What is your prefered maximum character level that you like to play to in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

And that's ok Mike. These are big boys, they can take care of themselves.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I'm playing at high level I feel like it's time for things to start cascading down on me. Bring the rain, so to speak.

Dark Archive

I voted 20+ I have only been in 2 games beyond 20th level and it was a blast. I DM'd a 3 year game that went to 40'ish. It was truly ridiculous what they could do. I actually think that game caused me to go bald but they enjoyed the hell out of it and still talk about it 3 years later...

Dark Archive

Mike Shel wrote:
I have to say that as a designer writing adventures for players above level 15 becomes tedious for me. Also, so much of the storytelling can be circumvented or messed up by player magic that developing a coherent and challenging narrative is a real b+@*#.

I found it easier to just write a storyline of what the bad-guys were intending to do, and not bother to script specific encounters or scenarios. Stat up the bad-guys and when the PCs find them, the PC's find them. If I need a moment to figure out a fun encounter situation when the PC's instigate the 'final showdown,' it's time to order pizza or take a smoke break, while I figure out how to take whatever cool ideas I have lying around and fit something into the encounter that the PCs have prompted.

The PCs may choose the place and time, but I still get to decide what's gonna happen in scene 26.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Karuth wrote:

I voted epic, because I think every level range has its appeal.

This.

Very well spoken.


Its upto the players of the world.

As a GM i will cater to any hungry group of gamers.

As a player, I find that my most memorable scene depictions come from Lv16-20 adventuring. Its this intellectual captures of epic events in game that makes me cherish the game time and the campaign so i would conclude that as a player, as long as boss encounters are not rapid kills or wipes then push through to lvl20 god-hood.


Currently lvl 25, took us 15 years ( with numerous breaks) to get there. It is the best game we ever played, because of the richness and flavor that PCs and NPCs has now.

We will probably only play these chars a few times a year going forward, starting a new campaign as we speak. But it will always be our main campaign...


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I voted for epic. But I am also a fan of E6. But I like having the option to do both.

The Exchange

It would be very interesting to see how those poll results would look if the question were split into "as a GM, what's the mazimum level you prefer to run games for?" and "as a player, what's the highest level you enjoy playing?"


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I imagine that's sufficient to publish epic material. If you want it use it and if you dont want it don't. Everyone is happy. yay.

I would disagree, internet polls are not all that useful as data for sales. Interesting yes, but not something you should gamble on with a massive chunk of your sales.

All we know here is 70 people who want it found a poll on the internet and said they want it and about 3 times that number in the same poll showed no interest in 21+. I would guess 70 people is not a large percentage of the total sales for pathfinder. If hat poll was all inclusive and represented sales as a whole it shows 1/4th the people polled want that product.

Some people want it. Is it enough to gamble 1/3rd of your core book sales on? Not on this poll alone I would say.

I was being glib. Of course this one non-scientnific and severlyl lacking both internal and external validity is not enough to make any decisions on.

I still think however, that there is sufficient market to publish Epic material., but it's not based merely on this survey. I just get tired of the negative nancy's that try to demand that Paizo not publish the material. I fail to see their problem. If they don't like the material than don't use it. There's no reason to keep it from people that want the material.

The Exchange

Probably worried that the market segment would not be large enough to meet the costs of production and circulation. I personally wouldn't be using Level 21+ stuff, but I admit to some technical interest in seeing how well the PF team would avoid the pitfalls. Also, I'd be secretly hoping they came up with a better term than 'epic', because every time I try to use that adjective people think I'm referring to Level 21+ rather than employing a descriptive term. (4E used 'paragon', which I think is a rather nice one.)


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Probably worried that the market segment would not be large enough to meet the costs of production and circulation. I personally wouldn't be using Level 21+ stuff, but I admit to some technical interest in seeing how well the PF team would avoid the pitfalls. Also, I'd be secretly hoping they came up with a better term than 'epic', because every time I try to use that adjective people think I'm referring to Level 21+ rather than employing a descriptive term. (4E used 'paragon', which I think is a rather nice one.)

3.5 epic had a good run. I suspect Pathfinder would too.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I fail to see their problem. If they don't like the material than don't use it. There's no reason to keep it from people that want the material.

