slaughtered us with their grapple and spike routines except I had adamant weapons and freedom of movement and they fell pretty quick.... the guys without the freedom of movement though, man they took a beating. As a design standpoint I think it is too good in that it should be one of your magic items and spell choices as soon as it is available, no two ways about it, which to me means its too good. I think the proposed +20 is good, aswell as maybe making the spell a level or 2 higher or even broken into 2 spells (a bonus version and an immune one) of differing levels. Not sure thats a perfect fix just an idea.
As a design standpoint I think it is too good in that it should be one of your magic items and spell choices as soon as it is available, no two ways about it, which to me means its too good. I think the proposed +20 is good
Or even +1/caster level, which allows it to scale with the BAB of the monsters you're facing...
For sure, there are some spells that are so important they're basically obligatory, rather than optional: protection from evil (superceded by mind blank), rope trick (superceded by magnificent mansion), death ward, freedom of movement, and heroes' feast all come to mind.
One thing I've noticed about 3.5 is that it doesn't really handle scaling monsters very well. In Library of Last Resort (may have the name wrong), there are several monsters that have been advanced many hit dice. The biggest problem with this is that BAB scales up so quickly that it makes for auto hits on every roll except ones. I'm coming around to the POV that HD/BAB could be boosted slightly, and any increase beyond that would come from doubling/tripling HPs.
The one other area I've noticed that 3.5 is a pain is in the sheer number of buffs available. I'm really starting to hate Dispel Magic. It's bad for the PCs (too much math to recalc) and even worse for the DM (too many monsters buffed). The higher level you get, the worse it seems to be.
One thing I've noticed about 3.5 is that it doesn't really handle scaling monsters very well. In Library of Last Resort (may have the name wrong), there are several monsters that have been advanced many hit dice. The biggest problem with this is that BAB scales up so quickly that it makes for auto hits on every roll except ones. I'm coming around to the POV that HD/BAB could be boosted slightly, and any increase beyond that would come from doubling/tripling HPs.
The one other area I've noticed that 3.5 is a pain is in the sheer number of buffs available. I'm really starting to hate Dispel Magic. It's bad for the PCs (too much math to recalc) and even worse for the DM (too many monsters buffed). The higher level you get, the worse it seems to be.
AC starts to fall behind quickly at higher levels. Piazo's fighter does a good job of making it not look so bad. Even comparing PC to other humanoids makes them easy to hit. The monsters have the same issue. A fighter or level 20 monsters will have an AC of about 30, but both a player and a monster will have over 30 to their attack bonus making it a hit, unless a 2 is rolled. Most modules have either the buffed or unbuffed version. If they have one version I will write the other stats down so I don't have to do it on the fly. As a player I normally write my buffed stats in parenthesis or one a separate piece of paper.
I know this isn't part of the "official" rules but The TRAILBLAZER preview goes a long way into helping customize monsters without making them a bloated mess. I guess his system for figuring out the new CR's seems a little complex at the beginning but he explains it in a way that makes sense.
A fighter or level 20 monsters will have an AC of about 30, but both a player and a monster will have over 30 to their attack bonus making it a hit, unless a 2 is rolled.
Umm, actually, a level 18-20 fighter will probably have an AC of about 40-45, unless they really concentrate on boosting AC (which can result in an AC of around 50-55, without even going beyond the core rules). +5 mithral breastplate, ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armor +5, and gloves of dexterity +6 (assuming a 14 Dex) give 10 (base) +10 (breastplate) +5 (deflection) +5 (natural armor) +5 (Dex) = 35 AC for 29,200 + 50,000 + 50,000 + 36,000 = 165,200 gp (about 1/3 to 1/5 of the total recommended Wealth by Level). This doesn't include any (animated) shield, defending weapon, class features (i.e., dwarven defender), or other items or buff spells (dusty rose prism ioun stone, haste, etc.) that can boost AC even higher.
However, AC does reach a hard limit, while attack bonuses do not. This is one of the issues with the creature advancement rules that will hopefully be addressed in PFRPG.
A fighter or level 20 monsters will have an AC of about 30, but both a player and a monster will have over 30 to their attack bonus making it a hit, unless a 2 is rolled.
