It's a carry over from 3.5e
without putting to finer point on it do we really need to keep to it ?
Sure there are some of us myself included who enjoy the long drawn out campaign taking a level 1 to level 20 but no doubt there are many more who get no where near that and spend most of their time between 1 and 10 wrapping up shortly there after depending on the game.
While that's not exactly a problem because there nothing stopping anyone only playing the first 10 levels of a class, It occurs to me how much development time is probably spent on the 10-20 levels vs the 1-10 level as far as getting a good balance goes.
Is it possible if a 3rd type (we already have core and base) of class were made specifically to cater for the low level play that it might result in a more rich and varied amount of content with a shorter development timeframe.
For example a class designed to end at 10th with a capstone at 10th instead of 20th would be a more complete and rounded class for low level play in particular for PFS.
I just wonder how many additional classes/content might be created for low level play in the time it takes to develop low and high level class content.
Paizo doesn't make many prestige classes which are mostly used at the second half of a character.
Adventure Paths don''t go to lvl 20 and the spell list of lvl 3 spells are a lot broader than lvl 9 spells.
Even the powerbalance is a lot better at lower levels, thus I suppost more time is used for them.
I agree with you that the first 10-12 levels are the most fun, and if Pathfinder would only have those, I would still play it.
However Pathfinder is a direct offspring of 3.5, there are players that like high-levels (see epic Handbook discussions), and Paizo seems to already concentrate a little more more on low-lvls as you asked.
I doubt however that any 3PP would create classes only for the first 10 levels. There are RPgames out there that focus on the low power gamers.
Paizo doesn't make many prestige classes which are mostly used at the second half of a character.
Adventure Paths don''t go to lvl 20 and the spell list of lvl 3 spells are a lot broader than lvl 9 spells.
Even the powerbalance is a lot better at lower levels, thus I suppost more time is used for them.I agree with you that the first 10-12 levels are the most fun, and if Pathfinder would only have those, I would still play it.
However Pathfinder is a direct offspring of 3.5, there are players that like high-levels (see epic Handbook discussions), and Paizo seems to already concentrate a little more more on low-lvls as you asked.I doubt however that any 3PP would create classes only for the first 10 levels. There are RPgames out there that focus on the low power gamers.
Is there room for both ?
for lack of a better title
Basic Players Guide
with a bunch of classes that only go level 1-10 with appropriate additional feats, magic items spell etc
coming out along side the
Advanced Players Guide 2
We always play past 10th level, never a game that doesn't go past 10th. Now I've yet to play a game all the way to level 20, 17th is the highest. Level 12 seems to be the most common stopping point though which is PFS is.
While I'm normally the one talking about how things work at high level, I actually think I get a little of this concern.
At least that -- okay, most games ARE level 1-10.
But a lot of times it takes up to 6th or 8th level to sometimes feel like you're getting the most out of your class abilities. Many feats are paced out so you can't take them until you achieve a certain BAB or are a certain character level. Many class abilities don't feel potent or maybe even effective till you've gone a few levels in: you don't get your second domain or school ability till level 8; many, many, many class features are level dependent in either that you cannot take an ability until you are a certain level (e.g., rage powers) or that usage/power is reliant upon class level.
You can't even do much with a Critical Hit build till you're level 11 at least (with Imp Critical coming in at BAB +8, Crit Focus at +10, and don't qualify for the first few Critical feats that chain off that until BAB +11).
When you're playing at low levels, a HUGE amount of the rulebook feels like it's stamped "You can't do this yet." And if you're playing in a low-level, slow progression game, a good bulk of it you will never see.
And then there's the capstones, which seem a cool incentive for sticking with a single class--but very few PCs will ever actually level to 20 to see that awesome capstone. It's hard to feel rewarded by an ability you know you'll probably never use--or only use at the very tail end of a campaign. The idea of a 10th level "mini capstone" is great--and would probably feel far more rewarding to single-classed PC players than the 20th level capstone ever would.
Now, OBVIOUSLY--there is a reason for things scaling/boosting with level. A level 1 character shouldn't be able to insta-crit a beastie and make it vomit, for example. We need to have some pacing and restrictions on what is available when. But a level 1 character should feel like they've got some choices as to how to reflect their concept or combat style, even if it is just at a starting point.
But I would nevertheless agree that more, low-powered options for low-powered/low-level games aren't a bad thing. Feats that don't tree off of 80 billion other feats would be nice too (as seems to be the trend for many new feats I see coming out, though I might be exaggerating. But I'm thinking of stuff like the quarterstaff feats in Ultimate Magic, where it takes half of an adventurer's career to be able to learn how to trip someone with a long stick, for example). Some things have helped with this--for example, the alternate racial abilities that boost advancement of uses of class abilities per day. More along these lines would be great.
