Post/Author/DateTime	Post
IceFractal 07-28-07, 10:16 PM	One thing I've noticed about the Epic rules is that they seem a bit split. Some of the material (class progressions and feats like Epic Spell Focus, for instance) seems to simply be a smooth progression past 20th level, while other material (many monsters, item pricing suddenly 10x, Epic Spellcasting) lean more towards Epic being a totally different experience than pre-Epic play, with the entire scope of gameplay shifted. Since each approach has proponents, this creates rather a problem in balancing Epic material. Shifting the material one way or the other isn't a great solution either - someone playing a game that will go to level 50 and beyond probably doesn't want people being demigods right away at level 21; conversely, someone playing a more low-level setting may consider the characters legendary at level 15 or earlier. Therefore, the ideal solution would be to separate the Epic rules into two parts: 1) The Extended Rules - Handle progress past 20th level, with a smooth power curve - 21 is no more a jump from 20 than 20 was from 19. Would be as similar to non-epic as possible, with the tweaks necessary to keep things functional. Class progressions would be similar to the existing Epic ones - although possibly spellcasting wouldn't stop, just progress at a slowed-down rate - and the feats would be less of a sudden jump (powerful ones would still exist, but would have more of a buildup). Items would have a smooth increase in cost instead of a sudden 10x jump. 2) The Legendary Rules - For characters that are the stuff of legends. Somewhat similar to the Divine Rank rules or a template, these could be applied to characters regardless of level, depending on campaign. Would basically allow characters to go a step beyond what's normally possible with their abilities. Stuff like epic spells, massive combat feats, things like being able to cut a path through an army without slowing down, continue fighting while unconcious, or summon a storm that destroys a city. A character would have both a level and a legendary rank, and the relationship between them could be tailored to the campaign. So you could have an extremely high-level planar travelling game where pretty much the standard balance holds, or a relatively lower-level campaign where the characters are fated heroes of legend, or any other mix you want. Thoughts? Insults? Ideas?
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-28-07, 10:56 PM	To me, the Legendary thing steps right on Epic; that's the kind of stuff high-level characters are supposed to be doing. The real problem is that the rules aren't designed, crunch or flavor-wise, to accomadate all levels of characters well, only 1-20.
Tequila_Sunrise 07-28-07, 11:13 PM	I think your ideas are great. God bless you if you have the time and energy to put both systems together ;) . TS
BillTheManiac 07-29-07, 10:47 AM	x10 item pricing is there because character wealth at epic levels is too high. Epic Spellcasting is designed so that characters can have "interesting" high level spells rather then just metamagiced-up low level spells. Especially with Feanmerc it's just a spell-design system. Really epic is just "characters get stronger, let's try to make it linear". The monsters just come with the realization that by that point you have to take the gloves of, then take the brass knuckles off, then kill them with a sword.\ I think "a sudden jump in power" doesn't exist anywhere in D&D.
Tequila_Sunrise 07-29-07, 11:14 AM	I think "a sudden jump in power" doesn't exist anywhere in D&D. Really? I can think of quite a few, just from core, off the top of my head. Think about a rogue and Weapon Finesse, a must-have for just about every rogue. Yet, a rogue must wait until 3rd level to get it which means from 1-2 a rogue can hardly hit anything but then suddenly at 3rd they're much more effective. If that's not a "sudden jump in power", I don't know what is. Now think about all the feats and classes from all those splatbooks and then consider all those epic feats and PrCs. They're practically brimming with sudden jumps in power.
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-29-07, 11:25 AM	There's not much we can do about sudden jumps of power. Leveling up itself is bizarre; suddenly, you're better at picking locks or have discovered a new spell just by killing monsters. We can do something about the really ridiculous ones, though.
BillTheManiac 07-29-07, 06:34 PM	Really? I can think of quite a few, just from core, off the top of my head. Think about a rogue and Weapon Finesse, a must-have for just about every rogue. Yet, a rogue must wait until 3rd level to get it which means from 1-2 a rogue can hardly hit anything but then suddenly at 3rd they're much more effective. If that's not a "sudden jump in power", I don't know what is. Now think about all the feats and classes from all those splatbooks and then consider all those epic feats and PrCs. They're practically brimming with sudden jumps in power. hmmmm.... maybe sudden jumps in intended power? In perceived power? They shouldn't exist in D&D. Legendary isn't defined by the PCs. It is defined by the ordinary individuals in the world, and what level they are. Eberron and FR are polar opposites in the power of NPCs. This leads to different campaign styles at different levels.
Kihon 07-29-07, 07:34 PM	Actually leveling up is not "bizarre" - it makes a lot of sense. Take any given skill - from playing the guitar, to swimming, to martial arts training, to what ever you want. In order to get better at any of the skills you choose you need to do one thing - practice. It's very simple - and leveling up represents that practice. Using the above examples - when you start playing a music instrument you struggle with cords and finger placement, or starting to swim you struggle not to drown, or martial arts you start by learning stances and basic attacks. Now lets look several months down the road (represented by going up a couple of levels after some time adventuring and probably lots of down time in between). Suddenly the guitar player can make music that sounds like a song (not supper great yet, but hey it's only 3rd level), or the swimmer can suddenly hold his own in the water, or the martial artist finds that he suddenly can 'spar' or has learned techniques and practiced them enough that he could do damage to someone. It is not that one day they couldn't do it, and the next they can. It is that after training and training suddenly (one day) they look back and say 'hey I'm better then I was when I started learning this skill' or whatever. Leveling up isn't something that is odd, it makes sense in the context of the game.
Tequila_Sunrise 07-29-07, 09:06 PM	hmmmm.... maybe sudden jumps in intended power? In perceived power? They shouldn't exist in D&D. Legendary isn't defined by the PCs. It is defined by the ordinary individuals in the world, and what level they are. Eberron and FR are polar opposites in the power of NPCs. This leads to different campaign styles at different levels. You lost me at "intended power...", so I'll just say this: while sudden jumps in power are unavoidable in the game, they are not a good thing and so should be minimized as much as possible. I also don't think that many designers realize this, and hence the game is full of sudden jumps in power. Therefore I see no reason not to gradiate the game with house rules, especially at epic.
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-29-07, 09:06 PM	Actually leveling up is not "bizarre" - it makes a lot of sense. Take any given skill - from playing the guitar, to swimming, to martial arts training, to what ever you want. In order to get better at any of the skills you choose you need to do one thing - practice. It's very simple - and leveling up represents that practice. Using the above examples - when you start playing a music instrument you struggle with cords and finger placement, or starting to swim you struggle not to drown, or martial arts you start by learning stances and basic attacks. Now lets look several months down the road (represented by going up a couple of levels after some time adventuring and probably lots of down time in between). Suddenly the guitar player can make music that sounds like a song (not supper great yet, but hey it's only 3rd level), or the swimmer can suddenly hold his own in the water, or the martial artist finds that he suddenly can 'spar' or has learned techniques and practiced them enough that he could do damage to someone. It is not that one day they couldn't do it, and the next they can. It is that after training and training suddenly (one day) they look back and say 'hey I'm better then I was when I started learning this skill' or whatever. Leveling up isn't something that is odd, it makes sense in the context of the game. Except that in D&D, being able to perform basic stances and actually spar is separated by only the moment you take out a kobold.
