The Slow Death of Epic Tier

[Ryujin]

Templating would likely also help, as long as it was carefully implemented.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello there Matrix Sorcica!

Let's see if my English allow me to express what I want to say here....

Couldn't a solution be that the monsters scale with the PCs, in a sandbox like way? You have the terrible lich living in the tomb warrens. If the party engage him at paragon, he's x level. If they engage him at epic level, he's y level. And instead of thinking about why the lich didn't conquer the world while the pcs were rising to power, think about his power relative to the party and take the story from there.

The Orc king is a level 28 elite and his warriors are level 27 - because the adventure is about stopping the mother of all Orc invasions that will change the very past so that Orcs have always been the masters, etc. Who cares that the Orc King could have conquered the world before? So you don't need a supernatural army from the Planes - the Orcs are just as badass because the story needs it.

There's no reason why you can't assume the enemy leaders are levelling up, just be wary of levelling up monsters en masse.

For example about 20 years ago in our campaign I recall the lands of the main setting were beseiged by a massive army of humanoids.

The humanoids were led by an Ogre King called Harcoth, who was a Level 20 fighter, his bodyguard were Hill Giants, he had a few other Ogre 'heroes' including General Hulsk, Level 15 Fighter. They had allied with a force called the Darksword Knights, I think its leader was a Level 18 Fighter. The Darksword Knights were dragon riders, and worshippers of the Devil God Druaga, so they also had a bunch of Devils with them.

I seem to recall that we actually 'rescued' Harcoth's fortress (called the Black Citadel) which was actually an imprisoned elder deity from the Elemental Plane of Earth. Once we had freed it (I can't recall the details of that specific endeavour) the deity owed us a favour and we asked it to aid us against the army...the army actually defeated this several hundred foot tall earth elemental god, dispelling it back to its home plane...though not before much damage was done.

I think if you were to replicate something like that for 4E, then you'd need to make it for about Levels 15-20, depending on the party make-up.

Super-solo - Earth-Elemental God - Super-solo
Elites - King Harcoth; General Hulsk; Head of Darksword Knights
Standard Monsters - Hill Giants, (Tamed) Dragons, various Greater Devils, Darksword Knight Captains
Minions - Ogres, Darksword Knights, various Lesser Devils
Armies - Orcs, Goblins

So my point being that levelling up the enemy 'heroes' is fine, just be wary of saying, well all the orcs are now Level 27 because when exposed to a yellow sun they become super-orcs.

IMO, 4E already does this in that many monsters have heroic, paragon and epic versions. But it's still the same monster.

The dreaded Necromancer of the North with terrible plans that will lay the lands to waste is in reality a 8 level elite. Unless of course the party never engaged him until epic.

There is no reason why you would even have to detail the dreaded Necromancer until the party involve themselves in his (or her) business. As for how powerful they are. Perhaps his power is waxing and his influence is growing until checked by either the party or some other force. So he'll continue to amass power and gain levels while left to his own devices.

 

[Sunseeker]

Barastrondo hits the nail on the head here. It's not about how many steps it takes to get to the top; it's about how high up the top is. I would be perfectly fine with 4E's 30-level span if the power differential weren't so immense.

but it wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't. Power creep begets power creep and the necessity for level 30 to be so incredibly powerful compared to level 20 is exactly necessary for the reasoning that if it wasn't it wouldn't be necessary to have at all.

Repeat this line of thought ad-infinitum all the way back down to level 1. Why reach lvl2 if there's really no difference?

My main issue with epic is that it requires me to conjure up a legion of insanely powerful foes who were previously not in evidence. Now, I usually have a few epic-level critters lurking about my campaign worlds; an ancient dragon here, a lich there, a pit fiend buried and sleeping under the earth. But epic tier demands that I supply enough of those creatures to populate an entire tier's worth of combats!

By the book, you are certainly correct. But that's why we're playing D&D and not WoW isn't it? So we don't have to go by the book. That ancient dragon, that lich, that pit fiend, they are alive and untouched for a reason, and that reason is usually explained by they are A: incredibly powerful, and B: they have supplicants to do their bidding for them.

There's no need for an elemental invasion or demonic hordes, as one, single foe of that magnitude can generally provide enough subordinates of high enough power as to make for a very tough fight.

Think of it in Star Wars terms. The Emperor summons his Vader, and both have their Imperial Guards, while Vader also gets his Boba Fett and there's still a a legion of Storm Troopers to deal with. You've now gone from one foe, to(sans the troopers) nearly a dozen, all of which are powerful, well trained compatants.