The reason is clear. There is a lot of player pressure to include ALL Paizo published material in your games. This is why so many GMs hate gunslingers right now. So if an official Epic product were released then it becomes part of many games by peer pressure alone. This is how power creep happens in games, one supplement at a time.

Shadow Lodge

Min2007 wrote:


The reason is clear. There is a lot of player pressure to include ALL Paizo published material in your games.

Source?


For me the perfect play is around level 5 to 10 with start at 1 and cap at 15.

Don't like the high level play at the moment, as it takes long to get new "goodies" and it's even harder fo the DM to find good encounters (not only combat!)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

personally ive never played past 1-15. at about 13 you're so god awfully powerful that you can solo almost any cr appropriate encounter. at that point its time to hang up the armor and retire.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


I would disagree, internet polls are not all that useful as data for sales. Interesting yes, but not something you should gamble on with a massive chunk of your sales.

All we know here is 70 people who want it found a poll on the internet and said they want it and about 3 times that number in the same poll showed no interest in 21+. I would guess 70 people is not a large percentage of the total sales for pathfinder. If hat poll was all inclusive and represented sales as a whole it shows 1/4th the people polled want that product.

Some people want it. Is it enough to gamble 1/3rd of your core book sales on? Not on this poll alone I would say.

Agreed.

The polls I post are more for general interest... basically a "polling of people's thoughts". I don't think these polls reach enough of the gaming community to ever base market research off them. Thankfully Paizo is very closely connected to their customers not only through their own forums, but also their many gaming conventions they attend.

To keep the polls more focused on "general interest" as opposed to "market research", I keep them open only for 1 week. It would be interesting to see how many people vote over 1 month's time, as opposed to us "post-aholics" who visit the site daily -- but that's not really the intent of the polls.

A limiting factor of polls, is that some contentious issues don't get fully explored. I might perhaps support play in epic levels, but only if certain house rules are implemented -- if those house rules are not implemented, then I don't support epic level play. A person with such a view point would have a difficult time making a selection on the poll.

On the plus side, message threads such as this follow the polls and a lot of interesting information can be gleamed from the comments posted.


TheSideKick wrote:
personally ive never played past 1-15. at about 13 you're so god awfully powerful that you can solo almost any cr appropriate encounter. at that point its time to hang up the armor and retire.

How do you define 'CR appropriate' sidekick? You're SUPPOSED to be able to solo enemies of your CR on average (some will be easy, some will be hard, and some will be virtually impossible.) That's part of what CR means.


Lord Fyre wrote:

Favored Level: 7th.

Preferred Maximum: 12th. (Which was my vote.)
Beyond 12th, It really becomes too much of a stretch to keep playing.

This


Generally we cap out at 15th-23rd. The highest we've gone is 65th.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I like to play to about 22-25. After that, the "just a little bit more" style advancement system in the core rules really starts to break down.

Highest level/longest running d20 campaign I ever played went 1st-40th.

I have done 1-shots with 50th-100th level characters, but those were in 1e which was a very different beast. The adventure Throne of Bloodstone had 100th level pregens.


I like to play my characters until story-wise it's no longer possible.
If that's level 5 or 50, doesn't matter.


So, Kor, when does the poll closes and will you publish the results, at least here on the thread?
I want to keep the results so anytime someone says "Noone wants epic rules except a vocal minority" or somesuch BS, I can say "Show your work, where is the research to prove your point. Nothing? Well, here's some third party research that backs ME up. I have facts and statistics, you have opinions and bias, I win. MWAHAHAHAHAHA".


I perfer as a player and a GM to go from 1st level to 20+. Sure sometimes characters or campaigns come to their end naturally before 20the level, but to end the game because 'rule' get complicated...I never understood....as I don't find the rules overly complicated at any levels.


For me, the wheels come off the game at around 10 or 11 and it's not much fun to play.


VM mercenario wrote:

So, Kor, when does the poll closes and will you publish the results, at least here on the thread?

I want to keep the results so anytime someone says "Noone wants epic rules except a vocal minority" or somesuch BS, I can say "Show your work, where is the research to prove your point. Nothing? Well, here's some third party research that backs ME up. I have facts and statistics, you have opinions and bias, I win. MWAHAHAHAHAHA".

