Say, an Epic level book that didn't assume 21st level was the start, but went with an entirely new way to track character advancement (at the simplest, starting over at level 1 or something, but a level 1 epic character would be more powerful than a 20th level standard character).
First off, I'm not that interested in epic level play.
But, one way to approach it may be to make Epic PC classes. These could work similar to prestige classes with prerequisites, or they could all be base epic classes, that you can only advance in if you're a 20th level character to start.
So you might have say a Wizard 20, "Epic Wizard" 1 or something.
I also wouldn't develop it by increasing the math from normal D&D overmuch, but develop it through abilities, skills and feats that are on an Epic scale. For instance, a fighter's BAB shouldn't go up anymore really, but instead gain supernatural abilities upon advancing in levels... like one attack applied against all opponents within reach or something like that.
Just my two coppers.
I'm definitely not interested in epic level-which-will-be-played-by-0.01%-of-D&D-players, I want low/mid-level epic adventures. What makes an epic adventure? That's the real question I'm concerned about. And I personally don't think it's related to level. Fighting a dragon can be a walk in the park, whereas fighting an allip at level 2 can sometimes be epic...
There is a difference between Epic adventures and epic adventures.
An Epic adventure is based solely on the PC's character level. The consequences, enemies, and themes, apart from being of the appropriate CR/EL, may not have any particular importance to the setting.
An epic adventure is based on the impact (or potential impact) to the setting. The consequences, enemies, and themes, regardless of their CR/EL, have world-shaking importance (sometimes literally).
For Epic levels, I think the "best" way to go would be the "Epic prestige class" route that has already been mentioned. One route would be to basically provide "choose your own" upgrades to the base classes based on general character concept (arcane caster, divine caster, divine warrior, melee combatant, ranged combatant, stealth, etc.), expanding on the concepts used for the 3.5 archmage and heirophant. The Epic prestige classes, unfortunately, were pretty specific, which limited their appeal.
|
would like to see something I didn't notice proposed in the thread
An AwakeningEpic awakens the character, as if opening thier eyes to a new world that has been there the whole time.
Just that thought in itself is an interesting premise. I just can't add anything more to it because it conjures up more without my input. Your ideas that follow are many, but this by itself stands strongly enough on its own.
Cheers,
Zuxius
|
|
The problem is, while that might be a great RPG, its not D&D, or its natural continuance. Epic level play has never really been a core strength of D&D. I think there is a kind of natural "end" at 20th level, even moreso with the capstone abilities of many classes, and trying to come up with something that is both different and epic but still D&D like seems to be trying to do something with the game that it really isn't designed to do.
Hah! Now here is something of a real idea to be had. Maybe even a solution? Don't make the game Epic, but cap it. Everything must stop at such and such level. There will never be a 1000 HP Demi God because there will never be a 1001 HP Demi God standing right behind that one. This also leaves me thinking that all things in the game would have to be capped. Monsters, Gods, etc.
Ok, if the game can't be Epic functionally after 20th level, then maybe "Epic" must be found while the game is still functional below 20th level.
20th level looks to be where the game must be capped. High Level encounters are not easy to run either, but I think Epic play that is capped within the working confines would be a solution to the problem. I am not sure it is the one everyone is hoping for, but it needs to be considered.
It is true that I think Epic Gaming would be very different than regular D&D, but I also think that Paizo would open new doors to something that no one has done right. If they properly get this done, I would love to see what Epic stories they would tell. Properly done is the key words here. I still didn't get my Masters in Roleplaying Game Mechanics and Bloated Math Theory, so I hope I am not excluded from that 0.001% that knows Epic like the back of their hand.
In any event, your gripe has an "embedded idea" that makes me think that sometimes the solution may be simplier than tackling the problem.
In otherwords, "Why try to fill an infinite Blackhole when one can just avoid it?"
I do feel Epic stories are had by theme. If the town Brewer calls you to fetch Hops that grow in goblin infested marshes. That seems like Merc work at best. However, if a King charges you to carry his banner to the Goblin infested marshes to rescue his beloved daughter, that is Epic. As I see it, if someone took the time to recant your deeds in a book, then your story will become legend (if the writer is worth their 2 cents). It would seem "Epic" has two roles to play.
Cheers,
Zuxius
I think that their should be some epic play, but with a general cap at lv/cr 30, with only a handful of the most ancient and powerful outsiders and old ones going up to level 35-odd.
Most demon lords or epic monsters will be in the 20+ range, and most players in campaigns will only need to go to a max of 25, but the options are still there, and rules and guidelines for taking it even higher will be include to cater to the niche market.
Maybe.
|
I propose an epic system that stops advancement at 20 (because let's face it, by that level the game is world-saving anyway...), but you buy additional epic level feats with spent experience.
Say +1 BAB may cost 1 million XP, An epic level metamagic boost to spells may cost 1 million, a 2HD buff may cost the same, you can get additional boosts of the same type but they get exponentially more expensive.
Perhaps after level 20, experience stops, and Legend points begin.
So that +1 BAB is only 1 Legend Point, though you may only earn 1-3 legend points per adventure...(though I'm not sure legend point works since that's an Earthdawn mechanic.) That would REALLY cut down on the advancement math, and make each epic adventure worthwhile.
Options are good...
Alternately, I propose play continues as normal beyond 20. No special rules, just additional levels. (No epic fighter levels, Better pick a prestige class, or cross-class).
Simple is good too.
Epic for me isn't about rules, it's the story, regardless of how many levels you may or may not have. My Forgotten Realms campaign went to 39th level, and at about 30th or so, combat did not have as much play as developing the characters' histories did.