Kihon 07-29-07, 10:18 PM	I must disagree. You need X (amount of ex) until the next level - which is represented by killing Y number of monsters, and then you need to find someone to spend time with training. You see many games skip over this part and just let characters level - you should not. See players handbook or DM's Guide (not sure which or what page), but I know I read it one of them - you don't just 'poof' and level, you need to be trained. You spend time writing down new spells, learning new combat moves, talking to your elders and after Z number of days - yes you are a level higher. The way it's supposed to be (which many don't hold to, or just ignore - like spell components for instance) and it works and makes 'some' sense.
Balthanon 07-29-07, 10:26 PM	I must disagree. You need X (amount of ex) until the next level - which is represented by killing Y number of monsters, and then you need to find someone to spend time with training. You see many games skip over this part and just let characters level - you should not. See players handbook or DM's Guide (not sure which or what page), but I know I read it one of them - you don't just 'poof' and level, you need to be trained. You spend time writing down new spells, learning new combat moves, talking to your elders and after Z number of days - yes you are a level higher. The way it's supposed to be (which many don't hold to, or just ignore - like spell components for instance) and it works and makes 'some' sense. Actually, that is an optional rule-- the basic rules tend to gloss over the fact that your characters are training, but I believe it is assumed. I do rather like this idea though-- it allows the DM to determine when the level of play really starts ratchetting upwards. The trick is really determining what is separated out and what stays as part of the extended game.
BillTheManiac 07-30-07, 12:23 PM	Leveling up is abstraction: An unrealistic mechanic that makes the game simpler. Same with the HP system. TS, I agree with what you say. I am trying to say that the percieved "sudden jump in power" at level 21 is not bigger than any other sudden jump in power, especially with a system like Feanmerc. Also I am trying to say that what is "Legendary" is defined by what is normal, and should not have a rule mechanic.
Taeldrin Laesrash 07-30-07, 08:52 PM	TS, I agree with what you say. I am trying to say that the percieved "sudden jump in power" at level 21 is not bigger than any other sudden jump in power, especially with a system like Feanmerc. Also I am trying to say that what is "Legendary" is defined by what is normal, and should not have a rule mechanic. It's not extremely huge, I agree. Almost all epic feats are just natural extensions of lower-level abilities. Same with Epic PrCs. However, what about Epic Attack and Save Bonuses? Those are annoying, especially considering that monsters advance with normal HD.
rob_douglas 07-31-07, 11:06 AM	The save bonuses can't be annoying, since they are an improvement over non-epic save bonuses - except when you start multiclassing to heck and back. Epic Attack bonus has always been the one that annoys people. But I don't see that monsters have an advantage, when they are usually eqipment why - that means Natural armor and higher attack bonuses are needed to keep them dangerous. It is unfair that a fighters big thing - full attack, is cut in half at epic, but a caster's big thing - caster level - is still full. ROB
Tequila_Sunrise 07-31-07, 12:04 PM	I don't use epic AB and saves. Each class' BAB advances at the normal rate, without additional iterative attacks. Class saves advance at the 1/2 rate after 20th level, but are still attached to class level. Personally, I can see how "monsters have the advantage" with epic attacks using ELH rules. Not only do most battler type monsters have a load of HD which raises their BAB to more than +1 per CR, they have phenomenal Str/Dex scores to boost their attacks further. A battler character has his BAB, a stat booster item and a magic weapon which means that his attacks will barely be on par with the weakest battler monsters. Well, at least until epic AB kicks in. Now suddenly a battler character's combat ability advances as fast as a fey magic-type monster. I can see using epic AB in a game where the DM allows all kinds of crazy items that boost AB, but then that game will have other problems to deal with.
BillTheManiac 07-31-07, 05:29 PM	Without a magic item, my Iron Siege character cannot hit himself.
Kesthol 07-31-07, 07:12 PM	... Thoughts? Insults? Ideas? As a wise man once put it, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries." :P ...not supper great yet... Food on your mind? ;) ...blah blah blah... epic is legendary, epic should be legendary, legendary is subjective to the relative power of "normal" persons in the world, etc. ... I like the idea of split epic and legendary. :thumbsup: It may be a good way to transition from being a 'normal' PC (levels 1-20) to an 'epic' PC (levels 21+) that is not (yet) able to do all the things currently called "epic" (ie, swim up a waterfall, attack a god and not die outright). And 'legendary' PCs (maybe with legendary ranks, like divine ranks) can do things that gradually scale into divine rank 0 (at which point they get 'demigod' status, and are well on their way to total divine ascension), whether or not they have hit epic (yet), and no matter how far into epic they may be. Makes sense. I :tiphat: to IceFractal. This system also neatly explains Beowulf (and other not-demigod legends and/or legendary creatures) without giving him divine ranks.
Starmage21 07-31-07, 07:59 PM	I don't use epic AB and saves. Each class' BAB advances at the normal rate, without additional iterative attacks. Class saves advance at the 1/2 rate after 20th level, but are still attached to class level. Personally, I can see how "monsters have the advantage" with epic attacks using ELH rules. Not only do most battler type monsters have a load of HD which raises their BAB to more than +1 per CR, they have phenomenal Str/Dex scores to boost their attacks further. A battler character has his BAB, a stat booster item and a magic weapon which means that his attacks will barely be on par with the weakest battler monsters. Well, at least until epic AB kicks in. Now suddenly a battler character's combat ability advances as fast as a fey magic-type monster. I can see using epic AB in a game where the DM allows all kinds of crazy items that boost AB, but then that game will have other problems to deal with. But it should be clear why these monsters need the large attack bonuses they get: They dont get magic items(usually). Now, part of that CR assumes that if the monster is intelligent enough, it will be using some of those items in it's random treasure horde against the PCs. Usually, those same monsters have the option for character class advancement as well.
BillTheManiac 07-31-07, 08:27 PM	I like the idea of split epic and legendary. :thumbsup: It may be a good way to transition from being a 'normal' PC (levels 1-20) to an 'epic' PC (levels 21+) that is not (yet) able to do all the things currently called "epic" (ie, swim up a waterfall, attack a god and not die outright). And 'legendary' PCs (maybe with legendary ranks, like divine ranks) can do things that gradually scale into divine rank 0 (at which point they get 'demigod' status, and are well on their way to total divine ascension), whether or not they have hit epic (yet), and no matter how far into epic they may be. Makes sense. I :tiphat: to IceFractal. This system also neatly explains Beowulf (and other not-demigod legends and/or legendary creatures) without giving him divine ranks. Is there anything Beowulf can do that an Xth level fighter cannot? If class X gets benefits that class Y doesn't get, then there must be some in-campaign element that gives them those powers. DvR is [your campaign setting's divine rules]. Elite array ability scores is because the people with bad stats don't decide to go adventuring. Also, DvR 0 is not much of a scaling benefit. Mostly it's immune to this, immune to that, immune to noodles, etc. Suggestion, though, to make something "legendary": A character of level X+C (X is variable, C is constant) is immune to auto and critical hits from characters level X or below. They can still be sneak attacked, favored enemy-d, or anything that represents training, not luck. Now you can say "1st level warriors absolutely CANNOT hit me. Ever." without DR.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-01-07, 02:34 AM	But it should be clear why these monsters need the large attack bonuses they get: They dont get magic items(usually). Now, part of that CR assumes that if the monster is intelligent enough, it will be using some of those items in it's random treasure horde against the PCs. Usually, those same monsters have the option for character class advancement as well. No denying that. All I'm saying is that if epic characters gain better gear at roughly the same rate that they did during pre-epic, the battle characters will be left in the dust because they get stiffed with epic AB. For example a pre epic battler will gain about +1 to AB every 3 or 4 levels from items, ussuming the DM doesn't get into oddball bonuses (sacred, insight, etc...). So if the same gear trends hold thru epic levels, battler characters will get stiffed due to epic AB. Now if the DM gets into those oddball bonuses, high level and epic characters will be getting a lot more bonuses to AB thru items, so epic AB makes sense. But then again, those oddballs make it even easier to skyrocket a character's AC even more so than AB which is a problem the DM will have to deal with.
