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

[Crothian]

A first level barbarian can have Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery. How is that not convincing?

A first level knight (fighter) can have Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, and Spririted Charge. Again, what else does he -need-?


Aaron

Actually a first level Barbarian cannot have two feats, a first level human barbarian can though. Same for the Fighter, your assuming race is human and that makes a difference.

 

[Crothian]

Does anything about "epic" play require that the PCs be 30th-level? 20th-level? 10th-level? Character level has little to do with entourages of followers, clashing armies, and byzantine politics.

Yes, Epic play by definition is 20+ levels. Now other people might hear the word Epic and define it differently, but in the ELH all epic means is 20+ levels.

 

[Desdichado]

Lets clarify a few things.

Yes, lets. You're automatically falling into the same trap as the last ELH thread, which makes your responses extremely suspect.

I have noticed that that of everyone who dislikes the epic level rules, they fall into three categories:

1) They tried the ELH with "mythic" play and discovered it doesn't work well.
2) They read the ELH and decided they didn't like, but don't actually have any facts to back up their opinion.
3) They tried to use the ELH but were not willing to scale NPC's to match the epic PCs.

I suppose you could boil down our grievances to 1 and 3, although 2 is pretty insulting, and I don't know why that same thing came up in the last ELH thread. Do ELH lovers really assume that the material is so wonderful that anyone who has any real experience is simply destined to like it? What the heck makes your book so special that you assume that only those who don't know what they're talking about could possibly dislike it?

Also, merely scaling down my rather lengthy response on how it actually makes no sense to scale up NPCs and that your assumption of 25th level farmers and blacksmiths and beat cops is really the "silly" assumption, to use your own phrase, it's a bit disingenious of you to conveniently ignore all that and simply say, "well, you're unwilling to scale NPCs, but if you did, you'd find that the rules work just fine."

Most of you who didn't like the ELH are lacking when it comes to specific factual examples of imbalanced rules. I challenge any of you to provide a specific example of poor game mechanics or an imbalance in the rules that cannot be rectified by scaling NPCs or monsters. And I already concede that epic spells don't work, so that doesn't count.

Actually, I'd say most of us take exception to your calling the default assumption on NPCs "silly" and then replacing it with a much more silly assumption of your own. You've also ignored my claims of radical imbalance amongst some of the feats, and my "specific example of poor game mechanics" relative to using a d20, adding a +57 modifier and trying to beat a DC of 75. That is poor game mechanics.

It doesn't help to "challenge" us to come up with specific examples if you're going to ignore the lengthy and specific examples we've already posted.

Simply put, almost all of you who had trouble using the ELH, had those problems because you didn't scale NPC power, monsters, or challenges. Trying to run 20+ level PCs in a low-level world (i.e. mythic play) will fail every single time.

Yeah, because scaling challenges to that degree leads to inane campaign assumptions. As I've said in two posts on this thread already. You'll forgive me if I don't have the patience to retype the specifics of my argument just because you apparently haven't read them yet, I hope.

But the ELH works wonderfully once you understand that you have to scale NPCs, monsters, and challenges.

It may work, but not wonderfully. It's clunky, it's inelegant, and it's poor game design.

And before you decide to simply blow my reply off, because, hey, if I don't like it, I must never have played it, I have played with the epic rules a bit. But, as I said earlier, these same problems already start to rear their ugly heads before you get to technically epic levels, and they only get worse as you go up.

 

[Desdichado]

To clarify my previous post. Many of you provided examples, that could apply to all of D&D. I'm looking for specific examples why playing at 20th level works fine, but going up to say 30th level with epic feats and magic, suddenly breaks the game.

Hmm, if I'd seen this one before I started typing my lengthy reply above, I would perhaps have done it differently. You're changing the scope of the argument to the point where technically, I mostly agree with you. The problems I have with epic levels are simply exascerbations of problems I already have with higher standard levels. Other than the fact that the game design of the ELH is clunky, and inelegant, and it blows away any semblance of sensible campaign setting design, I won't argue that it works.

 

[Desdichado]

Then again, that's a bit like saying the Synnibar system works. Yeah, sure, but that doesn't mean every moment of playing it doesn't suck.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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?

Actually, this is a problem at the GM level, not the system.

IMC the party is often dealing with things because either a)the cabal of high powered characters asked them to while they deal with something that completely outclasses the PCs, b) because the party is on the scene and still alive, c) because one of their gods let them know something big was going on and it should be checked out by a less-noticeable mortal, or d) because they felt like it.

Sometimes there are big problems that still aren't priorities. ("Sorry your country was invaded by demons but I'm busy trying to stop the continent from being plane-shifted. I'll probably have some free time next year.") Other times its personal ("Oh no, *I* am the only one who's taking his head!") or greed ("They have how many diamond mines?!?").

Regardless, that is up to the GM, not the system.

If you really want to involve the players in the high-level crap, have them find something, report to the Cabal of Disgustingly Powerful Characters, and then get asked "hey, while we deal with this thing you brought us, would you mind going over there and grabbing the McGuffin of Salvation? I'd do it myself but I'm, you know, holding this plane back from sliding into the Abyss right now." Which was the GMs plan all along!

 

[mmadsen]

Lets clarify a few things. A few of you use the word "Epic" to refer to a particular play style. Such as a campaign where the PC are extremely powerful heroes renowned throughout the world.

To me "epic" is simply levels above 20 and the play style you refer to is "mythic". But thats all semantics.

