RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I am not sure it can be address without rebuilding. The system works fine on the lower end, but the higher you climb the less it works. A "How to" guide isn't gonna cut it.
Based on the premise that there are many groups out there that play Pathfinder in the level 15+ range (my local groups included) that have no real issues with how the system works, I'd say that a "How To" guide would be just fine.
Mostly dealing with high levels involves adapting your playstyle, which is exactly what a high level guide should help you do.
I'd rather no rules over bad or strained rules.Considering that the rules for 15-20 become increasingly more strained and tending towards bad, I question how rules for 21+ will somehow magically fix this.
My game just reached 18th level, and I'm having a lot of fun as GM. My players are certainly enjoying themselves.
You can't run dungeon slogs anymore, you need to be flexible in how you structure adventures, but I wouldn't call the game strained at high levels.
1) I love the power points system
2) I love/hate the epic spell system
3) Vancian is a weak* system
4) epic levels are a wreckage, mess, and awesome, and need to be really, really heavily house-ruled or else they all go to all Had-, (er I mean Carcer- er, wait, I mean Abaddon!) very quickly, and let me tell you, that can get boring fast.
5) I always want epic levels in my game
6) There has never been any real form of epic support for psionic products in the 3.X era
7) I love the flavor and design ideas behind the psionic system
That said, I accept that:
1) power points probably isn't going to be happening in Pathfinder as an official product. It simply isn't likely to fly.
2) psionics is not tied to the concept of power points. Honestly, I don't care if it's power-points, but I really dislike the Vancian format we currently have. Partially, it's flavor, partially it's how it works in-play. So long as psi/mind/whatever isn't a Vancian style (aka a Sorcerer archetype), I'd be pleased in theory.**
3) high-level play is hard to design around, especially since they have made non-epic characters and creatures that literally cannot ever die no matter what (I'm looking at you, super-awesome, APG monk with Immortal special ability!). BUT! They are still lots of fun, and really cool, and can be very, very rewarding (I'm looking at you, super-awesome, APG monk with Immortal special ability!).
4) it's likely that certain alterations will need to be made in order to let the game flow smoothly from that point on
5) epic/mythic/whatever you call it is (again***) more likely to come out first than psionic/mind-magic/whatever you want to call it.
Now to answer your question:
Yes, I'd like them both! No, I wouldn't think less of Paizo for creating them! I might (and honestly, in my heart of hearts, I would) think less of them for not including it, but that would not prevent me from supporting their company.
* "Weak" meaning its internal-integrity is suspect, NOT that it cannot produce astounding amounts of power in-game. 'Cause dudes, Vancian casters are far more powerful than psions (and similar) in the 3.X editions.
** For one: that'd be a heck-a lot'ta sorcerers with a single archetype running around an entire continent.
*** Technically, I fully admit, ELH came out after the 3.0 Psionic Handbook, ... and it's "support" in said book was all of two classes briefly written up, a minor write-up about why epic psionics works the same as epic spells and uses the same seeds regardless of the fact that half the seeds don't do anything even remotely psionic and some "use these psionic variants of identical magic items" weaksauce^ that makes no sense in the context of the game. Then, when the 3.5 psionics came out, they got the same rather poor epic treatment other casters did: a minor, boring blurb in the back of some book.
^ Wow, I actually used the term "weaksauce" in a sentence. Huh, I never saw that coming.
** spoiler omitted **
Now to answer your question:
Yes, I'd like them both! No, I wouldn't think less of Paizo for creating them! I might (and honestly, in my heart of hearts, I would) think less of them for not...
The monk can be killed
Immortality (Su): At 20th level, a monk of the four winds no longer ages. He remains in his current age category forever. Even if the monk comes to a violent end, he spontaneously reincarnates (as the spell) 24 hours later in a place of his choosing within 20 miles of the place he died. The monk must have visited the place in which he returns back to life at least once. This ability replaces perfect self.
If the monk does not die within 20 miles of a place he has visited(I will get to this) he does not get to come back to life.
