Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Who Wants Epic Level Content


Paizo Products

101 to 150 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Except you don't have to kill a god to gain XP. You can kill mooks and you get XP. And I think becoming a god should be more involved that simply killing things that are 5 CR below your level.

I wouldn't call anything CR 20 a mook, no matter what your level.

I do agree that the level system should cap somewhere in the demigod area, before true deities. I am in favor of the old Immortals system where a God is their own rank. A level 1 God should be able to swat a level 36 mortal.

Shadow Lodge

deinol wrote:
I wouldn't call anything CR 20 a mook, no matter what your level.

If you're level 30, then yeah, a CR 20 enemy IS a mook, much like a CR 10 enemy is a mook to a level 20 character.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
deinol wrote:
I wouldn't call anything CR 20 a mook, no matter what your level.
If you're level 30, then yeah, a CR 20 enemy IS a mook, much like a CR 10 enemy is a mook to a level 20 character.

Depends on the creature. I'd say a CR20 fire elemental is definitely a mook to a level 30 character. A level 21 spellcaster? Not so much.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
gbonehead wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
deinol wrote:
I wouldn't call anything CR 20 a mook, no matter what your level.
If you're level 30, then yeah, a CR 20 enemy IS a mook, much like a CR 10 enemy is a mook to a level 20 character.
Depends on the creature. I'd say a CR20 fire elemental is definitely a mook to a level 30 character. A level 21 spellcaster? Not so much.

I don't disagree, but I think that goes to having to do with an implicit assumption of the differences between a generic monster and a creature with class levels.

A generic monster is a creature presented as-is out of a monster book, with no advancements, and as such needs no real backstory, no matter what it's CR. It's an average representation for its kind, and so requires no particular development to justify how it came to reach its level of power - it's just one among many.

A creature with class levels, on the other hand, has a built-in back-story, and the more class levels it has the more that back-story deserves to be developed and utilized. A creature with twenty class levels has clearly done a LOT, and should be more than just another face in a crowd. That person worked hard and overcame much to get where they are, and their presence in the game should reflect that.

Hence the reason why monsters can make good mooks; to 30th-level characters, it's appropriate to be slaughtering balors left and right. But that 20th-level human wizard is actually *somebody*, even if he's not very powerful compared to the PCs.

Of course, it goes without saying that these are loose guidelines and not hard-and-fast rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alzrius wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
deinol wrote:
I wouldn't call anything CR 20 a mook, no matter what your level.
If you're level 30, then yeah, a CR 20 enemy IS a mook, much like a CR 10 enemy is a mook to a level 20 character.
Depends on the creature. I'd say a CR20 fire elemental is definitely a mook to a level 30 character. A level 21 spellcaster? Not so much.

I don't disagree, but I think that goes to having to do with an implicit assumption of the differences between a generic monster and a creature with class levels.

A generic monster is a creature presented as-is out of a monster book, with no advancements, and as such needs no real backstory, no matter what it's CR. It's an average representation for its kind, and so requires no particular development to justify how it came to reach its level of power - it's just one among many.

Poor Tarrasque, you are just one among many.

I disagree. There shouldn't be enough critters of that high CR running around that you can consider any of them "mooks". I guess I just run my high level game differently, but I tend to have fewer fights against tough but important characters/creatures.

Sure, they also fight hordes of mooks sometimes. But those are usually handwaved. How many guys can you hit? Ok, 7 orc warriors are slain.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

On planet Falx, the Tarrasque is indeed one among many. ;-) (bonus points if you know the reference!)

More seriously, the Tarrasque is outrightly stated to be unique; balors (my example creature) are something else altogether. And I get nervous when people start saying how the game "shouldn't" be played - you run your high-level game differently, and there's nothing wrong with that; you have only a few fights against a select set of tough but important creatures...others may have that, plus the armies that those creatures command.

Personally, I love the idea of fighting your way through an army of balors when your party storms the gates of Orcus castle. And there's no reason you can't handwave that, either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I didn't mean to imply that "you're doing it wrong" if you do it differently. Just that I think at that things of that CR should start to be more unique.

If my group were to storm the gates of Orcus's castle (which they wouldn't do, since he remains dead in my game) I would have an army of countless demons led by a few, specific Balor Lord Generals. Beef them up to CR = party level. Then they have some specific unique foes to fight and hordes of Vrock and Glabrezu to deal with as well.

If you want hordes of Balor that is ok too. I just prefer a different style to my high level games.


Alzrius wrote:

On planet Falx, the Tarrasque is indeed one among many. ;-) (bonus points if you know the reference!)

Does it count Google-searching :P ?

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Kthulhu wrote:
Bleh. Gaining divinity should be more than a matter of simple killing enough orcs (ie, gaining enough XP / levels).

Arguably, if the XP costs were high enough, one might have to wipe out several entire species of low CR foes to attain godhood. That would be kind of cool, if you were going for a "god of genocide" sort of thing. It would certainly make the history books of the world.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
deinol wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that "you're doing it wrong" if you do it differently. Just that I think at that things of that CR should start to be more unique.

If my group were to storm the gates of Orcus's castle (which they wouldn't do, since he remains dead in my game) I would have an army of countless demons led by a few, specific Balor Lord Generals. Beef them up to CR = party level. Then they have some specific unique foes to fight and hordes of Vrock and Glabrezu to deal with as well.

If you want hordes of Balor that is ok too. I just prefer a different style to my high level games.

All depends on level. When the party is level 40 or higher, pretty much anything has to be tweaked in some way, even the "cannon fodder."

Gotta say though, my party was pretty unhappy when they faced 6 paragon purrodaemons, even though the daemons were massively out-CRed. They didn't realize quite how much they depended on the fighter's ability to crit at will and force saves vs. death due to Devastating Critical until it was taken away. And swords of wounding are pretty nasty.


Ever since the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook, I've been interested in a revision of the spell system. I HATED the epic spells and the whole means by which spells more powerful than 9th level spells were dealt with.

I wondered why a 3rd level spell with a feat that bumped it up two levels, and a 4th level spell with a feat that bumped it up one level, and a 5th level spell were all considered to be roughly equivalent (in certain terms), but, an 8th level spell with a feat that bumped it up two levels, and a 9th level spell with a feat that bumped it up one level, and a 10th level spell were not all considered to be roughly equivalent.

After all, for some reason, there was something goofy about a 10th level spell that meant an 8th level spell bumped up two levels and a 9th level spell bumped up one level were both okay in a "10th level spell slot" but that it was somehow TABOO for there to be 10th level spells.

Further, there were all kinds of existing spells that could have a "mass" or a "greater" variant that could easily be 10th or 11th level.

I didn't get it, at all.

So, I made up a bunch of spells of my own, up to 15th level, using the scaling rules in the DMG and following the same sorts of progressions that were normally seen for spells in the first 9 levels.

Maybe I'll write to the designers with my ideas....


Does anyone know the publications for 2012? Any sign of an Epic Level Handbook?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
Does anyone know the publications for 2012? Any sign of an Epic Level Handbook?

2012

Advanced Races Guide
Ultimate Equipment
(Unannounced - likely Bestiary 4 or maybe a big NPC book.)

So no sign of Epic level in 2012. 2013 if we are lucky.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really hope that epic or at least playtest epic comes out in late 2012. I've got 14th level PCs, and even with the slow track XP, I doubt I will be able to drag out their arrival at epic until 2013.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I do!


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deinol wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Does anyone know the publications for 2012? Any sign of an Epic Level Handbook?

2012

Advanced Races Guide
Ultimate Equipment
(Unannounced - likely Bestiary 4 or maybe a big NPC book.)

So no sign of Epic level in 2012. 2013 if we are lucky.

Yes, I hope so too. Although I will admit I was a bit disappointed that when talking with some of them at Gen Con, it really didn't seem like it was on their mind (for a Mythic book). Jason did say he felt he had a really good idea in regards to it, but the way he (and the others) acted, it just isn't on their radar right now. However, they did say they are aware that many do want it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hobbun wrote:


Yes, I hope so too. Although I will admit I was a bit disappointed that when talking with some of them at Gen Con, it really didn't seem like it was on their mind (for a Mythic book). Jason did say he felt he had a really good idea in regards to it, but the way he (and the others) acted, it just isn't on their radar right now. However, they did say they are aware that many do want it.

To be fair, anything that is over a year away isn't really going to be on the radar. Even if they decide that winter 2013 will see the release of Mythic Adventures, they wouldn't really even start to think about for a while.

While I'm certain the staff has ideas floating around, I doubt they really know what direction they want to go after Ultimate Equipment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Vrecknidj wrote:

Ever since the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook, I've been interested in a revision of the spell system. I HATED the epic spells and the whole means by which spells more powerful than 9th level spells were dealt with.

I wondered why a 3rd level spell with a feat that bumped it up two levels, and a 4th level spell with a feat that bumped it up one level, and a 5th level spell were all considered to be roughly equivalent (in certain terms), but, an 8th level spell with a feat that bumped it up two levels, and a 9th level spell with a feat that bumped it up one level, and a 10th level spell were not all considered to be roughly equivalent.

After all, for some reason, there was something goofy about a 10th level spell that meant an 8th level spell bumped up two levels and a 9th level spell bumped up one level were both okay in a "10th level spell slot" but that it was somehow TABOO for there to be 10th level spells.

Further, there were all kinds of existing spells that could have a "mass" or a "greater" variant that could easily be 10th or 11th level.

I didn't get it, at all.

So, I made up a bunch of spells of my own, up to 15th level, using the scaling rules in the DMG and following the same sorts of progressions that were normally seen for spells in the first 9 levels.

Maybe I'll write to the designers with my ideas....

Completely agree here. There doesn't seem (to me, at least) to be much reason why you can't simply keep scaling up spell levels through 10th, 11th, etc.

2E had a few sources of this, scattered around various supplements (including the Role-Aids material).

To date, I've only seen one supplement for v.3.5 that dealt with epic-level magic this way.


I want epic.
Mainly because I'm OCD and enjoy making character builds up to retarded levels.
Well, that and I like making some epic NPCs for my settings as iconic or godlike plot points.


Well if the Ultimate Equipment is already planed I suppose there's nothing to do but come on another bestiary, I enjoy the bestiary like any other but I think it is time for Epic rules, the longer time it take to be published it will be less probably that happen or at least thats what I think


edduardco wrote:
I enjoy the bestiary like any other but I think it is time for Epic rules, the longer time it take to be published it will be less probably that happen or at least thats what I think

And in that similar vein for our table, the longer they take to come out with a Mythic book, the more likely we're willing to give up Pathfinder, because Mythic play IS the only thing missing for our table to make this game "complete". Stopping at level 20 every time gets boring after a while.

I do want to see Mythic content; and I hope it comes out sooner rather than later.

Shadow Lodge

Here's some easy epic rules for you, that when you boil them down, equate to what most epic rules consist of:

When epic enters combat with non-epic, epic wins.
When epic enters combat with epic, winner of initiative wins.
Non-combat? What's that?


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

Here's some easy epic rules for you, that when you boil them down, equate to what most epic rules consist of:

When epic enters combat with non-epic, epic wins.
When epic enters combat with epic, winner of initiative wins.
Non-combat? What's that?

(Walks up, sniffs bait, walks away.)


memorax wrote:

Since a thread about this topic was locked I will start two new threads one for and one against. Keep it civil otherwise the thread will be locked and lets try to not have that happen again.

I will start the ball rolling. I am in favor of an official product that supports Epic play. I think PF could use one ot round out what I think is missing in the rules and to compete on equal terms with 4E and 3.5.

I have never had a group get high enough to justify the epic level stuff, and no group that wanted to start that high. However, for pure interest sake as a DM I would love to see some epic level stuff. More than anything, though, I would love a complete Epice Level Bestiary. 300 pages of monsters starting at CR 21 and going up from there. That would be some good stuff.


Kalanth wrote:


I have never had a group get high enough to justify the epic level stuff, and no group that wanted to start that high. However, for pure interest sake as a DM I would love to see some epic level stuff. More than anything, though, I would love a complete Epic Level Bestiary. 300 pages of monsters starting at CR 21 and going up from there. That would be some good stuff.

If done properly; which I have faith the fine folks at Paizo can do. You've never had a group go beyond 20?


I only want to see Epic content if there are some stories to go with it. I'm not that interested in playing characters who can ACCIDENTALLY level a city rampaging across my homebrew, or any other setting.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Merlin_47 wrote:
Kalanth wrote:


I have never had a group get high enough to justify the epic level stuff, and no group that wanted to start that high. However, for pure interest sake as a DM I would love to see some epic level stuff. More than anything, though, I would love a complete Epic Level Bestiary. 300 pages of monsters starting at CR 21 and going up from there. That would be some good stuff.
If done properly; which I have faith the fine folks at Paizo can do. You've never had a group go beyond 20?

For me it has happened only once; they passed 20, if I recall properly, late in 2006. Of course, they're still playing the same characters ...

I also would like an epic bestiary, but I don't really see a full-size bestiary of CR21+ creatures happening any time soon. I still am in favor of the "Part 7 of 6" idea for adventure paths, with an associated high-level bestiary. That would be cool.


Merlin_47 wrote:
If done properly; which I have faith the fine folks at Paizo can do. You've never had a group go beyond 20?

Nope. The closest we every came was about level 14 after playing the same campaign for about 2 years. Not sure why the fizzle out about then, but that is a pretty consistent cut off point.


gbonehead wrote:


For me it has happened only once; they passed 20, if I recall properly, late in 2006. Of course, they're still playing the same characters ...

I also would like an epic bestiary, but I don't really see a full-size bestiary of CR21+ creatures happening any time soon. I still am in favor of the "Part 7 of 6" idea for adventure paths, with an associated high-level bestiary. That would be cool.

The only problem with that is GM's like me who don't use AP's and just make my own adventures. It's a good idea still, nonetheless.


Merlin_47 wrote:
gbonehead wrote:


For me it has happened only once; they passed 20, if I recall properly, late in 2006. Of course, they're still playing the same characters ...

I also would like an epic bestiary, but I don't really see a full-size bestiary of CR21+ creatures happening any time soon. I still am in favor of the "Part 7 of 6" idea for adventure paths, with an associated high-level bestiary. That would be cool.

The only problem with that is GM's like me who don't use AP's and just make my own adventures. It's a good idea still, nonetheless.

I agree with Merlin_47 on this one. I make all of my own campaigns, encounters, adventures, and even the world that we play on. I have not used a single AP, and if the monsters or information for Epic level gaming was tucked into an AP it would be lost on me. External books, even if it is a combo book (Epic Level PHB / DMG / Bestiary), would be the best option as I see it.


Kthulhu wrote:

Here's some easy epic rules for you, that when you boil them down, equate to what most epic rules consist of:

When epic enters combat with non-epic, epic wins.
When epic enters combat with epic, winner of initiative wins.
Non-combat? What's that?

obviously you have not played at epic levels or at least not very well


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Merlin_47 wrote:


The only problem with that is GM's like me who don't use AP's and just make my own adventures. It's a good idea still, nonetheless.

Same for me, I am really in favor of the AP #7 idea, as epic needs a strong story and context to work. Perhaps more so than lower level games.

I read the APs, but never play them. I would love to the stories like Kingmaker or Council of Thieves continued into epic territory.


"POWER UNLIMITED POWER"

What date starts the Pre-order?

Grand Lodge

Absolutely not

Epic levels do wonders to ruin a game's dynamic.
If I had more time right now, I'd explain why.

Honestly, lv 20 needs to be the maximum peak for any race/character.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I say high levels do more to ruin the game's dynamic.

Thus, level 10 needs to be the maximum peak for any race/character.


I would very much like an epic book. We love to play high level, we would like more support for it. I hope Paizo considers in the near future.


I say high levels do more to ruin the game's dynamic.

Thus, level 5 needs to be the maximum peak for any race/character.


Based on experience, anything beyond 1st level breaks the game. And if it isn't a commoner, it's definitely too powerful. Even those level 1 commoners are suspect; I call for the return of 0-level characters!


what game's dynamic? I see no reason for a low level cap, if you don't like high levels go and kill some rats and make a party for that, but some of us like to fight against dragons before the lunch

by the way if you don like it exist another thread for that, this is for who wants epic level content

EPIC 4EVER

Andoran

edduardco wrote:
Well if the Ultimate Equipment is already planed I suppose there's nothing to do but come on another bestiary, I enjoy the bestiary like any other but I think it is time for Epic rules, the longer time it take to be published it will be less probably that happen or at least thats what I think

I like more monsters myself yet I rather they pass on publishing another bestirary and focus either on an epic book or a psionics book. How may monsters can they do before it becomes reduandant like it did under 3.5. Not to mention with Tome of horrors complete and 3pp support I just cannot see the need to focus on a monster book every year.


i want to, but i hope the system has a few changes like only can level up doing something else (dropping off the xp)


I want epic... but before that, I would love to see several modules that deal with different adventure types (along with designers side bars of course) that would go from level 10 to 20.

