On epic rules


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Please don't make 'm.

One thing that I've learned from WoW is that leveling up is only part of the fun. I think that characters at level 20 are still able to progress via gear upgrades and have a blast. Some inevitably broken epic rules won't make our game any more fun.


Or they could go back to the original epic level rules, which gave you a benefit of you choice each level.
[list]

  • +1 effective level(you gain all of the class features of the class at that level, but no BAB, saves, hit dice, or hp)
  • +1 ability(str, dex, con, etc)
  • +1 base attack
  • +1 spell slot higher than the highest level you can cast


  • A long while back one of the Devs (I think it was James) said that if/when they put out epic rules, they will not be infinite, but rather giving a discrete ending point. There was discussion if that ultimate level cap would be 36 or 40. I'm a big fan of this, personally. Tailor each class (or group of classes for simplicity) with specific abilities, rather than generic "any class can choose any of these" abilities. The old rules limited a full BAB class to either being a 1/2 BAB class or to completely sacrifice getting class features. That once-per-four-levels ability boost you got when you were a mere mortal? If you want that, you had better not want class abilities or anything nice.

    The suggestions in the core book, in my opinion, are really good ideas. My group has just decided that we are going to probably extend our ongoing campaign from level 20 to somewhere around level 25. All classes offer a pretty reasonable progression of abilities which can just be extended. Some of the party (namely the half-elves) are looking at just multiclassing into something complimentary when they get to level 21.

    I agree with the OP's sentiment that losing a hard cap on levels destroys the game, but I don't think that hard cap needs to be 20. I've built an entire world around the concept of 20 being the highest a mortal can achieve, but sometimes you don't want to play a mortal, and you want to start tromping through the outer planes, kicking ass and taking names. An epic book would be nice for those times.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
    Matthew Trent wrote:
    Please don't make 'm.

    No. :P

    Matthew Trent wrote:
    One thing that I've learned from WoW is that leveling up is only part of the fun.

    Stating the obvious.

    Matthew Trent wrote:
    I think that characters at level 20 are still able to progress via gear upgrades and have a blast.

    Of course, there are plenty of ways to play the game.

    Matthew Trent wrote:
    Some inevitably broken epic rules won't make our game any more fun.

    There is no proof that such rules will be 'inevitably broken'. And your statement should end 'won't make my game any more fun'. Your game is not the metric Paizo is measuring by.

    See my previous post for further clarification of what I think you should do.

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Nah Paizo, go ahead with epic rules. If they won't be viable the worst thing that will happen is that the OP will hand out yet another of those 1-star reviews he likes so much.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

    Ironically, though I can guarantee I'll be happy with the epic rules even if they're not exactly what I want, I won't be giving a five-star rating since I never do so :)

    Though the GMG might come close ...

    Shadow Lodge

    I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. I'd rather see levels 20+ as a tapering off of power, rather than it skyrocketing exponentially.

    Kthulhu's Epic Pathfinder Rules

    Slow Progression: For every 1,600,000 XP earned past level 20, the character gains a feat.
    Medium Progression: For every 1,200,000 XP earned past level 20, the character gains a feat.
    Fast Progression: For every 800,000 XP earned past level 20, the character gains a feat.

    There would be some feats added with the pre-requisite of 20th level. Stuff like adding +1 to your BAB (fighter only), enhance sneak attack damage, etc.


    Kthulhu wrote:

    Kthulhu's Epic Pathfinder Rules

    Slow Progression: For every 1,600,000 XP earned past level 20, the character gains a feat.
    Medium Progression: For every 1,200,000 XP earned past level 20, the character gains a feat.
    Fast Progression: For every 800,000 XP earned past level 20, the character gains a feat.

    There would be some feats added with the pre-requisite of 20th level. Stuff like adding +1 to your BAB (fighter only), enhance sneak attack damage, etc.

    Sooo, we need a few cool epic pictures, a few feats, some photoshop/adobe acrobat work with creating neat pdf and we have Pathfinder Epic Handbook ready!

