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

We Don't Need No Epic Content


Paizo Products

651 to 677 of 677 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

@BPorter: At my Day Job, so I have to be brief, but I wanted to jot this out:

I confess, I am more of a "Keep the Setting and IP, but use a completely new rule system with pointers for conversion" kinda guy.

That is, using loose conversion from 20 to Mythic, keep the setting, but use a new rule system.

That's as an unpopular view point as having mythic rules or not having mythic rules (i.e I know the Creative Director doesn't care for it). The third option is every bit as radioactive.

But I don't push that agenda. ;)

But couldn't you just end your campaigns before that point? Bring it to a close before the scope of the adventures changes? Choose not to use those rules? Or do you feel like you'll be pressured to try them by your players?

Or that it's a mismanagement of Paizo's resources?

I have been snarky about that before, but I won't be this time. I'm asking as a straight-up question, and I'll take it in the spirit of someone interested in selling product (i.e. not based upon what I personally might want).

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

ryric wrote:

I will humbly suggest that in my experience if your adventure design goal is "how do I counter ability X?" that it's no wonder you dislike high level play. Trying to do that would frustrate me as both a GM and as a player. The GM gets frustrated when the players think of a loophole that wasn't covered, and the players get frustrated that none of their cool toys work. What's the point of being high level if you don't get effective use out of that awesome stuff?

I think you have a great point here.

As a freelancer, I do worry about instituting absolute requirements, unless I make that as part of the adventure (i.e. a prerequisite to the finale).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jim Groves wrote:

Or that it's a mismanagement of Paizo's resources?

This.

I don't begrudge folks wanting epic-level content. I don't see the need, especially when high-level play needs to seriously be addressed.

However, I'd much rather Paizo resources be devoted to something that I might actually use. As I stated earlier in the thread, if Paizo chooses to do this, it's likely going to entail more than just a RPG book. It'll be more of an event like Jade Regent where it'll likely spill over into the other lines. As I subscribe to multiple lines, that's a big hit of material that I don't have an interest in using.

I did it for Jade Regent b/c I knew that there would be elements I might cherry-pick from. While my wallet would get a reprieve, I'm not really looking to cancel/suspend my subscriptions until the Epic stuff is done.

YMMV.


Even if it's late i think my post warrant some more in-depth explaination.
I meant no litteral offence with my expression of "some peoplele doesn't want to use their brain much". It was a mere fact. RPG are games, and while gaming most people want just to have fun time and relax from a day/week of work and stress. Many people doesn't want too much complicated stuff that they have to analyze indepth in their free time. It's comprensible. Tabletop RPG are already one of the most time consuming and brain intensive hobbyes around, and some people look at the extra resources required to run an epic level campaign as an extra mile they don't want to run.
That said, I loath those of you who selfishly go around saying "I don't want epic content because i don't use it so you better use your time developing something i will use". It's, i will state again, a selfish way of imposing your need over the one of those who actually enjoy playing on the high levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dekalinder wrote:
That said, I loath those of you who selfishly go around saying "I don't want epic content because i don't use it so you better use your time developing something i will use". It's, i will state again, a selfish way of imposing your need over the one of those who actually enjoy playing on the high levels.

What's the difference in me saying, for example:

"Please make in-depth rules for science fantasy (instead of epic)" and you saying "Please make in-depth rules for epic (instead of science fantasy)"?

If you ask for something, you are implictly asking Paizo not to produce something else - they just can't do everything. I don't loathe you for wanting something different from me and I dont think you should loathe me either.

I think you should tell them you want epic rules, I'll tell them I dont, they'll make whatever decision they think is best. It's nothing personal, it's a difference in opinion as to what we'd prefer Paizo devote their scarce resources towards.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bingo.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

However, on a long enough timeline, everything gets made, and everyone is happy.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Indeed. A more accurate portrayal of my 'anti-Epic' position is "I'd like epic rules later, thanks".


TriOmegaZero wrote:


However, on a long enough timeline, everything gets made, and everyone is happy.

