What defines 'Epic' power levels?

[Seerow]

Okay, bear with me. We have a discussion probably twice a month about differences in power levels, mundane vs magic, and all that sort of stuff. In 3e vs 4e debates we have claims that 4e high level doesn't really capture the feel of epic the same way 3.5 does.


But usually these discussions have a lot of back and forth argument, and use the same one or two examples over and over. For example, I can't say how many times I've seen the idea that a Warrior should be able to cleave a mountain at epic levels.

So what I want to know is, in your personal opinion, what defines an epic power level? Not defined as level 21+, but as the highest tier of play. I'd probably consider 15+ epic in 3.5 example. What sorts of powers and abilities really define high end play and make it different? What sorts of abilities are in 3.5 that you enjoy so much that didn't get ported for 4e? What sort of abilities do you expect warrior types to be using at these levels? Should these epic abilities be every day normality for characters capable of them, or should they be rare and powerful even for them?


I'm curious because somehow despite the enormous amount of discussion the topic gets, specific examples of what people enjoy out of high level are very rare to come by.

[AmberVael]

High level play is full of options and variables. When you're playing high level, the battles and puzzles have expanded enormously- the demand on your character is higher, and the demand on you, the player, is higher. It requires more logic, intellect, and system mastery to accomplish.

Battles become more elaborate- your character cannot simply charge in, make some attacks, and then wait- you have to have counter measures in reserve if you want to survive, and counter measures for enemy counter measures if you're going to win. They're fast paced and action packed. The thrill of outsmarting an enemy is higher, because you had to invest more to get to that state.

While playing a character with the power to reshape the world is a draw for me, D&D 3.5 high level play appeals to me more for the variety and complexity it offers, particularly in battle. There are problems in the system, and the higher you get, the more easily it can be broken, but if you work with your group, and keep the balance of play, high level D&D can be a very entertaining tactical exercise, accompanied by roleplay.

[Seerow]

High level play is full of options and variables. When you're playing high level, the battles and puzzles have expanded enormously- the demand on your character is higher, and the demand on you, the player, is higher. It requires more logic, intellect, and system mastery to accomplish.

Battles become more elaborate- your character cannot simply charge in, make some attacks, and then wait- you have to have counter measures in reserve if you want to survive, and counter measures for enemy counter measures if you're going to win. They're fast paced and action packed. The thrill of outsmarting an enemy is higher, because you had to invest more to get to that state.

I can get behind this. Having more options is a big part of being higher level, and I've frequently said to people who don't want the complexity of a high level spellcaster, that's why they chose fighter, that they should probably stick to lower levels then.

There is however clearly a group of people who feel it represents more than just a more diverse array of options. After all, a recent post I saw said something along the lines of how disappointing it was that an epic power in 4e was just more damage plus stun the target for 3 rounds. I am curious as to what sort of powers they feel are appropriate, because such a power would fit just fine under the system of "Higher level means lots more options, and counters to those options, and counters to those counters"


While playing a character with the power to reshape the world is a draw for me, D&D 3.5 high level play appeals to me more for the variety and complexity it offers, particularly in battle. There are problems in the system, and the higher you get, the more easily it can be broken, but if you work with your group, and keep the balance of play, high level D&D can be a very entertaining tactical exercise, accompanied by roleplay.

Out of curiosity, where you define as reshaping the world? Are we talking about Genesis, creating a personal plane for your own enjoyment, or physically reshaping the world with magic (creating/leveling mountains, creating canyons, diverting rivers, causing volcanic eruptions, etc), or are we talking about a more base level of reshaping the world, ie being able to take it over or otherwise influence humanity's impact on the world in a way that is determined by the player? Because each of these requires drastically different levels of power, and while various characters are capable of each or all in 3.5, I'm curious which appeals the most?

For example I personally find Genesis to be abhorrent, and can't believe that the spell was put within reach of players, even without time flow shenanigans.


Sorry for picking out that little bit of the quote to question on, but I pretty much agree on the rest more or less, just looking for clarification.

[AmberVael]

There is however clearly a group of people who feel it represents more than just a more diverse array of options. After all, a recent post I saw said something along the lines of how disappointing it was that an epic power in 4e was just more damage plus stun the target for 3 rounds. I am curious as to what sort of powers they feel are appropriate, because such a power would fit just fine under the system of "Higher level means lots more options, and counters to those options, and counters to those counters

Not... particularly. Damage plus stunning, while another option, is not the kind of option that particularly changes the dynamic of play significantly. It can be a potent option, but it does not significantly deviate from what you can already do, does not add notable complexity to play.

I've cited this before, but in high level 3.5 play, I had the following scenario come up. I was playing an epic psion, who attempted to destroy a small army of devils with an Energy Wave. An enemy caster had an action readied, and managed to put a Force Cage in place to block the effect. By utilizing a power to give me an immediate action, my character attempted to disrupt their casting with an energy stun. In response, a contingency of theirs triggered, so I used my own readied action (from a use of the Synchronicity power), I placed an Ectoplasmic Wall to block their Force Cage, at which point yet another enemy used Celerity, Time Stop, and several Walls of Force to block my effect my thoroughly.

