We Don't Need No Epic Content


Product Discussion

151 to 200 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I don't like roleplaying games and think that they are a waste of time. Therefore, Paizo should stop making Pathfinder and start manufacturing baseball bats based on my personal interests and dislike of other people having other ones. Every book they release is another bat I could have swung.


I don't think you are entitled to tell Paizo what they should do, nor do I see why it's any of your concern what other people want or enjoy. If you'd said:

"I don't like roleplaying games and think that they are a waste of time. Therefore, I'd prefer it if Paizo would stop making Pathfinder and start manufacturing baseball bats"

there'd be nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Personally, I hope they keep doing what they're doing - we'll see who Paizo agree with.


Fozbek wrote:


That leaves Epic-level adventure modules, and there, sure, I expect one or two. I don't expect many more, because we do know that the highest-level adventures made in 3.5 didn't sell as well as the others.

So, really, we're looking at an adventure or two, with maybe an occasional rare NPC statblock somewhere else, and maybe refined rules for demigods like Achaekek (who JJ has said he'd like to see in an Epic Bestiary). Not a huge spillover worth denying the entire ruleset over. If I seriously thought there'd be tons and tons of Epic content all over the place, I could sympathize with BPorter's position more, but I really, truly doubt that there would be much change in content.

And that's OK, because Epic/Mythic rules, more than any other, really depend on the DM and players. I feel safe in saying that the majority of enduring Epic/Mythic level campaigns would be ones that started at lower levels and grew with the characters, rather than those that started at or near level 20; meaning that enduring Epic characters are going to be the ones that the players and DMs have invested the most into. The Epic rules won't need as much support from Paizo to be useful.

Yeah, they never really sold well and I don't expect there to be a huge amount of support material for mythic. But, I agree with you in saying that I doubt there'd be much change in content as well.

I never have ran a beyond 20 game from the start. I've played in one, but never ran one. All the games I've run that go beyond 20 have all started at level 1. That's pretty much the stance I've been speaking from. And you're right; mythic/epic rules won't need as much support to be useful. Sure, there'll be support from them regarding mythic; but you're right - there doesn't need to be as much support in the way of content. Sure, a little content support never hurts now and then. But it doesn't need to flood the product line.


Fozbek wrote:

Yeah, there will be some bleedover, certainly.

I doubt we'd get an Epic Adventure Path unless they do an excellent job streamlining the rules, simply because Epic adventures are significantly harder to design because the players are much more powerful and have many, many more shortcuts available to them to get around most barriers outside of straight-up combat.

They have also often expressed the view that the APs are an extremely successful and integral part of what they do - any changes to the format are likely to be more gradual than the leap of faith an epic AP would entail.

Quote:
Also because we know that they don't intend to do a Test of the Starstone adventure, which would be the obvious choice.

I said this once - but I was told that, in fact, there is a decent chance that they would make the Test of the Starstone at least a focus of an eventual epic adventure. (This wasnt by a Paizo employee though - so who knows what the truth of the matter is).

Quote:

They already don't supply statblocks for the vast majority of NPCs in Golarion, so they wouldn't need to supply Epic statblocks for the Epic NPCs, outside of specific adventures that include them as combat NPCs (which is where those statblocks tend to be placed in the first place--correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the Inner Sea World Guide or Inner Sea Magic have any NPC statblocks). The only level ~20 NPCs that currently have actual stat blocks, as far as I know, are the BBEGs from adventures, although I am not a Superscriber and do not have every book or module they've ever made, so I might be missing some.

That leaves Epic-level adventure modules, and there, sure, I expect one or two. I don't expect many more, because we do know that the highest-level adventures made in 3.5 didn't sell as well as the others.

So, really, we're looking at an adventure or two, with maybe an occasional rare NPC statblock somewhere else, and maybe refined rules for demigods like Achaekek (who JJ has said he'd like to see in an Epic Bestiary). Not a huge spillover worth denying the entire ruleset over. If I seriously thought there'd be tons and tons of Epic content all over the place, I could sympathize with BPorter's position more, but I really, truly doubt that there would be much change in content.

I would agree there probably won't be a huge impact - I just wanted to make the point that opportunity cost does cross over lines. (Obviously, the degree or the importance of that is pretty undecidable and subjective).

Quote:
And that's OK, because Epic/Mythic rules, more than any other, really depend on the DM and players. I feel safe in saying that the majority of enduring Epic/Mythic level campaigns would be ones that started at lower levels and grew with the characters, rather than those that started at or near level 20; meaning that enduring Epic characters are going to be the ones that the players and DMs have invested the most into. The Epic rules won't need as much support from Paizo to be useful.

I find this interesting. As you know, I'm not keen on putting epic rules near the top of the list. Nonetheless, once they do go that route - I'm very much hoping there will be significant support in the other lines. I dont really need any low level stuff (how many level one adventures are out there now?) but I would definitely need a heap of support were I to ever run a high level game.


Honestly, I think that Epic/Mythic rules need support less from statblocks, pre-planned tactics, and canned new rules, and more in the form of a GameMastery Guide style how do I run an Epic campaign section in the Epic/Mythic handbook. That would include ways to generate Epic-level NPCs (relatively) quickly as well as ways to guide your PCs without placing barriers (that they will inevitably blast through) in their path, etc. That kind of thing is far more valuable to an Epic campaign, IMO, than some pre-made stat blocks. Although I'd expect the rulebook to include some pre-made NPCs as well, of course, for DMs to modify.

