| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop dismissing them just because PFS stops before level 20?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop dismissing them just because PFS stops before level 20?
PFS stops at 12, which while categorically "under 20", is a long flippin' way from 20.
I'd say most people dismiss high level stuff because
1. Almost all the APs end around 16 or so.
2. Combat is a serious P.i.t.A. the higher you get in level.
It isn't just PFS. The vast, vast majority of gameplay occurs much lower than level 20. Way more than 95% of gameplay. Most of the time, it makes sense to focus on the levels people actually play.
It isn't just PFS. The vast, vast majority of gameplay occurs much lower than level 20. Way more than 95% of gameplay. Most of the time, it makes sense to focus on the levels people actually play.
This is a great display of the mindset I'm talking about. I'm playing a level 13 character... ALLLLLMOST level 14. Am I not an actual person? Can I not talk about my experiences? If I do, will you shout me down because it's not relevant to 'way more than 95% of gameplay?' It actively diminishes the kind of environment Paizo and their guidelines seek to create on these boards.
Can we please stop dismissing them just because PFS stops before level 20?PFS stops at 12, which while categorically "under 20", is a long flippin' way from 20.
I'd say most people dismiss high level stuff because
1. Almost all the APs end around 16 or so.
2. Combat is a serious P.i.t.A. the higher you get in level.
I highly doubt high level discussions would be much different if it ended at 13 or 14. There's an undercurrent to the PFS line that says if it's not PFS then it doesn't matter to be discussed which is patently false and frustrating to see here.
Well, most people who are playing at 13 or 14th level are way past the theoretical part of character design and are already in the water with both feet.
If you're at 13th level and you still haven't figured out what you're doing with your character, what advice could anyone possibly give to help steer things in the right direction?
Usually if you're the kind of player who wants to build-plan their characters, you do so by level 1 and try to front-load all your best abilities so you can get access ASAP.
That being said, what is your specific issue?
you are coming across a little combative which will not lead to a good discussion. most people play in the lower levels since the most common games are society or the adventure paths which paizo doesn't write to reach level 20 because of how difficult things get at that level. but on these message boards I have seen people talk about getting into the high levels. I am running a campaign that will be hitting level 20 and I have been bothering the wonderful people on the message boards for information. its a matter of finding people who have played pathfinder in the after the campaign scenario. my group started a whole new campaign while we are waiting for our other GM to create the adventure that follows the final boss. he guessed around a year because it is a lot of work. Paizo clearly made their system to not hit that high of levels the CR to challenge a group of four much less our group of seven is hard to hit without wiping the party.
And you are a person, abet the apparent minority like me. you can talk about your experiences but do it in a way that welcomes dialogue not confrontation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, what is your specific issue?
The attitude that high level play doesn't bear discussion on the boards without getting flak about PFS or being dismissed as irrelevant rocket tag.
you are coming across a little combative which will not lead to a good discussion. most people play in the lower levels since the most common games are society or the adventure paths which paizo doesn't write to reach level 20 because of how difficult things get at that level. but on these message boards I have seen people talk about getting into the high levels. I am running a campaign that will be hitting level 20 and I have been bothering the wonderful people on the message boards for information. its a matter of finding people who have played pathfinder in the after the campaign scenario. my group started a whole new campaign while we are waiting for our other GM to create the adventure that follows the final boss. he guessed around a year because it is a lot of work. Paizo clearly made their system to not hit that high of levels the CR to challenge a group of four much less our group of seven is hard to hit without wiping the party.
And you are a person, abet the apparent minority like me. you can talk about your experiences but do it in a way that welcomes dialogue not confrontation.
I say things as I think them. Perhaps I should hire a PR company to represent me. I'm not even really joking. I know I'm a person. However, when an opinion insinuates that 'people' do this or that then that directly insinuates people who do the opposite are not 'people' which is dismissive. That that can be considered okay but I come across combative is seriously jacked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, what is your specific issue?The attitude that high level play doesn't bear discussion on the boards without getting flak about PFS or being dismissed as irrelevant rocket tag.
