The only issue I would dread with "Epic" rules to cover 21+ would be the dilution of what is "normal" in a gaming world like Golarion. It's interesting in a certain sense for a long-standing campaign to go beyond 20th if the story is there to support it, but if 25th or 30th becomes the new normal, that's where it breaks the continuity for me - especially if region guides and standard scenarios are written with that as the new standard. Epic is fine, as long as it's virtually unheard of in the world you're in.
It's kind of like having a Jedi knight as rare and special, but then you turn around and everyone is a Jedi knight. In 2nd Edition AD&D it was like that for me when Forgotten Realms came out, and suddenly every local NPC ruler/mage/high priest in a town is 14th+, almost as if the struggle for name level by the characters (9th-12th) was garbage. I didn't want to retcon everything I was reading, so I went back to Greyhawk :)
That being said, if an Epic Rules book comes out by Paizo, I suppose it's more of a GM problem to maintain standards in-game as opposed to a publishing problem with the book being out there.
Considering they've already established a highly significant number of epic level threats and settings already--Tar-Baphon, Shorshen, Xanderghul, Achaekek, The Worldwound, and the Test of the Starstone, to name just a few, I think they'll be able to balance epic and the norm quite well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
20 is already well outside of what the most powerful characters in almost any works of fantasy fiction could ever become. If you want to play epic, there's 16th to 20th level.
|
In the olden days of Dragon magazine, campaigns of characters claiming levels in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and beyond were largely synonymous with another term -- Monty Haul. Sorry, but I'll never see the appeal of claiming to have defeated Thor or Desna or Lamashtu by pushing them off a wall or using a wish spell.
Pffft. You'll have to get past Waldorf, first.
Just like to mention here that the OP is clearly a fan of OOTS, a comic which makes EXCELLENT use of the epic rules presented by 3.5. Jus' sayin'.What strip are you reading?
Xykon is epic (here xykon uses the spell and here it is explained that it is an epic spell). The soul slices that V used were all epic.
While I wouldn't say that OotS makes "excellent" use of the rules, it does use them.
Just like to mention here that the OP is clearly a fan of OOTS, a comic which makes EXCELLENT use of the epic rules presented by 3.5. Jus' sayin'.What strip are you reading?Xykon is epic (here xykon uses the spell and here it is explained that it is an epic spell). The soul slices that V used were all epic.
While I wouldn't say that OotS makes "excellent" use of the rules, it does use them.
In the prequel printed book, Origins of Evil (I think that was the title at least) xykon also throws down a maximized energy drain which is clearly taking up an epic spell slot.
Those were one off appearances. Essentially GM Fiat maneuvers. Also keep in mind that these aren't real player characters or NPC's. They're narrative characters in a scripted storyline. The author isn't rolling dice to see how his story turns out. So he's not using EPIC rules, he's using Epic MacGuffins as plot devices... which is pretty much how you tell a good story.Just like to mention here that the OP is clearly a fan of OOTS, a comic which makes EXCELLENT use of the epic rules presented by 3.5. Jus' sayin'.What strip are you reading?Xykon is epic (here xykon uses the spell and here it is explained that it is an epic spell). The soul slices that V used were all epic.
While I wouldn't say that OotS makes "excellent" use of the rules, it does use them.
Actually many elements of the story are presented quite mechanically. For instance, in the duel between V and xykon while v is soul spliced, they discuss the loss of the epic level spell slots, and indicate that the higher level spells are lost first (as was the case in 3.x from energy drain). Are there macguffins? Yes. But order of the stick is actually fairly accurate in terms of mechanics vs story telling most of the time. Usually it is because of the lack of 4th wall and the meta conversation that goes on, but it is definately there.
kayoss darn it i already said thatI assume (based on his '30+ years of gaming') that he was attempting to rift off of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall pt II" (For the younglings, Korn did a remake of it, maybe you'd recognize that :P)
Of course he was.
And I was referencing the IT crowd.
Roy: "We don't need no education"
Moss: "Yes, you do! You just used a double negative!"
K, Thanks. Love ya. mean it. ;-)
Sorry, you're not my type. ;-P
Every time I read your user name I hear 'The Evil Midnight Lurker What Lurks At Midnight!'I don't want Epic rules.
I want Companion, Master, and Immortals rules. :D
Which is EXACTLY as intended. Surf's up, space ponies... I'M MAKIN' GRAVY WITHOUT THE LUMPS!!!!! :D
Point is quit whining, if you don`t want epic level play don`t buy the inevitable book that comes out simple as that, period. Many staff have said they will be doing epic play eventually, they`ve gone so far as to call it "a natural extension of the rules". Point is your the GM or customer just don't use or buy it and move on. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean others don't.
**DING DING DING** We have a winner!
You've just won this thread and summed up my feelings quite nicely. Thank you sir.
*shakes hand*
20 is already well outside of what the most powerful characters in almost any works of fantasy fiction could ever become. If you want to play epic, there's 16th to 20th level.
That would be relevant if we were talking about, and playing in, "almost any works of fantasy fiction".
But we're not. We're talking about Pathfinder. That includes the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, i.e. the setting by the very same company that does the rules, which will basically use everything (or almost everything) from the RPG line.
And PCS already has epic-level characters and enemies.
So if we want to play some random stuff, we might be okay with saying 16-20 is "epic". But not if we play Pathfinder with Pathfinder.
20 is already well outside of what the most powerful characters in almost any works of fantasy fiction could ever become. If you want to play epic, there's 16th to 20th level.You do realize that the default campaign setting for Pathfinder has at least a dozen NPC characters over level 20 in it, right? Inner Sea Magic (which only covers spellcasters and only ones in the Inner Sea region) lists 12 characters with 20 character levels and a "+" afterwards, implying that they are higher than 20th level (it also lists some that are level 20 without a plus, and a character with 19 character levels and a "10+" prestige class).
Sure. However, some of them are dead and/or from bygone eras of legend. Yes, exceptions to the 20-level progression exist. By your own post, however, there are a dozen listed. Your average party of PCs (4) is 1/3 of that number. Unless each of those players is running a solo game consisting of them running nations or their own private demi-plane, I still contend that an Epic-level swat team of PCs is gonna wreak some serious havok on a campaign setting.
Let's say all of those NPCs exist in Golarion today and are active in the setting. Once your PCs have knocked off those folks, what challenge is left in the setting?
Ok, pop over to Mingkai, Vudra, etc. looking for the next "big bad" to fight. Well, once Golarion is pacified and your PCs have attained godhood, then what? Fight gods!
So once you defeat the lords of Hell, the 4 horsemen, and the demon lords from the Inner Sea Guide, then what? Why there are EVEN BIGGER bad guys pulling the strings! Y'see, Asmodeus was just a puppet of UBER-EVIL-ALLES!! Let's go defeat him!
At some point, an ever-increasing scale becomes pointless and internal consistency goes out the window. Hell, even in comic books, there are caps on what the characters can do -- mainly because once a power level is established, it's pretty damn hard to reign it back in and an ever-escalating increase in power is unsustainable. It becomes trite, really fast.
And while Epic doesn't have to be that way, my observation is that in the vast majority of cases, it usually is. For some folks, being a bigger butt-kicker and getting the new shiny is all they care about. For others, we'd like our beloved setting spared from such nonsense. Those epic-level NPCs are there for campaign-ending capstone encounters, not as evidence of "See! If they can be higher than 20th, I should be too!!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. However, some of them are dead and/or from bygone eras of legend.
So? Others aren't.
I still contend that an Epic-level swat team of PCs is gonna wreak some serious havok on a campaign setting.
Might. Not will.
And seriously: The possibility of havoc is hardly a valid argument. If it were, we would have really, really short books, because almost everything can be used to break the game.
Let's say all of those NPCs exist in Golarion today and are active in the setting. Once your PCs have knocked off those folks, what challenge is left in the setting?
Planes, distant planets, nascent godlings.
And why is this even relevant? Nobody seems to be claiming that with epic levels, we can play the game forever and ever.
It does extend the range.
