|
For some of those who replied to my opinion post - it was just that, my opinion. If you enjoy EPIC rules, then I really hope that they create them for you.
I also understand that not all items created for Pathfinder may float your boat. I am not, and never will, poo poo on your likes/dislikes. If you dig the goblins, more power to you. If you like Ninja's, then you are in good shape.
I don't have any plans to play or run anything over 15th because when we finished Legacy of Fire, the characters were plenty powerful and the climax of the AP was awesome. Going beyond that just didn't interest me. I run a bunch of PFS games and the sub tier 10-11 games are harder to GM due to optimization issues.
You can call it power gaming, optimization, or munchkin or whatever, but the idea is that people can game the system and make it harder to GM. We are not having that problem currently in Carrion Crown.
Don't mistake my comments as dislike for Pathfinder. I enjoy the game, I have bought every product, and support them well. I just finished running a bunch of PFS at a conference. I enjoy the game, but don't personally have any use for EPIC rules.
Kieviel, you are still welcome to come over and game this weekend. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo really wants to do epic level content, I humbly request they throw out the ELH entirely and start taking notes from the the I in BECMI or 2e's DM Options: High Level Campaigns.
"You gain some extra feats and they're extra +x!" doesn't scream epic to me. "All those of your race see you as a paragon of their kind and are naturally guided to follow you" sounds way better. Also Union was really dumb. Also High Level Campaigns has some legit good advice.
For some of those who replied to my opinion post - it was just that, my opinion. If you enjoy EPIC rules, then I really hope that they create them for you.
I also understand that not all items created for Pathfinder may float your boat. I am not, and never will, poo poo on your likes/dislikes. If you dig the goblins, more power to you. If you like Ninja's, then you are in good shape.
+1
well said :)
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.
Where do you get that? While it's true that many classes are more powerful than before, that refers mainly to classes that were too weak before. A lot of the stuff that was too good in 3e was toned down in PF.
And a lot of the extra stuff from 3e supplements - which were were a lot of the real atrocities were committed - are absent from Pathfinder.
Give me a few instances of things Pathfinder characters of level 20 can do that a 3.Xe wizards, clerics or druids couldn't even dream of.
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.
Where do you get that? While it's true that many classes are more powerful than before, that refers mainly to classes that were too weak before. A lot of the stuff that was too good in 3e was toned down in PF.
And a lot of the extra stuff from 3e supplements - which were were a lot of the real atrocities were committed - are absent from Pathfinder.
Give me a few instances of things Pathfinder characters of level 20 can do that a 3.Xe wizards, clerics or druids couldn't even dream of.
<---- agrees with KaeYoss.
While I am in the "Nay to Epic level play" camp, others may like it. Why shouldnt they get an Epic sourcebook?
I do like higher level (13-20) play just not the GM work that comes with it, especially with power-abusive players. I dont mind the extra work if the player is the "Concept over Power" type however.
...
Do you guys have no faith in the team of developers in PF?!
Sure the Epic level handbook made for 3.5 was abysmal. But just maybe this PF team will do a much more balanced and sane set of rules.
-=+=-
If a developer is reading this thread I might offer a suggestion that you go with a slow advancement after 20th level. Let people take their time building up to those really big powers. Maybe something closer to the E6 variant of 3.5e, where you just get a feat every level after 6th. Sort of like an E20 with lots of feat progressions leading you ever higher. I would make sure the rules have a very detailed set of advice and guidelines on running both epic and high level campaigns. That last part may be desperately needed for those people with a poor track record running such games, and would be useful even for those who do run a good high level game.
|
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 ... the developers either don't know how to design games or are munchkins as well. Bravissimo, sir.
Except that they didn't really have much choice for high level not to be broken, since they built Pathfinder as a variant on 3.5. If you're going to judge Paizo as designers, you have to look at the NEW stuff they've done, and like it or not, the Core Rules is essentially a rehash with some tweaks included. Words of Power, Armor as Damage Reduction, or Wounds and Vigor are barometers of what Paizo is capable of as developers...not the core game system itself.
Of course, the TRUE test of Paizo as developers will be when Pathfinder 2E comes along, if they have the guts to leave backwards compatibility behind them.
|
|
"You gain some extra feats and they're extra +x!" doesn't scream epic to me. "All those of your race see you as a paragon of their kind and are naturally guided to follow you" sounds way better. Also Union was really dumb. Also High Level Campaigns has some legit good advice.
