# Split the Players Handbook into two books: Lower Tiers and Upper Tiers



## Yaarel (Aug 26, 2022)

Divide the 5e Players Handbook into two separate books:
• Lower-Tier (LT) Players Handbook
• Upper-Tier (UT) Players Handbook



I advocate four-level tiers.

Levels: The Lower Tiers
1-4: *Student *(apprentice, page) ≈ Basic
5-8: *Professional *(journeyer, squire; adventurer) ≈ Expert
9-12: *Master *(guildmaster, knight) ≈ 1e Name Level ≈ Champion

The LT Players Handbook includes a full Master tier. It represents the 1e name levels, when the character attracts followers and builds an institution, such as a fortress, wizard school, religious community, paladin order, thieves guild, and so on. The player should have freedom to design the legacy that the character builds. The legacy may or may not relate to the background at level 1, but it is nice when it does.

Likely, many campaigns end with the Professional tier at level 8.

But there are campaigns that press on for a bit longer before retiring their characters, and the Master tier is for them to leave their mark in the world. When the players create new characters, they can be family members of their previous characters, or pages in the fortress of the Knight, or apprentices in the school of the Wizard.

The Master tier enriches the D&D experience even for those whose campaigns only use the Lower-Tier Players Handbook.



The Upper-Tier Players Handbook is a separate book for a more superheroish D&D. The characters are a community of world-shakers, archwizards and other grandmasters. Epic is an option that the DMs Guide already touches on, and the upper-tiers can advance into it.

Levels: The Upper Tiers
13-16: *Grandmaster *(Archwizard, Noble/Lord/Lady) ≈ Master
17-20: *Legend* ≈ Immortal
21-24: *Epic*

The Grandmaster deals with other Grandmasters, whether as allies or rivals, striving to reshape the world. This is a superhero. Or a League of Superheroes battling against a League of Supervillains.

The characters step out of a medievalesque world into a realm of sorcery and magic, and power. The institution that the character built during the earlier 9-12 Master tier now influences the fate of the nation and world.

At level 13, Grandmaster Fighters choose a magic weapon, or armor, or other item, as part of their Fighter class feature, to use magical effects, within this new tier of magic.

Next, the Legend tier gains some form of immortality. Compare 4e. The character can become an archfey, a lich, a demigod, or whatever. Some means of living forever.

Next, the Epic tier acquires a "portfolio", a means to personally influence some aspect of the cosmos itself. "Boons" replace class features when leveling in the epic tier. A boon is a superpowerful feat. The boon may or may not relate to the class, depending on which boon the player chooses.



Where the Players Handbook divides to a LT book and an UT book, likewise, there is a LT Monster Manual and an UT Monster Manual.

The LT books focus on the D&D experience that most campaigns explore. The UT books explore the higher levels that impact the multiverse.

As separate books, the upper tiers are more than an afterthought. The designers think about how high level characters function at these higher tiers. Mechanically, the UT rules finetune balance and the health of the gaming engine with the new UT stresses. Narratively, the UT rules focus on how these powerful characters impact the world and reshape it. Now by means of their actions, players are becoming worldbuilders. The DM is no longer the creator alone. The players are in partnership to reshape and create the setting and its world.


----------



## Rune (Aug 26, 2022)

I’d be okay with this. With a soft-cover option. Preferably digest-sized.


----------



## The Glen (Aug 26, 2022)

So like BECMI?


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 26, 2022)

The Glen said:


> So like BECMI?



BEC + MII


----------



## the Jester (Aug 26, 2022)

This sounds like a great way to ensure the high levels get even less support. No thank you.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 26, 2022)

the Jester said:


> This sounds like a great way to ensure the high levels get even less support. No thank you.




Can they have many fewer folks playing them?  I wonder if a book totally about the high level PCs and expanding what's there for them would encourage more folks to try them out.


----------



## Rune (Aug 26, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Can they have many fewer folks playing them?  I wonder if a book totally about the high level PCs and expanding what's there for them would encourage more folks to try them out.



Hasn’t worked in any previous edition.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 26, 2022)

Rune said:


> Hasn’t worked in any previous edition.



Getting people to play high levels at all? Or getting them to do it by having special books for it in particular?


----------



## Rune (Aug 26, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Getting people to play high levels at all? Or getting them to do it by having special books for it in particular?



First one, then the other.