BillTheManiac 08-01-07, 09:35 AM	But wealth is exponential. There is a lot more wealth at epic levels.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-01-07, 11:52 AM	Yes, it is. Would you elaborate?
Balthanon 08-01-07, 11:53 AM	But wealth is exponential. There is a lot more wealth at epic levels. Does it need to be though? Honestly, at a certain point, gold increases are just a bit ridiculous-- in most campaigns I couldn't even see a great wyrm having several million gold pieces, let alone a merchant. It might almost be easier to just abandon the concept of currency based wealth at the point where epic comes into play and just give it in terms of actual bonuses-- +6 armor becomes available at such and such level, +7 three levels after, etc... Instead of accumulating more and more wealth, players could instead gather appropriate rare material components for having new armor and items created from CR appropriate encounters. No actual gold value because they're essentially priceless, similar to artifacts. The only real method of purchasing an item would be to barter another equivalent item. (In fact, come to think of it, the Item Level concept from the Magic Item Compendium would be a good method of handling the determination of whether an item is equivalent or not.)
RealSorceror 08-01-07, 12:13 PM	From what I understand, you want to make a distinction between "Powerful" and "Famous". Why not just introduce rules for a Reputation score? The rules are presented in Unearthed Arcana. The character gains renown based on their achievements and level. Simple as that. I can see how a secretive epic character might not be well known (probably because they choose not to be) while a low level character who saves a town from the BBEG might become a legend overnight. Characters can use their Reputation modifier in social situations and Charisma-based checks, although you can create other benefits.
Balthanon 08-01-07, 12:19 PM	From what I understand, you want to make a distinction between "Powerful" and "Famous". Legendary here isn't intended to refer to fame-- it's more about spectacular feats and death defying stunts that almost no characters would be able to pull off, regardless of their levels, if the rules didn't change slightly. Things like ignoring those hundreds of critical hits (i.e. the add 10/subtract 10 alternate rules mentioned for natural 20s and 1s in the ELH) an army is going to pull off, developing epic spells (rather than simply applying metamagic to existing ones), perhaps some of the epic skill uses, etc... (Incidentally, for spellcasting, I don't think it would increase in an "Extended" ruleset as I referred to above-- instead, characters would just basically make do with Improved Spellcasting and metamagic on existing spells.)
BillTheManiac 08-01-07, 12:43 PM	Legendary here isn't intended to refer to fame-- it's more about spectacular feats and death defying stunts that almost no characters would be able to pull off, regardless of their levels, if the rules didn't change slightly. Things like ignoring those hundreds of critical hits (i.e. the add 10/subtract 10 alternate rules mentioned for natural 20s and 1s in the ELH) an army is going to pull off, developing epic spells (rather than simply applying metamagic to existing ones), perhaps some of the epic skill uses, etc... (Incidentally, for spellcasting, I don't think it would increase in an "Extended" ruleset as I referred to above-- instead, characters would just basically make do with Improved Spellcasting and metamagic on existing spells.) I don't think characters should be able to do these things. You have 3000 arrows blanketing a 5x5 square in 6 seconds, one of them will hit your heart. Epic Spellcasting is mostly just metamagic and the ability to combine two spells into 1 (aka quicken spell+multispell) in a different package. It should be replaced by something like Feanmerc. The epic skill uses should be flavored as either spells or the result of rediculously good training, not something you just randomly get. All these heroic characters you mention got their powers through training. Through being really really good at what they do. They didn't get their powers through a magic "legendary force". They got it through skill. They got it through levels. That's exactly how it works in the current system. Get enough skill, you can balance on a cloud.
RealSorceror 08-01-07, 01:25 PM	Legendary here isn't intended to refer to fame-- it's more about spectacular feats and death defying stunts that almost no characters would be able to pull off, regardless of their levels, if the rules didn't change slightly. Action Points anyone? Luck feats, mayhap? Things like ignoring those hundreds of critical hits (i.e. the add 10/subtract 10 alternate rules mentioned for natural 20s and 1s in the ELH) an army is going to pull off, developing epic spells (rather than simply applying metamagic to existing ones), perhaps some of the epic skill uses, etc... But nobody does that. The only reason my epic characters can aviod damage from an army is through high AC and killing them before they can counter-attack. Thats how it always goes, regardless of level. Unless you are impervious to piercing damage, you will get hit by an arrow if enough people are shooting.
Balthanon 08-01-07, 05:19 PM	Action Points anyone? Luck feats, mayhap? But nobody does that. The only reason my epic characters can aviod damage from an army is through high AC and killing them before they can counter-attack. Thats how it always goes, regardless of level. Unless you are impervious to piercing damage, you will get hit by an arrow if enough people are shooting. Personally, I don't like either of those systems-- action points in particular. Resources limited to 1 per day or 1 per week are bad enough, 1 per level is so exhaustible its barely going to impact the game unless you're leveling once a session. With the alternate rules that were suggested with the ELH (or maybe its web enhancement?) a character with a high enough AC could sit there and whether the storm of arrows--consecutive 20s might eventually pierce its AC (i.e. one character rolling 3 or 4 20s in a row for +40 to hit) but that's about it. And if you wanted to get to that a bit earlier than say, 40th level, what's the problem? One of the examples of this that I think is actually fairly appropriate is the movie 300-- truthfully, I doubt that the characters in that were intended to be epic level. 10th, maybe 15th for the elite, but they performing feats well beyond what normal characters could necessarily accomplish and didn't die until the plot demanded it really. That is the kind of scene that I think a system like this would support. Regular epic works, for the most part, this is just looking at it in a little different light.
BillTheManiac 08-01-07, 05:29 PM	That's fiction. This is D&D. This is a game. In a game, characters can die at any time. They don't die so that they won't be there in the next scene. They die because of bad luck. Like in real life. They don't die to show the audience about the difference between good and evil or whatnot. They die to show the players they did something stupid. If you don't want the PCs to die until you want them to, give them low EL encounters until you want them to, when you give them high EL encounters. Then they die.
Balthanon 08-01-07, 05:38 PM	That's fiction. This is D&D. Ok... I think we have a rather large gap in the way we see the game. Personally, I think D&D is far closer to fiction than it is real life. I tend to see D&D as at least partly collaborative storytelling/fiction with rules guidelines to ensure that everyone knows how things work. I'm not saying that this Legendary status is going to make the characters immortal, it's just giving them a different method of increasing their abilities and strengths--methods that already exist in the game, albeit dependent on a different mechanic.
