Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6256797" data-attributes="member: 22424">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).</blockquote>