Just throwing this out there... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Just throwing this out there...

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
DM_Nel
Dec 07, 2011 20:08:56
I think a future state of D&D should consider changing the current tier structure and cut it in half. Instead of 30 levels, D&D should be 15 levels. Heroic Tier would be levels 1-5, Paragon 6-10 and Epic 11-15. I think the benefits of this would include the following:

- It would take less time to reach the Paragon & Epic Tiers, making it more likely that more game groups will actually play in those tiers.

- It would take less time for a game group to run through a full tri-tier campaign, making it more likely that they will try out other campaign settings, other game supplements, and buy more products from WotC.

- Players would have more opportunities to try out more character options if they're not stuck with one character for years in a long-standing campaign.

- DMs would actually be able to use those Epic miniatures that have been sitting on their shelves for years.

There's my idea for the week. Discuss or ignore as you please.
#2
salla
Dec 07, 2011 20:11:56 This can already been done by the DM simply doubling the rate of advancement/XP awarded. Also, it bears mentioning that, if you want a paragon-tier campaign, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from starting the game at 11th level.
#3
the_ubbergeek
Dec 08, 2011 1:36:03 I wouldn't be against a 'numbers deflation' in general in D&D...

like, max HP in 100, by example, divising numbers around (but proportionaly) to make the things more simple, les sbulky..
#4
pluisjen
Dec 08, 2011 1:40:03 I don't neccesarily think it's a bad idea to deflate the default rate. I am noticing that the default speed of plot really is a snail's pace. Making a default campaign shorter would probably help a lot towards making games with a running story as I usually have trouble filling in the entire XP budget with encounters because I really just want things to go forwards a few levels.

(And I know I could; but many people don't and it'd be an easier baseline to have shorter campaigns)

As far as numbers deflation... there isn't very far to go. If you cut all the numbers in half, you're already looking at powers that deal 1d6 damage max to compensate, and you have to cut ability scores in half, leaving you with a +2 modifier max at first level. Assuming you want to keep things equal, anyway.
#5
the_ubbergeek
Dec 08, 2011 2:38:37
I don't neccesarily think it's a bad idea to deflate the default rate. I am noticing that the default speed of plot really is a snail's pace. Making a default campaign shorter would probably help a lot towards making games with a running story as I usually have trouble filling in the entire XP budget with encounters because I really just want things to go forwards a few levels.

(And I know I could; but many people don't and it'd be an easier baseline to have shorter campaigns)

As far as numbers deflation... there isn't very far to go. If you cut all the numbers in half, you're already looking at powers that deal 1d6 damage max to compensate, and you have to cut ability scores in half, leaving you with a +2 modifier max at first level. Assuming you want to keep things equal, anyway.

I means scalling EVERYTHING down in general, smaller numbers - but the same proportions and all. Like instead of an Irish Wolfhound, a toy Poodle...
#6
pluisjen
Dec 08, 2011 2:43:00 You can't scale down the number 1, but it's used a lot. That's going to be a major problem.
#7
the_ubbergeek
Dec 08, 2011 2:54:42
You can't scale down the number 1, but it's used a lot. That's going to be a major problem.

You know what I means...
#8
pluisjen
Dec 08, 2011 2:58:06 Well no, not really. It seems that dependence on the number 1 indicates that the game is already fully scaled down. The only way to reduce the numbers further is to go into fractions (that's not going to help anyone) or to rebuild the balance in a way that requires less numbers.

But simply "scaling down" the current game isn't an option. The baseline is already at the bottom. What exactly are you planning to scale down?
#9
Seeker95
Dec 08, 2011 10:49:05 I don't think it needs scaled down (or compressed) at all. The pace works for some and not for others. For me, both have been true at different times.

For my regular campaign (I am a player), we are now level 13/14 after two years. It works just fine.

For one campaign (I was DM), we leveled up after every third encounter. We were playing a Dungeon Delves marathon game. It was a blast.

For another campaign (also DM), the party leveled up whenever I was done with the adventures I wanted to run at a given level. Sometimes it was after only one adventure. Other times it was after two or three adventures. And occasionally, it was two or three levels across a single adventure.

