Epic play... should it be compatible or not?


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm saying not. The reason is simple, as things stand, high level play, pathfinder or not is cumbersome.

I would really like to see Paizo use the epic levels rules to reboot high level play.

For example, Vital Strike work great and I'd like to see either more feats like it or some way for Paizo to make Base Attack "pay" for feat attacks. Which means capping the number of extra attacks from BAB. This is a silly example, but think Vital Strike > Vital Strike > Cleave in 1 turn.

Sovereign Court

Epic play is a bit of a battle of high powered and over the top dice rolling. Most of the time there is lots of player or monster slaugters and very little imagination as to why the characters themselves are even still around and haven't exploded with pure power.

I really say no to the epic level thing, mainly because it is hard to keep up with the system past that point unless you built it up scaling the CR's to follow along.

But it is sure compatible I will give it that.


I been wanting the following thing for epic levels

no additional hit points
no additional spell slots
to increase in BAB
no increase in saves
skills are capped at 20 ranks

i could see gaining feats and some additional skill points

i would like to see cool abilities develop like

1) you can hear your name (in reference to you) being spoken anywhere in the planes, later you may be able to pin point the location or hear so many words after your names is spoken

2) maybe knowledge of things like fairy backroads to get from place to place

I would picture these as little things on the path to godhood.

But my idea of godhood is nothing powerful like in deities and demigods.

Alot of the idea's we were thinking of were hexes and evil eye abilities, but the witch in the advanced manual kind of ruined that idea. (But we love the witch)

Sovereign Court

SirUrza wrote:

I'm saying not. The reason is simple, as things stand, high level play, pathfinder or not is cumbersome.

I would really like to see Paizo use the epic levels rules to reboot high level play.

For example, Vital Strike work great and I'd like to see either more feats like it or some way for Paizo to make Base Attack "pay" for feat attacks. Which means capping the number of extra attacks from BAB. This is a silly example, but think Vital Strike > Vital Strike > Cleave in 1 turn.

I say that 3.0 Epic is not compatible due to some of the reasons posted, and that Pathfinder has rewritten the power curve somewhat. Also note that the XP scale makes leveling pretty difficult very quickly in Pathfinder.

Also note that classes with straight 20 levels are already rewarded with class-based powers that only apply to people with 20 levels, so adding Epic on that is a little hard to stomach.

If you give additional power through feats then you'd have to be careful to not step on a lot of toes. Why don't big monsters have those feats? Are some restricted to straight classes (e.g. 24th level fighters--they already got a reward for sticking to their class...)

Obviously it is messy. You would have to carefully look at power banding, the explosion of magical items, and examine the magic system. I think there should be some kind of ritual system for epic spells, but likely nothing that directly works in combat. Think 4th edition style rituals, but with an epic flair.

Mix and matching classes seem to allow for some neat epic play regardless of adding epic classes, feats, or special weaponry.

There's probably little issue in continuing to use the magic item rules from 3.0 epic, however (like how to make a +7 cloak of resistance).


After the players have hit 20 and are ready for their next level up, I put away the D&D books and bring out Exalted, because you're more or less gods at that point.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
After the players have hit 20 and are ready for their next level up, I put away the D&D books and bring out Exalted and a bucket full of d10s, because you're more or less gods at that point.

Fixed that one for you ;)


What does "epic" even mean?

Do you mean play past 20th level? I think the model in the rulebook works fine for that, if the players decide they want that sort of game.

Pathfinder gets cumbersome numerically long before 20th level, so resetting things to be simple after 20th level would seem real strange to me.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Ah the endless epic discussion.

(returns to planning for this Friday's epic game)

:)

Shadow Lodge

There has to be some compatibility otherwise how do you interact with epic characters or epic NPCs? I agree that some sort of drastic change in the way the rules work once you get past 20th level is pretty much required though.

Sovereign Court

I do not want to see any Epic stuff.

Beating Karzoug by lvl 16 or Xotani by lvl 14 is already plenty epic for me.

Need no more to be happy.

Shadow Lodge

Stereofm wrote:

I do not want to see any Epic stuff.

Beating Karzoug by lvl 16 or Xotani by lvl 14 is already plenty epic for me.

Need no more to be happy.

To be honest I am unlikely to buy epic stuff either, but there is certainly demand for it.


