So now we have the issue of damage output. damage output starts out in the game fairly even a spell does CL dx and the fighter does 1dx + y (where x = the size of the die, and y equals the collected modifiers). At 6th level we have 6dx for casters spell, and the fighter has 2 attacks at 1dx + y, since we identified previously that the fighter never has more than 2 attacks that are meaningful (especially in a combat where the wizard is actually casting the big spells), as we get to 20th level the wizard is casting a 20dx spell and the fighter is doing 2dx + 2y. (this is best case scenario for both, worst case the wizard does 10d6 and the fighter does 0.)
Now we get to the save issue. The increasing distance between good saves and bad saves means certain classes either never save or always do. Already at 20th level you are 30% more likely to make your good saves then your bad saves. If you take the same pattern to 40th level you are 45% more likely with out modifiers to make it. Anytime I see a difference of around 10 points I get nervous, since to make it interesting for the good save classes, you make it almost impossible for the bad save classes.
So once again I have found one of those small list of things that the ELH actually got right. After 20th level save progression needs to be even across all classes, otherwise the gap gets too big for a d20.
For non-spellcasters it looks like we need ways to get extra attacks at their 1st attack values (Cleave, Great cleave, etc), or feats, weapon abilities that add extra damage without increasing the bonus (+5 holy,flaming, thundering, etc longsword, as opposed to a +15 longsword). Once again interesting...
I guess that, as someone who thinks that the existing system is already falling apart by 20th level, I think that throwing a few dozen more card decks onto the house of cards isn't going to help.
Fair enough. That's something we all don't agree on, but its a worthwhile perspective. As I mentioned in another thread, I do believe that high level encounters need to be designed differently in order to improve that experience.
How we would design 12-20 encounters differently is something I'm not sure how to do yet, but I respect that you feel it needs more attention before moving beyond that threshold.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that, as someone who thinks that the existing system is already falling apart by 20th level, I think that throwing a few dozen more card decks onto the house of cards isn't going to help.Fair enough. That's something we all don't agree on, but its a worthwhile perspective. As I mentioned in another thread, I do believe that high level encounters need to be designed differently in order to improve that experience.
How we would design 12-20 encounters differently is something I'm not sure how to do yet, but I respect that you feel it needs more attention before moving beyond that threshold.
The first problem with the high level encounters I can see is don't make it a single bad guy, otherwise the party automatically controls the action, and for high level DMs don't role just one initiative for a group of bad guys. Second, make sure someone has an AC that the fighter type has a 50% chance of hitting (there is no drama if you hit with every attack, every time). Third, someone who is going to make at least one save against the wizard. This is getting very party specific fast....
If the system fundamentally begins to break down between 12th and 15th level already, what on earth makes the thought of 20+ levels important to get to right away? This is more curiosity on my part than anything else. My groups don't get to 20th level, so epic levels mean nothing to me one way or the other.
Right away? It's been four years.
If the system fundamentally begins to break down between 12th and 15th level already, what on earth makes the thought of 20+ levels important to get to right away? This is more curiosity on my part than anything else. My groups don't get to 20th level, so epic levels mean nothing to me one way or the other.Right away? It's been four years.
In fairness it won't be 4 years until GenCon 2013 (which would be a possible release date).
Hmmm. That's pretty interesting. I'd be curious what his build is like, but I'm not assuming anything is wrong with it.
Since I am the Alchemist in question, I can PM you a rundown if you wish.
As pertaining to the thread, I don't think its a bad thing to have mythic rules, I just don't think our group will ever need them. We still get our kicks with the rest of the levels just fine. Does Paizo need Mythic rules? I would rather them spend time with extra fluff from Golarion. Detailed maps, new cultures, planets and moons, there's tons of stuff to explore in the campaign setting.
Would they be cool? Sure. Do I care much? Not really.
I can't answer specifically why its better. Personally, I don't know if it is better. I think very few people can answer that right now.I guess my point is, there's already a perfectly good endpoint in the existing game...level 20.
There are people who think you NEED to have level 21+.
There are people who think you NEED to have level 37+.
There are people who think you NEED to have level 100+.Why is 36 any more valid of an level cap than 20, or 2000 ?
(thread) Necromantic Singularity!
I can say why a level cap is necessary, though I don't mean it in the same way many people do.