----------



## Rune (Aug 26, 2022)

Traditionally (and currently), the main question about high-level play in D&D is:

_Are there so few high-level players because those tiers are poorly supported, or are those tiers poorly supported because there are so few players of them?_

The answer is:_ Yes. _


----------



## the Jester (Aug 26, 2022)

Rune said:


> Hasn’t worked in any previous edition.




It might have, if any edition had ever offered significant support for high level play- adventures, especially.

Seems like we're lucky to get two or three level 14+ adventures in any edition.


----------



## delericho (Aug 26, 2022)

I can just about see them stripping out levels 16+ from the PHB (to free up space for other things). But if they do that, my fear is that those upper levels will be essentially _gone_, never to be seen again - they may well make noises about a high level support book, but given the numbers playing at those levels I suspect it would quickly fall by the wayside.


----------



## Art Waring (Aug 26, 2022)

While not a bad idea, the thought of them breaking up the books any more means people will have to buy more books if they want their characters to progress to high levels.

Besides, in 3e they printed the epic handbook and it wasn't good at all (numbers way out there). It saw no use at all at any tables I played.

Pathfinder 1e had the Mythic Adventures book, but that wasnt epic level, more like "elite" PC's that can start at 1st level with a few mythic powers, with options for mythic play at all levels.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 26, 2022)

Honestly, WotC could get away with publishing just the first book and no one would notice. And the game would likely be better for it.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 26, 2022)

I would probably go from 1-10 and 11-20 rather than 1-12 and 13-24 to retain backwards compatibility, but I'm in favor of it.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 27, 2022)

I could see the 1-10/11-20 break-down, but something occurred to me and maybe I am just off:

People don't enjoy playing 11-20 not because there isn't support for it, but because getting to the higher levels is the fun part.

IME, I've never really enjoyed playing high-level PCs (other than a one-shot or short adventure).


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 27, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> I would probably go from 1-10 and 11-20 rather than 1-12 and 13-24 to retain backwards compatibility, but I'm in favor of it.



It's also an easier chunk for new players to intuit: first half and second half.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 27, 2022)

delericho said:


> I can just about see them stripping out levels 16+ from the PHB (to free up space for other things). But if they do that, my fear is that those upper levels will be essentially _gone_, never to be seen again - they may well make noises about a high level support book, but given the numbers playing at those levels I suspect it would quickly fall by the wayside.



Where you write "fear" I think "hope"


----------



## clearstream (Aug 27, 2022)

Art Waring said:


> While not a bad idea, the thought of them breaking up the books any more means people will have to buy more books if they want their characters to progress to high levels.
> 
> Besides, in 3e they printed the epic handbook and it wasn't good at all (numbers way out there). It saw no use at all at any tables I played.
> 
> Pathfinder 1e had the Mythic Adventures book, but that wasnt epic level, more like "elite" PC's that can start at 1st level with a few mythic powers, with options for mythic play at all levels.



They could include in the high tier book rules for generating characters at high tier.


----------



## Art Waring (Aug 27, 2022)

clearstream said:


> They could include in the high tier book rules for generating characters at high tier.



They absolutely could. 

I was more referring to the fact that the math breaks down at higher levels, especially epic levels.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 27, 2022)

Art Waring said:


> They absolutely could.
> 
> I was more referring to the fact that the math breaks down at higher levels, especially epic levels.



That's true.

Perhaps if they stop the PHB somewhere from 9-12, they could have the higher tier book use a different mathematical progression. Covering the disjunction with a boon that transitions characters to the upper tier.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 27, 2022)

clearstream said:


> That's true.
> 
> Perhaps if they stop the PHB somewhere from 9-12, they could have the higher tier book use a different mathematical progression. Covering the disjunction with a boon that transitions characters to the upper tier.



Why not get rid of levels entirely by that point?

The point of levels is that it changes how you approach gameplay, all this homogenization makes me feel as though people don’t actually want things to change.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 27, 2022)

the Jester said:


> This sounds like a great way to ensure the high levels get even less support.





the Jester said:


> It might have, if any edition had ever offered significant support for high level play- adventures, especially.



The proposal to divide the Players Handbook between Lower Tiers and Upper Tiers has several advantages.

Having a Players Handbook that only attends to levels 1 to 12 appeals to players who find the upper tiers less manageable or less grounded. This low-level appeal is legitimate as a gaming-style preference.