One thing running around in my mind that I am a bit interested in is that there is a transformation into an epic character after completing some great task. Some point at 15th level, the player and GM would have the option to "upgrade" the character into an epic character. The transformation should leave the core concept of the character there, remove the multitude of options that the character has, and add new abilities to make up for that loss.

A 15th level epic character, in my mind, should be about as powerful as the 15th level character. That way it would be compatible without just heaping more complexity to already complex characters.


Epic levels should add to the character without taking anything away. it would be extremely unfair if you would stop to get BAB and hitpoint increases because we already have some epic monsters.

I have to say, one of the things I really liked about D&D 4th edition was the idea of epic destinies. Not all of them, but the general idea that you become a supernatural creature of legend instead of becoming a more and more ridiculously powerful mortal.

Dark Archive

I suppose I would say "non-compatible" because frankly I feel that epic level play shouldn't be about stats at all.

I like the idea of 20th being a soft cap, and would require multi-classing into other classes to increase the character level.

I'd like epic to be rules for mass combat (ie. like on a country or global scale), planar rulership and ideas on how to facilitate characters whose power is both political as much as physical.

I think epic should be a whole new play style, not just an add-on to the basic mechanics.


Gorbacz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
After the players have hit 20 and are ready for their next level up, I put away the D&D books and bring out Exalted and a bucket full of d10s, because you're more or less gods at that point.
Fixed that one for you ;)

Oh, I have that bucket at all my games, regardless of system.

EVERY D10 WE ROLL IS FROM A DIFFERENT DICE >:D

Silver Crusade

I'm torn.

On the one hand, I'd like the power curve to tend towards the right more than upwards, but on the other I'd still like to be able to create demiplanes and populate it with dinobears using rules right out of the book.


Epic shouldn't even be "epic". At older editions anyone above 20th was considered epic, but they didn't get anything different than they should. They are still just "guys", what you guys are saying are more like Deities or something. I think they should get 1/3 of the epic power they got at 3.0 epic rules, that would already be awesome.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

I'm curious ....

How many people here have played an epic game in the past year for real - i.e. not a one-session "let's make insane characters" thing, but a real game that lasted more than one session?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I haven't run/played in an Epic campaign in a while, but I did run one. It was in 3.5, using the Epic Level Handbook, and ran from levels 21 to 37 before the campaign finally ended. That year and a half was an absolute blast for everyone in my group, and it couldn't have been done with the other systems that we had available. It is perhaps my most highly regarded game that I have ever run, which is strange because I began it as more of an experiment to see how Epic rules worked. I won't pretend it wasn't a lot of work, but I think it would diminish things to refuse to make epic rules compatible.

My two cents.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SirUrza wrote:

I'm saying not. The reason is simple, as things stand, high level play, pathfinder or not is cumbersome.

I would really like to see Paizo use the epic levels rules to reboot high level play.

For example, Vital Strike work great and I'd like to see either more feats like it or some way for Paizo to make Base Attack "pay" for feat attacks. Which means capping the number of extra attacks from BAB. This is a silly example, but think Vital Strike > Vital Strike > Cleave in 1 turn.

The Epic Level Handbook is a piece of wasted tree flesh pure and simple. The entire approach to ultra-high level play needs to be thown away and rebuilt from the beginning.

That and the game needs a cap of total character levels plain and simple. I think the cap should be somewhere in the 25-30 range. If go you above that, then it's time to create a new system of Divine Level play.


LazarX wrote:


That and the game needs a cap of total character levels plain and simple. I think the cap should be somewhere in the 25-30 range. If go you above that, then it's time to create a new system of Divine Level play.

Agreed. We know Demi-gods and demon lords rang from CR 30-36 so a cap at 25 or 30 seems to be a nice fit. still leaving room for a some Challenge


gbonehead wrote:

I'm curious ....

How many people here have played an epic game in the past year for real - i.e. not a one-session "let's make insane characters" thing, but a real game that lasted more than one session?

I'm playing in a currently Epic game where the main group of characters (3 of us) all started at level 1. We were playing AD&D up to level 14, when we switched to 3rd edition. We hit Epic levels at the same time that 3.5 was released. (Our DM didn't want to use the Epic Level Handbook in 3.0, but went with it when the base of the rules were included in the 3.5 DMG.)