I agree with you, especially when rocket tag is brought up. I don't understand why rocket tag is something that is considered to be a problem at high levels, when rocket tag begins at level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never did understand peoples dislike for 20+ levels. In my last long term Forgotten Realms game the players got to level 54 and where challenging gods. I never had a problem with combat, or broken powers or all the other problems people whine about.
Personally I would love some official 21+ level stuff for pathfinder. Mythic is nice, but reminds me more of the Immortal stuff from TSR. As it is, I plan on converting Epic feats and prestige classes into pathfinder for when my players get that high because they will want to.
It is not that levels >12 are verboten or anything, it is simply that most people admit that the math gets rather unhinged past level 15 or so and that the vast majority of games end at or before 20.
In addition the fact is that it take a very long real life time for most games to reach level 20. This means that if level 20 was where discussion and focus was for the game you would have to wait a very long real life time before playing the "Real" game.
Another factor is that at 15+ you run into the WBL issue where any sufficiently determined and system wise person can use and abuse WBL to create a very powerful character out of anything up to and including a commoner just by manipulating gear load-out.
Lastly most level 20 builds/abilities/effects do not bear any resemblance to or extrapolate well to what the same character could do at lower levels.
All of this make level 20 a place where YMMV is very much a given and so most people will not choose to base their statements off of this rather difficult to define ground.
Please understand that I believe that high level play is both fun and possible, but do to the increased need for GM intervention, read "Fiat", as you get closer to 20 and past it, it is not the best place in my opinion to discuss or define ideas or concepts especially concerning balance of any kind.
This is of course all just my opinion but I hope it helps.
I suppose that is what he wants to find out.
I don't want to find out anything. I'm simply making a (what I thought was reasonable) request to the boards. What I'm seeing in this thread is a resounding f-you or being questioned about what *I* want help with in spite of other people agreeing with me. If you think this is a request for advice you've completely missed the point.
Buri,
How do you feel about what I said above?
I would be glad to enter into a discussion in a calm rational manner with you so as to perhaps head off any potential thread derails.
It is not that levels >12 are verboten or anything, it is simply that most people admit that the math gets rather unhinged past level 15 or so and that the vast majority of games end at or before 20.
I don't see the math getting unhinged there. What does that mean? Is there a limit on what DCs you can beat? In the Rise AP there are checks up in the 50s way before level 15. I don't understand it.
In addition the fact is that it take a very long real life time for most games to reach level 20. This means that if level 20 was where discussion and focus was for the game you would have to wait a very long real life time before playing the "Real" game.
Pathfinder has been released for about half a decade if not so. Do we have to wait longer?
Another factor is that at 15+ you run into the WBL issue where any sufficiently determined and system wise person can use and abuse WBL to create a very powerful character out of anything up to and including a commoner just by manipulating gear load-out.
This implies to me we can't discuss the weakness of the system and can only talk about the good as if Pathfinder is untouchable to critique yet I know that's not true given other threads. What makes this aspect of the game unique? That commoners can do it? This would seem to put the impetus on Paizo to refine their item design yet they seem to get a free pass. Why?
Lastly most level 20 builds/abilities/effects do not bear any resemblance to or extrapolate well to what the same character could do at lower levels.
So we ignore them?
All of this make level 20 a place where YMMV is very much a given and so most people will not choose to base their statements off of this rather difficult to define ground.
Is it difficult because the game is somehow more complex (I'd argue it's not; just more of the same) or because there is a culture that says 'we don't talk about it' which results in a sort of communal atrophy in the ability to work in that space either by communication or practice?
Please understand that I believe that high level play is both fun and possible, but do to the increased need for GM intervention, read "Fiat", as you get closer to 20 and past it, it is not the best place in my opinion to discuss or define ideas or concepts especially concerning balance of any kind.
