Agreed and seconded. Only a matter of time before something ismilar happens the closer the races book gets to release.
I would also agree that (once a book has been announced) it would be silly to argue to have it not produced or something. This is slightly different since Paizo are still in the process of trying to judge which way to go.
I find going into a thread about wanting a certain book and saying not to publish it just seems counter productive. I may disagree yet respect a poster for feeling that way. At the same time I also wish that the psoter would start a new thread.
Yeah, that's a fair comment. I'm just lazy, I guess but you're right - this thread isnt a poll.
|
Agreed and seconded. Only a matter of time before something ismilar happens the closer the races book gets to release.I would also agree that (once a book has been announced) it would be silly to argue to have it not produced or something. This is slightly different since Paizo are still in the process of trying to judge which way to go.
Actually from some of the things I hear some of the staff say, an epic level book is inevitable, they see it as a natural extension of the rules. The trouble is they hated the old epic rules, so they basically have to proceed from scratch to make it. Like it or not they will one day make it.
Actually from some of the things I hear some of the staff say, an epic level book is inevitable, they see it as a natural extension of the rules. The trouble is they hated the old epic rules, so they basically have to proceed from scratch to make it. Like it or not they will one day make it.
I would also agree that (once a book has been announced) it would be silly to argue to have it not produced or something. This is slightly different since Paizo are still in the process of trying to judge which way to go.
I don't see it quite the same, although I agree that it's a natural extension of the rules. I dont think they've really decided how things are going to go.
Nonetheless, my position is not that I don't want them to make it, as such - more that there's lots of things I'd prefer they make first.
Nonetheless, my position is not that I don't want them to make it, as such - more that there's lots of things I'd prefer they make first.
And that is almost exactly what Erik Mona had indicated earlier in the thread.
I am relatively certain that we will get around to doing this at some point, though I will also say that we do not currently have plans to produce this book in the next year (or even two years).
.....
All of this, when combined with the frankly pretty awkward implementation of the epic rules themselves, convinced me that Wizards of the Coast rushed the epic rules into production before they truly had a good sense of the D&D 3.0 rules system itself. Had those rules come after the 3.5 revision, around the time of the Book of 9 Swords and other more "experimental" books designed by a design staff more comfortable with the standard rules, I think the whole affair would have been considerably less painful for everyone, from the writers and editors to the players themselves.There is still significant work to be done on the "core" 1-20 levels of the Pathfinder RPG--particularly in the higher third of that range--that I would like to see done before we wander off into levels beyond 20.
My strong sense is that we need to further flesh out the high-level opportunities for the core Pathfinder game before wandering into the truly epic levels. Once we have done that, the potential audience for this book will be a lot larger, and "epic-level" Pathfinder rules will be an inevitability.
So Erik is agreeing with what you are saying, they (Paizo) do wish to flesh out 1-20 first, and even indicated in a later post that the mid high levels (13/14-20) would be a good idea.
But from all intent and purposes, it is going to be something they will do eventually, just not until more is done with up to 20 and when the audience for epic (Mythic) level increases.
I want an Epic/Mythic/Whatever book so that I can lay the groundwork for a sandbox campaign. Heck, I'd even want it for Kingmaker, long before the PCs got anywhere near those levels. If NPCs are going to be epic others will hear of them; I need to start placing them (and their stories) right from the start. That means that if the epics have some funky world-shattering power, I need to know about it nice and early, not 2 years from now. Plus, a lot of high level critters have more than 20 hit dice while still having sub-20 CRs - how do their attack bonuses scale above 20? Do they have access to epic-ish feats and powers I just don't know about yet?
Epic will touch non-epic games as we get to higher levels - I'd like to see Paizo's take on it, because I'm just not as good at originating rules as they are.
You guys should head over to the suggestions thread I just re-posted on to help set the stage for "mythic". Erik and JJ both suggested that there needs to be more support for 13th or 14-20th level play before they look seriously at post-20th.
So let 'em know what you want!
Sam
If you do not want a Epic Level Handbook. Why are you here?
To encourage a 'later, rather than sooner' vantage point, as I am fairly certain the numbers have already borne out that "I WIN' levels of gameplay are not as immediately prioritized as where content provides an enjoyable game session for players and GMs.