Some things that I don't like about the current Epic system is the sudden change of mechanics from 20th to 21st. The create-a-spell idea is interesting, though it's something that felt a little tacked on. The epic beasties are again, interesting, but something felt lacking to me, as if they were only meant to be large bags of flesh to beat on. Epic is supposed to be inspiring, grand - this is the time for your character to become legend, and instead it becomes about comparing spreadsheets of abilities.
What I'd like to see is some sort of Trait-like setup, with unique abilities not tied to class, that players can mix and match to suit their characters. Things that represent the impact players have made on the world around them, be it a direct line to the ruler of a country, blessing of a deity. Or the reverse even - cursed by a deity, wanted in X country, etc.
Essentially, my preferred fix would be to make Epic work like E6 does once characters reach level 6. I think this is an exceptionally solid idea, and one that can be used with some of the existing Epic feats, and similar SRD resources. If you use the E6 ratios, then you would be looking at 800,000 xp per feat, and 5 feats per additional Epic Character Level. That might need some playtesting to refine.
This would be my preferred solution for the Epic issue. Allow 3/4 BAB classes to go up to +16 BAB with a feat, so they can unlock that final iterative attack, and unlock any feats which depend on it, or multiclassed characters to patch themselves up in one area of competence.
I had a thought recently on the 21+ level play... not rules. How about a name change, instead of Epic use Mythic. This seems less likely to be confused with a story telling format and still indicates the power characters control at that point. Certainly their will likely be many fair tales about the PCs once they start effecting things on a world-wide or planar level.
Calling it "high-level" wouldn't be confused with any literary device, but would conflict with current conventions in normal "Heroic" play.
I had a thought recently on the 21+ level play... not rules. How about a name change, instead of Epic use Mythic. This seems less likely to be confused with a story telling format and still indicates the power characters control at that point. Certainly their will likely be many fair tales about the PCs once they start effecting things on a world-wide or planar level.
Calling it "high-level" wouldn't be confused with any literary device, but would conflict with current conventions in normal "Heroic" play.
Yeah changing the name will help, I was saying something like that earlier. I thought calling it Legendary would be better myself. I considered Mythic too though. Mainly because Legendary has more power behind it, where Mythic comes off more whimsical.
|
|
Things that represent the impact players have made on the world around them, be it a direct line to the ruler of a country, blessing of a deity. Or the reverse even - cursed by a deity, wanted in X country, etc.
"Lilith, creator of all known "Good Cookies", poster of the messageboards of Paizo, contributor to the game we all love."
Lilith, you should see Jabberwocky if you haven't already. I love the bit about the King's herald. Never knows when to stop with the fanciful introduction of the king.
"Listen to the wit, marvel at his oratory elequence, his majesty, the king."
Cheers,
Zuxius
Lilith, you should see Jabberwocky if you haven't already. I love the bit about the King's herald. Never knows when to stop with the fanciful introduction of the king.
"Listen to the wit, marvel at his oratory elequence, his majesty, the king."
I'll put it on my watch list. :D
|
Hmm...epic to me. I have a couple of thoughts:
1. If Paizo is going to take the time to create an Epic Level Handbook, there should be adventures/AP's written for it.
2. It has to be playable and fun.
3. When I think of epic, I think of a Planescape-like campaign that involves plane jumping, and interacting with high-creatures on their home planes, to include interacting with heralds and such.
4. I think plot/story/role playing become more important than combat. The interactions with powerful beings becomes the fun/challenge of them.
5. Expanded rules for running a castle/town/city. At epic level, it has to be assumed that characters are a political force. There should be rules/random tables for things that happen while they are away dealing with the epic issue at hand.
I think the theme of the book has to be, how do you make extreme high level play interesting and fun, not a chore or a bore to play through. I would be in favor of simplifing/streamling combat a bit too. It should not take 1 hour to play through 1 round of combat. That is too long.
A few things I've found playing and designing in epic over the past few years.
The save and attack progressions need to standardize, or the system needs to be capped at a point where the discrepancy doesn't make the result a foregone conclusion. This was perhaps the one thing that WotC's epic got right.
Stacking feats, particularly ones that throw a certain dimension out of wack, are a bad idea. This includes armor skin, damage reduction, energy resistance, spell resistance, epic prowess and their ilk.
A cap should be set in mind. 50 seems like a good point to me, but 40 works too. 20 base levels plus 20 epic levels?
Epic feats need to be cool, but prereqed for their intended entry level. So while a stackable damage reduction feat might be bad because you can't control if the player just keeps taking it every level, a damage reduction feat that provides DR 5/- available at level 21-25ish, and a second feat that provides DR 10/- available at level 31-35ish, is actually preferred.
Epic magic items ought to cap out in enhancement one (or maybe two) increment past normal. Thus, +6 weapons and armor, +8 enhancement item, +6 ring of protection, etc. Instead of just bigger numbers, epic items ought to provide cool and original abilities. Bigger numbers cause Christmas tree effect and the game to break down if someone isn't wearing 'enhancement everything' gear. Original powers give players something to look forward to.
The epic spell system is an abomination. It would be more ideal to design 10th, 11th, 12th level spells that actually fit within the game, rather than that encourage munchy work arounds to provide the most bang for your buck.
The cosmology needs to reflect your epic cap. If you have gods > demon princes > elder dragons > men, that is fine, but make sure that the CRs (or more importantly, the personal abilities) of say, Pazuzu reflects that he is a powerful demon prince capable of holding his own against deities without being absolutely obliterated. His conflicts with Lamastu are legendary, he ought to have some reason for still being alive now that she is a deity. With WotC's deities, there was no reason that any demon prince (even the Dragon-Demonomicon builds) could ever survive upsetting even a relatively minor god. Thor could have laid waste to Hell without ever breaking a sweat. The Forgotten Realms Elder Evils like the elf eater and Kezef the Chaos Hound...those were really sad. CR 21 for Kezef, CR 26 for Dendar, in order to 'let PCs fight them', but in the same book there is a CR 35 lich. That's not ideal. Make things make sense. If demigods are CR 30ish, as are demon princes, and Tar-Baphon is a 30-something level ancient lich, it makes sense that he could have surprised and defeated Arazni. If demigods are as they were in Deities and Demigods, with 50-60 HD plus a rank system that effectively simulated additional HD, plus the ability to supernaturally cast every spell available at will....well, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Tar Baphon could have triumphed.
