I wouldn't change a thing. As mentioned before, certain people have different tastes when it comes to epic level play. The fear of the local ruler and his constabulary is a "low level" issue in my games. When the PCs reach level 15 or so, they should BE the local ruler, IMO. When they reach epic levels, they are equal to the world's greatest rulers. When they reach level 30 or so, the world looks to them to stop the armies of the abyss that have started marching through an unclosable Gate. Epic does equal mythic to me to a certain extent...and the ELH seems up to the occassion...in my experience anyway.
The ELH is a great book (if you know how to use it)!
- Thread starter Dragonblade
- Start date
Sounds like a cool topic to me Dragonblade.
I prefer a more traditional vision of the role of character level in a world. I've found it to work quite well to assume a "ratio" approach (for example):
8:10 population are commoners
1:10 population are classed levels
1:10 population are classed npc's
1:4 of classed npc's are militia
1:2 of militia are Warrior 1
1:10 of militia are Warrior 5
1:20 of militia are Warrior 10
1:100 of militia are Warrior 15
1:1000 of militia are Warrior 20
1:10,000 of militia are Epic Fighters
This gives a good feel of "believeability" while still allowing for plenty of "major players" in the world. If you assume a typical continent with 2mm to 200mm people, the numbers above get pretty big (ie, 1:250,000 pop = epic fighters, therefore picture that the US would have roughly 8,000 epic fighters). That's plenty to deal with an "epic" party, while still very-much presenting a world where "most are commoners" and "dealing with epic/high-level npc's is pretty rare...until you get there yourself.
Changes I'd love to see:
Better balance for the spells and save dc's in epic.
A good epic spell system.
Better balance for other feat/magic item/class combinations.
More uniqueness in the classes and class or prestige class options.
My characters seemed to gravitate toward "racial alterations" and "templates" as epic alternatives (that balance well).
A terrific system for managing a network or organization.
A simple, tactically challenging method for holding large-scale battles.
A method for managing a kingdom (from one castle to an entrie sprawling continent), with a scalable system for determining actions.
A more simple method for good tactical combat at high levels. Combat shouldn't have to take 2 hours.
I prefer a more traditional vision of the role of character level in a world. I've found it to work quite well to assume a "ratio" approach (for example):
8:10 population are commoners
1:10 population are classed levels
1:10 population are classed npc's
1:4 of classed npc's are militia
1:2 of militia are Warrior 1
1:10 of militia are Warrior 5
1:20 of militia are Warrior 10
1:100 of militia are Warrior 15
1:1000 of militia are Warrior 20
1:10,000 of militia are Epic Fighters
This gives a good feel of "believeability" while still allowing for plenty of "major players" in the world. If you assume a typical continent with 2mm to 200mm people, the numbers above get pretty big (ie, 1:250,000 pop = epic fighters, therefore picture that the US would have roughly 8,000 epic fighters). That's plenty to deal with an "epic" party, while still very-much presenting a world where "most are commoners" and "dealing with epic/high-level npc's is pretty rare...until you get there yourself.
Changes I'd love to see:
Better balance for the spells and save dc's in epic.
A good epic spell system.
Better balance for other feat/magic item/class combinations.
More uniqueness in the classes and class or prestige class options.
My characters seemed to gravitate toward "racial alterations" and "templates" as epic alternatives (that balance well).
A terrific system for managing a network or organization.
A simple, tactically challenging method for holding large-scale battles.
A method for managing a kingdom (from one castle to an entrie sprawling continent), with a scalable system for determining actions.
A more simple method for good tactical combat at high levels. Combat shouldn't have to take 2 hours.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
I would rather see post 20th level levels being a fraction of the power when compared to pre 21st level.
Effectively every level beyond 20th would grant either:
- BAB
- HP
- Saves
- Stat
- Feat
Additionally some class feature(s) would slightly improve.
For XP/ECL, every full 5 levels past 20th would be equivilent to one full pre-21st level. Or thereabouts.