If we're only to consider the Core Inner Sea region and nothing else, we're going to run out of challenges, anyway. There aren't that many 20th-level characters around, either. So how is epic any different? It's all a matter of attitude really.
For others, we'd like our beloved setting spared from such nonsense.
Then make your own homebrew setting and never ever tell anyone about it ever.
You're mentioning a problem that is a problem with a group of people, and then you want to ruin the game for everyone, not just that group.
For others, we'd like our beloved setting spared from such nonsense.Then make your own homebrew setting and never ever tell anyone about it ever.
You're mentioning a problem that is a problem with a group of people, and then you want to ruin the game for everyone, not just that group.
1. If I wanted a homebrew setting, I wouldn't be posting in this thread. How about the epic-level fans run their own homebrew setting and leave Golarion out of it? No?
2. So I'm mentioning a problem that is limited to isolated groups, but somehow I'm "ruining the game for everyone"? Yep, that's a typical KaeYoss argument...
Look, I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to have epic-level rules. I don't see the appeal but I get that some like that kind of game. My biggest objection, as outlined above, is that it takes resources away from products that I (and I'll bet an audience far larger than the epic-level fans) would like.
You're free to want your epic-level rules. As a Paizo customer, I'm equally free to weigh in with what I want to see published.
I'd love to see a RPG supplement that incorporates more sword-n-sorcery like more dangerous magic, less reliance on magic items, etc. Y'know like 95% of the fiction and film that the original game was based upon and that almost every FRPG fan enjoys?
Often, when expressing such a desire, I'm told "play a different game" or "those things are too ingrained in the game". Yet inexplicably, epic-level rules -- which according to Paizo staff would very likely require divergent mechanics from the core rules to be viable -- are deemed perfectly ok? Interesting double-standard.
And here's the really crazy thing -- there are actual precedents of sword-n-sorcery games/supplements receiving better support and outperforming WotC's Epic-level rules. For example:
Conan RPG, supplements and adventures - by Mongoose Publishing
Thieves' World sourcebooks & supplements - by Green Ronin
Iron Heroes - by Malhavoc Press
Grim Tales - Bad Axe Games
Color me crazy, but I think that there is long list of topics that mesh better with Paizo's campaign setting than epic-level play. If you disagree, that's cool, but don't get your panties in a knot when someone disagrees with you. It's not like this is an Edition War thread, after all.
Sorry, this inversion does not work. Anti-Epic people can ignore official Epic rules. Pro-Epic people cannot make official Epic rules.
For others, we'd like our beloved setting spared from such nonsense.Then make your own homebrew setting and never ever tell anyone about it ever.
You're mentioning a problem that is a problem with a group of people, and then you want to ruin the game for everyone, not just that group.
1. If I wanted a homebrew setting, I wouldn't be posting in this thread. How about the epic-level fans run their own homebrew setting and leave Golarion out of it? No?
I'm not talking RPG rules. I'm talking setting. (The same distinction Paizo makes between its RPG line of books and there AP, Companion, Modules, and Campaign setting lines.)
The inversion is equally valid. I realize that many of the Epic-rule fans also like Golarion as a setting. That's why I used the inversion -- to show KaeYoss' recommendation wasn't worth much.
And BTW, this one-way street of "give us what we want, you guys just ignore it" is one of the prime examples of the double standard I was talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking RPG rules. I'm talking setting. (The same distinction Paizo makes between its RPG line of books and there AP, Companion, Modules, and Campaign setting lines.)
The inversion is equally valid. I realize that many of the Epic-rule fans also like Golarion as a setting. That's why I used the inversion -- to show KaeYoss' recommendation wasn't worth much.
And BTW, this one-way street of "give us what we want, you guys just ignore it" is one of the prime examples of the double standard I was talking about.
That makes even less sense. Nothing that players do in games other than your own affect Golarion for you. Paizo isn't going to canvas the player base, determine which entities have been killed in every home game's Golarion, and officially kill them all off. Or even do that for one home game. And Pathfinder Society is limited to 12th level, so no effect there either.
And BTW, this one way street of "you can't have what you want because I don't want you to have it even though it doesn't affect me" is one of the prime examples of the double standard you were talking about.
