Re-visiting the Tiers

[I'm A Banana]

I also think that there's no need for the tiers to all be of the same level. Using KM's example (and assuming, just for the sake of argument, 30 total levels), I can see the Common Tier only incorporating levels 1-5. (Or even less.) Adventurer and Heroic, 10 each. Epic 26-30.

I actually think that the idea of tiers needs to be disentangled from the idea of levels entirely.

There are groups that NEVER want to play a "commoner tier" game. There are groups that NEVER want to play an "epic tier" game. There are groups that are perfectly happy spending their entire time in Heroic or Adventuerer-style games.

I should be able to play a 1-30 "commoner tier" game, if that's the style I like. I shouldn't be made to change playstyles just because my numbers go up.

In other words:

Let's drop tiers as a level-based "thing" and keep it for describing (not prescribing) playstyles.

Bingo.

I do think it's important to recognize that the playstyle can change organically as the characters level up, but I also think it's important not to force that on any particular level -- to let it be a DM and player option, not something that the system forces you to do.

 

[Mengu]

I do think it's important to recognize that the playstyle can change organically as the characters level up, but I also think it's important not to force that on any particular level -- to let it be a DM and player option, not something that the system forces you to do.

Interesting concept... Now to spin off the idea... There could be a mechanic that says, it doesn't matter what level you are, when you decide to move up from apprentice to heroic, you gain +10 hit points, +2 all attacks and defenses, and a new power. When you become paragon, one of your encounter powers becomes at-will, one of your dailies becomes encounter. When you become epic, one of your daily powers becomes at-will, you gain some amount of resistance to damage, and you gain a daily miracle. Then these templates could be applied at any level. So you could play the first 2 levels as apprentice, or the first 5, or the first 10, it all works. You might have just hit level 9, but your DM wants to bring the campaign to an epic conclusion, gives you blessing of the fey gods, so you could have level 9 epic characters.

ps. Sorry I'm talking in 4e power-terms, but it was the best way to get the idea across, as I'm more used it, than 2e or 3e at this point.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Interesting concept... Now to spin off the idea...

Your ideas are solid, but I think there's something a little more obvious....

Epic Tier = You get an epic destiny; now, you are in epic tier.
Heroic Tier = You get a Heroic Class; now, you are in heroic tier.
Adventurer Tier = You get a Prestige Class; now, you are in Adventurer tier.
Commoner Tier = You get no extra classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

In-built tiers are not really what I want to see, I don't want the risk of shoehorning a campaign into a semi-forced style because someone has decided that at level X you must do something else...

But if meant just as a general idea, then at least I would get rid of the "Common" tier here, nobody really plays that. Maybe (just maybe) at 1st level, but that's it.

Then I think 3 tiers would be enough:

- one for adventurers, concerned with mundane things such as food, clothing and treasure + focused on skill and prowess in personal combat

- one for rulers, concerned with events on a regional/nationwide scale - they don't have to be kings or similar, and they don't have to be personally involved or interested in ruling a country, but it's more about making a difference for a whole country or race, rather than just your group

- one for heroes, concerned with things more all-encompassing, i.e. going beyond the destiny of a single country and involving in e.g. saving the world; probably doing stuff that will end up in Bards' tales

 

[Boarstorm]

I actually don't like the idea of tiers at all. Your game's focus on gritty street-level survival or Wuxia-style superheroics should be established at the beginning and last throughout the life of the campaign. It shouldn't evolve from one to the other, unless at the group's preference.

Instead of Tiers for character level, why not modules for playstyle?

 

[airwalkrr]

How about we revisit the tiers by getting rid of them?

Make "tiered play" an optional rules module or something.

Never liked the whole tier concept anyway. It seemed completely unnecessary and vague in the first place.

 

[steeldragons]

OO! Hang on...I got this...

...it's around here some place <rifles through files and posts and rifles...rifiles some more....Sounds remarkably like shuffling papers when reading it online, donnit? >

AH! Here it is...from a similar thread by Mercurius some time ago...

I just did something similar not that long ago, so here that is...more or less, taking into account and making a couple of alterations with 5e in mind.

While I don't so much consider the use of "tiers" as such to be necessary/outlined for the game. But it is a handy way of breaking down packaging and/or levels and standards of what a challenging adventure might entail. I would prefer the "ditching" of the 4e terminology as much as possible.

Adventurer "tier": Lvls 1-5. You are beginning your quest for fame and fortune, seeking out, taking on (or even becoming accidentally involved) local troubles and exploring strange goings-on "close to home". Get your feet wet and yourself familiarized with the rules and expectations of playing a RPG of fantasy adventure.

Champion "tier": Lvls 5-10. You know how to adventure and survive whatever perils the world wants to throw at you. You are even quite good at it and rise in power, glory, wealth and fame (or infamy) that few attain. You traverse the realms more or less at will and venture into regions few ever tread (inhospitable terrains -deserts, the artic tundra, deeper beneath the earth, oversea, undersea and aerial adventures.) Bringing you, the player, to a close with the PC achieving "Name Level" (obviously, this requires redefining name level to just be 10th, across the board, and that's it.) The character retires as a happy wealthy Lord or Lady and the player can make up new character...orrrr keep going....