As mentioned, nearly all the so-called 'Epic' level play I've encountered has put me off of the experience, and the 3.5 rules for same were rubbish, pandering to the god-moding twink and munchkin set. There's enough for whinging players to pester their DMs to allow, and there's far from a shortage of GMs who would not be able to say no to their particular passel of 'that guy's.
At least, that was my original purpose for being here. As the thread has progressed and the demonstration of an entitlement complex and a rather off-putting series of symptoms of 'King Customer' and extremely vocal condescending minority ensued, I found myself more involved in the thread to provide less and less polite opposition and disagreement. The presumptive audacity in claiming that most who disapprove of the solicited scope of game haven't played at that threshold beggars the imagination, and potentially provokes outright dismissal as one of the aforementioned munchkins and god-moders. Despite anticipated snark about arcane casters, I can fairly certainly say that such things don't appeal, and if the only purpose is to have bigger dice pools to roll and to allow further stimulus of one's ego, well, there's always Shadowrun or oWoD.
A better approach might be as another was doing upthread - putting forth examples of such play that doesn't devolve into Initiative Nuke races. As it stands, much as I like the idea of the game appealing to everyone and anyone, I'm finding myself in agreement that perhaps tis is not what you're looking for.
And as for why I am in a thread stating a vocal opposition to it, rather than joining the queue of solicitation?
Because if someone demands something, even with a please, as a consumer of the product it is difficult to refraining from coming in and stating, simply, 'What John Stewart Said'.
Supporting the company is good. Making demands encourages the company to find other potential clients and customers.
i am not sure i'd want to see a new 21+ set of rules different than the previous 20 levels, like wizards did with their elh, but sets of new feats, prestige classes, and magic items wouldn't hurt ... and monster advancement, as well.
for regular class advancement, there's always multiclassing ... no need for new rules.
there are 220 class levels described in the core rule-book, plus apg:120, um:20, uc:60?, and whatever comes next.
|
|
I'm okay with having to wait 2 years for "mythic" rules. But, I hope, before then, there will be some more support for higher level play. I'll show my support by purchasing modules for levels 10 and up. They'll come in handy for my group, as they love the higher levels.
If I were to game with my family group again, it'd be mandatory, as we've always ended up finishing the campaign in the 30's (3.5) or higher.
Is there a "Mythic rules suggestions" thread?
i am not sure i'd want to see a new 21+ set of rules different than the previous 20 levels, like wizards did with their elh, but sets of new feats, prestige classes, and magic items wouldn't hurt ... and monster advancement, as well.
for regular class advancement, there's always multiclassing ... no need for new rules.
there are 220 class levels described in the core rule-book, plus apg:120, um:20, uc:60?, and whatever comes next.
That doesn't work for multi-classing when the new class stacks with an old class. Wizard 20/Fighter 20 is fine. Wizard 20/Loremaster 1 fails because there still aren't any solid rules for a 21st level caster. So epic rules can be put off only as long as characters are perfectly happy giving up the classes and abilities that they've spent 20 levels building up.
I don't think giving up is the right way to look at it.
What does work out of the ELH actually are the feats. Which is where I see most of the advancement happening. 10+ spell slots increase only with feats and with pathfinders increased character level feats it would come at about the same rate as normal for core casters. I don't think Epic spells are need but there will likely need to be a feat for boosting DCs and caster levels.
In the Epic games I've played caster spell volume was never an issue, even in cases where Epic Spell went used. If you think casters get the shaft by not getting more slots every 2 levels your way off high level play.
Feats to buffer weakness and enhancer lower level abilities are what's need more. Fireball can be perfectly viable in Epic if it's Save DC can be brought into line with monsters (or rogues) at that level. Same goes bring up weak saves, low level non-repeating abilities, etc.
Yes, if you go from Wizard 20 to Loremaster you loose out on Spell Slots but not caster level, which you would if went figher. Or worse another base caster class, who's DCs and caster level which be way low. Take your choice. ;-)
IMO I see no reason to place "feat tax" in post 20 play to 'encourage' bolstering of weaknesses.
