Is There a Link between Half Level and the Death of Epic Tier?

[DracoSuave]

What exactly is the difference between high level play in fourth edition not being very compelling, and high level play in third edition not being very compelling?

I think the problem is that it's high level play, nothing system specific.

 

[Riastlin]

What exactly is the difference between high level play in fourth edition not being very compelling, and high level play in third edition not being very compelling?

I think the problem is that it's high level play, nothing system specific.

I think the real issue here (and yes, its edition neutral) is the time commitment element. A lot of gamers, myself included, love coming up with new characters, dabbling with builds and ideas, etc. The problem for most of us though is that we really don't get a whole lot of time to actually try out these characters due to the time commitments involved in a campaign and the rest of our lives.

As has been noted, it takes most groups years to reach Epic tier. The campaign I'm currently running has been going for a little over two years now and the PCs are only 14th level (we play every other week for about 4 hours, miss a number of sessions for a variety of reasons). By the time I add in work and family and other interests, I really only have time to be in one other game (where I'm a player). That game has also been going for about a year now and we are currently 6th level (again not playing real often, but still).

The problem this creates is that it becomes a major commitment to devote oneself to going all the way to 30th level. That is a really long time to play just one character -- particularly if you don't have the time to be in more than just one or two games. I love my rune priest, but there are also at least a dozen other characters that I would love to play as well. So what often happens is that the players simply burn out on playing that same character over and over again (even with the character leveling up and getting new abilities).

So yeah, I don't think its so much that groups want ways to bring goblins into the higher levels of play (there are already ways of doing that). Rather, its more that they want to bring their other PCs into the game. Unfortunately though, starting out a character at a higher level can be problematic because of the complexity of higher level characters. It takes a while for a player to learn how this higher level PC actually plays. 1st level PCs are fairly straightforward and adding a little bit each level is also pretty straightforward.

So yeah, I think [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] might be onto something with capping the number of powers at a lower number and simply having them modified by level (sort of like some of the theme powers from Dark Sun and Dragon). Doing this would make it easier to break a long campaign into a series of mini campaigns that start out at the level the previous one left off. So maybe you take your 30 level campaign and break it into 3 ten level campaigns with the players being allowed to switch characters every ten levels (if they want). Obviously, the DM would be free to ignore this idea but the idea would be that its possible to allow players to scratch that itch without it being too difficult. In other words (since I'm still in a pre-coffee ramble) make higher level PCs simpler and you make it easier to start a new PC at high level. This may very well in turn increase the appeal of Epic Tier, which then makes Epic Tier more profitable for WotC, which then means more support and thus more interest, etc., etc.

 

[delericho]

What exactly is the difference between high level play in fourth edition not being very compelling, and high level play in third edition not being very compelling?

3.5e was extremely troublesome above around level 15. 4e is vastly superior in this regard - the support is sorely lacking, and nobody seems quite sure what to do with it, but at least the maths works!

I think the problem is that it's high level play, nothing system specific.

There's a lot of truth in this. Even the source works (which these days are more movies and video games than books), there is a strong tendency towards "grim and gritty" low-power stories rather than epic "save the world" stories. Even when they are attempted, they tend to be poorly received. ("Troy" became a much more human-scale story in the movie, while "Clash of the Titans" didn't do particularly well.)

Ultimately, I think WotC should decide: are we going to have Epic play or not? If not, they should remove it from the game so it doesn't take up pages that could be better used for something else. If they are going to include Epic play, they should support it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Not quite. There are a lot of powers (flight, scrying...) that don't become available immediately. But by the time you're mid-way through Paragon there really don't seem to be any new worlds to conquer.

I agree. Travel in the Underdark and planar travel, for instance, both fit into paragon tier. If you've already been to Limbo and Hades, I'm not exactly sure what's next.

3.5e was extremely troublesome above around level 15. 4e is vastly superior in this regard

I hope this is true. 4e seems to have reasonably balanced numbers at epic levels, but I've never gone there. I keep hearing horror stories about how every PC can interrupt every monster action with a stun attack or barbarians dominating (literally, as in using that condition) the enemy.

Going through the PH1, I've not seen much brokenness beyond Destructive Salutation, but maybe I missed something ...

 

[Colmarr]

If you've already been to Limbo and Hades, I'm not exactly sure what's next.

Deposing their rulers and taking over?

Seriously, though, Zeitgeist is a good example (spoiler):

Spoiler

Late paragon involves the baddies attempting a ritual that alters reality itself. Epic is devoted to undoing that ritual and culminates with the PCs choosing a new reality to create. That's pretty epic.

I think Ari Marmell said it best in one of his EN columns. The principle problem with Epic tier is that it plays like Heroic Tier. Heroes go into dungeons. The dungeons might be made of the raw essence of primordial magic but they're dungeons nonetheless.

To truly reflect the sort of stories that Epic tier should be telling, I personally feel there needs to be a much higher ratio of ad lib storytelling to conflict resolution than the current system allows.

