"We never play high level" as an argument

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
Now, there has been a lot of good constructive discussion around here about D&D, it's rules, and what makes a good game or not.

Some things are a matter of taste, others I shake my head at the denial of some people and how nostalgia "blocks" them completely in a set of mind that it's impossible to shake...

That's a bit annoying, but hey, we are all a bit guilty of it sometimes... however, an argument that keeps popping up and bugs the hell out of me is the following:

- Someone points out that, for example, high-level spellcasters used to be insanely overpowered
- Someone says: "Meh, my group and I never played past level X (usually 10-ish) so I don't see this as a problem...

Can anybody spot the problem here? Is like me saying:

- Well, my car explodes in a ball of fire if I drive faster than 100 Km/h, but I never do that, so I don't care...

This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight! 

Also... am I the only one that thinks that this is a product of the defects of the game, rather than the other way around? That people got used to stop playing around level 10 cause the game was utterly broken and then just got used to it?

For me, as a consumer, this feels like being duped, why does my RPG have 20 detailed levels (with spells, feats, powers or whateverhaveyou) if 10 of those are unusable? Why did you sell me, and worse, charged me, for half a game??

All levels of play should be balanced and well designed, so it's easy for the GM to keep the game going and fun for eveyone (yes, it's still the responsability of the GM to keep the game fun, but it's the responsability of the game designers to make the GMs work easier and more fun too!). And if this seems impossible with the devised ruleset... wouldn't it make more sense to just drop those unusable levels?

Phew... just had to get that out of my system.
Better out than in.  

It is a perplexing attitude. 

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Perplexing indeed.....


Also... am I the only one that thinks that this is a product of the defects of the game, rather than the other way around? That people got used to stop playing around level 10 cause the game was utterly broken and then just got used to it?


Personally, we always played from level 1 to level TPK and I never felt that way. That said, I still have a soft spot for levels 11-15ish in 3.x. I don't know why, but they always felt the best to me.

I think the real "problem" is that playtesting at higher levels is far more complicated than at lower levels, and once the player base get's their grubby little paws on a game system they will find the major discrepancies far faster than the limited number of in-house playtesters will. This is doubly true when you start adding even more options in the form of splatbook material into the mix.


That said, I'd still rather have that "problem" than be railroaded through making high level choices.  


 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

That people often never play those high level ranges is more of a symptom of how bad high level play was designed in previous editions (especially 2e and 3.X). 4E did a better job at that.

We played numerous high level games pre 4E and they all turned out to be horribly unbalanced in favor of casters (taking away a lot of the fun for non casters) and a real pain for the DM to design adventures that kept the party challanged.

If you publish a game from level 1 to 20/30, it is your job as a game designer that the game is as good and as enjoyable at every level!
I agree with you. If the game says it's playable from level 1 to 20, it should be playable from level 1 to 20.

This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight!



Absolutely. And this goes the other way around. It's not because something is broken above level 10 that it's broken before level 10.

You're talking about vancian magic aren't you? ;)
That people often never play those high level ranges is more of a symptom of how bad high level play was designed in previous editions (especially 2e and 3.X). 4E did a better job at that.

We played numerous high level games pre 4E and they all turned out to be horribly unbalanced in favor of casters (taking away a lot of the fun for non casters) and a real pain for the DM to design adventures that kept the party challanged.

If you publish a game from level 1 to 20/30, it is your job as a game designer that the game is as good and as enjoyable at every level!



QFT.

Always promised Epic Play. Always get an unbalnced or incomplete mess.

I have an Epic adventure just waiting to be played. Tried and failed 3 times.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I have had no problem of playing high level games, I have had groups who worked well together and tried not to attempt to use things they saw as broken (the locate city bomb, which if I think, could be done at lv7~9) or try to heavily exploit loopholes from dm (or player) oversights. I had no problems with higher levels, considering we played mortal adventurers who happened to do deeds that got them called heroes. 

 Adhearing to the rules of the forum, I am trying not to start the flame wars that certian others are trying by calling people like me a 'grognard' for wanting the older version of several things, (basic rules cyclopedia Weapon mastery, as up to the 3.5 version's psionics that where done right, and the versitilaty of the spells per day in 3.5 as well).  and find that people are wanting restrictions on higher level things because of the 'we never played at higher level because everything becomes broken then' argument gets annoying. I had no problems with 3.5 until I read 2 books that basically broke the game (tome of magic and tome of battle) which have routinly been banned from games I played.



