Community

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. 

Perplexing indeed.....

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

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.  

 

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?

Jun 6, 2012 -- 3:10AM, solkanar72 wrote:

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.

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 4:49AM, Kalebon wrote:

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. 

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

..."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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:10AM, Barundar wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

..."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.

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:10AM, Barundar wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

..."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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 6:06AM, Barundar wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 6:13AM, Alraune wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 6:06AM, Barundar wrote:

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. 

Jun 6, 2012 -- 6:06AM, Barundar wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 6:40AM, DaleMcCoy wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 6:57AM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 6:06AM, Barundar wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:06AM, Areleth wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 4:49AM, Kalebon wrote:

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.  
 

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:14PM, KalrocVN wrote:

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?

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.

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:58PM, Arcane_Guyver wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 6:05PM, dmgorgon wrote:

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).

Jun 6, 2012 -- 3:04PM, bawylie wrote:

@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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 3:10AM, solkanar72 wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:00PM, Maxperson wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:06AM, Areleth wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 4:49AM, Kalebon wrote:

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? 

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. 

Jun 6, 2012 -- 10:24PM, therion666 wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 10:14PM, Reyemile wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:00PM, Maxperson wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 10:37PM, Warrant wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 10:24PM, therion666 wrote:

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?

Jun 6, 2012 -- 11:00PM, Areleth wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 10:14PM, Reyemile wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:00PM, Maxperson wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 11:02PM, Reyemile wrote:

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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:10AM, Barundar wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

..."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.

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

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!

    Quite the contrary.  A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.  You can have a cancer that will kill you in 20 years, which will not concern your doctor or you at all because you expect to be dead in 10.  You want to be cured of what will kill you next year.
     We want epic play to be as good as we can make it, but quite simply it is lower priority than the lower levels that more players will experience.  We can also add that the fix is also likely to be a lot harder.  So everything calls for putting epic on the back burner for the most part.  It gets the leftover time and effort, not the best.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 12:40AM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:10AM, Barundar wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

..."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.

"Broken" is subjective, based on opinion. What is broken in your opinion is not broken in my opinion.

I've played the older editions at high level play and have not experienced the problems that some people have. But then, we played with the Rule-as-Written; which included things (like casting time, rare or hard to aquire material components, ability point drain, rarity of higher level spells - just because you could learn it didn't mean you had access to it, etc.) to balance spell casters. Not to mention, things like retainers that fighters gained; enabling them to play more of a controller's role on the battlefield, by directing retainers around.

These things kept the game balanced. Just because people ignored them didn't mean the game was broken, it meant they broke the game the way they played it.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:29AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 12:40AM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:10AM, Barundar wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

..."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.

"Broken" is subjective, based on opinion. What is broken in your opinion is not broken in my opinion.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.  A system that fails to function is broken.  

You can have subjective opinions or feeling about something that's broken, but that doesn't make it not broken.  You drop a Hummel figurine with sentimental value, and it breaks.  Your sentiment for it doesn't make it whole.  Some super-glue might help.  But even with the cracks, the sentimental value remains.

We have every right to love something in spite of it's imperfections, or even for those imperfections.  But, we have no right to mis-represent that thing to others.  

The reverse is equally true.  WE can hate something that's perfectly functional.  We do not have to justify that dislike by pretending that the object of it is inferior or inadequate, we can simply dislike it.  


The discussions that go on around here involve a lot of dedicated hobbyists who may have encyclopedic knowledge of the game, intense feeling about it, technical understanding of how it functions, or combinations of all three.  Those things get munged together.  It's a messy way to try to move our little hobby forward (or preserve it).

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:15AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Quite the contrary.  A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.

Ah, no.

If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:44AM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:29AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 12:40AM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 5:10AM, Barundar wrote:

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Obsidian_Razor wrote:

..."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.

"Broken" is subjective, based on opinion. What is broken in your opinion is not broken in my opinion.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.  A system that fails to function is broken.  

You can have subjective opinions or feeling about something that's broken, but that doesn't make it not broken.  You drop a Hummel figurine with sentimental value, and it breaks.  Your sentiment for it doesn't make it whole.  Some super-glue might help.  But even with the cracks, the sentimental value remains.

We have every right to love something in spite of it's imperfections, or even for those imperfections.  But, we have no right to mis-represent that thing to others.  

The reverse is equally true.  WE can hate something that's perfectly functional.  We do not have to justify that dislike by pretending that the object of it is inferior or inadequate, we can simply dislike it.  