This at least would help me so that I don't run level 11, 21, 31... etc like level 1 but with bigger numbers and more dice.

But as a world designer... bring it on, I love stating that stuff out. In my world, I peg the dark eight around level 50-60. This gives the players a ton of wiggle room get up in the higher levels and explains why every 25th level party hasn't conquered hell or the abyss yet.

I can see them doing the spelljammer thing first, then doing more to develop the outer planes before doing an epic/mythic book. I figure that Galorian tops out just over 20th level and therefore the multiverse will need to be expanded to give players and dms more places to go.

Let's face it... give a world as vast as it may seem, there is only a finite number of sentient creatures, meaning that someone somewhere is going to be the highest level critter. By broadening the multiverse it allows for even higher level critters to exist.

Wow, my 2 cents turned into 2 bucks.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kalanth wrote:
Merlin_47 wrote:
gbonehead wrote:


For me it has happened only once; they passed 20, if I recall properly, late in 2006. Of course, they're still playing the same characters ...

I also would like an epic bestiary, but I don't really see a full-size bestiary of CR21+ creatures happening any time soon. I still am in favor of the "Part 7 of 6" idea for adventure paths, with an associated high-level bestiary. That would be cool.

The only problem with that is GM's like me who don't use AP's and just make my own adventures. It's a good idea still, nonetheless.
I agree with Merlin_47 on this one. I make all of my own campaigns, encounters, adventures, and even the world that we play on. I have not used a single AP, and if the monsters or information for Epic level gaming was tucked into an AP it would be lost on me. External books, even if it is a combo book (Epic Level PHB / DMG / Bestiary), would be the best option as I see it.

Same here - the campaign I've been running is 100% from scratch. On the other hand, the adventure paths have a wealth of useful information, and I expect that a "part 7 of 6" would have even more useful stuff than a standard adventure path volume.

I've been subscribing since volume 1, and I have yet to ever run an adventure path, yet I've used stuff from a great number of them.

My guess is we'll see movement in the epic direction in 2013, which will probably be perfect timing for me. Just a hopeful guess though.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I say high levels do more to ruin the game's dynamic.

Thus, level 10 needs to be the maximum peak for any race/character.

Heheheheheheh

I see what you did there.

Shadow Lodge

Just as planned.


rkraus2 wrote:

I'm in favor of this, but I'd like to see more 12-20 products first.

Baby steps, my friends.

Like what? I can see Ultimate Race Ultimate Skill and the bestiary 4 but please what else

Oh yeah put me on for a big plus with 4 more from my gaming group


As long as they still name the epic/mythic book Ultimate Power, I'm satisfied to wait.


I am also interested in Epic level rules, specially if they include a more robust system for Epic spells.


edduardco wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Here's some easy epic rules for you, that when you boil them down, equate to what most epic rules consist of:

When epic enters combat with non-epic, epic wins.
When epic enters combat with epic, winner of initiative wins.
Non-combat? What's that?

obviously you have not played at epic levels or at least not very well

Using 3.5 Epic rules, it's much closer to:

Epic vs non-Epic, Epic wins.
Epic vs Epic, most prepared wins.

The results of Epic combat using the 3.5 rules was generally 90% preparation, research, and planning, and 10% actual combat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fozbek wrote:
The results of combat using the 3.5 rules was generally 90% preparation, research, and planning, and 10% actual combat.

Fixed that for you.


deinol wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
The results of combat using the 3.5 rules was generally 90% preparation, research, and planning, and 10% actual combat.
Fixed that for you.

Actually, that's not true at low to mid levels. Not to nearly that extent, anyway. At level 1, there's very, very little preparation you can actually do. At level 6, you can do some prep, but not enough to win the battle for you entirely through preparation in most cases. By the time you get to scry and fry levels, it becomes more true, but there's still a significant amount of actual combat.

Once you hit Epic vs Epic combat, though, it really is ALL prep. If you initiate a fight (or have one initiated against you) that you aren't prepared for, it really doesn't matter what you roll. You WILL lose.

101 to 150 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / Who Wants Epic Level Content All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.