A new Tier System for 5E
- Thread starter DEFCON 1
- Start date
Introduce expansions that increase complexity?
Each expansion might span one or more tiers. It may upset someone to pay for a supplement that encompasses all tiers when the group is only playing 1 or 2 tiers; however, it might be a smart marketing move to attract customers with hints of what Paragon and Epic are like. In any case, an electronic download or subscription can be used for micropurchases of supplements for individual tiers.
Like boardgame expansions and video game mods, and unlike previous D&D supplements in which optional rules could be chosen and picked at will, each expansion might be an all-or-nothing layer that sits upon the core game. In this way, the game designers can better balance for rules interactions (forgive me if this idea has been raised by someone else on any theoretical 5E thread).
I don't think 3e had a default setting - do you mean default use of the Greyhawk deities? I agree that was a problem, because of the Domain system for Clerics - either you used the Greyhawk gods or you had to assign Domains for every god in your homebrew, which I hated.
4e has what is intended to be inspirational flavour text, not a default setting. They say as much. Personally I think having a default flavour to the game is better than presenting it as a generic system - and even 1e did this with the named spells (Otiluke's) and the Artifacts. 4e Clerics are no longer defined by their deity's Domains, which is an improvement. The 4e DMG discusses use of different flavours, and the published campaign settings give concrete examples. I think 4e did a good job of providing fluff that is supportive, if you want to use it, but not constraining. Eg my Forgotten Realms campaign uses FR fluff not default PoL fluff; my Wilderlands game incorporates a good deal of the default PoL fluff but there's no (eg) Nentir Vale in the setting.
delericho
Legend
Interesting. This is very close to Paizo's definitions of low-, medium-, and high-level. The difference is that they place the mid/high split at 12th/13th level.
Honestly, I don't have an issue with the tiers or the level ranges used in 4e. There is a problem with the Epic tier, but I don't think it's to do with the actual levels used.
Unfortunately, presenting the game in two different ways is almost certainly a losing strategy. You're competing with yourself, and it means that instead of having one product that does reasonably well, you now have two that are both individually failures - even if the overall sales are exactly the same, or even somewhat higher.
My inclination is to build the game around a single Core Rulebook, and then present the rules in two(-ish) ways - the preferred route is to enter the game via a boxed set including a whole bunch of stuff, including the Core Rulebook, but also offering the Core Rulebook for sale separately for experienced gamers who don't want all the extra stuff.
However, if this is believed to lead to a boxed set that is just too expensive (since it must now be a Beginner set and include the Core Rulebook), then the next best thing is to do essentially what WotC and Paizo have both been attempting - have a single low-cost Beginner set leading in to the 'real' core rules.
Broadly speaking, I think the problem with the Red Box (and previous starter sets) is that WotC have considered them only as an afterthought, and have tried to make them a really low-cost product. The problem is, to hit that low cost they've had to cut the product right back, compromising its utility.
I would go into what I think should be in the Starter Set in some detail, but the truth is that the Pathfinder set is now really close to what I think should be done. What WotC should do at this stage is take a good look at the Pathfinder Beginner Box, convert the rules to 4e (including the same 1-5 level range), fill the box with comparable goodies, and publish. Just about the only thing that I think could improve it further would be a CD containing a 5-level version of the offline Character Builder, including only those options included in the set (oh, and of course a link to the D&D site, and ideally a nice bright "Subscribe Now!" button).
The problems with the Epic tier are most difficult to fix.
I think the biggest issue here is that WotC don't have (or haven't really expressed) a clear definition of that the tiers are. I think they could do a lot worse than to simply and explicitly say, "At Heroic tier the PCs are a cut above the norm, but strictly mortal - think the Black Company or the Three Musketeers. At Paragon tier, the PCs are superhuman, but only just - think Lancelot or Aragorn. And at the Epic tier, the PCs are legendary heroes who do six impossible things before breakfast - think Achillies or Superman." Doing this puts everyone on the same page, it gives their adventure writers some notion of what to aim for, and allows them to properly focus support.
Additionally, they should build the game so that it is not just possible, but easy to build characters at the start of each of the tiers. At present, building a high level character seems to mostly be a case of building them at 1st level and then levelling them up, which is rather slow and painful. Also, you acquire a lot of powers, each with their own quirks and complexities.
I'm inclined to think it would be better if 1st level characters started with just a few powers (as now), as they gained levels they gained more (as now), but once they reached the end of the first tier they maxed out on powers - after that point they either replaced existing powers with more, um, powerful ones, or they simply upgraded their existing powers.
Combining these two would mean that playing an Epic character wasn't much more complex than playing a Paragon one, and it would mean that people could more readily jump in to the Epic tier.
One other key thing is probably quite important: I'm inclined to think that the game shouldn't become more and more detailed as you go (beyond a point, probably reached at the end of the first tier). Instead, things should probably become less tightly defined as you move into the Epic tier. Instead of having dozens of individual and very specific powers, the PCs should each have a few broadly defined powers that they can then apply as they go. Indeed, there's an argument that Epic characters should perhaps transcend the notion of powers at all, and should instead be able to tap into their Power Sources directly, improvising a huge range of effects as needed. That alone would make the Epic tier feel very different to anything that had gone before.
This! Imho, it doesn't matter one bit what level ranges you set for the different tiers. All you need to make sure is that it's easy to enter the games at each of the tiers.