Except that poll doesn't prove that such a minority didn't happen to have a much larger percentile presence in the poll than other groups :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
VM mercenario wrote:

So, Kor, when does the poll closes and will you publish the results, at least here on the thread?

I want to keep the results so anytime someone says "Noone wants epic rules except a vocal minority" or somesuch BS, I can say "Show your work, where is the research to prove your point. Nothing? Well, here's some third party research that backs ME up. I have facts and statistics, you have opinions and bias, I win. MWAHAHAHAHAHA".

The poll closes tomorrow night.

I would be cautious in calling this "research" though. Also, despite that the poll limits people from posting only from 1 IP address, it is possible that someone could say go to a school classroom / library / computer cafe and post a bunch of times from different computers (Which I personally think may have happened -- but I cannot confirm it. I only say this because I rarely meet people who support Epic play (especially since the introduction of PFRPG), so to say that 40% of the people do support Epic seems a little off to me.)

Perhaps there's just too many WoW powergamers out there that are never happy with a maximum level? :)

Shadow Lodge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
personally ive never played past 1-15. at about 13 you're so god awfully powerful that you can solo almost any cr appropriate encounter. at that point its time to hang up the armor and retire.
How do you define 'CR appropriate' sidekick? You're SUPPOSED to be able to solo enemies of your CR on average (some will be easy, some will be hard, and some will be virtually impossible.) That's part of what CR means.

who told you this? a cr is based on a group of 4 not solo. so if im level 13 and a cr 13 monster attacks me while im solo i should die. but unless you're playing a CRB game with out any other books that wont happen, assuming you have the ability or drive to optimize your character.


TheSideKick wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
personally ive never played past 1-15. at about 13 you're so god awfully powerful that you can solo almost any cr appropriate encounter. at that point its time to hang up the armor and retire.
How do you define 'CR appropriate' sidekick? You're SUPPOSED to be able to solo enemies of your CR on average (some will be easy, some will be hard, and some will be virtually impossible.) That's part of what CR means.
who told you this? a cr is based on a group of 4 not solo. so if im level 13 and a cr 13 monster attacks me while im solo i should die. but unless you're playing a CRB game with out any other books that wont happen, assuming you have the ability or drive to optimize your character.

WRONG

Check the rules. NPC's with character class levels have a CR = Class level.

If you're level 13 and a CR 13 monster attacks you while you are solo you might die. You should have a 50/50 chance. Well-played Wizards, Clerics, and Druids generally do. Paladins do if the enemy is evil. Rangers might if the enemy is Favored or if they're the ones launching an ambush.

Edit: I will add the caveat that it's been a while since I checked these rules for Pathfinder, but I know for a fact it is this way in 3.5

Edit 2: Ok, I just double-checked, it's CR=PC class levels -1. That's still a chance, not a guaranteed death, but its certainly not the kind of design I prefer.

Liberty's Edge

I haven't played past 8th yet, so I don't know.

15th was about my fun limit in 3.5 though.

Shadow Lodge

kyrt-ryder wrote:

WRONG

Check the rules. NPC's with character class levels have a CR = Class level.

If you're level 13 and a CR 13 monster attacks you while you are solo you might die. You should have a 50/50 chance. Well-played Wizards, Clerics, and Druids generally do. Paladins do if the enemy is evil. Rangers might if the enemy is Favored or if they're the ones launching an ambush.

Edit: I will add the caveat that it's been a while since I checked these rules for Pathfinder, but I know for a fact it is this way in 3.5

Edit 2: Ok, I just double-checked, it's CR=PC class levels -1. That's still a chance, not a guaranteed death, but its certainly not the kind of design I prefer.

ok since you insist on calling me wrong i will show you where you are wrong.

Quote:
personally ive never played past 1-15. at about 13 you're so god awfully powerful that you can solo almost any CR APPROPRIATE ENCOUNTER. at that point its time to hang up the armor and retire.

now that you see what i wrote you understand that stated ENCOUNTER not a single cr CREATURE


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

The poll closes tomorrow night.

