D&D 4E Is Paragon Tier the "sweet spot" of 4E? And other ruminations on the tiers

[Marshall]

Not all LFR epic adventures will be over one day, but some of them will be. That said, it's a trope of _LFR_ to not have extended rests in the middle of adventures, not necessarily their epic campaign.

A home campaign DM has the ability to rejigger and rebalance things when PCs rest or don't rest at certain times. LFR DMs don't really.

They're 2-for-2. I understand the reasoning behind it, but think it shortchanges daily powers when they become 1 use per level instead of 1/day. I'd guess that this was debated before they decided on the 12hr 1/lvl mod system. I just find it incredible restrictive, both in-game and when forming tables.

 

[knightofround]

I've tried running 2 epic campaigns, and the thing I struggled with the most is making them *FEEL* like D&D. When PCs have access to outlandish powers, rituals, and self-resurrection abilities the campaign "feels" more like a Superhero RPG than a Fantasy RPG.

I think part of the problem is general lack of good examples of epic tier play. The epic Scales of War adventures were lackluster at best.

I like Heroic tier the most. The main reason is due to combat complexity. In paragon everyone starts getting "anti-fun" combat effects like daze/stun/immediate reactions/immediate interrupts. All those things really slow down combat. (Both from the PCs and the NPCs)

My problem with level 1-6 in 3.5E was that PCs in that range felt ridiculously "swingy". Everyone had high dps low survivability. For me, the sweet spot was level 6-12.

4E took the opposite design approach, where all PCs have high survivability and low dps. I prefer 4E's design because it makes it easier to write plot threads to specific characters; in 3E I always faced the dilemma "do I really want to prepare this quest for player X when there's a very good chance his character will die before the end of the arc?" In 4E I can generally count on PCs lasting more than a couple sessions. Which has the nice side effect of making it more *meaningful* when a PC dies.

 

[keterys]

They will not all be that way, but some certainly will be. Both EPIC3-1 and EPIC3-2 included methods to regain daily powers, so if you didn't regain any it was likely because you didn't need to or chose not to.

With the way LFR works, having a mid-module break so it's about 3 encounters per day is going to mean that encounters get _blasted_ with dailies. It just isn't that healthy for epic play to work that way. WotC really did mean it when they said each tier should have more encounters per day, especially epic tier

 

[MerricB]

I'm currently running one of my groups through E2: Kingdom of the Ghouls, and our first session of the adventure was quite a lot of fun. It helped that some of the more egregious Warlock and Cleric powers have been nerfed just recently, and I'm also using the updated damage codes for monsters. So, combats have been enjoyable.

Conceptually the HPE series from Wizards works for me, and despite some of the action of E2 taking place in Sigil (one of the elements of Planescape that I despise), the overall structure of the epic tier adventures feels suitably epic.

Paragon tier was a revelation for us, as it really felt like a step up from heroic: the addition of triggered powers based on action point use was significant, as were the paragon paths. Epic hasn't quite had that kick, as the epic destinies often take quite a while to come fully online.

If I consider the structure of 4E D&D, the game - certainly as expressed through the HPE adventures - works as follows:

Heroic - adventures in the mortal world.
Paragon - adventures in the feywild & shadowfell
Epic - adventures in the astral sea

You start off exploring the world you know, you move to the near cousins of your world, and finally come to the lands of the gods and great powers of the cosmos. There's some bleed between the tiers, of course, but enforcing those strictures does give a lot more structure to how the campaign evolves. (To quite an extent, the tiers give the levels at which the PCs should feel comfortable adventuring in those locales.)

Can an epic threat live on the Prime Material plane? Certainly - consider Iuz in the World of Greyhawk. However, Iuz is constrained in his powers compared to the deities in their home planes in the Astral Sea.

This structure also informs my dislike of the creation of epic Feywild or Shadowfell threats: perhaps in the deepest pockets of such, but if there are too many such threats, then only epic characters really should venture into the Feywild or the Shadowfell. It's a place where paragon characters should do well, with a paragon character venturing into the Astral Sea should feel very much out of his or her depth.