If you're level 20, then I think it's fair to say that you're already at the point where "most of your race see you as a paragon of their kind and are naturally guided to follow you". As for ALL...well, that's ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you're a 21st level paladin or a 1,000,000th level paladin, the completely chaotic evil mass murder isn't going to see you as the paragon of humanity and be naturally inclined to follow your example just because you're an epic level human.
Which is why I think that an e20 solution is the best way to proceed with post-20th level play. Instead of taking the PC's already ridiculous levels of power and skyrocketing them beyond ludicrous, simply have 20th level characters earn a feat every ___ XP beyond what it took to get them to 20th level.
Reserve god-killing and the like for McGuffins, as it should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think many of the people that are solidly in the pro-epic-rules camp are forgetting one simple fact when they say “you’re taking away our fun” or “our ideas can’t hurt your game”: all ideas do not hold equal merit. Before the flamethrowers come out, I’m not saying that wanting Epic-level content does not have merit or has less merit than not wanting it.
However, some game ideas, despite their appeal to some, introduce a detrimental effect to others. For example, if someone started posting things like this with the intent of the suggestions actually making their way into a product, I think most of those posting in this thread might object. (And yes, they’re intentionally ridiculous to make a point.)
1. “I want sparkly vampires and the majority of them aren’t evil, just misunderstood. And an emo-point mechanic should be added to the game and PFS play.”
2. “Somatic spell casting should require the caster to wiggle her nose, cross her arms and blink, or should be limited to human females. Oh, and synergistic magic should only be accessible to sisters in pairings of three.”
3. “PC character death should be impossible unless both the player & GM agree that the character dies for story reasons and/or the player has become bored with the character.”
4. “Conditions such as shaken, sickened, and fatigued only apply to NPCs and never apply to PCs.”
5. “PF Core, APs, and PFS should adopt epic point-buy as the standard method of character creation.”
6. “PCs are supposed to be tough. NPC attacks should never be successful against PCs. It reduces my fun when my character gets beat up.”
If someone says “no thanks” to any of those ideas, it’s not a personal attack on the person making the suggestion or an attempt to spoil their fun. It’s an expression of what they don’t want in their game.
If every “want” for the game is to be treated with equal merit, we’re going to end up with an inconsistent hodge-podge.
As for epic rules, chances are good that the pro-epic-rules camp is going to get what they want…at some point. For those of us who don’t want it, we’re not trying to deprive you of anything. But we’re not talking about house rules or a 3PP product. We’re talking about official RPG rules, probably a bestiary, and probably some number of adventures. We might be talking about an incremental impact to the setting. (How great an impact remains to be seen.) Some of us don’t want that. And since we’re customers of Paizo also, why aren’t we allowed to tell them what we do want, just like you’re doing?
Also, there’s a lot more precedent for epic-level content impacting other products and the setting than for it being a self-contained product. APG, UM, UC – all have seen elements introduced into modules, APs, campaign setting sourcebooks, and PFS play. Portions of those products exist solely b/c they will support those other products. Given how problematic epic-level content has been at times, both mechanically & thematically, some of us just don’t want it.
I’ve been down the road of “just ignore it if you don’t like it” with settings like Forgotten Realms, Scarred Lands, & Iron Kingdoms. However, there are elements that “can’t be undone” without effectively reaching a “nothing after this sourcebook” solution. As a subscriber to multiple Pathfinder and Golarion products, that’s NOT an attractive option to me. I don’t recycle campaigns, settings, and game systems every 12-18 mos. Once taking out the elements I don't like reachs 30-50% of a supplement, I have to start asking myself is that remaining 70-50% of content I will use is worth the price of the product in total. It often isn't.
So let’s stop acting as though “don’t want it, don’t buy it”, “you’re ruining my fun”, and “it won’t impact your campaign” are superior arguments when most of us are just saying “Dear Paizo, this is what we’d like & this is what we’re not crazy about/have little use for.” Otherwise, the glib “go play a system that already has epic-content like D&D (3e, 4e) or Exalted” becomes as valid as it is trite.
If you're level 20, then I think it's fair to say that you're already at the point where "most of your race see you as a paragon of their kind and are naturally guided to follow you". As for ALL...well, that's ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you're a 21st level paladin or a 1,000,000th level paladin, the completely chaotic evil mass murder isn't going to see you as the paragon of humanity and be naturally inclined to follow your example just because you're an epic level human.
