Dear Paizo,
We the posters of this thread respectfully request that you include epic material (levels 21+) in your Pathfinder RPG revision of 3.5. Thank you very much! :)
I understand it's not in the cards early on, but if you've a mind to explore putting out epic material, I've a mind to buy it.
Since so many people say epic level play gets too complicated to be any fun, perhaps we're talking about a future magazine here, so epic material won't take page count away from the level 1-20 adventures they prefer to subscribe to.
Pathfinder Epica.
Wizards did an extremely sloppy job with the Epic Level Handbook. It contained great ideas, but desperately needed a revision from the moment they published it. Obviously that will never happen now. Our only hope lies in persuading Paizo to do the job for them.
I would love to see Paizo's take on epic level rules. However, I completely understand that for the time being, the focus should be on levels 1-20. But maybe sometime down the line...
I would love to see Paizo's take on epic level rules. However, I completely understand that for the time being, the focus should be on levels 1-20. But maybe sometime down the line...
Since the characters in my campaign have already reached epic levels (21st-22nd) the sooner the better for me. In fact without epic material I don't really see how I could convert to Pathfinder.
There was quite a lively discussion going on in the other thread. The response from Jason Bulmahn was thus:
Hi there everybody,
I like some of the concepts behind epic play as well, but for the current endeavor, I think I am going to be focusing on 1-20, which is more than enough to chew on for now. If this is as big a success as it is shaping up to be, epic play might end up on the future schedule.
Peace,
tfad
I would love to see Paizo's take on epic level rules. However, I completely understand that for the time being, the focus should be on levels 1-20. But maybe sometime down the line...Since the characters in my campaign have already reached epic levels (21st-22nd) the sooner the better for me. In fact without epic material I don't really see how I could convert to Pathfinder.
Check out my ELH. If you like it (or even if you don't), post a comment on my thread in the 3rd edition forum.
TS
There was quite a lively discussion going on in the other thread. The response from Jason Bulmahn was thus:
Hi there everybody,
I like some of the concepts behind epic play as well, but for the current endeavor, I think I am going to be focusing on 1-20, which is more than enough to chew on for now. If this is as big a success as it is shaping up to be, epic play might end up on the future schedule.
Peace,
tfad
Thanks for the link. I've posted there as well. Let's keep drumming up support for epic material--the more we do, the more likely he is to take a look at it sooner. :)
I would love to see Paizo's take on epic level rules. However, I completely understand that for the time being, the focus should be on levels 1-20. But maybe sometime down the line...Since the characters in my campaign have already reached epic levels (21st-22nd) the sooner the better for me. In fact without epic material I don't really see how I could convert to Pathfinder.Check out my ELH. If you like it (or even if you don't), post a comment on my thread in the 3rd edition forum.
TS
Thanks! I've downloaded it and am perusing it now. It certainly is pretty! :)
Just wanted to point out while we're in the earliest days here that one of the wonkiest things about 3E epic came about from "leaving it for later" -- that being the x10 cost multiplier on magic items above +5/+6 enhancement. I hate that. It would be great to have a magic item system from the start in which the potential power of any item caps out at the same cost (say, 200k if you're staying close to 3E pricing), so that additional power at epic levels is a smooth progression, but still generally unavailable pre-epic. Now, some things don't need to fit this system -- scrolls and wands and potions cap out by spell level -- but why not standardize the rest? By the pricing formulas, each plus in a weapon is twice as valuable as a plus in a suit of armor, so why put the total plus cap in the same place? If my character wants to be about defense, why can't he put just as much power/cost into his armor as someone else could put in his sword? Is it just about the sacred cow of "+5" being the best? I haven't studied this closely and don't know if I'm missing something basic. The only thing that jumps out at me as completely unaligned with this approach are the super-cheap items giving a competence skill bonus, which would give a +77 (wrong) bonus if you let them continue up to 200k. My thought there is just to raise their per-plus cost a bit. But hey, if we're willing to slaughter the "wizards get d4 HD" cow, why not the "+5 armor is as good as it gets" cow?