I can't tell if you're just trying to be argumentative or are being thick.
I'm talking about Epic-level content showing up in Golarion-setting material, not about something being invalidated in my campaign world. If Paizo releases an epic-level AP set in Golarion, or starts increasing the frequency of epic-level NPCs in their campaign setting sourcebooks that can affect me -- either by having to retcon it out of my campaign or by perhaps causing me to avoid purchasing the product entirely.
Also, if (and this is my 3rd time making this point so please pay attention this time) Paizo devotes resources to developing epic-level content, those are resources that aren't available to develop content I might actually buy. That's not a double standard, that's customer feedback. For the fans who want psionics but don't want epic-level content, I'm sure that they get the distinction. (I'm indifferent to psionics, btw.)
Point is quit whining, if you don`t want epic level play don`t buy the inevitable book that comes out simple as that, period. Many staff have said they will be doing epic play eventually, they`ve gone so far as to call it "a natural extension of the rules". Point is your the GM or customer just don't use or buy it and move on. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean others don't.**DING DING DING** We have a winner!
You've just won this thread and summed up my feelings quite nicely. Thank you sir.
*shakes hand*
I agree. I loved the 3E ELH, even though I never used it in play once; the only campaign I was ever involved in that lasted long enough to break the level-20 mark was in 2nd Edition, and I was the DM then too; the highest level I've ever played a character at was 17. Yes, some will say that there isn't much difference between level 17 and level 20; it's simply that 20th level has (from the early days of RPGs) been seen as the pinnacle, just because that's where the rulebook's tables end.
The biggest problem I had with the ELH was the cliff's-edge cutoff, particularly with respect to magical item gp values. For me, properly-done "epic level" (whatever that means) rules need to entail a slow blending, not an abrupt cutoff, particularly in terms of character abilities; that seems entirely too much like "you must be this tall to go on this ride" and mechanical precision and rejection when faced with a group of kids who are all just a quarter inch too short. However, we would need to redesign the core advancement system to accomplish this, which isn't likely to happen until Pathfinder 2E (which is hopefully several years away, right, Paizo?). Until then, we need something for the people who like and will use this material, even if it is a "band-aid" product.
My advice to Paizo is, don't do what your predecessors did and break their own rules. Their advice for designing feats told us not to use character level as a feat requirement, then they introduced a whole new category of feats that required you to be at least 21st character level. If someone has a character build that allows them to take an epic-level feat at 19th level, good for them. This isn't likely to happen for epic combat feats, which will almost certainly have BAB +21 as a requirement. Anyway, I'll stop my game-mechanics rant there, even though I could say more; those of us who have been playing the game since 3.0 are familiar with all the mechanics, and those of us who aren't have a community here who can answer their questions.
Anyway, Jeremy (quoted above by Tiny Coffee Golem) sums up my thoughts on that matter as well. I just hope that the product is in fact "a natural extension of the rules" (which the 3.0 ELH was not in any way, from my POV; every piece of elegance from the core rules class design was ripped out and replaced with something else hammered in the wrong way).
I'd love to see a RPG supplement that incorporates more sword-n-sorcery like more dangerous magic, less reliance on magic items, etc. Y'know like 95% of the fiction and film that the original game was based upon and that almost every FRPG fan enjoys?
Often, when expressing such a desire, I'm told "play a different game" or "those things are too ingrained in the game". Yet inexplicably, epic-level rules -- which according to Paizo staff would very likely require divergent mechanics from the core rules to be viable -- are deemed perfectly ok? Interesting double-standard.
Iron Heroes or Conan are great places to to look for that sort of game. I can certainly appreciate the desire for such a game. But while I love Iron Heroes, I wouldn't call it a roaring success. And Golarion is already defined as a much higher magic setting.
But Golarion already has epic level threats defined. Nascent Demon Lords, Runelords, Geb, Tar-Baphon, etc. So adding rules for those entities is indeed a natural extension of the game. However those rules end up.
Anyway, you won't have that much to worry about. Epic rules are probably at least two years away. So Paizo will be doing a bunch of other things in the meantime.