For Paizo, Golarion is the showcase for their game. Sure, the main hardcovers are pretty much setting neutral, but virtually everything is viewed through the lenses of how it can be used in Golarion.
Golarion, by definition, must have a level cap, and that level cap must match the power levels of established entities in Golarion, or it makes no sense. Now, this doesn't mean that generic above-20 rules have to have a level cap, but everything Paizo does with them will, I guarantee it. Might not be exactly 36, but for historical reasons, it's a number that makes sense.
I don't have any problem with this ... I can ignore it just like I currently ignore all the commentary about how broken high level play is, and I can still run games to whatever level I want.
However, I'm sure that once we have an above-20 rule set, we'll see that all the support material Paizo publishes for it will likely cover PC levels from 21-36, and we'll CRs ranging perhaps as high as CR40.
I can't wait.
|
The only reason I could ever see them coming up with "epic level" campaigns are because a lot of the characters in the actual campaign world (which is what they spend the most time on) do exceed level restrictions (Nex, Geb, The Whispering Tyrant, etc.), and I think they'll probably keep it that way for now, because epic level implies...well, legend beyond all conception, or some-such. Besides, if they wanted to include epic level, they would've thrown it into the Core Rulebook like WotC did. Maybe they just don't feel like it matches their setting, that PCs can't exceed that without an unreasonable length of time and effort that can't really be accurately represented in an adventure...
THEN again...there are multiple creatures exceeding CR 20, and most of them have DR/epic, but there are no epic weapons....hm...perhaps they are foreshadowing their intentions. One could ask Mr. Jacobs, I suppose, if they ever considered it?
...there are multiple creatures exceeding CR 20, and most of them have DR/epic, but there are no epic weapons....hm...perhaps they are foreshadowing their intentions. One could ask Mr. Jacobs, I suppose, if they ever considered it?
In fairness to the rules, a +4 or +5 Bane weapon can overcome DR/epic, meaning that a very well prepared character of level <20 can still overcome those creatures DR.
I really want to see rules for 20+ levels before 5E, for me epic/immortal games are the best
I know that Paizo reads these boards pretty carefully so...
Paizo, if you make such a book. I will buy it.
|
Now, I may not be a Paizo employee, but I have been making some home brew rules for a while and have been playing for many years. That being said, I am slowly, and I mean slowly, working on Epic rules for Pathfinder. So far I have attack and saves progression fleshed out as well as a couple of feats. My next big task is fleshing out the classes and I don't really have any set order that I'm doing them in. Mostly just a "Oh, I want to work on such and such class today!" kind of thing. I'll keep you all apprised of how it's coming along.
It seems to me that when you hit epic levels you break the mold there are no rules anymore. I think that when you go past level 20 you should start getting higher level spell slots, but have to research them all yourself you don't have anyone to copy anymore. As for martial classes most of them would not really be hurt by mult-classing.
edit: Mostly why I want to go beyond lv 20 is that when you hit level 20 you are still a small fish in a big pool cosmically speaking.
It seems to me that when you hit epic levels you break the mold there are no rules anymore. I think that when you go past level 20 you should start getting higher level spell slots, but have to research them all yourself you don't have anyone to copy anymore. As for martial classes most of them would not really be hurt by mult-classing.
edit: Mostly why I want to go beyond lv 20 is that when you hit level 20 you are still a small fish in a big pool cosmically speaking.
this, exactly perhaps when you get 20 level you are the most powerful guy on the country maybe the world (universe is not just Golarion), but are multiple planes and dimensions, there are demigods and deities, a cosmic beings and more, like Immortals Handbook, it would be great to have Epic/Immortal rules for Pathfinder
Here's the problem with high level D&D in any edition (well, I don't know about 4e, never got past fifth level there). The RNG becomes increasingly meaningless. Once bonuses and stuff get to a certain point, that 1-20 random number has little meaning.
and with good reason I can't believe that if you're so good doing what you do you still depend your good luck, and still is not meaningless at least you fight again foes with CR to low compare to you
Well the more I look at this the more I realize where the math issue is. By 20th level you have already skewed the range to the point where either the +.5 classes can't hit, or the +1 classes can't miss. (the first one is really fine since what the hell is the wizard doing trying to stab someone at this point.) However as you go forward, between BAB, magic modifiers, and ability score increases, you start to have the same issue with the +.75 classes. Which says to me feats that give attack bonuses, weapons with more than a +5 bonus, and items that give you more then +6 to a stat probably need to go. Time to start looking at damage output.