Why aren't they invading the world with that kind of power? Maybe they don't want to, they're satisfied with their power, maybe they just started, and you're nipping the threat in the bud.

A glance at their stats (regardless of what number is written in the "level" space, or whether the monster is called "pit fiend" or "orc warchief") makes it obvious that such a confluence of mighty monsters would be enough to bring the campaign world to its knees if not for the PCs. So why didn't they do it before the PCs showed up? Why has it taken them this long to put in an appearance?

Because that's what villains do. Cheesy as it sounds, that's what villains do. Lex Luthor existed for as long as Superman, but it took him time to build his empire. Galactus traveled the universe, but the universe is big and it took him a while to find Earth. Sauron and his lord tried several times, and it took him nearly 3000 years to regain enough power to invade the world again.

I can come up with answers to those questions, but it requires taking the campaign in a whole new direction. In any campaign world that is not already stocked with a zillion epic monsters (in which case the PCs likely spent most of heroic tier hiding under rocks), epic tier is more or less restricted to a) an army of super-powerful monsters has emerged from centuries-long slumber or confinement, or b) the PCs are required to adventure in another plane where there is an army of super-powerful monsters, or c) the PCs are suddenly doing far less fighting than previously.

I disagree, your PCs have gained immense power, perhaps they are now some of the most powerful people on your world. maybe before there were only 5 scattered, now there are 10, and 5 of them(your party) are all next to each other, this can attract a lot of attention.

And yes, they should be doing less fighting, but the fights should be more important. Maybe per level you only have one, or two fights. Perhaps each one is a new attempt to seige the Arch-Fiend's stronghold, or it another assault by the Fiend's minions upon your player's stronghold. These aren't bandits your heroes are fighting anymore, these are the Boba Fetts, the Rook's and Bishops, Knights and Queen of your powerful foe's chess set.

There is nothing wrong with "pausing" a battle and saying that the next "phase" is a new encounter. "One fight" becomes more like "one battle", comprised of several smaller battles. Overall, it's "less fighting", it's singular huge fights instead of multiple small ones.

Why hasn't your foe conquered the world? Because your heroes weren't there to stop him. Too cliche? Hey, I've never seen a pc complain that they were there at the right time and the right place to stop the dark lord from destroying all they know and love.

 

[Dausuul]

but it wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't. Power creep begets power creep and the necessity for level 30 to be so incredibly powerful compared to level 20 is exactly necessary for the reasoning that if it wasn't it wouldn't be necessary to have at all.

PCs gain levels to give a sense of progress to the players and avert boredom. Simple numeric inflation (attacks, defenses, hit points, damage) is only one component of that progress, and not a very big one. You could get rid of the numeric inflation entirely, and the power curve would become close to flat, but players would still have a sense of progress as they gained new feats and powers.

That ancient dragon, that lich, that pit fiend, they are alive and untouched for a reason, and that reason is usually explained by they are A: incredibly powerful, and B: they have supplicants to do their bidding for them.

Sure. Heroic-level supplicants. Maybe paragon. But epic?

Think of it in Star Wars terms. The Emperor summons his Vader, and both have their Imperial Guards, while Vader also gets his Boba Fett and there's still a a legion of Storm Troopers to deal with. You've now gone from one foe, to(sans the troopers) nearly a dozen, all of which are powerful, well trained compatants.

And that's a grand total of maybe four encounters. What do we do for the rest of epic tier?

Because that's what villains do. Cheesy as it sounds, that's what villains do. Lex Luthor existed for as long as Superman, but it took him time to build his empire. Galactus traveled the universe, but the universe is big and it took him a while to find Earth. Sauron and his lord tried several times, and it took him nearly 3000 years to regain enough power to invade the world again.

And to the best of my knowledge, none of them commands armies of epic-level creatures, or even high-paragon-level creatures that could be minionized. I'm not real familiar with what Lex Luthor's got on hand, but Galactus by all accounts is a single solo, and the only servants Sauron has that seem potentially epic-level are the Nazgul. (And that's being pretty generous to the Nazgul; they look more like mid-paragon to me.)

Remember, we're not talking about one epic foe. That's easy enough to work into a campaign. And it's not too hard to stretch that out into 3, 4, maybe 5 combats by giving the epic foe some epic henchmen and elite guards. All this I readily concede.

