I believe in bribes. We should all bombard the Paizo staff with gifts of cookies and ham at Paizocon and Gencon.
Give us our Mythic Adventures book.
Please...
|
It's hardly a "problem" and we were on the medium track and only recently moved up to the fast track. We're enjoying the game and we take our time to actually come up with some kind of tactical approach to our problems.
We're not grinding or anything. The point of the game isn't to gain levels, it's to have fun and socialize with your friends. :)
I was just passing on the conclusion I came to years ago - that XP should not be based on killing things and taking their stuff any more than it should be based on how many gold pieces you accumulate (for all you AD&D folks out there).
I agree. And it's not just because of slow progression (if that's even really a problem for the groups that it happens to). The issue is that of rewarding player behaviour. In D&D (now PF), your primary rewards come in the form of gold (or items, which are the real goal of gold anyway) and XP. Both of these things are derived primarily from killing monsters. As such, it sets up a system where players are trained to focus on killing monsters to get the rewards they desire. So if you want your game to be all about killing monsters, that works great. But I think a more general reward (the one used in PFS is excellent, if perhaps too fast for a normal campaign) would work out better. Pretty much every other RPG I play gives out experience for participating in the game session and then accomplishing personal or campaign goals.
I know I may be coming into this thread a little late, but I have an opinion, which may be ignored, especially by the ones that matter (JJ, I'm talking to you, not that you ignore people that often, but I don't expect the Creative Director of a company that influences the lives of, well, a LOT of people, to address me directly.)
I still peruse ELH. It is literally under my bed right now. I long for an updated "high-" and "even higher" level rule set from Paizo because I think they would do it really well. (And I don't care what they call it, I'd buy the "This is the handbook for people who want to play high-level games" book as soon as it was available.)
What we all seem to want is more options. Some people want god-slaying, some people want earth-shattering, some people just want their characters to have an endgame.
Whatever the differences in our ideal high-level game, it seems to me that the way Paizo should handle this...is to tell US how to handle it. Give the endgamers a set of tools to have an endgame (stronghold rules, more in depth options for Leadership, maybe a freebie Leadership type feat or a Leadership-centric high level PrC). Give the earth-shakers a system by which to do huge collateral damage (and a set of mass-combat rules, and some ridiculous metamagic options). And give the god-slayers the RP/subterfuge route AND the stand-up fight route. Maybe you don't need to stat the gods, but tell the GMs of such players HOW THEY CAN STAT THE GODS.
If a GM has done so for long enough to be on the verge of and asking for upper limit play, chances are that GM is no stranger to doing a LOT of leg work to satisfy their players when they gather 'round the table. Give such a GM the FRAMEWORK with which they can build their high-level games to their desires. Teach us HOW to put a system together for those who want a flattened power curve, those who want a linear power curve (oxymoron?), and those who want an exponential power curve.
In other words, give us a book that has a combination of rules and theory. Such a book would likely consist of as many pages of sidebars for variants as it would pages of "official" rules, but let us not forget...this is a game. Nobody, not even the publisher, is making us play it one way or another.
Cheers, and on with the gaming!
|
I think that everybody who runs around saying "Yes! Epic rules! Please!" should answer two questions:
a) how many epic games did you play in?
b) how many epic games did you GM?
Also, you could reflect on what level is the game most balanced at (hint: that's not the later levels), why does PFS cap out at level 12 and take a look at "AP deaths" thread and observe how many more deaths are reported for early levels than late ones.
All this could help you reach the conclusion I have: high level play is something everyone gets easily excited about, but in the end there's very little of it happening.
|
a) how many epic games did you play in?
I have played in no solely-epic long-term campaigns, but I have played a 20th level gestalted character with monster races that put him above 20th in a solely epic one-shot.
I have played multiple one-shots in the 16-20 range.
I played in one long-term gestalted campaign that ended with my character at 20th level and most PCs ascending to demigodhood. There were some 20th-40th level NPCs going around in that one, some of which had 3 gestalt tracks. That game was extremely enjoyable and the PCs had a challenging final fight.
b) how many epic games did you GM?
I have run only one solely-epic one-shot. It was back before Pathfinder was released.
I provided minor assistance for the GMing of a summer-long epic campaign. This one was also pre-Pathfinder. The players seemed to enjoy it from what I read, though it ended abruptly when schedules got busy at the end of the summer.