Hero "tier" (i.e. you are a "Hero" in your own right, as opposed to a "Champion" which has the connotation that you are fighting for someone else)/"Name Level" Set: Lvls 10-20. You become Lords and Ladies among men. You develop and build your strongholds. Expand your territories and manage the trials and tribulations of your domain. You venture into realms and traverse the planes beyond your world that normal men (and adventurers!) fear to tread, or even know exist.

(even though BECMI already used this, it does follow the Adventurer/Champion/Hero motif better than any other tier title/name) Master "tier"/"Epic levels" set: Lvls 20+.

[EDIT for Kamikaze Midget's thread] I'm actually going to borrow from Stormonu's post and use "Legendary" here. That works well, I think...without having to re-use "Master set." Or just the "Legends" set/tier/what have you...so...[/EDIT]

Legends "tier"/"Epic levels" set: You are Lords and Ladies of/beyond the Lords and Ladies of men. You attain Demi-godhood, essentially. Take part in (if not actually cause!) those monolithic battles among the forces of good and evil that expand across the world and multiverse, easily venture to other planes, take on Demon Lords and aiding (or assaulting) the Gods...and beyond.

The "Advanced" hardcover rules manuals would contain everything necessary from levels 1-20. With 20+ play left for an additional/expansion book/module.

I would also be in favor of adding in the proposed "Beginner" tier for those who like the "fresh off the farm/commoner" start of play.

But "Beginner" and "Epic/Legendary" would each be presented at optional play routes.

The "core" of 5e would be "Adventurer/Champion/Hero" and all else dependent on individual group desires and playstyles...as would the "level" parameters of each.

--SD

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not sure i want 2 different resilent chars for beginners and for experts.

4e e.g. has enough room to fit a level 0 tier below level 1. Without level 1 chars beeing overly complicated. So please, have the beginner box start at level 1. And have levels -3 to 0 in the PHB or maybe even better: in the DMG

 

[marelion]

I totally agree with UngeheuerLich.

I think the game could use something like a "Beginning Tier", too. Said Beginner tier would feature the aqquirement of class skills and basic equippment. It could feel a bit like Candlekeep in BG I: It was basically 'Get to know your interface' and I do think that beginners might want to do that in a P&P-game as well.

I`ve seen quite a nouber of first-timers in my games and 90% of them felt overwhelmed by the options they had available, despite my efforts as a GM to make it as accessible as possible.

I would actually split Level 1 into sub-levels, but I`m not sure what would be a good number for those. I`d suggest that two levels might be about right: The first sublevel would feature your basic attacks and racial features, while the second introduces you to spellpreparation/final choice of spells, feats and equipment. And yes, I have included feats in sublevel 2 because I think you should get to know your basic options before deceiding on a focus.

After 2-3 seessions most beginners had succesfully accomodated to RPGs but I`ve seen many players who would prefer to switch their class/race/feats/powers after those few sessions because they had initially thought their character would play differently or because something else has struck their fancy they had not disciovered at their first look at the PHB("What? There are lycanthropes? Had I known there are shifters I would have chosen to play as one of those!")

Including such a tutorial tier would hence give players the chance to experiment with their options and they would not have to settle for something before fully understanding what their choice means.

And it would be advantageous for GMs as well: The classic "Kill the rats in my granary" sort-of-quests you give to complete beginners are easily designed and allow the GM to attune his style to the group`s preferences. And by the end of the tier players and GM alike will have spent some time together to see how it works out and if the chemistry in the group is right for a heroic campaign.

I`ve seen some GMs get upset because the players subtely revolted against the carefully designed plotrails. Nearly all groups I have ever played in have done a players`expectancies-session at the beginning, but in most cases those were pretty fruitless because of communication problems. For example, in my current group my GM told me he was totally into method-acting and since I absolutely love that I designed a charcter with a really detailled background and a precisely defined personality. After two or three sessions I came to realize that his idea of acting out a character is have them sit down in a pub and bolster with their heroic exploits, but not so much on having an agenda or adding another layer of complexity to the game by holding to principles. For my GM, the focus was more on the group experience and on telling an epic story and not so much on character development and he didn`t like to see interparty conflict, which arose when the rogue in our group killed a goblin my Tempus cleric had declared a prisoner of war. This can cause a lot of frustration, so it is generally a good idea to get to know your players before designing the whole campaign. This way you have the option of pulling the switches early enough and setting your players back on the plotroad to fun.

If you`re starting with a bunch of veterans you could skip this tutorial tier without risking sensory overload when the players take a first glance at their character sheets to start their heroic campaign and start at level 1 with mildly competent adventurers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e e.g. has enough room to fit a level 0 tier below level 1. Without level 1 chars beeing overly complicated.

Can't say I personally agree with either of those points.

I think the game could conceivably have room for "level 1 is as mundane as you want it to be!", though I admit I am not sure I see the path to there that I would want to take...