A new Tier System for 5E

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Actually, just the opposite. I'm quite a fan of WotC's level tier system, and think it worked very well... the only reason I made changes to it were strictly economic decisions.

The biggest two complaints I saw of of the Red Box were that 1) it was not really replayable and it expected you to immediately buy all the Essentials material immediately after. And 2) the rules of the Red Box game did not actually feed into the game as a whole, so that if/when you bought the full Essentials game, the character you designed via the Red Box could not actually be used and had to be rebuilt.

So to fix these two issues I figured the following: whatever the so-called Starter Set boxed set included... it had to have enough levels in it to make it a standalone game that a new player could replay several times if they wanted (just like players of the Red Box in the BECMI days could). 5 levels seemed to make sense for that.

However... I wanted to make the game past that Starter Set a more acceptable economic decision for that player who owned it. Now that could have meant just forcing him buy the full set of books (like the 4E game expects of him currently)... but that would mean the player would be buying the first tier of material a second time. The other choice would be to follow the BECMI model and produce a second boxed set that included levels 6+.

And this is the reason why I changed the levels of the tiers. Because while you certainly could keep the 4E tiers as is... your second boxed set (Heroic Tier Part 2) would again only encompass 5 levels (6-10). To do that, but then expand the last two box sets to 10 levels apiece (for the Paragon and Epic boxed sets) seemed to be short-changing this potential new player at the very point where we're hoping to really grab him (that first purchase of his own after he's learned the game.)

Thus my decision to make the Starter Set levels their own Adventurer Tier, and then give the next tier a full 10 levels on top of that. The player now gets to play the first 5 levels of this starter game as much as he wants... and if/when he decides "You know what? I like this game! I want to continue playing my campaign!", his next purchase gives him 10 more levels. That seems a much more enticing proposition for this player to spend his money on than just another 5 levels.

So that's really the only reason for the change in levels in each tier. To give that second boxed set more levels included within it to entice the New Player to buy it once he's had his fill of replaying the starter set game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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).

Absolutely. But the only reason why I think changing it from Class/Subclass to Role/Class is to avoid the real issue of changing fluff. If you begin in the starter set with Fighter / Cleric / Rogue / Wizard rather than Defender / Leader / Striker / Controller... you basically are telling players that if they want to be a Leader... they HAVE to be a Divine character. Or if they want to be a Divine character they HAVE to be a Leader. Cleric is your only option for either of those two things. But then what happens? Warlord or Bard should not be subclasses to the Cleric... and yet if those both stay within the Leader role, they'd HAVE to be in the F / C / R / W system. You're hamstringing yourself.

So for my money... I'd much rather see the game keep the four roles defined as is, and keep the power sources defined as is... and let the player choose which combination they want to be at the beginning (in addition of course to choosing a race and/or background or theme if you so desired to include them in the game). And the starter set game could certainly help the player out by giving examples of what these combinations could be so that the player would know what they were getting into. "A Defender of the Divine power source is a holy warrior of the highest order, defending the downtrodden of their chosen god's flock. The paladins, cavaliers, blackguards and crusaders of your chosen god."

Then, once you reached the next Tier, the game codifies that decision for you by having you select a Class (ie Paragon Path if you'd prefer). As a Divine Defender, you select the Paladin Class and gain all the applicable class features for it. Or select the Cavalier class. Or the Blackguard class. Etc. etc.

 

[Thunderfoot]

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.

The points of light, whatever the intention, became a default setting by incorporating certain elements of the basic racial and societal elements into the setting. E.g. The Shadowfell/Feywild and the monetary system from Hades. These weren't intrinsically tied to the system, no, but were a pain in the A$$ to try and re-hash. Basically re-writing the entire equipment sheet to get rid of "Astral Diamonds (really?)" gave me heartburn... 1e DID have named spells, but removing a name from a spell description was easier than re-writing whole chunks of rules to "wash the system". And you are spot on, 3.X's immediate tying of Clerics to Greyhawk was a mistake. The rules were cool (I liked the idea of Domains) but the "here they are if you want something else come up with your own system" kind of flopped. It would have been nice if the DMG had a section on designing Domains. Giving the DM the tools out of the box instead of waiting for supplements to eventually describe a somewhat system of doing things. (Which by that time, everyone pretty much had it figured out anyway. )

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there LightPhoenix!

I think this hits the nail on the head. From Heroic to Paragon there's a definite shift in the style of play that was very much built in the system from the ground up. This is less the case for the Paragon to Epic tier, which really does feel like more numbers and higher math.

