"Tiers" on 5e. Only I really hated it?

[Cryomancer]

On 3.5e and previous editions, the power growth was more linear since they established that lv 1 is a guy who learned a class few moments ago and is completely novice. 20 is the peak of humanity and anything above 20, superhuman, levels was more akin to "attributes". 5e is different. The idea of tiers was bought by 4e with "local heroes", "heroes of the realm", "heroes of the country" and "heroes o the world". Which IMO makes no sense. Lv 11 in Neverwinter an lv 11 in the lower underdark are two completely different things in therm of character influence. Hell, Karsus on 2e was a lv 42 caster[1] and could't save his kingdom. Lv 30+ was not uncommon for the archwizards of the Netheril empire and epic levels was also relative common. Most Sorcerer Kings on Dark Sun, you can't put a party of "hero of the world" against then. Mainly Borys.

You can see on the boo "domains of dread" that Strahd was a 16th level necromancer on 2e[2] and the book uses accomplished to describe him, before he become a Dark Lord, the same book uses "mediocre skill" to describe him as a lv 5 human.
Mechanic wise, on previous editions, Warlocks of 10th level could only use lesser and least invocations[3]. Shadowcasters only become initiate into the dark mysteries/dark arts at lv 7 [4] Mastery can only be obtained at lv 13. And on 2e, Paladins only become able to cast spells at v 9. Mages specialized in necromancy only become able to raise skeletons at lv 9.[5] Low level chars was meant to be weaklings, not "heroes"


It not only severely limited the campaigns but also bought "power spikes" instead of a more linear progression. You gain HUGE amount of powers on lv 5, 11 and 17. And as consequences, other levels become less impactfull.

sources :
1 - Netheril: Empire of Magic(2e)
2 - Domains of Dread(2e)
3 - Complete arcane(3.5e)
4 - Tome of Magic(3.5e)
5 - 2e PHB revised

 

[Thac0]

Tiers work relatively well in actual tabletop play, since they divide the campaign into natural arcs basically.
The power gain after 5 is so high that you go from slaying rats in a basement to fighting orc chieftains and hunting Manticores.
The power gain after 11 is so high it basically forces you into the end game of your campain, since even a god damn kraken can be killed by a full lvl 11 party already.

There is just the problem that there is not really enough content for the 12-16 tier, and almost no epic content for level 17+

Overall I am not opposed to the squishing of the levels into fewer levels. A lot of players do not really think ahead on how to build their characters, and a level up grinds the game to a halt while everyone pulls out their books. Giving them more rarely and at the end of sessions makes sense.

It is bad for video games tho, since leveling up is the best part of rpgs.

 

[Cryomancer]

The power gain after 5 is so high that you go from slaying rats in a basement to fighting orc chieftains and hunting Manticores.

Well, Manticore CR is just 3.

since even a god damn kraken can be killed by a full lvl 11 party already.

That is IMO a flaw. Is near impossible to kill high CR creatures as a mid level party on previous editions.

PS : Krakens has too much hp and deals to little damage. 472 is ludicrou high. On Pathfinder and 3.5e, it had about 290( 20d10+180 )

enough content for the 12-16 tier, and almost no epic content for level 17+

Yep. Seems that 5e D&D world is far weaker than pre spelllplague world...

And there aren't much high level modules for 5e. Pathfinder in other hands, most modules end in lv 17.

 

[NJClaw]

The idea of tiers was bought by 4e with "local heroes", "heroes of the realm", "heroes of the country" and "heroes o the world". Which IMO makes no sense.

As I already told you in another thread, tiers of play weren't introduced neither by 5E nor 4E, but were present since D&D BECMI, which takes its name from the five tiers of play: Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortals. And they were also implicitly present in 3.x.

Also:

On 3.5e [...], the power growth was more linear

The power growth may have been linear for warriors, but it has always been quadratic for casters, due to how the magic system works. Casters gain new spells every other level, and those spells always have bigger and more magnificent effects that, for their own nature, can't simply grow linearly. A fighter goes from level 6 to level 7 and he gets a +1 to hit, a wizard goes from level 6 to level 7 and he learns to instantly teleport anywhere on the planet.

