My level 100 Commoner, deity of potatoes, back pain, and going out to the outhouse to get away from the kids.
I want to see this.
I really like using mythic as epic.
I know that it isn't, but it works very well that way. Because of that, I really see pathfinder as a 30 level system.Really though, a system that goes to 50 would be more believably incorporated, it would mean gaining levels faster and gaining less at each level, but that might not be a bad thing.
I kind of agree here.
I'm not sure I agree for the same reasons, but I do think it wouldn't necessarily be a 'bad' thing for the scope to have changed to that. Now I'm not saying the enemies stay on the 1-20 scale either. So your tarrasque would relate to CR 55 instead of wherever it is currently.
I think maybe with 50 levels, you could have enough play room to really customize your characters development. While I agree it seems that there's a lot of 'empty' levels if you go that way, that's because inherently classes are *built* around level 20. One thing is for certain, it would definitely be an overhaul to make things work.
You know, that MMO reference might be something worth looking at. What do they do so they can have a span of content that works? I know that WoW had increased level caps, but that turned out messy and they had to 'rebalance' the system several times. That's something we can't do with PnP books, since a major 'patch' like that is better off made as a new Edition. But... there are games that have done well with development over many levels while preserving the sense of growth and feeling invested in your character without losing anything.
I think if I had put all the work into making a system with higher levels I would have to seriously reconsider the dice mechanics. *sigh*
Instead of a (semi-)hard limit of 20, or 50, or 100, or whatever, I would rather see the limit done away with, and capstones replaced by smoother power increases . . .and more consistent too -- some capstones are terrible or at least anti-climactic (a certain subset of Sorcerer Bloodlines and Oracle Mysteries) or even nonexistent (Cleric) while others are bonkers overpowered (Ninja and Arcane Sorcerer). Capstone power does not necessarily correlate with OR inversely with class overall power -- Cleric is certainly not underpowered, but has no capstone, while Rogue is underpowered, but gets a not-too-shabby capstone although rather late in the offering, while Ninja is more powerful overall than Rogue, but gets a really deadly capstone.
I see the same way for spells, especially given that the wording of the description of Limited Wish and Wish spells lends itself very easily to generating a whole series of Wish spells from level 0 (currently called Prestidigitation) to beyond IX with no sudden breaking point, just like Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally (which likewise could be extended). Some individual spells are overpowered anyway, but too cool to just ban entirely, so they should be level-bumped, and removing a hard limit would let you level-bump spells beyond level 4, 6, or 9 (depending upon the particular spellcasting progression), as well as removing the need to squeeze powerful spells into an overly small range (I'm thinking of the Summoner spell list, but also certain Bard and Inquisitor spells that are level 6 for these classes even though they are level 9 for other classes). The particular way spellcasting is (semi-)hard limiting spellcasting at caster level 20 also generates weird jumps in power as you get into the last few levels up to 20.
To address the problem of excessive Base Attack Bonus and Base Saving Throw divergence, I would have:
Base Attack Bonus beyond 20 advances at +1/2 per level (like D&D 3.5 Epic), but the remainder of any further Base Attack Bonus at +3/4 or +1 that you would have gotten without this rule gets converted into Damage Reduction Penetration. Fractions wouldn't do anything by themselves, but would stack to form whole numbers (which would also help with multiclassing at the lower levels -- right now Rules As Written makes Oracle 1/Rogue 1/Wizard 1 have BAB = 0 + 0 + 0 = +0, but with tracking and stacking of fractions, Oracle 1/Rogue 1/Wizard 1 would have BAB 3.4 + 3/4 + 1/2 = +2).
Base Saving Throw Bonus (not including the +2 for starting a base class with a good save(*)) beyond +10 advances at +1/3 per level (like D&D 3.5 Epic), but any further Base Saving Throw that would have been +1/2 per level (good save) gets its remainder converted into Spell Resistance that specifically doesn't limit your ability to accept helpful spells or require expenditure of an action to do so, and stacks with and passes this ability on to any other Spell Resistance you may have (which you need, since the amount of Spell Resistance you get this way would not be huge even if you are a Monk -- although taking a cue from D&D 5th Edition and having 6 saves instead of just 3 would balnace this out to being about right). Again, fractions wouldn't do anything by themselves, but would stack to form whole numbers (once again helping a bit with multiclassing at the lower levels in the same way as with Base Attack Bonus).
(*)The effective +2 you get for starting a base class with a good save would become a separate part of your saving throw called a Saving Throw Starting Bonus -- this would stack with Base Saving Throw Bonus for the same save, but would not stack with another Saving Throw Starting Bonus for the same save, thus eliminating the abnormally high saves that you can get at low levels with certain multiclassing combinations -- seems like a fair trade for the tracking and stacking of fractions.
The amount of experience needed to gain levels should also increase smoothly beyond level 20 according to the (at least approximately) same formula used before level 20, rather than jumping exponentially.
