I guess I am not understanding what the attraction to "Epic" level play is. The game has set a top level, and this does seem a little forced or unrealistic that a ceiling in advancement should exist. Yes, I understand using the term "realistic" is not the best choice in a discussion about fantasy. The fact remains, the level cap exists as part of the game. If you consider the amount of real world play time that can be consumed, going from level 1 to 20 can take a while. Also, in my experience, I have found some truly epic (lower case) moments can occur at any level of play. When you look around at the NPC's that have been showing up in Golarian, they are of varying levels, but most have not topped out at the extremes that one found in that forgotten place. I say, play PFRPG and enjoy PFRPG for at least a year before the there needs to be Epic (upper case) rules.
I do agree, however, the focus on levels 16 through 20 might be nice in a module or three...
Seconded. No more ampt that goes to 11! End the epoch of Epic!
You know James, one of the things about 3E that I was never too fond of was this notion that flavor text had to be limited by the specific in-game notions of what all these words mean. It seemed that as the edition wore on, the more words had to be taken out of mundane usage because they were suddenly attached to some mechanic.
Agreed.
I once ran a campaign where I told the players up front that most folk in the game world don't see any difference between a hill giant and an ogre. As a result, unless they were talking with a sage, I would use general terms to describe monsters.
For example, to a pesant farmer a dragon is any big lizard that terrorized the area. This could be a giant snake, a triceratops, or an actual dragon.
It kept the players on their toes when they decided to hunt down monsters they had heard rumors about.
|
Only if you remember to say "yes" :)Oohh. 21-30 epic, 31-40 immortality 41 you're a god? :-)Anybody planning to write the Epic Pathfinder rules?
I'm sure Jason's got plenty of time these days... :)
(ducks)
That's kind of the holdup, honestly... we can't do 20th+ level content until we decide if we want to just use the epic rules as-is (not my favorite choice) or rebuild them for PFRPG (the better choice) with a built-in band of levels with a cap the same way there's a cap at level 20 for standard play.
And building epic level stuff is probably going to take a long time as is. And we'll be busy getting the base game up and running for a while even before that.
Ray, the next time somebody asks you if you're a god, you say YES!
Sign me up for a new epic book(rework the rules if you will) and some modules.
Even a single deluxe length module would tide me over for the two years or so till you guys get to take a serious look at this. Levels 16- 20 or so.
I read this as 'NC-17 content any time soon?'
Woot, a dozen Seoni Simulacra mud-wrestling for the win!
Better ... Mud-Wrestling Seoni vs Kyra vs Merisiel vs Seelah vs Amiri vs Lini vs ... Seltyiel!
I guess I am not understanding what the attraction to "Epic" level play is. The game has set a top level, and this does seem a little forced or unrealistic that a ceiling in advancement should exist.
And this is the greatest problem with 3rd Edition and its derivatives....the arbitrary level cap. Get rid of it. Design a game that just continues and, simultaneously, eliminate the whole line between 'epic' and, eh, 'not epic'. The Rolemaster system has done this nicely for decades. I actually tried to return to playing Rolemaster for a short time; however, after playing 3E for so long, it was a bit like trying to wade through wet cement. Of course, this may be an unrealistic pipe dream. Now that I think about it, the math may simply not work beyond 20th level. D20 is just too limited a variable range for that sort of extended play.
Ya know when I ran party's above level 20 we just kept advancing as normal. We skipped the epic rules as I did not own the book and later after I found the info I liked the way we done it better.
I read this as 'NC-17 content any time soon?'
I am so glad I wasn't the only one to read it the same way ::laughing::
Creative Director
|
I guess I am not understanding what the attraction to "Epic" level play is. The game has set a top level, and this does seem a little forced or unrealistic that a ceiling in advancement should exist.And this is the greatest problem with 3rd Edition and its derivatives....the arbitrary level cap. Get rid of it. Design a game that just continues and, simultaneously, eliminate the whole line between 'epic' and, eh, 'not epic'. The Rolemaster system has done this nicely for decades. I actually tried to return to playing Rolemaster for a short time; however, after playing 3E for so long, it was a bit like trying to wade through wet cement. Of course, this may be an unrealistic pipe dream. Now that I think about it, the math may simply not work beyond 20th level. D20 is just too limited a variable range for that sort of extended play.
