My main concern is that areas of Golarion will be engineered -- after the fashion of Sarlona in the Eberron setting -- to be "psionic" heavy zones.
Because I don't plan to use psionics, I really want this entire setting to be statted with at least the option of maintaining a psionics-free feel...
Marsh
Vudra is already mentioned as having psionics, and by association I would expect some in Jalmeray as well.
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.
Lol what.
Level 1 fighters in OD&D were called "Veterans."
Sorry bro, you ain't old-skool in the slightest. I'd say the idea that level one PCs were chump change and didn't become "important" until they hit double digits is a strictly 3e phenomenon, albeit one built out of 2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Neither. I don't do any 20+ level gaming, Psionics are nice but not a requirement, and I'll keep playing PF as long as it interests me. If Paizo keeps up the energy and keeps releasing fun products, I'll keep buying. From the future of Paizo seminars, it sounds like they're heading in directions I'll like, with the sword-and-planet type stuff on the horizon, pirate adventure paths, the minis line, and just general enthusiasm they have for making products that tabletop d20 gamers will like.
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.
No, it's not a problem. As for 'people might complain' - well, people will complain no matter what, so it's not a problem with providing epic rules.
If you're going to stat and CR something, then provide the rules to fight them. If you don't want it to be defeated, just call it a "god" of some sort and don't bother talking about power and CRs.
I'm not really sure where you're going with your response to my post.
|
I'd be interested in an epic book for PF.
Never been a Psionics fan myself, it doesn't fit my view of a fantasy setting, but I have no issues with those who feel differently. As long as they were done well I'd be fine with it, but I wouldn't buy it. I'd leave that to someone else in my gaming group. :)
As for the original Q, no it would not lessen my opinion of Paizo either way. I'm a fan of their work, that won't change based on these two releases (or non-releases as the case may be)
I'm fairly old-skool, where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels.
You wouldn't know the old skool if the bus ran over you. A 9th-level old-skool fighter is an out-and-out Lord, having passed beyond the ranks of the Superhero (8th).
King Arthur is hardly god-like, but I wouldn't dream of capping him at 12th.
Yeah, King Arthur isn't a 12th-level character. He's a 14th-level paladin. Back when paladins got their last hit die at level 9.
|
Psionics are a logical trap that I hope we're able to avoid. You get, basically, two options:
A) Psionics are different. Nobody, except those re-statted after you get the Psionic book, has any defense against these abilities. The psionicist has discovered an unfettered, noncompetitive type of power and reigns supreme.
OR
B) Psionics is just another 'flavor' of magic.
'A' introduces all sorts of problems that impact the long-term health of a campaign that wasn't designed around those powers existing. Look at the published APs - how many of those are statted around Psionics existing? Ask yourself how many would be reprinted after such a feature set were introduced into the game...
'B' means that none of that restatting needs to happen, but it also makes Psionics, well, suck. So what's the point?
As for epic levels, I agree with the others that there's really no need for them. If you're playing the typical Gygaxian game then you can tell these kinds of stories at the pre-20 levels. If you're wanting to go off the rails and start making things up that sound like fun, well, you don't need a book for that, now do you? :)
As for those saying that 4e's ideas for closing out a character's career in style have merit, I'd encourage you to pick up the Master Set for the old basic game. As in, it's been done... Maybe not for 3e, but still.
I pulled out my old Legends and Lore AD&D handbook (because I KNEW stats for Arthur and the knights were in it), he's actually a Paladin 16/Bard 5King Arthur is hardly god-like, but I wouldn't dream of capping him at 12th.Yeah, King Arthur isn't a 12th-level character. He's a 14th-level paladin. Back when paladins got their last hit die at level 9.
I was talking about the old-skool Arthur, not that newfangled 2nd edition stuff.
(Well, at least, as old-skool as you can get for Arthur, since the didn't stat him in Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes, but waited until Deities & Demigods.)
I'm fairly old-skool, where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels.You wouldn't know the old skool if the bus ran over you. A 9th-level old-skool fighter is an out-and-out Lord, having passed beyond the ranks of the Superhero (8th).
King Arthur is hardly god-like, but I wouldn't dream of capping him at 12th.Yeah, King Arthur isn't a 12th-level character. He's a 14th-level paladin. Back when paladins got their last hit die at level 9.
Amen Brother. Although Lancelot and Galahad are 20th level paladins.
Psionics are a logical trap that I hope we're able to avoid. You get, basically, two options:
A) Psionics are different. Nobody, except those re-statted after you get the Psionic book, has any defense against these abilities. The psionicist has discovered an unfettered, noncompetitive type of power and reigns supreme.
OR
B) Psionics is just another 'flavor' of magic.
