ALSO: I'm actually quite fond of the 3.0 ELH. I mean, I really enjoy it a great deal. It's not balanced, it's horribly written, and I think most of the classes are awkward, at best. But it provides a very interesting, very different play-experience from the rules-set before it. Yes, epic magic is ridiculously "over-powered" (if the GM is permissive).
I disagree with you only one thing, in my experience Epic Spell are not overpowered, at least that I missing something Epic Spell are terribly difficult to create and cast. Yes you can have high spellcraft but from where do you get the gold and XP, and the mitigating factor are not of much help.
Can anyone please tell me if I missing something important that I must know
Wrote too much stuff! Yes, epic magic is ridiculously "over-powered" (if the GM is permissive). Oh my word! He kept going!I disagree with you only one thing, in my experience Epic Spell are not overpowered, at least that I missing something Epic Spell are terribly difficult to create and cast. Yes you can have high spellcraft but from where do you get the gold and XP, and the mitigating factor are not of much help.
Can anyone please tell me if I missing something important that I must know
Oh yes. You are. The thing you're missing is: you're not thinking "big" enough. There are plenty - plenty! - of ways to reduce that DC to piddling amounts. Basically, you're not thinking about it "munchkiny" enough.
The sad thing is that really, you only need one epic spell to make anything you can conceive of a reality: "Enthrall" (I may be remembering the name incorrectly - the permanent dominate one). Once you get that, you can simply traipse around the world permanently "collecting" casters to cast spells as part of your ritual-thingy that lowers the DC according to your will. This is, of course, presuming you've bothered to create your own demiplane (a ninth level spell) to keep them in and have access to teleportation sans error (a fifth level spell) to go and retrieve them and have an impressive suite of abjuration and divination spells (which you should at epic levels). Given that, you've basically got yourself the resources to create anything at will. Drop in the insanely low-level (but rediculously useful) rings of sustenance and ioun stones of I-don't-need-to-breath, and you've got yourself limitless servants to cast spells for no other purpose than to lower your epic spell DCs.
Heck, you could technically do the exact same thing by merely gating in ifreeti (ninth level spell), but, you know, collecting other spellcasters is funnier. Although, collecting all the fingernails and toenails of a single ifreet, wishing for a huge amount of gems, and then altering it's memory so that it thinks the only thing that happened was that it was paid in exchange for a huge amount of gems or a single spell (and it was someone else that summoned it) pretty much gets you twenty ifreets (thus 60 wishes per day) for near-free with the piddly Simulacrum spell.
Add in the 3.5 medium-level item "Thought Bottle", and you've basically got yourself a limitless resource for epic magic.
That's all in theory. In practice, though, it's going to be a great deal less like this, and far more like "word of your exploits (and the fact that you kidnap mages for them never to be seen again) means that you'll suddenly face very stiff opposition from all corners of the universe, and get into a great deal of trouble, as they learn of your secret technique and prepare to defend against you. Also, RANDOM EPIC MONSTER TIME! (Specifically an abomination, so it's immune to your "trick".) That's why I put quotes around "over-powered" in my post above.
Note: this is all predicated on the idea that lowering the DC effectively lowers the cost and time.
Note 2: this is so easily fixed, it's not really a big issue for most people who genuinely play to this level.
ANYway, the point is, that really, it doesn't matter. Because if you design a spell, if the GM doesn't like it, it doesn't matter if it's printed in the daggum Epic Level Handbook itself, the actual rules for actually crafting an epic spell specify that it doesn't work.
If my own copy of the ELH had survived (a really tragic loss), or I still had my home-scanned copy (it almost seems as if the universe itself was against me owning an ELH) I'd go over it more with you, but, sadly, neither of those things are still true, so I'm mostly running off memory right now.
(In other news, as my stupid-large posts indicate, my current computer apparently suffers from chronic static-build-up and was "fixed" recently... by unplugging everything from it and holding the power button for 15 seconds. Gah. Embarrassing.)
Now back to the discussion about brokenness.
Technically, whereas the rest of your post was on topic, that's off topic! *in creepy wolf-whisper voice* and I... am trying... to help it...
(Actually, it is sort-of on-topic, I guess, but mostly the conversation is supposed to be about if you would by a new version of the ELH - probably called something more like "Mythic Level Handbook" or similar - and the short version is that I most certainly would!)
Wrote too much stuff! Yes, epic magic is ridiculously "over-powered" (if the GM is permissive). Oh my word! He kept going!I disagree with you only one thing, in my experience Epic Spell are not overpowered, at least that I missing something Epic Spell are terribly difficult to create and cast. Yes you can have high spellcraft but from where do you get the gold and XP, and the mitigating factor are not of much help.
Can anyone please tell me if I missing something important that I must know
Oh yes. You are. The thing you're missing is: you're not thinking "big" enough. There are plenty - plenty! - of ways to reduce that DC to piddling amounts. Basically, you're not thinking about it "munchkiny" enough.
The sad thing is that really, you only need one epic spell to make anything you can conceive of a reality: "Enthrall" (I may be remembering the name incorrectly - the permanent dominate one). Once you get that, you can simply traipse around the world permanently "collecting" casters to cast spells as part of your ritual-thingy that lowers the DC according to your will. This is, of course, presuming you've bothered to create your own demiplane (a ninth level spell) to keep them in and have access to teleportation sans error (a fifth level spell) to go and retrieve them and have an impressive suite of abjuration and divination spells (which you should at epic levels). Given that, you've basically got yourself the resources to create anything at will. Drop in the insanely low-level (but rediculously useful) rings of sustenance and ioun stones of I-don't-need-to-breath, and you've got yourself limitless servants to cast spells for no other purpose than to lower your epic spell DCs.
