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

Where's the higher level cap?


Mythic Adventures Playtest General Discussion

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Valtrim wrote:
I want to be able to make a normal 1st-level character and then progress him normally beyond 20th with the exception of attack/save progression (and perhaps other things I'm forgetting).

Let me suggest a paradigm shift for looking at the mythic rules.

Instead of running them concurrent to 1-20, treat them like 21-30. You could really even stretch them out, double the levels, just adding more feats or chances to pick up path abilities, so immortality isn't achieved until the equivalent of level 40.


Kthulhu wrote:
Heladriell wrote:
I would really like a book to support levels 21 to 50 (and beyond). I think Paizo has all that is needed to make a working epic system.
Level 50, working, in a d20 system? * snorts *

As for me, I've seen level 50 play in 3.0 work, and I don't doubt Paizo is capable of making a better system. You need players with a minimum of maturity and willingness to cooperate with the DM (and a DM with the same), but then, immature and uncooperative players are quite capable of messing up the game at level 1 as well.


Everybody willing to cooperate and being mature at all times really does away with the need for a system at all. "Make Stuff Up: The Game", as well as "Horribly Unbalanced Characters: The Game" would both work under those circumstances too, so long as people knew what they were letting themselves in for.
Half the point in having a system is to do the work of making things fun on that level so you don't have to.


Irontruth wrote:

Let me suggest a paradigm shift for looking at the mythic rules.

Instead of running them concurrent to 1-20, treat them like 21-30. You could really even stretch them out, double the levels, just adding more feats or chances to pick up path abilities, so immortality isn't achieved until the equivalent of level 40.

Even if I did use Mythic Adventures as you suggest, it still doesn't fill the same place as the ELH did under 3rd. I could extend the experience tables in Pathfinder to 30th or 40th level without much issue, using Mythic (or old Epic) feats and extending class progressions. What I was saying with regard to progression is that making a character mythic at 21st level feels more like adding a template than it does gaining a level in a character class. Don't get me wrong; I like templates, but not for the purpose of normal character progression.

Further, I don't necessarily want a 21st level character to automatically become harder to kill via hit point damage. Once again, yes, I can pick and choose which rules I use, but I'm more likely to try my own adaptation of the ELH at this point than use Mythic Adventures. If the game designers don't want level 21+ play, that's fine, but I think they're missing some fun opportunities to increase the scope of what player characters can do (and as far as I'm concerned, making player characters "too powerful" is an illusion given that the DM can do anything). The abilities in Mythic Adventures as it stands (and I realize it's a playtest) seem more geared to getting higher numbers and making characters more difficult to kill. I did find a few instances of breaking rules (Detect Scrying will work through Mind Blank for a Greater mythic character) and I'd like to see more interesting exceptions: perhaps an epic assassin would have an ability similar to a 3.5 barghest (or the spell Barghest's Feast) which would prevent those they've killed from being raised (or delay it, if you don't feel like being too brutal).

In any case, it's not really the numbers that I care about as much as the scope of what PCs can affect, increasing the consequences of their actions, and the idea that character progression shouldn't have a hard cap.

Thanks!

- Valtrim


Coriat wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Heladriell wrote:
I would really like a book to support levels 21 to 50 (and beyond). I think Paizo has all that is needed to make a working epic system.
Level 50, working, in a d20 system? * snorts *
As for me, I've seen level 50 play in 3.0 work, and I don't doubt Paizo is capable of making a better system. You need players with a minimum of maturity and willingness to cooperate with the DM (and a DM with the same), but then, immature and uncooperative players are quite capable of messing up the game at level 1 as well.

There are two different considerations there: The game as a social activity between players, and the game as a purely mechanical thing, built around the game statistics.

The game actually breaks in a mechanical sense at higher levels, once bonuses and values start to diverge sufficiently. It can still be playable given the right group of players, as long as they agree not to break it, or play in such a fashion as to not be too abusive of certain things; in other words, a social contract to minimize the effects of mechanics coming apart. The mechanical elements can also be band-aid fixed with some house rules, magic item distribution and judicious GM fudging.

It's sort of similar to how we are all here despite the existence of nuclear weapons. There's basically an agreement not to break the game by blowing each other up too much. This is usually the case in games too. People generally share a mutual interest in the game going along for as long as it has to, so they find ways to cope. That doesn't mean the system itself doesn't break apart, even without going into the kinds of terribly cheesy things you could do with the 3.0 epic rules as they were written.

