|
There's no specific plans for an epic adventure yet, maybe one day. A continuation of Rise of the Runelord is certainly a possibility, but James did indicate that there would be other possibilities as by the time they do get to an epic AP if they do one.
I think there was a comment about holding off on epic AP until after PRPG did epic rules too. Which means they have to do a Monster Manual and a Psionic book before it.
|
It sounds like to me, that Paizo folks are anxious to roll up their sleeves and fix the epic problems with 3.5. I wouldn't mind if they did. I also wouldn't mind saying they don't have to keep my Epic Level Handbook validated either. I would be very open to buying an epic handbook exclusively made by Paizo that would rethink the whole epic level gaming. Most of the WotC material never considered epic play in their creation, so no harm really done there.
A rethinking of Epic Level could lead into a whole other game entirely, and I would be right there slamming my money on the table for it. Epic seems too trite to be taken as creating greater challenges. I would say Epic is about huge wars, battles with god-born titans, travels to unknown lands of myth that the Gods only know of, massive clashes with champions representing their own Gods. I really believe that if Paizo made an epic system that was fluidly fast, but yet ego stroking enough to pass as the next stage in a character's evolution, that I think they could win over the power gamers that 4.0 is trying to reign in from the WoW crowd.
I remember hearing the designers of 4.0 saying, "We needed a new system so we could get characters to that 3rd (tier21st-30th Level) where everyone gives up. We want to make the high level playable and fun". That is not an exact qoute, but what I remember reading.
I admit, that is a serious weak point of the game. When the DM has to spend hours making a high level challenge that may either kill or be killed easily, things are not right.
I believe Lisa said that they want to fix this. I think this should go a step further, remake it! Take all those feats and trade them in to make a few super feats, and then have the characters earn more super feats from there. Merge all those minor spells into just a few powerful spells. Simplify while still magnifying the epic character. Create a system that mirrors the one that the players are used to, but have them buy in to the epic character by sacrificing their complexity. I am not saying dumb it down, but rather bringing the predictability back up.
To close, I really think that if Paizo creates a system they are happy with, it will only follow that they would create Epic Level adventures, strutting off what they have accomplished. I really believe Paizo staff loves the adventure making side of the hobby (and that was true of Gygax too), and epic adventures would create a new aspect in which to tell these stories (and a fairly untapped one at that).
Cheers,
Zux
|
Epic does need a major overhaul.
We play Epic levels irregularly now. But it is a nightmare to play. I play the fighter (go figure) and I have so many feats to track it isn't funny. And the spellcasters have it even worse.
There needs to be a way to simplify Epic.
But to be honest I think that Epic has to be integrated into the general design from the start. Fewer abilities that increase in power so that at lvl 27 you still have a manageable work load.
Right now a lvl 27 human fighter would have at least 28 feats to worry about and a few other abilities.
But if anyone can do it I expect Paizo can.
I vote for an epic campaign against the Peacock Spirit!
For what that's worth.
|
An epic level book work be great. I agree that the 3.0 epic book was not really all that well done. Paizo would have to address basic things like bad saving throws vs good. To clarify, if you have a fighter with their normal saving throw progression their fort save would be awesome compared to their will save and at epic levels the difference between the two becomes greater and greater thus a saving throw that is easy for a fighter might be next to impossible for a caster, etc. Which in turn makes balancing harder because what is a challenge for a fighter is next to impossible for a caster, etc.
With an Epic Level book, we would also need epic level adventures or even better an Epic level Adventure path. As was suggested above it could be something like finding and defeating the remaining Rune Lords, or additions to other Adventure Paths.
One idea is to limit the progression of normal classes to 20 levels, prestige classes to 5 or 10 levels, and then you could always present epic level prestige classes.
I can go on and on, but I will just leave it at this; an Epic Level book would be great, some epic level adventure paths would also be great, I think that in general when someone takes a character from level 1-20 they do not want to give up their character to start over that they have worked so hard on.
I wouldn't mind having a chance to enjoy that 20th level capstone for a few levels.
I wouldn't mind having a chance to enjoy that 20th level capstone for a few levels.But then there will be new epic abilities that it would be nice to have a few levels to enjoy. But those levels will always come with new toys to play with, which will require more levels to use them, etc
Where does it end?
Maybe it doesn't. Why does it need to end?
Why do you need a few more levels to use those capstone abilities? Why not a few more sessions? There's nothing that says you have to retire a 20th level character. They don't suddenly die or lose all their powers or something, they just don't get better anymore. They've reached the top of their careers, the pinnacle of human (or whatever) achievement.
Unless, of course, they haven't.