Heck, you could technically do the exact same thing by merely gating in ifreeti (ninth level spell), but, you know, collecting other spellcasters is funnier. Although, collecting all the fingernails and toenails of a single ifreet, wishing for a huge amount of gems, and...
wow an excellent answer and you solve the problem at the same time, do something like this would have some impact on the universe, the reason I ask all of this is because in my group we never could do something near to that, if we try to get followers for any mean they die sooner than later, and the other mitigating factors were not much appreciate, who want to burn XP every time you cast a Hellball that you can't apply metamagic, or expend dozens of days to get dispelled, and for the backlash we were cowards, so in recap in my group we have the feeling that Epic Spells were underpowered compared with normal magic where you can have 15+ level slots and apply metamgic. And yes Epic Spells need GM approval (something I don't like but true).
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I played in one 3.0e game that got up to the mid 30s. Some epic spells that stood out in my mind, rough estimates as it's been a few years:
+100 enhancement to all abilities, duration one year, targets everyone within 30' at time of casting. Used a bunch of Leadership adept followers to drive down the cost. DC around 50-60.
Summoned a 96HD primal water elemental. This one had an XP cost. DC about 40 or so.
Gave a variable untyped bonus to AC/to hit between 75 and 3700 depending on the size of the foe. It animated every mote of dust and speck of sand within 300' and they all entered a foe's spaces and used aid another. Spellcraft DC in the 30s.
So yeah, epic spellcasting can get pretty darn crazy using the 3.0 ELH.
I played in one 3.0e game that got up to the mid 30s. Some epic spells that stood out in my mind, rough estimates as it's been a few years:
+100 enhancement to all abilities, duration one year, targets everyone within 30' at time of casting. Used a bunch of Leadership adept followers to drive down the cost. DC around 50-60.
Summoned a 96HD primal water elemental. This one had an XP cost. DC about 40 or so.
Gave a variable untyped bonus to AC/to hit between 75 and 3700 depending on the size of the foe. It animated every mote of dust and speck of sand within 300' and they all entered a foe's spaces and used aid another. Spellcraft DC in the 30s.
So yeah, epic spellcasting can get pretty darn crazy using the 3.0 ELH.
All this and more is possible with a liberal GM. The problem is that the ELH wasn't balanced for creation rules and required a GM's oversight... or else. Of course, if he was using the epic level monsters, at least in our experience, a very few epic mages would be doing anything to them most of the time. 'Cause dude. They're often tougher to kill, on average, than the gods are. (At least some of 'em.)
I played in one 3.0e game that got up to the mid 30s. Some epic spells that stood out in my mind, rough estimates as it's been a few years:
+100 enhancement to all abilities, duration one year, targets everyone within 30' at time of casting. Used a bunch of Leadership adept followers to drive down the cost. DC around 50-60.
Good for you, even with leadership we never could have followers for too long, and if we created a spell like that it never lasted for long, bang you have been dispelled.
Summoned a 96HD primal water elemental. This one had an XP cost. DC about 40 or so.
Gave a variable untyped bonus to AC/to hit between 75 and 3700 depending on the size of the foe. It animated every mote of dust and speck of sand within 300' and they all entered a foe's spaces and used aid another. Spellcraft DC in the 30s.
So yeah, epic spellcasting can get pretty darn crazy using the 3.0 ELH.
I have serious doubts about the last one, no for the magic itself but for applying the aid another rules that way but if you GM allow it good for you
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Good for you, even with leadership we never could have followers for too long, and if we created a spell like that it never lasted for long, bang you have been dispelled.
Well by that point you should store your followers in an extraplanar fortress/paradise so that your enemies can't get near them. Don't take them adventuring. If your GM arbitrarily just kills off non-adventuring NPCs for associating with you then you have other problems.
Dispel mostly went away at epic levels in 3.0 as the caster level capped at 20, so it becomes basically impossible to dispel anything. There may have been an epic dispel seed but I don't think anyone ever used it because it didn't scale so you had to keep reinventing epic dispel spells as you leveled.
Even with GM oversight it was really easy to break things. You could make a relatively harmless spell then later figure out a broken use for it. It's a problem with any open ended system like that.
Btw, I am very much for 21+ rules for Pathfinder. IMO, the ELH approach is not the right way to go. I think something more like the 2e High Level Campaigns book is a better approach.
Oh yes. You are. The thing you're missing is: you're not thinking "big" enough. There are plenty - plenty! - of ways to reduce that DC to piddling amounts. Basically, you're not thinking about it "munchkiny" enough.Wrote too much stuff! Yes, epic magic is ridiculously "over-powered" (if the GM is permissive). Oh my word! He kept going!I disagree with you only one thing, in my experience Epic Spell are not overpowered, at least that I missing something Epic Spell are terribly difficult to create and cast. Yes you can have high spellcraft but from where do you get the gold and XP, and the mitigating factor are not of much help.
Can anyone please tell me if I missing something important that I must know
Exactly. Which is why, except pretty much as plot devices, we don't use epic spells at all. They exist, but pretty much the only ones out there were created, on tablets, by "the ancients" something like ten millenia ago, and exist for things that are very specific to the plot.
Oh ... and for one other thing. I've found the raise mythial epic spell from Forgotten Realms to be invaluable for designing elements of an epic campaign. Sure, I can just make stuff up, but I prefer some sort of foundation for consistency's sake, and raise mythal is awesome in this regard - it gives me a rationale for entire cities that prohibit spells except for evil characters, for blighted areas that are the result of failed mythals, and even for specific ways to either disable or repair them. It's nice having a rule basis for outlandish things.
