D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Tiers of Play

[Plaguescarred]

Tiers of Play
Wandering Monsters
By James Wyatt

If you’re interested in finding out more about what the R&D team is thinking about in terms of tiers for D&D Next, this week’s Wandering Monsters by James gives you some insight, plus asks you questions to see what insight you can give us!

Wht do you think?

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like the concept of Tiers of Play as presented and think it’s a useful framing device for giving DM advice.


I think characters in the apprentice tier (level 1-4) should advance faster and keep goblins from raiding villages, i think the expert tier (level 5-8) and the paragon tier (level 11-16) shoould advance slower and prevent bringands from interferring with inter-city trades and keep plotters from overthrowing the souvereign respectively. And finally, i think the epic tier (level 17-20) should advance much slower and involve keeping demons from overunning the world etc..

 

[Raith5]

I like the way that have expressed tiers here - and agree how most people have voted. I would still like the game to stretch to 30 or 36 levels though.

But I would like to see how mechanics back these tiers up. Most people think the demon problem ought to be epic tier - but surely there are going to have to be a few higher level demons than what was in the playtest, for this to be the case.

I also think spells like levitation and fly should be higher than a 3rd level spell. I would like to see them higher so we can more of the game where terrain matters. Flying just seems like a pretty powerful thing to do - the legacy of early editions be damned.

 

[Klaus]

I like the way that have expressed tiers here - and agree how most people have voted. I would still like the game to stretch to 30 or 36 levels though.

But I would like to see how mechanics back these tiers up. Most people think the demon problem ought to be epic tier - but surely there are going to have to be a few higher level demons than what was in the playtest, for this to be the case.

I also think spells like levitation and fly should be higher than a 3rd level spell. I would like to see them higher so we can more of the game where terrain matters. Flying just seems like a pretty powerful thing to do - the legacy of early editions be damned.

Interestingly, magic-users got those spells when they hit 3rd (levitate) and 5th (fly) levels. But they also used the most expensive XP chart. A rogue with the same XP would be 4th or 6th level. Now that everyone uses the same XP chart, I think those spells could be bumped up one spell level with little loss in power.

My votes aligned with the majority in most places, expect that I think 11-16th level characters should already be dealing with demons destroying the world.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

My votes aligned with the majority in most places, expect that I think 11-16th level characters should already be dealing with demons destroying the world.

That's me too.

 

[delericho]

I thought the explicitly-stated tiers of 4e were a good thing, albeit something they never really got to grips with in their published materials. As such, what JW is talking about here does feel like something of a step back - though the proof of that pudding is most definitely in the eating.

But, honestly, I'm much less concerned about the details of tiers and how they are implemented than I am with the question of high-level play in general. Both 3e and 4e have had issues with the implementation of high-level play and/or the amount of support it has received. Partly, this has been inevitable, since vastly more campaigns take place at lower levels and so that's where the lion's share of the support goes. However, those high levels are also the most difficult ones to run, and thus the ones where the DM needs most support.

It would be unfortunate if the game once again 'supported' high level play, but that it was effectively unusable, either because a lack of in-depth playtesting meant that key issues were never resolved (as in 3e), or a lack of material meant that DMs weren't supported in running those levels (as in both 3e and 4e).

 

[Minigiant]

I agree with most of the ideas around tiers. The split of the spells and adventure types seem right.

But there seems to be too much focus on magic and lower tiers. This has be the issue with D&D for a while now. The game seems to fear fleshing out high level play and no magic after level 6 or so. Then you end up with situations like previous editions where it was either a hassle get to higher tiers, start higher tiers, play those tiers, run those tiers, and pull support for those tiers.

Next has to bite the bullet and describe high level play. More than 2 sentences.

Stop the self fulfilling prophesy of high level play being bad so no one plays it and then designers ignoring high level play because no one played it.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

My votes aligned with the majority in most places, expect that I think 11-16th level characters should already be dealing with demons destroying the world.

That's me too.

And me. I see a trend here...

Cheers,

 

[Klaus]

That's me too.

I knew I liked you for a reason!

 

[Sadras]

Which one of you douchè-bags voted that epic level characters should keep the rats away from the tavern's food supplies? Monstrous Rats!