The biggest problem with the 3E epic level handbook was that it came too early in the products life-cycle. 3.0 had been out barely 3 years when they wrote it. Hardly anyone at that point had experience with high level games. Now that the core d20 rules have been around for more than a decade, the Paizo staff has a lot more experience looking at high level games and where they want to take it from there. I look forward to seeing what they do with it.
The biggest problem with the 3E epic level handbook was that it came too early in the products life-cycle. 3.0 had been out barely 3 years when they wrote it. Hardly anyone at that point had experience with high level games. Now that the core d20 rules have been around for more than a decade, the Paizo staff has a lot more experience looking at high level games and where they want to take it from there. I look forward to seeing what they do with it.
Actually it came out in 2002 so it was within two years of release. Otherwise I agree.
Edit to fix date.
I don't like World of Warcraft therefore Blizzarrd should stop all production or updates as well as turning off all servers. I would prefer they spend their time working on Starcraft which I do like. ;-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if (and this is my 3rd time making this point so please pay attention this time) Paizo devotes resources to developing epic-level content, those are resources that aren't available to develop content I might actually buy. That's not a double standard, that's customer feedback. For the fans who want psionics but don't want epic-level content,...
Two flaws.
1) "I'm upset that Paizo isn't making products about playing ponies. I don't want them to do anything that isn't towards making ponies." This is your argument? Really?
2) If Paizo wants to make Epic level rules (which I believe has been hinted at) then they're going to devote resources to them. Whether you'll actually buy them or not.
If Paizo delays your 'complete book of ponies' to produce Ultimate Epic Awesomeness, the active verb there is delays eventually you'll get your ponies. What I'm inferring from you is "I don't want epic, and I never ever want them to produce the book because I'm greedy and want my Ponies NOW! Then my bunnies, then my cats, then my hamsters... Frak what anyone else wants."
What the Epic content people are saying is "We'd like Epic content. We understand it may be down the road, and not everyone will want it, but there's a market for it. If you're doing ponies and bunnies now, can you consider adding it to the future product list?"
One is the pouting and holding the breath of a three year old. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out which.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if (and this is my 3rd time making this point so please pay attention this time) Paizo devotes resources to developing epic-level content, those are resources that aren't available to develop content I might actually buy. That's not a double standard, that's customer feedback. For the fans who want psionics but don't want epic-level content,...Two flaws.
1) "I'm upset that Paizo isn't making products about playing ponies. I don't want them to do anything that isn't towards making ponies." This is your argument? Really?
2) If Paizo wants to make Epic level rules (which I believe has been hinted at) then they're going to devote resources to them. Whether you'll actually buy them or not.
If Paizo delays your 'complete book of ponies' to produce Ultimate Epic Awesomeness, the active verb there is delays eventually you'll get your ponies. What I'm inferring from you is "I don't want epic, and I never ever want them to produce the book because I'm greedy and want my Ponies NOW! Then my bunnies, then my cats, then my hamsters... Frak what anyone else wants."
What the Epic content people are saying is "We'd like Epic content. We understand it may be down the road, and not everyone will want it, but there's a market for it. If you're doing ponies and bunnies now, can you consider adding it to the future product list?"
One is the pouting and holding the breath of a three year old. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out which.
I WANT MY SPARKLE PONY!!
Two flaws.
1) "I'm upset that Paizo isn't making products about playing ponies. I don't want them to do anything that isn't towards making ponies." This is your argument? Really?
2) If Paizo wants to make Epic level rules (which I believe has been hinted at) then they're going to devote resources to them. Whether you'll actually buy them or not.
If Paizo delays your 'complete book of ponies' to produce Ultimate Epic Awesomeness, the active verb there is delays eventually you'll get your ponies. What I'm inferring from you is "I don't want epic, and I never ever want them to produce the book because I'm greedy and want my Ponies NOW! Then my bunnies, then my cats, then my hamsters... Frak what anyone else wants."
What the Epic content people are saying is "We'd like Epic content. We understand it may be down the road, and not everyone will want it, but there's a market for it. If you're doing ponies and bunnies now, can you consider adding it to the future product list?"
One is the pouting and holding the breath of a three year old. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out which.