Ideally, for me, Epic rules would go something like this...

Mythic Adventures rulebook: ~200 to 250 pages of new rules, ~50 to 100 pages of DM guidance, statblocks, and the like.

Mythic-level modules: One or two, unless they sold surprisingly well and indicated a market for more. Like I said, I expect that most users of the high-level rules would be in established campaigns and thus would mostly plunder the adventures for characters and scenarios rather than use them wholesale.

Adventure Paths: Maybe a sidebar in the occasional book 6 to advise on how to Mythic-ize the BBEG for groups that use the Mythic rules.

Chronicles/Companion: Maybe a short Gazetteer type softcover that gives adventure seeds for Mythic-level adventures. Note that, since this would be a statblock-less product, it would be equally useful for non-Mythic players to deal with the same challenges.

... That's really all I can think of that I would want in support of Mythic rules. I'd be happy to do most of the work myself, because I really can't see how Paizo can do it for me with how I'd use the rules (in my own campaigns or to extend APs past the end).


It will be interesting to see what they do - as I said, I have the exact opposite needs that you do. Any Epic/Mythic rules need more support than low level play (which I've been running for ages and need little help with, plus which I already have tons of material for). I do agree that a "How to run High Level Campaigns" sourcebook would be useful - I actually hope they produce such a thing as a stepping-stone product, in the hope of persuading the die-hard low-level-gamers that there might be something worth looking into with this high level stuff.

In my view (although I think it's likely to be a massive gamble and is presumably not economically feasible) this might be an ideal opportunity to trial a 'limited time subscription' model:

One problem Paizo have with increasing the number of product lines they support is that someone, somewhere will drop an old line in order to pick up the new offering. To the extent that happens, they dont really increase demand, just their costs. In my perfect world, Paizo would offer a twenty four month subscription line of Epic products - maybe a dozen or so items of varying size/cost/focus. Beginning with the obvious Epic rules hardcover, then a module or two, maybe a sixty four page 'GM's guide', a three module mini-campaign arc, an Epic Bestiary, a product like 'Powers of Golarion' (or somesuch).

I could imagine people signing up for the subscription, with all the usual perks, but knowing that it was going to come to an end in a couple of years time - at which point they'd likely rue the lost opportunity if they opted out of their current subscriptions, hopefully minimising any loss of revenue to the other lines (and also minimising any impact on those lines for the ardent No-Epic crowd). At the end of the two year period, Paizo would be left with a body of work relating to epic gaming that latecomers could access (presumably with only the 'Core Epic Rules' as a true evergreen product) which had been, probably not totally, but at least substantially financed by the subscribers.

I suspect such a thing is unlikely to ever happen, but it's what I'd want.


Oh, I forgot the "Epic Bestiary"; I knew I'd forget something. I definitely expect a healthy portion of epic-tier creatures, although I don't know that I want or need 300 pages of them. Bestiary 4 (5, 6, whenever it comes out) could just include a sizable Epic contingent and I'd be OK.

And, to address the opportunity cost of that, each new Bestiary by necessity of how they're constructed contains more and more marginal creatures than the one before it. Bestiary 1 contained the creatures that Paizo considered essential to the RPG line. Bestiary 2 contained the ones that they wish they could have included in B1. B3 will include even less important ones, and so on. Thus, B4 (which is the earliest we'd get any Epic critters) would be full of creatures that, while likely cool, are also going to be generally not useful in a wide variety of cases. Not a massive opportunity cost.


Fozbek wrote:

Oh, I forgot the "Epic Bestiary"; I knew I'd forget something. I definitely expect a healthy portion of epic-tier creatures, although I don't know that I want or need 300 pages of them. Bestiary 4 (5, 6, whenever it comes out) could just include a sizable Epic contingent and I'd be OK.

And, to address the opportunity cost of that, each new Bestiary by necessity of how they're constructed contains more and more marginal creatures than the one before it. Bestiary 1 contained the creatures that Paizo considered essential to the RPG line. Bestiary 2 contained the ones that they wish they could have included in B1. B3 will include even less important ones, and so on. Thus, B4 (which is the earliest we'd get any Epic critters) would be full of creatures that, while likely cool, are also going to be generally not useful in a wide variety of cases. Not a massive opportunity cost.

Nah, I agree.

By the way, I meant to say - Achaekek (sp?) was already statted up as a CR30 creature in CotCT. It was 3.5 rules rather than PF, so I suspect an update would be welcome. Nonetheless, I thought I'd mention it in case you hadnt seen it.


TBH I'd be for 20+ level characters, simply because of the abilities you unlock at level 20. I mean, as a Rogue who only gets to use his Master Strike for only 4 encounters kinda makes me want to cry, as i haven't the chance to experiance being the 'all-powerful' 20th level character until now (unless i played a GOD-wizard :P)

I wouldn't go so far as to saying Epic level characters should begin altering the world drastically with their power; I'm sure other planes have legions of 20+ creatures to put us in place or, hell, we even get penalties for leaving our own plane to balance it out. I just lament that some of the abilities you get at the 20th level isn't around long enough to be enjoyed; if you get there at all : /

Just my 2 sense


Steve Geddes wrote:
By the way, I meant to say - Achaekek (sp?) was already statted up as a CR30 creature in CotCT. It was 3.5 rules rather than PF, so I suspect an update would be welcome. Nonetheless, I thought I'd mention it in case you hadnt seen it.

