The is an absolute yes. I would like to see AP's go from level 1 to level 20.
Or as an alternate the occasional module or two that is designed to dove tail into when an AP leaves off for characters in the level 15-20 range.
I would like Epic items to be available after the epic rules are eventually published. I am sure at some point in the next 1~3 years that book will probably come out. (Fingers crossed.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'm not keen to see post-level-20 play. I don't want to play on a level where challenging gods is par for the course - at that level of play the actions of PCs to go from one level to the next are world- or even plane-altering, and I don't want to see level of impact.
To put things in perspective: having a character that single-handedly (and without petty trickery) takes on the tarrasque and wins without breaking a sweat... is a ridiculous gaming notion and I don't want to play - or arbitrate - such an encounter.
I hate labels like "mythic", "epic", and "legendary." Do you want more content for levels 15-20? How about levels 21-30? If you want 20+ what would be a reasonable level cap?
James says that popular interest is what best guarantees the genesis of a product. Weigh in with your thoughts folks.
Short answer: Yes; and I think level 30 is fine for a cap. Level 40 would be acceptable too. Going above 40 seems excessive to me, though.
I do want high level content, but to me that doesn't mean bigger and badder monsters. I'd like to see a new take on epic levels that isn't just more of the same feats/skills/etc. I happen to think epic levels should be more about diplomacy and mass combat and that sort of stuff. Kingmaker makes a good run at this sort of game and I'd like to see more of that quality/style of supplemental rules that isn't just a high level dungeon crawl.
After level 15 the game fundamentally shifts and the failure of WotC and thus far Paizo (sorry guys) has been not recognizing it. I know it's hard to do that, and frankly I don't blame them for just running APs up to that point and stopping because your assumptions have to change and it sort of runs out of bounds of the basic premise of the game itself.
Yes, I would buy a book for playing above 20th level. It doesn't matter to me what it is called. A cap at 30th level sounds fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ignored the level cap question, but I have an answer to that one, too.
Paizo can put the level cap wherever they want it, because if I reach that cap, and need more, I'll play higher. It would be nice to phrase that clause of the book like this, "These are the rules we have established for playing Pathfinder from levels 20-36. If you reach level 36 and wish to continue, you can use these rules as written and simply extrapolate them to infinity"
Does it need to be able to hold up for everyone to infinity? Nope, just those who want it to.
If they don't feel the rules are stout enough, they might phrase it like this, "These are the rules we have established for playing Pathfinder from levels 20-36. If you reach level 36 and wish to continue, you may consider doing x, y, and z, since these rules may not hold up beyond the 36 level limit. Here are some examples of how to implement x, y, and z: [cite examples]."
So go ahead and place a cap, but give us (cue magic word) OPTIONS to make the game what I want.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate labels like "mythic", "epic", and "legendary." Do you want more content for levels 15-20? How about levels 21-30? If you want 20+ what would be a reasonable level cap?
James says that popular interest is what best guarantees the genesis of a product. Weigh in with your thoughts folks.
No, don't want.
Yes
Demonlords are considered demigods. And they begin at CR 26.Which means that if they put out a "Mythic" levels supplement, they would need to retcon that to higher, or simply accept the fact that characters will be invading the Abyss or Hell and b+*&%-slapping the ruler of an entire planar layer around like nobody's business. Personally, I think that while demigod level powers such as demon lords and the like should be defeatable, it should involve a full party and getting some equally powerful allies to go up against them. Their power level should be out of reach by conventional means (ie, the average 4-person party of the highest possible level going up against Orcus should get slaughtered).
This is an often touted fallacy. Simply put, most of these creatures live in dangerous places, have massive amounts of minions, etc.
Also, 'begin at CR 26' is not the same as 'the most powerful are CR 26.' I believe James said that he would likely have demon lords range from CR 30-40 in one thread. (I think that would be a good idea, and allow nascent demon lords to take the CR 25-29 spot)
A DM is under no obligation to allow characters to even meet Orcus unless he is prepared for Orcus to die.