BillTheManiac 08-01-07, 09:50 PM	I think people are suggesting 2 things on this: 1) Plot invulnerability. Giving players a mechanic protecting them from dumb luck is a better idea in a game without raise dead. If you want to have players not die until you want them to, fudge the rolls. d20s are there so you don't know what happens. If you want to know, fudge them. 2) Awesome feats. The ability to take on an army, balance on clouds, use epic spells, etc. Taking on an army is represented by the 20--->30/1--->-9 rule. If you want characters to have that, everyone should have that. You don't have to have a special legendary aura to have a success chance that's closer to 100% then 95%. Balancing on clouds is either a magical gift (wind walk) or the result of immense skill (DC 120 skill check). Epic spells is the ability to use interesting high level spells. It's unfair to take that away from any character just because they aren't legendary. Oh, about the Narativist/Gamist/Simulationist thing, D&D has three core rulebooks full of rules and rules and rules because it is an incredibly Simulationist game. Games where characters succeed at an increased or reduced chance based on the needs of the plot have smaller rule sets. Giving certain characters protection from the d20 system is against the spirit of the game: that rules should be applied consistently.
Balthanon 08-01-07, 10:55 PM	I've never said that the rules should not be applied consistently or that they should be sacrificed in the name of achieving some plot point that has been developed. Plot is there to make the game interesting though-- it's the difference between a series of random encounters/adventures and a campaign and its part of the rules. My reference to "not dying until the plot demanded it" was just a reference to the movie, the increased stamina of the soldiers and the epic feel of the battle in that movie. Maybe I just play in different games, however, I've never played in a campaign where the players just marched along picking up the occassional random adventuring hook. There is background and stories that occur outside of the player's purview, there are things that the characters can affect and things that they can't (though that doesn't mean they don't try and occassionally alter things against the odds)-- it all boils down to an interactive, immersive world though and the rules are what give it structure. The DM gives you a story and the rules tell him how to interpret what the players do to change the outcome. Honestly, I'm not sure why you are so dead set against the development of an alternative rule for handling epic style campaigns/adventures. Even where rules are perfect, people develop house rules, and I don't think anyone is going to claim perfection for D&D. This is just an idea for creating two alternative styles of play at epic level--house rules to allow a DM and players to better tailor their campaigns if they want to do so. Heck, Wizards of the Coast published an entire book full of them-- it's hardly a new concept. For your specific complaints: 1) 50% or more of the rules content that is developed is probably about giving players mechanics to protect themselves from dumb luck. AC, mischance, damage reduction, etc... all of it is about making that d20 role matter a little bit less in the end. 2) This isn't necessarily suggesting that these abilities just be handed out to the players. The way I see this happening is that the "legendary rank" is opening up options for players in a graduated manner-- skill uses, feats, etc.... Why should a player be entitled to these things anymore than they are entitled to you handing out artifacts so long as you let them know ahead of time these alternative rules are in place? It gives players one more area to improve in, which most of my players would be happy to take.
BillTheManiac 08-02-07, 10:35 AM	I've never said that the rules should not be applied consistently or that they should be sacrificed in the name of achieving some plot point that has been developed. Plot is there to make the game interesting though-- it's the difference between a series of random encounters/adventures and a campaign and its part of the rules. My reference to "not dying until the plot demanded it" was just a reference to the movie, the increased stamina of the soldiers and the epic feel of the battle in that movie. Maybe I just play in different games, however, I've never played in a campaign where the players just marched along picking up the occassional random adventuring hook. There is background and stories that occur outside of the player's purview, there are things that the characters can affect and things that they can't (though that doesn't mean they don't try and occassionally alter things against the odds)-- it all boils down to an interactive, immersive world though and the rules are what give it structure. The DM gives you a story and the rules tell him how to interpret what the players do to change the outcome. Honestly, I'm not sure why you are so dead set against the development of an alternative rule for handling epic style campaigns/adventures. Even where rules are perfect, people develop house rules, and I don't think anyone is going to claim perfection for D&D. This is just an idea for creating two alternative styles of play at epic level--house rules to allow a DM and players to better tailor their campaigns if they want to do so. Heck, Wizards of the Coast published an entire book full of them-- it's hardly a new concept. For your specific complaints: 1) 50% or more of the rules content that is developed is probably about giving players mechanics to protect themselves from dumb luck. AC, mischance, damage reduction, etc... all of it is about making that d20 role matter a little bit less in the end. 2) This isn't necessarily suggesting that these abilities just be handed out to the players. The way I see this happening is that the "legendary rank" is opening up options for players in a graduated manner-- skill uses, feats, etc.... Why should a player be entitled to these things anymore than they are entitled to you handing out artifacts so long as you let them know ahead of time these alternative rules are in place? It gives players one more area to improve in, which most of my players would be happy to take. About me not having a story. My games have a story. That story is just a realistic story. Rules are applied consistently. 1) Well, yeah. 90% of the rules apply to combat, and 50% of that is defensive, 50% is offensive, roughly. But note that none of these things protect PCs completely from dumb luck, except heavy fortification armor. They just reduce the probability. D&D wouldn't be a fun game if the PCs didn't know there was a very real probability of the players dying at any given moment. 2) Even if it's graduated it's still handing them out. Here's the problem: Steve: I am your teacher. I taught you everything you know about balancing, and then some. I am more dextrous and agile then you. Whenever we've done a balancing contest, I've won. Joe: Correct. Steve: But you just balanced on a cloud without using any magic. And I cannot. How is that possible? Joe: ummm.... You seem to think that legendary is something that is applied to characters. But things like skill uses should be applied to campaigns. It's either possible to balance on a cloud - or it's not. I as a player wouldn't enjoy you "seperating epic from legendary", not giving us the skill uses and epic spellcasting and whatnot until you said we deserved it. Especially from a realism perspective.
Balthanon 08-02-07, 12:17 PM	1) They just reduce the probability. D&D wouldn't be a fun game if the PCs didn't know there was a very real probability of the players dying at any given moment. 2) You seem to think that legendary is something that is applied to characters. But things like skill uses should be applied to campaigns. It's either possible to balance on a cloud - or it's not. I as a player wouldn't enjoy you "seperating epic from legendary", not giving us the skill uses and epic spellcasting and whatnot until you said we deserved it. Especially from a realism perspective. The thing is, presumably the PCs would have done something that earns them their "legendary" rank. So instead of Steve teaching Joe everything he knows, Steve has taught Joe everything he knows and then Joe has gone out and taken the next step, he was pushed beyond the limits in a way that Steve never encountered and maybe in the process he learned something that can't just be taught like swinging a sword. Also, as regards death and it making D&D fun, I would say to be more accurate it is risk and the unknown that make D&D fun. And you can have that without expecting death. For instance, the characters in my game just finished up a segment of the campaign where their only real overriding goal was returning a little girl to her father. It took probably about six months (they were about 7 alternate material planes away from her home) and for most of it, their primary concern wasn't their own lives-- it was that little girl's. That would have worked just as well if they were nigh invulnerable. As to personal taste... well, balancing that is something that any D&D group has to deal with. It sounds like you prefer gritty, realistic campaigns for instance, where I might prefer high fantasy, where the unexplainable happens and the characters go a bit beyond the boundaries. In a group that contained both of us, we might have to meet somewhere in the middle or just alternate in the type of campaigns we played.
BillTheManiac 08-02-07, 06:43 PM	The thing is, presumably the PCs would have done something that earns them their "legendary" rank. So instead of Steve teaching Joe everything he knows, Steve has taught Joe everything he knows and then Joe has gone out and taken the next step, he was pushed beyond the limits in a way that Steve never encountered and maybe in the process he learned something that can't just be taught like swinging a sword. Also, as regards death and it making D&D fun, I would say to be more accurate it is risk and the unknown that make D&D fun. And you can have that without expecting death. For instance, the characters in my game just finished up a segment of the campaign where their only real overriding goal was returning a little girl to her father. It took probably about six months (they were about 7 alternate material planes away from her home) and for most of it, their primary concern wasn't their own lives-- it was that little girl's. That would have worked just as well if they were nigh invulnerable. As to personal taste... well, balancing that is something that any D&D group has to deal with. It sounds like you prefer gritty, realistic campaigns for instance, where I might prefer high fantasy, where the unexplainable happens and the characters go a bit beyond the boundaries. In a group that contained both of us, we might have to meet somewhere in the middle or just alternate in the type of campaigns we played. I'm not sure how you're going to hit DC 120 without going out and adventuring anyways. At 1 XP/day you hit epic in like a thousand years. That's level 21. In 1150 years. Yeah. The point is, if I have a higher skill bonus then you, I should be able to do whatever you can do AND THEN SOME. Not vice versa. In the vast majority of fantasy fiction, there are characters more powerful then the main characters. For example, Gandalf in LoTR. When the main characters beat others, there is an explanation. The ring is more dangerous to more powerful people. Frodo and Sam are more stealthy then the entire fellowship. Save the Girl: OK. In one adventure it doesn't matter if the PCs are invulnerable. One adventure. What about the rest of the campaign? I don't play gritty, realistic campaigns. My games are slightly less realistic then ordinary D&D because I don't care about carrying capacity or ration. I just try to be fair. The NPCs don't cheat. Neither do the PCs.
Balthanon 08-02-07, 09:05 PM	In the vast majority of fantasy fiction, there are characters more powerful then the main characters. Save the Girl: OK. In one adventure it doesn't matter if the PCs are invulnerable. One adventure. What about the rest of the campaign? I just try to be fair. The NPCs don't cheat. Neither do the PCs. I thought this was D&D, not fiction? ;) I don't know how to get it through that this isn't necessarily just handing out power, it's an alternate rule-- it isn't necessarily restricted to PCs, it isn't cheating for one side or another, it isn't necessarily any more invulnerable or invincible than standard epic play. And if it did, so long as it can create an enjoyable game, does it matter? The girl was an example-- the PCs in my campaign are standard characters, but the point was that failure/conflict can exist without death being the result. You can have a tense, nail-biting situation where the PCs are in absolutely no danger whatsoever. The reason they were trying to get the girl home was an example of that in my campaign-- the PCs were there when she was taken hostage and they failed to stop the kidnapper. They were in a plane where ressurection didn't exist, but one of them decided he was going to correct his mistake when he got back home and then bring her all the way back.
BillTheManiac 08-02-07, 09:41 PM	I was making an example. You were using fiction as a justification. But, the point is, you are giving abilities to person 1 that are not given to person 2 without any in-game explanation. That is bad. You shouldn't have to do anything to slip through a wall of force. You just need to learn to be really good at slipping, or cast disintegrate. You shouldn't have to get a special legendary bonus. Yes you can have tense, nail biting situtations, but I'd hate to run an entire campaign of that.
Balthanon 08-02-07, 10:04 PM	I was making an example. You were using fiction as a justification. But, the point is, you are giving abilities to person 1 that are not given to person 2 without any in-game explanation. That is bad. You shouldn't have to do anything to slip through a wall of force. You just need to learn to be really good at slipping, or cast disintegrate. You shouldn't have to get a special legendary bonus. Yes you can have tense, nail biting situtations, but I'd hate to run an entire campaign of that. The rule/ability/whatever you want to call it isn't even defined at this point. It's a concept to be fleshed out. How do you know it doesn't have any in-game explanation? My fiction comparison was an example of how something like this system might play out in game-- yours was an example of how fiction uses mentor figures who are more powerful than the main characters. Both were justifying our own points and using existing material to help us paint a more vivid picture in the minds of our readers. As we've established before, people have different tastes in gaming. This is ultimately just a possibility for those it appeals to and something to be ignored by those who dislike it.
BillTheManiac 08-03-07, 06:43 PM	But different tastes should lead to different game rules. Not different characters.
Balthanon 08-03-07, 09:19 PM	Why? A good portion of the rules are to specify how to build characters. Wizards of the Coast has half a dozen books out that introduce alternate ability sets and rules for creating them. So long as you're not building characters that are intended to be moved from game to game like Living Greyhawk and the players are all equal, why do they need to be carbon copies of the basic rules that Wizards of the Coast has released? If different tastes didn't allow for different characters, we wouldn't have all of the multi-flavored classes and prestige classes scattered throughout a hundred books that we do. I've run games where all the players had to be monsters, where incoming characters had to be drow, where everyone used standard D&D creation rules with most any book allowed, and other variations with and without restrictions on characters. Almost all of them were equally fun, but they certainly created different characters.
BigGus 08-11-07, 09:28 PM	Note: Single letters in brackets (e.g. “(A)”) refer to footnotes. Multiple letters in brackets (e.g. “(EPC)”) are abbreviations, and are defined in the text. The only way I can see to work an extended/ Legendary system (without basically redesigning the entire epic system from scratch) would be to make the availability of epic feats (EFs) and Epic Prestige Classes (EPCs) a function of Legendary rather than epic status (obviously, if you were allowing EFs and EPCs to characters below level 21, the prerequisites for many of them would have to be altered). However, for the system to work in campaigns where characters were very high level (VHL) before they’re considered Legendary, you’d have to allow some EFs (and perhaps some EPCs) to also become available based on level, since to not allow any to characters well above 20th level would likely result in some very dissatisfied players. The question then becomes, which do you allow based on level, and which are purely Legendary? Some are easy to decide; those which are simple progressions from existing abilities (e.g. Epic Spell Focus/ Penetration, Epic Weapon Focus/ Specialisation), are intrinsically only usable by epic level characters (e.g. Improved Heighten Spell) or which are necessary for epic levels to work properly because the ability in question stops improving by level 20 (e.g. Improved Spell Capacity/ Ki Strike) should clearly be level-based. Similarly, some are so “Legendary” in flavour (e.g. Devastating Critical, Music of the Gods, Distant Shot) that they should clearly be tied to Legendary Status (LS) (A). However, the majority of EFs are not so obviously one or the other, and which you assigned to level and which to LS would depend on how high-level you wanted the system to work up to; if it was to work in uber-epic worlds where even 50th-level characters were not necessarily Legendary, the majority of EFs would be have to be available based on level, with only the most extreme reserved for Legendary. However, this would reduce the value of LS considerably, and for my money, a character of 50th level is Legendary by definition, even if there are 100th-level characters running around, so I'd recommend setting a maximum level at which LS is acquired. Also, it would depend on whether you were using a one-off Legendary Template (LT) system, where