Revisioning Tiers

[Minigiant]

Yes it is, but that's not at all what you were saying in the previous post. There you were talking about tossing carriages with one hand and walking on raindrops. Not quite the same. I am totally on board with the questgivers, but that worked fine in my 4e game. It wasn't Sehanine, but instead Asmodeus, Bane and Kord.

The point is at my vision of epic, your quest givers will give you quest that require things like super strength, at-will creation of natural disasters, permanent magical senses, and the ability to swim in lava.

Epic 4E characters felt too limited to storm an exarch's throne room... if they could ever get to it.

 

[Hassassin]

What? Getting mission briefings for Sehanine and having a mysterious folder passed to you by the Raven Queen is not cool?

I define tiers by the quest giver.
In Heroic is a random town folk. Then you progress to the town chief or a city mayor.
In Paragon, you are up to lords of vast properties or a king. Next you go up to multiple rulers as a large parts of a plane might be threatened.
In Epic, its archfey and demigods. Eventually you might be in the audience of deities.

This doesn't make much sense to me. A first level cleric getting a quest from her god is fine, no need to wait for epic levels. She can even save the world if she's in the right place at the right time.

The point is at my vision of epic, your quest givers will give you quest that require things like super strength, at-will creation of natural disasters, permanent magical senses, and the ability to swim in lava.

Epic 4E characters felt too limited to storm an exarch's throne room... if they could ever get to it.

This, OTOH, makes perfect sense. Epic quests require superpowers. It's the character power that defines a tier.

 

[Jack99]

The point is at my vision of epic, your quest givers will give you quest that require things like super strength, at-will creation of natural disasters, permanent magical senses, and the ability to swim in lava.

Epic 4E characters felt too limited to storm an exarch's throne room... if they could ever get to it.

Okay now again, I think we have vastly different ideas of what it means to be epic. Super strength and permanent magical senses of some sort are okay in my book, but at-will creation of natural disasters and the ability to swim in lava sounds like something solely in the province of gods or the like, and (IMO) the characters, even at epic, are not quite there yet.

Would be nice with a game that could accommodate both though, because I wouldn't mind trying your version of epic. At least once.

 

[pemerton]

What? Getting mission briefings for Sehanine and having a mysterious folder passed to you by the Raven Queen is not cool?

This happened to one of the PCs in my game at 2nd level. I don' think of it as something uniquely confined to Epic tier.

A 1st level character can be a king or other ruler - the level is only about personal skill and power.

That's one version of level.

Another version, though, has it that being a ruler (or, at least, a true ruler) is expressed in one's personal skill and power. (Think King Conan.) Under this approach, a 1st level "king" would almost certainly be the mere puppet of the real ruler (probably a wizard of some sort behind the throne).

I think that classic D&D was closer to the second than the first of these in its assumptions, but 3E may have changed things around.

 

[Shemeska]

I truly loathe the tier system as an arbitrary, grossly imposing and limiting gamist abstraction. It strikes me too much like an MMO where certain areas are limited to newbies and once you gain a certain level the next or multiple new areas to level up are unlocked. It's not as hardcoded into 4e that you -can't- have adventures in areas of play designated as higher tier than your character level, but it imposes a singular view of the game which I think needs to be taken behind the woodshed.

If a campaign has reason to go to the planes at lower level, so be it (with all of the attending consequences of having lower level PCs going to whatever plane it might be). I see no reason to put such a restriction on what is or isn't a proper location and theme for adventures or arcs in a campaign based on current PC level.

Putting a chart of suggested campaign themes for those levels seems fine, but distinct level ranges as tiers and the presumptions put in place in 4e are way too gamist and limiting for my tastes.

 

[Hassassin]

That's one version of level.

Another version, though, has it that being a ruler (or, at least, a true ruler) is expressed in one's personal skill and power. (Think King Conan.) Under this approach, a 1st level "king" would almost certainly be the mere puppet of the real ruler (probably a wizard of some sort behind the throne).

I think that classic D&D was closer to the second than the first of these in its assumptions, but 3E may have changed things around.

Yeah, another way the definition of level has changed is due to XP from treasure -> XP from overcoming challenges. Now you can receive half the kingdom as a reward and it won't change your level.

I don't think they should attempt to redefine level to mean more than the power of the character's abilities, as it currently does.

 

[pemerton]

I truly loathe the tier system as an arbitrary, grossly imposing and limiting gamist abstraction.

<snip>

it imposes a singular view of the game which I think needs to be taken behind the woodshed.

If a campaign has reason to go to the planes at lower level, so be it (with all of the attending consequences of having lower level PCs going to whatever plane it might be). I see no reason to put such a restriction on what is or isn't a proper location and theme for adventures or arcs in a campaign based on current PC level.

I think you might be projecting something onto 4e that is not there.

There are plenty of low-level fey, shadow-creatures, elementals and demons, and some low-level devils. And no obstacles (mechanical or story) to running adventures on other planes.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think they should attempt to redefine level to mean more than the power of the character's abilities, as it currently does.

What system do you have in mind? In 4e, level is more than just the power of a PC's abilities.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, another way the definition of level has changed is due to XP from treasure -> XP from overcoming challenges. Now you can receive half the kingdom as a reward and it won't change your level.

I don't think they should attempt to redefine level to mean more than the power of the character's abilities, as it currently does.

I consider level to mean more than the power of the character's abilities but character power is the root of a character's level.

I equate PC level to:
The power of the character's abilities
The strength of new contacts
And
The effects of their actions.

To me, the 1st level character is now that powerful so he can't actively converse with powerful beings and create major effect on the kingdom without being lucky or special.

But a 10-15th level character would be a known legend for at least one nation. Depending on his actions and if they match with the locals, he or she could easier ask to see the king or kill the being turning a large forest into a desert. At this point you are as important as the frost giant exile that lives over there on that one mountain in that place.