Or you could just let the fighter use Power Attack and Stunning Assault, say, while the magus doesn't.
There are plenty of ways for characters to sink attack bonuses if they become "too high"
Well the more I look at this the more I realize where the math issue is. By 20th level you have already skewed the range to the point where either the +.5 classes can't hit, or the +1 classes can't miss. (the first one is really fine since what the hell is the wizard doing trying to stab someone at this point.) However as you go forward, between BAB, magic modifiers, and ability score increases, you start to have the same issue with the +.75 classes. Which says to me feats that give attack bonuses, weapons with more than a +5 bonus, and items that give you more then +6 to a stat probably need to go. Time to start looking at damage output.Or you could just let the fighter use Power Attack and Stunning Assault, say, while the magus doesn't.
There are plenty of ways for characters to sink attack bonuses if they become "too high"
True, but it is hard to balance an encounter around the idea that someone, might use a feat to voluntarily reduce their attack bonus. I was looking at ways to keep the d20 relevant for all classes, without hoping the player's don't try to power game.
Here's the problem with high level D&D in any edition (well, I don't know about 4e, never got past fifth level there). The RNG becomes increasingly meaningless. Once bonuses and stuff get to a certain point, that 1-20 random number has little meaning.and with good reason I can't believe that if you're so good doing what you do you still depend your good luck, and still is not meaningless at least you fight again foes with CR to low compare to you
See the trick is to keep the opponent with an AC of attack bonus + 11. If you have an attack bonus of +50 and he has an AC of 61 you have a 50% chance to hit. Lower than that and the encounter is a lower CR, higher then that is a higher AC. Which also means you auto hit anything with an AC of 52 or less, unless you roll a 1.
True, but it is hard to balance an encounter around the idea that someone, might use a feat to voluntarily reduce their attack bonus. I was looking at ways to keep the d20 relevant for all classes, without hoping the player's don't try to power game.
In a thread about epic content, best of luck with that. I don't envy your chances,however.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was a 20+ BBEG, I would never get into a fight with a party of PCs and go toe to toe with the fighter with +20 to hit plus feats, magic items, etc. or allow the wizard to cast his 9th level spells without having minions, traps, terrain hazards, ambushes, or whatever to whittle the group down before I would even think of 'meeting' them. So any talk about epic not working because it is foregone conclusion that the fighters automatically hit for a gagillion points and the wizards blast with world-shaking spells and the rogue sneak attacks and instantly slays is not taking into account that epic level players need epic level baddies, not just 10th level evil guy pumped up with hit points. Yes, the players earned those abilities and let them use them all they want, but not on the evil genius that they have been chasing for years. That's what epic should be.
And regardless how it may sound otherwise, I am all for epic rules.
|
|
I would like to point out that I have no opinion one way or the other, and I hop emy post wasn't taken as a negative towards any future book. It isn't a product I would likely buy, I prefer grittier, low level games, but Paizo would be remiss if they didn't produce a product that could sell nicely. If there is enough demand, they should publish epic or mystic rules.
My post was simply pointing out a problem with past editions and high level play. Even BECMI got wonky at the higher levels, and I think that was the best treatment in D&D to date. I'm sure the devs here could come up with some clever ways to make it work, but it will take a lot of thought and understanding of what near godly characters can accomplish, and ways to make the RNG meaningful.
when i started readin this i was 100% on the side of epic rules......not so sure anymore. im not say they shouldn't do it. i believe that there is a big enough market for them to do it. same token.....for the people who say they keep hitting the 20 lv mark, please dont think im being condescending or talking trash. have anyone tried the slow track of exp?? when i finally pull together ideas for a home brew quest imma make them go slow track. i also agree that if they do start up epic rules, they will (not actually have to) allocate members of their writing team to make supplementary books for it, as well as modules and APs. which could, in turn, hamper the other modules, ap, even bestiaries. because once people have the ability to be stronger they will also need the monsters to be stronger. but like i said. im not fully on either side.....im very interested to see where this goes in the future
Hmmm. That's pretty interesting. I'd be curious what his build is like, but I'm not assuming anything is wrong with it.