    Shadow Lodge

    Drejk wrote:
    Sooo, we need a few cool epic pictures, a few feats, some photoshop/adobe acrobat work with creating neat pdf and we have Pathfinder Epic Handbook ready!

    Well, I've thought about expanding it by breaking out the ELH, converting a few feats, and maybe making a few new ones. I don't do art or photoshop, but I do have Adobe on my home computer. All in all, I doubt it would even be in the double digits for page count.


    Matthew Trent wrote:

    Please don't make 'm.

    One thing that I've learned from WoW is that leveling up is only part of the fun. I think that characters at level 20 are still able to progress via gear upgrades and have a blast. Some inevitably broken epic rules won't make our game any more fun.

    I'm going to have to disagree with you sir. Paizo needs to make epic rules.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I don't care for epic level games, characters, etc. Too much power and so much work to do, on both the players and gms part. Will I play one? Sure, if someone wants to run it.

    But there are those people that want an epic book and will use the s%!~ out of it, so to deprive those people of this book would be bad. And if Paizo does make an epic book, Id put money on it that it'll be awesome.

    All I can tell you is that you don't have to buy it if they do print one. Ill probably buy it, but I'll never run an epic game. I probably won't even get to play in one anytime soon after they make it. But ill have the book just in case.


    Here is why I personally don't want epic rules.

    The level scale is arbitrary, but the math is all designed to work across it. Assuming a level 20 character isn't "epic" enough, the scale itself should be adjusted, rather than tacking more on to the end.

    Heck, just look at Golarion -- many of the existing characters *should* have been statted-out as epic -- but since no such rules existed, they weren't. Is Paizo going to go back and re-stat Karzoug? What would be the point?

    All that said, I believe a set of epic rules is a practical inevitability at this point.


    bugleyman wrote:
    Heck, just look at Golarion -- many of the existing characters *should* have been statted-out as epic -- but since no such rules existed, they weren't. Is Paizo going to go back and re-stat Karzoug? What would be the point?

    Actually, anyone in Golarion with a stat block is not intended to be epic. Anybody who they mean to be epic hasn't been given stats, because they recognise they don't have the ability to do such yet.

    Karzoug, for example, is specifically intended to be 20th level. Three of the Runelords are less powerful than him, and three are more (i.e. epic).


    Jonathon Vining wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    Heck, just look at Golarion -- many of the existing characters *should* have been statted-out as epic -- but since no such rules existed, they weren't. Is Paizo going to go back and re-stat Karzoug? What would be the point?

    Actually, anyone in Golarion with a stat block is not intended to be epic. Anybody who they mean to be epic hasn't been given stats, because they recognise they don't have the ability to do such yet.

    Karzoug, for example, is specifically intended to be 20th level. Three of the Runelords are less powerful than him, and three are more (i.e. epic).

    That's kinda the point. Conceptually, Karzoug is conceptually epic, but he wasn't statted "epic" because of an expectation of epic rules in the future. Which puts the cart squarely before the horse.

    But even putting that aside, my points stands: The level scale is arbitrary, but the math is all designed to work across it. Assuming a level 20 character isn't "epic" enough, the scale itself should be adjusted, rather than tacking more on to the end.

    Epic rules really are the amp that goes to 11.

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    If and when we do epic level rules... there's a few GROUND rules first.

    1) They have to be fun.

    2) They have to be playable.

    3) They have to have a level cap in the same way that the current game has a cap of 20. (This cap could be 30, 36, 40, or whatever... lower is better, though.)

    4) They have to work seamlessly with the epic level content we have set up in Golarion already, such as some of the tougher Runelords, the Whispering Tyrant, Arazni, Demon Lords, the Starstone, etc.

    5) They still have to be fun.


    bugleyman wrote:

    Here is why I personally don't want epic rules.

    The level scale is arbitrary, but the math is all designed to work across it. Assuming a level 20 character isn't "epic" enough, the scale itself should be adjusted, rather than tacking more on to the end.

    Heck, just look at Golarion -- many of the existing characters *should* have been statted-out as epic -- but since no such rules existed, they weren't. Is Paizo going to go back and re-stat Karzoug? What would be the point?

    All that said, I believe a set of epic rules is a practical inevitability at this point.

