[EPIC LEVEL HANDBOOK] I'm scared

[NemesisPress]

D&D has always, unfortunately, been "soulless" (probably as much for copyright reasons as for any other).

If you don't like that word, then use my favorite: "synergy."

Ravenloft is a great example of a campaign world that can be adapted in many ways by dms, but that still provides a great deal of synergy among all the rules, spells, feats, etc. provided.

WoT is a detailed setting book that also provides that kind of synergy. It would not be hard to take the WoT rules and develop a different storyline in which to use them because they mesh so well.

But D&D is pretty much the Sears catalog approach. There's probably everything you need in there to do a specific campaign quite well, but you have to filter out a lot of things that will be either irrelevent or actually counterproductive.

 

[Nightfall]

Would it make you feel less soulless Psion/Alan if I posted my epic level High Gorgon Sorcerer/Blood Witch? Or perhaps my epic version of Duke Travik?

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Would it make you feel less soulless Psion/Alan if I posted my epic level High Gorgon Sorcerer/Blood Witch? Or perhaps my epic version of Duke Travik?

Well,

I'm not Alan, and it won't change my mind as to the ELH itself, but I would definately be interested in what you, a very enthusiastic proponent of the Scarred Lands, can do with the ELH and characters you know so well.

So, in other words, please do.

Patrick Y.

 

[rounser]

D&D has always, unfortunately, been "soulless" (probably as much for copyright reasons as for any other).

I don't buy it. At it's best, D&D carries so much feel and inspiration with it that it effectively carries it's own meta-setting around with it on it's back - those spells, magic items, monsters, class and race archetypes, concepts of dungeon crawling and "adventurers", theive's guilds and planes, the underdark and the alignment system etc. etc. Some other games do this to an extent, but most of them have only one setting, or weaker archetypes, rules, genre, or less resources (adventures, monsters, pre-made settings etc).

Network externality reasoning as the sole reason for it's success aside, the D&D swords-and-sorcery blueprint makes worldbuilding a lot easier whilst retaining archetypes so appealing that generic rulesets find it difficult to compete. For telling your own story and making your own world, it acts as spakfiller for the gaps which you can't be bothered detailing yourself. It's neither generic swords 'n' sorcery (too much baggage) nor setting specific (readily transplantable so far as swords & sorcery fantasy gaming goes), making it sort of a hybrid. I think that this is partially responsible for it's success.

D&D is the epitome of a "game with soul" - it may not be a cohesive one, and it borrows from everywhere, but it has a feel all of it's own - one that it stamps into settings that had a life beforehand (such as the Forgotten Realms) and D&D-ises them with beholders and vorpal swords and clerics and spell memorisation like some sort of pulp-swords-and-sorcery-setting Borg.

For a game without soul, look to something truly generic like Fudge - D&D is not your huckleberry, it's steeped in soul. For me, it's a good deal of it's appeal!

 

[Nightfall]

Well,

I'm not Alan, and it won't change my mind as to the ELH itself, but I would definately be interested in what you, a very enthusiastic proponent of the Scarred Lands, can do with the ELH and characters you know so well.

So, in other words, please do.

Patrick Y.

Well first in regards to two favorites of mine, Epic level Penumbral Lord. He/she can do Shadow Walk once per day at 12th level and it increase by 1 every 4 even levels afterwards. He/sje also gets the ability to turn into a half shadow creature at 20th level. He/she get access to epic level feats every 4 levels and gets two bonus epic level feats when he turns into epic levels for his Pr-class

Epic level Crypt Lord, increase his DR for his/her lich power at 12 level by 10/+1. This increase continues every four levels. He/she also can now summon undead from unlimited range but only at triple his HD/class level, which ever is lower. Finally he/she gets access to epic level feats every three levels, and gets an addition three feats at his first epic level penumbral lord.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Kai Lord:

I think we're running into definitional problems. Let me clarify.

Tolkien, Dragonlance, etc. are "epic," in the way that the stories they tell are larger than life.

They are not--IMHO, of course, but that almost goes without saying--"epic" in the sense of the Epic Level Campaigns book.

Sauron doesn't count. Raistlin doesn't count. Why? Because they aren't "PCs." (And don't tell me "Raistlin was a PC in the modules." You know what I mean.) The fact that you can't create Sauron by the rules in the PHB doesn't mean anything. The fact that Bard killed a dragon with one shot isn't the difference between low-level and epic; it's the difference between a novel setting and a game that involves a hit point system with no hit location chart.

I don't only throw 4th level adversaries at 4th level characters. Most of my campaigns have the Big Bad lurking in the background, someone the PCs couldn't possibly handle in direct combat (at least at first). And yeah, some of them have powers that go beyond what's available to 20th level characters.

And I suppose the ELH is a good tool for making such NPCs. But I still feel that having PCs capable of doing stuff like that gives the game an entirely different feel than "standard" fantasy. Again, not making a judgment about whether that's good or bad, but it simply is--at least by any definition of the game I've played or seen played.

