Looking for alternatives to official Epic rules

[drnuncheon]

I know I haven't read your SH in a while, but didn't Nolin go epic quite a while back?

...do I need to do some major catching up?

J

 

[Tessarael]

I got the Advanced Player's Guide to check out their epic rules. I wasn't impressed. Struck me as more of the same of the PHB progression.

In general, the ELH implemented epic rules poorly. However, I do think they got some things right: saves and BAB have to start scaling at some flat progression for all classes, otherwise the difference becomes too much.

I would be inclined to use ELH save and BAB progression, with the following change: characters get their best 20 level BAB or save progression to build on. e.g. Rogue 20/Fighter 20 is no different to Fighter 20/Rogue 20 in terms of BAB or saves. For spell progression, you could probably just extend the current tables, with the extra slots only being available for metamagics.

 

[Campbell]

Tessarael: I was in complete agreement until you brought up epic spellcasting. No doubt about it, the epic spellcasting rules are seriously flawed, but I believe the spirit of those rules was on key with the nature of epic levels, the same goes for a good number of epic feats. At least in the types of games I like to play epic level characters should shake the very foundations of the world. I'd prefer earth shaking magic, blades wrought of divine mandate, becoming enwrapped in the political manipulations of dieties and such inexplicable things being the forte of epic level characters. To me, simply becoming 21st level isn't enough. WotC did a poor job of implementing their aims, but I believe they had the right target in mind. YMMV. We probably just want different things in our epic level rules.

 

[Samuel Leming]

I would be inclined to use ELH save and BAB progression, with the following change: characters get their best 20 level BAB or save progression to build on. e.g. Rogue 20/Fighter 20 is no different to Fighter 20/Rogue 20 in terms of BAB or saves.

I came to the same conclusion as you did. The problem first came to my attention while designing some epic level Arcane Archer NPC's for the next campaign I'm going to run.

Have there been any threads discussing the pros and cons of this approach? If so, can you point me in their direction?

Thanks.

Sam

 

[drnuncheon]

I know I haven't read your SH in a while, but didn't Nolin go epic quite a while back?

...do I need to do some major catching up?

...and I've answered my own question. Wow.

 

[Tessarael]

I would be inclined to use ELH save and BAB progression, with the following change: characters get their best 20 level BAB or save progression to build on. e.g. Rogue 20/Fighter 20 is no different to Fighter 20/Rogue 20 in terms of BAB or saves.

Have there been any threads discussing the pros and cons of this approach? If so, can you point me in their direction?

Sorry, I don't recall any specific threads on this. I have discussed it extensively with one or two roleplaying friends of mine.

Power-wise, there's nothing wrong with it. One issue may be that it changes things thematically - wait ... the Rogue 20/Fighter 20 now has as good BAB as the Barbarian 20/Fighter 20. Then again, that would still be the case if it was Fighter 20/Rogue 20.

One problem is that BAB and save progression no longer have any impact beyond 20th. That messes things up with non-epic class levels, as BAB is a significant component of the power for Fighter-type classes. My fix to that is to give BAB 1/1 classes +1 damage/level beyond 20th, BAB 3/4 classes get +1 damage/2 levels beyond 20th, and BAB 1/2 classes get no additional damage. This is roughly equivalent to the character getting the extra attack bonus (i.e. +1/2 levels for BAB 1/1 vs. BAB 1/2) and then using it with Power Attack to increase damage.

One other thing: I would use fractional BAB and saves with this rule. You don't want to see strange high level builds that get massive 20th level saves by taking many classes. i.e. The minimum base save at 20th level should be +6, and the maximum should be +12. You get +1/3 levels with a poor save class, +1/2 levels with a good save class, and a one-time bonus of +2 if you have a class with a good save. e.g. Fighter 1/Rogue 19 should have Fortitude save of +2 (for Fighter good save) +1/2 (Fighter 1) + 19/3 (Rogue 19) = 8.83, rounding down to +8 Fortitude save at 20th level.

One other problem with the ELH is that epic feats vary significantly in power. Blinding Speed is crappy compared to Boots of Speed, giving 5 rounds of Haste rather than 10 with the Boots of Speed. I don't know a good fix to this, other than trying to rate the feats individually ala Sean Reynolds' feat point system. I would consider making an epic feat worth two normal feats - that will give epic progression a bit more of a power feel, but may result in too many feats in some people's opinion (e.g. Fighter will be less unique at high levels).

 

[Tessarael]

No doubt about it, the epic spellcasting rules are seriously flawed, but I believe the spirit of those rules was on key with the nature of epic levels, the same goes for a good number of epic feats.

I think epic feats, while not well-balanced in power versus each other, are okay. There isn't anything majorly broken, and the one or two revisions out there fixed a couple of issues (e.g. Automatic Quicken Spell only gives 0th, 1st, 2nd, taking it again gives 3rd, 4th, etc. - revision is in Complete Arcane epic feat section).

The epic spell rules don't work. They're complicated, and they can be seriously rorted. There needs to be a better approach, though I don't have a solution here for you. My other concern is that you want non-spellcasters also to be relatively equal in power at epic levels ... sure maybe the Fighter and Rogue will lag the epic Wizard and Cleric a bit, but you don't want them getting left behind unable to do anything legendary. In that respect, I'd prefer to see a system which gave all the classes some legendary abilities that don't upset game balance much. e.g. I can picture an epic strong Fighter being able to do an Earthquake spell type of effect by thumping the ground.

 

[Tessarael]

Just took another look at the Advanced Player's Guide. The extended 21st-30th level versions of the PHB classes are okay. I would change BAB and save progression to what I discussed above. One of the problems is that they don't discuss how to handle progression of other classes to epic levels ... I think ELH does a somewhat okay job of this by continuing progression in regular abilities and adding in some epic feats.

 

[Vrecknidj]

The epic spell rules don't work. They're complicated, and they can be seriously rorted. There needs to be a better approach, though I don't have a solution here for you.

I've always been a fan of scrapping epic spells, and just extending spell levels up beyond 9th. Then, just use the damage cap rules from the DMG, and the existing progressions in the PHB, and go from there.

For example, if a fireball is 3rd level and delayed blast fireball is 7th, then whatever the difference between them is can be extended to an 11th level spell. Also, compare a wish to a limited wish, take the difference and boost a wish by that much. Call it greater wish, and make it 11th level. Similar reconfigurations will create plenty of spells that, when combined with feat-tweaked spells, will give epic spellcasters plenty to do.

And, to simplify things a little for the DM, make it the player's job to come up with the spells. After all, how many 10+ level spells are out there, sitting in libraries collecting dust?

Dave

 

[Piratecat]

I'm not opposed to the ELH's rules for BAB and saving throws, and I'd definitely use them if the campaign were going to reach into significant epic levels, but that's not going to happen. I think for simplicity's sake I'm on safe ground extending the current progression.

The cleric's player has asked me to come up with my own cool epic perq for him. I'm going to have fun with that. As for epic spellcasting, I'm not opposed to it (flaws and all) and the bad guys have been using it, but I doubt the PCs will want to dabble. If they do, we'll make it work.