Again, why? Would it not better serve the community to hash out seeming tricky bits to create a shared sense of what it is what? I don't mean to sound like there can be an organized body that hands down rulings. But, balance issues abound in lower levels. I can TPK a level 1 group with a CR 1 swarm. How do we deal with that? We know how to deal with that! And, it's pretty common knowledge too. Higher levels should be no different.
This is of course all just my opinion but I hope it helps.
Absolutely.
I resent level 20, and by association all who talk about it, purely on the basis that some archetypes don't stack because they both have variant level 20 (i.e., completely irrelevant) abilities.
It is not that levels >12 are verboten or anything, it is simply that most people admit that the math gets rather unhinged past level 15 or so and that the vast majority of games end at or before 20.I don't see the math getting unhinged there. What does that mean? Is there a limit on what DCs you can beat? In the Rise AP there are checks up in the 50s way before level 15. I don't understand it.
What I meant here is that as more and more WBL and abilities are introduced at ~15+ the game has some math problems. Such as the fact that a poor save is effectively a death sentence past about level 12 or so if you run into an optimized caster who has a Save or Die against that save.
A well built Caster PC gains the ability to do the Simulacrum/Greater Create Demiplane/Crafting/No Save-No SR spells/Dazing spell/Lots and lots of other options which make the game very binary and which the basic engine based on a D20 roll does not handle well.
In short it is possible to make a PC or NPC determanistic rather than on the RNG when you start getting into the mid teens.
Save math is Here.
In addition the fact is that it take a very long real life time for most games to reach level 20. This means that if level 20 was where discussion and focus was for the game you would have to wait a very long real life time before playing the "Real" game.Pathfinder has been released for about half a decade if not so. Do we have to wait longer?
Perhaps we are talking past each other here. I first thought you wished to base the game's balance on level 20 approximately, however now it seems to me that I misunderstood you and what you are asking for is for all levels to get the same amount of balancing and scrutiny as any other level.
What I had meant with my first reply was that if "ALL" discussion was focused on level 20 in all theory-craft discussions and all balancing areas that it would mean that a lot of real world time would be spent in the unbalanced or not "Real" portions of the game.
Another factor is that at 15+ you run into the WBL issue where any sufficiently determined and system wise person can use and abuse WBL to create a very powerful character out of anything up to and including a commoner just by manipulating gear load-out.This implies to me we can't discuss the weakness of the system and can only talk about the good as if Pathfinder is untouchable to critique yet I know that's not true given other threads. What makes this aspect of the game unique? That commoners can do it? This would seem to put the impetus on Paizo to refine their item design yet they seem to get a free pass. Why?
Discussion is good and we should definitely discuss any issue wherein there is dissatisfaction. What I was trying to illustrate with the above statement is the fact that as a character progresses into the teens there are so many options offered, that even an NPC class emulating some of those options with WBL will have enough of them if played intelligently to be dangerous.
I am taking away from this that your general thrust is actually not to try and center balance on 20th level or high levels but to draw attention to the fact that there are some obvious broken issues past certain levels and with that I can agree.
I would love if Pathfinder was as balanced at 20 as it is at levels 4-6. However in my opinion it is not.
Lastly most level 20 builds/abilities/effects do not bear any resemblance to or extrapolate well to what the same character could do at lower levels.So we ignore them?
No, however game designers and in fact all designers must make efficient use of their limited time, so if an item or feature is unlikely to see use or attention in 99.9% of all real world scenario's, that item or feature is going to receive less design attention.
It is very frustrating but it is very much how everything works. Now do I feel that all work in this area or any attempt to improve this area would be a waste. I respond emphatically with, No.
As I said earlier balance across all levels would be wonderful, I can just understand why this area has received less attention and is basically a back-burner issue.
I personally feel that if anyone were to try and "Fix" levels 15-20 they would have to make some sweeping changes but that is just my opinion.