I had no problems with 3.5 until I read 2 books that basically broke the game (tome of magic and tome of battle) which have routinly been banned from games I played.



Casters are fine... but you can't handle the Tome of Battle classes.

I guess now we need a separate thread for, "'We're not cheating little optimizers' as an argument."

And yeah, wow, pretty sure the Player's Handbook has more broken stuff than ToB. 

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight! 




To you.

I don't agree with the sentiment either but I don't try to proclaim my way as the only way.  Whomever made that statement...it is not broken to them.  That doesn't change because you view it differently.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight! 




To you.

I don't agree with the sentiment either but I don't try to proclaim my way as the only way.  Whomever made that statement...it is not broken to them.  That doesn't change because you view it differently.


Ignore whether high level play is actually broken, and this thread still has a valid point. If someone has found a problem (real or imagined) then one of the least helpful responses out there is, "I don't use that feature, so you shouldn't either." That's the real point, not the side premise that high level play has problems.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

I've heard a lot of arguments that support the same basic attitude. Old school players don't like a lot of the new changes, so they do thier best to dissmiss or understate the flaws blatantly inherit in the system. Either by arguing that the issues are irrelevent (we don't play past X level) or neccesary (figthers are supposed to suck late game) A lot of it is irrational fear of change. The rest is just plan stubborness.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight! 




To you.

I don't agree with the sentiment either but I don't try to proclaim my way as the only way.  Whomever made that statement...it is not broken to them.  That doesn't change because you view it differently.



To every honest thinking human being. This is mush-minded relativism at its worst, trying to claim that because judgments have to be made in context judgments are impossible.
Who are you to tell someone what it is or isn't an issue?

This isn't real life.  No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.

If someone is completely happy with whatever aspect of whatever edition, who are you to tell them that they're wrong?

I personally think that gameplay at all levels matter.  I play at all levels.

I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.
I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.



You are doing exactly that, at this very moment, denigrating the opinions, thoughts, and feelings of everyone who disagrees with you by claiming that their concerns are unreal.

This isn't real life.  No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.



If you believed your claim that the rules of DnD could never be better or worse, you would never speak on this forum.

You are not only posting on this forum, but doing so prolifically.

Ergo, you are lying.
I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.



You are doing exactly that, at this very moment, denigrating the opinions, thoughts, and feelings of everyone who disagrees with you by claiming that their concerns are unreal.

This isn't real life.  No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.



If you believed your claim that the rules of DnD could never be better or worse, you would never speak on this forum.

You are not only posting on this forum, but doing so prolifically.

Ergo, you are lying.



Wait, what?

You're saying that someone is being harmed by balance issues in DnD?  When did I claim DnD could never be better or worse?

If the basis for "denigrating someone's opinion" is disagreement, I'm not sure conversation is possible.
Truth be told, the power curse has always been my problem with D&D. Improvements were made in 4E but my problem with that is that it didn't feel like D&D. I'm fine with low power progression as we're seeing so far with the playtest. I don't want to see broken wizards. I have no problem if their combat spells keep in line with fighter damage, as long as there is some kind of ritual mechanic that allows for the creation of alternate planes, spreading mass plagues, etc that anyone of sufficient ability (regardless of class) can do. Clerics and wizards should have an option that allows them be better at rituals (Cleric of Orcus anyone), but it should be an option. 

Having said that, I do NOT want to see fighters to have "dailies" and wizards spells work like crossbows either. Magic should be magical and work differently. I also don't want a 2 axis chart of power source and role and then pigeon hole a class somewhere in that chart. If I want to build a fighter that can knock people around and stop movement (i.e. a 4E controller), I should be able to do that. And he should be fine next to the fighter that can tumber around the battlefield using a finesse weapon (i.e. a 4E striker).  If I want a wizard that focuses on utility spells and all but ignores damage/combat related spells (a 4E none-of-the-above), he should be fine next to the wizard that focuses on fireball (which should be round and not square) and magic missile (striker).

Its my character. Its my choice to make a suboptimal character for role playing reasons if I want to. 

Dale McCoy

President of Jon Brazer Enterprises

Read my D&D 5E Blog and sign up for our D&D 5E Newsletter

Who are you to tell someone what it is or isn't an issue?

This isn't real life.  No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.

If someone is completely happy with whatever aspect of whatever edition, who are you to tell them that they're wrong?

I personally think that gameplay at all levels matter.  I play at all levels.

I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.