Dragonblade, you yourself stated that "epic games are a grand affair with a cast of thousands," where the PCs are mighty lord leading mighty armies, etc. -- and that this is what "epic fantasy" is all about to you:

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!

My point was that none of those "epic" elements require "epic" levels:

Does anything about "epic" play require that the PCs be 30th-level? 20th-level? 10th-level? Character level has little to do with entourages of followers, clashing armies, and byzantine politics.

 

[Shemeska]

Frankly, in my opinion, the key to making epic games work is to change the nature of the challenges the pcs face.

Oh that is so very true, and about as elegant a way of putting it forward as possible.

While my own campaign is hovering at around level 25 at the moment (having worked its way up from 10th), I've gotten remarkably little use out of the ELH since my definition of epic isn't really fully in line with its. The nature of the challanges has changed, not just the HD of the monsters and number of [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] feats and average level of the NPCs.

 

[The Serge]

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.

I agree with you to a point. From what I've read, the rationale for a 20th level cap is based upon the contention that most games peter out after a two year max for the players. With this attitude in place, the 3ed designers incorporated a system that speeds up experience progression and allows access to higher level spells fairly early. This makes sense from a strict game perspective as there is a maximum cap that should be reached within a "reasonable" timeframe as determined by gaming research.

This does not take into consideration the "realities" of a campaign setting in which two years of gaming may be six months of in-game time or ten years of in-game time. This is where the dilemma begins.

I do think that, for the sake of simplicity, there should be a threshold level that is typically considered the peak of mortal achievement. Really, if one is using core rules, a 15th level character is quite powerful. There are only few creatures in the Monster Manual that can truly challenge a party of four 15th level characters and most of these monsters are fantasy standards (dragons, the upper most outsiders and undead). However, if a game world supports other realities and if the gods are accessible at some point, a 20 level cap doesn't help much at all. And, what if a game lasts longer than two years? Should the participants always expect a new game to begin because the transition to epic wasn't a clean one? Should the DM not create a world that is completely fleshed out from the lowliest mortal lifeform to the greatest of gods and be able to allow mortal PCs to continue on into immortality and legend?

On the other hand, I think that 20 level limit is ideal for many gamers. Simply put, many gamers are not interested in epic play. While I suspect this is often the case due to a lack of understanding and exposure to quality epic play and the superficial appearance of monte-hauling and power gaming, I also think that for some it's a matter of taste. Some people just aren't interested in such high level games and the associated challenges (which I think are compounded by the very fast experience progression in 3ed... although a competent DM can work around that).

Now, this issue of NPCs... I honestly think most NPCs would peak out at around 5th level in most traditional games. How many NPCs are running around trying to rescue princesses, fight orc hoards, or steal the dragon's treasure? Most aren't. Most are tending to their farms, raising families, making ends meet, and so on. They're not really challenging themselves to learn and grow because they don't need to... and probably don't want to. I have no problems with a peak of 10th level for the typical town leader. It shows that, at some point, she decided that she was better served and served better by protecting/defending/scaring the people of a town. She would be the strongest person in the area and could maintain her control until such time she died or decided to retire/leave. Does this make sense within a world that actively supports epic play? If it's handled properly by the DM, yes it does.

In my setting, The Godspell, there are plenty of epic PCs. However, most have no idea they exist. Some are traveling the planes; others are conducting research. Some are hibernating or comatose; others are ruling incognito. Then there are those are watching out for the machinations of rivals and supposed allies, while there are also those keeping some terrible creature/god/cosmic entity out of the world. Simply put, they often don't have the time or inclination to start stomping around most of the setting. When they do, they either rule as gods on "earth" or they fight with other similarly ranked powers while lesser mortals run for cover and/or take sides.

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.

While there would need to be (or ought to be) epic NPCs, I don't think there needs to be a wholesale adjustment of levels. Not for all games. Some games, like mine, continue to work just fine with a low level assumption for NPCs in an epic world.

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 town lord doesn't necessarily continue to progress in levels unless there's a good reason for such a progression. If the PCs are constantly going out and adventuring while the town lord sits at his keep doing nothing but taking in tax revenue, I don't think there's any reason for him to progress in levels. Of course, other NPCs will progress in levels if they are actively involved in adventuring.

For example, in a campaign I ran, there was a lord who did progress in levels at a rate equivalent to the PCs because he was doing more than just sitting in his keep (so, the PCs caught up to, but never equalled or exceeded, his levels). In the same campaign, there were established leaders who did not progress in levels. It all depends.

What we need to see across the net and in print is more support for epic play. Dicefreaks offers this... I'm not sure who else does.

 

[Terwox]

Why does epic play fall apart if your average commoner is level 1 if the PCs are level 20?

Just accept the fact that yes, the PCs can walk into town, walk up to the town lord, kill him in front of his own town, then kill his personal guard, then kill his personal army, then kill the remaining thousands in his nation with virtually no trouble.

Honestly... why is that bad!? I ran a level 15 evil game, once, of kobolds -- in towns, the characters were demigods compared to your normal town guards, and never really had much trouble with heroes. (It was mainly a game about evil greedily fighting evil, just a goofy monty haul type setup.)

Be epic. Let schmucks have schmuck stats and get walked all over. Let the town guard be the PCs chew toys. It's as it should be! (Sepulchrave's SH for instance of a low level into epic level game that demonstrates the glory and beauty of epic levels.)