I don't have an issue with letting 30th level PCs fight and possibly kill demon lords. But if I did have an issue and they insisted on it, they might stop after the hundredth skeletal warrior showed up, or the tenth time their negative energy protection was dispelled.
Right. Just because the players want to do something doesn't inherently make it possible. There's a reason I haven't statted up the gods in my campaign - and I probably never will. But if I did, their CR would be something like highest character level * 10. And would stay that way.
Furthermore, there is a difference between above-20 rules in the campaign world of Golarion and above-20 rules in general. It's perfectly reasonable for Paizo to say "In this campaign world, the highest character level that doesn't cause the realism to break down is X." It's a campaign world, and it was designed for certain things. It's likely that 35th-level PCs aren't one of them, and that's okay.
Just like it's okay to design another one where level 40 characters are as common as level 15 characters in Golarion. OR, to design, for example, a world where they're NOT that common, but are in fact singular beings granted great power by some agency or entity simply because things are going to Hell in a handbasket - quite literally.
I mean, what are the odds that a DM who allows her PCs to do whatever they want, totally open sandbox, actually has an issue with kings or gods dying?
And what are the odds that a DM who puts her PCs on a strict story based campaign is going to even have a road to travel to kill demon lords she doesn't want killed?
Precisely.
The game has to be a game that both the players and DM want to play, or it'll implode.
But if both want an uber-powerful godkiller campaign, it'll work out great, just like it'll work out great if they want a heavily plotted and story based campaign where they're high level but have a Job to Do.
I haven't tried the former. I know for a fact the latter works.
I ignored the level cap question, but I have an answer to that one, too.
Paizo can put the level cap wherever they want it, because if I reach that cap, and need more, I'll play higher. It would be nice to phrase that clause of the book like this, "These are the rules we have established for playing Pathfinder from levels 20-36. If you reach level 36 and wish to continue, you can use these rules as written and simply extrapolate them to infinity"
Does it need to be able to hold up for everyone to infinity? Nope, just those who want it to.
If they don't feel the rules are stout enough, they might phrase it like this, "These are the rules we have established for playing Pathfinder from levels 20-36. If you reach level 36 and wish to continue, you may consider doing x, y, and z, since these rules may not hold up beyond the 36 level limit. Here are some examples of how to implement x, y, and z: [cite examples]."
So go ahead and place a cap, but give us (cue magic word) OPTIONS to make the game what I want.
Which is exactly what they did in the Core Rulebook, and I expect that the above-20 rules will do the same.
Heck, 3.5e, even with the Tyrants of the Nine Hells and Hordes of the Abyss expansions really didn't include ANY support for PCs over level 25-30, and even that was pushing it. ELH did have generic rules, just like the Core Rulebook does. However, this doesn't stop anyone from using the two Fiendish Codex books as tools. I fully expect to use what's in there as lesser aspects, to design greater aspects, and probably someday to stat out some of the Princes and Demon Lords and Old Ones, and some will probably even go down. Of course, such beings are not known for staying down ...
|
Would love a book to support not only levels 15-20 but to go beyond that. I mean having monsters that even gods fear and mortals kill is a staple for myths here on earth. Also I have DMed for epic players before in previous editions and I have to say with out support books it can get rather messy fast. though to those who don't want a post 20 level book I hear your opinion, If it gets made it won't be for organized play, and it would hopefully fill the gap for levels 15-20 as well as beyond. And for examples in world there is geb,nex, baba yaga, and a few others who are atleast godlike in ability but started out as mere 1st level peons like the rest, but how did they get there? just some food for thought
Yes, with the following caveat: I don't want high level material that ends up being a munched out kill-fest going A to Z through a book of deific stat blocks.
It's a play style issue for me, and every campaign I've run has ultimately gone up past level 25 (and involved a whole lot of MacGuffins, and things that don't have clearly defined stats, and lots of 'the avatar of it has stats but not necessarily the true thing itself').
I prefer having the out of 'this statblock is only for an avatar and the true form will have stats however much higher or as utterly undefined as you like, up to the DM'.
Todd, sorry to tangent the discussion, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of >this project developing over at Open Design.