Exactly. Which is why, except pretty much as plot devices, we don't use epic spells at all. They exist, but pretty much the only ones out there were created, on tablets, by "the ancients" something like ten millenia ago, and exist for things that are very specific to the plot.
This seems reasonable for many groups. :)
Oh ... and for one other thing. I've found the raise mythial epic spell from Forgotten Realms to be invaluable for designing elements of an epic campaign. Sure, I can just make stuff up, but I prefer some sort of foundation for consistency's sake, and raise mythal is awesome in this regard - it gives me a rationale for entire cities that prohibit spells except for evil characters, for blighted areas that are the result of failed mythals, and even for specific ways to either disable or repair them. It's nice having a rule basis for outlandish things.
OH. MY. WORD. The Mythal seed is the best epic seed in the entirety of 3.X Epic Spell Seeds. I love that seed, and I entirely agree with everything you just wrote. By far.
Good for you, even with leadership we never could have followers for too long, and if we created a spell like that it never lasted for long, bang you have been dispelled.Well by that point you should store your followers in an extraplanar fortress/paradise so that your enemies can't get near them. Don't take them adventuring. If your GM arbitrarily just kills off non-adventuring NPCs for associating with you then you have other problems.
Dispel mostly went away at epic levels in 3.0 as the caster level capped at 20, so it becomes basically impossible to dispel anything. There may have been an epic dispel seed but I don't think anyone ever used it because it didn't scale so you had to keep reinventing epic dispel spells as you leveled.
Even with GM oversight it was really easy to break things. You could make a relatively harmless spell then later figure out a broken use for it. It's a problem with any open ended system like that.
Btw, I am very much for 21+ rules for Pathfinder. IMO, the ELH approach is not the right way to go. I think something more like the 2e High Level Campaigns book is a better approach.
After reading this I'm realizing that we had several problems with the DM, because he kill the NPC pretty arbitrarily, of course he make a reason but it always sound just like a excuse to give us, also he used to use epic dispel. Nobody realizes that then. Thanks for the thoughts.
I just want to have an epic level book from Paizo.
Of course this book may have to introduce some changes to the core game like the old one did (automatic hit...), could be fun.
Or it could stink. Much like ELH.
Still very much a vote for no Mythic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because some people are just negative, and they don't want other people to get things that they themselves don't want. Can't wait for mythic rules here.
Because some people are just negative, and they don't want other people to get things that they themselves don't want. Can't wait for mythic rules here.
Because some people are so greedy, and they want to waste developers time on things that only they want.
So no for Mythic.
Now that we have both made stupid arguments please read BPorter's excellent post on why some of us don't want Mythic rules.
Hint: it has nothing to do with negativity
-- david
Papa.DRB
Because some people are just negative, and they don't want other people to get things that they themselves don't want. Can't wait for mythic rules here.
Or because some people are being more pragmatic by looking at the wider business implications than a single book. As I posted in this thread long ago, if Paizo does this, it will:
1. Impact resources. Paizo staff have cited its an enormous undertaking. That means resources will be diverted from other projects that would likely see wider use and greater popularity.
2. Impact multiple lines. It's unlikely, especially in light of the trends of the last couple of years, that Paizo would release such a book in a vacuum solely within the RPG line. That means impacting the Golarion setting and one or more additional product lines - a module certainly, a bestiary most likely (still RPG line, however), and probably a companion and campaign setting book. For those of us who subscribe but aren't interested in epic-level play, that's a lot of unwanted product. It also will likely mean a drop (albeit temporary) of those subscriptions.
I don't doubt Paizo could do a good job of it. However, if they do it, I don't see them half-a$%ing it. In addition to my personal preferences on the topic, I'm against it as I view it as comparable to supporting multiple campaign settings -- something which Paizo staff have gone on record multiple times as being viewed as a bad business model. Epic level play is inherently a different game, especially if you seek to accommodate the ridiculousness of levels stretching to the 40s, 60s, or 100th level as (multiple) people in this thread have asked to have done.
However, some people don't care about the impact to the game or the publishers bottom line (and thus their ability to support said game) so long as they get things that they want...
Because some people are just negative, and they don't want other people to get things that they themselves don't want. Can't wait for mythic rules here.Because some people are so greedy, and they want to waste developers time on things that only they want.
So no for Mythic.
Now that we have both made stupid arguments please read BPorter's excellent post on why some of us don't want Mythic rules.
Hint: it has nothing to do with negativity
-- david
Papa.DRB
Thanks, amigo! Appreciate the backup.
Thanks, amigo! Appreciate the backup.
Your welcome.
I have that post listed (instead of favorited) so I can refer to it on occasion, and this seemed like an appropriate occasion.
Folks, we are not in grade school anymore and should be able to have a civil discussion without the name calling. Just because we disagree on this and a myriad of other topics, we should at least be respectful of each other.
-- david
Papa.DRB
For non-US folks, grade school is about ages 6 thru 11 years old.
Chiming in for full support of epic level play. O and Mr. BPorter epic level content is already in the Golarion campaign setting but maybe you have missed it.
List of Known epic characters.
All the Demonlords
All the Archdevils
All of the 4 horsemen
The Whispering Tyrant
Arazni
Nex
Geb
And that is just off the top of my head, of ones mentioned thus far. So it is already there and many of the paizo staff hope to detail them out some day.
