Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 4541887" data-attributes="member: 4892">Not sure how I missed your poll. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />I think I would have liked this approach, with my caveats above. The Paragon book would not *just* cover levels 11-20, it would add more value to what being a Paragon character means. The Paragon Path idea could have been fleshed out more. They could have even gone a route where the base classes only go 10 levels and you then chose a Paragon Path for 11-20. The same thought could be put into the Epic book and Epic Destinies.Not every group is going to want to play Paragon or Epic either. But if they put enough work into those books to make those tiers more dynamic than they are now I think more groups would choose to play those tiers.As far as the business model, I don't think it would do any worse than BECMI and in fact might draw players fond of those days to 4E. PHB1 would equate to B/E; PHB2 to C/M; and PHB3 to Immotal. Basic D&D seemed to evolve that way. Basic and Expert set were basically the same rules, Basic focused on dungeon exploration and Expert focused on wilderness exploration. Companion and Master added new rules to the system, making the game feel different. And of course Immortal focused on your PC's immortality.I think we'd have a more dynamic game in our hands with more interesting Paragon and Epic options headed our way. I think there would be less complaints that the game was incomplete as it would be easier to convert character concepts for those willing to restart and it would be easier to decide whether you wanted to convert your campaign depending where you are level-wise and the 4E release schedule.</blockquote>

Verification