'A' introduces all sorts of problems that impact the long-term health of a campaign that wasn't designed around those powers existing. Look at the published APs - how many of those are statted around Psionics existing? Ask yourself how many would be reprinted after such a feature set were introduced into the game...
'B' means that none of that restatting needs to happen, but it also makes Psionics, well, suck. So what's the point?
There is an option C.
C) Psionics are different. Yet, they are unknown except in some remote location, and the PCs do not have access to psionic training until they access that remote location. Thus no PC has uber power relative to others in the campaign, and even high-level PCs are challenged by relatively low-level challenges in this strange new area - which might be, say deep in the underdark where intellect devourers, mind flayers, and elder brains lurk.
Not that anyone I know handled it that way, of course.
As for epic levels, I agree with the others that I really have no need for them. . If you're playing the typical Gygaxian game then you can tell these kinds of stories at the pre-20 levels. If you're wanting to go off the rails and start making things up that sound like fun, well, you don't need a book for that, now do you? :)
Fixed that for you :)
You are absolutely correct. There is nothing stopping me from inventing my very own epic rules. And teaching them to everyone I want to play with, writing all my own adventures, trying to get people at conventions to buy into them, etc., etc.
Heck, I really don't need Pathfinder at all - I can just make my own RPG and play that.
Then again, I might want something that I don't have to build from scratch, since I don't really feel like being a rules designer, and instead I want to focus on the fun stuff like campaign design. And I might want it to be something that I can discuss with a larger audience like I can with the core Pathfinder rules.
The point isn't that people can't create their Very Own Epic Rules. The point is that if they do so, they are their very own epic rules, and they will never ever get material ... they will only be creating material themselves.
On the other hand, if at some point in the future they want to be able to just run something without having to write it themself first, then clearly there needs to be some consensus on what above-20 rules are.
|
|
A) Psionics are different. Nobody, except those re-statted after you get the Psionic book, has any defense against these abilities. The psionicist has discovered an unfettered, noncompetitive type of power and reigns supreme.
'A' introduces all sorts of problems that impact the long-term health of a campaign that wasn't designed around those powers existing. Look at the published APs - how many of those are statted around Psionics existing? Ask yourself how many would be reprinted after such a feature set were introduced into the game...
Fighters (and a few other classes) don't have any magical abilities, yet that doesn't mean that every spell in the book automatically succeeds against them. They still get saving throws, etc. So why do you assume that non-psionic character auto-fail against any type of psionic attack?
Fighters (and a few other classes) don't have any magical abilities, yet that doesn't mean that every spell in the book automatically succeeds against them. They still get saving throws, etc. So why do you assume that non-psionic character auto-fail against any type of psionic attack?A) Psionics are different. Nobody, except those re-statted after you get the Psionic book, has any defense against these abilities. The psionicist has discovered an unfettered, noncompetitive type of power and reigns supreme.
'A' introduces all sorts of problems that impact the long-term health of a campaign that wasn't designed around those powers existing. Look at the published APs - how many of those are statted around Psionics existing? Ask yourself how many would be reprinted after such a feature set were introduced into the game...
I believe mcbobbo was referring to things like Spell Resistance and anti-magic field and dispel magic that would be completely ineffective against psionics. Doesn't exactly make psionics a silver bullet, but it does give psionics an edge.
Not that I view that as a bad thing any more than I view new spells as a bad thing.
I believe mcbobbo was referring to things like Spell Resistance and anti-magic field and dispel magic that would be completely ineffective against psionics. Doesn't exactly make psionics a silver bullet, but it does give psionics an edge.
Not that I view that as a bad thing any more than I view new spells as a bad thing.
I've had extensive experience running a game that effectively had a separate magic system that wasn't magic. Pact Binder, all of its powers are "Supernatural Abilities" but have the effects of spells. So then you get into weird problems like being able to sit back and acid arrow an iron golem. Because it's immune to "Magic" not "Supernatural Abilities" or "Psionics". It really changes the nature of the game when one class just ignores most of the game rules.
If I were to allow a binder into a new campaign, I'd have to rule that the powers are spell-like abilities and subject to SR and all of that. Same goes for psionic powers. It sounds good to make them separate systems in the abstract, but it really throws the whole system out of balance.
Has anyone ever successfully run a game with "Psionics are not Magic" past the early levels?
I believe mcbobbo was referring to things like Spell Resistance and anti-magic field and dispel magic that would be completely ineffective against psionics. Doesn't exactly make psionics a silver bullet, but it does give psionics an edge.
Not that I view that as a bad thing any more than I view new spells as a bad thing.
I've had extensive experience running a game that effectively had a separate magic system that wasn't magic. Pact Binder, all of its powers are "Supernatural Abilities" but have the effects of spells. So then you get into weird problems like being able to sit back and acid arrow an iron golem. Because it's immune to "Magic" not "Supernatural Abilities" or "Psionics". It really changes the nature of the game when one class just ignores most of the game rules.