I would be cautious in calling this "research" though. Also, despite that the poll limits people from posting only from 1 IP address, it is possible that someone could say go to a school classroom / library / computer cafe and post a bunch of times from different computers (Which I personally think may have happened -- but I cannot confirm it. I only say this because I rarely meet people who support Epic play (especially since the introduction of PFRPG), so to say that 40% of the people do support Epic seems a little off to me.)

You're right that there are some methodology problems. It's useful research for Paizo though - they know how many subscribers there are and how many sales per month there are in the various product lines. They're in the best position to guess at what proportion of people who purchase their products also post on the forums.

Maybe 100 people expressing support for epic rules is significant, maybe not. It's still a useful exercise, imo - for paizo at least, even if not much use to us.


And a CR appropriate encounter can be a CR appropriate creature my friend.

Some CR appropriate encounters are comprised of multiple creatures of lesser CR than the chosen CR for the encounter, while others are comprised of a single creature of the chosen CR.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
VM mercenario wrote:

So, Kor, when does the poll closes and will you publish the results, at least here on the thread?

I want to keep the results so anytime someone says "Noone wants epic rules except a vocal minority" or somesuch BS, I can say "Show your work, where is the research to prove your point. Nothing? Well, here's some third party research that backs ME up. I have facts and statistics, you have opinions and bias, I win. MWAHAHAHAHAHA".

Given that the non-epic voters outnumber the epic supporters roughly 2:1, being too vocal about your preference might actually be making their point for them, no?


Level 20 but I've never gotten there before. Most often the game peter out around 12th to 13th level. This seems be mostly due to new content coming out that players want to try. I have King Maker running right now, they are 11th, I want to stick with that one to about 22nd level.


Treantmonk wrote:

At least level 10, no higher than level 15. I would go for 12.

I'm surprised to see the results thus far. More weight to 20+ than I would have expected. I find the game gets bogged down at very high levels.

I agree with 12, and I suspect most of the people voting for 20+ haven't actually played at those levels but just "want to."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

The poll closes tomorrow night.

I would be cautious in calling this "research" though. Also, despite that the poll limits people from posting only from 1 IP address, it is possible that someone could say go to a school classroom / library / computer cafe and post a bunch of times from different computers (Which I personally think may have happened -- but I cannot confirm it. I only say this because I rarely meet people who support Epic play (especially since the introduction of PFRPG), so to say that 40% of the people do support Epic seems a little off to me.)

Whether or not it's true, this sound like powerful personal bias that completely goes against the face of evidence for the express purpose of presuming the original "view" to be correct. Honestly, I love epic play, and voted for it (once only), and I've run into a number of people who agree with me. I'd suggest that it's all in the circles that you play in/socialize in, rather than suggesting (even in jest) that people who disagree with you are a bunch of cheaters.

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:
Perhaps there's just too many WoW powergamers out there that are never happy with a maximum level? :)

Also... I've never played WoW and am completely uninterested in doing so. Again, this is an unfair categorization of people who disagree with you by lumping them all together into a single "group" who, in fact, heavily disagree.

To be clear, the problems with the poll are numerous - no ability to specify level and imperfect control methods are prominent - but to simply dismiss a fairly large group of voters as "WoW power gamers" and "cheaters who vote often" is rather disingenuous and manipulative.

IF one presumes the "epic crowd" as one that votes often, THEN (barring evidence, as this is a presumption) there is absolutely no reason to presume the "non-epic crowd" also votes often, except for rather nasty prejudice based on nothing but itself. That's not very sound.

Also... ew. Someone thinks I like WoW. Eeeeeeeeeewwwwww...

Ernest Mueller wrote:
I agree with 12, and I suspect most of the people voting for 20+ haven't actually played at those levels but just "want to."

I've played it a number times, and always build/presume for that high when I'm a player and GM, but often end up wrapping the game up early for lack of official support and/or general life circumstances getting in the way.

I most certainly don't speak for the "20+ crowd", as there are too many individuals for one voice to encompass, but that's my own experience. From that experience, I desire better support (not the 3.0 ELH, though I love it despite its terrible, terrible flaws).

Steve Geddes wrote:
Given that the non-epic voters outnumber the epic supporters roughly 2:1, being too vocal about your preference might actually be making their point for them, no?

