Duck, on the interwebz anything can be made truth, education be damned.
I voted for level 10, though I don't really mind playing a couple levels beyond that. Once things get around 14-15 though, I find that they just really get bogged down with the excessive number of attack rolls, players having dozens of magic items each, high level divination and travel spells that ruin adventures, creatures with a ridiuclous number of immunities, and so on.
Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper,
First, I must apologize for my confrontational tone. At that precise moment, I'd had a very unhappy baby just calm down, and a few other local irritations, and it was probably just rubbing off incorrectly.
To be clear, I fully accept that you know a number of individuals and have good experience not many of whom enjoy or are interested in epic-level play or prefer it. As I don't attend conventions (usually a combination of time, money, and location), I don't know those people, nor do I have experience with them. So in that, your experience trumps mine.
However:
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.
... sounds an awful lot like "people who voted for epic cheated", as it was directly in response to someone who was citing this as a boon for epic-level-play. Which was the basis for my (admittedly argumentative, for which I apologize) presumptions. But this is the thing that I took umbrage with.
Person 1: "Hey, look a lot of people like epic, so I can show others"
Person 2: "Well, people can cheat at this poll, so it's probably wrong"
Again, I apologize for my confrontational tone... but that irked me.
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?
And so, I apologize. Because you've made it clear that you don't have a bias against a certain set of gamers, and that this isn't the place from which you made your statement, I need to make one: I was wrong. I misread what you were saying, and apologize for it. Regardless of my reading, I do not intend insult.
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.
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.
First, we both misread each other here. If the part of my quote above seemed to be a touched-nerve... well, much like I noted the ":)", but continued with the...
Perhaps there's just too many WoW powergamers out there that are never happy with a maximum level?
... as the point of rebuttal, you missed my (what was supposed to be over-exaggerated, and thus silly)...
Also... ew. Someone thinks I like WoW. Eeeeeeeeeewwwwww...
... as I know quite a few people do (otherwise it wouldn't be the success that it is) and many of those are reasonable, people, some of whom I happen to be friends with. Obviously, you didn't know that I was friends with any WoW gamers... you couldn't (e: much like I couldn't know that you were a former WoW gamer), however, I presumed that by over-exaggerating, I would be able to light the "tone" of the argument. Obviously, that didn't happen for either of us.
Also, when I wrote...
To be clear, the problems with the poll are numerous - no ability to specify level and imperfect control methods are prominent -
... I was not actually trying to tell you that your methodology was bad, but was, in fact, agreeing with you when you wrote...
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.
It was not supposed to be an insult, but rather an expansion. Again, I can see how it could easily come off as insulting, but the point was: yes, in fact, this does have difficulty being touted "market research", due to the problems that are given, NOT that this was a bad poll (especially considering it was created by a fan). So, much like me, you took insult where it wasn't intended (but that's probably due to the tone of the other parts of the post). So, sorry for that!
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 believe one reason this occurs is that we get flack all the time. I mean, for me, it's kind of like mentioning "psionics". I love 'em. I often get accused of being nothing but a munchkin as a direct result, usually by people who've never played using psionic rules. That, like epic-hating, gets tiresome, and when individuals drop yet another "wow, people who like this much be power-gamers" crowd. There's not even anything wrong with "power gaming", but it (and "optimizing") often has a negative connotation when used online, with a direct contrast to actual role-play/story elements (though Treantmonk has an interesting thread about how silly that is).
So that's the source of frustration.
Steve: Understood and accepted. As I said, I was just coming off of a number of frustrations (which isn't the best time to post!) and so let it color my reading of things, both yours and the guy's you were responding to. :)
Wrote stuff...
No worries, and I also apologize for my defensive tone. Unfortunately, I don't pay for a Polldaddy account so I can not see the IP's that posted... if I could then I would be able to confirm or deny my suspicions. Without that, I have no evidence to back up my statement. Although I still believe it to be true, I should have been more willing to accept criticism without any substantive evidence. I will have to consider paying for an account should I believe further polls to be inaccurate.
While I doubt people would go out of their way to cheat on a poll that has no real impact, I do think you have to realize who that 37% vs 63% are. Basically this is a poll of PFRPG forum posters who had enough interest either against or for epic rules to both read the poll post and make a poll vote themselves. In other words the vast majority didn't vote. The voters are those people who had an interest in voicing their opinion one way or the other.
PS: I voted 20th level, because I like to see end caps reached and mean something.
I voted 15. The game seems to work best IMO between levels 5-12 or so. By level 12 the cracks in the system are starting to show and by 15 they are quite apparent. That being said we went to 17 in Kingmaker a few months back and it went ok, although the last book took forever to finish.
|
Source?
