Sam McLean's page

Just found this via the magic of google, and have been working on this as well. I know the thread is long dead, so I apologize. I have been reading extensively on the Arthurian subject matter recently, and I have to agree that Barbarian is the most likely. Lancelot's rages where the subject of much legend (similar to Roland), and his blows where such that the enemy crossed themselves when he marched upon the field. But he was also a king (or under-king, or some such), and best of all, Scottish! Lancelot, it turns out, is likely the French-ified version of Anguselus. In addition to being royal, though, he may have been saintly as well, descended from Joseph of Arimathea. So there is reason (if one were so inclined) to add a divine element to his rage. Maybe a dip in cleric, maybe some link to the celestial in some way.

Argus, I agree that gestalt characters are awfully powerful, but they are quite useful in one-on-one gaming or with small parties. As for the Arvius' concept, rock on, brother. I don't know if you could string and amplify your axe, but "you'd be a lot cooler if you did."

Stick with the least amount of rules possible. -Maxximilius.

This is terrific advice. I have recently taken this to the Nth degree by switching to Dark Dungeons, a clone of BECMI and RC D&D, and we are surprised at how much fun it is to have a small number of straight forward rules and leave the 'rulings' up to the GM (me). I must say, I haven't had this much fun gaming since the '90s, when I was playing AD&D 2E.

Happy Gaming all, however you do it, but something must be said for simplicity.

Sam

VM mercenario wrote:

Sam McLean wrote:

Kain Darkwind's FrB Bbn

What does this mean? Bbn I'm guessing is barbarian, but what is FrB and who is Kain Darkwind?

Never mind, found it. Dudes, read the OP. 3rd party is okay, homebrew isn't.

Okay, in that case, the 3.5 version of FrB|Cav of the Griffon.

Sam McLean wrote:

Kain Darkwind's FrB Bbn

What does this mean? Bbn I'm guessing is barbarian, but what is FrB and who is Kain Darkwind?

Kain is a poster on this forum, and he created a Barbarian Archetype after the infamous 3.5 PrC, the Frenzied Berserker. It was insanely OP (just the way I like it), but Kain's Archetype is much more likely to be allowed into a group.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/conversions/frenziedBerserkerAsBarbArchetype&page=1

Alright, I've been off for a while, playing the BECMI edition of the original game, and having a blast, but I am still a munchkin at heart, so I thought I'd chime in on this one:

Kain Darkwind's FrB Bbn|Cav of the Griffon (from 'Cavalier Orders')

And...

Cav of the Sword|Pal, because not since the days of 1E Unearthed Arcana has melee power been so imbalanced.

Deadlogic wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Holy Barbarian!

rage prophet prestige class

This is about archetypes we want, not a series of hoops to jump through to play a compromised-flavor version of the character we really want to play.

So, Holy Barbarian! :)

(or at least give us the Celestial Totems....)

Gotta agree with you here, I have been craving some Friendly Berserker archetype since the Champion of Gwyharwyf PrC from 3.5s BoED.

As it stands, I've gestalted the FrB archetype (Kain posted on the Homebrew thread) with Cavalier of the Griffon (SGG Cavalier Orders), Paladin of Freedom (3.5 Unearthed Arcana) and Holy Vindicator PrC (APG) to get what I want out of it.

As the only player in my game, of course, balance isn't an issue, but even I feel like this is a high-degree of powergaming for one concept.

And while were at it, altruistic, freedom fighting CG paladins!

All of this "Cavaliers suck if not mounted" is really tiresome, but may be true in the game as is. APs, from what I read, are mainly in environs which are not conducive to mounted combat on large creatures (possible exception, Kingmaker?).

This is the reason I wish that PF would give us some BECM[I optional] throwback love.

Basic: Dungeoneering close to settlements to try to stay alive. (Risky for everyone, not just Cavaliers sans mounts)

Expert: Adventuring abroad in the wider world, but taking your time shopping before you go, to try to stay alive. (Great for cavaliers, time to shine)

Companion: Establishing a base and defending it, to try to stay alive. (Ideal for cavaliers, esp. those who choose to focus on leadership)

Master: Adventuring on the planes, taking your home base with you, but basically able to stay alive in all but the most lethal environs. (Cavaliers on Advanced Half-celestial Griffons with fighter levels!)

Immortal: Being a deity, and so staying alive. (Valkyrie!)

Maybe that is to rigid and defines/restricts too heavily what the game should be, at different levels. But 13-17 levels of dungeon crawls seems pretty restrictive, too.

Talk to your GM about wanting to play a Cavalier, if you're truly sold on mounted combat, and SOMETIMES, they might throw you a bone.

Gotta say the Gendarme does a nice job of getting the Cav into the freakish levels of DPR. Also, one of the bonus feats you should select in place of your Tactician feats is Spring Attack, so if you fill out the rest of the Dodge tree (a burden, I know), you can be a beast on horseback, then get off, draw steel, and continue to be a badass in dungeon.

B-asic (1-4)
E-xpert (5-12)
Com-panion (13-20)
M-ythic (21-36)
I-mmortal (36+)
Cos-mic (higher than that)
T-ranscendant (even higher than that)
O-mnific (No! Dammit, haven't you been listening?! Really, frackin', HIGH)

BEComMICosTO!

Well, thank the gods this thread has been resurrected (or perhaps EPIC RESURRECTED?!)

Yeah, I'll vote again, and I've been keeping tabs on the product schedule thread, and am happy to see that High-Level Content continues to top it.