If I were to allow a binder into a new campaign, I'd have to rule that the powers are spell-like abilities and subject to SR and all of that. Same goes for psionic powers. It sounds good to make them separate systems in the abstract, but it really throws the whole system out of balance.
Has anyone ever successfully run a game with "Psionics are not Magic" past the early levels?
Well, I don't know how successful it is, but I'm doing exactly that at a very high level. However, the key is they're very localized; only certain underdark creatures have psionics. One of the PCs is starting to take psion levels, but this is likely hurting him more than it's helping him, for it's costing wizard levels.
Well, it was, anyways - he finally qualified for cerebremancer. So now, I suppose, it's all gravy
Anyways, I don't find it gamebreaking at this level. It becomes another tool in the toolbox, primarily because I don't want to break versimilitude by suddently having everything they encounter use psionics. They go here, they run into nasty psionic beasties. They stay away, they don't run into 'em.
Anyways, I don't find it gamebreaking at this level. It becomes another tool in the toolbox, primarily because I don't want to break versimilitude by suddently having everything they encounter use psionics. They go here, they run into nasty psionic beasties. They stay away, they don't run into 'em.
That seems a reasonable way to do it. I'm not really worried about how it effects monsters, a GM can and should throw challenges that make the players think outside the box. Since none of your players had psionics from level 1, they weren't able to use that to bypass whole categories of typical pathfinder threats. (Golems being the most obvious example, but anything known to have high SR, etc.) Once they get to be 15+ level, the group has enough power that they don't have to worry about such things.
Psionic = No
Eastern = No
Guns = No
When I play D&D or Pathfinder, I do it to play in a classic, western, high-fantasy world. I would prefer not to have psionic classes, guns, samurai, ninjas, or steampunk. There are lots of other games that offer those elements, but frankly, do it better. Also, they do it in settings where I enjoy those things.
Epic = No
I've played short & long campaigns in many systems, and played high and low power in many systems, and I've never found epic level material in a D&D variant to be fun or rewarding. I'm not really interested in playing Pathfinder above levels 15-18, let alone above 20. Again, there are other games that do those things better.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
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'm quite certain the debate is already raging, so I'll just state that, no, I have not read anything other than the opening post.
My response to that post: it would depend on how they did the rules.
Do I want them, personally? No.
Does the game I run need them? No.
But I'm fully aware that plenty of people do want them, and they would love to see them. So long as Paizo did their usual stellar job in creating a batch of rules to cover both these topics that a)enhanced the game and b)weren't just add ons with no flavor, then I would be interested in reading them, at least, even if I were to never use them.
So, would I like to see them done? Yes.
Hopefully, whatever they do increases my opinion of them, whether they gracefully cede design of these systems to other publishers (I've heard Psionics Unleashed by Dreamscarred Press is excellent) or whether they hit a grand slam with their own design.
One thing I will say: I wish people would stop taking other people's opinions so personally and just let each other ask for what they want to ask for. Ultimately, Paizo will make the decisions they want to make, and all the vitriol being slung over these two topics will not matter one whit.
|
Power level is a relative thing.
This is what I was getting at. Thank you for being far less of a prick about it than the "you wouldn't know old skool if you got hit by a bus" crowd.
Just beause someone prefers the earlier versions doesn't make them more old skool than someone who thinks the game improved with later editions. The version of the game that I really sank my teeth into is NOT the first one I played. I began with the red box and played 1e, but didn't get heavily into it until 2nd. I went with the 2nd ed example to clarify my point that power level has not always meant the same thing and doesn't have to be definitive. As several people have pointed out, regarding 2nd ed I'm pretty dead on as far as referencing some examples of power level in one of the previous editions.
Has anyone ever successfully run a game with "Psionics are not Magic" past the early levels?
Yes, actually, twice I've run very high levels of psionics (as differentiated from magic) and it's been quite rewarding, as well as enabling some nifty roleplaying elements that magic could do, but just feels a bit weird for. Generally I've found that psionics lags just a bit when compared to magic, especially when you look at the more unusual spell effects that magic can produce that psionics cannot even come close to imitating. Also the strict limit on number of powers known assists in limiting the power of a psionic user.
Also, deinol, are you sure that all of them are Su? I was pretty sure that several of their traits were Su, but the actual functions produced Sp (spell-like) instead which means that they would be subject to normal spell immunity and resistance. I don't have my book here to check just now, but I was almost positive. The final thing about psionics-are-different in 3.X is that the fundamental difference (as in where they don't directly interact) is an optional rule, not a core one.