The discussions that go on around here involve a lot of dedicated hobbyists who may have encyclopedic knowledge of the game, intense feeling about it, technical understanding of how it functions, or combinations of all three.  Those things get munged together.  It's a messy way to try to move our little hobby forward (or preserve it).

I have demonstrated that the system wasn't broken and functioned "as written" (although you chose to omit/ignore that part of my post in your reply), but the way people houseruled the system made it seem broken.

The rest of your post I agree with.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 2:03AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:15AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Quite the contrary.  A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.

Ah, no.

If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.

    So you deem superior a system that falls apart right away?
     That is the alternative you suggest here.  The designers are presumed to only have time and energy to get the game sorta working at the low level.  So if they devote time to high level, they can't even achieve that limited success. 
      And the low levels is where the great majority of the game happens.  Players quit before they reach higher levels, or they switch to other characters, or ...  You are just going to have more play at low levels in any D&D system.  So you have to put that as a higher priority.  Add in that players who have a bad experience at low levels will not be continuing to high levels. 
     We want all parts of the game to be great, but we have limited resources and we have much more need to make the low level good than the high.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 11:19AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 2:03AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:15AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Quite the contrary.  A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.

Ah, no.

If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.

    So you deem superior a system that falls apart right away?

I stopped reading here and won't read further anytime you put words in my mouth.

Show me where I said a better system is one that falls apart right away.

They should focus on 1-20th level.  4e did not add ten more levels of awesome, imo. 

If Themes come every 5 levels, they should give specific directions for making 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and even 20th level characters.  We played an awesome Paragon Tier campaign in 4e, but we started at 10th - and our characters started at various degrees of broken (but that's 4e).  I think you can encourage higher level play, and thus higher level play support with simple rules for starting at higher levels.  I have never played the same character for more than 15 levels, more often than not because of TPK.  It's not that I didn't want to play the highest levels, it's that I got bored of the character/campaign or our luck just ran out.

The designers mentioned starting at 3rd level a few times, as if 1st and 2nd were training wheel levels.  I hope this isn't the case.  This is the other extreme of the OPs argument.

And like someone said, at high level the dice get ridiculous.  I don't like the idea of fighters getting additional attacks - just give them more targets and/or damage.  In 3rd, that the additional attacks probably weren't gonna hit was mind bogglingly frustrating.  Things should change over level, but not the time it takes to resolve an encounter.

My personal longest character is about 5 levels in, but only becuase the DM running it left town for an undetermined amount of time for..military I think? Something, idr. When he gets back he plans to pick up where we left off an eventually move into epic tier. We level up fairly quickly though because the encounters themselves are built tougher.

Lawrence has a point, there were some mechanisms to keep wizards constrained. As much as their explosive power might have existed, they were burning gold and time trying to find, learn, and cast these new spells that were used by the fighter to buy a castle and stock it. Especially with bounded accuracy, a regiment of well trained archers can be quite a powerful boon.

We have no idea what high level casting will entail with the current rules, however. This is what needs to be remembered.  They may be balanced by a physical cost, or (mechanically an inferior method imo) with fiscal and temporal costs. 

To be directly competitive on a mechanical level, the high level fighter will need more to do.  There should be an evolution of the fighter, with levels 1-10 feeling like dark souls, 11-20 being assassin's creed, and 21+ being Kratos.  If you want the fighter to remain "realistic" at high level, there is no way to do this without him becoming superhuman. If we assume high levels include a degree of deific power, then it's feasible.

As is, though, any cries of high levels being broken are absurd. We've seen up to level 3.

Chill, and we'll see what it looks like when we playtest it. 

When I use the argument "Not all groups get to play at those levels" its usually not to excuse the "Phenominal Cosmic Power" as not important, but rather to highlight the fact that you can't balance low levels with what might come at high levels.

Levels need to roughly balance out from level to lever between races and classes, because you never know if your going to make it through to 5th or 8th or 12th or whatever level before a group grows apart, no longer has time, a new edition comes out, changes games, whatever...

As people get older, demands on their times change, they move away, new people join, so although there are long running campaigns out there that may make it into the Epic levels 20+, you can't use those epic levels to justify the power differential at lower levels.

Also, as the  OP pointed out, the epic levels need to also contain the balance and playability of the lower levels, for those who do make it that far and stay together and on one campaign that long, or shoot, for those who want to do a campaign that starts at those higher levels (I rarely do such, unless its a demo at a Con)

Balance is a cornerstone concept of the game, because it has to be equally as fulfilling and enjoyable to everyone who participated in the passtime. 

