The Slow Death of Epic Tier

[SKyOdin]

Theres always something better than yourself though.

...would it help if I made an Immortal Tier for Levels 31-40...?

Actually, no. I am strongly opposed to the idea of an Immortial Tier above Epic Tier. If you make a new Tier for that level of play, it would completely steal the role that Epic was intended to fulfill and further confuse and dilute the flavor of the various tiers. I don't think an Immortial Tier is needed because it would be fulfilling the exact role that Epic should be filling right now.

Personally I see Epic heroes as Achilles, Arjuna, Beowulf, Conan, Cu Chulainn, Elric, Gilgamesh, King Arthur, Rama, Vainamoinen etc.

That is just a list of famous or legendary heroes. I don't at all agree that many of them qualify as being Epic heroes. I would peg Achilles, Arthur, Beowulf, and Cu Chulainn as excellent examples of Paragon Tier heroes, actually. Those four are all heroes whose abilities are such that they can affect the fate of nations. Conan might just be a Heroic Tier hero, depending on author.

Rama on the other hand, is an example of an Epic Tier hero, and you can clearly see a big difference between the Ramayana and some of the stories the others are from. Rama's opponents are the Rakshasas, lead by Ravana and his family, who by the start of Rama's journey, had already laid siege to the home of the gods and defeated them in battle. At the same time, Rama's companions include Hanuman, a demigod monkey who rips a mountain off of its foundation at one point.

I think that there is a risk in making Epic levels heroes too weak and small in scale, because the Epic tier would then be leeching away the awesomeness of Paragon Tier heroes, who still deserve their credit.

 

[KidSnide]

I think the biggest failure of the epic tier in 4e is the assumption by WotC that the epic-level play should feel like heroic and paragon level play. To my mind, dungeon crawling is a distinctly heroic mode of play, but the 4e design assumption is that dungeon crawling is the game -- at all tiers. To have a good epic level game, you need epic-style game constructs. For example, I'd like to see:

* Mass Combat - not the sort of mass combat where the players have dozens of units to control, but the sort of mass combat in which the armies are the terrain and the PCs can cause their front line to advance by destroying key enemies (leaders or swarms of soldiers).

* Super-Solos - I want to see enemies that are adventures, not just encounters. There should be creatures big enough to be the terrain. There should be creatures you have to fight in multi aspects (Lolth and some of the Sorcerer-Kings are good steps in this direction), but defeating a deity should be more than a single stat block. Fighting a deity should take multiple encounters as the PCs have to destroy different aspects of the deity's power. I find it a little appalling that Voltemort is so much harder to kill than the demon prince of undead.

* Changes in Mobility and Terrain - The 4e designers correctly noted that flying seriously changes the nature of combat, but their solution (to minimize it) undercut the nature of epic level play. Epic level characters should all be able to move around in epic ways -- flying boots, super jump, teleportation or the like. Epic level maps shouldn't be continuous walls and passages. An epic encounter should have some areas distances of special terrain that impassible or deadly to mere mortals (chasms, lava, razor-bamboo, take your pick). The limit to "dungeon-appropriate distances" in epic-level powers and equipment is yet another failure of imagination.

Ultimately, I think the idea that "epic is core" in 4e is mostly illusory. There are rules for creating characters of levels 21-30, but there isn't actually all that much support in the rules for playing characters (or writing adventures) that actually feel "epic."

-KS

 

[the Jester]

Actually, no. I am strongly opposed to the idea of an Immortial Tier above Epic Tier. If you make a new Tier for that level of play, it would completely steal the role that Epic was intended to fulfill and further confuse and dilute the flavor of the various tiers. I don't think an Immortial Tier is needed because it would be fulfilling the exact role that Epic should be filling right now.

I absolutely agree with this.

 

[TwinBahamut]

You make a lot of good points, KidSnide, but I wanted to address this one in particular...

* Mass Combat - not the sort of mass combat where the players have dozens of units to control, but the sort of mass combat in which the armies are the terrain and the PCs can cause their front line to advance by destroying key enemies (leaders or swarms of soldiers).

Honestly, I think that mass combat should be something that is embraced by D&D for all of the tiers, just in different ways.

In the heroic tier, a PC would be a normal soldier. An elite, awesome soldier, but still just one among many. Small squad actions in support of a bigger force, os simply engaging in battle against even numbers to take out a single entrenched enemy or commanding officer would be an adventure in of itself.

