Yep!The next thing is to push Dreamscarred Press to publish some APs incorporating psionics.I believe they are doing just that, actually.
Interesting. A pure psionic game could be fun.
Well not totally irrelevant. One of the reasons it stops at 12, is because the system starts to crack after that.
Well not totally irrelevant. One of the reasons it stops at 12, is because the system starts to crack after that.
I would say that's definitely not true.
What does happen is that as level increases, the game has to be more and more customized to the actual players and characters in the game.
I'm running a game where the characters range in level from 54-66. For some tables and players this would be a non-starter. We've been doing it for years.
Could I plop another arbitrary set of characters and PCs into the game as it is now and would it work just as well? I suspect the answer is "no way in hell". Not because the rules are broken, but because the challenges, plot and opponents in the game are a reflection of the people at the table and the characters they're playing.
If you think about it, however, there's nothing unique in this regard. Look at the adventure paths. While in general some are viewed as more popular and some as less popular, there are people who hate some adventure paths that other people love. Why? A large part of it is because it doesn't match their expectations of the game.
Some people cannot stand a roleplaying-heavy, investigtion-heavy gothic horror path. Others can't stand a no-boundaries kingdom-building path. Even at low levels the game must fit the audience; it's just that the crafting is ever more precise at higher and higher levels.
I've run lots of convention games. At low levels, you can make pretty much any table work just fine regardless of the mix of players and classes. At higher levels, it is definitely a lot more challenging to support an arbitrary mix of classes. So I'm betting the fact that PFS is limited to level 12 is based a lot more on the difficulty of writing adventures for arbitrary audiences than any belief that the rules start falling apart.
You can say its not true all you want. But I can say the sky is green too.
Well not totally irrelevant. One of the reasons it stops at 12, is because the system starts to crack after that.
In your opinion. My 4 year long game reached level 20 last month. The campaign will come to an end soon, but the last 5 levels have been some of the most fun I've had as a GM. And I tend to like low level stuff.
The only cracks in my game have come from artifacts I've let my players get. And well, that's entirely my fault.
I for one would love to see mythic rules by the time my next game hits 20. So we'll have more options available to us. I certainly steered things to an end, but I didn't have to if there was more support.
amazing how people that can't handle 12+ levels says that the system starts to crack just because of their inability, I suppose its more easy that way
Eh I've ran it to 25th, I and many others ( paizo as well it seems) think it has real issues past `12th. Others do not. Nothing is gonna change what either side thinks.
*shrug*
Empirical evidence is readily available on these boards that many, many people have successfully run games at very high levels.
It's not the rules that cause high level play to fail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of us consider it the upper end of where all class types still remain equally viable for play and the fighters don't serve as cheerleaders to the all mighty casters.I'm a relatively new poster here, though I've been lurking for since about 2 years ago when I was lured into PF after a long hiatus from tabletop.
Put my vote down (for what it counts) for Epic / High Level game play books. Please note, I'd much rather vote with my dollar and do intend to purchase any modules or source books that offer 18th+ level of play.
One reason I've hesitated in joining PFS is because it stops at 13th level, which is what I normally consider the lower end of a fun character or group.
-TimD
I can't tell if your comment is in reference to PFS max 12th level play or post 20 play.
While my experience with Pathfinder is worlds behind that of my experience with 1E & 2E (and honestly will likely never catch up due to my time constraints and the amount of time that PF has been out compared to how long the others were), I've found that one of the oddest issues is how martial classes are perceived, especially with all the corrections/ nerfs/ etc. from previous editions. It may be my LARP experience bias speaking as well, but in many situations being able to deal more than respectable damage consistently for multiple encounters in a game day is generally even more decisive than being reduced to casting "ray of frost" every round because because you ran yourself out of spell slots.
On the other hand, I find that one of the enjoyable challenges in gaming is pacing rather than the "one encounter per day" model I've seen become more and more common over the years. This likely puts me in the clear minority.
As always YMMV.
-TimD
The problem with epic level play is simple. 3rd edition D&D is broken at high level. There are already 7-10 levels that border on unplayable, no need to create a book that adds more unplayable levels.