 

[Vael]

I think the problems with Epic tier are more on the DM's side than the PC's. The players need to be organized and on top of their PC's many abilities, but Epic Tier only adds two Utilities, they're mainly upgrading attacks and magic items.

The main problem at Epic is monsters. There aren't enough of them, the variety is limited, and the earlier monsters don't do nearly enough damage to be a credible threat to the PCs. Yes, DMs need help with adventures and campaigns at Epic tier, but at least if we had a good variety of useable monsters, we could at least craft some exciting combat.

 

[Riastlin]

Ultimately, I think WotC should decide: are we going to have Epic play or not? If not, they should remove it from the game so it doesn't take up pages that could be better used for something else. If they are going to include Epic play, they should support it.

I think this is a good point about the difference between the two editions. In 3.x, Epic was an optional add-on that was released through a supplemental book (more or less). In 4ed, Epic is specifically presumed by the Core Books. Naturally, everything is optional when you get down to it, but I think this is the main reason for the angst or desire for epic content. In 3.x the "standard" full campaign was considered to be 1 - 20. In 4ed, its now 1 - 30, yet there's very little support for a third of that standard campaign. Its not such a big deal when the entire tier is considered an optional add-on released through a supplemental book, but when its in the Core books, it feels as though it should receive more support than it has.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

the principle problem with epic tier is that it plays like heroic tier. Heroes go into dungeons. The dungeons might be made of the raw essence of primordial magic but they're dungeons nonetheless.

qft.

 

[pemerton]

The principle problem with Epic tier is that it plays like Heroic Tier. Heroes go into dungeons. The dungeons might be made of the raw essence of primordial magic but they're dungeons nonetheless.

My feeling is that this is more a problem of unimaginative adventure design, than of the limits of the system.

Epic Destinies would have been much better handled had they been removed from the PHB (except for references that such things were possible), and described in the DMG. Additionally, each Destiny should have been provided with a chain of 5 powers (or perhaps a tree of powers), each of which came with a suggested in story prerequisite for gaining that power.

That is, make the "having to work for them" the default for the game

I have the opposite view.

The PHB talks about Destiny Quests, and says that the DMG will discuss them, but the DMG doesn't. I think this should be corrected. The idea of a Destiny Quest is more-or-less the opposite of making players dance to the GM's tune to get their Epic Destinies - namely, it obliges the GM to provide adventures/quests that fit with the players' conception of who their PCs are and what their endgame will look like.

This relates to the issue of unimaginative adventure design. If WotC publishes adventures, and/or GMs design and run adventures, in which the choices that the players make about their Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies make no non-mechanical difference - do not change the fictional situation - than of course the game will be boring and paragon and epic will seem irrelevant. The solution is to make the fiction matter.

The Questing Knight Paragon Path has a sidebar that takes a very modest step in this direction - it talks about the need for the GM to provide scenarios that reflect the PC's quest - but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. First, it assumes that the PC's quest will be subordinate to the GM's conception of the "plot" of the game. Second, it doesn't give the GM anywhere near enough advice on how to run a game that is player-driven rather than GM driven.

If WotC were to write the GMing advice to support player-driven Destiny Quests - and there are any number of RPG texts that illustrate how one might write such advice - then there would be no excuse for epic tier just being a boring rerun of the lower tiers.

 

[Luce]

Going to epic does not have to be done at one go. In previous editions, once the PC reached "name" level they are given the option of shifting gears into more social intensive game (managing castles, guilds, monasteries).

Once you fill that the players are starting to get stagnated in their characters development, make a reason (with their permission of course) to station them somewhere. But do not take them out of the game completely. Have the new (replacement) PC somehow relate to the first group.(Striker mentoring new striker for example, but not necessary both belonging to the same player. In fact, if all possible try to have different players in each mentor-protege relationship) My favorite way of doing this is having them all belong to the same organization such as adventuring guild. I like reusing establish material, both for consistency and to free me to focus more on the adventures.

As their second incarnation adventure you can introduce hints of higher level treats, allowing the higher level alts to be used.
[Lets say the new PC uncover a cell of Vecna and the location of major, once they report that to the Guild the guild master decides to send the old PC to handle rooting the cultist out]
It also provides a safety net, if the lower level pcs mess up the guild can send in their higher level mentors/friends to clean up.(giving the players a second chance to succeed)

Another plus (for me) is that if the not all the players show up for a session I can throw in one shot the higher level PC of the plaeys who show up. Lets say only one player can make it, I make him go undercover to track down smugglers. Only two, the guild gets them an invitation to a Duke's evening party one playing the role of a nobleman the other his bodyguard/adviser. And so on.
What can I say, both as a DM and player I hate canceling a game night at the last moment. At the same time I like to keep the group at the same level and sharing the same experience.

Yet another thing is this downtime can be used as an excuse to give the quasi retired PCs a level or three. So when the player get their old PCs back there is a feeling of progress. "While you leveled the new group from 1 to 8 level your 16 level character had risen to 18 gaining new abilities and equipment."

The above had worked for me and my group, might it work for you as well.