I don't think we need classes that only go to level 10 (because what if a GM is running a 10th level party and wants to challenge them with a CR 11 NPC?), and I think the high level options as they remain are fine, but more choices and versatility for lower levels aren't a bad idea at all, and may make waiting till that 6th level so you can get Greater Trip or whatever feel like... well, that you're not actually waiting to finish building your character concept.
|
I've mentioned this before, but for diverse reasons, I haven't played a PC above 5th level since 3.0 came out. As a result, I always focus my discussion on the early levels. If everything above 10th went away, I wouldn't notice.
I'm in one campaign (tabletop) that I've been playing for over a year, and we're 3rd level, almost 4th. My highest PCs in organized play have been 5th. Most of the time, I'm playing 1st level characters that have campaign worlds peter out around the time I hit 2nd.
While I'm normally the one talking about how things work at high level, I actually think I get a little of this concern.
At least that -- okay, most games ARE level 1-10.
But a lot of times it takes up to 6th or 8th level to sometimes feel like you're getting the most out of your class abilities. Many feats are paced out so you can't take them until you achieve a certain BAB or are a certain character level. Many class abilities don't feel potent or maybe even effective till you've gone a few levels in: you don't get your second domain or school ability till level 8; many, many, many class features are level dependent in either that you cannot take an ability until you are a certain level (e.g., rage powers) or that usage/power is reliant upon class level.
You can't even do much with a Critical Hit build till you're level 11 at least (with Imp Critical coming in at BAB +8, Crit Focus at +10, and don't qualify for the first few Critical feats that chain off that until BAB +11).
When you're playing at low levels, a HUGE amount of the rulebook feels like it's stamped "You can't do this yet." And if you're playing in a low-level, slow progression game, a good bulk of it you will never see.
And then there's the capstones, which seem a cool incentive for sticking with a single class--but very few PCs will ever actually level to 20 to see that awesome capstone. It's hard to feel rewarded by an ability you know you'll probably never use--or only use at the very tail end of a campaign. The idea of a 10th level "mini capstone" is great--and would probably feel far more rewarding to single-classed PC players than the 20th level capstone ever would.
Now, OBVIOUSLY--there is a reason for things scaling/boosting with level. A level 1 character shouldn't be able to insta-crit a beastie and make it vomit, for example. We need to have some pacing and restrictions on what is available when. But a level 1 character should feel like they've got some choices as to how to reflect their concept or combat style, even...
I like this as well. I want 'Mythic' options, even if I never get there, because more options are good.
This, however, would benefit the games I run and play in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a houserule, sure, that sounds great. But I seriously doubt Paizo would want to invalidate their own content lines, since they already have published many adventures and modules that go up to 17th level even.
To understand why Pathfinder is the way it is, one must always look to the adventure content.
I think they already spend more development time on the lower levels than the higher levels. The developers have admitted already that the game gets kind of wonky at higher levels, which is why PFS stops at 12th level, and APs generally stop in the 15th-17th range. They don't seem to be putting a lot of development time into correcting the issues at higher level, producing content for high-level play or rushing right into an epic level ruleset, either. I think they recognize that, although there is a dedicated minority that loves high-level play, the majority of games are going to take place at lower and mid-levels, so that's where their bread and butter is.
What about make the game work from level 1 to 20?
(BTW, I can say that barring few fixable things*, a Core + APG + GMG + B1 + B2 worked fine for me).
Furthermore, I could play up to level 10 and still need stats for level 11-16 NPCs because I need "boss", archnenemies, or friendly/neutral leaders, if needed for some kind of campaign.
*which, as far as I know, wil never be fixed
The only thing I think they should do is have a level 12 mini-capstone for PFS play. Other than that, they should just continue to do what they do.
|
The prestige classes I have seen seem to only be 10 levels long. You could always start your characters at level 1 of a prestige class and go to 10. You could bypass or just give the characters the needed prerequisites at level 1 to start. Worth a try and then Paizo doesn't have to do anything except maybe make a few more prestige classes. However, Paizo would have a thousand screaming fans to deal with :(
I think that tinkering with the set levels would mean a new edition and even then, it would most likely be something like 4E's going to 30, and breaking each block of 10 into a different tier. Anything that breaks from a base of 10 would be extremely unlikely.
I love high level play. Weird as it can get, it's a lot of fun to me. Some 17-20th level adventures would be great, IMHO.
|
I find the idea of a level 10 "mini" capstone and feat chains getting to top efficiency in 10 levels a very bad idea.
The be meaningful they wouldn't be "mini" at all.
The result would be an increase in power for all the characters and an increase in complexity of the possible combinations by several orders of magnitude.