Yep, I'm aware. What I've been referring to in regards to the Crimson Mantis is over in this thread, where James Jacobs mentioned Achaekek (and the Oliphaunt of Jandelay) as Epic Bestiary-worthy creatures.


thejeff wrote:

If we get Epic rules will people claim that we also need Godlike Rules, because there already are Gods in the setting?

James Jacobs stated outright, long ago, that he wanted to -- in good time -- have official rules for deity-level play.

As you may have guessed from my earlier post, I support him fully. :P


I would like to see some epic level support, even if my own campaigns usually stop well before epic level play. Its nice to have the option to play epic level.

Dark Archive

Didn't they say a Mythic/Epic book would be more of a guide book, in the same light as gamemastery guide, for dealing with higher level play, with Epic being only a single chapter taking up no more than 1/3 of the book?


Jason Beardsley wrote:
Didn't they say a Mythic/Epic book would be more of a guide book, in the same light as gamemastery guide, for dealing with higher level play, with Epic being only a single chapter taking up no more than 1/3 of the book?

I don't recall seeing any such statement, but there's no Paizo Tracker to find their every post by subject.

EDIT: Not that I would object to that. I had the proportion the other way around above, but that was just really off the cuff numbers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
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.

Not exactly true, if they don't have a reasonable expectation that the book will make a profit, they won't spend time making one. They are a buisness first and foremost.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

LazarX wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
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.
Not exactly true, if they don't have a reasonable expectation that the book will make a profit, they won't spend time making one. They are a buisness first and foremost.

Recursive. They have to expend resources to see if there's a reasonable expectation. :-P


Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't think you are entitled to tell Paizo what they should do, nor do I see why it's any of your concern what other people want or enjoy. If you'd said:

"I don't like roleplaying games and think that they are a waste of time. Therefore, I'd prefer it if Paizo would stop making Pathfinder and start manufacturing baseball bats"

there'd be nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Personally, I hope they keep doing what they're doing - we'll see who Paizo agree with.

...seriously?


I'm not even interested in playing a level 20 character, so anything past that would be superfluous to me.


I don't like dwarves. We must get rid of dwarves now. I don't care about others liking the little buggers, I want them gone. They are taking up space that could be put to better used. Even being left blank would be better use than being used for a dwarf.

And I hear all the time that dwarves are not very popular (or they'd appear as more iconics and on more covers). So I think I'm speaking for all here when I say: Dwarves be gone!


Kain Darkwind wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't think you are entitled to tell Paizo what they should do, nor do I see why it's any of your concern what other people want or enjoy. If you'd said:

"I don't like roleplaying games and think that they are a waste of time. Therefore, I'd prefer it if Paizo would stop making Pathfinder and start manufacturing baseball bats"

there'd be nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Personally, I hope they keep doing what they're doing - we'll see who Paizo agree with.

...seriously?

Yes. There's nothing wrong with telling people what you want.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't think you are entitled to tell Paizo what they should do, nor do I see why it's any of your concern what other people want or enjoy. If you'd said:

"I don't like roleplaying games and think that they are a waste of time. Therefore, I'd prefer it if Paizo would stop making Pathfinder and start manufacturing baseball bats"

there'd be nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Personally, I hope they keep doing what they're doing - we'll see who Paizo agree with.

...seriously?
Yes. There's nothing wrong with telling people what you want.

Ah. See, we disagree, but I was concerned you actually mistook my sarcasm for a serious dictate to Paizo. I'm ok with you disagreeing.


James Wilber aka The Magus wrote:

I am hanging myself out in the minority again. I wish Paizo would spend their limited time and resources on things other than epic level rules.

I think epic only feeds players who refuse to give up their favorite character. As someone who's been in the hobby over thirty years I am telling you now that sometimes stories end. New heroes take up the mantle. Villains are vanquished and those who do the vanquishing become legends. There's plenty of high fantasy and adventure in levels 1-20 to handle it.

The only people who have more fun at 20th level than 1st level are the rules monkies. People who live to destroy everyone else's fun by finding that combination loop-hole that is totally unstoppable.

I say, no sir. I need no epic.

I think you're vilifying epic content users in saying that they're all optimizers. Some people want to enjoy content from the perspective of great beings of power and might. That's just one thing they might want to do. No one needs anything in pathfinder, they WANT IT.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My problem with Epic Rules in the campaign setting is this...they've already pretty clearly defined the power level of some of the most powerful non-deities in the setting: demon lords. Hell, there's a nascent demon lord statted up in the Inner Sea World Guide, at CR 25. The thing is, if you allow character unchecked level progression, then suddenly demon lords stop being some of the most powerful non-deities in the setting...they eventually settle into the role of Elite Mooks. And frankly, a plotline where a BBEG sends Treerazer and his five identical twin brothers out to get the PCs is a bit ludicrous.

Just because villain can reach CR X, that doesn't automatically mean that PC must be able to reach level X. I'm firmly a believer that there should be things out there that the PCs should NOT be able to engage directly with any viable chance of success.

Also, there's a bit of silliness involved when your characters do rival the gods in power. How does it make sense that a cleric of Sarenrae somehow manages to surpass Sarenrae's power level? At what point does that cleric stop praying to Sarenrae, and Sarenrae starts praying to her?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
My problem with Epic Rules in the campaign setting is this...they've already pretty clearly defined the power level of some of the most powerful non-deities in the setting: demon lords. Hell, there's a nascent demon lord statted up in the Inner Sea World Guide, at CR 25.\

Actually, to my knowledge, not a single demon lord has been given official stats. Treerazer has, but he is NOT a demon lord. He's just a very powerful unique demon whose ascension to demon lord status has been blocked, leaving him weaker.