I have run 4 long-term campaigns that have ended in the 16-20 range that have concluded well and been quite manageable in that range. Out of these, the players would have been willing to continue into epic levels for all of them if appropriate material for doing so had been present.
I have run one long-term campaign that died in the 16-20 range due to various player-related complications and the group drifting apart.
I am currently running a campaign that I plan to end with the PCs at 20th level (gestalted) for a long endgame stretch.
All-in-all, I think that I'm making use of and enjoying the high-level material that's currently out there for Pathfinder. My group and I are stopping pre-epic, but we're facing off against epic opponents and have a strong desire to see epic material. Higher levels may be less balanced than lower levels, and they may very well be poorly suited to organized play due to their increased complexity, but they're a part of the game that I greatly enjoy, and I'd like to see more material that enhances and extends them.
I'm one of the voices that is not keen on epic rules. My escapist fantasies do not require me to play poker with the gods - and, for that matter, I like having things above me. Epic rules bother me that strange things have to be invented to be "even higher up" to provide a challenge.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think that everybody who runs around saying "Yes! Epic rules! Please!" should answer two questions:
a) how many epic games did you play in?
b) how many epic games did you GM?Also, you could reflect on what level is the game most balanced at (hint: that's not the later levels), why does PFS cap out at level 12 and take a look at "AP deaths" thread and observe how many more deaths are reported for early levels than late ones.
All this could help you reach the conclusion I have: high level play is something everyone gets easily excited about, but in the end there's very little of it happening.
a. Counting one I'm in right now, four. To be fair, most only went to 22-23 or so. Only one went to the high 30s.
b. Just one, but it went to the low 40s and that takes a while.For me, balance /= fun. Carefully crafted imbalance is fun. My favorite levels are 1-3 and 15+. Stuff in the middle can get too predictable. Balance for balance's sake gets you that other game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a) how many epic games did you play in?
Zero.
b) how many epic games did you GM?
Zero.
Does it matter? No. The old epic stuff was unplayable to me at first glance. I want a Paizo treatment of the same concept to be a book that makes me want to play. That way, in the future, when I am asked these two questions again the answer to both will be "lots".
Just because nobody used the cumbersome, crappy, and presumptuous old system doesn't mean that Paizo wouldn't make something worth using.
The same can be said of all the higher core levels too. I want a book that makes them sexier for GMs. It can be the same book. And it should be nothing like what we saw from the old ELH.
|
|
I think that everybody who runs around saying "Yes! Epic rules! Please!" should answer two questions:
a) how many epic games did you play in?
b) how many epic games did you GM?Also, you could reflect on what level is the game most balanced at (hint: that's not the later levels), why does PFS cap out at level 12 and take a look at "AP deaths" thread and observe how many more deaths are reported for early levels than late ones.
All this could help you reach the conclusion I have: high level play is something everyone gets easily excited about, but in the end there's very little of it happening.
A) I'm the groups Gm so I played in zero
B)So far 5| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 and maybe i wanna read the GD book how about that huh huh? :D 9th level my non exsistant beholder patutti. but srzly who cares if people die at higher levels there suspose to that why we have ressurect personally at that point you have to start killin peeps or theres no danger.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it matter? No. The old epic stuff was unplayable to me at first glance. I want a Paizo treatment of the same concept to be a book that makes me want to play. That way, in the future, when I am asked these two questions again the answer to both will be "lots".Just because nobody used the cumbersome, crappy, and presumptuous old system doesn't mean that Paizo wouldn't make something worth using.
The same can be said of all the higher core levels too. I want a book that makes them sexier for GMs. It can be the same book. And it should be nothing like what we saw from the old ELH.
Seconded. Everytime I read a post where someone says "Paizo should not make an Epic sourcebook because I don't want no wiil use it" to me comes across as incredibly missing the point. Just becaus someone will not want to use something does not mean that everyone else will feel the same way. So far from what I have read here and on other forums that the dislike for the ELH seems to almost be universal. I think Paizo would do a good job with it.
Let's also not forget that this is a company that wants to make a profit. They need to release new product to do so. Then you also run into the problem of Paizo not being able to stat certain Npcs or creaturs in their books because they do not have their own version of the ELH to do so. Paizo should be imo as self contained as possible. Creating sourcebooks for Epic levels, Psioincs and a Savage Species equivalent would be a big step in that direction.
To be honest though I just do not understand the fear about Paizo publishing new sourcebooks. They only promised to keep rules bloat down. Not stop publishing new material completely.