But we're talking about an entire tier's worth of combat. 10 levels--25 sessions or so. Even if you have only one combat a session, that's 25 battles, and if you follow a more typical pattern for D&D, it'll be more like 50. Just how many elite guards and epic henchmen do these guys have?

Now consider that if the heroes battle those 25-50 gangs of epic foes, there are presumably a lot more of them that the PCs never fight. It's ludicrous to suppose that the heroes would fight their way through all of the villain's elite forces in a series of small groups. If the villain's forces are sufficiently spread out that the PCs have to engage in 25-50 separate combats, then it logically follows that there must be hundreds of groups out there that the PCs bypass on the way to their objective.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Krusty, you really need to release those rules. Before 5E, please

Knowing you and release schedules, I'm a bit worried. How about some previews or other tidbits? Or a rules release and then the adventures.

Man, you're the reason I registered to ENWorld back in March 2002 - to comment on your Immortals Handbook. 4E was released in June 2008, with the IH still far from complete

 

[Sunseeker]

PCs gain levels to give a sense of progress to the players and avert boredom. Simple numeric inflation (attacks, defenses, hit points, damage) is only one component of that progress, and not a very big one. You could get rid of the numeric inflation entirely, and the power curve would become close to flat, but players would still have a sense of progress as they gained new feats and powers.

No, the power curve would not be flat. It would just be a power curve based on powers, instead of a power curve based on inherent stats or gear.

If a 10th level Wizard has 30 spells, and a first level wizard has 3, then that 10th level wizard is going to have exponentially more powerful spells. Why? Because basic game design says he must, otherwise there is no point in going that far. From an RP perspective, why should a wizard spend years studying new spells....if he's only going to be a tiny bit more powerful than a wizard who has studied 3 spells.

Even if we remove the number of spells, SOMETHING has to show that your character is progressing in terms of personal power improvment. Either they learn new tricks, or improve the ones they have. If you don't do this, the very basics of levels are destroyed. There's no point to levels if there isn't enough of a power curve to so that a higher-level character is worth the investment.

Sure. Heroic-level supplicants. Maybe paragon. But epic?

Again, reference the Darth Vader/Emperor duo. Both the Emperor and Vader are certainly Epic, and Boba Fett probably is too, if only slightly lesser. in level terms, the Emperor would be 30+, vader would be the high 20's, and Fett would be mid 20's.

And that's a grand total of maybe four encounters. What do we do for the rest of epic tier?

How many times did Luke and co run into Vader before defeating him? Once or twice a movie? Who says fighting the villain has to end with defeating them? They are epic because they have survived all the would-be adventurers before you.

This is a problem IMO, that Heroic tier generated. Heroic teir pits your adventurers against idiots, against mindless animals. Creatures that fight first, and think later. Epic tier is the reverse, it pits your heros against vastly intelligent creatures that think first and fight second. Creatures that will ignore marks in favor of killing weakened foes. Creatures that will ignore "favored enemies" over whoever looks the most tasty. Creatures that are immune to the taunts and catcalls of your heroes. And finally Villains who push the big red button first, before telling you their plan, and don't build their doomsday device with an "off" switch.

Heroic and early Paragon get your players, and DMs into the mindset that foes are foolhardy and careless. Epic tier should catch everyone by surprise because not a single foe in Epic should be even slightly foolish.

And to the best of my knowledge, none of them commands armies of epic-level creatures, or even high-paragon-level creatures that could be minionized. I'm not real familiar with what Lex Luthor's got on hand, but Galactus by all accounts is a single solo, and the only servants Sauron has that seem potentially epic-level are the Nazgul. (And that's being pretty generous to the Nazgul; they look more like mid-paragon to me.)

Luthor had a variety of hero cloning programs, he was well invested with CADMUS and Star Labs. He often hired other heroes or villians to protect him.
It's a game, they exist ONLY to challenge your heroes. Yes, I get that a lot of people want to go for this thing known as "realism", but lets face it, you need some hardy suspension of disbelief to get these things to function.

Remember, we're not talking about one epic foe. That's easy enough to work into a campaign. And it's not too hard to stretch that out into 3, 4, maybe 5 combats by giving the epic foe some epic henchmen and elite guards. All this I readily concede.

But we're talking about an entire tier's worth of combat. 10 levels--25 sessions or so. Even if you have only one combat a session, that's 25 battles, and if you follow a more typical pattern for D&D, it'll be more like 50. Just how many elite guards and epic henchmen do these guys have?

