It brings Tiers to my eyes

[ogre]

As many of you already know, a major problem with 3e is the 'math' doesn't work once you get somewhere around 12-15th level (depending on the campaign). The d20 system fails to accommodate high pluses, the d20 roll becomes almost irrelevant etc. So maybe I'm reading to much into it, or my imagination is running wild, but I have a hunch that it's the tier system that is going to be the backbone of 4e. Now, I don't have any facts to back it up, just speculation, but here goes...

We know there will be 3 tiers, Heroic, Paragon and Epic, but what exactly does this imply? Is this simply a title or is it a fundamental mechanic in the game?

What I'm thinking is that these tiers will have separate mechanics that are relative only to an equal tier. Something along the lines of a Heroic character facing a Paragon character is at "-10" and "-20" against Epic characters, likewise a Paragon character would be "+10" vs Heroic and "-10" vs Epic and so Epic characters would be "+20" and "+10" vs Heroic and Paragon respectively. Now I put the "+10" in quotes because I don't think that pluses would be the best way to accomplish this, (obviously, or we wouldn't have this problem), but the implied power difference is my point. A relative scale of power if you will.

So my thought is that against an equal tier, your plusses or effectiveness stays the same, relatively low and equative to the plusses you would get during levels 1-10. This is where the d20 system works best. But against a different tier, the scale changes, for the better if your vs a lower tier and for the worse if vs a higher tier. Now, I'm thinking it will be an actual mechanic change, kinda like you work from a different platform or somesuch.

Of course, this is all purely speculative.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think they tried to manage keeping everything within a d20 distance by granting an unspecified 1/2 level bonus to most checks and rolls (attack, skills) and defenses (AC, Reflex, Fortitude, Will).
Incidently, at level 10, this bonus would be +5, and at level 20, it would be +10, so you might have your modifiers their.

It also appears as there will be Destinies or Paragon Paths becoming available at the second and third tier. If these are in addition to the regular abilities, this will be a subtle, but still noticeable change in rules.

Furthermore, it seems as if spells are redistributed to fit into the different tiers - long range teleportation, plane-hopping, and maybe also scrying and raising the dead will move up, so that each tier has a certain set of adventure elements that work best in it. (Overland Travel for heroic characters, but once long-range Teleport becomes available in the Paragon Tier, it won't work as well)

I think these tiny elements as whole will serve to enforce the distinction. It won't be about numerical bonuses, since these are taken care of by limiting the amount of "extra bonuses" you can get to a skill and granting a general, level-based bonus to everything.

 

[ogre]

Mustrum_Ridcully- Certainly good points all around, but none of them fix the math problem. Though granted, the +1 per 2 levels would probably work if that was all there was. But, are they going to make it that bland that every PC has the same BAB, saves, AC etc. Are they going to do away with the STR bonus, +weapons, feats etc. to attack rolls?

Now, I'm not trying to find a distinction for the tiers, more I'm trying to figure out how they are going to fix the math. How are they going to keep the d20 roll valid through 30 levels and still remain 'not bland'. So, that's where I thought they may be using tiers to kind of 'reset' the math at every tier.

Does anyone know at what point a d20 roll becomes useless? Is it at +20 or higher?

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I can't see this being accurate in light of:

Heroic, paragon, epic tiers are "not hard-edged boundaries", so a 9th-level character isn't all that different from a 11th-level character, but there are some mechanical differences. "The mechanics are informed by what tier you're in, but it's not a major change by any means." Different "tiers" do have different rules; not terribly different, but not exactly the same.

10-point modifiers in a d20-based game sounds like hard-edged boundaries.

 

[BryonD]

I can't see this being accurate in light of:10-point modifiers in a d20-based game sounds like hard-edged boundaries.

I believe you are correct.

I think the "math is fixed" position is based on building the system so that both bonuses and DC scale more uniformly and are contained in a tighter range based on level.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mustrum_Ridcully- Certainly good points all around, but none of them fix the math problem. Though granted, the +1 per 2 levels would probably work if that was all there was. But, are they going to make it that bland that every PC has the same BAB, saves, AC etc. Are they going to do away with the STR bonus, +weapons, feats etc. to attack rolls?

Now, I'm not trying to find a distinction for the tiers, more I'm trying to figure out how they are going to fix the math. How are they going to keep the d20 roll valid through 30 levels and still remain 'not bland'. So, that's where I thought they may be using tiers to kind of 'reset' the math at every tier.

Judging from Starwars Saga, a 15 point spread in modifier seems reasonable (in regards to skill modifiers):
+5 from ability score, +5 from skill training, +5 from skill focus. (The remaining modifier is level, and thus of no importance for comparing equal level NPCs & Heroes)

I think such a spread is still acceptable, because it really describes the extremes - like a weakling noble compared to a strong soldier specializing in Athletics. The extremes are usually lower in regards to direct combat statistics, like attack bonus and defense.
In Saga, BAB doesn't yet comply with this, and uses the medium and good BAB progressions, but even that doesn't give us a difference higher than +5 at level 20 (ability score and weapon focus adding another +5 to +7)

The question will be how magical items factor into this. If a longsword +5 grants a +5 bonus to attack rolls like it does in 3rd edition, the gap widens. If the bonus doesn't stack with all other bonuses, the gap remains stable.

I am not really sure which would work better - item bonuses replacing ability score bonus, class based bonus or level based bonus. And neither do I know whether things will work this way at all.

Does anyone know at what point a d20 roll becomes useless? Is it at +20 or higher?

A comparative +20 bonus is too high for opposed rolls, obviously. +15 should probably the extreme here, because it gives at least a measurable chance for the weaker.

 

[Emirikol]

My guess is the tiers are there pretty much in name only.

jh

 

[Frostmarrow]

The question will be how magical items factor into this. If a longsword +5 grants a +5 bonus to attack rolls like it does in 3rd edition, the gap widens. If the bonus doesn't stack with all other bonuses, the gap remains stable.

There has been rumors of numerical bonuses on weapons going away. Magic weapons might instead have different qualities that makes you covet them anyway. E.g. Unbreakable, shines when orcs are present, abilty to harm demons, or stuff like that.

 

[Stalker0]

Well we already know that part of feat prereqs is what tier your in, so they definately have some mechanical advantage.

 

[Stogoe]

There has been rumors of numerical bonuses on weapons going away. Magic weapons might instead have different qualities that makes you covet them anyway. E.g. Unbreakable, shines when orcs are present, abilty to harm demons, or stuff like that.

Go read the Design & Development about Magic Items. If you thought that +X weapons were going away, you were kidding yourself. They're too iconic (even outside of gamers) to be removed. The best we can hope for is that they're accounted for in the math, and they're not required for game balance.