Ack! Et tu, Steve? One thing I'd note is that while "non-epic" outnumbers "epic" 2:1, that would be one third of the poll-takers that desires level 20+ (although it's actually a bit more than that at 37.32%). That's a pretty significant market share if (and this is a really big if) this poll is any sort of indication (which it may not be).

BUT, give your response was to a very presumptuous post, I could understand the tone. :)

The Exchange

I'd like to think that my fellow PF players would be curious enough about the results of the poll not to deliberately taint it with cheating - particularly since "cheating" in this case wouldn't win you a darn thing. Nobody's going to claim this poll is "market research," after all.

But there I go, assuming that the payoff is the point. (One of my favorite villain lines from Firefly.)


Ernest Mueller wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:

At least level 10, no higher than level 15. I would go for 12.

I'm surprised to see the results thus far. More weight to 20+ than I would have expected. I find the game gets bogged down at very high levels.

I agree with 12, and I suspect most of the people voting for 20+ haven't actually played at those levels but just "want to."

This I agree with


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Whether or not it's true, this sound like powerful personal bias that completely goes against the face of evidence for the express purpose of presuming the original "view" to be correct. Honestly, I love epic play, and voted for it (once only), and I've run into a number of people who agree with me. I'd suggest that it's all in the circles that you play in/socialize in, rather than suggesting (even in jest) that people who disagree with you are a bunch of cheaters.

Personal bias? Negative. I base my "opinion" on my 28 years of gaming (and more importantly since 2000 when 3.0 was released). I have played at many conventions throughout this time and at GenCon. I base my "opinion" off of the many conversations that I have had not only in real life with hundreds of other gamers from all over, but also from past "Epic" conversation threads on other sites. It is based on this broad-based experience that I feel confident in saying that the results are so dramatically different from the feedback in my above noted conversations that I have had to draw that conclusion.

I have nothing against Epic and have played Epic and had a lot of fun.

If 33% of the Pathfinder Roleplayers actually do support and want Epic, then great... there's another source of income for Paizo.

Do I think someone (or people) multiple voted? I "suspect" it highly. Is that my "learned" opinion? Yes? Do I find your accusation that I am accusing people of cheating because they disagree with me to be ludicrous and completely with out merit? Yes?

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:
Perhaps there's just too many WoW powergamers out there that are never happy with a maximum level? :)
Tacticslion wrote:


Also... I've never played WoW and am completely uninterested in doing so. Again, this is an unfair categorization of people who disagree with you by lumping them all together into a single "group" who, in fact, heavily disagree.

To be clear, the problems with the poll are numerous - no ability to specify level and imperfect control methods are prominent - but to simply dismiss a fairly large group of voters as "WoW power gamers" and "cheaters who vote often" is rather disingenuous and manipulative.

Perhaps you did not see the :) I ended that sentence with. I thought it was quite amusing and thought that it was quite obvious that I was joking. Obviously I struck a close thread in you... But hey, if ranting and raving and making ludicrous accusations helps make you feel important, then I'm glad I could help.

In Summary: Despite what your wild accusations seem to say, I have no issue with Epic rules. If (and that's a big "if" in my books) there is one third of the Pathfinder gaming public that supports Epic levels, then I sincerely hope I have helped Paizo in their consideration of publishing material for it.

I do run these polls periodically so I suggest if you do not like my methodology, my questions, or the poll in its entirety, then perhaps you should just ignore such future polls and save yourself a lot of stress. Thank you for giving me a good laugh for the evening.


Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:

So, Kor, when does the poll closes and will you publish the results, at least here on the thread?

I want to keep the results so anytime someone says "Noone wants epic rules except a vocal minority" or somesuch BS, I can say "Show your work, where is the research to prove your point. Nothing? Well, here's some third party research that backs ME up. I have facts and statistics, you have opinions and bias, I win. MWAHAHAHAHAHA".

The poll closes tomorrow night.

I would be cautious in calling this "research" though. Also, despite that the poll limits people from posting only from 1 IP address, it is possible that someone could say go to a school classroom / library / computer cafe and post a bunch of times from different computers (Which I personally think may have happened -- but I cannot confirm it. I only say this because I rarely meet people who support Epic play (especially since the introduction of PFRPG), so to say that 40% of the people do support Epic seems a little off to me.)