Todd, sorry to tangent the discussion, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of >this project developing over at Open Design.Yes, with the following caveat: I don't want high level material that ends up being a munched out kill-fest going A to Z through a book of deific stat blocks.
It's a play style issue for me, and every campaign I've run has ultimately gone up past level 25 (and involved a whole lot of MacGuffins, and things that don't have clearly defined stats, and lots of 'the avatar of it has stats but not necessarily the true thing itself').
I prefer having the out of 'this statblock is only for an avatar and the true form will have stats however much higher or as utterly undefined as you like, up to the DM'.
I know I wasn't! Thanks!!
Yes please, a book for 20+ and godhood
I know I wasn't! Thanks!!
No prob man! =D Should be a wild ride...
I'm kinda mixed on this.
I'd love 'Mythic' 20+ options, however...none of our characters have ever lasted that long.
Still, more options are good.
As for caps: level, stat or otherwise...I'm horribly reminded of Daggerfall. It became far to easy to get stuck at any point due to caps. I understand the need but I just don't like them.
|
Level 13 through 20 support material would be a fantastic start. Perhaps some more high level modules and an AP starting at 10 running through 20 alongside a hardback. I am running a high level game and my primary issue is access to pre-gen balanced monsters and traps to use as a baseline. Merely scaling a CR5 trap up lacks some flavor. Challenges at this level should be beyond mere deeper pits and sharper spears.
I'm wondering if you (and some of the others wanting high level adventures) have checked out Coliseum Morpheuon?
I would love and most certainly buy a mythic handbook, i would also like an AP or two to play those rules.
I have to wonder how much of the opposition to 20+ is we don't like the idea, and how much is we don't like how it has been done before?
|
Imo it's because the Epic rules from Wotc while usable were not that good. So because of that some are unnecssarily worried that Paizo will botch the job. If you still do not trust Paizo getting the job done on any book at this point you never ever will imo. As I said I think the game needs it to be complete. Offer more options and anyone can pick and choose what they want to use in the game. As for 3PP I don;t remember their being much support for Epic from them. I maybe wrong on that.
I would definately like to see high level content, both in terms of rpg products and in terms of adventures. I would be interested in purchasing both should paizo decide to go after the high level market.
|
My ideal solution:
Paizo publishes a Guide to High-Level Gaming, a book geared mostly towards GMs. It presents advice on running high level (levels 15-20) games, and provides a few options on how to contine past 20th level. Some of the options could include:
1) Hard level cap of 20. Advancement stops once you reach 20th level.
2) E20 system. Levels don't go up past level 20, but for every few hundred thousand more XP you gain, you get E6 type advancement (primarily feats).
3) Level cap of 36. Gives rules for extrapolating existing advancements all the way up to level 36.
4) Advancement to infinity. Pretty much the same as the previous example, but instead of stopping at level 36, you extrapolate out to infinity.
Paizo could then pick whichever of those they most prefered, and use it as the baseline for Golarion. My vote would be for E20.
|
|
I have to wonder how much of the opposition to 20+ is we don't like the idea, and how much is we don't like how it has been done before?
Some might just not think it's necessary. The weakest of 20th level adventuring classes is stupifyingly powerful. Do we really need to give someone the feat Cleave Planet?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I wouldn't mind seeing a supplement, even a hardcover one, to cover "epic" or "mythic" rules... but I think it should still have a cap. Level 30 seems to be about right, but I suppose you could take it to 40 or 50 if you wanted. There would need to be rules for epic spellcasting as well as a whole slew of epic feats and class abilities.
Or, taking a queue from 4th Edition here: How about, after 20th level, charcters must choose an "Ascendency Path" (or whatever you want to call it) for their class (assuming they aren't multiclassed). Once you hit 20th-level in a certain class, perhaps from 20-30 you must choose from a list of paths that, on the surface, look like prestige classes but really just exist to focus their character in a particular direction. Fighters, for example, could have the Champion, the Warmaster, and the Guardian. The Champion would gain a lot of bard-style party buffs and battle shouts, the Warmaster would be all about damage-dealing and generally wrecking the enemies, and the Guardian would be the archetypal "tank" with lots of heavy AC bonuses and defensive abilities. I'd say you want to have at least 3, if not more such paths for each class. Just a thought.