Advancement is slowing, so the highest level is currently 24. Most of the characters are leading their own small nations (a small network of mining cities, in my dwarf's case), so the motivation for each character has turned more political instead of just looking for gold and adventure. We've had quite a few players and their characters retire along the way, but there's the few of us who like things getting more grandiose as they go along.

We've developed a fun rivalry between the Wizard in our group and my Cleric. He managed to research all the clerical spells in the PHB, just to mess with my character. I was the first one to get Epic Spellcasting. Still working on the perfect way to get back at him for the way he 'fixed' my character after I failed a save and got polymorphed into a sea turtle by a teratomorph.

The Wizard in our group has so far tried to hide his transformation into a lich, and done pretty well. My cleric is still trying to convert the wizard to the side of Good, even though he's fairly certain that he's turned undead but hasn't confirmed it yet. (Almost got him to say something in character when the wizard just barely avoided the effects of a Mass Resurrection epic spell my cleric had researched.)

So far, we haven't seen any issues with our characters being too powerful for the DM to handle. He has become a master at using the environment to make low CR critters into a deadly challenge. A group of 3 beholders against three of us brought us all to under half HP, and managed to petrify my character, before we took them out. The teratomorph I mentioned earlier, a sea hag coven, and some boarding parties of sea trolls managed to take down 2 of 3 ships, half our followers, and 3 out of 7 characters (2 at negative hp, me polymorphed).

Sometimes I wonder if we should have trained him so well to be an Evil DM. Then I remember that we were the ones who kept giving him pointers every time we thought something was too easy or obvious. It's great fun trying to outthink someone who knows how you think.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
gbonehead wrote:

I'm curious ....

How many people here have played an epic game in the past year for real - i.e. not a one-session "let's make insane characters" thing, but a real game that lasted more than one session?

Never. Not in all my years of gaming.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

LazarX wrote:
The Epic Level Handbook is a piece of wasted tree flesh pure and simple. The entire approach to ultra-high level play needs to be thown away and rebuilt from the beginning.

I think myself and a lot of other people who enjoy the current rules quite a bit might find that statement a bit strong.

LazarX wrote:
That and the game needs a cap of total character levels plain and simple. I think the cap should be somewhere in the 25-30 range. If go you above that, then it's time to create a new system of Divine Level play.

Again ... I understand perfectly that you would want to play that way. However, that does not mean it's the ONLY way to play. It's not. We don't play that way, we don't want to play that way, and we have a lot of fun not playing that way.

Offering what you say as opinion rather than a universal fact would be more palatable, I think.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But Epic Level Handbook *is* borked, and that's a fact. And it *is* unpopular, look at how many epic-level adventures did WotC and Paizo produce during the 3.0-3.5 life cycle.

Dark Archive

In the 10 years I've played D&D, I've only once not played in a game that went to epic levels. I'd personally like to see a Pathfinder take on epic levels, and do like some of the OPs ideas. My question is: If they do tackle epic levels, should it be 3.X compatible, or an extention of what is now PRPG?
I ask that because I'm not confident that 3.X compatibility is really possible, and would, instead, like to see something that's made for PRPG and not necessarily "backwards compatible".

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
But Epic Level Handbook *is* borked, and that's a fact. And it *is* unpopular, look at how many epic-level adventures did WotC and Paizo produce during the 3.0-3.5 life cycle.

You think it's borked. Which is fine. That's your opinion, not any sort of fact. So don't use it.

I don't think it's borked. I think all of it (except maybe epic spells) is entirely resonable and have been running a game based on it since 2006.

It is work? Hell yeah. Is it borked? Hell no. That's my opinion, and it's not wrong. It can't be wrong, it's an opinion, which I readily admit without trying to claim it's some sort of fact.

Personally, I'd say if we can run an enjoyable game for years using the rules, they're probably not broken from a universal standpoint.

It's like arguing Marvel vs. DC. Not like anyone's going to win - it's all a matter of opinion.

EDIT: Though I can virtually guarantee that if Paizo ever comes out with epic rules, 2/3 of the people will ignore them, and of the rest half will think they're awesome and the other half will spout bile about them being horrible and not the 'right' epic rules at all.


gbonehead wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The Epic Level Handbook is a piece of wasted tree flesh pure and simple. The entire approach to ultra-high level play needs to be thown away and rebuilt from the beginning.

I think myself and a lot of other people who enjoy the current rules quite a bit might find that statement a bit strong.