I just snicker at all the people saying "No no mythic/epic book" since several staff members have already repeatedly said "YES there WILL be one, it's just a matter of WHEN".
Chiming in for full support of epic level play. O and Mr. BPorter epic level content is already in the Golarion campaign setting but maybe you have missed it.
List of Known epic characters.
All the Demonlords
All the Archdevils
All of the 4 horsemen
The Whispering Tyrant
Arazni
Nex
GebAnd that is just off the top of my head, of ones mentioned thus far. So it is already there and many of the paizo staff hope to detail them out some day.
Golly! Thanks! Um, but where is the separate set of rules that handles those things? 'Cause that's what is being discussed.
I just snicker at all the people saying "No no mythic/epic book" since several staff members have already repeatedly said "YES there WILL be one, it's just a matter of WHEN".
I seem to recall it as "yes, we want to". I've also long said it will likely happen. No harm in trying to stave it off for as long as possible, however.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, some people don't care about the impact to the game or the publishers bottom line (and thus their ability to support said game) so long as they get things that they want...
Here's the thing, BPorter... some people do. Regardless of what you may think of those who desire epic content, it has become ever-more-difficult for Paizo to tap into the elements of their own campaign setting, as it currently is, without it.
* Tar-Baphon?
* Runelords that aren't Greed?
* the Eldest?
* (some) Demon lords?
* (some) Dukes of Hell?
* the archdaemons/four horsemen?
* more than can be really listed here?
Heck, reference APs alone,
This is all stuff that's currently in the campaign setting as it stands. One of the problems with citing how FR is run as "proof" is that, unlike Wizards, Paizo isn't really advancing the timeline in any definable way. They aren't saying "this happened this year, but now you're in this year". The closest they've done that, in my understanding, is Rise of the Runelords and Jade Regent... which, again, to my understanding can be played in either order.
Currently, the very things that epic levels indicate are available in Golarion (and the surrounding regions), and are already part of the system, but can't be touched because there are no solid rules for them, just a few light suggestions. These are things that Paizo has made that they can't use - and this harms both the setting and the company.
Me? I don't want the current Paizo team to support another setting. If they could get wealthy enough (hah!) to hire more teams, maybe, but I'm uninterested in them doing so. What I am interested in them doing is supporting the setting they've already created. They've even said that it will be coming, it's only a matter of timing!
... And man, was I ever super-ninja'd when I hit the "preview" button.
Anyway, point is, it's your right to not want it or its implications. But the implications are already there. I know I'm not going to instantly change your mind. That's fine. But to presume that I don't care about the impact to the setting or publisher is a pretty awful thing to do. Of course I care. I really want high level play support, but if it's going to tank the company, it would be stupid to demand that. My bet, though, is it's not going to tank the company. Paizo's pretty solid about what they've done so far, and I entirely expect them to continue to deliver on that quality. I have faith in Paizo. Because of that, I'm looking forward to seeing what they can deliver.
(I still totally think they should do psionics first, though.)
If "references already exist" is enough justification in your mind to trigger a requirement for epic-level play, prepare for disappointment. Some things don't require game stats. Some things are beyond the PCs. Some mysteries WON'T be solved - Aroden's death an oft-cited example.
And fighting a god at full-strength is exactly the kind of campaign-breaking stuff I don't want.
A player's momentary wish-fulfillment isn't worth braking a campaign or campaign setting, IMO. YMMV.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end one does not have to buy let alone use any of the mythic material. No one is being forced to use anything in their games. Paizo for better or worse are taking over the reins of 3.5. Which lalowed all levels of play. It just makes sense from both a business perepective and for the overall game line to allow a interested player or publisher access to all levels. I'm not a huge fans of APs as I used to be. Yet I see they remain popular. I'm not telling Paixo not to publish those Aps.
In the end of Paizo gets enough feedback for mythic/epic. A majoirty wants them then they will be published. Wheter a minoirty of the fanbase wants it or not. I dislike the gun rules I sucked it up and I'm still playing the game. I suggest some do the same.
If "references already exist" is enough justification in your mind to trigger a requirement for epic-level play, prepare for disappointment. Some things don't require game stats. Some things are beyond the PCs. Some mysteries WON'T be solved - Aroden's death an oft-cited example.
And fighting a god at full-strength is exactly the kind of campaign-breaking stuff I don't want.
A player's momentary wish-fulfillment isn't worth braking a campaign or campaign setting, IMO. YMMV.
Except Gods are still beyond the realm of Mythic levels. James Jacobs has said they wish to cap Mythic levels at I think 36. You would still be out of the range of gods, but could still challenge demi-gods. And if you allow your PCs to do something world shattering, well that is only in your game not everyone elses.
If "references already exist" is enough justification in your mind to trigger a requirement for epic-level play, prepare for disappointment. Some things don't require game stats. Some things are beyond the PCs. Some mysteries WON'T be solved - Aroden's death an oft-cited example.
And fighting a god at full-strength is exactly the kind of campaign-breaking stuff I don't want.
A player's momentary wish-fulfillment isn't worth braking a campaign or campaign setting, IMO. YMMV.
I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. This isn't "campaign breaking". At all. It's "campaign central", as in a core part of the campaign setting.
The Test of the Starstone allows you to ascend instantly.
Nethys did so by casting an uber spell.
Irori did it by merely being that awesome.
Gods happen, and adventurers ascend to become gods.
What I wrote about? It's written into the AP itself. I am told "Hey, you can/should do this thing, but you don't have any rules or guidelines, or anything else on how to go about it." That? That sucks. The AP referenced - and its story - was actively harmed by not having the mythic rules ready to go.