Other random epic thoughts: I'd cap it at 30th level rather than leave it completely open-ended, and say anything beyond 30th is really some sort of demigod. But at the same time, I think I'd make the power curve at epic levels a bit steeper. I'd continue the normal BAB and save progressions -- I don't think by 30th level the disparities present a terrible problem, and the Tweedledee/Tweedledum different BAB by class order just isn't right to my D&D heart. I'd drop "Improved Spell Capacity" and just continue normal spell progressions, adding 10th, 11th, and 12th level slots, with accompanying spells (and some metamagic feats with bigger adjustments to make additional use of these slots - say a +9 feat to use the spell at-will as a spell-like ability for the day, or a +7 to change a touch spell to a ranged spread), and 7th and 8th level spell slots and spells for bards, etc. for rangers and paladins. And it hurts me a little to say it, but I'd drop Epic Spellcasting. I like the spirit of it, but the existing system is broken and it would be a bear to fix. It really belongs in a game system where all spells are devised that way. In fact, I'd do away with the "epic feat" category entirely, and just add new feats that have such long trees for qualification or high BAB/save/ability/whatever requirements that they'd only be taken by epic characters or powerful monsters (more the former restrictions than the latter). To mix things up a little from plain old extrapolated advancement forever, I might encourage epic characters to broaden themselves a bit by allowing them to take one level in a class (a class which they already have some levels in, but less than half their total character level) and gain the benefit of two class levels for the purposes of everything except BAB and saves, which don't progress at all. To the steeper power curve, I might give a +1 ability bonus every other level and a feat every level (or maybe double the pre-epic feat/special ability frequency).
I think epic would be great down the road...but for now let's make the Pathfinder RPG a success so there can BE a down the road. :)
But include at least a side bar for psionics in the RPG. ;-)
Yeah you have my vote!
I have a campaign (currently on hold for Pathfinder) that has been in epic play for over 4 years - current levels range from 25 to 31. So I'd dearly love better epic support.
Better is the key word of course. Thanks for listening Jason.
I have a campaign (currently on hold for Pathfinder) that has been in epic play for over 4 years - current levels range from 25 to 31. So I'd dearly love better epic support.
Better is the key word of course. Thanks for listening Jason.
I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one running an epic campaign--and not the only one running an epic campaign who's sticking with 3.5 (or perhaps I should just say 3rd Ed, since it might be 3.5 or 3.75). :)
Just wanted to point out while we're in the earliest days here that one of the wonkiest things about 3E epic came about from "leaving it for later" -- that being the x10 cost multiplier on magic items above +5/+6 enhancement. I hate that. It would be great to have a magic item system from the start in which the potential power of any item caps out at the same cost (say, 200k if you're staying close to 3E pricing), so that additional power at epic levels is a smooth progression, but still generally unavailable pre-epic.
You should really check out my ELH that I linked to above; a lot of the things you don't like about epic play I don't either and have fixed. The epic cost multiplier, for example, I started at x2 for items which I expect to be available to 21st level characters and added multiples as items get better. No item "capping" though; my design philosophy is that PCs depend on items to get the bonuses they need to survive, so arbitrarily capping items at a certain cost will gimp them at some point.
Other random epic thoughts: I'd cap it at 30th level rather than leave it completely open-ended, and say anything beyond 30th is really some sort of demigod.
I didn't cap levels, because I think that's a huge draw for most gamers interested in epic play, but I did present a "Path to Divinity" variant. Using that variant, PCs become demigods upon hitting level 21 and gain a Divine Power at each odd level.
I also continued normal spell progressions for all classes and dealt with BAB a little differently than WotC. Anyway, I could go on for a while but I think you'll find my take on epic play different at least.
TS
I would absolutely like to see epic content for the Pathfinder RPG. However for the first book they should focus on levels 1-20 and especially work on balancing high level play. Then they can build on that foundation.
Just wanted to point out while we're in the earliest days here that one of the wonkiest things about 3E epic came about from "leaving it for later" -- that being the x10 cost multiplier on magic items above +5/+6 enhancement. I hate that. It would be great to have a magic item system from the start in which the potential power of any item caps out at the same cost (say, 200k if you're staying close to 3E pricing), so that additional power at epic levels is a smooth progression, but still generally unavailable pre-epic.You should really check out my ELH that I linked to above; a lot of the things you don't like about epic play I don't either and have fixed. The epic cost multiplier, for example, I started at x2 for items which I expect to be available to 21st level characters and added multiples as items get better. No item "capping" though; my design philosophy is that PCs depend on items to get the bonuses they need to survive, so arbitrarily capping items at a certain cost will gimp them at some point.
Other random epic thoughts: I'd cap it at 30th level rather than leave it completely open-ended, and say anything beyond 30th is really some sort of demigod.I didn't cap levels, because I think that's a huge draw for most gamers interested in epic play, but I did present a "Path to Divinity" variant. Using that variant, PCs become demigods upon hitting level 21 and gain a Divine Power at each odd level.
I also continued normal spell progressions for all classes and dealt with BAB a little differently than WotC. Anyway, I could go on for a while but I think you'll find my take on epic play different at least.
TS
I read through it and found it quite interesting. I don't really see any need to double the rate of acquiring epic attack bonus, especially since AC just doesn't increase remotely as fast. I would scrap the confusingly-written rule about choosing the better non-epic attack and save bonuses when you take non-epic class levels at epic levels; let a character stick with his choices from levels 1-20 as he or she does now.