The reason is clear. There is a lot of player pressure to include ALL Paizo published material in your games.
The only source for that kind of statement is "my opinion".
I have little trouble to say no to material I don't want in my games. The only important thing is to say that at the start of the campaign.
I have recently started a Kingmaker campaign, and the rules where "no oriental characters or weapons, firearms are allowed but you are as far as possible from the locations where they are produced so you will not get support for them. core races only plus the changeling as it fit with the location." No one had problems with that as it was know before starting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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? :)
Seeing how there is at least one guy that like to start a new "I want support from play above level 15 removed" thread every week I would say that it can go both ways.
People can double vote pro or against high level play with the same ease.
The only source for that kind of statement is "my opinion".
Really? Since this is a thread about preferences it should be obvious we are all arguing from personal opinion (usually based on personal experience).
So why on earth would you feel the need to point out the obvious? Is your opinion worth more than mine? If that is how you feel I am truly saddened.
|
|
B) Epic adventures are notoriously hard to write. At least 3 posters brought up Bloodstone Pass (H1-4) this is due to the fact that I can't recall a single module from TSR or WotC that was very high level and very good other than the Hs. The H series also incorporated BATTLESYSTEM which really changed up the dynamics of combat, important given the difficulty of challenging high leveled PCs.
The basic/expert et c. set had some very high level good module and dungeon published a few very good epic adventures for the 3.0 and 3.5 rules.
Good adventures for high level play are hard to write because the actual power level of the groups can vary a lot.I would not define all of the Blood stone pass series of modules as good. The assassin run was awful.
High level play require the GM to tailor the opposition to the group, so a module for that level of play should focus less on the NPC stats and more on their motivations and goals.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I will play the game anywhere from 1-30. I guess if I had a favorite range for actually palying, it depends on the company I am with. Have to have better roleplayers at higher levels. Maybe 13-18?
I love making all characters, and making them from 17-21 seems to eb the most fun for me.
Designing campaigns and adventures always runs from 1-3 up to almost or past epic levels for me. And I am jonesing to write a high-level adventure for a well-known company very soon. Maybe I can get into Superstar 2012 and offer one for powerful PCs.
|
|
The only source for that kind of statement is "my opinion".
Really? Since this is a thread about preferences it should be obvious we are all arguing from personal opinion (usually based on personal experience).
So why on earth would you feel the need to point out the obvious? Is your opinion worth more than mine? If that is how you feel I am truly saddened.
So you feel that is needed to be offensive to protect your opinion? ...
In all editions of D&D I've always preferred the lower levels. When characters get to the upper levels things are just too "over the top". I like the more "down to earth" stories and settings. The entire system would just be levels 1-10 and I'd be happy.
Here's how I've always viewed it,
1-10 Adventurer Levels: Right on.
11-20 Hero Levels: eh it's alright.
21-30 Epic Levels: Oh ffs!
31-40 God Levels: ............
High level Basic Set
Companion Set
Test of the Warlords (the ORIGINAL KIngmaker series)
Sabre River (THE Dragon Cover!!)
Earthshaker (meh)
Death's Ride (cool)
Master's Set
Into the Maelstorm
Vengeance of Alphaks
Twilight Calling
Five Coins for a Kingdom
Talons of Night
---All very Epic, each in their own way.
AD@D
GDQ (queen of the Demonweb pits you fight Lloth in the Abyss! Easily 18+ level)
Bloodstone Series in the Realms. Last one is definitely epic...you are supposed to kill both Tiamat AND Orcus!
Isle of the Ape (The Pregens average 18th! And the LOOT at the end!!)
Return of the Giants could get pretty high level, too. This time you went up instead of down...
Spelljammer
Under a Dark Fist - Time to take out an evil empire spanning multiple solar systems, and the enemy Emperor is a 20th level Maedar fighter! And every damn ship's mage for the enemy wields a staff of power or something!
Dungeon Magazine
Several High level ones come to mind. 4 are Epic rules.
Razing of Redshore, where you intro Epic Rules.
Quicksilver Hourglass for 25th+ Epics!
The One on the Cloud Castle. I remember the Storm Giant Blackguard...
The one with the Castle built over the Apocalypse Beetle...
And the one where you're negotiating the sale of a node of diamonds on the plane of earth from the janni to the planes of Good, against diplomats of the other 4 major alignments. The Diplomacy Checks had DC's of 70 or higher!
And, of course, the first 3 Adventure Paths all end up near level 20 and can easily cross over if you're busy.
Don't forget Return to the Tomb of Horrors...or how about the Night Below's final city of Aboleths?
And then there's the online module associated with the end of 3.5, where the Herald of Vecna is heading to release his master, and only your level 18+ guys can stop him...