I couldn't disagree more. The missing level cap in Epic is the main problem with those rules; there's no way to scale content. A level cap lets the content providers focus their efforts on a known range of support for the rules. This is the same reason so many video games have level caps—it's not really any different for tabletop games, especially those who have specific game worlds and adventures that support the rules in question.
Also, level caps allow the creators to focus their energies on making what content they do provide more interesting, without having to spread that effort out over infinity.
|
|
The whole problem with Epic gaming as it stands in 3.X is the same problem, more or less, with high level gaming in 3.X. As a character's level increases further and further, the actual die roll accounts for less and less, while the major determinate of success or failure is how many modifiers you can add together. A PC with a Ref save of +3, or +6, or even +16 still gets more of their success or failure from the die result. When your saves and your attacks are all +25 or more, the die roll is a minor contributor at the most.
Fix that, and we can talk about a system that scales beyond a certain point. An infinitely scaling system just becomes untenable when the randomness of the game becomes less and less meaningful as the system scales. The d21 system, though a joke, hints at potential for a route. d% or d100 is a way to start looking if you really want to go for a system that has more random potential at higher and higher levels.
For a hard cap, if one is put in place in the future, what about instead of 30th, another number with historical precedent? What about BECMI's 36th level cap (leaving the whole Immortals thing for another argument in the far, far future)?
Personally, I find the word "epic" to be overused and trite. Paizo should really, when they are going to write those rules, use a new word, to distinguish it from the works done prior.
"Legendary" seems appropiately descriptive and sounds quite good, too. Players above level 20 should be legends. So that gets my vote.
|
The whole problem with Epic gaming as it stands in 3.X is the same problem, more or less, with high level gaming in 3.X. As a character's level increases further and further, the actual die roll accounts for less and less, while the major determinate of success or failure is how many modifiers you can add together. A PC with a Ref save of +3, or +6, or even +16 still gets more of their success or failure from the die result. When your saves and your attacks are all +25 or more, the die roll is a minor contributor at the most.
That's not quite right. If your target DC is 61 and you have a whopping +50 to that roll then the major determinate will be your result on a d20.
It's more of an issue when the rate of gaining those pluses overpower or are overpowered by the rate of difficulty increases. That's when you get into the problems of only failing on a 1 or succeeding on a 20.
Since we're talking about epic play here it may not be such a problem. Being able to automatically succeed in your areas of specialty or facing almost impossible odds could be said to be a part of this whole epic concept.
"Legendary" seems appropiately descriptive and sounds quite good, too. Players above level 20 should be legends. So that gets my vote.
Just as bad. I was legendary long before I amassed godlike power, for example.
Just as bad. I was legendary long before I amassed godlike power, for example.
Not every game goes like that.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"Legendary" seems appropiately descriptive and sounds quite good, too. Players above level 20 should be legends. So that gets my vote.Just as bad. I was legendary long before I amassed godlike power, for example.
Did it come with a widdle-itty-bitty living space?
I couldn't disagree more. The missing level cap in Epic is the main problem with those rules; there's no way to scale content. A level cap lets the content providers focus their efforts on a known range of support for the rules. This is the same reason so many video games have level caps—it's not really any different for tabletop games, especially those who have specific game worlds and adventures that support the rules in question.
Also, level caps allow the creators to focus their energies on making what content they do provide more interesting, without having to spread that effort out over infinity.
There you and I must respectfully disagree. I've seen it done successfully with both d20 and d100 systems. The feeling I've had since the advent of 3E was that the level cap is purely for the benefit of the publisher, nothing more.
[Warning: Rant to Follow]
I played in an Epic Level campaign adventure path called "The Drow War." We stopped playing after 2 sessions of level 21.
The problem with the the system as it stands is that there is simply too great a disparity between possible actions versus target numbers. For example: good saves vs. bad saves.
At level 21 we fought a crazy three-headed cat monster, each bite causing a DC 40 fort save vs. poison. The numbers are just too massive. Our fighters were generally have a normal challanging time of it, but us mages and clerics couldn't even possibly save against it without 20's.
Another time we were fighting paragon gargoyles, these are CR 19's, though they are still considered epic because of the paragon template. I, as the mage of 20th caster level (behind 1 because of a prestige class) could not penetrate their SR with a 20. I could not RANGED TOUCH them, without a 20. They we ME-bane.
Now I understand that at certain levels, some things just "gotcha" and some don't. But at Epic play, there was just too much of a difference between those who "had it" and those that did not.