Finally, mcbobbo's point is flawed (though I understand what he's getting at). Just because it's a different kind of magic doesn't make it pointless. After all, divine and arcane are two different kinds of magic, and they are very purposefully so. Both have very different forms of expression and realization from one another. There is some overlap, sure, but both have a reason to be in the game.
Now, that said, I'm not fond of the Vancian system, and I'd strongly prefer most anything to be the new "mind-magic" format, including some form of extensions of the variants of the monk and ninja types we've seen (qui-gong, for example). But, Paizo is pretty much required to have some form of psionics, with Vudra and an entire planet that's built around it. BUT! I've already cast my vote, I was just responding to others' now.
a) Creating a successful trade route to Mazteca and importing the cocoa from there to the Steaming Sea region.
b) "Organizing" and "inspiring" (via much of magic) rather tasteless and questionable "worship sessions" to Mystra.
c) Taking over two cities who were at war with each other (a war he'd caused) by importing extra-planar mercenaries for said cities and secretly emptying their vaults, thus forcing the cities to default on the contracts, sending said mercenaries back on their original employers once the wizard produced the gold (carefully exchanged by proxies within other planes) the city no longer had to fund its wars, while simultaneously (and successfully) laying the blame for all this on Cyricists whom he then led a "holy crusade" against from both cities, once he'd quelled the wars, ended the fighting, and eliminated the needless bloodshed... that he'd started.
d) Successfully creating a ship in a bottle.
All this is not to say that he got away with such acts Scott-free, or that there were no ultimate consequences for his actions (the karma was pretty harsh, even after I softened it somewhat), as he paid for most everything in the end. However he was magically, by RAW, able to accomplish most of them with effects that psionics couldn't hope to accomplish.
NOTE: slight edit for order of the above, because it's funnier (and still accurate) that way.
ANOTHER NOTE: Karma was harsh enough that, after he became chaotic evil and a worshiper of Cyric, betrayed the party, and such that, when he rolled up his new character (lawful good) he spent the rest of the game on a holy crusade looking to smite his old character. The campaign (for them) ended with his new character successfully condemning his old one to be tortured in hell for eternity, stripped of his magical power.
Also, deinol, are you sure that all of them are Su? I was pretty sure that several of their traits were Su, but the actual functions produced Sp (spell-like) instead which means that they would be subject to normal spell immunity and resistance. I don't have my book here to check just now, but I was almost positive. The final thing about psionics-are-different in 3.X is that the fundamental difference (as in where they don't directly interact) is an optional rule, not a core one.
I'm talking the Pact Binder, from Tome of Magic. All of their powers are Supernatural. I know that psionics-are-different is an optional rule. I just wouldn't allow it in a game where the players had access to it. It makes certain foes trivially easy when you bypass their defenses by being "different".
|
|
One thing I will say: I wish people would stop taking other people's opinions so personally and just let each other ask for what they want to ask for. Ultimately, Paizo will make the decisions they want to make, and all the vitriol being slung over these two topics will not matter one whit.
I'm willing to cop to being a bit touchy after a long week. I certainly took it a little more personally than I should have.
I'm talking the Pact Binder, from Tome of Magic. All of their powers are Supernatural. I know that psionics-are-different is an optional rule. I just wouldn't allow it in a game where the players had access to it. It makes certain foes trivially easy when you bypass their defenses by being "different".
Sorry, I know that, between talking about psionics and switching to you I was unclear. I understand that you were talking about Binders. I have the Tome of Magic, just not sure where it is, exactly. My understanding was that they were granted supernatural traits that allowed them to use spell-like abilities.
That said, I fully admit I may be in error. While I took a hard look at pact binders, I found the whole concept fabulously stupid way of doing stuff and quite uninteresting as-presented to boot (though it could make a great campaign base, where that is how arcanists and other "heritics" gain their power, or, alternatively, that's the form divine authority takes instead of spells). So all that to say: yeah, I could be wrong, I just thought it was different than what you were describing.
Also, the psionics-are-different really doesn't break things as much as you seem to think it would... at least it didn't in my games, where I actually applied it. I know that spell resistance wouldn't apply often, and certain creatures become much easier, but it actually works both ways: a great deal of psionic abilities would be worthless against magic (which they are with the variant described above) and have no real force behind them.
I've also run some homebrew games using psionics and they've broken nothing, so far, but these are, as you say, lower levels.
Now, to be fair, the golem example you give is true in that it specifies that golems are immune to spells and that this doesn't apply when things don't work like spells, but golems are hardy creatures and, mindless or not, are not simply going to sit back and allow things to destroy them. There is virtually no situation in which I can visualize an iron golem being unable to get at the binder in question. Fly? Golems jump pretty well. Incorporeal? Can't affect the physical world. Hiding in a small rock crevace? Golem SMASH THE PUNY ROCK CREVICE. Even if, for some reason, the golem couldn't directly attack the problem, its huge number of hit points is going to mean a long, grueling time of arrowing the thing to death.
