I think they could work on their garden.
Some are advocating against the addition of something, not the removal.
Or, to make the point even more explicit, we're asking Paizo to consider adding something else instead.
So... there should be other threads asking for "X", followed by threads saying "We don't need no X"? With a popularity contest deciding the outcome? I doubt it will work like that. There are a lot of directions to take the game, but none are required / absolutely needed. I doubt any one idea will have overwhelming / must do popularity and support. I think Paizo is going to have to decide where they want to go with it... what add on will grow the system in that direction and provide more utility.
In any event, I think we're better off with threads suggesting directions as opposed to opposing them. The opposition can put it's case forward in the "pro" threads. Keeps it all tidier and, perhaps, more useful to the devs.
My 2 cp.
|
In any event, I think we're better off with threads suggesting directions as opposed to opposing them. The opposition can put it's case forward in the "pro" threads. Keeps it all tidier and, perhaps, more useful to the devs.
My 2 cp.
Cap at 20 (AKA We don't need no epic content) IS a direction. It may not be a direction you like, but it is a direction.
Cap at 20 (AKA We don't need no epic content) IS a direction. It may not be a direction you like, but it is a direction.In any event, I think we're better off with threads suggesting directions as opposed to opposing them. The opposition can put it's case forward in the "pro" threads. Keeps it all tidier and, perhaps, more useful to the devs.
My 2 cp.
Which is fine however don't stat out anything that a 20th level party shouldn't consider taking on.
Which is fine however don't stat out anything that a 20th level party shouldn't consider taking on.Why is there this obsessive need for everything in the system to be killable by brute force?
If it can't be killed i don't need stats for it.
For instance i don't need the stats for the BBEG who i have harass the party at 1st level since they can't kill him yet even if they tried. I'm not saying every thing should be killable but if its CR40 in a level 20 capped system then we must ask why waste the time.
As much as there are people NOT wanting Epic level content, there are people who want to be able to actually stop the Worldwound and thus need some Epic level rules so they can go and fight Deskari without being one-shotted by the Demon Lord. However, the problem I see here is that whenever someone actually WANTS those Epic level rules, the opposition goes to "Ad Hominem" mode and calls them Munchkins, which of course is not only insulting, but also pretty stupid considering that my reasons are more fluff-related than anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... there should be other threads asking for "X", followed by threads saying "We don't need no X"? With a popularity contest deciding the outcome? I doubt it will work like that. There are a lot of directions to take the game, but none are required / absolutely needed. I doubt any one idea will have overwhelming / must do popularity and support. I think Paizo is going to have to decide where they want to go with it... what add on will grow the system in that direction and provide more utility.
Or, to make the point even more explicit, we're asking Paizo to consider adding something else instead.
Yes, this is my view too. I don't frame my objection as "they shouldn't do epic" but as "I'd prefer they do something else" for precisely this reason. So that paizo get as much information as possible about what their fans want and don't want.
I don't pretend that this is some kind of democratic process though, it's just a vocal segment of the market expressing various views.
In any event, I think we're better off with threads suggesting directions as opposed to opposing them. The opposition can put it's case forward in the "pro" threads. Keeps it all tidier and, perhaps, more useful to the devs.
My 2 cp.
I agree that constructive is better than negative. I don't agree that we shouldn't express opposition though - otherwise it appears there is consensus calling for something when, in fact, there is quite strong opposition in some quarters. The fact of the matter is that some people really do want "anything else".
FWIW, to meet your challenge of constructiveness, my preferred approach (mooted elsewhere) is for paizo to first produce a "high level" (sub epic) guide. I think this would allow them to begin to explore themes and solutions to the perceived problems of high level play, whilst also helping to foster demand (or at least tolerance) for a possible epic ruleset. Maybe some doubters will be won over by paizo's approach. Maybe it will highlight the problems facing high level play and facilitate higher quality rules when epic levels are finally tackled.