The most powerful being I'm aware of with official stats is the demigod Achaekek, at CR30, and he's been specifically cited as an Epic Bestiary candidate, meaning he'd be altered to conform to the epic rules.

Quote:
Just because villain can reach CR X, that doesn't automatically mean that PC must be able to reach level X. I'm firmly a believer that there should be things out there that the PCs should NOT be able to engage directly with any viable chance of success.

And I'm a very firm believer that a PC of race <x> should never be barred from doing what an NPC of race <x or similar base power level> can do. Since humans have become deities in Golarion, PCs should be able to. After all, it's really hard to be the awesome hero if someone can point to another person and say, "Yeah, but he did that better".

Quote:
Also, there's a bit of silliness involved when your characters do rival the gods in power. How does it make sense that a cleric of Sarenrae somehow manages to surpass Sarenrae's power level? At what point does that cleric stop praying to Sarenrae, and Sarenrae starts praying to her?

Ask Iomedae. She started out as a mortal champion of a deity (Aroden, IIRC), then eventually rose to Godhood.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Ah, the eternal confusion of Golarion the setting with Pathfinder the set of rules. Happy, happy, joy, joy.

I think that Golarion needs epic rules with a level cap - this is obvious given what has been said of the power level of the most powerful creatures in Golarion. This is all fine and dandy and fits that campaign setting perfectly well. But I'll be extremely disappointed if the final rules have some sort of artificial built-in cap, for such a cap would be specific to making the rules work in Golarion and not really inherent in the rules.

Right now I'm running a campaign where the PCs range from levels 51 to 64. Would that be absurd in Golarion? Obviously. Is it absurd in my campaign world? Absolutely not - there's a rationale for it and it works. I've made estimates that they'll be in the 85-95 range before the campaign comes to closure.

Am I having BadWrongFun? Obviously I am, according to some folks. Do I care? Hell no, since I'm having fun :)

I'm just looking forward to when Paizo comes out with post-20 rules so that I can start a new campaign using just the PF rule set. Since my current campaign is nowhere near finishing, I can wait. But I'm looking forward to the ride.

Shadow Lodge

Fozbek wrote:
Ask Iomedae. She started out as a mortal champion of a deity (Aroden, IIRC), then eventually rose to Godhood.

My question is how does it even remotely make sense for a god to basically be an Elite Mook compared to his cleric. It'd be like if Orcus got his spells from a balor.

And maybe none of the demon lords (or empereal lords, or arch-devils, or horsemen or the like) have been given stats, some HAVE been given CRs.

Again, it all comes down to reducing threats that supposedly make the rest of the multiverse tremble in fear into something the PC's might decide to take care of on a slow weekend.


gbonehead wrote:

Ah, the eternal confusion of Golarion the setting with Pathfinder the set of rules. Happy, happy, joy, joy.

I think that Golarion needs epic rules with a level cap - this is obvious given what has been said of the power level of the most powerful creatures in Golarion. This is all fine and dandy and fits that campaign setting perfectly well. But I'll be extremely disappointed if the final rules have some sort of artificial built-in cap, for such a cap would be specific to making the rules work in Golarion and not really inherent in the rules.

I wouldn't mind a level cap, per se. I pitched stopping at 40, but, if there's rules to take it beyond that or if there is no cap, I'm certainly not going to say, "I'll never buy it!" Personally, if there is no hard cap, I'd stop my game at 40 anyway; but that's just me.

gbonehead wrote:
Right now I'm running a campaign where the PCs range from levels 51 to 64. Would that be absurd in Golarion? Obviously. Is it absurd in my campaign world? Absolutely not - there's a rationale for it and it works. I've made estimates that they'll be in the 85-95 range before the campaign comes to closure.

That's why I always prefer my own campaign world. Things are a lot nicer and the PC's always have more levels to play with than the hard cap of 20. Plus, my PC's actually enjoy those "epic/mythic" adventures I run for them. Facing the powerful demon lords, aspects of gods....those are the stories they like telling the most to other players. Not that they don't have other stories they tell about my games, it's just THOSE ones they remember the most.

gbonehead wrote:
Am I having BadWrongFun? Obviously I am, according to some folks. Do I care? Hell no, since I'm having fun :)

Yes you are having BadWrongFun! HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU WANT TO GO BEYOND LEVEL 20! Oh wait...I'm actually with you on post 20 play...nevermind; please continue.

gbonehead wrote:
I'm just looking forward to when Paizo comes out with post-20 rules so that I can start a new campaign using just the PF rule set. Since my current campaign is nowhere near finishing, I can wait. But I'm looking forward to the ride.

Amen, gbonehead; amen to the bolded part. As for the other part, this is our third campaign, the last two stopping shortly after we reached level 20 in both. Right now, I'm enjoying the ride as well, but my players and I all know that without a post 20 book, there's only so much more riding we can do before we want to get off. Until that happens, we're going to keep enjoying this ride as well.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Kthulhu wrote:
My question is how does it even remotely make sense for a god to basically be an Elite Mook compared to his cleric. It'd be like if Orcus got his spells from a balor.

It doesn't. That's why Golarion (the setting) must have a level cap. Doesn't mean the more general Pathfinder rules must, however.

For example, I haven't set the CRs of any of the prime movers in my campaign. I may never set them. In fact, for many of the primary deities, their CR (if it were to be set) would be "high enough to swat the most powerful PC like a fly." Clearly if I've got a 50th-level cleric running around, their deity must be powerful enough for that character to worship.