When we fought a monster with an AC so high our fighter had to roll a 19 to hit it, we had had enough.
The other problem with Epic play is Epic spellcasting (this coming from the party's wizard!). In certain ways, Epic casting can be broken. I went onto another forum once and asked for help about the above mentioned problems. One replier went into detail about a spell that increases my INT and spellcraft, so then I could cast ANOTHER spell that increases my INT and spellcraft, so on and so on, until I had the requisite stats for another Epic attack spell with super high DC's, I wouldnt have managed on my own. That just boggled my mind. That's not even FUN. It's not even D&D at that point.
Ever since I have been a 100% non-epic level advocate.
Now, if Paizo tackles the problem and maybe makes their own version that isn't so functionally retarded, I might be willing to try it again. However, if Paizo NEVER makes epic level material, I will not shed one tear.
As for high (not epic level) modules, I would most definitely be interested, especially if they cap out pre-existing adeventure paths like Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, or Second Darkness.
Is the adventure really a low- or mid- level adventure masquerading as a high level adventure? My response to this would be that couldn't most low and mid level adventures be high level adventures except for the choice of opponents and treasures? This is a matter of stats IMO. A great adventure storyline is a great adventure storyline regardless of whether the BBEG has a +10/+5 attack bonus on his attack routine or a +100/+95/+90/+85/+80.
I think there's a qualitative difference between high level and low level play. It's not just "the same but better" imo. High level characters have a plethora of options, in addition to 'doing it the way we did a few levels ago only better'.
You can design a dungeon crawl for five fourth level characters and be pretty clear on how the players are likely to tackle it - no matter what classes/races/feats they have. It's much more difficult to predict how five twentieth level characters are going to address any given situation - without imposing constraints along the lines of "Oh yeah, divination doesnt work. Nor does teleport, or any of the other cool things you can do."
Similarly, it makes sense for some patron to seek out the 20th level characters to help foil a plot to take over the world. Harder to scale such an adventure down to first level characters. The kinds of stories you tell are vastly different at the two extremes - and given the multiplying of potential parties, I expect it's harder to meet a wordcount constraint when crafting a superior high level adventure than a low level one.
I suspect that's the kind of thing he was talking about.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
There you and I must respectfully disagree. I've seen it done successfully with both d20 and d100 systems. The feeling I've had since the advent of 3E was that the level cap is purely for the benefit of the publisher, nothing more.I couldn't disagree more. The missing level cap in Epic is the main problem with those rules; there's no way to scale content. A level cap lets the content providers focus their efforts on a known range of support for the rules. This is the same reason so many video games have level caps—it's not really any different for tabletop games, especially those who have specific game worlds and adventures that support the rules in question.
Also, level caps allow the creators to focus their energies on making what content they do provide more interesting, without having to spread that effort out over infinity.
It's ironic to me that you say that you would disagree, because you are actually agreeing. James says that level caps benefit "creators/content providers." You say level caps benefit "the publisher," which of course is the same thing!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Is the adventure really a low- or mid- level adventure masquerading as a high level adventure? My response to this would be that couldn't most low and mid level adventures be high level adventures except for the choice of opponents and treasures? This is a matter of stats IMO. A great adventure storyline is a great adventure storyline regardless of whether the BBEG has a +10/+5 attack bonus on his attack routine or a +100/+95/+90/+85/+80.
I think there's a qualitative difference between high level and low level play. It's not just "the same but better" imo. High level characters have a plethora of options, in addition to 'doing it the way we did a few levels ago only better'.
You can design a dungeon crawl for five fourth level characters and be pretty clear on how the players are likely to tackle it - no matter what classes/races/feats they have. It's much more difficult to predict how five twentieth level characters are going to address any given situation - without imposing constraints along the lines of "Oh yeah, divination doesnt work. Nor does teleport, or any of the other cool things you can do."
Similarly, it makes sense for some patron to seek out the 20th level characters to help foil a plot to take over the world. Harder to scale such an adventure down to first level characters. The kinds of stories you tell are vastly different at the two extremes - and given the multiplying of potential parties, I expect it's harder to meet a wordcount constraint when crafting a superior high level adventure than a low level one.
I suspect that's the kind of thing he was talking about.
That's pretty much it.