That is IMO a flaw. Is near impossible to kill high CR creatures as a mid level party on previous editions.

What are you talking about? I've played a highly optimized 3.x campaign, and 9th-level characters were able to easily kill CR 20+ monsters. I specifically remember an encounter they faced at level 11, where they beat a tarrasque (CR 20) that had eaten a portal which spawned 1d4 balor (also CR 20) each round.

 

[Cryomancer]

Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortals. And they were also implicitly present in 3.x.

Source?

Anyway, "tiers" on basic, expert, etc is not my critique, my critique is the BS "local heroes" to "heroes of the realm" with HUGE spikes in power.

Going from lv 4 to 5 or 10 to 11 on 5e arguably impacts more than going from 1 to 4 or 6 to 10 and it is IMO silly.

A fighter goes from level 6 to level 7 and he gets a +1 to hit, a wizard goes from level 6 to level 7 and he learns to instantly teleport anywhere on the planet.

Wrong, completely wrong. A wizard only become able to learn tier 4 spells and cast one per day. And greater teleport is a 7th tier spell which is a high level magic.

I've played a highly optimized 3.x campaign, and 9th-level characters were able to easily kill CR 20+ monsters. I specifically remember an encounter they faced at level 11, where they beat a tarrasque (CR 20) that had eaten a portal which spawned 1d4 balor (also CR 20) each round.

Yep. Using min max pun pun builds 3.5e is broken...

 

[NJClaw]

Source?

Of what?

Wrong, completely wrong. A wizard only become able to learn tier 4 spells and cast one per day. And greater teleport is a 7th tier spell which is a high level magic.

Come on. Teleport is a 4th level spell. It doesn't let you teleport ANYWHERE on the planet, but you get the gist of it.

 

[Cryomancer]

Of what?

Of the spikes on previous editions.

Come on. Teleport is a 4th level spell. It doesn't let you teleport ANYWHERE on the planet, but you get the gist of it.

A mage also needs to find a scroll(2e), but yes, Everyone knows that martial classes are lackluter on D&D. However, making spells lilke finger of death unable to kill mid level enemies is not a solution.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

For me best system is the original system.

• Level 1 are veterans. They are not peasant with a class title. They are veterans. They can do shit.
• Level 4 are heroes.
• Level 8 are superheroes (not in the Marvel sense, but in the sense of super-hero).
• Level 9+ are lords. The higher you are, the bigger/higher the lordship.
• For magic users, you are a "Wizard" at level 11. You have no pair from there, considering next level you pick up a 6th level spell.
• For clerics, you are a patriarch (i.e. leader of a church) at level 9.

I like B/X, but I think that the CMI portion of BECMI is completely retarded. I think characters at a certain level are completely retarded too. The example you give of a level 42 spellcaster makes absolutely no sense and I would never play this or have any of those NPCs in my campaign no matter the system.

EDIT: To adress the specifics of power spike, I think power spikes are inherent in D&D for various reasons. They were there in OD&D (there is a mountain of power spike from being a non-hero to a hero with regards to Chainmail), especially with regards to spellcasters (getting a new level of spell available is always impressive).

But I do agree that 5th ed. has some "empty" level and you just go with the motion. I had a level 14 character in a campaign and TBH I didn't really cared about level-up at some point.

 

[NJClaw]

Of the spikes on previous editions.

BECMI literally has a different book for each tier of play (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortals), and each tier plays completely differently.

3.x doesn't have a codified version of its tiers of play, but it's commonly accepted in the community that the game plays very differently at levels 1-6, 7-14, 15-20, and 20+. Just consider the fact that a widespread variant of the edition (E6) stops the progression of characters at level 6, in order to never reach the higher tiers and have a more balanced game.

 

[Thac0]

Also there is this:
https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Level_title

Level titles were pretty much tiered. Chainmail, the predecessor game, apparently had tiers aswell.
The question is if the tier break is too hard in 5e as opposed to older DnD, not if it fits for DnD.

 

[Cryomancer]

This seems more akin to titles than "tiers", just my opinion. Grimoire: Heralds of the Winged Exemplar has it and high level necromancers are called "hell baron"