The ELH is a great book (if you know how to use it)!

[Dragonblade]

I personally love the ELH (Epic Level Handbook). Pretty much the only thing I would throw out are the epic spell rules. Everything else works fine for me.

However, to use the ELH effectively you have to be willing to throw away some of the assumptions in the DMG. For example, the notion that most NPCs are level 1 is a silly assumption that only works in a campaign setting where level 20 is the pinnacle of human achievement. With all due respect to Mr. Cook's fine work, this just boggles my mind.

Once levels go beyond 20, NPCs have to scale upwards as well. With the average NPC level shifting upward from level 1 to anywhere from levels 5 to 15 or even higher. And most major NPCs should have epic levels on par with the PC's.

The main problem with this is that you have build these assumptions into your campaign world from the very beginning. If the town lord was only level 10 when the PC's were level 1, its not very believeable that he is now level 30 when the PCs are level 20.

The problem is further compounded by most game designers perpetuating the silly notion that the average NPC should be level 1. Adventures are written for low-level characters and most published products or campaign settings simply reinforce the idea that most games are coming to an end as the PC's approach 20th level. They do this because thats how most people play. And the reason most people play this way is because thats how most game products assume they play!

It has become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nobody thinks the epic level rules are good because the game breaks down at high levels. The game breaks down because people try to integrate the ELH with the default DMG and PHB assumptions. Those assumptions are based on the notion that most DM's run games under 20th level. And most DM's run games under 20th level because of the default assumptions and their poor experiences with epic level play!!! Aaaarrrggghhhh!!!

There is just no love for fans of epic gaming. And WotC not releasing most of the ELH into the SRD doesn't help matters.

Epic play also requires a completely different mind-set than normal play. In my experience, most epic games are a grand affair with a cast of thousands. Most epic PC's have become mighty lords or ladies with their own personal entourages of followers and henchmen. Armies clashing, mighty magics, and the labyrinthine politics of sprawling empires are the rule. To make epic games work, you also have to be willing to embrace the grand scale that goes along with it.

To me this is what epic fantasy is all about. Its a shame that more designers don't take the initiative and make an epic level friendly campaign world that can really show off the benefits of epic level games. In my experience, everything that can be done in a low-level game with all that gritty intimacy, can not only be done in an epic level game, but can be done better!

The mechanics in the ELH are sound, but to really play a good and consistent epic level game requires more than just rules for leveling up a character past 20th level. It also requires a fundamental understanding of the D&D 3e design assumptions, and why some of those assumption need to be changed or discarded to make epic level play work successfully. And in terms of teaching DMs and players how an epic game really works both in front of and behind of the DM screen, the ELH failed.

 

[FireLance]

I think the problem is that different people have different ideas of what is "epic".

To some, "epic" is just a measure of personal prowess. An epic character is one who can do incredible things like destroy a city with a single spell, wrestle with a god and win, or climb up an impossible smooth cliff. The ELH does a good job of defining such characters.

To others, "epic" is a measure of the character's social influence. The epic cleric is seen as the mouthpiece of his god, and the churches of his world listen to and act on his every word. Mighty armies rally to the banner of the epic fighter, and he can conquer empires if he wants to. Kings and princes seek to win the favor of the epic wizard, and consult him on arcane matters. The epic rogue sits at the heart of a massive web of spies, informants and other agents, and is the unseen influence behind many world events. The ELH does not define such characters as well.

To yet others, what a character does is more important than his actual power and influence. An "epic" character's actions must have an impact on many others or must serve a higher purpose. A fighter who takes on an entire army and wins is not "epic" in that sense, but a fighter who holds off an entire army to give a city time to evacuate is. Again, the ELH does not do so well in this area.

I think the main problem is that the nature of the game must change as the campaign approaches higher levels and "epic" levels. The PCs ought to evolve from being struggling adventurers worrying about their next gold piece to influential individuals to the most powerful people in their world. This changing nature of the game is not addressed very well, in my view.

 

[the Jester]

Dragonblade, the ELH works really well imc without making the average npc 5th or higher level. Your design philosophy sounds similar to a fella named SHARK!'s; you might enjoy sorting out some of his old threads (I haven't seen him around in a while).

Frankly, in my opinion, the key to making epic games work is to change the nature of the challenges the pcs face. They don't bother rooting out the bandits attacking the occasional caravan or trying to get the merchant's stolen key back from the kobolds anymore. By the time they're 5th-10th they're dismantling the secret society behind the bandit raiders or attacking a kobold city on the edge of Koboldistan to secure their borders. By 15th-20th they're attacking the archfiend behind the secret society or destroying the entire kobold army.

But at epic levels, they're taking over the archfiend's plane or bringing the kobold race to extinction.

 

[Alzrius]

I think the problem with NPC's is a big one. The dichotomy here is that the PC's are the heroes of the world, and this means then that they must be at the top of the scale in terms of how powerful mortals can be. After all, if they're there as 10th level characters fighting to stop their world from sliding into the Abyss, why isn't the cabal of 30th level mages doing something about it?

The problem is that then this turns around and zonks the DM at epic levels, as the disparity between the PCs and NPC's becomes wider and wider to the point of being ludicrous.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I have to say, I largely agree with Dragonblade on the ELH (although it's at best "good" - some of the mechanics are spotty). It works well for running a campaign where 20th level is not a significant barrier and NPCs in a typical city range from 1st through 30th level. Where guard captains are often in the 20-level range, regular guards in the teens, and 1st-level is what you're born at.