LazarX wrote:
That and the game needs a cap of total character levels plain and simple. I think the cap should be somewhere in the 25-30 range. If go you above that, then it's time to create a new system of Divine Level play.

Again ... I understand perfectly that you would want to play that way. However, that does not mean it's the ONLY way to play. It's not. We don't play that way, we don't want to play that way, and we have a lot of fun not playing that way.

Offering what you say as opinion rather than a universal fact would be more palatable, I think.

Since no one on here can speak for all gamers everywhere, then it is a fact that all posts are opinions. Requiring people to say IMO every time they post is ridiculous. It's a highly opinionated messageboard...grow some skin.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Since no one on here can speak for all gamers everywhere, then it is a fact that all posts are opinions. Requiring people to say IMO every time they post is ridiculous. It's a highly opinionated messageboard...grow some skin.

There's way's to offer your opinion graciously, and there's ways to smack someone else in the face with your opinion.

Saying "Hey, that thing you like? It sucks, and that's a fact" is not an attempt to enter into a discussion. It's not even really an opinion, since it's being stated as fact. It's smacking someone in the face with a statement that's borderline offensive.

However, it's probably just flamebait anyways, so you're probably right.

I'm just tired of "waaah! epic is broken! waaaah! Paizo fix it for meeeeee."

:)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
But Epic Level Handbook *is* borked, and that's a fact. And it *is* unpopular, look at how many epic-level adventures did WotC and Paizo produce during the 3.0-3.5 life cycle.

WotC has a habit of not supporting books after release, just take a look about how much material was expanded on from the Complete series, Heroes of Horror, Heroes of Battle, the Tome of Magic or the Book of Nine Swords.

Claiming that it isn't popular because WotC didn't do anything with the material in the book isn't exactly looking at the whole picture.

And I think a few of the adventures that WotC squeezed into non epic should have been epic, like Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.

As for Pathfinder epic rules? I'd prefer at least 40 levels (symmetry, 20 pre-epic and 20 epic), and a framework that builds upon and enhances the existing 1-20 level rules. I don't want my character to suddenly "reset" when they hit 21st level.

Dark Archive

If Paizo decides not to make PRPG Epic rules, would there be a 3rd party publisher that's willing to take a crack at it?


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Agreed. We know Demi-gods and demon lords rang from CR 30-36 so a cap at 25 or 30 seems to be a nice fit. still leaving room for a some Challenge

Weren't those big guys supposed to be adapted to the campaign, to be always a notch above PCs ? The demon lords have a different CR in the fiendish codex (around 22) compared to the savage tide adventure (around 30), for example. There's no real reason to base the cap on those CRs.

Actually, I'm not enthusiast with the idea of a cap. If paizo could write rules that fit as well for lvl 30 than for level 50, that would be ideal. But I guess it would be harder, and it seems it's not their plan. I think a cap at 40 would have at least the advantage to make multiclassing easier.

Quote:
It can't be wrong, it's an opinion

Heh. That feels wrong.

Shadow Lodge

Navarion wrote:
Epic levels should add to the character without taking anything away. it would be extremely unfair if you would stop to get BAB and hitpoint increases because we already have some epic monsters.

But that's not really taking anything away...it's just halting advancement.

Let's face facts, if we use "epic" as an adjective instead of just the label for levels 21+, you are already epic long before you reach 20th level. At 10th level you can single-handedly take out threats that would destroy entire villages of commoners.

I personally think that the power progression should flatten out at you go beyond 20th level. I think pretty much all bonuses, increases, etc should cease except for feats. New feats would be introduced that would allow you to increase your base powers, but it would be limited to the 1 feat / 2 levels.

As for existing epic monsters...well, it's not nearly as "epic" to defeat the big bad guy if you do so because you exceed his power level. Some monsters/beings should ALWAYS stay beyond the power level of a party to deal with head-on. Sorry for those who disagree, but if your character is powerful enough to make Orcus grovel at your feat, something has gone wrong. Whether you are 21st or 75th level, some things should still slap you down as if you were a 1st level kobold commoner.


Fred Ohm wrote:

[QWeren't those big guys supposed to be adapted to the campaign, to be always a notch above PCs ? The demon lords have a different CR in the fiendish codex (around 22) compared to the savage tide adventure (around 30), for example. There's no real reason to base the cap on those CRs.