I guess my answer would have to be that after playing and DMing extensively from 1975 until now that high level play has always been highly problematic, and a large part of that has always been (and increasingly from OD&D through 3.5) casters outstipping everyone else. If I were the ONLY one that has observed this I'd probably assume it was a peculiarity of the way I tend to play. OTOH I think it is safe to say that LARGE, probably overwhelmingly large but it is hard to say, segments of the community have observed exactly the same thing.

Thus I would have to say that from the standpoint of anyone designing a new edition of D&D that this is in fact something they need to address. While I cannot fathom how your particular experience arises (as dominating the game with a 2e wizard at high levels for instance is trivially easy and almost inevitable) I've no problem with accepting you have that experience. I just have to assume you play a very different style of game than any of the people I've ever played with. One that clearly has little relevant to say about what I would see as design issues from where I come from.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Truth be told, the power curse has always been my problem with D&D. Improvements were made in 4E but my problem with that is that it didn't feel like D&D. I'm fine with low power progression as we're seeing so far with the playtest. I don't want to see broken wizards. I have no problem if their combat spells keep in line with fighter damage, as long as there is some kind of ritual mechanic that allows for the creation of alternate planes, spreading mass plagues, etc that anyone of sufficient ability (regardless of class) can do. Clerics and wizards should have an option that allows them be better at rituals (Cleric of Orcus anyone), but it should be an option. 

Having said that, I do NOT want to see fighters to have "dailies" and wizards spells work like crossbows either. Magic should be magical and work differently. I also don't want a 2 axis chart of power source and role and then pigeon hole a class somewhere in that chart. If I want to build a fighter that can knock people around and stop movement (i.e. a 4E controller), I should be able to do that. And he should be fine next to the fighter that can tumber around the battlefield using a finesse weapon (i.e. a 4E striker).  If I want a wizard that focuses on utility spells and all but ignores damage/combat related spells (a 4E none-of-the-above), he should be fine next to the wizard that focuses on fireball (which should be round and not square) and magic missile (striker).

Its my character. Its my choice to make a suboptimal character for role playing reasons if I want to. 



I find it weird that people seem to complain a lot about 4e to be limiting, like why can i not play who uses a bow and does a lot of damage? I mean they say this full well knowing if that is what they had wanted to do they could just play a ranger. I mean there is some railroading of what a class does, there are a lot of options to choose between so that it is hard not to make the character you want. Like there was this guy complaing because he couldnt play a striker fighter, when there are multiple melee strikers to choose between like seriously. 

Anyway on topic, while what you saying is true, they also need to make sure to balance the lower level of the caster so they dont feel useless from like level 1-4/5. Since from my experience most games dont go on beyind above level 10 i think is the point people are making. Some people think that the class is balanced over the 20 levels, which it isnt, but that is a point to remember. There whole game needs to be balanced from level to level, rather than the power creep. Also with additions it becomes harder and harder for spellcasters not to get more imbalanced with vancian since they get more spells with no loss to other class features as you would expect if say the fighter got bonus stuff.
Who are you to tell someone what it is or isn't an issue?

This isn't real life.  No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.

If someone is completely happy with whatever aspect of whatever edition, who are you to tell them that they're wrong?

I personally think that gameplay at all levels matter.  I play at all levels.

I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.

I guess my answer would have to be that after playing and DMing extensively from 1975 until now that high level play has always been highly problematic, and a large part of that has always been (and increasingly from OD&D through 3.5) casters outstipping everyone else. If I were the ONLY one that has observed this I'd probably assume it was a peculiarity of the way I tend to play. OTOH I think it is safe to say that LARGE, probably overwhelmingly large but it is hard to say, segments of the community have observed exactly the same thing.

Thus I would have to say that from the standpoint of anyone designing a new edition of D&D that this is in fact something they need to address. While I cannot fathom how your particular experience arises (as dominating the game with a 2e wizard at high levels for instance is trivially easy and almost inevitable) I've no problem with accepting you have that experience. I just have to assume you play a very different style of game than any of the people I've ever played with. One that clearly has little relevant to say about what I would see as design issues from where I come from.



Maybe I'm doing a terrible job of expressing myself.  I don't know.

I'm not disagreeing with you as I've stated multiple times.  I personally think that gameplay balance is important across all levels.  (Exactly what that balance entails is a totally different topic.)

What I'm specifically contending in this thread is the, "You play differently than me therefore you're wrong and playing wrong" statements.  Nothing more.