all EFs became available upon attaining LS (B), or whether you were using a graduated Legendary Ranks (LR) system where only lower-epic abilities were gained at LR1 (C). In the former case, it would be necessary to keep only a relatively few EFs Legendary-only, perhaps 10-20%, with the maximum level for LS high, perhaps 40 or even 50. In the latter case, I’d suggest keeping 50%+ of the EFs Legendary-only, and setting a lower maximum level for LS to be attained, perhaps 30 or so. The same difficulty comes with EPCs; some, like the Divine Emissary, are clearly Legendary, but most are not so easy to decide, and whether you were using a LT or LRs system would determine how many were Legendary-only. Again, I’d suggest keeping most (or all) of them Legendary-only under a LRs system, and only the most powerful Legendary-only in a LT system. If using a LT this system is fairly straightforward. If using a LRs system, you’d need to come up with some way of assigning EFs and EPCs to each LR. One way might be to use the levels at which they normally become available as a guideline. If, for example, you had 5 LRs, you could assign them as follows; level 21: LR1 level 22-3: LR2 level 24-5: LR3 level 26-7: LR4 level 28+: LR5 As for Epic Spellcasting, if the system is to work where you’re not granting LS until VHLs (by which I mean 30+, not 50+), I don’t think you can limit it to Legendary characters without upsetting your players, since for W/S/C/D it’s the only way to get new spells that go beyond what they had at level 20. In this case, I’d suggest limiting the Spellcraft DC before mitigating factors are applied, as this means that spells of the destroy a city/ kill a god type would not be possible unless the character was Legendary, or extremely high level. A suitable limit could be something like; (4x caster level)+50 which would give limits of 134 at L.21, 170 at L.30, 210 at L.40, and so on. If using a LT, this simply removes the limit; if using LRs, each LR could increase the maximum DC by +100 (or more), until at LR 5 the limit is removed entirely. You might also want to consider limiting the maximum damage dice to d12 for non-Legendary characters. Another way you could distinguish between extended and Legendary would be to prohibit some of the more obviously-ludicrous skill uses for non-Legendary characters. Some obvious examples are; Balance: Walk on liquid/cloud Climb: Climb perfectly flat, smooth surfaces (vertical or ceiling/overhang) (D) Disable Device: As a free action Escape Artist: Pass through space smaller than your head (D) Handle Animal: Reduce teaching/ training time to one minute Sense Motive: Detect surface thoughts Survival: Determine direction to location from description only The really difficult bit comes when you try to make item pricing into a smooth progression. As far as I can see, however you do it, you either end up with some epic items costing well under 200 000GP, which would make them available to lower-level characters than they’re intended for, or you have to have a jump, although it need not be as dramatic as the x10 one in the ELH. There are four options I can think of, none of them particularly satisfactory: 1) Don’t increase prices at all for epic items. The problem with this is, a +8 Belt of Giant Strength (for instance) would cost only 64 000GP, making it available to characters well below epic level, and even a +14 Belt of Giant Strength only costs 196 000GP, still below the non-epic limit. Using this system would change game balance considerably, with possession of items becoming far more important than class abilities. 2) Increase the base costs for certain items types (the cheaper ones), making them more expensive to begin with. For example, you could increase the base cost for ability score items to (bonus squared) x 2000GP meaning that the +8 Belt of Giant Strength would cost 128 000GP; still sub-epic, but at least expensive enough to make them rare for non-epic characters. However, this would change the game balance at lower levels, with certain item types becoming much rarer; if you’re happy with that, however, this could work. 3) Have a smaller jump between normal and epic items, perhaps x4 instead of x10. This could work OK, as even the cheapest epic items, such as a Cloak of Resistance +6, would still be very expensive (144 000GP in this case) and so not easy for non-epic characters to acquire, and more expensive items such as weapons would not suddenly cost millions of GP as soon as they went one point into epic. 4) Make +6 weapons x2 cost, +7 weapons x3 cost, +8 weapons x4 cost, and so on. (It wouldn’t be too hard to work out equivalents for other types of items). Advantage: a smooth progression, with only low-epic items possibly available to non-epic characters. Disadvantage: certain epic items are still relatively cheap, e.g. a Cloak of Resistance +6 costs only 72 000GP, well within the budget of a 20th-level character, and certain high-epic items would end up with truly ludicrous prices (e.g. a +25 sword would cost 26.25 million GP, more than twice its (already ludicrous) ELH price of 12.5 million GP). You could remedy this to some degree by setting a minimum price for epic items, around 100 000GP or so, and perhaps letting the system top out at x10 for high-epic items. While far from ideal, this one seems to me to be the closest to a workable system which gives a smooth progression. As for spellcasting continuing but at a slowed-down rate, one way to do this might be: give spellcasters new spell levels, which can be filled with lower-level or metamagiced spells (E), but all classes get only one spell-slot at each new spell level, unless they take Improved Spell Capacity, in which case they get one additional spell-slot plus any they may get for having a high ability score. New spell levels would be based on the rate they get them at levels 1-20; e.g. Wizard/ Sorcerer/ Cleric/ Druid at levels 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 41, 43, 45 etc. (9 spell levels per 20 class levels) Bard at levels 21, 24, 27, 31, 34, 37 etc. (6 spell levels per 20 class levels) Paladin/Ranger at levels 21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 45, 49, 53 etc. (9 spell levels per 40 class levels) Prestige classes, since they can be taken without limit after level 21, will have to have the speed of acquisition of their new spell levels halved, to stop them becoming too powerful in relation to other classes; e.g. Assassin/ Blackguard at levels 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 35, 39, 43, 47 etc. (9 spell levels per 40 class levels) Obviously, this substantially increases the power of spellcasters, so their bonus epic feats will need to be reduced to compensate; perhaps to 1/4 levels for Bard, Ranger and Paladin, 1/6 levels for Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric, and 1/8 levels for the Druid (or maybe even less). Prestige classes should have their bonus feats reduced by a similar amount. Leave the progressions for Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Monk as they are. Finally, I don’t see a problem with monsters; the MM and MMII contain a number of monsters with CRs from 21-28; you can keep the ELH ones for Legendary PCs. Was this anything like what you were looking for? Footnotes (A) If your campaign doesn’t give LS until VHLs, it should be easy enough to come up with lesser versions of these EFs to keep the players happy in the meantime (e.g. Mighty Critical: increases critical multipier of chosen weapon by +1, can be taken multiple times but not for the same weapon, Improved Far Shot: increases range increment by x2, stacks with Far Shot, can be taken multiple times, stacks). (B) Not that all EFs would become available instantly on attaining the LT, unless it wasn't gained until level 32+, when all EFs are available anyway. If gained at level 21-31, it would allow all EFs to be gained at their normal level. If gained before level 21, the prerequisites based on level (skill ranks, BAB etc.) would be reduced accordingly; the level at which the LT was acquired would be the equivalent of reaching level 21 under the existing epic system. (C) Conversely, if using a LRs system, all the EFs (and EPCs) associated with that LR would become available automatically upon attaining it. Again, if a LR were gained which allowed abilities with unmeetable prerequisites, they would have to be reduced to the maximum possible at that level. (D) I think the DCs for these are too low anyway. I’d suggest increasing them by 20 or so. (E) Those classes who do not get 9th-level spells by level 20 could get actual new spells up to 9th-level. You could work out spell lists at spell levels 5-9 (or 7-9 for the Bard) easily enough, by basing Ranger on Druid, Paladin on Cleric, and Bard on Wizard/Sorcerer, perhaps inventing one or two unique spells for each class.