In writing a high-level adventure, you need to structure into it a lot more contingent advice or guidelines for the DM about how to handle difference-making magic. It's not just that PCs have an order of magnitude more choices for a high-level adventure, it's that the effects of them are an order of magnitude more impactful to how you play the game. You need to create different kinds of challenges to make challenging adventures when virtually all characters have easy access to things like:
- immunity to poison (Heroes Feast)
- immunity to fear (Heroes Feast)
- immunity to grappling (Freedom of Movement)
- immunity to death effects (Death Ward)
- immunity to charm (Prot-Evil/etc.)
- immunity to all mind-affecting and divination (Mind Blank)
- evasion + high Ref saves
These kinds of things rule out entire categories of attack, so you may design monsters around those anticipated immunities. You also have to realize that "one super-duper-ultra-bad guy" is almost always a bad idea because of the simple principle of concentration of force - ALL of the PCs at high level, esp. using magic to grant extra actions (quickened spells, haste, Time Stop, action points, speed weapons, etc.), are going to beat the snot out of one target in a round or two, or if they can't then the BBEG is probably *SO* tough that it'll wipe the floor with them and they can't win.
[By the way, I'll give this prop to 4th Ed - in their monster design concept, a monster intended to be a "Solo" encounter arbitrarily has a ton of extra hit points, bonuses to saves, extra action points, AND can take extra actions, some on its turn, some as immediate actions. The math would be different for a 3rd Ed version of the same thing, but the idea of giving a monster that's supposed to be a BBEG extra actions and extra staying power so that it really CAN be a solo monster is a valid concept, if perhaps a little gamist for some tastes.]
More important, the setting itself is subject to change or avoidance. PCs are no longer bound to play the adventure by the adventure's rules - taking information in drips and drops and following the normal path laid out by the terrain.
- flight (as in, why would high-level adventures have pit traps?)
- teleportation
- ethereal travel
- scrying
- super-divinations (commune, vision, discern location, find the path, greater arcane sight)
- any number of "go through walls" powers (from passwall to polymorph (earth elemental))
And, of course, I haven't even mentioned wish/miracle
You have to admit that these effects exist and try to design around them. The common approach is "that doesn't work," but that's generally felt to be no fun (ha ha, divination doesn't work, teleport doesn't work) except in very small doses. You can also rationalize mundane effects that block magical effects (mortar with gorgon blood, lead-lined rooms, etc.), or you can create situations where an effect isn't actually blocked, but it may be a bad idea for other reasons. One could be unstable teleport/plane travel (have to make a check or it doesn't work, or could send you someplace bad if you really mess up).
Another would be social consequences - the adventure prop I did for Superstar last year was a high-level adventure. It had divination blocking effects, but it was just the standard private sanctum spell, which can be overcome. It also didn't block teleportation at all (though some folks evidently thought it did), *BUT* the genies who lived there had an agreement with the locals that people wouldn't teleport into their domain, so if you got caught doing it you would get in trouble with them.
Anyway, that's part of the challenge of high-level adventure-writing: Creating a situation that adequately considers things like the above, but without having to spend thousands of words on an appendix to the adventure anticipating the ways PCs might break it - that's a tough skill, and one that doesn't always mesh well with what you'd think would be the core skills of writing a good adventure - story, plot, description, surprise, atmosphere, interesting locations and characters - but in a high-level adventure all of that stuff FAILS if the mechanics don't compensate for what PCs can do. If the entire adventure can be circumvented with a couple of spells or maxed-out skill checks, then the adventure writer and publisher haven't done their job. They must ALSO have a compelling story, setting, characters, etc., because you don't want it to be "Orc and Pie" with all the mechanics dolled up for high level either.
I wrote "Man Forever" for Dungeon #137, a 15th-level adventure that involved investigation, secrets, misdirection, and that sort of thing by a group of high-level NPCs in a small town, and I had to work in a lot of stuff to "show my work" as to how and why this plot couldn't be easily foiled by resources available to the characters at that level. Gary Gygax did the same thing all the way back to Tomb of Horrors (e.g., PCs using ethereal travel to circumvent the tomb's traps would attract an essentially infinite number of demons to attack them).
Anyway, I gotta get back to work, so hopefully this has been of some interest.
To be fair, our DM was simply running the adventure as written so it wasn't like he was consciously throwing ridiculous things at us. I suppose that also brings up the notion that Epic Level adventures can be notoriously diffcult to write broadly; it must be a pain trying to cover all the bases high-level PC's might bring to bear.
As an aside, those gargoyles were not typical paragon gargoyles. I remember quite clearly being told "no" when I rolled a 20 on spell resistence, but that is neither here nor there. ;)
It's ironic to me that you say that you would disagree, because you are actually agreeing. James says that level caps benefit "creators/content providers." You say level caps benefit "the publisher," which of course is the same thing!
Of course, you're right. We are in agreement that the level caps are for the benefit of the publisher. Where we disagree is in the sentiment toward that truth. James appears to value the level cap, I can't stand it. There was the assertion that a publisher of tabletop RPGs couldn't produce a quality product unless the level-range was limited in scope. I simply replied that I have seen it (uncapped levels) done successfully in the past and, therefore, disagree with the assertion.
Yes, high-level adventures are a lot of work. But, with all due respect James (and that's quite a bit), RPG publishers get paid for precisely that....their hard work.
Wow, you guys must have the laziest GM's in creation.
I haven't played a pre-pack module since we were kicking around in the Temple of Elemental Evil circa 1992. Frankly it was more fun as a GM to design the story I wanted to see unfold, and likewise as a player it was fun to see what sort of ripping yarn you'd be swept up in fresh from your mates mind. Don't get me wrong, pre-packs are great, but they are for beer and pretzels sessions.
I simply replied that I have seen it (uncapped levels) done successfully in the past and, therefore, disagree with the assertion.
Feel free to write the book on how it's done then, I'd be curious to see how it works out.
|
Creative Director
|
It's ironic to me that you say that you would disagree, because you are actually agreeing. James says that level caps benefit "creators/content providers." You say level caps benefit "the publisher," which of course is the same thing!Of course, you're right. We are in agreement that the level caps are for the benefit of the publisher. Where we disagree is in the sentiment toward that truth. James appears to value the level cap, I can't stand it. There was the assertion that a publisher of tabletop RPGs couldn't produce a quality product unless the level-range was limited in scope. I simply replied that I have seen it (uncapped levels) done successfully in the past and, therefore, disagree with the assertion.
If you could point out these systems that work great without a level cap, I'd love to check them out. If it CAN be done well, I'd like to do it, but I'm not sure how it can be done well without some sort of implied scale of power... something that a non-capped system, in my experience, simply can't do.
As in... you can't really provide epic stats for demon lords for d20 without disappointing a lot of fans of epic d20 material because you didn't pick a CR range that works for their preferred level of play.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As in... you can't really provide epic stats for demon lords for d20 without disappointing a lot of fans of epic d20 material because you didn't pick a CR range that works for their preferred level of play.
Bitter experience talking? ;-)
I think BECMI had the best route in the 'you maxed out the game, now it's in a new playing field.' The quests for divinity were 'epic' in themselves, and even a first level godling could 'go slumming' and run around in his 36th level avatar if needed/wanted.
|
Wow, you guys must have the laziest GM's in creation.
I haven't played a pre-pack module since we were kicking around in the Temple of Elemental Evil circa 1992. Frankly it was more fun as a GM to design the story I wanted to see unfold, and likewise as a player it was fun to see what sort of ripping yarn you'd be swept up in fresh from your mates mind. Don't get me wrong, pre-packs are great, but they are for beer and pretzels sessions.
So... elitist much? I mean God forbid if some folks don't have the time or creative skills to create their own worlds and adventures. I guess that just means you're a better class of gamer than those poor saps. Bully for you!
Yes, high-level adventures are a lot of work. But, with all due respect James (and that's quite a bit), RPG publishers get paid for precisely that....their hard work.Wow, you guys must have the laziest GM's in creation.
I haven't played a pre-pack module since we were kicking around in the Temple of Elemental Evil circa 1992. Frankly it was more fun as a GM to design the story I wanted to see unfold, and likewise as a player it was fun to see what sort of ripping yarn you'd be swept up in fresh from your mates mind. Don't get me wrong, pre-packs are great, but they are for beer and pretzels sessions.
HEY! I'm the laziest GM in creation!
No seriously, don't hate on modules. I'm pressed for time and I'm a detail-obsessed GM. Without modules — without adventure paths in fact — I would play exactly zero RPGs a year. I can see that it's not for you, but please don't dis me and the product that lets me play.