    That link really makes you point!

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    bugleyman wrote:
    That's kinda the point. Conceptually, Karzoug is conceptually epic, but he wasn't statted "epic" because of an expectation of epic rules in the future. Which puts the cart squarely before the horse.

    Actually, Karzoug wasn't statted "epic" because we wanted him to be exactly the level he was so he could serve as a boss for an AP that brought PCs up to about 17th level or so. Furthermore, he was designed with the intention of being the "middle" runelord on the power scale. There's three less powerful, and there's three more powerful ones.

    And finally, when we statted him up, we were still using the 3.5 rules anyway, so if we'd wanted to use the epic rules for him, we would and could have.


    James Jacobs wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    That's kinda the point. Conceptually, Karzoug is conceptually epic, but he wasn't statted "epic" because of an expectation of epic rules in the future. Which puts the cart squarely before the horse.

    Actually, Karzoug wasn't statted "epic" because we wanted him to be exactly the level he was so he could serve as a boss for an AP that brought PCs up to about 17th level or so. Furthermore, he was designed with the intention of being the "middle" runelord on the power scale. There's three less powerful, and there's three more powerful ones.

    And finally, when we statted him up, we were still using the 3.5 rules anyway, so if we'd wanted to use the epic rules for him, we would and could have.

    By making a system-based argument, you're supporting my position, not refuting it. As you have pointed out, Karzoug was the level he was because for mechanical reasons -- so he'd be a good challenge for level 17 characters. If a dimension-hopping, immortal wizard-king isn't conceptually epic, then who is? But people are fixating on this particular example. For the sake of argument, I'll concede it.

    My point remains: The 1-20 level scale is arbitrary, and the math is all designed to work across it. Therefore, it would be far more logical to adjust the scale itself rather than tack on epic rules. That is, pick the whatever you want to be epic, and make that "level 20," then go from there. If people want to make the argument that the cat is out of the bag on 1-20, then they'd have a point. But that's not what they're doing. They're numbly repeating "but this one goes to eleven."

    And so I agree with the OP. Clearly that puts us in the minority, but so be it.


    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
    bugleyman wrote:
    My point remains: The 1-20 level scale is arbitrary, and the math is all designed to work across it. Therefore, it makes more sense to adjust the scale itself rather than tack on epic rules. That is, pick the whatever you want to be epic, and make that "level 20," then go from there.

    I agree that high level content is epic, the original adjective. My 15th level group has already done epic things in that sense. They've stopped the return of Orcus and defeated Vecna.

    That doesn't mean I don't want post level 20 content. I'm a big fan of the original immortals rules from BECMI D&D. My game could continue on after level 20, we haven't gotten there yet. But what can be done at level 20 is fixed. 9th level spells are good, but not earth-shattering. I want to see rules for becoming demi-gods and ascension. I really do want a dial that goes up to 11.


    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

    Speaking of going past level 20, I'm very tempted to use E6 as a guide. When the characters reach level 20 they stop, but every XXk xp they can get another feat. Then I just need to make a bunch of epic feats. It's probably what I will do if my group decides to continue playing after they reach level 20, which should be in less than a year. I know Paizo won't have tackled epic by then, the soonest I would expect it would be GenCon 2012.


    deinol wrote:
    But what can be done at level 20 is fixed. 9th level spells are good, but not earth-shattering.

    And that, in the context of the existing strucutre, makes sense.

    All I'm saying is: Next time, scale the math to match the desired power range in the first place.


    Epic rules are easy to figure out. Everyone has some idea of what needs to be done for playing beyond level 20.

    I think that low-magic rules should be done before epic rules are done. You see more people arguing over how to do that than you see them blathering on about epic stuff. Besides that, I was never a fan of stories like Beowulf and Cu Chulainn where they're killing 20 men with a single blow of their 3ft long sword. It's overkill to me, takes all the real heroism out of it and I can't get into that.

    I'm not saying don't do epic rules. I just won't buy that book, no biggie. I'm just sayin'... there is far more ground to be covered that has scarce been tread upon.

    Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

    bugleyman wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    That's kinda the point. Conceptually, Karzoug is conceptually epic, but he wasn't statted "epic" because of an expectation of epic rules in the future. Which puts the cart squarely before the horse.

    Actually, Karzoug wasn't statted "epic" because we wanted him to be exactly the level he was so he could serve as a boss for an AP that brought PCs up to about 17th level or so. Furthermore, he was designed with the intention of being the "middle" runelord on the power scale. There's three less powerful, and there's three more powerful ones.

    And finally, when we statted him up, we were still using the 3.5 rules anyway, so if we'd wanted to use the epic rules for him, we would and could have.

    By making a system-based argument, you're supporting my position, not refuting it. As you have pointed out, Karzoug was the level he was because for mechanical reasons -- so he'd be a good challenge for level 17 characters. If a dimension-hopping, immortal wizard-king isn't conceptually epic, then who is? But people are fixating on this particular example. For the sake of argument, I'll concede it.

    My point remains: The 1-20 level scale is arbitrary, and the math is all designed to work across it. Therefore, it would be far more logical to adjust the scale itself rather than tack on epic rules. That is, pick the whatever you want to be epic, and make that "level 20," then go from there. If people want to make the argument that the cat is out of the bag on 1-20, then they'd have a point. But that's not what they're doing. They're numbly repeating "but this one goes to eleven."

    And so I agree with the OP. Clearly that puts us in the minority, but so be it.

    I was about to fix your post for you, but you seem to have fixed it yourself.

    There is no fact that the existing epic rules suck. Your opinion is that they suck, and as such you are 100% entitled to it, just as I'm entitled to have the opinion that my epic level campaign that I've been running since 2006 using the 3.5e epic rules does not suck, just like the convention events that I've run once or twice a year for a few years at epic level do not suck.

    I will observe that since I've been using the epic rules for almost 5 years to run a campaign that everyone involved in enjoys, there's reasonable evidence that there is no inherent suckiness to the rules.

    Difficulties? Sure. But it's difficult to play YYZ, to play Go against a grandmaster, or to play Bach on the piano. Does that mean they all suck? Unlikely.

    And for all you "Well, Actually" folks out there, NO, I am not saying that the epic rules are a masterpiece, so step away from the keyboard and put your hands in your pockets.


    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
    bugleyman wrote:
    deinol wrote:
    But what can be done at level 20 is fixed. 9th level spells are good, but not earth-shattering.

    And that, in the context of the existing strucutre, makes sense.

    All I'm saying is: Next time, scale the math to match the desired power range in the first place.

    Except I like that the game follows long time traditions of Time Stop and Meteor Swarm being 9th level spells.

    I'd certainly be in favor of Pathfinder 2nd Edition including rules for gaming from 1-36 out of the box. But we need more experience with Pathfinder at 20+ levels before that can happen.

    Dark Archive

    bugleyman wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    That's kinda the point. Conceptually, Karzoug is conceptually epic, but he wasn't statted "epic" because of an expectation of epic rules in the future. Which puts the cart squarely before the horse.

    Actually, Karzoug wasn't statted "epic" because we wanted him to be exactly the level he was so he could serve as a boss for an AP that brought PCs up to about 17th level or so. Furthermore, he was designed with the intention of being the "middle" runelord on the power scale. There's three less powerful, and there's three more powerful ones.

    And finally, when we statted him up, we were still using the 3.5 rules anyway, so if we'd wanted to use the epic rules for him, we would and could have.

    By making a system-based argument, you're supporting my position, not refuting it. As you have pointed out, Karzoug was the level he was because for mechanical reasons -- so he'd be a good challenge for level 17 characters. If a dimension-hopping, immortal wizard-king isn't conceptually epic, then who is? But people are fixating on this particular example. For the sake of argument, I'll concede it.

    My point remains: The 1-20 level scale is arbitrary, and the math is all designed to work across it. Therefore, it would be far more logical to adjust the scale itself rather than tack on epic rules. That is, pick the whatever you want to be epic, and make that "level 20," then go from there. If people want to make the argument that the cat is out of the bag on 1-20, then they'd have a point. But that's not what they're doing. They're numbly repeating "but this one goes to eleven."

