First of all, PvP is not and never has been a determination of balance.
Second of all, a 25th level wizard should have enough defensive spells to be outright impervious to harm from a fighter, enough debuff spells to strip said fighter of all their own buffs and defenses, and enough offensive spells to reduce a fighter into being a greasy stain on the ground or less before the fighter can even think of retaliating. I don't care if that wasn't what was happening in your game because apparently your game wasn't actually running the rules as printed in the books.
I can actually speak to this with some authority, at least WRT 3.X edition D&D: I actually GMed a play-by-post, PvP "arena" game, set at 25th level, for several years: "The Exodus", on RolePlay Online ( www.rpol.net ).
The only thing that let pure fighters even stay within shouting distance of spellcasters, was massive use of consumables - especially buffs from once-per-day Runes (Magic of Faerun). If they had those things, they became gods (because they essentially "borrowed" most of the spellcasters' power). If they didn't, they were dead meat. It was literally that binary.
I'd hope that the book with the new character options would have a section focused on epic levels. It doesn't have to be the focus of the book, I would just like it to happen.
Yeah, this is the right sort of thing to ask about, IMO.
Gentlemen. This is wildly off topic and largely irrelevant. Stick to 5e for the duration, perhaps?
I mean, other editions have had epic level rules and 5e hasn't, so I'd say discussions of older editions are pretty relevant for imagining how they'd work in 5e.
Yeah, I agree: discussion of any system that doesn't already exist for 5E, but did exist for prior editions, makes dicussion of those prior editions (in relation to that system) entirely relevant and on-topic.
Discussion of how older editions handled things, yes.
Dick-measuring contests about whose game is better and how nobody really understands anybody else's personal game, no.
I believe epic boons is mostly sufficient, but that's mostly because I don't wait until my players hit level 20 to award boons or other cool homebrew options. Modular, distribute-at-will abilities that can be given out under whichever circumstance the DM considers appropriate are more to my liking than fixed, level-based progression. We've got enough of that in 5e already, ne?
Discussion of how older editions handled things, yes.
Dick-measuring contests about whose game is better and how nobody really understands anybody else's personal game, no.
I believe epic boons is mostly sufficient, but that's mostly because I don't wait until my players hit level 20 to award boons or other cool homebrew options. Modular, distribute-at-will abilities that can be given out under whichever circumstance the DM considers appropriate are more to my liking than fixed, level-based progression. We've got enough of that in 5e already, ne?
I agree such dick measuring is futile. Obviously my game is the biggest best.
I don't see why making them an an option would hurt anyone. The biggest obstacle to their creation is the lack of content that goes up to 20, let alone above it.
Amen- there are already relatively few monsters for tier 4 play- most monsters are targeted for pre-level 10 encounters, so I think the real issue is you need something for these mythic adventurers to do- avatars of gods, semi-deific monsters, and so on and so forth. Devils that lead layers of the hells, conquering and removing demon lords and layers of the abyss, stuff like that would be the kinds of things an epic level character would be doing. With the boons, and maybe some home-brew rules for if your pc's start acquiring worshippers, I think you're pretty set, there just aren't many large monsters of that tier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"La luz del Sol brilla mas al que no esté acostumbrado a su furor."
... Mythic Odysseys of Theros adds three more: Arasta (counts as two CR 21 creatures), Hythonia (counts as two CR 17 creatures), and Tromokratis (counts as two CR26 creatures - arguably, this one's Tier FIVE ...!)
Off topic but I'd have really liked a mythic encounter for each tier, maybe not tier 1. I love those monsters and of course i can homebrew a low level version but it would have been nice to be able to run my lvl 10 players though an epic Final Fantasy style boss fight.
Yeah I know, they all follow a set pattern. You kill the mythic creature, it does a thing and then gets new legendary actions until you kill it again/almost kill it again. But still, Theros really would have benefited from some great epic battles in all tiers of play.
But we've deviated enough. This thread inspired me to look at my 2nd and 3rd ed high level player option books. Honestly I don't think 5e needs one but I would 100% buy one if it was published. I don't mid the current system but there need to be more boons and such. Even through leveling stops at 20, in practicality the DMG has rules for advancement beyond there. They're just kind of bland.
The issue with epic tiers is that in order to do that they'd have to overhaul the CR system because as it stands now because the avatar of Tiamat, a god, is only CR:30 meaning fighting a gods avatar is pretty much out of the question. Not to mention that high-level monsters are so weak that they're going to be stomped by any character above 15+ level anyway. But, honestly I'm all for an overhual of the CR system. Monsters are either too easy (tarrasque) or too hard (beholder zombie) based on their CR in this edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
It's a chicken or the egg thing with WOTC on high level content. There aren't high level characters to play high level content but then again there isn't high level content to have characters play at high level. I personally have an Abjuration Wizard I played from 1 to 20 in AL that I would love to still play, but can't as there isn't much else he can do. I still have some old D&D books with the immortals which was kinda cool. Boons are neat and all, but there needs to be more. I think MMO's have spoiled us in that most content begins at max level there and we expect to have these characters we can continue on with but just can't with the current landscape in D&D.
The issue with epic tiers is that in order to do that they'd have to overhaul the CR system because as it stands now because the avatar of Tiamat, a god, is only CR:30 meaning fighting a gods avatar is pretty much out of the question. Not to mention that high-level monsters are so weak that they're going to be stomped by any character above 15+ level anyway. But, honestly I'm all for an overhual of the CR system. Monsters are either too easy (tarrasque) or too hard (beholder zombie) based on their CR in this edition.
I'd not be too concerned about this. The devs who worked on BG:DiA addressed this issue by arguing that a stat block contained within an adventure shouldn't be considered globally valid. In other words, that Tiamat block is accurate only for her portrayal in BG:DiA. The point of placing her block there was probably to provide more of an ordinal ranking of monsters in the adventure, so that we would be able to determine a hypothetical outcome of a fight between Zariel and Tiamat, for instance.
Therefor, if you truly object to level-based progression, I submit to you: perhaps D&D is not the best choice of system for you.
Seriously. There's lots of other fish out there. GURPS, for example.
Eh? D&D has always had level caps too, at least in the core games. Core 2e - 3.5e had a 20-level cap. 4e was capped at level 30. It is the exception, rather than the rule, that players can advance beyond these caps.
Therefor, if you truly object to level-based progression, I submit to you: perhaps D&D is not the best choice of system for you.
Seriously. There's lots of other fish out there. GURPS, for example.
Eh? D&D has always had level caps too, at least in the core games. Core AD&D - 3.5e had a 20-level cap. 4e was capped at level 30. It is the exception, rather than the rule, that players can advance beyond these caps.
No, actually, it hasn't always had level caps. In fact, 1E had no such thing as a level cap at all...! Below is Table I: Cleric, found on page 20 of the Firest Edition Players' Handbook. Notice the two things I've marked out in red.
Yep. The top item I highlighted, shows that level progression was infinite (provided you survived that long, and kept gaining XP). The second item I highlighted, at the bottom of the table, shows the spells-per-day for a twenty-ninth level Cleric, well beyond the 11th level of the table above.
Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Magic-Users, and Thieves all had that same "___XP per level above __" line. In Unearthed Arcana, Cavaliers, Barbarians, and Thief-Acrobats also had that provision.
Only Druids, Assassins, and Monks had an actual level cap (which, for Druids, was raised to 23 in Unearthed Arcana).
As for 3.5E D&D .... the Epic Level Handbook was still applicable and valid after the mid-edition revision.
So, we're down to only 3 out of 5 having level caps across the board - 2E, 4E, and 5E.
Which is entirely beside the point.
Yurei said: "[...] more to my liking than fixed, level-based progression [...]"
And that is what my comment about level-based progression was made in response to. It seems pretty clear to me that Yurei doesn't like level-based progression at all (whether there are caps or not). In which case, there are any number of other systems which might better suit his or her tastes, rather than trying to bang a square peg into the round hole.
2nd edition didn't have level caps just like 1st edition, it even had a series of books for high level adventuring that a lot of folks didn't care for.
Apologies, I occasionally forget that AD&D and 2e were different, both being before my time. I'm ignoring the ELH because it wasn't part of the core rules, although they did incorporate epic levels as sidebars into some of the 3.5e supplements, particularly those that introduced new classes. But yes, I see I've misread the arguments as being over level caps. Apologies all around.
I can actually speak to this with some authority, at least WRT 3.X edition D&D: I actually GMed a play-by-post, PvP "arena" game, set at 25th level, for several years: "The Exodus", on RolePlay Online ( www.rpol.net ).
The only thing that let pure fighters even stay within shouting distance of spellcasters, was massive use of consumables - especially buffs from once-per-day Runes (Magic of Faerun). If they had those things, they became gods (because they essentially "borrowed" most of the spellcasters' power). If they didn't, they were dead meat. It was literally that binary.
Yeah, this is the right sort of thing to ask about, IMO.
I mean, other editions have had epic level rules and 5e hasn't, so I'd say discussions of older editions are pretty relevant for imagining how they'd work in 5e.
Yeah, I agree: discussion of any system that doesn't already exist for 5E, but did exist for prior editions, makes dicussion of those prior editions (in relation to that system) entirely relevant and on-topic.
Discussion of how older editions handled things, yes.
Dick-measuring contests about whose game is better and how nobody really understands anybody else's personal game, no.
I believe epic boons is mostly sufficient, but that's mostly because I don't wait until my players hit level 20 to award boons or other cool homebrew options. Modular, distribute-at-will abilities that can be given out under whichever circumstance the DM considers appropriate are more to my liking than fixed, level-based progression. We've got enough of that in 5e already, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree such dick measuring is futile. Obviously my game is the
biggestbest.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
... D&D has always been a level-based system.
Therefor, if you truly object to level-based progression, I submit to you: perhaps D&D is not the best choice of system for you.
Seriously. There's lots of other fish out there. GURPS, for example.
