D&D is a level based game and always has been. Part of that, since the beginning, has been the idea of "tiered enemies" -- that is monsters/adversaries designed for and aimed at characters of specific levels or level ranges. While some editions have made more of this than others, with rules and guidelines for "appropriate encounter levels", every edition has leaned into it.
I am curious what folks feel about tiered enemies. Specifically, i am curious what folks think about tiered enemy TYPES. For example, bandits are traditionally a low to low-mid level enemy type. You might have to contend with them and mid and low-high levels, but only in great numbers. but, generally speaking, bandits are low level enemies. in the same way, giants are traditionally mid to high level enemy types.
There have been editions where efforts were made to expand and extend the value of enemies across tiers. 3.x allowed and encouraged the Gm to add class levels to lower tier enemies to keep them competitive as the PCs gain level, and 4E (and to a much lesser extent 5E) offered different specific iterations of creatures across level ranges and tiers of play.
What do you think about tiered enemies. Do you like or prefer certain monster or enemy types to be "locked" to lower or higher tiers of play. Or do you think that enemy types should have examples that cross most or all tiers of play? How do you handle the relationship between enemy types and the tiers of play? Does it change with the version of D&D you are playing, or do you have a "standard" that cuts across editions?
One note: this discussion is inevitably going to discuss things like CR and EL and APL. I would rather we not overly worry about the accuracy of the various systems that D&D has used over time to balance encounters. that is beyond the scope of the discussion, IMO. Thanks.
I am curious what folks feel about tiered enemies. Specifically, i am curious what folks think about tiered enemy TYPES. For example, bandits are traditionally a low to low-mid level enemy type. You might have to contend with them and mid and low-high levels, but only in great numbers. but, generally speaking, bandits are low level enemies. in the same way, giants are traditionally mid to high level enemy types.
There have been editions where efforts were made to expand and extend the value of enemies across tiers. 3.x allowed and encouraged the Gm to add class levels to lower tier enemies to keep them competitive as the PCs gain level, and 4E (and to a much lesser extent 5E) offered different specific iterations of creatures across level ranges and tiers of play.
What do you think about tiered enemies. Do you like or prefer certain monster or enemy types to be "locked" to lower or higher tiers of play. Or do you think that enemy types should have examples that cross most or all tiers of play? How do you handle the relationship between enemy types and the tiers of play? Does it change with the version of D&D you are playing, or do you have a "standard" that cuts across editions?
One note: this discussion is inevitably going to discuss things like CR and EL and APL. I would rather we not overly worry about the accuracy of the various systems that D&D has used over time to balance encounters. that is beyond the scope of the discussion, IMO. Thanks.