Epic adventures are needed to encourage epic play. Epic on a scale of say, the last four chapters of Savage Tide. Wolfgang Baur's Expedition to the Demonweb Pits would have worked much better as a high level adventure as well. I think epic adventures that are connected to lower level ones are also ideal. The reason many people get bored with epic I think is because that is where they start. You wouldn't believe the shocked expressions I get when I suggest we start the campaign at level 1. Growing into an epic character over time makes the character more important and fleshed out, I think. A stand-alone epic adventure (like the Storm Giant and Hourglass ones in Dungeon) don't really carry that impressive feel. I don't remember who the giant king was in that adventure. I don't know what god you fight in the Hourglass one. But I remember that PCs fought Dragotha, Lashonna and Kyuss in a last boss spectacular in the Age of Worms. I remember that they took on Kargoth, Andregost and Demogorgon in the Savage Tide. (Plus some other names that had been dropped, like Gromsfed the Drowned, or General Ghorvash) I remember thinking that something that would threaten the son of King Snurre (Hellfire Mountain or something) was something to be impressed with.
If you give epic adventures the same build up and special attention you provide for high level adventures, (Like Runelords Chapter 6) they will be better received. Not only did WotC put out some shoddy rules for epic, they then never supported it past that point. That creates a self fulfilling prophecy of failure.
Epic monsters need to have a reason not to have ruined the world already, and also you need more of them. If you can only fill 21-30 levels well, or stretch it into 21-40 levels poorly, go with the better permeation. They have to make sense though. If it is say, an epic demon, but more powerful than the demon princes, that ought to be part of its flavor.
The current Epic Level rules are a mess.
The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.
So if Paizo does an "Epic Level" book, it will probably be a complete re-do. With that in mind, I'm very curious to hear what people think about the idea of play beyond level 20.
Having just come off the back of a long 3.5 campaign not that long ago that mnaged to get a few players to 21st level and a little beyond, the one difficulty above all else was keeping monsters sufficiently in line with the players to pose a challenge.
While you could just use what appears to be the standard solution, slap the biggest, meanest things in the manuals in their way and spend ages tracking special abilities, it wasn't in keeping with the nature of the campaign (an uber-werewolf cult attempting to elevate an abomination to god-hood) except for the climactic encounters. Grunt troops with extra class levels are woefully inadequate against most epic level dventurers without taking ages to work out on paper, tweaking the heck out of them to the nth degree. The reverse problem, giving them equivalent spangly magic items to help them along itself causes the problem of providing the player characters with too much potential loot.
In a campaign that was initially geared with an eye towards player freedom, and worked quite well in tha respect, by the time they hit 20 and beyond, I had to place more and more restrictions on what they could and couldn't do in terms of the local economy and arcana. With god-level NPCs running around, it was felt by some that even as powerful as they are, the players were little more than epic level gophers doing jobs the NPCs could do just as easily themselves.
Basically, the hardest working thing with Epic level is fitting your campaign to it. If you play a free-flowing campaign where the players are much more in control of where they go, then Epic can take place in a suitably challenging Planar setting, but considering that even a 21st level player character can mulch their way through much of Hell and the Abyss without caring too much, even this can break the 4th wall a times.
What are you looking for conceptually?
A way of introducing options for continuing past level 20 without the whole thing feeling 'tacked on', or a jump from 20 to 21st that doesn't feel like some kind of huge threshold has just been broken. A way of approach that makes the build up to 'true' epic just as much fun as the build up to the high teens was, and effectively making 21st seem much less of an 'epic start' level, and more like lvl 11 was.
I guess I'm just asking for something more streamlinedWhat are you looking for mechanically?
Mechanically, I'd like easy, as I'm sure many would. Not just player easy, lord knows PCs get powerful enough on their own without needing a sudden rush of fantastic upgrades to choose from, but DM easy. Not everyone runs a campaign where suddenly you go from facing a small army of Fire Giant Elite guarding an Ancient Red Dragon at 20th to facing an army of Colossal+ Red Dragons guarding a Possessed Colossal++ Multiheaded Red Dragon Vampire Lord at 22nd. Not only does this seem at the time the only real way to get a challenge out of an encounter in 3.5, but is wholly 'unrealistic' in terms of most settings. If such a place existed, surely all mundane civilisation in the country would be bowing to its will?
Mechanically, we need a smooth and easy way to improve creatures that scales sufficiently close to character improvement without the need to go God, Element-type or oversized or resort to adding templates. A Giant with a CR of 21 should likewise prove a decent challenge and actually BE CR21, rather than, as it often feels, CR19andabit. In line with scaling the challenges, the danger posed by multiple foes should remain. If a single creature (PC or NPC) can win against anything less than itself, no matter how many there are, then very quickly that creature will topple the world, standing unopposed. Kingdoms would fall, unable to stand against it, and such an occurance would not make sense if it is able to happen with every third encounter the players face. This would allow regular, everyday things like cultists and Orc armies to remain a threat, even if the characters have resources and power to make it less of one, they should still be able to win and thus retain the element of risk.
As DMs, some of us love pouring over each NPC, meticulously calculating stats and equipment to make a truly memorable encounter. There is nothing wrong with that, but at Epic we have to do it so much more, and at the moment, we cannot do this quickly.
