A new Tier System for 5E

[RangerWickett]

I'd love rules in epic for wading through armies and taking out a hundred men per round, like Sauron in the prologue of the LotR movies.

Right now you can kinda do it. You might face Kratos and his Spartan legion. Kratos would be an equal-level elite enemy, and the legion would be represented by twelve equal-level, gargantuan-size minions. But I feel like it could be handled it bit better.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey RangerWickett!

I'd love rules in epic for wading through armies and taking out a hundred men per round, like Sauron in the prologue of the LotR movies.

Right now you can kinda do it. You might face Kratos and his Spartan legion. Kratos would be an equal-level elite enemy, and the legion would be represented by twelve equal-level, gargantuan-size minions. But I feel like it could be handled it bit better.

My suggestion is to use UNIT rules similar to the SWARM rules.

Unit of 10 = +6 Levels (size: Huge)
Unit of 100 = +12 Levels (size: 10x10 squares)
Unit of 1000 = +18 Levels (size: 30x30 squares)
Unit of 10,000 = +24 Levels (size: 100x100 squares)

e.g.
Basic Orc = Level 3 Soldier
Unit of 1000 Orcs = Level 21 Soldier

As a rule of thumb, UNIT commanders will be 5 levels lower than the UNIT itself (before RANK adjustments).

e.g.
Unit of 1000 orcs (Level 21) would be commanded by an orc of Level 16

Alternately you could convert the 1000 orcs (Level 21) to a Level 12 Solo Soldier and make the commander a Level 12 Elite.

I have been working on some simple rules and modifiers for things like Routing, Terrain Advantage and Charismatic Leadership. But I think the entire ruleset could be done in 2 pages or less (discounting UNIT examples).

This way you can have both Mass Combat rules that are easy to use AND run individual heroes (or villains...or monsters) vs. armies of foes.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Stalker0!

Since we are OTIng a bit with the problems of epic monsters, can I throw a rant out there about the swordwing.

The swordwing, a "standard" epic level monster. But here's the thing, when you read the flavor, these guys don't come single file, nor in small groups. Its the equivalent of a bee hive of these things! Thousands......of epically powerful creatures.

How does any world survive that?

I think Swordwings (as a race) have a lot of unexplored potential, but I agree that the accompanying fluff text doesn't really explain the power of the race properly.

The flipside to that is the Swordwings really have no justification for being mid-epic tier opponents. Why are these things so powerful? Are they super-strong, super-fast, super-tough...or just super-badly conceived?

There's no real reason for why they shouldn't be Heroic Tier monsters instead.

A slightly similar problem exists with the Tanarukk (Orcs crossed with demons) in MM3. In this case they make an attempt at an explanation and I agree crossing orcs with demons would breed stronger orcs...but would it necessarily breed a race of orcs that are stronger than most demons?

The Forsaken and the Weavers are the two epic races that I think actually justify being epic. Abominations, Apocalypse Spells and Starspawn, while arguably not technically races also make sense as epic foes. Beyond those examples the epic tier struggles to make sense of itself other than Gods, Demon Princes and Archdevils.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I have been working on some simple rules and modifiers for things like Routing, Terrain Advantage and Charismatic Leadership. But I think the entire ruleset could be done in 2 pages or less (discounting UNIT examples).

This way you can have both Mass Combat rules that are easy to use AND run individual heroes (or villains...or monsters) vs. armies of foes.

Let me know when you have that available to share... IMC I have been using the 'unit' concept to pretty good effect. The PCs are 24th level and a Platoon of Ragesian Warriors caused some major havoc! {see attached}

In a couple levels they will be facing a full size war, similar the the Hobbits Battle of 5 Armies....

 

[Stalker0]

Let me know when you have that available to share... IMC I have been using the 'unit' concept to pretty good effect. The PCs are 24th level and a Platoon of Ragesian Warriors caused some major havoc! {see attached}

In a couple levels they will be facing a full size war, similar the the Hobbits Battle of 5 Armies....

You should flesh this out in the house rules forum, its a great idea!