    And so I agree with the OP. Clearly that puts us in the minority, but so be it.

    Epic must be done if for no other reason than for this reason alone. Some people simply do not want to stop their campaigns or characters just because they reached level 20 and the current rules don't tell them how to go further. I'm not saying a person who can stop time, travel the planes, or cleave dragons isn't epic. What I'm saying is some people, a lot of people, simply want to continue. Some GM's bring their campaign arc's to a close at 20th or below, some don't. Simply having the option to do so is all we ask.

    Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

    DragonBringerX wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    That's kinda the point. Conceptually, Karzoug is conceptually epic, but he wasn't statted "epic" because of an expectation of epic rules in the future. Which puts the cart squarely before the horse.

    Actually, Karzoug wasn't statted "epic" because we wanted him to be exactly the level he was so he could serve as a boss for an AP that brought PCs up to about 17th level or so. Furthermore, he was designed with the intention of being the "middle" runelord on the power scale. There's three less powerful, and there's three more powerful ones.

    And finally, when we statted him up, we were still using the 3.5 rules anyway, so if we'd wanted to use the epic rules for him, we would and could have.

    By making a system-based argument, you're supporting my position, not refuting it. As you have pointed out, Karzoug was the level he was because for mechanical reasons -- so he'd be a good challenge for level 17 characters. If a dimension-hopping, immortal wizard-king isn't conceptually epic, then who is? But people are fixating on this particular example. For the sake of argument, I'll concede it.

    My point remains: The 1-20 level scale is arbitrary, and the math is all designed to work across it. Therefore, it would be far more logical to adjust the scale itself rather than tack on epic rules. That is, pick the whatever you want to be epic, and make that "level 20," then go from there. If people want to make the argument that the cat is out of the bag on 1-20, then they'd have a point. But that's not what they're doing. They're numbly repeating "but this one goes to eleven."

    Epic must be done if for no other reason than for this reason alone. Some people simply do not want to stop their campaigns or characters just because they reached level 20 and the current rules don't tell them how to go further. I'm not saying a person who can stop time, travel the planes, or cleave dragons isn't epic. What I'm saying is some people, a lot of people, simply want to continue. Some GM's bring their campaign arc's to a close at 20th or below, some don't. Simply having the option to do so is all we ask.

    I think one of the major causes of this endless circular argument about epic level stuff is that people casually intermix "epic" as in "grandiose" with "epic" as in "above level 20".

    I personally never ever mean "grandiose" when I say epic precisely to avoid that sort of confusion, but many people (including many posters above) don't differentiate the two, turning it into an "eternal happiness vs. the ham sandwich" type of argument [1].

    There's nothing to say that a battle with the BBEG can't be epic at 9th or 15th or 20th level, but there is no way that a bunch of 9th or 15th or 20th level characters are above 20th level.

    Many people, myself included, want to run adventures with characters that are above 20th level. While there is limited means to do so within the existing rules, that support starts getting shaky much above 20th level.

    For this argument the "but there can be mighty, impressive battles and adventures below 20th level!" type of statement is irrelevant (I'm intentionally avoiding the word 'epic' here, even though this is what many posters mean when they say 'epic').

    By definition, they're below 20th level, so they're not what the people who want above 20th-level adventures are looking for (and once again I intentionally avoid using the word 'epic' even though that's what I mean when I say 'epic'.).

    [1]The Ham Sandwich Discussion

    • Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
    • A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
    • A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

    That's what's happening with the word 'epic' in many discussions.


    gbonehead wrote:


    I think one of the major causes of this endless circular argument about epic level stuff is that people casually intermix "epic" as in "grandiose" with "epic" as in "above level 20".

    I personally never ever mean "grandiose" when I say epic precisely to avoid that sort of confusion, but many people (including many posters above) don't differentiate the two, turning it into an "eternal happiness vs. the ham sandwich" type of argument [1].

    There's nothing to say that a battle with the BBEG can't be epic at 9th or 15th or 20th level, but there is no way that a bunch of 9th or 15th or 20th level characters are above 20th level.