I once had a fellow DM tell me that random encounters were pointless above a certain level, and I actually have to agree with them. While it makes sense to randomly come across 2d4 greater zombies in a necromancers lair, if all it does is take up 2 hours of game time as the players roll initiative, do their actions, take next to no damage and as soon as the melee types get involved the show is over with no use of resources, then it is indeed pointless. Problem is, it takes too long to add x,y and z to monster a to bring the challenge up to spec to have it apply to randoms, and some of us don't have that much time during the week to calculate this for 30+ monsters, even if they are mostly repeats of the same thing.
From the player's point of view, Epic spells are dealt with in a way that verges from pointless to extreme. All of a sudden there is no real sense of progression anymore. If all 10th, 11th etc spell slots are used for is meta-magic'd spells then invariably you end up with Maximised Destruction through to Quickened Wish in every slot. Why not keep on going in a sensible progression again? A more powerful fireball that isn't game breaking, or more powerful heals and buffs. MMORPGS do it in a fairly standardised way these days (or, like Everquest, approach the same idea from a different way, the buff lines that no longer increase stats that are likely already maxed, but increase the effect they have on the game, such as damage mitigation, damage output and liklihood of dodging a blow) all as a means of improving the top end game in an appropriate way.
Epic Spells themselves are a nice idea, but far to complicated for many people to worry about. Not everyone gets enough time to sit down and research spells as soon as they hit the right level, especially if this happens in the middle of a hostile environment or when there is a strict time limit. While you can come up with some interesting ideas, most go for the easy option and research the next big boom, or how to dominate or summon a small army of red dragons. Few players actually consider researching 'sensible' spells at that level, so why not just do it for them and give them a new set of spell lists, while improving the versatility of the research idea to allow those that want to the ability to add to these lists.
If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?
Any deal breakers?
Actually, purely releasing an update would get me to try it. I'm all for the idea that PCs are exceptional characters, and when they get to 'epic' level they should be the stuff of legends, but I think a lot of thought went into the idea, originally, of there being this whole instant elevation thing that happens at 21st. The original book pretty much suggests that all Epic level adventures should leave behind the original world and go to special places that are deliberately set up with high level beasties. While a nice, rose-tinted idea, it doesn't always work. 4th Ed's idea of 'paragon paths' looks half-arsed as well, and while nowhere near as powerful as they used to be, looks like they nicked a Swords and Sorcery 1st to 30th level progression rulebook, read it in the bath that evening, and then set about trying something similar but as unrelated as possible.
Deal breakers? How about a quick to use monster gen program for DM use that allows easy and balanced improvement of lower level monsters for higher level use? Of course, editability is the key here, but could be nice.
What some people seem to be forgetting is that D&D (and thus, Pathfinder) has always catered to all styles of play; the door-kicking, Monty Hauling, hack'n'slashing group can use the same rules, and have just as much fun as the mystery-solving political intrigue-based groups. Any set of Epic rules needs to have that same versatility.
Also, Jaerom and the others were absolutely correct when they said that any coherent set of Epic rules must flow naturally and easily from the core rules; 21 should be a minor milestone at best, only a slight improvement over what's "possible" or "normal" for the setting.
Make sure Fighters, Rogues, and other "mundane" get just as much cool stuff as casters. Actually, the core PF rules could stand another step or two in this direction as well.
I support the general notion that the transition to levels above 20th should be fairly seemless. Opportunities to radically alter the way the game works - such as divine ascension - should slowly come into the PCs' realm of concern, but should not suddenly appear and should not be necessary (at least until some point where the universe doesn't offer enough challenges anymore). Think like Forgotten Realms - the world should be internally-consistent and show why there are NPCs and PCs who exceed 20th level yet don't rule the world. Planar-scale power structures (like Hell's Dukes, Archdevils, and Lords of the Nine) also allow for the PCs to have meaningful conflict well into epic.
I highly recommend running things on the principle that mortals only generally reach a certain level - 100th level gaming is something even most epic enthusiasts would never bother with - and just make sure the world is internally consistent in supporting that as the "cap". (This needn't be a design limitation so much as a trend that doesn't get broken.) If, say, demigods are 30-40 HD, lesser gods 40-50 HD, and so on, then mortals probably only rarely get past 30th level and probably never top 50th (since mortals do kill gods on occasion, but pretty much never anything above lesser deity).
One of the chief concerns I have for updating epic levels into something playable is this: Cut out the absolutes. An 8th-level spell should not render entire schools of magic useless against you. Rather, it should just render you nigh-invulnerable to them when employed by entities of similar power. Perhaps mind blank could offer you a +10 bonus on saving throws rather than immunity, for example. Fire immunity should just be high resistance for most beings (i.e. beings not made out of fire). The Epic Level Handbook included a few ways to reduce the issue of absolutes, such as turning kill spells in high-damage spells. I suggest running with these ideas and expanding them. For the love of all that is decent [u]nerf[/u] freedom of movement - completely ruining a grappling monster's or swimming monster's or wind-commanding monster's key advantage with a 4th-level spell is never a good thing.
And make sure things don't continue scaling exactly the same way. If a natural 20 is no longer enough to succeed without the rule of automatic success or a natural 1 is a failure only because of the rule of automatic failure, then something is wrong with the system. This happened a lot with the monsters in the Epic Level Handbook and needs to be avoided in a revamp of the epic rules.
I agree with the cutting out of absolutes, but want to expess my desire that lv20 NPC's be virtually non-existant on Golarion, especially of the great wizard mentor type, its a tough world, but big challenges are what PC's are for.
|
|
My thoughts agree with MythMage's (as such do with several of the previous posters).