Within this one turn alone you can see a vast display of complexity, about defenses and counter defenses being employed all at once. In the same campaign, my character had to devise a method to locate, unearth, and capture a burrowing enemy spellcaster in a single round before he escaped. This character could do things way more interesting than damage and stunning- she could alter how time worked, drastically changing the dynamic of the game. With things like synchronicity, temporal acceleration, and divination, she could react to things as they happened, make time when she needed it, and know what was going to occur before it was even going to happen. She could create extradimensional spaces and enter them, hiding outside of space, create walls and items from nothing, pull information from thin air, move and speak across the world in an instant.

These things are generally more than just one more option, and they're certainly a lot more to think about than "damage+stun." They deeply impact the system, offering entirely new strategies and advantages.



Out of curiosity, where you define as reshaping the world? Are we talking about Genesis, creating a personal plane for your own enjoyment, or physically reshaping the world with magic (creating/leveling mountains, creating canyons, diverting rivers, causing volcanic eruptions, etc), or are we talking about a more base level of reshaping the world, ie being able to take it over or otherwise influence humanity's impact on the world in a way that is determined by the player? Because each of these requires drastically different levels of power, and while various characters are capable of each or all in 3.5, I'm curious which appeals the most?

For example I personally find Genesis to be abhorrent, and can't believe that the spell was put within reach of players, even without time flow shenanigans.


Sorry for picking out that little bit of the quote to question on, but I pretty much agree on the rest more or less, just looking for clarification.
It depends on the level of play you want. Even within "epic" there is a range. But generally I would say your abilities and notability should be at least on a national level. Epic characters command or conquer armies of less powerful beings in their own right. An epic warrior with a sword should be able to at least storm a castle on his own and come out victorious. Those who can more literally reshape things should be able to create vast changes like those you mentioned, at least within time, though obviously more grandiose as they gain power.

As I said though, that's not what really appeals to me about epic play in 3.5. It's really about the tactics, and while world shaping could play into that, it isn't strictly necessary.

I don't see the problem of Genesis myself- that is, the basic concept. In execution, it has some problems (that pretty much defines D&D in general) but I think being able to create your own plane is something an epic character should be able to do.

I also think non-spellcaster characters were done a disservice in the system, as they were tied to more mundane things... if you want an epic warrior or rogue, they need to be a lot different. Look for wuxia influence for ideas, really, or mythology. Epic warriors should (at least eventually) be able to do absurd shenanigans like cleave a mountain in two, slow time from their perception, and control their own bodies to a ridiculous extent. Tome of Battle really helps, and it's great for regular games, but I'm not so sure it adds in what epic really needs.

[Seerow]

Regarding the counter example: I get what you're saying, but my point was more that damage+stun does have a place as a high level power, it would fit in the same area as Energy Wave. For example say I use Lightning Hammer to damage and stun the Dragon, who then uses a readied action to grant himself immunity, which I then use a immediate action to cast a spell that bypasses all immunities for a round, which a second enemy then counterspells. This has the same level of complexity, just with the initial attack changed. And I personally would consider stunning a single very powerful opponent much more valuable than wiping out an army of weaker opponents.

I guess my point is that I think even at epic levels, regular attacks are still needed to a degree by your definition. That regular attack can be a wide AoE to wipe out hordes of minions, or a single powerful strike to kill or cripple a more potent enemy, but the attack+stun is something that fits in just fine with an epic level character.


I suppose what could be argued is that these baseline attacks would be either heroic/paragon level attacks that still get used, and epic is just the addition of lots of interrupt abilities, immunities (long term and short term), and counters.

[MukkTB]

I don't think you'll find a ready consensus on what high level is like. It doesn't see a great deal of vigorous play. I personally feel that 3.5 high level play is like a reverse magical tea party. Way too many rules and effects happening with way to much power behind them until it sounds like two kids on a playground.

I think you would be better off comparing two epic level characters. If you want to get ambitious you could compare tier 1, 3, and 5 characters against 3 4E characters. But to keep it simple I'd suggest any decent 4E character against a tier 3 3.5 character and say lvl 20.

[Seerow]

I don't think you'll find a ready consensus on what high level is like. It doesn't see a great deal of vigorous play. I personally feel that 3.5 high level play is like a reverse magical tea party. Way too many rules and effects happening with way to much power behind them until it sounds like two kids on a playground.

I think you would be better off comparing two epic level characters. If you want to get ambitious you could compare tier 1, 3, and 5 characters against 3 4E characters. But to keep it simple I'd suggest any decent 4E character against a tier 3 3.5 character and say lvl 20.

