D&D 5E How do you think "Epic" play will work (if at all)?

[DMZ2112]

Here's a tangential question: do you think Pathfinder's Mythic system could be ported over onto 5E? How much work would it take?

I can't imagine it would take much, because it's a tack on. It has its own center of balance. It's relationship to what comes before is almost non-existent. Even more so than d20 Epic rules, it's in no way an organic continuation of the ruleset.

I'm actually a little disappointed; I would really like to engage you on this, Mercurius, but there is nothing I can say. Would you tweak the ability score increases? Why; what does it matter how /much/ faster they increase? The feat progression? Sure, you get more feats overall in Pathfinder but again, what does it matter how /much/ faster you get mythic feats than regular feats?

Even the individual feats -- is it really relevant how much better than basic feats they are? Or is it only relevant that they are better?

The purpose of Mythic or Epic rules is to break the "normal" progression of character capability. They should be internally consistent but there's just no relevance to them being balanced against the basic ruleset. By and large I see no reason why you couldn't just take the Pathfinder Mythic rules and play D&D5 with them.

Maybe you could change the "Display of X" ability effect to just a free success, but frankly that's a criticism of the Pathfinder rules, not a real conversion consideration. The fact that you can have a +20 to a d20 roll and still possibly fail is pretty much the soul of everything that is badwrong about D20.

Except that the fact that Paizo named their book "Mythic Adventures" cements the idea that Epic means above 20.

Fair point. I don't think Paizo's abandonment of the concept does it any favors, however.

 

[aramis erak]

Except that the fact that Paizo named their book "Mythic Adventures" cements the idea that Epic means above 20.

Not really... It merely shows that Paizo wanted some distance from what had come before, quite possibly simply for staying clear of the extant trademarks.

 

[Eric V]

If it's about feeling different, while the 3e ELH didn't do everything right, some of it was well done.

The concept of crafting one's own unique epic spells

The concept of different, more advanced metamagic feats (auto quicken, intensify, etc.)

The concept of different, more advanced Wildshape options (Dragons, etc.)

The concept of different uses for Channel Divinity

Some of the Epic paths were quite original, with never before seen abilities. Not all of them were overpowered, either.

In these ways, the epic characters feel significantly different to their high-level-but-not-quite-epic brethren. It builds off the familiar, so you don't become something entirely different, but clearly shows the difference between epic and not.

A lot of it broke down because of the mathematics involved, but there were some neat ideas behind those numbers.

 

[prosfilaes]

Not really... It merely shows that Paizo wanted some distance from what had come before, quite possibly simply for staying clear of the extant trademarks.

It certainly shows that, but the result is that their stuff is not called "Epic", leaving the label "epic" to WotC's above 20th level material.

 

[Mercurius]

I can't imagine it would take much, because it's a tack on. It has its own center of balance. It's relationship to what comes before is almost non-existent. Even more so than d20 Epic rules, it's in no way an organic continuation of the ruleset.

I just ordered the Mythic Adventures book out of curiosity, even though I don't play Pathfinder (Paizo has been getting the bulk of my RPG allowance over the last few years, largely on account of 4E tanking and the gap before 5E).

Anyhow, are mythic tiers taken instead of levels? Is it sort of like multi-classing? A paragon or prestige class, or epic destiny? Anyhow, perhaps that's how "epic" could look in 5E: epic/mythic paths become optional to individual campaigns starting after level 10 or so, so you could theoretically go over 20th level - just not in any normal class. So you could be a 20th level fighter, 5th tier champion (so to speak) - but only in campaigns in which the epic/mythic option is opened up.

I'm actually a little disappointed; I would really like to engage you on this, Mercurius, but there is nothing I can say. Would you tweak the ability score increases? Why; what does it matter how /much/ faster they increase? The feat progression? Sure, you get more feats overall in Pathfinder but again, what does it matter how /much/ faster you get mythic feats than regular feats?

Even the individual feats -- is it really relevant how much better than basic feats they are? Or is it only relevant that they are better?

The purpose of Mythic or Epic rules is to break the "normal" progression of character capability. They should be internally consistent but there's just no relevance to them being balanced against the basic ruleset. By and large I see no reason why you couldn't just take the Pathfinder Mythic rules and play D&D5 with them.

Just to be clear, what are you disappointed by?

Anyhow, I like the idea of post-20th advancment still happening, but in a different way. Rather than getting "more and larger," it becomes more a matter of improving what you actually have. So instead of getting more dice for an attack spell, maybe you get an "epic talent" that allows you to re-roll 1s and 2s on all attack spell dice. Or something like that.

Maybe you could change the "Display of X" ability effect to just a free success, but frankly that's a criticism of the Pathfinder rules, not a real conversion consideration. The fact that you can have a +20 to a d20 roll and still possibly fail is pretty much the soul of everything that is badwrong about D20.

I take you mean that it is badwrong for there always to be at least a 5% chance of failure, regardless of skill level and difficulty. Its like saying that there's a 5% chance that a little leaguer could throw a fastball by Miguel Cabrera on any given pitch, which is patently absurd (I imagine that the real life percentage is <1%).

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with it in a roleplaying game, even like it, and here's why: drama. I'd even go so far as to say that the "natural 1 always = failure and natural 20 always = success" paradigm is part of the inherent brilliance of the d20 system. It means it is always worth it to try, but never a sure-thing. Now that's epic!

 

[DMZ2112]

If it's about feeling different, while the 3e ELH didn't do everything right, some of it was well done.

I don't think we're on completely different sides, here, I just question the need for an additional ruleset.