Disclaimer: I do not use experience points for anything other than building encounters.
#10
alitain
Dec 08, 2011 11:55:56 The is DM Nel, is that as was kinda mentioned, all your reasons for shrinking the level of the game can be done without very easily.
Less time to get to Paragon/Epic- Simply done by either starting at those tiers or else increasing exp and whatnot. One of our current games we started in heroic and are now lv 21 in only a couple months. I mean we play usually every week so I don't know how many times other get to play, but it all depends on the speed the DM wants to take things.

Less time to run through campaigns- Sure, of course if the levels were shorter they'd probably get through the campaign quicker. Then again aren't most campaigns just geared around a certain tier anyways? I'm asking because our group doesn't play with the made campaigns, so working off info from what I've heard. So that being said, thinking about it I guess it could shorten them. But if each tier is only 5 levels that isn't much time at all the play in. And all campaigns would have to be redone to shorten them and such. Same with monsters, character math, etc. I mean if the campaign only basically lasted five levels you'd have to either figure out a way to truncate experience so that way you can make the game last longer, or else it would be just a short short campaign.

Players would get to try other characters- True. Can't argue that if you can only get to lv 15, then yeah you'd be going through characters quicker. But then on the other hand the other side of the coin is that you wouldn't get to play your character as long nor maybe develop them how you like in such a short time. Two sides to the coin. Now, there are a few different characters I'd personally like to try, and sure right now our group alternates between two games, so I have two characters going. And yeah I'd like to try several other characters but at the same time I don't want to burn through all my characters in a years time and be left with no idea what to play.

I think maybe if your the player in a group talk to your DM about maybe doing quicker campaigns.  Maybe just truncating made campaigns down by cutting out some battles and such, so that way you go through things quicker. Then again, is this something your whole group is together about? Or is this just a personal thing and thought?

Personally speaking, I like things the way they are. There's plenty of time to develop a character and really get to know them. Figure out good combos of abilities with yourself or other players, find neat magical items or rituals, etc. That being said I can understand the feeling sometimes of wanting to move onto something else. I've had that a time or two, and one time it ended with me allowing my character to get killed by another player(long story). I was okay with it happening, and could've stopped it if I hadn't, but I wasn't feeling the character like I thought. Loved the character and backstory but could execute it how I liked. So I switched...sadly that character ended up dying after only a couple games...but that's beside the point. Maybe you could just see about switching characters if you get bored with the one you're playing. Depending on the DM of course.
#11
IxidorRS
Dec 08, 2011 13:06:16 Compacting this way ... how would you manage the advancement chart?

Would you get a feat at every level? Or feats on even levels and a bonus feat at each tier?
How do you distribute AEDU?
Etc.
#12
mellored
Dec 08, 2011 13:46:22
Compacting this way ... how would you manage the advancement chart?

Would you get a feat at every level? Or feats on even levels and a bonus feat at each tier?
How do you distribute AEDU?
Etc.

You don't change the level chart.

Just level up more often.
Or gain 2 levels at once.

Anyways, it's easy enough to adjust it. Though i agree they might of suggested changing the speed of the game in the DMG.
#13
Einlanzer
Dec 08, 2011 14:52:38 I'm a realistic, "small numbers" kinda guy, and I still vastly prefer the way 4e handles leveling over previous editions for a myriad of reasons. Not saying it couldn't be better, but I would fear too much compression would lead to a reduction of ways to develop your character along with a pointlessly low power-cap. That might just be a knee-jerk, though.
#14
rian_king
Dec 08, 2011 15:04:39 Oh I hope they don't change back to previous editions. It took forever it seemed to just gain a level.