All of this make level 20 a place where YMMV is very much a given and so most people will not choose to base their statements off of this rather difficult to define ground.Is it difficult because the game is somehow more complex (I'd argue it's not; just more of the same) or because there is a culture that says 'we don't talk about it' which results in a sort of communal atrophy in the ability to work in that space either by communication or practice?
I will have to disagree respectfully with you here. I would say that the game becomes objectively more complex as you receive more and more options as you level.
Creating and gearing out a level 15+ martial PC is something that can take a small amount of time.
Creating and selecting spells for a level 15+ Caster PC is an ardrous task that can take hours.
The selections of options available from Feats/Items/Spells/Class Options become much larger as you level.
The sheer number of choices that need to be made and options made available by each choice is very large.
Then we get into the fact that at lower levels a turn can be as simple as a short 30 foot move and an attack or even just a simple buff spell.
At higher levels turns can involve much more complex sets of actions and reactions.
This is why it becomes harder to balance and design for levels as they increase. Due to the fact that options increase so do combinations and the possibility of table slowdown.
Please see the sacred geometry feat for a good example.
Again, why? Would it not better serve the community to hash out seeming tricky bits to create a shared sense of what it is what? I don't mean to sound like there can be an organized body that hands down rulings. But, balance issues abound in lower levels. I can TPK a level 1 group with a CR 1 swarm. How do we deal with that? We know how to deal with that! And, it's pretty common knowledge too. Higher levels should be no different.
Please understand that I believe that high level play is both fun and possible, but do to the increased need for GM intervention, read "Fiat", as you get closer to 20 and past it, it is not the best place in my opinion to discuss or define ideas or concepts especially concerning balance of any kind.
I feel that we are coming to a consensus here, in that we agree that all levels should be balanced.
I would just like to mention two points.
1.) The main reason I have seen people say things such as "What does that build do at 12? 20 does not matter!" or "Who cares about level 1X, no-one plays at that level!" is that in all honesty the Exp needed to get to the teens or higher means most games end or start wrapping up in the very low teens to the mid teens, so play at levels 16+ is a rarity at most tables.
Personally I have run many games to 20 and past and it seemed that both myself and my players enjoyed them, however as the GM I would be the first to admit that these games all took years of real world time, and that the higher in level the game became the more both myself and my players had to bend rules or politely abide by gentlemen's agreements.
2.)Having looked at the math for the D20 system it has a problem with number inflation that to fix I believe would take a rewrite of Magic Items/Monsters/Feats/Classes/Combat rules. In short a system rewrite that made keeping level 20 on the RNG as a goal.
Absolutely.
This is of course all just my opinion but I hope it helps.
My thanks.
All of the above is of course just a continuation of opinion, however I have looked into the basic math of the D20 system quite a bit and would be glad to address any specific questions. I usually enjoy math spelunking portions of the system.
Tl;DR: I agree that it is desirable to have all levels be balanced, however I feel it would take enough redesign and work to do so that it would be tantamount to a new system. This should not in any way hinder discussion but is why people do not usually discuss high levels at it is an acknowledged flaw in the game engine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't know if it matters to anyone, but last week I had yet another character reach level 20 having played it from level 1. A Ranger this time. I have played both clerics, and wizards to level 20 before and can honestly say there is nothing broken about level 15-20. That is the sweet spot where the game is most fun. Now we're looking forward to using our capstone abilities and continue our campaign for a long time still. Level 20 is where the real game begins imo.
I've hit cap maybe... Twice? One fighter (the artifact sword helped), and one Sorcerer... Fighter was 3.0, and the sorc was 3.5. I have yet to reach 20 in a PF game.
From what I read of the rules... The under-prepared could easily be overwhelmed by the immense power. With proper planning and regular auditing of the PCs, one could design a game, if one were willing to do the work, that would be quick and balanced at such high levels.