Saying "You can just keep playing at level 20, therefore you don't need levels above 20" is a correct statement. Someone can indeed do this. On the other hand, using that as a rationale for not creating above-20 rules doesn't gain anyone anything.
The person who has no desire for above-20 rules has gained nothing - but then again they didn't want anything. The person who does have a desire for above-20 rules has also gained nothing, even though they did want something.
I guess the only person who has gained anything would be a person who desires that someone else not gain something, even if they personally don't want it themselves - they gain the satisfaction of denying someone else.
Why do you need a few more levels to use those capstone abilities? Why not a few more sessions? There's nothing that says you have to retire a 20th level character. They don't suddenly die or lose all their powers or something, they just don't get better anymore. They've reached the top of their careers, the pinnacle of human (or whatever) achievement.That doesn't mean you have to stop playing them. If you're still having fun playing them, if the rest of your group is still having fun, if the GM still has interesting challenges for you, keep playing.
I know part of the thrill of the game is the treadmill, getting tougher, getting new abilities, facing tougher challenges, etc, but it's not the only thrill to the game.
This isn't necessarily an argument against an Epic Pathfinder book, just against one of the arguments for it.
The two bolded parts are the key points that my table disagrees with. My players happen to enjoy getting better; once they hit level 20, they honestly feel like there's no more reason to go on with the game. We've tried in our past few campaigns to do a session or two after hitting level 20, but none of us are into it since they don't progress anymore.
And since they're not really getting anything out of running around for a session or two (aside from rp, which they've had all campaign), none of us really see a need to play anymore after hitting level 20.
Believe me, there's plenty that can be done after level 20, and this is spoken from experience. Not Pathfinder experience, obviously, but definitely from experience. But I vehemently disagree with all the folks that say that 3.5e epic rules work with Pathfinder - they absolutely do not. The reverse is not true; Pathfinder rules can work within a 3.5e epic game, but specific limitations and assumptions need to be made.
For example, Pathfinder did away with all XP costs for spells, a change that I personally find to be a good one. Instead, they made certain spells rather expensive in terms of components - wish comes to mind. On the other hand, 3.5e completely did away with components for high-enough level casters. Thus, if you allow Pathfinder spells into a 3.5e epic game, you suddenly have free wishes. Not a terribly desirable thing.
Unless, of course, they haven't.
Saying "You can just keep playing at level 20, therefore you don't need levels above 20" is a correct statement. Someone can indeed do this. On the other hand, using that as a rationale for not creating above-20 rules doesn't gain anyone anything.
The person who has no desire for above-20 rules has gained nothing - but then again they didn't want anything. The person who does have a desire for above-20 rules has also gained nothing, even though they did want something.
I guess the only person who has gained anything would be a person who desires that someone else not gain something, even if they personally don't want it themselves - they gain the satisfaction of denying someone else.
I wish Paizo would put any post-20 rules on hold and it has nothing to do with denying someone else the opportunity to enjoy them (although that is unfortunately a corollary, in the unlikely event that my wish was granted). My opposition to epic rules is based on an assumption that Paizo will put out exactly two rulebooks per year (not counting bestiaries) and that I'm more likely to enjoy whatever option is not produced so that they can produce epic rules. I'm also assuming that I will enjoy the other sourcebooks/support articles more if they are limited to things I may eventually use.
My desire for Paizo to ignore post-20 play has nothing to do with anyone else - it's just that, given the limits of resources, both groups can't be satisfied. It's incorrect to say:
"The person who has no desire for above-20 rules has gained nothing - but then again they didn't want anything."
they did want something - they wanted something else which is now not being produced (or which is pushed back). There's no malice in the conflict, but there is nonetheless unavoidable conflict - the laws of economics are like that.
lots of thingsApologies gbonehead. My post wasn't clear enough and I can see why you'd think I'm against post 20 play, which is the complete opposite of how I feel.
In my efforts to prove a point to thejeff, I realize I wasn't clear enough. So, this is what I really meant - since there is no rules for post 20 play right now, my players lose all interest in playing anymore once they hit level 20.
Have you attempted to convert the 3.5 Epic book(where can I find this update? I know the DMG had some updates, as well as some of the splat books, but was there ever a different update besides those ones?) for use with Pathfinder? From what I've been reading, it's starting to come to that for us to keep playing beyond level 20.
And free wishes is highly undesirable. That will be the biggest challenge of the conversion - how to handle that. I'd hate to outright ban a spell, but I might have to do so with that one and miracle. At least with Miracle, the God can always say "no".