Besides.
On the other hand, if you do with for a system with purposefully undefined abilities, such that only the power of plot generates what the villains do, there's a thing called 4E that does exactly that. Or you're entirely free to simply ignore the rules for this purpose. But, as always, your mileage may vary as well. The problem is that you see this stuff as inherently campaign breaking. It's not. The campaign is built around it.
Also: momentary wish-fulfillment (and escapism) is exactly what Pathfinder is. I mean, I certainly don't cater to every single want of my players... but I do try to tailor my gaming group to them. Otherwise, why play? There's so many other things we could do with our time!
Again, you're free to not like it. But this stuff is built into the campaign setting from the ground up.
Also, ninja'd again, and what memorax and The Minis Maniac said.
In the end one does not have to buy let alone use any of the mythic material. No one is being forced to use anything in their games.
Please read the last half of BPorter's post HERE. Those two arguments, in my opinion and his, are not valid in the long run.
-- david
Papa.DRB
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end one does not have to buy let alone use any of the mythic material. No one is being forced to use anything in their games.Please read the last half of BPorter's post HERE. Those two arguments, in my opinion and his, are not valid in the long run.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I read them. I also don't believe it. In my opinion (and others') the lack of rules is actively harming the setting. You don't have to agree with that. But it's still something that's there. Saying "but we think it'll hurt the setting!" is only as valid as others saying "but we think it hurts the setting not to!"
I can see your reasoning. But also try to see ours. A richer, more diverse setting is, in general, preferable to a smaller, less diverse setting. Take a look at Golarion. No, really. Take a good, hard look.
It's called "kitchen sink" with good reason. They made it as diverse as they possibly could, with good reason. Do you know what many people don't like? Gunslingers. Yet there they are! Do you know what many people don't like? Sci-fi barbarians. Yet there they are! Do you know what many people don't like? Gothic horror. Yet there it is!
Saying, "I don't like it and it will, in my opinion, harm the setting." is a valid thing. However so is, "No one's forcing you to play with it." Many people have said the former about almost every genre you could think of. So Paizo made something that contained those things, but in which they were perfectly able to be ignored.
Memorax's argument makes perfect sense for Golarion: it's how everything else in Golarion functions, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh right, forgot to say. Add another +1 to "heck yeah for an epic book" from me.
Tactislion,
1. Everything you hold up for "there they are" examples are aguably more popular than epic-level play.
2. Guns are the perfect example of the value of saying no. Guns have, in limited fashion, existed in Golarion since the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting book. However, I strongly believe that were it not for the fans who didn't want firearms voicing their opinions, the influence & prevalence of firearms would have been SIGNIFICANTLY amped up in the revised Inner Sea World Guide. As it was, there was retconning of the setting to allow for a marginal increase.
If you take an include everything/exclude nothing approach, things fall apart quickly. Paizo has found a viable method (thus far) for making the kitchen-sink approach work VERY successfully. Kudos to them.
But don't give me this crap about settings never being impacted by taking an "anything goes" approach... It's not only possible to reach a "can't ignore/can't use anything past this point", it's happened to the majority of RPG settings.
Forgotten Realms - How many examples do you want? I'll settle for 2: The Time of Troubles & 4e "blow up the setting".
Scarred Lands - Great thematic elements. Horrible hodge-podge that couldn't hold together as a consistent setting under minimal scrutiny.
Iron Kingdoms - I'm going to crank the mecha & firearms to "11" b/c our minis game is more successful than our RPG books. (I get the business reason behind this. Still didn't help me as a GM.)
When I have to spend more time retconning stuff I want to ignore out or a significant portion of a book I'm buying is irrelevant, it's not viable to just "ignore it".
So sometimes, saying "no" isn't about getting my way. It's about mitigating the influence that content I don't care for is going to have on the whole. Because if it has a transformative impact on the setting in ways me and my players view as negative, you're decreasing OUR fun. My money is just as good as yours, and my likes/dislikes are just as valid as a customer.
And as for the whole "why play if not for wish fulfillment" thing... If the only way to have fun is to indulge every player whim or power-gamer fantasy, may I introduce you to the RPG concept of the Monty Haul campaign. I hope you'll be very happy together.
Wish fulfilment is a part of the RPG experience, of course. But for many of us, the wish fulfilment comes from playing a hero that overcomes the odds, not from having power that would make Superman envious. There are multiple reasons street-level heroes are much more popular in comics than cosmic-powered ones.
I read them. I also don't believe it. In my opinion (and others') the lack of rules is actively harming the setting. You don't have to agree with that. But it's still something that's there. Saying "but we think it'll hurt the setting!" is only as valid as others saying "but we think it hurts the setting not to!"
I can see your reasoning. But also try to see ours. A richer, more diverse setting is, in general, preferable to a smaller, less diverse setting. Take a look at Golarion. No, really. Take a good, hard look.
I understand your reasoning. I just don't completely agree with it, which is why we are having this discussion.
I also understand that Mythic rules will be provided sooner or later. All that I am doing is voicing my side of the disagreement so it is later, as you are voicing your side of the disagreement so that it is sooner.
I also know that Paizo will do what they think is best for their business and setting.
I am probably not in the biggest subset of Paizo subscribers since I am 65 and when my wife and I move to the south east or south west USA, there is likely to be no RPG group in the retirement community (but I might try and start one.. heh).