Anyway, I'm not trying to debate your experience, just drop in mine. Sorry if it sounds otherwise!
|
|
You are absolutely correct. There is nothing stopping me from inventing my very own epic rules. And teaching them to everyone I want to play with, writing all my own adventures, trying to get people at conventions to buy into them, etc., etc.
Heck, I really don't need Pathfinder at all - I can just make my own RPG and play that.
Then again, I might want something that I don't have to build from scratch, since I don't really feel like being a rules designer, and instead I want to focus on the fun stuff like campaign design. And I might want it to be something that I can discuss with a larger audience like I can with the core Pathfinder rules.
The point isn't that people can't create their Very Own Epic Rules. The point is that if they do so, they are their very own epic rules, and they will never ever get material ... they will only be creating material themselves.
On the other hand, if at some point in the future they want to be able to just run something without having to write it themself first, then clearly there needs to be some consensus on what above-20 rules are.
I can't decide if you misunderstood my point entirely, or are merely feigning such. I'll assume the former and try again. Maybe I can put it more succinctly:
There is nearly nothing provided by 'epic level rules' that enables the telling of certain kinds of stories over others. There is no reason you would REQUIRE a level 30 character to tell a certain story when a level 20 character works just as well. Or even a level 12.
So when I say these rules aren't required, I mean exactly that. They don't meet any need that I can identify.
Sure they might be nice options, and could add a certain level of fun if you absolutely cannot enjoy a game that has a maximum level, but that's far from being a priority from where I sit.
I guess I'm saying that epic rules are merely splat...
|
|
Finally, mcbobbo's point is flawed (though I understand what he's getting at). Just because it's a different kind of magic doesn't make it pointless. After all, divine and arcane are two different kinds of magic, and they are very purposefully so. Both have very different forms of expression and realization from one another. There is some overlap, sure, but both have a reason to be in the game.
I guess I'm not so much in a position of 'completely pointless' as 'treacherous enough to avoid'. Or 'very hard to do properly.'
I would be most comfortable to see psionics as a third kind, along the lines of your example, of arcane, divine, and psionic. And maybe there are some gems in there that allow us to tell stories we can't currently tell. But I can certainly see why it hasn't yet been done.
• All powers granted by vestiges are supernatural in origin, even if they replicate spells or abilities that are not normally considered magical.
• Supernatural abilities are magical and thus are suppressed in an antimagic field.
• Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance.
• Supernatural abilities cannot be dispelled.
• A binder shows no outward sign when using a granted ability, unless the ability description specifies that he must concentrate, or the use of the ability would be obvious based on its description (such as a ray projecting from the binder’s eyes).
I will admit that the main features of binding that irritate me the typical psionics rules don't have. The binder's "You-can't-tell-it-is-me-causing-lightning-to-strike-you-from-the-sky-becau se-I'm-in-a-crowded-street-and-just-whistling-looking-innocent" is also really annoying as a GM.
Overall, I quite liked the concept. It really mirrors a particular type of magic from real world mythology. It just had a number of flaws in execution that would be easily fixed if it were spell-like abilities that allow spellcraft, spell resistance, etc.
Now, to be fair, the golem example you give is true in that it specifies that golems are immune to spells and that this doesn't apply when things don't work like spells, but golems are hardy creatures and, mindless or not, are not simply going to sit back and allow things to destroy them.
Except a Golem is actually low hp and low saves for a creature of its CR. For example, a CR 13 Storm Giant has 199 hp, Fort +17, Ref +8, Will +13. A CR 13 Iron Golem has 129 hp, Fort +6, Ref +5, Will +6, but relies on DR and magic immunity to be tough.
So a binder can use color spray to stun it and allow his friends to pelt it from range. Or he can just use an acid ray to blast it twice. I'm sure there are plenty of tricks I'm forgetting. A level 12 binder can easily solo a CR 13 golem. The storm giant will be a more typical challenge and require a full party to deal with.
Anyway, I don't think magic-that-isn't-magic is a big deal at low levels where you shouldn't throw magic immune or high SR critters against a party or high levels where the variety of tools available give other ways to deal with them. It's only the 6-14 range that I think it really changes the game.
STUFF!
Huh, I didn't remember that about Binders. Yes, as a concept it's actually cool... but not in a standard game, to my way of thinking. But then again, as I've said, to each his own!
As far as golems, I'm surprised at your numbers and would have to look at it some more, but it seems you're correct! Whoops!
Psionics never disrupted my game, regardless of the level range, and I've run some pretty extensive levels, but again I can see your point. I do believe they'd pose more of a problem to the more-integrated pathfinder stuff, however (both for good and ill). But that's speculation, as I've not yet tried to run it, and my one character who uses it has proven unexpectedly potent, especially considering the fact that most classes get less powerful when placing them in Pathfinder stuff.