If you do not want a Epic Level Handbook. Why are you here?
First, just because I think your claim about what "almost everyone" wants is wrong doesn't mean I don't want an Epic Level Handbook.
Second, you mentioned both divine and psionic rules in the post I was replying to. Are you of the opinion that someone who wants epic rules must necessarily also want psionic and divine rules?
Third, there is a fundamental difference between "I don't want an Epic Level Handbook" and "I want an Epic Level Handbook, but I want them to be good rules, and I don't think the 3.5 SRD rules were good."
Just because I want an Epic Level Handbook (and I do, nowadays) does not mean I want the 3.5 SRD rules for epic, and even if I did, it would not mean I also want the 3.5 SRD rules for divine and psionics, and certainly it does not mean I have to believe that "almost everyone" also wants to see Paizo publish mildly updated 3.5 SRD rules for all three.
Finally, this is a discussion topic, not a monolothic-ratification-of-opinion topic. It is perfectly appropriate to comment, "I disagree with the original poster" in a discussion topic.
I consider that "Deities and Demigods" should be an extension of ELH and therefore should be in the same book
and given that Paizo only interested in money and both the psionic community as high level are considered not big enough could publish all in one book
I have little problem with the current rules. So a conversion to the suggestions listed in Core Rulebook page 406 I think it would be good enough
I consider that "Deities and Demigods" should be an extension of ELH and therefore should be in the same book
and given that Paizo only interested in money and both the psionic community as high level are considered not big enough could publish all in one book
I have little problem with the current rules. So a conversion to the suggestions listed in Core Rulebook page 406 I think it would be good enough
Some of what you're looking for, it has been stated will not happen. James Jacobs has stated that he doesn't want to introduce a new subsystem for another class, specifically calling out psionics and how they will not port over the WotC rules to a Pathfinder version. If there is a psionics class, they will more closely resemble one of the existing classes in structure (sorcerer/wizard for the psion, etc)
What does work out of the ELH actually are the feats. Which is where I see most of the advancement happening. 10+ spell slots increase only with feats and with pathfinders increased character level feats it would come at about the same rate as normal for core casters.
Sounds like what we've found. At higher levels, there isn't much happening with character advancement except for gaining feats or incrementally advancing class abilities (like sneak attack or ranger favored enemies). It's all about the feats.
I don't think Epic spells are need but there will likely need to be a feat for boosting DCs and caster levels.
In the Epic games I've played caster spell volume was never an issue, even in cases where Epic Spell went used. If you think casters get the shaft by not getting more slots every 2 levels your way off high level play.
Feats to buffer weakness and enhancer lower level abilities are what's need more. Fireball can be perfectly viable in Epic if it's Save DC can be brought into line with monsters (or rogues) at that level. Same goes bring up weak saves, low level non-repeating abilities, etc.
Right. It reaches the point where there's no reason to throw spells that even have a save, becuase the spell save DCs lag the CR so badly that every spell with a save is 'roll 20 to fail,' which means that unless you're throwing a lot of them, they're pretty irrelevant.
Unless you choose spells (such as cloudkill for which even if you save there's a bad effect. Unless, of course, you've imbibed the daily heroes' feast ... after all, who wouldn't? :)
stuffstuff
*nods* Again my personal view, the ground work laid by Ryan and ENWorld with E6 would be almost ideal for post 20. Just feats (some as good or better then class abilities) for XP.
However I keep running into impacts on monster mechanics. Which is also where 3e ELH rules got screwy as well. If you just halt basic mechanics like BAB and Saves for players, but monsters keep going it makes eventually "playing monsters" even odder.
I have not player E6 so I'm not aquatinted first hand with issues of bring in bigger HD monsters past the player capped 6 HD. However from what gather the idea is to KISS low level play which doesnt deal with many of the issues post 20 will touch on.
---> This is something that has bugged me about monster stat blocks. Why is not possible to create monsters or templates which just give raw HP boosts without more HD? Ditto goes for "natural" bonuses to saves, attack (not BAB).
