Is the ELH a complete train wreck?

[rounser]

Quite hard, actually. If it was easy, do you think they'd have muffed it that bad?

Yup. Psionics handbook tried to build a better mousetrap too, and arguably muffed it as well.

Maybe Gygax and Arneson aren't given enough credit for "I could improve on that" foundations like the "Vancian magic system".

 

[rounser]

By manifesting it at lower levels, duh!

I see...

So attack the PCs with a 10th level snowblower instead of a 100th level snowblower?

It's so kerrr-azy it just might work!

 

[Numion]

Quite hard, actually. If it was easy, do you think they'd have muffed it that bad?

I think their mistake was to try too hard. They wanted to make a system scaling hundreds of levels, everything had to be scalable and open-ended.

I would've been happy with specific stuff that allowed another 20 levels of play. Like ready 14th level spells, core class progressions for the next 20 levels without even trying to make them easily scalable to 100 levels, etc.

 

[rushlight]

Humph.

I run an epic-level game (which started out at pre-1st level). I have only found a minor glitch or two with the book - about the same as the core rules. It runs fine and plays fine.

The people here who feel it is a bad book don't like the /play style/ of the book. They apparently don't like epic games, so no book with epic rules will suit them. That's the wrong crowd for actual advice on the topic.

If you don't like an epic feel where characters can accomplish almost anything, and where the bad guys are just as capable, then you won't like running an epic game, no matter what rules you use. Spellcraft checks of 314 are reasonable when you are running around with 280th level characters. If that's what you're looking for in a game, then the ELH will get you there. If you don't like running a game at 280th level, then that's a personal preference - not a problem with the ruleset.

The epic spell system is very powerful and flexable - and it should be. It's also abusable, if the DM allows just anything in. A DM with no backbone will quickly have problems - but the same can be said of item creation in the core rules. If you are judicious, exercise caution, and know your players then you'll be fine.

 

[hong]

The people here who feel it is a bad book don't like the /play style/ of the book. They apparently don't like epic games, so no book with epic rules will suit them.

It is usually considered impolite to begin a post with a non sequitur. I mean, you could at least wait a couple of followups before going off the rails.

 

[rushlight]

It is usually considered impolite to begin a post with a non sequitur. I mean, you could at least wait a couple of followups before going off the rails.

I never really liked the rails to begin with...

Honestly, of all the people here who have said they hated the ELH, how many of you have actually played using those rules?

I'm curious.

 

[hong]

I never really liked the rails to begin with...

This is why you are unable to provide insight where the issue of the quality of the ruleset is concerned.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

We do tend to see a lot of 'dreadful', and 'shocking' disections of the Epic Level Handbook. But to be fair its not bad, not good, just average. The biggest disappointment for me was the potential of what could have been.

For what its worth I have a review here.

In its defence, the book was hamstrung in the beginning by the official Challenge Rating rules which are fundamentally flawed at all levels, although the cracks only become glaring at epic levels.

 

[rushlight]

This is why you are unable to provide insight where the issue of the quality of the ruleset is concerned.

I suppose I'll take your response to mean, "No, I've not played using the ELH rules."

 

[hong]

I suppose I'll take your response to mean, "No, I've not played using the ELH rules."

You can take it to mean anything you want. People who understand English, however, will take it to mean "you are unable to provide insight into the issue of the quality of the ruleset".