I had no problems with 3.5 until I read 2 books that basically broke the game (tome of magic and tome of battle) which have routinly been banned from games I played.



Casters are fine... but you can't handle the Tome of Battle classes.




I feel his pain.  I had a group of four that wanted ToB classes and I said it was okay.  They built them to synergize with each other and I had a far harder time balancing encounters against them than I ever had with casters.  I ended up banning that book after that campaign.  With casters all I ever had to do was ban a few spells.  
I fall into the camp that played 1-3e and typically played very little past level 12, at which point the game falls apart for a variety of reasons.  One reason not mentioned yet is that the number of dice being rolled each round is just laughable at high levels, particulary in 3e (let me add up this 20d6 disintegrate, then Fighter Bob is going to roll his 5 attacks each with a different modifier, yay this is fun!)


That said, I could care less what happens above level 12.  Knock yourself out.  Just don't butcher what was a quite good system in 1e-2e from levels 1-10 in the process and have fighters dancing off of tree limbs like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.
Based on my experience there are a few reasons for this.

1.  AD&D had experience tables that IMO, were poorly designed. The result was that it took a very long time to reach 9th level.    Just take a look at the XP requirements for the 2e Druid.    In fact, I played for a few years without ever reaching high level play. 

2.   Character death was a frequent occurrence.   It's highly unlikely that you would still be playing the same character by the time you reached 8th level.   In addiiton, at around 8th level the characters might encounter creatures that can energy drain 2 levels (like vampires).  This would create a situation in which the average level of the party would decrease.  In fact, if such things didn't happen then the DM was being very nice to you.

3.  With 2e in particular the player character roles changed from 10th level onwards.    At those levels, character's would start to have a greater impact on the the game world.   A fighter might be be offered a fief of land to govern and a rogue might end up being the leader of the thieves guild.    These kind of rewards and responsibilites were not in anyway related to the mechanics of the game.   Typically players and DMs would both work togeather to design and detail things like player castles.    Therefore many groups simply avoided these levels off play because it wasn't something that they wanted. 

4.  High level games required a DM with enough imagination, improvisational skill, forsight, and experience to deal with open ended spells and magical items.   New DM's or those that couldn't handle powerful magic in the campaign simply avoided high level play, or at the very least ran low-magic campaign settings.  

5.  Some campaign settings like ravenloft didn't work all that well at very high levels.  In fact, most of the best modules for RL were lower level.    If you were high level in that campaign world then you might be just killing domain lords every week.    

6. Previously there was a greater level of danger when the game was played at low level.  Even the D&D house cat could kill a 1st level wizard.   Regardless, many people just liked style of play and didn't want to play above 10th level.  
 





That said, I could care less what happens above level 12.  Knock yourself out.  Just don't butcher what was a quite good system in 1e-2e from levels 1-10 in the process and have fighters dancing off of tree limbs like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.



I agree,  there are many players who like a simple game with a lot of danger.   

"OMG!  we are being attacked by a dozen skeletons!   run for it! "   lol.    

 


I agree that people should not critique things they haven't played.

I agree that large numbers of people have an issue with wizards in earlier editions (and clerics/druids in 3e).  For that reason it is definitely a worthwhile design consideration in 5e.

I believe that the things 4e did to fix many of the earlier editions issues were unwelcome changes by large numbers of people.

I believe that it would be nice if we could come up with new ideas for ways to solve the issues without alienating a big segment of the playerbase. 

I believe based on what I've seen that individual spells need to be balanced because structurally they are not going to ascede to the limitations in number of spells that 4e had.  They may not be as extensive as 3e or earlier editions but they will exceed 4e.  At least thats my analysis of what they've said.

I'd like to see some fighter approaches acceptable to 4e people that do not involve artificial time limits like encounters and dailies.   I can see stuff being practically an encounter but I'd prefer a different explanation beyond just "encounter" which is metagamey.   A fatigue point system might prove interesting.
I liked the slayer and knight (essentials fighter subtypes).

They were based around the basic stack but ha complementary stances and (yes encounter-based) power add-ons (power strike).

I would be happy not having martial dailies if the trade was for decent martial encounter options.

@Emerikol, would you be willing to stretch your disbelief that far? Do fighters have to have a fatigue mechanic or can we just say they can do things a number of times per encounter and it's up to each player to justify why? Fatigue for you, opportunity-coupons for me, predestination for someone else (it was fated that my enemy would lose, therefore my attacks are more powerful. It was destiny that I would not hit a hard, therefore I did not).