Then you're misreading my posts.
1) I'm not upset about anything. I'm expressing my opinion that I have no interest in epic-level rules. I stated upthread that if Paizo's growth allows them to add resources that allow them to develop epic-level rules without the existing lines taking a hit, go for it. It's no different than Paizo saying, "we wanted to do Jade Regent earlier but had to wait until we had rules in place to handle Asian-themed fantasy". They had to expend resources to establish the framework that would support the AP.
Epic-level play would be a huge undertaking. It would require resources (unless they're gonna to do it half-heartedly which I presume would disappoint the epic-level fans). Those resources are going to have to come from somewhere, so something else isn't going to be getting done.
If epic-level play has a huge, hidden customer base, the investment will be worth it. If, however, epic-level play is supported by a vocal, but very small group of players and it results in poor sales b/c the demand isn't there, then it was not a good use of Paizo's resources. Perhaps Paizo is now large enough to take that kind of hit, I don't know.
If you want epic-level rules, presumably, you also want to see support around it -- modules, APs, etc. Lisa Stevens recently said Paizo hasn't done a sci-fi/modern game b/c she feels it's a recipe for failure to release a game and not support it. So if Paizo does do epic-level support (as they've hinted), it's probably not going to be a one-shot.
2) Yep, that's true. But if there's more demand for stuff that I like (like the Pirate AP which was moved to the front-burner based on forum feedback) and epic rules get moved further down the list, then there's a payoff for voicing my opinion.
And your example is ridiculous. Here's a better one. If I'm asking for a sci-fi RPG, I know going in that it's a long shot, because the current game isn't a sci-fi RPG. What the epic-level fans fail to realize is that the current game isn't "Pathfinder, the Role-playing game of demigodhood". Epic-level is a different playstyle and, effectively, a different game, which -- if the Paizo staff who have weighed in are to be believed (psst, they are!) -- may require enough of a departure that it's a radical shift in the mechanics of the game. Especially if they want to avoid the pitfalls of the 3.x-version of the epic-rules.
And I could just as easily point to Numeria and the Golarion solar-system and say "there's a precedent in the game already for sci-fi rules". And I would be just as wrong as the epic-level fans if I insisted that sci-fi rules HAVE to happen or someone's ruining my fun.
SPARKLE PONY!
I'm talking about Epic-level content showing up in Golarion-setting material, not about something being invalidated in my campaign world. If Paizo releases an epic-level AP set in Golarion, or starts increasing the frequency of epic-level NPCs in their campaign setting sourcebooks that can affect me -- either by having to retcon it out of my campaign or by perhaps causing me to avoid purchasing the product entirely.Too late; it's already there. Like I said, there's no way that Tar-Baphon, Geb, Arazni, or Baba Yaga are anything less than Epic-level content. The Test of the Starstone is also Epic-level; so is the Worldwound; so are (some of) Rovagug's Spawn.
Also, if (and this is my 3rd time making this point so please pay attention this time) Paizo devotes resources to developing epic-level content, those are resources that aren't available to develop content I might actually buy.And I've already acknowledged--multiple times--that opportunity cost is a valid reason to want other things prioritized above Epic rules. However, you overstate the reach of the product lines that would be affected. The ONLY product line that is affected of a necessity is the Pathfinder RPG line. Just like they didn't introduce Chronicles, Companions, or Adventures products based off Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, they won't have to for their Mythic Adventures rules.
1. I never said there weren't epic-level characters and threats in Golarion, so I don't know why you keep going there. Their existence, however, does not equate to "players can, too". The Test of the Starstone is going to be one of the setting's mysteries. A lot of those NPCs are for establishing themes & legends, not for hob-knobbing with the PCs or being XP-fodder for them.
2. When your tag says Fozbek (Pathfinder developer), then I'll take it that you're in the know on if, when, and how Paizo will support epic-level rules. Until then, you're just speculating like me. APG content is in APs and Campaign Setting supplements. A lot of Ultimate Combat exists to support the Jade Regent AP and the Tian Xia area of Golarion. There's a precedent for the RPG line impacting the other products.