Actually, I'm not enthusiast with the idea of a cap. If paizo could write rules that fit as well for lvl 30 than for level 50, that would be ideal. But I guess it would be harder, and it seems it's not their plan. I think a cap at 40 would have at least the advantage to make multiclassing easier.

Not the ones published for pathfinder. James has pretty much said demonlords are 30-36. I see why they would need a cap, the ELH didn't work as it was too open. You can not write things and publish them if you do not have a CR to work with

Publish an adventurer to for level 5-7, cool easy 20-25 also doable, 40-?? not so much. I myself would like to see the cap at 30 as beyond that point your not even close to mortal and if's iffy if your mortal really as you have near Demi-god/ Demon lord power..

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a vigorous interest in Paizo ignoring the epic rules - their talents are better used on something else than stuff n that 2/3 of the community won't ever use, while of the 1/3 that will use half will find it not up their exceptations.

I prefer Paizo to write fluff and crunch for pre-20 play. In the history of Dungeon magazine there was, IIRC, one epic adventure. I think it speaks a lot about how much desire there is for epic level material.


Much like Psionics though they just can't ignore it. Put it off yes but not ignore it.


I agree somewhat with this. It does not matter what level you are, Gods are no Epic, they are Gods. I think the idea of "divine something" is horrible for PCs just because they got a new level. Epic levels should be fun, but it shouldn't be a diferent game, and in fact, I would like it even more if it was "less" powerfull than normal levels. Come on, I REALLY can't imagine a Human with 1000 hp, no matter what level he is.

Saves, Bab, Skill, CL should keep growing, maybe at a slower rate BASED on CLASS, not that crappy thing Epic 3.0 did. The feats were broken, if you were a spell caster you would kick ass, if you were a barbarian you would weep, it wasn't good nor balanced. I think some "epic" feats should exist, but nothing as mind blowing as it was, and the "Divine" should be kept as such. Horus will always win initiative and Odin will kill you without a save, Period.

Dark Archive

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Much like Psionics though they just can't ignore it. Put it off yes but not ignore it.

Well, Dreamscarred Press has decided to pick up Psionics, and I'm actually glad they did. I would much rather see a 3pp pick up Epic the same way DSP did Psionics, if Paizo's "heart just isn't in it" as far as Epic rules go.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Much like Psionics though they just can't ignore it. Put it off yes but not ignore it.

Actually yes they can. Not one thing published since the Alpha rules by Paizo requires the existence of Psionics. Not one thing published before it hints that psionics is a significant part of Golarian culture or history.


LazarX wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Much like Psionics though they just can't ignore it. Put it off yes but not ignore it.
Actually yes they can. Not one thing published since the Alpha rules by Paizo requires the existence of Psionics. Not one thing published before it hints that psionics is a significant part of Golarian culture or history.

The setting does imply just that. And no they really can't ignore it as you can not build something not your world and then say " well we don't make rules for that but a few 3pp do and some oop stuff as well", but not everyone will be happy with how they do it. But we shall not get into that again.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

I've said this many times before, but I suppose it bears repeating.

I really like the idea and concept of epic-level play. I wrote a lot of articles and adventures featuring epic-level content for Dragon and Dungeon, after all. And I'm the one who wrote what epic-level stuff exists in the game so far (the end of Chapter 12 of the core rules).

I very very VERY much want Paizo to do a book that takes the game beyond 20th level. I want to be able to stat up demon lords. I want to be able to design Baba Yaga's Dancing Hut. I want to have characters who can craft artifacts. I want to some day be able to quantify what the Oliphant of Jandelay is and can do. I even want to know what happens if, say, Sarenrae and Rovagug get into a fight. I want to know how gods work, and how PCs can become gods. Most of these elements have appeared in campaigns I've run over the years, and I and my players have enjoyed those elements.

As a result, it's really just a matter of time before Paizo does do something with "epic" content. Hopefully sooner than later—I'd like to tackle epic stuff before psionic stuff, for example. And when we do release epic rules... I want to support them with content.

One thing I CAN guarantee (apart from the fact that, as long as I work at Paizo long enough, we'll eventually do an epic level book) is that Paizo's epic level rules WILL have a level cap, just as the current rules have a cap at level 20th. My opinion is that the lack of a level cap in the 3.5 system is the fundamental and central flaw of the entire system, from which all other complaints about the system grew.