Most of what I've seen/heard of level 20, and the two I've played in (which started at 12 and went to 20th), most of the time it's like "Woohoo! Phenomenal cosmic POWUH! One itty bitty boss encounter to use it in!".
I still hope one day to have a game make it to level 20 in PF as a player. At this point, I can think of no other option than to have a GMPC (something low-key and more 'background support') in a game where exp is not divided among the PCs, and use (probably) the medium EXP track. Fast track would be faster, but that'd be too fast, I think.
Don't know if it matters to anyone, but last week I had yet another character reach level 20 having played it from level 1. A Ranger this time. I have played both clerics, and wizards to level 20 before and can honestly say there is nothing broken about level 15-20. That is the sweet spot where the game is most fun. Now we're looking forward to using our capstone abilities and continue our campaign for a long time still. Level 20 is where the real game begins imo.
You mean other then the inevitable rocket-tag-a-palooza that results? Where casters run their own demiplanes and have more 9th level spells per day then encounters? Where martials become completely meaningless?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of it is that the issues relevant to level 12 play are mostly still relevant at level 16 play, and some still relevant at level 20 play. The issues at level 16 play are largely relevant to level 20 play. The issues that arise starting at level 20 play are only relevant for one level that a single-figure percent of campaigns will reach.
|
High level (15 +) play is wher pure casters are gods and martial characters are little more than their valets. The game devolves to rocket tag and any idea of game balance get thrown out the window. It takes a very long amount of time to get there in normal play and in the last ten years I haven't had a character above 15 that wasn't created there for a one-shot.
It great that you enjoy high level play. But the game get broken there, and most gamers in my area and that I have met online and at cons rarely play there and have little interest in it.
Being hostile about that isn't helping your cause.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game isn't broken at high level. I've both played characters in and DMd a number of campaigns right up to level 20.
The CR system is very wonky at level 14 and above, but that's easy to get around with experience in encounter design.
I can see why people think its a broken game if they follow the encounter design rules slavishly though. It is probably the one area I think Paizo needs to focus some time on to make it workable at high level for people with less experience in this part of the game.
Cheers
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer some of OP's concerns, although he may have already headed off over the horizon..
I stand with others with the belief that high level play results in changes to the core dynamic of the game (which it should), that require a slight change in how they're addressed to deal with.
I say this because I definately think more support, and more adventure design from Paizo for higher level folks would give people an idea of what they could be doing.
The trick, at least to me, and I actually made a thread about this a while back (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qpgs?Hints-for-High-Level-DMing#1) is you can't treat the game the same way.
Certain people waddle up to the table, their intent being to crunch numbers, see trolls fall over, etc. At low level things feel epic, you think outside of your statblock and skill list to find solutions because your skills are untested, semi-unreliable, etc and you want to think your way through problems. You feel challenged because well, you can't just Knowledge(arcane) the secret of the weird symbols.
At mid level, you hit your stride. Your skills work, your attack works, things are just challenging enough but not so insurmountable that you feel you can beat them, etc.
At high level, there should be a similar change.
A lot of folks look at high level DMing and take the perspective of..
At 1st level I fought an orc in a 10X10 room and he had a chest.
At 7th level I fought a basilisk in a 20X20 throne room and he had a cool chest.
At 15th level I fought a dragon in a 100X100 arena (with throne) and he had an artifact!
This is wrong.
2e trained me, I can't speak for others, in the belief that you have tiers of importance. Back in 2e you 'made it' when you hit level 9.
A 14th level adventurer shouldn't be dealing with chests and orcs and 10X10 rooms no matter their CR. He should be aiming for bigger and more impressive stuff, and that sort of stuff is improperly applied when its ground down into numbers and DCs.
At low level you learn about the world, villains and conflicts.
At mid level you engage with them, really engage with them. By the time you hit 9-11, you're a power. The bad guy accounts for you as a line in his balance sheet. Your allies count on you.
At high level, you make the decisions. Its no longer 'Anzrag the Wizard' tells us where to go. We decide where to go. We decide how to oppose the enemy directly. The villain has to deal with us.
