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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6419226" data-attributes="member: 59082">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 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." 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.Again, agreed. There's something about knowing that the sky is infinite, even if we'll never "get there."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've had similar thoughts - bounded accuracy may actually make epic play more feasible and less game-breaking.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification