Epic or just keep going past 20?

[killem2]

Reading over the epic level handbook and epic level everything it seems to be a world of difference between level 20 and 21 in that regard.


Is it hard as a DM to make sessions that would allow a Fighter 15/Wizard 5 increase to Fighter 15/ Wizard 5/Rogue 1 and just keep going?

[Morph Bark]

You mean to not use the Epic rules for leveling past 20? So to just let BAB and saves go on as normal, and leave out Epic feats? Works well enough, I'd say, at least for low-"Epic".

If you're asking if it is hard to implement the Epic rules, not all that much, though it can be a bit of a hassle with some things, mostly Epic spellcasting and the like. Saves and BAB suddenly also take on different rules, advancing by 1 every 2 levels both, no matter your class.

[Particle_Man]

If the "good" and "bad" saves keep getting further apart there could be a problem eventually. If BAB keeps getting further ahead of AC then that could cause issues. Otherwise, it could be ok.

[Chronos]

The only thing that's really qualitatively different is epic spellcasting. There are other epic feats, but mostly, those are just the same things as normal feats, with bigger numbers, and just making numbers bigger by a fixed amount is seldom a worthwhile use for a feat anyway.

[DeAnno]

It will probably be smoother if you ignore the ELH stuff and just have people level as normal. The thing about Good/Bad saves is pretty overblown IMO, the saveconomy is fairly broken already at 20.

[Bogardan_Mage]

It will probably be smoother if you ignore the ELH stuff and just have people level as normal. The thing about Good/Bad saves is pretty overblown IMO, the saveconomy is fairly broken already at 20.
So therefore it makes sense to let it get more broken?

You could probably add several levels on top of 20 without any real problems. The epic rules are designed that way to go on forever, so they take into account issues that aren't as relevant for the low twenties. However, in answer to your question it's not really hard, you just need to remember a different set of numbers.

[DeAnno]

So therefore it makes sense to let it get more broken?

Strangely enough, yes. The collection of various checks and balances on saves includes ability enhancements, resistance bonuses, stat boosts per 4 HD, and many other random things. All of these tend to work geometrically anyway, so removing one geometric aspect (base saves) and leaving the rest thinking it will become more balanced is an act of sillyness.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Strangely enough, yes. The collection of various checks and balances on saves includes ability enhancements, resistance bonuses, stat boosts per 4 HD, and many other random things. All of these tend to work geometrically anyway, so removing one geometric aspect (base saves) and leaving the rest thinking it will become more balanced is an act of sillyness.
Changing nothing and thinking it will become more balanced is an act of even greater silliness. Decoupling it from class at least makes it more managable.

[DeAnno]

It's not really that it'll be more balanced, but it won't really be less either. You're messing around with how classes are built without any real gains in return.

Of course I think the ELH is a bad joke in general so I'm a little biased here.

[Bogardan_Mage]

It's not really that it'll be more balanced, but it won't really be less either.
Yes, it totally will. At level 20, the difference between a good save and a bad save +6. Yes, you can get a wider margin by multiclassing, but that's kind of bringing it on yourself, it's just one of the costs of multiclassing that you weigh up and decide is worth it. If you just let the progressions continue in the same pattern, there will come a point when the gap is +20 or more, at which point it is impossible to have a level appropriate save DC for a diverse party, because the Fighter will be able to succeed a Fort save on a roll of 2 that the Wizard will fail on a 19. All the magical items in the world will not change this fundamental disparity in the class progressions. Hence, the epic rules lock in the gap as it is at level 20 so that class doesn't come into this whole mess.

[DeAnno]

If you just let the progressions continue in the same pattern, there will come a point when the gap is +20 or more, at which point it is impossible to have a level appropriate save DC for a diverse party, because the Fighter will be able to succeed a Fort save on a roll of 2 that the Wizard will fail on a 19.

The save "slip" is 1/2 - 1/3 = 1/6 per level. To get to such a point, from +6 to +20, would take 14*6 = 84 levels. On the other hand, you've lost the identity the base classes had in the first place by taking BaB and Saves away as a class concept. You've lost the symmetry in the rules, since monsters still get BaB and saves past 20 HD and characters do not.

And the Wizard will NOT fail his Fort save incidentally, because he recast Moment of Prescience before the fight and got a +25 bonus on it. At the point in the game when you have reached Epic, even without Epic feats or spellcasting, the divergence in power from 1/6 of a save point per level is so low as to be meaningless. You are essentially burning sacred cows on the barbeque for no real reason other than trying to pretend it's doing some good.

[Bogardan_Mage]

The save "slip" is 1/2 - 1/3 = 1/6 per level. To get to such a point, from +6 to +20, would take 14*6 = 84 levels.
That is the extreme, that doesn't mean it's irrelevant before then. I was just trying to illustrate the point by using the maximum difference. As I said, the epic rules are specifically intended to continue forever, it's not good enough for such a thing to occur even at level 104.