    Many people, myself included, want to run adventures with characters that are above 20th level. While there is limited means to do so within the existing rules, that support starts getting shaky much above 20th level.

    For this argument the "but there can be mighty, impressive battles and adventures below 20th level!" type of statement is irrelevant (I'm intentionally avoiding the word 'epic' here, even though this is what many posters mean when they say 'epic').

    By definition, they're below 20th level, so they're not what the people who want above 20th-level adventures are looking for (and once again I intentionally avoid using the word 'epic' even though that's what I mean when I say 'epic'.).

    Fair enough. I definitely don't mean "level 21+" when I say epic.


    DragonBringerX wrote:
    Epic must be done if for no other reason than for this reason alone. Some people simply do not want to stop their campaigns or characters just because they reached level 20 and the current rules don't tell them how to go further. I'm not saying a person who can stop time, travel the planes, or cleave dragons isn't epic. What I'm saying is some people, a lot of people, simply want to continue. Some GM's bring their campaign arc's to a close at 20th or below, some don't. Simply having the option to do so is all we ask.

    I guess my "objection" to that is: When does it stop? I don't see infinite scaling as a realistic design goal.

    But I don't begrudge you level 21+ rules. In fact, I think those being published at some point is pretty much a forgone conclusion. Personally, I just hope that whatever Paizo produces, it is better than the Epic Level Handbook.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Matthew Trent wrote:
    Please don't make 'm.

    No. :P

    Matthew Trent wrote:
    One thing that I've learned from WoW is that leveling up is only part of the fun.

    Stating the obvious.

    Matthew Trent wrote:
    I think that characters at level 20 are still able to progress via gear upgrades and have a blast.

    Of course, there are plenty of ways to play the game.

    Matthew Trent wrote:
    Some inevitably broken epic rules won't make our game any more fun.

    There is no proof that such rules will be 'inevitably broken'. And your statement should end 'won't make my game any more fun'. Your game is not the metric Paizo is measuring by.

    See my previous post for further clarification of what I think you should do.

    +1


    James Jacobs wrote:
    3) They have to have a level cap in the same way that the current game has a cap of 20. (This cap could be 30, 36, 40, or whatever... lower is better, though.)

    You should set the cap at 31...so unlike the othe company game your go to 31. ;)

    I wonder how many people get the reference.


    John Kretzer wrote:

    You should set the cap at 31...so unlike the othe company game your go to 31. ;)

    I wonder how many people get the reference.

    I can see the marketing campaign already: "When level 30 just isn't enough!" :)


    The biggest problem with epic levels is spells vs saves. corebook handles this. its up to the DM to design a system where the chars can obtain special items that allow to make up those saves.

    Simply put. throw the "treasure growth" out the window.

    Spells need to increase DC and effect.

    easy... level 10 spells.

    apply metamagic to spells up to 9th level for free.. give spell level 10 for DC. continue forward forever.. example

    quickened empowered fireball = 9

    write up as fireball that does 15d6 cast as swift action. 10th level spell

    DC = 10 + int + 10(spell level)

    wow.. epic level spells that FIT PERFECTLY in the curve...

    "higher level finger of death spell!!"

    finger of death (hightened to 9)

    as finger of death DC = 10 + Int + 10(spell level) IN SPELL DESCRIPTION add a +2 on save DC (to account for hightend)

    ohhhhh a use for heighten? allow spell casters to only pick 2 spells a level they COULD have created with metamagic feats they posses.

    EPIC LEVEL SWORDS... easy.. they are called artifacts.

    epic level armor... easy... they are called ARTIFACTS.

    wow...

    epic seems pretty easy to me...


    Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    bugleyman wrote:
    DragonBringerX wrote:
    Epic must be done if for no other reason than for this reason alone. Some people simply do not want to stop their campaigns or characters just because they reached level 20 and the current rules don't tell them how to go further. I'm not saying a person who can stop time, travel the planes, or cleave dragons isn't epic. What I'm saying is some people, a lot of people, simply want to continue. Some GM's bring their campaign arc's to a close at 20th or below, some don't. Simply having the option to do so is all we ask.

