D&D 5E Should D&D 5e have Epic Levels?

[dave2008]

Level 15 is still tier 3 though. It's not quite as crazy as levels 17+. The issue with challenging players is that it's tough to create challenges that are "tough but fun". The CR rules work okay at lower levels but rapidly break down at higher levels. If you go even further beyond into levels 21+, things just get even more difficult.

Not an issue for me as I don't use CR. I don't have a problem making challenging encounters at 15th level or when we played at 20th level. But I don't have extensive experience at high levels.

I'm not just talking about monster ACs and saves. I'm talking about player saves. If you have to start changing the system so that it works, how do you imagine WotC publishing epic levels when they're already so reluctant to make changes to the published rules? It just sounds like a huge hassle.

The only issue on the player side, IMO, is the non-proficient saves. And that is easy to solve with an "epic" PC rule: At 21st level and above players add half their proficiency bonus to all saving throws, or something similar.

PS: I've already stated I don't want them too or expect them too publish epic levels.

Also, what's an "epic monster"? CR 30 tarrasque is a fine challenge for level 18 PCs. What's the CR 40 creature?

Sure, that is always an issue with epic play - what do you fight. There are many ways to handle it that would have to be addressed in any "Epic Level Handbook," but Mythic Monsters from Theros are a good template to make existing monsters more challenging. I've even started a thread for that (check out Mythic Tiamat): 5e Mythic Monster Updates

The problem with CR 10ish "mooks" is that you have to resolve more actions, since they do more attacks. They can also have spells that you have to keep track of. It's much more complex to run six stone golems or young red dragons than it is to run six goblins. But if you go epic, you're supposed to use these CR 10+ creatures as the supporting cast, in the way you use CR 1/2 creatures at level 10. Or is WotC going to publish swarm versions of stone golems and young red dragons? I don't see it happening.

As I stated above, I don't see WotC doing an epic guide. However, if one plays epic games the assumption should be they are going to be a bit more difficult to DM than standard games. That should just be expected IMO. Additionally, I do think printing swarms and hordes would be a good option, it is what I plan to do. I've already made a decent template: 5e Hardcore Monster Manual: Fiends , check out the Vargouille Swarm (CR 20), Imp Swarm (CR 21), and Lemure Horde (CR 9) for the concept. It would be fairly easy to make a mob of giants or similar.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

5e introduces the idea that progression stops at 20. . .and that 21+ level characters are apparently badwrongfun. . .and of course people rush to defend it.

Well, no. They decided that post-20 play didn’t need class levels, and should instead be handled by individual abilities and features that the DM can give as a reward for play, rather than messing around with XP and the idea of being an “epic rogue”.

 

[Parmandur]

Survey says: nope. If D&D beyond is any kind of gauge (and why wouldn't it be) then only 10% of games are even extending above 10th. HALF of the classic 20 level progression is already UNUSED. It has ALWAYS been that way. Past surveys even back into 1E/2E era place the most popular levels of play BELOW 10th and in fact generally peak at about 7th. ALWAYS have. Unless there's some ENORMOUS and bizzarely silent majority who are doing/wanting a lot of high level and beyond kinds of gaming then it makes no sense. In fact, it makes more sense to me to all but abandon content and concern for gameplay above 10th level.

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly right: that's why the epic climaxes to most WotC products are squarely Tier 2 or 3, with one single exception.

 

[wingsandsword]

Well, no. They decided that post-20 play didn’t need class levels, and should instead be handled by individual abilities and features that the DM can give as a reward for play, rather than messing around with XP and the idea of being an “epic rogue”.

They decided that being a 21st level character is badwrongfun and instead to go with some wishy-washy freeform "epic boons" nonsense of being a 20th level character with some extra stuff piled on.

5e has some nice things about it. . .but the total and glaring lack of epic levels and psionics, and this bizarre attitude that if something isn't used by a majority of the players it shouldn't even be published is certainly it's worst part.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They decided that being a 21st level character is badwrongfun and instead to go with some wishy-washy freeform "epic boons" nonsense of being a 20th level character with some extra stuff piled on.

5e has some nice things about it. . .but the total and glaring lack of epic levels and psionics, and this bizarre attitude that if something isn't used by a majority of the players it shouldn't even be published is certainly it's worst part.

You’re bringing melodrama to a practical matter of execution.

Epic play doesn’t need the basic numbers to go up. Instead, you fight Orcus and contend with gods after reaching level 20 by gaining booms and supernatural gifts. That’s it. It’s literally the same thematic thing, executed with different mechanics. There’s nothing “glaring” about the lack of epic levels. Epic gameplay is still very much in the books.

 

[dave2008]

They decided that being a 21st level character is badwrongfun and instead to go with some wishy-washy freeform "epic boons" nonsense of being a 20th level character with some extra stuff piled on.

No they didn't. They decided that it was not profitable at this time to make 10 more levels of play. And I am personally thrilled with the alternate progression systems they have provided for in DMG. And based on the comments in this thread I am not the only one. I much prefer the DMG approach to epic play than more of the same (10 more levels).

5e has some nice things about it. . .but the total and glaring lack of epic levels and psionics, and this bizarre attitude that if something isn't used by a majority of the players it shouldn't even be published is certainly it's worst part.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

No they didn't. They decided that it was not profitable at this time to make 10 more levels of play. And I am personally thrilled with the alternate progression systems they have provided for in DMG. And based on the comments in this thread I am not the only one. I much prefer the DMG approach to epic play than more of the same (10 more levels).

Agreed. And I look forward to your take on epic boons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No they didn't. They decided that it was not profitable at this time to make 10 more levels of play. And I am personally thrilled with the alternate progression systems they have provided for in DMG. And based on the comments in this thread I am not the only one. I much prefer the DMG approach to epic play than more of the same (10 more levels).

I mostly agree. I want to expand on the DMG options for epic gameplay with the option of more codified feature sets, but I like the basic system.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I mostly agree. I want to expand on the DMG options for epic gameplay with the option of more codified feature sets, but I like the basic system.

It kinda surprises me there's been relatively few takes on this on DM's Guild. Most takes on epic levels are just that - levels.

 

[dave2008]

Agreed. And I look forward to your take on epic boons.

Well, I'm not currently expanding the epic boon system. That was my initial approach, but I left that behind a few years ago. I may bring it back for simplified "epic" play, but for right now I am working on rules for playing Immortals. More like the "I" in BECMI.