|
The current Epic Level rules are a mess.
The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.
So if Paizo does an "Epic Level" book, it will probably be a complete re-do. With that in mind, I'm very curious to hear what people think about the idea of play beyond level 20.
What are you looking for conceptually?
What are you looking for mechanically?
If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?
Any deal breakers?
I'm going to take a particular approach with my response and somewhat break the problem down into sections since there are parts that work and parts that don't.
Conceptually some basic info on ideas of HOW to run an epic level game with a particular (rule the world, travel the planes or what have you) approach would be some what useful but there is a catch: a fair amount of such material would need to be fairly bare bones since each table will be deciding on the associated meat and the game designers just can't anticipate every possible permutation of game out there. So there have been great ideas for epic campaigns proposed here but they will depend as much on each groups individual choices as anything from a rulebook.
As far as the math issue goes its a curse of high level play: the higher you get the more elements you need to deal with be it class features, feats, spells, magic items or special attacks.
Mechanically, most of the present skill uses and feats seem fine (potentially some of the feats could even be moved to high level pre-epic but that is a separate discussion). As far as spells go keep the existing end effects of the epic spells just change the exact mechanics to get there to more resemble pre-epic casting. Magic items could use a streamlining on the pricing and maybe move some to the high pre-epic field but otherwise they are okay. The whole "epic is something totally distinct" idea is an interesting one but it could be a pain to make work. For classes reinstate the pre-epic save and attack bonus progressions AND then test the heck out of it to make sure that there is still a reasonable ability for different classes to survive challenges to such progressions (if you hit a party with an attack that relies on a particular saving throw some classes the save will be a PoC and for others it could take a miracle not to get killed).
Trying it out before final release (Alpha and Beta style playtests) would work nicely to dispel skepticism.
Dealbreakers no
By level 20, DnD 3.X characters that actually survived this long on their own virtues are stronger than just about every fantasy character who wasn't a god (and than many who were); stronger than the Exalted; stronger that any non cosmic-level superhero. They can crush demon hordes and conquer kingdoms for sport. Actual gods and other similar characters are the only opponents worthy of them. As about the Epic Levels Handbook... you can throw stars around with epic magic from there (never mind auto-owning anyone who is not a better epic spellcaster than you). Which would have been pretty fun, if not for the clunky and broken rules. I guess, I want to say, that DnD doesn't need more mechanical goodness for levels 20+. Because we already have plenty of crazy stuff. What it does need, is the settings (and basic rulebooks, too) that actually recognize the fact that, yes, characters of levels 13+ are high-profile superheroes, capable of truly miraculous stuff.
|
|
The current Epic Level rules are a mess.
Yep, like an Atom bomb to good storytelling.
The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.
Now that is a good pitch!
So if Paizo does an "Epic Level" book, it will probably be a complete re-do. With that in mind, I'm very curious to hear what people think about the idea of play beyond level 20.
I feel the system should be made easy enough to play for both novices and experts. The system shouldn't carry "the baggage" of the previous system (Pathfinder RPG). The system cannot bog down on multi rule debates that would clearly overwhelm a novice DM. Epic character creation should take the sametime to make as a 1st level character (without a computer). The story must come first and the pacing must "keep up" with all previous works by Paizo.
What are you looking for conceptually?I feel epic adventures should rival any greek mythology such as the Odyssey or Iliand. If you are an Epic Character, than you are at least a pop star among your peers, if not the world populous. There should be a lot of influences that would form around the individual PC. Fighters become kings of kingdoms with armies. Wizard's aquire greater secrets and knowledge as well as apprentices (ala Mickey Mouse). IMO, Epic should be the stuff of star constellations and great myths. Epic should rock Galorian in major ways. There should be no end to how epic adventures can ruin or change the world.
What are you looking for mechanically?
For sure, I don't want an extension of "more the same, but harder to manage". The game must have a point where a character can take an Epic Class and shed the complexity that the previous levels have built up. I would convert the entire PRPG system into a simplified Epic PRPG system. For instance, you would have 3 progressive regular feats traded off for one super feat. You could say that you have to dumb the game back down again so you have the incentives and enjoyment to build it back up. I might also add that taking an Epic Level Class early should somehow reward a character in future Epic Levels. Epic Level Classes should look appealing at a time when the game is reaching it's "point of limited returns via complexity". And at that point, it would be nice if the reward was making the game interesting, but also manageable. Epic Level play should be in the spirit of epics in literature and not in the realm of gaming experts that talk more about the rules than the actual play.