Sure he will. Because you're epic.
I believe you are confusing epic for just another mundane dude.
Other high level fighter abilities included being able to delay harmful effects like death spells or petrification, outright ignoring weapon immunities, and being able to cause an aura of fear and might.
Which is why I think that an e20 solution is the best way to proceed with post-20th level play. Instead of taking the PC's already ridiculous levels of power and skyrocketing them beyond ludicrous, simply have 20th level characters earn a feat every ___ XP beyond what it took to get them to 20th level.
And that makes a great fix for people who don't want epic rules. Why, you've solved the thread! Now all those people can stop post about how they don't want others to have fun.
Reserve god-killing and the like for McGuffins, as it should be.
...So every edition but 2e hasn't been "as it should be?"
|
|
Kthulhu - I didn't "judge" the designers, nor did I say they don't know how to design games. I think they did a great job, or I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars on their stuff. I don't think they were worried about how EPIC play would fit in.
KaeYoss - The power creep occurs early. I GM a ton of PFS games and it is very common to have 1st level characters with +10 to +12 for a skill check that is a DC 15 for example. Most of the players optimize to the extreme. Many of the scenario's and modules I have run, the PC's just blow through the challenges and combats. In our home campaign, our 15th level Monk with the traits, extra goodies, extra feats, will clearly out power a 3.5 Monk.
To stick to the intent of the thread - I personally do not need EPIC rules. I bought them for 3.5 and never used them. I am a subscriber and a collector so odds are I would still buy it, but in all honesty, I do not believe I would use it.
As I said before, if you will use it and enjoy it, then please go for it and have fun. Just not my thing.
|
|
Ugh, now I remember why I avoid these types of threads, but I will try to articulate my thoughts a little better.
In Pathfinder, you gain feats quicker. This helps ramp up a characters power level. I like this by the way.
In Pathfinder, we get a couple of traits. This helps gain a few skill bonuses, saving throw, or other goody. This makes the characters just a touch better than 3.5.
In Pathfinder we get the favored class bonus, so an extra HP or skill point (or both with some AP traits) gives you a little boost. Given the fact that the skills points per class remained the same, but the types of skills were reduced, you can spend more on other items.
In Pathfinder, additional class skills/abilities have been added to avoid "dead" levels. This makes the classes just a touch better, like the wet noodle monk.
Overall - just a bunch of little things that makes the Pathfinder character stronger than a 3.5 version.
None of my players or myself mind those items, it just makes them a little stronger faster.
An optimized character from 3.5 vs. Pathfinder is not the same as far as skills. In Pathfinder I can score additional bonuses thanks to a few well placed traits and an extra skill point. Likewise, I can use this to score an extra HP vs 3.5.
For the third time - If you dig EPIC level play, more power to you. For me, the characters get powerful enough by 15th.
Ugh, now I remember why I avoid these types of threads, but I will try to articulate my thoughts a little better.
Yes, welcome to the Intarwebs. You know, it's a series of tubes, used to blast other people for offering an opinion :)
In Pathfinder, you gain feats quicker. This helps ramp up a characters power level. I like this by the way.
Me too, actually; I use Pathfinder feat advancement for my game (which is primarily 3.5e). Those feats really add up, and we've decided that (the way we play epic) it's all about the feats.
For the third time - If you dig EPIC level play, more power to you. For me, the characters get powerful enough by 15th.
The real irony, I think, is that you're getting flak in a thread called We Don't Need No Epic Content. As an amusing coincidence, I just heard Another Brick in the Wall on my way home ...
|
|
gbonehead - Thanks for the support. All it was is an opinion and I thought that I was in the right thread because two of them were created for opinions and this claims it is the "We don't need Epic Content" one.
In my 30 years of gaming, the only people who get offended by the term "munchkin", are the munchkins. You can use that term all you want around me, I don't care, but I do enjoy the cardgame. So if I offended you, my apologies.
I have played with enough folks over the past few years to recognize optimization to the extreme, all within the framework of the rules. Pathfinder just gives them the opportunity for more plusses compared to 3.5.
These same players would play an animated toilet seat if it gave them an extra +1 to a roll.
|
|
Troll doesn't offend me at all. Thanks Fozbek! I thought we had nothing in common, but calling me a troll is awesome! Thanks! I can regenerate now. Wait a second! If I am not offended by the term troll, then I am not a troll? bummer.
