D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Tiers of Play

[Derren]

Yes, but Tiers (which is not a new concept) represents the everyday collective capabilities of a range of levels of a party.

Levels do that, too. There is no difference between having a adventure going from 5-10 or having an Expert tier adventure. The entire "Tier" terminology is unneeded and can be replaced by levels. The only thing they do is to provide marketing buzzwords (neutral) and to make the D&D progression even more rough than which is already the case with having levels in the first place (bad).

 

[Storminator]

Agreed, PCs would feel less like magic-addicted murderhobos if they would settle down and raise a stronghold more often.

Meh. If my PCs are any indication, it just turns them into warmongering murderhobos. . .

PS

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Levels do that, too. There is no difference between having a adventure going from 5-10 or having an Expert tier adventure. The entire "Tier" terminology is unneeded and can be replaced by levels. The only thing they do is to provide marketing buzzwords (neutral) and to make the D&D progression even more rough than which is already the case with having levels in the first place (bad).

They aren't saying they are going to label adventures by tier. JW called this "informational" and "limited to advice to the DM." How can that be considered a marketing buzzword? They intend to use it as shorthand when giving advice to the DM instead of always having to print "for parties ranging from 5th to 10th level" they instead can print "for Heroic Tier."

 

[Desdichado]

Levels do that, too. There is no difference between having a adventure going from 5-10 or having an Expert tier adventure. The entire "Tier" terminology is unneeded and can be replaced by levels. The only thing they do is to provide marketing buzzwords (neutral) and to make the D&D progression even more rough than which is already the case with having levels in the first place (bad).

If it's just shorthand for something that already exists, which you apparently don't have a problem with, then why do you have a problem with tiers? Because it's redundant and less specific than levels?

Given the design philosophy of bounded accuracy, that may in fact be desirable. Adventures in a bounded accuracy prioritized system would tend to work with a broader spectrum of levels. And once you've got that, you've effectively got tiers. Game. Set. Match. What exactly is the problem with them?

 

[Derren]

If it's just shorthand for something that already exists, which you apparently don't have a problem with, then why do you have a problem with tiers? Because it's redundant and less specific than levels?

Actually I do have my problems with Levels and think point based advancement is better.
And Tiers are only redundant in the best case. In the worst case they make advancement even more rough by introducing huge changes at Tier borders but having minimal changes within.

 

[billd91]

No, levels do that. Not Tiers.
Fly does not become available when the wizard becomes Expert Tier, it becomes available when he be gets level 5.

Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to

 

[Desdichado]

Actually I do have my problems with Levels and think point based advancement is better.
And Tiers are only redundant in the best case. In the worst case they make advancement even more rough by introducing huge changes at Tier borders but having minimal changes within.

Well, then again, I guess I'm not understanding. Within a given tier, especially with a bounded accuracy paradigm, you get a situation that's closer to point based advancement, which you prefer.

And sharp delineations between tiers makes it easier for GM's to handle. "I don't want to play epic tier, so this campaign will go up through paragon," for instance. It's a bit like the BECMI progression, where the split between tiers was so explicit that you actually had to buy an all-new boxed set to advance to the next tier. This is a great nod to the notion that the level progression in D&D fundamentally transforms your game into another one; if not from a mechanics standpoint, then certainly from a game-fiction standpoint. If Heroic tier characters top out at Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, paragon tier characters top out with mythic demigod characters like Beowulf, Herakles or Gilgamesh, and epic tier characters are basically the Justice League of Faerun, then exactly what kind of game you're playing is more explicit.

As an aside, I don't really like the heroic/paragon/epic tiers as much as using the BECMI labels for the tiers. But I acknowledge that that's largely because I'm an old fuddy-duddy traditionalist.

 

[Desdichado]

Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to

Just out of curiousity: has anyone ever heard the word pronounced poTAHto except in the context of that expression? Is there any regional accent anywhere that has that as a feature?

Same thing for toMAHto.

 

[Sadras]

In the worst case they make advancement even more rough by introducing huge changes at Tier borders but having minimal changes within.

Yeah I actually do not see the problem with that. I have a ton of ideas and monsters I want to throw at my PCs at different tiers and the type of monsters and stories I want to tell are dependent on the tier (or range of levels if you prefer). So I expect a major change at a tier border which will assist me for my next phase of stories.
Progression within the tier does not need to be so dramatic given that you will probably be playing similar type/style adventures.

Think of tiers as early years, teens, 20s, middle-aged, senior...do you have a problem with those descriptors as well? Given that they are technically superfluous should we have used years instead? It this perhaps too marketed?

 

[Sadras]

Just out of curiousity: has anyone ever heard the word pronounced poTAHto except in the context of that expression? Is there any regional accent anywhere that has that as a feature?

Same thing for toMAHto.

Actually in South Africa we use toMAHto, we definitely do not use poTAHto though.