Anyhoo, out of time for now. :)
I don't care about psionics one way or the other (do have Psionics Unleashed, don't see how Paizo could top it).
A lot of posters have complained about epic play but then use two faulty reasons why not. One is the ELH which itself was flawed, so knowing Paizo, their book would be way better. Second, with having the Core book cap at 20 people avoid getting that high knowing they have no where to go after 20. It's not that there isn't ways to play at that level or stories to tell, but using faulty rules or avoiding because of lack of rules as reasons for not wanting to play epic only means that they have to do epic rules and do them right.
This is what I was getting at. Thank you for being far less of a prick about it than the "you wouldn't know old skool if you got hit by a bus" crowd.
"I'm fairly old-skool, where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels" is not merely a way of saying "I like games where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels." It includes a factual claim about the "old-skool". Don't make it if you don't want to have to defend it; say something like the second example.
|
|
This is what I was getting at. Thank you for being far less of a prick about it than the "you wouldn't know old skool if you got hit by a bus" crowd."I'm fairly old-skool, where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels" is not merely a way of saying "I like games where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels." It includes a factual claim about the "old-skool". Don't make it if you don't want to have to defend it; say something like the second example.
Except it's not at all factual.
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?
As psionics has already been done (by Dreamscarred Press) then there is no need for Paizo to release rules, and in fact I would rather they didn't as their system would not be 3.5-compatible. They have hinted that they may do a 'mind/ki magic' system for the previously psionic sections of Golarian, but that's 'not psionics' and deliberately so. Were they to endorse the DSP rules I would be over the moon, but I think that unlikely.
Epic levels? I'm really not fussed, myself. I really don't see that there needs to be that much in the way of epic-level rules, and certainly no adventure path (yet) goes even up to level 20, let alone past it.
stuffI can't decide if you misunderstood my point entirely, or are merely feigning such. I'll assume the former and try again. Maybe I can put it more succinctly:
There is nearly nothing provided by 'epic level rules' that enables the telling of certain kinds of stories over others. There is no reason you would REQUIRE a level 30 character to tell a certain story when a level 20 character works just as well. Or even a level 12.
So when I say these rules aren't required, I mean exactly that. They don't meet any need that I can identify.
Sure they might be nice options, and could add a certain level of fun if you absolutely cannot enjoy a game that has a maximum level, but that's far from being a priority from where I sit.
I believe that I got your point perfectly. I believe you're missing mine.
I understand that there's no necessity for above-20 rules. Heck, there's no necessity for Pathfinder at all, I can just read Steve Jackson's Sorcery or Fighting Fantasy books or Dever's Lone Wolf stuff. And, if I just want to tell a story, I can just write a novel - no rules at all needed for that.
My point is that if a group wants to continue playing their game past level 20, there's nothing other than basic, generic support for that, so they essentially have to roll their own.
Thus, for those of us (and I'm obviously not alone in this) who do desire to do so, it would be super keen if there were a common set of rules we could use. Repeating your point that there's no need for such a set of rules means we're just talking by each other, I guess.
The ELH is not such a set of rules. Using that with Pathfinder without significant yet subtle modification will result in a broken game. I know this. So, those of us who desire such things ask for above-20 rules.
It has nothing to do with whether or not we can tell a story or not ... it has to do with continuing the game. Reaching level 20 and asking the GM "now what?" and having the GM say "well, now you start at level 1 again, of course!" is not satisfactory or satisfying.
I guess I'm saying that epic rules are merely splat...
See, now I'm in a similar boat. Are you being intentionally insulting? I doubt it, but calling something that I find important "merely splat" is like me calling a Tian-Xia sourcebook "merely splat" to a person who is obviously a fan of Eastern adventures and telling them there's no need for it and they can just "use the Core rules."
|
|
I understand that there's no necessity for above-20 rules. Heck, there's no necessity for Pathfinder at all, I can just read Steve Jackson's Sorcery or Fighting Fantasy books or Dever's Lone Wolf stuff. And, if I just want to tell a story, I can just write a novel - no rules at all needed for that.
You're comparing gaming to reading and writing - alone. I'm supposed to take this as an example of comprehension? Can you honestly not see a difference between a game with an 'end' and no game at all?
It has nothing to do with whether or not we can tell a story or not ... it has to do with continuing the game. Reaching level 20 and asking the GM "now what?" and having the GM say "well, now you start at level 1 again, of course!" is not satisfactory or satisfying.
"Oops, now you're 20" is not the design. You're intended to chart out a plot arc that winds the overall story down near the end of the level curve. "Good job saving the material plane, guys! Now what do we want to play?" - that's the design.
