Epic Levels; D&D's Other Beast

[pemerton]

At the first few levels, one d20 did just fine, but in time, you get some hefty DCs, like an Escape Artist check at a DC of 80 allows you to fit your head into a space thats way smaller than it for example, and one 1d20 will have to mave a modifier of at least 50 for it to be reasonable to do.

Of course I can change some of the math, but as written, 50 dwarfs 1d20 by a longshot in my humble opinion.

If you are rolling 1d20+50 vs a DC of 80 then of course you're hosed. But the size of the modifier doesn't determine that - I mean, you'd be hosed if you were rolling 1d20+5.

Whereas if you're roling 1d20+50 vs a DC of 60 then the die roll is just as important as rolling 1d20+5 vs a DC of 15. In either case, you succeed 55% of the time.

Hence my point - it's not the size of the modifier that determines the relevance of the d20; rather, it's the difference of modifier and DC. If that difference lies outside the interval of 2 to 20 then we have either auto-success or auto-fail. If not, then the die roll matters.

At very low levels, because modifiers are so small, the d20 is a much bigger contributor to your final score; at very high levels, the d20 is a relatively small component of the whole, with the modifier being the thing.

<snip>

it feels better if the die and the modifier are contributing about equally to the result.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but there is absolutley no difference, mathematically speaking, between rolling 1d2+50 against a DC of 60 and rolling 1d20+5 against a DC of 15. In neither case does the die or the modifier contribute differently to the result - in both cases the modifier brings it about that the die roll needs to be at least 10 for the check to succeed, and in both cases the actual rolling of the die then determines whether or not the roll equals or exceeds that requirement.

If the game doesn't have DCs, and so it's simply all about rolling as high as possible, then of course a bigger modifier will contribute more to the total, compare to the die roll, than does a smaller modifier. But as far as I know there is no version of D&D which is simply about rolling as high as possible and then having the GM arbitrate that. There's always a target number (whether from the matrices charts in AD&D, or the DCs that are set out in 3E and 4e).

That, and the difference between the modifiers of a character who is 'good' at something vs one who is 'poor' at that thing. The "Epic Level Handbook" spends quite a lot of time discussing it, but the big takeaway is that it's quite easy to have one character who can save on a '2' and another who needs a '20'.

Now this I do understand, and I agree it's an important issue. 4e takes a two-pronged approach - take some steps to keep numbers close together, and have rules that systematically produce a spread of DCs to be reached.

In combat, in my current 4e campaign the lowest bonus on a character sheet is the invoker/wizards's +18 to hit on oppy attacks with his sceptre, and the highest bonus is +25 for some of the martial PCs. At their level average ACs are around 35-ish, so the invoker/wizard has little chance of hitting, while the martial PCs have quite a good chance, especially with advantage or modest buffing.

With skills the spread is much wider (and I would think that this is pretty common, given the way the designers have patched and repatched to cope): skill bonuses go as low as +7 (the fully armoured paladin trying Acrobatics or Stealth) and as high as +36 (the invoker-wizard using History, or using Religion to perform a ritual); and the typical "good" skill bonus is around +25. The system tries to cope with this by having Easy, Medium and Hard DCs for each level, and by then encouraging encounter design that builds in DCs at all levels (either directly, or as unlockable via good play). The +36 is auto-success even against a Hard DC for that character, but that is a class feature - the Sage of Ages, instead of a stat boost at 21st level, gets +6 to all knowledge skills - so this is a player who has traded off combat ability for out-of-combat skill. (The notion that 4e does not permit this is a mere rumour not warranted by the actual design of the game!)

 

[delericho]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but there is absolutley no difference, mathematically speaking, between rolling 1d20+50 against a DC of 60 and rolling 1d20+5 against a DC of 15.

Mathematically speaking, you're absolutely right. Both of those cases boil down to a flat 55% chance of success.