PFS recognizes this and stops at 12th level.
That said, if people will buy they book they will print it.
The problem with epic level play is simple. 3rd edition D&D is broken at high level. There are already 7-10 levels that border on unplayable, no need to create a book that adds more unplayable levels.
PFS recognizes this and stops at 12th level.
That said, if people will buy they book they will print it.
There you have it! The definitive final statement settling what thousands of posts on dozens of threads have not been able to settle.
Hats off to ultimatepunch!
:-)
I would like a Mythic System. I'd like to write within a Mythic System.
Before anybody climbs on me and starts beating me down, let me qualify the statement.
That being that I would expect that to require an entirely new game, but that game to utilize the Golarion IP. I'd be fine with that. A nod towards conversion from one game to the next would be great, but I wouldn't expect that conversion to be perfect or precise.
- That means the Design Team creates a new rule set.
- And the Creative / Adventure side finds ways to use it.
It would take resources, yes. But speaking not as a freelancer, but as a customer, I don't need every last hole in Garund and Arcadia to be described in detail before exploring new ideas.
(As a freelancer I do as I'm told. OBEY! PUNISH!)
|
I hear lots of people say that the system breaks down after 12 level
could I get some examples of this?
I think some people just don't like the spell effects of spells ablve 6th level. there are always ways to limit certain spells so they don't break the game. It just requires a little creativity on the part of the GM.
I hear lots of people say that the system breaks down after 12 level
could I get some examples of this?I think some people just don't like the spell effects of spells ablve 6th level. there are always ways to limit certain spells so they don't break the game. It just requires a little creativity on the part of the GM.
Seconded,1 give us example the how the system break after 12 level. I had always think that this kind of problems are because the GM no read and apply the rules correctly, its more I don't think it necessary to nerf spells
|
Eh I've ran it to 25th, I and many others ( paizo as well it seems) think it has real issues past `12th. Others do not. Nothing is gonna change what either side thinks.
The problem past 12th is the mandatory arms race if the PCs wish to survive (every monster and their dog has true seeing, etc.) It gets worse and worse, and when you hit level 20+, the PCs find themselves the or some of the most powerful figures in the world, which automatically results in politics, which a lot of players do not enjoy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Levels 11-20 = Epic imo.
And I don't like rap.
But I approve of its availability on the market, for other people.Do I want to play these things? Not really.
I advocate the availability.
Cute, but not an analogy that holds.
I don't expect the label that produces Rock-n-Roll or Country music to ALSO carry Rap.
I have no issue with the availability. I just would rather Paizo spend its limited time & resources on something else.
If 3PPs want to tackle it, as was recently done, I applaud their efforts.
Now if Paizo's fortunes have grown to where they can say "We're expanding to support sci-fi, low fantasy, post apoc, low-fantasy,..", etc., (all of which would operate in the 1-20 range)then I've got no objection...
Except, both labels are owned by the same megacorp. :P
Cute, but not an analogy that holds.I don't expect the label that produces Rock-n-Roll or Country music to ALSO carry Rap.
Lol. Very true.
However, to date, Paizo has "one label". The pro-Epic crowd keeps talking as if that "Epic label" already exists, but it doesn't. It did for WotC. However, Paizo is not WotC.
And until such time as market results prove the success & business viability of Epic-level content (& Paizo reaches RPG megacorp status supporting multiple genres/lines as I described), I think it's best served as 3PP fodder.
On a different note, however, if you can wipe away the existence of Rap, I might be tempted to vote with the pro-Epic crowd. (Get a little, give a little, y'know?)
Rogues hitting stuff with their first attack is not a problem. Hitting stuff with iteratives is.
at 20th level, the average enemy CR 20 has a 35 AC. A rogue with 30 Dex, Weapon finesse, and a +5 sword has a +30 to hit, and can hit that AC on a 5 or better...3+ if flanking, 2+ w Weapon Focus. And if he does it right, can do a bunch of sneak attack damage.
The fighter, however, can dump TH into Power Attack, and still hit with his secondary attack better then a Rogue can with his primary. That's the benefit of being a fighter.