And there are merits to that. Like bestiaries being able to stop at a certain CR, for example. Adventure and source materials being published along certain guidelines, etc.
What are the merits for continuing to play outside of the design? Can you share some? Because I just get the impression that either you want to play at a higher level of power, or you're simply needing to use the Slow Advancement XP track.
See, now I'm in a similar boat. Are you being intentionally insulting? I doubt it, but calling something that I find important "merely splat" is like me calling a Tian-Xia sourcebook "merely splat" to a person who is obviously a fan of Eastern adventures and telling them there's no need for it and they can just "use the Core rules."
This is a separate topic, but actually sourcebooks usually contain splat and non-splat both:
Asian non-splat: People, places, events, unique creatures, and other story materials. (Things you didn't have before, and would reasonably need.)
Asian splat: Redundant weapons, redundant armor, redundant character classes, redundant feats, etc. (Things you had before, but are now sprinkled with soy sauce.)
"Because it's ASIAN" really doesn't genuinely make it different in D&D terms. Take the katana as an example. The HP/AC system simply does not have the resolution to differentiate it from another sword of the same size. Making such an item have unique stats is splat, and typically powergaming splat. I believe that Paizo has done a good job making them same-enough to be balanced, but I would be happier to see efforts go into making something new and cool.
Vis-a-vis epic levels. Yes they can do it, and they'd likely do it well. But they're probably not big enough, in my view, to divert the energy needed to make it cool enough to merit the effort. Especially when they can just stick with the XP tracks and the 'end game' design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think with out Psionics and Epic there are stories on Golarion that can't be told. If there is no psionic rules how to you detail Jalmeray, Vudra, Castrovel, etc.. Without Epic (or Mythic) how did Tar-Baphon defeat Arazni? What about the Test of the Starstone? Taking on Treerazer? Fighting Deskari in the Worldwound? Fight Baba Yaga? etc.
Not to mention all the Classical Greek story lines that could be done that you miss out on. Dealing with Demigods especially.
Now having said that I know that both Epic and Psionics are things that have been done terribly in the past (2nd edition psionics, and 3rd edition epic, especially). And I think any system that is created for Epic still needs a level cap, so that there is a base for CR still. If you have an open ended system ad Demon Lords are CR 35-40 (for example), then that is no challenge for the level 75 party. However if you put the cap at say 36 then a Demon Lord is always going to be a challenge for a party.
Another argument against Epic levels, especially in Golarion I see that the Epic level characters would take over. However, if that is the case, then why don't the 20th level characters take over everything?
I would like to see them both done, when the time is right and after Paizo has the time and ability to create the best psionic and epic rules we have ever seen.
|
|
I have no need of either psionics or epic rules.
I had no need for Spelljammer or Planescape, either, back in the day, but found much to enjoy in both.
So, really, the fact that I don't have any great desire for it, doesn't mean that I won't love it when I take that first bite.
Pretty much anything psychic or psionic has already been ripped off by magic anyway. There's even a fantasy spell for teleportation, a term that was coined in 1931. If the game had been designed from the ground up with psychic stuff (mediums, mind-reading, telekinesis) separate from magical stuff (shapeshifting, curses, conjuration), a psychic/psionic subsystem would be cool. But it wasn't, and so attempts to add psionics just end up looking like a 'rip off' of the magic system that has already 'ripped off' all of the psychic stuff anyway.
I'd love to see a version of Green Ronin's Psychic class, tweaked to fit the Pathfinder setting. It's different enough to not feel like a different sort of magic...
My opinion of Paizo will only change based on the quality of what they DO publish. Never because of what they decide not to publish.
So if they printed those rules and the rules were exceptionally bad or good then it would influence me and otherwise, no.
For the record, I would very much like to have epic rules.
actually I can think a better way for Paizo to do a better Psionics system
I really don't like the way that DS convert the the XP cost from 3.5 because Psionics no need any kind of material components, I think would be much better something like this
100 xp = 1d6 of backlash with similar rules like presented in ELH as mitigating factor for epic spells
the discipline talents are very underpowered for Pathfinder as well as some discipline abilities
if Paizo publish Psionic rules please preserve the power point system and augments, maybe some feats that need power points and can be augmented like the published on 4e in Psionic power
EPIC RULES:
As a few have already mentioned, the existing 1 - 20 rules span about as far as you can reasonably go with a heroic fantasy character. Capstone abilities and high-level spells make the PCs nearly unstoppable, without getting into a 3.x style arms race. The 3.0 epic rules were clunky at best, game-breaking at worst. While I love Paizo's product standard, I'm not sure even they could crack this nut.
Instead, I'd prefer a set of "demi-god" rules, along the lines of the old gold Immortals D&D box set from back in the day. This would naturally require some new mechanics and more powerful foes, but couched in the idea that your PC has evolved from a merely powerful mortal into something greater.