I'm sorry to the folks who want a totally different leveling system post 20 but there is hard cap I see, and it is often called Big T or maybe Mr. T. The mighty tarrasque weights in at 30 HD and a CR 25. This in my view sets the cealing for total HD. The game needs to extend to at least 40 total HD (class and/or race based). Unless I missed a critter with more then 30 HD. 40 HD gives top end monster designers some breathing (but really need to keep them sub 35) room, is 2 complete core classes (or a core class a PrC and an "epic" PrC), and seems like nice round number. It isn't so neat on Saves and Medium BAB (why I assume Eric put down 36 as the cap), but I'd rather see two full classes then 20/16.
*nods* Again my personal view, the ground work laid by Ryan and ENWorld with E6 would be almost ideal for post 20. Just feats (some as good or better then class abilities) for XP.stuffstuff
True, but only if you're a fan of E6 ... which I'm not.
As I've mentioned (elsewhere, I think, but possibly in this thread), at really high levels the class advancement turns into something pretty similar anyways, since there's no new class powers above level 20, just incremental changes to existing powers.
So, basically, all you're looking at is a feat every other level plus (maybe) an occasional bonus feat based on your class. The rest of the changes don't really have much impact, though they do eventually accrue to something that does - for example adding another 1d6 hp when you've already got 50d6 hp is pretty much just noise, lots of spells cap out at relatively low levels, and an extra d6 sneak attack or skirmish damage is just an extra 3.5hp of damage.
True, but only if you're a fan of E6 ... which I'm not.
As I've mentioned (elsewhere, I think, but possibly in this thread), at really high levels the class advancement turns into something pretty similar anyways, since there's no new class powers above level 20, just incremental changes to existing powers.
So, basically, all you're looking at is a feat every other level plus (maybe) an occasional bonus feat based on your class. The rest of the changes don't really have much impact, though they do eventually accrue to something that does - for example adding another 1d6 hp when you've already got 50d6 hp is pretty much just noise, lots of spells cap out at relatively low levels, and an extra d6 sneak attack or skirmish damage is just an extra 3.5hp of damage.
I think you and I are mostly in accord here. Our difference is that I think the core numbers (BAB, Save, HD/HP Ranks) needs to at, some point, stop. There really isn't a good reason to keep stacking on more as eventually it all comes down to the same thing Feats.
My view may be different from yours but the points I see for playing post 20 are:
1) More time with cool high end abilities you've earned while still feeling like you're advancing
2) A wish to influence cosmic (planar) level events and setting shaping
3) A want to stand toe to toe with primal forces of existence
4) Remove "flaws" in the character
My issue with stacking on HD (and all assosicated befits) at infinitum is that you give players no chance to do #4. The skew on Good vs Bad saves alone gets out of hand prior to 20. Post 20 it's a serious issue. In the epic games I've played in and the one I ran, in all the hours of theory craft talked with friends, rarely did I see anyone try seriously for #4. It remained an arms race to make strengths even stronger and neglect weakness.
I dont know if you ever look at the 2e High-Level DMs option book? Class advancement was capped at 30, unless you got funky with dual/multi-classing. After which you paid XP to smooth out Attack and Saves until everyone had at the best possible values the system allowed. Once done you partitioned a patron deity, did an massive project or quest (without help of any kind), and were raised to demi-god status, hand back your character sheet he's an NPC now.
This model is essentially E6 but more like E20 or E36 or E40. E6 is intended to preserve mortal level play. E20-40 would be focused on preserving that higher level play. The methodly is similar, the results are not.
I know some people don't like Anime but that wide media generates so much fictional content it's hard to references it sometimes.
I now have 2 Animes which make decent metaphors for Post 20 play. Gurren Lagann and Saint Seiya (especially the recent Lost Canvas prequel). I've covered giant robots piloting giant robots, so I'll cover what I think is important about the other. In Saint Seiya you have a war between gods of Greek mythology. Each has Cosmo or the power of a cosmos. The top tier are the Gold Saints who are at basically the peek of mortal power, they can't really get any tougher but most of them contintuen to slowly refine the powers or try to address weakness. Most can go toe to toe with at least minor gods and win.
My point is you don't need 100 level Paladin to be a Gold Saint, and you don't need to be 200 when you go up against Hades. Capping levels at 40 and then using feats for further refinement would work just as well for "Epic" plots.