There are also practical considerations. Statistically, most 5e games end roughly around level 8. So a separate book that ensures that these levels are solid, thematically and mechanically, is financially sound. Removing the space for levels 13 up (and spell slots 7 and up) allows more room to focus on levels 1 to 12, and to get its flavors and mechanics diverse and robust.

The low tiers include levels 9 to 12, as a four-level Master tier. Even tho games now conclude by 8, the Master tier is an inviting, limited, manageable, temptation to press on a bit longer. This is when player characters leave their mark in the world, so future characters can benefit narratively (and perhaps mechanically) from the accomplishments of previous characters. The Master tier enriches the D&D experience and encourages immersion in the fictive world.

The levels of the Master tier correlate with the old school "name levels" of AD&D, including the building of institutions and the formation of communities. Where the old school gaming engine failed from levels 13 and up (and started going awry 9 to 12), the characters beyond 12 were relatively rare. Together, the Student, Professional, and Master tiers − levels 1 to 12 − also recall the nostalgia for most peoples experiences of old school D&D.

A Low Tier Players Handbook, for levels 1 to 12, will be a solid product and will sell well.



At the same time, I like high level characters. I want a dedicated Upper Tier Players Handbook that will make levels 13 into epic more enjoyable.

The situation right now is, the upper tier is an afterthought. Possibly it is fair to say there is zero support for upper tier characters. The high levels are little more than cut-and-paste from previous editions, while deleting features from them that were truly disruptive to gameplay. There seems little or no active support. For example, for spellcasters who specialize in Plant themes, there are no Plant spells at slots 7 and higher. Similarly for other spell themes. Many high level spells are terrible. A separate book forces designers to consider if a spell really is worthwhile alongside the other spells in the same slot. Relatedly, Fighter players feel their characters are inadequate at these levels. So, while 5e has some kind of echo from previous editions, there is little or no actual support.

Right now, if one simply transfers upper tier content from the current Players Handbook to a separate book, that separate book would be unpublishable. It is anemic at best with glaring omissions and doubtful game engine balance. Moreover, the "small town" flavor of the lower tiers makes less sense in the upper tiers. The upper tiers are about nations, populations, planets, and planes.

(Upper tier is cosmic. It is probably worthwhile to write "level 25" on ones character sheet, in the sense of having completed level 24. But what does level 25 mean? At this point, the powers of such a character are little different from being a DM.)

Nowhere does the current Players Handbook instruct the players and the DM how to navigate the adventures at this scale of magnitude.

If the Upper Tier Players Handbook exists at all, it forces the 5e designers to support these levels, both conceptually, mechanically, and with appropriate options at each level.

The UT Players Handbook will sell well enough. It will be core, and at the least the completionists will buy it. But if it turns out to be fun, others will buy it too.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 27, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> Why not get rid of levels entirely by that point?



Mostly because of high level spells.

The spell system remains swingy in 5e, but can serve as a stable metric for the game engine at high levels. The trick is to get spell-less classes to keep up with the capabilities at these high levels.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 27, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Mostly because of high level spells.
> 
> The spell system remains swingy in 5e, but can serve as a stable metric for the game engine at high levels. The trick is to get spell-less classes to keep up with the capabilities at these high levels.



Villains and monsters don’t even need to have levels to begin with. It’s purely for the sake of players.

If the only thing high level is used for is powerful spells, then it can just be an ability that’s added onto a specific creature.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Aug 27, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> People don't enjoy playing 11-20 not because there isn't support for it, but because getting to the higher levels is the fun part.



This is truth. And it takes time to get there. People don't play 11-20 because one of the core conceits of the game is zero to hero. 11-20 is a different game.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 28, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> If the Upper Tier Players Handbook exists at all, it forces the 5e designers to support these levels, both conceptually, mechanically, and with appropriate options at each level.



It forces nothing of the kind. 3e had the Epic Level Handbook, and it was hardly ever referred to after it was published. I think there was one epic adventure published in the entire 3e era, and it was in Dungeon. There may be more I'm unaware of, but, well, if there are, there certainly aren't many.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 28, 2022)

Eyes of Nine said:


> This is truth. And it takes time to get there. People don't play 11-20 because one of the core conceits of the game is zero to hero. 11-20 is a different game.



That is a great way of stating it as well!

When you are level 11, you _ARE_ the hero, so IMO that part of your journey is over.

It is like when people ask about when your PC finally reaches "concept level". Many IME find that around tier 2, when your second subclass feature is gained typically.