I don't get the whole catch-22 stuff, I'm an X, bla bla bla.
I am cool with lying to myself.
Back to the regular sceduled thread:
I don't need Epic content, but if you dig it, I hope you get it!
Sure the Epic level handbook made for 3.5 was abysmal.
It was 3.0, actually.
the Core Rules is essentially a rehash with some tweaks included.
Except that it's not just some tweaks. It's quite a lot of them. And those tweaks led to significant improvements.
You don't have to reinvent the wheel to be a developer.
KaeYoss - The power creep occurs early. I GM a ton of PFS games and it is very common to have 1st level characters with +10 to +12 for a skill check that is a DC 15 for example.
That's anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is useless.
Sure, you can get +10 - Let's say we're talking about a wizard and Spellcraft. +1 rank, +3 class bonus, +5 intelligence, +3 Skill Focus.
The thing is: That worked basically just as well in 3.5e: +4 ranks, +4 intelligence, +3 Skill Focus. Oooh, one less - because in 3e, they didn't grant any standard race the ability to get +2 to int. Though you could play a grey elf (or gold elf) and get that +2.
If we go with, say, balance and get ourselves a halfling or elf, we can have the same bonuses.
But let's go with 2nd level, not 1st. And go with Diplomacy. And use all wotc 3e material. (Let's stick with LA+0 races)
Pathfinder: One of several core races that gets +2 to cha or can get that. +2 rank, +3 class bonus, +5 charisma, +3 Skill Focus
Total: 13
3.5e: Star Elf (for the +2 cha). +5 ranks, +5 charisma, +3 Skill Focus, +2 synergy for 5 ranks in Bluff, +2 synergy for 5 ranks in Sense Motive.
Total: 17
Yeah, Pathfinder is power creep central, and skills are why you can tell! :P
Most of the players optimize to the extreme.
Irrelevant. Players aren't the system. And since a lot of those players used to be 3e players, we're talking about more or less the same people here.
Many of the scenario's and modules I have run, the PC's just blow through the challenges and combats.
Can you compare that, in a meaningful way mind you, to how they fared in similar scenarios in 3e?
In our home campaign, our 15th level Monk with the traits, extra goodies, extra feats, will clearly out power a 3.5 Monk.
That's more because the 3.5e monk was too weak.
Getting them up to par isn't "being overpowered".
Compare the 3.5e cleric to the PF cleric. The 3.5e druid to the PF druid. 3.5e wizard to PF wizard.
In the case of the cleric, we have a guy who uses 3.5e haste, 3.5e divine favour, 3.5e divine power, 3.5e righteous might, Some of them quickened because of Divine Metamagic, and otherwise use that feat where you can get some more bonuses to your attacks through your turn undead.
The PF cleric can use bull's strength (or strength booster items) together with divine power, but other than that, he's worse off: Divine power's attack/damage bonuses don't stack with divine favour, the extra attack doesn't stack with haste.
In Pathfinder, you gain feats quicker. This helps ramp up a characters power level. I like this by the way.
We're talking about three feats over the course of 20 levels. This actually affects you on level 5 at the earliest. Not exactly the difference between a mook and Kratos.
In Pathfinder, we get a couple of traits. This helps gain a few skill bonuses, saving throw, or other goody. This makes the characters just a touch better than 3.5.
Note that this is an optional rule.
Also note that, as I noted, synergy is gone. That was not an optional rule. It did cause some serious spikes in 3e.
In Pathfinder we get the favored class bonus, so an extra HP or skill point (or both with some AP traits) gives you a little boost. Given the fact that the skills points per class remained the same, but the types of skills were reduced, you can spend more on other items.
You keep going on about skills. Tell me how often they cause a character to totally thrash challenges.
I hear problems about "powergaming" all the time, or read about them on boards, and have been hearing about this since 3.0 days. Skills were rarely identified as the specific problem.
They do allow some more "roleplaying". They allow you to do more stuff than just kill monsters. It was one of the things people have really clamoured for, one of the things people complained about in 3e: Not enough skill points.
Pathfinder fixed a problem there, by making the skill system easier and consolidating some skills so you get more out of the skill points you do get.
It's not really a big contributor to any power creep.
