Epic Destinies and Earth Giants

[Fallen Seraph]

I like it, while they should have chosen something other then the Archmage, it shows the principle is sound. I like too that the "Immortality" is not as "game-breaking" as some believed.

I would have liked to have seen some Epic-Tier Powers though.

Also for those who don't like it, I don't think it will be at all unbalancing to simply not use them, given this:

If you don’t choose an epic destiny at 21st level, you can choose one at any level thereafter. You retroactively gain all benefits of the epic destiny appropriate to your current level.

This to me says well if you don't have to pick one at level 21 then obviously the game is still balanced without in the 21 + levels, so you may not need it at all.

 

[Voss]

Finally we come to a couple of things in 4e that I actually dislike. Giants and Titans should have really high Strength scores. A 23 is too low. They should 30 or more. And since attacks and defences can be divorced from stats with 4e monster design, I don't see the problem with this.

They can? They haven't been, in any of the monster previews we've seen. Damage is based directly on the strength score, and has been factored into attacks. Defenses are also reflective of the monsters stats, with a few unknown numbers as well.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Thus far I have been extremely enthusiastic and excited about nearly everything that I have seen for 4th edition D&D. If I posted more often people would almost certainly put me in the 4e apologist camp.

Today's excerpts are the first to truly disappoint me.

The Epic Destiny mechanic sounded like it was going to be something interesting and new. I was looking forward to a new mechanic that helped transition a campaign through the "end game" with flavor and story. Instead it looks like characters just get more kewl powers after 21st level and some generic "now you're immortal" storyline crap when they reach 30th level. It's freaking lame. Here's hoping that other Epic Destinies are more evocative and compelling.

The earth giant entry did exactly the opposite of what the designers claimed as the design goals for giants. The hill giant is exactly what they said giants shouldn't be: a big person that throws rocks and hits people with a club. There is zero elemental flavor and/or mechanics to make a hill giant different from any other big person that hits people with a club.

The earth titan is even worse because I really expected special things from the titans. Again, it's just a bigger person that can throw rocks and hit people with a club. Oh, but it's elite so it's got more hp, better defenses and an action point. Boring. I will assume that the earth titan still has the earth shock ability else there is nothing that differentiates the titan from the giant. Even so a single elemental ability for a titan seems lame. Titans are the first creatures created in the forgotten depths of time by the Primordials in the heaving crush of the Elemental Chaos! They should seethe with elemental power and have a least two or three abilities related to the appropriate element or elements for their type.

Anyhow, my enthusiasm for 4e is not dampened . . . yet. I'm still looking forward to a new campaign with kewl powers and wild action. Wizards, don't preview anymore boring crap, please!

 

[keterys]

I'm honestly wondering if they thought this one through... if they'd shown the fire giant / titan and the eternal hero, that would have been far more exciting.

At any rate, the hill giant is fine for what I want it to do. I'd rather the titan did one big attack with a push than 2 attacks, and I will admit that I immediately thought 'It should have an earthquake' power when I glanced at its stats, so the fact that it sorta does (earth shock), just not pictured, is at least slightly more reassuring.

 

[AllisterH]

Heh...They picked the worst giant to preview...

While reading the article, I started salivating as they highlighted everything I thought was wrong with giants. They made them more tied to their mythological roots (WIN), they recognized the problem of similarity between the giants (WIN again) and highlighted some of the later MM giants that I thought were cool (all types of WIN)

Then they previewed the HILL GIANT...Oh, WOTC, how could you tease me so!!!

As for the EPIC destinies, between this and thr 3.5 article, I think someone at WOTC has all types of love for BECM (two thumbs up for that person as the BECM Immortal rules simply blew away 3.5 EPIC's system.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My take?

Giants: Not too shabby. The fluff passes muster, the mechanics work for their Intended Purpose, and these guys obviously get along in the world at large, and don't purely exist to be grist for the XP mill. The earth shock omission is...well, just one of many.