My ideal solution:
Paizo publishes a Guide to High-Level Gaming, a book geared mostly towards GMs. It presents advice on running high level (levels 15-20) games, and provides a few options on how to contine past 20th level. Some of the options could include:
1) Hard level cap of 20. Advancement stops once you reach 20th level.
2) E20 system. Levels don't go up past level 20, but for every few hundred thousand more XP you gain, you get E6 type advancement (primarily feats).
3) Level cap of 36. Gives rules for extrapolating existing advancements all the way up to level 36.
4) Advancement to infinity. Pretty much the same as the previous example, but instead of stopping at level 36, you extrapolate out to infinity.Paizo could then pick whichever of those they most prefered, and use it as the baseline for Golarion. My vote would be for E20.
And my vote would be for #3. For those of you surprised by my answer, I certainly wouldn't stop at 36, but it would make a nice, tight baseline to work with, and then we'd get all sorts of cool content, abilities, rules, etc. aimed at the CR20-40 range.
And there's one other option:
5) The pathway to divinity option.
I personally don't like it, as I don't think advancement to godhood is something that happens from accumulating XP, but that's just how I run my game. There's no reason not to have a campaign where that's the goal - become powerful enough to ascend, and then really fix the problems ...
Of course, there's always that problem: you're the new god on the block and probably far from the most powerful. Anyone who's read David Brin's Uplift series gets my gist :)
|
|
And my vote would be for #3. For those of you surprised by my answer, I certainly wouldn't stop at 36, but it would make a nice, tight baseline to work with, and then we'd get all sorts of cool content, abilities, rules, etc. aimed at the CR20-40 range.
I think you misunderstand. I wasn't saying that Paizo should chose one of those. I was saying that the best course might be to put out a book that covered ALL of those options, albiet in a very brief format.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to wonder how much of the opposition to 20+ is we don't like the idea, and how much is we don't like how it has been done before?
For me, it's that I don't like playing above level 10. And epic/mythic rules implies I have to slog through the pain that is levels 11-20. That's a lot of game to suffer through. And yes, I mean "suffer": it's just not fun for me.
Also, Paizo has made it a policy that they will continue to provide support for material once it is released. That means future expansion books will be cluttered with epic/mythic material that I will never use. That's why I can't rest and say "it's cool if you like it, I just won't buy it." I have to activately try and shut it down, lest it begin to take over my books.
Also, Paizo has made it a policy that they will continue to provide support for material once it is released. That means future expansion books will be cluttered with epic/mythic material that I will never use. That's why I can't rest and say "it's cool if you like it, I just won't buy it." I have to activately try and shut it down, lest it begin to take over my books.
Eek.
I'm pretty vocal about my opinion of all the oriental stuff, but I'm not trying to shut it down. Way I see it, the more bases Paizo covers, the stronger they are as a company and the more likely I'll continue to get material in the long run.
I understand your point, but I completely disagree. I think it's kind of short-sighted - plus it's essentially saying "I don't want it, therefore nobody should have it."
Once Paizo had all the core rules out, we run the risk of a tyranny of the minority - with no large groups in support of any new rules elements, we'll turn into the Reichstag - we enter paralysis and get blindsided by something nobody wants.
Thankfully Paizo is a private business and not a governmental body run by 42 political parties :)
Also, Paizo has made it a policy that they will continue to provide support for material once it is released. That means future expansion books will be cluttered with epic/mythic material that I will never use. That's why I can't rest and say "it's cool if you like it, I just won't buy it." I have to activately try and shut it down, lest it begin to take over my books.Eek.
I'm pretty vocal about my opinion of all the oriental stuff, but I'm not trying to shut it down. Way I see it, the more bases Paizo covers, the stronger they are as a company and the more likely I'll continue to get material in the long run.
I understand your point, but I completely disagree. I think it's kind of short-sighted - plus it's essentially saying "I don't want it, therefore nobody should have it."
Once Paizo had all the core rules out, we run the risk of a tyranny of the minority - with no large groups in support of any new rules elements, we'll turn into the Reichstag - we enter paralysis and get blindsided by something nobody wants.