Since I am the Alchemist in question, I can PM you a rundown if you wish.
As pertaining to the thread, I don't think its a bad thing to have mythic rules, I just don't think our group will ever need them. We still get our kicks with the rest of the levels just fine. Does Paizo need Mythic rules? I would rather them spend time with extra fluff from Golarion. Detailed maps, new cultures, planets and moons, there's tons of stuff to explore in the campaign setting.
Would they be cool? Sure. Do I care much? Not really.
Alchemist is my fav class, i would love to see the run down. lol
I generally tend to want to stop a game at 20th level, but I'd still like to see an epic/mythic level rulebook and would buy it. I have players--who spend a hell of a lot more money on gaming materials than I do--who really want it too.
I do not foresee a rulebook overly dominating the rest of the product line. Yes, there would probably be a module or two and some companion books after the fact. I doubt that will create a grand tragedy in the lives of those uninterested in epic play. Ultimately, if enough people don't buy the material and the support for it, there won't be anything published after that's established.
And actually, how much money Paizo can make off a book and possible follow ups is probably a big factor as to whether they try it at all. There's whole nasty ouroborous that forms around the wanting and buying of high level products or lack there of.... there aren't a lot of high level adventures published, so GMs who want to run high level stuff have to write their own, and then they don't buy any high level adventures that are published because they've already written their stuff, so then publishers don't publish many high level adventures, then GMs who want to run high level play have to design their own..... ad nauseum. Maybe from a marketing standpoint, it's not worth trying!
But I hope Paizo still does try, even if it's a small supplement or something. If it's successful, that can be awesome for a lot of players who want more options.
If I was a 20+ BBEG, I would never get into a fight with a party of PCs and go toe to toe with the fighter with +20 to hit plus feats, magic items, etc. or allow the wizard to cast his 9th level spells without having minions, traps, terrain hazards, ambushes, or whatever to whittle the group down before I would even think of 'meeting' them. So any talk about epic not working because it is foregone conclusion that the fighters automatically hit for a gagillion points and the wizards blast with world-shaking spells and the rogue sneak attacks and instantly slays is not taking into account that epic level players need epic level baddies, not just 10th level evil guy pumped up with hit points. Yes, the players earned those abilities and let them use them all they want, but not on the evil genius that they have been chasing for years. That's what epic should be.
And regardless how it may sound otherwise, I am all for epic rules.
What are the chances that Paizo comes out with a bestiary 5 that is designed specifically for high - epic level gaming? If I were Paizo, I think I would start there. If it sells well then you have a goog gauge as to how big the market would be for "high level" modules, and eventually a epic book.
Just sayin it's an idea. I'd be interested in such a book. Imagine an entire bestiary where the lowest CR is 15, and the highest approaching 30! You could even throw in a few CRs higher then that as the gods or something.
While I've always been a fan of high level adventures, I think the very nature of play at 20+levels means a high degree of GM integration with the party that he/she is playing with that generic epic level modules are too specific to one type of gaming group or too generic to interest anyone that either way ends up not selling. The epic book should have rules, but also chapters on different types of epic play and tips for the GM to cater to an individual groups style of play. Some groups would go for running kingdoms and continental politics, while others are more interested in planar/world travel, etc.
So, while I want a epic book, I can't see more than a few sourcebooks as support. But I could be wrong. Paizo never ceases to surprise and haven't let me down yet! We'll have to see what their most capable brains come up with.
If I was a 20+ BBEG, I would never get into a fight with a party of PCs and go toe to toe with the fighter with +20 to hit plus feats, magic items, etc. or allow the wizard to cast his 9th level spells without having minions, traps, terrain hazards, ambushes, or whatever to whittle the group down before I would even think of 'meeting' them. So any talk about epic not working because it is foregone conclusion that the fighters automatically hit for a gagillion points and the wizards blast with world-shaking spells and the rogue sneak attacks and instantly slays is not taking into account that epic level players need epic level baddies, not just 10th level evil guy pumped up with hit points. Yes, the players earned those abilities and let them use them all they want, but not on the evil genius that they have been chasing for years. That's what epic should be.