Perhaps there's just too many WoW powergamers out there that are never happy with a maximum level? :)

Wow...so you never meant anybody who likes and wants epic level play...yet you insults us by saying we are all power gaming munchkins. A very bias analzy of a poll...

That is sorta like me saying the reason why people hate high level games is not because the system 'breaks' down...but because they are just too stupid to run the game at that point. I am not saying it just showing you how you sound. So let lets drop the insults shall we?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Given that the non-epic voters outnumber the epic supporters roughly 2:1, being too vocal about your preference might actually be making their point for them, no?

Ack! Et tu, Steve? One thing I'd note is that while "non-epic" outnumbers "epic" 2:1, that would be one third of the poll-takers that desires level 20+ (although it's actually a bit more than that at 37.32%). That's a pretty significant market share if (and this is a really big if) this poll is any sort of indication (which it may not be).

BUT, give your response was to a very presumptuous post, I could understand the tone. :)

The tone was intended to be flippant and light-hearted. (I generally consider discussions about 'what kind of RPG playing is best?' to be silly and unfortunately 'what do you like?' nearly always degenerates into 'which is best?' in my experience).

I was responding to this:

Quote:

So, Kor, when does the poll closes and will you publish the results, at least here on the thread?

I want to keep the results so anytime someone says "Noone wants epic rules except a vocal minority" or somesuch BS, I can say "Show your work, where is the research to prove your point. Nothing? Well, here's some third party research that backs ME up. I have facts and statistics, you have opinions and bias, I win. MWAHAHAHAHAHA".

In which he claims (to some hypothetical anti-epic-fan) that there's no evidence that the epic crowd are a vocal minority....and plans to follow that up with loud crowing about the 33% of respondents who supported epic play.

Seemed ironic to me. :p


If it is 33% I don't think they would do a hard back. Thats 1/3rd of your book production for a year with about 1/3rd return.

But as I said earlier the poll is fun but not anything close to market research.


Quote:
personally ive never played past 1-15. at about 13 you're so god awfully powerful that you can solo almost any CR APPROPRIATE ENCOUNTER.

I'll not go as far as to say you're wrong, but I will say that you are not entirely right. Mostly because it's a question of play style.

At the moment you may have a 13th Level character that is so, as you put it, 'god awfully powerful', but I, however, do not.

What I have is a 13th Level Fighter who possesses not a drop of magic, save for a few potions and +1 bastard sword. Sure he has some masterwork armor, and it's feels all snug around the cod piece, but that barely makes him 'god awfully powerful'.

We play a grittier game. Despite being 13th Level, I have a PC that must survive based on his feats, skills, and my ability to think fast and trust in my allies during a combat encounter. Thankfully, I usually win, but right now at 13th Level regular ol' Orcs and Hobgoblins are a threat to me because they can, and usually do, get lucky enough to hit me because I'm not sporting Taldas's latest in fall magical fashions for this season.

CRs don't mean squat. It's all in how you play the game. A band of goblins in Stitch outfits could take my fighter out just as easily as an Ogre could. It's just how we play the game, every battle is a dance with fate.

Oh, I also have a scroll with dominate monster on it... for all the good it does a Fighter. I figure if I get a dog companion and can roll it up and swat him on the butt with it if he misbehaves.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
If it is 33% I don't think they would do a hard back. Thats 1/3rd of your book production for a year with about 1/3rd return.

I agree with you that this kind of survey is no way to make such a decision. Nonetheless, 'what do you want?' is also a different question from 'what would you buy?'

I have a definite preference for low level (or mid level) rule supplements. Nonetheless, I'll buy at least one of whatever book they produce - at least in the short term. Presumably there are also people who 'want' epic rules but not to the extent of actually paying for them.

Even more uncertainty...good luck getting this one right, Paizo! Not only is it tricky - but people care.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:

Wow...so you never meant anybody who likes and wants epic level play...yet you insults us by saying we are all power gaming munchkins. A very bias analzy of a poll...

