A new Tier System for 5E

[Jhaelen]

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's not a bad idea, actually (although I pretty much don't care about post-Essentials 4e)!

Many MMORPGs use this approach to good effect and it's also similar to the BECMI subclasses.

Designing sub-classes for a specific tier would make it easy to get rid of low-level 'baggage', avoiding the increasing complexity of characters that seems to be inevitable otherwise.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Then I don't understand why your (initial) proposal ends at level 20?

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.

I basically ignored that part because it doesn't make much sense to me in a discussion about tiers. Both complaints can (and should) be addressed in different ways:

1) is difficult to solve, considering the restrictions of a low-cost entry-level product. I don't see any satisfying way to increase replayability without increasing cost, and fiddling with (existing) tiers won't help at all (see below, though!).

2) would have been easy to avoid - I have no idea how WotC botched this! It wouldn't have been difficult at all to ensure the characters stayed compatible with Essentials. The only excuse I can think of (and it's not a good one) is a rushed release. But where's the connection to making changes to tiers? I don't see it.

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.

Well, the BECMI Red Box covered only three levels, so five levels is probably too much. Considering a trend I'm seeing in this thread and one of the often-mentioned criticisms of 4e what I could see is something else:

4e doesn't have a 'mundane tier', everyone starts out being a hero at level 1. To address that a box would have to support game play at, say, levels -3 to 1!
Then you could indeed start as a (talented) nobody: Instead of starting the game with two at-wills, 1-2 encounter powers, a utility, and a daily power, you'd gain them step by step in levels -3 to 0, ending up with a regular level 1 heroic pc.
That would also offer more (re)playability without increasing the required box content by much.

Now the other tier-based boxed sets can easily cover ten levels each, with a minimum of overlap in the heroic tier for level 1.

As an additional incentive, I could imagine getting a small benefit for playing through levels -3 to 1 instead of simply starting at level 1. E.g. it's plausible you'd start with a magic item, gain an extra feat or trained skill, etc.

 

[Frostmarrow]

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.

In a starter set I'd concentrate on what is in an adventurer's hands. "Striker" pretty much means longbow anyway.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

You are absolutely right that it would feel weird to not have a 'class' to select at 1st level. It would definitely be a stark change in how D&D gets played.

The big issue though, is how defined do you make classes in that first tier? The traditional D&D party has always been based upon having the 4 roles, not based upon the mix of power sources (even if it was never explicitly said that way until 4E). The purpose of F/C/R/W was to have a tank, a lurker, a healer, and utility player, and not to specifically get 2 warriors a priest, and a magic-user. Thinking of things that way was a much later idea, when having more divine classes, and magic classes and nature classes became possible.

I suppose the biggest hurdle is just deciding how flexible do you want that Starter Set to be? I mean, if the idea of having Class names in that first tier was important... you could certainly call the different combos of role/source by Class names at that point, you'd just have to decide how much 'extra' stuff you'd give the combos (like Class features) and how much would that expand the size of the rules and boxed set?

Speaking personally... if the choice in the Starter Set was more role/source combination options (giving me therefore the chance to have a magic-wielding defender character for example) versus more class feature 'stuff' given to a smaller section of role/source combos... I think I'd rather have the wider options and save the class features for a later point. But it certainly could go either way and I think we'll probably find equal numbers of people who like both sides.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Then I don't understand why your (initial) proposal ends at level 20?

Like I said in posts after that... it was mainly just an economic factor in my head, plus following along the lines of what I've heard other people talk about that Epic just seemed too long of a Tier. But as I mentioned in the quick follow-up post... you certainly could maintain the 30-level progression if you wanted. The biggest issue would just be whether there was enough gameplay distinction to warrant having a fourth tier of play.

Well, the BECMI Red Box covered only three levels, so five levels is probably too much. Considering a trend I'm seeing in this thread and one of the often-mentioned criticisms of 4e what I could see is something else:

4e doesn't have a 'mundane tier', everyone starts out being a hero at level 1. To address that a box would have to support game play at, say, levels -3 to 1! Then you could indeed start as a (talented) nobody: Instead of starting the game with two at-wills, 1-2 encounter powers, a utility, and a daily power, you'd gain them step by step in levels -3 to 0, ending up with a regular level 1 heroic pc. That would also offer more (re)playability without increasing the required box content by much.