FWIW, to meet your challenge of constructiveness, my preferred approach (mooted elsewhere) is for paizo to first produce a "high level" (sub epic) guide. I think this would allow them to begin to explore themes and solutions to the perceived problems of high level play, whilst also helping to foster demand (or at least tolerance) for a possible epic ruleset. Maybe some doubters will be won over by paizo's approach. Maybe it will highlight the problems facing high level play and facilitate higher quality rules when epic levels are finally tackled.
This is one of the better ideas i have heard regarding this.
FWIW, to meet your challenge of constructiveness, my preferred approach (mooted elsewhere) is for paizo to first produce a "high level" (sub epic) guide. I think this would allow them to begin to explore themes and solutions to the perceived problems of high level play, whilst also helping to foster demand (or at least tolerance) for a possible epic ruleset. Maybe some doubters will be won over by paizo's approach. Maybe it will highlight the problems facing high level play and facilitate higher quality rules when epic levels are finally tackled.This is one of the better ideas i have heard regarding this.
I agree. It wasn't mine - I think it may have been Erik Mona who first raised it as a possibility.
|
|
For my part, I think that any post-20 rules are bound to be rather horrible, because the rules already become fairly horrible well before 20th level. Anything above 12th or so become increasingly clunky and unbalanced. Pilling another 20 or so levels on top of the tower that's already crumbling is NOT a good idea.
I also think that the problems are really beyond what can be fixed by the band-aid of a "high level options" book. I think they're largely inherent in the d20 system, and as such, it will really be Pathfinder 2nd edition before they can be properly addressed (assuming Paizo choses to, of which I become increasingly doubtful).
I also think that the problems are really beyond what can be fixed by the band-aid of a "high level options" book.
Pretty much anything can be improved, in my view. Paizo are pretty good at this stuff.
|
|
You actually don't need epic mechanics if you want to run stories like that. What you want can be done by swithing to a more narrative style, instead of running a game purely on mechanics.
Case in point, the Dr.Who roleplaying game has fairly ordinary blokes facing epic scale threats on a regular basis. As the player the challenge is not to defeat these threats front end, (because that's suicide) but to find ways around the problem.
You don't need level 30 characters to make the stories like the one above, what you need is a different style of play that leaves the challenge, but makes the suicide only merely probable instead of certain.
Also, for a perhaps more popular reference, there's the Call of Cthulhu RPG. Which works in much the same way.
You actually don't need epic mechanics if you want to run stories like that. What you want can be done by swithing to a more narrative style, instead of running a game purely on mechanics.
Case in point, the Dr.Who roleplaying game has fairly ordinary blokes facing epic scale threats on a regular basis. As the player the challenge is not to defeat these threats front end, (because that's suicide) but to find ways around the problem.
You don't need level 30 characters to make the stories like the one above, what you need is a different style of play that leaves the challenge, but makes the suicide only merely probable instead of certain.
This is not an "anti" epic post, just thoughts for consideration that there may be more than one road to reach the destination you seek.
I see your point here, but I think the problem here is that the demons aren't going to leave just because you asked them very nicely with a cute smile on your face. They either go by force, or you somehow manage to convince them that they're wasting their time infesting Golarion with their taint. And the latter would probably need a god of lies to be your speaker if you want to pull it off (and even then Deskari might just bite his head off in response).
Well, I clung to only one example, but I kinda get what you mean either way.
You're presenting the two options in a very biased manner. And where is it stated that even the gods can't stop the Worldwound? I am pretty sure they COULD if they didn't have certain circumstances in the way, just like Desna was like "**** it, I'm gonna kill this demon lord" when Aolar went and got her mad, or when Deskari got pimp-slapped by Aroden before the guy went and suffered from a bad case of chronic "DEAD" (which is why Deskari came back with a vengeance). Either way, why not mix those two options, have battles against Deskari's left-hand and right-hand men and have the powers of the Mendevian wardstones amplified with some tinkering and prayers?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just spent a hour or so reading this thread....and have to say I want Pazio to come out with the 20+ rules....eventualy. I would sorta like sooner than later as my group has converted some high level 3.5 PCs to Pathfinder but we can wait.