Jun 7, 2012 -- 11:39AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 11:19AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 2:03AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:15AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Quite the contrary.  A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.

Ah, no.

If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.

    So you deem superior a system that falls apart right away?

I stopped reading here and won't read further anytime you put words in my mouth.

Show me where I said a better system is one that falls apart right away.

   Right where you reject a game that falls apart later.
   Now you quite possibly have in mind some dream of improving all levels of the game, but you have centered on improving epic, and we have only limited resources.  Improvements to epic mean there is less left to improve other parts of the game.  So when you talk about a system that is shakey until level 12 and then falls apart entirely, the alternative is not a system that works perfectly all the way to 30.  It is a system that falls apart right away.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 3:00PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 11:39AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 11:19AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 2:03AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:15AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Quite the contrary.  A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.

Ah, no.

If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.

    So you deem superior a system that falls apart right away?

I stopped reading here and won't read further anytime you put words in my mouth.

Show me where I said a better system is one that falls apart right away.

   Right where you reject a game that falls apart later.
   Now you quite possibly have in mind some dream of improving all levels of the game, but you have centered on improving epic, and we have only limited resources.  Improvements to epic mean there is less left to improve other parts of the game.  So when you talk about a system that is shakey until level 12 and then falls apart entirely, the alternative is not a system that works perfectly all the way to 30.  It is a system that falls apart right away.

Please read my post.

I said I want a game that functions at all levels, not just the firts half then falls apart.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 4:25PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 8, 2012 -- 3:00PM, DavidArgall wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 11:39AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 11:19AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 2:03AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Jun 7, 2012 -- 1:15AM, DavidArgall wrote:

Quite the contrary.  A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.

Ah, no.

If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.

    So you deem superior a system that falls apart right away?

I stopped reading here and won't read further anytime you put words in my mouth.

Show me where I said a better system is one that falls apart right away.

   Right where you reject a game that falls apart later.
   Now you quite possibly have in mind some dream of improving all levels of the game, but you have centered on improving epic, and we have only limited resources.  Improvements to epic mean there is less left to improve other parts of the game.  So when you talk about a system that is shakey until level 12 and then falls apart entirely, the alternative is not a system that works perfectly all the way to 30.  It is a system that falls apart right away.

Please read my post.

I said I want a game that functions at all levels, not just the firts half then falls apart.

   (content removed)  You are wanting something for nothing, and won't get it either.  You move effort away from improving the low level game and the result will be an inferior low level game.  The alternatives you have are a game that falls apart at high levels or one that falls apart earlier.  The perfect game is a dream, not an option.

Please actually read my posts and stop arguing against what you assume I'm saying.

I want a game that works at all levels, not one that falls apart ocne you get past level 12. They need to put attention to every level, not just the first couple. This is not some outrageous demand, this is what they should be doing as designers, which is their job. If they do not do their job, they can't expect me to pay money for it.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 5:40PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Please actually read my posts and stop arguing against what you assume I'm saying.

I want a game that works at all levels, not one that falls apart ocne you get past level 12. They need to put attention to every level, not just the first couple. This is not some outrageous demand, this is what they should be doing as designers, which is their job. If they do not do their job, they can't expect me to pay money for it.

Nonsense. They should charge us for an incomplete game. I'd much rather spend my hard earned money on lazy design. It is much better for them to give us 5 solid levels and then tell us to fix the rest. 

Jun 8, 2012 -- 5:14PM, DavidArgall wrote:

You move effort away from improving the low level game and the result will be an inferior low level game.  The alternatives you have are a game that falls apart at high levels or one that falls apart earlier.  The perfect game is a dream, not an option.

It sounds like you're making the argument that D&D is going to fall apart and nothing can prevent it. Is this your argument? That attempting to balance high-level play somehow means the game can't hold it together until then? That there is a finite quantity of "not sucking" and all we can do is choose what 8-level spread to use it on?

Why would anyone play that game? That sounds like a terrible game.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:05PM, extropymine wrote:

Jun 8, 2012 -- 5:14PM, DavidArgall wrote:

You move effort away from improving the low level game and the result will be an inferior low level game.  The alternatives you have are a game that falls apart at high levels or one that falls apart earlier.  The perfect game is a dream, not an option.

