Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Revisioning Tiers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5816824" data-attributes="member: 59082"><p>From reading the responses, I'm thinking that it would be a mistake to fuse tiers to the core system and that they should, instead, be used in a modular fashion to define different approaches to campaign styles and character development. So I've got some ideas in that regard. </p><p></p><p>First of all, a DM (with the agreement of the group) can decide whether to start a "<strong>Classic</strong>" or "<strong>Heroic</strong>" campaign; in the former the characters would start at a power level closer to AD&D - not quite 1E, but somewhere between 1E and 3E. In Heroic, the characters would start as established (albeit minor) heroes, somewhere in the 3E to 4E range. The difference could include anything from starting ability scores to number of HP, feats, and something akin to what I was calling "<strong>Heroic Talents</strong>" which would be a modular option to bring back a bit of the 4E power feel. In the Heroic game, for example, a PC might get a Heroic Talent at 4th and 8th level, or something like that, that begins to set him or her apart from your everyday folk.</p><p></p><p>In this approach, further "tiers" become modular options off of the <strong>Heroic </strong>tier - <strong>Paragon </strong>at 11th, focused on<strong> Paragon Paths</strong>; <strong>Epic tier </strong>at 21st level, focused on <strong>Epic Destinies</strong>; and <strong>Immortal tier </strong>at 31st level, with <strong>Divine Traits </strong>and later, possibly, <strong>Spheres of Influence.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong>The key here is that each tier is a modular option; if one wants to simply play the Classic game, they go from 1st to 20th or 30th level without any of that "extra jazz"; power curve is flatter and more realistic to real-world developmental patterns. But for those wanting a more powerful, epic fantasy feel, the tiers are modular options that can be added on.</p><p></p><p>A further modular option would be similar to 1E's 0-level characters, an <strong>Apprentice </strong>level that could be played as a kind of prequel to the <strong>Classic</strong> game.</p><p></p><p>Now of course one potential problem with all of this is that it further complexifies what could potentially already be a confusing situation with tons of modular options. But if the design goal for 5E is to provide different play styles, in addition to a basic/advanced bifurcation being required to appeal to both those who want a simple rule set and those that want a more complex tactical game, I would suggest that WotC needs to do the same with what I'm calling Classic and Heroic campaign styles, and that--as opposed to my original post--these don't need to be fused to levels.</p><p></p><p>I would also add [MENTION=2804]Dragonblade[/MENTION]'s idea--which I was thinking about as well--that the tiers are akin to options that the game group can either choose or not choose to "open up," and even choose when they want to open them up. So you might have the <strong>Classic </strong>game as the core and the, starting at something like 5th level, the group can either choose to open up <strong>Heroic</strong> <strong>tier</strong> or stick with <strong>Classic</strong>; if they choose <strong>Heroic</strong>, they get a <em>Heroic Talent</em> and maybe an increase in ability scores. Then, starting at 11th level or so, they can choose to open up <strong>Paragon tier</strong>, at which point they choose a <em>Paragon Path</em> and another increase in ability scores, with further increases and Path-related powers through the next ten levels. Then, starting at 21st level they can choose to open up <strong>Epic tier </strong>and choose an <em>Epic Destiny </em>with further increases as with Paragon tier. The same with <strong>Immortal tier </strong>starting at 31st level.</p><p></p><p>The point is, that all of these tiers would be optional. Perhaps each would require the former; one couldn't start Epic without first having gone through Paragon and Heroic, but there is flexibility as to when these could be started, and they would be added onto the normal level development. A 25th level character in the Classic game would be a great warrior or wizard, but would still be "mundane", ability scores maxed out around 20, and no tier-specific talents, paths or destinies that accent their class and race-based powers. Or a 25th level character could be superheroic, with ability scores in the mid-to-high 20s, with special powers from the various tiers.</p><p></p><p>Again, exactly <em>how </em>this is done is not as important right now than that there is the possibility--but not the necessity--to open up higher powered tier equivalents.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5816824, member: 59082"] From reading the responses, I'm thinking that it would be a mistake to fuse tiers to the core system and that they should, instead, be used in a modular fashion to define different approaches to campaign styles and character development. So I've got some ideas in that regard. First of all, a DM (with the agreement of the group) can decide whether to start a "[B]Classic[/B]" or "[B]Heroic[/B]" campaign; in the former the characters would start at a power level closer to AD&D - not quite 1E, but somewhere between 1E and 3E. In Heroic, the characters would start as established (albeit minor) heroes, somewhere in the 3E to 4E range. The difference could include anything from starting ability scores to number of HP, feats, and something akin to what I was calling "[B]Heroic Talents[/B]" which would be a modular option to bring back a bit of the 4E power feel. In the Heroic game, for example, a PC might get a Heroic Talent at 4th and 8th level, or something like that, that begins to set him or her apart from your everyday folk. In this approach, further "tiers" become modular options off of the [B]Heroic [/B]tier - [B]Paragon [/B]at 11th, focused on[B] Paragon Paths[/B]; [B]Epic tier [/B]at 21st level, focused on [B]Epic Destinies[/B]; and [B]Immortal tier [/B]at 31st level, with [B]Divine Traits [/B]and later, possibly, [B]Spheres of Influence. [/B]The key here is that each tier is a modular option; if one wants to simply play the Classic game, they go from 1st to 20th or 30th level without any of that "extra jazz"; power curve is flatter and more realistic to real-world developmental patterns. But for those wanting a more powerful, epic fantasy feel, the tiers are modular options that can be added on. A further modular option would be similar to 1E's 0-level characters, an [B]Apprentice [/B]level that could be played as a kind of prequel to the [B]Classic[/B] game. Now of course one potential problem with all of this is that it further complexifies what could potentially already be a confusing situation with tons of modular options. But if the design goal for 5E is to provide different play styles, in addition to a basic/advanced bifurcation being required to appeal to both those who want a simple rule set and those that want a more complex tactical game, I would suggest that WotC needs to do the same with what I'm calling Classic and Heroic campaign styles, and that--as opposed to my original post--these don't need to be fused to levels. I would also add [MENTION=2804]Dragonblade[/MENTION]'s idea--which I was thinking about as well--that the tiers are akin to options that the game group can either choose or not choose to "open up," and even choose when they want to open them up. So you might have the [B]Classic [/B]game as the core and the, starting at something like 5th level, the group can either choose to open up [B]Heroic[/B] [B]tier[/B] or stick with [B]Classic[/B]; if they choose [B]Heroic[/B], they get a [I]Heroic Talent[/I] and maybe an increase in ability scores. Then, starting at 11th level or so, they can choose to open up [B]Paragon tier[/B], at which point they choose a [I]Paragon Path[/I] and another increase in ability scores, with further increases and Path-related powers through the next ten levels. Then, starting at 21st level they can choose to open up [B]Epic tier [/B]and choose an [I]Epic Destiny [/I]with further increases as with Paragon tier. The same with [B]Immortal tier [/B]starting at 31st level. The point is, that all of these tiers would be optional. Perhaps each would require the former; one couldn't start Epic without first having gone through Paragon and Heroic, but there is flexibility as to when these could be started, and they would be added onto the normal level development. A 25th level character in the Classic game would be a great warrior or wizard, but would still be "mundane", ability scores maxed out around 20, and no tier-specific talents, paths or destinies that accent their class and race-based powers. Or a 25th level character could be superheroic, with ability scores in the mid-to-high 20s, with special powers from the various tiers. Again, exactly [I]how [/I]this is done is not as important right now than that there is the possibility--but not the necessity--to open up higher powered tier equivalents. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Revisioning Tiers
Top