Sure, if you get some monster with 50 AC, the rogue is going to have problems. That's a monster obviously designed to be fought some other way, or by Melee types. Or maybe denied its dex bonus by various means.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh I've ran it to 25th, I and many others ( paizo as well it seems) think it has real issues past `12th. Others do not. Nothing is gonna change what either side thinks.The problem past 12th is the mandatory arms race if the PCs wish to survive (every monster and their dog has true seeing, etc.) It gets worse and worse, and when you hit level 20+, the PCs find themselves the or some of the most powerful figures in the world, which automatically results in politics, which a lot of players do not enjoy.
Let me fix that for you:
"The problem for some groups past 12th is the non-mandatory arms race created by some GMs, that the PCs have to engage in in that GM's campaign if the PCs wish to survive (because their GM has given every monster and their dog true seeing, etc.)"
There are certainly "I win" combinations. Why would or should I give them to every single stinking creature in the world? Why would every primal earth elemental that got pulled into the prime have true seeing, Devastating and Stunning Critical, and an antimagic field charm?
Not every GM does this. In the game I'm running, the vast majority of the world is exactly as it was when they started at 6th level, it's just the PCs are now the ones who have to deal with that nasty stuff in the dirty corners of the cosmos.
It's like MIB. The only reason the people in the kingdoms are able to get on with their miserable little lives is because they just don't know. And it's up to the high level characters to keep it that way.
Levels 11-20 = Epic imo.
Yeah. Clever, yet a useless comment. You understand full well that the discussion is about levels 21+.
You might as well quibble about experience, levels, "hit" dice, and the rest of the English language in use in the game while you're at it. "My character has experience! He's done lots of stuff!"
Rogues hitting stuff with their first attack is not a problem. Hitting stuff with iteratives is.
at 20th level, the average enemy CR 20 has a 35 AC. A rogue with 30 Dex, Weapon finesse, and a +5 sword has a +30 to hit, and can hit that AC on a 5 or better...3+ if flanking, 2+ w Weapon Focus. And if he does it right, can do a bunch of sneak attack damage.
The fighter, however, can dump TH into Power Attack, and still hit with his secondary attack better then a Rogue can with his primary. That's the benefit of being a fighter.
Sure, if you get some monster with 50 AC, the rogue is going to have problems. That's a monster obviously designed to be fought some other way, or by Melee types. Or maybe denied its dex bonus by various means.
===Aelryinth
Exactly. Which is why at very high levels, there should be no average monster. It's a game. The point is for the players to have fun. If the GM creates every monster so the PCs are useless, that GM's just a jerk.
A better strategy for the GM is to create encounters that are interesting and challenging for that specific set of PCs. The higher the level, the more specifically the encounters have to be crafted, and the harder it is to create encounters that both make sense in the world and are a challenge for the players.
Certainly not impossible, but a heck of a lot more work than when you're working at CRs in the under 10 range.
The thing is, I have no problem with the rogue being useless sometimes. Or the fighter, or wizard, etc. It's when one of the players has a character that the GM always renders useless that there's a problem. And that is the GM's problem, and it's up to the GM to fix it.
Because it's not a simulation, it's a game :)
By the way, as much as I admire Jim, I have to contradict him:
I would like a Mythic System. I'd like to write within a Mythic System. Before anybody climbs on me and starts beating me down, let me qualify the statement.
That being that I would expect that to require an entirely new game, but that game to utilize the Golarion IP. I'd be fine with that. A nod towards conversion from one game to the next would be great, but I wouldn't expect that conversion to be perfect or precise.
- That means the Design Team creates a new rule set.
- And the Creative / Adventure side finds ways to use it.
This is exactly what I don't want, and I think it would be a mistake for Paizo.
First, it completely invalidates any character that has climbed to the current pinnacle of existence, level 20. "Great," says the GM. "You've reached the top! Now throw that character away and make a new character using these other rules. Yes, I know you have put a lot of work into that character, but we are using a new, incompatible set of rules."
I don't want a new game, and I suspect many other players and GMs are going to be in the same boat. They want to be able to do something with those 20th-level characters, and when they hit level 21 and future levels, still do something with them, and something beyond layering on more and more material (feats, prestige classes, etc.) from the level 1-20 sourcebooks.
