Should Epic Be In PH1?

[KidSnide]

I'm guessing that I'm in the minority, but I think WotC made a mistake by including epic in the PH1. It required a bunch of pages when you add up the powers of the various classes and -- even with that -- there has never been especially good support.

Moreover, having epic as a core part of the game suggests to DMs that a "typical" campaign should run through all three tiers. There are lots of good stories that finish with epic play, but many (if not most) good campaign stories finish with a lower level nemesis. In much the same way that I think 4e had too much rules weight on combat (even though it works fine for a low-combat game), I also think that 4e put too much emphasis on campaigns that start with 1st level characters and end with fighting a god or demon lord. That's fun and it should be supported, but it shouldn't be the prototype.

I'd rather see epic support placed in its own supplement(s). I want to see solid epic support, but it needs its own page count and it shouldn't be crammed into the PH. It would also be nice if enough powers scaled up on their own that epic powers could focus on abilities unique to epic level characters and not just more bad-ass versions of abilities the characters had been using the whole time.

-KS

 

[mkill]

I agree, for simple practical reasons. There is only so much you can put in a 400-page PHB. I'd rather have more classes and more options for heroic/paragon play, more fluff and more introduction for newcomers.

By the time typical campaigns reach epic levels, the epic handbook can be out. The added benefit is that there can be focused playtests for the epic-level material.

 

[Greg K]

I don't think Epic should be supported in the core. It just takes up space better spent on other things.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Depends on how you define "epic". For the people that want their fighters and rogues to have supernatural abilities, epic rules are the only thing that I think justifies that. Between that and the 4e 30-level core, I think if you cut epic you'd piss off a lot of 4e people.

Also, I think it would cut down on page count if every class were published with its full level range and every skill written with its full range of uses, etc.

I think some form of epic really needs to be in there, although the real issue is making the epic rules work.

 

[malcolm_n]

I think they did a pretty good job with the concept of the epic tier. That said, they really could have gone further into supporting it and making it feel like less of a reiteration of what we just did for 20 levels.

To put it short, keep the idea, but try to do more with it.

 

[Pour]

Yes I think Epic should be included right from the get go, largely because I want the complete game to be tested inside and out with the same level of detail and scrutiny as Heroic and Paragon (or their equivalents). I don't see a reason high-level play should be put off, in fact I've experienced what happens in an edition when it is. Instead, it should be a point of focus, and I think I speak for a sizable portion that are interested in high-level play being a fun part of a party's campaigning career.

The exact nature of Epic in 5e is a whole other conversation, but I think it should be included, yes.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'd like epic to be left out of the PHB1. That seems like an excellent area for modularity.

 

[Raith5]

Yep, agree with Online DM, leave it out. I reckon have two tiers heroic 1-15 and Epic 16-30.

Also I think "paragon" paths/ prestige classes could be more organic in that they occur at a campaign relevant point rather than 10th. Ie the PC meets a knight of a certain order and therefore gets training and gets the package of of abilities - rather than hitting a certain level. Maybe a PC could get more than one path.

 

[Ferghis]

Agreed, for the most part. Mention it as part of the core framework, but leave the rules to another publication. World-shaping levels must be different and modularity is a good thing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think it's better left out of the PHB1, though I hope they at least do some concept work on it while they design the system. Epic 3e really felt tacked on as an afterthought, and I wouldn't want to see that again.

I wouldn't even mind if the PHB1 only supported heroic tier, as long as it did a really great job of doing so. Again though, Paragon shouldn't feel like an afterthought even if it doesn't appear in the first book.

There's only so much room in one book. I'd rather see them do a great job with heroic, and offer lots of interesting classes, than have 20 or 30 levels and only a few classes. Rolling out the new edition in a similar manner to BECMI wouldn't be the worst thing (IMO).