Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5705084" data-attributes="member: 22424">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.</blockquote>

Verification