As an example, I offer one of my own groups.
At low level they were tryign to learn what they had gotten into, what was happening. They spent a lot of time trying to avoid the bad guy, get resources and just figure out what they should be doing. Things happened to them. They got attacked by lemures, they had to get on a boat to get out of a country, etc.
At mid level they started being more active, they went looking for solutions to problems, did their own research, made friends. They saved towns and aided cities, they got to know the movers and shakers.
Now? They are the movers and shakers. The party found an ancient legendary superdreadnought airship, and in order to get it safely to drydock decided to make a diversion so it could get to drydock unopposed.
That diversion?
Liberating a country.
It doesn't help that published adventure material nearly doesn't exist from Paizo.
That's actually a vicious evershrinking circle:
We don't have high level adventures because people don't play them, pleople don't play high level adventures because we don't have high level adventures.Also in high level content there is the "xp problem", this is that in order to have challenging battles against PCs you are going to have "level in a bottle" battles, that happens because the xp system is tied to he CR system and at that levels the CR system is wonky at best and non-fuctional at worst.
|
It doesn't help that published adventure material nearly doesn't exist from Paizo.That's actually a vicious evershrinking circle:
We don't have high level adventures because people don't play them, pleople don't play high level adventures because we don't have high level adventures.
I've posted at length about the distribution in the published adventure material so I won't re-hash it here, but it's really quite disappointing. Levels 15-20 are essentially unsupported when it comes to adventure material. Paizo does a lot in the form of high-level threats and locations for those who like playing in the upper levels but that is really all we get. Until Wrath of the Righteous we released we didn't have anything that touched levels 18-20 and the 'problem' with WotR is that it is more a showcase of mythic than it is high-level.
I've run the numbers and the ammount of low/mid/high level material is skewed so heavily toward low-level it makes me sad. I am holding out hope that the next slew of products in the Modules line will give us some high-level stuff but the previous track record doesn't give me much hope.
I don't see the math getting unhinged there. What does that mean? Is there a limit on what DCs you can beat? In the Rise AP there are checks up in the 50s way before level 15. I don't understand it.
Have you not seen the DPR olypics threads? Things get rediculous at high levels. It is not uncommon for battles to go "Ok who won Initiative... you did? Well you killed the BBEG... cool"
This implies to me we can't discuss the weakness of the system and can only talk about the good as if Pathfinder is untouchable to critique yet I know that's not true given other threads. What makes this aspect of the game unique? That commoners can do it? This would seem to put the impetus on Paizo to refine their item design yet they seem to get a free pass. Why?
Ok you lost me at this one. You seem to be saying there is nothing wrong with high level play and then here say that there is a problem... The fact that a Wizard at high level can effectively have infinite WBL at level 17 in actual play IS a problem (just make a gate to the elemental plane of earth and keep mining away for Adamantine/precious gems. If you feel like being real cheesy, create a gate from the Plane of Earth to your pocket plane and Planar bind some earth elementals)
So we ignore them?
Well the problem is that it creates weird skews. For instance, there was one thread were someone compared equally optimized barbarians vs fighters. The barbarians were better at most everything that the fighter (granted this is without archetypes) until level 20 when the fighter's DPR suddenly jumps because of his capstone ability. This makes a HUGE impact to character. The problem is, if you only look at the character from level 20, you don't see that he was actually sub-par for 99% of the game...
Is it difficult because the game is somehow more complex (I'd argue it's not; just more of the same) or because there is a culture that says 'we don't talk about it' which results in a sort of communal atrophy in the ability to work in that space either by communication or practice?
Have you not seen level 20 builds? With all the spells, feats, and abilities to keep track of, it does get very complex. Level 20 is not an easy level and it is not forgiving, because if you make a mistake, the enemies are also hyper powered and will probably kill you...