PSIONICS:
I've been a fan of psionics in its myriad forms since 1e. I would be curious to see a Paizo take on them, but honestly I'm not too interested in them. I loved the 3.x version, but few wanted to deal with them, so they went largely unused. Paizo and 3.x already have a truckload of options, we really don't NEED them. The DS udpate sounds good - just make them "official", IMO.
actually I can think a better way for Paizo to do a better Psionics system
I really don't like the way that DS convert the the XP cost from 3.5 because Psionics no need any kind of material components, I think would be much better something like this
100 xp = 1d6 of backlash with similar rules like presented in ELH as mitigating factor for epic spells
Actually I think that was mooted in the development stage, problem is there are psionic powers that can restore ability damage easily enough that it wouldn't be a handicap beyond costing extra PP.
actually I can think a better way for Paizo to do a better Psionics system
I really don't like the way that DS convert the the XP cost from 3.5 because Psionics no need any kind of material components, I think would be much better something like this
100 xp = 1d6 of backlash with similar rules like presented in ELH as mitigating factor for epic spells
Actually I think that was mooted in the development stage, problem is there are psionic powers that can restore ability damage easily enough that it wouldn't be a handicap beyond costing extra PP.
backlash damage affect hit points, and is a handicap because you will start dying quickly, your reserves of HP and PP burn more faster than anyone other class so you need to be careful with wath you manifest, is equivalent to xp according to the rules of ELH. I think is more thematic for psionics, like when someone use a powerful power and start feeling head pain and bleed nose
Thematically cool, I agree, but at the levels at which we are talking it's an annoyance that costs a potion or a wand charge.
backlash damage affect hit points, and is a handicap because you will start dying quickly, your reserves of HP and PP burn more faster than anyone other class so you need to be careful with wath you manifest, is equivalent to xp according to the rules of ELH. I think is more thematic for psionics, like when someone use a powerful power and start feeling head pain and bleed noseactually I can think a better way for Paizo to do a better Psionics system
I really don't like the way that DS convert the the XP cost from 3.5 because Psionics no need any kind of material components, I think would be much better something like this
100 xp = 1d6 of backlash with similar rules like presented in ELH as mitigating factor for epic spells
Actually I think that was mooted in the development stage, problem is there are psionic powers that can restore ability damage easily enough that it wouldn't be a handicap beyond costing extra PP.
In our psionics system we're using power foods: manna and ambrosia to replace XP or gp cost (250gp and 2,500gp respectively). The simple rule allows for the food to be purchased (in larger cities); however, the preferred rule is for it to be a treasure reward that cannot be purchased.
Our core psionic rules use a flexible vancian system. Ki, conversion, and recharge abilities allow for the same or greater power as legacy power points. We also have spell/power point and magic type systems as variant rules.
A full playtest version of our core psionic rules will be put up some time this weekend (we're a week behind due to life/balance issues), but a WIP edition is online (contains both the older core rules and the campaign setting).
Ideally, we would like to see Paizo look at our alternatives as a way to satisfy their stance on psionics (no power points, balanced power, etc.).
|
|
Except it's not at all factual.This is what I was getting at. Thank you for being far less of a prick about it than the "you wouldn't know old skool if you got hit by a bus" crowd."I'm fairly old-skool, where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels" is not merely a way of saying "I like games where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels." It includes a factual claim about the "old-skool". Don't make it if you don't want to have to defend it; say something like the second example.
Yes. I screwed up in my grammar. I apologize.
while i'd like epic rules, i can live without them. i have no interest in psionic rules.
while my opinion of paizo couldn't be much greater, if they were to do epic or psionic rules in a great, new way, that would be awesome. but i still probably wouldn't use either one.
|
|
This is what I was getting at. Thank you for being far less of a prick about it than the "you wouldn't know old skool if you got hit by a bus" crowd.
@See - I apologize for this, btw. I took your response a little too personally and should not have made the "prick" comment.
"I'm fairly old-skool, where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels" is not merely a way of saying "I like games where squires don't get knighted until they've got double digit levels." It includes a factual claim about the "old-skool". Don't make it if you don't want to have to defend it; say something like the second example.
You are right. By making a reference to the length of time I've been gaming and following it with a reference to an edition of the game that came much later, I inadvertantly gave the wrong impression and stuck my foot in my mouth. It left a rather unpleasant taste in my mouth and when called on it, I responded poorly. Again, I apologize for that.
Thematically cool, I agree, but at the levels at which we are talking it's an annoyance that costs a potion or a wand charge.
but is the same you need to spend more money than the others in potions or wands and spend your turn in healing yourself, you need to think more carefully when to use a great effect or you can die