The sad thing is, by its very name ("Epic" Level Handbook), the ELH undoes most of what it does best. It works best when 21st-level PCs aren't really "Epic," they're the equivalent of, say, 8th-level PCs in a typical D&D world. It works well for a game where the common range of levels spans from 1st through 40th rather than 1st through 20th.

Epic games using these rules work best if they take place in the mythical "Ages of Legend" that preceed most standard d20 fantasy worlds.

The age of giants in Eberron, for instance: that era saw giantish archmagi walking the face of Xen'drik and beings powerful enough to wipe them out, but trying to play such characters in a 20-level game would be impossible. Let's call this a 40-level-base era (although it could reasonably be as high as 50 or even 60). Giants, dragons, demons, a few Epic beasties.

To a lesser extent, this applies to the giant-dramojh war in the Diamond Throne setting - the dramojh are described as being Epic monsters each and every one, yet there were giantish scions capable of fighting them. This would probably be a 30-level-base era. Giants and demon-dragons, but weaker ones than in standard D&D.

 

[Dragonblade]

Good posts! Actually I know SHARK quite well. He is one of my best friends! His homebrew setting of Thandor has greatly influenced my own games.

I think Firelance hit upon an important point. Some people define epic differently. For me, the types of things that Firelance and some of you talk about are not "epic", they are "mythic". The notion of wrestling the gods, or being one of the most powerful people on the planet is more suited to mythic play. And by mythic I mean, Jason and the Argonauts, the Odyssey, or the Illiad.

The ELH and D&D in general does not work well for mythic play. High level D&D is much more superheroic in nature. More like the JLA or X-men than the Odyssey.

I have found that the epic rules work best when you simply ignore the word "epic" and all the baggage that goes with it, and just embrace the mechanics as a means of playing D&D on a larger scale.

 

[Jolly Giant]

I personally love the ELH (Epic Level Handbook). Pretty much the only thing I would throw out are the epic spell rules. Everything else works fine for me.

This is exactly how I feel about it!

Finally; someone who shares my love for the ELH!

 

[FireLance]

High level D&D is much more superheroic in nature. More like the JLA or X-men than the Odyssey.

I have found that the epic rules work best when you simply ignore the word "epic" and all the baggage that goes with it, and just embrace the mechanics as a means of playing D&D on a larger scale.

I guess the ELH does lend itself to a more superheroic style of play, but there are certain conventions in the superhero genre that do not really translate well to the fantasy genre (or at least, the D&D genre).

First, in the superhero genre, supervillians can come out of nowhere. A guy can be Joe Normal one day, and the next he could be the Living Lava after a bad industrial accident involving radioactive chemicals. In the D&D genre, nobody (except a Disgusting Character) gains 30 levels overnight, so DMs usually need to introduce ancient evils, stage planar invasions or send the PCs off-world to find suitable challenges.

Second, in the superhero genre, supervillians often recur or return. The villian runs away, is imprisoned but escapes, loses his superpowers but regains them, is reformed but turns bad again, etc. In D&D however, the PCs usually expect a certain level of finality in dealing with the BBEG. If Razis the Necromancer returns again and again after being raised, cloned, reincarnated, resurrected, turned into a lich, etc., PCs will often adopt extreme measures just to ensure that they will see the last of him.

I noticed that in your original post, you propose to deal with this problem by having everyone in the world level up with the PCs so there will always be challenges for them. As you have noted, this also jars with D&D conventions. However, this means that the PCs will reach the level of play where they are important characters - lords, ladies and commanders of armies - but they will not progress to the point where they are the most powerful individuals in the world. While this would lengthen a campaign, wouldn't this in a way also limit the style of play?

 

[green slime]

IMO, Anyone who gets caught up in the title of the book, is completely missing the point. The fact is, it is just a book title.

And my dislike of the book has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the average commoner is 1st level or not.

It boils down to my dislike for a large part of the mechanics themselves. The book is slapshod work, IMO. Too many ideas that are imbalanced. And although "balance" is elusive and in many respects should not be the exclusive goal of the book, there is just too many ideas that were not given due care and attentive thought.

That said, I find there are lots of interesting ideas within the book. I just wish the follow-through had been better.

 

[Numion]

First, in the superhero genre, supervillians can come out of nowhere. A guy can be Joe Normal one day, and the next he could be the Living Lava after a bad industrial accident involving radioactive chemicals. In the D&D genre, nobody (except a Disgusting Character) gains 30 levels overnight, so DMs usually need to introduce ancient evils, stage planar invasions or send the PCs off-world to find suitable challenges.

In my experience D&D is quite episodic in nature. Of course the mechanics differ from those of superhero genre, but the effect is exactly the same. A new threat arises every few levels as the heroes zoom from one adventure to the next. Also, those threats seem to be in line with the PCs capabilities.

Longer plotlines also exist, though, just like in superheroes.

Second, in the superhero genre, supervillians often recur or return. The villian runs away, is imprisoned but escapes, loses his superpowers but regains them, is reformed but turns bad again, etc. In D&D however, the PCs usually expect a certain level of finality in dealing with the BBEG. If Razis the Necromancer returns again and again after being raised, cloned, reincarnated, resurrected, turned into a lich, etc., PCs will often adopt extreme measures just to ensure that they will see the last of him.

Need I mention the slew of 'Return to ..' adventures, revisited adventures in Dungeon (Flame returns, etc..), and the availability of resurrections in D&D? Evil never dies

Of course rarely should D&D games go to the ridiculous plotlines of comics where people people just wont die, but neither should everything be final. DM adjucation required.