Should Epic Be In PH1?

[BrockBallingdark]

I'm with most that Epic needs to it's own book, it needs time for testing and for seeing how the first 15-20 levels go (I'm not of 4e thinking with 30 levels) ppwer level wise.

I get it.... alot of guys hate starting at first level and may start at 5th level and are a head of the game and leveling up faster and seeking Epic levels quicker then the rest. This isn't a video game and though none of my games have ever got to 20th level, I understand Epic levels have it's place in D&D.

The first PHB has so many other things to cover, I don't want some sorta-rules for Epic in the PHB taking up valueable information. Do Epic right, while the rest of us work on campaigns in the lower levels to start.

Brock

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If the game ever has to support Epic, it needs to be designed from the start.

But that doesn't mean the rules have to be in the core rulebook.

Especially not if we finally can get to state where we have _one_ core rulebook, instead of 3? Imagine how much more newbie friendly that would be! You buy one book, and 5 guys and gals can start their new wonderful life as RPGer.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey KidSnide!

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?

Absolutely.

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.

So don't use it in that sense then.

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.

The core of the game should be what you can accomplish in one moderately sized book - NOT three such books.

1000 pages is too much material for the casual gamer to digest.

I'd entertain a boxed set with maybe a Players book (60 pages), (DM's) Rule book with introductory adventure (80 pages) and Monster book 100 pages.

That having been said, I think paragon-level play should include mass combat and kingdom-level challenges that are best suited for a supplement.

I think the Paragon tier should be its own boxed set.

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.

Thats what I'm hoping for.

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.

Surely 'grittier' Heroic Tier play is where the DM simply uses higher level encounters on average?

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?)

Unlikely.

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.

I agree...and WotC did that twice with the Paragon AND Epic tiers.

 

[The Human Target]

I'm all for leaving it out at first, due both to space reasons and the fact that it doesn't seem like "epic" style games even get played that much.

Build up to it.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I kind of want to say.

A lot of people talk about not playing epic that much.

I think that is either ecause epic D&D was unbalanced, seemed like an afterthought when created, or came too late in production when "finished."

I would LOVE to play epic D&D. Fly by rolling Balance check on clouds and physically punch holes into new planes.

If Epic 5E was designed for actual EPIC play and released early, I am sure many people would start epic games.

 

[Keldryn]

Historical Context Is Important

I think that another major reason why the 3.x epic levels (and the 2e "High Level Campaigns") didn't work very well comes down to how the spellcasting classes were presented in the Player's Handbook.

Epic levels had to be "more epic" than casting Time Stop, Shapechange, Gate, True Resurrection, Miracle, and Wish.

This ultimately comes down to planning for epic levels from the start. 8th and 9th level spells -- and possibly 7th level spells too -- should absolutely be reserved for epic-level characters. Trying to add more powerful abilities on top of such reality-altering magic is just asking for trouble.

In retrospect, there seem to be a number of areas where 3e inherited rules from prior editions but completely jettisoned the historical context of those rules. In OD&D, spells only went to 6th level; 7th to 9th level spells were introduced in the Greyhawk supplement, apparently intended for use primarily by the DM in creating high-level opponents.

B/X D&D (and the Mentzer Basic & Expert sets) topped out at 6th level spells as well.

AD&D incorporated the entire range of spell levels, but the general assumption was that adventurers would retire by around 10th to 12th level; Magic-Users received 9th level spells at 18th level, far beyond the expected range of play. The designers of 3e decided that the average group should be able to progress from 1st through 20th level within a year or two of regular play, so now it was expected that most groups would be using these spells.

The D&D Master Set even restricts the Wish spell to Magic-Users of 36th level with a Wisdom of at least 18. 9th level spells begin to be acquired at 21st level, but the Companion Set only contains four such spells (Gate, Meteor Swarm, Maze, Power Work Kill), the rest being left for the Master Set (levels 26-36).

I think that 4e got it right by defining the ultimate limits of PC power right from the start. How do you define spells more epic than Wish? And how do you make any other class competitive with a character that can do better than Wish?

BECMI did a great job of making each "tier" of play feel different by changing the goals and focus of the game, and that's something that should be maintained at least in spirit.

Design the framework of the epic "tier" right from the start -- and we already have a good baseline as to what the ultimate limits of power should be. Then put it aside and detail it in its own supplement where it can be given the treatment it deserves.

Those who prefer a little more down-to-earth fantasy game don't even have to know it's there.

 

[Alikar]

Considering how far a typical campaign goes, I wonder if they should even include "Paragon" in core much less "Epic". I would have love to see 30 classes in PHB 1 instead of 100+ pages of nearly useless powers.