That is why I like using tier 3 and 4 characters for short adventures and one-offs, not for campaigns.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 28, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> That is a great way of stating it as well!
> 
> When you are level 11, you _ARE_ the hero, so IMO that part of your journey is over.
> 
> ...



That feels dumb to me since 11 is clearly presented as “mid level”. It’s like calling a middle schooler a genius.

THE hero should be max level. The only reason the party succeeded was because it was a party but that particular character was nothing to write home about.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> That feels dumb to me since 11 is clearly presented as “mid level”.



And yet most games don't even reach that level, let alone going past it? So, how is 11th level "mid level" and where is it presented that way?

Even WotC identifies tier 1 as Local "Heroes" and tier 2 as Regional "Heroes", while in tiers 3 and 4 PCs become "Masters of ...".

You are clearly beyond "hero" by tier 3 IMO. YMMV, it appears.   



d24454_modern said:


> The only reason the party succeeded was because it was a party but that particular character was nothing to write home about.



Yeah, ok, I think your views are seriously distorted, but hey--experiences differ so I suppose if that is your experience, so be it.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 28, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> And yet most games don't even reach that level, let alone going past it? So, how is 11th level "mid level" and where is it presented that way?
> 
> Even WotC identifies tier 1 as Local "Heroes" and tier 2 as Regional "Heroes", while in tiers 3 and 4 PCs become "Masters of ...".
> 
> ...



It reads like Alexander the Great’s accomplishments. It seems big because the scope is so limited.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> It reads like Alexander the Great’s accomplishments. It seems big because the scope is so limited.



Wait. Are you honestly saying that Alexander the Great's accomplishments weren't--well, great?


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 28, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> Wait. Are you honestly saying that Alexander the Great's accomplishments weren't--well, great?



I can’t tell if this is a joke or not, so I’m gonna answer honestly and say “No”. Most people in the world at the time hadn’t even heard of him. 

Of course we only care about Northern Eurasia. Nowhere else really matters./s


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 28, 2022)

the Jester said:


> It forces nothing of the kind. 3e had the Epic Level Handbook, and it was hardly ever referred to after it was published. I think there was one epic adventure published in the entire 3e era, and it was in Dungeon. There may be more I'm unaware of, but, well, if there are, there certainly aren't many.



The 3e Epic Level Handbook for 3e levels 21 on up was doomed from the start because the 3e game engine collapsed long before these levels.

In 3e, the sweet spot, where the game engine mechanics worked well is roughly level 9: playable at tiers 5-8, and 9-12, but straining during 13-16, and less playable at 17-20. So by the time the Epic Level 21 becomes usable, few if any campaigns exist at those levels.

Similarly, 1e and 2e have the sweet spot roughly at level 7, and working well enough at 5-8, but straining at 9-12, and less playable from 13 and up.

4e intentionally prolongs the sweet spot across 5-8, 9-12, plus 13-16. Its epic levels at 21 on up are playable.

Note, the four-level "Master" tier at 9-12 are distinctive, have many popular adventures for these levels across editions, and feel different from the 5-8 tier before it and the 13-16 tier after it.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 28, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The 3e Epic Level Handbook for levels 21 on up was doomed from the start because the 3e game engine collapsed long before these levels.
> 
> In 3e, the sweet spot, where the game engine mechanics worked well is roughly level 9: playable at tiers 5-8, and 9-12, but straining during 13-16, and less playable at 17-20. So by the time the Epic Level 21 becomes usable, few if any campaigns exist at those levels.
> 
> ...



Define “collapse”. To me it reminds me of people’s complaints about Pokémon Legends: Arceus where a lot of players couldn’t adjust to the new battle system.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> I can’t tell if this is a joke or not, so I’m gonna answer honestly and say “No”. Most people in the world at the time hadn’t even heard of him.
> 
> Of course we only care about Northern Eurasia. Nowhere else really matters./s



At this point, you really don't seem to have a clue what you are even talking about, so conversation over. Bye.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 28, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The 3e Epic Level Handbook for 3e levels 21 on up was doomed from the start because the 3e game engine collapsed long before these levels.



That's rather beside the point, though.

My 3e epic group made it to the mid-30s. The game was still fun- in fact, it was awesome, and allowed insane crazy stuff to happen. It was a blast.



Yaarel said:


> In 3e, the sweet spot, where the game engine mechanics worked well is roughly level 9: playable at tiers 5-8, and 9-12, but straining during 13-16, and less playable at 17-20. So by the time the Epic Level 21 becomes usable, few if any campaigns exist at those levels.