However, there's more to RPG task resolution than simple probability - there's also a question as to how much of a character's success is down to luck (the d20 roll) versus how much is down to skill (the modifier on the sheet), with the game feeling most satisfying when these are roughly in balance. It really shouldn't matter (because a 55% chance is the same either way), but it's something that really does.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I‘ve played a lot of epic level 3.5, and the advice I’m about to give might not be what you are looking for, but for what it’s worth:

1) Embrace the gonzo with all your heart.
2) Encourage player agency in every area of the game.
3) Embrace the notion of DM-Player collaboration completely, in terms of how both the immediate game (PC responses to a particular set of circumstances) and the campaign itself (the strategic shape of politics, the world etc.) are shaped.
4) Understand that balance in epic 3.x is a negotiated process which requires continual intervention in order to maintain. With this particular use of “balance,” I am referring specifically to approximate parity between PC effectiveness.
5) Epic level play works best with characters who have grown organically from the pre-epic game. They are more grounded in the game world, and the DM’s familiarity with them and their abilities allows a proactive intervention in order keep them balanced.
6) If you have any notions of preserving the traditional points of game balance, throw them to the wind. Allow new points of balance to emerge through playing the game. These will also change as the epic campaign unfolds. These points will be unique to your particular game, so I can’t offer any specific advice in this regard.
7) Consider playing the following non-D&D games: Exalted, Vampire, Ars Magica, various superhero games – any other games where you play immortal or near-godlike characters with inconceivable power. Allow your experience of them to inform the way in which you approach the 3.x epic game without prejudice.
8) Do not abandon the mundane. The juxtaposition of the superheroic PCs upon the world of the hapless mortals – as either their protectors or their tyrannical oppressors – is what it’s all about for me.
9) Develop NPCs. Get inside the heads of your NPCs, and respond to the actions of the players logically. Allow the game to unfold according to the interaction of their vast egos.
10) Use mythic logic to enable the actions of PCs; encourage them to project their desires, dreams and wishes onto the structure of the campaign world and reshape it in their own image.

FWIW.

 

[Oversquid]

I‘ve played a lot of epic level 3.5, and the advice I’m about to give might not be what you are looking for, but for what it’s worth:

1) Embrace the gonzo with all your heart.
2) Encourage player agency in every area of the game.
3) Embrace the notion of DM-Player collaboration completely, in terms of how both the immediate game (PC responses to a particular set of circumstances) and the campaign itself (the strategic shape of politics, the world etc.) are shaped.
4) Understand that balance in epic 3.x is a negotiated process which requires continual intervention in order to maintain. With this particular use of “balance,” I am referring specifically to approximate parity between PC effectiveness.
5) Epic level play works best with characters who have grown organically from the pre-epic game. They are more grounded in the game world, and the DM’s familiarity with them and their abilities allows a proactive intervention in order keep them balanced.
6) If you have any notions of preserving the traditional points of game balance, throw them to the wind. Allow new points of balance to emerge through playing the game. These will also change as the epic campaign unfolds. These points will be unique to your particular game, so I can’t offer any specific advice in this regard.
7) Consider playing the following non-D&D games: Exalted, Vampire, Ars Magica, various superhero games – any other games where you play immortal or near-godlike characters with inconceivable power. Allow your experience of them to inform the way in which you approach the 3.x epic game without prejudice.
8) Do not abandon the mundane. The juxtaposition of the superheroic PCs upon the world of the hapless mortals – as either their protectors or their tyrannical oppressors – is what it’s all about for me.
9) Develop NPCs. Get inside the heads of your NPCs, and respond to the actions of the players logically. Allow the game to unfold according to the interaction of their vast egos.
10) Use mythic logic to enable the actions of PCs; encourage them to project their desires, dreams and wishes onto the structure of the campaign world and reshape it in their own image.

FWIW.

Aye, I plan on all of that, but I'd still like a basis for a functional rule structure in the background anyways, so that they can be broken.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Aye, I plan on all of that, but I'd still like a basis for a functional rule structure in the background anyways, so that they can be broken.

Eh, see, that's the thing. There is no functional rules structure; at least not in epic 3.x. It's a tacked-on system, and a poorly executed one at that. Honestly, I recommend 4e for epic play.

Barring that, I'd suggest some kind of E20 variant. No more number inflation after 20th level, no more hp, no more BAB, no more spells per day...nothing but another regular feat every 3 levels.

 

[Oversquid]

Eh, see, that's the thing. There is no functional rules structure; at least not in epic 3.x. It's a tacked-on system, and a poorly executed one at that. Honestly, I recommend 4e for epic play.

Barring that, I'd suggest some kind of E20 variant. No more number inflation after 20th level, no more hp, no more BAB, no more spells per day...nothing but another regular feat every 3 levels.

Then I'll homebrew something that will work for 3.5 (or the rendition I make of it thereof).

 

[kingius]

In addition to the above, the biggest issue I would expect with Epic play is simply the sheer weight of the system. Indeed, that's one reason why I simply don't play 3e above the mid-teens any more - as the game goes on, the number of options available to characters increases exponentially, the game slows down, and it becomes more trouble than it's worth.