Hey! You trying to make them all happy and ruin the argument?! Well? Uh... OK.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
However, on a long enough timeline, everything gets made, and everyone is happy.

Any Turbo Dragon news on that Timeline yet?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Tales Subscriber
ryric wrote:
An example might be, instead of trying to think how to prevent your players from using greater teleport, you require the spell to even get to the adventure location.

^^This should be a fundamental rule.

"Dungeon complex in the Prime full of lead-lined walls and other teleport/scrying blocks in place to keep PC's from flying off the rails" contrivances are just worn out.

Obviously just more generalities, but there has to be a way to more fully embrace the powers PC's have access to, and make those powers feel more like they're needed to overcome challenges (or escape them) and less like ways to bypass half a campaign.

Planar adventures help because things don't always work as expected ("This works just like the no teleport/scry dungeon, but the fluff makes me able to accept it"), and you run way less risk of "wrecking Golarion" by shifting the focus away from the prime material. It's easier to accept there are infinite threats from the planes that have to be tracked down to their source than it is to understand why a level 24 anything isn't just owning the region he's located on Golarion.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

IMHO there is about as much need for epic level rules as there is a need for the specifics of the different diety ascensions. People claim they want to be "awesome heroes" as a crutch to keep defending the massively contrived and increasingly unmanageable illusion of limitless growth.

I personally believe that a 12th level character is a pretty awesome hero. A 15 level character is an epic mover and shaker, and come 17 you're pretty much a demigod and paragon of your chosen career that will motivate generations to come. Covering the transition past 20 with an entirely new ruleset (particularly if it is different from the "real" rules in any major fashion) just needlessly creates complexity for a very small corner case.


I don't think that many people want actually a new ruleset. Personally, I will be contented with some guideline on how to keep going on this linear progression. Example, with a martial character when you are level 20 you can just start multiclassing (example monk 20 - warrior 10 or barbarian 20 - warrior 10 ecc.). Your saves keep going like always, your bab keep growing ecc. On top of that, you continue stacking new class abilities that complement your style. With class like casters, multiclassing isn't nearly as effective, since the spellclassing class doesn't stack between them, as opposed to the martial classes. Same things go for "special classes" like summoner or alchemist, where their class abilities hit a hard cap at level 20. I, and many people like me I believe, just want a means to keep the existing ruleset togheter beyond the 20th level.

On the matter of producing epic level stuff against normal level stuff, I believe that the low level start feeling a little bloated with too many extra dispersed on ton of different book and adventure path. To me, to avoid this bloat whitout costraining the ability of paizo to pull out stuffs, they need to expand to new realms, like "level above 20" to avoid having too many things stacked on the same old few levels as always.

If the game seems stale after level 12, it's because by level 12 you ahve already experimented with 80% of the content pathfinder offers, and you feel incentivated to replay that instead of going on because there is very few content produced for that. This in my opinion need to change if pathfinder want to get better.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
However, on a long enough timeline, everything gets made, and everyone is happy.
Any Turbo Dragon news on that Timeline yet?

Sorry, I haven't gotten my Epic level divinations that can see that far ahead. :)

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

TerraNova wrote:
IMHO there is about as much need for epic level rules as there is a need for the specifics of the different diety ascensions. People claim they want to be "awesome heroes" as a crutch to keep defending the massively contrived and increasingly unmanageable illusion of limitless growth.

I don't want to be argumentative, or disrespectful. but I'm starting to hear a lot of projection on the part of the opposition.

"Some people want this.."
"A lot of GMs feel like this.."
"Many people say this..."

And to be fair, you're not the only one doing it, on either side, because yes- the proponents of mythic rules do it too.

But it is time to dial back a little. We all speak for ourselves, unless we can quote someone.

I don't think any one seriously sits down and has a conversation with themselves that amounts to: "I'm really worried concerned that it looks like that people everywhere can't continue to play the same character forever. I need a crutch or some sort of fiction to not only fool myself, but to mislead others."

I don't think that's fair.

Personally, I think religion and literature more than sufficiently demonstrates that people are intrigued by all levels of 'power'. From the Gods themselves all the way to Taran the Assistant Pig-Keeper (i.e. a classic fantasy hero with very humble beginnings).