If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?
Hell yes I am skeptical. I am very skeptical. It seems everyone wants to keep what took so long to earn. The only problem with keeping it is that the game ends. Who wants to deal with that kind of complexity in a casual gaming night? Certainly not me, the GM. I see nothing "Epic" in that. I see no "story" in that. I also see a very small target audience. If this change isn't radical, I want nothing to do with it.
Any deal breakers?
The deal breaker is having anyone who remotley likes the Epic Level Handbook or any designer related to it have a say in this. Those are a tiny group that are out of their depth as to what everyday people enjoy. I have a name for them. They are, the Napoleon Dynamites.
On a side note, I really think this project would steer the Paizo ship deep into uncharted waters. To create an entirely new Epic system from scratch will be a major undertaking. I do not question that Paizo has the ability to pull this off, but this is something that will truly change the game. You guys are playing with Plutonium now. This is a very defining moment for Paizo. If Epic is playable by the masses, then perhaps everyone will want to see what it is like....to play God. And if they do....
Cheers,
Zux
Why not freeze regular character progressions...
- No additions to BAB or fortitude, will, reflex, etc. to cut down on some math.
- Instead, have characters choose from spheres of epic feats.
- Each feat allows the character to do something "game breaking" equivalent to a lower level spell or some current OGL epic level spell. (Similar in a sense to the 4E powers).Through parceling out such benefits, the players can advance characters in meaningful ways. Players choose what benefits they receive.
Little is lost by eliminating extra mathematics that don't allow for player-choice. Choice is fun, adding numbers is not (and is often done incorrectly.)
This also makes creating monsters less of a mathematical headache. Create some rotateable feats for epic monsters (mind control, stop time, etc.) and value each at a level of 1-10, then GMs can mix-match.
---
Another idea: Players earn "epic points" instead of experience points. Each time they do something "epic" they gain a "power point" to invest in epic powers/feats. This rewards GMs and Players who imagine an Epic scope to a game and encourages "exalted-like" actions.
All things considered, this is exactly what I *DO NOT* want to see.
I don't think "epic" must mean "OK, learn an entirely new character advancement system now" at all. I would much prefer to stick with the game mecahnics that got us here. We've spent 20 levels following a certain set of mechanics. We know what to do when we level up. Let's keep doing that, but with more of an epic feel (as I've already posted).
Example -->
Gandalf the Grey fights the Balrog.
He's gone for eras, epochs, ages, eons, whatever, it's long enough to forget what people called him.
He returns as Gandalf the White but for everyone else on Middle Earth, its only been a few weeks.Leaves a 20th level wizard. Returns Epic. Small wonder the kings of the world haven't kept pace. And once you go to the planes, its easy enough to monkey with different time rates.
[Off Topic]
Gandalf a level 20 wizard? Really? What does he do?
Continual Light
Daylight
Ventriloquism
Presidigitation
He doesn't scribe scrolls or brew potions. And some of the stuff he does might be powers of his staff, especially the stuff related to light/daylight.
He does seem able to whip up some alchemical concoctions, like fireworks.
His staff is fairly powerful. It seems unbreakable, and it can at least unleash some telekinetic abilities. But he seems relatively helpless in a fight without it (at least against other mages).
On the other hand, Gandalf is pretty brutal with his sword, hacking down goblins and orcs left and right. And he fights the balrog, mainly using his sword. Sure, it's Glamdring, "Foe Hammer", and nothing is ever said about how powerful this sword is, but it is named as an ancient sword of the kings of Gondolin, so perhaps it might even be artifact quality.
So I see Gandalf as a high-level fighter, though not so high as Gimli, and a very low-level mage, wielding an artifact sword and a powerful staff.
[/Off Topic]
|
Apologies if this has already been said; I haven't read through the entire thread.
I think the d20 system (conceptually and as it's implemented in 3.5 and Pathfinder) is effectively incapable of handling Epic levels. The core mechanic, roll a d20, is pointless when the static roll modifiers are +25 similar high numbers. The dice don't matter anymore. Too many things become automatic or virtually impossible.