Note that that the ability says a place of his choosing. That means the monk must actively designate a place to return to. At games of that level there is a good chance of a battle taking place in another plane. You may have to get creative to make sure the monk does not make a designated spot to return to, but it can be done.
|
Reality is the game is largely too cumbersome to run past, say, 13th level thanks to overbuffs and extensive deadly effects. So really playing to 20, much less past, seems to be more of an academic exercise for people on these forums to say "look what you can do @ 20". So while I would be fine with it existing, I think it would just make these threads even more annoying.
Psychics would need some cool effects to make them not "just like magic", but still balanced. Probably like alchemists, where you get new mind powers every other level and need some level requirement for certain ones. No issue with these existing, though feel they are better in sci-fi (not unlike the gunslinger).
The monk can be killed
Immortality (Su): At 20th level, a monk of the four winds no longer ages. He remains in his current age category forever. Even if the monk comes to a violent end, he spontaneously reincarnates (as the spell) 24 hours later in a place of his choosing within 20 miles of the place he died. The monk must have visited the place in which he returns back to life at least once. This ability replaces perfect self.If the monk does not die within 20 miles of a place he has visited(I will get to this) he does not get to come back to life.
Note that that the ability says a place of his choosing. That means the monk must actively designate a place to return to. At games of that level there is a good chance of a battle taking place in another plane. You may have to get creative to make sure the monk does not make a designated spot to return to, but it can be done.
You realize the spot he died is within 20 miles of where he died and he has visited there? It doesn't say he has to designate the spot before he dies, just that the character gets to choose.
Of course, if you get him to teleport to a location and continue to kill him in the same spot where he comes back, that would be a lot like death.
Why does the place he died not count as a place he has visited?
If the monk does not die within 20 miles of a place he has visited(I will get to this) he does not get to come back to life.Note that that the ability says a place of his choosing. That means the monk must actively designate a place to return to. At games of that level there is a good chance of a battle taking place in another plane. You may have to get creative to make sure the monk does not make a designated spot to return to, but it can be done.
It can if he chooses that place, but if that is enemy HQ they might kill you on the spot before you get to make a choosing when you come back to life. I am just saying the ability is not infallible. :)
|
It can if he chooses that place, but if that is enemy HQ they might kill you on the spot before you get to make a choosing when you come back to life. I am just saying the ability is not infallible. :)
Only if he entered the HQ by teleportation from more than 20 miles away. If he scaled the walls or tunneled in or anything, he can respawn outside.
The monk can be killed
Immortality (Su): At 20th level, a monk of the four winds no longer ages. He remains in his current age category forever. Even if the monk comes to a violent end, he spontaneously reincarnates (as the spell) 24 hours later in a place of his choosing within 20 miles of the place he died. The monk must have visited the place in which he returns back to life at least once. This ability replaces perfect self.If the monk does not die within 20 miles of a place he has visited(I will get to this) he does not get to come back to life.
Note that that the ability says a place of his choosing. That means the monk must actively designate a place to return to. At games of that level there is a good chance of a battle taking place in another plane. You may have to get creative to make sure the monk does not make a designated spot to return to, but it can be done.
Ahah! Thank you, that's pretty cool!
Mostly, I just meant that, yes, it takes careful planning (although I hadn't realized that RAW reading, quite yet) and that's fascinating over-all. One other way it occurs to me to do so: drop Amnesia on him. This insanity prevents people from gaining access to their class abilities, until their memories are restored. Move them somewhere they haven't been before. Kill. Dead monk. EDIT: though he might be immune to this, I'm not sure.
EDIT:
Also: I thought it stated something about reincarnation, which is foiled with a death effect? I don't see it in your quote and I don't have my book handy.
ALSO: a finite, non-growing demiplane that is juuuuuuust big enough* to fit one (1) male, human body (of approximate size* of the monk in question) within it. One set of infinitely generating human bodies in a finite space later...
*Actually, in the case, size does not matter too much but rather the amount of air, though distinctly finite space is preferred for faster bizarre results. A Genesis (3.X) spell or similar effect (Portable Hole or Bag of Holding) dropped into another plane via planeshift after a monk was placed inside and died of starvation/suffocation/too-dense-to-exist/etc) would work equally well. In a good game, there'd likely be some serious repercussions for that, though.