Leaving the dailies aside, can we get you into encounter country with a modifiable explanation?

-Brad

I think the argument comes up so often because everyone is arguing that high level wizards were overpowered in early editions. Which they were. But many people (ussually those against overpowered quadratic wizards) talk like wizards were overpowered all the time, rather than a narrowed minority of the overall game. 


Using your example...


They say:

Well, my car explodes in a ball of fire if I drive faster than 100 Km/h, but I never do that, so I don't care.


Because someone else said "OMFG, that car is so broken. It explodes!"

Both statements are true, but one is clarifying that the issue may not be as big as presented. It's a clarifying statement.

Oh, and I take umbridge with the statment of "nostalgia blocks" as it's not nostalgia when it's a game being played right now, and play by choice after 4th Editon was released and became an option; some people aren't pushing for quadatic wizards because it reminds them of a game they used to play back when they were a kid, they're pusing for quadratic classes because it reminds them of a game they play every month published by a company they're giving money to instead of WotC.

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

An interesting topic.

If I were designing and publishing an RPG in the vein of D&D, I'd focus on one 'tier' of story/gameplay for the initial release (L0-10, literally Zero to Hero), and then future releases would expand on this. (L11-20, Champion to Legend, and L21-20, Mortal to Immortal). And each of these tiers would undergo progressively more stringent playtesting. That's the dream, at any rate.

I kind of agree that V-casters aren't always ridiculous, although the time in which they are is a bit larger than 10-20. Heck, in 3e once you hit 5th level, the contrast between 'I am tough and can hit my enemies easily' and 'I can blow up small houses from 600 feet away a few times a day' starts becoming apparent. Hit that next level of spellcasting (persistant invisibility, potent shapeshifting, and long-range teleport usable mid-combat), and things start to spiral downward from there. At least, that's my experience with both 3e and PF.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
An interesting topic.

If I were designing and publishing an RPG in the vein of D&D, I'd focus on one 'tier' of story/gameplay for the initial release (L0-10, literally Zero to Hero), and then future releases would expand on this. (L11-20, Champion to Legend, and L21-20, Mortal to Immortal). And each of these tiers would undergo progressively more stringent playtesting. That's the dream, at any rate.

I kind of agree that V-casters aren't always ridiculous, although the time in which they are is a bit larger than 10-20. Heck, in 3e once you hit 5th level, the contrast between 'I am tough and can hit my enemies easily' and 'I can blow up small houses from 600 feet away a few times a day' starts becoming apparent. Hit that next level of spellcasting (persistant invisibility, potent shapeshifting, and long-range teleport usable mid-combat), and things start to spiral downward from there. At least, that's my experience with both 3e and PF.



That's what D&D basic did with the basic, expert, companion, masters, and immortals box sets   

I'm not a fan of that at all infact I just want one phb, dmg, and monster manual.


I'm not a fan of that at all infact I just want one phb, dmg, and monster manual.


One and done, eh? To me, it seems like D&D could be broken down into three different games (sort of like White Wolf's Scion/Demigod/God).
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.

@Emerikol, would you be willing to stretch your disbelief that far? Do fighters have to have a fatigue mechanic or can we just say they can do things a number of times per encounter and it's up to each player to justify why? Fatigue for you, opportunity-coupons for me, predestination for someone else (it was fated that my enemy would lose, therefore my attacks are more powerful. It was destiny that I would not hit a hard, therefore I did not). Leaving the dailies aside, can we get you into encounter country with a modifiable explanation?



I could probably agree if you go X encounter powers per encounter and could do any of the powers a total of X times.  If each encounter can only be done once then I find that not very believable.
 I always felt that at levels 20 to 30 you should be a god, with god adventures and little guys at level one praying to you. This could add a whole new finality to the game and an everlasting equation in future story lines for younger leveled characters, clerics, kingdoms, etc. with new religoius powers to pass down just like a standard god or goddess.
4E did a better job at that.

Well it did a job. I don't know about better. Everytime I've played 4th ed my enjoyment plumetted at level 12.

Alternatively I've played Pathfinder up to level 13 and I'm still enjoying myself. I know that the closer you get to 20 the more broken it will become, but it's still enjoyable at level 12.

But yes, this is a flaw in all the systems thus far. It would be wonderful it WotC can get it right this time around. But I'm not holding my breath.
I had no problems with 3.5 until I read 2 books that basically broke the game (tome of magic and tome of battle) which have routinly been banned from games I played.