I will say that I would like less to keep track of in high-level play. I really think some streamlining could be done with regard to modifiers to mechanics (Combat Maneuvers, Bonuses from Feats, Skill Modifiers, etc.) to allow for more playing and less math.

Even as I get into 9th level with my Gestalt solo/one-on-one character, though he is the only one my GM and I have to keep track of, it's starting to slow the action (and more importantly, the story) a little bit.

And not to derail the thread, but how do you folks get character downtime between adventures? The plots just keep unfurling, and time for Leadership, Construction, and Politics seems to be basically non-existent.

Don't get me wrong, I like my character being a mover and shaker in the world, but constant adventure wears on a person after a while, and some downtime would allow important things to happen. Things always feel so urgent that one never gets to enjoy the spoils of victory(ies).

Man, I have a long list for my Cav-Pal:

Main mounted: Lance, with Spiked Shield
Backup mounted: Battle Axe, Light Hammers, Shortbow
Main on foot: Longsword, with Spiked Shield
Backup on foot: Lucerne Hammer (knightly pollax), Spear, Greatsword, Heavy Flail.

Sam McLean wrote:

If you're not opposed to Pathfinder material from 3pps, there's one from Necromancers of the Northwest called "Into the Armory" that has a sword called the Zanbato (historically a large katana or "[n]o-dachi") but easily re-imagined to fit any two-handed sword archetype. I gave my Ftr/Bbn character one, but renamed it Bidenhander after the German Lansdknecht Two-Hander, to represent that specialized weapon instead of a Core Greatsword.

It offers 2x Str bonus to damage, the brace quality (for large or larger opponents, at any rate) and all for the low low cost of an EWP feat and a -2 atk penalty. But when it hits vs. a large and charging enemy, with power attack and rage...flippin' sweet!

What's base damage and crit-range?

Quote:

Base damage is 2d8, crit is 19-20/x2. The penalty to attack and EWP feat requirement balances that big damage and STR bonus, though. And it's the only thing, flavor-wise, which made sense as a true bidenhander, though I have yet to get UC on .pdf. (Why can't it be Thursday?!) Really looking forward to perusing the archetypes therein, since it could bolster my big damage potential. Some of them sound better than the two-handed fighter archetype from APG, for sure.

Don't want anyone to be caught unawares, but I'm a bit of a power-gamer (frequently using gestalt rules, though mainly because of the challenge of solo-adventures), mixing and matching systems to optimize character concepts (both RP and Mechanical aspects), and sometimes blatantly breaking rules (which, in solo-play, doesn't matter).

That said, I love gaming, esp. FRPGs, and would love to hear from anyone in Salem to see if I could fit into a group.

Sam

Hello. I'm interested in making a two-handed weapon fighter. I'd like to stick to Pathfinder material, no book restrictions. I'm thinking human, but I'm open to suggestions. Does anyone have any build suggestions that they could recommend? Is the two-handed fighter archetype worth taking? Thanks in advance!!

If you're not opposed to Pathfinder material from 3pps, there's one from Necromancers of the Northwest called "Into the Armory" that has a sword called the Zanbato (historically a large katana or "[n]o-dachi") but easily re-imagined to fit any two-handed sword archetype. I gave my Ftr/Bbn character one, but renamed it Bidenhander after the German Lansdknecht Two-Hander, to represent that specialized weapon instead of a Core Greatsword.

It offers 2x Str bonus to damage, the brace quality (for large or larger opponents, at any rate) and all for the low low cost of an EWP feat and a -2 atk penalty. But when it hits vs. a large and charging enemy, with power attack and rage...flippin' sweet!

Have you checked out "Paladin's Prevail" from Gun Metal games? While not "Core" it deals with the Paladin directly, and gives you some crunch which can, in much the same way as the Complete Paladin's Handbook, be easily flavored to fit your idea of a catch-all knightly order, but with servitors of a few different ideals contained therein.

I absolutely LOVE the 2E Paladin's Handbook, and it is the only 2E book I didn't trade in. The rules are basically useless, but as you said, the stuff around it is priceless!

I have fiddled around with making the Unearthed Arcana feeling Cavalier-Paladin (read: Munchkin), and used "Paladin's Prevail", and "Cavalier's Creed", as well as the APG and Core, and Gestalt Rules from 3E Unearthed Arcana (in the true spirit of Munchkinism) and came up with...

A Munchkin.

Did not end up with the romantic paladin I was hoping for, but did kick 7 bales of $#!* out of everything he came across, and was an elitist prick.

So best of luck 'findel. Give a nod to the two PFRPG books I mentioned. Maybe they'll help you out.

I think that Paladins should be a subclass of a fighter...

No, wait, they should be a subclass of the cavalier...

Berserker should be a kit for fighters...

Wait, we could dual class...

Ah, shucks, we could just make a new system, take out all the positive math, and start subtracting negative numbers from positive rolls...

(End snarky irony post.)

See, that's the thing. I just don't trust myself to do as good a job at this as the boys and girls at Paizo will do. Therefore, I doff my cap to Lincoln, CantFindThePath, Meepo, and any others who take on an A$$LOAD of houserules.

Once I get a character to 20th again, I'll just stop with that character until Paizo does their thing. I'll start another one up, and so on and so forth.

It's not that you guys won't do a bang up job, you may, and I wish you well, but I want the straight dope, from the source.