It sounds like you're making the argument that D&D is going to fall apart and nothing can prevent it. Is this your argument? That attempting to balance high-level play somehow means the game can't hold it together until then? That there is a finite quantity of "not sucking" and all we can do is choose what 8-level spread to use it on?

Why would anyone play that game? That sounds like a terrible game.

I played that game before. I would never do it again.

Content has been removed due to violations of section 2, Inappropriate Content of the Code of Conduct.

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.  

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:05PM, extropymine wrote:

Jun 8, 2012 -- 5:14PM, DavidArgall wrote:

You move effort away from improving the low level game and the result will be an inferior low level game.  The alternatives you have are a game that falls apart at high levels or one that falls apart earlier.  The perfect game is a dream, not an option.

It sounds like you're making the argument that D&D is going to fall apart and nothing can prevent it. Is this your argument? That attempting to balance high-level play somehow means the game can't hold it together until then? That there is a finite quantity of "not sucking" and all we can do is choose what 8-level spread to use it on?

       No, that is his implied argument, one he just does not want to acknowledge.  However, it seems to be a general opinion of all editions to date.  The low levels get scorned, and the high levels are deemed unplayable.  There is debate about where the sweet spot is and it may vary with editions, but it is a quite common judgment.

That's because for the most part, they do low levels fine.  There are many less options at lower levels and don't need as much balance-focus attention that higher levels do.

And please point where I'm implying that there are onyl 8 acceptable levels for balance in my posts saying All levels should be balanced.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 7:26PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

That's because for the most part, they do low levels fine.  There are many less options at lower levels and don't need as much balance-focus attention that higher levels do.

And please point where I'm implying that there are onyl 8 acceptable levels for balance in my posts saying All levels should be balanced.

     That can be a worthy goal, but the simple fact is that it is impractical.  There is only so much effort that can be devoted to balancing the game before we are unable to fix other problems.  The same mortal limits apply to making all levels balanced.  If we try too hard to do that, we merely end up with more unbalanced levels. 
     We can also add in that it is harder to balance some levels than others, the epic being particular difficult, and the low levels much easier.  Then there is the matter of how often each level is played, with low levels being much more common than high.  So we end up finding that making an equal effort to balance levels just leads to less balance.  So when you call for balancing all levels, you are calling for less balance.  In particular, when you call for more balance of epic, you are calling for imbalance of low levels.  It is just a matter of squeezing the balloon.  You can shove in anywhere, but it pops out elsewhere.
     Now nobody is saying there are only 8 acceptable levels.  The number is debatable at best and likely varies with editions.  8 is merely a casual guesstimate that will do for our purposes.
      Nor have they done low levels just fine in terms of balance.  The silly idea that you could let the low level mage be a wimp because he would become the stud later shows this.
     

if it's so impractical for a dev to balance a large part of the game's level then he's simply a bad dev.

if our theoretical dev can only balance his game for 10 levels, then he shouldn't give them 20. he should make those 10 levels meaningful rather then give the players 3 crappy levels to start with and a horrible 7 to end it or whatever.

shoddy design is shoddy design. forcing a certain style of play (epic play, heroic play, "level 0 commoner" play, etc...) in a game that simply wasn't designed for it just for the sake of having it, is bad design. 

i would much rather have a game like the current gamma world, which focuses on a 10 level "snapshot" of a character, i'm saying a "snapshot" since while there is growth and charge and it shows between a 1st and 10th level character it doesn't do the wild "you die VS housecat... reshape universe" curve that some editions of D&D do, then what many editions of D&D promise and fail.

i buy a game because i expect it to work from start to end. i also expect the same from any games, be they TTRPGs, videogames, boardgames, etc... if i have to houserule or ignore the first 3 levels of a TTRPG just so the game is playable i won't waste my money on it. if i have to write a patch just so a game on my PC would load, i won't waste my money on it (if the devs release one immediately after release? maybe but i would need to hear it's good from a source i find reliable, like my friends/co-workers/brother/etc...).

TTRPGs are just one of many different forms of entertainment vying for my time. if the devs can't be bothered to make a game that's balanced and playable across all levels of play, i can't be bothered to spend my money on it.

Higher levels never worked well for me in any edition (and I have played in every single one since the early 80's).

1st edition probably worked best at high levels.  If they can scale hit points and damage for higher levels, it might work.  It looks like hit points are rising faster than damage output.

I also don't like PCs and NPCs using separate scaling.  There are instances where NPCs will fight each other or that PCs will fight each other.  There is also the possibility of a PC becoming an NPC or an NPC becoming a PC.  They should use the same system for hit points and damage output.


