How Broken Is It to Just Advance Characters Past 20th w/o Epic Rules?

[el-remmen]

So, I have no interest in epic rules - so don't even suggest it.

But today I made a note of the first 20th level (or higher) NPC in Aquerra since I made the change to 3.x - and I was thinking I would really like her to be more like 24th level.

Since Aquerra campaigns have never gotten past 11th (and probably never would get much further) - this is just an academic topic - since it really only concerns NPCs - but on the other hand - being Aquerra, it is totally possible (however unlikely) for the PCs to do something to piss off such a character and since I am not a DM to pull punches - I was wondering. . . how crazy is it to just keep adding levels of base classes and/or PrCs after 20th?

Actually, for anyone following my story hour, Hurgun of the Stone is a high 20-something level character in my mind - but since his stats never mattered, I never came up with them or worried too much about numbers.

Anyone else do this?

 

[Crothian]

It won't be bad untill you get above 30 I'd guess. Advanced Players Guid by Sword and Sorcery has rules for this type of thing. They extend the core classes to 30th level like the onld High Level book for second edition did.

 

[Arkham]

The only real issue with such advanced characters is the 'recommended wealth' amounts and the # of attacks from BAB. If the # of attacks is capped at 4, then there are no problems. And for spells lots, I just continue the apparent pattern with a hiccup between 19th and 20th.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

The two times I've DMed groups that hit lvl 20 I just ignored the epic rules as well. To be perfectly honest I don't think they make sense and create an overly rigid artificial divide with no internal logic to it. I'm currently taking my homebrew and regularizing everything as an OGL derivative and I'm going to continue the base class progressions to 45th level where there is a transition into a divine entity.

For the BAB problem you eventually have to cap additional attacks. Currently I'm converting the Exalted 2e combat system to work in d20 as a way around the static nature of ordinary d20 combat. In that I use BAB to reduce action time, but after testing it the system still needs some adjusting before it's ready though when it is I'll put it up here on the House Rule boards.

 

[BryonD]

I think that for npcs-only most of the issues that the epic rules are supposed to avoid go away.

And if these npcs are going to be significantly more powerful than PCs anyway, then it makes even less difference how exactly you stat them out.

 

[Crothian]

The only real issue with such advanced characters is the 'recommended wealth' amounts and the # of attacks from BAB. If the # of attacks is capped at 4, then there are no problems.

What problems are there with the additional attack? The 4th attack is usually tough to hit with, so a fifth attack is just that much l;ess likely to do anything.

 

[lukelightning]

What problems are there with the additional attack? The 4th attack is usually tough to hit with, so a fifth attack is just that much l;ess likely to do anything.

Right, so what happens is you get more and more meaningless attacks. It's a waste of time.

You might need to fix the save progression as well; the gap between the good and poor saves will skyrocket. Woo hoo, I have a +37 Fort save...but a +13 Will save.

 

[kenmarable]

One of the big issues I can see with it also is the difference in saves and BAB progression*. Just continuing the charts means a low save can be crippling, and low BAB against tougher and tougher foes makes it impossible. For example, what you need to remotely challenge a lvl 20+ tank would become impossible for a lvl 20+ non-tank to hit. And anything that requires a save becomes either ridiculously easy for some characters, or utterly impossible for others depending on who the encounter is tailored towards.

It becomes less fun when so many of the rolls boil to either "only fail on a 1" or "only succeed on a 20". Those situations are certainly fun on rare occasions, but not when it's nearly every single roll.

However, plentiful magic can mitigate these. Or just use the Epic rules of "everyone gets +1 BAB, and +1 to all saves". That would be easiest, but if you want to keep classes different, maybe just allow every class to raise 2 or 3 out of the 4 (BAB, Fort, Ref, Will) - player's choice - at each level.

But, also in the 20-30 range, with magic items and buff spells, it might still be a non-issue.


* Yes, I know Epic rules doesn't technically progress BAB because of the number of attacks issue, it instead adds some silly bonus to your BAB. Really, it's pretty much saying "These aren't apples since you can't have more than 4 apples. These here are quapples that just happen to look, feel, and taste just like apples. Just never call them apples, of course."

 

[kenmarable]

Oh, this also reminds me of back in the days of 1e when we let someone continue the monk chart beyond it's limit into high levels. It became pretty absurd when the monk had a movement rate that allowed him to take a round or two at most to run miles back home to get items that we needed.

 

[Kaodi]

Why not just forget advancing number of spells beyond 20th, and just advance caster level? I mean, since this is for NPCs, does it really matter how many spells per day they get, or just how powerful they are?