But I would also like to see Pazio come out with other things as well...Psionics...Kingdom building....Mass combat....Sea adventures...etc. What order they decide to do this is I don't really care all that much. As long as they continue to explore new things or explore old things in new ways they will keep me as a fan. Heck I would love to see them tackle Incanrum.
I rather they keep a open mind.
The difficulties that a GM sees in running the game at high level (15+) do become amplified at epic level. The easiest workaround is to take a more narrative approach to the game, making the game more based around politics than combat. This is the approach that AD&D took, with "name" level characters, that stopped gaining additional hit dice, but still got more levels and started automatically gaining followers and such.
Not everybody likes a political game, though.
It isn't hard to continue to challenge epic characters in combat even with mid-level monsters. Just add hazardous environments to the mix that don't affect your monsters, but severely hamper your players. Depending on what you allow your players to use, this gets more and more difficult the further you press into epic, however. Hence the need for a level cap somewhere.
Some prefer the level cap at 20, I happen to prefer it around 30 to 40. I do agree that there needs to be more written about how to run high level games, since they can get derailed fast. It is also best to start a game that you intend to run into high levels at low level, so that the players have more investment into the character than just what are the best stats they can come up with.
from what I've read that GM which they consider the game unplayable past level 12 is because its capacity as GM is not enough, and if not so tell me why there are GM that can handle it and may even continue to epic levels, the d20 system is not the problem or the Players, the problem is you as GM
everyone should be able to tell the story as they wish and if someone wants to do it at epic levels surpassing even the gods I don't see why we should not have that option just because some people don't like it
and instead of just be saying that you want something else, say what you want in another thread, for me what I want its Epic levels as sooner as possible (2013)
from what I've read that GM which they consider the game unplayable past level 12 is because its capacity as GM is not enough, and if not so tell me why there are GM that can handle it and may even continue to epic levels, the d20 system is not the problem or the Players, the problem is you as GM
I, for one, am happy to accept this - at least as a possibility. That's why I'm asking for help in running high level adventures first. As it is now, I think high level and epic level stuff is beyond me. A 'bridging product' could well boost demand for epic rules (by persuading people like me that it is, in fact, worth a shot and teaching me how to do it properly) and could also prove useful as a sounding board - either for trialling new subsystems or for seeing what direction people want the game to go in higher levels (ie where on the spectrum of: more 'cool powers' to more 'broad influence in the world'. Presumably both, but what's the 'best' balance of those two facets?).
everyone should be able to tell the story as they wish and if someone wants to do it at epic levels surpassing even the gods I don't see why we should not have that option just because some people don't like it
I dont think it's about 'should' - I dont see any moral imperative at all, to be frank. Paizo are trying to make the best game they can and are trying to stay in business. They have a proven track record of doing things properly and ensuring they do it well in preference to doing it rapidly. Customers providing information can only be a good thing.
I think the key point is that, when you say you want epic rules I shouldnt take it as some kind of comment about me and when I say I dont want them, you shouldnt regard me as referring to you. The fact that they can't do everything as quickly as many of us would like is a fact of life - opportunity costs exist. We're both just telling Paizo what we want and they are trying to sift through that, factor in what they're interested in and come out with a sensible product release schedule.