Less balanced, a lot more work, but still playable, I assure you, because we did it. 

I totally agree that there were problems with 3e at high levels, but those were systemic issues that ran through the whole game. And I also agree that few campaigns exist at the highest levels. But imagine how many there might be if WotC released an actual GOOD adventure that ran from, say, levels 8 to epic. A good adventure inspires dms and can show them the range of possibilities in the high levels.


Yaarel said:


> Similarly, 1e and 2e have the sweet spot roughly at level 7, and working well enough at 5-8, but straining at 9-12, and less playable from 13 and up.



Here, I have to strongly disagree. We had pcs in 1e up to about 37th level eventually, which were largely converted straight to 2e (absent players excepted) when it came out. I never found high level 1e or 2e to strain, like you describe. 

Heck, you had to get to name level to even get your followers!



Yaarel said:


> 4e intentionally prolongs the sweet spot across 5-8, 9-12, plus 13-16. Its epic levels at 21 on up are playable.



Now here we agree. I'd love to see OneD&D take a lot from 4e epic stuff. Epic destinies were amazing.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> Define “collapse”. To me it reminds me of people’s complaints about Pokémon Legends: Arceus where a lot of players couldn’t adjust to the new battle system.



4e was the first D&D edition to understand how the ecology of the game engine works.

Earlier editions, 1e-2e and 3e, would treat different kinds of mechanics as if different kinds of flavor. Thus the mechanics become imbalanced at different levels. The ad-hoc incompatible mechanics riddle the earlier editions, choking their game engines until they can no longer function as a gaming system.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 28, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> Wait. Are you honestly saying that Alexander the Great's accomplishments weren't--well, great?



By the way, there is a difference between a historically accurate Alexander the Great who is a successful military tactician versus a mythologically accurate Alexander the Great who is a Greek demigod.

The mythological Alexander is an excellent example for the Upper Tier Players Handbook. Having become king by the end of the lower tiers, he now seeks to change the known world. Eventually gaining demigod status at 17-20 and epic status at 21-24.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 28, 2022)

the Jester said:


> That's rather beside the point, though.
> 
> My 3e epic group made it to the mid-30s. The game was still fun- in fact, it was awesome, and allowed insane crazy stuff to happen. It was a blast.
> 
> ...



Indeed, the "crazy" high levels are awesome! That is why I like high level characters.

But the DM needs to do pretty much all of the work.

3e and earlier never _supported_ the high levels well.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 28, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> By the way, there is a difference between a historically accurate Alexander the Great who is a successful military tactician versus a mythologically accurate Alexander the Great who is a Greek demigod.
> 
> The mythological Alexander is an excellent example for the Upper Tier Players Handbook. Having become king by the end of the lower tiers, he now seeks to change the known world. Eventually gaining demigod status at 16-20 and epic status at 21-24.



I don’t know why people assume all you have to do to become a god is get to level 21. Real Demigods are way stronger than that.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 28, 2022)

the Jester said:


> I never found high level 1e or 2e to strain, like you describe.



In 1e-2e, the inferiority of the Wizard (Magic-User) at the 1-4 tier, and the superiority of the Wizard at the 13-16 tier, are an example of "strain". 

Different kinds of mechanics doing different kinds of things compared less favorably at different levels.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 28, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> In 1e-2e, the inferiority of the Wizard (Magic-User) at the 1-4 tier, and the superiority of the Wizard at the 13-16 tier, are an example of "strain".
> 
> Different kinds of mechanics doing different kinds of things compared less favorably at different levels.



That's the nature of 1e, though- it's very intentional. I guess you can call that strain if you want to. I never found it ruinous; a magic-user player, like a thief player, generally knew what they were in for and was ready for it. And remember, a high level magic-user in 1e is going to have on the order of 25-40 hit points. They're extremely vulnerable even when very high level. I think my 37th level MU had around 50 hit points. Remember, it's +1 hp per level above 11, and a max Con bonus of +2 for non-fighters.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> I don’t know people assume all you have to do to become a god is get to level 21. Real Demigods are way stronger than that.



Becoming a god that gains polytheistic worshipers is only one of the possible ways of gaining immortality at level 17. One might become an archfey, a lich, an elemental, a construct, a supersoldier: 4e has many epic destinies to choose from. 5e can add more.

