Merlin_47's page

217 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Steve Geddes wrote:
What were the objections?

Mainly how they handle getting magic items at all. Aside from potions and scrolls, you can't go out and buy any magic items. 5th is trying to stress "you don't need magic items to be great". They're upset because to them, and I'm quoting here, "hoarding treasure and magic items becomes irrelevant; especially getting gold because you can't do anything with it."

And that's the point of 5th - the system is focusing more on your character's abilities. They want when you get that first +1 weapon to be a big deal - no matter if it's level 5 or level 12. It's now entirely reliant upon the GM to decide if and when he wants to give out magical gear. My other two players love that; it makes treasure more meaningful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We just began our 5th edition campaign. Three of us, myself included, have been greatly enjoying the edition. Two are still unsure; they both agree on one point - they don't like 5th because how it handles treasure and magic items. There was a two hour conversation that broke out after the session because of it. I and another player stayed out of it, occasionally offering opinions.

Kthulu and Ffordesoon are right - this edition really is more free form and more about role play. It is so simple and elegant (such as when it comes to Advantage/Disadvantage). I'm glad that they're trying to focus more on what characters can do with their class abilities rather than rely on magical stuff.

All I know is that this was the first time in years that we haven't had an argument about how a rule works or halted game play because we had to look up situational bonuses or would something get a bonus because of X,Y, and Z.


thomax wrote:
I’ve now read thru the free 5e rules and I think they seem like an old-school-ification of 3.5e.

I really wish my one player that's "on the fence" about 5th saw it that way. To him, it's too much like 2nd Edition. Since I'm the only one that's ran and truly enjoyed 2nd in my group, I can say that it's not. But, he sees it that way, because things are, quote, "static".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
The cap only applies to PCs (and in theory most small/medium sized humanoid races). I LOVE the cap on ability scores. I like that they say that the normal human maximum for an attribute is 18 (though they allow for adventurers to go up to 20). This keeps the game in the realm of a fantasy game, and makes the game feel a bit less like a super heroes game in a fantasy setting, which is what pathfinder and 4e feel like to me (especially at higher levels). As soon as attributes start going over 18-20 the game begins to feel more like a super heroes rpg and less like a fantasy rpg.

Here here! The one player that I have that has been "on the fence" about this edition, this is one of their major gripes. Another is the "only 20's crit" and don't get me started on the skills. The "go-to" class he said he'd play is the Fighter, purely because of the one option given in the pdf.

Ari Kanen wrote:
I read all the playtest rules, but I didn't do the surveys. I still feel like I got everything I wanted. I've been DMing Rise of the Runelords for the past year using PF, and I just started to get burned out around level 8. I found myself doing more math and less exploration of the narrative elements of the game and at the table we were spending more and more time talking about rules elements and what character/monster could or couldn't do.

This.....1,000 times this. I've enjoyed 3.x/Pathfinder. But this has been how I've been feeling myself lately. The line in bold has been what 60% of our time gaming has been lately. And because of that, the fun is starting to fade on me.

I ran the box for my group last Saturday and there were only three of them playing (one player....it's a long story; not the place to go into it). They cleared out the goblin cave and will be in the town this Saturday.

After playing through the first cave, there's nothing I'm not liking about this system. Two of my players are digging it and the third is on the fence still. I can tell he's still having a hard time accepting how skills are done. He's not going to like magic items any more.

Before it gets asked, this is how it was explained in the box - some magic items need you to be "attuned" to them before you can use them. And you can only be attuned to 3 such magic items at any time. They also give how Gauntlets of Giant Strength work - If your strength is less than 19, it becomes 19. Otherwise, it does nothing for you.

So far...I'm liking everything about this system. After seeing magic in action, I'm starting to like it a bit more. Still ambivalent, but I'm starting to like it.


So....my thoughts? Well, I think the paraphrased section below sums up my thoughts on it nicely.

Diffan wrote:
I can say I'm glad bloated numbers with dozens of effects all stacked together are mostly gone. [M]agic isn't an assumed progression a character MUST have to stay relevant. Further, feats are actually worth their salt instead of what they were in 3.5 and 4e.