(Just so this doesn't seem like me being a D!CK, I vote for the E20 type rules as best thus far.)

I don't know how you'll make it any simpler than it was, mechanically speaking, but I absolutely support the conversion of these two feats. IMO, they make the Two-Handed Fighter so much more valid.

Epic spells should exist. Spells that create flying castles, change the land, burn an entire army or create a mithall. Why not? there should be also some sort of flexibility, but not as much as the old seed system. For non-spellcasters there should be powers and options that allow them to face such spellcasters mantaining ballance. If you're going epic, you'll want battles and changes in the world of epic proportions.

My personal opinion: don't do anything like 4th ed. Those epic destinies and the "end of the line" thing is too artificial. The ending of the game should be a choice of the DM not a mechanical necessity.

I agree with the first paragraph here. Go ahead and make a higher level spell, not just metamagic 1-9, but don't use seeds, at least not as written in 3.0.

I made a remark about paths and destinies in a post above, but I did not mean to imply using the same system as 4E, which I've not played. I DO think that character evolution is a crucial part of Mythic, but agree that the end-game is just one of the options to be broached by Mythic rules.

It should be broken down by 'power curves' I think: tapered power curve guidelines for those who want to play and end-game featuring very powerful mortals, linear power curve pointers for the 'eternal champions' type of game, and exponential power curves for the straight up 'god-slayers'.

As a player of Cavaliers and Paladins, and as a player who gives almost everyone of his PCs the Leadership feat, and as a player in solo, 1 on 1, and smallish party (2-3 players) games, I can safely say this is one of the best ideas out there right now.

Can't decide between Ultimate Companion or the Companion Companion for best title, though. :P

One of my favorite adventures for 2E revised, even though I never made it out of Demonwing, no matter how many times I ran it.

I love the quality of work you've put into this thing, and I am inspired to write something of my own when Paizo publishes Mythic rules, and do so in such a snappy format.

Gorgeous, and looking forward to incorporating it into my campaign.

I think that Immortality should be considered, but in conjunction with, not in place of, Mythic rules.

I want, nay, NEED Mythic rules from Paizo. But I don't want them to rush in, and right now my highest level PF PC is only 8th (and just hitting his stride), so I don't need them tomorrow.

I just posted a huge essay on my Mythic dreams over in Hama's "Share your Epic Experiences and Suggest How Paizo should do it," or something like that, thread.

In another thread James Jacobs mentioned that our feedback would be vary valuable for them, when and if they turn to making a post 20 book.

So let's give our feedback. Write about anything you feel relevant to the point.

About things that worked in ELH, things that didn't work, why they worked and why they didn't.

Specific stuff, general stuff.

About the feel of epic levels, if it was good why was it good, if it felt wrong, why did it feel wrong.

What should be avoided and what should be definetly put in a book like this.

Let's help those guys and gals make a good rulebook for the game we all love and cherish.

Also, people not interested in 20+ play, if you have nothing constructive to say, please do not post in this topic.

My own experience with epic play was several campaigns that ended quickly and several epic tournaments.

My first big peeve: Epic spells. They were broken. The spellmaking was kinda cool in theory, but by reducing all stats of my druid to 3, his hp to 1 and making him disabled (all of which the cleric easily removed with a spell of his own, i could have a permanent +120 bonus to wisdom, or could cast a spell that did 200d6 points of damage. As cool as it sounds, there is no need for such ludicruous numbers.

If there are to be epic spells, they should be seriously redone and thought over.

My next peeve/point will be feats, but for that i have to delve into the ELH (it's been a while) and then give my feedback.

So ladies and gents, let's kick this thing off...

I want to start off by saying I had a huge post written and screwed up and lost it. I will try to get it all back, but damn, that sucks.

I have been thinking about this for a good few days, since Hama posted it, and I have come up with some good info, I think. The first thing I did was to analyze my experience of the 2 systems that I used for high-level and very high-level play in the past, those being BECMI and 3E. I made a list of the pros and cons for each system, then marked the things I think Paizo should move forward with, the things they should redesign, and the things they should avoid like the plague.

BECMI: As a player, the pros of BECMI were many, but the biggest thing I think it did for the experience as a whole was to show character evolution at the major level breaks, with a shift in character expectations, goals and paradigms. For GMs, BECMI gave a good deal of advice, like how to screw your players out of using the wish spell.

The only con I could really think of with BECMI was that Immortality was the ultimate goal, and we know from the various forums on high-level play, that not everyone wants to be gods.

The main problem with comparing and contrasting BECMI with PF is that the game has changed so much. In BECMI, all those new options at each big break were THE ONLY new options. In PF, there are already a bunch, so what do we do next?

WSPD (What should Paizo do?): The things I think can work for Paizo's Mythic level game from BECMI are rules for strongholds, kingdom building, mass combat, and rulership (The Book of River Kingdoms, derived from Kingmaker, already gives them a jump on this), and the sense of character evolution and responsibility.

They should reread and then rewrite the GM portions of each of those boxes, and sift through the good bits of advice that still apply which they haven't already published.

They should take a good, hard look at immortality as an option for players. Maybe they COULD make it work, even if people don't want it. Or if they don't want to provide rules for it, maybe some advice for those who do want to go there.

Also, an Advanced Game Mastery guide for those transitory "Companion" levels prior to the release of the Mythic "Master" levels would lay some good groundwork.