Part of the problem is that the epic tier has been tacked on rather than built on its own merits.

For instance the majority of 4E epic monsters are creatures that were never anywhere near epic tier in past editions.

1E: Balor 8+8 HD
2E: Balor 13 HD
3E: Balor 20 HD
4E: Balor Level 27 Elite

INFLATION!

I mean I like Yuan-ti and Drow, but are they necessarily epic level opponents? I don't think so. The drow entry in MM3 has a bunch of random drow mooks higher level than Driz'zt for Lolth's sake!

The epic tier has lost all sense of verisimilitude just to shoehorn in a few statblocks.

Although I agree with keterys that Epic tier shouldn't be immortal/god-themed; not everyone likes those themes.

Epic/Immortal or whatever you want to call it can be many things. Characters could become gods, undead, sentient artifacts, paragons of their race, living spells, demon lords etc.

But I think the key for truly interesting higher tiers is that they introduce something new. For the Mid (Paragon) tier that should be Strongholds and Mass Combat rules.

For the top (Epic/Immortal) tier that should be worship and divinity.

However, if 5E were to design books based on tiers of play (which I highly doubt) this would be easy enough to implement as a fourth tier if you really wanted.

Absolutely.

That said, I don't think the problem lies in the numbers or rules at all. I think a lot of the problem exists on the DMG/Adventure side of things. I don't think either DMG or DMG2 really does a good job of emphasizing the effect of tier on the landscape of adventure design. I know WotC decided with 4E to decouple the rules from the story. However, they could have emphasized more the shift in scope and feel from tier to tier in adventures. It doesn't help that their adventures are, by and large, relatively straight dungeon delves.

Certainly 4E has a dearth of decent adventures, notably so at epic tier. I really don't think the whle dungeon crawl experience is the best formula for epic adventures.

 

[Frostmarrow]

In the first tier you just pick race. In the second tier you gain class. In the third and final tier you add alignment.

The races are tied to role. Men are leaders, dwarves are defenders and the two flavors of elf are strikers and controllers respectively. Characters can dabble with any implements.

Class is something to become and a feat to achieve. Characters become more specialized sacrificing some ability to become greater with other preferred methods.

Finally you add alignment which begets intrigue and player conflict.

... Nah, just kidding.

But, this got me thinking. I think I'd like the first tier to focus on race and gear. Dwarf with an Axe, with the powers that comes from being a dwarf with an axe. Or human with a wand. Or whatever. No skills unless supported by gear. I.e no climb skill but ropes are handy. Skills can be introduced later.

 

[howandwhy99]

What if the game changed with different tiers?

The designers were talking about module design and optional increases in the amount of rules or complexity in the game. What if the tiers were each a kind of module with a particular scope of play highlighted? For example:

Heroic = skirmish level combat, character POV map exploration, small group and individual NPC interaction, short quests, simple traps and puzzles, pocket money accounting, single use magic items and/or low powered charged items, etc. [basic D&D for a lot of people]

Paragon = skirmish + small unit combat, construction and leadership of factions of NPCs - including urban politics, ongoing quests with multiple stages, complex traps and puzzles, fortification construction (e.g. forts and castles) and management, mercantile trade, service and manufacturing - a trade bar size economy, multiple and permanent use magic items, etc. [high level D&D for some]

Epic = mass combat with the potential for many spheres in a battle and many battles to a war, extra planar map exploration, imperial rule and politics, a single overarching quest or perhaps a small community of only legendary NPCs, multiplanar fortifications, multiplanar trade - monies and resources, iconic artifacts and relics.

Powers and spells and martial combat abilities and monsters and everything else could still be scalar along the above lines. Plus the groupings could be more than the three for 4E.

What doesn't have to be hard coded is the number of levels in each or even the encounter with each by PC level. Maybe a first level party runs into a colossal combat along its edges? Maybe they encounter clues to the location of an artifact? Perhaps outer planar beings are behind the troubles of their local adventure? -and all of these higher level challenges still follow the higher level modular game rules? This could keep the whole connected.

Some groups may opt for partial modular inclusion. Some may skip the higher level stuff for lower levels. Some may start in those higher levels. Some may not have combat as an option at all. Some may exclusively be magic and magic use exploration. Or politics. Or planar exploration. Or whatever options they desire.

Other game designs have dropped the growth aspect where player character become more powerful through play, but I think that's one of the defining elements of D&D. So in my vision the above may all be options at all times, but complexity and statistical probability for the die rolls would be easier for the lower level stuff with bonuses easing the die rolls once the higher stuff once players are ready to deal with it.