BillTheManiac 08-12-07, 08:34 AM	Why? A good portion of the rules are to specify how to build characters. Wizards of the Coast has half a dozen books out that introduce alternate ability sets and rules for creating them. So long as you're not building characters that are intended to be moved from game to game like Living Greyhawk and the players are all equal, why do they need to be carbon copies of the basic rules that Wizards of the Coast has released? If different tastes didn't allow for different characters, we wouldn't have all of the multi-flavored classes and prestige classes scattered throughout a hundred books that we do. I've run games where all the players had to be monsters, where incoming characters had to be drow, where everyone used standard D&D creation rules with most any book allowed, and other variations with and without restrictions on characters. Almost all of them were equally fun, but they certainly created different characters. I'm sorry. My point is that if some characters have something, barring an explanation, all characters should have it. You have an epic, high fantasy world or a dark, gritty world. You don't apply the "high fantasy" template to characters, allowing them to do powerful magical things. All these classes and prestige classes and such are equally available to each member of the world. These campaigns with restricted characters probably took one of two forms: "There's no elves in my world", meaning no one can be elves and everyone has equal options, or "The characters were born drow", meaning that non-drow exist but there is an in-game distinction between drow and non-drow and there is an explanation behind it (genetics).
Balthanon 08-12-07, 09:12 AM	These campaigns with restricted characters probably took one of two forms: "There's no elves in my world", meaning no one can be elves and everyone has equal options, or "The characters were born drow", meaning that non-drow exist but there is an in-game distinction between drow and non-drow and there is an explanation behind it (genetics). Actually, in the game where I introduced the characters where they had to be some type of drow, it already had other character types in an area where that was one of the only logical humanoids to introduce. In the game where they had to be monsters, they were escaping from an arena-- there was no actual reason they had to be monsters, but that was how I wanted to play it. That one also had the players deciding on a single set of equipment for all of the characters and players had the ability to get bonuses based upon their backgrounds. Basically, in each of those though, there weren't necessarily any restrictions on the NPCs and creatures that I was putting up against the players, but the players for that part had approximately the same restrictions upon them. By and large, I do agree that there shouldn't be any major differences in the powers available to the PCs-- that is why level adjustment exists for instance. I don't see that applying to every creature in the world though, since that is just limiting the kind of encounters the players can get into. If the players are allowed to be gestalt, for instance, not every enemy that they run across needs to be a gestalt NPC or a gestalt monster. There is the option that they'll run across someone who is gestalt-- but if you were using a system like legendary status, then there is a chance they could run across someone legendary as well. That doesn't mean its going to be every NPC or that every NPC will even have the option though. That would just restrict the challenges that you can throw at the PCs and I don't see how that benefits the game.
BillTheManiac 08-12-07, 09:45 AM	Actually, in the game where I introduced the characters where they had to be some type of drow, it already had other character types in an area where that was one of the only logical humanoids to introduce. In the game where they had to be monsters, they were escaping from an arena-- there was no actual reason they had to be monsters, but that was how I wanted to play it. That one also had the players deciding on a single set of equipment for all of the characters and players had the ability to get bonuses based upon their backgrounds. Basically, in each of those though, there weren't necessarily any restrictions on the NPCs and creatures that I was putting up against the players, but the players for that part had approximately the same restrictions upon them. By and large, I do agree that there shouldn't be any major differences in the powers available to the PCs-- that is why level adjustment exists for instance. I don't see that applying to every creature in the world though, since that is just limiting the kind of encounters the players can get into. If the players are allowed to be gestalt, for instance, not every enemy that they run across needs to be a gestalt NPC or a gestalt monster. There is the option that they'll run across someone who is gestalt-- but if you were using a system like legendary status, then there is a chance they could run across someone legendary as well. That doesn't mean its going to be every NPC or that every NPC will even have the option though. That would just restrict the challenges that you can throw at the PCs and I don't see how that benefits the game. But there has to be an explanation. There can be no difference in ability between two characters (PC or NPC) that is not explained in the game world.
Balthanon 08-12-07, 12:20 PM	But there has to be an explanation. There can be no difference in ability between two characters (PC or NPC) that is not explained in the game world. Different experiences, a unique training regiment found on an ancient scroll, more experiences than any typical adventurer ever sees, fighting alongside another legendary character, exposure to the primeval forces of destiny by being at the nexus of events that will change the world for millenia to come... this can be explained in any way you would like and I imagine a full blown description would provide a "typical" explanation. This proposal was just broaching the rules side of the equation-- after those are established and balanced, then you can put in the flavor and the explanations that fit those rules and make it believable for the players. It could also be that every 15th level character and up is Legendary/Epic instead of 20th and up. I could see this being the case in Eberron for instance, where the highest level NPCs in the game are basically 12th level. In a region like the Forgotten Realms on the other hand, where 20+ NPCs are a dime a dozen, maybe true epic doesn't actually start until 30th level. In that case, this system would just be a means of shifting the level at which "epic" starts, rather than creating any power splits at the same level. (I think this is actually close to what IceFractal was originally proposing.) The only way I can see to work an extended/ Legendary system (without basically redesigning the entire epic system from scratch) would be to... While that was a rather solid chunk of text (I would suggest breaking it up with some lines between paragraphs and throwing in the full name occassionally rather than dropping everything to acronyms after the first use) I think a lot of it picks up the gist of what IceFractal was suggesting. For your own suggestions, I think that a single step is probably easiest to handle, but legendary ranks would probably give more flexibility to the system and make it work better overall. Dividing up the abilities would be the first step in creating the system and this is where using a one step break would probably be easiest. I would say that Epic Spellcasting is probably a more "legendary" feat than not though and I think that so long as you are allowing higher level spell slots and metamagic, you would be fine. If you were using a formula like you suggested, I do think it should start off at considerably less than 200 something at 21st level. If I recall correctly, 9th level spells were only supposed to be something like DC 19, weren't they? For the wealth, I still think the best solution is just to make the epic items "priceless" and dependent on level/legendary rank. You basically need to take down a creature of a certain CR or that has defenses bypassed only by legendary abilities in order to acquire them.
BillTheManiac 08-12-07, 02:43 PM	Different experiences, a unique training regiment found on an ancient scroll, more experiences than any typical adventurer ever sees, fighting alongside another legendary character, exposure to the primeval forces of destiny by being at the nexus of events that will change the world for millenia to come... this can be explained in any way you would like and I imagine a full blown description would provide a "typical" explanation. This proposal was just broaching the rules side of the equation-- after those are established and balanced, then you can put in the flavor and the explanations that fit those rules and make it believable for the players. It could also be that every 15th level character and up is Legendary/Epic instead of 20th and up. I could see this being the case in Eberron for instance, where the highest level NPCs in the game are basically 12th level. In a region like the Forgotten Realms on the other hand, where 20+ NPCs are a dime a dozen, maybe true epic doesn't actually start until 30th level. In that case, this system would just be a means of shifting the level at which "epic" starts, rather than creating any power splits at the same level. (I think this is actually close to what IceFractal was originally proposing.) While that was a rather solid chunk of text (I would suggest breaking it up with some lines between paragraphs and throwing in the full name occassionally rather than dropping everything to acronyms after the first use) I think a lot of it picks up the gist of what IceFractal was suggesting. For your own suggestions, I think that a single step is probably easiest to handle, but legendary ranks would probably give more flexibility to the system and make it work better overall. Dividing up the abilities would be the first step in creating the system and this is where using a one step break would probably be easiest. I would say that Epic Spellcasting is probably a more "legendary" feat than not though and I think that so long as you are allowing higher level spell slots and metamagic, you would be fine. If you were using a formula like you suggested, I do think it should start off at considerably less than 200 something at 21st level. If I recall correctly, 9th level spells were only supposed to be something like DC 19, weren't they? For the wealth, I still think the best solution is just to make the epic items "priceless" and dependent on level/legendary rank. You basically need to take down a creature of a certain CR or that has defenses bypassed only by legendary abilities in order to acquire them. 1. Scroll that grants special skill uses=item, not template. I fully support requiring special training for specific skill uses. It's basically a skill trick that comes from a book. 2. Fighting alongside another legendary character: chicken and egg? 3. Primeval forces of destiny-um.... why? Wouldn't random encounters they meet that have a chance of killing them also influence the future? "You are the chosen one" works a lot better in fiction, because authors are allowed to fudge rolls. 4. Experiences: Represented by XP, which you use to get levels, giving you the skill ranks to complete the task Epic Spellcasting is not a legendary feat, much like 1/2 BAB at epic is not a legendary change. It's a game mechanic change because designers can't design 10th level spells, 11th level spells, 12th level spells, etc. Your idea of legendary items fits better with artifacts then items. Epic items are ordinary items, just really powerful. Wealth-by-level is an important balancing tool, and I'd hate to see it denied to DMs by making more items "priceless". Besides, what if the person who gets the item by killing someone wants to sell it to the highest bidder?