Lolth exemplifies an upper tier character. Something like at level 17 she became a demon, and at level 21 she gained the Spider domain in her "portfolio". At later level, her portfolio acquires the Trickery domain, which comes with the flavor of entangling victims within her web of lies. The community that she formed during the low tiers expanded as she further transformed it during higher tiers. Like how some spider hatchlings eat each other, her treacherous drow followers kill each other so only the strong survive.

Basic D&D has the religiously agnostic mechanic of becoming an "immortal". This is a being of cosmic power. Cultures may or may not perceive such a being as a "god". It could be a powerful nature being or like Star Trek Q or so on.

An immortal at tiers 17-20 and 21-24 can exist in the Eberron setting. Different communities would perceive such a character differently, from different cultural perspectives.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 28, 2022)

I greatly endorse this plan. 

It makes it much easier to understand that low level and high level games are different animals. It keeps three nice tiers per that have a nice identity to each.

Heck you could call the first book "Dungeons & Dragons" and the second one "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" - and it doesn't have to be just the PHB. You could do the standard 3 core books for each. Even put them both into slipcase sets. They could be thinner than current books (but not HALF as thin, because you'd want MORE material for each book, not less).

You could go pretty gonzo with the higher level stuff, too. 

PLUS, you could put out the simple missions-type adventures for the first set and the more earth-shattering plotlines for the second. Heck, some SETTINGS (Like Dark Sun and Planescape) might work better as "AD&D" settings.

Everything winds up with more unique identities. I like it.


----------



## Blue (Aug 28, 2022)

I like the concept, but I would move the bar.  The first book needs material on how to play the game, what skills are, how to do combat and a bunch of stuff that the higher level book does not need.  The lower level book also needs to be as low a barrier-to-entry for new players as possible.  So I'd have the low level book be 1st to 8th.  4th level spells are pretty cool and are half the spell lists, there's a good runway to plan ahead, but it is leaving out a lot of things that aren't needed for new players.

8th was picked so (a) it doesn't end as soon as you get 4th level spels and the like, and so that they can include "8th level+ feats" so people can dream and drool over what their character will get at later levels.

Another thing WotC might appreciate is that since their surveys say most games go to 10-11, there's build in incentive to buy the next book for players, as opposed to just sticking with one.

BTW, there can and should be stuff in the high tier book that the low tier book doesn't need as well, but the basics of casting, combat, equipment, and all that will take up a lot of space.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 28, 2022)

Blue said:


> I like the concept, but I would move the bar.  The first book needs material on how to play the game, what skills are, how to do combat and a bunch of stuff that the higher level book does not need.  The lower level book also needs to be as low a barrier-to-entry for new players as possible.  So I'd have the low level book be 1st to 8th.  4th level spells are pretty cool and are half the spell lists, there's a good runway to plan ahead, but it is leaving out a lot of things that aren't needed for new players.
> 
> 8th was picked so (a) it doesn't end as soon as you get 4th level spels and the like, and so that they can include "8th level+ feats" so people can dream and drool over what their character will get at later levels.
> 
> ...



I get what you are saying, but if you want things to be "new player friendly" then 1-10 and 11-20 is up and by far easier to grok from a new player perspective than level 1-8 in a game that goes up to 20 levels.


----------



## John R Davis (Aug 28, 2022)

Two books.
1-10 then 11-20.
Fits in more option races etc for each book then.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 28, 2022)

Blue said:


> I like the concept, but I would move the bar.  The first book needs material on how to play the game, what skills are, how to do combat and a bunch of stuff that the higher level book does not need.  The lower level book also needs to be as low a barrier-to-entry for new players as possible.  So I'd have the low level book be 1st to 8th.  4th level spells are pretty cool and are half the spell lists, there's a good runway to plan ahead, but it is leaving out a lot of things that aren't needed for new players.



I am fine with the Low Tier Players Handbook only including the tiers 1-4 and 5-8. This does keep things simpler and more manageable for new players.

At the same time, I feel the "name levels" at the Master tier, 9-12, when characters create institutions and form communities, offer tangible benefits to the D&D experience.





Blue said:


> 8th was picked so (a) it doesn't end as soon as you get 4th level spels and the like, and so that they can include "8th level+ feats" so people can dream and drool over what their character will get at later levels.



Yup. Feat choice is an important incentive for each tier.