The result will not be a level 10 cap useful for the people that normally don't go above that in the current game.
they will stop before that level for the same reasons that stop them today before going to the middle high levels, the game become too complex for their tastes, the combo too powerful and so on. At the same time the people that want to play till the high levels will feel cheated and a lot of the support material would become meaningless.
I suspect it will be a lose/lose proposition for Paizo.
There is no reason for Paizo to create a class that only goes to 10. The second they did they'd get complaints from people that want to use it in full 1-20 games. Development time isn't really an issue. If they are going to do a new class they might as well go all the way. Although I'm not certain how many more classes we really need.
I can see a 3PP that wants to support E6 or E8 play producing some limited classes. But I suspect such a product would have limited appeal.
@thenoble drake:
Yes, it required a houserule to let demihumans advance to 20th level. But it was a very simple rule that was very commonly used: "Ignore the level limits."
Even so, the RAW game did go to level 20 for humans. So the game went to 20 even if all characters couldn't get there.
Then just give your players two levels worth of class features every time they gain a level? There are far too many simple ways to fix this with house ruling than for Paizo to waste their precious time and capital telling you HOW to do it in some peripheral material that won't be supported and it will never matter for sanctioned play. How spoiled is this community that we think we can't do something without a rulebook that has a publisher's logo on it?
If you're a GM, do what you want with it and your players will play or walk. Whatever. If you're a player, then start GMing and do it however the freak you want! All of this "Why does Paizo still use these 3.5 legacy rules?! They are stupid!" crap is grating on my nerves, especially since that's the very reason I switched to Pathfinder. I liked 3.5 and even though there are some serious issues with legacy rules, Paizo is doing a damn good job on improving the game overall.
Maybe these comments on the legacy issues "mean well" or something. Maybe the posters think they're bringing something to the attention of those it would matter to, but it just doesn't come across that way.
|
|
@thenoble drake:
Yes, it required a houserule to let demihumans advance to 20th level. But it was a very simple rule that was very commonly used: "Ignore the level limits."
Even so, the RAW game did go to level 20 for humans. So the game went to 20 even if all characters couldn't get there.
The game did go to unlimited levels actually. Simply you got nothing for the extra level beside a few HP and extra power for spells (with some rule published in additional material [Isle of the Ape if I recall exactly] it was possible for the spellcaster to get extra spells).
An note that:
- elf and half elf has no level cap
- thieves had no level cap for non humans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, my answer to the original question is:
No. We really should push the cap up to 30.
|
|
In both editions of AD&D the majority of characters were limited to levels much lower than 20, as noted by the existence of the racial class and level limits tables found in both editions.
Most demi-humans did have a maximum for most classes. However, humans did NOT have a maximum, be it 10th, 20th, of 60th. However, the different classes DID stop adding hit dice around the level 9-12 range, depending on the class. But that doesn't mean the class level itself stopped advancing, it just meant that some of the inanities of stuff like 20 HD characters didn't exist. Like being able to, RAW, swim across a pool of lava.
Other books got you up to level 30 though.
I think it was Faiths and Avatars, but I could be wrong.
Backward compatibility (among others).
Because our group, and many others, play up to or even past level 20. If you do not get to level 18 at least you miss out on many class options for casters as well as feat tree's for combat characters.
Of course, my answer to the original question is:
No. We really should push the cap up to 30.
what like 4e ?
what like 4e ?Of course, my answer to the original question is:
No. We really should push the cap up to 30.
I prefer level 36 myself. Going back to the roots as it were.
I prefer level 36 myself. Going back to the roots as it were.No. We really should push the cap up to 30.what like 4e ?
I'm ok with 36 too. 30 has the advantage that you can go 20 levels normal class, 10 levels of prestige class. And BBEGs in the CR 35 range. Level 36 gives a strange break with final bosses needing to be around CR 41-42ish.
I'm ok with 36 too. 30 has the advantage that you can go 20 levels normal class, 10 levels of prestige class. And BBEGs in the CR 35 range. Level 36 gives a strange break with final bosses needing to be around CR 41-42ish.I prefer level 36 myself. Going back to the roots as it were.No. We really should push the cap up to 30.what like 4e ?
you do get the development time for a 36 level class is significantly more than 20 which again significantly more than 10.
i.e. less content,slower releases
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say 40 levels.
i think this thread has been infected with world of warcraft we'll be up to 60 in no time XD
I say 40 levels.i think this thread has been infected with world of warcraft we'll be up to 60 in no time XD
If my character sheet automatically applied my damage to the monsters I'm fighting and also adjucated all my spell corner-cases for me, then sure, I think level 60, or 40, or 20 or whatever is great.