But YMMV, of course.

I think that a lot of these kind of problems may be away if you just disallow multi classing to begin with and stick to the PHB classes. My new 3.5 campaign is doing just this and it's really helping to focus things on the 'core' experience. I'll let you know if we scale to epic levels and how it pans out but my gut is telling me that this is really going to make a difference.

 

[delericho]

I think that a lot of these kind of problems may be away if you just disallow multi classing to begin with and stick to the PHB classes.

My current campaign has the following characters:

14th level Warforged Artificer
14th level Half-elf Ranger
14th level Halfling Rogue
14th level Human Wizard (Diviner)
11th/3rd level Human Cleric/Fighter

(We also had a single-class Druid, but the player left the game in December.)

So, only a single non-PHB race/class combo, only a single multiclass character, and not a prestige class in sight. And we use only a very small number of supplementary books, and those sparingly. That said, we do have three primary and one secondary caster, so that's an issue.

It's been obvious for quite a long time now that the game is really slowing up, especially when someone uses dispel magic or similar. In fact, we're now very much into the realm of diminishing returns; we'd almost certainly been better off going for an E6 (or more likely E8) arrangement.

All of which is a very long-winded of saying: that's not been my experience.

 

[TwoSix]

Barring that, I'd suggest some kind of E20 variant. No more number inflation after 20th level, no more hp, no more BAB, no more spells per day...nothing but another regular feat every 3 levels.

That's pretty much what I'm doing in my Pathfinder game. There are a few 20+ NPCs around, and they spend XP to gain special powers, which I assign pretty much ad-hoc. Granted, 3.X games run much better if you just ad-hoc everything.

 

[Li Shenron]

So my question to you guys is, what sorts of problems do you see happening a lot at Epic Levels, be they conceptual, mechanical, or otherwise.

I won't comment on the strictly mechanical problems, because I've never actually played D&D at levels labelled "epic".

In general I think that the main problem with Epic is to be able to define what it really means...

For me, Epic is normally a synonym of "legendary" i.e. events that are potentially able to spawn legends and myths in thousands of years to come, implying that the tales of those events and the deeds of their protagonists will be able to inspire people far down history. Quintessential "epics" are classic Greek tales like Heracles', Jason and the Argonauts, Ulysses' travels etc, but these often fail to be "epic enough" for a game that is already typically set in a high-fantasy setting, they either tend to be pretty regular adventures for low-mid level characters.

So D&D needs something "more" than regular epic. IMHO one useful concept to be added to D&D adventures to make them Epic is divinity, either because the PC characters have it (or are trying to gain it) or because they directly interact with it as allies or enemies. Where exactly that starts, cannot be standardized: is a half-angel PC already divine? Isn't a 1st level Cleric already interacting with its deity? It's blurred and debatable, but this also points out that "level" can be a misleading concept.

Ultimately, it depends on the "look & feel" of the story, the events, and the cast (PCs, friends and foes). There is a problem if you just resort to character abilities alone to make the PCs stand out as "epic". D&D has a certain tendency of introducing powers first with the NPC/monsters, several levels before the PCs can get them, thanks to both rule systems and story tropes that generally encourage "climax fights" against a single (with sidekicks at best) foe significantly more powerful than the PCs. So by the time you get those powers, you've already seen them, and your foes always have better ones because the bar keeps being raised. And on the other hand, characters like those in The Lord of the Rings (a possible fantasy epic) hardly have any special powers at all (excluding Gandalf and a few others). It is the story around them, and their deeds determining its outcome, which makes them "epic" (but notice one thing: they feel epic only when the story is over... during, "epic" is not exactly how they feel).

Thus IMHO a better approach to create an "epic" campaign is trying to focus on the story to provide the epic-ness. Have the PCs engage in quests that take a long time and cover a long distance, face foes that are ancient, colossal in size (individually or as a horde), or defy the physical (such as deities et similia), and decide the outcome of events with long-term and large-scale effects, but most importantly have patience. Being over the top helps, but doesn't always work if the story around it is too quick and thin. Just to say, if you have the PC meet in a tavern for 30th-level heroes, and go slay the God of Death or the King of Demons on the same night like it's an "epic heroes night out", that ain't going to feel epic at all... but if you build that up during e.g. 6 months of gaming, the chances that you nail the "epic feel" are better, even if the characters aren't even technically at "epic level" yet.