21st level?
Is there even such a thing as a '21st' level in Pathfinder? All of the characters listed as level '20+' in Inner Sea Magic who have since received full stat blocks have been statted out as level 20 with mythic tiers (except Elvanna), not level 21 or anything higher. - HTD (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- While I'm not sure which (if any) canon works explicitly stated characters 21st level or higher, there's no theoretical limit cap in the Pathfinder rules. Because some powerful characters in older works (like the Runelords and some demi-gods) were described as being more powerful than 20th-level characters, the 20+ categories are catch-alls.
- Characters' current mechanics don't necessarily overrule their prior mechanics for people who don't own the newer books—and our primary concerns about actually resolving conflicts are canonical, not mechanical—so for things like changes in classes or changes in rules around high-powered characters, we err on the side of potentially having duplicate information or categories to help people discover content even if they only have older works. -Oznogon (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, gaining class levels isn't the only way to increase in power. There are also mythic tiers, templates and other bonuses which PCs cannot get, but can increase the CR of a particular NPC beyond 20, even if they only have 20 class levels in total (which seems to be the sole purpose of these categories: sorting characters by class level and nothing else). From what Return of the Runelords is unfurling, we'll be getting full stats for Alaznist and Sorshen in volume 6, and I won't be surprised at all if they are level 20 wizards with some mythic tiers, not anything above level 20. Unless if what you're proposing is that we should search for all level 20 wizards with mythic tiers and re-add them here, and do the same thing for all other classes... - HTD (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
| “
|
Well, gaining class levels isn't the only way to increase in power. There are also mythic tiers, templates and other bonuses which PCs cannot get
|
”
|
- The categories in question are for class levels, and categories for mythic tiers (such as the children of Category:Archmages by tier) and templates either already exist or can.
- If you want to categorize these characters as Category:Wizards of 20th level and so on for other classes—adding to, not replacing, the 20+ categories—to reflect that newer statblocks depict them as having exactly 20 Wizard levels, that makes sense and I have no concerns.
- Updating the infobox content with the most recent information is valid as long as conflicts with past sources are cited and explained per the canon policy and {{Conflict}} template usage.
- If the currently cited sources are inaccurate, or if a Paizo staff member explicitly confirms that previous mechanical descriptions were in error or have been made fully invalid, removing the content is acceptable with a specific explanation and a link to the confirming source.
- But I would otherwise strongly advise against removing valid existing game-mechanic categories that were based on older statblocks or mechanical descriptions simply because a newer source describes the mechanics differently. These mechanical categories are designed to aid in discovery of canon information, not to be an authoritative source of the current or specifically sanctioned mechanical information. They are an exception to the no crunch policy, and a somewhat tenuous one. Both categories can be simultaneously valid for the purpose of helping users find canon, in-universe information about characters based on how they're described in all valid, canon Paizo works.
| “
|
Unless if what you're proposing is that we should search for all level 20 wizards with mythic tiers and re-add them here, and do the same thing for all other classes...
|
”
|
- Not at all, not in anything I've written or addressed to you here and elsewhere, and I apologize if I'm misreading this but with all respect this doesn't sound like an earnest or good-faith interpretation of my intent.
- My primary request here is to please refrain from deleting existing content, citations, or categories without discussion. This is a request based on canon policy built and maintained collaboratively. If you believe the policy is wrong, please request a change to it. -Oznogon (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
| “
|
I apologize if I'm misreading this but with all respect this doesn't sound like an earnest or good-faith interpretation of my intent.
|
”
|
- Well, that was just an example for the purpose of illustration; I didn't actually interpret what you said as that. I guess that's just how I usually argue, and I apologise for any headaches or confusion that you might have got. - HTD (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also I took the time to ask James Jacobs and this is what he said:
| “
|
20th level is the cap. If we/you want a creature/NPC to be more powerful than 20th level gives them, you have to give them racial hit dice, templates, mythic abilities, or just make stuff up for them; when you do so use the monster building guidelines in the Bestiary as benchmarks.
|
”
|
- I guess I should be adding these characters to the level 20 category now. - HTD (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Despite saying that you would add the level 20 category to those articles, which I had acknowledged would be appropriate, you instead replaced the 20+ category with it. Again, removing articles from the 20+ category does not help people find these articles based on their description as such in older sources, so I've restored the 20+ category to those articles.
- James's clarification is helpful for the purposes of adding the level 20 category and in infobox descriptions of character classes, which I'd already stated above, but as I'd also already stated, it does not override previous canon descriptions for categorization purposes. Categories help visitors discover articles based on common descriptions; categories are not and should not be inherently exclusive; relevant categories, even those that you disagree with or perceive as being low value, do not harm visitors by existing; we should not rush to remove categories based on past canon descriptions, even those in conflict with newer sources.
- I cannot state this any more clearly:
- Please do not remove categories that represent non-conflicting past canon descriptions, even those in conflict with the current state of an article.
- As discussed elsewhere, please do not remove citations or non-conflicting content that represent past canon descriptions.
- Please cite canon conflicts by using {{Conflict}}, and please describe the sources and resolution of the conflict, per the canon policy.
- -Oznogon (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