To be honest though I just do not understand the fear about Paizo publishing new sourcebooks. They only promised to keep rules bloat down. Not stop publishing new material completely.
This fear doesn't exist.
To be honest though I just do not understand the fear about Paizo publishing new sourcebooks. They only promised to keep rules bloat down. Not stop publishing new material completely.This fear doesn't exist.
Where did I put that "I'm with Strawman" T-shirt?
Yeah. These days if you advise restraint or a change in direction, people interpret that as "OMG stop publishing books!"
Let us take care not to put words into the mouths of others, or worse yet, plant a naysayer in an otherwise constructive discussion just so we can nerdrage against his non-existent ass.
I presume you're directing all that at... not me, right?
I presume you're directing all that at... not me, right?
I'm not directing anything.
Just describing my sad little reality.
Lately, I've been mistaken for some kind of new-release hater. That's pretty comical, because I'm more committed to Paizo than most (and they know it). But if you say anything about toning down the character options and your name is not James Jacobs, then in short order you will be accused as some kind of anti-rules troll or worse.
I have never threatened a boycott or anything like that, but repeatedly planted naysayers trail in my wake, paraphrasing me into such statements.
*shakes fist*
I would buy it - paizo has shown with books like APG and U; that they have the skill to build a working rulebook for epic characters.
|
|
To be honest though I just do not understand the fear about Paizo publishing new sourcebooks. They only promised to keep rules bloat down. Not stop publishing new material completely.This fear doesn't exist.Where did I put that "I'm with Strawman" T-shirt?
Yeah. These days if you advise restraint or a change in direction, people interpret that as "OMG stop publishing books!"
Let us take care not to put words into the mouths of others, or worse yet, plant a naysayer in an otherwise constructive discussion just so we can nerdrage against his non-existent ass.
You can add flavor without breaking the game.
Restraint is a virtue.
Hopefully they will ignore the people complaining that a cool flavor item doesn't make them able to break the game the way they want to.
I would like an Epic Book also, although like some others have said, it should also contain guidelines for how to deal with being as powerful as one is. You don't go save the princess anymore. You go stop the Great Wyrm+++ Vampire Dragon that is threatening to eat all the kingdom's virgins.
I'm all in favor of a High level/Mythic book. Having played and planed some campaings around that I'm an enthusiast.
However, I would very much like for it to be toned down from it's predecessor.
Epic in second edition (which I still play to this day) was much more down to earth and still the FEEL was bigger.
I hate the idea of a character, no matter how experienced he is having 600 +HP and surviving a fall from everest or something like that.
At second edition the static HP boost at 9th+ level sucked, but I think a middle ground could be met.
I don't think there should be a big GAP between those of 25th level and those of 20th, there should be new stuff to explore, but nothing that could make him win FOR SURE, which happened in ELH.
Also (and I stand my ground firmly on this), epic and Godly are COMPLETELY diferent things, one can become a God and be a low level character, another can live for eternity experience mostly everything (epic level) and still be a mortal. I think this is what I fear the most, becoming that "othergame" when just because you acumulated enough XP deification is atainable, that sucks major in my book.
I think that everybody who runs around saying "Yes! Epic rules! Please!" should answer two questions:
a) how many epic games did you play in?
b) how many epic games did you GM?Also, you could reflect on what level is the game most balanced at (hint: that's not the later levels), why does PFS cap out at level 12 and take a look at "AP deaths" thread and observe how many more deaths are reported for early levels than late ones.
All this could help you reach the conclusion I have: high level play is something everyone gets easily excited about, but in the end there's very little of it happening.
Gladly, but I'm not sure what the point is, unless you want us to change our misguided ways.
a) None, unless we count a Waldorf-style campaign back in the 80's.
b) 20-30 sessions perhaps, beyond 20th level. We currently play this campaign 4-6 sessions per year, and plan to continue. The rate would surely increase with more solid rules, as the story is not done yet.
There are surely balance issues with the 3.0 system, but my group is not suited to test that for a number of reasons. My biggest gripe with 3.0 epic is the lack of interesting monsters, items and simplified npc rules.
Your conclusion is probably right, but I doubt anyone is arguing that high-level play is anything but a niche genre, which makes it very important the paizo gets it right the first time around.
Hence my interest in threads like this.
I'm not directing anything.
Just describing my sad little reality.
Ah. You quoted me, so I was a bit confused.