But to that, I'll add the following - at first, I was ambivalent about the magic system. Granted, my entire GM'ing career was used to the same way of doing it. I read and re-read the section about magic. I'm still ambivalent, but I could see myself coming to like it.

Skills....I LOVE how skills are handled. Much like feats, skills mean something again. The biggest issues I've had with the d20 system were skills and stats, followed by the feat tax.

All weapons critical on natural 20 - yeah....this is also something I'm so glad to see! I got tired of every player who played a fighter take that high crit weapon and improved critical or go Weapon Master. Any attempts I had to curb this were challenge with....well....the nicest way I can put it is "whining".

Unfortunately, these points are also what is making one of my players NOT a fan. The biggest plus he liked was the magic system. I will know my other players thoughts on Saturday. For me though, I'm willing to dive in and give it a honest chance. And from what I've seen....as much as I love 2nd Ed, this might top it, once I look at a Player's Handbook.


Again, I thank you all. It's nice to have clarification.

@Starglim - they can all interpret the rule one way, and I could a different way. That's what all this is caused by. They way I handled it, I said that no, it couldn't go through. I remember that a Wall of Force stopped a lot of spells.

But now I know WHY. Again, I expect some resistance; I don't know how much. But now that I know why and how it got prevented, I can hopefully explain it.


Again, thank you all; it's MUCH clearer to me. And after reading the rules, it's also clear cut and dry.

LazarX wrote:

B~&&+$&s. If I had to deal with a group of players like that for a home game, they can jolly well find themselves someone else to flog. Not only would I not GM for them, I'd likely not play with them as well.

The rules serve the game.... not the other way around.

I agree; sometimes, my players seem to think that I'm using them to serve me. There's times, I've forgotten a certain rule applies to me, I've admitted that I forgot and rolled with it, accepting the rule. Since my thinking is "old school" (2nd Ed) and my party is all "new school" (3rd and up), they are not as quick to allow that rule to happen. They see that rule as a "harsh rule that punishes players".

Again...I expect something of an argument, because they're hung up on that they can see the target still and that gaze attacks still work. It makes sense to me and I'll do my best to explain it. At the very least, I'll tell them the page to read in the book.


Okay.....thank you! I am fine and clear with that. My players, however, will not be. Because they'll look at that example, using the wall of stone instead, and say it's different.

I will read the rule about targeting. I'm still preparing for more arguments, but thank you; I understand. They will not.

And what page are the rules regarding targeting on?

EDIT: Never mind....I found the page. Yeah....that's pretty clear to me.


So...the wizard casts Wall of Force; the wall is about 20 - 25 feet away from him. The druid (my player) wants to cast the Volcanic spell that I asked about earlier.

The druid is about 10 - 15 feet away from the Wall of Force; because he doesn't have a clear line of effect, he can't cast it, correct?

I'm sorry for asking this repeatedly; again, I understand it. My players all interpret it differently and one player hates asking the forums because he "doesn't like how they aren't clear" or "they're just their own interpretations". In other words, they disagree with his interpretation.


Okay....so the wall stops it. That is understood; but now the one last question that's going to be asked to me relentlessly - why?

I understand RAW....but that's not good enough for the players. And do remember - I don't have the benefit of Rule Zero anymore. I lost that after 2nd Edition. They need to have a why. And because they interpret the spell as written differently.


Okay....just so there can be no further confusion on my part (can't guarantee my players), the spell needs a line of effect. The caster in question wanted to cast the spell at an area that affected the other side of the wall, at a place that covered an area that was 30 feet away from the Wall of Force.

From how I'm understanding it, is that the spell cannot work. Is that correct?

A second part to this question is this - if the Wall had not been touching a ceiling, could it have worked?


Unfortunately, they don't see it that way; they're hung up on "if it doesn't originate from you, you can do it regardless".

So, if the area they targeted was say.....30 feet away on the opposite side from the wall, it could go through?

But, in the case I'm talking about, the wall in this example was touching floor to ceiling. And if it's touching floor to ceiling, it can't be cast through, right?


Okay....allow me to tackle each point in turn.

First, the wall touched floor to ceiling; so, if it had no ceiling to touch, the spell could have been cast over it; am I understanding that right?