    I guess my "objection" to that is: When does it stop? I don't see infinite scaling as a realistic design goal.

    But I don't begrudge you level 21+ rules. In fact, I think those being published at some point is pretty much a forgone conclusion. Personally, I just hope that whatever Paizo produces, it is better than the Epic Level Handbook.

    Erik has taken to calling it "mythic" of late and I like the change. especially if it is limited to levels 21-36.


    Justin Franklin wrote:
    Erik has taken to calling it "mythic" of late and I like the change. especially if it is limited to levels 21-36.

    I like the idea of Mythic from level 21-36


    I'd like epic rules if they were anything like the old Immortals set.

    Don't try to scale epic rules with the core game... make it something completely different.


    I like the idea of 21st anb beyond, but not for it being so much more powerful than a 20th level character, I don't like epic feats, nor the idea that "Godhood" is something achieve by "level".
    A guy should never stop learning until he is dead, so Epic levels should exit, and it should be something with diferent powers and such, but not so much more powerful than un-Epic chars. Now, godhood and stuff should be something else entirely, not related to levels AT ALL.

    Paizo Employee Creative Director

    Chances are close to 100% that if/when we do something with the concept of post-20th level play, we won't call it epic level play. Since whatever it's gonna be is GOING to be quite different from 3rd edition's Epic level rules.


    The level cap should be 42 ;)


    James Jacobs wrote:
    Chances are close to 100% that if/when we do something with the concept of post-20th level play, we won't call it epic level play. Since whatever it's gonna be is GOING to be quite different from 3rd edition's Epic level rules.

    Hear, hear.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    There is no proof that such rules will be 'inevitably broken'. And your statement should end 'won't make my game any more fun'. Your game is not the metric Paizo is measuring by.

    I notice a lot of posters seem to put this sort of correction when someone posts an opinion. Is it really necessary? It just seems to be a nitpick to me. Just because someone posts something doesn't mean that there's is the only opinion, just stating there own, as I am stating mine now. Grow up people. Having to claim things as my, mine, my group, my opinion, or what ever else is a qualifier is redundant, pointless, and a complete waste of time. If you can't figure out that I am stating my opinion, without me saying it, there is something wrong somewhere and it's not me.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

    If you can't tell when someone is being facetious, it's certainly not something wrong with me.

    Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

    Daniel Gunther 346 wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    There is no proof that such rules will be 'inevitably broken'. And your statement should end 'won't make my game any more fun'. Your game is not the metric Paizo is measuring by.
    I notice a lot of posters seem to put this sort of correction when someone posts an opinion. Is it really necessary? It just seems to be a nitpick to me. Just because someone posts something doesn't mean that there's is the only opinion, just stating there own, as I am stating mine now. Grow up people. Having to claim things as my, mine, my group, my opinion, or what ever else is a qualifier is redundant, pointless, and a complete waste of time. If you can't figure out that I am stating my opinion, without me saying it, there is something wrong somewhere and it's not me.

    To some extent, yes, I believe it is necessary. I get rather tired of seeing posts that say things like "everyone knows that epic rules are totally broken" and "it's a fact that epic play sucks."

    Both of which I've seen, and since I GM a long-running epic campaign that is neither broken nor sucky (if it was, it would likely have imploded years ago), I like to remind people that it is in fact their opinion rather than some generally accepted fact. If you post an opinion, fine. If you make some claim that what you're saying is some sort of fact, then I'll comment on it.

    Actually, my guess is that many people who make such comments played in a crappy epic game, and that led them to believe that it was epic play that sucked rather than the people they were playing with or their GM (or just a lack of experience). Running a good epic game is not the same as running a good low-level game - there's much more going on.

    I've played in really, really crappy non-epic games; that didn't lead me to conclude that non-epic play is junk. It seems a stretch to conclude that epic play sucks based on limited experience.


    gbonehead wrote:

    To some extent, yes, I believe it is necessary. I get rather tired of seeing posts that say things like "everyone knows that epic rules are totally broken" and "it's a fact that epic play sucks."