No... the problem is the game. Maybe the game can be managed at high levels, but that's not the complete issue. The problem is the growing disparity between casters and non-casters takes a huge flying leap once levels go past 15 or so. This is even more prevalent when GM's don't reign in magic and allow casters free reign in customising magic items.from what I've read that GM which they consider the game unplayable past level 12 is because its capacity as GM is not enough, and if not so tell me why there are GM that can handle it and may even continue to epic levels, the d20 system is not the problem or the Players, the problem is you as GM
in fact I don't think this problem has a solution in any game, magic will always have an advantage and the upper hand its a fact of the fantasy (at least for me), the only way you put the same level caster vs. no-casters is limiting a lot the magic in the world, but if you do that you are only forcing the game, like some lame fantasy novels, so in the end the problem is you, not the game
actually with Master Craftsman feat any class can had the enough custom magic items that they need, or maybe give to the non-caster classes more abilities on the final levels
Casters vs. non-casters works fine, as long as you let non-casters be fantastic too.
This -- when everyone is playing rocket launcher tag so many things have spell resistance (and despite what many will suggest it does remain a problem if you want to be anything but an elf with both spell penetration feats and robes of the archmage), immunities, and great save throws not much has a true immunity to "fighter takes your HP to -50 in one full attack" especially when the fighter can so easily have everything he needs to survive such levels (which isn't much).
Casters vs. non-casters works fine, as long as you let non-casters be fantastic too.
Agree, actually can anyone post what problems had with high level and casters maybe I or anyone else can offer a solution
Casters vs. non-casters works fine, as long as you let non-casters be fantastic too.
Exactly. I think what many people forget is that this is a game.
When I'm designing a CR 50-60 encounter, I absolutely must take into account what my specific table is good and bad at. I intentionally craft some encounters where the fighter is useless, and some where the casters are useless. And some that are in between.
For a CR 1 encounter, you don't really need to worry about such things. For encounters in the CR10-20 range, it plays a HUGE part. And for mythic/epic/nom-du-jour parties, it is absolutely 100% a requirement that the GM take into account that specific party.
Otherwise, it'e either a cake walk or sudden, absolute death. Neither of which is fun.
|
|
Yeah, I realize that the reason you picked Doctor Who is probably that it has less of a mortality rate. Unless you play a companion named Adric.Or Rory.
The Doctor runs away from Death. Death runs away from Rory Williams.
Rory Williams is the word's greatest nurse. He cured cancer...by making Chuck Norris cry like a little baby.
Rory Williams died, came back from the dead, married a smoking hot redhead, and fathered a human Time Lord. What did you do today?
|
|
In the d20 system, most success/failure is checked by rolling a d20, adding/subtracting any bonuses/penalties, and comparing to a target number (the DC). The problem is that, as character levels approach 20, the bonuses become larger and larger, and they soon exceed the variable range provided by the d20 die. Because of that, lots of thing either become automatic successes (because the bonuses are so large that the roll can not possibly fail), or automatic failures (because the DCs have been raised so high that the roll cannot possibly succeed). That's why I view it as the system failing...if the element of chance is all but entirely removed from the game, you might as well be playing storytime.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
In the d20 system, most success/failure is checked by rolling a d20, adding/subtracting any bonuses/penalties, and comparing to a target number (the DC). The problem is that, as character levels approach 20, the bonuses become larger and larger, and they soon exceed the variable range provided by the d20 die. Because of that, lots of thing either become automatic successes (because the bonuses are so large that the roll can not possibly fail), or automatic failures (because the DCs have been raised so high that the roll cannot possibly succeed). That's why I view it as the system failing...if the element of chance is all but entirely removed from the game, you might as well be playing storytime.
Strangely enough, I see this as a feature of high level play. One of my character building goals is to get to the point where the die rolls barely matter - then I can predict what will happen with better accuracy and the game gets to be a lot more about strategy and less about random chance.
N.B. Random chance screwing things up or saving the group at the last minute is fun, too, it's just a differnet type of fun. Realizing that chance plays a lesser role is part of adapting to high level play; the game just becomes more about planning and thinking on your feet.
In the d20 system, most success/failure is checked by rolling a d20, adding/subtracting any bonuses/penalties, and comparing to a target number (the DC). The problem is that, as character levels approach 20, the bonuses become larger and larger, and they soon exceed the variable range provided by the d20 die. Because of that, lots of thing either become automatic successes (because the bonuses are so large that the roll can not possibly fail), or automatic failures (because the DCs have been raised so high that the roll cannot possibly succeed). That's why I view it as the system failing...if the element of chance is all but entirely removed from the game, you might as well be playing storytime.