Second, they are seeing it as the spell must originate from the caster, and therefore, is able to be cast through the wall.

Third, they don't believe in rule zero; that's a rule I haven't been able to enforce since we got 3rd/Pathfinder. When I try to, they want a why, other than I said so. If I can't, they gripe about that, saying that's a poor reason.


Okay then....my players are going to throw a fit and not accept that because they see it differently...but thank you.


What about Volcanic Storm? Would that bypass a Wall of Force?

I know you can't cast across a Wall of Force, but it's not a target origin. Would you be able to cast it still?


I have only one player that does try to constantly break not only his character, but the rest of my player's characters. Thankfully, my players aren't interested in this, and often shut him down without me needing to step in.

Of course, this gets him upset and angry....typically at me, saying that I'm "forcing" them to not break their characters. Only once was he angry at another player....and it was over that player not wanting to make a Bag of Holding for the group.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Magical items that give a numerical boost to an attribute are, imho, the absolute worst sorts of magic items imaginable. They add nothing to the game since it is assumed the character will obtain one and then the difficulty of the opposition is boosted to compensate. They add nothing to the character since all they do is maintain that character's fundamental capability in comparison to their peers. They add nothing to the character's abilities since they essentially do nothing but take up space.

.....
If I were designing the game myself a +1 sword would be an artifact and other magic swords would have a specific ability they provided, but would not otherwise boost a character's combat expertise or effectiveness. This would mean that a martial character could pick up just about any sword in the game and be effective with it. Just like they tend to do in literature.

I do a similar thing to this already. I try to put out +1 or +2 weapons that are considered "artifacts", with abilities that aren't something you can't just make normally. The only person that has a problem with this is my power gamer. He feels that every campaign needs three Bags of Holding Type IV, everyone decked out with +4 keen weapons with an elemental property and/or a alignment property, and everyone's armor decked out with Heavy Fortification. Then, give each person an item that increases three stats by +6, depending on what you are.

It's not that I hate magic items, I just hate the idea that you need all those magic items to survive. Do you need some? Sure you do; even Conan needed to rely on some magic weapons, despite his distrust of all things magic. But to have every character decked out to that extreme...that's what I don't like.


Still using the Realms....it's what I've been using since I began running D&D back in 1988.


I started with 1st edition. I only have one player that refuses to play anything before "3.5", because it's not "player friendly". My other players once asked him what he meant. He said that because "not enough treasure is given out in older editions," that "you never improve (i.e. - stats never improve, you don't get feats, skills, etc.)", and "you have to roll down the line".

He's also more of a power gamer than he wants to admit. To him, you're not "growing" if you're somehow not getting more powerful. In our current campaign, my players just hit level 5 and got +1 weapons. He's already talking about now getting +2 weapons.

Makes me really miss those old days.....


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Ah, Cyric... That brings back memories.

The sad truth of it is.....I was the only person against the wizard becoming the god.....and it was my old character!


Well....that depends; do you mean the wizard that winds up becoming a new God because of some moron *cough*cough*Cyric*cough*cough*, who takes down the old God, only years before in your own timeline have the rest of those that *would* have taken over been killed off.....then yes....by purest of accidents....

If you mean a wizard that just overshadows the martial players....no. Never seen it ever in all my years of GMing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and Pathfinder. I've seen God Fighters, God Barbarians, God Monks and God Clerics....but never a God Wizard. Would like to someday....it'd be nice to see.


UltraFennec wrote:

Yes, they focus on the Rebellion era. Is that such a problem? Really?

Yes, the first release focuses on fringe worlds and "scum of the galaxy." The Rebellion+Empire and Jedi books are coming. Is that so bad to wait awhile? Focus in supplements, in my experience, leads to better crafted games.

Yes...it is a problem. It's a huge detriment to our table because what's the point of playing Star Wars if you're forced to play in one Era and without the "highlight" class of the setting?

After hearing this, I'm glad I haven't spent the money on this. I would have been very disappointed. It's SAGA for us; at least we can play in KotOR.


see wrote:
L-E-V-E-L.

Which is a Palindrome.