There's also the matter of observer bias. What some people think "works" might be an awful state of affairs for others.


Valtrim wrote:
making player characters "too powerful" is an illusion given that the DM can do anything). The abilities in Mythic Adventures as it stands (and I realize it's a playtest) seem more geared to getting higher numbers and making characters more difficult to kill.

People opposed to higher levels don't think characters are too powerful, we think the math breaks down. Clerics can't fail will saves, while a fighter can never pass one. If you aren't a rogue, ranger or monk, you never pass a reflex save.

Mythic adds a little to the numbers sometimes, but it's usually conditional. The growth in power is more lateral. It's new abilities, not new bonuses.

Other than bigger spells, what exactly is missing?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I can see a system that has epic feats that are used to both enhance character abilities and make game flow better. For example, a feat tree that allows you to do average sneak attack damage (or spell damage), and then increase it 4 points per d6, 5 points per d6, and eventually, automatic maximum damage. Maybe requiring 11d6, 15d6, 19d6, and 23d6.

Maybe an epic feat that adds half your character to your poor saves? Or just a base epic rule? It would then be +5/6 to poor saves and 2 + 1/2 to good saves, which isn't that bad of a difference between good and bad saves. But I don't know how that would work with multiclassing. Dang.


Players can be too powerful. There's no point on an absolute scale above which players are objectively too powerful, but for any given game there's a limit.
The GM can indeed do anything, but he doesn't want to do "anything" he wants to do only some kinds of things.
If your game is about breaking into evil castles, beating traps and puzzles, fighting through minions and killing the boss, you have to spend a great deal of time and effort restricting overly powerful characters so they don't just turn on their trap-o-vision, divine the answers to the puzzles and walk straight through the walls to where they want to go.
Once that starts to happen, you're continually temporarily removing powers from PCs, so why the hell do they have them in the first place? If there's no limit, eventually, everybody's games would have to be the same, because the GM would be strong-armed into making it all about character powers vs character powers and constantly countering instant-win abilities.
Not that there's anything wrong with that kind of game, just that it's only one of infinite options.


Irontruth wrote:
People opposed to higher levels don't think characters are too powerful, we think the math breaks down. Clerics can't fail will saves, while a fighter can never pass one. If you aren't a rogue, ranger or monk, you never pass a reflex save.

Then don't increase attack or save bonuses beyond 20th level, or don't increase the highest attack bonus for iterative attacks (as someone above mentioned) and just increase the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th attack bonus. Thus, a character who took 20 levels that each gave +1 BAB would end up at +20/+20/+20/+20 at level 35 while a character with 20 levels of +1/2 BAB would end up at +10/+10 at level 30 (and never get a 3rd or 4th attack). Unless the designers are okay with the first attack only missing on a 1 but want to maintain the decreased chance to hit on subsequent attacks, that solution should work. The real problem with attack vs AC is simply that attack bonus scales with level while AC doesn't, but that's a systemic problem that's always been there and only 4th edition (and various other games under the OGL) attempted to do anything about it.

For saves, the ELH simply gave you +1 to all saves every other level. If there was a disparity between saves, it came either from the disparity that already existed at 20th level or from ability score increases and magic items/effects. If anyone advocating advancement beyond 20th was saying that the algorithms for saves should be kept the same as they are pre-epic, then agreed, that's a bad idea. Don't do it. ;)

For that matter, the ELH did the exact same thing with attack bonus, but the issue there is that AC only scales well for monsters where you can give them arbitrarily high natural armor or other bonuses and not for player characters or most humanoid NPCs.

Quote:
Other than bigger spells, what exactly is missing?

What's missing for me is the ability to continue level progression rather than moving to another system entirely. If I want to make a Fighter 15/Wizard 7/Arcane Archer 13, no way exists to do so at present under Pathfinder apart from the guidelines given in the main book which, while interesting, are less usable math-wise than the ELH was. Also, while I understand the desire to make characters distinct, ability and math-wise, right now I feel there's too much set in stone in the Mythic rules: once I've chosen a mythic path, I'm stuck on it. Under 3rd, while it may not have been the best idea for a 23rd-level Wizard to start taking levels of Ranger, the option was there. If the mythic path abilities were broken out as epic feats, there are a lot of them I'd like; I simply prefer to have prereqs that I can meet in a number of ways rather than only one set path to reaching that ability. I'd also prefer not to have such abilities tied to a separate point system or to other base abilities that, at a fundamental level, make a level 21+ character different from others of his race. There shouldn't really be anything special about a 21st-level fighter beyond the fact that he's 21st-level.