My reason for this would be to allow continuous advancement while allowing the EL20ish encounters to keep on challenging the PCs. There is a huge variety in the make-up of such EL20s so hopefully it would keep things entertaining for quite a while.
Effectively every level beyond 20th would grant either:
- BAB
- HP
- Saves
- Stat
- Feat
Additionally some class feature(s) would slightly improve.
For XP/ECL, every full 5 levels past 20th would be equivilent to one full pre-21st level. Or thereabouts.
My reason for this would be to allow continuous advancement while allowing the EL20ish encounters to keep on challenging the PCs. There is a huge variety in the make-up of such EL20s so hopefully it would keep things entertaining for quite a while.
Aaron2
Explorer
FreeTheSlaves said:
I have the opposite view. My main complaint against the ELH is that it alters the rate of advancement. I'd prefer that level 21 gives a character the same proportional power increase that level 20 did. I'm all for 10th level spells and fighters with BAB of 30 or more.
Aaron
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Aaron2 said:
My only beef with this approach is that I'd need to introduce even more powerful and new challenges. Justifying the introduction of more than a few would feel laboured I think.
An unlimited additive growth of bonuses with matching "epic" DCs (to challenge the primary classes) simply reinforces the yawning gulf between the can do's and can't do's. I.e. mr epic cleric can make that fort save but mr epic rogue doesn't have a chance.
BSF
Explorer
Dragonblade,
I see where you are coming from. Those are some of the reasons why I was partial to Hero (Especially Fantasy Hero) before 3.0 came out. Even scaling the game up by using the ELH would not quite give me the feel I would want for a game like that. If it works for you, that's great. It's a great example of differing playstyles.
I see where you are coming from. Those are some of the reasons why I was partial to Hero (Especially Fantasy Hero) before 3.0 came out. Even scaling the game up by using the ELH would not quite give me the feel I would want for a game like that. If it works for you, that's great. It's a great example of differing playstyles.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
Fantasy HERO is the single greatest toolkit for a GM who wants to create his own campaign world that I have ever seen for any system period.
I would love to run a HERO campaign but everyone I know is addicted to d20. Which is fine, I love d20.
I have my own issues with the ELH, but nothing that I haven't really been able to solve without rescaling the game and not allowing epic spell creation.
Still, I'm curious to see if someone could ever come up with a rules system that could allow some sort of infinite advancement beyond level 20, yet not require rescaling levels to maintain the verisimilitude that I like.
I would love to run a HERO campaign but everyone I know is addicted to d20. Which is fine, I love d20.
I have my own issues with the ELH, but nothing that I haven't really been able to solve without rescaling the game and not allowing epic spell creation.
Still, I'm curious to see if someone could ever come up with a rules system that could allow some sort of infinite advancement beyond level 20, yet not require rescaling levels to maintain the verisimilitude that I like.
BSF
Explorer
I find D20 to be much more accessible to the majority of the people I game with. The changes with 3.0 were easily enough to woo me back.
As far as Epic level scaling goes, I am not sure it would be easy to avoid that with D20 without replacing the HP mechanic. Unless you make important NPC's higher level, there is no real reason why PC's couldn't choose to leverage their raw firepower to coerce NPC's, or to outright assassinate them. To one degree or another, some NPC's will be near peer quality to PC's. I just don't think you need to scale all of them up. It's a sticky issue and I am not currently running a campaign where it is a concern. that will be a ways down the road yet.
As far as Epic level scaling goes, I am not sure it would be easy to avoid that with D20 without replacing the HP mechanic. Unless you make important NPC's higher level, there is no real reason why PC's couldn't choose to leverage their raw firepower to coerce NPC's, or to outright assassinate them. To one degree or another, some NPC's will be near peer quality to PC's. I just don't think you need to scale all of them up. It's a sticky issue and I am not currently running a campaign where it is a concern. that will be a ways down the road yet.
Similar Threads