EDIT: added to the above to clarify more ideas.
EDIT 2: NINJA'D by thejeff, DESPITE HAVING MY COMMENT BEFORE HIS. Oh my word, it's like I've got a super-power. Only my super power is the ability to be ninja'd by people. WHO POST AFTER I DO.
First, I get that it's bizarre - it's kind of going backwards - but I think it would work quite well in the end. It would help strongly differentiate the two, and there are still so many bizarre and unusual things that mages could do that psionics couldn't hope to match** that a mage would never be underpowered... just very different.
* And the reverse! But only after the mage-purge.
** Ranging from necromancy, to transmutation, to illusion, to conjuration, and abjuration, really magic has all the forms of power it needs that psionics couldn't, thematically, appropriate for itself. Simulacra is a perfect example: the ability to bring a statue you've carved to (relative) life with a potent illusion coating it, has not the barest hint of psionic nature about it. Creating effects that control other's magic? I've yet to see psionics (or similar, in fiction) do that kind of thing. Animating the dead? Again, psionics doesn't work that way. Enchantment (as a school) might take a hit, as might evocation (although the way it's 'grouped' now... ugh), but there are many ways that mages wouldn't overlap with psionics. Further, this could be taken with divine magic as well to fully seperate all three "magic" types from one another. Anywho, waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy off topic.
Between those who would nerdrage at the idea that "sci-fi" as they see it has entered their system, and the others that see anything not using PP as an abomination it is hard to do. We have been done this road enough times to know Vanican won't satisfy the masses.I was hoping Words of Power would be a compromise, and I thought it was an early playtest, but I don't like the way they work, and they don't seem to be popular.
Yeah we have, but the fact remains that it will have to use core spells and it can't be the 3.5 system, if they want it supported.
I kinda do like WoP, but it needs some work. It still feels over complex to me, but I have not gotten to use it much to give it a good test run.
I do like the idea of having "Ki points" and "sets "of spell SLA's at set levels. That might be a fun way to go that is both different and works easily with the current system.
When I heard words of power was coming, I stopped working on our psionics book completely. I thought maybe it would be perfect. It has some feel, but I agree it is overly complicated.
My hope is that I can get enough people behind our project to get Paizo to take a serious look at alternatives for psionics. I've never been happy with any of the prior versions. The one we're making isn't perfect, but we're having fun doing it and we're always looking for input and critique. Maybe if we get it just right, a balanced compromise, we can convince Paizo to give psionics the Paizo treatment.
This has all gotten pretty off topic, but hey, that's what the Intarwebs are for.
Personally, I'd rule that designating an area, since it has not been defined as anything other, is a standard action.
So there's no "oh crap I'm dying I better define HERE as my reincarnation spot!"
Besides, sooner or later he's going to end up with GM's choice on that chart, and I'm going to make him into a sofa or a yarn golem or something :)
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
Normally, it would be "wouldn't care one way or the other", but for your specific two items: Yes, I would think less of Paizo, and here's why:
Psionics: As already mentioned, psionics are already in Golarion. They bloody well better release psionic rules.
Epic: Paizo has already stated that there are certain demon lords and other monsters that are (paraphrased) 'very high CR'. Well, there better be rules support for fighting them (whether certain people like it or not, battling demon lords and the like has a rich history in this game). If not, then why bother calling them high CR? Why bother statting them up at all? Just call them gods/demigods and move on.
So, normally I wouldn't care, but Paizo made their bed...
He'd get out eventually, flailing in the air / swimming while taking 20d6 per turn will be good for moving a couple hundred feet each day. And he can always hope one of his friends will rescue him from any plane you toss him on, or he can eventually make a deal with some being on that plane.
I created a totally new thread for this, since, I suppose, I'm the one that got us off-topic in the first place. So, let's take it there, hm?
EDIT: oh, come ON, ALL I DID WAS COPY/PASTE something I'd already written?! HOW did I get ninja'd?! Well played, gbonehead (and Arnwin good job at being on topic), well played.