The concept of crafting one's own unique epic spells

Spell creation rules, or at least guidelines, should be in any and every edition's Tome of Spells.

The concept of different, more advanced metamagic feats (auto quicken, intensify, etc.)

I've admittedly never seen the value in metamagic. Maybe someone can explain it to me. It's a feat that gives you the privilege of sacrificing a high level spell to make a low level spell better. That's... not an advantage. So if these Epic feats make metamagic automatic (next album title, called it), then I think that's great but don't understand why it's limited to Epic play.

The concept of different, more advanced Wildshape options (Dragons, etc.)

Why should a druid have shapeshifting options that aren't natural animals? I mean, I get why players would want that, but is there a thematically appropriate reason?

The concept of different uses for Channel Divinity

Now core, yes?

Some of the Epic paths were quite original, with never before seen abilities. Not all of them were overpowered, either.

Okay, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

 

[Mercurius]

Why should a druid have shapeshifting options that aren't natural animals? I mean, I get why players would want that, but is there a thematically appropriate reason?

Who says dragons aren't natural? I mean, I get what you mean - "natural" being indigenous to Earth. But in many fantasy worlds, dragons aren't only natural, they are nature.

I've always liked the relatively common mythological trope that dragons are one of the first race of beings, and that gradually over time the forces of civilization pushed them out. In fact, one could argue that in our world the dragon symbolizes the forces of nature, both individually--the lower, "bestial," self that St. Michael--the higher, mental self--conquers, but also collectively; the dragon being the natural world that civilization pushed back. In Babylonian myths this is represented by Marduk killing Tiamat and turning her corpse into the Earth.

 

[DMZ2112]

I just ordered the Mythic Adventures book out of curiosity, even though I don't play Pathfinder (Paizo has been getting the bulk of my RPG allowance over the last few years, largely on account of 4E tanking and the gap before 5E).

Anyhow, are mythic tiers taken instead of levels? Is it sort of like multi-classing?

It's my understanding that Mythic tiers are earned independently of class levels. I believe they are event driven rather than experience point driven, with each tier being earned after an increasing number of "mythic trials."

A paragon or prestige class, or epic destiny? Anyhow, perhaps that's how "epic" could look in 5E: epic/mythic paths become optional to individual campaigns starting after level 10 or so, so you could theoretically go over 20th level - just not in any normal class. So you could be a 20th level fighter, 5th tier champion (so to speak) - but only in campaigns in which the epic/mythic option is opened up.

I'm not sure how I feel about D&D5 prestige classes in general. I don't have a categorical objection to leveling beyond 20 -- I didn't have an objection to it in D&D3 either -- but I don't want there to be a artificial break at 20th level. For that matter I don't want there to be an artificial break /before/ 20th level that permits advancement beyond 20.

I do like the idea of further class specialization after 3rd level, but I haven't really considered what this looks like yet.

Just to be clear, what are you disappointed by?

The fact that I can't discourse effectively about irrelevancies.

Anyhow, I like the idea of post-20th advancment still happening, but in a different way. Rather than getting "more and larger," it becomes more a matter of improving what you actually have.

This would be in keeping with the spirit of D&D5 if not the spirit of historical Epic options.

So instead of getting more dice for an attack spell, maybe you get an "epic talent" that allows you to re-roll 1s and 2s on all attack spell dice. Or something like that.

These are both the same thing, and they are both examples of "more and larger" numerical amplitude increases. No sale.

I take you mean that it is badwrong for there always to be at least a 5% chance of failure, regardless of skill level and difficulty.

No, but I can see how you reached that conclusion. I mean that a +20 is not equivalent to an automatic success in D20 because it is possible to fail /legitimately/, without rolling a critical failure, when you have a +20 bonus to a d20 roll. The fact that there are DCs that high in D20 -- and that there are characters with bonuses ample enough to match them -- is just crazy.

It means it is always worth it to try, but never a sure-thing. Now that's epic!

Agreed. I have no complaint with critical success or failure. Although I am not certain they are standard rules in D20. I thought D20 only officially counted critical success and failure as they apply to combat rolls.

 

[DMZ2112]

Who says dragons aren't natural? I mean, I get what you mean - "natural" being indigenous to Earth. But in many fantasy worlds, dragons aren't only natural, they are nature.

Yes, but in D&D they are /dragons/, which are by definition not animals or even magical beasts (for which I might be more willing to make an exception). Aberrations stalk the wilderness, hunt, are hunted, and (presumably) reproduce. Should druids get access to aberration forms? Where do you draw the line?

I've always liked the relatively common mythological trope that dragons are one of the first race of beings, and that gradually over time the forces of civilization pushed them out.

The same applies to elves, who in fact commonly have a much tighter bond to nature than dragons. Druids don't get elf form, or even fae form, come to that. (I'd also make an exception there, possibly.)

In fact, one could argue that in our world the dragon symbolizes the forces of nature, both individually--the lower, "bestial," self that St. Michael--the higher, mental self--conquers, but also collectively; the dragon being the natural world that civilization pushed back. In Babylonian myths this is represented by Marduk killing Tiamat and turning her corpse into the Earth.

That's a good case.

 

[Eric V]

Well, for metamagic in 5e there would be no feat; it's a sorcerer feature is all.

It would be neat to have spell creation rules for all levels, but we've only ever really seen it in the ELH, so I mentioned it from that.

As for Epic classes that were neat-not-broken, does anyone else remember the one from Dragon that was all about becoming a non-person? No one could remember you, scry you, etc.? It was very cool thematically without being a bunch of numbers. Something like that.