I actually think 5 levels is pretty much spot on for an introductory game that you're wanting for potential replayability. The equivalency to E6 bearing out that point. And actually, your 'Mundane Tier' pretty much also follows that line of thinking, as -3, -2, -1, 0, and 1 are five levels. But I'd suggest just moving the numbers back up to levels 1-5 just to not imply to new players of the Starter Set that they aren't actually 'real' characters yet, which I think is more likely to happen if you have them start in the negatives.

In the end, the numbering system could be whatever makes the most sense... the biggest thing of it just being enough levels to make the Starter Set replayable to kids, while not so many that it becomes too overwhelming. Whether that is 3 levels, or 5 levels, or 10 levels is up to the designers and playtesters I guess.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I suppose the biggest hurdle is just deciding how flexible do you want that Starter Set to be? I mean, if the idea of having Class names in that first tier was important... you could certainly call the different combos of role/source by Class names at that point, you'd just have to decide how much 'extra' stuff you'd give the combos (like Class features) and how much would that expand the size of the rules and boxed set?

Speaking personally... if the choice in the Starter Set was more role/source combination options (giving me therefore the chance to have a magic-wielding defender character for example) versus more class feature 'stuff' given to a smaller section of role/source combos... I think I'd rather have the wider options and save the class features for a later point. But it certainly could go either way and I think we'll probably find equal numbers of people who like both sides.

Yeah, where you are going to go with the Starter set makes a big difference here. Me, I'd like to think that a big part of such a set is to allow the simplified "E6" play and a dose of Basic--with supplements, even past 5th level. But I also agree that the Starter set needs to be a subset of the wider game.

With those caveats, one thing you could do is make the wider game mechanics built off of role/source combos + class features. However, keep the class list and available features rather sparse--maybe the 8 most iconic classes with a handful of features each (or, I suppose, exactly one class for each role/source combo supported in the set, with perhaps a few popular extras if those combos warranted). It is not as if each class listing will take very much space. So you can play an arcane defender if you want, picking from arcane and defender options as normal, but you'll automatically be a "swordmage" and pick from a very small set of class features.

Naturally, if that is the case, the presentation could be reversed. You pick from the list of classes, and that tells you which role and source you can use to pick most of your abilities. It is not as if the list of abilities to get to 5th level will be that great.

And then for extended "E6" type of play, include some rules for selecting additional options from those low level ones presented. That is, up through 5th level, a Starter set character is entirely compatible with a Full set character--it's exactly how that character could be represented in the Full set--just made with less options. Then at 6th level, you are either moving onto the Full set so that you can take 6th level abilities, or you are continuing to expand with lower-level abilities in an E6 campaign. This means that all level 1-5 source material, adventures, etc. are entirely compatible with the Starter set and Full set. Higher level stuff might need some dual listings (e.g. monster manual entries), but you'd probably only do that for the heroic tier, then provide E6 conversion routines for anything over Full set 15th level. It is not as if an E6 game really needs Paragon or Epic challenges, anyway.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And then for extended "E6" type of play, include some rules for selecting additional options from those low level ones presented. That is, up through 5th level, a Starter set character is entirely compatible with a Full set character--it's exactly how that character could be represented in the Full set--just made with less options. Then at 6th level, you are either moving onto the Full set so that you can take 6th level abilities, or you are continuing to expand with lower-level abilities in an E6 campaign. This means that all level 1-5 source material, adventures, etc. are entirely compatible with the Starter set and Full set. Higher level stuff might need some dual listings (e.g. monster manual entries), but you'd probably only do that for the heroic tier, then provide E6 conversion routines for anything over Full set 15th level. It is not as if an E6 game really needs Paragon or Epic challenges, anyway.

That's a cool idea. To follow that line of thinking... I maybe would then draw upon one of the ideas that myself and some others mentioned in one of the other threads dealing with feats for 5E... which was to make Class Features actual feats, rather than their own classification of 'class feature'.

The theory was that if you made class features (and race features for that matter) actual feats, and balanced them as such against other regular feats the PC could pick up... you had an instant way to create 'base' classes and races, but also be able to compact and expand the PC options for simpler play, advanced play, and alternate builds by adding, removing or swapping out those base feats.