The following is not a threat or a "I'll pick up my marbles and go home" or anything else sinister, it is a simple statement of my intentions. I currently cherry pick products as is since I retired 2 years ago and just can't afford it all anymore. When (not if) Mythic comes out, I won't buy it, and when Mythic is a certain percentage of the Companion, etc. line of books, I'll stop buying them altogether. The only thing I won't stop is my AP subscription since I am still one of the 1074 Charter members.
However, I do hope that Mythic rules are really, really good so folks who want to play at that level have a good time!
-- david
Papa.DRB
I'd love to see a high-level play guide put out by Paizo.
Whether that encompasses 12-20 and beyond, 16-20 and beyond, or simply 20+, I wait with bated breath!
I would buy either of the 1st two options you have given, especially if the 20 or below was 50% of the book. That would also give me an insight to the Mythic rules, while still buying something that would be very useful to me.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I was just perusing Pathfinder #24, and on page 19 there is a little section on "Cinematic Combat"... this is exactly the kind of rule I'd like to see in a high-level/Legends guide. Needs to be expanded to a 2-page subsystem accounting for a few more variables, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tactislion,
1. Everything you hold up for "there they are" examples are aguably more popular than epic-level play.
I... what? I'd really like to see where you're getting the values to make this statement. If it's just a guess, okay then. I'm just trying to establish where you're coming up with that argument.
2. Guns are the perfect example of the value of saying no. Guns have, in limited fashion, existed in Golarion since the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting book. However, I strongly believe that were it not for the fans who didn't want firearms voicing their opinions, the influence & prevalence of firearms would have been SIGNIFICANTLY amped up in the revised Inner Sea World Guide. As it was, there was retconning of the setting to allow for a marginal increase.
I'm not seeing the problem here. At all. You're argument that they would have been "significantly" amped up equates to... what? Hypothesis? I mean, again, I'll accept evidence if you have it, but you're not showing me anything other than what you think with these statements.
Now, for the sake of this conversation, let's suppose you are completely correct. Me? I like firearms. I think they're great. I would rather them be more prominent than they are. But I'm perfectly okay that Paizo did not take that track. On the other hand, I'd kind of rather Paizo left well enough alone with the Samurai because, well, making them a variant of Cavalier wasn't a good choice in my opinion. But you know what? I'm okay with them doing that. My preference? Not by a long shot. But it gives other people what they want, and that's really great. But what about those who would heavily prefer more firearms? To bad for them. What's amazing about this is that firearms don't even break the game. They've been shown to be less potent - consistently - than arrows, and they don't cause any real problems.
Again your argument boils down to, "We don't like it, so it shouldn't infect our setting." This is b+$$##@s.
If you take an include everything/exclude nothing approach, things fall apart quickly. Paizo has found a viable method (thus far) for making the kitchen-sink approach work VERY successfully. Kudos to them.
But don't give me this crap about settings never being impacted by taking an "anything goes" approach... It's not only possible to reach a "can't ignore/can't use anything past this point", it's happened to the majority of RPG settings.
I've never said that settings have never been affected. In fact, settings are greatly affected. The thing with Golarion? It is that setting. You are creating a false argument, supposedly of mine, and then knocking it down. That's called "lying" or, at best, "unintentionally misrepresenting". You might not be doing it on purpose, but you're misrepresenting my argument. My argument is that Golarion already has that approach, it simply doesn't contain the full scope of what's already written into it yet.
But! You provided "examples"! So, let's see how those apply.
Forgotten Realms - How many examples do you want? I'll settle for 2: The Time of Troubles & 4e "blow up the setting".
Hey, look at all the "This doesn't apply!" that's going on right here. You're talking about edition changes and their poorly plotted impact on a setting's story. I'm not. I'm talking about expounding on a current rule set that already exists to allow the (more-or-less static) setting to function as it's currently written. Nice false comparison, though.
Scarred Lands - Great thematic elements. Horrible hodge-podge that couldn't hold together as a consistent setting under minimal scrutiny.
That doesn't apply because we're talking about Golarion, which is automatically a kitchen sink and, also, doesn't hold under enough scrutiny. We enjoy it anyway, thanks.
Don't get me wrong. I love Golarion's history. I love seeing how things interconnect, wind, and are woven together. But Ustalav next to Andoran, next to Druma do not make sense. They work for a campaign world, and make a "sort of" sense, but they don't really hold up all that well. And I'm okay with that.
Iron Kingdoms - I'm going to crank the mecha & firearms to "11" b/c our minis game is more successful than our RPG books. (I get the business reason behind this. Still didn't help me as a GM.)
So in one post you're arguing for them to make sure they keep what's good for their product, but here you're arguing that doing that ruined the product? If I'm mistaken on this, let me know.
Beyond that, I really don't have experience with Iron Kingdoms or Scarred Lands. Point in fact, the five settings I've gotten into consist of 1) Greyhawk, 2) Dragon Lance, 3) Forgotten Realms, 4) Eberron, 5) Golarion. Of those, Greyhawk and Dragon Lance have undergone some edition changes too. They still functioned fine. Incidentally, Greyhawk, rich as it was, kind of tended to break apart too. And as for rules, certainly you're not claiming that Greyhawk functioned without epic/mythic stuff? Considering, you know, 0E's whole thing with being Gygax's home game and having his original players get to absurdly high levels. I don't know. Your position seems kind of untenable with that.
When I have to spend more time retconning stuff I want to ignore out or a significant portion of a book I'm buying is irrelevant, it's not viable to just "ignore it".
The "things you hate about Golarion" thread says otherwise. I mean, just read that thread. There are some rather amazing variant Golarions out there.