I don't understand the purpose of the continued advancement of spell slots. You don't have spells of levels above 9th (for clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards) or 4th (for paladins and rangers) or 6th (for bards), do you? Are the additional slots just there to allow additional uses per day of lower level spells, or versions bumped up with metamagic feats? With all those levels virtually everyone is going to want to take metamagic feats to optimize, and I'd rather not see rules that push everyone in one direction like that.
I like the current system of divine rank separating deities from even powerful non-deities, so although your path to divinity abilities look good, I wouldn't use them. I have a 10-level epic prestige class that allows a character to slowly become a quasi-deity (rank 0), although the prerequisites are difficult to meet and nobody has expressed any interest yet in trying to take it, which is fine by me. :-) Hee hee! I just realized that I haven't even put it on my list of prestige classes that I give to new players. :-D
Anyway I agree with those who say that one of the problems with the epic material comes from the way that Wizard added it on as an afterthought instead of integrating it into the system. For that very reason Wizards has included epic levels (21-30) in their 4e. In fact I suspect that they did so in part to lure players like me to the new system, and if Paizo wants to compete it should integrate epic material too. I would keep it open-ended, with no maximum level, as under the current system, to allow campaigns like my to run indefinitely. I've been running it for five and a half years, and I'd like to be able to keep running it after eleven years. :-)
I read through it and found it quite interesting. I don't really see any need to double the rate of acquiring epic attack bonus, especially since AC just doesn't increase remotely as fast. I would scrap the confusingly-written rule about choosing the better non-epic attack and save...
I just replied to you here.
When it comes to Epic play, you have to look at what really went wrong:
It looks to me like Wizards did really sloppy playtesting on high level group play anyway. Everything above 13th really started to show strain. Once it hit Epic, it just utterly crashed. A lot of people blamed it on there not being any adventures for characters above 20th level, but that was a weak excuse, as both NWN1 and NWN2 proved with epic level play.
If Paizo intends on doing Epic level play at a later date, then serious playtesting needs to be done at the near Epic levels, to see what starts breaking down and what stays steady and and solid.
We all know that the AC VS BAB breaks down pretty badly, but what else has people run into problems with? Number of attacks per round? Saves VS Threats? Hit Points? Spells per day?
Epic play can be a blast, but the biggest thing I've seen is that the campaign setting MUST support Epic play. The Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk both broke down in Epic play according to people. The setting as a whole couldn't support it to most people's minds, and even NWN has to move into taking on Gods and major demons.
When Asmodeous himself is only a mid-20's CR creature, what is left for the 30th level Paladin, much less if he has his friends with him.
So where does near-epic and epic play break down?
Cast my vote for "don't waste your time with epic rules, especially in the core book". High level is where this game breaks down, if the point is to be able to play the existing system, it makes sense to focus on the levels that the game has traditionally focused on (and for that matter that the Pathfinder Adventure Paths are focusing on).
I have no problems with seperate epic rules, but I would really much preffer to not have them in the basic book. Apparently, most people dislike the sheer amount of classes, races, and feats, so I strongly advice on putting more optional material in the basic book.
Creative Director
|
When Asmodeous himself is only a mid-20's CR creature, what is left for the 30th level Paladin, much less if he has his friends with him.
Well... one thing I think I can guarentee is that Asmodeus himself won't be a mid-20's CR creature. He's a god, and I'm pretty sure we won't be statting up gods any time soon even if we DO an epic something or other.
NOTE: Demigods, on the other hand, are fair game for stats. They'll be CR'd at 30 or above, though. None of the 20 deities in our pantheon are demigods.
I would absolutely like to see epic content for the Pathfinder RPG. However for the first book they should focus on levels 1-20 and especially work on balancing high level play. Then they can build on that foundation.
This would get my vote, for what it's worth. If the PRPG can smooth out the problems most of us will acknowledge creep in at levels 15-20 (arbitrary example), it would open the door for a stand-alone supplement for epic-level play. That way, the minority who like it--and I'm in this group--can have it, and those who don't, won't complain b/c it's taking up page space in the core book.
|
I would absolutely like to see epic content for the Pathfinder RPG. However for the first book they should focus on levels 1-20 and especially work on balancing high level play. Then they can build on that foundation.This would get my vote, for what it's worth. If the PRPG can smooth out the problems most of us will acknowledge creep in at levels 15-20 (arbitrary example), it would open the door for a stand-alone supplement for epic-level play. That way, the minority who like it--and I'm in this group--can have it, and those who don't, won't complain b/c it's taking up page space in the core book.
JB's already hinted (or flat out stated) that this is the way they would go if the core book sells as well as they hope. He then seemed to indicate that so far he (at least) is pleased with the response PRPG has gotten.
So for the epic lovers, we have a chance at epic Golarion.
Excited,
FP