I'm not generally a fan of being quoted if it's not directed at me. ;D
Creative Director
|
Now I understand that the RPG line is not Golarion-specific. However, just as the Gunslinger has already "softened (if your GM wishes it)" the rarity of firearms in Golarion (per the Inner Sea Guide), I see an Epic-level rulebook as likely to encroach on the Golarion setting as well - and not in a good way.
And PLEASE, don't ever stat out the gods of Golarion.
Not sure where you're getting this... in the first Campaign Setting hardcover, there were MORE rules for guns than there are in the Inner Sea World Guide. AKA: the Inner Sea World Guide has less guns in it than the previous incarnation. So if anything, the Gunslinger has increased the rarity of firearms in Golarion.
As for the implications of epic level play on Golarion... while there's a fair amount of epic level bad guys and locations in the Inner Sea region already (Tar-Baphon, the more powerful runelords, the Starstone Cathedral, the Eye of Abendego, the Worldwound, and parts of the Darklands to name a few), if we did do an epic level type book, I suspect that we'd do something in the Campaign Setting line to open up a new realm or setting or something for those rules to take place in. Perhaps another planet or plane, or maybe just another continent. We're years away from that, in any case.
While I do hope some day to stat out demigods like the demon lords and so on, statting up combat stats for full-on deities like Lamashtu or Iomedae or Desna will remain exceedingly unlikely. Note that this doesn't mean we won't find a way to give them stat blocks for non-combat stuff... we already kind of do this, in fact, in the Inner Sea World Guide.
I think that everybody who runs around saying "Yes! Epic rules! Please!" should answer two questions:
a) how many epic games did you play in?
b) how many epic games did you GM?Also, you could reflect on what level is the game most balanced at (hint: that's not the later levels), why does PFS cap out at level 12 and take a look at "AP deaths" thread and observe how many more deaths are reported for early levels than late ones.
All this could help you reach the conclusion I have: high level play is something everyone gets easily excited about, but in the end there's very little of it happening.
I play in epic games all the time, I just don't use D&D to do it. A friend is writing his own game, Mythender, that is specifically about killing gods. It involves lots of awesome descriptions and huge fistfuls of dice. He just released his first beta of character creation too.
I reiterate: Guidelines, not stat-blocks.
Give the end-gamers a flattened power curve and rulership suggestions.
Give the world-shakers a linear power curve and options for endless adventure.
And give the god-slayers an exponential power curve and suggestions for how to keep the gods just outside of their reach, unless they really get it right.
To the postmonster general, I have played "epic" characters in four games, and run a few one offs (looking forward to running a continuous campaign, but waiting on PROPERLY WRITTEN RULES). And with the aforementioned PROPERLY WRITTEN RULES, be assured that more truly high-level adventures would pop up.
I have characters in all three of the categories listed above. My "end-gamers" are an Ogre guildmaster (15th level fighter) whom I've played since 2nd edition, through many updates, whom I still get a kick out of playing; and a Cavalier 'field marshal' (22nd level) from 2nd edition revised, who I've now restarted in PF, and in the course of a month, played from 1st to 7th level.
I have a "world-shaker" in an adventure that could run into very high levels (he's already 26th, and is just getting into the meat of it), featuring a viral epic spell that is sucking the prime material plane into the Abyss, via the negative energy plane, and rendering most of the planet's occupants dead, undead, or demonic. He's the archetypal "Friendly Berserker" (though I'm honestly having trouble converting that level of munchkinism from 3.5 to PF).
And I have a god-slayer. A feral minotaur paragon in an Underdark, age of Legend campaign, who is prophesied to subvert Lloth and her minions, alongside his benefactor, a 23rd level Drider cleric of Karaan (BoVD).
All of these characters could benefit from the right support material, as could the GM who runs them. :P
That said, if it takes another year before Paizo gets around to it, and the high-level options are of the same quality as the APG, I'll gladly wait before diving into these characters again.
Sorry to double up, but Gbonehead seems to have gone missing, and I really like his input on high-level stuff. Wondering if he's got a little anecdotal advice, based on how he's doing it (using ELH but with some conversion toward PF [if he's even playing PF, I didn't think to ask] or largely house ruling or using Dicefreaks source material).
And I am a bit saddened by JJ's "we're years away from that, in any case" proclamation. In other threads, I was thinking I'd seen 2012 or 2013. And if the apocalypse comes, that's just too late!
|
|
I'm also dissapointed with the years away comment. I'm not saying it has to be a priority yet at most it should be out no later than 2013 at most 2014. When you incorporating NPCs you cannot stat out fully in your APs and other sourcebooks imo that is not a good thing. It's all good to mnetion high level creature XYZ in a product yet without stats I'm not going to use such a creature let alone care about it. I can do with the 3.5. ELH yet if I have to use a 3.5 book I might as well just use 3.5.
|
|
Yeah. These days if you advise restraint or a change in direction, people interpret that as "OMG stop publishing books!"
It's just that after awhile hearing the same do not publish this or don't piublish that because I don't want it or that Pathfinder has too many rules the days of 3.5. rules bloat are upon us type of comments gets old really fast. I have nothing against someone asking the conmpasny to slow done the release of rules. It's just that the rpg itself is barely a year old and some on these boards are already acting as if the Paizo devs will destroy the game and Pathfinder has already turned into the rules set that 3.5 was at the end. It seems to always be like that whenever a book with new rules comes out.
It's just that after awhile hearing the same do not publish this or don't piublish that because I don't want it or that Pathfinder has too many rules the days of 3.5. rules bloat are upon us type of comments gets old really fast. I have nothing against someone asking the conmpasny to slow done the release of rules. It's just that the rpg itself is barely a year old and some on these boards are already acting as if the Paizo devs will destroy the game and Pathfinder has already turned into the rules set that 3.5 was at the end. It seems to always be like that whenever a book with new rules comes out.Yeah. These days if you advise restraint or a change in direction, people interpret that as "OMG stop publishing books!"
Thing is, to me it doesn't matter if Paizo publishes 1000 books a month and has worse "rules bloat" than 3.5 because its all optional after the core rulebooks. Advanced Player's Guide could be considered "rules bloat" if the GM/Players just wish to use the core rulebooks. Same with Bestiary 2. Do you need it? Nope. Is it useful? Possibly.
It's like take the 3.5 "Book of 9 Swords"... whether it exists or not doesn't matter to me, as the GMs I've played with didn't choose to allow it, so it's existence or non-existence doesn't matter to me.
On the other hand, if another GM were to start a wuxia campaign, that book would become highly useful.
|
|
I wish a lot more gamers would have such an enlighted approach like you do AGZ. Instead for some odd reason some either feel forced to use it and are unabel or unwilling to say no. Yet at the same time not to say no too many times either. Ah the life of a DM. Still I never understood the whole "I donlt want rule XYZ in my games therefore no one else should have it too" type of thinking.
|
|
I wish a lot more gamers would have such an enlighted approach like you do AGZ. Instead for some odd reason some either feel forced to use it and are unabel or unwilling to say no. Still I never understood the whole "I donlt want rule XYZ in my games therefore no one else should have it too" type of thinking.
Exactly. Even after Paizo points out in the Core book that, ultimately, it's your game, folks continue to treat every damn rule, supp, etc., as from the words of the gods or something and whoa is them. Folks, unless you're running all your games in the PFS, any of the rules are subject to you, as the GM, ultimately discretion.
I wish a lot more gamers would have such an enlighted approach like you do AGZ. Instead for some odd reason some either feel forced to use it and are unabel or unwilling to say no. Still I never understood the whole "I donlt want rule XYZ in my games therefore no one else should have it too" type of thinking.Exactly. Even after Paizo points out in the Core book that, ultimately, it's your game, folks continue to treat every damn rule, supp, etc., as from the words of the gods or something and whoa is them. Folks, unless you're running all your games in the PFS, any of the rules are subject to you, as the GM, ultimately discretion.
Even the PFS has some pretty strict rules, but I guess with Paizo's stamp of approval on the PFS that makes changing/ignoring rules ok, cause PAIZO is doing it?
Basically, I will admit to being a rules lawyer, but I read the Gamemastery Guide's section on how to deal with a rules lawyer, and it's 100% spot on. I know the rules. However, I will accept house rules, but if you make a house rule, own it. Don't tell me the book says X is Z when I know it says X is Y. About the only GM have issues with does this very thing, and then he gets royally mad when I prove the book says X is Y (if he even lets me pull out the book first). As I keep telling him, if you want to make X is Z in your game, I'm cool with that... but don't act like the book says it.
Actually there are occasions I will not accept house rules when they are off the wall stupid. I take the "don't play" option on those.
Example, once in a Vampire the Masquerade game the GM told me that when you took a point of damage you lost a blood, then when you heal it you spend a blood, so for a vampire, that amounts to a semi-equivalent of double damage. I was like WTFBBQSAUCE??
