Is the ELH a complete train wreck?

[rushlight]

You can 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".

Perhaps all the experience I have in using the rules is clouding my judgement. Were I as wise as others, I would have had no actual experience on the topic before making a decision. In hindsight, that would have been the better way. All that knowledge just gets in the way, eh?

 

[hong]

Perhaps all the experience I have in using the rules is clouding my judgement. Were I as wise as others, I would have had no actual experience on the topic before making a decision. In hindsight, that would have been the better way. All that knowledge just gets in the way, eh?

Free hint: your ability to babysit a ruleset does not imply the ruleset is good.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Numion!

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.

Of course it did, with epic levels you want to remove limits, not just raise the goalposts a bit - like the 2nd Edition High Level Campaigns Book, which fluffed its way to the lofty heights of 30th-level whereupon Skip Williams got a nosebleed and told you to retire your character.

I would've been happy with specific stuff that allowed another 20 levels of play.

I wouldn't though.

However, by way of compromise what they could have done was provided specific class progression for levels 21-50 for some of the classes*. Irrelevant for the Cleric, Fighter, Sorceror and Wizard for instance, but would have been useful for the Barbarian, Bard, Monk etc.

*Even if this was simply a build of the epic feats.

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.

I was curious why they abandoned what was an already working and integrated solution, specifically metamagic.

 

[eyebeams]

Epic rules have to slow down advancement somewhat to keep the game from becoming completely karma-based. The 1-20 range of the die is limited that way. Still, I can't help but feel that there's a baby and bathwater problem. For instance, the limiter in extending spell rank in 2e was Wish, which broke the progression, but now that Wish has limitations, a 10th spell level is not out of the question. I'm not sure how I'd do it, though.

 

[rushlight]

Hong and I can go back and forth all day, but here's the main point:

If you like the style of "epic" presented in the ELH, then you'll have no more problems than dealing with the core rules.

If that style of "epic" doesn't suit you, then you will not like the rules. You will need to find or create alternate rules - which are more to your taste.

Neither are /bad/ - just different. It's a preference issue, not a rules issue.

 

[hong]

Epic rules have to slow down advancement somewhat to keep the game from becoming completely karma-based. The 1-20 range of the die is limited that way.

Yep. And not just the 1-20 range of the die, but that in conjunction with the system's infatuation with linear progressions. A good BAB progression of HD x1 and a poor progression of HD x1/2 works well at levels 5-12, but is already starting to break down at 16th, and just doesn't work anymore at 30th+. Hence the need to shoehorn stuff like epic BAB, epic saves, and so forth, which breaks the balance between classes something big.

Still, I can't help but feel that there's a baby and bathwater problem. For instance, the limiter in extending spell rank in 2e was Wish, which broke the progression, but now that Wish has limitations, a 10th spell level is not out of the question. I'm not sure how I'd do it, though.

Come 4E, I predict a 40-level scale in the core rules. Then you can get resurrect at 26th level, and wish at 34th.

 

[hong]

Hong and I can go back and forth all day, but here's the main point:

If you like the style of "epic" presented in the ELH, then you'll have no more problems than dealing with the core rules.

Free hint 2: "epic" does not mean "ignore game balance".

 

[rushlight]

Free hint: your ability to babysit a ruleset does not imply the ruleset is good.

Honestly, I've made very few changes. I've taken a few of the optional rules presented, and they've worked very well - mostly the "Open Ended Roll" mechanic and the "Epic Death's Door" rule. But then, I'd taken many more optional rules under the core rules before hitting epic, so that's not much of a change.

I do keep an eye on Epic Spells, just as I do item creation. But that's just common sense.

All in all, it's been a nice experience, and my players love it. It sure hasn't been an easy road for them, though. Dispite being epic level, their challenges are epic too - and we've had several tense situations, and a few deaths. That's fine though - everything seems to level out.

 

[Gez]

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.

People who don't like the epic play style will not be interested in epic rules and won't buy the book. They may bash it out of prejudice (humanity loves to bash things it knows nothing about), but they won't criticize some particular aspects of it. Because for doing so, they need to know of them, and thus to have read the book. Which requires either to be interested in it, or to compensate a lack of life with a waste of time and money.

 

[Mystery Man]

I need some positive energy man, I plan on using this book in a few months.