Amen- there are already relatively few monsters for tier 4 play- most monsters are targeted for pre-level 10 encounters, so I think the real issue is you need something for these mythic adventurers to do- avatars of gods, semi-deific monsters, and so on and so forth. Devils that lead layers of the hells, conquering and removing demon lords and layers of the abyss, stuff like that would be the kinds of things an epic level character would be doing. With the boons, and maybe some home-brew rules for if your pc's start acquiring worshippers, I think you're pretty set, there just aren't many large monsters of that tier.
"La luz del Sol brilla mas al que no esté acostumbrado a su furor."
... Mythic Odysseys of Theros adds three more: Arasta (counts as two CR 21 creatures), Hythonia (counts as two CR 17 creatures), and Tromokratis (counts as two CR26 creatures - arguably, this one's Tier FIVE ...!)
ooooh- Now that is intriguing. I approve wholeheartedly of these new monsters and their mythic status. :D
"La luz del Sol brilla mas al que no esté acostumbrado a su furor."
Of course, each of them is also singular, rather than an entire species. Still, they do exist ... :)
Off topic but I'd have really liked a mythic encounter for each tier, maybe not tier 1. I love those monsters and of course i can homebrew a low level version but it would have been nice to be able to run my lvl 10 players though an epic Final Fantasy style boss fight.
You could pretty much use an encounter from the next tier up, with Lair actions, as the same sort of thing, IMO.
Yeah I know, they all follow a set pattern. You kill the mythic creature, it does a thing and then gets new legendary actions until you kill it again/almost kill it again. But still, Theros really would have benefited from some great epic battles in all tiers of play.
But we've deviated enough. This thread inspired me to look at my 2nd and 3rd ed high level player option books. Honestly I don't think 5e needs one but I would 100% buy one if it was published. I don't mid the current system but there need to be more boons and such. Even through leveling stops at 20, in practicality the DMG has rules for advancement beyond there. They're just kind of bland.
The issue with epic tiers is that in order to do that they'd have to overhaul the CR system because as it stands now because the avatar of Tiamat, a god, is only CR:30 meaning fighting a gods avatar is pretty much out of the question. Not to mention that high-level monsters are so weak that they're going to be stomped by any character above 15+ level anyway. But, honestly I'm all for an overhual of the CR system. Monsters are either too easy (tarrasque) or too hard (beholder zombie) based on their CR in this edition.
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
It's a chicken or the egg thing with WOTC on high level content. There aren't high level characters to play high level content but then again there isn't high level content to have characters play at high level. I personally have an Abjuration Wizard I played from 1 to 20 in AL that I would love to still play, but can't as there isn't much else he can do. I still have some old D&D books with the immortals which was kinda cool. Boons are neat and all, but there needs to be more. I think MMO's have spoiled us in that most content begins at max level there and we expect to have these characters we can continue on with but just can't with the current landscape in D&D.
I'd not be too concerned about this. The devs who worked on BG:DiA addressed this issue by arguing that a stat block contained within an adventure shouldn't be considered globally valid. In other words, that Tiamat block is accurate only for her portrayal in BG:DiA. The point of placing her block there was probably to provide more of an ordinal ranking of monsters in the adventure, so that we would be able to determine a hypothetical outcome of a fight between Zariel and Tiamat, for instance.
Eh? D&D has always had level caps too, at least in the core games. Core 2e - 3.5e had a 20-level cap. 4e was capped at level 30. It is the exception, rather than the rule, that players can advance beyond these caps.
No, actually, it hasn't always had level caps. In fact, 1E had no such thing as a level cap at all...! Below is Table I: Cleric, found on page 20 of the Firest Edition Players' Handbook. Notice the two things I've marked out in red.
Yep. The top item I highlighted, shows that level progression was infinite (provided you survived that long, and kept gaining XP). The second item I highlighted, at the bottom of the table, shows the spells-per-day for a twenty-ninth level Cleric, well beyond the 11th level of the table above.
Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Magic-Users, and Thieves all had that same "___XP per level above __" line. In Unearthed Arcana, Cavaliers, Barbarians, and Thief-Acrobats also had that provision.
Only Druids, Assassins, and Monks had an actual level cap (which, for Druids, was raised to 23 in Unearthed Arcana).
As for 3.5E D&D .... the Epic Level Handbook was still applicable and valid after the mid-edition revision.
So, we're down to only 3 out of 5 having level caps across the board - 2E, 4E, and 5E.
Which is entirely beside the point.
Yurei said: "[...] more to my liking than fixed, level-based progression [...]"
And that is what my comment about level-based progression was made in response to. It seems pretty clear to me that Yurei doesn't like level-based progression at all (whether there are caps or not). In which case, there are any number of other systems which might better suit his or her tastes, rather than trying to bang a square peg into the round hole.
2nd edition didn't have level caps just like 1st edition, it even had a series of books for high level adventuring that a lot of folks didn't care for.
Apologies, I occasionally forget that AD&D and 2e were different, both being before my time. I'm ignoring the ELH because it wasn't part of the core rules, although they did incorporate epic levels as sidebars into some of the 3.5e supplements, particularly those that introduced new classes. But yes, I see I've misread the arguments as being over level caps. Apologies all around.
Don't sweat it. Everybody misunderstands something now and then.
Not all of us are so willing to admit it gracefully, though. So, bonus points for you there. :)