Wow, you guys must have the laziest GM's in creation.I haven't played a pre-pack module since we were kicking around in the Temple of Elemental Evil circa 1992. Frankly it was more fun as a GM to design the story I wanted to see unfold, and likewise as a player it was fun to see what sort of ripping yarn you'd be swept up in fresh from your mates mind. Don't get me wrong, pre-packs are great, but they are for beer and pretzels sessions.
I don't want to dog-pile, but this is why I'm a Paizo AP Customer. I do have some good ideas, but my strength lies in bringing other people's material to life through my GMing presentation. I've also got other life commitments. I'm not a student any longer. Time is consideration for me. Lastly, I like a lot of rich detail. Sometimes I can tell a story in broadstrokes, but I lack the fine details.
No offense, but to use a movie metaphor, you're basically criticizing the Director or Producer for not being the script writer or novelist. Sometimes those roles overlap, sometimes they don't.
I give Paizo money, they give me a campaign. I present the material. Players have fun. That's the business relationship that exists here, and speaking for myself, I think all the current parties are satisfied with the arrangement.
If you don't need to rely on published materials, you're fortunate. But that doesn't diminish those who do rely on published materials in any way.
And I don't mean to drag out the fanboi cannon, but you do realize that AP's are the backbone of Paizo's Pathfinder line? This is like going to a fish market and criticizing folks for liking seafood. I'm not offended, but golly, I'm a little confused that you think this is the place for that sort of observation.
I mean, that's what they do here. Published adventures.
My original intent when I started this thread was more to address the paucity of level 15 - 20 content.
This.
I think the real reason for the lack of high level adventures is that Paizo and company don't like writing them (16-20th level) for two reasons: 1)too difficult (those stat blocks are a killer) and 2) it's outside what some believe to be the "sweet spot" of the 3.5 rules.
As someone said upthread, I can do the low level stuff myself (and there is so much of it I don't think I'll ever be short of prepackaged scenarios). I want someone else to do the heavy lifting when it comes to high level adventures. It would be more useful and therefore more valuable to me. Low level adventures? Couldn't care less. In fact they suck part of the "awesome" away from AP's afaic.
Just my two cents.
If you could point out these systems that work great without a level cap, I'd love to check them out. If it CAN be done well, I'd like to do it, but I'm not sure how it can be done well without some sort of implied scale of power... something that a non-capped system, in my experience, simply can't do.
As in... you can't really provide epic stats for demon lords for d20 without disappointing a lot of fans of epic d20 material because you didn't pick a CR range that works for their preferred level of play.
Jason, please allow me to clarify; my problem is not with limits on scale of power. My problem is, very specifically, with the level cap. This is an inherent cap to the "life" of the character. Once the character is capped-out, the player is essentially forced to start over from scratch. That sucks. Any good campaign should leave the players the option of continuing with the characters that they have put so much time and effort into.
Older editions of D&D allowed for this. Mind you, the power level was not unlimited, other ways were found to limit the power level. The methods that come to mind were capped ranges for AC, 'to hit', and Saves. A character, no matter his level, could only be so good at these things. But the player had the option to continue to play and develope the character as long as they desired.
Rolemaster is an example of a current system that is unlimited in scope of both power and level. It was well done in the past; specifically, I'm thinking of the I.C.E. Middle Earth publications. In fact, some of the mechanics from Rolemaster found their way into 3E. I suspect that is due to the influence of people like Monte Cook who had a hand in developing both systems. My problem with Rolemaster these days are simply that it's too tedious; a very detailed system that stats out EVERYTHING. This sort of game system used to appeal to me greatly back in the day when I had that kind of time, but no more. But the detail of the game is unrelated to the scope of power.
I saw someone else mention this upthread, but I want to put in my praise for Blood of Dragonscar, the Pathfinder Module for level 15. I haven't played it, but it was great to read and I would very much like to run it eventually.
I could care less about "Epic" play myself. I believe the game (3.5e anyway) does break-down in the post-20 range. I would much prefer to see stuff in the 15-20 range and stuff dealing with psionics (because psionics are cool).
Speaking of terms to replace "Epic," you could consider just calling it "Post-20" and have the book that details it be called something like "Going Beyond 20", so nobody can mistake what it means, but it also doesn't steal a word from the vocabulary.