I haven't converted the ELH to Pathfinder so much as I've allowed all Pathfinder rules into my 3.5e game; in general the only things that need adjustment are things that are skill based, since Pathfinder lumped together a lot of skills that were separate in 3.5e.
In reality, it's not the rules so much that needed adjusting for us; it's that we use a very specific play style to make it work. The campaign is very, very lean on treasure (and time); this removes a lot of the secondary effects that cause such breakage at high level - it's impossible to create crazy epic spells if you've got limited time and cash.
Removing XP costs really doesn't really cause much of a breakage except for wish, and all I've done is establish that there's two forms of wish ... a lesser one (the one in the Pathfinder book) that can do nothing more than specifically what it says, and the greater one (the 3.5e version) that you can use at your own risk; they've burned as much as 10,000xp a pop when they needed to do something powerful, and they never know what it's going to cost them ahead of time - and so far they haven't even really done anything crazy with it. I'm not shy about charging XP for wish.
I think that if you simply ditch the Ignore Material Components feat, you're 75% of the way there - that one feat causes a lot of spells to become excessively powerful, since things like 5,000gp components don't matter any more.
Plus, ditch all the funky druid wild shape feats ... they make druids crazy powerful.
Avoid epic spells; while the system is cool, I do think it's broken. I only use it for plot reasons - mythals, that sort of thing.
Now, if you want to run a standard Wealth by Level campaign under epic rules I don't have a lot of advice for you :) The original ELH designers realized this was an issue; that's why they changed the treasure by encounter tables after CR 20.
Unless, of course, they haven't.
Saying "You can just keep playing at level 20, therefore you don't need levels above 20" is a correct statement. Someone can indeed do this. On the other hand, using that as a rationale for not creating above-20 rules doesn't gain anyone anything.
The person who has no desire for above-20 rules has gained nothing - but then again they didn't want anything. The person who does have a desire for above-20 rules has also gained nothing, even though they did want something.
I guess the only person who has gained anything would be a person who desires that someone else not gain something, even if they personally don't want it themselves - they gain the satisfaction of denying someone else.
I wish Paizo would put any post-20 rules on hold and it has nothing to do with denying someone else the opportunity to enjoy them (although that is unfortunately a corollary, in the unlikely event that my wish was granted). My opposition to epic rules is based on an assumption that Paizo will put out exactly two rulebooks per year (not counting bestiaries) and that I'm more likely to enjoy whatever option is not produced so that they can produce epic rules. I'm also assuming that I will enjoy the other sourcebooks/support articles more if they are limited to things I may eventually use.
My desire for Paizo to ignore post-20 play has nothing to do with anyone else - it's just that, given the limits of resources, both groups can't be satisfied. It's incorrect to say:
"The person who has no desire for above-20 rules has gained nothing - but then again they didn't want anything."
they did want something - they wanted something else which is now not being produced (or which is pushed back). There's no malice in the conflict, but there is nonetheless unavoidable conflict - the laws of economics are like that.
Ah, you noticed that :)
However, that's only a tradeoff if it's a zero sum game, which I think it's not. In a non-zero sum game, both groups can get what they want, and my belief is that what Paizo publishes isn't a zero sum game.
That's my hope, anyways :)
they did want something - they wanted something else which is now not being produced (or which is pushed back). There's no malice in the conflict, but there is nonetheless unavoidable conflict - the laws of economics are like that.
I'm somewhat curious what that something else is. I mean, by the time we get Ultimate Races and Ultimate Gear, most of the basic game will be covered. Do people really want Extra Advanced Players Guide?
I will admit I'd take a book on Kingdoms, Armies, and Navies. But I still want my Mythic Adventures eventually. Even if it is only a section in the back of a high level GM guide.
they did want something - they wanted something else which is now not being produced (or which is pushed back). There's no malice in the conflict, but there is nonetheless unavoidable conflict - the laws of economics are like that.I'm somewhat curious what that something else is. I mean, by the time we get Ultimate Races and Ultimate Gear, most of the basic game will be covered. Do people really want Extra Advanced Players Guide?
I will admit I'd take a book on Kingdoms, Armies, and Navies. But I still want my Mythic Adventures eventually. Even if it is only a section in the back of a high level GM guide.
Well, speaking for myself, I'd much prefer some rules support directed towards the non-combat part of the game. Rules for developing political influence, faction rules (as in rules modelling the shifting alliances between factions, not as in the faction guide). I'd like rules on running a mercantile campaign, a religious campaign featuring crusades, heresies and schisms. Things like that.