That is sorta like me saying the reason why people hate high level games is not because the system 'breaks' down...but because they are just too stupid to run the game at that point. I am not saying it just showing you how you sound. So let lets drop the insults shall we?

Umm.. where did I say I never met anyone who likes epic level play?

Sheesh, where in the woodwork did you crawl out of? I am not really saying this though, but this is just how it sounds.

I have enjoyed epic level play and although I would NOT ever DM it, I would play it again. There is a certain shadow gnome beguiler I would love to play again! He was awesome, as was his little criminal empire he etched out for himself :)

It is interesting to see how easily some Epic supporters are insulted and/or are quick to draw offensive conclusions. I thought my WoW joke was quite funny -- personally I think if someone could not find the humor in it, and further more took it as an insult... well perhaps its therapy time?

I was a WoW powergamer (well I sort of sucked at the powergamer part, but I tried hard -- managed to forget about life for months all for the glorification of my character).

So I guess according to you, since I have enjoyed epic play and I have been a WoW powergamer (wannabe), I guess by your logic I am insulting myself?

Thanks for the laughs!


Hartbaine wrote:


I'll not go as far as to say you're wrong, but I will say that you are not entirely right. Mostly because it's a question of play style.

At the moment you may have a 13th Level character that is so, as you put it, 'god awfully powerful', but I, however, do not.

What I have is a 13th Level Fighter who possesses not a drop of magic, save for a few potions and +1 bastard sword. Sure he has some masterwork armor, and it's feels all snug around the cod piece, but that barely makes him 'god awfully powerful'.

The thing is you are mythic in power compared to normal people. You have what at lest a hundred or so HPs? You can wade though normal guards, you can single handily kill every man in the village, you can be hit by 6 or so longbows by the best archers they have and not drop you.

You left "Normal" behind 7 levels back. Even without magic you are Beowulf, you are Achilles you are myth and legend given flesh to the common man. You have a good chance or fighting and killing an Ogre naked if you want to and if you invested in unarmed and maneuvers its not even a maybe.

Grand Lodge

epic, have gotten several characters to levels 20+ in the other older versions and am currently one level away to get me to 20 now, scince we have no set rules we are just leveling 21 as a new class at the slow advancement


I always liked 3.5 best between 6th level and 9th level. Typically, though, we'd continue on to about 12th level or so.

Problem is, my players love story and mystery, but are not always completely up on all of the things their characters are capable of. So there comes a point where they are just using a tiny amount of their possible power, and ignoring most of their abilities. It's just too much for them to remember. So it's a waste of time for them.

Haven't got that high in Pathfinder yet, but we'll see. Since it's not really an Edition problem, per se, but a problem with my players' memories, I imagine it won't be all that different.


Hartbaine wrote:

I'll not go as far as to say you're wrong, but I will say that you are not entirely right. Mostly because it's a question of play style.

At the moment you may have a 13th Level character that is so, as you put it, 'god awfully powerful', but I, however, do not.

What I have is a 13th Level Fighter who possesses not a drop of magic, save for a few potions and +1 bastard sword. Sure he has some masterwork armor, and it's feels all snug around the cod piece, but that barely makes him 'god awfully powerful'.

We play a grittier game. Despite being 13th Level, I have a PC that must survive based on his feats, skills, and my ability to think fast and trust in my allies during a combat encounter. Thankfully, I usually win, but right now at 13th Level regular ol' Orcs and Hobgoblins are a threat to me because they can, and usually do, get lucky enough to hit me because I'm not sporting Taldas's latest in fall magical fashions for this season.

CRs don't mean squat. It's all in how you play the game. A band of goblins in Stitch outfits could take my fighter out just as easily as an Ogre could. It's just how we play the game, every battle is a dance with fate.

Oh, I also have a scroll with dominate monster on it... for all the good it does a Fighter. I figure if I get a dog companion and can roll it up and swat him on the butt with it if he misbehaves.

A large part of equivalent CRs being pushovers to standard parties is because they're supposed to be. An equal CR encounter is not a challenge. It's a speed-bump, there to test your management of limited resources before you run into the real dangers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I really want the Immortals boxed set, updated with a modern approach for rules design.

101 to 150 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What is your prefered maximum character level that you like to play to in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.