Should Epic Be In PH1?

[beej]

I've always loved epic, and I have been lucky enough to be in groups that somehow find a way to get to post-20 levels. However, I also understand that I happen to be part of a niche audience.

IMO 4e epic is more mechanically viable than its 3e counterpart, but the flavor was definitely lacking. I kind of like to see mariliths and gargantuan dragons back at levels 17-20, with the mountain-sized xixecals, force dragons, demon lords et al in back as the epic foes for 5e.

What I wish I'd see is this: Have the initial, printed rules stick to the low levels (1-10, heroic, what have you). But while the higher levels are only mentioned in the initial rules, have them available from the start as part of the open playtesting. Even 4e's epic and the damage values of the monsters feel like it does not get as playtested as the earlier levels.

 

[Tallifer]

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

I agree. Putting the epic stuff in another book would be a Classic soultion datin back to Basic D&D and would solve all the problems of balance, space and fluff.

An Epic Players' Handbook could be properly epic.

An opening Players' Handbook could have all the classes and variations necessary for all the different kinds of players this edition hopes to attract. I want all the 4th edition powers; my friend wants all the old spell lists; many want the Essential/AD&D style martial classes. We can have much of this stuff, if the first Players' Handbook just goes to level 10 or 20.

This is a FAR better way of diving up Players' Handbooks than the 1/2/3 of 4th edition with some favourite races and classes and power sources left until #3 (monks, psionics, gihtzerai).

 

[Minigiant]

I would prefer to see some epic in the PHB and want to see an EpicHandbook BEFORE the second PHB. I don't mind if it is not out form the start but PLEASE have it planned from the start.

It would be fun for once to start a balanced epic game with needing a bunch of house rules just to make it work why still feeling epic.

 

[frankthedm]

Epic should be among the LAST books to come out in an edition cycle and HAS to be tied with or BE the book with Deity stats. Only once one knows the full extent of power creep in an edition, can the power level of epic abilities be properly judged. Then and only then can Deities be given proper stats as the top dog of the epic power structure.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Make Epic a module -- not part of core play.

And while I'm on it -- no PHB1, PHB2, etc. There should be one core Player's Handbook, and everything else should be expansion modules.

 

[Aenghus]

I don't think epic should be in the core rules. However, I think that the core rules should be designed with epic in mind from the start, so it integrates well and builds on the core system.

Epic also demands dials, to support power level rise in epic from linear to quadratic (for everyone) to super-high power.

 

[the Jester]

count me in for no epic in the core book, but I had another idea the other day as well...

Epic play should be a really different play experience. It should be a game of broad geopolitical/cosmic strategy. What does that sound like? The backstory for Magic Cards! Here is the opportunity for integration. Epic characters as Planeswalkers or the equivalent. Epic scenarios and epic abilities should be on a broad scale appropriate for leading armies (if you are a fighter) or summoning them (If you are a wizard)

No way. This would be a 100% complete and utter deal-breaker for a LOT of D&D players.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

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.

There is no bigger supporter of epic play than myself, BUT that said, I agree it shouldn't be 'core'.

Epic Play should have its own boxed set, much in the same way there was a Master boxed set for OD&D.

However, just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons here, I don't think Paragon Tier should be 'core' either.

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.

Totally agree.

 

[BASHMAN]

Epic should be core and should be part of the game. Otherwise it never gets supported.

So because only a few people like Epic, it must be mandatory, to ensure that it gets support? Call me crazy, but I think things that only appeal to a few people should be optional.

 

[KidSnide]

However, just to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons here, I don't think Paragon Tier should be 'core' either.

That begs the question of what "core" means in 5e. In 4e, WotC really stretched the definition of "core" to the point where I believe it became unhelpful. If everything is "core", how is a DM to decide what parts of the game to use in his campaign?

If you use "core" in the sense of initial PH/DMG/MM in an AD&D/3.x sense, then I'm not sure I agree. The type of high-ish level play that paragon represents strikes me as a core part of the game. I would have been annoyed if the 3.x rulebooks had ended at level 10. That having been said, I think paragon-level play should include mass combat and kingdom-level challenges that are best suited for a supplement.

Of course, it appears that 5e is going in an even more limited sense of "core" where the core game is a super-simple BECMI-style version of the game. I'm not sure whether or not that means we'll see levels split up BECMI-style also. If it we do, then -- yes -- paragon wouldn't be core either.

---------

Maybe the tiers shouldn't be as tightly connected to levels? It's possible that tiers are just as much about game style as they are about power level. I could imagine a game where you had gritty, high lethality, low power style; a heroic style where the players kick a little more ass; a paragon style where the players have access to disruptive magic (fly, invisibility, long-distance travel) and could lead armies and rule kingdons; and a epic style game where disruptive is trivial and the PCs can fight gods and armies themselves.

The DM picks the style of game (which can change over a campaign), by selecting the starting level and particular abilities available. For example, at lower, you could run a gritty game or a heroic game by deciding whether or not to make "heroic" abilities accessible. In the upper-levels, a game could be heroic or paragon, depending on the access to disruptive magic and mass combat rules. At extreme levels, a DM could continue running a paragon (or, feasibly, a heroic) game by allowing bigger modifiers without game-changing powers. Or the DM could break open the "epic" options and allow the characters to run wild.

I don't know if these options would really be useful. (Do people want 25th level characters who are limited to realistic physical combat and limited types of magic?) But it's interesting to contemplate breaking the "game style" aspect of tiers from the "power level" component.

If nothing else, I think this shines a spot light on a potential error in tier design. If you've designed a tier system and it upgrades power level without also providing access to a new game style, you're probably doing it wrong.

-KS