Sorry...couldn't resist....anyway...looking forward to the playtest!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Merlin_47 wrote:
I am with you on this one. I love the Paladin's LG alignment requirement, but why can't other gods have Paladins? I know that in the Realms, Sune has CG Paladins; I'd love to see Paladins of Lathander or even Kelemvor.

Not quite. Sune's Paladins are still LG; they're just the one exception (or one of two, there's a supplement that gives an exception for Selune Paladins who are part of an order between her and the dwarf god Clangeddin working together) that gets to ignore the one-step rule and be an LG divine caster with a CG patron.

And Lathander (NG) and Kelemvor (LN) can and do both have Paladins thanks to the one-step rule.

Huh....I misread that entry....and I was always told back during the 3rd. Ed era that a Paladin could only follow a LG God and Sune was the only exception to that.

I don't recall that supplement about Selune and Clangeddin...even them working together...may have to look into that one.

Still, I wouldn't mind seeing a NG or even a CG Paladin, as was done back in Dragon 132 I believe? I have the issue, I don't feel like digging it out right now. And again, I don't know if that's the right issue or not...I'm just too lazy to check...lol...

And I'd still love a LE Paladin; again, because I run the Realms, I'd like it for Bane, since I use him a lot in my games.


Beckett wrote:
+2 Str or Con, +2 Wis, -2 Int. Honestly I think that Half-Orcs should make good Cleric and Druids (shamantype) casters, maybe a touch of Sorcerer, (for WoW weinies) and warrior types.

In the Realms, there is the Gray Orc, which gets +2 Str, -2 Int, +2 Wis, and -2 Cha.

Balkar wrote:
I know this isn't going to happen (or be popular) but I think Paladin (and maybe Samurai - I don't know enough about that class though) should be a prestige class of Cavalier.

I'm with you on half of this, Balkar. I like the Paladin as a base class; always have, and always will. Cavalier...I could go either way on it, honestly. It works as a base class and as a PrC.

Inferon wrote:
Changes I'd like to see: 3) A detailed entry on how to use Diplomacy to haggle prices.

I do something like this already - It's like an Intimidate check, but using Diplomacy instead. For every 5 by which you beat the DC, the price drops by 5%, to a maximum of 20% off.

Inferon wrote:
Changes that I’d like to see that I doubt I will: 1) Multi alignment paladins!

I am with you on this one. I love the Paladin's LG alignment requirement, but why can't other gods have Paladins? I know that in the Realms, Sune has CG Paladins; I'd love to see Paladins of Lathander or even Kelemvor.

Inferon wrote:

2) Spell points instead of silly spells per day.

3) A brand new Gunslinger class, recreated from scratch. (With guns that don’t target touch AC!)

As for these two....no....just...no. Spellpoints - sorry...I like my spells per day. And the Gunslinger is fine as it is. Samurai, however, needs a complete overhaul.


Dabbler wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:
Merlin_47 wrote:

6. Monk - ciretose said it correctly - when the monk flurries, it somehow needs to get a better BAB.

They already get full BaB when flurrying.

I think he meant better attack bonus, not base attack bonus. Monk's have real problems hitting (and getting through DR) compared to other combat classes, mainly due to MAD and lack of enhancement.

Yes....I realize they get a full BaB when flurrying, but Dabbler is right in this. That is exactly what I meant.


I agree with a majority of points, but here are the things I'd "tweak" and leave alone:

Core:

1. Barbarian - fine as is; nothing needed.
2. Bard - okay....biggest issue I've got with the Bard now is that they're lacking in the offensive department. Taking out magic missile, fireball, and the like really makes the class only useful about 1/2 the time. Yes...our bard player in our Legacy of Fire campaign buffed the crap out of us, but to quote him, he felt very underpowered in combat. So, I'd add back in some of those direct damage dealing spells again.
3. Cleric - changing this class in any way would be hurting it.
4. Druid - Very...."meh" as a class. Shapeshift is okay but the spell list is something to be desired. However, the ability to chose a domain at first level instead of an animal is a nice addition to the class.
5. Fighter - fine as is, but APG really made this class a beast.
6. Monk - ciretose said it correctly - when the monk flurries, it somehow needs to get a better BAB.
7. Paladin - awesome; no change necessary.
8. Ranger - see quote about Paladin.
9. Rogue - suffers from not having enough skills and far too many skill points to spend on skills.
10. Sorcerers - no change.
11. Wizards - the fact that the specialization rules were tweaked make specializing that much better than 3rd Ed.