Much of the discussion of the numbers and systems behind epic-level play are in the 3.0 ELH itself; while the Behind the Curtain sidebars don't appear in the SRD, if you have access to an ELH, I strongly recommend reading "Behind the Curtain: A Limit to Attacks and Saves" on page 7 and "Behind the Curtain: Building an Epic Progression" on page 24. Of course, if you have time, I recommend looking over the entire thing. The 3rd edition epic rules themselves can be found at www.d20srd.org .

- Valtrim


I've played with ELH. I probably still have it in a box somewhere.

You aren't necessarily stuck on paths. You can get stuff from other paths, so the Fighter/Wizard/Arcane Archer can still get special abilities that apply to both magic and attacks with the bow. They do have to decide, are they more of an archer or a caster, but I don't think that is as limiting as you seem to think. Most of your complaints feel like you browsed the book, decided you didn't like it and haven't tried it. No, it is not exactly the thing you were hoping for, but I think it's massively closer to your actual desires that aren't based on levels than you think.

Right now, your hope of extra levels is not coming true. I think mechanically this system is actually more versatile and open ended than ELH. Instead of just continuing on with the same system, it's a new system that gets layered over the original. You can choose when and how that happens as best fits your game.

Also, the +1 to saves or upping iterative attacks does nothing to solve the problem of the math. Will saves will still be unattainable for the fighter, the monk still can't hit anything and the fighter still only misses on a 1. It's the gaps between specialists and non-specialists that are too wide.

In Kingmaker, I had a dwarven Druid. At level 16 his will save was ridiculous, not counting his bonuses vs fey, spells and a couple other things he had. Most of the time he only failed on a 1, but his reflex save of +7 was pretty worthless, I don't think he ever made one.the +1 to saves at epic only keep pace with increasing DCs.

Cheliax

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

The base bonuses to attacks and saves aren't the issue at Epic. It's all of the stacking bonuses from spells and feats and effects and ability scores of 30 and above. A base Ref save of +17 vs. one of +11 (assume 30th level PCs using the ELH progression) is bad enough, but you can work with it. When you have your Rogue with a 40 Dex and your Cleric with maybe a 16 at the most, both with a Cloak of Resistance +8, you end up with the Cleric having a Ref save of +20 and the Rogue a Ref save of +40.

You always want to add your ability score bonuses to the main stat(s) for your class, and if that's also a stat that adds to a save, the disparity only increases.


Yup, it's everything, but the ability score and base save are a big chunk. With the high DCs of creatures with a CR in the low to mid 20's, if you don't have a good save or good ability score for that save, you pretty much can't make it. If you have one, you might have chance and if you have both you're often nearly guaranteed of success.


Irontruth wrote:
You aren't necessarily stuck on paths. You can get stuff from other paths, so the Fighter/Wizard/Arcane Archer can still get special abilities that apply to both magic and attacks with the bow. They do have to decide, are they more of an archer or a caster, but I don't think that is as limiting as you seem to think. Most of your complaints feel like you browsed the book, decided you didn't like it and haven't tried it. No, it is not exactly the thing you were hoping for, but I think it's massively closer to your actual desires that aren't based on levels than you think.

From the present Mythic Adventures playtest document, page 6: "Every mythic character belongs to one mythic path. Each path represents a character’s journey into legend, and each tier in that path grants abilities and features related to that pursuit. Upon achieving the 1st mythic tier (called the moment of ascension), a character must choose one mythic path to follow." From page 4: "A mythic character cannot gain more than 10 tiers."

Unless I'm reading that incorrectly, you do indeed choose one and only one path and progress along it until you've reached the 10th tier.

I feel that I have a pretty good handle on what Mythic Adventures is and is trying to be. On its own merits, it's certainly interesting, but it isn't a replacement for rules for playing above 20th level.