Thankfully Paizo is a private business and not a governmental body run by 42 political parties :)
I completely agree with gbonehead, especially with what I had bolded. The viewpoint really irks me and I feel it is selfish.
There is material in PF that doesn't interest me, but I do not go out of my way to try and prevent Paizo from developing and publishing it.
Fortunately, I feel Paizo has done a good job in supplying supplemental information for PF. I hope to see the rest of what I am looking forward to (including mythic levels), but I also do understand they have other supplemental books in mind, first.
What would really be nice to see as well is the PF version of the Stronghold Builder's guide. Strongholds is something we use a lot of in our campaign. However, this is discussion for another thread.
We all campaign for what we want to happen. In 2004 US election, my reason for voting for John Kerry was pretty much "because I don't want George Bush in office." (I didn't even really like Kerry.)
Does that make me "selfish", that I would prevent Bush from ruling America? I mean, 48% of the country loves the guy, and I'm telling them no. I get my vote, same as you.
May the best man win. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all campaign for what we want to happen. In 2004 US election, my reason for voting for John Kerry was pretty much "because I don't want George Bush in office." (I didn't even really like Kerry.)
Does that make me "selfish", that I would prevent Bush from ruling America? I mean, 48% of the country loves the guy, and I'm telling them no. I get my vote, same as you.
May the best man win. :-)
The whole thing is your example deals in absolutes. It’s either John Kerry or George Bush who will take office, not both. (Btw, was no fan of George Bush, either).
The great thing about playing Pathfinder is it is helmed by a company who has published many books for a great deal of supplemental information useful to us and the future looks bright in receiving much more. So why can’t we both win?
Yes, there will be those times you really don’t want books or product as it is not useful or interesting to you. I’ve never really been interested in playing a Halfling, so “Halflings of Golarian” is not on my radar. Same applies with Faction book, Villians or Seeker of Secrets. Where I like some oriental, the Xian Tia book overall is not at the front of my want list. I could really care less about the GameMastery tile maps as we use the 3-D dungeon tiles. The paper minis are not really useful to me (no offense Liz!) as we use plastic minis. Don’t really have any motivation for the APs as our GM has always done well in creating his own adventures.
However, I have never protested for none of this to be published. I understand and respect others want and enjoy using these products or books. I don’t expect Paizo to publish only what “I” want. Therefore, I only purchase what is useful to me.
I have confidence Paizo will do a good job in giving us what we want (both of us). There’s probably a good chance I won’t buy my Tian Tian book, and you don’t have to buy your mythic level book (if it does come out). We can both “win.” :)
... stuff about a zero-sum game ...The whole thing is your example deals in absolutes.
The great thing about playing Pathfinder is it is helmed by a company who has published many books for a great deal of supplemental information useful to us and the future looks bright in receiving much more. So why can’t we both win?
Yes, there will be those times you really don’t want books or product as it is not useful or interesting to you. I’ve never really been interested in playing a Halfling, so “Halflings of Golarian” is not on my radar. Same applies with Faction book, Villians or Seeker of Secrets. Where I like some oriental, the Xian Tia book overall is not at the front of my want list. I could really care less about the GameMastery tile maps as we use the 3-D dungeon tiles. The paper minis are not really useful to me (no offense Liz!) as we use plastic minis. Don’t really have any motivation for the APs as our GM has always done well in creating his own adventures.
However, I have never protested for none of this to be published. I understand and respect others want and enjoy using these products or books. I don’t expect Paizo to publish only what “I” want. Therefore, I only purchase what is useful to me.
His concerns are similar to those of the anti-APG crowd - that mythic material will sneak into such a large part of Paizo material that he has to either suck it up and get it even though he doesn't like it, or just not get large swaths of material.
My guess is it's not an issue - I really don't see the mythic stuff being anywhere near as pervasive as the APG stuff (which is really a core book, not any kind of optional add on).
I have the same concerns about the oriental stuff since there's such an oriental feeding frenzy going on (and I've gotten slammed about hoping that bestiary 3 isn't a stealth Oriental Bestairy) ... but since I'm a subscriber and get everything, it's not a huge concern for me.