Umm, actually, a level 18-20 fighter will probably have an AC of about 40-45, unless they really concentrate on boosting AC (which can result in an AC of around 50-55, without even going beyond the core rules). +5 mithral breastplate, ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armor +5, and gloves of dexterity +6 (assuming a 14 Dex) give 10 (base) +10 (breastplate) +5 (deflection) +5 (natural armor) +5 (Dex) = 35 AC for 29,200 + 50,000 + 50,000 + 36,000 = 165,200 gp (about 1/3 to 1/5 of the total recommended Wealth by Level). This doesn't include any (animated) shield, defending weapon, class features (i.e., dwarven defender), or other items or buff spells (dusty rose prism ioun stone, haste, etc.) that can boost AC even higher.
However, AC does reach a hard limit, while attack bonuses do not. This is one of the issues with the creature advancement rules that will hopefully be addressed in PFRPG.
My 30'ish score used the same setup you did. I could probably get to 40 if I tried, but I doubt I could get 45 using a PHB fighter. I don't count defending weapons or fighting on defensive because both of those take away from offense.
My 30'ish score used the same setup you did. I could probably get to 40 if I tried, but I doubt I could get 45 using a PHB fighter. I don't count defending weapons or fighting on defensive because both of those take away from offense.
Add a +5 animated heavy steel shield (+7 AC) for 49,170 gp, a dusty rose prism ioun stone (+1 AC) for 5,000 gp, and boots of speed (haste adds +1 AC) for 12,000 gp, take Dodge (+1 AC vs. one opponent) as one of your 18 feats (19 if human), and you get an AC of up to 44 or 45 and can still attack with a bow, two-handed melee weapon, etc.
If I wanted to maximize my AC in core, I wouldn't go straight fighter, I'd go dwarf barbarian 2/fighter 8/dwarven defender 10. Even without Defensive Stance, I can get the AC up to 49 (50 with Dodge) with +5 mithral full plate (and still move at 30 ft, to boot; 60 ft with haste). Taking Improved Shield Bash and Two-Weapon Fighting (bumping Dex to 15) and using +5 defending shield spikes can boost the AC to 54 (55 with Dodge) on a full attack (granted, you have to take a -4 on attacks and you can't use a two-handed weapon as your primary). Using a +5 animated light steel shield with +5 defending shield spikes reduces the maximum AC to 48/53 (49/54 with Dodge), but you only take a -2 on attacks.
My 30'ish score used the same setup you did. I could probably get to 40 if I tried, but I doubt I could get 45 using a PHB fighter. I don't count defending weapons or fighting on defensive because both of those take away from offense.Add a +5 animated heavy steel shield (+7 AC) for 49,170 gp, a dusty rose prism ioun stone (+1 AC) for 5,000 gp, and boots of speed (haste adds +1 AC) for 12,000 gp, take Dodge (+1 AC vs. one opponent) as one of your 18 feats (19 if human), and you get an AC of up to 44 or 45 and can still attack with a bow, two-handed melee weapon, etc.
If I wanted to maximize my AC in core, I wouldn't go straight fighter, I'd go dwarf barbarian 2/fighter 8/dwarven defender 10. Even without Defensive Stance, I can get the AC up to 49 (50 with Dodge) with +5 mithral full plate (and still move at 30 ft, to boot; 60 ft with haste). Taking Improved Shield Bash and Two-Weapon Fighting (bumping Dex to 15) and using +5 defending shield spikes can boost the AC to 54 (55 with Dodge) on a full attack (granted, you have to take a -4 on attacks and you can't use a two-handed weapon as your primary). Using a +5 animated light steel shield with +5 defending shield spikes reduces the maximum AC to 48/53 (49/54 with Dodge), but you only take a -2 on attacks.
I will have to see where the gold has been going. I have personally never played past level 15, and have only DM'd up to 16. I thought from all the complaining I see on the boards(not this one) that hitting a character was almost guaranteed.
I will have to see where the gold has been going. I have personally never played past level 15, and have only DM'd up to 16. I thought from all the complaining I see on the boards(not this one) that hitting a character was almost guaranteed.
I did mention that you start hitting hard limits on AC. The examples above are about as high as you can go, without playing games with polymorph and a few other spells (or going outside core).