In your example for extended E6-style start set gaming... at 1st level a particular 'class' gets to take powers from the chosen Role group, and the chosen Power Source group (maybe one of each, maybe not so codified, who knows?) and you also then are assigned perhaps a feat from those two Groups, which are basically the 'Class Features' of your class. So for instance, the Leader Role Group feat gives you the Healing Word power and thus regardless of which power source you are-- (martial, divine, arcane) you automatically know how to heal as a Leader. And if you select the Arcane Power Source, you are given the Ritual Caster feat (assuming for the moment that rituals were still in the game, and this feature didn't suck. LOL).

Using the modularity pod format that Mearls had been talking about... the DM could then choose whether or not to use the Feats module in his the game... and if he did, the PCs would then choose additional General feats at 1st, 2nd, and 4th level like normal (and so on in the later Tiers). But for an E6 style campaign, if the DM wanted to give additional power to the PCs without advancing their level past 5... there are plenty of additional feats (both of the General, Role, and Power Source variety) in the Starter Set he could hand out.

 

[Votan]

Hey there LightPhoenix!



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!

Hey, if you really want to see inflation, compare a 1E Dragon to a 2E Dragon. The strongest possible 1E evil Dragon (in core at least) was an ancient red dragon (80 HP, 72 if a bit small, 88 if large). A totally different scale of challenge.

So I suspect that the 1E/2E Balor were intended to be played as end game foes in a game where characters stopped adventuring as they surpassed name level. The Balor fits into that end game paradigm if you are just increasing the final level from 9 (Fighter as Lord) to 20 (3E end of core) to 30 (4E end of core).

But you are right that it makes epic tier into more of the same instead of something different.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I think the key to character building across the tiers (and someone mentioned this earlier) will be in replacing powers and feats rather than adding more of them.

Perhaps keep the number of abilities (by 10th) to:

At-Will x2, Utility x2, Encounter x3, Daily x3, Feats x6

Between 11th and 20th you'll be able to swop out all abilities for new (more powerful) ones. Same again between 21st and 30th.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Votan!

Hey, if you really want to see inflation, compare a 1E Dragon to a 2E Dragon. The strongest possible 1E evil Dragon (in core at least) was an ancient red dragon (80 HP, 72 if a bit small, 88 if large). A totally different scale of challenge.

Well, in the 1E Forgotten Realms Boxed Set they added another two ages of Dragon. So you could have had a 111 hp Large Red dragon.

I think the goal of 2E/3E (as I recall stated at the time) was to make dragons the most powerful (or thereabouts) creatures in the game. So it made sense for some degree of inflation in their case.

So I suspect that the 1E/2E Balor were intended to be played as end game foes in a game where characters stopped adventuring as they surpassed name level. The Balor fits into that end game paradigm if you are just increasing the final level from 9 (Fighter as Lord) to 20 (3E end of core) to 30 (4E end of core).

The problem with that approach is that they folded epic into core, but again this just becomes epic in name. The end of the 'core' game should be the beginning of the epic game. Things like Ancient Dragons, Balors and Tarrasques should be foes encountered at the end of the Paragon Tier. By comparison, the epic tier should be Dragon Gods, Demon Princes and Godzilla. But the epic tier skips such foes until the very end.

Also, since the Lord of the Rings (movie), the Balor has clearly been increased to Huge size to parallel the Balrog.

But you are right that it makes epic tier into more of the same instead of something different.

I was thinking that what 4E does badly is sacrifices verisimilitude.

If we were to assign races a default level based on individual threat levels we might end up with something like:

COMMON
1. Goblin, Kobold
2. Hobgoblin, Bullywug
3. Orc, Lizardman
4. Gnoll, Sahuagin
5. Bugbear, Thri-Kreen

UNCOMMON
6. Derro
7. Duergar
8. Kuo-Toa
9. Drow
10. Yuan-Ti

PLANAR COMMON
11. Eladrin
12. Shadar-Kai
13. Githyanki
14. Rakshasa
15. Mind Flayer

So the bulk of Drow or Yuan-Ti encounters should be in and around high heroic/low paragon tier. Not high epic (as detailed in MM3).

That means there is a vast dearth of properly epic creatures and races in the epic tier. The Forsaken and Weavers spring to mind as making sense as epic races, but few others.