3E (ELH and its derivative, Immortal's Handbook): The good part of ELH was that it was different (it turned out to maybe not be different enough) and felt that way, for a while. It gave us a sense of EPIC! scale (x infinity for Immortal's Handbook), and it should us that there were things we hadn't thought of yet. It also showed what a basically linear progression would look like (exponential progression in the case of Immortal's Handbook).

The cons were, IMO, it changed things without being different enough to matter, and that it encouraged no real character evolution.

WSPD?: Paizo could move some of the feats, the notion of Epic PrCs (maybe archetypes, for the most part, since I'm thoroughly pleased with those) and the guidelines for Epic GMing into their Mythic Rules.

They should, IMO, NOT carry on the old Epic spellcasting rules, and seriously change Epic items and wealth (maybe putting a stop at 20th level wealth-by-level except for holdings, favors, and immaterial wealth).

Also, a Mythic Bestiary with advanced templates, some pregen monstrous villains with class levels and templates already built in, as well as some new stuff, with expanded size categories (LOVED this from Immortal's Handbook!) and stats for (or suggestions for generating) Demon Princes and Arch Devils and Daemon Lords, etc.

Other considerations: "The 10 Commandments of Epic" were mentioned in a previous post on a previous thread.

Here is the link: http://eternitypublishing.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/article-the-ten-commandm ents-of-epic/

I thought these were really good pointers.

So for the Advanced Game Mastery guide (pre-Mythic) I would like to see:

Rulership, Mass Combat, and Kingdom Building rules.
Advice for simplifying, tracking, and controlling combat, as well as manipulating high-level magic.
Running intelligent adversaries.
How to MASTER event-based adventures.
How to prepare your game for Mythic play.
How to keep the game changing, and in perspective, so that saving the world again doesn't get hum-drum.

For Mythic:

Character options (archetypes, PrCs, feats, spells, immortality?).
A Mythic character sheet.
Power curves (flattened, linear, and exponential) and how to play the game of each.
The tenets of Mythic (scale, relativity, character evolution, paths, destinies, and responsibility).
Mythic GM tools (software would be AWESOME!)
Mythic rewards.
A Mythic bestiary.

Phew! That was a bunch.

Sam McLean wrote:

The Immortal's Handbook: Ascension (legit but overwhelming 3PP support for 3.X)

That's less of a high-level supplement than a "holy crap, the DM let us be gods, but there's still things that are vastly VASTLY more powerful than us" type of a deal.

Sam McLean wrote:

I'll buy one for Galbraithe and Kthulhu and Steve and whoever else doesn't want one, too, so that Paizo can stop seeing their posts as anti-support and lost money for their High Level material.

I call utter BS.

Well, burned your bridge there, haven't you? :P

But yeah, you're right, utter BS.

And there's NO WAY Gailbraithe is gonna have anything to do with these rules, as he's made painfully obvious. In fact, it would be a cruelty the likes of which the Marquis de Sade would be hard pressed to replicate, if we were to put Mythic Rules in his Christmas stocking.

On the upside, Steve said he'd probably get it even if he wasn't going to use them, so there's one.

That said, I will point my GM and fellow players whom I DO know to buy the book[s] should they be released before the End Times. Of course, as the great Kthulhu, you have direct control over when the aforementioned Apocalypse will be coming.

Still, I admit defeat. And that I was spouting off. I am [somewhat] humbled.

R'lyeh, r'lyeh, Kthulhu fhtagn!

This has gotten really heated in my absence, but I will try to cool my own jets and stick to "just the facts, ma'am."

Right now in terms of High-Level content, I have procured almost everything I can.

I have in my library:

Rules Compendium (has basically encapsulated BECMI)
Dark Dungeons (a retro-clone thereof)
High Level Campaigns (sad, 2E revised high-level material)
The Primal Order (non-specific high-level and immortal game mastery guide)
ELH (under my bed, I read a little every night, even though I've been through it dozens of times, dreaming about Paizo's restructure)
The Immortal's Handbook: Ascension (legit but overwhelming 3PP support for 3.X)
The Immortal's Handbook: Bestiary (makes ELH monsters look like kobold children with one level of commoner)

I also have materials that support Higher Level thematic components:

The Castle Guide (from 2E)
The Stronghold Builder's Guidebook (3E)
The Book of the River Kingdoms (GREAT compiled rules for Kingdom Building based on Kingmaker)
Numerous tomes on Deities and Demigods, Planar Travel, Archdevils and Demon Princes etc, that can't be overcome in Low- or Mid-Level play.

I know there's a couple more out there, but what's the point? I play Pathfinder now. What good is another 3PP 3.X book based on substandard outdated material from ELH going to do me? Trivial help, compared to what the REAL THING could offer...

Will I buy Paizo's an Advanced Gamemastery Guide for High Level Play, and will I buy The Mythic Handbook? Betchorarse I will!

Jeez, I'll buy multiple copies and gift them to my GM and fellow players if it will expedite the schedule for these things.

I'll buy one for Galbraithe and Kthulhu and Steve and whoever else doesn't want one, too, so that Paizo can stop seeing their posts as anti-support and lost money for their High Level material.

(Don't quote me on that, if times is hard, ya' know, I am less likely to buy multiple copies for those who won't use them. But I will sell extra organs and bodily humours to afford my own. I don't need my left kidney THAT badly...)

This is where I try to remember the days of 2e. How did I make high-level play more challenging for my players?

I MADE S#@$ UP!