If Paizo tries Epic levels, I'd like to see what they put together, in any event.
-Skeld
[Off Topic]
Gandalf a level 20 wizard? Really? What does he do?
Continual Light
Daylight
Ventriloquism
Presidigitation
Hence the article from Dragon (March 1977): "Gandalf was only a Fifth Level Magic-user"
And that's where the idea for "E6" came from (a variant of D&D that caps out at level 6 instead of level 20).
I think the d20 system (conceptually and as it's implemented in 3.5 and Pathfinder) is effectively incapable of handling Epic levels. The core mechanic, roll a d20, is pointless when the static roll modifiers are +25 similar high numbers. The dice don't matter anymore. Too many things become automatic or virtually impossible.
I was just about to put together a much longer post to basically say this.
Though the problem isn't the +25. The DC can just climb higher too. (I consider that a problem on its own though: Leveling up shouldn't be the same thing with bigger numbers.)
The problem is when one member of the party has a +40 and another has a +15. Whatever DC you pick will be auto-succeed or auto-fail to one of them. Which changes the game essentially into rock-sissors-paper. (At epic levels, a fighter will always pass a fort save and the wizard will always fail.) The only solution is to either use larger dice, or vary the DC based on who is rolling (which starts to resemble the previous paragraph).
|
|
The only solution is to either use larger dice, or vary the DC based on who is rolling (which starts to resemble the previous paragraph).
Another solution would be to use a multiple d20 system. For the first 10 levels, you use a single d20 to resolve the core mechanic. For levels 11-20, you use 2d20. d320 for levels 21-20, and so on. The advantage is that you don't "wash out" your dice and that you can use can continue to use the same leveling mechanics. Of course, the central limit theorem of statistics means that the more d20's you add, the more normal your distribution will become and hitting those high AC's will get increasingly harder.
-Skeld
[Off Topic]
Gandalf a level 20 wizard? Really? What does he do?
Continual Light
Daylight
Ventriloquism
PresidigitationHence the article from Dragon (March 1977): "Gandalf was only a Fifth Level Magic-user"
And that's where the idea for "E6" came from (a variant of D&D that caps out at level 6 instead of level 20).
Yeah. It is really, really sad, that after thirty freaking years developers still adamantly refuse to get a clue about what exactly DnD heroes are capable of and what DnD magic does to the world. Or turn the system into 4E when they get it.
BTW, Gandalf wasn't a high-level fighter, too. High-level DnD fighters fight more dangerous stuff, than moderately big flaming brutes.
I think the d20 system (conceptually and as it's implemented in 3.5 and Pathfinder) is effectively incapable of handling Epic levels. The core mechanic, roll a d20, is pointless when the static roll modifiers are +25 similar high numbers. The dice don't matter anymore. Too many things become automatic or virtually impossible.
I was just about to put together a much longer post to basically say this.
Though the problem isn't the +25. The DC can just climb higher too. (I consider that a problem on its own though: Leveling up shouldn't be the same thing with bigger numbers.)
The problem is when one member of the party has a +40 and another has a +15. Whatever DC you pick will be auto-succeed or auto-fail to one of them. Which changes the game essentially into rock-sissors-paper. (At epic levels, a fighter will always pass a fort save and the wizard will always fail.) The only solution is to either use larger dice, or vary the DC based on who is rolling (which starts to resemble the previous paragraph).
To Ross or Skeld:
Is that such a bad thing?
I don't mind if my 1st level fighter is rolling a d20+5 to hit AC 15 foes, and my 25th level fighter is rolling d20+40 to hit AC 50 foes.
True, that means that what Ross said might be true sometimes, "Leveling up shouldn't be the same thing with bigger numbers", but how you handle those foes won't be the same. 1st level fighters don't gate into the depths of the abyss, summon in a quartet of colossal gold dragons, and begin whaling on demon princes with flashy artifacts.
That kind of feel will be epic, no matter how the numbers are handled.
I am also OK with "epic" characters automatically succeeding at mundane stuff. One of the DMs in our group of DMs here sees nothing wrong with a level 1 rogue needing a DC 15 to climb a castle wall, but when we're 15th level, castle walls seem to mysteriously have much better stonework and the climb DC is approaching 30. At level 1, overhearing a whispered conversation in a tavern is DC 15, at level 10, ovrhearing a whispered conversation in the same tavern is DC 25.
I don't believe that DM really understands what going up levels means. Our high-level characters should feel like we've accomplished something by gaining levels. We should feel more powerful. There should be some things that we once thought were difficult that now are trivial.
So what if we can automatcally climb the castle wall at level 15? By the time we're level 15, walls are not the obstacle they once were. Or at least they shouldn't be. By the time we're high-level, the challenge shouldn't be about whether we can get over, under, through, around, or simply behind the castle wall. By then, it should be about what we do inside that castle.
As for wildly disparate skill or combat modifiers, such as when one person is +40 and one is +15, that's not a problem either, really.
In my group, one person, a wizard, can cast fireball. Nobody else can do that. In that same group, one person, the fighter, can consistently hit ACs in the upper 20s, but another person, the wizard, cannot. In the same group, one person, a rogue, can scale most walls very easily. Nobody else is any good at the climb skill.
These are all examples of where one character can do things that the rest of the group cannot.
Even so, by epic levels, I bet our wizard will have some ranks in climb, and might be able to scale a castle wall without using magic or needing the rogue to go first and lower down a rope. The rogue, however, will run up the wall at 2x his normal movement rate and sit at the top, reading a book in the shadows, while he waits for everyone else.
I don't see that as a bad thing.
Let the PCs grow. Let them become "epic". Let the ones who specilized in somee abilities become masters of those abilities. Let the generalists who ignored some abilities still struggle with mundane challenges or find another way to deal with them (Spider Climb scrolls).
As for using monsters with 50 AC that the +40 fighter can hit and the +15 mage cannot hit, I would hope the mage has alternatives beyond swinging his sword at these monsters. He doesn't train for combat, why should he think that his meager, sub-epic untrained average combat skills should hold up to defeating epic encounters through melee alone? Besides, that same monster, I bet the +40 fighter cannot easily drop a Time Stop and summon in some colossal dragons to do his fighting for him.
Every character gets to shine. And every character gets to be ordinary.
Heck, in that regard, I like epic levels more than low levels. When a wizard can pick up a crossbow and plunk the bad guys almost as accurately as the fighter can, something seems wrong. But when he leaves his crossbow home because he knows that he has spent his whole life in books and study and the won't be fighting anything he can hit with a crossbow, that feels more like class optimization to me.
Compared a fighter and a wizard
I hope that you don't think my quote is sarcastic, it's just that your post was long enough that the reply function cut off the relevant parts.
My problem isn't the +40 vs. +15 attack. A wizard not being able to hit a tarrasque without a touch attack is fine with me. (A monster's full AC is not relevant to a wizard, so the fact that the dice are meaningless to a wizard is also irrelevant. Equally, a touch AC is meaningless to a fighter, so we can simply have numbers for both classes.) On the other hand, a rogue still counts on being able to hit, and his 3/4 progression will start to fall short too.
My problem is as it applies to saves. At lower levels, it's possible to pick a DC that the fighter will pass, say, 75% of the time and the wizard will pass 25% of the time. For instance, the DC is 20, the fighter has a +15 Fort save, and the Wizard has a +5. This gets across "Fighters are tougher than Wizards" without being unfair.
However, if the fighter has +40 and the wizard has +15, then any possible DC will either be auto-fail for the wizard (except on a 20) or auto-success for the fighter (except on a 1). If the DC is 35-41, then it's both.
All of a sudden, the game just becomes a matter of targeting things against their weak saves, because the die roll is irrelevant. This happens as soon as the gaps between classes hits 20. A save stops being a save and starts being 'this category of effects hits you.'
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Compared a fighter and a wizardAll of a sudden, the game just becomes a matter of targeting things against their weak saves, because the die roll is irrelevant. This happens as soon as the gaps between classes hits 20. A save stops being a save and starts being 'this category of effects hits you.'