So sometimes, saying "no" isn't about getting my way. It's about mitigating the influence that content I don't care for is going to have on the whole. Because if it has a transformative impact on the setting in ways me and my players view as negative, you're decreasing OUR fun. My money is just as good as yours, and my likes/dislikes are just as valid as a customer.
I never said it wasn't. You're again making the claim that I argued something I didn't. Your statement was that "some people" (implying "all those people who want epic/mythic content", purposefully or not) do not care about the impact it has on the setting or business approach. To which I responded:
1) Yes indeed I care a great deal, as do others who desire mythic content2) The setting already supports mythic content; the only thing lacking is the rules
3) Feel free to do what we're doing now, which is "winging it"
I'm all for you as being a committed, consistent customer of Paizo. In my experience, however, it's far easier to take things away from a game system than it is to add to it. That's one reason I prefer Pathfinder's far more robust rule set than I do, say, 4E, which is only a battle simulator plus ritual-magic controls.
I mean, just because Words of Power exists in Ultimate Magic doesn't mean that I have to use it in my games. If it comes up in an AP and a player says, "Wow, that looks neat!" I'll say, "Well, we don't have that, so, you know, check out the d20PFSRD, and let me know if it still looks fun." Then, if my player really wants later, I'll see what I can do.
On the other hand, if a player asks, "Hey, can I play a guy with, like, a gun on his arm, like Barrett from FF7?" I'd respond, "Well... it's not covered in the rules, but I can kludge something together from the fire-arm stuff, probably. I'll have to come up with something for you missing a hand, and we'll want to generally redo class stuff for you." and so on.
On the other, other hand, if I wanted to create a setting where there are no sorcerers, I say, "hey, no sorcerers": BAM! Done. Tired of the paladin debates? BAM! Alignment's gone. Smite evil turns to smite faith and the various detect/(un)holy word spells affect undead, and opposed faiths/outsiders.
An AP have something I don't like? Oh well. Hopefully someone else gets really great fun out of it! After all, their concerns, funds, etc, are just as valid as mine.
And as for the whole "why play if not for wish fulfillment" thing... If the only way to have fun is to indulge every player whim or power-gamer fantasy, may I introduce you to the RPG concept of the Monty Haul campaign. I hope you'll be very happy together.
HAHAH! Wow, that's both elitist and condescending at the same time! Congratulations! (I, on the other hand, am being terribly sarcastic.)
You completely misread my post, ignored the point about "not giving everything they want" and improperly translated "tailor my game to my group" all (from what I can tell) because of a preconceived bias against those who desire very high levels of play indicates that we must be nothing more than "power gamers" (or other loaded word, choose as you will) who want to ruin the fun of others and have no consideration for them. Thanks. Glad to know I dislike gamers who play differently than we do!
Wish fulfilment is a part of the RPG experience, of course. But for many of us, the wish fulfilment comes from playing a hero that overcomes the odds, not from having power that would make Superman envious. There are multiple reasons street-level heroes are much more popular in comics than cosmic-powered ones.
Yes. There are. And they're some of my favorites, on the whole! But this isn't always the case. Superman, for example, continues to be popular. He's hardly "street level".
Your statement here is, effectively, "This is the way we play, stop hatin'." To which I respond, "More power to you! Continue to play that way!" There is nothing within your statement above that has any impact on this discussion. Except maybe if one whole AP doesn't suit your tastes.
BPorter, I respect that you don't want mythic level play. That's fine. But your arguments for why they shouldn't be there are not "more valid" than others' arguments for why they should. It is your preference, and that's totally respectable. But this post? Not respectable.
I understand your reasoning. I just don't completely agree with it, which is why we are having this discussion.
I also understand that Mythic rules will be provided sooner or later. All that I am doing is voicing my side of the disagreement so it is later, as you are voicing your side of the disagreement so that it is sooner.
Which is perfectly reasonable!
I also know that Paizo will do what they think is best for their business and setting.
Pretty much. I'd have to accept this if it meant "no mythic rules" and "no psionics" too! And for the latter, it's looking like I'll have to accept that!
I am probably not in the biggest subset of Paizo subscribers since I am 65 and when my wife and I move to the south east or south west USA, there is likely to be no RPG group in the retirement community (but I might try and start one.. heh).
Papa! Move to Ocala, FL! Then we can have group together! :D
(I promise not to run mythic campaigns for you unless you want them!)The following is not a threat or a "I'll pick up my marbles and go home" or anything else sinister, it is a simple statement of my intentions. I currently cherry pick products as is since I retired 2 years ago and just can't afford it all anymore. When (not if) Mythic comes out, I won't buy it, and when Mythic is a certain percentage of the Companion, etc. line of books, I'll stop buying them altogether. The only thing I won't stop is my AP subscription since I am still one of the 1074 Charter members.
I understand that entirely. It makes sense to divert your funds to where they should go! Harming your own financial well-being for a game - no matter how good - isn't really a great idea. After all, "Everything comes before D&D... even D&D!"
However, I do hope that Mythic rules are really, really good so folks who want to play at that level have a good time!
-- david
Papa.DRB
As do I! But then again, I may have a slight bias. ;)
Mythic level handbook now, please!
:)
I would just like to say one thing about my previous posts.
This:
On the other hand, if you do with for a system with purposefully undefined abilities, such that only the power of plot generates what the villains do, there's a thing called 4E that does exactly that.
looks unfair, inflammatory, and uncalled for. I apologize if it came off that way, as it's not my intention with my words. My point was simply that 4E does that automatically. Originally, I'd thought combining the above sentence with...