Seriously, I know it sounds like too simple a solution to too big a challenge, but sometimes, the guy behind the screen has to have some fun too. Make stuff up, cheat, learn the rules, and then ignore them, fudge die rolls, AND PLAY GOD!

"High level villains are too risky, I don't want a TPK." Okay, when you roll it, soften it.

"High level villains are too soft for my players." Tell your players they didn't roll well enough to beat the DC of the villain's ability.

"The fighter is a broken little toy soldier next to the god-fueled cleric and the pyro wizard." Occasionally, throw the guy a bone, change a stat block to include magic immunity and susceptibility to physical attacks.

"High level encounters are too time consuming." Wing it.

Also, make your players know their characters. Of course, having them play from low (not necessarily 1st, but 5th or below, for sure) to high ensures that they will learn their abilities, especially if they spend enough time at each level, and experience a wide enough variety of tough encounters to have to figure out what to do when party resources run low.

The biggest challenge for me is keeping it fresh. I can do it, but it's tougher with published adventures. Especially if they're keyed maps, and not event-based. But, it's not insurmountable. I just default to 'make s@#$ up'.

Of course, I still want Paizo to publish their take on high-level play, so that I will be able to make LESS s@#$ up. :-)

I ignored the level cap question, but I have an answer to that one, too.

Paizo can put the level cap wherever they want it, because if I reach that cap, and need more, I'll play higher. It would be nice to phrase that clause of the book like this, "These are the rules we have established for playing Pathfinder from levels 20-36. If you reach level 36 and wish to continue, you can use these rules as written and simply extrapolate them to infinity"

Does it need to be able to hold up for everyone to infinity? Nope, just those who want it to.

If they don't feel the rules are stout enough, they might phrase it like this, "These are the rules we have established for playing Pathfinder from levels 20-36. If you reach level 36 and wish to continue, you may consider doing x, y, and z, since these rules may not hold up beyond the 36 level limit. Here are some examples of how to implement x, y, and z: [cite examples]."

So go ahead and place a cap, but give us (cue magic word) OPTIONS to make the game what I want.

To the OP, yes I want a tightened up rules set for 13-20, and yes I want 20+ play to be supported.

To some of the subsequent posters, who seem to be nervous that Mythic rules will mess up Golarion, I say this:

Did the the 3E Game Designers take OUR Epic games and change Living Greyhawk because of the outcomes from OUR groups' sessions? Nope. So why would Paizo?

And the more I think about it, the less I care if my characters are high-powered high-level mortals or demi-deities or Great Old Ones or Omnific. I just want rules that allow me to make the game what I want. Does that rules set need to be tailored only to my play style? No. Should it consider that there are people out there like me who want that style of play? Yes. And thus far, Paizo has done great with this.

So bring on the Mythic Level stuff, but make sure it's tight, doesn't mess up levels 1-20 (or more specifically 13-20), and make sure the OPTIONS are there for the different play styles.

Seems like JJ and Erik are keen on getting the bumps out of 13-20 first. Which I am in full support of.

Fre'zerker.

Heheheh

It's amusing (but unhelpful) that this thread has drifted into above-20th play topics when it was created by Sam for the express purpose of talking about below-20 topics.

Thanks, gbone. Things could've got derailed there.

To Zen79 and Jason, good ideas guys. Looking at things from the GM's perspective is crucial. I'd say that if the players understand what the GM goes through for a high-level adventure (or campaign), they will be more prepared, more thoughtful, and (hopefully, unless they are hopeless munchkins) more forgiving when things do get a little weird or out of control.

Shim, I like the multiple attacks at the same base, but think that it's a little steep. If I sacrifice +5 for each extra attack, that's more like "instead of taking iterative attacks, take all of them at your lowest attack bonus." Something more along the lines of the flurry penalty (-2, maybe -3) for each extra attack would stick it to your groups warriors a little less.

Dudemeister, SO TRUE! Way back in 2 ed. revised I tried to run "A Paladin in Hell," (there is an UNBELIEVABLE conversion out on the threads, btw), but everyone was so tired of loooooooong combats that it slogged to a halt after the first 2 sessions.

Granted, Monte's adventure was supposed to be a string of improbable combats, but it was, as you said, disabling to the story.

And finally, back to gbone. Try to remember waaaaay back when your 49-64th level PCs were 13-20...(go ahead, I'll let you search through the notes). What got under your skin then? What made you think "man, this would be so much easier if..." Maybe some of the stuff you're doing currently is derivative of your experience back then with house-ruling, hybrid systems, etc.

What changes did you initiate back in those days that helped you get where you are now as a GM, and helped your players get where they are now, as PCs?

(I think you said you started these guys at low levels back in 2008. Were you still pure 3.5 then, or had you incorporated some of the PF stuff?)

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

Evil Lincoln, that is an EXCELLENT point. Paizo does an awesome job of giving us tools we didn't even know we needed.

On the other hand, they do a great job of listening to the players, playtesting, and revising according to the needs of the game. So while they have great ideas, maybe we (as players, and as a LARGE number of players, to boot) will brainstorm ideas that they haven't considered, too.

So, although you make a good point, I say "On with the thread!" Let's see how many options we can give them to consider, and let them do the editing and refining that they are so well known for.

Snotty, I realize now that I've always had Melnibone in mind when I've run/play high-level stuff! Also, I agree that monsters/NPCs that can do their job in a pinch without requiring gobs of work by the GM would be nice.

With regard to treasure, well, I'm honestly not sure. I have a tendency to rely not so wholly on equipment. (Matter of fact, most of my high level characters are too busy, and would look like impoverished 3rd world children next to the standard guidelines for PC wealth by level.)