I agree whole heartedly with this, which is why I think an Epic level game needs new rules, not just levelled up old ones. Or maybe Pathfinder should publish rules to level 25 and stop. Playing demigods and immortals is another ballgame and rules should reflect this. Once you start giving stats to gods, they change from "Powerful and Mysterious" and start becoming attackable and killable. I think level 25 is a perfectly good place to stop: it gives you five cushion levels beyond the core and yet limits the amount of insane magic you can throw about. Enough to kill the Tarrasque, but not enough to doom the world.
|
|
What are you looking for conceptually?Level 20+ has to happen on other planes. The Material Plane simply can't handle a bunch of level 20s duking it out, and no amount of fluff can handle that. No point in life when a lvl 20 is breathing down your neck.
I look for a good integration of epic level characters not interfering too much with "normal" characters.
What about using some fluff to reach this goal:
Characters who successfully pass the Stare Stone Test reach godhood - and epic levels.
The only problem: Only four NSCs so far managed to do so - introducing epic rules could lead to inflationary successes at the starstone.
Nevertheless I like this idea from a fluff perspective.
EDIT: Characters passing the Star Stone Test turn divine. And these divine beings face in their new home (the Outer Planes) different challenges... That way non-epic and epic characters wouldn't interfere too much. Or did you here about any Ascended returning to Golarion? ;-)
Anyone has an idea how to yarn this idea? Rules supporting this idea?
Cheers,
Günther
I think level 25 is a perfectly good place to stop: it gives you five cushion levels beyond the core and yet limits the amount of insane magic you can throw about. Enough to kill the Tarrasque, but not enough to doom the world.
This.
A 'patch' to let people continue levelling up at the end of an AP (AoW and Savage tide both could easily end epic) without feeling robbed that they hit the wall, and allow them to take down the CR 25 BBEG more easily is fine.
'Limitless adventuring' isn't.
The existence of the Capstone abilities in the PFRPG strong backs the argument that level 20 is the peak of mortal ability in a given skill.
If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?
I'd fall into the "extremely skeptical" group.
For me, so-called "epic" roleplaying breaks down specifically because it feels like the characters are just doing things on a HUGE GRAND SCALE and not really experiencing any of the personal drama that comes at the levels less than 10.
I love big over-arching storylines, but I'd love to see some realness to epic play.
For example, if epic play is just fighting a gaggle of CR 20 monsters because that's the only monster that's any challenge, I think that's kind of boring.
If epic play is about achieving god-hood and the perils of breaking into divine arenas, that could be interesting.
The real problem I see is that in most campaign settings, most people you meet don't exceed level 10, even in retirement. For the characters to feel the struggle/conflict/drama, they have to feel that they're small fish in a big pond.
The "bigger" fish PCs interact with are most setting are going to be outsiders.
I can't speak for Pathfinder Chronicles but I have played under a DM who designed his campaign setting around the idea of Epic level characters. It was very scary, and getting to the higher levels didn't make anything more certain. It actually tipped the scales over a bit. Minor success was often effortlessly with no big benefit to us. Failure was basically guaranteed fatal.
Current Epic rules basically says you will always be the smallest fish in the pond... its just the pond was much bigger then you thought at first and the fish can get quite monstrous.
Ross, how are you generating your numbers for comparison?
|
How about something totally crazy…
When the party goes epic, it would have to be an “era” changing event. A zeitgeist.
The players have a final crisis and they have 5 sessions to remake the world or continent and solve some world ending epic story. Mechanically it might be kind of like that 3.0 gods book.
Whenever there is a major conflict, crisis, … event… that location’s name would change to … “Cormac’s Lament” or “Icarus Falls” or... something…
In the next campaign take up that new map and go…
That really sounds fun to me and …
it sounds …
EPIC!
Ross, how are you generating your numbers for comparison?
Nothing specific at the moment, because the basis of my argument is that once modifiers get further apart than the die size the modifiers themselves become meaningless for one of the persons involved. In my earlier example, I pulled the +5 vs. +15 and +15 and +40 numbers out of air. The importance isn't the exact bonus, the point is the gap between them. Since a fighter's Fort save and BaB increase faster than a Wizard's (especially once gear and base stats are added in), that size of gap will happen eventually.
I'd rather look at the actual numbers to find the real breaking point. That's where the solution is going to be most visible. As a base line lets switch and look at a Wizards Will vs a Fighters. Neither class has an incentive to place stat increases into it and any magical bonuses from gear are likely going to be even. And lets assume that we don't use the Epic save progressions which lock all single classed characters base saves at a difference of 6.
