Is the ELH a complete train wreck?

[DragonLancer]

I didn't want to buy it because from what I had seen it was a real twink fest, but I managed to get a copy cheap on Ebay recently and may attitude has changed a little.

Theres only two things I would have changed (and will do if I ever run into Epic levels).

1. Keep PrC's to 10 levels. There is no need to increase them.
2. The Epic spell system is just silly. Just increase the number of spells a wizard gets as they hit those levels.

So, yeah, its ok but needs tweaking.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Ahh, there's a time-honored tactic. [paraphrase]"You don't like x therefore you must have no experience with x. Either that or you are prejudiced against x. [/paraphrase]

Give us some freaking credit. The epic levels are just not well done. I happen to agree with hong (and the game's designers, for that matter; this was already a known issue years ago) that the linear progression of D&D starts acting really weird before you even get into epic levels. The ELH was a very poorly thought-out implementation of the rules. The feats and spells are wildly divergent in power.

 

[diaglo]

I bought it in the interest of completeness, but I'll never use it.

Ghost quote: "Ditto."

 

[Psion]

Overall -- the book is weak on epic flavor. It's all about powerups, not eye-opening ideas on a grandiose scale.

Monsters - strong. Good stuff. Flavorful and filled with neat ideas.

GM advice - modest. Some decent advice, but could use more flava.

Character rules - workable. Could use a few tweaks, but for the most part I was able to use them as is to take my group beyond 20.

Epic Spells - weak. Does not have a good continuity with lower level spells; you sort of have to get the DC up there a ways before you get beyond what is possible with 9th level spells.

City of Union - Attrocious. A city where high level characters have high level groupies, guards who in a normal setting would rule nations. Extremely poor logic and extremely poor attempt to create an epic level setting.

 

[Jackal42]

When I played 3e I liked the "epic level blurb" in the back of the, then new, Forgotten Realms hardback. It was simple enough, changed just enough mechanics to make things interesting but left most of the core systems the same so you didn't have to relearn the game at level 21.

As for a C&C epic level book, please don't bring the curse of book after book on us. lol Though I think the old BD&D immortals set would be a perfect way to do it yourself.

Oh, and to answer the question, I hated the ELH even when I did play 3e.

 

[Mystery Man]

Overall -- the book is weak on epic flavor. It's all about powerups, not eye-opening ideas on a grandiose scale.

Monsters - strong. Good stuff. Flavorful and filled with neat ideas.

GM advice - modest. Some decent advice, but could use more flava.

Character rules - workable. Could use a few tweaks, but for the most part I was able to use them as is to take my group beyond 20.

This means for the most part other than a few guidelines to go by, we're on our own?

Sweet.

Has anyone used the "extend deaths door" variant?

Based on experience, are any of the feats updated to usefulness in 3.5?

Obstacles, hazards, etc. This section seems a bit (shall I dare use the word) useless. Like it was almost an afterthought or not enough thought was put into it.

In theory, I think I can get the magic system to work as is. After reading it I don't see what all the hubbub is about. But, I've only read it and have not put it into pratice.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi UK!

Hello again!

24th, so it's only 4 levels into epic.

Ah right, okay. It seemed a bit strange the other way around.

Won't that make the BABs insignificant when comparing epic characters at higher levels with different progressions?

Thats easily handled.

Instead of capping BAB at 20th-level, just cap the number of one-handed attacks to four when you reach BAB +16. So a 16th-level Fighter, a 24th-level Cleric and a 32nd-level Wizard will all have BAB 16 - and therefore #4/r.

I'm not saying point based magic and custom spells are stupid ideas. But when magic has functioned differently for the first 20 levels, they IMHO are.

Well I agree with that appraisal - as I mentioned before I was curious why they just didn't expand on metamagic, since that system was already implemented into the first 20 levels and could be expanded indefinately.

For messageboarders it's funny in a wrong way. Apparently not for the players.

I love those sorts of quirky posts though, they are always interesting.

 

[Numion]

Thats easily handled.

Instead of capping BAB at 20th-level, just cap the number of one-handed attacks to four when you reach BAB +16. So a 16th-level Fighter, a 24th-level Cleric and a 32nd-level Wizard will all have BAB 16 - and therefore #4/r.

But still, if the BABs advance at the regular pace the wizard will have 20 BAB when the fighter has 40. In essence the Whizzie won't hit anything the Fighter needs roll to hit. I found it good idea that the BABs kept within the d20 range, to avoid the problem (which was the same reason why save progression was changed). Actually wizards not hitting isn't the issue, but if they continue to progress linearly at different paces, soon rogue's and clerics will be obsolete if fighter needs the roll to hit,.

Number of attacks was never the problem to me.

Well I agree with that appraisal - as I mentioned before I was curious why they just didn't expand on metamagic, since that system was already implemented into the first 20 levels and could be expanded indefinately.

It was expanded a bit with the improved slots - 10th, 11th, etc. slots that could be filled with metamagiced spells.

I love those sorts of quirky posts though, they are always interesting.

Yep. I would've like to see the 5000th level characters sheet.

 

[Sir Elton]

I find it puzzling, and as some character from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy might say -- Mostly useless.

 

[d12]

Rushlight, thanks for your calm comments in the face of animus.

Ditto. Thanks for realizing that we are talking about a game. Thank you for your civil tone. I don't agree with you 100% but I do appreciate your viewpoint.

Free Hint number 4: When you type "Free Hint number whatever" it sounds condescending.