Quote:
Right now, your hope of extra levels is not coming true. I think mechanically this system is actually more versatile and open ended than ELH. Instead of just continuing on with the same system, it's a new system that gets layered over the original. You can choose when and how that happens as best fits your game.

How is the playtest document for Mythic Adventures more "versatile and open ended than ELH"? It specifically locks you into one path and caps itself at 10 tiers as opposed to continuing to allow you to choose any class you qualify for each time you gain a level and not having any set level restriction.

Quote:
Also, the +1 to saves or upping iterative attacks does nothing to solve the problem of the math. Will saves will still be unattainable for the fighter, the monk still can't hit anything and the fighter still only misses on a 1. It's the gaps between specialists and non-specialists that are too wide.

Then that's a problem central to 3rd edition and Pathfinder itself; the fact that it isn't as much of a problem at lower levels doesn't mean it isn't a problem at all. Just out of curiosity, I went back and looked at my 34th-level Wizard to see what his saves were: +23 fort, +27 ref, +33 will. Against his own 9th-level spells, DC 35, he would have had only failed will saves on a 1 (in this case he needed exactly 2) and would have needed a 12 or better to make a fort save. If he'd had fewer resources or less time to bump up all of his stats, the gap would have been larger, but in this case it ends up being 10. Are other people actually seeing a gap of 18 between good and poor saves, which is what would really be required for "only makes poor saves on a 20, only fails good saves on a 1"? I understand if you still believe that a gap of 10 is too much, but once more, that's easily achievable pre-epic which would mean something in the base rules should change, not that one should avoid play above a certain level.

Quote:
In Kingmaker, I had a dwarven Druid. At level 16 his will save was ridiculous, not counting his bonuses vs fey, spells and a couple other things he had. Most of the time he only failed on a 1, but his reflex save of +7 was pretty worthless, I don't think he ever made one.the +1 to saves at epic only keep pace with increasing DCs.

Do you recall what his will save actually was? I'm curious to know. :)

Thanks!

- Valtrim


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Valtrim wrote:


From the present Mythic Adventures playtest document, page 6: "Every mythic character belongs to one mythic path. Each path represents a character’s journey into legend, and each tier in that path grants abilities and features related to that pursuit. Upon achieving the 1st mythic tier (called the moment of ascension), a character must choose one mythic path to follow." From page 4: "A mythic character cannot gain more than 10 tiers."

Their is a feat.

Dual Path (Mythic)
You excel in many areas, allowing you to select path
abilities from two mythic paths.
Prerequisite: 1st mythic tier.
Benef it: Select a mythic path, other than the path
you selected at your moment of ascension (see page 3).
You gain the 1st level ability of that path (archmage
arcana, champion strike, divine surge, guardian’s call,
marshal’s order, or trickster attack). Whenever you
gain a path ability, you can select from list of abilities
presented for both paths, as well as from the list of
universal path abilities.


Well, just spitballing, but a Druid, being a Wis caster, would have an 18 in their ability score, probably a +6 headband at level 16, and a Will Save adder of +10. That'd be a +17 to saves, not including Cloak of Resistance or other things. A creature of CR 16 has the average save DC of 24, meaning you have to roll a 6 or below to fail (70% chance of success). DCs, of course, vary among creatures and especially NPCs.

I made a fighter that lasted all the way to level 17. If I recall, he started with a 14 Wisdom, got a headband of +6 wisdom, and Iron Will. I forget what Cloak of Resistance I had, but with just the above, I have to roll a 12 or above to pass the average for a CR 17 DC (DC 24). That's a 45% chance to pass. A bit rough but still, a weakness is supposed to be a weakness. You can shore it up as best you can (and I did), but there will still be that chance you'll fail. Which I'm fine with. I don't need to automatically pass everything at all times, or why roll dice?

That said, these are just all averages and it is possible to raise up the DCs for spells and such. Course, prepared PCs will have spells to protect themselves and their allies.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

James' early comments about Mythic were well before the idea was fully fleshed out and he spoke in error about the term. Mythic rules do not preclude us from doing epic in the future, but they do allow us to play with the game in a new and interesting way, allowing you to stretch out the power and play a bit further if you desire.

If you had your heart set on levels 21-50, this book is not the one you are looking for. If you are instead interested in seeing what a character with exception powers and abilities can do, regardless of level, Mythic Adventures it the book for you.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

That's good to hear; I'm looking forward to a Mythic Tier Epic Level Adventure.