That is one of the major features in DnD is leveling up.
#15
DM_Nel
Dec 08, 2011 18:03:03 Okay, I confess, the REAL reason I'd like to see D&D tiers in 5 level increments instead of 10 is power creep. I think PCs have too many feats, class features, powers and magic items by the time they reach Paragon & Epic tiers that they become unwieldy. Opponents also suffer from power creep to keep up with the PCs, making them more complicated to run. In general, DMs have to work harder to find ways to challenge PCs at higher levels. I think the game would run much smoother over a 15 level spread than a 30 level spread as there would be less room for power creep. Look at the 1e module Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Its a 10-14 level module & the PCs fight Lolth at the end. I don't dislike 30 levels of play, I just think its unnecessary to stretch D&D over such a broad range of levels.
#16
Einlanzer
Dec 08, 2011 19:55:56
Okay, I confess, the REAL reason I'd like to see D&D tiers in 5 level increments instead of 10 is power creep. I think PCs have too many feats, class features, powers and magic items by the time they reach Paragon & Epic tiers that they become unwieldy. Opponents also suffer from power creep to keep up with the PCs, making them more complicated to run. In general, DMs have to work harder to find ways to challenge PCs at higher levels. I think the game would run much smoother over a 15 level spread than a 30 level spread as there would be less room for power creep. Look at the 1e module Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Its a 10-14 level module & the PCs fight Lolth at the end. I don't dislike 30 levels of play, I just think its unnecessary to stretch D&D over such a broad range of levels.

I can empathize with this, but one of the best things about 4e is how they broke it down into 3 distinct tiers. If you don't care for the power creep, and you enjoy simuationist realism, just slow down leveling and make 10 the maximum level, or 20, and imagine the levels above that simply don't exist because they represent power levels that are unreachable by beings in your campaign world.

In most campaigns, I find level 20 to be a more natural cut-off point than level 30 anyway. That isn't to say I don't or couldn't enjoy the epic tier, but I definitely view campaigns that run at those levels as exceptional, and I kinda think that's a pretty common perspective. It's where heroes really transcend normalcy and become deific, which some people enjoy and other people are ambivalent about.
#17
guest1458177341
Dec 15, 2011 4:49:20 I'm going to say that part of the problem is that for 4E they assumed 'wandering monster' type encounters.

4E works better with a few dramatic encounters and the default assumption that if you're jumped by a gang of bandits on the road your group of heroes easily takes care of them.

I've typically set the baseline per level to 4-6 encounters by simply multiplying the XP gained by about 1.5-2.5 (depending on how quickly I want them to level).

This solves a lot of issues.