At 50th level its 27 to 16, and 11 point difference. It's not until 100th level+ that it'll grow past a 20 point difference. Now that's a base, not factoring gear or stat increases. At 20th level our difference is 6, do we agree this is the target for a base difference?
The remaining two points are a Cleric and Wizard on Will, and a Barbarian(most reason to max con) and Wizard on Fort. Lets make it extreme and assume 20s for Cleric and Barb, 10 for the Wizard. Looks like for the Cleric vs Wizard you see the stats beginning to pull away at 40th level for a 10 point difference (Cleric is Wis 30). The major mismatch Barb vs Wiz, its really fast 11th~12th level for a 10 point difference.
I'm not sure we can do much for most extreme but we can look at addressing the base and less drastic difference due to stats. Currently I'm seeing something like an Epic +2 every 10 levels after 20th added to your lowest two saves.
Again this is all assuming we ditch current Epic Save BAB progression, although that would be good to keep for classes (not characters) that pass 20th level, or 10 for some PrCs.
(I'm still very much in favor of Stacking class levels with the same save type to figure out the bonus instead of straight addition. A Barb 10/Fighter 10 should IMO have a Fort of 12 not 14.)
I haven't read all the posts, but I just downloaded the Pathfinder beta and I have to say I enjoy the changes to that. But as for going Epic with the rules I would definiately be interested to see some work done by Paizo. I liked the suggestion on it being a beta test model like the orginal core book. That way to avoid the headaches that was the previous Epic Handbook of 3.x.
My suggestion would be probably similiar to the idea presented from the Epic Handbook, but with some changes. Why not have Epic level be a cap for all classes and bonuses at 20? What I mean by this for example is everyone's save, attack bonuses, and the like are halted and increased at +1 across the board for all classes and just being the Epic Class all characters level into. That way it always stay 75% for the good saves and 25% for the poor saves. Granted stats with certain saves will increase or decrease the percentages somewhat over time, but I would not allow ability scores to be increased via feats. That I think was a poor idea from day one, and inspired too much drive to take them.
With the magic system I wouldn't mind there being higher than level 9 spells for casters with access to them. It makes since that there would be a 10th level slot and higher for casters as their Epic progression ability to their class (if they went fully wizard to 20th level for example).
I don't mind the idea of creating new spells, but the Epic rules for epic spells just gave me a headache a great deal of the time. However, I will say I never played more then once or twice that high (the campaigns I was involved in never really broke past 10th much less 20th) so I never got very good practice with the system. From what I could piece together though, spells would be either more powerful then their spellcraft DC to cast or way under powered in some respects from the examples in the book.
Perhaps what Epic spells should be is reinnovated spells from previous 9 levels or 'buffed up' spells would probably better explain what I'm saying. For example, Phantasmal Killer spell be Phantasmal Pack doing virtually the same thing just to more targets instead of just one person (again if the spell has been changed my apologies just got the Pathfinder download today :) ).
I don't know if that helped at all or not, but I just wanted to say as someone that just saw how great the system is so far I would definiately like to see what you could do with Epic level play.
on this topic all I can say is epic means a head ache.
The highest game lvl character I ever play was 16th lvl cleric deathknight of velsharoon. by the time me and my buddies were that lvl there was NOTHING we couldn't defeat.
Between the feats,skills,spells and everything else of that type of power lvl we were gods walking. I had become the head of velsharoon's church on the entire world. my buddies were the heads of their deities churches and we owned the planet. If you think about what a maximized,empowered,energy admixed apocalypse from the sky can do to an army then you can see how we could lay waste to army after army after nation. We generally shut down after 15th lvl or so now. If we ever want to hurl planets or fight gods we play marvel superheroes (SAGA Edition)and bet it out of our system then go back to role play.
sensible stuff I agree with about a playable system
Epic feel games already exist in the adventure paths. Characters who prevent the Prince of Demons destroying the world and kill him to boot- that is pretty damn epic
If you are trying to think of what to do with those characters who banished Kyuss or defeated Demogorgon etc I have to admit it would be fun to pull them out and dust them off. I would be perfectly happy to have a modified system that is d20, has the d&d feel but is very heavily modified to strip out the high level complexity. I would be happy with a pretty different game system-- though I do think this is taking on a lot.