...Although I'm going just fine treating epic levels of a single class as if it opens up the next 20 levels to be done as if from level one again with different archetypes. So what's the rush?

Personally, I'm now more interested in some kind of "Epic Mythic Tiers".

Think about it, the mythic rules so far sound a lot like how Demi-Gods are described; just add domains.

... The Pathfinder setting pretty much says the only thing that will kill a god for more or less permanent is another god. and High Mythic tiers seem to work the same way.

So considering a Campaign I've been more or less designing this whole time pretty much involves Mortals and Physical gods fighting alongside each-other on the same battle-field; Mythic Tiers sound like the perfect way to simulate a close approximation of that without... some of the problems I had with an old D&D supplement.

The only way it would be better, is if One could go just a few more beyond 10 Teirs and beef up some of the available Mythic abilities ... Or, simply allow the "Dual Paths" thing to work to let you take 3 paths of abilities instead of just two. (Kinda need Armour Mastery [Champion], Endless Power [Archmage] and the other Endless Power [Heirophant] for what I have in mind.)

That's probably all I can say. The rest is probably far too off topic for this thread. (Considering how far off track I've gone already) And a minor Groan about Dimension Door Not being Compatible with Endless Power is probably not something that deserves its own thread.


I haven't read everything, but here's my take:

I didn't like how Epic was made in 3.5, and much prefer the Mythic system.
However, there's a fundamental thing I don't like about it: the fact that it is not a "post-20th" but rather a "rules template" to be added to normal games, over-complicating them (personal opinion) for both players and (in a far greater measure) GM. That means that the average campaign won't ever have Mythic in it; only the occasional ones where it'll be decided to use Mythic since the beginning or to add it at a certain point later on. And I perceive it like a waste, really. If I wasn't someone who loves Pathfinder books anyway, I'm not sure I'd buy the Mythic one to use it only so rarely. Maybe someone else won't ever run anymore a non-Mythic game anymore, now that the playtest is out, and thus will buy the book no matter what, but I'm not planning of playing so many Mythic campaigns.
My opinion in this moment is that I'd rather use Mythic as a "post-20th" system only (and it's rare for most campaigns I've participated in to even reach 20th, so figure), unless I want to run a 1st-and-up-Mythic-campaign somewhere in the future, but it'll be a rare thing, and the book will truly be underused.


Irontruth wrote:
People opposed to higher levels don't think characters are too powerful, we think the math breaks down. Clerics can't fail will saves, while a fighter can never pass one. If you aren't a rogue, ranger or monk, you never pass a reflex save.

You severely exaggerate the scale of the problem.

Save disparities only reach this scale when you are comparing a SAD character whose single ability score modifies his good save and who dumped the abilities that modify his bad save. Not when you are just comparing, say, a fighter's Will vs his Fort (I play a 15th level fighter right now and the numbers are +16 and +21 respectively).

Your druid might be an example. To get a +7 reflex save at 16th level is pretty difficult; you have to have either dumped Dexterity or else invested pretty much nothing in your Dex/reflex save. A 10-Dex druid with a cloak +4 (below what he could afford if he cared about his saves, but reasonable for someone whose priorities are elsewhere) and a belt +2 has a +10. If you had a cloak +4 and no belt, you had a Dex of 6, and likely a Wis through the roof.

If I'm even in the right ballpark, that means your problem is not coming from the math of the base save progressions, your problem is that you had a sky high wisdom and never bothered with Dex.

In this case, when discussing a SAD character's saves, mythic makes the problem worse than epic did, since mythic gives a flat +10 the SAD character will pump into his single score, while epic, with its x10 price mod, heavily incentivized the player to max out his +6 items of secondary stats before springing for the +8 to his primary.

In addition, mythic gives bunches of bonuses to what a character is already good at and very rarely gives any bonus at all to what a character is bad at, numbers wise. Champions add their tier to attack bonuses using their strikes, while a hierophant who put his ability in Wis instead of Str and doesn't get the strike abilities is much farther behind than his non-mythic counterpart. Champions get precision so every attack is that much higher than everyone else's. Etc.