As far as my thoughts on the subject go, 20 is a perfectly fine cap. There's nothing that says someone has to stop adventuring when they reach 20, they just don't level-up anymore. They can still acquire more and better gear, and go more and dangerous places, but level 20 is just the maximum that the mortal coil can attain. Even monks that become outsiders at 20 don't need to go beyond it. Twenty just happens to be the level of outsider they are, with 0 racial hitdice and 20 class hitdice (monk). (Monks leveling beyond 20 always seemed silly to me anyway. They've already achieved perfection.) Then you don't have to worry about 'Adventuring Post-20' and instead you can deal with adventuring at 20 instead. Characters still continue to amass XP and this XP isn't useless, especially for crafting characters that have to spend XP on their creations.
Better ... Mud-Wrestling Seoni vs Kyra vs Merisiel vs Seelah vs Amiri vs Lini vs ... Seltyiel!I read this as 'NC-17 content any time soon?'
Woot, a dozen Seoni Simulacra mud-wrestling for the win!
Before this thread got hijacked by thoughtful and relevent conversation, a very important branch got brought up, and has since been abandoned.
... namely the NC-17 content and all the female iconics (and Seoni Simulacra) mud-wrestling for our prurient amusement. :P
3. It's precisely BECAUSE the math breaks down in the normal D&D rules after level 20 that a special Epic ruleset is needed. Saying "normal D&D rules don't work after 20" isn't an argument against special Epic rules -- it's an argument for them. The problem is, that it hasn't yet been handled right. What I'd like to see is a set of Epic rules handled right.
4. One way to do that, just as a random thought, would be to start scaling again at 21. That is, bonuses at Epic levels are designated as "epic +1, epic +2, epic +3, etc."
This would mean that against 'non-epic' DCs, saves, etc., the epic stat automatically gets a +20 bonus. Against epic-level saves, DCs, etc., then the straight epic stat is used, making the die roll more important again and making it...
You're definitely on to something there.
1. The term "Epic" should still be retained, IMO. It's concise, easily identifiable, and indicates what type of adventures and stories are appropriate to the genre. Stuff like "post-20" is flabby and pedestrian, IMO, and sounds more like something you'd hear in a modern art school than adventure gaming. "Yes, this is my post-after-contemporary-modern sculpture, 'Melted Mongrels 32'." Blech. Keep the epic stuff Epic.
2. I do agree that Epic shouldn't be used in every other term. Stuff like "Superb Dispelling" is an excellent example of how to name something without falling back on "epic" constantly.
Oh, Bean. I was all geared up to yell at you about point #1, and then I read point #2. There's a lesson in this.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
You're definitely on to something there.
3. It's precisely BECAUSE the math breaks down in the normal D&D rules after level 20 that a special Epic ruleset is needed. Saying "normal D&D rules don't work after 20" isn't an argument against special Epic rules -- it's an argument for them. The problem is, that it hasn't yet been handled right. What I'd like to see is a set of Epic rules handled right.
4. One way to do that, just as a random thought, would be to start scaling again at 21. That is, bonuses at Epic levels are designated as "epic +1, epic +2, epic +3, etc."
This would mean that against 'non-epic' DCs, saves, etc., the epic stat automatically gets a +20 bonus. Against epic-level saves, DCs, etc., then the straight epic stat is used, making the die roll more important again and making it...
I do rather like the idea, though you end up in a bit of a fuzzy spot against nearly epic foes, like say a CR 20 lich or dragon or demon or what-have-you.
In the space between 20th and 21st level, those kinds of enemies would suddenly flip from HARDCORE to chumps. Some kind of buffer zone might be required.
I also wonder about this:
The basic xp system takes you up to 20th level, but to become an EPIC character are mundane xp enough any more? Perhaps, should there be a specific requirement to BECOME epic that is either:
a. Shifting to a new scale on xp (so that it takes more than 8-12 encounters to level up); or,
b. Requiring something entirely separate from standard xp to achieve.
- Could be acquiring an artifact. Having found this legendary item the PC (or all PCs involved) have made their names legendary, turning on their epic switches.
- Could be sacrificing said artifact to a divine patron who can anoint the PC a legendary hero and enable their "epic switch."
- Could be an epic test, perhaps the Starstone Lite. There are those who take the test and become gods, there are those who take it and are destroyed, but are those who take the test and fall in between - or perhaps their test is split in two. They become legendary for completing the first task of the Starstone (to SURVIVE), but to achieve true immortality is yet beyond their grasp.