So I'll propose the following, you and all the epic-level fans sign off on a thread saying "All I want is a self-contained Epic-level rules supplement from the Pathfinder RPG line. I have no need for Golarion-support for epic-level play.", and I'll stop posting about how I have no interest in epic-level rules. How's that?
And just so we're clear, if/when Paizo does publish epic-level content, I hope it's everything the epic-level crowd hoped for. I won't be buying as much Paizo stuff those months, and I'll look at the catalog and grouse that something I do want is further on the list but I won't begrudge you for getting it. Until then, however, I am allowed to voice my opinion on what I do or don't want from the line -- same as you.
I think there are two different things being argued, don't do Epic/Mythic ever, and don't do Epic/Mythic yet. I think most of the pro Epic people are willing to wait at least a bit (because let's face it there have been some poor attempts at Epic before). I would love to see, when/if Baba Yaga comes back in 2013 Epic rules that go along with that, or maybe if you tie it to the Casmaron Gazetteer and have a lot of Epic action over there (enough that they are so busy working against each other that they can't look elsewhere on Golarion, containing the Spawn of Rovagug for example). However I am very opposed to the idea of never doing anything with it. Just like I am opposed to never doing anything with Numeria.
I think everyone should also keep in mind that just because previous Epic rules weren't to your liking doesn't mean these will be as well. I know Paizo has said that they want a level cap on the Epic Rules (36 or 40 is often mentioned), and they have said that the math gets really bad the higher up you go.
So let's let them get to it when they think the time is right and let's give them the chance to make rules that a large chunk of us can look at and say "Hey I can use these."
Other than changing the city stat block format to the GMG format, they have not used anything from the Gamemastery Guide in any product since.
Haunts. Planes (the great beyond was a 3.5 book, but the stat blocks were identical). I don't know if sanity makes an appearance in the Cthulhu adventure in Carrion Crown. We're still in the first adventure.
Beyond that, there weren't many mechanics in the GMG. That book had more GM advice and NPCs then it new mechanics. That one is a bad example. A better example would be Words of Power. Magical and swordfighting duels.
Paizo doesn't always make use of their new rules. And I doubt Paizo is going to do an epic level AP. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they did some Pathfinder Modules for those levels.
The author clearly states that he's not statted his characters and intends not to do so, to avoid painting himself into any corners. He'll also freely admit to tossing the rules aside if they get in the way of the story he's writing, so yeah.No, Xykon is well-established as an Epic level Sorcerer. He's used 10th+ level spell slots quite a few times. And the entire concept of OotS is "this is a story told using and about D&D rules", so your story argument holds no weight.
And regardless of your objection, it's still quite ironic that the OP blasts all Epic players as munchkins, yet has as his avatar a character who has used the epic rules.
a good example of this is the way Xykon is destroyed at the end of the first book. Pure silly and would never happen.
But I feel he tries harder in later books to stay true to the D&D rules.
Sorry, but E(insert number here) doesn't do it for any of us. We've discussed it in great length, and none of my players want anything to do with it. No, we're strictly a beyond 20th level group and that's not going to change.Like I've said before, there's no reason to stop just because the levels do. The game can become something else other than gaining the next level. Perhaps the best way is isntead of an Epic continuation, do an E20 style game along the logic of E6.
+1 me too
And I've already acknowledged--multiple times--that opportunity cost is a valid reason to want other things prioritized above Epic rules. However, you overstate the reach of the product lines that would be affected. The ONLY product line that is affected of a necessity is the Pathfinder RPG line. Just like they didn't introduce Chronicles, Companions, or Adventures products based off Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, they won't have to for their Mythic Adventures rules.
You have acknowledged that and, for what it's worth, it's a pleasure arguing with someone who is listening to the opposing view rather than presenting a straw man argument.
The trouble in the analysis you present here is that Paizo have a policy/guideline/principle/whateveritis of not putting out product which they won't then support. Thus epic rules will result (or at least will probably result) in their use in Golarion and will affect the other product lines.
That's not actually a big deal to me (if they produce epic rules I would like them to use them in their campaign setting). Nonetheless, the differing product lines are not totally discrete entities.