There's a reason that the 1st Edition Deities and Demigods was so popular. For my part, I found the possibilities and the potential stories exciting. The game (in its many iterations) may have disappointed us in the execution of that potential over the years, but that doesn't make wanting that content a bad thing. Its not cool to judge what people find exciting. I have more respect for the argument that the source material can't be properly presented in the existing rules. At least that argument isn't implying that people are insecure.

TerraNova wrote:
I personally believe that a 12th level character is a pretty awesome hero. A 15 level character is an epic mover and shaker, and come 17 you're pretty much a demigod and paragon of your chosen career that will motivate generations to come.

I'm not trying to cherry-pick your post, but I want slide in here that I don't disagree with this statement.

I just don't see why it has to be exclusive to having more content. Or why this is an argument against taking it to another level.

TerraNova wrote:
Covering the transition past 20 with an entirely new ruleset (particularly if it is different from the "real" rules in any major fashion) just needlessly creates complexity for a very small corner case.

That could be entirely true. :D

I dunno. I'm not invested in being right about any specific methodology, but I am against refusing to engage the topic.

I'm willing to discuss and entertain any idea, rather than shut the conversation down.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Jim Groves wrote:

I don't want to be argumentative, or disrespectful. but I'm starting to hear a lot of projection on the part of the opposition.

"Some people want this.."
"A lot of GMs feel like this.."
"Many people say this..."

And to be fair, you're not the only one doing it, on either side, because yes- the proponents of mythic rules do it too.

But it is time to dial back a little. We all speak for ourselves, unless we can quote someone.

[...]

There's a reason that the 1st Edition Deities and Demigods was so popular. For my part, I found the possibilities and the potential stories exciting. The game (in its many iterations) may have disappointed us in the execution of that potential over the years, but that doesn't make wanting that content a bad thing. Its not cool to judge what people find exciting. I have more respect for the argument that the source material can't be properly presented in the existing rules. At least that argument isn't implying that people are insecure.

Letting go of a favored character is hard, and many of us have a hard time at it. I have been at that spot myself. On the other hand, having to spend time optimizing the level 29 epic spells of some character which isn't level 3 yet isn't much fun either. ;)

Granted, the "limitless growth" argument was probably out of line. I probably should have phrased it like this: Some players are not fond of having a limit on their progression in any one direction. These limits, however, make the game a better one.

Many games have limits on some aspects. Most card games limit hand sizes, for example. Having a limit of 10 levels in your prestige class is rarely cried foul about - why is it such a huge deal to limit overall character level at 20?

Maybe the better design would be to put the "possible challenges" more in line with these "progression limits". Would you be as inclined to push for special mythic rules if the various demon lords, godlings were around CR 22, and the full-on gods at 25?

Jim Groves wrote:
TerraNova wrote:
I personally believe that a 12th level character is a pretty awesome hero. A 15 level character is an epic mover and shaker, and come 17 you're pretty much a demigod and paragon of your chosen career that will motivate generations to come.

I'm not trying to cherry-pick your post, but I want slide in here that I don't disagree with this statement.

I just don't see why it has to be exclusive to having more content. Or why this is an argument against taking it to another level.

Well, because I have a hard time seeing how this additional content would fit into the game. The system strains at higher level under the different forces pulling at it. The more abilities you gain, the more they interact and the more difficult it becomes to construct a scenario that is neither easily solved by the "perfect character". See the hoops and loops many adventures maneuver through to defeat "scry and fry" tactics.

In addition, the level 20 capstone abilities and many high-level spells are hard to beat in the current rule system. To have the next one feel like a significant upgrade, you need them to be just that - which in turn escalates the required monster difficulty. If a Balor is a good match for a level 20 party, what would be a fine battle for a 25 party, if they got their next "big upgrade" every 2 levels? A party of nascant demon lords?