As for APG, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat, below sums up my only issue:

Dabbler wrote:


Samurai - I agree, they should have the weapon bond, not the steed bond. You become a samurai to carve people in two with a katana, not ride around on horseback. See many horses in The seven Samurai? Me neither.

This sums up my entire problem with the "Samurai" that's actually a Cavalier in disguise. Even if they gave some sort of "two-weapon fighting" ability or things not "horse-centered" the Samurai would have been that much better.


A lot of the Evocation spells (Fireball, Lightning Bolt and the like) aren't as effective as already stated by Sub-Creator since 2nd Ed. I ran an Excalibur style game, where I pretty much told my table Evocation and Necromancy aren't outright not allowed, but very much frowned upon (and sorcerers were not something you wanted to play, since they were seen as "demonic" instead of "draconic"). My wizard player (who did rely on evocation quite a bit) took Illusion, Conjuration, and Enchantment spells instead. She enjoyed the challenge and had fun.

Would I outright ban a school? No...never ever. Would I recommend not to take any spells of that school? Sure...if it helps with a flavor or theme I'm trying to go for.

I would have to say that by eliminating half the spells outright, I really don't think anyone is going to want to play a Wizard/Sorcerer class. And I'll be honest - without some of those "sacred cows", there's really no point in taking an arcane class.


Sadly Mended, we could provide all the "magic bullets" you'd need....but the problem is that there will always be those folks that buy into those lies and (much often in my experience; your mileage may vary) because of their views and beliefs, automatically damn and shun RPG's. My sister and her husband, because they are Christian, had to read my old Revised Star Wars RPG book...at least twice...who their oldest son was curious about because he heard there was a Star Wars game that wasn't a video game that required your imagination. The fact that it said RPG, it was already suspect....and the fact that it was Star Wars, and not D&D (which I know the main arguments against that one is about) was ignored ENTIRELY.

Star Wars...they encourage him to watch because it's a great series they felt. However, because of that dreaded RPG word, it's already suspect, even if it comes in a Star Wars package.

I do wish you luck in your fight...and I hope you are successful. It's sad that we're still fighting these battles and are automatically under scrutiny for someone else's viewpoints.


MagiMaster wrote:
I have to say that if you restrict the spell list too heavily (especially if it ends up feeling really ad hoc or if it's left with mostly blast spells) I would not likely want to play a wizard. I might change to a sorcerer or a witch. Now, removing or changing a few spells (even some of the common ones) wouldn't be enough to do that, but it's something to watch out for.

As a GM and longtime wizard player, if you restrict the list of one class, you should do the same to the rest of the arcane classes. It still wouldn't make me want to play an arcane user in such a game if those spells are gone, seeing as how I tend to favor Illusion the most.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beek Gwenders of Croodle wrote:
Back in topic, there I was thinking about examples of Mythic characters in D&D: the Chosen of Mystra/Bane/whatever are a clear example if I got it right, also Araevin. Maybe Vecna in Greyhawk (before it's first death) or Kyuss. I can't think of lower level Mythic heroes right now.

The best example of a lower level Mythic hero is Huma from Dragonlance. The man was only (game stat wise) a level 8 fighter...and yet he managed to defeat Tahakiss. Yes....he died, but still! EVERY Solomanic Knight makes reference to him.

Magius and Kaz (his two friends and companions) are also in a similar vein. Probably more Kaz than Magius...both were only around level 8, much like Huma.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brad the Bard wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:

What about mythic bunnies? I mean come on it's a cute little rabbit.

"I *warned* you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you *knew*, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little *bunny*, isn't it? "

"RUN AWAY!"

"Brother Maynard! Bring forth the Holy Hand grenade!"


Jason, do you think you could drop a link here when you do start that new thread? It would be greatly appreciated.