I dont need to do 250hp damage a round against something that has 1300hp and regenerates 50/round. --That style of Epic kinda reminds me of when MtG came out then other games came out that instead of having 20 life you had 2000 and the attacks didnt do 1 or 2 they did 100 or 200. My 6 year old son told me the new game was better because the monsters were tougher... (The amp goes up to 11!). If this is epic I wont be playing it.
When I think Epic, I think level 11 and higher (RaW). The legend lore spell provides part of my support.
Reading over the numerous posts as the discussion pushes on, I'm seeing that many people don't view epic by necessarily higher level, but by the level of the adventure.
I mean the way people talk about its not so much infinite power but truly become a walking legend and nearing mythalogical in existence.
So really we're talking about Legendary play. Because Epic doesn't really cover it. The Epic of the game is the tale from the day the character set his first foot (level 1) on the path of adventure and heroism (or villiany) to the end their end, the finale.
What we're talking about is when the character reaches the limit as a mortal and pushes beyond that. Until the gods are weaving their imagine into the stars and the bards tell their tales for a thousand thousand years.
Its a bit late for me to muddle around with the idea that's kicking around in my head, but I'm going to give it a whirl in the morning for certain.
How I would interpret this mechanically is that 20th level is the upper limit of standard mortal characters. If a character advances to 21st level, then they have to select an epic prestige class that defines in which way they have broken through to a new level of consciousness. This could include bonding with an artifact, the demigod route, gaining insight into a new level of magical power, etc. After 21st level, they continue to develop powers associated with their chosen route and develop abilities beyond the standard set of powers 1-20th level characters can achieve. (BTW, if this has any resemblance to 4E epic destinies, I wouldn't know.)
Bolding is my emphasis.
I think the biggest problem with the ELH is the progression.
The 3.x was designed with the assumption that 20th level was the cap; so multiclassing as well as prestige classes, take this into account. Take a level of this class to grab that feature and you may never acquire this feature, spell slot, or whatever.
As an example (with all due respect0
Someone had suggested a Fighter 15/ Rogue 15 and Rogue 15/ Fighter 15 should have the same BAB? No. The 3.x system assumed you took the rogue class first to get the phat skillz, the sacrifice is to your final BAB, (and those characters should be Fighter 15/ Rogue 5 and Rogue 15/ Fighter 5).
At the WoTC they had a page for using Epic Destinies in 3.5e. I was going to do this if my new campaign got that high. I dont mind that the cap for Epic being 30th level.
At the WoTC they had a page for using Epic Destinies in 3.5e. I was going to do this if my new campaign got that high. I dont mind that the cap for Epic being 30th level.
I like these- havent seem them before and they seem to be interesting thematic abilites. the characters would feel they were becoming something more than just a more powerful wizard etc. That works for me.
have several thoughts
3.5 Epic to me is well...broken, to be nice
first epic feat I saw practically eliminated being hit by archers
would like seemless extended professions as others have mentioned
agree will a skill cap
NBA maximum average freethrow accuracy has been 75% for almost 60 years.
I can see Epic alluding to Elminster equivalent characters - eventually
Higher than that, I have to admit to being an old school believer in retiring the character as a minor demigod.
I can see clerics gaining additional domains in line with their chosen deity or splintering off to create a new religeon
Epic currently severely gimps multiclass characters
I don't agree with gaining one level below 20th level in another class as being worth 21st level.
gaining a quarter of the XP equivalent is more appropriate.
maybe should be similar to multiclass below Epic too, like half XP equivalent above 10th character level.
would like to see something I didn't notice proposed in the thread
An Awakening
Epic awakens the character, as if opening thier eyes to a new world that has been there the whole time.
Epic Monsters can only be seen or interacted with at Epic level, and are in the exact same world.
Thus, current modules have an Epic version with new suprises in store for adventurers.
Epic doors and rooms are unlocked to now being visible for instance
Hence Epic powers only effect the Epic realm and normal class features only effect the normal realm
Both needed to succeed the revised module.