If I was a 5th, 10th, or 15th level BBEG, I'd use those same strategies, if possible! Now, the lowest level BBEG of this trio may not have the financial capability to do so, but the others should, and any BBEG that doesn't use his minions and environment to their full advantages isn't worth the title, in my opinion. Thus, I'm not sure I follow your logic with this one, except to say that if the BBEG of 20+ you're speaking about ever goes toe-to-toe with PCs, said BBEG isn't worth the title.
Essentially, what you're saying here is really a non-issue for any level of play except the lower levels, where the BBEG might be trying to make a name for him- or herself because of lack of resources or prestige, because higher level BBEGs shouldn't be so stupid as to step up against powerful PCs. It has nothing to do with levels, and, therefore, nothing really to do with epic content. It has to do with how GMs choose to use their villains, and whether they're smart villains or mindless brutes.
Don't take this as a call to never have epic-level content. I would never have need of it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm against it. I'm just not sure why the argument you've stated is actually a case for epic content. Demon lords and "gods/goddesses" are no different than people in these worlds . . . some will be so arrogant as to think they can stand against the PCs (and inevitably be annihilated by them), while others will use every trick in their arsenal to destroy the PCs before ever the PCs can get to them (and if these are "gods/goddesses" we're talking about, there's nothing a mere mortal should be able to do to ever get to them, unless said "gods/goddesses" want them to).
... stuff......other stuff...
My arguement (which really was a non-arguement with how it came out) was that many here complain of high level play breaking down because of length of time taken per round and that by PCs not being at peak would really cut down on options and tactics left to them by being beaten down before the big showdown and thus time taken to take actions. I've never gotten above 15th or so, so my example could be off so take it with a grain of salt, but any final battles I've had are usually fairly swift comparatively.
As far as epic, I'd just be interested in the types of options both the PCs and BBEG would have. And not necessarily more attacks or more powerful spells either.
Here's the problem with high level D&D in any edition (well, I don't know about 4e, never got past fifth level there). The RNG becomes increasingly meaningless. Once bonuses and stuff get to a certain point, that 1-20 random number has little meaning.
From my experience, you're quite wrong. My player's rolls are absolutely not irrelevent. The onus is on me, of course, to see that it works out that way (sometimes ... I have been known to say "okay, you're looking at 1 to fail" or letting them realize they need a 20 to save) but even in those cases it's only true for some of the characters ... typically.
Epic gaming attracts power gamers like ants to sugar. That's the major part of the appeal for 90+ percent of the epic crowd. They're looking to blow up worlds, slaughter dieties, etc.I was looking at ways to keep the d20 relevant for all classes, without hoping the player's don't try to power game.In a thread about epic content, best of luck with that. I don't envy your chances,however.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe they're just looking for an epic quest (or a dozen) to complete.
What are the chances that Paizo comes out with a bestiary 5 that is designed specifically for high - epic level gaming? If I were Paizo, I think I would start there. If it sells well then you have a goog gauge as to how big the market would be for "high level" modules, and eventually a epic book.
Just sayin it's an idea. I'd be interested in such a book. Imagine an entire bestiary where the lowest CR is 15, and the highest approaching 30! You could even throw in a few CRs higher then that as the gods or something.
My thought is that it really needs to be concurrent with player options for levels above 20, otherwise it's just the "evil GM's handbook." Not that an evil GM's handbook is such a terrible thing ... I just think that a player's option book should be released at the same time.
Well, to add, they technically already have support out for the Epic Handbook. Each class gets a "CapStone" Ability at level 20, that, per the rules is usable for a short period of the campaign. Why have such an ability available, if you're not going to encourage play past that point? Its main point is to help people feel better about not multi-classing, but if you stop at 20, why was the ability really added?
Sure, we can use the Core and just make up stuff on our own. But of course, we could have done that with 3.0 or 3.5 and not gotten into Pathfinder for the most part.
As for the complaint about "Where will it stop?" If they make a 21-40 book, will that open up 41-60? Capitalism. If 21-40 (or whatever level break they use) sells well enough, why not? Do I own a 3.0 Epic Book? Yes. Have I used it in a Campaign? Twice, both campaigns ended in the low 20s. Didn't stop most of us in each group to buy it though.