Secondly, it splits Paizo's effort into two groups - those working on level 1-20 material, and those working on the incompatible material that would have been level 21+ but now isn't because it's a brand-new rule system.
Here's to hoping that when my level 20 character advances to level 21 that I don't have to start over. Might as well play a totally different game if that's the "advancement" path.
A totally new system is exactly how they played the post-36 levels of OD&D...you became an Immortal, and operated by a completely different set of rules.
Personally, I think anyone hitting 21 should become Eternal, get some flat benefits for making themselves Epic, and start anew with core abilities that are shared, and then defined more by their 'epic destiny' then their 'character class'. You can keep character class levels fairly static if abilities are gained that are truly epic in power.
==Aelryinth
A totally new system is exactly how they played the post-36 levels of OD&D...you became an Immortal, and operated by a completely different set of rules.Personally, I think anyone hitting 21 should become Eternal, get some flat benefits for making themselves Epic, and start anew with core abilities that are shared, and then defined more by their 'epic destiny' then their 'character class'. You can keep character class levels fairly static if abilities are gained that are truly epic in power.
==Aelryinth
That wasn't original D&D. That was BECMI iirc. Basic, Expert, Masters, Companion, Immortal. Mentzer's 1983 succesor to the original Basic D&D versions. Never played it, but I have them somewhere around here. I have the Rules Cyclopedia version too...
A totally new system is exactly how they played the post-36 levels of OD&D...you became an Immortal, and operated by a completely different set of rules.
Personally, I think anyone hitting 21 should become Eternal, get some flat benefits for making themselves Epic, and start anew with core abilities that are shared, and then defined more by their 'epic destiny' then their 'character class'. You can keep character class levels fairly static if abilities are gained that are truly epic in power.
==Aelryinth
If I remember correctly (it's been a couple years and I don't feel like digging out my 4e books), that was the 4e way of doing it. You chose an "epic destiny" at level 21 (or something like that) and then at level 30 your character "went away" because there was a hard stop.
I'll reiterate that is not what I want, and I think it's a bad idea. With a new rule set, powers, adventures, and everything different, it might as well be a completely different game other than some of the names being the same.
That will have zero utility for me. Now, I understand that other people think such a thing is great, but a new system would have zero synergy with the existing system, all those demon lords, demigods, and other high-CR threats that James has been looking at writing would instead need to be done from scratch in the new system (and would be incompatible with the current system), and everything, literally everything would have to be redone from scratch.
Why bother? If you're going to do that, why not just create a new level 1 character and start over?
I'll continue to hope for rules that allow existing characters to continue on, and as it always has been, it'll be up to the GM to define the world in such a way that it makes sense - if they even want to. Some people just like fighting stuff :)
Edit: Though in re-reading, I think I misunderstood Aelryinth's post. Something along the lines of his second paragraph makes sense, but the more it diverges from the way the core rules work, the less useful it will be to Pathfinder as a whole.
The ELH way for some things may have been flawed (epic magic, I'm looking at you), but for the most part the base game worked the same way, and I think that was a good thing.
I think we need to let go of the 3.0/3.5 tropes of Epic play. Paizo took that system (3.0/3.5) and gave us something better with Pathfinder so why not trust them to deliver with above 20th level play?
At any rate, in Dungeons of Golarian at least one of the dungeon overviews lists the final level as being for challenging for characters of level 24+ so I think over 20 content is just a matter of time rather than a debate of if it's going to happen at all.
It would've been more constructive to list things about Epic that need to be fixed.
I think we need to let go of the 3.0/3.5 tropes of Epic play. Paizo took that system (3.0/3.5) and gave us something better with Pathfinder so why not trust them to deliver with above 20th level play?
At any rate, in Dungeons of Golarian at least one of the dungeon overviews lists the final level as being for challenging for characters of level 24+ so I think over 20 content is just a matter of time rather than a debate of if it's going to happen at all.
It would've been more constructive to list things about Epic that need to be fixed.