The first Heroic/Paragon/Epic split in D&D comes from the BECMI line, where Heroic maps to the Basic/Expert sets, Paragon to the Companion set, and Epic to the Master set. Of course, BECMI has significant problems because of how it splits things up: Companion level adventures just happen in the north of the continent, where all the big threats live. Sigh. And at Master level you only just become aware of the powers of the Immortals, rather than them being an inherent part of the setting from the start. Master D&D very much feels like "we tacked this on", as does the Companion setting of Norwold, Alphatis and Thyatis.

(BECMI really ties itself in knots with its "Immortals aren't gods" stance, and it causes some real dissonance and major problems in how the setting comes together).

4E, with its Mortal World/Feywild + Shadowfell/Astral Sea split, even if it is more in my head than actual, works conceptually for me, providing "sandboxes" for adventuring that are separated.

Although the sandboxes are separated, to provide a cohesive framework for the entire campaign you need threads that tie them together. In the HPE adventures, those threads are given by the plans of Orcus. Orcus's minions turn up a number of times in the series (H1, P2, E1-3, with P3 being related as well), and so the idea of "Orcus is unusually active" is planted before the actual reasons become apparent in E1-3, which is really one long adventure.

Something that *should* be there in more D&D games - certainly it's something that isn't as present in my own - is the influence of the gods of the PCs. If, in the epic levels, the PCs will become agents of the gods, then this really needs to be set up earlier. If a PC has a patron deity, surely that deity needs to be a little more patron-y? You know, saving the PC at various times, talking to him or her and setting quests, and suchlike. (This, of course, assumes you play the D&D game with the 'active gods' that become a part of the campaign in the epic tier).

Fun fact: I'm currently playing in one D&D 4E game and running two more. The levels of the three campaigns? 4th, 14th and 24th.

Gods are something of a problem in D&D because you really need to run them as gods, and not just as really powerful monsters. Settings with 60+ gods often devalue them: what do they all do, anyway? If someone worships a god, it should be for a really good reason. "You delivered my people from slavery", "You gave us the gift of fire", or something like that. There's also the possibility of the god's gift being revoked. The reason I dislike Sigil so much is because of the Lady of Pain: her existence basically says, "Gods don't count". Gods need to be mighty; they need to be feared.

My rule of thumb is this: God vs mortal? God wins. Every time, without breaking a sweat. However, once you get God vs God, things become interesting, and the actions of the PCs become significant. (Thus the entire E1-3 saga). At the higher epic levels, PCs are on their ways to becoming gods/demigods or of similar power, so depending on your world, perhaps they can even fight the gods.

Cheers!

 

[babinro]

I'd say that the sweet spot in 4e is levels 5 through 21.

Epic is problematic because characters get too powerful with condition lock downs. Nearly every round of combat involves dazed, or stunned, or dominated. Playing epic with the rules as written simply makes for a boring drawn out experience. Epic could be fun as written if the party doesn't focus on the conditioned skills.

That being said, with heavy DM modification of monsters hp/powers and cheating on the xp recommendations...epic can be as fun as any other tier while still providing a challenge to the players. It took me several levels of play to find this mix for each party though.

On a side note, I'm the only one in my group that prefers level 5+, the rest enjoy starting at level 1 so they can become familiar with their characters before getting too many powers. I just find there are too few options in the early levels and don't like 30+ combats to be primarily at-wills.

 

[Mengu]

WotC really did mean it when they said each tier should have more encounters per day, especially epic tier

Then they need to readjust PC surges by tier. Monsters deal so much damage, I can run a party out of surges in 3 encounters. I'm having to give them surgeless heal options, and party surge management tools so they can go another encounter or two.

I'd be happy if they could do 4-5 encounters a day in heroic, 6-7 in paragon, 8-9 in epic. I think the daily/encounter resources are there to keep things interesting, but the surges aren't there.