Count our table in for the playtest as well. We had to stop play when I broke the news to them about Mythic levels because we were all too excited to not discuss this news.


gbonehead wrote:
What I'm finding pretty damn cool is that they've hit on a solution that can do both. It can be used to extend the current 20 level limit by some folks while others use it as a heroic overlay over very low levels.

Which is what it sounds like EXACTLY you can do with these gbonehead. Unfortunately, because of the "can be used to extend the current 20 level limit", there will be those that will go, "do not want!" (which is sad, because they haven't seen any playtest and are just going off of what the thread itself is speculating from a GenCon panel).

All that aside....I think as soon as we get a playtest, we'll all have a better understanding of what these rules will let us and won't let us do. I know our table has been waiting VERY patiently for something like this. This will be our next purchase from Paizo...our last being either Ultimate Combat or Bestiary 3....whichever came last.


Okay...thank you for the update at least! It's a great class and I'm curious as to what is being changed and what isn't. Looking forward to it!


Hey Owen...just curious if there's any word about the revision for the Godling?

I hate to be a pest about it but I'd like to know what the current status of the update was? Thanks Owen!


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Many thanks to Merlin_47 for the review!

You're quite welcome and honestly Owen, they're not that overpowered. Sure, Magic User, Gestalt and Prestigious ARE, but the others really aren't that broken. There's a balance to them.

Probably the next review I do will be for the revised Godling.


Low: 1 - 6

Med: 7 - 14

High: 15+

Levels 1 - 6 are when your character is starting out and scraping by to survive. Level 7 - 14, some have gone with a Prestige Class and are now coming into their own. They have some power, but aren't quite there yet for power. 15+ the characters are big movers and shakers in the world. They still can't challenge authority figures by any means (without severe repercussions).


Monkeygod wrote:

Ok, I really liked this product, but I feel the Clever Godling didn't get much love.

First, the Mighty Godling has two sets of Divine Traits only he can take, whereas the Clever has just Scholar, which is OK, but could have been better.

Second, a lot of the Scion Talents are just Rogue class features. Between Domain Lineage, a lot of Scion Talents for both versions, and the Divine Power Trait set, the Godling has far too many borrowed class features and not nearly enough new and different abilities.

Even some of the Mighty abilities could have been better. While they are good, none really bring to might the true physical might that the legendary heroes the class was based on have.

Don't get me wrong, I REALLY like the concept, but I'm hoping some of these problems I raised will be fixed come any sequels that come out.

Then you might want to pick up the other two godling books. There's more stuff in there for the Clever Godling.


I've got to say that during our "Legacy of Fire" game (imported to the Forgotten Realms), his Fighter/Weapon Master rolled three critical hits. He drew, in this order, "sever spine", "cut head off", and "carve initials". Then...Tempus (his character's god) wanted in due to all the mass slaughter. He demanded that the cleric paint his portrait while he stood over the corpses of the Fire Giants he slew, like a hunter over his prize kill.

....THAT was a fun night!


You're welcome, Owen! Like I said, it may not have been what I was expecting, but it's still worth the price as an interesting way to handle items that you want to be part of a character's career or a plot.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Merlin_47 wrote:

Hey Owen? I hate to ask, but do you have an update as to when you're looking at doing an errata for the Godling? I did finally snag a copy of it (and the supplement to all Godlings) and I'm really liking the class.

Many thanks!

First, thanks for giving us a look!

There's one more "core" godling book coming out (soon!), The Genius Guide to the Relics of the Godling. Once it's out, I'll be making a push to revise all four books.

Hmm.....The Genius Guide to the Relics of the Godling? Aside from there being weapons (artifacts?) any other talents/traits/feats in it? Or can't you tell? ;)

Any idea when it might be out? We won't be playing the game with the Godling in it until about the end of May/June. The character I'm using it for, it's a character I made back in 3.5, but there wasn't ever a class that fit for him. Mostly PrC's from 3pp were added to the Ranger/Paladin to make it CLOSE. Mighty Godling is pretty much how I've seen the character. Can't wait to run him in this game!

And you're very welcome!


Hey Owen? I hate to ask, but do you have an update as to when you're looking at doing an errata for the Godling? I did finally snag a copy of it (and the supplement to all Godlings) and I'm really liking the class.

