Anyone else think epic rules still need some help?

[ciaran00]

I understand what they're trying to do with the uniform to-hit and saving throw progression (trying to preserve the same difference between good and bad to-hits and saving throws), but it's too klunky (because you have less of a reason to be an epic level monk... why should it make a difference when you take it?). Anyone else have some good ideas?

ciaran

 

[CRGreathouse]

Hmm, I liked the epic rules for the most part. What problems did you have (aside from the Epic Spellcasting feat, which needed about 6 months more testing)?

 

[ciaran00]

Ok, let me start with some of my thoughts.

Saving throw DCs: Saves are calculated by 10 + 1/3 Character Level + 1/6 Caster Level + Stat. A caster level factors in for 1/2 and other levels by 1/3. This is the equivalent of a "good" saving throw versus a "poor" one.

A single-classed caster of the same level as an opponent will have a 50/50 chance of overcoming an opponent's good saving throw... moreso for his poor ones. A multiclassed caster will have less of a chance, with a floor at 50/50 against the opponent's "poor" saving throw. I am assuming that opposing stats are somewhat the same.

NOTE: the standard 10 + 1/2 CL + Stat is too high IMHO. Also, I believe that the character should be denied qualitative bonuses for not taking a level in some class, not quantitative bonuses as well! For example, a Fi 25/Clr 25 should have SOME chance of turning a 50th level undead. He shouldn't be doubly ineffective both on his fighter and Cleric side. This is absolutely not true at low levels, and since the spirit of the original epic rules is to keep the same degree of balance at high levels as at lower levels, it seems that this should be the case (though it's not, at all).

BAB: Progression follows as per usual, though extra attacks are not gained. Poor 1/2, Avg 3/4, Good 1/1.

Saving throws: Scale as per class (this rule actually applies for monsters, so...)

Wizard spells/day progression: Every ten levels, they get 1 more casting per day of each level. So a wizard will have all 5's across the board at 30th. They gain 1 spell/day starting at 0th and ending at 9th every level. Continue this progression for the next 10 levels, etc. Since I use a spell point system (I won't bore you with the details here), I lump cost of epic spells into their spell point tally, making the cast-till-you-drop effect still viable at high levels.

Priest spells/day progression: same as above

Any comments?

EDIT: My main interest in this subject matter comes from running a Dark Sun game. Of all the classic settings, Dark Sun is both a brutal low-level game campaign world, and an epic psionic-enchantment flinging campaign world. It's the only one in 2e that really addressed (poorly) these ultra-high level concerns (or even mentioned ultra-high level at all).

ciaran

 

[Thresher]

Hmm, I liked the epic rules for the most part. What problems did you have (aside from the Epic Spellcasting feat, which needed about 6 months more testing)?

You reckon they actually tested them?
Im sort of the thought some people went 'gee thats kewl' and rolled out some level 80something characters for a once-off game to "test" it.
So far its taken over 8months to get epic spells working properly in our game and we arent anywhere near some of those example epic spell DC's that they so casually threw in there.

My synopsis, abit a bitter one, is that while epic is workable and sometimes a lot of fun, you better be prepared to put in a lot of work to prop it up because its pretty wobbly in a lot of areas.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You reckon they actually tested them?
Im sort of the thought some people went 'gee thats kewl' and rolled out some level 80something characters for a once-off game to "test" it.
So far its taken over 8months to get epic spells working properly in our game and we arent anywhere near some of those example epic spell DC's that they so casually threw in there.

Of course they did. You can see that from the price breakdowns of the spells alone -- they're in a dozen staegs of development.

My synopsis, abit a bitter one, is that while epic is workable and sometimes a lot of fun, you better be prepared to put in a lot of work to prop it up because its pretty wobbly in a lot of areas.

Frankly, I found much of the same on non-epic levels. Hopefully with 3.5 this will be less common, but that's hard to say.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I use the epic rules, and other than ES, I haven't really had a problem with them. The rulebook wording, OTOH... I think they needed more editors, not more playtesters.

ciaran: Your save rules favor spellcasters too much. The 3.5 designers were smart enough to realize that a 50/50 chance of beating an opponent's Will save is too great; that gives a caster better than even odds of ending any encounter with a single spell! No risk, no melee engagement, and not even clever save targeting; your foe drops right away. That is not consistent with the CR system, since one action and one spell hardly represent 20% of a single spellcaster's resources, let alone the party's.

If anything, epic save progression tends to even the odds somewhat for classes with generally crappy saves (like fighters), who are seriously left behind on their weak saves by about 20th level. But really, how bad is the +1/2 save progression? Let's investigate. A Wiz40 with SF, GSF, and ESF who spends 6 of his 13 epic feats on ISC and has an Int of 48 (not unreasonable at this level) will have a save DC of 48 with his highest-level spells if we assume that ESF was nerfed for 3.5 (although the designers didn't actually make the change, oddly). A 40th-level PC has a strong base save of +22 and a weak save of +16. Assume a base save-relevant ability score (Dex, Con, Wis) of 30 , a +5 resistance item, a +5 luck item, and a relevant save feat (GF, IW, LR). That yields a +44 save bonus with the good save, +38 with the bad save. Given that the wizard can force two saves per round at least, he can cause his target to fail a save 24% of the time if he targets the good save, or 70% of the time if he targets the bad save. That's not bad for a one-round kill at distance.

 

[Thresher]

Yes, but Im looking at how they developed them and it seems to be a case of making 2x, 3x, 4x...9x characters and strapping stuff on them, sending them out against some random monsters and blowing them to bits.
As your probably aware, not all of us make up a character of XX level all the time and throw it into a game, Ive played 1 character for around 10 years and its level 32. So how it played felt to me that the testers must have been "playing" highly-tuned characters that didnt have to worry about things like finding 5million gp's and 25,000xp at the drop of a hat. Yeah, sure my 'little' non-optimised gimp of a wizard can drop the 5million gp's and 25,000xp too, but thats a substantial investment for her!
5mill Gp's and 25,000xp is literally 3-6months playing time and for someone who cant play that often, that would cripple my character.

The whole thing just seemed to me to be made by and for disposable and throwaway characters that no one had any attachment too or understanding of how hard it is to get to these levels under normal playing conditions by normal people.
That isnt playtesting, and Im not sure how else you would do it, but thats just poking round with some numbers, mind you I guess the 'randomness' of dice rolling gets pretty 'non-random' when its 1D20 + 50something in a skill or BaB...

As a whole, 3.5 is a step in the right direction for the game and in the small amounts of epic we've played since 3.5 came out there isnt a lot of re-working to be done. Actually some of the best house rules we've incorporated recently have come off this board as ideas from others and have made a big improvement in making D20 a system that slightly easier to live with.

But I think my biggest gripe so far with the game is how things do not scale with level and this causes some big disparities at high levels which is where we've put most of the 'body filler' in to patch it up.

 

[Paragon]

aside from the epic spells i enjoy the rest of the book quite a bit. but epic spells/spellcasting is so far from workable it's sad. blows too, that was the part of the book i was looking forward to using most.

 

[the Jester]

My campaign is just getting to the point at which Epic rules become relevant... I guess it's time to reread the book.

I do recall thinking that the Epic spell rules needed work, and when I tried to design Assail the Sorely Beset strictly by the book I ran into trouble...

 

[Thresher]

Theres a few posts here that present a few options for epic casting-

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70323

To some degree I think you could probably dump them out of the game for levels 21-30 and have no real affects.