In the paragon tier, a PC would be the lynchpin of an entire battle. A group of PCs could have a significant effect on the outcome of a major fight by taking down enemy forces and leading the assault on major strongholds, much like you are suggesting.

In the epic tier, a PC doesn't need an army. The enemy musters its armies just to take down lone PCs, and the PCs can wipe out armies of hundreds or thousands without any support or backup. An actual full-scale military battle between forces of epic level would be apocalyptic in scale.

 

[KidSnide]

* Mass Combat - not the sort of mass combat where the players have dozens of units to control, but the sort of mass combat in which the armies are the terrain and the PCs can cause their front line to advance by destroying key enemies (leaders or swarms of soldiers).

Honestly, I think that mass combat should be something that is embraced by D&D for all of the tiers, just in different ways.

In the heroic tier, a PC would be a normal soldier. An elite, awesome soldier, but still just one among many. Small squad actions in support of a bigger force, os simply engaging in battle against even numbers to take out a single entrenched enemy or commanding officer would be an adventure in of itself.

In the paragon tier, a PC would be the lynchpin of an entire battle. A group of PCs could have a significant effect on the outcome of a major fight by taking down enemy forces and leading the assault on major strongholds, much like you are suggesting.

In the epic tier, a PC doesn't need an army. The enemy musters its armies just to take down lone PCs, and the PCs can wipe out armies of hundreds or thousands without any support or backup. An actual full-scale military battle between forces of epic level would be apocalyptic in scale.

I mostly agree. At heroic tier, I don't think you need any special mass combat rules. You just need "mob/swarm" style monsters that represent a unit of enemies. It would be nice these monsters dissolved into some minions when they died, and it would also be nice to get rules for creating "companion" units for allies.

But I agree that the "epic" rules I described -- where the soldier units are relevant to victory, but not necessarily a direct threat to the PCs -- are also suitable to a number of paragon games. That said, I tend to think of paragon characters as leading units, but not necessarily powerful enough to just stand in the middle of an enemy unit and hack away.

The epic game that you describe -- where the PCs are slaughtering an entire army themselves -- is definitely a useful type of scenario, although it seems like a special case to me. (It's more of a chance to let the players revel in the unadulturated awesomeness of their characters than the climax of an epic adventure.) But, yes, I agree that a full-scale military engagement with epic level characters is apocalyptic in scale. Isn't that the point of epic level play?

Stepping back for a bit, I tend to think that mass combat suffers from the Battlesystem legacy. I think a lot folks figure that mass combat has to focus on the units on the battlefield with the PCs just acting as special "hero units." That's one valid approach, but it's not necessarily the best one. GMs should be able to create a battlefield encounter where there are tons of soldiers (often from both sides) on the map and past its edge, that matter to the fight without being the focus of the fight. I think that sort of encounter is really missing from epic (and paragon) play in 4e.

-KS

 

[catastrophic]

One of the great things about 4e is that it's combat can be rekinned. It's actually quite viable to reskin monters, as entire military units. In such a battle, each batalion would be a monster or a hero, with a pc controlling an enture batallion of troops, like a colum of knights, or a bunch of archers. The one bad egg product 'hard boiled armies' covered an idea like this.

Now this might seem 'same old same old', but even on the most basic level, it gives a player the ability to play a different role and build to the one they normally have.

And byeond that, you can do all sort sof ool stuff. A rough list would be to half movement rates, make every 'creature' size large with reach 1, and use a lot more units than normal, pssibly making them retreat when they get bloodied.

This would work at any tier, and at epic, you could mix pcs right in there by themself, taking on entire armored colums.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Ryujin!

I have to agree, Upper Krust, that there's no need for dimension-hopping in Epic Tier. Some people point to things like Norse Mythology, as a guide to how Epic Tier should be handled; godlings fighting world-spanning serpents and defeating evil gods, and demons.

I see it differently.

I think of the epic tales of The Trials of Heracles and how Cuchulainn defended Ulster, against an army. Are they any less epic, in nature, because they involved the cleaning of a stable? The defeating of a human army? I don't think so.

Different people are going to have different opinions on what epic is or is not.

But for me there is a clear distinction between epic heroes and gods...

Achilles is an epic hero, Ares is a god.
Elric is an epic hero, Arioch is a god.
Conan is an epic hero, Dagoth is a god.

...but that doesn't mean the two cannot interact at a physical level.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy SkyOdin!

Actually, no. I am strongly opposed to the idea of an Immortial Tier above Epic Tier.

One of my books next year won't be your cup of tea then.