This doesn't make the PCs irrelevant, any more than the existence of high-level characters makes 1st-level characters irrelevant. You just have to design the world so that the people in it make sense. Are the gods prohibited from interfering directly on the mortal plane? Do other gods band together and wipe out those who directly interfere? Does some aspect of the multiverse itself prohibit creatures of such power from acting directly? All depends on your campaign world.

Obviously there's something holding back powers such as those in the Abyss and the Nine Hells, or they'd long ago have rode in and taken over. You may not even have to define exactly what it is, but clearly it's there, otherwise the mortal realm would have been overrun long ago.


gbonehead wrote:
Right now I'm running a campaign where the PCs range from levels 51 to 64. Would that be absurd in Golarion? Obviously. Is it absurd in my campaign world? Absolutely not - there's a rationale for it and it works. I've made estimates that they'll be in the 85-95 range before the campaign comes to closure.

I'm curious now. What are your players' characters and what are they doing?

Dark Archive

Merlin_47 wrote:
gbonehead wrote:

Ah, the eternal confusion of Golarion the setting with Pathfinder the set of rules. Happy, happy, joy, joy.

I think that Golarion needs epic rules with a level cap - this is obvious given what has been said of the power level of the most powerful creatures in Golarion. This is all fine and dandy and fits that campaign setting perfectly well. But I'll be extremely disappointed if the final rules have some sort of artificial built-in cap, for such a cap would be specific to making the rules work in Golarion and not really inherent in the rules.

I wouldn't mind a level cap, per se. I pitched stopping at 40, but, if there's rules to take it beyond that or if there is no cap, I'm certainly not going to say, "I'll never buy it!" Personally, if there is no hard cap, I'd stop my game at 40 anyway; but that's just me.

gbonehead wrote:
Right now I'm running a campaign where the PCs range from levels 51 to 64. Would that be absurd in Golarion? Obviously. Is it absurd in my campaign world? Absolutely not - there's a rationale for it and it works. I've made estimates that they'll be in the 85-95 range before the campaign comes to closure.

That's why I always prefer my own campaign world. Things are a lot nicer and the PC's always have more levels to play with than the hard cap of 20. Plus, my PC's actually enjoy those "epic/mythic" adventures I run for them. Facing the powerful demon lords, aspects of gods....those are the stories they like telling the most to other players. Not that they don't have other stories they tell about my games, it's just THOSE ones they remember the most.

gbonehead wrote:
Am I having BadWrongFun? Obviously I am, according to some folks. Do I care? Hell no, since I'm having fun :)

Yes you are having BadWrongFun! HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU WANT TO GO BEYOND LEVEL 20! Oh wait...I'm actually with you on post 20 play...nevermind; please continue.

gbonehead wrote:
I'm just looking forward to when Paizo comes out
...

Ok some clarification. Treerazor is a NASCENT deomonlord. Nascent demonlords are unique demons between CR20 -25 and are usually the top servitor of a true demonlord. True Demonlords are CR 30+ andd as such are well into the realm of epic. Demigods are also between CR30- CR40. Deities are well beyond CR 40. The current talk is to cap levels at level 36 to therefore make your top challenge at CR40 and deities untouchable, even your twinked out level 36 pc would be murdered by a true deity easily.


Kthulhu wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
Ask Iomedae. She started out as a mortal champion of a deity (Aroden, IIRC), then eventually rose to Godhood.
My question is how does it even remotely make sense for a god to basically be an Elite Mook compared to his cleric.

Where are you getting this from? Deities don't have statblocks, so it's rather hard for PCs to become so much more powerful than they are that the deity becomes a mook. Once a PC reaches the level of deityhood, there really can't be any rules for it. What can a god do? Anything it wants to that another god doesn't attempt to prevent him from doing. What happens when two gods get into a fight? All reality trembles.

Please desist with this strawman.


Kain Darkwind wrote:


Ah. See, we disagree, but I was concerned you actually mistook my sarcasm for a serious dictate to Paizo. I'm ok with you disagreeing.

No, I understood. I also have no objection to disagreement - in a topic like this, I expect to be in the minority.

It just irritates me when people characterize my position as anything other than communication with a company as to what I want. Expressing my preference isn't an attempt to curtail anyone else's fun - it's just expressing a preference.

EDIT: I don't mean that you specifically were doing that, just that "why are you trying to stop other people's fun?" is a common and misplaced critique.


I think it's funny people saying that Epic rules are not needed. Golarion is "an old new world" as it stands, it has many things that are comparable to the old Campaign Settings we know and love. Forgotten, Ravenloft, Al-qadim, L5R and so on and so forth. ALL of those campigns have epic level characters and it's necessary for them to exist and for PCs to be able to be on their level to be important at some point.

Forgotten for instance is a lot of fun if you play alongside Drizzt or the choosens of Mystra and they are ALL epic, and NONE of them is able to challenge a deity, not without some major help and story.

I think most of the problem with people that don't want epic rules is that they think epic rules = deification or worldbreaking power. Well, the way I see it, it doesn't.

Epic rules is a natural extension of level. Sure, they are more powerful than normal character, but isn't a 10 level char WAY more powerful than a 1st level character anyway? In fact, I believe the power gap will be even smaller between 20th level and 30th than from 10th to 20th.