Maybe the "Boss" is just a toy for the real problem when journey someplace thought cleared out and/or solved
Maybe +1 items are +5 Epic and +5 items are +1 Epic on a reverse scale
Maybe each level taken in Epic, reduces normal class level.
All those level 1 gobbos could be horrendous Epic 20's
Your suddenly both a level one newbie and level 20 hero
Something along those lines has many possibilities.
Can even apply to planar hopping, two ways of viewing the multiverse
|
On the other hand, Gandalf is pretty brutal with his sword, hacking down goblins and orcs left and right. And he fights the balrog, mainly using his sword. Sure, it's Glamdring, "Foe Hammer", and nothing is ever said about how powerful this sword is, but it is named as an ancient sword of the kings of Gondolin, so perhaps it might even be artifact quality.
So I see Gandalf as a high-level fighter, though not so high as Gimli, and a very low-level mage, wielding an artifact sword and a powerful staff.
[/Off Topic]
You forgot 'Narya', his Ring of Fire. 'Glamdring' is +30 or +40 sword with 'Holy' and 'Orc-slaying' properties (if I remember the MERP stats correctly...).
would like to see something I didn't notice proposed in the thread
An Awakening
It's a cool idea in concept, but it really doesn't suit Pathfinder RPG or golarion, or most fantasy settings with a bit of grit, because its a little too videogame in a surreal way.
Cool to implement for yourself, with an epic version of the world similar to the ethereal plane, but I sincerely hope its not the official approach.
That said I don't use epic all that much nowsadays, and thats unlikely ro change soon, though if the serious work of Pathfinder epic is focused on lvls 21-30 I may give it a crack.
The more I think about it the more I've come to think that publishing rules for PCs to advance beyond 20th level is a bad idea. As others have said, the game is already pretty wild at that point, and the capstone abilities in the PFRPG strongly suggest 20th level is the pinnacle of achievement in the game.
I'm still all for a book about high level play and epic (not Epic) type stories for characters in the teen levels, but as for rules for 20+, if any are needed (questionable) it is only for a few levels so that GMs can design challenging adversaries for their PCs.
I would get pathfinder Epic as you have earned me having a look at what you can do. However it is not really my cup of tea and I would prefer you focussed on other stuff.
|
|
I'm definitely not interested in epic level-which-will-be-played-by-0.01%-of-D&D-players, I want low/mid-level epic adventures. What makes an epic adventure? That's the real question I'm concerned about. And I personally don't think it's related to level. Fighting a dragon can be a walk in the park, whereas fighting an allip at level 2 can sometimes be epic...
I concur.
I know I already chimed in on this, but now that I've had a chance to think about this, here is what I want out of epic rules . . . not much at all. If there is one thing that 2nd edition did right, it was to show that really, really high level is just more of the same.
Why is this a good thing? Because it lets you level someone up for use as a villain, but doesn't really make epic levels that attractive. Why wouldn't you want epic level attractive?
Well, I'm reading what some people want epic level adventures to be. They sound like they would make for a great roleplaying game. I'm reading a lot of people that want the epic rules to start over with a whole new tier of abilities, etc.
The problem is, while that might be a great RPG, its not D&D, or its natural continuance. Epic level play has never really been a core strength of D&D. I think there is a kind of natural "end" at 20th level, even moreso with the capstone abilities of many classes, and trying to come up with something that is both different and epic but still D&D like seems to be trying to do something with the game that it really isn't designed to do.
Even looking at the stories and character's from which D&D gets its inspiration, I'd argue that none of them goes too far into "epic" territory. The Fellowship of the Ring and their allies defeat a powerful evil demigod, and the story more or less ends with Aragorn becoming king and everyone else retiring. Fafhrd and Mouser obviously become more powerful, and eventually indirectly clash with gods, but that's kind of the end of their story. They don't go on to become demi-gods themselves. They retire with their followers and their women to Rime Isle. Conan runs into a few cosmic horrors, wins his kingdom, defends it from some potential usurpers, but doesn't venture into regularly clashing with cosmic forces. Even King Arthur's story ends with him going off to Avalon and becoming an immortal legend.
So, my preference for epic level rules would be about the amount of information given in the 3.5 DMG, enough to stat up someone with a few "epic" levels to keep them ahead of the PCs to make them a challenge.