I explicitly want post-20 support . . . built on the assumptions that 1) solars genuinely approach the power of demigods, and 2) non-divine beings are never powerful enough individually to solo demigods without facing grave risk.
|
|
You've pretty much summed it up for me as well, Hobbun. This is pretty much what I've been saying since this whole discussion began. None of those products you listed (no offense to any of those that were responsible for them!) have little to no use to me and will never see play at my table.
And because you don't want something, then all of us who want 20+ rules should suffer? If you don't want 20+ rules, don't by the book. As simple as that.
If there is an AP that uses the 20+ rules, don't by it an we are all happy.
It is selfish to demand that something not be done just because you don't want it. Political analogies do not work with this.
|
|
I've said this many times.
I am 100% wanting post-20th level rules. Totally. I will buy any and all "mythic" products.
I have NO interest in Asian-themed adventures. However, I WILL continue my AP subscription, including Jade Regent. I am NOT interested in mixing guns with my fantasy gaming; but I will still definitely buy Ultimate Combat. I support Paizo, and have faith in their ability to entertain me with these products, even if I am not usually a fan of said content.
See how this works?
Everyone gets what they want; and we all go home happy.
|
|
And because you don't want something, then all of us who want 20+ rules should suffer? If you don't want 20+ rules, don't by the book. As simple as that.If there is an AP that uses the 20+ rules, don't by it an we are all happy.
Unless the 20+ stuff becomes sufficiently pervasive that all/most of the new APs extend into those levels, meaning you have to deal with it if you want the end of the story.
Maybe not likely, but still a valid concern. Those who think the game breaks past 12-13 are already in that boat.
I don't think that the game breaks at all. I love high level play. All that high level play requires is a good GM who is willing to improvise a little, who knows what the PCs are capable of and what NPCs are capable of. If you enter High-level play expecting to se 10- level play...of course you will think it's broken. High level play is nothing like low level play.
|
|
Eek.I'm pretty vocal about my opinion of all the oriental stuff, but I'm not trying to shut it down. Way I see it, the more bases Paizo covers, the stronger they are as a company and the more likely I'll continue to get material in the long run.
I understand your point, but I completely disagree. I think it's kind of short-sighted - plus it's essentially saying "I don't want it, therefore nobody should have it."
Once Paizo had all the core rules out, we run the risk of a tyranny of the minority - with no large groups in support of any new rules elements, we'll turn into the Reichstag - we enter paralysis and get blindsided by something nobody wants.
Thankfully Paizo is a private business and not a governmental body run by 42 political parties :)
Agreed and seconded. In my gaming group there are 2 3.5 diehards who until Paizo releases both an Epic and Psionic book refuse to make the switch to PF. For them 3.5 has all the bases covered. And now Paizo needs to do the same with PF. I do not understand and will never understand the mentality of if aperson does not want a certain set of rules in an rpg than no one else should. You don't have to use everything.
I have 13th level dudez in my pbp, so I'm prone to buying hi level stuff.
I have 13th level dudez in my pbp, so I'm prone to buying hi level stuff.
I want the Brown Note as an epic song!
Agreed and seconded. In my gaming group there are 2 3.5 diehards who until Paizo releases both an Epic and Psionic book refuse to make the switch to PF. For them 3.5 has all the bases covered. And now Paizo needs to do the same with PF. I do not understand and will never understand the mentality of if aperson does not want a certain set of rules in an rpg than no one else should. You don't have to use everything.
Will they at least accept the Dreamscarded Press Psionic Unleashed conversion as the psionics book? It is extremely unlikely that Paizo will do psioncs the way 3.5 did, which likely just piss them off even more.
Tell them from a guy who likes post-20 and psionics that they are being donkeys.
Are you following strict PF Society play in your group? If not they need to just get over it. The 3.0 Epic rules (because 3.5 doesn't really cover epic I'd point out) can be made to cover Pathfinder as is. The tell you how to deal with other classes and make Epic progressions for them (which would be all the Pathfinder classes). They will work basically as well for PF as the did for 3.0 and 3.5....