 

[Summer-Knight925]

I'd like to see the levels of play broken up by character level.

But I would also like to see 'basic' meaning basic.

Like....take out powers, some people like them but I was trying to get a friend into 4e (for the little time I played) who looked at the fighter (which he understood was the simplest) and was terrified.

If you take out the power (at least at lower levels) the 'basic' set could be just the 4 'core' classes.
Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue
working with them, have maybe....1st to 5th level. Maybe even have '1st level' an 'unmarked class' type of level, similar to 0-level concepts. I would enjoy that, I know a lot of people that would as well (Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG playtesters out there?)

No skills.
No powers.
Just your basic abilities, the few special abilities (turn undead, sneak attack, wizard spells)

Then in the 2nd part, levels 6-10, add skills, feats, things to make your character. Add a few 'paths' such as...for the fighter, going Paladin or Barbarian, cleric having the druid option, things like that.

3rd part, levels 11-15, add things like powers. So it seems like adding them in half way through would make you mad?
The powers (In my view) were somewhat horribly unrealistic for the lower levels. If you have them come into play at 11th level, you can justify the dopeness they can be. Again, IMO

4th part, 16-20 would introduce 'world shaping material' such as cohorts and followers (leadership hint hint) and building a castle. Things where the characters have reached the point where they can really really shape the world.

5th part, 21-25 would involve things like planar travel and demigods. I feel like lower levels should encourage the fighting of outsiders and the use of the other planes, but at 21st level, no material plane dungeon should be able to stop you. All the while, I feel that the adventure should end at level 20...but technically it could end at level 5 if you wanted, so why not keep going?

the 6th and final part would be levels 26-30, this would include ascension to godhood, planar creation, the things that should be reserved for the truly elite.

I also think if you allow the complexity creep in how they are marketed, you will grab many new players.

I got a friend hooked on table top games, his character started as a chicken farmer, he told his girl friend that he saved the party by sending his chicken down the hall, not 2 hours later she was yelling at me for turning him into a nerd. They're still together and happy, in fact she is playing as well.
I used Basic Fantasy for that....


but I do believe in adding complexity.

so if we're using the 6 piece tier concept.

1. Basic
2. Expert
3. Heroic
4. Royal
5. Ascension
6. Immortal

and with that, I think the product should contain 2 modules, one to begin, one to end.
The basic starter would be simple and fun, the ending would leave in a cliffhanger. The expert starter would add in the new things and explain them during play, the ending would explain the character's heroism. The heroic set would start with an adventure to make the players feel truly heroic, beyond the others. It would end with a sort of 'being crowned' like you saved the kingdom (why not save the kingdom?).
The royal set would start with an adventure that would trouble a king, something to get the players into their roles of power, it would end with some divine gift and path or forgotten lore that could...could it..?..grant immortality. The ascension line would be a sort of 'buying time' sort of feel...like you'd see a much larger journey ahead of you.
The immortal set would begin with the character's goal in view and end, once and for all.

Then whoever does this could publish a book "Changing the story" and use it to help people changes the modules they have so the players could make new characters and start again.

I think it would work, but I'm sure someone else on this forum has proof to state otherwise.

 

[pemerton]

I think they'd have been better off changing the way that the game plays completely. Focus on influence in arenas where direct intervention is difficult. That way you don't have PCs killing Orcus and Bane (upsetting the cosmology). It also would give epic a very different feel, which is a massive plus.

I want the difference of feel in Epic to be a result of changes in the fiction, not changes in the action resolution mechanics.

And killing Orcus and upsetting the cosmology are, for me at least, pretty core elements of the fiction that the players of Epic PCs might set about changing!

 

[Jhaelen]

Like....take out powers, some people like them but I was trying to get a friend into 4e (for the little time I played) who looked at the fighter (which he understood was the simplest) and was terrified.

Well, telling your friend that this was a misconception might have helped, don't you think?

