Ok one of the big problems with high level games, especially when you reach level 20, is that leveling up is a big part of the game and once you can't do that anymore things get a little iffy. Now it's possible that you could create rules for leveling up in some form or another past level 20 but that's not what I'm thinking about here.
What if instead of leveling up themselves epic characters can spend EXP to 'level up' stuff associated with themselves? Organizations, cohorts, minions, adventuring company charters, bases, crafted creatures, hand raised mounts, wards, infusing their powers into items/places, all that sort of stuff.
THe idea being that while characters at the level cap may not be able to level up in the traditional manner they can still put time and effort into improving things.
Check out the Masters Set from the old BECMI D&D days. The system took players up through level 36, but the higher levels were also highly encouraged to do campaign level warfare, including mass combat. Your player builds a stronhold, creates an economy, as do other players. If you really wanted to get silly, the last set, Immortals, is a whole different type of game, basically where your character becomes a god of sorts whose power is based on his cult followers. I never played that, for me it was far too much departure from D&D. The mass combat however is actually a throwback to pre-D&D minatures days, though more fleshed out.
If you want to make it more of a soft cap than a hard cap, you could also take the E6 approach and allow characters to keep selecting new feats every X,000 XP.
Hm. In 5E, this would also do pretty well with the stat increase thing; traditionally, all deities have high ratings in all stats, you could make "20 in every stat" a prerequisite for immortality or godhood.
The dungeons masters guide has rules on progress past level 20. it basically takes you off the standard level track and allows you to continue to improve via special abilities. With variant rules for additional benefits like continued stat advancement (with a new limit of 24 rather than 20), and earning feats.
So there is some information in the raw on this subject.
What i am curious to see them do is how this rule applies to NPCS. In particular characters like Elminister who is well over 20th level in most additions, and in some over 30th level.
It's something of a stretch that killing monsters gives you increased skills and such but it at least associated with the concept of experience, but killing a dragon and having your base sprout a new building is just too weird.
Maybe the fact that you can so easily kill a dragon scares people into doing it for free?
I was thinking less physical alterations to the keep and more things like being able to create a feeling about the place, sort of like how aperson can invest their personality into a place, or maybe bind mystic wards, protections or even spirits to the place.
FFSAA wrote:
Epic is one of those things I find interesting, in a theoreically way, but has never, and will probably never be part of any campaign I am involved with, after 27 years of playing this game, I have yet to see a character break 17th level (and that was in 4th Ed, highest I have seen in pre-4th Ed, is 14th).
Brock_Landers wrote:
Wel the DMG does have some thoughts on ways to give 20th level characters 'boons' of one sort or another. So including other such kinds of boons is fine.
What I noticed from readng the DMG (finally have it!) is that armor and swords peter out at +3. +3 is considered 'legendary'. In 3e/3.5e, there were epic items of +6, +7....maybe higher? I don't have the 3.0/3.5e epic book anymore, so forgive me.
Anyhow!
I think there's room for epic levels and epic play, especially considering how spells are more limited in number at high level, magic items have been toned down in certain cases. It's almost guaranteed there's an epic game book in the schedule somewhere.
BTW, past campaigns I've played have petered out around 13th-14th level. Usually in time for a new edition.
FFSAA wrote:
Selvarin wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
rampant wrote:
What would those be? BEcause without the magic weapon treadmill expectation buil into the game math there's no reason to keep them around. Standardaized enhancement bonuses are the boring, unneccessarry part of magic items.
Brock_Landers wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I know +s are simple, what I'm saying is that the game's own assumption that they are not needed in order for characters to face level appropriate critter and encounters makes handing out bigger +s at higher levels unnecessary, you do not need +7 items at level 28 anymore than you need +2 items at level 8, at least not in 5e. Because the magic item +s already exist outside the nromal game math, a system for players doesn't need to mess with them, and in fact shouldn't grant them because they are exclusively a matter of the game's plot and setting as interpreted by the DM.
A system for epic PCs has to be appropriate for PCs, and PCs have no say as far as traditional magic items in 5e. So any ability for epic characters to invest power into items should follow a different pattern than presented by the magic gear of the DMG. Chiefly they' shouldn't act outside the normal game math like a plot based Magic item.