I'm just thinking about becoming epic being something a little more dramatic than just piling up 20 levels of xp, plus one. It also would give an in-game rationale for why "epic feats" and the such like could only be used by epic characters.
In effect, against epic-level challenges, a 21st level character would effectively be a 1st level character again, although with a diverse selection of abilities and powers, making the character feel much more epic than a 1st level character (something also achieved by the nature of the stories and challenges they would face at these levels). But the math would be brought back to a manageable level, bonus-wise, and the die roll would become more significant again.
I have considered this idea myself. I like the idea of giving PCs new abilities/options that are not open to the pre-20 levels. Previous discussions in other threads have suggested post-20 characters had to enter an "epic" class and start from there.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In effect, against epic-level challenges, a 21st level character would effectively be a 1st level character again, although with a diverse selection of abilities and powers, making the character feel much more epic than a 1st level character (something also achieved by the nature of the stories and challenges they would face at these levels). But the math would be brought back to a manageable level, bonus-wise, and the die roll would become more significant again.I have considered this idea myself. I like the idea of giving PCs new abilities/options that are not open to the pre-20 levels. Previous discussions in other threads have suggested post-20 characters had to enter an "epic" class and start from there.
This also has the curious side effect, perhaps a good one, of reserving 20-level class capstone abilities to pure single-classers, because you either get it by 20th level or you don't. Once you hit 20th, you're moving in a new direction, no going back and collecting 2 level of everything after the fact.
|
|
3. It's precisely BECAUSE the math breaks down in the normal D&D rules after level 20 that a special Epic ruleset is needed. Saying "normal D&D rules don't work after 20" isn't an argument against special Epic rules -- it's an argument for them. The problem is, that it hasn't yet been handled right. What I'd like to see is a set of Epic rules handled right.4. One way to do that, just as a random thought, would be to start scaling again at 21. That is, bonuses at Epic levels are designated as "epic +1, epic +2, epic +3, etc."
This would mean that against 'non-epic' DCs, saves, etc., the epic stat automatically gets a +20 bonus. Against epic-level saves, DCs, etc., then the straight epic stat is used, making the die roll more important again and making it...
well I wanted to post this exact same idea; so I read through the entire thread looking to see if anyone had made the suggestion before espousing it.
Regardless, this is precisely the idea I had in mind. Basically resetting the math to square one and building again - but with much more Hit Points, and class abilites/feats, etc.
and you'll need new "amazing skill accomplishments" that you can do.
Or simply remove skills (points) from the equation completely and instead basically allow the character to be able to perform ALL of the normal things a skill can do in an X number of skills. (not counting opposed skill rolls of course.)
For instance an "Epic" character should be able to pick all the (non-magical) Locks without fail, plus have addiitonal "Epic-based" proficiencies that you can perform; such as "Can pick a Magically held Door" with a new DC again starting over at 1. Etc.
Regardless of how: I personally have never been interested in EPIC play - I have no problem with an abitrary capstone level of 20th level for characters; regardless if it seems wonky. In reality - just because you hit 20th level, doesn't mean your character no longer gets to be played - it just doesn't advance any further. You can play the character for the next 20 years at 20th level if you want.
I do however strongly support and urge Paizo to making 16-20th level adventures - especially to cap-off their APs - either as a seperate purchase (Pathfinder Modules) - which you'll only need to do one every 6 months (or even 1 a year), or as part of the AP initially. From what I've seen of the discussions in the Alpha to Beta to revisions thereafter, it seems Paizo had a good grasp of how to fix many of the difficult aspects of games in the 16-20 range that was so daunting and notoriously reared up due to the 3 DUNGEON magazine APs that we all tried to play.
Robert
|
|
This also has the curious side effect, perhaps a good one, of reserving 20-level class capstone abilities to pure single-classers, because you either get it by 20th level or you don't. Once you hit 20th, you're moving in a new direction, no going back and collecting 2 level of everything after the fact.
This I wholeheartedly concur!!!
Robert
4. One way to do that, just as a random thought, would be to start scaling again at 21. That is, bonuses at Epic levels are designated as "epic +1, epic +2, epic +3, etc."
This would mean that against 'non-epic' DCs, saves, etc., the epic stat automatically gets a +20 bonus. Against epic-level saves, DCs, etc., then the straight epic stat is used, making the die roll more important again and making it...
I'd love to see you expand on this further, if you have the time and interest.