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
Less. I seem to agree with Arnwyn
Personally I dont use psionics, and dont see the need for it mechanically, but it exists as a concept in many campaigns, and those GMs need some way to deal with this. Also, psionics is part of the game's heritage, and thus deserve some attention.
Epic needs to be included because the system needs to be capped. Pit Fiends and Balors are CR 20, and demon lords and demigods are supposed to much more powerful, and IMO possible to defeat. It can be an 16-page Epic Level Booklet, or a series of books, but it must the solved in some way.
Another way would be rebalancing the bestiary and put the current bosses as CR 15, but I dont see that happening.
The long wait has actually made me regret switching to pathfinder, but no one made any promises, so the fault is entirely mine.
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
I would not think less of Paizo because I feel we don't actually NEED epic rules. I think I can GM for epic characters with the current rules, it would just take a lot of work.
As for psionics, I can use the thrid party version. Dreamscarred Press right?
But in both cases I would buy the Paizo product if they decided to produce them.
|
|
I am not sure it can be address without rebuilding. The system works fine on the lower end, but the higher you climb the less it works. A "How to" guide isn't gonna cut it.Based on the premise that there are many groups out there that play Pathfinder in the level 15+ range (my local groups included) that have no real issues with how the system works, I'd say that a "How To" guide would be just fine.
Mostly dealing with high levels involves adapting your playstyle, which is exactly what a high level guide should help you do.
I don't think the English language has the proper words to express how much I agree with this statement.
There is so much potential for these levels that has NEVER been tapped and having a "how to" guide for levels 10 - 20 would open up those levels to more people. Having the foundation in ink on the page also gives 3pp a rubric to work from in creating their own products.
That brings up another reason why I want to see Paizo's take on Mythic levels and Psionics. It lays the foundation for 3pp to do their own Mythic level APs or products. I'd play a non-Paizo AP that started at 15th and took you to 30th or so. There is simply too much good material that has hardly ever been touched to not do these books.
SM
if in the next year, I do not hear about publishing epic rules for 2013 I think I will change to 4e and I'll be completely disappointed either Paizo and Pathfinder. And I really hope that some day not too far a publish of Psionic rules from Paizo
and below level 20 is not epic is just have low standards and yes, I believe that PCs kill gods, I don't think you can kill gods, or create artifacts or time travel etc... at level 20, not even with wish
I am totally against the policy of the PCs can not have or do that, no matter if it exists in the setting or elsewhere. I think is a cowardice of the GM, if there are Psionics and Epic NPCs in Golarion I think is fair that anyone can have it, and as there is a precedent I think it is right to publish rules covering this, as well as Numerian technology.
actually would be great to publish a Sci Fi book that cover Psionics and Numerian technology.
if in the next year, I do not hear about publishing epic rules for 2013 I think I will change to 4e
Won't you have the same problem? It's just that the PCs will have to stop improving at level 30 instead of 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if in the next year, I do not hear about publishing epic rules for 2013 I think I will change to 4eWon't you have the same problem? It's just that the PCs will have to stop improving at level 30 instead of 20.
Not necessarily. The existing ELH rules have no level 'cap' per se, and if Paizo publishes epic rules, hopefully the same will hold true.
Golarion the campaign setting may have an upper limit on PC level, but there's no reason the actual rules need to follow suit.
Not necessarily. The existing ELH rules have no level 'cap' per se,
And was just one in a long line of the many issues with the ELH
if in the next year, I do not hear about publishing epic rules for 2013 I think I will change to 4eWon't you have the same problem? It's just that the PCs will have to stop improving at level 30 instead of 20.Not necessarily. The existing ELH rules have no level 'cap' per se, and if Paizo publishes epic rules, hopefully the same will hold true.
Golarion the campaign setting may have an upper limit on PC level, but there's no reason the actual rules need to follow suit.
Err, yes - I wasnt talking about any potential epic rules for pathfinder. He said he was going to give up Pathfinder (if it didnt abandon it's current level 20 cap) and switch to 4th edition (which has a level 30 cap).
I didnt quite understand why - since he'd just be switching to a system with the same perceived shortcoming (albeit at a higher number).