    Both of which I've seen, and since I GM a long-running epic campaign that is neither broken nor sucky (if it was, it would likely have imploded years ago), I like to remind people that it is in fact their opinion rather than some generally accepted fact. If you post an opinion, fine. If you make some claim that what you're saying is some sort of fact, then I'll comment on it.

    Actually, my guess is that many people who make such comments played in a crappy epic game, and that led them to believe that it was epic play that sucked rather than the people they were playing with or their GM (or just a lack of experience). Running a good epic game is not the same as running a good low-level game - there's much more going on.

    I've played in really, really crappy non-epic games; that didn't lead me to conclude that non-epic play is junk. It seems a stretch to conclude that epic play sucks based on limited experience.

    There are objective, fundamental problems with the math underlying the OGL epic rules (e.g. saving throw scaling). Whether or not a system that comprises such errors is "broken" or not seems a matter of semantics. It's enough for me that the results (95% success for "good" saves, 95% failure for "bad" saves) aren't fun.

    I don't doubt for a minute those problems can't be worked around -- or that you have done so and enjoyed a great time -- but that doesn't mean they aren't there.


    Agreed.

    You may have had a wonderful epic GAME, as did I, but the RULES aren't good and not even close to being balanced as they are.

    Auto-metamagic was so broken, that it made any non spellcaster want to puke after 20th level.

    Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

    Xum wrote:

    Agreed.

    You may have had a wonderful epic GAME, as did I, but the RULES aren't good and not even close to being balanced as they are.

    Auto-metamagic was so broken, that it made any non spellcaster want to puke after 20th level.

    heheheh

    (walks up to bait, sniffs it, walks away)

    For the most part (including said puke-inducing metamagic), the only rules I've had trouble with are the absolutes - things like freedom of movement and Otto's irresistible dance that feel like they should fail vs. epic effects but there's no rule that allows them to do so. Personally, I like auto-metamagic, it simplifies things and makes sense to me for an epic-level caster.

    Also, we've had no trouble with saves. Maybe it's the way the encounters are created - no idea.

    On the other hand, we've never used epic spells; they are so ridiculously expensive and time-consuming to create that they have never entered the radar.


    I'm strongly in favour of rules covering levels 21 and up (whether they have an upper limit or not) if for no other reason than that it will annoy those who don't like such rules and are selfish enough to want it denied to others because they don't like it.

    Plus, I want to see Paizo try their hands at it.


    Joey Virtue wrote:
    I like the idea of Mythic from level 21-36

    As trivial as it is, that makes the whole ideal much more palatable to me. In fact, I once saw the progression Heroic->Mythic->Epic suggested for 4E. I liked it...mythic is much better than Paragon IMO.

    Shadow Lodge

    KaeYoss wrote:

    I'm strongly in favour of rules covering levels 21 and up (whether they have an upper limit or not) if for no other reason than that it will annoy those who don't like such rules and are selfish enough to want it denied to others because they don't like it.

    Plus, I want to see Paizo try their hands at it.

    We rarely agreed in the past, but a huge +1 :)


    So maybe some friends from my old group are here, probably not so I will tell a quick story.

    Started level 1. The druid was a gnome named Dingledorf. We leveled and leveled. His favorite low level spell was good-berries.

    Years pass and he goes epic and decides to make his first epic level spell. Decides to base it on a combination of the heal spell and good-berries... and wanted it to be named after him. Can you guess what he called it?

    Hilarious, even more so in that he was a funny character to begin with, even at first level.


    I have no interest whatsoever in reading or playing with epic rules. I would prefer that Paizo spend their development time working on materials that I'm likely to use, but if most of their audience wants epic rules, then that's what they should publish and I'm perfectly capable of ignoring them.

    Scarab Sages

    I feel that I should clarify that the open-ended, wild-and-woolly, never ending epic rules we saw in 3.5 are what I am opposed to.

    What Mr. Jacobs describes as mythic rules seems to be more of a raising of the level cap to borrow a term from the massively multiplayer world. While possible to do badly, I think Paizo would do it well. I would hesitate to buy such a book only because my games seldom reach those lofty highs (though I have high hopes for my current kingmaker game).

    1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / On epic rules All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.