And I can't overemphasize my desire to see a Mass Combat system that lets the PCs shine.

Thanks all.

You guys should head over to the suggestions thread I just re-posted on to help set the stage for "mythic". Erik and JJ both suggested that there needs to be more support for 13th or 14-20th level play before they look seriously at post-20th.

So let 'em know what you want!

Sam

Seriously, nobody? You guys are keeping the "Epic" thread going even after Erik said that there will be no exploration of "mythic" until there is more support for "high-level" play out there. Support that, from what I understand, Paizo knows they need to offer.

So let's get the suggestions up for what we want to see in that product, the one that isn't "2 years out, at the very least," the one that paves the way for the "mythic" book we all are chomping at the bit for. (Directed only at the people who are chomping at the bit for it, not the people who say that because they would never buy mythic rules, Paizo should not publish them.)

Help a brother out, here!

So, we basically found out on the other thread "Epic Level Handbook NOW please" that Paizo has no intent to publish its Mythic rules set until there is material out there to support High Level (13 or 15-20) play and make that a more popular part of the game to play.

Fine. I can wait to see what that book holds before getting back on the "More levels, please" bandwagon. After all, if they can work the glitches (perceived or real) out of High Level play and game mastery, they'll have a better chance to provide us with FLIPPIN' AWESOME Mythic rules, when the time comes.

And now, I say to you, what SHOULD that book contain? (For the intent of this thread, let's really place a hard limit at up to 20, since that's as far as the game we're playing goes, for now).

I'll start things off:

1. Stronghold building rules.
2. Kingdom building rules.
3. Suggestions for how to run a rulership based campaign (how to get 'political' when your players can solve problems with wish and meteor swarm, how to keep them on their toes with the minutia when what they really want is to kick butt, etc.)
4. Suggestions for making them realize the scope of their incredible powers.
5. Options to exchange lower-level feat choices that were good at the time, but don't do much for the characters in their current BA incarnations.
6. Character based (NOT class based) capstones.
7. High level suited archetypes/prestige classes.
8. Warfare/Siege Warfare rules, including but not limited to: army building, special units, the role of arcane/divine magic in the armies, naval warfare guidelines, aerial warfare guidelines, planar armies and warfare, and most importantly, ways for the PCs to really affect the outcome of battles/wars.
9. High level NPC guidelines, for creating, running, distracting, etc.
10. Planar environments for high level adventures.

There are other aspects, I'm sure, and so I open the floor to the assembly!

Thanks in advance for constructive contributions and criticisms.

Happy gaming (at whatever level you like.)

Thanks, Erik, for putting some 'official' weight behind the decision to focus on High-Level first, then "Epic/Mythic/Munchkin" whatever later.

While I (and many others) are going to be throwing the proverbial fit that we will have to wait EVEN LONGER, it gives me more faith that once Paizo tackles post-20th, they will CERTAINLY know what they're doing.

Also, I've been reading the BECMI stuff lately, and I've got to say, when very high level play was tackled back then, it was done so with a MUCH simpler rules set. 2nd Edition Revised's "High-Level Campaigns" had a bit more to deal with, but not nearly as much as 3.0 had, and certainly, while Paizo has not the "Rules Bloat" that 3.5 eventually did, and while Paizo has done a great job of streamlining mechanics where it makes sense to do so, it is by no means the "rules light" system that BECMI had.

So yeah, I'm kicking and screaming, but instead of stomping around petulantly until I get Paizo's post-20th rules, I've decided to go back through my stable, and start some of my really high-level characters from previous editions over at 1st level with PF. Let's see if 20 levels is (gasp!) enough. For some of them, it may be, but for others, maybe not.

If those characters get to 20th before the rules for "epic" come out, well, I've got some 3pp stuff and some partial support from PF core to tide me over. And plenty more character concepts to start from scratch with.

"Today, we spell redemption [E-R-I-K]!" *Sam McLean drops mic and walks off-camera*

I myself kind of like the idea of the 36 level cap, but I wonder if we could just adopt the WHOLE BECMI system, and top those 36 levels as adventurers with 36 more levels of Immortals, for those who want it.

Or, maybe levels 37-72 could be nigh-immortal "Champion" levels. (Something like gbonehead's epic troupe).

In any event, what JJ wants, JJ probably gets, and if he postulates a 36th level cap, that's likely what we're looking at.

Although, as someone up-thread pointed out, there are suggestions in the core rulebook for play post-20th. Maybe when we get mythic, there will be a similar blurb on post-36th. So that edduardco can kill the overgods...

So, to keep this thing alive, and because I'm curious what people think, should PF 'Mythic' rules include taking class levels above 20th, even if they place a 36 level cap on characters?

Personally, I think that keeping class levels limited to 20 would allow players to finally justify multiclassing in PF.

I know we can do so now, but 20 level class limits would force some creative multiclassing if you wanted to go all the way to 36th, but still wanted those sweet class capstones. Heck, you could get a capstone from a base class at 20th, a PrC at 30th (when you hit 10th), and still have 6 levels of play in which to ACTUALLY USE THEM!

Granted, I don't play a lot of full-spellcasters, so not getting access to 10th+ level spells from straight class levels is no biggie for me.

I am planning a take on the 3.5 "Friendly Berserker" build for PF solo play. The old way to do this was to build a Bbn//Clr, taking levels in FrB when you qualify, and at some point taking levels in the Champion of Gwynharwyf PrC from BoED.