I love Epic as much as I love the 'non-epic' levels. For those players and DMs who don't like playing beyond level 20, they don't have to. Adding Epic rules or a handbook doesn't forces them to use it. However, for those who like playing Epic (i.e. post 20 level play), adding a handbook and Pathfinder rule-play gives them, as consumers, something they very much want. Not providing such rules tends to alienate that consumer base.
I dislike the concept of 1st level Epic play or restarting into Epic after level 20. The transitions should be relatively seemless.
Some of the mechanical changes are necessary and so it doesn't have to truly be seemless though, but you should retain all of your previous class abilities (BAB, HD, spells, hp, etc).
I agree with an unspoken Cap. Forgotten Realms did so in that despite a large number of epic NPCs, you never saw nor heard of a 60th level caster of anything of the kind. Most were in the 20-30's range, with the most powerful or powerful reaching or barely exceeding level 40.
I agree with the concept of epic integrating or incorporating rules on achieving deity-status, battling lesser gods, demi-powers, Dukes of Hell, Demon Lords, etc. Likewise, nation-building can be covered at this level, (but it can likewise happen at previous levels as well, just often in different scope and magnitude).
Pathfinder Beta has largely taken care of most of the problematic absolutes (e.g. deathward) so you guys at Paizo are already ahead of the curve. For which we are grateful!
Crafting epic magic items (whether called artifacts of not) and casting epic magic (even if just 10+ level spells) is also a big part of it.
I concur that epic PrC's or classes should grant 'epic' class abilities, and not just bonus feats. Some feats is ok, but not without additional class features. The class features of many of the epic classes were great (void incarnate, legendary dreadnaught, etc).
As for Epic play only being able to happen in the Planes, I disagree.
In many ways, Golarion already hints at the presence (past or present) of epic NPCs. For instance, Geb and Nex both are recorded as casting spells beyond the ken of any 20th level wizard. Aroden was a mortal who became a god, and did all kinds of epic things.
You can have epic NPCs interact in reasonable ways that does not invalidate 20th, or even 1st level, players or NPCs. FR did it, and did it well. Golarion can do it as well -the superstructure is already there.
Epic Level for me.
1. Clear, fun, epic rules. The character advancement in the Epic Handbook didn’t really excite me or my players. There were a few neat items, but as a whole it was a bit uninspired. At 15th level and up, the PCs are powerful movers and shakers in my campaigns. I don’t mind that they are super-heroes at that point.
2. Get rid of spell seeds. I want less homework, not more. I'd be happier with 10th level spells.
3. Make more interesting monsters. Again, some were nice, but others were just bags of HP.
4. Make more interesting magic items and artifacts.
5. Epic PRCs: I’d support the idea of Epic PRCs to support the idea that the characters are taking new powerful paths in regards to their capabilities. I’d like to see their entry requirements be attainable at 15th level, which would take the PC to 25th. And to 30th if they want to advance their base class to 20th.
6. Rules on Ascension or a PRC that is designed at a path to immortality
I’ll add that I like the idea of epic level play. I have a campaign that has been on hold for a few years now. One PC is the king. One is the most powerful mage in the empire, and the others are prominent members of society. We all love the epic story behind this campaign, but we all got tired of number crunching in order to defeat CR24+ creatures. Well, OK there may be some DM burnout involved too.
|
The current Epic Level rules are a mess.
The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.
So if Paizo does an "Epic Level" book, it will probably be a complete re-do. With that in mind, I'm very curious to hear what people think about the idea of play beyond level 20.
What are you looking for conceptually?
What are you looking for mechanically?
If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?
Any deal breakers?
I personnally don't like the idea of playing beyond level 20. heck, even above level 15 ...
|
Conceptually, I am looking for rules that allow characters to break some of the previous rules a bit, while still remaining with some bounds of reality.
As far as material and mechanics, I would personally hope that some of these problems do not return/continue from the 3.0 Epic book.
1.) The Mechanics themselves never meshed very well with 3.5 material, because 3.0 did not have the specific structure that 3.5 braught in. For example different monster types where not developed in what they got with each H.D., and the feat progression was random.
2.) Many Feats/Spells/other became useless or not very good choices as similar Feats (or whatever) came out in later supplements. Sometimes there would be a new feat or spell that was almost the exact same thing, but non-Epic and a small less significant portion of it changed, or especially in the case of the Epic Spells, Non-Epic spells would come out that where just better.
3.) There should be an innate Epic ability for all capped abilities to begin to further progress, (though it should be slower). Spells in particular. I know from a Clerics standpoint at least, many of my favorate spells just never got any better, and either metamagic could not improve them, or it was not really all that worth it to do so, and I'm sure other classes have a similar problem. So an example might be that a fireball capps at 10d6, but a wizard might add a d6/3 levels. This helps keep abilities relavent and makes it so that characters don't have to depend on Epic Metamagic and Spells or the like, though there are benefits for doing so.
I don't know I had a huge list of ideas that got erased when I tried to post them and I can't think of all I had typed. These where the big three, though, consistancy, not being obsolete, and advancement of previous abilites.
I also agree that Epic Adventures and continued material would go a long, long, long, long way, and hope that the Epic Spellcasting is greatly overhauled to keep cheaing the system out and new non-epic material intergrated.
|
|
I don't know. I really think that if WotC would have just waited a few more months when 3.5 was conceptualized, the ELH would have been 5 times better.
That Being said, I would not want any Epic Material until the Final PathFinder Book is out a while and has had at least a years time to get a feel for what would work and how the base system needs to change.
Also, I would like for Base Attack to continue until 20, so all characters get four attacks eventually.
Iterative attacks and an epic attack system are not automatically linked. WotC chose to do it that way, but you could just as easily switch over to an epic attack bonus and allow the 21st level rogue to gain a 4th attack with their +16 attack bonus.
