Is There a Link between Half Level and the Death of Epic Tier?

[SpydersWebbing]

I guess I better give this a caveat: I hate the half level ascension of 4th edition, so much so that I'm removing it (and the other ascending maths) from my game. Realize my bias, but please also understand that the following is part of my justification for removing half level stuff related to attacks, defenses, and skill checks from our beloved game.

There's a thread about the death of epic tier, and how even paragon tier pushes the problems of epic a bit too hard. One of the major problems registered in that thread is that there just isn't enough support for epic tier. Me, I see epic tier as a culmination of the game and all the themes that were present in there, so my question is: why not just use everything in your game, except on an even more ridiculous level? You should be the embodiment of an ideal at this point: shouldn't be interacting with the world be even more important?

Thanks to the half level bonus, however, the PCs have no choice but to be aloof from the rest of the world.

"But why not make new monsters to match the level?" Why bother? It still destroys the sense of continuity that would be achieved by using similar monsters, while adding in new threats to keep things fresh. It's the inability to use "old friends" that's the problem, not the new guys.

"Well just raise the level". Doesn't that sort of destroy the idea of increasing in power, if their damage has caught up with you?

My idea? eliminate the half level bonuses in all characters, while using the MM3 values for HP and damage.

Subtract the following:

Level-1 for Heroic tier characters on initiative checks, attacks, skills, and defenses, to a minimum of zero or the relevant ability modifier.

Paragon tier: Same as heroic tier, but Level-2

Epic tier: Same as heroic, but Level-3.

Thoughts?

 

[the Jester]

So you're suggesting that we just use lower level monsters?

That gets awfully boring- 30th level pcs can hack through goblins and gnolls with their eyes closed.

Also, this means that an iron golem's defenses and attacks are really no better than those of a kobold.

No thanks, not for me. I would rather push for, you know, actual support of epic levels instead, or write my own material.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

So you're suggesting that we just use lower level monsters?

That gets awfully boring- 30th level pcs can hack through goblins and gnolls with their eyes closed.

Also, this means that an iron golem's defenses and attacks are really no better than those of a kobold.

No thanks, not for me. I would rather push for, you know, actual support of epic levels instead, or write my own material.

Totally agree with Jester here. I've run a campaign from 1-30 in 4E and I totally agree that there just needs to be more support of the epic levels. For the final boss/encounter in my campaign I had to seek out the help of the community because I couldn't find anything suitable to mold or reskin from the currently supported epic tier materials.

 

[KidSnide]

I agree that there needs to be more support for the epic tier, but I don't think the half-level bonus is related to its problems. The essential problem for the epic tier is that epic adventures aren't really all that different from pre-epic adventures.

To take an example from one of the podcasts this spring, Jeremy (iirc) was explaining how that - when they were designing 4e, they imagined that epic level play would take place in much larger spaces so epic powers would need longer ranges and bigger areas. But, instead, they discovered that our dining room tables don't grow larger, so our dungeons stay the same size.

To me, this is a failure of imagination. Epic level play should assume that someones you have to break the 1 square = 5 foot rule in order to have battlemaps of appropriate scale. Those kind of battlemaps provide a very different feel of play because characters interact with the environment in different ways. Characters should gain the ability to move around in that environment (whether by flying or through ninja movement) and affect their enemies from far greater distances. Instead, we get more of the same, except with "one per day when you die" abilities.

Say what you will of 3.x play past the sweet spot, at least it was different.

-KS

 

[SpydersWebbing]

So you're suggesting that we just use lower level monsters?

That gets awfully boring- 30th level pcs can hack through goblins and gnolls with their eyes closed.

Also, this means that an iron golem's defenses and attacks are really no better than those of a kobold.

No thanks, not for me. I would rather push for, you know, actual support of epic levels instead, or write my own material.

No, I was suggesting that we mix it up with lower level monsters, with some of the MM3 monsters and other such things.

Yes, that means that they're similar. But the hitpoints and damage are more than good enough to make up the difference.

I wasn't saying to not ask for support, we should totally get it. I just think that the change to the game that I suggested would help with the overall feel of the game.

 

[the Jester]

No, I was suggesting that we mix it up with lower level monsters, with some of the MM3 monsters and other such things.

Yes, that means that they're similar. But the hitpoints and damage are more than good enough to make up the difference.

I wasn't saying to not ask for support, we should totally get it. I just think that the change to the game that I suggested would help with the overall feel of the game.

Fair enough, but I disagree.

If my epic level party is going to fight goblins, they're going to fight armies of goblins, probably modeled as swarms, or else the toughest goblin in the world. Or minions.

I don't think the half-level bonus is the issue with epic play at all.

 

[S'mon]

Half-level bonus is less than in prior editions - in 1e, 2 & 3e Fighters etc got +1 to hit every level. In 3e trained class skills got +1 every level. 4e cut those both by 1/2. The 4e power gradient is actually a lot shallower, and should not make Epic hard to play, or detract from interaction with mortals, IMO.