Which brings me to my last point: Loss of connection to the setting. If world-shattering events are your thing, there are systems build for that. Think of Exalted what you will, one thing they did relatively well was the large-scale feeling. I don't get that with much of Pathfinder. The system is still build for "heroic fantasy", but I don't think it works as well for "superheroic fantasy" - and that in turn would make a largely incompatible ruleset necessary.

Jim Groves wrote:

That could be entirely true. :D

I dunno. I'm not invested in being right about any specific methodology, but I am against refusing to engage the topic.

I'm willing to discuss and entertain any idea, rather than shut the conversation down.

Not my intention, either. I was just trying to express (somewhat one-sided, maybe, but I do have an opinion on this subject ;) ) that I personally don't believe "mythic" rules to be a worthwhile addition to the game - mostly because I have yet to see a real, concrete benefit to such an "addon ruleset."

I have no problem at all with extending the XP scale to level 200, or adding some quick guidelines a'la "After level 20 in a base class, take up a prestige class or another base class". Its the addition of a large "on top" construction that feels quite wasted to me.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

Good discussion! I hope you'll find me fair.

TerraNova wrote:
Letting go of a favored character is hard, and many of us have a hard time at it. I have been at that spot myself. On the other hand, having to spend time optimizing the level 29 epic spells of some character which isn't level 3 yet isn't much fun either. ;)

Its been a long time since I been in that spot, but I remember it sucked. I've been GM steadily since 2007 (monthly, and usually weekly), and only a few weeks ago did I actually take a break, let someone else GM and rolled a character. I'm trying a magus.

It used to drive me crazy because I had players who required a week and a half to roll up a character. When I GM or freelance I don't get as invested, because the life expectancy of some NPCs are described in terms of minutes. Though, I concede, when I had to make my very own 1st level character it took me a couple hours to weigh the decisions and ponder my feat choices. I had a better appreciation for how it works on the Player's Side. That's one reason I'm doing it- to remember what its like to be a player.

TerraNova wrote:

I probably should have phrased it like this: Some players are not fond of having a limit on their progression in any one direction. These limits, however, make the game a better one.

Many games have limits on some aspects. Most card games limit hand sizes, for example. Having a limit of 10 levels in your prestige class is rarely cried foul about - why is it such a huge deal to limit overall character level at 20?

When you put it that way, I don't know. :D

I come from a more storytelling and narrative background. Like Amber Diceless and Robin Law's HeroQuest. I rarely admit that because it makes traditional designers and developers point and laugh at you. And I do see the value in limits. I really encourage more balanced ability scores over optimization, because I think the game works better when the characters aren't minimaxed. The reason for going past Level 20 is for the cool and different kinds of stories that you can tell.

Not to avoid letting go of characters, or to ego stroke.

TerraNova wrote:
Maybe the better design would be to put the "possible challenges" more in line with these "progression limits". Would you be as inclined to push for special mythic rules if the various demon lords, godlings were around CR 22, and the full-on gods at 25?

You got me!

Good counter-point. Yes, I would be less inclined to push for mythic rules if that was the case. I am nothing if not fair.

TerraNova wrote:
Which brings me to my last point: Loss of connection to the setting. If world-shattering events are your thing, there are systems build for that. Think of Exalted what you will, one thing they did relatively well was the large-scale feeling. I don't get that with much of Pathfinder. The system is still build for "heroic fantasy", but I don't think it works as well for "superheroic fantasy" - and that in turn would make a largely incompatible ruleset necessary.

I concede there are issues.

Sometimes I think the desire to have mythic rules stems from a desire to have more of an impact that on the setting. And at the risk of angering the 'Masters', the setting is fairly static (albeit they encourage you to make it your own- and I do for the most part. The conclusions of each AP become personal canon for the later APs I run).

Rarely I wonder if a tiny dash of metaplot wouldn't help. I know just hinting at that is frackin' radioactive and could cause massive stroke-out. (And I might just lose anybody that was listening to me up to this point..) But metaplots can be useful tools, especially from a design and development perspective. Unfortunately they're easily abused and Forgotten Realms and White Wolf abused them, particularly to generate profit. Used sparingly and judiciously however, they can be used to lend the appearance that the PC actions have meaningful impact.

And that might be an element that drives the desire for mythic rules. Because then you can really impact the setting.

What remains to be seen is whether having the rules would still satisfy that carving, if the official setting remains static.

I have to wrap this up and go to lunch! Thanks for your reply! It led to good conversation.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have yet to see a RPG metaplot that didn't ultimately impact the setting (& its longevity) in a negative way.

Just say no to metaplot.


I'd love to see some epic content

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Jim Groves wrote:

I come from a more storytelling and narrative background. Like Amber Diceless and Robin Law's HeroQuest. I rarely admit that because it makes traditional designers and developers point and laugh at you. And I do see the value in limits. I really encourage more balanced ability scores over optimization, because I think the game works better when the characters aren't minimaxed. The reason for going past Level 20 is for the cool and different kinds of stories that you can tell.

[...]

Sometimes I think the desire to have mythic rules stems from a desire to have more of an impact that on the setting. And at the risk of angering the 'Masters', the setting is fairly static (albeit they encourage you to make it your own- and I do for the most part. The conclusions of each AP become personal canon for the later APs I run).

Rarely I wonder if a tiny dash of metaplot wouldn't help. I know just hinting at that is frackin' radioactive and could cause massive stroke-out. (And I might just lose anybody that was listening to me up to this point..) But metaplots can be useful tools, especially from a design and development perspective. Unfortunately they're easily abused and Forgotten Realms and White Wolf abused them, particularly to generate profit. Used sparingly and judiciously however, they can be used to lend the appearance that the PC actions have meaningful impact.

Actually, I understand perfectly. I mean, after a very brief teeth-cutting period with a german RPG ("Das Schwarze Auge"), I went straight to V:tM, and stayed with White Wolf for a long long time. Well into the 200X years. Also, while admitting this probably ruins my chances at any future RPG Superstar (as if i ever would get past the first round again...), I think it was a good experience. Behind all the pretentious faux-angst and white makeup, the games had some awesome ideas and concepts. Poor execution that got worse the more a line aged, but great vision.

One of the things that made me weary of epic play there as now were the "elder rules", where you could go past the normal 5 dot limits, and suddenly pretty much anything you could previously rely on was no longer valid. Suddenly what had been a very nice and defined ruleset opened up in all directions, and things crawled out of the woodworks that made the previously awesome achievements... well, look crappy.

You mention the desire to really move something in the world. That is, i think, a key point. THE key point, maybe. In Golarion, as written, the Whispering Tyrant is a pretty good option for the "final boss". Now, if we had no option at all of going past 20, he'd be something along the lines of CR 22 or maybe up to 24. After all, putting him into the setting if he could never ever be defeated would be pointless and frustrating. Now, if we moved the goalposts and put the "threshold" to level 50, to maintain his status as the "final boss", he'd have to be somewhere around that. In both cases, his defeat would massively alter the setting, yet in the "short version", it is more achievable for groups that come closer to mine.

Without going on too much of a tangent - I think I have just realized a cause for part of the popularity of Kingmaker. Look at the APs. We have conservative (prevent the bad thing from happening) adventures, which are the vast majority. We also have a few adventures I would classify as restorative ("Undo the effects of the bad thing"). Kingmaker is the only AP that has a really strong constructive element ("build up the good thing"). But to me at least, this feeling of achievement at building something new is a huge draw.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

BPorter wrote:

I have yet to see a RPG metaplot that didn't ultimately impact the setting (& its longevity) in a negative way.

Just say no to metaplot.

And I've yet to see a good deed go unpunished, but still I persevere! ;D

Past failures don't mean that it's impossible, only that someone else executed it poorly. Again, I'm not interested in paying for WOTC's sins any longer. The past is in the past. We're having a conversation not making decisions.

But on the other hand, please don't feel there's a need to make a strong stand against me; I'm not really suggesting a metaplot. Not seriously. I'm pointing to the underlying reasons why people might be attracted to mythic rules. I.e. with a higher the power level perhaps there would be the perception of impacting the setting in a greater and more meaningful way.