(And just for the record, it's not just Paizo or WotC that "hates" epic level by not supporting it—for the last 3 or so years of Dungeon magazine's print run, I had an outstanding open call for epic level adventures. I said MANY TIMES that I was looking for epic adventrues to publish. I think over the course of those 3 or so years that I actaully saw 2... maybe 3 epic level proposals. One of which I published. Another of which I was eventually going to publish but that never came to be since the license ended.)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Fred Ohm wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Agreed. We know Demi-gods and demon lords rang from CR 30-36 so a cap at 25 or 30 seems to be a nice fit. still leaving room for a some Challenge

Weren't those big guys supposed to be adapted to the campaign, to be always a notch above PCs ? The demon lords have a different CR in the fiendish codex (around 22) compared to the savage tide adventure (around 30), for example. There's no real reason to base the cap on those CRs.

Actually, I'm not enthusiast with the idea of a cap. If paizo could write rules that fit as well for lvl 30 than for level 50, that would be ideal. But I guess it would be harder, and it seems it's not their plan. I think a cap at 40 would have at least the advantage to make multiclassing easier.

Quote:
It can't be wrong, it's an opinion
Heh. That feels wrong.

I was not only the one who statted up the demon lords at CR 20 23 for the Fiendish Codex, but ALSO the one who statted up the SAME demon lords at CR 28 32 for the Demonomicon articles in Dragon.

The fact that the epic level handbook didn't have a level cap is the reason.

If the epic level handbook didn't exist, CR 20 23 is a pretty good range for demon lords. But the fact that it did meant that anyone who wanted to use demon lords in their game didn't have a baseline to peg their power at. When I statted up a CR 30 demon lord, I got the same amount of grief from folks who felt that was too powerful as I did from folks thinking it wasn't powerful enough. Because there was no baseline.

So I basically chose an arbitrary number for the demon lords' power to be at about CR 28 32, and my original intention was that the CR 20 23 versions that appeared in the Fiendish Codex were to have been lower-powered "aspects" or "avatars" of those demons that could be used as bad guys for non-epic campaigns. Unfortunately, that wasn't the route WotC wanted to take at that time with demon lords, so that pretty important line of text never got put into the book. And lo and behold, the "low" CR scores caused a lot of anger and disappointment.

Now, if there was a cap to experience levels, NONE of that would have been a problem, because I would have been able to stat up the demon lords to serve as boss monsters for whatever that cap was. If there were no epic level book and the cap remained 20th level, then the CR 22 or so demon lords would work fine. If the cap were level 30 (my personal preference) then the CR 28 32 demon lords work perfectly.

But with no cap, the BEST you can do is stat up demon lords (or whatever) for an arbitrary number. If you set that number at a level that you prefer to think of as the "top," then you make yourself happy and a segment of the audience happy (I chose 30 as the implied cap for demon lords because it seemed to me to address the largest logical segment of what epic level enthusiasts were looking for, and for what the 3.5 epic level rules could really handle), but a LOT of the audience will be disappointed simply because they all have different ideas as to how power scales. Do you make demon lords CR 30? CR 50? C R 100? CR 232? None of those choices is overall the right choice. That sucks.

Now, with a level cap, you CAN make the right choice.

And it's important to remember something: if we put a cap on epic level play, that doesn't mean we can't do SUPER epic and raise the cap again, and again, and again, for as long as there remains an enthusiasm for higher and higher play. But honestly? I really really think that the vast majority of fans of epic level play will be satisfied with a cap somewhere between 30 and 40.


if it matters, I would like to see epic before psionics

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gorbacz wrote:
I prefer Paizo to write fluff and crunch for pre-20 play. In the history of Dungeon magazine there was, IIRC, one epic adventure. I think it speaks a lot about how much desire there is for epic level material.

Actually... Dungeon had 2 epic level adventures and 3 more that provided epic-level play halfway through.

Razing of Redshore: A 20th level adventure (written by me) that expressly served to transition 20th level characters to 21st level, and that transition happened at the midpoint of the adventure.

The Storm Lord's Keep: A 21st level adventure.

The Quicksilver Hourglass: A 30th level adventure.

Dawn of a New Age: A 20th level adventure that expected the PCs to hit 21st level halfway or 2/3 the way through (the finale of the Age of Worms Adventure Path).