Many thanks!


AvalonXQ wrote:
So people's experiences are that the current rules for character levels beyond 20 don't work very well?

For our table? Yes...they don't. Engaging them for me is no trouble; I can do that. We just need the rules to help supplement that.


darth_borehd wrote:

Lack of decent rules to advance past level 20 seems to be the main reason to me.

Most campaigns I've been in end around level 20 to 25 using the rules specified in the Core Rulebook. Anything more than that requires a lot of work to make new and better "Mythic Level" feats.

Richard Leonhart wrote:


there is no epic content yet, and people want something to look forward to

These are the two main reasons why we haven't gone back to Pathfinder since our last campaign back in October.

We have yet to play a game where we DON'T reach level 20, but without that "Post 20" content, we're finding our interest slowly fading. That really bums us out, because of 1) all the money we've invested into this game and 2) we really happen to like Pathfinder (Post 20 rules and Psionics being the only two things we do miss, but DSP put out a decent Psionics book, so all we're missing is that Post 20 book).


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.


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.


gbonehead wrote:


Don't be so sure nobody wants to give it a chance. I have a strong suspicion that the Paizo folks are going to stay amazingly quiet on the issue until they have something concrete to put forth.

James Jacobs is a huge advocate for mythic rules (and the origin of that term), and if I recall properly, his desire is for it to be a "capped" set of rules that goes from something like levels 21-36 (or whatever matches that D&D Expert Set cap that people are fond of).

In any event, there are many who are staunch advocates for above-20 rules, so I think something will be done ... it's just hard to say how soon.

I'm all for having a hard cap; just not at level 20. 36...I could accept that. I know James is a big advocate for Mythic Rules, and I agree with you gbonehead - they probably will stay quiet until they do have something concrete.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jim Groves wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
Your original post, in my opinion, was essentially advocating jumping directly to Immortal or Divine adventures, while I see Mythic Adventures as a crucial stepping stone from the core 1-20 rules to rules that go far above and beyond.

Great reply BTW. Good discussion.

Just let me add, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Set aside my original post. I'm prepared to be open minded about everything (except just say "no" altogether).

Your interpretation of mythic rules as a stepping stone to immortal and divine level play sounds really interesting.. and a good place to start.

Certainly a wonderful place to start. I'm fully entrenched in the "yes to Mythic Rules" camp. Honestly...as James already said, these rules may or may not work. Still, we need to try; just outright saying "no" because of the sins of the past isn't how to handle this.

I don't know....I get tired of these threads, because since someone doesn't like "X", that means everyone doesn't like "X" and therefore, "X" shouldn't be introduced. Yes, I already see people using the reverse as a defense, but I'm going to say it right now - not everyone wants "X" and not everyone is against the addition of "X". If Mythic rules are given a fair and honest chance and they don't work, then fine; at least it was given a fair chance. However, it makes me sad that no one wants to give this a chance.


Astral Wanderer wrote:
But, as a person who would like epic rules as long as they're far different from the 3.5 crap and is otherwise fine with just 20 levels (because, I say, the numbers can be and are fun, but they're nothing against the fluff), AND as a GM who doesn't use the XP system but rather makes the characters advance when he feels that the players have truly had all the fun they could from a given level, I'd ask you: except maybe for campaign reasons (like you became the overgods of your worlds and had nothing more to do) why did you have to stop? Just because you won't add a new level, it doesn't mean you have to trash a character sheet as soon as 19 switches to 20, or just do a boss battle at 20th level and then adieu. Actually, that could be where the fun starts, rather than end, despite not increasing in level anymore.

It's mostly because my players do feel that there's nothing left for them to prove if they're already at that "last level". There's nothing in the rules for them to take on that next great challenge and not have it be a mindless slaughter. Overgods? No....my players will never reach that level; that's something I make clear in any game I run. But, there are many games that do require those "beyond level 20 rules" that just can't be done with fluff alone. Could it be done with fluff alone? Some games, yes; but a lot of the games I do run also require mechanics to support them, because there is some combat involved.

1 to 50 of 217 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>