D&D 5E Favourite Tiers of Play?

[Mephista]

I tend to run games from about 3rd to about 13 or so at most. For me, the first three levels are apprenticeships. You should be training as a squire, or something, not out adventuring. You should have a teacher going with you and making sure you don't die. I just have trouble imagining a world where you're just starting to learn the most basic of techniques and magics to go kill things.

On the other hand, too much power makes it harder to challenge players with the types of stories I want. I have a few end game things that involve tapping into some tier 3 stuff, but that mostly closes the story out.

 

[bedir than]

I really miss the non-classed/zero-level play. I don't want to start as someone heroic. I want to start and learn. I love that journey from commoner to local hero. My favorite parts of Jordan are the first two books because the characters don't know what they will become.

There's something special about playing the Folk Hero who turns into a Fighter. They did it through luck, skill, good fortune, etc.

 

[S'mon]

I tend to run games from about 3rd to about 13 or so at most. For me, the first three levels are apprenticeships. You should be training as a squire, or something, not out adventuring. You should have a teacher going with you and making sure you don't die. I just have trouble imagining a world where you're just starting to learn the most basic of techniques and magics to go kill things.

On the other hand, too much power makes it harder to challenge players with the types of stories I want. I have a few end game things that involve tapping into some tier 3 stuff, but that mostly closes the story out.

Yeah, that is a good range. My new 4e Nentir Vale game is designed for Heroic to low Paragon
(1st to 12th/14th) very like what you describe - 4e basically cuts off the Tier I/Basic play, depending somewhat on how you stat opponents.

I think with 3e & 5e it takes a bit of thought to really justify why 1st & 2nd level PCs are adventuring.

 

[S'mon]

Well the poll results certainly support the traditional "sweet spot" view. Not a lot of love for Tier 4+, yet that Epic/Immortal/God stuff was a lot of what I GM'd, back in the day in my original 1e AD&D campaigns.

 

[n0nym]

I personaly prefer Tier 2 but it's not for want of ideas, it's because D&D still can't do high-level play properly.

Bounded accuracy is a lie, because once PCs reach high AC and get the right feats, there's nothing you can do to challenge them with low-level foes.
All you can do is try to grind their HPs and ressources slowly and it's boring as hell.

 

[Li Shenron]

Tier II (Expert) is typically my favourite because each character is already broad enough for a lot of variety, without being too complicated to DM and design adventures for.

I guess that in 5e the Tier III might be even better, exactly because the current edition is supposed to solve many high-level problems, but unfortunately I haven't got to play that far yet... :/

 

[Ath'kethin]

It's always interesting to read opinions of others, and sometimes surprising to read about issues I've never seen.

I prefer Tiers 1 and 2, personally, both as a DM (where I spend 90+ percent of my D&D time) and as a player. Challenges are challenging without getting silly, and the most character defining moments of a PC's existence are in the first 3 levels.

I don't really get the "1st Tier PCs are too weak and should have their hands held" viewpoint. Level 1 isn't "newborn," and any 1st level PC is a far more capable character than common folk. It's easy to see this, just by setting a party against, you know, commoners.

 

[S'mon]

I personaly prefer Tier 2 but it's not for want of ideas, it's because D&D still can't do high-level play properly.

Bounded accuracy is a lie, because once PCs reach high AC and get the right feats, there's nothing you can do to challenge them with low-level foes.
All you can do is try to grind their HPs and ressources slowly and it's boring as hell.

You can run it 10 rounds at a time, the duration of most spells, rage etc. Either roll 100d20 for incoming attacks or just use averages. PCs only hit on a 20 are the simplest, 1 in 20 attacks is a crit. Either roll the crits or use average damage.

 

[S'mon]

It's always interesting to read opinions of others, and sometimes surprising to read about issues I've never seen.

I prefer Tiers 1 and 2, personally, both as a DM (where I spend 90+ percent of my D&D time) and as a player. Challenges are challenging without getting silly, and the most character defining moments of a PC's existence are in the first 3 levels.

I don't really get the "1st Tier PCs are too weak and should have their hands held" viewpoint. Level 1 isn't "newborn," and any 1st level PC is a far more capable character than common folk. It's easy to see this, just by setting a party against, you know, commoners.

Common folk who are combatant would be tribal warrior, bandit, guard in 5e - yes 1st level pcs are better.

They may not be better than a 2 hd mm orc or hogboblin though! Compared to opposition 5e 1st level seems weaker than Moldvay Basic. Only 1st level Labyrinth Lord is comparable as LL pcs don't get plate armour the way Moldvay ones do.

 

[Mephista]

and any 1st level PC is a far more capable character than common folk. It's easy to see this, just by setting a party against, you know, commoners.

"In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers." Not the emphasis. The book itself calls level 1 pcs apprentices. The book goes on to say that you're still learning the most basic skills of your profession. I don't really care about trying to say that someone is better than a commoner, or whatever. You're still learning. To me, that implies teachers and people who make sure you survive long enough to be a return on the time and energy spent training you. It just doesn't make sense to me to send someone still learning basics into life-and-death situations without some oversight from someone more experienced.