While my GM doesn't object to 3.5 material in PF, he DOES (and rightfully so) object to the 3.5 PrC Frenzied Berserker.

Just recently, I've found Kain Darkwind's FrB (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinder RPG/conversions/frenziedBerserkerAsBarbArchetype) archetype, which fixes (along with PF rules) the insanely OP Power Attack potential presented by the old PrC.

Fortunately, I can use some stuff from UA, most significantly, Gestalt rules, Flaws (with some barbarian flaws from a 3.5 issue of Dragon) and the "Paladin of Freedom" variant (adapted to the PF paladin).

This, combined with the fact that my GM is allowing the Cavalier of the Order of the Griffon, from 'Cavalier Orders', and that the Mounted Fury Bbn archetype, from APG, doesn't have any class features that overlap with Kain's FrB archetype, creates some fairly nasty potential for a mounted rager.

I have two questions.

1. If one side of the gestalt combo was always FrB (mounted fury), in what order would you combine the following classes on the other side: Fighter (for combat feats), Paladin of Freedom (for survival in solo play), and Cavalier of the Order of the Griffon (for mount and more 'freedom fighter' flavor)?

2. Has anyone else tried a "Friendly Berserker" in PF?

Chances are I will figure it out, but I was just curious if others had ideas or prior experience.

what?

My remark was in regard to James Jacobs' postulation that a level cap might be placed at 36 in the eventual 'high-level' rules.

Right now, capstone abilities come at 20th CLASS LEVEL. Well, if there is a strict level cap placed at 36 when we get 'mythic', 'epic', or 'high-level' rules, I would like to see capstones as more of a thematic, archetypal power, not linked to specific classes as they currently stand.

Hope that clears things up.

Hobbun's suggestion is also great. When we get a capstone, let us use it for a few levels. I didn't really think about that, but very valid.

I say yay for ELH. Would actually like to see capstones.. be useful you know?

I would say that the existing capstones ARE useful, they just shouldn't be capstones. We can get those at CHARACTER level 36 (not class level), and should be able to customize them to fit our character, regardless of the class(es) they've selected throughout their careers.

Sam McLean wrote:

I am definitely using this for a FrB I've been longing to convert. This is a much more GM-friendly version, with way more balance. One question, though: Can I use the 'moment of clarity' rage power during my frenzy to keep from attacking allies?

Personally, I do not feel that a frenzied berserker ought to take that particular rage power. However, I would say yes. It only lasts 1 round, however, and it isn't the same as stopping the frenzy.

The reason I cite 'moment of clarity' is because I want this guy to have a "Friendly Berserker" feel. Eventually, after multi-classing into a 'paladin of freedom' and 'cavalier of the griffon', I am going to have him take levels in Holy Vindicator. Laughing at his enemies, stigmata flowing while chanting battle hymns, lost in the ecstasy of granting his foes the ultimate freedom...death.

I am definitely using this for a FrB I've been longing to convert. This is a much more GM-friendly version, with way more balance. One question, though: Can I use the 'moment of clarity' rage power during my frenzy to keep from attacking allies?

Yep, Dark Dungeons is indeed what BECMI was all about. Too bad it's not a PATHFINDER PRODUCT! But very handy, if I ever want that retro feeling.

I'd like to correct a couple of things here.

1. In the Ascension book, it's not enough to merely level up past 20 to gain those powers. You have to collect Quintessence, which can only be done in three ways: being worshiped by mortals, killing immortals, or being granted it by immortals.

2. You shouldn't talk about downloading the BECMI books here, as that is piracy. You may not agree with WotC's decision to take down all the PDFs, but it was theirs to make. A nice legal alternative is Dark Dungeons, a retro-clone of the BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia. It's a very close match rule-wise.

Kthulhu, I'll respond to #2 first. What I meant was, I found a place where someone had used the BECMI boxes as part of their OD&D campaign, and had a site containing an OUTLINE of those systems. I don't have the actual copies of the books themselves. I will look into Dark Dungeons (does it go all the way through the levels that BECMI suggests: 1-3 Basic, 4-14 Expert, 15-25 Companion, 26-36 Master?)

And in regard to point number 1: regardless of how they get it, quintessence is my hang up with the Immortals system. I want to play (and run) high-level adventures with more than just the 20 levels of PF Core, but WITHOUT needing the characters to be gods.

That's what I'm hoping to get from Paizo. (Although, as previously stated, if they wanted to do something for everyone's idea of "epic", including ascended campaigns, I'd support that too.)

All this edition blending to come up with something usable is way more work than cracking open the one book that many of us want.

Indeed, Gbonehead, Pathfinder is NOT Golarion. I have yet to play an Adventure set in Golarion, the two games where PF is the rules system are both homebrew settings.

I'm reading the two Immortals Handbooks right now, which I've recently downloaded, and while Epic Bestiary seems to have a lot of worthwhile stuff in there for any kind of "Epic" you want (see my previous posts for descriptions of my ideas: end-gamer, earth-shaker, and god-slayer), the Ascension book seems to NOT be my cup of tea. Just because one of my characters is high-level doesn't make that character immortal. In fact, I've only ever played ONE immortal, and I used HERO system for that. (Though in hindsight, D20 would've required a LOT less work!)