You simply state that iterative attacks are capped at 4.
True, but the Epic Base Attack Progression was weird. For this rogue, I would have them keep the 3/4 Base Attack Progression until they reached +20, than it goes to 1/2.
...so...3/4 progression alone would be allowed to advance past 21st level? That seems rather inconsistent.
Rogues getting their 4th attack at 21st level isn't a problem. Remember, you get the 4th attack at +16, not at +20. Your suggestion throws needless changes into the mix.
Whether epic attack bonus is +1 per 2 levels, per 1 level or per 3 levels doesn't really matter. What matters is keeping two different characters with different classes, within 5-7 points of attack bonus difference.
The current Epic Level rules are a mess.
The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.
So if Paizo does an "Epic Level" book, it will probably be a complete re-do. With that in mind, I'm very curious to hear what people think about the idea of play beyond level 20.
Glad to hear that Paizo is on the epic track!
What are you looking for conceptually?
Conceptually, epic play begins at about 11th level, when PCs can teleport across the world, raise the dead and fight off entire armies single-handedly. So 21st level and up should simply be focussed on a set of simple and balanced rules for uncapped levels.
That said, I wrote up rules for PCs gaining deific powers in my own revamp of the ELH, which people seem to like a lot. So 21st level and up could be about becoming deities, which would certainly be interesting. And as a fringe benefit, those divine powers help solve some of the problems that make casters so deifically powerful even before 21st. (The NPC's forcecage spell suddenly isn't so frustrating when the fighter has a weakened disintegrate effect usable at-will.)
What are you looking for mechanically?
Simplicity, balance and uncapped levels. So:
1. Epic feats should not be what epic PCs revolve around. PC power being so closely tied to electable and highly varied options makes for PCs of wildly different power levels, which also makes CR even more vague at epic levels. PCs should continue to gain power primarily by class. For example, drop Mighty Rage and instead just give the barbarian another 'rage increment' every five epic levels.
2. Casters should not get all kinds of awesome options (take Improved Metamagic and Extra Quicken, it'll let you blow every prepped spell in one fight!) while everyone else is stuck with crud (take Epic Prowess, it will boost your AB to what it would be if you didn't have the wizard's epic BAB...almost! Take Dire Charge, it'll let you do something that you should have been able to do fifteen levels ago!)
3. Epic Spellcasting needs to be trashed. It's a trap mechanic because it tricks foolish gamers into thinking that casters can do something they couldn't do before (research new spells). And on top of that, it's usually broken one way or another: epic DD spells are blatantly inferior to meta'd non-epic DD spells, while epic buffs can turn casters into unstoppable geezers of destruction. If we really want to remind gamers that casters can research their own unique spells, write up a set of solid guidelines for [non-epic] spell creation.
4. No more abilities/day! Do barbarians really need more than seven rages per day, when the typical encounters per day is assumed to be four? Do casters need even more spells via Improved Spell Capacity, when many of their 1st level spells are just as useful now as they were back then? No. Increase ability potency, not quantity.
5. Serious thought needs to be given to what types and how many bonuses an epic character of any given level is supposed to have. This means we need something much more defined than WBL, which just doesn't cut it. Again, so much PC power based on such variable options makes for useless CRs and useless PCs. And for the love of all that is holy, drop the X10 epic item cost! If I wanted to feel poor and lootless, I'd start over at level 1. The epic multiplier just makes CR even harder to judge and encourages PCs to buy/make items with all those ridiculous bonuses (divine, insight, blah blah). Also, something needs to be done about Bracers of Armor. When the 40th level fighter sells his full plate +10 for a pair of Bracers +20, you have to know something is terribly wrong.
6. Oh and just because I like fighters, add another non-epic Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec (available at 16th and 20th), and then make the Epic versions available at every eighth level (EWF at 24th, 32nd, 40th, etc.; EWS at 28th, 36th, 44th, etc.). Arbitrary truncations just serve to make even more gamers think that fighters suck.
There's a lot to fix with epic play, but those are the basics.
TS
The current Epic Level rules are a mess.
The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.
So if Paizo does an "Epic Level" book, it will probably be a complete re-do. With that in mind, I'm very curious to hear what people think about the idea of play beyond level 20.
What are you looking for conceptually?
Transitioning from 'powerful mortal' to 'budding immortal', what ever spin is done, and without seeing such truly messed up mathematical monstrosities in the process.
What are you looking for mechanically?
I would start with extending core play from 20th through 30th, much like late 2e's take on it. This could also be an excellent method to 'transition' from 'powerful mortal' to 'budding immortal'. Once you finish 30th, earning those last however many XP, then you would be looking at an "Immortals" type of deal. Quite a few of the previous posters mention concepts and mechanics that at least sound pretty solid as well.
If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?
Another open beta test would be a pretty sweet way to do this!
Any deal breakers?
Um ... sticking to the SRD ...
To me, Epic level is essentially the point where a character goes from being infamous to being a legend. So I'm looking for the sort of challenges that give the feeling of being in a mythological story.
Mechanically, I'd really like to see a way for spellcasters to advance. With 3.5 casters are required to use their feats to gain spell levels past 9 which can be then filled using metamagic enhanced spells or epic level spells. This essentially strips the spellcasters of most of their feat enhancements as theyre working on making their old spells enhanceable by metamagics.
I'd also like to see simpler epic level creation rules for both items and spells. Casters maybe ought to have a special epic spells known stat as it'd seem silly for someone to know a library worth of extremly rare and powerful spells. Instead I see legendary casters as knowing something like 1/2/3/4 (low epic level/mid-low/mid-high/high)
specifically epic spells custom or otherwise. With that being spells known and as mentioned before continuing their progression in spells per day.
|
|
What are you looking for conceptually?