+1 like a wish list and I'm agreed with gbonehead a new system would be a bad idea if that is the case make a new system from level 1 and increase to epic like 4e
That wasn't original D&D. That was BECMI iirc. Basic, Expert, Masters, Companion, Immortal. Mentzer's 1983 succesor to the original Basic D&D versions. Never played it, but I have them somewhere around here. I have the Rules Cyclopedia version too...
A totally new system is exactly how they played the post-36 levels of OD&D...you became an Immortal, and operated by a completely different set of rules.Personally, I think anyone hitting 21 should become Eternal, get some flat benefits for making themselves Epic, and start anew with core abilities that are shared, and then defined more by their 'epic destiny' then their 'character class'. You can keep character class levels fairly static if abilities are gained that are truly epic in power.
==Aelryinth
BECMI IS OD&D. The later boxes are just additions to the game, not revisions like AD&D, 2E, 3E and 3.5 were. There's nothing in the Basic Set that doesn't apply at Master level...only the Immortal rules were totally different.
I own the Cyclopedia, too. Great way of condensing all those boxed sets. I never bought any but Immortals, actually, but I still like reading through those old modules...
==Aelryinth
BECMI IS OD&D. The later boxes are just additions to the game, not revisions like AD&D, 2E, 3E and 3.5 were. There's nothing in the Basic Set that doesn't apply at Master level...only the Immortal rules were totally different.I own the Cyclopedia, too. Great way of condensing all those boxed sets. I never bought any but Immortals, actually, but I still like reading through those old modules...
==Aelryinth
For me OD&D is my 1974 boxed version (woodprint box) and the slightly later white box version we (me and my brother) picked up combined with the "Greyhawk", "Blackmoor", "Eldritch Wizardry","Gods, Demigods and Heroes" and "Swords and Spells" supplements. The last one was published in 1976 and was a miniature rules (kind of an updated Chainmail miniatures rules). Well, add Chainmail to that too. "Swords and Spells" was pretty much the last bit of OD&D (for me anyway). Next up was AD&D (1st edition) and the original Basic D&D.
BECMI came later and had somewhat different rules / assumptions. Especially so as you progress up through the succesive boxed sets.
ah, gotcha. I'll remember for the future.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I see these kind of topics (like the anti-Oriental setting threads, anti-gunslinger threads, anti-epic level threads, role playing vs rollplaying threads), I imagine a line from Patton Oswalt's 'Sky Cake' joke that goes like this:
"It is only cake! Oh my God! The only way sky cake tastes good is if up in the sky, the sky cookie and sky pie people can't have their sky pie! That's the only way it's gonna taste good!"
Of course, replaces sky pie and sky cookies with 'Epic Rules' and "Samurai/Ninja Class' and it fits a lot better ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm terribly late to this discussion, but, just to add my two cents - I'm fundamentally opposed to the existence of the "epic-level" rules, for the following reasons:
1)They are entirely useless for myself, for everyone I know, everyone I even heard about, and, as far as polls told, for 98% of general player base. Making a DnD campaign survive to level 12 in any edition I care about is a daunting task. Generating a new character from scratch at this level is a daunting task too. Level 20? Both are practically impossible in the game as written. In the sense that almost no one is going to invest so much work in actual practice. Content for levels above 20 is basically in "look, do not touch" category.
2)Why two-digit levels are progressively inaccessible? Primarily because of mechanics overload, causing both option paralysis and exhaustion due to spending most of the gaming session on accounting. Will "epic-level" rules make this even worse? Yes. Are they therefore doomed to be an uplayable wreck, even if math somehow doesn't completely fall apart? Yes. Was this confirmed by previous attempts to make them? Yes.
3)Very assumption of existence of existence of "epic levels" automatically makes parts of the game that will actually be and can actually be played significantly worse. Less importantly, it decreases amount of common sense in the setting, by creating additional arbitrary and vaguely defined tiers of power, which feeds the problem #2. Much more importantly, it removes most of actual high fantasy (I'm not even talking mythology or cosmic-level superheroes) story concepts from the playable part of the game and puts them in the above-mentioned "look, do not touch" category. Because opponents and obstacles which you have to deal with to actually make changes to the world comparable with the usual fantasy fare (you know, taking down evil gods and stand-ins for Satan, dealing with massive extradimensional invasions, magic-powered evil empires, or monster infestations that can easily wipe out all of humanity, and just generally saving the world), and which therefore should be normal end-game stuff are are relegated to an add-on, which does not currently exist and will be practically unplayable anyway. This is bad.