So you do other things that get the players to level up, I get that 4E is combat heavy, but the leveling experience need not revolve around combat alone. Heck, there were 9 Nazgul, most of whom only died because Sauron was destroyed, only one of which was actually killed, and it took two heroes(with combat advantage! and a prophecy!(the Witch King had that whole Macbeth "no man can kill me" thing)). And he probably would have won if he hadn't gone to play with Theoden.

Now consider that if the heroes battle those 25-50 gangs of epic foes, there are presumably a lot more of them that the PCs never fight. It's ludicrous to suppose that the heroes would fight their way through all of the villain's elite forces in a series of small groups. If the villain's forces are sufficiently spread out that the PCs have to engage in 25-50 separate combats, then it logically follows that there must be hundreds of groups out there that the PCs bypass on the way to their objective.

Assuming 50 sessions, each "battle" taking 2 sessions we end up with 25 unique combats. Breaking that down by 5 unique "epic henchmen" means we're looking at 5 battles per foe. Four if you include the top-guy as one of them, then we're looking at 4 seperate epic villain-henchmen, each with their own little entourage of a half a dozen high-paragon minions, whom each have their own little personal collection of high-heroic minions.

in the words of some rap star: Break it down
1 Villain, high Epic+(lvl30 elite solo and with a cheery on top)
4-5 Subordinate villains, low-to-high epic.(lvl 25-30 elites)
4-5 per above, Sub-villain hencies, high paragon
5-10 per above sub-hencies minions, low paragon, high heroic.

Each epic combat would take place over 4-5 sessions.
First you would encounter one, or two of the sub-villain hencies, with 5-10 of their lackies, this combat is a two-nighter.
Next time, you would encounter the sub-villain, all his remaining 2-3 hencies, and all their 5-10 high heroic, low-paragon minions.

First battle would be something along the lines of 15-30 foes, two or 3 of which could easily hold their own against your party.

Second battle would be similar, with the addition of the subordinate villain, who would hold back until most of the lackie minions are downed.

Repeat this for as many subordinate villains as you want, each sub-villain more powerful than the last.

Personally, I think that would easily last me 25-50 sessions.

 

[Barastrondo]

This is a problem IMO, that Heroic tier generated. Heroic teir pits your adventurers against idiots, against mindless animals. Creatures that fight first, and think later. Heroic and early Paragon get your players, and DMs into the mindset that foes are foolhardy and careless. Epic tier should catch everyone by surprise because not a single foe in Epic should be even slightly foolish.

I should note that in cases where this is not true -- where you're also fighting against clever and dangerous individuals from the get-go -- heroic tier has a very different feel than what you describe. If I were to tally most of the games I've run since 4e came out, my top five most-used antagonists are humans, elves, goblins, undead, and maybe wererats as number five. Some undead are mindless, but for the most part the idiots and mindless animals are the exception rather than the rule.

One of the reasons that I haven't effectively been sold on "why I should want to do the work to do epic tier" is that there aren't that many distinct things you can do in epic that you can't do in heroic or paragon: it's mostly the same things with the dial turned up to 11. There are a few things about epic play that transcend what you were doing at 1st level, only with the stakes increased, but opposing intelligent opponents is absolutely not one of those things.

(Also, assuming that opponents will survive more clashes with the PCs because they're smart doesn't mean much. The PCs are smart, too. The DM can always ensure that NPCs will somehow escape or survive and chalk it up to their NPCs' intelligence and resources, but the line blurs between NPC intelligence and DM fiat, particularly from the players' perspective. As smart as an NPC may be, a foolproof escape plan relies on the resources they have available, and the resources they have available are determined by DM fiat.)

 

[Sunseeker]

I should note that in cases where this is not true -- where you're also fighting against clever and dangerous individuals from the get-go -- heroic tier has a very different feel than what you describe. If I were to tally most of the games I've run since 4e came out, my top five most-used antagonists are humans, elves, goblins, undead, and maybe wererats as number five. Some undead are mindless, but for the most part the idiots and mindless animals are the exception rather than the rule.

Even when I've played games where we fight an assortment of intelligent beings, they rarely demonstrate tactics or smarts of any sort. It's really on the DM here I suppose, and how much work they want to put in to the dozen bandits they just cooked up.

One of the reasons that I haven't effectively been sold on "why I should want to do the work to do epic tier" is that there aren't that many distinct things you can do in epic that you can't do in heroic or paragon: it's mostly the same things with the dial turned up to 11. There are a few things about epic play that transcend what you were doing at 1st level, only with the stakes increased, but opposing intelligent opponents is absolutely not one of those things.