"If you make it, they will buy it" doesn't always ring true, but I do think this is the kind of book that will sell anyway.
|
Well, to add, they technically already have support out for the Epic Handbook. Each class gets a "CapStone" Ability at level 20, that, per the rules is usable for a short period of the campaign. Why have such an ability available, if you're not going to encourage play past that point? Its main point is to help people feel better about not multi-classing, but if you stop at 20, why was the ability really added?
So a character isn't worth playing if they won't be leveling up again? Nobody will come around and confiscate your 20th level characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a character isn't worth playing if they won't be leveling up again? Nobody will come around and confiscate your 20th level characters.
Do you only play level 1 characters? Why do you play the game past that point?
I play the game for fun. But its always nice to know something else is out there around the next corner. Some nice ability, feat, power, etc.
If I didn't, I wouldn't ever level past level 1. Or I'd play a "level-less game. But since I do play a game with levels, I like to advance in them. Stopping/topping out isn't appealing to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a character isn't worth playing if they won't be leveling up again? Nobody will come around and confiscate your 20th level characters.Do you only play level 1 characters? Why do you play the game past that point?
I play the game for fun. But its always nice to know something else is out there around the next corner. Some nice ability, feat, power, etc.
If I didn't, I wouldn't ever level past level 1. Or I'd play a "level-less game. But since I do play a game with levels, I like to advance in them. Stopping/topping out isn't appealing to me.
What stops you from--upon reaching level 20--taking a level in Dragon Disciple, or Duelist, or Barbarian, or Assassin, or Arcane Archer, or Monk, or Paladin, or Anti-Paladin, or Alchemist, or Cavalier, or Ninja, or Summoner . . . the list goes on . . . for level 21? You would gain whatever BAB and saves increase comes with the class, plus all their special abilities, plus an additional feat since it's an odd level, plus additional skill points, etc. Sure, there might be replica abilities and the like that way, but you have that same problem with multi-classing anyways.
I ask this in all seriousness, not because I'm trying to mock. The system appears to be created to level as high as you want with continually increasing numbers that just won't stop until you want them to. I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate reason why that's not a viable option, but I don't know what it is. Epic rules would pretty much do the same thing, am I right? They would simply add numbers, abilities, feats, and the like to a character that's level 20 and beyond.
What stops you from--upon reaching level 20--taking a level in Dragon Disciple, or Duelist, or Barbarian, or Assassin, or Arcane Archer, or Monk, or Paladin, or Anti-Paladin, or Alchemist, or Cavalier, or Ninja, or Summoner . . . the list goes on . . . for level 21? You would gain whatever BAB and saves increase comes with the class, plus all their special abilities, plus an additional feat since it's an odd level, plus additional skill points, etc. Sure, there might be replica abilities and the like that way, but you have that same problem with multi-classing anyways.I ask this in all seriousness, not because I'm trying to mock. The system appears to be created to level as high as you want with continually increasing numbers that just won't stop until you want them to. I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate reason why that's not a viable option, but I don't know what it is. Epic rules would pretty much do the same thing, am I right? They would simply add numbers, abilities, feats, and the like to a character that's level 20 and beyond.
Sure, we can use the Core and just make up stuff on our own. But of course, we could have done that with 3.0 or 3.5 and not gotten into Pathfinder for the most part.
I thought I mentioned it, but to write a couple of specific Examples.....
Cleric tops out at 4 Spells per level and covers all levels (1-9). Add a level of Loremaster, which is +1 Spell Level Advancement of Current Class. Where do you go from there? I can make it up, but it would be nice for a Formal Advancement Table of some sort in this case. Same works for any Caster you put 20 levels in and just adding a Prestige Class that adds to it.
Would Rangers (Arcane Archer), Paladin (Holy Vindicator) and Bards (Arcane Trickster) and other 1/2 casters eventually gain higher level spells from the same issues? Or else, see the above for the same issues.
With the "Epic Tier" would Weapons/Armor start to increase to more Artifact levels on their own? Or are they limited to just the +10 total bonus?
Would Feats like Skill Focus and Sneaky increase once you have 21+ ranks in them similiar to at 10+ ranks?
I can also sic the Wealth by Level Purests (from other threads), that since we don't have a table for that, things would get wonky from not being able to have absolute control over it (defined numbers per level).