 

[kitsune9]

I actually liked the tier system that the old BCMI went up to with 36 levels. How that is distributed is up to taste, but I liked 36 level progression.

 

[Kaodi]

Unless you can design a system where numbers do not get inflated too severely, I would probably prefer they go with fewer levels and shorter tiers. Something like:

Novice 1-3
Professional 4-6
Heroic 7-9
Paragon 10-12
Epic 13-15

Depending on your preferred playstyle, the Professional tier might be the most common starting point, with Novice tier following next and Heroic not being uncommon for those who like higher powered characters.

Also, I think you could perhaps describe each tier with spells that exemplify the assumptions at that tier. Fireball and Lightning Bolt might be considered Professional or Heroic, while Raise Dead and Teleport would be considered Paragon, or maybe even Epic. Gate and Wish would definitely be Epic.

 

[Mercurius]

I like tiers. Tiers are good. Mmm.

That said, WotC hasn't exploited the format enough - it seems to have much more potential. The key, imo, would be to find a way so that the tiers can be both part of a single continuum and separately playable so that you could, say, run a Paragon campaign and have plenty of room to develop without always looking towards the next stage. Now of course you can do this already, but I'm talking about what the game actually supports and encourages.

In all editions of D&D (at least in the groups I've played in), there has been a feeling that a PC starting at higher levels isn't as "legit" as one that starts at 1st. But if the game offered guidelines for separately playable tiers, this wouldn't be as pervasive.

I also like the idea of a pre-Heroic "Adventurer Tier." I posited a similar idea some time ago, although I called it "Apprentice Tier." The idea being that you start as the equivalent of 1E 0-level characters; an iconic scenario would be villagers attacked by orcs and pick up pitchforks to fight them off; during the quest to find their lair, they become true adventurers and graduate to Heroic tier.

I like the fact that 4E 1st level characters can't be killed off by the gust of a particularly ill wind like, for instance, 1E 1st level magic-users (remember 1d4 HP?). But I also miss the feeling--or at least the option--of newly minted adventurers, "off the farm" types. The tier system could address this, although only if you had the continuum-and-modularity option.

The modularity--that is, the ability to play a single tier and not have to graduate to the next level relatively quickly--would require a decent number of levels, but not necessarily evenly distributed. I like the idea that Adventurer Tier is only 5 levels; this is effectively the introductory phase of a game or, if you're running a campaign like an epic fantasy novel, the intro sequence when the characters are--in Campbellian terms--heeding the "Call to Adventure." Think the Two Rivers sequence in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time or the flight from Hobbiton in Lord of the Rings.

Finally, I like the idea of adding an Immortal Tier above and beyond Epic. So we'd have something like this:

Adventurer Tier - Coming of age, "off the farm" through one's first adventure; the setting is the area within a couple days travel of the PCs' home town, no larger than a small county; in the LotR, this would be fleeing Hobbiton through the Shire.
Heroic Tier - True adventurers developing a reputation and name; the setting is equivalent to a state or small nation; in the LotR, this would be traveling through Eriador to Rivendell.
Paragon Tier - "named" adventurers, regional heroes; the setting is multi-national or even continental, including the entire "known world" and beyond; in the LotR, this would be traveling from Rivendell through Moria to Mordor and the War of the Ring.
Epic Tier - known figures of the campaign world - the movers and shakers; the setting is similar to Paragon but the PCs have a stronger influence; LotR doesn't have an equivalent, although you could say that The Silmarillion is closer to Epic tier - doing actual battle with Balrogs and even Morgoth.
Immortal Tier - ascended to immortal status; cosmic beings; the setting is the multiverse, planes, etc, and would likely involve creating new worlds, guiding different peoples, etc. This would be hard to play under the actual D&D rules and would likely require a different rule set (not a problem a truly simplified modular core that we can hope 5E will have). Again, LotR doesn't have anything like this but it would involve the characters becoming immortal (Maiar) and moving beyond Middle-earth, perhaps to co-create new worlds.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Absolutely. But the only reason why I think changing it from Class/Subclass to Role/Class is to avoid the real issue of changing fluff. If you begin in the starter set with Fighter / Cleric / Rogue / Wizard rather than Defender / Leader / Striker / Controller... you basically are telling players that if they want to be a Leader... they HAVE to be a Divine character. [...]

You have a very good point, but it feels odd to have a D&D starter set in which you choose abstract concepts like role and power source instead of the traditional D&D class.

I'd rather just drop the role concept until Heroic.