       

World of Warcraft has been able to balance 90 levels effectively.  D&D does not need to imitate WoW but it does need to create a system that doesn't collapse at higher levels.  The game designers might need to hire someone who can help them with the math if they aren't capable of it themselves.

WOW undergoes constant revisions that patch exploits an nerf characters that are bein complained about.

You can't compare a system of constant forced update that has no room for independent rulings with a pen and paper RPG on this.

Jun 9, 2012 -- 7:32PM, kezzek wrote:

Higher levels never worked well for me in any edition (and I have played in every single one since the early 80's).

1st edition probably worked best at high levels.  If they can scale hit points and damage for higher levels, it might work.  It looks like hit points are rising faster than damage output.

I also don't like PCs and NPCs using separate scaling.  There are instances where NPCs will fight each other or that PCs will fight each other.  There is also the possibility of a PC becoming an NPC or an NPC becoming a PC.  They should use the same system for hit points and damage output.


       

Oh god no. There are rules for companion character NPC's in 4e for this very purpose. They are basically NPC's that are designed to work alongside PC's, only they're as simple to work with as any other NPC. 3e was a nightmare for monster and encounter design for this very reason. Having too basically go through a regular character creation process per monster is not something I am willing to accept again. Massive step backwards.

Monster A has feats a, b, and c from books d, e, and f. Now it can cast spells g, h, and I, which I now have to go and reference. Then, it can summon up 5 of monster j, which all have abilities k, l, and m which I now also have to go through an entire creation process for, figure out abilities, feats, spells, etc.

Or, I just think of a monster concept. Write it out on paper. Find the average to hit bonuses, damage, defenses. Apply and adjust to fit the concept. Give it whatever special abilities fit. Maybe apply a template. Done.

There's no reason for the game to be any less DM friendly than 4e, which is such a breeze compared to what came around previously.

Jun 9, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Samrin wrote:

Oh god no. There are rules for companion character NPC's in 4e for this very purpose. They are basically NPC's that are designed to work alongside PC's, only they're as simple to work with as any other NPC. 3e was a nightmare for monster and encounter design for this very reason. Having too basically go through a regular character creation process per monster is not something I am willing to accept again. Massive step backwards.

Complexity is an entirely different subject.  You can have NPCs and PCs using the same system without having equal complexity.  I personally would advocate a system where the level of complexity for PCs is a player and DM choice.  Players who want simple-to-use 12th level wizards should be able to play that character.  

A system where PCs can never fight each other or NPCs can never fight each other because the system makes such an action to be mathematically difficult takes away many roleplaying options.  In 4E, a high-level monster who could force the PCs to attack each other was much more effective.  Forcing NPCs to fight each other was an ineffective strategy for the same reason.


In D&D next, it appears that 2 ogres fighting each other would be extremely time-consuming.

Jun 9, 2012 -- 9:14PM, kezzek wrote:

Jun 9, 2012 -- 8:49PM, Samrin wrote:

Oh god no. There are rules for companion character NPC's in 4e for this very purpose. They are basically NPC's that are designed to work alongside PC's, only they're as simple to work with as any other NPC. 3e was a nightmare for monster and encounter design for this very reason. Having too basically go through a regular character creation process per monster is not something I am willing to accept again. Massive step backwards.

Complexity is an entirely different subject.  You can have NPCs and PCs using the same system without having equal complexity.  I personally would advocate a system where the level of complexity for PCs is a player and DM choice.  Players who want simple-to-use 12th level wizards should be able to play that character.  

A system where PCs can never fight or NPCs can never fight because they are incompatible takes away many roleplaying options.  In 4E, a high-level monster who could force the PCs to attack each other was much more effective.  Forcing NPCs to fight each other was an ineffective strategy for the same reason.

In D&D next, it appears that 2 ogres fighting each other would be extremely time-consuming.

No, it really wasn't. Companion characters. Go look them up. They work quite well, and are very simple. Complexity is unavoidable if you want to use PC creation rules for NPC's. It gets worse the higher level you go, because the number of abilities goes up. Spellcasters are especially a nightmare to create on the fly. I'd rather be able to come up with an NPC of any level in around 5 minutes max. The less prep time, the better. DM'ing should be easy.

Jun 9, 2012 -- 7:48PM, Valdark wrote:

WOW undergoes constant revisions that patch exploits an nerf characters that are bein complained about. You can't compare a system of constant forced update that has no room for independent rulings with a pen and paper RPG on this.