In my experience, this is not an actual problem. A GM needs to send level appropriate challenges at the party. I know what the difficulty of my group's save DCs are: 28-30. So a tough threat would have +25 to its good save, requiring 1-5 to fail. It's moderate save would have +20, requiring 1-10 to fail. Its terrible save would be +15, making 1-15 fail.
And sometimes even that almost always going to fail roll comes through. I rolled two ones in a row last night for a monsters saving throws. The first meant it was stunned because of the fighter's stunning critical feat. The other meant it turned to stone because of the fighter's prismatic critical weapon (DC 20 fort save, almost never happens.) But it did, which was cinematic.
The problem really is that a GM needs to be more careful about balancing to their specific group. At high levels a group's weak points and high points are separated by a larger margin. Hitting against their strong points is almost like an auto fail. Hitting against their weak points is almost too mean. Finding the right balance to make it feel challenging is tough. I've seen my group walk through CR 25 encounters with ease, but challenged greatly by a CR 15 one.
It is a lot easier when you've been playing with the same group for a long time and seen them grow in power. Then when you hit the high levels you know what your group can handle. Because what is challenging for one level 20 party maybe a cakewalk for a different one.
My group is about one session away from 20th level. I can say that the last 5 levels have been a blast to run. The game just keeps getting better. I really want rules for post 20 play. I actually really want rules for immortal/divine level play, but I suspect I will have to wait on that. Or write my own.
Also remember that one of the biggest problems with 3.0 Epic rules was the separation in skill ranks between class and cross class skills. If you had a Spot DC of 40 and the 30th level rogue had a Spot of 33, he would spot it 70% of the time, whereas the character with Spot as a cross class skill at 30th level would need to roll a 25 or so on a d20. In PF that would not have to be as wide of a margin.
Otherwise, it'e either a cake walk or sudden, absolute death. Neither of which is fun.
I have played in and run games in the epic level in 3.5e, and this is exactly what happens. It is exactly why epic level play doesn't work. And it is exactly why I call the epic rules the third nail in the coffin of 3.5e. I would prefer Pathfinder NOT put any nails into it's own coffin. Long Live Pathfinder! We don't need epic rules. Please. What we DO need is a comprehensive set of rules and guidelines for higher level play. When we have a product that lays out a solid framework for the teens to 20th level range. One which includes concrete guidelines for handling the kind of crazy tricks a high level team can use. THAT would be a wildly successful product.
I don't see why we should not have that option just because some people don't like it
You DO have the option as it stands. There are already at least two epic level systems for 3.x e. Feel free to use them as you desire. What you don't have is what you really want... official support from Pathfinder for your epic play. And official support means it will affect nearly every Pathfinder game in play. That is why they shouldn't even be considering such a product until they have provided strong support for upper level play first.
I don't see why we should not have that option just because some people don't like it
....
That is why they shouldn't even be considering such a product until they have provided strong support for upper level play first.
As I think about how I would like to see epic eventually handled for PF, I would prefer to see the "bridging" aspect as part of an all encompassing book, high-level/epic/mythic/demi-god-esque/as powerful as you want. Put something in the book for everyone, and almost everyone will want it. All of the world building aspects that affect high level continue to affect higher tiers, with varying levels of detail. I could always use some handy references for coming up with evil cults, religions, demon lords performing world shaking rituals, regional deities, etc. If the focus of the book is on the world building aspects, with some crunchy bits thrown in to help you stat out the powerful entities should you want to stat them out, I'm pretty sure that would be a product that most people could get behind.
Otherwise, it'e either a cake walk or sudden, absolute death. Neither of which is fun.I have played in and run games in the epic level in 3.5e, and this is exactly what happens. It is exactly why epic level play doesn't work.
