D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Tiers of Play

[DEFCON 1]

You know what's the most interesting fallout of Wyatt calling Apprentice Tier levels 1 through 4? It washes away the complaint of clerics and wizards choosing their domain and school earlier than level 3 like every other class.

When Apprentice was levels 1 and 2 and you became an adventurer at 3... complaints complaints complaints about how the cleric and the wizard were "better" because they got their specially-named package of abilities in the "lower tier" when everyone else got theirs at 3. But now... with the tier now lasting 4 levels... getting your specially-named package of abilities is no longer the demarcation between the tiers. So it doesn't matter what level you get your sub-class or domain or pact or oath or whatever, because it has nothing to do with becoming an adventurer. You get your special package while an apprentice. Some a level earlier, some a level later.

 

[Thyrwyn]

My responses fell in line with the typical response to each and every question. Either I am sheep, or they are on point

 

[KidSnide]

I think tiers of play are a great idea, but they are largely useless without the proper adventure support.

What made the BECMI model work so well was that the adventures produced for each boxed set were markedly different. You went from dungeon crawling to wilderness exploration to kingdom building to plane-hopping to godhood.

I think one problem that 3rd and 4th edition both faced was that the adventures were designed more or less in the same manner. You basically went to a site and fought monsters, whether they be orcs or Orcus. If you're going to have tiers of play, I think it's best to make the adventures significantly different in feel for each tier. Otherwise, it just feels like you could just add bigger monsters into the same adventure and get more or less the same result.

Agreed completely.

I see the biggest failing of the article is that - with the exception of the royal politics adventure - most of the examples were very similar. Without further detail, it's all just killing monsters. We already know that higher level characters fight higher level monsters. WotC doesn't need a survey to figure that out. A much more interesting series of questions is: what tiers of play should be supported by new systems?

I think mass combat and domain management should be accessible to expert level characters to a limited degree, but they should be primarily targeted at the paragon tier. I think the same should be said for magic item creation, but maybe there should be a concept of artifact creation specific to epic level play? Likewise, epic level play would be well served by a "searching for immortality" mechanic, along the lines of the Masters set.

In 4e, plane hopping was brought down to heroic play, mostly - I suspect - because they thought the Shadowfell and Faewild were the most interesting parts of the Points of Light setting. Personally, I'd like to see plane hopping limited to a paragon / epic level play.

Hex crawling wilderness exploration seems like Expert level play to me. Maybe that's my BECMI experience talking, but it seems too difficult for Apprentice characters and a waste of time for Paragon characters with Wind Walk and Teleport. Super-gritty "fantasy-Vietnam" optional rules make the most sense for Apprentice tier, but could be somewhat usable in Expert play. And if you want more of a wuxia-style D&D, maybe you should just start the campaign at level 8?

This is the sort of stuff I think WotC should be thinking about when it talks about tiers.

-KS

 

[Derren]

I think Tiers are completely unnecessary, especially with the flat math 5E is supposed to have. Why need levels on top of levels? The capability of the characters should speak for themselves.

 

[Quickleaf]

The WotC site was having problems reading my post, so I'll share my thoughts here:

I'd like to challenge the framework of how tiers are divided. Since this is a Wandering Monster article, why not look at the monsters as a tier defining feature?

Spell access is certainly a useful feature, but I wouldn't say it is what defines a tier.

BECMI organized it around "scale of exploration" (dungeon > wilderness > city > kingdom > planes & gods). The rules that opened up thru BECMI showed that something new was happening - they really defined the tiers. Of course, the much loved Planewcape challenged those assumptions by putting low-level PCs out in the planes. And even BECMI adventures were mixed, so you'd have dungeons at Expert-tier for example.

Even though bounded accuracy means that monsters can be a threat across a greater span of levels, I think that the biggest sign a party has crossed a tier boundary is when they face their first dragon or when a few trolls are no longer a terrible threat (but giants are!). To me that would be a defining feature in the same sense as the BECMI rules defined a tier; just like you can still explore dungeons at epic (albeit they're probably very very different), you can still fight kobolds at paragon (though they'd better have some GREAT tactics to pose a threat). But the trend of paragon is, I don't know, maybe giants and dragons are your featured enemies...or maybe it's rakshasa and devilish intrigues.

A lot emerges from determining what monsters PCs usually face at which tier beyond combat statistics. If giants aren't suitable for Adventurer Tier but are for Expert or Paragon tier, then does that suggest that PCs avoid mountains where giants dwell at low-level? Does it mean you don't encounter giants at all or that a challenge with a giant at low-level becomes role-playing or stealth instead of hopeless combat? Or are there servants of giants at low-level? Maybe since giants can't readily seek power in the world of men they subvert lords with promises of riches to pave the way for their reign in the lowlands?