Attack bonuses get pretty high, also. A wyrm red dragon (CR 24), for example, has a +48 and the tarrasque has an attack bonus of +57. A frost giant cleric 18 (CR 20, counting 14 non-associated levels; 30 Str, 12 Dex, 18 Con, 10 Int, 20 Wis, 16 Cha) has a normal attack bonus of +32 (BAB +Str +Size), which jumps to +45 with aid, divine favor, divine power, and righteous might before even considering greater magic weapon (+4 at CL 18).
It goes the other way, too. A 20th level fighter can get a +30-35 attack bonus without straining his budget, and the Tarrasque's AC is only 35. Figure in all the feats and weapon powers that are going to add to his damage (improved crit, power attack, weapon with bane, flaming burst, etc.), and figure that first attack almost always hits and you're going to land around half of the next three attacks each round, and you're talking some serious damage.
And then there's Mordenkainen's disjunction, which is likely to be deployed by either side if magic items make either side anywhere near unhittable. The game at that level is a bit like nuclear war. That's why Mordenkainen and his ilk hire lower level adventurers--to avoid a magical holocaust.
Like many of you, I am playing through Age of Worms and I too find that there are some difficulties with some high level play at first glance. I've done some of the same math, and looked at the game from my players' point of view. Several of the things I saw as problems at first don't seem like big things now. I'll go through examples one at a time.
First of all, Grappling. I shudder at it most of the time as crude and unwieldy. Recently my players fought Madtooth the Hungry in the arena, followed by the dreaded Ulgerstasta, and the grappling modifiers were impossible! +35 grapple check? Hope that you roll a Nat 20, or you're done fore! Sure enough the froghemoth grappled the party pladadin and gulped him down. As soon as he wrapped his 15ft reach tentacle around him, though, suddenly the full-power attacking fighter and the sneak attacking rogue started doing outlandish amounts of damage. Coupled with the wizard's magical assult, the beast dropped a round (perhaps 2) later. The paladin crawled out of the gut of the creature and was ready to adventure the next day. Yes, some of the grappling is really bad. But, you can live through being eaten! That is a kindness.
Secondly, the difference between AC and BAB is a math problem to be sure. Especially as monsters attack with mostly the one high value as the PC's diminish with each swing at higher levels. However, I'm finding that the focus of defense is retreating from being AC dependent and involving far more other things- cover/concealment, DR, SR, and elemental resistances. Or the old monster standby of a boatload of HP.
That being said, there is still room to illustrate a great difference in relative AC between different monsters of a similar CR. As my party approaches a Gathering of Winds, they are threatened by a dragon with a really high AC of 29. Later, they face a creature with AC 1. I expect that the tactics and powers used to combat these different types of critters will vary- as well they should! My Dwarven Defender of the party hates to miss with any attack, and even though he invested in Power Attack long, long ago he is generally loath to use it. His personal tactic then is to connect as often as possible even with his second and third attacks. When confronted with lesser minions he will realize that the AC is so below his bonus he can safely utilize Power Attack and still hit reliably. Others might play it different.
Lastly, the 15-minute workday: especially for casters- this is where many of my group cheered the rules changes of 4e to include at-will powers. And after running the Champion Games I walked away with a new perspective. Perhaps it was an anomaly of the Games, or maybe the party wizard has finally shown me the true colors of magic. Magic is crazy good! With a handful of 4th and 5th level spells he completely dominated the arena! When he awoke knowing that he had but a handful of encounters do deal with, he unleashed hell upon those poor gladiators. Empowered Fireballs, Black Tentacles, Stinking Cloud, and the Resilient Sphere had everyone taken care of before the dwarf could even close ranks! It really showed me how a single spell can change everything about an encounter- a well prepared and prudent wizard need only cast 1-2 spells to turn the tide of battle. The lower level spells (of which he should have plently) he can dispense with nearly at will. Remember that each well scaled encounter should take up %20 of resources, so the party is likely to rest after 4 fights at any rate. If they do well for themselves, they might be able to push on longer.
I've noticed the same trend in 4e as well. Despite the rules changes, the party runs low on either hp or dailies and decides to turn back after a similar amount of good fights.
Anyway, I think this rant went long enough! The point being that I think 3.5 might have its problems, but it really is a well thought out system that seems to work with a dizzying array of play styles and situations. The Age of Worms takes advantage of that, and so some issues comes up. Nothing that can be worked with or around.