P.S. Epic tier is odd. It's quite a bit better than epic 3rd edition (which was unplayably broken) but that doesn't mean it's really very good. I'm left kind of wishing that they started the PHB as a 1-20 system, and added epic on with PHB 2.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 DM_Nel Dec 07, 2011 20:08:56	I think a future state of D&D should consider changing the current tier structure and cut it in half. Instead of 30 levels, D&D should be 15 levels. Heroic Tier would be levels 1-5, Paragon 6-10 and Epic 11-15. I think the benefits of this would include the following: - It would take less time to reach the Paragon & Epic Tiers, making it more likely that more game groups will actually play in those tiers. - It would take less time for a game group to run through a full tri-tier campaign, making it more likely that they will try out other campaign settings, other game supplements, and buy more products from WotC. - Players would have more opportunities to try out more character options if they're not stuck with one character for years in a long-standing campaign. - DMs would actually be able to use those Epic miniatures that have been sitting on their shelves for years. There's my idea for the week. Discuss or ignore as you please.
#2 salla Dec 07, 2011 20:11:56	This can already been done by the DM simply doubling the rate of advancement/XP awarded. Also, it bears mentioning that, if you want a paragon-tier campaign, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from starting the game at 11th level.
#3 the_ubbergeek Dec 08, 2011 1:36:03	I wouldn't be against a 'numbers deflation' in general in D&D... like, max HP in 100, by example, divising numbers around (but proportionaly) to make the things more simple, les sbulky..
#4 pluisjen Dec 08, 2011 1:40:03	I don't neccesarily think it's a bad idea to deflate the default rate. I am noticing that the default speed of plot really is a snail's pace. Making a default campaign shorter would probably help a lot towards making games with a running story as I usually have trouble filling in the entire XP budget with encounters because I really just want things to go forwards a few levels. (And I know I could; but many people don't and it'd be an easier baseline to have shorter campaigns) As far as numbers deflation... there isn't very far to go. If you cut all the numbers in half, you're already looking at powers that deal 1d6 damage max to compensate, and you have to cut ability scores in half, leaving you with a +2 modifier max at first level. Assuming you want to keep things equal, anyway.
#5 the_ubbergeek Dec 08, 2011 2:38:37	I don't neccesarily think it's a bad idea to deflate the default rate. I am noticing that the default speed of plot really is a snail's pace. Making a default campaign shorter would probably help a lot towards making games with a running story as I usually have trouble filling in the entire XP budget with encounters because I really just want things to go forwards a few levels. (And I know I could; but many people don't and it'd be an easier baseline to have shorter campaigns) As far as numbers deflation... there isn't very far to go. If you cut all the numbers in half, you're already looking at powers that deal 1d6 damage max to compensate, and you have to cut ability scores in half, leaving you with a +2 modifier max at first level. Assuming you want to keep things equal, anyway. I means scalling EVERYTHING down in general, smaller numbers - but the same proportions and all. Like instead of an Irish Wolfhound, a toy Poodle...
#6 pluisjen Dec 08, 2011 2:43:00	You can't scale down the number 1, but it's used a lot. That's going to be a major problem.
#7 the_ubbergeek Dec 08, 2011 2:54:42	You can't scale down the number 1, but it's used a lot. That's going to be a major problem. You know what I means...
#8 pluisjen Dec 08, 2011 2:58:06	Well no, not really. It seems that dependence on the number 1 indicates that the game is already fully scaled down. The only way to reduce the numbers further is to go into fractions (that's not going to help anyone) or to rebuild the balance in a way that requires less numbers. But simply "scaling down" the current game isn't an option. The baseline is already at the bottom. What exactly are you planning to scale down?
#9 Seeker95 Dec 08, 2011 10:49:05	I don't think it needs scaled down (or compressed) at all. The pace works for some and not for others. For me, both have been true at different times. For my regular campaign (I am a player), we are now level 13/14 after two years. It works just fine. For one campaign (I was DM), we leveled up after every third encounter. We were playing a Dungeon Delves marathon game. It was a blast. For another campaign (also DM), the party leveled up whenever I was done with the adventures I wanted to run at a given level. Sometimes it was after only one adventure. Other times it was after two or three adventures. And occasionally, it was two or three levels across a single adventure. Disclaimer: I do not use experience points for anything other than building encounters.
#10 alitain Dec 08, 2011 11:55:56	The is DM Nel, is that as was kinda mentioned, all your reasons for shrinking the level of the game can be done without very easily. Less time to get to Paragon/Epic- Simply done by either starting at those tiers or else increasing exp and whatnot. One of our current games we started in heroic and are now lv 21 in only a couple months. I mean we play usually every week so I don't know how many times other get to play, but it all depends on the speed the DM wants to take things. Less time to run through campaigns- Sure, of course if the levels were shorter they'd probably get through the campaign quicker. Then again aren't most campaigns just geared around a certain tier anyways? I'm asking because our group doesn't play with the made campaigns, so working off info from what I've heard. So that being said, thinking about it I guess it could shorten them. But if each tier is only 5 levels that isn't much time at all the play in. And all campaigns would have to be redone to shorten them and such. Same with monsters, character math, etc. I mean if the campaign only basically lasted five levels you'd have to either figure out a way to truncate experience so that way you can make the game last longer, or else it would be just a short short