Until then, let's cap it at 10.
you do get the development time for a 36 level class is significantly more than 20 which again significantly more than 10.
i.e. less content,slower releases
I'm already content with the number of classes in Pathfinder. Magus was the last one that I really felt was missing. (Ok, excepting the addition of psionic classes, but that would be another topic entirely.) So yes, I would prefer deeper support for existing classes than a spread of low level classes that aren't going to be used.
What niche needs to be served that can't be an archetype of existing classes?
I say 40 levels.i think this thread has been infected with world of warcraft we'll be up to 60 in no time XDIf my character sheet automatically applied my damage to the monsters I'm fighting and also adjucated all my spell corner-cases for me, then sure, I think level 60, or 40, or 20 or whatever is great.
Until then, let's cap it at 10.
Considering that one of the reasons I stuck with PF instead of going 4th was the feel of high level play, if there are a lot of players like me, this could be a really BAD move.
AFAIK, current APs go anyway further tan that. So what?
I say 40 levels.i think this thread has been infected with world of warcraft we'll be up to 60 in no time XDIf my character sheet automatically applied my damage to the monsters I'm fighting and also adjucated all my spell corner-cases for me, then sure, I think level 60, or 40, or 20 or whatever is great.
Until then, let's cap it at 10.
I understand the desire to cap a game because you want a lower magic world (and E6 is what I plan to use for that), but to say there shouldn't be high levels because some people are afraid of math seems silly to me.
My game is currently at level 17. The only real problem I run into is a lack of variety in monsters at high CR levels.
Edit: I do agree that high level needs a cap at some point. Demon Lords need a fixed scale that they are measured against.
Until then, let's cap it at 10.Go ahead. Nothing is stopping you.
You'd be surprised. Getting players to accept houserules is tough, especially when they percieve it as you "taking away their shinys" (exact quote from a player). It leads to a lot of disappointment when they feel like they're missing out on things, which can really dampen their excitement in the whole campaign. (And puts me in a weird position saying prophetically "trust me, I know it will suck for you and the party if you get all those powers".)
And while I'm usually the GM, I'm not always, and then I'm forced to deal with the status quo. For example, I was a PC through RotRL recently, and while books 1-4 were fine, book 6 was terribly, terribly painful for all involved, but we were "too far along" to either bail, or fix anything. Two months of Wednesdays down the drain...
Now I'm running Carrion Crown, and converting every statblock down to E8. It's a ton of work. I'd be nice of the game and APs topped out at level 10. I think more groups would finish them. Look over at the the Kingmaker boards: we have had lots of posters come in and say "I want to run KM, but I can't do high-level, how do I end it early or convert?"
I really, honestly think introducing an earlier level cap and dropping support entirely for level 12+ play would sell more product for Paizo.
More levels!
I really, honestly think introducing an earlier level cap and dropping support entirely for level 12+ play would sell more product for Paizo.I think reducing options will bring about the need for a new edition much faster.
I can agree to disagree on that point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say "if you want my levels 11-20, you'll have to pry them out of my cold, dead hands", but as a low-level character, you don't stand a chance against epic me. :P
Level 20 stays.
Until then, let's cap it at 10.Go ahead. Nothing is stopping you.You'd be surprised. Getting players to accept houserules is tough, especially when they percieve it as you "taking away their shinys" (exact quote from a player). It leads to a lot of disappointment when they feel like they're missing out on things, which can really dampen their excitement in the whole campaign. (And puts me in a weird position saying prophetically "trust me, I know it will suck for you and the party if you get all those powers".)
And while I'm usually the GM, I'm not always, and then I'm forced to deal with the status quo. For example, I was a PC through RotRL recently, and while books 1-4 were fine, book 6 was terribly, terribly painful for all involved, but we were "too far along" to either bail, or fix anything. Two months of Wednesdays down the drain...
Now I'm running Carrion Crown, and converting every statblock down to E8. It's a ton of work. I'd be nice of the game and APs topped out at level 10. I think more groups would finish them. Look over at the the Kingmaker boards: we have had lots of posters come in and say "I want to run KM, but I can't do high-level, how do I end it early or convert?"
I really, honestly think introducing an earlier level cap and dropping support entirely for level 12+ play would sell more product for Paizo.
I could see making some APs that ended at level 10-12, but there is too much interest in higher levels for them to drop support for that completely.
What is this E8 that everyone is referring to? Don't recognize the reference.
|
A tweaking of the E6 playstyle to cap at 8th level. People have been adjusting it based on their preferred power level and the changes PF made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really, honestly think introducing an earlier level cap and dropping support entirely for level 12+ play would sell more product for Paizo.
As a module subscriber I own a fair amount of modules. I seem to own 22 modules in the 1-10 range and 6 in the 11-17 range. So it seems to me like you are already getting your wish.
The vast majority of support goes to the 1-12 range already. Why would you want to deny the rest of us our fun? Paizo already produces more product than any one GM can use.