Which would be limited to the individual home game, if the campaign setting wasn't impacted.

In a way, I'm arguing your case for you, by exploring the possibility that what people would derive from mythic rules is not what they would actually get.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

TerraNova wrote:
Without going on too much of a tangent - I think I have just realized a cause for part of the popularity of Kingmaker. Look at the APs. We have conservative (prevent the bad thing from happening) adventures, which are the vast majority. We also have a few adventures I would classify as restorative ("Undo the effects of the bad thing"). Kingmaker is the only AP that has a really strong constructive element ("build up the good thing"). But to me at least, this feeling of achievement at building something new is a huge draw.

No, no.. I don't think it's any more of a tangent than anything else. I see where you're going and I think it's a good insight.

Without beating a dead horse, this is one of the things that attracts me to a Baba Yaga / Irrisen AP.

You know she's coming, and you know she is taking Elvanna and the jadwiga away with her. That doesn't mean that there isn't the possibility for great change and big events to take place. To make a meaningful difference even though in the broader sense the final outcome is somewhat inevitable.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
However, on a long enough timeline, everything gets made, and everyone is happy.

The only problem I have is "when". If it's the last product on the line after jumping to a new edition, then what was the point? I'd be less likely to continue playing either edition and go to a new system for my fantasy fix.

I know that eventually, it will get published. Our table's only concern is "when" and if it's towards the end of the system or another two or three years down the road, then it's really not worth our time to continue with Pathfinder. We have yet to play a game where we don't get to level 20 and once we do, we see no reason to play those characters anymore.

TerraNova wrote:
Letting go of a favored character is hard, and many of us have a hard time at it. I have been at that spot myself.

Jim Groves = "Its been a long time since I been in that spot, but I remember it sucked. I've been GM steadily since 2007 (monthly, and usually weekly), and only a few weeks ago did I actually take a break, let someone else GM and rolled a character. I'm trying a magus."quote/"

The last time I was in this situation was way back in 1997; our 2nd Ed. D&D campaign had come to an end. I had reached level 47 as wizard...and it was hard to stop (but the table was splitting up, so we had no choice). 3rd did what it could to help alleviate this problem, and it was by no means perfect, but it was SOMETHING. It's times like this that make me want to try a brand new fantasy system.


personally I don't see any problem with high levels, maybe because I like have a lot of options and high magic. For me the best campaign that my table had was one where the all party were level 60 and divine rank 19.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

As someone who's been doing this a long time (referring to running high-level games), I've found that in the long term rules don't really matter. Plot matters.

I can always make a combat that targets the players weaknesses, or plays to their strengths. But long-term, it's the plot that matters.

That's what makes modules so tough. With modules, there is no long-term plot, just a short-term one, and in my opinion, the higher the level, the more important the investment of the players in the events going on.

Sure, we can design an arena-type game for high level, but that's really a one-shot kind of animal. My two cents is that high-level play works best as part of a campaign, and that's why I'm disappointed that the Paizo adventure paths end at such a low level (relatively speaking).


gbonehead wrote:

As someone who's been doing this a long time (referring to running high-level games), I've found that in the long term rules don't really matter. Plot matters.

I can always make a combat that targets the players weaknesses, or plays to their strengths. But long-term, it's the plot that matters.

That's what makes modules so tough. With modules, there is no long-term plot, just a short-term one, and in my opinion, the higher the level, the more important the investment of the players in the events going on.

Sure, we can design an arena-type game for high level, but that's really a one-shot kind of animal. My two cents is that high-level play works best as part of a campaign, and that's why I'm disappointed that the Paizo adventure paths end at such a low level (relatively speaking).

Exactly; for a high level game (post 20), it's all about the plot. The AP's are good....but end at such a low level (Council of Thieves I know got you supposedly to level 17, but still). I don't really need a post 20 AP myself; I prefer to come up with my own plots.

While long terms rules don't matter, it's just nice to have any sort of rules for post 20 play.


Totally agree,a great plot and rules to continue the advancement in power is all that you need to play a high level

651 to 677 of 677 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / We Don't Need No Epic 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.