There's also the inevitable (given Paizo's welcome policy of supporting their products) dilution of the other product lines. The flavor material in the campaign settings and player companions is going to include some epic-level material. Some modules will be aimed at post-level 20 play. All of those things mean that I get less of what I'm actually looking for. Although I suspect I'll enjoy Paizo's take on high level play, I suspect I'd enjoy other stuff more.
I have a relatively pessimistic attitude on getting my way, in this case. My main reason for continuing to comment is that it feels to me that those in favor of Epic rules often portray the naysayers as being 'opposed to others getting what they want' or somesuch. I like to challenge that perception, since my desire to influence Paizo and their production schedule has nothing to do with anyone else - it's entirely about telling them what I want so that they can factor that in to their decision.
However, that's only a tradeoff if it's a zero sum game, which I think it's not. In a non-zero sum game, both groups can get what they want, and my belief is that what Paizo publishes isn't a zero sum game.
That's my hope, anyways :)
I'd like it to be true too, I don't think it is though.
As I mentioned, I am assuming Paizo will only produce two non-bestiary rulebooks per year (at least in the medium term). In that case, opportunity cost is a fact of life. If they make 'Ultimate Steampunk' and 'Ultimate Planetraveller' in 2013, they won't be making Epic rules. If they then go on to produce 'Ultimate Intrigue' and 'Ultimate Merchant' - you're going to have to wait another year*.
There just isnt any way for everyone to get what they want. Stating what one prefers (and what one doesn't) isn't an attempt to impinge anyone else's enjoyment. An unfortunate corollary of me getting what I want would be that people who don't share my tastes don't get whay they want. That's just life in a world of scarce resources.
* Hopefully it's clear that this isn't my prediction or an argument for any of these things - they're just an illustration.
However, that's only a tradeoff if it's a zero sum game, which I think it's not. In a non-zero sum game, both groups can get what they want, and my belief is that what Paizo publishes isn't a zero sum game.
That's my hope, anyways :)
I'd like it to be true too, I don't think it is though.
As I mentioned, I am assuming Paizo will only produce two non-bestiary rulebooks per year (at least in the medium term). In that case, opportunity cost is a fact of life. If they make 'Ultimate Steampunk' and 'Ultimate Planetraveller' in 2013, they won't be making Epic rules. If they then go on to produce 'Ultimate Intrigue' and 'Ultimate Merchant' - you're going to have to wait another year*.
There just isnt any way for everyone to get what they want. Stating what one prefers (and what one doesn't) isn't an attempt to impinge anyone else's enjoyment. An unfortunate corollary of me getting what I want would be that people who don't share my tastes don't get whay they want. That's just life in a world of scarce resources.
* Hopefully it's clear that this isn't my prediction or an argument for any of these things - they're just an illustration.
Oh, I get you. But my belief is that it's also important to Paizo to grow both in market share and market size, and I'm hoping they things they're currently doing will do that.
Things like the minis line and the beginner box seem to support that ... and if they do in fact grow, they might be able to expand their offereings somewhat.
Of course, hopefully my wallet will expand apace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too hope they expand their offering (although my preference is for more flavor material, rather than rules). We don't really seem to disagree and I don't really have much to say about epic rules. My only real point was to challenge this:
"The person who has no desire for above-20 rules has gained nothing - but then again they didn't want anything. The person who does have a desire for above-20 rules has also gained nothing, even though they did want something.
I guess the only person who has gained anything would be a person who desires that someone else not gain something, even if they personally don't want it themselves - they gain the satisfaction of denying someone else."
Because I would like to tell paizo what I want without being told that I'm just stopping other people having fun. As I understand your subsequent posts, this quote isn't actually indicative of your views.
Epic Pathfinder would be awesome, and I would enjoy seeing one or two adventure paths take a campaign to and past the cusp of epic - a redit of Maure Castle or a fullout expansion of the whole place would be highly acceptable in my book. I know they have the talent at Paizo to do epic correctly and perhaps we as players would be able to take part of the beta testing of such new rules, something that WotC failed to do.
Cheers!
I believe it's on Paizo's "We'll get to it eventually" list.
If they did publish an Epic Book and an Epic Adventure Path, I'd like to see them mix Runelords and Crimson Throne together.
In Curse of the Crimson Throne it's mentioned Sorshen was one of the deadliest of all the Runelords. I don't know if that's fluff text or by design, but James Jacobs recently said, "And it's worth keeping in mind that Sorshen was far above 20th level; she was one of the most powerful spellcasters to ever grace the Inner Sea Region, in fact."
This, in my mind, makes it a very good possibility she may even be the highest level Runelord and only Tar-Baphon, Nex, and Geb are her equals.
