Valtrim's page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

- Valtrim

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

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

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

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

Other than bigger spells, what exactly is missing?

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

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

- Valtrim

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

- Valtrim

I'll sum up my points before launching into my wall of text:

1) Attack and save bonuses don't have to increase past 20th level to make play beyond 20th level interesting. Levels beyond 20 can instead grant abilities that are greater in scope and consequence than those gained pre-20.

2) Epic-level play in 3rd was, in part, about breaking the rules: getting saves against spells that don't allow them, affecting undead with mind-affecting spells, etc.

3) Even if some numbers shouldn't increase beyond 20th, the scope of what PCs can do and affect *should*.

4) If NPCs are capable of doing something in your fantasy world, PCs should, given enough time and effort, be able to do the same.

5) Play above 20th level is fun and should be supported by rules in Pathfinder.

First, I agree that the 3.0 ELH had math problems as levels increased, though the same problems (particularly attack bonus rapidly outpacing armor class) existed pre-epic, as well. This said, there were options presented in the book that I've yet to see supported by rules in Pathfinder. Yes, all of what I'm about to describe can be house-ruled or whatever you like, but I don't need a game system at all to support doing what I please.

I played a wizard to 34th level in the Forgotten Realms, the only published setting that came close to supporting play at such high levels. While being able to cast a Quickened Disintegrate (among others) is mildly entertaining, what I really enjoyed about epic-level play was the *scope* of it. Epic Spellcasting allowed my character to perform feats of magic at extravagant cost, in money, time, and/or xp that simply can't be duplicated by 9th-level spells. Yes, you can write up a spell description and research it, but casting a spell that, for example, sends a 30-second-long mental message to every sentient being within 2,000 miles even if it's immune to mind-affecting spells is going to fall outside the scope of the normal spell progression and no sane DM is going to allow it as a 9th-level spell.

Another part of what was fun about epic-level play was that, unlike previous editions of D&D, there were rules for doing the sorts of things previously reserved for boxed text and NPCs: in the Forgotten Realms, this included crafting mythals. Those rules weren't perfect, but they were balanced enough that I played with them in a campaign for over 5 years with few significant complaints.

Beyond math, the real problem that epic-level play posed was that, as I hinted above, spellcasters had options that were far more interesting and effective than those available to martial characters. Pathfinder has done an outstanding job of making martial characters more interesting from levels 1-20 than in 3rd and I'm confident that ways can be found to do so at levels above 20, as well.

I skimmed the Mythic Adventures playtest rules and, while they look interesting, I'd prefer something that allows the same sort of modularity that 3rd had. Actually, that's a gripe I have with Pathfinder in general, at times, since it seems to prefer kits to alternate classes/prestige classes (or, in this case, forcing a character to choose only one mythic path rather than allowing "multipathing"). Also, I don't necessarily *want* a character that's more powerful than a 20th-level PC to have the equivalent of a template added to him; I want to be able to make a normal 1st-level character and then progress him normally beyond 20th with the exception of attack/save progression (and perhaps other things I'm forgetting).

To anyone who read all of that, and to the designers of the game, thank you, and please seriously consider supporting level 20+ play in the official rules.

- Valtrim