In Pathfinder, additional class skills/abilities have been added to avoid "dead" levels. This makes the classes just a touch better, like the wet noodle monk.
Again, this makes classes better that needed the boost. Those classes were too weak compared to CoDzilla. CoDzilla actually got cut down to size by revising key abilities and spells, and the same goes for some wizard spells that were problematic.
This is actually a good thing. Now you can play a ranger, or monk, or bard without the gnawing feeling that you would have been so much better as a cleric.
|
|
So let’s stop acting as though “don’t want it, don’t buy it”, “you’re ruining my fun”, and “it won’t impact your campaign” are superior arguments when most of us are just saying “Dear Paizo, this is what we’d like & this is what we’re not crazy about/have little use for.” Otherwise, the glib “go play a system that already has epic-content like D&D (3e, 4e) or Exalted” becomes as valid as it is trite.
They may not be superior arguments yet imo they are all valid arguments. I like PCs I don't like Macs. I'm not going to the Apple forums and telling them not to produce newer versions of Macs. I dislike eating liver. I'm not going to the butcher and telling him not to sell it. I can respect those who do not want Epic rules. Yet for some odd reason in our hobby unlike others it's not okay to tell others if you don't like don't buy or use them. That's the thing. All the arguments for the most part against Epic rules fall aprt because in the end no one is forcing anyone to use the rules let alone buy them. If PF was made in such a way that you had to use Epic rules then imo the anti-epic crowd would have more of a case.
As a DM you can pick and choose what material you want. Don't want players taking orcs or goblins in PF you can do that. Paladins only LG same thing. To often those who do not want Epic it seems that since they do not want it then no one else should have it and Paizo should not publish it. Which sounds worse being told this or the above. Imo the latter. If they want to effectively compete against 4E and 3.5 they imo have to include epic and psionic rules.
As for my vote yes to both Epic and Psionic rules
When you allow unchecked progression for your PC's, the gates swing both ways. You start advancing your Demon Lords and whoever else you want to matter at the PC's level. The supplement books were designed for a non-epic game. If you unshackle the PC's you've got to change the world as well, you need to expand it beyond the borders set by those pages.
Yep, you're 100% correct. If the PC's power level increases, the power level of the threats they face has to increase. Kind of like how you don't send 14th-level PCs into The Godsmouth Heresy; you send them into Tomb of the Iron Medusa.
Not sure how having above-20 level PCs changes that strategy any.
I would be really interested to see the Mythic rules tied to some of the Greek or ancient world myths. Where maybe you all played sons and daughters of the gods.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo really wants to do epic level content, I humbly request they throw out the ELH entirely...
There's many reasons whenever the topic comes up that I avoid using the phrase "Epic level" in favor of "Mythic" or "Post-20th level play."
The word Epic is too associated with the 3.5 attempt at these rules, and what we'd come up with would be different enough that it wouldn't be fair to still call them "epic" rules (especially since there'll certainly be folks who prefer the 3.5 rules).
For the same reasons, I prefer to talk about possible Paizo psionics rules as "Psychic Magic" or "Mind Magic" or the like.
If Paizo really wants to do epic level content, I humbly request they throw out the ELH entirely...There's many reasons whenever the topic comes up that I avoid using the phrase "Epic level" in favor of "Mythic" or "Post-20th level play."
The word Epic is too associated with the 3.5 attempt at these rules, and what we'd come up with would be different enough that it wouldn't be fair to still call them "epic" rules (especially since there'll certainly be folks who prefer the 3.5 rules).
Me too, though I try to stick with "above 20th" or "21+" even though both are more annoying to type than "epic" :) Plus, they avoid all the pedantic "well, I think 15th-20th level play is already pretty epic!" discussions :)
Forgive me if I am confused by the argument so far. There is already an epic rulebook by WotC that is 100% compatible to PF. Trust me when I say that if PF was going to do their own set of epic rules they would probably change a lot of what WotC did. Otherwise why do a new rulebook if it was going to just be the same thing someone else already did? So defending the power explosion in the ELH and asking for the same from Paizo seems to be a wild hope at best.
Actually... I can think of two reasons people would make such arguments. First maybe they want that 'Official' label on a set of rules that allow such a power explosion. Too many GMs dismiss the WotC product because it isn't Paizo's. So by making official rules they have a new lever to try to get their GM to allow it. OR maybe they are hoping that Paizo will add fuel to that explosion making the power explosion even bigger?