The fact that you might not use the walking on clouds skill checks doesn't negate the fact that they're in there, and apparently intended for use.

The book basically, in my mind, either went too far or not far enough. It changes too much to feel/run like a "standard" D&D campaign, but it doesn't go far enough in providing fodder for a good "non-standard" feel. And yes, I'm certainly capable of making that stuff up on my own. But the books should at least get the DM, beginner or expert, moving in the right direction. I don't feel this one did.

 

[Kibo]

Weekend Warriors: Heroes Need Not Apply

Tolkien, Dragonlance, etc. are "epic," in the way that the stories they tell are larger than life.

They are not--IMHO, of course, but that almost goes without saying--"epic" in the sense of the Epic Level Campaigns book.

Sauron doesn't count. Raistlin doesn't count. Why? Because they aren't "PCs." (And don't tell me "Raistlin was a PC in the modules." You know what I mean.) The fact that you can't create Sauron by the rules in the PHB doesn't mean anything. The fact that Bard killed a dragon with one shot isn't the difference between low-level and epic; it's the difference between a novel setting and a game that involves a hit point system with no hit location chart.
The book basically, in my mind, either went too far or not far enough. It changes too much to feel/run like a "standard" D&D campaign, but it doesn't go far enough in providing fodder for a good "non-standard" feel. And yes, I'm certainly capable of making that stuff up on my own. But the books should at least get the DM, beginner or expert, moving in the right direction. I don't feel this one did.

Wow. I guess that adaquately frames the problem. DnD is fine for a weekend game with some pizza. But, in your opinion, completely unsuitable for telling larger than life tales with larger than life heroes. I am so glad people I've played over the years didn't feel the same way. They, and the stories they helped create are the only things that make the time spent in this particular diversion worthwhile. Quite frankly, the game you describe doesn't seem worth playing, and is a mercifully distant memory.

Sauron and Raistlin *DO* count, because they're characters, just like any other characters in any narrative, including a role-playing game. Because they don't fit into some arcane ideal of someone else's rules, it just cannot be done (despite that you say you do it). Quite the declaration. I don't even know what to say about your claimed inability to take the abstraction of hit points, and create a colorful description out of it. The ELH clearly seeks to help people bring more of the literary high stakes adventure into their game without them having to read a wide range of mythology, fantasy novels, and then spend the time to homebrew their own rules. It's a shortcut people can take or leave, and some people are acting like the author took a dump on the hood their car.

If you truly haven't managed to tell a larger than life story with the players you game with, get on it. Watch them become larger than life heroes, and help you tell a brilliant tale. After you and your group finish basking in the slowly fading afterglow of your collective brilliance, you'll probably immediately start kicking yourselves for not doing it sooner and wasting all that time.

And as for having a feel different from your standard campaigns, which aren't epic in the literary sense (as if there was another), as a player, that could only be good news.

 

[tjasamcarl]

Again...

I've heard nothing but irrational complaints about this book. None of the objections goes beyond ambiguous buzz terms such as 'soul' and 'feel', both of which in play tend to be created by a combination of dm and player description on an action by action basis. Swimming up Waterfall aside, most of the new dcs have a reasonable effect which finds application in combat, what all campaigns tend to come down to. The fact that Wotc made a token effort at atmosphere does not mean they failed if any generic qualities exist.

Once someone has playtest results, feel free to make a valid critique...

Thank you

 

[rounser]

I've heard nothing but irrational complaints about this book. None of the objections goes beyond ambiguous buzz terms such as 'soul' and 'feel', both of which in play tend to be created by a combination of dm and player description on an action by action basis.

If you don't understand or see any merit or basis in handwavey aesthetics such as "soul" and "feel" and "inspiration factor", or don't wish to account for them as a valid criticism, then indeed the complaints are irrational.

What I find just as irrational in the area of RPGs, though, is to pretend that just because such aesthetics are subjective and difficult to pin down, that they doesn't exist or are not a valid criticism or judgement of a resource as a result. A book may be technically, mechanically and philosophically correct, but still not one I want to use because it's "feel" sucks or it doesn't inspire me to want to game with it. (This is just for argument's sake - I don't wish to imply that the ELH fits this description).

There are a whole bunch of games with a different feel to D&D. How many people play this game because of irrational and emotional reasons, such as the overall "feel" it delivers?

 

[Nightfall]

What like monopoly? *is kidding* Ease up there Rouncer. No need to take the boy's head off. While I can understand your gripes, (especially since I too have had LONG and hard to think of the impact, both negative and positive my favorite campaign setting), I don't necessarily think that we can objective about FEELINGS. Feelings have been and always will be subjective. Example, while you might creeped out at the prospect of being in a room full of spiders, some people, like those who study aracanids(sp) might feel otherwise. I will say this, Epic level rules are mechanics and certainly don't provide for some things you would look for. We've had this conversation before rouncer. I don't think we need to rehash it.