Now, I completelly trust paizo to make SEPARATE rules for epic/mythic characters and deities, as it has ALWAYS been in all D&D incarnations, I have no idea why most people came to believe they were the same thing.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Umbral Reaver wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
Right now I'm running a campaign where the PCs range from levels 51 to 64. Would that be absurd in Golarion? Obviously. Is it absurd in my campaign world? Absolutely not - there's a rationale for it and it works. I've made estimates that they'll be in the 85-95 range before the campaign comes to closure.
I'm curious now. What are your players' characters and what are they doing?

In a nutshell, they're heroes given great power in order save their realm, which happens to be the keystone of the multiverse, but which has fallen into disrepair, causing many, many things to go south. They're almost like the immune system of the place, created to deal with the really nasty problems that have started to crop up due to the systemic damage the realm has suffered.

Nominally there's 7 players/characters, as well as 3 others that are pretty much out of the picture (one I haven't seen in several years, the other not since early this year). One player just started a couple months ago and isn't entirely up to speed. Several of the players have spent 5 (real time) years creating extremely formidable characters, most notably the druid and the fighter.

As I recall, we have a level 64 druid/stormlord/warblade, a level 52 arcane archer/wizard/rogue, a level 61 monk/shadowdancer, a level 64 fighter/dervish/legendary dreadnaught, a level 62 wizard/psion, a level 53 yuan-ti spirit shaman/wizard, and a level 51 pathfinder ranger/scout. I know there's a lot more prestige classes in there for some of the characters, but I can't really keep track, and don't try.

You may note the lack of a cleric. This is a continual problem; we've had two clerics in the campaign, one disappeared several years ago, and a second hasn't been seen since about February. I've been allowing them to return to home base where the second absentee cleric is "meditating at the temple," but I just laid down the law and said he's going to be called by his god and they better figure out another way to get their true resurrections. The Pathfinder Savant prestige class is ideal in this regard; the yuan-ti spirit shaman/wizard just took her second level in it and picked up true resurrection. They're also having an item crafted that will give them one true resurrection per day; it took some fineagling to make it a non-epic magic item (they don't have time or resources for crafting epic magic items).

Anyways, at this precise moment they just defeated a group of seven advanced star-spawn defending a shrine that happens to be a focus for a really big and nasty cerebrotic blot (see the Dragon #330); they're likely to finish investigating the shrine and step through the portal next game, but may not depending on what they discover. They're pretty sure they know who is at the center of the blot.


Xum wrote:

Forgotten for instance is a lot of fun if you play alongside Drizzt or the choosens of Mystra and they are ALL epic, and NONE of them is able to challenge a deity, not without some major help and story.

I think most of the problem with people that don't want epic rules is that they think epic rules = deification or worldbreaking power. Well, the way I see it, it doesn't.

I think what you fail to realize is that for many of us, Drizzt and the Chosens of Mystra are considered twinked-out Mary Sues that, while tolerable to some in fiction, are anathema to what we want from the game. If I never see the equivalent of a "Realms-shaking event" (which came with increasing frequency over the years), I'll be a happy camper.

Just because an earlier setting or edition had something, doesn't make it necessary in Pathfinder or Golarion. For some, those elements you're touting are mistakes to be avoided, rather than reproduced.

And based on many of the posts in this and every other Epic-themed thread, epic rules DOES = deification & world-breaking power. Obviously it doesn't have to, but when the core rules only go to level 20 and you've got people saying a cap at 36 or 40 is too low, I think it's safe to say it's a valid assumption.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:

And based on many of the posts in this and every other Epic-themed thread, epic rules DOES = deification & world-breaking power. Obviously it doesn't have to, but when the core rules only go to level 20 and you've got people saying a cap at 36 or 40 is too low, I think it's safe to say it's a valid assumption.

On that, I do agree. Going over the estipulated cap of 36 or 40 that JJ said they would keep, may be a little too much. And the way paizo has talked about epic so far, it means, more than 20th less than Worldbreaking/Godlike, which is EXACTLY where I'd like to be.

Now, going for 36 or 40 doesn't seem that much to me, as I said, I played a lot of editions and a lot of settings, so, I may be a little Biased. But I do like my character to be able to go toe to toe with Boris for instance, or Straad. And a 20th level character cannot do that.

I do understand you saying that you want something else from epic, but I think most people that are "afraid" of it, is because of 3.0 rules that were crap, let's face it. 2nd edition rules were perfectly fine, and to be honest 3.0 rules (before ELH) were pretty decent (cause there weren't any. But, and I say it again, I think the problem is with what Epic IS in each one's head, not what paizo will DO that is the issue here.


I can't argue with that, Xum. Well said.


gbonehead wrote:
Right now I'm running a campaign where the PCs range from levels 51 to 64. Would that be absurd in Golarion? Obviously. Is it absurd in my campaign world? Absolutely not - there's a rationale for it and it works. I've made estimates that they'll be in the 85-95 range before the campaign comes to closure.

If this game is in the Atlanta area or it's PBP and you need another mage-ish character let me know. I've been gagging to play an epic game FOREVER. ;-) True story.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xum wrote:
BPorter wrote:

And based on many of the posts in this and every other Epic-themed thread, epic rules DOES = deification & world-breaking power. Obviously it doesn't have to, but when the core rules only go to level 20 and you've got people saying a cap at 36 or 40 is too low, I think it's safe to say it's a valid assumption.

On that, I do agree. Going over the estipulated cap of 36 or 40 that JJ said they would keep, may be a little too much. And the way paizo has talked about epic so far, it means, more than 20th less than Worldbreaking/Godlike, which is EXACTLY where I'd like to be.

