"Tier-restricted" campaigns as an official option?

[Chalice]

I have read about E6. And in 4e there are "tiers", yes?

So I was wondering if anyone else would be interested in there being an official option, in the 5th edition DMG perhaps, for limiting levelling if desired, to "Heroic" or "Paragon" only? Those being two distinct options, that is, and of course, I mean as they would apply to the system of 5e.

One of the reasons I ask is that, for me, all characters in D&D become increasingly superhuman as levels increase - this is a feature of the game since earlier editions, and yes, I do consider it a feature, not a bug. Hopefully, this tradition continues. But I see some concern among a number of GMs (players, too?) that the new Fighter will be "supernatural" in whatever ways. If said "supernatural" aspects were a consequence of levelling beyond, say, "the Heroic tier" or similar, would an official E6-like option not make sense, as a means of keeping a certain feel to the game?

Plus, of course, some folks simply prefer that feel anyway. And if there were two possible stages of cutoff (the other stopping prior to "Epic"), it would also provide a nice middle ground, for any who felt that was the "sweet spot", as it were.

Another form of modularity to consider?

 

[the Jester]

I think it would be a good idea to have mechanisms by which a group could decide for themselves what tier they want to adventure in, independent of level and dependent on playstyle.

In other words, "paragon" elements- plane travel, save the country level adventures, etc- need not occur at any particular level; rather, they are a playstyle choice.

 

[Chalice]

Okay. I was meaning more in line with E6's approach - ways for characters to progress (little ways), beyond a given cutoff point (e.g., level 10).

Because, surely, the very abilities of high level characters themselves, will allow/encourage certain styles of play. Rather hard to avoid planar stuff, for example, when planar spells/abilities are abundant. And so on.

And only in an extremely high-powered campaign setting would it make sense for high level characters not to be extremely powerful relative to the norm, and in fact, be capable of "saving the world" and more.

 

[Texicles]

This was posted a few days, maybe a week, ago. Can't remember who posted it, but I read it and it was... awe-inspiring. It's long, but well worth a thorough read. [EDIT: It was Kamikaze Midget, so now you should really feel compelled to read it]

Tiers As Treasure - Jacob's Personal Wiki

I've already decided, if something similar to this isn't officially implemented, I'm going to homebrew it.

 

[Li Shenron]

So I was wondering if anyone else would be interested in there being an official option, in the 5th edition DMG perhaps, for limiting levelling if desired, to "Heroic" or "Paragon" only? Those being two distinct options, that is, and of course, I mean as they would apply to the system of 5e.

Honestly not.

I am not against the idea of doing something like that, but I am against having an "official" option as you suggest, because I believe that for a group it would be fine to stop at level 6, for another at level 10, another 15... any level is a good level to stop, maybe because the group identifies that at a specific level you start getting spells which enable some key power e.g. teleportation, a classic enabler that many gaming groups don't want to deal with.

So I don't want an "official" rules that tells me where to stop if I want to stop.

OTOH, it would certainly be good to see a paragraph in the DMG explaining why a gaming group may want to stop progression at some level, and how to continue from there, e.g. you stop level progression but do you still hand out treasures, more known spells, and bonus feats?

 

[delericho]

I have read about E6. And in 4e there are "tiers", yes?

So I was wondering if anyone else would be interested in there being an official option, in the 5th edition DMG perhaps, for limiting levelling if desired, to "Heroic" or "Paragon" only? Those being two distinct options, that is, and of course, I mean as they would apply to the system of 5e.

In essence, I agree that that's a good thing. The game should provide easy mechanisms for creating characters at levels higher than 1st (whether that allows easy generation at every level, at the start of each tier, or at fixed start points). And that game should provide easy mechanisms for the group to apply a cut-off point (again, whether this means doing an E6-like Heroic tier option and an E6-like Paragon tier option, or whether it just allows for the group to apply their own cut-off at any level).

But it's certainly true that different groups prefer different styles of play - some like the low-level grubbing around for coppers, some like heroic adventures, some like crazy epic quests. And the level system provides easy means to achieve all of these.

It would be good if the game could then support jumping in at the point where it gets fun for you, and also doesn't mandate that just because you've reached a certain number of XP, you have to move to the next tier and stop having fun.

 

[Yora]

In 3rd and 4th Edition, it certainly would have been a good idea to have it mentioned in a chapter for campaign planning, that the DM could consider limiting the level range to create certain types of environments and atmosphere, and explain how things change.
The 3rd Ed. DMG did actually have a short section mentining the changing dynamics of Low-level, Mid-level, and High-level gameplay, but does not go into the subject of how the existance or nonexistance of monsters and NPCs of certain power levels affects the dynamics of the whole world.

And I think 4th Edition went in the right direction with the three tiers. If I had run 4th Ed. games, I would have said plain out from the start "this campaign will be Low-Level Tier only".

However, with 5th Edition I am not actually sure if this will be much of an issue. With the power curve significantly pulled down, the differences might not be so great anymore. I guess one could still add a short section on world-building that mentions the existance of powerful creatures and the availability of high level magic, but I don't think it's as important as it would have been in earlier editions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I had an idea for Tiers of play, where each tier would be level 1-10. 'Stacking' them to from higher levels would be an option, but you could also have one level 1-10 campaign entirely within one tier. It's on the wizard's board:

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

?

I don't quite understand why you need rules for this. Why can't a group decide to start at whatever level they want, and campaign to whatever level they want? Control XP delivery to speed up or slow down; stop awarding XP if you want to stay at a particular level.

 

[Texicles]

I don't quite understand why you need rules for this. Why can't a group decide to start at whatever level they want, and campaign to whatever level they want? Control XP delivery to speed up or slow down; stop awarding XP if you want to stay at a particular level.

You don't actually need any special rules to start at a particular level. That process is pretty simple.

The real trick is in "stopping" the leveling process. You're correct that the easiest solution is to just stop with the XP, and players could continue playing at a set level ad infinitum. However, in a practical sense, most players would like to continue to be rewarded with advancement for continued play, even if they prefer not to become godlike.

I believe the heart of the OP's question about whether people think that there should be some officially supported rule set to allow continued play and (though not expressly stated) power advancement (but not necessarily the numerical bonuses normally associated with leveling).

I'll reiterate what I said earlier. Yes, I'd like to see this in an official capacity, preferably in the DMG, and double-preferably, looking like Kamikaze Midget's idea that I linked.