You are wrong.
It might not have worked for a table you sat at, or for your GM, or for your play group, or for you as GM, but there is nothing correct about the flat statement "epic level play doesn't work."
I've been running a 21+ table since 2007 for a campaign that started at level 6 in 2006. I'm pretty confident it can work okay.
And by the way, occasional cake walks are fun; I put them in on purpose sometimes. Not everything needs to be a knuckle-biting, resource-draining struggle for survival.
As I think about how I would like to see epic eventually handled for PF, I would prefer to see the "bridging" aspect as part of an all encompassing book, high-level/epic/mythic/demi-god-esque/as powerful as you want. Put something in the book for everyone, and almost everyone will want it.
Maybe that sounds good... but one step at a time is better. Build up the pre-epic play as a solid ground work. Then later you can put together an Option book for epic level where there is no standard rule, but rather a collection of optional rules a GM can use some or none of. And then they get to sell two books rather than one. And we get fully focused rule books rather than something watered down by the need to put too much into one volume.
Otherwise, it'e either a cake walk or sudden, absolute death. Neither of which is fun.I have played in and run games in the epic level in 3.5e, and this is exactly what happens. It is exactly why epic level play doesn't work.You are wrong.
It might not have worked for a table you sat at, or for your GM, or for your play group, or for you as GM, but there is nothing correct about the flat statement "epic level play doesn't work."
I've been running a 21+ table since 2007 for a campaign that started at level 6 in 2006. I'm pretty confident it can work okay.
And by the way, occasional cake walks are fun; I put them in on purpose sometimes. Not everything needs to be a knuckle-biting, resource-draining struggle for survival.
I am a good GM. Better than most if you believe my players. My low level games are edge of your seat fun. I struggled a little in high level play and I made some mistakes but my game was still quite enjoyable. But if epic play can blindside me so utterly than maybe they need more work on presenting the fundamentals of play in a high level game of any level before tackling a product that only a few GMs seem to be able to manage. I mean think about it, there are a lot of GMs who need help with upper level play. If you get them that help first, then the usefulness of a set of optional epic play rules suddenly becomes useful to a large segment of your GMs not just a few.
*fistbump*
I played in a 3.5 campaign from 15th to 30th. It worked, not perfectly, but it worked.
~pats TOZ on the back~
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
But if epic play can blindside me so utterly than maybe they need more work on presenting the fundamentals of play in a high level game of any level before tackling a product that only a few GMs seem to be able to manage. I mean think about it, there are a lot of GMs who need help with upper level play. If you get them that help first, then the usefulness of a set of optional epic play rules suddenly becomes useful to a large segment of your GMs not just a few.
I am pro 21+ rules. I want them and I want them badly. But, I have to agree that right now a lot of GMs either (a) don't know how to or (b) don't want to make the changes to their games that playing at high levels requires.
I think a book that focuses on levels 15-25 would be a good solution. Cram a bunch of good advice in there for all aspects of high level play, and throw the mythic junkies like me a bone in the process by expanding the options just a little bit. Then the book appeals both to people who want to learn about high level play and those people who just want more crunch. If this book does well then they can expand into even higher level options in the future.
Count me in as pro-epic rules. I've been GM for a group since just before 3.0 came out, converted the characters to 3.0 from 2E and continued on to this day including now borrowing things from Pathfinder. (home brew world and all, so don't use published settings as is)
I'd like to see what Paizo can do with Epic Pathfinder Rules. Considering the improvements they made to 3.5, I think they would do a consider amount of improvement with the Epic rules (cannot hurt that is for sure).
RD
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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 the only place where you are in the minority is in your desire to be semi-insulting about not liking it. I suspect as a percentage the number of folks looking for Epic rules is small. Paizo has said several times that high level supplements get far less interest than low-mid level supplements.
Did I miss a product announcement somewhere where Paizo announced they are working on Epic Rules?