Prince of Demons: Same deal—a 20th level adventure that expected the PCs to hit 21st during the course of the adventure.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
Actually yes they can. Not one thing published since the Alpha rules by Paizo requires the existence of Psionics. Not one thing published before it hints that psionics is a significant part of Golarian culture or history.

Not true.

There are elements of psionic stuff in "Into the Darklands." And there's also a 2-page entry on psionics in the Campaign Setting hardcover. We've also said, several times, that Vudra has a VERY heavy element of psionics to it.


gbonehead wrote:

I'm curious ....

How many people here have played an epic game in the past year for real - i.e. not a one-session "let's make insane characters" thing, but a real game that lasted more than one session?

I have been playind D&D since 1979 and in that time I have never played 'epic' games until now. I have been in an ongoing campaign for about 4 years now and we all hit epic in the middle of last year. I am nearly 22 now and the rest are nearly 21 (I have died less than the rest so lost less XP hehe). The ref also has a 3 Rez your out rule (after that your soul WANTS to rest) and the majority of the party is there exept for me so it is getting more and more tense as we level and the firepower starts to escalate.

So while we are just on the cusp really of Epic play I am interested in it. And I would love to see some way for epic rules to streamline high level play more. It takes FOREVER to do combats now...

I would alos love to see a good Psi system as well. But since we don't use it the epic would be my preferance first.


James Jacobs wrote:
I really really think that the vast majority of fans of epic level play will be satisfied with a cap somewhere between 30 and 40.

I would absolutely be ok w/ this as a hard cap. And given the relative minority of players interested in epic-level play (i.e., 21st level and beyond), even a cap of 30th level would be fine.

I'm sure Paizo's version would be excellent, and draw in more players to try out these higher levels than happened w/ the 3.0 ELH.

I very very very much want to see statted Demon Lords and ArchDevils for PFRPG. Those of us playing since 1st edition remember fondly squaring off against Demogorgon (199 hp!) and Asmodeus (200 hp!!) at the ends of our careers. Putting them (well, not Asmodeus, since you made him a god) at upper 20's and low 30's for CR would be perfect, and you already have experience w/ exactly that sort of thing.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:

Now, with a level cap, you CAN make the right choice.

And it's important to remember something: if we put a cap on epic level play, that doesn't mean we can't do SUPER epic and raise the cap again, and again, and again, for as long as there remains an enthusiasm for higher and higher play. But honestly? I really really think that the vast majority of fans of epic level play will be satisfied with a cap somewhere between 30 and 40.

I would love to see two things tackled (eventually)

book 1 - epic play from 21 - 30
book 2 - immortal/demi-god/god hood play 31 - 40

or heck...both in the same book

I would love to see an epic bestiary with the stats for Cthulhu, adamantine golems, living walls (remember the 2nd ed creature), and a sentient sphere of annihilation.

I have run several epic games and it really hasn't been until the last year or so (mainly revolving around Pathfinder RPG) that I've begun to embrace the low-levels (1-7)

Shadow Lodge

DragonBringerX wrote:
I would love to see an epic bestiary with the stats for Cthulhu, adamantine golems, living walls (remember the 2nd ed creature), and a sentient sphere of annihilation.

Meh. I dislike the idea of nailing down any of the heavy hitters in the Mythos (Outer Gods, Great Old Ones, etc) with concrete stats, unless it's like in BRP CoC where the stats are so far beyond what any human could ever attain that the combat entry basically reads:

Cthulhu kills you...but not before you go insane from merely being in the same hemisphere as risen R'lyeh.

I miss the BRP combat entry that stated : 100% Cthulhu devours 1d6 investigators.


James Jacobs wrote:
if we put a cap on epic level play, that doesn't mean we can't do SUPER epic and raise the cap again, and again, and again, for as long as there remains an enthusiasm for higher and higher play.

Well, I guess that publishing things requires a certain effort that requires a certain level of compensation - and I agree with you that most players (and developpers) will be satisfied with the first degree of epic.

And that brings back the problem of the right choice for the important NPCs power level. An expanded version of the advancement guidelines that you (I suppose?) wrote for the fiendish codex may be simpler, and would certainly be useful. That couldn't fit the needs of those who want the power scale to reach up to CR 232, but that would help those who want the statted NPCs easier or impossible to defeat, without making the chosen CRs the wrong choice.

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Epic play... should it be compatible or not? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.