I hope I am right and the developers make a more sane set of epic rules. And yes by sane I mean slower power ups with a much less powerful impact.
If Paizo really wants to do epic level content, I humbly request they throw out the ELH entirely...There's many reasons whenever the topic comes up that I avoid using the phrase "Epic level" in favor of "Mythic" or "Post-20th level play."
The word Epic is too associated with the 3.5 attempt at these rules, and what we'd come up with would be different enough that it wouldn't be fair to still call them "epic" rules (especially since there'll certainly be folks who prefer the 3.5 rules).
For the same reasons, I prefer to talk about possible Paizo psionics rules as "Psychic Magic" or "Mind Magic" or the like.
Why take so long to make 20+ levels rules? we will see a 2013 with pure 20+ levels content: levels 20+ rules, 20+ CR Bestiary and Ultimate 20+ levels?
|
|
Neither do I want to see the epic material being too nerfed either. Their is a reason its called Epic levels because your supposeed doing epic deeds along with wielding epic power. Im not saying Paizo should go crazy with makes epic characters too powerful. Neither do I want them to nerfed because a vocal minority wants them to nerfed.
|
Creative Director
|
Why take so long to make 20+ levels rules? we will see a 2013 with pure 20+ levels content: levels 20+ rules, 20+ CR Bestiary and Ultimate 20+ levels?If Paizo really wants to do epic level content, I humbly request they throw out the ELH entirely...There's many reasons whenever the topic comes up that I avoid using the phrase "Epic level" in favor of "Mythic" or "Post-20th level play."
The word Epic is too associated with the 3.5 attempt at these rules, and what we'd come up with would be different enough that it wouldn't be fair to still call them "epic" rules (especially since there'll certainly be folks who prefer the 3.5 rules).
For the same reasons, I prefer to talk about possible Paizo psionics rules as "Psychic Magic" or "Mind Magic" or the like.
Because it's an incredibly complicated topic that we want to do right rather than rush into production and rue that for the rest of the game's life. And because more people play (and thus pay for) products set in the 1st to 20th level range.
Forgive me if I am confused by the argument so far. There is already an epic rulebook by WotC that is 100% compatible to PF.
Several things:
The epic wizard, for example, talks about familiars. Not all PF wizards have familiars. And almost no sorcerers have familiars. And that's a small matter. Other classes had more significant changes, meaning the 3e epic stuff about the classes are more outdated. Example: The feat that gives you a permanent turn undead aura. But (good) clerics don't turn undead any more, they channel positive energy.
And, most importantly:
Trust me when I say that if PF was going to do their own set of epic rules they would probably change a lot of what WotC did.
That's the point. Just like Paizo fixed the core rules, people want to see how they're going to fix epic level play.
I am hanging myself out in the minority again. I wish Paizo would spend their limited time and resources on things other than their pathfinder rules.
I think pathfinder 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 you have to live in the real world. Younger nerds and geeks take up the mantle. You finally get the clue that hygiene matters and those who do not are left behind as an embarrassment. There's plenty of high fantasy and adventure the bars and night clubs to handle what you'll need.
The only people who have more fun playing a role playing game than going out are the fools that play role playing games. People who live to destroy everyone else's fun by having to talk about their level 12 paladin that is totally unstoppable.
</sarcasm>
Neither do I want to see the epic material being too nerfed either. Their is a reason its called Epic levels because your supposeed doing epic deeds along with wielding epic power. Im not saying Paizo should go crazy with makes epic characters too powerful. Neither do I want them to nerfed because a vocal minority wants them to nerfed.
The following is a sincere question, b/c posts like these don't make sense to me.
How do you define "too powerful" for epic/mythic play?
So far, we've got core rules that have casters able to teleport instantaneously, raise the dead, create their own demiplane, and permanently enchant items and spells onto themselves. The majority of pro-epic supporters claim that this level of power is insufficient, thus the need for more levels.
We have posts clamoring for the ability to slay gods and take their place.
We have posts saying an additional 16 or 20 levels doesn't go far enough.
Then we have posts like the one above that talks about "don't nerf/don't make too powerful".
So what design criteria can possibly achieve all of the pro-epic/mythic wants listed above?
Neither do I want to see the epic material being too nerfed either. Their is a reason its called Epic levels because your supposeed doing epic deeds along with wielding epic power. Im not saying Paizo should go crazy with makes epic characters too powerful. Neither do I want them to nerfed because a vocal minority wants them to nerfed.The following is a sincere question, b/c posts like these don't make sense to me.