Actually I would argue that you can.  If the system is developed correctly to begin with, there is no reason that it can't work well.   D&D has simply struggled with developing an effective strategy to high level campaigns.  They need to decide how long combats will last and the level of risk to PCs in each encounter.  

 There is a mathematical solution to the problem of hit point and damage scaling that the developers haven't mastered.   

Jun 9, 2012 -- 9:18PM, Samrin wrote:

No, it really wasn't. Companion characters. Go look them up. They work quite well, and are very simple. Complexity is unavoidable if you want to use PC creation rules for NPC's. It gets worse the higher level you go, because the number of abilities goes up. Spellcasters are especially a nightmare to create on the fly. I'd rather be able to come up with an NPC of any level in around 5 minutes max. The less prep time, the better. DM'ing should be easy.

You are assuming that PCs must be complex.  I think PCs should be very simple for some players.  I know many players who want to be a wizard but never can because they can't handle complexity.

I would argue that a balanced system should be developed for players wanting simple 12th level wizards playing alongside a complex 12th level fighter of a different player.

NPCs would then be identical to a simple PC and no extra prep time by a DM.  A player wanting a complex PC would just add the extra time for creation and take tradeoffs.

There is no reason to believe that PCs have to be in a different system from NPCs due to complexity.  The differing systems for PCs and NPCs itself adds unneeded complexity.  
  

Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:09PM, kezzek wrote:

Jun 9, 2012 -- 9:18PM, Samrin wrote:

No, it really wasn't. Companion characters. Go look them up. They work quite well, and are very simple. Complexity is unavoidable if you want to use PC creation rules for NPC's. It gets worse the higher level you go, because the number of abilities goes up. Spellcasters are especially a nightmare to create on the fly. I'd rather be able to come up with an NPC of any level in around 5 minutes max. The less prep time, the better. DM'ing should be easy.

You are assuming that PCs must be complex.  I think PCs should be very simple for some players.  I know many players who want to be a wizard but never can because they can't handle complexity.

I would argue that a balanced system should be developed for players wanting simple 12th level wizards playing alongside a complex 12th level fighter of a different player.

NPCs would then be identical to a simple PC and no extra prep time by a DM.  A player wanting a complex PC would just add the extra time for creation and take tradeoffs.

There is no reason to believe that PCs have to be in a different system from NPCs due to complexity.  The differing systems for PCs and NPCs itself adds unneeded complexity.  
  

There's no reason for them to be built on the same system. It should just be the equivalent of a few drop down options, apply appropriate bonuses and defenses for the level, tack on whatever else you want, and be done. If you do it as PC's, you're going to have to add things like spells, feats, ability scores, etc. That is far more complex than it needs to be, even if it is simple by PC standards. 

Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:16PM, Samrin wrote:

There's no reason for them to be built on the same system. It should just be the equivalent of a few drop down options, apply appropriate bonuses and defenses for the level, tack on whatever else you want, and be done. If you do it as PC's, you're going to have to add things like spells, feats, ability scores, etc. That is far more complex than it needs to be, even if it is simple by PC standards. 

The reason to use the same mathematical system for calculating hit points and damage potential for both Pcs and NPCs would be to allow NPCs to fight with NPCs and for PCs to fight with PCs.  PCs could become NPCs and NPCs could become PCs.  As it stands, they are structured to differing standards.  In 4E and apparently 5E, NPCs have more hit points and cause less damage than PCs of similar power level.  I fundamentally disagree with this approach.

Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:28PM, kezzek wrote:

Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:16PM, Samrin wrote:

There's no reason for them to be built on the same system. It should just be the equivalent of a few drop down options, apply appropriate bonuses and defenses for the level, tack on whatever else you want, and be done. If you do it as PC's, you're going to have to add things like spells, feats, ability scores, etc. That is far more complex than it needs to be, even if it is simple by PC standards. 

The reason to use the same mathematical system for calculating hit points and damage potential for both Pcs and NPCs would be to allow NPCs to fight with NPCs and for PCs to fight with PCs.  PCs could become NPCs and NPCs could become PCs.  As it stands, they are structured to differing standards.  In 4E and apparently 5E, NPCs have more hit points and cause less damage than PCs of similar power level.  I fundamentally disagree with this approach.

You can already do that without them running on the same system, as I have said multiple times. It works out great. 4e has a system for using NPC's in the same party as PC's. It's very simple, balanced, and works wonderfully.