But I wouldn't stop there. I'd combine all these elements to describe what the bounds of each tier are. So you have your typical Adventurer Tier experience (environments, monsters, spell capability, expectations of PC impact on the world, the stakes), and then you have what is the standard deviation from that? In Planescape, the environment for 1st-3rd level was meant to br Sigil...but are the expectations of what the Adventurer Tier PCs can accomplish in Planescape the same as a Forgotten Realms? What about an Athas? What about an intrigue campaign vs. a war campaign? The 4e DMG had some good setups for the latter.

I would get a solid idea of the range of play styles within each tier as a general snapshot of D&D, then I would apply that thru the lens of each campaign setting. Or, if a multiplicity of campaign settings are being embraced, provide those examples in the section that gives Tier advice to the DM.

 

[Mistwell]

Why need levels on top of levels? The capability of the characters should speak for themselves.

You have an entire thread addressing this question.

I think characters in the apprentice tier (level 1-4) should advance faster and keep goblins from raiding villages, i think the expert tier (level 5-8) and the paragon tier (level 11-16) shoould advance slower and prevent bringands from interferring with inter-city trades and keep plotters from overthrowing the souvereign respectively. And finally, i think the epic tier (level 17-20) should advance much slower and involve keeping demons from overunning the world etc..

Grand cosmic threats and schemes leavened with kingdom threatening distress, thats mid level stuff!

By 12 in non 4E, or high teens in 4E, you aren't just trying to save their puny home world, but the whole cosmos.

High level adventures should have challenges that can't be solved merely by the application of PC's personal abilities. Merely using tougher opponents, and an overall jacking up of the numbers isn't going to cut it.

I think the concept of tiers grasps at (but never quite reaches) the concept I've articulated otherwise as "D&D changes genre as you level up." I think a game of swashbuckling yet worldly heroes who deal with political type thrillers, and a game about the Justice League of Faerun keeping the fantasy version of Galactus from eating the world are both fine, but I think it is problematic that they're both in the same game and are, in fact, actually the same characters.

...the adventures produced for each boxed set were markedly different. You went from dungeon crawling to wilderness exploration to kingdom building to plane-hopping to godhood.

AD&D implied a similar progression from dungeon crawling to wilderness adventures to building strongholds and establishing a territory.

I also think that the basic formula of quick-average-slow-slower advancement for the four tiers mirrors real life. The fastest advancement in any skill is from novice through apprenticeship to journeyman/expert. Then its a slower, but solid, pace to mastery, then its much slower with only a few achieving a legendary status.

I think mass combat and domain management should be accessible to expert level characters to a limited degree, but they should be primarily targeted at the paragon tier. I think the same should be said for magic item creation, but maybe there should be a concept of artifact creation specific to epic level play? Likewise, epic level play would be well served by a "searching for immortality" mechanic, along the lines of the Masters set. Hex crawling wilderness exploration seems like Expert level play to me.

I mean, if you're not seeing why, then perhaps address all the answers given in the thread?

 

[Wulfgar76]

I prefer my PCs to fight giant rats as long as possible. When Dire Rats cease to become a threat the campaign has jumped the shark.

I'm only half joking. I recall my 3rd edition campaign hitting 12th level and feeling like "Sorry lads, there's nobody left to fight."

 

[Derren]

I mean, if you're not seeing why, then perhaps address all the answers given in the thread?

Easy. Nothing of that requires Tiers of any other sort of hardcoded levels on top of levels. The only use for tiers is to throw around those words (epic tier!!11) for marketing.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I don't need the game to decide for me when it's time for my player's to begin participating in specific types of scenarios.

 

[Lokiare]

You know what's the most interesting fallout of Wyatt calling Apprentice Tier levels 1 through 4? It washes away the complaint of clerics and wizards choosing their domain and school earlier than level 3 like every other class.

When Apprentice was levels 1 and 2 and you became an adventurer at 3... complaints complaints complaints about how the cleric and the wizard were "better" because they got their specially-named package of abilities in the "lower tier" when everyone else got theirs at 3. But now... with the tier now lasting 4 levels... getting your specially-named package of abilities is no longer the demarcation between the tiers. So it doesn't matter what level you get your sub-class or domain or pact or oath or whatever, because it has nothing to do with becoming an adventurer. You get your special package while an apprentice. Some a level earlier, some a level later.

They should make the apprentice tier levels 1-7 that way there is plenty of that difficult easy death, meat grinder play for the old school crowd or those that like games that they have to bring a stack of character sheets to play. Everyone else can simply start at level 8. Just skip the levels you don't want.

In this case many, like me, will go ahead and skip 20 levels of play and simply go find another game that works better with our play style