Once you put a full halt to HD/levels and make that halt congruent with a halt in Monster HD, then you add on fresh secondary leveling mechanics for both Monsters and Players. E40 or god play. As I will point out the old 3e Divine rules generally call for 40 Class Levels and 20 Outsider HD. Divine "levels" based on worship is an example. The Dragon Overloards of Dragonlance (collecting skulls for power) is another. Followers and Skulls can be gained or lost. At the most basic you could use an E6 like system for slow continual refinement. The key is getting to that jump off point.
and given that Paizo only interested in money
OK.. I'm hoping that something has been lost in translation here. Paizo only interested in money? Rather than, say, artistic credibility, pride in one's work and a well thought out and balanced rules system?
Paizo are a business. Every business needs to make money, but that doesn't preclude any of the above, or care and attention to one's product. Indeed, businesses that are 'only interested in money' usually manage to achieve the exact opposite by quickly alienating their customer base.
Please point out if I'm taking your comment the wrong way, but that sentence really needs to lose the word 'only'.
And, back on topic. I very much agree with some of the other posters here - whilst I will certainly buy an Epic rulebook when it appears, I'm very keen on getting hold of more support focused on 'high but normal' levels of play first. Whilst Paizo haven't turned out a huge number of high level adventures (and I guess there are different definitions of what that constitutes), I'm really looking at the troublesome teens. I've got a lot of 3.5 modules I'd love to convert, and it would be great to be able to bring in some additional rules / feat architecture to really make those levels a memorable experience for everybody, and not just adding up pluses to hit and damage.
My view may be different from yours but the points I see for playing post 20 are:1) More time with cool high end abilities you've earned while still feeling like you're advancing
2) A wish to influence cosmic (planar) level events and setting shaping
3) A want to stand toe to toe with primal forces of existence
4) Remove "flaws" in the character
+1 I totally agree
and given that Paizo only interested in moneyOK.. I'm hoping that something has been lost in translation here. Paizo only interested in money? Rather than, say, artistic credibility, pride in one's work and a well thought out and balanced rules system?
No, that's exactly what I meant. Because that is what I understand: "The community is very small"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that's exactly what I meant. Because that is what I understand: "The community is very small"and given that Paizo only interested in moneyOK.. I'm hoping that something has been lost in translation here. Paizo only interested in money? Rather than, say, artistic credibility, pride in one's work and a well thought out and balanced rules system?
Ok, then I can't say how strongly I disagree with you, and in fact think it's a completely indefensible position. The very fact that I - or anyone else - in this community, can come on these boards and get replies to my questions from the CEO, Creative Director, Publisher etc - and not just once, but repeatedly - gives the lie to that statement. Everyone on staff give up their time to respond courteously and cogently to the most trivial question about their system and game world... none of which makes them any money, or strikes me as being motivated by money.
It's just, well. I'm dumbfounded by that position; but it's not on topic, so I'll leave it there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that's exactly what I meant. Because that is what I understand: "The community is very small"and given that Paizo only interested in moneyOK.. I'm hoping that something has been lost in translation here. Paizo only interested in money? Rather than, say, artistic credibility, pride in one's work and a well thought out and balanced rules system?
Hm. It is a business, but I don't imagine that the staff would appreciate being characterized as only interested in the money.
Were that the case, they would probably be working in a more profitable industry. They are all talented folks who could be working in more profitable industries. They care about the game, and gaming in general, a lot.
Reaper Miniatures
|
No, that's exactly what I meant. Because that is what I understand: "The community is very small"and given that Paizo only interested in moneyOK.. I'm hoping that something has been lost in translation here. Paizo only interested in money? Rather than, say, artistic credibility, pride in one's work and a well thought out and balanced rules system?
Hm. It is a business, but I don't imagine that the staff would appreciate being characterized as only interested in the money.
Were that the case, they would probably be working in a more profitable industry. They are all talented folks who could be working in more profitable industries. They care about the game, and gaming in general, a lot.
