Why the assumption that epic levels are purely optional?

[Gold Roger]

Oh, I'm sure epic level play can be hellish fun. I even feel a bit bad about wanting to "to break the toys" of those that love it. I simply don't think it should be a prequisite for a "complete campaign".

 

[Richards]

If all you mean by "playing in epic levels" is running characters of higher level than 20th, I'm fine with it. It's easy enough to extrapolate the rules for levels 1-20 into higher levels (I'm talking things like base attack bonuses, saves, spell slots, etc.).

If, however, you're talking about "that completely different set of rules in the Epic Level Handbook, where all of a sudden you're worrying about "spell seeds" and stuff like that, then no thanks. In my mind, the Epic Level Handbook is already a variant D&D system, just like Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed or Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes. There's absolutley nothing wrong with those systems (I've heard some really good things about them), and more power to the people who play them, but they're no more "core" D&D than the Epic Level Handbook is - again, in my mind.

As it is for me, 20th level is already way too high for my personal comfort level. I'm happier capping around level 12 or so.

Johnathan

 

[Graf]

It hasn’t been directly stated but mechanically the fact is that that the system actually starts to break down at 20th level. It’s not like its an optional ruleset…. It’s a replacement rulesset for the one you’ve been using so far.
Character progression, spells, most everything stops at 20 (bab, saves, spells) and is replaced by a freeform system where you get a certain number of “option choices” (feats) for rounding out your character. If someone hasn’t got a 20 level class or an extendable 10 level PrC its even more confusing.

The epic system basically works as, “the DnD game you played up till now stops here, because it doesn’t work… here are few pages of guidelines on how to gin-up your own system”.

I agree that 3.5 needs a new set of well thought out Epic rules. But the epic handbook doesn’t/didn’t sell well enough to justify the amount of work involved (its one of the only 3.0 books I never wound up owning or reading) so you’re doomed really.

Wizards could get out of this by having an "epic" book that mixes epic rules with ways to make an "epic" campaign (like the Powers of Faerun book, which looks surprisingly good).

 

[VictorC]

It hasn’t been directly stated but mechanically the fact is that that the system actually starts to break down at 20th level.

Actually that is directly stated in the DMG in the thumbnail at the bottom of page 210.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why do so many people seem to think that epic levels are optional rules not implied by the core rules as written?

It clearly states on page 207 of the 3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide:

"Regardless of the method used to attain 21st level, once a character reaches that point he or she is considered an epic character."

It then goes on to present the rules for epic characters.

The words "option" or "variant" do not appear.

Contrast that to prestige classes, which have the disclaimer:

"Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM."

Now, I'm not debating that a DM doesn't have the right to stop a campaign at any level he wishes, but I'd like to know where people get the idea that the core rules somehow don't support play past 20th level.

This spang from the debate regarding the archfiends being reduced to CRs that allow them to be defeated by 20th-level characters and the continuing treatment of epic level play as the redheaded stepchild of D&D.

All rules are optional. Everything in the DMG is optional, including PrCs and epic rules.

 

[Sejs]

General - Why the assumption that epic levels are purely optional?

Because after 20th the advancement mechanic gets completely revised. It's not a linear progression past 20, it's 1-20: schedule A, 21+: change to schedule B.

 

[Hairfoot]

I think it's also because most characters won't make it to level 20. If you're playing an epic game, you probably started there, in which case you're playing a D&D variant system.

 

[Conaill]

I keep hearing about this mysterious "market research" that indicates that there isn't enough support to justify epic gaming, yet they obviously thought it was used enough to put it in a core book. If I'm truly in a tiny niche, I'll accept it and move on.

I'd suggest you accept it and move on

Yes, WotC did do a significant amount of market research before they came out with 3.0 - among other things, to find out what levels people prefer to play. Don't know whether they have done anything as extensive after 3.0 came out, but I bet at least they keep track of customer request and the occasional polls and questionnaires...

Over the years we've actually had a few polls on the topic of favorite levels here on EN World. The last one was only a few months ago, IIRC, but it was probably wiped out in the Big Crash. The outcome of these polls is fairly consistent: people tend to prefer playing somewhere in the mid-range levels, and only a relatively small fraction prefers to play 20+ rather than anything lower than that.

I'm guessing the difference between the 3.0 and 3.5 treatment of epic levels is due either to (1) WotC deciding they wanted at least a *little* more epic in the core rules to satisfy that vocal minority, or (2) an a priori decision not to provide a 3.5 ELH, so they'd better put something in the DMG or loose the claim that 3.5 scales above 20th level.

Of course, I'm too lazy to look up any evidence to back up these statements. So sue me...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'll tentatively agree with the OP.

Because the epic rules are core, one would expect them to be the basic assumption, and thus predict campaigns to go into them, even as they project that campaigns go into the 15th or 10th level. This means that the core rules should be designed with the epic rules in mind, that the core campaign shold assume the use of the epic rules, and that the things that are the most powerful in D&D (like the demon lords) should make good use of those rules.

That they don't is a tragedy. It's like designing fire characters that didn't make use of the game's rules for subtypes and energy types. You have a usable tool for depicting extremely powerful, world-shaping, beyond-mortal powers. Those rules have an appropriate use. It's not an entirely common use, but to ignore a rule just because it's not a common circumstance...I mean, how often does the turning radius for flying creatures of manueverability (good) come up? But the rules are there, and they should either be used for what they are designed for or redesigned so that they are useful, but not ignored.

That many people don't play higher levels is an effect rather than a cause. If you make appealing reasons for them to play epic levels (such as slaying demon lords), they will.

I don't have extremely strong feelings on the issue, but this strikes me as "routing around damage." Which is fine, but I'd rather see the damage fixed...if there is, indeed, any real damage.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

There is, however, the legacy from earlier editions of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, where the rules did stop at 20th level. Hell, in Dragonlance Adventures you were kicked out at 18th level . . . even in basic D&D, high-level play was treated differently.

I also kind of disagree with the original poster simply because recent supplements have included basic epic extrapolations, ever since Complete Warrior.