This also comes into play by just "Playing level 20 for infinity" as you'd only be able to fight very poor opponents or your wealth would get too high for you level (this, I'll admit is not something I'd worry about normally, but without advancing in level, you'll double, triple or more the table after awhile....and I know from other threads, that would make some heads explode here).
Yes, is it doable? Sure. Is it as easy as 1+1=2? No. I'd rather have someone, who I consider to not only know what they're doing write the rules down, but someone that I (and we as a community) feel write superior products, and for me to spend my money on it. I'm not looking for a 3PP (again, why I am buying Pathfinder if a 3rd Party does it better.....). Why does that seem like such a tough concept to understand?
My campaigns never really get past level 15 or 16. However, that does not mean that I would not buy this book if and when it was ever published. I think that Paizo would be able to do it and do it well. I would like information on the building of artifacts.
Yes, is it doable? Sure. Is it as easy as 1+1=2? No. I'd rather have someone, who I consider to not only know what they're doing write the rules down, but someone that I (and we as a community) feel write superior products, and for me to spend my money on it. I'm not looking for a 3PP (again, why I am buying Pathfinder if a 3rd Party does it better.....). Why does that seem like such a tough concept to understand?
I guess, taken from this consideration, I'll ask you the same question: why are you buying Pathfinder if epic rules are what you're looking for? Especially since Pathfinder has no epic rules, and other games do.
However, if you're playing Pathfinder because you love the world, the stories that are, and can be, told in that world, and the company that continues to put out awesome products for that world, then I suppose the comment in parenthesis above answers itself.
Really, all this talk about wanting epic rules comes down to is the dislike of doing minor tweaks here and there to already existing rules to make them playable beyond 20th level? You want an official voice to tell you, "Yes, you may continue advancing number of spells in this way. Yes, you have permission to advance magical weapons beyond the +10 currently available. No, feats will not continue progression beyond the already stipulated numbers in their description."
Okay. I guess it's a tough concept for me to understand because it just seems completely unnecessary to me. But, some do love everything to be official, and it's hard to deny them that desire. From my own point-of-view, I'd much rather they continue to work on kicking out an awesome setting with awesome stories, and if I ever decide to play a game that takes my players beyond 20, I'll have a meeting with my players and say, "This is how I think we're going to do it. Any questions?" There's hundreds of levels in various classes and prestige classes and archetypes out there already. If you would like, feel free to use them.
From what I remember, there's been no definitive answer given by the developers that epic rules will be created, only answers saying, "Possibly, but perhaps never." (paraphrased)
Sure, we can use the Core and just make up stuff on our own. But of course, we could have done that with 3.0 or 3.5 and not gotten into Pathfinder for the most part.
My apologies on this one. I didn't see this as an answer to my above post because, well, it's not. If you didn't want to use the Core and just make up stuff on your own for epic rules, then 3.0 or 3.5 would have been a better choice to stay with . . . not because I think it's a better product (because it most certainly isn't), but because when you switched to Pathfinder epic rules didn't exist. And, as you well know, still don't. Thus, this justification for making the switch is illogical.
My apologies on this one. I didn't see this as an answer to my above post because, well, it's not. If you didn't want to use the Core and just make up stuff on your own for epic rules, then 3.0 or 3.5 would have been a better choice to stay with . . . not because I think it's a better product (because it most certainly isn't), but because when you switched to Pathfinder epic rules didn't exist. And, as you well know, still don't. Thus, this justification for making the switch is illogical.
Hmmm, I think you've misunderstood. I said we COULD use Core and make up stuff based on it for the Epic Portions. Or are you under the belief there is/should be a hard cap at 20? Do we stop playing then, or stop gaining treasure since that would screw up the game balance as well? I like standardized rules, which help translate from group to group easily. Part of the problem of playing in multiple groups is dealing with the Houserules/Interpretations that each has.
Secondly, are you saying that because when I switched to Pathfinder, everything that is out is all I should expect to be out? This is coming off as a quirky thing to say from someone who is a PAPSubscriber. After all, isn't that implied you're waiting on material yet to be created?
All the PF books weren't released at once. Why should I assume that all the PF books to ever be released already are?