Epic Destinies: I'm diggin' it. I like that it shows that the designers are paying a lot of attention to how the game is paced, and that it wants to give the DM advice for actually making Epic feel Epic (the destiny quest and whatnot). The abilities are nice toppers, and the fluff is just fine enough to give newbie DMs some jazzin' inspiration. There's nothing as immensely game-breaking as the preamble text would have me believe, but they're nice things that no other character of a lower level could ever be capable of doing, which is nifty.

Really, I'm mostly excited by what is hinted at in the Epic Destiny text as DM advice. It's about friggin' time the DMG paid attention to what actually happens at the table for once.

 

[Dragonblade]

They can? They haven't been, in any of the monster previews we've seen. Damage is based directly on the strength score, and has been factored into attacks. Defenses are also reflective of the monsters stats, with a few unknown numbers as well.

True. So instead of having giants do damage of 2d10 + 5 with STR 21 (or whatever it was), they do 2d6 +10 and have STR 30. Your avg. damage output is similar enough that it works without being broken, but now you have a giant with a more believeable STR score.

 

[malraux]

The Epic Destiny mechanic sounded like it was going to be something interesting and new. I was looking forward to a new mechanic that helped transition a campaign through the "end game" with flavor and story. Instead it looks like characters just get more kewl powers after 21st level and some generic "now you're immortal" storyline crap when they reach 30th level. It's freaking lame. Here's hoping that other Epic Destinies are more evocative and compelling.

I really got the sense that the epic destinies are something that the player and DM should work together to figure out the details. The base fluff is an example of what it could mean, not a limitation. The powers, since they affect the game mechanics, shouldn't be unstoppable abilities, just stuff that's really really good. It also sounds like the epic destinies are also discussed in the DMG, so I'd imagine there's a bit about building different destinies there.

 

[nothing to see here]

However, I don't like the enforced ending. One of the things I actually did like about 3rd editions epic levels was the open ended advancement. I think one of the first house rules I come up with for 4e, is a way to reconfigure the retraining rules so that even 30th level PCs can be played and still experience some kind of mechanical character growth or change over time.

I think what you are highlighting as a flaw is, in fact a feature. One of the key rule considerations in the development of 43 was to extend that mathematical "sweet spot" at all levels of play. Perpetually open-ended advancement will probably stretch, if not outright break, the mathematical underpinings of this swee spot -- particularly if the only random variance in the rules is the ubiquitous d20 check. I stand to be corrected on this point by people with greater math mojo.

But, from where I stand, by closing the loop at 30 -- the designers can say that every level of the game is playable with the same sweet spot and this adds, more than it subtracts from the game.

I like having an "upper anchor" for power level as well as it provides a frame of reference for everything in the game. The 3e Epic Handbook suffered from a tacked on feel that forced you to rethink every other aspect of the game. The most powerful things in the world should be the most powerful things in the world -- constantly retconning a campaign to include even larger and larger threats, only hurts the overall suspension of disbelief. Internal thematic consistency is not as big a deal as the numbers, but it does matter to me.

This ultimately is a playstyle issue -- the new rules encourage arcs that can last for years and years of play time -- but arcs with a beginning and end nonetheless. I personally like the idea of an 'end', however distant , as focussing mechanism for the actual gameplay. If, as a matter of taste, you favour a completely open-ended playstyle where the same groupd adventures in perpetuity than you do have a legitimate beef.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

It doesn't. It was either left out of this article, or cut from the MM at the last minute (without cutting the flavor text.

Oops.

Seems to me that an ability like "earth shock" would be appropriate for something called an earth titan. The ability from the stat card seems pretty appropriate for a 16th level elite brute to me. I can't imagine why they cut it. If I find incomplete statblocks in my monster manual, and am then expected to complete those statblocks by purchasing miniatures, then the three core books will be my first and last purchase for 4e. I don't believe that will be the case, but this kind of editorial error makes me wary.

Frankly, I don't think thoroughly-edited copy is too much to ask from WotC, but this has been a significant problem with their books for past few years. I'm going to assume the best, that this is simply an error in the article and not the book itself. But that may be a poor assumption on my part.