I don't work for Paizo, but I know most of their people, and I work in the Game Industry. I will try to speak for myself more than for them. We love what we do at Reaper, and those I know at Paizo love what they do. ALL of us could make more money in other corporate sectors - I for one come from a telecom background where in 2000 I made twice as much as I do now. But I love what I do ever so much more. Were it ONLY about the money, I'd be there, not here.
Being able to walk into a convention or game store, see my product being used, and hear the tales of the fans about how my product has enriched their hobby - that's a reward, too. Compensation does not always mean money.
On the flip side, if Reaper decided that this post meant I'd like to work for free because I love it so much, I'm sure that the love would dry up pretty fast...
I know we are a minority but I think we're being ignored and long. I do not understand how it's going to be a larger community without the publication of Epic Level Handbook.
the truth I do not think I'm willing to wait 2 years to be published. I guess our best hope as with Psionics is a 3rd Party
Hey Brian! Reaper has enriched my games!
You guys fill a crucial niche for roleplayers in the miniatures world. We'd be lost without you!
Hm. It is a business, but I don't imagine that the staff would appreciate being characterized as only interested in the money.No, that's exactly what I meant. Because that is what I understand: "The community is very small"and given that Paizo only interested in moneyOK.. I'm hoping that something has been lost in translation here. Paizo only interested in money? Rather than, say, artistic credibility, pride in one's work and a well thought out and balanced rules system?
It is true that Paizo isn't only interested in money. On the other hand, they are interested in staying in business. So that does mean the market for a post 20 level book must be large enough that they don't lose money by producing a 256 page hardcover on the topic.
I want an epic level handbook as much as most of its supporters. But I am realistic enough to realize that it is a niche market and is likely to come late in Pathfinder's life cycle when most of the more mainstream topics are covered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know we are a minority but I think we're being ignored and long. I do not understand how it's going to be a larger community without the publication of Epic Level Handbook.
the truth I do not think I'm willing to wait 2 years to be published. I guess our best hope as with Psionics is a 3rd Party
I would say if they were just out to make money they would rush another flawed version of the epic rules into print, instead of actually taking the time to figure out how to actually make the epic rules work.
|
|
I know we are a minority but I think we're being ignored and long. I do not understand how it's going to be a larger community without the publication of Epic Level Handbook.
the truth I do not think I'm willing to wait 2 years to be published. I guess our best hope as with Psionics is a 3rd Party
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong*, that the fundamental difference between you (and people who are of a similar mind), and me (and people who are of similar mind), is that:
You: seem to want 3.X Epic rules ported over to PRPG
I: want PRPG to do their own thing with "Mythic" (epic) rules
I love the concept of becoming ever more powerful. We just don't agree on the best way to get there. That's all.
I just want to say, I'm absolutely a fan of Epic. I'm absolutely a fan of Psionics. However, for now, if a 3PP wants to take the reigns and do something with those rules, I say: "Go for it!". Dreamscarred Press did a great job with psionics. But, if Paizo were to tackle that subject, I'm inclined to agree with the method of doing so by JJ (I believe?). That is to say, make it cast "spells" like all the other casters that exist in PRPG today. With spell levels and slots, etc.
But that is just my opinion. If they want to tackle either subject, I would hope they make the rules for PRPG, and NOT simply port old 3.X over.
I see PRPG as it's own game. You see it as an extension of 3.X. I think that's where our differences are.
* - this applies to just about anything i say where I'm assuming things about you specifically. Not intended to be insulting.
Edit: edduardco, If you're really interested in bringing mythic/epic rules into PRPG, why not give your input over here?
I think you and I are mostly in accord here. Our difference is that I think the core numbers (BAB, Save, HD/HP Ranks) needs to at, some point, stop. There really isn't a good reason to keep stacking on more as eventually it all comes down to the same thing Feats.
One reason I don't like stopping things such as BAB, etc. dead in their tracks is that it really diminishes the feeling of accomplishment as characters level.
Even with all of that stuff intact, for the players in my game level advancement is starting to feel almost irrelevant (except for some exceptions - such as the druid who need the HD in order to turn into Even More Stuff).
Thus, removing that relatively minor benefit and making it all dependent on feats, while simplifying matters, would diminish the feeling of accomplishment for my players.