That rule is in the book... it specifically applies to MORTALS WHO BLEED. Vampires don't BLEED (in fact, the book even said, "This does not apply to vampires, they do not bleed"). I Was like "I will not play with that rule, I'm sorry." and since I was the only player at the time, he gave in, but if he hadn't it would have been no skin off my back.
I think a spirited discussion about the details of a new release is generally a good thing. It lets GMs anticipate issues with certain books.
I think that people should be able to voice their opinion if they feel like they would rather pay for book x than book y.
Most importantly, people need to chill out and realize that opinions are just that. Nothing anyone says on these forums has a direct bearing on your game (unless it is your GM saying it).
|
|
It's not so much a difference of opinion. It's when posters act all surprised that Paizo release a new book. They never ever said they would not release new material. While I respect a poster postion on not wanting new material I really don't need to hear it over and over again whenever a new book such as UC or a similar book gets released. Chances are you will not change my stance on wanting new rules and vice versa. It does get annoying after awhile to hear "new rules not interested" over and over.
It does get annoying after awhile to hear "new rules not interested" over and over.
Some people hear it whether or not it is being said.
Sorry to double up, but Gbonehead seems to have gone missing, and I really like his input on high-level stuff. Wondering if he's got a little anecdotal advice, based on how he's doing it (using ELH but with some conversion toward PF [if he's even playing PF, I didn't think to ask] or largely house ruling or using Dicefreaks source material).
And I am a bit saddened by JJ's "we're years away from that, in any case" proclamation. In other threads, I was thinking I'd seen 2012 or 2013. And if the apocalypse comes, that's just too late!
heheheh ... and it's only been since Thursday.
Anyways, I'm playing catch-up now ...
(Ironically, I took a day off work Friday to get ready for my bi-weekly epic Friday night game, and spent Saturday afternoon/evening running a level 1-2 Pathfinder game :)
Welcome to 5 days of catching up :)
I think that everybody who runs around saying "Yes! Epic rules! Please!" should answer two questions:
a) how many epic games did you play in?
b) how many epic games did you GM?
a) One. It was a one-shot back in 3.0 days immediately after the ELH came out; it was a sort of playtest for our convention campaign and frankly it was just kind of silly, I thought.
b) Campaigns? One. Games? I'd estimate 115 or so. We played weekly from fall 2006 through 2007 and hit epic levels in late 2006; we started playing bi-weekly in early 2007 with occasional time off. I've also run epic events at conventions, perhaps 3-4 times.
Also, you could reflect on what level is the game most balanced at (hint: that's not the later levels), why does PFS cap out at level 12 and take a look at "AP deaths" thread and observe how many more deaths are reported for early levels than late ones.
Most balanced? Probably somewhere in the 3-5 range. I think it's a meaningless question, however, because balance is more dependent on the GM and the style of play used by the group than anything else.
All this could help you reach the conclusion I have: high level play is something everyone gets easily excited about, but in the end there's very little of it happening.
I agree - as a percentage of all games played, there's very little of it. But then again, for example, as a percentage of all games played, how many use any given module or, say, a class such as cavalier? I'm guessing there's more epic games than cavaliers out there.
I'm all in favor of a High level/Mythic book. Having played and planed some campaings around that I'm an enthusiast.
However, I would very much like for it to be toned down from it's predecessor.
Epic in second edition (which I still play to this day) was much more down to earth and still the FEEL was bigger.
I hate the idea of a character, no matter how experienced he is having 600 +HP and surviving a fall from everest or something like that.
At second edition the static HP boost at 9th+ level sucked, but I think a middle ground could be met.
And that's certainly a valid opinion, but it's not the way I think about it. In a recent game I ran, the PCs were speaking with a circle of myconids, who told them that nobody who ever activated a certain portal ever returned, so they did it. It transported them where the endpoint used to be - a now collapsed chamber deep under a mountain, 1200 feet from the closest open area, dealing 120d6 damage to all of the characters - this ended up being about 420 points of damage apiece. One PC died outright but was saved because she was a spirit shaman and her favored of the spirits ability saved her. Several other characters were reduced to under 50 hp, and the fighter (with about 1500hp) shrugged it off.