I wouldn't expect most people to play far beyond level 20, but people also shouldn't have to feel like they are running off a cliff when they get to level 20.
I'd hate it to be spread out on 100 instead of a solid 20. With 100 you'd level up every session, or multiple times every session even.
I did the math on that early in the thread. Using approximations for campaign length and session length, you would be levelling 4-5 times a session if you want it to last the same amount of time.
20 is a solid number that allows scaling abilities at every level for most classes while maintaining a certain level of power.
A 100 level system would mean either requiring a TON more abilities for each class, or stretching out the levels at which each ability is gained.
Essentially you'd have the Final Fantasy effect in play, most levels only grant an extra +1 or +2, with every few levels providing a new ability or spell.
Granted that doesn't answer the overarching question of "Why 20 and not 10? Or 30?" but "Why not 100?" is pretty easy to nail down.
that just made me flash back to college and the guy who was obsessed with ffvii who wanted to make his own tabletop...it was indeed a 99 level game, with 9999 as max damage you could do. I think you rolled d10s for damage. It was a long time ago. Wonder whatever happened to him or how it turned out.
If I remember correctly, the game Mythender basically goes to lv100, kinda.
Maybe it doesn't even have a level cap.
All I remember about Mythender is that you are supposed to roll literally hundreds of dice - the intention being that you cart around PLASTIC TUBS of dice to play it - and that you are considered to be doing that much damage when you roll.
That being said, the whole setup is that you are basically trying to overthrow the current Overdeity, ala Kratos, and you are hucking planet-sized Kamehamehas at enemies to do so.
So, yeah, taking "powergaming" to an entirely new level of Gurren-Lagann-esque insanity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly, the game Mythender basically goes to lv100, kinda.
Maybe it doesn't even have a level cap.
All I remember about Mythender is that you are supposed to roll literally hundreds of dice - the intention being that you cart around PLASTIC TUBS of dice to play it - and that you are considered to be doing that much damage when you roll.
That being said, the whole setup is that you are basically trying to overthrow the current Overdeity, ala Kratos, and you are hucking planet-sized Kamehamehas at enemies to do so.
So, yeah, taking "powergaming" to an entirely new level of Gurren-Lagann-esque insanity.
Pff. "Planet sized Kamehameha" as insane as Gurren Lagann?
Come brag to me when you hit every point in space/time with laser drills simultaneously, WIMP.
Heh.
I was just pointing out the (relative) weakness of "planet sized attack" when the LOW KEY version of the final battle BEGINS like this.
I only played a 3x Epic campaign once that took several years to acquire up to around level 40 and I absolutely detested the experience and never want to play another PC that goes above 18th level. If Pathfinder went to 50th level, I'd still stop at 18-ish. Very high level just seems to be broken at all points.
^Well, of course, if the Epic rules are implemented badly, the experience could sour you on the concept.
I haven't had the chance to play under 3.5 Epic, but I did read the Epic section of the SRD, and it seems to me that while the designers were making an honest attempt to create playable rules (for instance, taking measures to avoid getting a ridiculous spread between good saves and bad saves or good BAB and bad BAB/armor), the implementation was extremely flawed. Still, having also read the Pathfinder Mythic rules section of the SRD (or at least this as it was shortly after it was put on d20pfsrd.com), and then having heard quite a lot of posts from people on these boards that pretty much agree with my observations, I'm not convinced that 3.5 Epic rules were worse (except for the Epic Spells section, which seemed just insanely convoluted and both user- and GM- unfriendly).
Epic doesn't mean much the first few levels. 21-22 is fine (to the extent that 18-20 is fine).
If I remember correctly, the game Mythender basically goes to level 100,kinda.
Maybe it doesn't even have a level cap.
Not only does Mythender not have a level cap, it doesn't have levels at all, really. There's a sliding scale of power with some serious tradeoffs (the power corrupts you) , but you can go both ways on the scale, to a point. It's a neat system, but very much not Pathfinder.
One of Pathfinder/D&D.'s greatest strenghts is its ability to handle BOTH realms of realism (at low levels) and realms of godlike power (at high levels) in the same system. Other systems might do one or the other better, but can't handle both with the same (relatively) smooth transition. Increasing granularity so that it's a 100 level game doesn't make that better. The alternative, scaling the power ceiling even higher, might be worse. That kind of scale would make me feel like the low level stuff just didn't mean anything at al.
^Well, of course, if the Epic rules are implemented badly, the experience could sour you on the concept.
I don't think that was the problem - we have 3 GMs at our table, and the most experienced, myself, actually design PF 3PP content - I know how to read even badly written rules. The problem is that nothing felt "Epic" rather more of the same acquisition of class features - feats, spells, etc, and badly broken versions of those features.
And if you think a CR 18 encounter takes a long time to run - like an hour, try to fit into your mind 6 players in a CR 40 encounter. One encounter takes the entire evening session to run - boring...
^Only so much you can do with badly written rules before you just end up having to rewrite them entirely.