Should Epic Be In PH1?

[Keldryn]

Leave it out of the initial core rules release (whether that's a PHB or boxed set or what have you), but have the basic framework already worked out and make sure it gets playtested during the public playtesting phase.

It takes up a lot of space for something that a lot of people never get to use. Put it in its own supplement where it can be given the depth that it deserves. Call it the "Master Set" or something like that...

But not including it in the initial book doesn't mean that it can't be developed and tested as part of the core rules system.

 

[Stormonu]

No, I don't want Epic in the core book.

Epic is a niche and it needs its own book to be done properly (the same could be said for the Paragon tier, really). Furthermore, I think it's a rather new concept for D&D - relatively speaking, one that hasn't properly been vetted yet.

While 'Epic' has been around since the Master/Immortal set, I don't think much attention has been placed on it. Epic levels were ignored all through 2E and 3E's approach showed the designers had no clue what to do with epic-level characters (Was there ever a 3E Epic-level adventure?). 4E's coverage of Epic has been a handful of abilities and one adventure, to my knowledge. From the sound on the 4E boards, it really seems that most folks find Epic levels to be a drag and either skip through them or stop upon reaching them.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

I agree. This is one area where I think a blend of the 3E and 4E approaches would work. Scale back the core PHB to 20 levels, but plan to include epic rules from the get-go. Then you can release an Epic-Level Handbook that isn't horribly broken.

Here's another, related question: Should the epic levels stop at 30 (or less) as they do in 4E? Or should epic be open-ended, 3E-style?

 

[nnms]

I think the cancellation of DMG3 and the continued lack of demand for Epic Tier stuff in 4E definitely says that WotC knows that very high level play is not a priority for most D&D players.

I think Epic Level play is best handled with a single supplement. And one released closer to the end of an edition's life cycle at that. I think the 2002 release of the Epic Level Handbook was premature in terms of the larger 3.x product lifecycle.

When they do make a D&D Next Epic Level book, I think they may as well make it open ended as it's going to be such a niche product they may as well make it as long lasting for it's enthusiasts as possible.

 

[Jack99]

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.

Fact: Most 4e players never get to epic tier. So if you piss off a lot of players by not including epic in core, I doubt it is because they are 4e players.

Anyway, I am a bit torn. On one hand I would like access to "the whole game" from the beginning (say if my campaign that I want to convert is at level 25 when 5e is released), on the other, I rather want them to focus on the stuff everybody will be using a lot more. No matter which, I want epic tier playtested, perhaps for the first time in history.


This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad

 

[drothgery]

Yeah, I'm definitely in the 'leave epic out of the initial books / boxed set / whatever' camp. Consider that at 4 sessions per level and one session a week, it will take the better part of two years to go from level 1 to 21. Very, very few campaigns last that long (I've been playing D&D for over 15 years, and was in one campaign that made it from level 1 to 20). The only way I'll see epic 4e is if I join a game that's already there (or starts there).

 

[foolish_mortals]

I think they should forget about it from the get go and see if there is a real need for it. We need good low level stuff from the get go, not a book dealing with Tarrasque killers. I'm sure may find it neat to read from the getgo but its just more weight to slow down the initial start up.

foolish_mortals

 

[the Jester]

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.

 

[foolish_mortals]

you don't need epic levels to run battles! They used to have battlesystem back in 1rst or 2nd and that had nothing to do with being an epic level character. Deities and Demigods is what I think of when you say epic.

foolish_mortals

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I like the current split of Heroic / Paragon / Epic. I think that the designers should do more work on making Paragon and Epic levels more 'playable'. I think 4th Edition did a better job of balancing the game at those levels in a mechanical sense (ie, the math for how much damage was being done, how often attacks hit, etc) worked out well. I do think that the higher levels did end up a bit sprawling though with so many powers that keeping track of what a character could do become more difficult than it needed to be.

END COMMUNICATION