Personally, I think that's the point. Epic tier is "normalcy" taken to 11+. Instead of pirates and kidnapping, you have flying alien warships dropping genocidal plagues upon entire cities. Intead of a nutty mage who summoned up some elementals, you have a dozen nutty mages worshipping a titanic elemental who wants to merge with the world to become the most powerful elemental ever.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with "the basics" taken to 11.

(Also, assuming that opponents will survive more clashes with the PCs because they're smart doesn't mean much. The PCs are smart, too. The DM can always ensure that NPCs will somehow escape or survive and chalk it up to their NPCs' intelligence and resources, but the line blurs between NPC intelligence and DM fiat, particularly from the players' perspective. As smart as an NPC may be, a foolproof escape plan relies on the resources they have available, and the resources they have available are determined by DM fiat.)

Of course, which is why, as above, I detailed the fact that the truly epic foes aren't going to present themselves right away. And they aren't going to charge into battle because they've learned that lackies exist for a reason. Certainly some incredibly strategic thinking on the part of the players could be utilized to stop even the most foolproof escape.

IMO, if the players are REALLY that cunning, the villains may kick it up a notch on their next attack. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, for the smarter the PCs become, the cleverer the villains become. For the more traps they avoid, the harder the traps become to detect.

Villains are not, in my book, static bosses who wait in their alcove till the players arrive.(I'm looking at you MMOs!), they are cunning, crafty, constantly thinking foes who are constantly improving themselves and their plans.

All the best villains in (fictional)history are the best not because they are powerful, that's expected. They're not great because they wait around to get beat up. They're great because they're smart, and it's only when you outsmart them that you win. Even Superman's might cannot always overwhelm Luthor's smarts, and he often seeks help from other heroes/heroines when this is the case. And the best heroes are the best for the same reason, because they are cunning and wise up to this stuff.

Yes, in a nutshell, Epic tier is "the basics" taken to 11. But Luthor and Galactus are still worlds apart from lesser villains.

 

[Dausuul]

No, the power curve would not be flat. It would just be a power curve based on powers, instead of a power curve based on inherent stats or gear.

If a 10th level Wizard has 30 spells, and a first level wizard has 3, then that 10th level wizard is going to have exponentially more powerful spells. Why? Because basic game design says he must, otherwise there is no point in going that far. From an RP perspective, why should a wizard spend years studying new spells....if he's only going to be a tiny bit more powerful than a wizard who has studied 3 spells.

Because he has more versatility. He can do cool new things that he couldn't do before. Playing a wizard in AD&D, my ears perked up every time I heard the slightest hint that there might be another wizard's spellbook to be copied from or stolen--not because I'd get access to spells more powerful than those I already had (that wouldn't happen until I went up a level, which was a slow, slow process in the games I played in), but because I'd expand my repertoire.

Like I said, plenty of RPGs have very shallow power curves, in which PCs advance mainly through expanding their array of options rather than increasing raw power level. Most point-buy systems follow this logic. A GURPS character can, and often does, start out with skill ratings as high as they can profitably go in a narrow range of skills. Character points acquired during play are then spent to expand that range rather than trying to push the existing skill ratings higher.

(Now, that said, it's true that the power curve will never be totally flat. Lightning bolt is not more powerful than fireball, but a wizard with both spells is stronger than a wizard with only one, simply because she's got more options--when faced with an enemy resistant to one, she can use the other. But the power gains from increased versatility are quite small compared to the gains from sheer number inflation.)

How many times did Luke and co run into Vader before defeating him? Once or twice a movie? Who says fighting the villain has to end with defeating them? They are epic because they have survived all the would-be adventurers before you.

The point of battle is to defeat the enemy. Once in a while, you can get away with having a recurring villain escape or spare the PCs' lives, but it becomes an obvious cheat if you do it over and over.

Epic tier is the reverse, it pits your heros against vastly intelligent creatures that think first and fight second.

And this lends itself to a lengthy adventure cycle how, exactly? If these villains are so smart, they won't fight the PCs at all until they have an overwhelming advantage--and then they will curbstomp them, shoot them all in the head, and burn the bodies.

It's a game, they exist ONLY to challenge your heroes. Yes, I get that a lot of people want to go for this thing known as "realism", but lets face it, you need some hardy suspension of disbelief to get these things to function.

Yeah. You do. You need a freakin' forklift. That's my whole problem.