Well I'm more looking for personal opinions as to what qualifies as epic. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that point, but I'm not really looking for a consensus so much as seeing what most people consider to be epic. What to them says "This character is clearly beyond the level of even superhero, and is now truly epic"

[Anxe]

I've had some experience in my last few campaigns of high level play for 3.5 (10th-14th. Not quite at 15+, but still quite similar). What I've found is that I can throw pretty much everything I want at my players and they'll find a way to defeat it. Or they'll run away and resurrect themselves and level up before finding a way. Epic for a DM means I'm far less restricted in what I can challenge them with.

I don't know how that works in 4E. Can't say I like Vael's idea of high level play. It started to sound more like a lawyer's brief than a couple of friends hanging out and playing a game. That's more style choice though. The same idea of the DM throwing whatever he wants at the players holds true.

[mjames]

I love the Psionic example, because I dealt with a similar situation in a two-person campaign when fighting Elminster (3.5 forgotten realms major character). I'm going to add from my perspective of working with a DM who uses a dynamic world (ie it changes based on what you characters do and these changes effect future campaigns) and doesn't quite do Homebrew in the traditional sense, but will allow things that make sense as long as you roleplay.

During that same Psionic campaign, after killing off Mystra's (not sure on spelling at the moment) chosen I was sent to the Abyss as a punishment. I saw a Portal open up (randomly rolled for where it went) with a devil jumping through it, made a tumble check and then came through into a Throne Room. Turns out it was the ruler of the 8th. Also my OCD DM had rolled backgrounds and turned out her side-character she had been playing was the daughter of the ruler of the 2nd. Upon learning this I decided we needed a Dinner Party. Then we overthrew the ruler of the 9th. I re-ordered the rulers of hell and ascended into godhood. (i ate alot of brains with my illithid heritage and took the powers of the ruler of the 9th... It was kinda crazy)

So, while dinner parties are not mentioned RAW, it allowed us to re-order the levels. Also the current campaign is dealing with the problems I caused.That's epic-level play.

[Urpriest]

For me, a big part of epic is the accumulation of permanent or long-duration useful minions. The extension of Animate Dead/Dominate/etc. to higher levels. You don't need to be able to create armies, but you do need to extend beyond just a single person for your story to be legitimately epic.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The ability to slice through an entire fleet of ships while standing on a raft in the middle of the ocean.

Yeah, I reference that series a lot when it comes to martial power levels. Also, 360-Pound Cannon.

[Feralventas]

I'm currently attempting to run an epic 3.x game and have been trying to make sure that the players are starting out and aware of the large-scale nature of the characters and events they're dealing with. That said, thanks for the listing of complexities and action-counter-action situations to be dealt with; I've been falling short on that front and I'll see if I can't do something to remedy it.

The party, however, made sure that they were on the right scale from the beginning for the most part.
-Artificer, numerous gollem constructs and an air-ship at their command.
-Rogue, put a bullet with sneak attack anywhere within a few miles, stealth checks to move past armies and deal directly with leaders.
-Sorc/'Lock with leadership manifested as a personal assistant and a network of spies, epic spells on Eldritch Blasts for combat.
-Conjuration-spec sorc with legions of demons bound and controlled.

Each of them is potent enough to move and shake a hell of a lot, but they're in a high-powered setting where magic or its equivalent are readily available to their adversaries as much as to themselves and their allies, so they'll be dealing with folks who can give as good as they can take (or better if I need to up the challenge). The decisions and success/failure they go through will determine the sort of changes I make to the campaign setting once I finish up with this game and move forward a century or three later, and they Will see the results (presuming I don't do a terrible job as a DM and they still deal with my Olympian leaps of logic and lack of system mastery) in later games, especially in the case of characters who've picked up some kind of immortality or longevity.

[navar100]

The party can do whatever it wants. How they can do it is a matter of game mechanics possibilities and gameworld. This is not to mean literally "everything" but rather in addition to NPC bad guys and good guys doing Important Stuff, the party is doing the Important Stuff. If they need to go somewhere, they just go. No need to care about how long it will take unless plot relevant, dealing with random encounters, or even worrying about supplies.

Everything that's not down time is about the plot. Super secret information important to know about the plot is acquired by adventuring, but otherwise, tipping the bartender, streetwise, and other methods of finding needed but not plot important information just happens. You can roleplay it, but there's no real need. Keeping track of every copper piece doesn't happen. It is assumed the party can afford whatever mundane stuff they need. Prices don't matter and are only mentioned for filler.

The party are Important People of the world. If they aren't leaders of something or nobles themselves, while certainly they must still show respect to leaders and nobles, getting an audience with one is a simple matter of sending the message an audience is desired and it will happen, whether it be the King, Pope, Headmaster, or Godfather. Such leaders won't autoacquiesce to whatever the party wants, of course, but the party will be taken seriously and respectfully. Such leaders may be the ones to ask for an audience to make the request. Even the Godfather's request could be refused :smallbiggrin:, but more likely these requests are the adventure plot points so of course the party will agree. It's no different than the hooded stranger sitting in the corner of the tavern other than the prestige of the one offering the adventure.