A grand scale to everything. When I think of Epic I think Less Frodo and more Gandalf. Less Conan the thief and more Conan King of Aquilonia. It may take some time to get there but it should be worth the wait.
What are you looking for mechanically?
If I am sticking to a core class, a reason to do so. If I chose a Prestige class, well more Prestige for it. My PrC was Praetorian Guard, well my epic should be Knight General and have reasonable bonuses for such.
If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?
First thing that makes me want to look at a book is a clean easy to read format with good art and illustrations. What makes me not want to put it down is what it can do for my game. Will I be able to tell the grand scope of my idea well. I want to see an epic level conflict against a foe along the lines of the Invasion of the Githyanki. Fighting Baba Yaga (or her daughters) for control of the North. Something that truly says, wow that was cool. I am glad we played that game. As such epic rules needs to include rules for mass warfare where the PC's are the kings or Generals and can have a major impact of what happens.
Any deal breakers?
Yes something that is to generic. I can understand not wanting it to be to specific to Golarion. For ease of use for home brew games. What I don't want is another pitiful Archmage class that has no reason to call itself that.
4. No more abilities/day! Do barbarians really need more than seven rages per day, when the typical encounters per day is assumed to be four? Do casters need even more spells via Improved Spell Capacity, when many of their 1st level spells are just as useful now as they were back then? No. Increase ability potency, not quantity.Actually, they've pretty much scrapped /day already, which is great.
So just giving new, more expensive abilities works well, no cap is needed.
That is great!
(Yeah, I'm not up-to-date on PF but I figure a lot of epic problems still transfer over.)
TS
As mentioned before, 'epic' in D&D has serveral meanings and problems:
Firstly, 'epic' simply means playing above level 20. Therefore, it means stronger heroes, stronger monsters, better items, etc.. This is the simplest version of 'epic' you can encounter. Basically, it is just extending the play time with heroes that have reached level 20. This version has one problem: The rules of D&D are not meant to be extended above level 20 as it poses a lot of problems if one does not change the system extensively. More of the same sounds easy, but it is not easy with the given rule system (3.5).
Secondly, 'epic' means adventures of a larger scale. While this seems to be included in the first option, it does not have to be, but it can be. Adventures of a larger scale means world or even plane shattering events. The heroes take part in changing the world/universe of the campaign setting. What is important here is that the heroes in such 'epic' adventures do not need to be above level 20. This depends entirely on the campaign setting (i.e. The world) they are playing in. To mention two examples: In Forgotten Realms, you probably should be above level 20 to be able to change the world or even fight on the planes and, in Ptolus, you do not need to be above level 20 to be able to change the campaign setting as it is built around the first 20 levels anything above level 20 would not take place IN Ptolus as such. This version of 'epic' has the problem that it denotes different levels of play and thus, cannot be fixed on certain levels in the rules. This is a problem for the rules as the rules contain so-called 'core monsters' that every setting has (for example the Tarrasque) and giving them a certain level sets certain power levels in all settings.
Thirdly, 'epic' means new rules for the game that are specifically designed for playing above level 20. There are players who understand 'epic' as a new set of rules for the game. For them, 'epic' is 'epic' because they have these new rules. The problem of this version of 'epic' is that it contains new set of rules: There is no easy transition or flowing transition, this version of 'epic' asks for new rules and as such it means to learn new rules on top of an already big system, especially if they are interconnected.
It should be clear by now where the problems of the three variants lie and that it is almost impossible to use all three variants at once. The second version seems to be the easiest to start of with as it does not require changes in the rules per se. Going from there, one has to chose between one of the other variants: Either create a completely new set of rules for so-called 'epic' adventures and risk alienating these players that want a seamless transition from normal to 'epic' gameplay or fix the problems of the current rule system and risk alienating those players that want a new rule system.
It is nice of Paizo to try to fix the ELH but I do think that this will violate the rule of backwards compability of the PRPG. If you want to cater the fans of epic gameplay, create your own rule system designed for all levels of play. You could cater the fans with a seamless transition from the normal levels to the epic levels, a given set of power levels created through the 'core monsters', and new rules as the system is completely new.
I'm skipping a few posts, but I dont think this was brought up. I'm going to do a food for thought comparison here. I'm going to compare World of Warcraft and its expansions to D&D equivalents.
World of Warcraft - Lvl 1-17. Top small party content is liches and the low end of a dragon brood (Stratholme/Blackrock Spire) Large party content is true dragons, the weakened avatar of a lesser diety, and an elemental lord (Onyxia/Hakkar/Ragnaros)
WoW: Burning Crusade - Lvl 17-20. Top small party is another elemental lord, the leader of a breed of demonic orcs, and cosmic prison escapees (Murmur/Bladefist/Arcatraz) Large group content is an archmages haunted tower, troll priests who are becoming avatars of their gods, and an extremely powerful demon. (Karazan, Zul Aman, and Kiljaeden)
WoW: Wrath of the Lich King - Lvl 20-23. I can't say much for its high end content, but I know this much. The low end stuff is hinting at Chuthulu style Elder Gods, and you do fight a Herald of one of them. And good old Arthas is expected as late raid content, which could be equivalent to a death diety or such.
I think there might be something to be learned here. I think a larger portion of the epic book should be devoted to "creating epic adventures" than "creating epic characters", in my opinion.
I guess to me, part of epic is getting there. I like the endgame content of WoW because I had to get there, I had to work for it. The 3.0 epic rules always left me flat because you could just make an epic character (if you had a few hours) and didn't have to deal with any backstory, challenges, motivations or what have you. But I suppose there is no way to really implement that in a game that isnt controlled by a central authority.