Or you're entirely free to simply ignore the rules for this purpose.
... would make it less aggressive-sounding. Upon rereading, it looks far more aggressive than I intended, so I'd like to apologize for sounding so harsh.
Tacticslion, we're on separate sides of this issue. Period.
You take a why not/it adds "diversity" approach. Once upon a time, I did too. My overwhelming experience with that, in campaigns and products purchased, is that taking that approach without some judicious editorial oversight results in short-lived games, settings, and systems.
You read Kitchen-Sink and want to apply "anything goes" as the definition. I read Kitchen-Sink and see the deisre to support as many playstyles as possible without sacrificing the tone or theme. Since you don't like what I have to say, other people have pointed out the nuance between having the ability to season a setting to taste versus a more-is-better approach.
You see the setting breaking under the lack of mythic/epic rules because there are things the PCs can't tackle, defeat, or emulate. I see no such strain.
You see more guns having little mechanical impact yet completely disregard the impact commonplace or advanced firearms would have on the existing setting. Even if you try to handwave away such setting constraints, players will radically change their approach to the game when firearms are widely available.
It is far easier to add elements in, to adjust a campaign to a particular taste, than it is to strip things out of official canon, yet you continue to plant your flag on the hill of "just ignore it, I like it".
I and others have stressed that a "no" vote isn't aimed at diminishing your fun, but the exercising of our opinion to the publisher so that our opinions are also heard. As paying customers, our voice is as relevant as yours is.
If (more likely when) you get your epic-level rules, I hope they're everything you want from such a system. I, however, have NO interest in such products. When those are announced/released, I'll temporarily terminate my subscriptions as I am not going to purchase content that is of no interest to me or my players. I say that not to stamp my foot and take my ball and go home - I've been a huge Paizo proponent since the announcement of Golarion and the RotRL AP. I say it because I like Pathfinder, Golarion, and Paizo and want to continue supporting those things with my purchases. The number of lines that I subscribe to are clear indications of that.
As myself and others have cited, ultimately it's a business decision for Paizo. If the only voices that are allowed to express an opinion are the ones who say "Yes" to any given product idea, Paizo is going to lose a valuable tool for feedback in these forums. Publishing products that have weak demand is a good way for a company to be unsuccessful. (And before you jump the gun, it's an open question whether epic-level play support is a good or bad business decision.)
We're not going to agree. What you see as problems, I see as features and the reverse is true from your PoV. That's fine.
Regardless of the final outcome, I wish continued success to Paizo and increasing popularity for Pathfinder and Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is far easier to add elements in, to adjust a campaign to a particular taste, than it is to strip things out of official canon
This, I think, is the crux of this particular bone of contention. For Tacs says the exact opposite:
In my experience, however, it's far easier to take things away from a game system than it is to add to it. That's one reason I prefer Pathfinder's far more robust rule set than I do, say, 4E, which is only a battle simulator plus ritual-magic controls.
I personally side with Tacs on this one: I find it much easier and much more convenient as a GM to say "take this, this, and this out and don't use them" than to say "it's this, but then we're going to finagle something together so that you can do this other thing that they decided not to include". I would much rather have too many options and end up with things I don't want/need/use than too few options and have to search around, convert from older/incompatible editions, or make up stuff to fill gaps.
Basically, as Orthos said.
We're not going to agree. What you see as problems, I see as features and the reverse is true from your PoV. That's fine.
Word up!
Regardless of the final outcome, I wish continued success to Paizo and increasing popularity for Pathfinder and Golarion.
Amen!
Papa! Move to Ocala, FL! Then we can have group together! :D
(I promise not to run mythic campaigns for you unless you want them!)
Ugh. My wife has four younger brothers, and the youngest is one of those that nice people don't talk about. He was living in Ocala, moved back to Duluth MN, but is making noises about moving back to Ocala after his unemployment runs out and he is back on the street. While I would love to head your way, if that SOB (and I Don't mean Sweet Old Boy) heads back there, I am crossing the entire state of FL of the list!
But if he doesn't, Ocala is on the short list of places to be near, so perhaps in 5 or 6 years, we can have that game!
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Test of the Starstone allows you to ascend instantly.Which is one reason I would wager a good amount of money we never see an "official" Test of the Starstone published by Paizo.
Nethys did so by casting an uber spell.
IE, GM fiat.
Irori did it by merely being that awesome.
More GM fiat.
Gods happen, and adventurers ascend to become gods.
My question...once you've turned up way past 11, where do you go? When your characters become more powerful than the gods, what point is there to playing any more? At what level does your cleric start granting Desna spells instead of the other way around? If you have Rovagug on a leash as your pet...what more is there to do?
I have to admit, I've a bit of bias in this discussion due to my mindset as far as making and selling things goes. In ANY situation where someone says "Should we do X?" My answer will ALWAYS be YES. Every time. Because I am always up for new products, new themes, new ideas being tried.
If it does well? Yay, success. Do more of it.
If it does poorly? Oh well, we tried. Set it on the back burner and hey maybe down the road when things are slow we can try a revamp.
This would either make me a very good (if lucky) or very terrible (if not) entrepreneur on my own, but hey that's how my brain works.
I have to admit to not having much sympathy to the "if this thing comes out I'll have to cancel my subscription until it's passed" excuse personally. Part of that is not being a subscriber myself; I only buy things individually, as they interest me, and can't afford a consistent subscription anyway. But on top of that my response to the "have to cancel my subscription" answer has always been "Okay you do that, that's what people who don't want the product SHOULD do" and just go from there. So there's that. Full disclosure.