I think it was Mearls that talked about there being epic levels back in the playtest. CR 30 monsters would also seem to point to it. Whether that ends up holding true or not is tough to say however. 5E's lack of modularity or a strong underlying system make it difficult to expand. 4E had a strong underlying system so was very easy to take into levels beyond 30 as was 3E because it is both modular and has a strong system, but 5E would be very very messy. For instance relieving the 20 cap on stats would cheapen the barbarian capstone, extra attacks would reduce the benefit of the fighter's attacks and slow down combat. They can't really "continue" the system they have and become a level 21 barbarian, they'd have to tack on a new system, halt advancement at 20 and let characters progress through new epic classes or somesuch.
I don't see a problem with that. In fact, I think because the curve is more realistic and workable in 5E, it points out how the "upward incline" of 3E and 4E was difficult to work with. Advancement was too even, too linear, which simply doesn't reflect real life in any way. In the real world, the difference in "levels of mastery" become finer and finer; for instance, a violinist who has played 19 vs. 20 years isn't as different as one who has played 2 vs. 3 years. Thus I'd suggest that "realistic" advancement is more like Zeno's arrow, where the distance to the target is continually halved...thus advancement could be infinite, but gets smaller and smaller.
I am really drawn to epic play. I really like the idea of it. However, I have never had a D&D group that epic play seems to work very well with and it is probably my fault, not theirs.
I very much agree (with the first two sentences, not the third as I don't know whether it was your fault or not!). But I think you point out that while epic play isn't inherently bad, it may be inherently difficult to pull off - or at least more difficult than the "sweet spot."
I agree with the posters writing that epic rules would have to be an extended system not a mere continuation of the levels. The comparison to E6 others have made certainly strikes the right chord for me.
Well here's where modular options can come in - there could be multiple sub-systems for epic play. Want an "E20" style epic play? Then levels bring more feats, advancement of current feats, and just micro-adjustments. Want to play mythic demigods? Then there'd be epic destinies or mythic classes than be "multi-classed" into. Etc.
I do hope they try to do epic. Even if they fail, which by large consensus they did in 3e, it will still give some great ideas to mine.
Part of the attraction of D&D for me is unlimited play, even though I rarely get there with my groups.
Again, agreed. There's something about knowing that the sky is infinite, even if we'll never "get there."
A small signpost towards levels 21+ can be found in the capstone abilities of several classes with key powers that refresh after a short or long rest: "If you roll initiative and have no inspiration/mastery dice/sorcery points left, then you gain one X."
So in 5E, I think part of being epic will mean you get to use your class features more frequently. I can easily imagine epic-level characters gradually increasing this sort of minimum reserve. For other classes, we can see more channel divinity, more arcane recovery, etc. The point being that these characters stay at the top of their form longer, and can get through more encounters.
I can also see the proficiency bonus and ability score increases continuing up to L30, just as they do with monsters. Something would have to be done about the PCs' weak saving throws, however.
Yet more examples of how there are different ways to do epic play, depending upon what the DM and group want. In that regard I hope that WotC comes up with an Epic Sourcebook rather than Handbook, with the implication being that it is more of a toolbox with different options. In a way it takes the pressure off them to come up with the "best" system for epic play; they give options, and we put them together.
I love epic level play.
One of the things I loved about 1E through 3.X is that the only character limitations are set in your campaign - rather than the rules.
With bounded accuracy, they could make levels 21-40 and the proficiency bonus at level 40 would only be something like +10 - hardly game-breaking. And, since monsters now have a longer level "shelf life" the CR 18 monsters would be just as challenging at higher levels if you increase the number appearing.
Alternatively, you could go with a 1E model whereby after a certain level you no longer gain HD, but your HP max increases by 3 per level (or somesuch). This edition seems made for epic level games that won't break the math.
I've had similar thoughts - bounded accuracy may actually make epic play more feasible and less game-breaking.
Being high level doesn't make a story epic. Having mythical powers doesn't make a story epic.
If D&D5 has an Epic sourcebook I hope it's just a master class in campaign design, because seriously, enough with 21st level or special feats being cruise control for a compelling campaign.
Enough.
All of which is true, but I think you are talking about something different. You are using the word "epic" with a small "e" not "Epic" with a big "E." The latter is high level play, the former is an adjective. But you seem to be confusing the two, as if Epic play is inherently bad, and people use it as a surrogate for making a game more epic, which is what we should be focusing on. I don't disagree with that sentiment, but also don't think that talking about Epic (high level) play inherently takes away from the epic quality of a story. In other words, while I can understand and to some degree agree with your ire, I think it is misplaced.
I always wanted to do a Greek demigod style epic with super strong demigods, super genius mortals, and favored champions.
Yeah, that would be one very valid way to do it.
I'm a tennis fan and was thinking about what is the difference between the true greats - a Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic - and the rest of the field. I think it is a capacity for what could be described as "epic" play. Certainly their skills are highly developed, and perhaps all great players have few or no flaws in their game, and a few areas where they truly excel. So on one hand it is a quality of just being very, very good, both technically and mentally. But the true greats just seem more capable to come up with just absurd plays and displays of talent. In a way, it is almost as if the hundred or so best players in the game are all capable of absurdly high play, but the true greats just can access it more frequently. It is almost like not only are their "bonuses" high, but they're more prone to roll natural 20s.
So I'm thinking maybe epic play can be something like that - not only increased bonuses, but more of game-changing talents - "Epic Talents," even; things that great mythic heroes and demigods--or sports greats like Roger Federer or Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan--were capable of.
