Too many paragon paths / epic destinies

Let me begin by saying that I really appreciate the changes to character advancement that 4E has made. I like how paragon paths and epic destinies give every character "prestige class" options. I also like how paragon and epic advancement help differentiate characters within a class. However, I think Wizards has made a mistake with the implementation. Namely, there are releasing far too many of them.

There are currently 60 epic destinies and over 300 paragon paths on the D&D Compendium. This glut of paths and destinies leads to a variety of problems. With so many classes, it's harder to "vet" them to ensure game balance - some are grossly overpowered, others are woefully underpowered. Another issue I have is that with so many of these paths and destinies, the archetypes they represent tend to lack motivation; some of the archetypes are just plain bizarre. The obvious solution is just to ignore these paths and destinies, but I feel this "kitchen-sink mentality" where anything goes leads to lower product quality. I'd rather a book have only three paragon paths and extra pages of fluff then reams of useless paths I would never consider using.

The Kensei. The Divine Oracle. The Battle Captain. The Great Elder. The Adroit Explorer. The Entrancing Mystic. These are the types of paragon paths I can get behind. Their names are evocative, the archetypes they represent are interesting, and the abilities they possess are functional. Unfortunately, not all paragon paths follow this trend. I'm tempted to name off the 100+ paragon paths I feel are lacking in form and/or function, but I want to avoid the inevitable thread degeneration when people try to defend their beloved paragon path ("... but Demonskin Adept is my favorite path you big jerk!").

With respect to epic destinies, I felt the PHB1 got it just about right. They stuck to four recognizable and interesting archetypes that were reasonably well balanced (the Deadly Trickster could use a slight buff and Demigod could use a slight nerf, but I digress). After PHB1 they upped the amount of epic destinies and, surprise surprise, the quality of the destinies plummeted. The destinies in PHB2 were particularly awful. The Harbinger of Doom was a particularly disappointing one because the archetype was so interesting, yet they failed to deliver any interesting or functional mechanics with that one.

Anyways, I just thought I'd get that off my chest. If I were the D&D Lead, I'd would have done three paths per class per book and five or fewer destinies per book. Hopefully Wizards scales back a bit on the paths and destinies and ensures the ones they do release are of a higher quality.

WOTC is supposed to do the vetting of the paragon path and epic destinies before they become official. The new model of presenting playtest material in DDI should also help new paragon paths and epic destinies get balanced. I know some of the paragon paths are 'overpowered' only in some situations (There was a post about the Hospitaler ruining a Beholder encounter a while back for example).

As to the 100+ paragon paths you feel are lacking. It's probably a taste thing. Some of them I like, some of them I don't. We probably don't like the same ones.

I'm not too familiar with epic destinies so I don't have much to say about that. I don't really care for the demigod because I agree with with you that it seems a little too good.

There's not enough of them. There are many concepts that still are not covered and it is not fun to build up a character and look through the Paragon Path and EWpic Destinies and find that none fit what you are doing.

Do recall, there is no need for a DM to vet all the paths and destinies. The vast majority of them won't see action in your game, and can be ignored. You only have to vet the ones your players show interest in, and you can probably wait until they do show that interest to do so.

Crothian said:

There's not enough of them. There are many concepts that still are not covered and it is not fun to build up a character and look through the Paragon Path and EWpic Destinies and find that none fit what you are doing.

Click to expand...

Not every concept needs its own mechanic, let alone its own Paragon Path. You just have to disentangle flavour and mechanics of the existing classes (which is easy for some, more difficult for others). That's why I liked the 3.5 fighter so much; it could be anything from a gladiator to a samurai to a paladin (multiclass as cleric). I think this will be even easier with 4e classes and paths, as the mechanics have been somewhat streamlined.

Umbran said:

Do recall, there is no need for a DM to vet all the paths and destinies. The vast majority of them won't see action in your game, and can be ignored. You only have to vet the ones your players show interest in, and you can probably wait until they do show that interest to do so.

Click to expand...

That's not an excuse for the devs to come up with legions of paragon paths and destinies that aren't properly balanced. It's their job to make it work. I don't want to tell my players time and time again that they can't take this or that uber-paragon path because it's exactly that, and i don't have time and leisure to balance it myself (which itself doesn't guarantee satisfaction by any means).

I disagree 100% with just about anything in the OP. Even considering how many there are, almost none are broken, and most are good concepts you can use to develop your character.

Also, a lot of the paths and destinies are not available depending on your class/race combo, so you do not have that many to choose from when you have to pick.

Tilenas said:

That's not an excuse for the devs to come up with legions of paragon paths and destinies that aren't properly balanced. It's their job to make it work.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, I have not personally gone over most of the paths and destinies. However, from what I have read here and elsewhere, there are not "legions" of them that aren't properly balanced. The consensus I seem to see is general satisfaction with the balance. Your mileage may vary, of course.

In the end, though, I don't rely on the developers. I vet all the stuff that comes into my game as a general policy, even if I trust the source.

I personally feel that vetting isn't that important. Unlike in 3e, you can no longer mix and match prcs, so there won't be any problems of 1-lv dips and the like. You are stuck with your PP and ED for life, so there is less of a need for system mastery and ensuring that they are all perfectly balanced.