Now, going for 36 or 40 doesn't seem that much to me, as I said, I played a lot of editions and a lot of settings, so, I may be a little Biased. But I do like my character to be able to go toe to toe with Boris for instance, or Straad. And a 20th level character cannot do that.

I do understand you saying that you want something else from epic, but I think most people that are "afraid" of it, is because of 3.0 rules that were crap, let's face it. 2nd edition rules were perfectly fine, and to be honest 3.0 rules (before ELH) were pretty decent (cause there weren't any. But, and I say it again, I think the problem is with what Epic IS in each one's head, not what paizo will DO that is the issue here.

I completely agree that the issue seems to be the SRD version of Epic rules had a lot of issues. If Paizo was going to reprint those rules as is I would also be opposed to it. They take work to make work properly. gbonehead has managed to make them work, in what sounds like an effective way, probably more due to his DM skills then the rules. However this doesn't mean that Paizo can't make Epic rules that will make a majority of us go, "Wow, I want to play that". I personally would like to give Paizo the chance to do just that.


I still think epic levels character and npc creation will take a really long time. Who has time for that?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
doctor_wu wrote:
I still think epic levels character and npc creation will take a really long time. Who has time for that?

It might take a really long time, it might not, we won't know until Paizo starts playtesting it.


doctor_wu wrote:
I still think epic levels character and npc creation will take a really long time. Who has time for that?

Not long with a character generator.


BPorter wrote:
And based on many of the posts in this and every other Epic-themed thread, epic rules DOES = deification & world-breaking power. Obviously it doesn't have to, but when the core rules only go to level 20 and you've got people saying a cap at 36 or 40 is too low, I think it's safe to say it's a valid assumption.

I have to, sadly, agree with this. If the actual outlay of powers and abilities from 1-20 isn't restructured (which is pretty much impossible with what we have now since it would throw into disarray the current set of works), characters can only become godlike.

Currently, characters at level 20 can already alter the fabric of reality (Wish, Miracle), travel between planes (Gate) or perfectly anywhere on the current plane (Greater Teleport, Interplanetary Teleport), slay creatures outright (Power Word Kill, Suffocation), stop time (Time Stop), resurrect someone who died 200 years earlier from nothingness (True Resurrection) and change the size of the universe (Creater Greater Demiplane.) Some of them can choose immortality (in the sense of no longer aging) as a bonus feature of their class, not even a spell that needs to be cast.

Think about the difference in abilities for those characters between where they are at Level 20 and where they were at Level 10, and then ask where they must be at Level 30. If the progression of powers peters off instead of increasing at the current rate, then we're looking at something more like E20 (much as the current Core rulebook supports), which probably wouldn't be satisfying to people. People are going to want to have greater power for their greater levels, but, at least in terms of magic, characters have some almost ridiculously powerful abilities as it is.

Melee characters are a different matter, obviously, but one can't assume the performance of epic rules based on the less outrageous classes.


Ultrace wrote:

I have to, sadly, agree with this. If the actual outlay of powers and abilities from 1-20 isn't restructured (which is pretty much impossible with what we have now since it would throw into disarray the current set of works), characters can only become godlike.

Currently, characters at level 20 can already alter the fabric of reality (Wish, Miracle), travel between planes (Gate) or perfectly anywhere on the current plane (Greater Teleport, Interplanetary Teleport), slay creatures outright (Power Word Kill, Suffocation), stop time (Time Stop), resurrect someone who died 200 years earlier from nothingness (True Resurrection) and change the size of the universe (Creater Greater Demiplane.) Some of them can choose immortality (in the sense of no longer aging) as a bonus feature of their class, not even a spell that needs to be cast.

Think about the difference in abilities for those characters between where they are at Level 20 and where they were at Level 10, and then ask where they must be at Level 30. If the progression of powers peters off instead of increasing at the current rate, then we're looking at something more like E20 (much as the current Core rulebook supports), which probably wouldn't be satisfying to people. People are going to want to have greater power for their greater levels, but, at least in terms of magic, characters have some almost ridiculously powerful abilities as it is.

Melee characters are a different matter, obviously, but one can't assume the performance of epic rules based on the less outrageous classes.

Bingo. Well said.


Why always think that Pathfinder Chronicles is only Golarion?

Pathfinder Chronicles can be much more

and if you are good been just a simple camper is OK that work for you but that not mean that work for everyone some people like fight against demigods and is fair for both, now you have what you want but not us so let us have our Epic rules

what else do you want? not just say: anything other than epic rules or high level is to much complicated for me or if don't work on Golarion I don't want it or something like that

Liberty's Edge

I have no use for EPIC level rules. Why?

1) The game so far has not been designed for it. Look at the creatures, gods, and so on. EPIC characters would be too strong compared to the available creatures.

2) The game is already a munchkin's paradise. The power difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder is considerable. A 12th level Pathfinder character is equal to a 15th level 3.5 version. So by the time you hit 20th level, you are way beyond what a 20th level PC in 3.5 could do.

3) The game starts breaking down around 13th level anyway. I dislike running high level games because of this. It was a problem in 3.5 and now slightly worse in Pathfinder.

I really have little interest in playing beyond 15 let alone over 20.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dave the Barbarian wrote:

I have no use for EPIC level rules. Why?

1) The game so far has not been designed for it. Look at the creatures, gods, and so on. EPIC characters would be too strong compared to the available creatures.