I'm not sure where the Rod of Seven Parts boxed set ended up...
Just keep in mind that Epic play in 1E was MUCH easier, because HP's, AC's and other things didn't scale so strongly. Characters were a LOT more fragile back then, and monsters were still as big as you wanted to make them.
I mean, seriously. Look at 1E Illithids. 90% magic resistance. That was based on a level 11 caster. 9th level, NO chance of affecting them with magic. Archmage (level 18), 55%.
4 attacks. If ANY of them hit, killed you in 1-4 rounds unless you kill the thing first. 8 HD +4, avg 32 hp or so. Psionic blast, save -4 or be stunned.
Yeah, those things were lethal. Nobody wanted to mess with mindflayers.
And since you couldn't make magic items willy-nilly, you were tons more vulnerable.
==
Immortal Rules in Basic worked because they actually threw out the normal system and intro'd whole new mechanics. Actually, you played a whole new game after the game. I can't even think of the dedication you had to have to somehow 'win' the game by becoming Heirarch of a Sphere TWICE...
:)
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your prefered maximum character level that you like to play to in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game?
310 people voted as follows:
Level 5: 1
Level 6: 5
Level 7: 4
Level 8: 13
Level 9: 2
Level 10: 11
Level 12: 47
Level 15: 71
Level 20: 37
Epic (21-30): 119
Thank you to all those who voted and recorded their thoughts on the thread.
Nifty! Thanks, Kor, both for the poll and posting the summary.
Also, yes, we're cool. :)
To all those that asked:
I KNOW IT'S NOT ACCURATE OR REPRESENTATIVE. It's nowhere near close to it. Duh.
But it's a heck of a lot more material than what the naysayers have. My souces may be wildly flawed and innacurate but at least I'll have them. That is simple troll logic, baby.
Why you people took my post seriously is beyond me. It even has a MWAHAHAHA for fraks sake, it's clearly a joke.
Honestly, I'd love to get into an Epic level game. My group's games tend to peter out around 9th or 10th level for various reasons. They all SAY they want to get into Epic, and I know a few of them do, they just don't STICK to a game. Part of the problem is our main DM gets burnt out on DMing and would prefer to play (hasn't felt like D&D much at all lately).
Honestly, there is one campaign our main DM told us about, that everybody got really excited for... Once he was sure everybody could handle an epic level campaign, we'd roll up 21st level characters and go on a God Smashing campaign.... But despite their enthusiasm, none of our players have the discipline to sit down and play a singular character from (whatever level we start at) to 20....
Anyways my favorite starting level is anywhere from 1 to 5. My preferred highest level, no cap. Let me go into epic and beyond, as long as we've got a good enough DM.
B) Epic adventures are notoriously hard to write. At least 3 posters brought up Bloodstone Pass (H1-4) this is due to the fact that I can't recall a single module from TSR or WotC that was very high level and very good other than the Hs. The H series also incorporated BATTLESYSTEM which really changed up the dynamics of combat, important given the difficulty of challenging high leveled PCs.
The basic/expert et c. set had some very high level good module and dungeon published a few very good epic adventures for the 3.0 and 3.5 rules.
Good adventures for high level play are hard to write because the actual power level of the groups can vary a lot.I would not define all of the Blood stone pass series of modules as good. The assassin run was awful.
High level play require the GM to tailor the opposition to the group, so a module for that level of play should focus less on the NPC stats and more on their motivations and goals.
In truth I haven't played the H series since the winter of 94, so my fondness for them has been polished by almost 20 years of fond memories for a play group that vanished soon thereafter.
The old Basic D&D modules are out, that system was very streamlined compared to today's monstrous rulebooks. It's not really viable to compare the two systems as they are only superficially similar.
That is part of the problem, as new options get added for players to tailor their characters to some desired point there is less to offer at high levels. Keeping balance is not really viable with the glut of options. That's what killed 3.5 for me, the designers were cranking out a splat book every 45 days, eventually I started to notice the same feats with different names. The new offerings were not adequately playtested and the interactions of abilities eventually broke the game in ways that even experienced DMs could not anticipate. If PF goes that way I'm out.
Epic play is cool but not really viable under these rules, the magic system alone would cripple most games, how many Wish spells should a level 23 Wizard get? How many iterative attacks do you get with a BAB of 32? At what point do HP stop stacking? How do you satisfy the crunch junkies when they want something "better" than their capstone abilities?
Epic for me is more about story and setting than mechanics. High Level games need a great deal of story to not be bypassed by all of the usual suspects. Dirty GM fiat is common place.
Andy Collins fixed these issues, he called it 4th edition.