Should Epic Be In PH1?

[hanez]

There is a LOT of stuff that should be in the main core. I am of the opinion that if they are to unify each of the D&D factions then they must be represented in the core NOT just expansions.

4e had lots of expansions... I never read any of them cause I didn't like the core.

For this reason I think that even if they had to leave out levels 10-30 in exchange for adding content to "unify" different playing styles it would be worth it. Yep, level 1 - 10 sounds good to me if they fill it up with good content, and what an awesome money grab to get for people to pay for the next tier.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As I said on another thread, I think my preference is to have a 5-level Beginner tier (with reduced complexity), then the three 10-level tiers (Heroic, Paragon, Epic). I would then suggest that the Starter Set cover the Beginner tier, and the Core Rulebook the Beginner and Heroic tiers.

Pretty much this... but my delineation would be:

1-5: Adventurer Tier
6-15: Heroic Tier

"Starter Set" boxed set includes Adventurer Tier only
"Core Handbook" includes Adventurer and Heroic Tiers

16-25: Paragon Tier
26-30: Epic Tier

"Expanded Handbook" includes Paragon and Epic Tiers

***

I think both the Adventurer and Epic Tiers should be shorter in length, for a more concise and laser-pointed starting game and end game.

 

[nightwalker450]

I'd be fine with Epic being a separate book. With Heroic/Paragon (1-20) being in the core book. Though I did like the thought of 5 "Beginner" levels, because sometimes I like starting my campaigns at the normal people in extraordinary situations, and then grow from there.

 

[Nebulous]

Wherever they put it, I hope epic actually means something in 5e.

So far, epic has translated strictly into "higher level" instead of into a truly epic sort of big impact kind of thing. Epic rules damn well ought to have rules for running armies- and for having your epic fighter fight an army by himself.

Yep, they need a whole handbook devoted to literally "being" godlike, not just a new slew of powers. Being immortal, commanding armies, ascending to godhood and what they might mean on a universal scale. This is far, far beyond what the core rules should ever contemplate, and it should just be a niche for gamers that want to take their game past 20th.

 

[Knightfall]

If WotC really simplifies the core game, we could go to level 36 like BECM does. However, I think going to a lower level limit like back to 20th level will help toward reducing page count and open the door for epic modularity.

I doubt very much we'll ever have a D&D game, again, that defines "36" levels as the max. The designers would be more likely to go with either 30 or 40. I think 30 is reasonable. Trying to define anything beyond that is too hard, even for the new design team full of D&D gurus.

Now, there could be guidelines for gaming beyond level 30, but it shouldn't go into too much detail. (At most, a downloadable PDF.) Let each DM come up with how the game should evolve at such a high level.

 

[Ferrous]

Leave out Epic play please. I think that WOTC should focus most of their effort on the levels that people actually play. I think that Epic play is a bit of a niche market that is better served with a supplement.

 

[KidSnide]

Wherever they put it, I hope epic actually means something in 5e.

So far, epic has translated strictly into "higher level" instead of into a truly epic sort of big impact kind of thing. Epic rules damn well ought to have rules for running armies- and for having your epic fighter fight an army by himself.

Overall, I think there needs to be a significant re-think for epic (and, to a lesser extent) paragon gameplay. Small unit tactical combat and dungeon exploration is a great part of D&D (that should continue to exist at paragon and epic evils), but there also need to be conflict on a larger scale: larger groups of enemies, followers, bigger maps, organization-based resources.

I think 4e was correct in concluding that characters needed a new "part" at paragon and epic levels (i.e. paragon paths and epic destinies). I think the mistake was making those new parts little more than collections of small unit tactical powers. Instead, the paragon paths and epic destinies should have included abilities associated with larger scale conflicts.

Another benefit of separating epic (or paragon) rules elements from the heroic rules is that it makes it clearer to GMs when abilities like flying, invisibility and long-range travel powers move from unavailable to scarce, from scarce to common and from common to ubiquitous.

Lastly, I should note that higher level supplements are likely to sell well, even if they receive limited use. Players love imagining their characters at super high levels, and GMs want rules for power NPCs, even if those abilities aren't at the players' disposal.

-KS

 

[Alzrius]

Epic should be core and should be part of the game. Otherwise it never gets supported. 3e Epic was a lame add-on that never worked quite right. 4e epic sort of worked, but it was mostly heroic tier style skirmishes with bigger numbers. Instead of fighting 4 orcs, you fight 4 demons. Thats not what I want in epic.

Epic needs to be different. It needs to be big and vast in scale and scope. It should involve immortals wrangling over worshippers across the world, conquering planes, managing empires, armies clashing and so on. Thats the kind of stuff we did in our "epic" 1e games. It should be about leading an army to stop Orcus from overrunning the planet with endless hordes of undead.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I think epic absolutely needs to be in the Core Rulebook(s) for 5E, simply because whenever you try to stretch a system beyond its initial design parameters, cracks begin to appear.

If you build an RPG where the PCs can advance from 1st level to 20th, making a supplement that allows them to go to 30th will present problems. If it goes higher than 30th, the problems will get worse. Now, if the system had been originally designed to take those additional levels into account from the get-go, it would hold up much better.

5E needs to be like 4E in that it lays out from the beginning the maximum amount of levels it's possible for characters to gain, and then structures itself around that, both in terms of mechanics and in terms of world-design. From there, it needs to have support, both mechanical and in terms of GM- and player-aids, for how to make games fun and exciting at that level.

That's how you fix epic.

 

[TerraDave]

Epic: In 3E, it was an epic fail. In 4E, an epic waste of space.

In previous editions, 8th level characters could start to be epic. By 12th level they would have castles, followers...and some would have god-like spells, powers, or magic items. They could travel the plains, fight hordes of giants, or name level demons.

Forget epic. Just make high level play high level. And actually work.

 

[kitsune9]

I doubt very much we'll ever have a D&D game, again, that defines "36" levels as the max.

Oooohhh.... Going to level 36 would be cool.