In my home games, as PCs get closer to epic levels (12+ in my book) I start giving them extra powers (spell like abilities, boosts to their current abilities, etc), to represent all that they have gone through. I have no problem with a person training at an academy and reaching 3rd, 5th, 10th, or even 15th level, after long years and many hours. But they don't have the same experience that those who learn by trial on the field have. So my PCs feel epic, even when they are level 15, because the dwarf can give himself DR 10/- for a round, or the sunder barbarian can strike as admantine for his next swing, or the mage can turn a fireball into a line once per day.
It's epic when the heroes and vilians fight above the figurative or literal survival of a nation or even the whole world. The action takes place in the highest tiers of the pecking order and there are usually very few threats in existance that would be bigger than the one the heroes are currently facing.
Baldur's Gate 2 is the only instance such things had any appeal to me.
I always envision the great heroes of mythology like Arthus, Odysseus, and Jason (the greek hero), or literature like Aragorn or Drizzt to be more along the lines of level 10-12 maybe. So epic fantasy seems completely over the top to me.
The current Epic Level rules are a mess.
I don't entirely agree. I think the epic rules are more like psionics prior to 3.5. They need some serious work, but they shouldn't be entirely scrapped.
The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.
Agreed. However, I would say that's true for high level gaming in general.
What are you looking for conceptually?
As a player, I like epic level games because they give me an opportunity to explore ideas and concepts about my character that I might not be able to explore otherwise. For example, in one of our campaigns, our home village was destroyed by rakshasa. Before we reached epic levels, there wasn't much we could do about it, because we were devoting all of our energies to defeating a dark god. With that god out of the way, we could finally turn our attention to the rakshasa.
As a DM, I like epic level games because they give me an opportunity to explore storylines that were never fully developed. For example, in the Age of Worms campaign, it's never made clear who wrote the metal tablets that Kyuss found in the Ameido Jungles. There are some hints that it was the spellweavers, but why? What made this otherwise neutral race turn to evil? In my campaign, the spellweavers were corrupted by a demilich, named Hadovas. Hadovas has no interest in giving rise to a new god. Rather, he knows that with the coming of the Age of Worms will come the return of the Old Ones, the gods he worships. Epic levels allow me to explore that storyline.
What are you looking for mechanically?
I like the flavor of epic spells, but I think there need to be some adjustments to the rules for creating them. As of right now, the costs are prohibitively high, and the results are often worse than what can be achieved with a 9th level spell.
If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?
I think the biggest thing that keeps people from running epic level campaigns is the lack of adventure modules for them. I think an adventure path that uses epic level encounters would go a long way to removing any skepticism people might have about epic levels. I also think it would be fantastic if such an adventure path picked up from where an existing adventure path leaves off, so that players can continue to play the characters they already know and love.
Any deal breakers?
If you don't do something to make hagumemnons easy for DMs to run, I will hide snakes in your car.
Here's a thought - what does Epic mean to the gentlecritters at Paizo, and their independant contributors?
(2) Spells. The epic magic system was to much math and to little output for my pc's to ever bother with.
I, on the other hand, loved the concept of the spell seeds (then again, my degree major was math). However, the implementation was just flat-out broken--several of the spells had to be catastrophically reworked in the errata for the ELH.
I like freedom and creativity, but goshdarnit, adhere to your own rules (and make sure they work in the first place!). I have no doubt Paizo'd be able to come up with a suitably creative and expansive system that actually freaking worked.
(2) Spells. The epic magic system was to much math and to little output for my pc's to ever bother with.I, on the other hand, loved the concept of the spell seeds (then again, my degree major was math). However, the implementation was just flat-out broken--several of the spells had to be catastrophically reworked in the errata for the ELH.
I like freedom and creativity, but goshdarnit, adhere to your own rules (and make sure they work in the first place!). I have no doubt Paizo'd be able to come up with a suitably creative and expansive system that actually freaking worked.
I have a copy of a PDF where somebody on the net converted the Epic Spell system to build spells & fit them into the standard level system. The spells were all rated 10th+ level. The PDF was called Legendary Spells, but I cant seem to locate it online anymore.
Here's a thought - what does Epic mean to the gentlecritters at Paizo, and their independant contributors?
I second this movement.
TS
(At epic levels, a fighter will always pass a fort save and the wizard will always fail.) The only solution is to either use larger dice, or vary the DC based on who is rolling (which starts to resemble the previous paragraph).Another solution would be to set a minimum bonus; starting at 21st level, every character gains an epic bonus (that doesn't stack with anything else) to all d20 rolls. So, you either use all of your normal bonuses on a given d20 roll, or you use just your epic bonus, whichever is better.
I know it's not very "clean" in fitting with traditional d20 mechanics, but I very, very much like this idea.
The biggest problem I saw with Epic play in general was the possible disparities between PCs. The disparity between a fully optimized Epic PC and a not-optimized/built for RP purposes PC is outright deadly and absurd. For one thing, in one of my campaigns the players tend towards the not-optimized side of things, and I tried running the Epic Dungeon adventure with the Storm Giants, and we gave up after one session because every single encounter would have been a TPK if I didn't seriously nerf the bad guys. If we have minmaxed the beejebus out of the PCs, then, yeah it would have been a good fit. But short of that, they were toast given the power levels at play.
So something that sets a new baseline would definitely be helpful in standardizing things.
This may seem like a ridiculous idea, but I'm wondering if epic levels could be redesigned so that players still advance in feats and special abilities, but never advance in terms of Hit Dice, attack bonuses, and saves. Perhaps monsters could use similar rules too, so that they don't need a truckload of Hit Dice to present a challenge to the PCs.
I think this idea might eliminate some of the math bloat that happens at epic levels, and it would certainly make the transition feel more seamless than an entirely new ruleset for epic level characters, as has been suggested.
Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that idea out there.