 

[delericho]

I don't think the half-level progression is anything to do with it. I think the issues with Epic are:

- time required to get there. This is actually the big one - most campaigns start at level 1 and run until the group get bored (or TPK, or they finish the adventure, or...). This inherently means that groups that get to level 21+ are exceedingly rare, which means that there are very few Epic campaigns out there, meaning that Epic support doesn't sell, meaning WotC don't produce it, making it harder to run, further discouraging groups to carry on to Epic levels... It's a vicious circle that means the death of Epic is almost inevitable.

- complexity. Epic level PCs are considerably harder to design and run than low-level PCs. They have far more powers, far more options, and far more items. The difference between an optimised Epic PC and one that's just thrown together is huge, even in 4e. This strongly discourages groups from just jumping in at the Epic tier.

- sameness. There's basically nothing you can do at the Epic tier that you can't do at the Paragon tier, just with bigger numbers. The Epic Destinies are a cool idea, but PCs don't have to work at them, they just sort of 'happen'. (And sure, you can't fight Orcus at 20th level... but there's nothing stopping the DM statting up mini-Orcus at a lower power-point, and ending there.)

Much of this probably requires a new edition to fix. What I believe needs done is:

1) The DMG should talk frankly to the DM about rates of progression, and indeed should advocate dropping XP-by-monsters in favour of having the party just levelling up after X sessions. (Where X=3 or even X=2 if they want to reach Epic levels!)

2) Instead of accumulating powers as they go, PCs should hit the maximum number of powers at 10th level. Thereafter, instead of getting additional powers, they should replace their existing powers with new ones that supersede the old set. Indeed, I'm inclined to think that perhaps powers shouldn't have levels, by and large, but should instead be keyed to the level of the PC using them. That would help keep the number of options small, and enable players to jump in at 21st level more easily.

3) The rules should make a clear break in emphasis at the tier-boundaries. In the BECM model, characters in the Basic tier delved dungeons, at Expert level they tackled wilderness travel, in the Companion level they led armies, and at Master level they established a legacy. That is, the things they were expected to do in each tier were different. Even in 1st Edition, on reaching Name level the PCs were expected to shift their attentions largely to domain management.

I think 4e (or 5e) would do well to adopt something of this. Perhaps the Heroic tier is about local troubles, with the PCs being blown about by the winds of fate; the Paragon tier is quest-based, with the PCs expected to set themselves goals and then achieve them; and then the Epic tier is about them being the masters of their domain, and reshaping the world in their own image.

 

[MrBeens]

I don't think the half-level progression is anything to do with it. I think the issues with Epic are:


- sameness. There's basically nothing you can do at the Epic tier that you can't do at the Paragon tier, just with bigger numbers. The Epic Destinies are a cool idea, but PCs don't have to work at them, they just sort of 'happen'. (And sure, you can't fight Orcus at 20th level... but there's nothing stopping the DM statting up mini-Orcus at a lower power-point, and ending there.)

edited the quote to highlight the one thing I wanted to comment on.

But you could say that Paragon is the same as Heroic, just with bigger numbers, or level 5 is the same as level 1 but with bigger numbers?
Surely what happens to the player and what they do is up to the DM (as you pointed out about Orcus).
Same with Epic destinies (and paragon paths) - yes by the rules they just happen, but surely most DM's build this stuff into the story of the characters? If you want the player's to work for them, make them work for them.
If you are just slogging through pre made modules then epic destinies just happening isn't going to be much of an issue.

 

[delericho]

But you could say that Paragon is the same as Heroic, just with bigger numbers, or level 5 is the same as level 1 but with bigger numbers?

Not quite. There are a lot of powers (flight, scrying...) that don't become available immediately. But by the time you're mid-way through Paragon there really don't seem to be any new worlds to conquer.

Also, if you start at level 1, it is likely to be only a matter of weeks (or a couple of months) before you hit level 5. You're probably still in that phase where everything is fresh and new. But by the time you reach level 21 you're likely to have been playing for a couple of years. This makes sameness much more of an issue - it can so easily lead to boredom, and thus the death of the campaign. Campaigns are almost always most fun when they're new.

Same with Epic destinies (and paragon paths) - yes by the rules they just happen, but surely most DM's build this stuff into the story of the characters? If you want the player's to work for them, make them work for them.

My issue is that the books don't provide the DM with any support in doing that. The default is that they just happen, and if the DM tries to make the PCs work for them, he's opening himself to accusations of not playing fair. After all, the players can simply argue that they have been working for them - after all, they gained the XP didn't they?

IMO, Epic Destinies would have been much better handled had they been removed from the PHB (except for references that such things were possible), and described in the DMG. Additionally, each Destiny should have been provided with a chain of 5 powers (or perhaps a tree of powers), each of which came with a suggested in story prerequisite for gaining that power.

That is, make the "having to work for them" the default for the game, hard-code the requirements into the game, and provide the DM with plenty of support for bringing out those Epic story elements.

(Note: mechanically, I don't have any issue with Epic Destinies. In terms of the rules, they work fine. They're just really really boring.)