My view may be different from yours but the points I see for playing post 20 are:
1) More time with cool high end abilities you've earned while still feeling like you're advancing
2) A wish to influence cosmic (planar) level events and setting shaping
3) A want to stand toe to toe with primal forces of existence
4) Remove "flaws" in the characterMy issue with stacking on HD (and all assosicated befits) at infinitum is that you give players no chance to do #4. The skew on Good vs Bad saves alone gets out of hand prior to 20.
Which is why I've said that the Core Rulebook suggestion (keep existing progressions the same) is not actually feasible. The disparity, by definition, will reach critical mass. The same is true for hit points, but it's easier for the players to level the playing field in that regard based on their roles.
As for removing "flaws" ... what kind of flaws do you mean? Hard to comment on without an example. But given that there's feats and abilities that counter virtually any flaw, it seems to me that correcting a flaw is merely a matter of taking on a capability that makes it a moot point. For example, a wizard might take some levels in psion, etc.
I dont know if you ever look at the 2e High-Level DMs option book? Class advancement was capped at 30, unless you got funky with dual/multi-classing. After which you paid XP to smooth out Attack and Saves until everyone had at the best possible values the system allowed. Once done you petitioned a patron deity, did an massive project or quest (without help of any kind), and were raised to demi-god status, hand back your character sheet he's an NPC now.
Sounds like the Immortals Handbook: Ascension stuff. But that assumes that there is a defined path to godhood; our campaign's a bit more gritty than that and there is no path to godhood (well, not that the PCs will be using).
I do have the DM Option Book for high level play, though by the time I got it I wasn't playing much 2e any more - I got it in case I ever felt like reading it for ideas.
My point is you don't need 100 level Paladin to be a Gold Saint, and you don't need to be 200 when you go up against Hades. Capping levels at 40 and then using feats for further refinement would work just as well for "Epic" plots.
I'm actually planning on using the old Primal Order book as a basis for the stuff relating to gods - I like the concepts there - that the gods are just different, which is how we've been running the campaign (without rules support).
Once you put a full halt to HD/levels and make that halt congruent with a halt in Monster HD, then you add on fresh secondary leveling mechanics for both Monsters and Players. E40 or god play. As I will point out the old 3e Divine rules generally call for 40 Class Levels and 20 Outsider HD. Divine "levels" based on worship is an example. The Dragon Overloards of Dragonlance (collecting skulls for power) is another. Followers and Skulls can be gained or lost. At the most basic you could use an E6 like system for slow continual refinement. The key is getting to that jump off point.
Which is a whole new rules system - and which is what I have really been trying to avoid. The whole goal of our campaign was to make the existing rules work, not to design new ones. Overall, barring the nonsensical epic spells, we've been doing pretty well. Yes, we had to use the rules a specific way for that to work - but it does work.
Having done it all for so long, there's very few things that I would have done differently were I to do it over - but frankly I think the rules can work when used in the right campaign framework. It's defining the framework that is the challenge.
ooo random idea for increased caster levels above 20 increased caster level (in addition to higher spell slots for metamagiced spells) the epic caster level would increase the saving through for your spells. every 2 levels all your dcs go up by one.
...
Do we really need more classes very few people will ever use (cue the Gunslinger)? I do not mean to insult the good people of Paizo, since they have done such an amazing job most of the time, but I have to admit that one truly had me boggled. From all my years of playing RPGs, I have seen precious few people ever wanting to use guns in a fantasy setting, and many, many more being virulently opposed to their existence, much less to their use....
I'm one that wanted a gunslinger class...
In addition, there needed to be guns included in the official rules because of Alkenstar.
I don't need Epic Rules, level 20 to me IS epic. Epic is more of a role-plying term to me. By the time characters have reached level 20 and have capstone abilities, play is already on the epic level, how many abilities do you really need? Or do you just want rules for +10 ultra-vorpal swords? And planet destroying spells?
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong*, that the fundamental difference between you (and people who are of a similar mind), and me (and people who are of similar mind), is that:You: seem to want 3.X Epic rules ported over to PRPG
I: want PRPG to do their own thing with "Mythic" (epic) rules
I do not feel offended
and yes, I see Pathfinder as an extension of 3.5, because it claims to be and it seems
Welcome to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!
there you can read it says: "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is an evolution of the 3.5 rules set"
and that was what interested me, as I said before I think the Core Rulebook it's brilliant book
Ed, Have you thought about the idea that, instead of bringing existing 3.5 stuff over to PRPG, that you could possibly port their "mythic" rules to 3.5? Is that something you'd be interested in, or at least give it a look-see?
yes, why not? is a good idea, but in how many time? and although given the fact that 3.5 is no longer supported I think I prefer to bring things of 3.5 to PRPG
If that's the case, why don't you simply use the 3.X ELH? What purpose would simply republishing the epic rules serve, if all you want is the 3.X rules?
I like the changes made in the core rules and I want see the same in ELH and as I said before I like the suggestions listed in page 406
|
|
If that's the case, why don't you simply use the 3.X ELH? What purpose would simply republishing the epic rules serve, if all you want is the 3.X rules?I like the changes made in the core rules and I want see the same in ELH and as I said before I like the suggestions listed in page 406
I'm glad you like PRPG, and what it's done. If you like the suggestions in the CRB, as far as you're concerned, why even bother with a whole book for "mythic"?
Lots of good feedback.
Sorry, gets hard to respond to split feedback on my current computing platform.
I think we'll keep disagreeing on BAB/Save mechanics. Once you're at 40 HD of derived bonuses that's quite a good chunk. At some point these progression have to stop and get realigned. Since the core game won't be altered to "fix" that problem it has to be done at some point at Post 20. If it's going to be stopped and restarted as per the ELH why not just stop all together and remove any future headaches. I also disagree that BAB and Saves make players feel like they are progressing. At least in my experience my players rarely focus on "what the next BAB boost gets me" and focus way more what they can get for feats.
About #4 weaknesses, mainly weakness in HD related areas, buffeting Saves, bringing up attack, adding more HP. Also bringing up abilities gained at lower levels so they can be useful post 20, other similar kinds of "fiddly bits" that make can make a character more enjoyable to play.
The problem is there is no "right" campaign framework Post 20. Given our "small" community to begin with we are also highly divined as to what those campaigns are. Some want to play against gods, some want more mortal, others just want way to putter around at the top of food chain for kicks. To deal with the kind of diversity we've got an Unearthed Arcana style "pick the options that work for you" section/book makes more sense. The only thing that would be unified post 20 would be the gap between 20 and whatever level becomes the jump off point. From there you need it could go on a ELH style progression, divine rules, dragon skulls, E6 style feats, or more and combintations there of.
Sorry, gets hard to respond to split feedback on my current computing platform.
I do it by hand, I'm just anal that way - no magic here :)
The problem is there is no "right" campaign framework Post 20. Given our "small" community to begin with we are also highly divined as to what those campaigns are. Some want to play against gods, some want more mortal, others just want way to putter around at the top of food chain for kicks. To deal with the kind of diversity we've got an Unearthed Arcana style "pick the options that work for you" section/book makes more sense.
This.
Heck, much of what I say is based on my current game. My next game might be totally different - I have no way to be sure until it actually comes about.
But I do expect that to be successful, any sort of above-21 rules will eventually have to support multiple gaming styles.
My suspicion, however, is that such problems don't kick in until very high levels. What Paizo has suggested in the Core Rulebook will work for moderately high levels (for example levels 21-36, as seems to be the consensus). Such gameplay will likely be an extension of current gameplay, but with very high power levels and capabilities.
It's at the power levels above that, I think, that the cracks in the rule system turn into bleeding sores. The only reason it works for us is that I keep a tight rein on where the game is going and what the players are doing. Not by forcing them anyhere, but by maintaining a tight plot and keeping the characters too busy to have time to do the classic plane hopping god fighting taking over the planes type activities that seems to come up so often.
Could the players revolt and decide they don't want to save the world but instead want to go off the reservation? Sure. But that's not the game I'm running, and if they did so the game would implode within a few game sessions - it's sort of an unwritten contract that this is the epic game we're playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of interesting comments about a Pathfinder Epic (rather, "Mythic") from James, James, and Erik in this blog.
(All due credit to Cheapy for pointing the blog out.)