And was just one in a long line of the many issues with the ELHNot necessarily. The existing ELH rules have no level 'cap' per se,
Gotta disagree with you there. It just meant that any given DM could choose to establish the power curve for their game.
Like I've mentioned several times (in this thread or elsewhere, hard to keep track), the PCs in our game range between levels 51-64. So, either that means we're engaged in BadWrongFun, or we're using the rules in a way differently than you envision.
I'm gonna go for the latter :)
P.S. This is 100% not a Kill The Gods And Take Their Stuff campaign. I haven't even statted out a single god, and probably never will, since that's not what the campaign is about. It's about epic, encountered once in a universe's lifetime type heroes.
|
Epic: Paizo has already stated that there are certain demon lords and other monsters that are (paraphrased) 'very high CR'. Well, there better be rules support for fighting them (whether certain people like it or not, battling demon lords and the like has a rich history in this game). If not, then why bother calling them high CR? Why bother statting them up at all? Just call them gods/demigods and move on.
The problem is that if you provideepic rules that do provide a level cap, then the whole argument arises again for everyone who thinks that it wasn't set high enough. If you don't add in a level cap, then you've made everything that has had stats published into a mook, regardless of what it's place in the Golarion multi-verse is supposed to be. And even when you haven't given some of them stats, but have given a CR range (such as for demon lords, arch-devils, empereal lords, etc), then you're in the same position. Beings that the entire multiverse holds in fear/awe are something that the PCs can send their henchmen to take care of.
My 260th level anti-paladin sent his stable-boy to free Rovagug from his prison so that he could keep Rovagug as a pet. :P
|
|
Err, yes - I wasnt talking about any potential epic rules for pathfinder. He said he was going to give up Pathfinder (if it didnt abandon it's current level 20 cap) and switch to 4th edition (which has a level 30 cap).
I didnt quite understand why - since he'd just be switching to a system with the same perceived shortcoming (albeit at a higher number).
Which is the heart of my problem with epic supplements. Either you have the shortcomings of a non-capped system, where it becomes impossible to define anything as being one of the multiverse's great powers; or you have a capped system, which makes me just wonder why not use the cap that already exists...level 20.
Err, yes - I wasnt talking about any potential epic rules for pathfinder. He said he was going to give up Pathfinder (if it didnt abandon it's current level 20 cap) and switch to 4th edition (which has a level 30 cap).
I didnt quite understand why - since he'd just be switching to a system with the same perceived shortcoming (albeit at a higher number).
Depends on his reasons for it. While both games have a cap, 4e has a much more structured tier system more similar to BECMI regarding player status and power in the game world.
If I ask "how strong is a level 11 character? Generally what can they do?" to both systems, 4e will have a much more clear answer then Pathfinder will. Likewise, a level 16 PF character ranges from having four attacks my god to being able to completely re-write reality, while a level 21 4e characters are much closer in narrative tone.
It might also simply be that he likes Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. Yeah, 4e ends at level 30, but most Epic Destinies give you ideas for HOW it ends, in an appropriately epic fashion, with most of them giving some form of immortality (albeit not always physical immortality).
|
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?The two aren't really comparable. There needs to be something at the Epic gaming level, just to keep things interesting. Psionics, though, is rather different. I would be disappointed if Paizo changed the Pathfinder rules such that any officially-sanctioned Pathfinder game had to allow Psionics. I feel that should always be a decision left in the hands of the GM.
Unless you're talking about PFS, the decision is ALWAYS in the hand of the GM. If you're talking about PFS, you're not the GM, you're the Judge, which is something significantly different.
|
|
In my opinion, Psionics would be cool, though I imagine I'd actually see them used very little at my table.
Epic, to me, is a statement of theme, not rules - thus I could actually do without them.
Personally, now that there are no dead levels in the current d20/PF rule system I question how far a character can go before there's almost too many abilities to choose from, and analysis paralysis kicks in to every decision.
Compared to a 3.x character, a 20th PF character is already REALLY powerful.
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
Since I would like to see both books I will be slightly disappointed. But I would not think less of Pazio if the choosed to to go with either book. Because what they do choose to do will probably be as interesting to me. I like to keep a open mind.