2) The game is already a munchkin's paradise. The power difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder is considerable. A 12th level Pathfinder character is equal to a 15th level 3.5 version. So by the time you hit 20th level, you are way beyond what a 20th level PC in 3.5 could do.

3) The game starts breaking down around 13th level anyway. I dislike running high level games because of this. It was a problem in 3.5 and now slightly worse in Pathfinder.

I really have little interest in playing beyond 15 let alone over 20.

Ok...

I guess we won't make you then...

Darn, there go my weekend plans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave the Barbarian wrote:
2) The game is already a munchkin's paradise. The power difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder is considerable. A 12th level Pathfinder character is equal to a 15th level 3.5 version. So by the time you hit 20th level, you are way beyond what a 20th level PC in 3.5 could do.

Good way to get your opinion heard; imply that everyone who plays the game is a munchkin and that the developers either don't know how to design games or are munchkins as well. Bravissimo, sir.


BPorter wrote:


I think what you fail to realize is that for many of us, Drizzt and the Chosens of Mystra are considered twinked-out Mary Sues that, while tolerable to some in fiction, are anathema to what we want from the game. If I never see the equivalent of a "Realms-shaking event" (which came with increasing frequency over the years), I'll be a happy camper.

Oh heall yeah! +1

Ultrace wrote:


I have to, sadly, agree with this. If the actual outlay of powers and abilities from 1-20 isn't restructured (which is pretty much impossible with what we have now since it would throw into disarray the current set of works), characters can only become godlike.

Currently, characters at level 20 can already alter the fabric of reality (Wish, Miracle), travel between planes (Gate) or perfectly anywhere on the current plane (Greater Teleport, Interplanetary Teleport), slay creatures outright (Power Word Kill, Suffocation), stop time (Time Stop), resurrect someone who died 200 years earlier from nothingness (True Resurrection) and change the size of the universe (Creater Greater Demiplane.) Some of them can choose immortality (in the sense of no longer aging) as a bonus feature of their class, not even a spell that needs to be cast.

<snip>
Melee characters are a different matter, obviously, but one can't assume the performance of epic rules based on the less outrageous classes.

I totally agree with your example above. Level 20 is powerful enough IMHO. Melee characters can be just as bad.

IIRC, in an old FR sourcebook (FR7 Hall of Heroes or somesuch?), Drizzt had something like the ability to parry 75% of incoming attacks even if he had already acted that round, etc. While he wasnt epic level, I could see melee being balanced this way against the caster power level. I know Drizzt is a novel character and it was way back in the heyday of unbalanced gaming, but I would hate to see this kind of ability show up in a PF book.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Dave the Barbarian wrote:
I have no use for EPIC level rules.

Many do not; I understand perfectly. Just like many people have no need for Numerian super-science, guns, or Tian Xia. And then there's the folks who do have a use for epic level rules ...

I just finished reading Goblins of Golarion. Frankly, I have to admit I don't get the whole goblin thing, and the book left me kind of flat. So what? I don't feel that every book has to appeal to me personally, and it's clear quite a few people think it's wonderful. That's a good thing; it means that Paizo is successfully appealing to multiple audiences.

Dave the Barbarian wrote:
1) The game so far has not been designed for it. Look at the creatures, gods, and so on. EPIC characters would be too strong compared to the available creatures.

Yep, it hasn't. Thus the call for new rules that are designed for it, and a bestiary of creatures that would go with it. Besides, the creatures don't have to be designed for above-20 play; that's what monster advancement and templates are for.

Consider if you only had the rules for levels 1 through 5. No iterative attacks. No class abilities above 5th. No spells above 3rd level. No feats requiring a BAB of +6 or higher. Would you want to use those rules to play a 20th-level character?

Dave the Barbarian wrote:
2) The game is already a munchkin's paradise. The power difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder is considerable. A 12th level Pathfinder character is equal to a 15th level 3.5 version. So by the time you hit 20th level, you are way beyond what a 20th level PC in 3.5 could do.

Of course the game's a paradise for CharOp folks - it's a toolset with hundreds of character options and probably well-nigh a thousand feats to choose from. It's a game ... and CharOp is one way to play the game. So what if CharOp folks will make even more powerfule characters using above-20 rules? Isn't that actually the point of above-20 rules - to make characters more powerful tahn 20th-level characters?

Dave the Barbarian wrote:
3) The game starts breaking down around 13th level anyway. I dislike running high level games because of this. It was a problem in 3.5 and now slightly worse in Pathfinder.

Frankly, the game starts breaking down as soon as any player decides to game the system rather than to play the game. Not going to let such things ruin my game, and it really doesn't come up for me all that often.

Dave the Barbarian wrote:
I really have little interest in playing beyond 15 let alone over 20.

Hear, hear! So don't. And I won't play in Tian Xia or as a goblin PC, and other folks will avoid guns and Numerian science like the plague, and we'll all be happy with what we do play with. That's the whole point of Paizo putting out so many sourcebooks. I really, truly cannot see any GM having time and energy to use every single one. The point is to use the ones you like, not to try to constrain the system so that Paizo only puts out books that you like.

Overall, I'm not worried about it. They seem pretty intent on covering a lot of bases, and I've been thinking for a few years we'd see movement in that direction in 2013. I was *hoping* for 2012, but in reality it wouldn't do me any good in 2012 anyways, so I'm perfectly happy with 2013.

Any given person's mileage may vary, of course :)

151 to 200 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / We Don't Need No Epic Content All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.