BigGus 08-13-07, 03:03 PM	While that was a rather solid chunk of text (I would suggest breaking it up with some lines between paragraphs and throwing in the full name occassionally rather than dropping everything to acronyms after the first use) I did it like that because it was so long even as it was. But you're probably right. I've inserted some breaks in the text. If you were using a formula like you suggested, I do think it should start off at considerably less than 200 something at 21st level. If I recall correctly, 9th level spells were only supposed to be something like DC 19, weren't they? I think the highest DC a 21st-level caster could reach (assuming they don't have any epic items yet) would be about 130. But I specified before mitigating factors are applied; I don't think you could limit the actual DC, as that would just punish players who take feats, make items etc. to boost their spellcraft. More to the point, it wouldn't really solve the problem of epic spells being able to kill a god or whatever, as the player could make a spell with a DC of 1000+ then pile on the mitigating factors until it was down to something they could cast. For example, there's no limit listed for the number of additional participants in a ritual, so an epic Wizard who was head of a large mage guild (or an epic Sorcerer whose monstrous Charisma means she has lots of friends) could specify 200 additional participants contributing 3rd-level spell slots for -1000 to the DC. As for the DC of 9th-level spells, I think it would be 31. But if you look at some of them in terms of epic spell crafting, you see that they have some fairly hefty mitigating factors. Wish, for example, costs 5000XP (-50DC) so would have a DC of 81 before mitigating factors, and Astral Projection takes 30 minutes to cast (-20 for 10 extra minutes, -1 as it's more than 11 minutes but less than 24hrs, which gives the next -2) so would have a DC of 52 before mitigating factors. The reason I chose the formula I did for max. DCs was that I wanted to allow spells which were pretty epic, without being so powerful they could do basically anything. Since the mitigating factor with the highest limit (of those which have a limit) is the casting time (-220DC for a 100-day spell) I based it roughly on that; it didn't seem to make sense to me that an epic spellcaster couldn't use the maximum casting time, that seemed too limiting. However, after doing some more sums, I've decided you're right about them being too high. To me, the classic example of a strictly Legendary-only ability is being able to kill a true deity (by which I mean Divine Rank 6+, hero deities and demigods are fair game for epic characters as far as I'm concerned). I realised that you could create an epic spell which would have a 95% chance to kill Vecna (the weakest deity of the D&D pantheon whose stats are described in Deities & Demigods) outright which would have a DC of only 261 - below the level 21 limit I'd specified. As a result, I've now edited it so the limits are half what they were before. Thanks for pointing that out. For the wealth, I still think the best solution is just to make the epic items "priceless" and dependent on level/legendary rank. You basically need to take down a creature of a certain CR or that has defenses bypassed only by legendary abilities in order to acquire them. I'd have to agree with BillTheManiac that only artifacts should be priceless. I do think that Legendary-only items would be a viable idea, though; possibly there could be a limit to the power of epic items, or you could allow characters of Legendary Status to make items which do things even epic items can't - effectively minor artifacts. These items might or might not be priceless, depending on the nature of your world and DM preference.
BillTheManiac 08-13-07, 09:20 PM	I think the best plan would be to make a campaign-specific set of qualities. For example, this item requires the Favor of the Luck God trait, which can be granted or removed by the DM. The DM can decide that this skill use requires that special training. Because the epic skill uses, legendary shield vs. dumb luck, etc. require so many different plot justification, you shouldn't make a general "legendary template" but rather specify different prerequisites on each one.
Droidarr 08-17-07, 07:06 AM	That's fiction. This is D&D. This is a game. In a game, characters can die at any time. They don't die so that they won't be there in the next scene. They die because of bad luck. Like in real life. They don't die to show the audience about the difference between good and evil or whatnot. They die to show the players they did something stupid. If you don't want the PCs to die until you want them to, give them low EL encounters until you want them to, when you give them high EL encounters. Then they die. The games tries to reproduce the same feel as movies or books.. (ie.. the 300, Zena, Excalibur, Star Wars and such) with the "epic characters" carving paths through the "bad guys" or flying into the superstructure of a space station etc... Allot of people simply read to much into Epic level and there are two modules available for download, "Black Rain" and "War of Dragons" which provide most low level epic parties with a very great challenge even though they are for 4 toons of level 16 for Black Rain and 18 for WoD. Besides, with the wealth of information out there, not to mention all the computer gaming.. think of it in World of Warcraft terms... you just hit 70th level and now you can finally get into some of these dungeons! We have kinda seperated legendary from Epic. For lack of a good reference for all... Legendary is like Obi-Wan, just chillin in the hills with basic supplies until needed while Epic is the active hero like Conan who continually makes a name for himself. Might not be a perfect reference but...
BillTheManiac 08-17-07, 08:48 AM	The games tries to reproduce the same feel as movies or books.. (ie.. the 300, Zena, Excalibur, Star Wars and such) with the "epic characters" carving paths through the "bad guys" or flying into the superstructure of a space station etc... A game where you carve paths through bad guys will be fun for about 30 seconds, unless you're a really good DM. Because there is no challenge. D&D is at its best when the chance for success and the chance for failure are just right. Take away the chance for failure and it's a lot less fun. Allot of people simply read to much into Epic level and there are two modules available for download, "Black Rain" and "War of Dragons" which provide most low level epic parties with a very great challenge even though they are for 4 toons of level 16 for Black Rain and 18 for WoD. Maybe the adventures were improperly balanced or something. Besides, with the wealth of information out there, not to mention all the computer gaming.. think of it in World of Warcraft terms... you just hit 70th level and now you can finally get into some of these dungeons! Well, top level in WoW is a radically different game experience. Because you don't gain XP, you only gain loot. That never happens in D&D, so I don't think you can compare. We have kinda seperated legendary from Epic. For lack of a good reference for all... Legendary is like Obi-Wan, just chillin in the hills with basic supplies until needed while Epic is the active hero like Conan who continually makes a name for himself. Might not be a perfect reference but... No. That's not what it is. "Legendary" is a sudden increase in power. "Epic" is a change past which advancement is different for balance reasons, or because the designers couldn't think of more new powers for characters.