Part of the reason I don't know much about Lex Luthor is that most comic series put my suspension of disbelief through more of a pounding than I have patience for. And even if I personally didn't care about verisimilitude, my players won't let me get away with nearly as much crap as comic book writers do.

in the words of some rap star: Break it down
1 Villain, high Epic+(lvl30 elite solo and with a cheery on top)
4-5 Subordinate villains, low-to-high epic.(lvl 25-30 elites)
4-5 per above, Sub-villain hencies, high paragon
5-10 per above sub-hencies minions, low paragon, high heroic.

High-heroic monsters are strictly nothing at epic tier. They're not even worth bothering to include in the fight; they won't do any damage and will fall over dead if anyone so much as breathes their way. They're window dressing. Same goes for low paragon, and in the latter half of epic tier even high paragon foes will be largely irrelevant.

So what you've got here is 5-6 epic monsters that provide real opposition, and maybe 20 high paragon monsters that serve as cannon fodder and will fall off the radar completely about halfway through the tier.

 

[Sunseeker]

Because he has more versatility. He can do cool new things that he couldn't do before. Playing a wizard in AD&D, my ears perked up every time I heard the slightest hint that there might be another wizard's spellbook to be copied from or stolen--not because I'd get access to spells more powerful than those I already had (that wouldn't happen until I went up a level, which was a slow, slow process in the games I played in), but because I'd expand my repertoire.

So the curve is about versaility as opposed to sheer power. The curve hasn't changed, you've just put it on some other aspect of the game.

Like I said, plenty of RPGs have very shallow power curves, in which PCs advance mainly through expanding their array of options rather than increasing raw power level. Most point-buy systems follow this logic. A GURPS character can, and often does, start out with skill ratings as high as they can profitably go in a narrow range of skills. Character points acquired during play are then spent to expand that range rather than trying to push the existing skill ratings higher.

Which as I said, makes the curve placed on a different part of the game, it doesn't flatten it.
A mage who can stun you can teleport you off a cliff is significantly more powerful than one who can only stun you or one who can only shoot a fireball.

(Now, that said, it's true that the power curve will never be totally flat. Lightning bolt is not more powerful than fireball, but a wizard with both spells is stronger than a wizard with only one, simply because she's got more options--when faced with an enemy resistant to one, she can use the other. But the power gains from increased versatility are quite small compared to the gains from sheer number inflation.)

Exactly. A flat power-curve is a game with no improvment.

The point of battle is to defeat the enemy. Once in a while, you can get away with having a recurring villain escape or spare the PCs' lives, but it becomes an obvious cheat if you do it over and over.

No, the point of a battle is to TRY to defeat the enemy. Simply getting involved in the battle does not ensure you'll defeat them. Even if you get them really low, they've still got that little portable teleport amulet.

And this lends itself to a lengthy adventure cycle how, exactly? If these villains are so smart, they won't fight the PCs at all until they have an overwhelming advantage--and then they will curbstomp them, shoot them all in the head, and burn the bodies.

Which is when you have to play up the fact that they are villains. What do villains generally do?
They get overconfident, they rely on minions, they monologue. In truth, you're right, the best villains, they WILL win, the ones who do none of the stupid stuff villains do, they win. But the point is, at the same time your villains are attacking you, you are likewise counterattacking them. You attack before they have that overwhelming advantage.

Part of the reason I don't know much about Lex Luthor is that most comic series put my suspension of disbelief through more of a pounding than I have patience for. And even if I personally didn't care about verisimilitude, my players won't let me get away with nearly as much crap as comic book writers do.

You don't have to go quite THAT far, but say for example, the villain has a shield, and only one of those other 5 Epic tier people in the world can break it. You NEED them, but the villain is already after them, thus you encounter the villains "Nazgul".

High-heroic monsters are strictly nothing at epic tier. They're not even worth bothering to include in the fight; they won't do any damage and will fall over dead if anyone so much as breathes their way. They're window dressing. Same goes for low paragon, and in the latter half of epic tier even high paragon foes will be largely irrelevant.

They're supposed to, at best, be equivilent to minions who will slow your party down, waste their resources, and generally make you easier for the BBEGs to take out. If they can't hit, give them auto-damage, give them aura's of slow. Force your party to deal with them.

So what you've got here is 5-6 epic monsters that provide real opposition, and maybe 20 high paragon monsters that serve as cannon fodder and will fall off the radar completely about halfway through the tier.

Yeah pretty much. The 20-30 lackies on the field are only there to slow you down, that's it. They give sub-villain #5 the chance to blast you all with his death-ray, that's their only job.