I have never seen martials become useless, and the other things you mention is just not a problem. I'm guessing you must be doing something wrong, or maybe you prefer not having to think too much when you play?Don't know if it matters to anyone, but last week I had yet another character reach level 20 having played it from level 1. A Ranger this time. I have played both clerics, and wizards to level 20 before and can honestly say there is nothing broken about level 15-20. That is the sweet spot where the game is most fun. Now we're looking forward to using our capstone abilities and continue our campaign for a long time still. Level 20 is where the real game begins imo.You mean other then the inevitable rocket-tag-a-palooza that results? Where casters run their own demiplanes and have more 9th level spells per day then encounters? Where martials become completely meaningless?
No, my experiences are the inevitable result of playing high levels with even a moderate amount of system mastery. I guess the real question here is how many quickened Mazes do you see a session? Because if the answer is less then 2, I think that might just explain the disconnect.
I have never seen martials become useless, and the other things you mention is just not a problem. I'm guessing you must be doing something wrong, or maybe you prefer not having to think too much when you play?Don't know if it matters to anyone, but last week I had yet another character reach level 20 having played it from level 1. A Ranger this time. I have played both clerics, and wizards to level 20 before and can honestly say there is nothing broken about level 15-20. That is the sweet spot where the game is most fun. Now we're looking forward to using our capstone abilities and continue our campaign for a long time still. Level 20 is where the real game begins imo.You mean other then the inevitable rocket-tag-a-palooza that results? Where casters run their own demiplanes and have more 9th level spells per day then encounters? Where martials become completely meaningless?
You must not have played in very optimized high level play...
I was playing in a level 17 dungeon crawl (it was a quick 1 shot thing) and the party ranger kinda felt under appreciated between Me (I was a "counter-mage" Arcanist focused on dispel) the party Master Summoner, and the party Synthesist Summoner. (the rest of the party was a Life Oracle and a w1/f1/EK5/AA10). Most of the encounters we ran into, me and the summoners were able to take care of pretty easy (Oh we ran into a demon? Dismiss/Banishment it... trying to find a way through a door under the water while a nightwave is up above? Disinigrate the door. Adamantine Golem? Pew Pew balls of light go!!!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I vastly prefer high level play. I like the zero to hero story, but that is why I prefer too start playing at level 5. Below level 5 tends to be rather tedious to me.
The higher the level of character the more versatile the characters become, and the more mechanically distinct the build.
That high level stuff is unsupported is irrelevant because it is where I play, along with many others. We don't need adventure paths we make up our own stuff.
The adherence of Pathfinder fans to Pathfinder Society and Adventure Paths is rather odd to me because when I was getting into role playing it was strongly recommended that people avoid pre-made adventures because they were to constraining and frequently poorly written. I'm glad that Pathfinder has quality premade material, but I still vastly prefer the flexibility I get in making my own stories.
In my campaign, we are at 15th level and closing in on 16th level. There is not much about it to discuss here, as our ranges of choices for the next few levels have narrowed considerably and would be based on peculiarities of the campaign (such as expected foes, rate of treasure acquisition, and a few house rules). I really cannot see myself posting a question like "Which feat should I take at 17th level?" here.
Can we please stop dismissing them just because PFS stops before level 20?
Sure.
What would you like to discuss?-TimD
I'm not saying disregard high level. I'm saying disregard levels 17+.It isn't just PFS. The vast, vast majority of gameplay occurs much lower than level 20. Way more than 95% of gameplay. Most of the time, it makes sense to focus on the levels people actually play.This is a great display of the mindset I'm talking about. I'm playing a level 13 character... ALLLLLMOST level 14. Am I not an actual person? Can I not talk about my experiences? If I do, will you shout me down because it's not relevant to 'way more than 95% of gameplay?' It actively diminishes the kind of environment Paizo and their guidelines seek to create on these boards.
Ò¿Ó
I think I'm starting to see where part of the failure to communicate is originating from...
-TimD