campaign. Players would get to try other characters- True. Can't argue that if you can only get to lv 15, then yeah you'd be going through characters quicker. But then on the other hand the other side of the coin is that you wouldn't get to play your character as long nor maybe develop them how you like in such a short time. Two sides to the coin. Now, there are a few different characters I'd personally like to try, and sure right now our group alternates between two games, so I have two characters going. And yeah I'd like to try several other characters but at the same time I don't want to burn through all my characters in a years time and be left with no idea what to play. I think maybe if your the player in a group talk to your DM about maybe doing quicker campaigns. Maybe just truncating made campaigns down by cutting out some battles and such, so that way you go through things quicker. Then again, is this something your whole group is together about? Or is this just a personal thing and thought? Personally speaking, I like things the way they are. There's plenty of time to develop a character and really get to know them. Figure out good combos of abilities with yourself or other players, find neat magical items or rituals, etc. That being said I can understand the feeling sometimes of wanting to move onto something else. I've had that a time or two, and one time it ended with me allowing my character to get killed by another player(long story). I was okay with it happening, and could've stopped it if I hadn't, but I wasn't feeling the character like I thought. Loved the character and backstory but could execute it how I liked. So I switched...sadly that character ended up dying after only a couple games...but that's beside the point. Maybe you could just see about switching characters if you get bored with the one you're playing. Depending on the DM of course.
#11 IxidorRS Dec 08, 2011 13:06:16	Compacting this way ... how would you manage the advancement chart? Would you get a feat at every level? Or feats on even levels and a bonus feat at each tier? How do you distribute AEDU? Etc.
#12 mellored Dec 08, 2011 13:46:22	Compacting this way ... how would you manage the advancement chart? Would you get a feat at every level? Or feats on even levels and a bonus feat at each tier? How do you distribute AEDU? Etc. You don't change the level chart. Just level up more often. Or gain 2 levels at once. Anyways, it's easy enough to adjust it. Though i agree they might of suggested changing the speed of the game in the DMG.
#13 Einlanzer Dec 08, 2011 14:52:38	I'm a realistic, "small numbers" kinda guy, and I still vastly prefer the way 4e handles leveling over previous editions for a myriad of reasons. Not saying it couldn't be better, but I would fear too much compression would lead to a reduction of ways to develop your character along with a pointlessly low power-cap. That might just be a knee-jerk, though.
#14 rian_king Dec 08, 2011 15:04:39	Oh I hope they don't change back to previous editions. It took forever it seemed to just gain a level. That is one of the major features in DnD is leveling up.
#15 DM_Nel Dec 08, 2011 18:03:03	Okay, I confess, the REAL reason I'd like to see D&D tiers in 5 level increments instead of 10 is power creep. I think PCs have too many feats, class features, powers and magic items by the time they reach Paragon & Epic tiers that they become unwieldy. Opponents also suffer from power creep to keep up with the PCs, making them more complicated to run. In general, DMs have to work harder to find ways to challenge PCs at higher levels. I think the game would run much smoother over a 15 level spread than a 30 level spread as there would be less room for power creep. Look at the 1e module Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Its a 10-14 level module & the PCs fight Lolth at the end. I don't dislike 30 levels of play, I just think its unnecessary to stretch D&D over such a broad range of levels.
#16 Einlanzer Dec 08, 2011 19:55:56	Okay, I confess, the REAL reason I'd like to see D&D tiers in 5 level increments instead of 10 is power creep. I think PCs have too many feats, class features, powers and magic items by the time they reach Paragon & Epic tiers that they become unwieldy. Opponents also suffer from power creep to keep up with the PCs, making them more complicated to run. In general, DMs have to work harder to find ways to challenge PCs at higher levels. I think the game would run much smoother over a 15 level spread than a 30 level spread as there would be less room for power creep. Look at the 1e module Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Its a 10-14 level module & the PCs fight Lolth at the end. I don't dislike 30 levels of play, I just think its unnecessary to stretch D&D over such a broad range of levels. I can empathize with this, but one of the best things about 4e is how they broke it down into 3 distinct tiers. If you don't care for the power creep, and you enjoy simuationist realism, just slow down leveling and make 10 the maximum level, or 20, and imagine the levels above that simply don't exist because they represent power levels that are unreachable by beings in your campaign world. In most campaigns, I find level 20 to be a more natural cut-off point than level 30 anyway. That isn't to say I don't or couldn't enjoy the epic tier, but I definitely view campaigns that run at those levels as exceptional, and I kinda think that's a pretty common perspective. It's where heroes really transcend normalcy and become deific, which some people enjoy and other people are ambivalent about.
#17 guest1458177341 Dec 15, 2011 4:49:20	I'm going to say that part of the problem is that for 4E they assumed 'wandering monster' type encounters. 4E works better with a few dramatic encounters and the default assumption that if you're jumped by a gang of bandits on the road your group of heroes easily takes care of them. I've typically set the baseline per level to 4-6 encounters by simply multiplying the XP gained by about 1.5-2.5 (depending on how quickly I want them to level). This solves a lot of issues. P.S. Epic tier is odd. It's quite a bit better than epic 3rd edition (which was unplayably broken) but that doesn't mean it's really very good. I'm left kind of wishing that they started the PHB as a 1-20 system, and added epic on with PHB 2.