How do you define "too powerful" for epic/mythic play?
So far, we've got core rules that have casters able to teleport instantaneously, raise the dead, create their own demiplane, and permanently enchant items and spells onto themselves. The majority of pro-epic supporters claim that this level of power is insufficient, thus the need for more levels.
We have posts clamoring for the ability to slay gods and take their place.
We have posts saying an additional 16 or 20 levels doesn't go far enough.
Then we have posts like the one above that talks about "don't nerf/don't make too powerful".
So what design criteria can possibly achieve all of the pro-epic/mythic wants listed above?
I would say that the same level of power progression as the other levels is ideal for most people (for me I would SLOW it down actually)
But, as it goes I really believe paizo will come with something totally diferent than expected, MAYBE even do a revision on somethings before they get there, hopefully.
If I was Paizo I would make mythic rules with 3 diferent progressions, for everyone that likes it enjoy, not talking about experience points, but diferent methods of evolution.
For those that want a slowdown (like me) there would be one kind of rules for progression, for mid level another, and for powermongers another one.
For instance (and that's just an example of the top of my head) I epic feat or something each 3 leveld for slow evolution, one each 2 levels for mid and 1 per level for the fast one)
I like mythic/epic/highlevel play from 2nd edition, it was elegant, unique and it wasn't all that powerful. I have no idea what they will come up with, but I hope for something that are UNIQUE, not just powerful (unique meaning something like the Dragons get in bestiary, savvy?)
So what design criteria can possibly achieve all of the pro-epic/mythic wants listed above?
Oh come now, you are always going to have varying opinions from people on ‘what they want’, even if they all want Mythic-level play.
Even with those who would prefer not to see Mythic levels, but still may buy the book to see what Paizo did (or even try it), each would have their own opinion on how it should have been done.
Mike doesn’t like that Sorcerer’s get 2nd level spells at 4th level, he feels Paizo should have changed it to like Wizards when Paizo added the bloodlines.
Andy does not like how some of the new bloodlines are designed and feel they are too off balanced. Some more powerful than others.
But, both enjoy playing Sorcerer’s even though they don’t agree with certain aspects with how the class is designed.
It’s going to be the same way with Mythic levels. Even though there is a side who wants to see them, doesn’t mean we will all agree how it get's there. Paizo shouldn’t try to appease everyone’s opinion, that would be the worse thing they could do. I trust Paizo to make the best decision on what route Mythic levels should take.
|
|
Honestly BPorter I'm not sure how to answer that. What I do know is that I want is for the devs to not be that heavily influneced by the fanbase. Otherwise you either get Epic characters who can't do anything or ones that can do everything. I also do not want to see the epic rules turn out to ne another fiasco that is the gun rules.
I am hanging myself out in the minority again. I wish Paizo would spend their limited time and resources on things other than their pathfinder rules.
I think pathfinder 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 you have to live in the real world. Younger nerds and geeks take up the mantle. You finally get the clue that hygiene matters and those who do not are left behind as an embarrassment. There's plenty of high fantasy and adventure the bars and night clubs to handle what you'll need.
The only people who have more fun playing a role playing game than going out are the fools that play role playing games. People who live to destroy everyone else's fun by having to talk about their level 12 paladin that is totally unstoppable.
</sarcasm>
Who are you? The frikking High Priest of Hygieia? Is that why you wear a bar of soap on a necklace and wield a mop as weapon?
I must tell you, that "I'll wipe the floor with you" battle cry is kinda neat, though.
:P
Honestly, I look forward to what Paizo can/will do with the Epic rules. Besides I want to see the adventure/campaign that ends with the test of the Starstone.
Mr James Jacobs, might I suggest the e20 idea I had earlier. Where all progression stops at 20th level and you gain a feat every so many experience points. For me twentieth level is supposed to be the pinnacle of your characters power. I want a set of rules that let me play at that power level as long as I can. I don't want to play in or run games where gods are our opponents. Also the e20 mechanic is easy to adjust after the rules are printed, unlike a level system. If you need to bump up mythic play power level just add some more powerful mythic feats for people to select in a splatbook. That way you can start low powered and slowly adjust it upward over the course of a few books to the point where most people are happy with the rules.