 

[S'mon]

My rule of thumb is this: God vs mortal? God wins. Every time, without breaking a sweat.

I always have trouble understanding this mindset, especially in a polytheist setting. There are so many examples of mortals fighting & sometimes beating gods in myth and fantasy literature. Here are a few from myth:

Iliad: Ares is hacking through the Greek army on the field of Troy. Athena buffs the Greek hero Diomedes - "guiding his spear" - Diomedes proceeds to pwn Ares, dispelling the God of War and sending him howling back to Olympus.

Iliad: Aphrodite sees a beloved Trojan hero (Aenas?) in trouble, so she manifests to protect him. A Greek hero (Achilles?) stabs her in the hand and she dispels, crying like a girl as she flees back to Olympus. Make love not war, Aphrodite.

Bible - Old Testament: Jacob meets a stranger - actually God - on the road. They wrestle for hours, neither able to beat the other. God eventually cheats, kicking Jacob's ankle, and wins.

There are tons from sword & sorcery stories, Moorcock's Eternal Champion in particular fights a lot of Chaos Lords, though only the weaker ones are defeated by direct force. But Elric + Stormbringer matches Xiombarg and her own sword in single combat late in 'Stormbringer', and holds his own.

Edit: Maybe we have different definitions of 'mortal' - I'd say Elric at the end of Stormbringer was a 30th level PC; Achilles and Diomedes are high Paragon or conceivably early Epic, but definitely all three are still mortal. Hercules would be an Epic PC on the Demigod path, but is dead/ascended by the time of the Iliad.

Edit: Since the Greek gods are unkillable, I guess you could treat Ares & Aphrodite at Troy as Aspects/Avatars of the actual deities, although that's not how they're described. The description of them being dispelled back to their 'home plane' is a lot closer to the pre-3e D&D approach.

 

[S'mon]

Then they need to readjust PC surges by tier. Monsters deal so much damage, I can run a party out of surges in 3 encounters. I'm having to give them surgeless heal options, and party surge management tools so they can go another encounter or two.

I'd be happy if they could do 4-5 encounters a day in heroic, 6-7 in paragon, 8-9 in epic. I think the daily/encounter resources are there to keep things interesting, but the surges aren't there.

In future campaigns I'm halving all monster hit points. This should keep fights shorter, so less use of healing surges, and it also encourages use of direct-damage effects over nerf effects, making combat quicker still.

 

[Ryujin]

For me, the sweet spot is from around level 7, through mid-Paragon. Combats are dynamic. Your character has plenty of options available and is being more and more personalized/individualized. Character concepts are finally fully realized. You don't feel like a wimp, but things haven't gotten really silly yet.

That's why I started my current campaign at level 7; it gave the experienced players a chance to get used to the new classes, that they were playing, while also giving them more than the "I use my daily!" of low levels.

 

[SabreCat]

I've run a campaign from 1st level through 17th so far, with the story arcs designed to have major climaxes/breaking points between tiers. Some 10-15 years passed in-setting between Heroic and Paragon, which had the nice narrative effect of making the development of a Paragon Path plausible, let some players change characters without inserting them mid-adventure, etc. With players growing into their characters' powers alongside them, things have gone pretty smoothly; I couldn't pick out any particular high or low point through that span that had anything to do with differing game mechanics or feel from one level/tier to the next.

All that said, I'm really uncertain about the third tier. The lack of non-Solo challenges makes me dread having to build most monsters by hand. And something about epic characters taking the standard 10 at-level encounters to level up sounds way too slow. Epic characters should be making big changes to the world every session or at least every quest/adventure, and I can't picture filling our group's typical 4 sessions/level using by-the-book XP (which usually I love--I'm a staunch holdout amid lots of folks who use story-based leveling) with that kind of content. If we do play through the tier, I'm going to advocate for 1 or 2 sessions/level.