By the way, as much as I admire Jim, I have to contradict him:
That's very kind of you to say.
I've actually thought about it, and I really see your point. I'm far less invested in being "right" than I'm interested in seeing mythic rules. I'm prepared to be completely wrong about how it comes about.
:D
I don't know the way forward, but I'm willing to give the idea a chance!
I guess I was responding this perception that the mythic rules are somehow "threatening" to the core game. That we should be worried when developers daydream about mythic rules and take that as a sign of the end of the game as we know it.
In many respects Paizo seems to have to pay for WOTC's sins over and over again. Sins of the Father. To me, they've earned the trust of trying something on its own merits, and in their own way- without living in the specter of what WOTC did wrong.
And I'm not dissing WOTC's contribution. I honor it. But I trust Paizo to learn from their experiences and I want to give them the freedom to try it.
Many people don't, and that bums me out.
Anyway, Gbonehead, I could have been wrong in my vision for mythic rules, but I support the idea of developing them in whatever form.
I removed a post. Let's keep this civil.
Also, flag it and move on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the title is a double negative. Yes, bring on the mythic levels!! Let me know when the public playtest is and we can hash it out then..
Yes, please!
I'm in the 'no epic' camp - hear me out, please. I feel like plausibility gets stretched further and further as level progression continues. It's not that I, the GM, couldn't stat up abominations so powerful that they use pit fiends as finger puppets - no, statting them up is simple. And justifying their existence is almost as simple. The problem is justifying their non-participation in the campaign world up until you introduced them. There are a few possibilities, but they're all rather implausible:
1) There were NPC mega-characters who were defending the Prime Plane so well that nobody even realized it, but all of them vanished at about the same time the PCs got powerful enough to replace them.
2) The mega-monsters have been in stasis for some reason, and conveniently woke up just as the PCs got powerful enough to challenge them.
3) The mega-monsters, despite power far beyond that of any mere empyreal lord or archdevil, are deliberately not interfering (by, say, killing off empyreal lords or archdevils.)There are other reasons I prefer a 'hard cap' (and 20th is as good a point as any other), but I've already taken up too much of your time.
This is a fair argument Lincoln, except isn't that Paizo's (potential) problem to solve?
This is sort of what I was getting at. There are arguments against mythic rules- and make no mistake this is a reasonable one. However it seems to me that there is a concerted effort put forth to make sure they're not allowed to propose any solution or any method on how they would address that.
And I'm not pinning this all on you personally Lincoln, but sometimes it feels like "I can't see a way of handling this, so Paizo must be unable to as well- ergo I don't want Paizo to make the effort."
It feels like a filibuster to me. I'd rather allow Paizo to explore the idea, before snuffing those ideas before they're allowed to full form.
Just my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's true enough and fair enough.
Of course, looking at it from the perspective of a 'mythic rules' game designer, all these posts objecting to Epic Level are actually useful market research. We're pointing out the drawbacks and pitfalls, thus giving the designer a good idea of what needs to be done and what needs to be avoided...
And likewise, that is also very fair. It does identify where the problems need to fixed, and that's important, even vital, to ever making it work. So I am not condemning that sort of feedback, and certainly one reason why this thread is important.
And when it comes right down to it, if folks are absolutely unwilling to spend money on the product no matter what- it is important to know that too.
I'm just sort of saying, "Before you say 'never, never, ever'; could we have some sort of proposal? So that you know what you're turning down?"
In my daydreams, I'd like to see Paizo do some sort of mission statement about mythic rules. As in, "this is what we envision them doing, and these are the goals we have in developing them, and this is where we hope to end up. What do you all think?"
That way people would be saying yes or no to something being proposed, rather than just the memory of something old that was once disappointing.
Does that sound fair?