Furthermore While I understand the simplicity of flat +s is appealing in and of itself, my complaint isn't that they exist, my complaint is when the become standardized into all magic items of a given type. So I despise the fact that all magic weapons get between +1 and +3 to attack and damage, I would not mind if some wepaons got a bonus to damage, some got accuracy, and some got other more interesting things.
I'd probably give out almost entirely +0 weapons, though +1 and above can be useful when fighting >CR20 at the highest levels.
Something like this maybe?
Item Investiture: Once a character reaches level 20 the cease to progress normally however they can stil accrue gold and experience. One method of advancement open to level 20 characters is item investiture. By spending EXP you can enhance an item. The item invested cannot be an artifact, furthermore the item must somehow be connected or associated with you in some manner, a knife carried for years, a well used office table, your favorite lantern, as a general rule you must have used the item regularly for at least a month at some point during your life. Although any item you create yourself using the craft rules is also qualified.
Each item ability can be invested in an item for the listed amount of exp. Some item abilities are restricted to specific item types.
Summoning (10,000 exp) - You may teleport the invested itme to your hand(s) as a free action, this works as long as you are on the same plane as the item. You may not invest this ability into an item that is fixed in place such as a castle or a wall. You must be able to lift the item invested with this ability.
Reverse Summoning (50,000 exp) - You may teleport yourself to the invested item, you appear in the same space as the item, or adjacent to it, if the item can be held in your hand you appear with one hand on the item.
Sensory (30,000 exp) - You may extend your senses through the invested item as long as you are on the same plane. YOu can see, hear, feel, taste, and even smell thorugh the item as if you were standing in the item's space. You can use this to look around corners or view what's going on around the item if you're not there.
rampant wrote:
ONe of the few things I like about magic items in 5e, since they aren't worked into the game math I can customize the system to something more interesting.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Actually Lynch, I stole the idea from a dragon magazine article from the early 3e days. Basically the idea was that special magic items existed where instead of being crafted you could spend the EXP yourself to upgrade the magic item. But the abilities gained with the investiture system should more inline with legacy items, although again I'll be avoiding +s and and stat boosts because game math.
BUt yes using atunement rules would probably be a good way to set it up.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
rampant wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
In 1e/2e I had a campaign run for five years and we only were just getting to 18th level. I think slower advancement past 10th might be one way to play the game.
I think 3e/4e really sped up advancement. They basically go with the idea that a campaign is a year long or something. Especially in 4e. I'm not so much for that.
Emerikol wrote:
5e very much speeds up levels 1-3, so you might want to consider something more mid range.
Like how many goblins from 5-6.
Ath-kethin wrote:
Maybe this is a little off topic but I love the flexiblity given to us in the DMG for "Epic levels". As a DM for my group, they have spent the last three years going from levels one to 15 which is when we converted to 5th edition from pathfinder. The camplain will take until about level 18 for them to fix the world that they are on and then they will transfer to solving the REAL problems across the multiverse that led to problems on their world. The DMG has given me the flexiblity to continue the campaign without having to "invent the wheel" for myself, and for that, I am very thankful. FYI, the overall thought on my part was to take characters from level one mortals barely able to survive in the D&D world to Dimigods able to change the very fabric of how the multiverse works. So far, my players have been very happy. 
Hopefully a MM2 will come out with more diversity of creatures for me to use, but other than that, I find the 5th addition to be a real breath of fresh air.
You've got a decent enough metric, but you aren't applying it fully and fairly so the picture you are getting might or might not be a match to the picture painted by applying the standard expectations of the time.
Such as by including XP gained from accumulated treasure in AD&D 1e and BECMI, which in BECMI means an extra 3.5 XP per goblin (ignoring the greater potential of higher value treasures in lairs and going just for the carried) which means only 236 goblins to reach level 2.
Also, if trying to compare the relative speed of level gains to 3rd edition, it is probably better to choose a set of iconic creatures that range in CR so that you can better approximate the way XP was actually gained in 3.5 - I think an ogre, a beholder, an adult dragon, and an elder dragon would work but I haven't checked the specifics.
And lastly, you have to compare the entire intended range rather than just a singular level, since the progression of XP values of tougher monsters and XP needed to gain a level has changed drastically between some editions - such as it taking 50% as many XP to get to level 2 in 3.5 compared to AD&D, but only 7.6% as much XP to go from 19th to 20th level in the same comparison.
I'm now really interested in seeing how all that works out... almost enough to find time to do the figuring myself.