If you make a new Tier for that level of play, it would completely steal the role that Epic was intended to fulfill and further confuse and dilute the flavor of the various tiers. I don't think an Immortial Tier is needed because it would be fulfilling the exact role that Epic should be filling right now.

I disagree. The epic tier is for roleplaying epic mortal heroes, the immortal tier would be for roleplaying as gods.

I don't see any dilution, but rather a clear distinction.

That is just a list of famous or legendary heroes. I don't at all agree that many of them qualify as being Epic heroes. I would peg Achilles, Arthur, Beowulf, and Cu Chulainn as excellent examples of Paragon Tier heroes, actually.

I suppose a few of my examples could be argued either way.

Those four are all heroes whose abilities are such that they can affect the fate of nations. Conan might just be a Heroic Tier hero, depending on author.

Conan I'll grant you, but only because his full life is basically documented, so we get to see his rise to power/prowess.

Rama on the other hand, is an example of an Epic Tier hero, and you can clearly see a big difference between the Ramayana and some of the stories the others are from. Rama's opponents are the Rakshasas, lead by Ravana and his family, who by the start of Rama's journey, had already laid siege to the home of the gods and defeated them in battle. At the same time, Rama's companions include Hanuman, a demigod monkey who rips a mountain off of its foundation at one point.

I'd say any hero who has battled gods (or Anti-gods) in some capacity is an Epic Hero.

I think that there is a risk in making Epic levels heroes too weak and small in scale, because the Epic tier would then be leeching away the awesomeness of Paragon Tier heroes, who still deserve their credit.

I think you could define it as...

Paragon Heroes...among the best in the land/country.
Epic Tier Heroes...among the best in the world.

In which case King Arthur is probably Paragon Tier, while Sir Lancelot is Epic Tier, as is probably Achilles.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy KidSnide!

I think the biggest failure of the epic tier in 4e is the assumption by WotC that the epic-level play should feel like heroic and paragon level play. To my mind, dungeon crawling is a distinctly heroic mode of play, but the 4e design assumption is that dungeon crawling is the game -- at all tiers. To have a good epic level game, you need epic-style game constructs. For example, I'd like to see:

Totally agree.

* Mass Combat - not the sort of mass combat where the players have dozens of units to control, but the sort of mass combat in which the armies are the terrain and the PCs can cause their front line to advance by destroying key enemies (leaders or swarms of soldiers).

Have these rules ready...they'll be in, not my next book but the one after that.

* Super-Solos - I want to see enemies that are adventures, not just encounters. There should be creatures big enough to be the terrain. There should be creatures you have to fight in multi aspects (Lolth and some of the Sorcerer-Kings are good steps in this direction), but defeating a deity should be more than a single stat block. Fighting a deity should take multiple encounters as the PCs have to destroy different aspects of the deity's power. I find it a little appalling that Voltemort is so much harder to kill than the demon prince of undead.

Have these rules ready...just waiting for the appropriate book to put them in.

* Changes in Mobility and Terrain - The 4e designers correctly noted that flying seriously changes the nature of combat, but their solution (to minimize it) undercut the nature of epic level play. Epic level characters should all be able to move around in epic ways -- flying boots, super jump, teleportation or the like. Epic level maps shouldn't be continuous walls and passages. An epic encounter should have some areas distances of special terrain that impassible or deadly to mere mortals (chasms, lava, razor-bamboo, take your pick). The limit to "dungeon-appropriate distances" in epic-level powers and equipment is yet another failure of imagination.

I have changes for this in the pipeline too, allowing characters make massive leaps, run helluva fast and so forth. Envision characters speeding like cannonballs through armies, knocking over those in their path as they wade through million strong hordes, then leaping hundreds of feet into the air to land on Godzilla's head, where the giant monster becomes the new terrain...

Ultimately, I think the idea that "epic is core" in 4e is mostly illusory. There are rules for creating characters of levels 21-30, but there isn't actually all that much support in the rules for playing characters (or writing adventures) that actually feel "epic."

I'll try and hurry up.

Pressed for time tonight. More replies tomorrow.

 

[Sunseeker]

The best solution to the "death of Epic Tier" is to play some Epic Tier, so I heartily challenge everyone to attempt it. I admit I've never done it myself, so I think this week, i'll sit down and make some. Maybe I'll come back here in a bit and post up what i've got.

We can all make a thread about it, come up with unique, challenging, fun, interesting ideas for an "Epic tier event". And then we can go back to our groups and run it, see how it goes.