It appears to me the OP is basically ignoring 4e in his proposal, dismissing it as a failure. But it really isn't: 4e mostly suceeded with one of its design goals: It's playable in every tier.
The problem is that in the process of enabling gameplay at the higher tiers 4e got rid of what made playing at these tiers feel 'special'.
The BECMI approach was probably the best in that regard so far. But I don't feel it was good enough to be replicated in a hypothetical 5e.
What we really need is the best of both worlds: Good playability and an easy entry at every tier without sacrificing what makes a tier special. How's that for a design challenge?
Yeah, if you are going to have different tiers then you should be doing different things!
Ultimatecalibur
Explorer
I'm a fan of the idea to disassociating a character's "skill level from their power tier. I feel that associating certain power levels with various level sets unnecessarily limits the game's design and play space.
In my mind 20 "Skill" levels is an appropriate amount to design around.
I imagine that there are 5 tiers of play:
In my mind 20 "Skill" levels is an appropriate amount to design around.
I imagine that there are 5 tiers of play:
- Tier 0 - Common Tier: This is the power tier covering ordinary folks and low danger threats such as "normal" animals, goblins, orcs, and other "mook" creatures. While I don't see player focused products talking about play in this tier, I do see possibility of DM focused products talking about how to tone down the rules in order to play in this tier.
- Tier 1 - Adventurer Tier: The basic D&D "we are adventurers" tier that most editions of D&D have covered in their lower levels. The rules should focus around a group of 4 to 6 characters exploring locations and facing forces of similar size and power.
- Tier 2 - Paragon Tier: The tier in which the characters control armies and influence nations. Mass combat rules and abilities should appear in this tier.
- Tier 3 - Legendary Tier: The tier in which the characters can throw around abilities of incredible power and could be described as one man armies. Wuxia and Anime style powers and effects would be covered in this tier.
- Tier 4 - Divine Tier: The tier in which the characters are gods or godlike beings. Reality altering powers and abilities would be limited to this tier.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
"Must spread some around..."
Can someone (or several people) XP Thunderfoot for me, please.
Excellent excellent post/thoughts. I agree with...yes, actually...EVERYthing in that post.
Hope you get some XP for it.
--SD
Can someone (or several people) XP Thunderfoot for me, please.
Excellent excellent post/thoughts. I agree with...yes, actually...EVERYthing in that post.
Hope you get some XP for it.
--SD
Based upon this section of your post and the two paragraphs that followed it... I'm thinking you might have misinterpreted by what I meant by "presenting" the game in two different ways. Because what I was really advocating seems to be what you talked about in your following paragraphs. Not that there are two different games... but rather two different ways to present the rules of the game.
First way is to present the game in the three rulebook hardcover format as we have now (Player's Handbook / DMG / Monster Manual), which covers all the levels of play (whether that be 1-20 or 1-30 or whatever the designers wanted the highest level to be). This would ordinarily be what most established gamers would pick up, because they were used to the hardcover model, plus they probably would want the entire rules of the game in one go. Now whether or not they condense the three book model down into a single Core Rulebook model (as it seems you are suggesting), that's a perfectly viable alternative option doesn't really affect what I was putting forth.
The second way to present the rules is to make it New Player friendly by doing it by Tier, only putting in the boxed set the rules for whatever Tier its for. This way... the basic game Starter Set includes the PH/DMG/MM rules all together for just that first Adventurer's Tier. I would disagree with your idea to include the entire Core Rulebook in that Starter Set... because that defeats the purpose of having a Starter Set. You don't want extraneous rules to confuse the issue. Then the purpose of making boxed sets for the upper Tiers is simple to not make players who own the boxed Starter Set and want to continue playing have to go buy the hardcover books. Because they essentially are buying the Adventurer Tier material twice. So if the costs of boxed sets can be made the same as books... you might as well present the upper Tiers in boxed sets too, so that those players can get the whole game without doubling up on material.
This seems to be what you are also advocating, so my guess is that how I originally defined my "two ways to present the game" is what caused the confusion and your disagreement. Unless of course I'm entirely off-base.
delericho said:
I would definitely agree with much of your statements about Epic Tier. There are so many issues with it (both from a set of game rules and from presentation) that I purposefully did not delve into what would have to change about it to make it viable. But what you said is definitely right up there.
And what you mention about making Epic actually less well-defined and detailed is actually in many ways would have to be both True and False at the same time. Because the game certainly could be less actually codified at Epic in terms of specific power detail and game mechanics as you pointed out, with improvisation having more of an influence on how the game plays. But the irony of that of course is you need to then make the rules of Epic on how to actually accomplish that sort of improvisation much more well-written and detailed so that DMs understand how to actually get it to work. You end up with much less detail in terms of codified mechanics, but much more detail on how to run the game in that way.
Last edited:
Viking Bastard
Adventurer
Wouldn't Class/Subclass system like we have post-Essentials be a perfect fit for this kind of a tier system?
That is, for the Adventurer Tier you'd choose a class (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Psion, Whatever) of which there'd only be a finite number, and for the Heroic Tier you would choose a subclass (Knight, Mage, Warpriest, Thief, Monk, Thingamabob).
That is, for the Adventurer Tier you'd choose a class (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Psion, Whatever) of which there'd only be a finite number, and for the Heroic Tier you would choose a subclass (Knight, Mage, Warpriest, Thief, Monk, Thingamabob).
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (181) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