Unrealistic? Depends on your point of view. Hell yeah, and the PCs were able to go back and tell the mushroom folk about it. But, if Hercules can hold up the sky for Atlas, what's to say that a PC can't survive a mountain falling on them? All depends on the way you play your game. While the PCs may be heinously powerful in my campaign, it's still mortal power - there's still a gap between them and the gods. In other campaigns, the GM may have them automatically gain divine ranks after, say 30th level, while another GM may have them start out as demigods. All valid - just different styles of play.
It's like Sam McLean says above and Xum says (next quote) - there's no need to dictate play style - just give the GMs the tools they need for the style of the campaign they're running.
I don't think there should be a big GAP between those of 25th level and those of 20th, there should be new stuff to explore, but nothing that could make him win FOR SURE, which happened in ELH.
Auto-win scenarios are possible - maybe, though in general any auto-win scenario usually only applies under a specific set of circumstances. My players have certain things they know will usually give them an auto-win, and they use them sometimes. Kind of like an attack from a 20th-level fighter is likely to be an auto-win against any low-level character. But that doesn't mean such things always work.
Also (and I stand my ground firmly on this), epic and Godly are COMPLETELY diferent things, one can become a God and be a low level character, another can live for eternity experience mostly everything (epic level) and still be a mortal. I think this is what I fear the most, becoming that "othergame" when just because you acumulated enough XP deification is atainable, that sucks major in my book.
+1
Just because I don't want the players to automatically become gods upon reaching level 40, that doesn't mean it's an invalid design decision for a campaign, and while I view them as very different things, I welcome rules for both. However, I expect that the Godly rules would show up way later than the above-20th-level rules, if Paizo does such things at all.
Sorry to double up, but Gbonehead seems to have gone missing, and I really like his input on high-level stuff. Wondering if he's got a little anecdotal advice, based on how he's doing it (using ELH but with some conversion toward PF [if he's even playing PF, I didn't think to ask] or largely house ruling or using Dicefreaks source material).
And I am a bit saddened by JJ's "we're years away from that, in any case" proclamation. In other threads, I was thinking I'd seen 2012 or 2013. And if the apocalypse comes, that's just too late!
First, I think "years away" probably means late next year, but that's just a guess. We may even find out at PaizoCon (not that I'm going, I won't be able to afford it for a few years).
In any case, my campaign started as a 3.5e campaign (using the 3.0ELH with updates). I started by saying "Only official WoTC material" (of which there's TONS), but expanded it to a very small set of 3PP items (Mongoose's Epic Monsters, some Dicefreaks stuff, Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary, and Craig Cochrane's Immortals Handbook). Once WoTC jetissoned Paizo and they fired up Pathfinder, I made all Pathfinder stuff legal too, though I have to backport much of it to 3.5e.
I allow everything, though as I've said elsewhere, if I were to do it over there's perhaps a few items I'd rule out, but not many. And I'd probably house rule "absolute effects" such as freedom of movement and Otto's irresistable dance. But overall I've had good luck with RAW. Note that while I don't prohibit epic spellcasting, the RAW makes it prohibitively expensive in time, XP and gp for my campaign. As a result, for realism, the NPCs typically don't have epic spells either - about the only epic spellcasting that's ever seen is mythals, all of which were created millenia ago and are still hanging around.
Personally I think it's shifting the blame and responsability on Paizo rather than take the blame themselves. It's just easier that way imo. In the end the company is not going to stop publishing new rule material and no one has a gun to anyoes head.
Well, this is both reasonable and harder than it sounds. You can certainly run a campaign that only allows certain rule material in, but for me what's good for the goose is good for the gander - if I'm going to use something, it's fair that my players be allowed to also.
More importantly, I view it as implied that when Paizo publishes something, there's some attempt to make sure it's reasonable for play. I'm not going to say "balanced" because I think that perfect balance is unimportant, and, frankly, boring. But then again you'll never find me on the CharOp boards trying to find the 'perfect' combination. I do think, however, that expecting "not broken" material is a reasonable expectation, and I do think there's broken 3.5e material. It's even entirely possible that there's broken combinations of Pathfinder material. But taken at face value, I think that what's of primary importance is that stuff Paizo publishes be usable in an existing campaign without breaking the campaign, and I think they're pretty darn good at that.
In short, it's really hard to cherry pick what you will/won't allow in a campaign, and it's reasonable to expect that when stuff's published, that it not break existing games.