I made the switch to PF based on the fact it is a better system than 3rd Ed (3.0 and 3.5) D&D was. I also made the assumption that it is a growing system and would continue to see support going forward. I guess I didn't realize it was in such poor shape and was already dead when I switched over /sarcasm
My apologies
Of note, if it isn't a Dead System, and Books, APs and the like are still going to be created and sold, I would like an Epic Book to be printed still :-)
|
|
Secondly, are you saying that because when I switched to Pathfinder, everything that is out is all I should expect to be out? This is coming off as a quirky thing to say from someone who is a PAPSubscriber. After all, isn't that implied you're waiting on material yet to be created?
All the PF books weren't released at once. Why should I assume that all the PF books to ever be released already are?
The tag by his name says "Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber". The adventure path subscription is for campaigns/adventures, not rules.
And when it comes to rules, I personally wouldn't object if the RPG line simply ceased after of what they already have planned (Advanced Race Guide and Ultimate Equipment), with the exception of the occasional bestiary (perhaps slowed down to once every two years or so).
Dreamscarred has already taken care of psionics, likely better than Paizo would have managed, and epic will suck no matter who does it: the d20 system begins to fall apart well before 20th level; so it'd be like trying to lay a foundation on quicksand.
Secondly, are you saying that because when I switched to Pathfinder, everything that is out is all I should expect to be out? This is coming off as a quirky thing to say from someone who is a PAPSubscriber. After all, isn't that implied you're waiting on material yet to be created?
All the PF books weren't released at once. Why should I assume that all the PF books to ever be released already are?I made the switch to PF based on the fact it is a better system than 3rd Ed (3.0 and 3.5) D&D was. I also made the assumption that it is a growing system and would continue to see support going forward. I guess I didn't realize it was in such poor shape and was already dead when I switched over /sarcasm
My apologies
Of note, if it isn't a Dead System, and Books, APs and the like are still going to be created and sold, I would like an Epic Book to be printed still :-)
ZugZug,
Pathfinder is not dead.
Sometimes what appears to be a discussion is not, and you just have to draw a line and tell Paizo what YOU want, and let others be about their business.
They may appear to discuss it, but they're not invested in finding common ground. They'd rather you just give up. Keep your power.
... and epic will suck no matter who does it: the d20 system begins to fall apart well before 20th level; so it'd be like trying to lay a foundation on quicksand.
Really? That old chestnut? You need fresher bait than that my friend :)
... and epic will suck no matter who does it: the d20 system begins to fall apart well before 20th level; so it'd be like trying to lay a foundation on quicksand.Really? That old chestnut? You need fresher bait than that my friend :)
It and bashing Paizo's ability to make a Good set of post 20 rules are all he has going for him really.
True, but it is hard to balance an encounter around the idea that someone, might use a feat to voluntarily reduce their attack bonus. I was looking at ways to keep the d20 relevant for all classes, without hoping the player's don't try to power game.Well the more I look at this the more I realize where the math issue is. By 20th level you have already skewed the range to the point where either the +.5 classes can't hit, or the +1 classes can't miss. (the first one is really fine since what the hell is the wizard doing trying to stab someone at this point.) However as you go forward, between BAB, magic modifiers, and ability score increases, you start to have the same issue with the +.75 classes. Which says to me feats that give attack bonuses, weapons with more than a +5 bonus, and items that give you more then +6 to a stat probably need to go. Time to start looking at damage output.Or you could just let the fighter use Power Attack and Stunning Assault, say, while the magus doesn't.
There are plenty of ways for characters to sink attack bonuses if they become "too high"
Maybe. I like to assume that the players generally take a fairly active role in it, it is not necessarily something the GM has to feed them. IE, if the barbarian can hit all the time normally, a smart player will use Power Attack frequently and perhaps pick up one of the other such feats. So it ends up a self-correcting problem, since the Power Attack penalty increases at exactly the same rate as the attack advantage between 3/4 and full BAB does.
|
|
It and bashing Paizo's ability to make a Good set of post 20 rules are all he has going for him really.... and epic will suck no matter who does it: the d20 system begins to fall apart well before 20th level; so it'd be like trying to lay a foundation on quicksand.Really? That old chestnut? You need fresher bait than that my friend :)
Sometimes "old chestnuts" become that because they're true.
Oh, and Talonhawke? Love you too, man! :)
If you stick to RAW and wealth-by-level, games can continue easily past 20.
It's the temptation for GM and players alike to allow power creep that kills most high level games.