No skills.
No powers.
Just your basic abilities, the few special abilities (turn undead, sneak attack, wizard spells)

No skills? I think, I'll pass.
Also: in 4e wizard spells _are_ powers. You're also back to having classes with high complexity and classes with no complexity.

but I do believe in adding complexity.

I don't. Imho, tying complexity to levels is a bad idea. If a player enjoys complexity, she wants complexity at all levels of play, ditto for the opposite.

What I'd like to see at high levels is a shift in gameplay that is achieved by replacing options, not adding them. E.g. you stop to care about and track mundane details in favour of looking at the game from a different scope.

I'd want a new edition to provide entry points with comparable complexity at every tier.

Your viewpoint makes sense for someone experiencing the game for the very first time, but that's it. While it's important to make it easy for a newbie to learn the game, the bulk of the game must be designed to appeal to the players who got hooked.

I cannot count how often I've started playing D&D at level 1. The game needs to be fun the 2nd to nth time around, too! And that's about n-1 times as important as that it's fun the first time around.

If tiers change the scope of the game than it's equally important that you can choose the desired complexity at each tier. E.g. a newbie player might be more interested in playing a leader of fighting units or armies, too!

So, what you really need is a set of basic rules to be used for real beginners and advanced rules for experienced players at _every_ tier.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm with Jhaelen on this. Complexity in terms of the mechanics of character generation should not be just tied to the Tier of the game. But like what Mearls talked about in his Legends & Lore column... I think having complexity modules that allow you to add or remove complexity to your characters from the get-go is the way to go.

So if you really don't want to play with skills in your game, you could take them out of the game entirely (including the first tier Starter Set). If you didn't want to use miniatures, same thing. Or feats. Or magic items. (etc. etc.) But I do think that having the game set up to not use skills in the first tier but then have them arrive in the second or third tier and in many ways completely change how your character plays, is kind of counter-productive. A major character generation rules mechanic such as that should either be used for a campaign or not.

The only suggestion in terms of complexity that I would possible add into a game once the campaign changes tiers is with regards to nothing the PCs have, but rather the mechanics of the sort of encounters and stories that a specific tier a DM would begin to use. So for instance... in the Heroic Tier boxed set, the rules for 3D combat could be presented. You wouldn't want that in Adventurer because it'd be hard enough to get new players comfortable with the 2D tabletop combat... but come Heroic and the use of flying/swimming monsters and PC abilities... rules to adjudicate that in Heroic make sense.

For the Paragon Tier boxed set? Mass Combat rules. Not something that I would probably want or need to see in Adventurer or Heroic Tier... but is definitely something I could see being a cornerstone of Paragon. Leading armies or nations against other nations. Similarly... rules, advice or mechanics on the attacking or usurping the gods and taking their place in the pantheon is something that you'd only need for the Epic Tier boxed set.

These kinds of game-changing storyline encounters (especially if they have their own game mechanics associated with them) are the only additions I might add to the "complexity" of the game when it comes to changing tier. Because these new rules help emphasize how the breadth of the campaign has changed once the PCs have reached them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm with Jhaelen on this...

For the Paragon Tier boxed set? Mass Combat rules. Not something that I would probably want or need to see in Adventurer or Heroic Tier... but is definitely something I could see being a cornerstone of Paragon. Leading armies or nations against other nations. Similarly... rules, advice or mechanics on the attacking or usurping the gods and taking their place in the pantheon is something that you'd only need for the Epic Tier boxed set.

These kinds of game-changing storyline encounters (especially if they have their own game mechanics associated with them) are the only additions I might add to the "complexity" of the game when it comes to changing tier. Because these new rules help emphasize how the breadth of the campaign has changed once the PCs have reached them.

Even so, I'd still want those mass combat rules designed well enough that they can be used in the earlier tiers, if I want. This would be especially important in the later Heroic tier. Sure, package the rules in the spot where they will see the most use, but don't include arbitrary artifacts that make them hard to use other places. God-attacking rules wouldn't apply at very low levels of course, but showing just how impossible it is for a Paragon character to do that within the rules might be reasonable.

But with the larger drift, I completely agree with both of you.