It's not so much a difference of opinion. It's when posters act all surprised that Paizo release a new book. They never ever said they would not release new material. While I respect a poster postion on not wanting new material I really don't need to hear it over and over again whenever a new book such as UC or a similar book gets released. Chances are you will not change my stance on wanting new rules and vice versa. It does get annoying after awhile to hear "new rules not interested" over and over.
To be fair, I don't think anyone is saying that - what they are saying is that they don't want new rules creeping into modules and even more specifically, into adventure paths. But I think people that say that are out of luck - Paizo is not just a fan service organization - they're also a business, and it makes no business sense not to use their rules in their products.
Oh, and +1 for post-20th level rules soon :)
Seconded. Everytime I read a post where someone says "Paizo should not make an Epic sourcebook because I don't want no wiil use it" to me comes across as incredibly missing the point. Just becaus someone will not want to use something does not mean that everyone else will feel the same way. So far from what I have read here and on other forums that the dislike for the ELH seems to almost be universal. I think Paizo would do a good job with it.
Let's also not forget that this is a company that wants to make a profit. They need to release new product to do so. Then you also run into the problem of Paizo not being able to stat certain Npcs or creaturs in their books because they do not have their own version of the ELH to do so. Paizo should be imo as self contained as possible. Creating sourcebooks for Epic levels, Psioincs and a Savage Species equivalent would be a big step in that direction.
To be honest though I just do not understand the fear about Paizo publishing new sourcebooks. They only promised to keep rules bloat down. Not stop publishing new material completely.
The counterpoint, however, is that every time I read a post where someone says "Paizo should make an Epic sourcebook" I see wasted development resources and a material that I will not purchase. In 25 years of gaming, the # of campaigns I've run or played in that went above level 20 = ZERO.
I'm also seeing a whole lot of admissions to high/epic-level one-offs, rather than campaign capstones. I wonder why that is...
Look, I don't begrudge anybody the desire to have a Paizo treatment of epic/mythic rules. And if Paizo were a crunch-centric company like say, WotC, I'd expect it. Paizo, however, has a HUGE investment in Golarion and, let's face it, epic level play -- especially where we're talking about statting and killing gods and such -- has the potential to be HUGELY detrimental to a setting. Does any of it have to be canon? No, but it's still an extremely niche product.
An Epic-level sourcebook is 1 out of 2 RPG products published a year. That effectively kills by RPG subscription.
An Epic-level module taking away a module that I might actually run someday.
Am Epic-level AP? Now you've killed my AP subscription and 6 months worth of purhcases.
And if you're not going to provide Epic-level support products, why produce the darn thing in the first place?
If there's a business case where it's a novelty product that justifies the development effort, costs, and can reasonably expect to cover the "hit" taken by lost sales, then go for it. To me, it seems like a high-risk product that will see little actual use. YMMV.
|
|
An Epic-level sourcebook is 1 out of 2 RPG products published a year. That effectively kills by RPG subscription.An Epic-level module taking away a module that I might actually run someday.
Am Epic-level AP? Now you've killed my AP subscription and 6 months worth of purhcases.
So you will not even bother trying to read it and see how they did it? The wotc epic rules were awful. So awful that after 3 campaigns that went to epic levels we stopped using those rules and just multiclassed.
You wouldn't even read the module and see how they did it? Maybe you would like it actualy, and would want to run it.
Maybe the AP would be awesome, and you and your players would have immense fun fighting very powerful creatures and changing the course of history, not for one country or world but for an entire plane? It could be crazy fun.
I'm also seeing a whole lot of admissions to high/epic-level one-offs, rather than campaign capstones. I wonder why that is...
Umm...because the rules weren't any good? There is a weirdly circular argument in the posts in this thread from folks who oppose an Epic book from Paizo: the old rules weren't any good and got no official support, but if you didn't use them anyway you don't deserve good rules with official support. In other words, if you didn't devote precious gaming time to limping along with a broken ruleset that wasn't actually any fun when you sat down at the table, you aren't serious enough about the product to warrant good rules in the future. Huh?
I, like lots of others here, tried to play Epic from the ELH. We tried a one-shot just to test the waters. And it wasn't any good. That doesn't mean I lacked passion to continue old campaigns - my first character ever I took all the way to 36, starting from the red box - it means that the characters deserved better than the ELH rules and a slow death from lack of fun. I still bought the book, and I continue to consult it for ideas on how to buff opponents for high-powered characters heading toward capstone abilities, but I simply can't use it as is for a campaign. That says not a single useful thing about whether a future book by a different company that hasn't even been envisioned much less written would be fun to play.