I will say however that my opinion of people who take the idea(not even the books themselves just the concepts of psionics and 'Epic' level play) as insults to them and do get upset of them...my opinion of those people are dropping lower and lower....which is why I would be disappointed really is that Pazio caving to these close minded people...and not exploring new ideas.
...which makes me just wonder why not use the cap that already exists...level 20.
Because this only give you only three levels to explore really high level play. Sometimes it takes longer to tell a story properly.
Continued play at a capped level 20 is not what the game is about - gaining level and exploring new character options is a huge part of the system.
|
|
...which makes me just wonder why not use the cap that already exists...level 20.Because this only give you only three levels to explore really high level play. Sometimes it takes longer to tell a story properly.
Continued play at a capped level 20 is not what the game is about - gaining level and exploring new character options is a huge part of the system.
That really holds true only until you hit the 9-12th level range. Past that you're not the growing neophyte, you're the increasingly god-like legend. At some point you mature and plateau off and you become the Master insted of the Student.
That really holds true only until you hit the 9-12th level range. Past that you're not the growing neophyte, you're the increasingly god-like legend. At some point you mature and plateau off and you become the Master insted of the Student....which makes me just wonder why not use the cap that already exists...level 20.Because this only give you only three levels to explore really high level play. Sometimes it takes longer to tell a story properly.
Continued play at a capped level 20 is not what the game is about - gaining level and exploring new character options is a huge part of the system.
You are suggesting a level 12 cap? It would probably work fine with a slower progression, but perhaps a bit frustrating for the players.
As a GM I would not mind that at all, but a rescaling of the Bestiary would perhaps be necessary.... or if you are suggesting level 12 should be sufficient to create a certain style, I accept that, but I disagree.
E6 or E12 or whatever is a good way to get more sessions of the preferred power level, but I'm hoping for a more satisfactory play experience in terms of character advancement.
I actually suggested E20 for my group, no one was too enthusistic so instead we shelved that campaign for now. That game ended at level 30 with a PF/ELH hybrid. Not something I would recommend.
|
|
That really holds true only until you hit the 9-12th level range. Past that you're not the growing neophyte, you're the increasingly god-like legend. At some point you mature and plateau off and you become the Master insted of the Student.
I would contend that between neophyte and god-like you would have the "this is what I do for a living" types. I'm fairly old-skool, where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels. King Arthur is hardly god-like, but I wouldn't dream of capping him at 12th.
|
|
...which makes me just wonder why not use the cap that already exists...level 20.Because this only give you only three levels to explore really high level play. Sometimes it takes longer to tell a story properly.
Continued play at a capped level 20 is not what the game is about - gaining level and exploring new character options is a huge part of the system.
You do realize that hitting the level cap doesn't mean enforced retirement, right? If sincerely doubt that once you hit 20th level, your GM snatches your character sheets up, shreds them, and says "Make new characters now, these are done!"
|
|
King Arthur is hardly god-like, but I wouldn't dream of capping him at 12th.
Might I enquire what Arthur really ever did that demonstrated him level 13+. I mean, c'mon, if Gandalf is only 5th level, I gotta think Arthur is maybe 3rd level at most.
I think part of the problem is that some of you are assuming that the average knight walking around is a 9th level fighter or something. He's not. He's a 1st level warrior.
A 12th level fighter would be somebody like Hector...someone who absolutely lays waste to the other sides forces.
|
|
That really holds true only until you hit the 9-12th level range. Past that you're not the growing neophyte, you're the increasingly god-like legend. At some point you mature and plateau off and you become the Master insted of the Student....which makes me just wonder why not use the cap that already exists...level 20.Because this only give you only three levels to explore really high level play. Sometimes it takes longer to tell a story properly.
Continued play at a capped level 20 is not what the game is about - gaining level and exploring new character options is a huge part of the system.
You are suggesting a level 12 cap? It would probably work fine with a slower progression, but perhaps a bit frustrating for the players.
As a GM I would not mind that at all, but a rescaling of the Bestiary would perhaps be necessary.... or if you are suggesting level 12 should be sufficient to create a certain style, I accept that, but I disagree.
