Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1914752" data-attributes="member: 151">Following on <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110247&page=1&pp=20" target="_blank">this thread here</a>, I thought it would be an interesting discussion to exchange experiences and advice about Epic-Level play.  A few ground rules, though, if you please.  First, if you don't like high-level or Epic-level play, please start a separate thread to discuss the merits or the lack thereof.  I understand many folks don't enjoy high-level D&D and even those who do may not enjoy Epic Level play.  That's fine, but I'd rather not derail this conversation.  Second, if you have some interesting mechanics, feel free to mention them, but if they're a house rule (such as Trainz most-excellent alternate Epic Spellcasting rules), it's probably better to start a thread there and post a link here, again, so as not to derail the conversation.  Thanks.  What I'm looking at discussing here is approaches to epic-level play, the ELH, epic rules experiences with what works and doesn't and advice from DMs who have played at Epic Levels with the core and ELH rules, and their advice to other DMs who may be approaching it.  To start, here's my comments from the other thread to start us off:   And here's a separate comment I wanted to talk about:   As far as I know, Sepulchrave uses several rules variants of his own with respect to Epic Spellcasting, which you can see in the Rogues Gallery thread.  Let's look at some of the examples in his story:  Nwm casts a spontaneous epic spell and pays for it by sacrificing a powerful magic item to fuel it; Mosting gets his first epic spell ("Grazzt") as a gift (of sorts) and at one point has access to a magic item that increases his Int to 100+ (the web of motes);  Grazzt and Soniellion both have effectively unlimited XP to spend on epic spells, removing an otherwise extremely prohibitive cost.  I mean, here, look at the spell "Grazzt":   The development cost is 729,000 g.p.!  That's equivalent of the money a character should have acquired in his first 20 levels.  And each casting requires 100,000 g.p. and 10,000 xp for the primary caster, 8000 for the secondaries.  Ouch.  So how does Sep address this?  Like so:   In short, IMHO if you choose to use Epic Spellcasting as it is, you should either look to waiving requirements (as Sep and I have done, in varying degrees) or look to finding some way to allow more ease of ingress.  Essentially, I view Epic as being played in one of two ways:  fast-burning fuse or candle-at-both-ends.  Fast burning fuse is the 'it's all going to be over soon, so let's take all the toys out of the box' method.  I think Piratecat is heading this direction with the Defenders of Daybreak.  This approach is the 'verisimilitude is collapsing like a house of cards, so let's just wrap it up' theory of gaming.  When the PCs can LITERALLY take out whole armies, single-handedly, it becomes increasingly more difficult to challenge them.  This is compounded by some campaign types and styles, as well.  If the PCs have just defeated the BBEG, and you don't want them hopping off the prime, what do you have them do?  Plenty, but some games can't accomadate that, necessarily.  The 'candle-at-both-ends' style is the 'you're really powerful, but really busy' style, which highlights the fact that post 21st, level progression is MUCH flatter than before.  A 25th level character and a 40th level character is not as widely divergent in power as a 5th and 20th level character is.  The way to approach this game is to give the players lots to do with all those resources they've acquired, and keep everything turned up to 11, so to speak.  For this style of game (which probably bears a resemblance to Exalted or Feng Shui in some ways), the DM needs to 'let go'.  Accept that things will play out differently, and accept that the players are like tiny gods, able to shape the world in a massive (though in some ways limited) capacity.  I'll offer more thoughts and comments later.  I think that's a good starting point.</blockquote>

Verification