On the other hand, you've lost the identity the base classes had in the first place by taking BaB and Saves away as a class concept.
Nonsense, they have the same differences they did at level 20. d20 is additive, not multiplicative, so that's all that matters. A level appropriate save is going to be just as difficult at any epic level for a given class. It will not be the same for every class, however. It will maintain the relative difficulties that existed at level 20.


You've lost the symmetry in the rules, since monsters still get BaB and saves past 20 HD and characters do not.
Well perhaps the monster advancement rules should be changed as well. I'm not trying to defend the ELH here, I'm trying to refute your absurd argument that because the ELH is poorly designed, therefore rules never intended for epic levels must work better.


And the Wizard will NOT fail his Fort save incidentally, because he recast Moment of Prescience before the fight and got a +25 bonus on it.
Yes, I worried about saying "Wizard" because that opens up all manner of ridiculousness. The fact that Wizards are not the only class with bad save progressions means it's still a valid argument, though.


At the point in the game when you have reached Epic, even without Epic feats or spellcasting, the divergence in power from 1/6 of a save point per level is so low as to be meaningless. You are essentially burning sacred cows on the barbeque for no real reason other than trying to pretend it's doing some good.
You've arbitrarily decided they are sacred and I reject that.

[KillianHawkeye]

You've arbitrarily decided they are sacred and I reject that.

I was going to say something like this but I couldn't come up with a way to say it as good as this.

[The Random NPC]

I believe his argument is a Perfect Solution fallacy, i.e. because your solution isn't perfect, you shouldn't use it.

[Salanmander]

I believe his argument is a Perfect Solution fallacy, i.e. because your solution isn't perfect, you shouldn't use it.

The argument is really more like "it does little enough to help solve the problem that it's not worth it." The "worth it" was implicit, but key. I know a lot of people I've talked to have said something like "whatever, I can't remember all the little changes that happen when you hit epic."

Also, I'm not actually convinced that keeping normal save progression will make the typical case epic player have a greater difference in saves. Sure it would if they're single classes, but if we're ignoring the ELH you /can't/ be a level 104 wizard. Only 20 levels of wizard /exist/. So in order to be epic, you need to multiclass, which gives you a lot of room for shoring up poor saves.

Lastly, I'm going to question whether having vastly different base saves is a bad thing. From a gameplay perspective, offensively it increases the usefulness of the tactic of carefully selecting which spell you target at which opponent, and defensively it increases the importance of doing something to shore up your weaknesses. Given that in D&D it is typically the correct choice (from a pure power perspective) to ruthlessly focus on your strengths, this strikes me as a good thing. And from a verisimilitude perspective, it makes sense for a rogue who has 80 levels under her belt, but has done very little to specifically shore up her mental defenses, to have absolutely no chance of resisting an illusion from a level 80 caster.

[hymer]

@ OP: I had an interesting back-and-forth on the Homebrew forum on post-20 play, which may be useful: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237886
Jackmage666 had a lot of interesting things to say on the matter.

[The Random NPC]

The argument is really more like "it does little enough to help solve the problem that it's not worth it." The "worth it" was implicit, but key. I know a lot of people I've talked to have said something like "whatever, I can't remember all the little changes that happen when you hit epic."
My mistake.


Also, I'm not actually convinced that keeping normal save progression will make the typical case epic player have a greater difference in saves. Sure it would if they're single classes, but if we're ignoring the ELH you /can't/ be a level 104 wizard. Only 20 levels of wizard /exist/. So in order to be epic, you need to multiclass, which gives you a lot of room for shoring up poor saves.
If I remember correctly you can be a level 104 wizard, I believe they have an epic wizard progression you can take to continue being single class.

[Salanmander]

If I remember correctly you can be a level 104 wizard, I believe they have an epic wizard progression you can take to continue being single class.

I was thinking that that progression included the changes to BAB and saves that we were questioning, but i guess just changing those to the original progression is simple enough that it doesn't mean the epic levels should be scrapped.

Edit: In other words, nevermind.

[killem2]

Also, I'm not actually convinced that keeping normal save progression will make the typical case epic player have a greater difference in saves. Sure it would if they're single classes, but if we're ignoring the ELH you /can't/ be a level 104 wizard. Only 20 levels of wizard /exist/. So in order to be epic, you need to multiclass, which gives you a lot of room for shoring up poor saves.




This is actually more what I had in mind.

Not going past one class but breaking off and choosing something new.

[Dumorimasoddaa]

The biggest issue will be just time wise gaining extra attacks every +5 to bab. It means that as soon as a full bab class takes another full bab class, at 21st bam 6 attacks but this going on will lead to huge numbers of VERY top heavy attacks. I mean it's already hard for a flighter to hit an CL approprate AC on his 3rd attack adding more after that just begins to add almost dead rolls. Plus makes combat even longer.