E6 or E12 or whatever is a good way to get more sessions of the preferred power level, but I'm hoping for a more satisfactory play experience in terms of character advancement.
I actually suggested E20 for my group, no one was too enthusistic so instead we shelved that campaign for now. That game ended at level 30 with a PF/ELH hybrid. Not something I would recommend.
What I'm suggesting is that you can still have viable character play with a level cap whether it's 12, 16, or 20. And that there are other ways of advancing a character besides class levels. Getting them more of a stake in the campaign world for starters. Positions, territories, fame, infamy.
You do realize that hitting the level cap doesn't mean enforced retirement, right? If sincerely doubt that once you hit 20th level, your GM snatches your character sheets up, shreds them, and says "Make new characters now, these are done!"
I am often the GM in my group. I explain more of my reasoning in my other post above.
In more recent campaigns Ive slowed down progression to make sure I have time to finish the campaign properly, but it is not really satisfactory because leveling up a character is fun and a huge part of the game.
What I'm suggesting is that you can still have viable character play with a level cap whether it's 12, 16, or 20. And that there are other ways of advancing a character besides class levels. Getting them more of a stake in the campaign world for starters. Positions, territories, fame, infamy.
Ok. I agree. Power is just one way to develop a character, story is another. A successful campaign do both - but story rely less on rules. I think story should be a part of both psionics and epic handbooks, but it is not my primary concern here.
|
|
I think part of the problem is that some of you are assuming that the average knight walking around is a 9th level fighter or something. He's not. He's a 1st level warrior.
I think the problem that some of you are assuming is that your level X is my level X, or even the game's level X. Further, it really sounds like your telling me that I play wrong, which really gets under my skin.
I reiterate my point that in second edition you had to be 8th level to attain knighthood. In 3rd you had to be level 8 to enter the Knights of Solamnia in Dragonlance. And in 3.5 as well as PFRPG, commoners can gain levels.
Hey, if you want to designate that no one other than PC's can get level 2 in your game, go right ahead. But try not to tell me how I should play.
In my game, there's a difference between a town guard and a beknighted Lord whose spent decades training to lead men into battle. You don't have to like it.
|
|
Oo, are we going to argue what level fictional characters are? I love it when people try to claim 12th level town guards exist.I certainly wouldn't go that far. Town Guards I cap at 3.
However a city that deals with adventurers, especially powerful ones, will have it's own Elite squad of folks of (Aveage PC level +4), for when things get supremely out of hand.
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
Involving those two topics, I would only think less of Paizo if they did a blatant rehash of Wizards of the Coasts' systems. Wizards did them (and did them kind of badly in the case of epic rules), so I wouldn't want Paizo to simply think that we want the same exact thing that Wizards gave us. I would be surprised if a Psionics book was never made, given that there are apparently heavy psionics influences outside of the Inner Sea region.
|
I am not sure it can be address without rebuilding. The system works fine on the lower end, but the higher you climb the less it works. A "How to" guide isn't gonna cut it.
I think it might be able to work if they include a stack of optional rules to make the system run more smoothly at high levels. Along with a discussions on how to mitigate analysis paralysis and other vile maladies common at high level.
|
|
I would contend that between neophyte and god-like you would have the "this is what I do for a living" types. I'm fairly old-skool, where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels. King Arthur is hardly god-like, but I wouldn't dream of capping him at 12th.
That really holds true only until you hit the 9-12th level range. Past that you're not the growing neophyte, you're the increasingly god-like legend. At some point you mature and plateau off and you become the Master insted of the Student.
Really old school is that the guy who trained your charcter to his first level was some really epic dude... like Level 6! (that's Gygax-speak from the old 1E Player's Handbook) The two most important individuals in the Village of Hommelet were levels 6 and 8 if I recall correctly and were given all the deference of local lords. It would seem we have differing perspectives on what old school means. Or that we graduated from different old schools.
Power level is a relative thing. In King Arthur's Camelot where the best an average knight could expect would be a masterwork sword, a 6th level character is a lot more significant than they would be in Shadowdale.