Casters are fine... but you can't handle the Tome of Battle classes.




I feel his pain.  I had a group of four that wanted ToB classes and I said it was okay.  They built them to synergize with each other and I had a far harder time balancing encounters against them than I ever had with casters.  I ended up banning that book after that campaign.  With casters all I ever had to do was ban a few spells.  


Sorry for continuing this thread hijack, but--

Let me guess. White Raven Tactics? 
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
I ran a 3.5 game to 27th level and it was still fun.

However (you knew it was coming), from 16th-18th level I found myself having to tweak and change creatures to keep things working. I had to be very imaginative to challenge the group.
By level 20 I pretty much had to develop my own creatures, HP's, attack bonuses to challenge the group and not to kill them. This continued to level 27 where I found the overhead so ridiculously high that I brought the campaign to a conclusion.

Good campaign but a hell of a lot of work on my part. 
I ran a 3.5 game to 27th level and it was still fun.

However (you knew it was coming), from 16th-18th level I found myself having to tweak and change creatures to keep things working. I had to be very imaginative to challenge the group.
By level 20 I pretty much had to develop my own creatures, HP's, attack bonuses to challenge the group and not to kill them. This continued to level 27 where I found the overhead so ridiculously high that I brought the campaign to a conclusion.

Good campaign but a hell of a lot of work on my part. 



You would have had a much easier time keeping the group challenged had 3.x/PF used bounded accuracy. In fact....light-bulb. I am going to install bounded accuracy in my PF campaign. That way anything past level 7 doesn't become an exercise in trying to outwit and check the player's power.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I feel his pain.  I had a group of four that wanted ToB classes and I said it was okay.  They built them to synergize with each other and I had a far harder time balancing encounters against them than I ever had with casters.  I ended up banning that book after that campaign.  With casters all I ever had to do was ban a few spells.  


Sorry for continuing this thread hijack, but--

Let me guess. White Raven Tactics? 



That's my guess, because there's not much else in that book that someone who can deal with high level casters couldn't handle. Unless they just can't wrap their minds around melee characters who can actually adapt to the situation at hand.
I ran a 3.5 game to 27th level and it was still fun.

However (you knew it was coming), from 16th-18th level I found myself having to tweak and change creatures to keep things working. I had to be very imaginative to challenge the group.
By level 20 I pretty much had to develop my own creatures, HP's, attack bonuses to challenge the group and not to kill them. This continued to level 27 where I found the overhead so ridiculously high that I brought the campaign to a conclusion.

Good campaign but a hell of a lot of work on my part. 



You would have had a much easier time keeping the group challenged had 3.x/PF used bounded accuracy. In fact....light-bulb. I am going to install bounded accuracy in my PF campaign. That way anything past level 7 doesn't become an exercise in trying to outwit and check the player's power.

So...the attack bonuses that are one of the few meager scraps Fighters get in relation to Wizards' quadratic power...you're going to get rid of that?
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
I feel his pain.  I had a group of four that wanted ToB classes and I said it was okay.  They built them to synergize with each other and I had a far harder time balancing encounters against them than I ever had with casters.  I ended up banning that book after that campaign.  With casters all I ever had to do was ban a few spells.  


Sorry for continuing this thread hijack, but--

Let me guess. White Raven Tactics? 



That's my guess, because there's not much else in that book that someone who can deal with high level casters couldn't handle. Unless they just can't wrap their minds around melee characters who can actually adapt to the situation at hand.

That or a bunch of spiked-chain wielders with overlapping Thickets of Blades.

Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
So...the attack bonuses that are one of the few meager scraps Fighters get in relation to Wizards' quadratic power...you're going to get rid of that?



Maybe he will also put Wizards (all spell users actually) back to being a lot less quadratic by using 1st or 2nd editions spell preparation time (15 or 10 minutes per spell level for each spell, respectively) instead of 3.Xs giant power boost of only taking 1 hour to prep spells no matter how many or how powerful.

Used to be that Wizards would spread their prepared spells out over the course of an entire adventure - not just the one day - and there is a huge difference between casting around 30 spells over the course of one entire adventure, and throwing down the same number of spells every day of the adventure.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight! 




To you.

I don't agree with the sentiment either but I don't try to proclaim my way as the only way.  Whomever made that statement...it is not broken to them.  That doesn't change because you view it differently.

Broken is broken.  You can like broken - and I'll stand up and defend our right to like broken games vigorously - but that doesn't change it.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!