Levels, Tiers and Complexity

[delericho]

With the move to 5e, I think WotC should take another look at the use of tiers, and also at the level-range in general.

In theory, I think the adoption of explicit tiers in 4e was a good thing. However, I think they went wrong in three ways:

1) They never explictly stated what the tiers actually meant. If they'd adopted a shorthand like "Heroic = Black Company, Paragon = Aragorn, Epic = Achillies", they would have made things a lot more concrete, and given their adventure writers, in particular, some notion of what characters should be doing.

2) They didn't support Epic properly. This was especially tragic because this was the tier most in need of support. And that was because...

3) The complexity of, well, everything went up with level and with tier. At low levels the number of powers was quite manageable, but by low Paragon characters had a huge number of options, and at Epic they were even worse. This made 'jumping in' at the higher levels not really practical without significant experience with the game.

For 5e, then, I would suggest the following:

- Introduce a Beginner tier, probably running for 5 levels. Beginner characters should not have the fragility of low-level 3e characters, but they should have reduced complexity. I'll get back to that.

- Instead of numbering the levels 1-20, 1-30, or whatever, instead number them by tier: B1-5, H1-10, P1-10, E1-10.

- In the Beginner tier, character start with a reduced number of powers. As they gain levels, they gradually pick up new powers. However, once they reach level B5, they stop gaining new powers. From then on, they pick up upgrades to their powers. That way, new players get to learn the system, but Epic level characters don't get swamped with dozens of options (most of which are too low-level to be of much use anyway). Obviously, there would also need to be a mechanism to retrain powers that are no longer wanted as time goes on.

- When a character enters a new tier, all of his powers should automatically upgrade to the new baseline for the tier. Basically, the start of a new tier should effectively be a 'clean slate' for the character. (Indeed, each power could potentially have seven 'stages' - Beginner, Heroic Base, Heroic Upgraded, Paragon Base, Paragon Upgraded, Epic Base, and Epic Upgraded.)

- Provide easy rules for starting play at the start of any tier. It should be as easy (and as valid) to jump in to the Paragon tier as to the start of the Beginner tier. How many times do you really want to start off as the fresh-faced farmboy?

- Provide a mechanism for groups to extend their favoured tier beyond the stated top level. If the party are happy being the Black Company, and don't really want to become Aragorn, why should the game force them to make that upgrade, just because they've reached level H10? (Basically, this is the E6 notion from the 3e era, just baked right in to the game as a whole.)

- The Starter Set, should cover then cover the Beginner Tier. The Core Rulebook should cover at least the Beginner and Heroic tiers; it would of course be preferably to cover the full level range, but that might be too much for one book to handle - better to cover it in pieces and do it well, than to do too much badly.

Thoughts?

 

[Rechan]

Beginner characters should not have the fragility of low-level 3e characters, but they should have reduced complexity. I'll get back to that.

I think this is an error.

A lot of people like the zero-to-hero thing. The apprentice, the farmer who just picked up a sword, and the lethality. The "you got shot with a crossbow, DEAD!"

I love the sound of the rest.

 

[Kalontas]

As a side note, I never get why people so often cite Achilles as "epic" character. It was just a dude who happened to fight in a war. The most 'epic' thing he ever did was carry a dude around, pulling his body with a chariot, which is hardly befitting the description of epic tier in D&D. Hercules would be much more like D&D definition of epic tier (a fighter/barbarian who throws giants across the world). But that's beside the point.

I definitely do not support the idea of changing "numbering of levels". If anything this edition needs to avoid, it's slaughtering more holy cows. We can't afford re-numbering the levels or character stats. There still need to be six parametres (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha) and there still needs to be 20 to 30 levels of base game. Without those, you risk even more revolts than in 5E.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am not really a fan of the tier idea, but would not be unhappy to see it go.

As for making the game rules different at each tier, I see that as a problem. If they are added on,. I could support that, but what you learn in one tier should not be invalidated in a higher tier. Lower, yes as lower tiers should be less complicated.

 

[delericho]

A lot of people like the zero-to-hero thing. The apprentice, the farmer who just picked up a sword, and the lethality. The "you got shot with a crossbow, DEAD!"

Ironically, I think that is great for advanced players!

In my experience, new gamers are sold on the idea of being the great hero, of having mighty adventures. Conan, Aragorn, Han Solo, Batman...

I can think of few things worse for such a player, after having created their first character and out on their first adventure, to suffer a single lucky hit from a random orc, and just die. Chances are, they'll never play again.

This opens up some nasty choices:

- You just suck it up, and quite likely lose the player forever.

- The DM can fudge the rolls to keep the PC alive. I hate the idea of advising that as a policy. (Granted, I hate the idea of losing potential players to a bad crit more, but if we can avoid both...)

- Play at a higher level, with the resulting increase in complexity.

Actually, this whole topic is probably one of the ideal subjects for the DMG to discuss under modularity. Perhaps something like, "Beginner tier characters purposefully start with an inflated number of hit points, to help new players learn the game. If you want a more lethal low-level experience, do the following...")

 

[delericho]

As a side note, I never get why people so often cite Achilles as "epic" character... Hercules would be much more like D&D definition of epic tier (a fighter/barbarian who throws giants across the world).

Fair enough.

I definitely do not support the idea of changing "numbering of levels". If anything this edition needs to avoid, it's slaughtering more holy cows. We can't afford re-numbering the levels or character stats. There still need to be six parametres (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha) and there still needs to be 20 to 30 levels of base game. Without those, you risk even more revolts than in 5E.

You may well be right about that. I suspect it's the most controversial thing amongst my suggestions. Problem is, it was kinda necessary for my point about "extending the favoured tier".

Still, maybe that's another thing that should be addressed in the DMG as a later rules module?

 

[Rechan]

Ironically, I think that is great for advanced players!

Hm. So then come out with Apprentice levels later? Or (like I think [MENTION=55917]DicE[/MENTION]forHire said), "The Tome of Sweat", for gritty play?

 

[Hassassin]

Ironically, I think that is great for advanced players!

In that case it would be quite simple to convert a static hp starter tier into a zero-to-hero tier simply by adding hp progression into the mix.

E.g. for a 5-level tier Con + 10 -> Con + 2/level.

 

[Aldarc]

I think this is an error.

A lot of people like the zero-to-hero thing. The apprentice, the farmer who just picked up a sword, and the lethality. The "you got shot with a crossbow, DEAD!"

I love the sound of the rest.

But they never started out as "zeroes" at level one. A first level fighter in 3E was never just a "farmer who just picked up a sword," but the rules inherently presumed a character with tremendous combat arms training.

 

[delericho]

But they never started out as "zeroes" at level one. A first level fighter in 3E was never just a "farmer who just picked up a sword," but the rules inherently presumed a character with tremendous combat arms training.

Go back a couple more editions...

Seriously, the BECMI Fighter, at first level, was barely more than a total newbie, and even then only if the DM didn't force you to roll hit points! Likewise, the 2nd Edition Fighter was pretty pathetic, especially if not using the "Specialisation" optional rules.