In Runelords, Karzoug is a 16 wizard/4 archgmage, but Sorshen is described as being far above 20, so she's more powerful than Karzoug.
While I would love to see a continuation of those two adventure paths, it's more likely (in my mind), that any Epic Path would feature Tar-Baphon and answer the mysteries of Aroden.
I think a test of the starstone AP would be amongst the most Golarion-ey epic stories one could tell.
What more epic tale is there than becoming a God?
Killing a mage so powerful, when he fights Demi-Gods, he toys with them.
|
I'm somewhat curious what that something else is. I mean, by the time we get Ultimate Races and Ultimate Gear, most of the basic game will be covered. Do people really want Extra Advanced Players Guide?
I somewhat agree, but if I were in charge my solution would be to offer books that cover more fringe topics, possibly ones that don't have much place in Golarion. Sort of like setting templates, or even fully-realized mini-settings. Also, some books on advice for GMs who want to craft their own worlds/campaigns/adventures/dungeons. A few examples of books I would prefer to any type of Epic/Legendary rules:
Steampunk Pathfinder - Rules for non-magical technology, and advice on how to integrate it into pre-existing campaigns.
Horror Campaigns - Advice on running horror themed campaigns of various types, expanded.
Norse Mythology - We all know it's the coolest real-world mythology, so having a good PFRPG reference for it would be nice.
World-Bulding Guide - Advice on creating your own world, crafting your own campaign, and making memorable adventures.
Ultimate Dungeons - Advice on creating a memorable, exciting dungeon, whether it be a small one-level affair or a full-on megadungeon with dozens of levels. Lots of puzzles, riddles, and traps.
Ultimate Templates - Take the Advanced Bestiary, the Book of Templates Deluxe Edition 3.5, any any remaining templates from the SRD; Pathfinder-ize them, add a few new ones, and throw them into one big book that suddenly increases the amount of monsters availible to INFINITE.
What I would like to see is Pathfinders version of the Stronghold Builder's Guide. Strongholds are something the PC's build in just about all of our campaigns, so we would definitely put it to use. We use the D&D 3.0 softcover right now for our PF campaign, but would love to see an official Pathfinder one.
Much as I hate thread necromancy, I think I'm about to practice it a bit.
It seems theres been an interest in Epic level Pathfinder as far back as 08. Four years is a long wait. Is there actually any plans at all for something along these lines, REAL plans, not ones made of smoke and mirrors? Or is this like one of those fan based Baldur's Gate expansions people talk about in forums for 8 years or more with the author telling you thanks for sticking around and they're "still working on it"?
I guess Paizo wanted to flesh out level 1 through 20 play before they hit the epic stuff but it all seems pretty well packed as it is. It'd be nice to have some guidelines for all those hints they drop of characters over level 20 for those of interested in that kind of play.
Paizo announced Mythic Rules at GenCon. It's their answer to 'Epic' Rules. It won't be increasing your character level above 20, but it will be increasing your power level above 20.
You will be able to gain up to 10 Mythic Tiers. Each Tier increases your Challenge Rating on a 1 for 1 basis. So you could be a level 20 Character with 10 Mythic Tier and be a CR 29 threat.
Mythic Rules will allow you to take on things like Demigods, Demon Lords, Archdevils, Empyreal Lords, Great Old Ones etc.
However, Mythic Rules will not be a 20+ supplement. You'll be able to gain Mythic Tiers as early as level 1. You are capable of having half your level in Mythic Tiers. So from level 1 - 3 you can have 1 Tier, but at level 4, you could have 2 Tiers.
Mythic Tiers will not be gained through Experience. They will be gained by performing deeds, or at the GM's discretion. Mythic Rules will also endeavor to not just give numerical bonuses, as much as new abilities that increase your power.
Here is an example of a Mythic Minotaur posted recently as a Sneak Peek.
Here is the Blog Announcement.
There will be an open playtest, hopefully starting by the end of September, or early October. Anyone is allowed to test the Mythic Rules if they desire to, so we'll find more information then.
Thanks for the links! Looks like my question is answered. Sweeeeeet.
|
|
My understanding of the Mythic idea is that it is not Epic rules at all really, but Ive purposefully avoided hearing about it ntil the book comes out.
That being said, the implication I read when I first heard about Mythic play was that it was not Epic at all. A very different rules for a very different focus of play.
Honestly Epic rules is the very top of my wish list. But at this point, I honestly wish that they would do a new core system (PF 1.5) first and base the Epic rules off of that so that all the other new materials could have Epic options included rather than try to cram it all into an Epic level play book.
That and the fact that PF is even less balanced and solid than 3.5, an Epic book at this point would be prety terrible.