It seems strange to me to see an argument that mythic is good and epic is bad "because the math breaks down" when mythic is, practically speaking, increasing the high level numbers disparities, while epic at least tried to mitigate it. The basic math of 10 Tiers of mythic will increase that druid of yours' save disparity by 5 points from 10pts of wisdom, while the basic math of 21-30 in epic would have seen it stay about the same.


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

Until there are more robust rules for 21+ (presuming mythic doesn't really work for 20+ when it's finalized - if it does, great), I think I'll house rule in a hard class cap at 20. If you want to be level 21, you have to choose a new class - you've mastered the first class.

It may create wonky math, but I don't expect we would ever use the rules beyond level 30 (if that), so I'll live with the issues.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Derron42 wrote:
Sean - I've seen you reference this "broken math" several times. To what exactly are you referring? Also ... there will be some people who will want to push the level envelope a little. Just a little.

What other people said, plus the disparity between your good saves and your bad saves starts to create situations where:

* the fighter only fails a Fort save on a 1 but only succeeds at a Will or Reflex save on a 20
* the wizard only makes Ref and Fort on a 20 but only fails Will on a 1
* etc. etc.

Which means that a saving throw effect is guaranteed to not affect some characters and guaranteed to affect other characters. So battles become a balance between "should I use a Reflex effect that'll kill the wizard, harm the fighter and cleric, and do nothing to the rogue, or should I use a Will effect that'll destroy the fighter and rogue but do nothing to the wizard and cleric?"

Having run a lengthy campaign from levels 16-19, I did not see this happen.

Note, though, characters were 15 point buy and at points below WBL (the party were not explorers and missed a lot of stuff I laid out for them, and I had trouble adding stuff in where they did go and have it make narrative sense), although not by much. I used standard CR guidelines and threw a variety of combat situations at them within appropriate CR levels (bearing gear issues in mind where appropriate). I can see higher point buy and higher gear affecting this, but those are things that can be managed by the GM and players, and are not "hard coded" into the game mechanics, past some "Big Six" reliance issues.

I will say the party dealt with most encounters easily, and more often succeeded on saving throws than failed them--regardless of what their good or bad throws were (in my personal experience, I found save DCs of monster abilities were universally too low). The rogue/fighter/shadowdancer did have a poor Will save and struggled with that a bit, but it wasn't a "succeed only on 20" ability. My cleric player complained that enemies saved versus his character's spells too often (but I felt like they failed more often than not, so that's a matter of GM versus player perception; probably both of us are wrong and both of us are right :) ).

The situations where they fared poorly were as much due to poor tactics and planning as anything else (full frontal assault when it was a bad idea). I can't think of a single time where any of them were in a "succeed only on 20/fail only on 1" situation, and if it did happen I imagine it was an unusual challenge. At least based on the monsters and guidelines provided for gamemasters in the core rulebook, you would have to be constantly be beefing up enemies much more than the guidelines suggest for this situation to be created, or the PCs themselves would have to be beefier stat wise---which I am sure happens, but the issue becomes something specifically due to stats and gear than the system as a whole.

Just want to put my 2 cents in on actually playing the game at high levels -- which I'm sure you've done yourself, Sean, being one of the designers and all, but I've heard other fellow players complain of high level math at the theorycraft level that I did not see in practice.

I do think there are some things that get problematic at high levels, but here is not the place to discuss them.

Quote:


And if you scale up bonuses past level 20, they either (a) progress at a flat rate, which means you continue the existing problem, or (b) they scale up even farther than before, exacerbating the problem, or even (c) you plug in weird numbers to reverse this problem, which means the wizard is getting better at Fort faster than the fighter and the cleric is getting better at Ref faster than the rogue, which is contrary to how it should work.

I do agree flat out increasing levels past 20 can cause issues, and I am okay for one without epic rules.

I am percolating in my mind the hopes I can run a level 20 brief game using the mythic playtest, and having the characters "level" beyond 20 by going up in tiers rather than earning XP and leveling any further. If I can fight past the logistics of getting players together to do so, I'll certainly post the results in the appropriate forum.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

Well, I was happy to let this thread roll along as it was a comparison of Mythic to Epic, but now it seems to have morphed into a discussion of high level math and Epic solutions, which is not really what the Playtest Forums are about.

If folks want to continue this discussion, please start up a thread in the general RPG forum. This thread is locked.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Mythic Adventures Playtest / General Discussion / Where's the higher level cap? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion

©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.