I've also recently downloaded the BECMI (Mentzer) boxes. This seems more my speed, and I now understand why JJ has postulated that obscure 36 level rule. But those are for an older system, as is ELH, and the work of translating older editions into PF is why we have Paizo! I am NOT a game designer, and though I have no qualms about making the game my own, I am confident that I couldn't do as good a job as the folks at Paizo.

Sam McLean wrote:

And we know the game changes as time goes by (some say it's 6th, some 8th, some 12th, some 15th, some 20th, whatever). The people who want the cap at those lower levels have a system by which to do that. And it's free! E6. Of course, up to 20th, you can use the PF Core Book, too. But those of us who want to see how far we can go, and 20 levels just ain't enough, have only a few options (PF suggestions in Core, the old ELH, Immortals stuff, and this Primal Order thing, which I've just downloaded).

Does the desire to see how far you can go require that your character continue to progress along their current path? Would it still be satisfying if you were able to progress on an alternate path - only attainable after hiting 20th level - that is effectively a complete evolution from what you were before?

Since it has been pointed out that high Epic level play is significantly more strenuous then at lower levels, does it make sense to continue advancing along this path?

Imagine that we define an Epic Level system that basically reboots characters at Epic Level 1. You have roughly the same number of abilities as a normal Level 1 character, but all of them are Epic in nature. One of those abilities could be 'Will mortals to Die' that basically handwaves all of your previously earned abilities for ease/speed of play. Needless to say you shouldn't be fighting mortals anymore so it's ok if you have this power.

While that seems a gross oversimplification, I have thought about something along those same lines.

Take a look at your character at 20th level, find the key combat mechanics, and try to streamline them. So for example, at really high levels, a paladin's Lay on Hands carries a bunch of Mercy options with it. Pick a one of those Mercies (the one you use most often, say), blow it out of proportion, and take it with you to Mythic-ville, leaving the others behind, but getting really good at that one area.

You got a Cavalier of the Sword? Ridiculous number of Mounted Combat options at 20th level? How about a Mounted Combat Mastery that does away with all of the previous options for one close-knit set of rules?

Play a caster who uses energy spells a lot? Energy Dweomer!

Also, no one is saying that epic MUST EQUAL god-slaying, so telling us that we shouldn't be fighting mortals anymore once we cross the threshold is just...unsupported.

Why can't a mortal tyrant looking to unleash an ancient demilich on the world be a challenge for a 27th level party? Are hordes of ogres with a matriarchy of witches, led by a cambion with 19 class levels and an honor guard of mutated hill giant slaves too small a challenge for us, once we hit level 21 (or Epic 1st, whatever you call it).

No, epic doesn't have to equal ascended. None of the high-level adventures I've played in have targeted ascension.

I have a question for those who want an "Mythic Adventures Handbook"...lets say it gets released. It places a hard cap on level advancement at level 36. How long until this same discussion comes up asking for an "Uber-Mythic Adventures Handbook" covering levels 37+? If we're going to have a hard cap, and actually keep it, 20th levels seems to be pretty good, since that's about the level that nascent demon lords hang out out, and full demon lords are listed as being not that much higher.

Hopefully, they will have the foresight to explain the 'how' behind leveling into the stratosphere, so that if a few hundred people are interested in this "Uber-Mythic" thing, they can go there without needing a whole book.

I know, I know. "Then why do we need a whole book for 20th-36th (or whatever)?"

I'll tell you why: The lingering bitter aftertaste of ELH (which I didn't think was that bad, at the time, but given how awesome Paizo has been, I started to have doubts) can't be the legacy of high-level play that the world is left with.

And we know the game changes as time goes by (some say it's 6th, some 8th, some 12th, some 15th, some 20th, whatever). The people who want the cap at those lower levels have a system by which to do that. And it's free! E6. Of course, up to 20th, you can use the PF Core Book, too. But those of us who want to see how far we can go, and 20 levels just ain't enough, have only a few options (PF suggestions in Core, the old ELH, Immortals stuff, and this Primal Order thing, which I've just downloaded).

Problem is, none of these options are as optimal (no flames for mentioning the O word, please) relative to the quality we've seen in APG, UM, and (presumably) UC.

If this is what Paizo can do with 20 levels, just imagine *shudders with delight* what 16 more levels could hold!

Gbone,

No intention of derailing the thread here, but:

Is the Immortals Handbook worth the investment, if I intend to play some "post-20th" that has only a hint of divinity in it?

The campaign that I would like to finish involves a world being pulled into the Abyss by a "Godhand"-type group of entities. The meat and drink is forcing the PCs to right this unimaginable wrong, fighting a constant uphill battle against the (rightfully) paranoid population of their world, steadily being subverted into an Abyssal wasteland of demon hordes and undead, and keeping them so busy with damage control that they will be hard-pressed (through many levels of adventure) to reach the parties that are responsible for the atrocity.

The enemies may have a spark of divinity, but there will be little in the way of "god-slaying", and the PCs will never get to be part of the pantheon (unless they fail utterly and become part of the demonic pantheon, a la 'Griffisu').

Thanks in advance.

Of course this wouldn't be an issue if Paizo already had rules available for me to finish my campaign. (See, I made it topical again. Hee.)

Yes! Something like this: (hope this works, don't know if I can post links)

http://www.thousandeggs.com/216.jpg

I have a lantern shield wielding Cavalier. The way I treat it is this: exotic weapon proficiency, light steel shield, sword breaker gauntlet (instead of sword breaker dagger), plus short sword, plus +2 to bluff checks to feint in combat.