Blue said:


> Another thing WotC might appreciate is that since their surveys say most games go to 10-11, there's build in incentive to buy the next book for players, as opposed to just sticking with one.
> 
> BTW, there can and should be stuff in the high tier book that the low tier book doesn't need as well, but the basics of casting, combat, equipment, and all that will take up a lot of space.



I agree, the Low Tier Players Handbook needs to become the go-to book for ALL gaming rules, including ability checks, combat, social, and exploratory.



With regard to how long campaigns last, DnDBeyond published this graph in 2019.







Most campaigns happen within tiers 1-4 and 5-8, with some lingering 9-12.

About 83% of campaigns end during tiers 1-4 and 5-8.

Adding tier 9-12 increases this to 95%.

Only about 3% make it into tier 13-16, but a few diehards, 2%, make it to level 20. In other words, about 5% of campaigns use the Upper Tiers.



(Presumably, when Epic levels 21-24 become default, the 2% that stopped at 20 might press on to 24. Also presumably, if the Upper Tiers include 9-12, this would increase the usage of the Upper Tiers to about 17%.)



But if the Upper Tiers are fun, and gain support, the percentage of use can be significantly more.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 28, 2022)

the Jester said:


> This sounds like a great way to ensure the high levels get even less support. No thank you.



Why?

Currently, high levels in the core phb are somewhat perfunctory.  Not a lot of effort is put into designing those levels, and people complain about a lack of options.  Now, imagine a phb extension that went into detail about levels 11-20 in a way that offered all the things people say they want: choices, customization, advice for DMs for running high level campaigns, more high level spells, perhaps prestige classes or cross-class subclasses.  That seems to me to be the opposite of lack of support.


----------



## clearstream (Aug 28, 2022)

Blue said:


> I like the concept, but I would move the bar.  The first book needs material on how to play the game, what skills are, how to do combat and a bunch of stuff that the higher level book does not need.  The lower level book also needs to be as low a barrier-to-entry for new players as possible.  So I'd have the low level book be 1st to 8th.  4th level spells are pretty cool and are half the spell lists, there's a good runway to plan ahead, but it is leaving out a lot of things that aren't needed for new players.



Experienced players use T1-2 (entire) as much or more than new players. Cutting things they would value could well lead to dissatisfaction among an important cohort.



Blue said:


> 8th was picked so (a) it doesn't end as soon as you get 4th level spels and the like, and so that they can include "8th level+ feats" so people can dream and drool over what their character will get at later levels.
> 
> Another thing WotC might appreciate is that since their surveys say most games go to 10-11, there's build in incentive to buy the next book for players, as opposed to just sticking with one.



I feel designers should create what best serves players (which will then sell books) rather than building for overt monetization. 

I'd speculate that a really high value T1-2 PHB will sell more T3-4 PHBs than nickel-and-diming players would.

PHB 1-10
APHB 11-20


----------



## the Jester (Aug 28, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Why?



In every previous edition that has split high level stuff into a separate book, that's really all you got.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 28, 2022)

the Jester said:


> In every previous edition that has split high level stuff into a separate book, that's really all you got.



Levels in Basic went up to 3.  Does that mean people didn't get expert and play to level 14?

In any case, this is not an argument.  That there was a 3rd edition book of poor quality released for a notoriously bloated edition doesn't say anything about what 5.5 release might look like.  Given that levels 11-20 get very little support in 5e, why would releasing an entire separate sourcebook detailing those levels amount to "even less" support?


----------



## the Jester (Aug 29, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Levels in Basic went up to 3.  Does that mean people didn't get expert and play to level 14?



Expert wasn't the high level stuff. Immortals was. You can include Masters, too, I guess- maybe even Companion level. Now, I was all in on 1e at this point, so I didn't actually keep up with this stuff, but outside of Wrath of the Immortals, were there many adventures written for those sets? I'm not aware of many, but I think there were a few.


Malmuria said:


> In any case, this is not an argument.  That there was a 3rd edition book of poor quality released for a notoriously bloated edition doesn't say anything about what 5.5 release might look like.  Given that levels 11-20 get very little support in 5e, why would releasing an entire separate sourcebook detailing those levels amount to "even less" support?



SRSLY?? I've been making my position on this clear through the entire thread. But let's restate one more time.

There is a real debate over whether there are few high level games because there's basically no support for them, or whether there's no support for them because there are few games at those levels. The last time we had real high level support- especially good high level support- was in the 4e epic destiny system, but even then, we had what, three epic adventures? And let's face it- the majority of 4e's adventures, especially the initial adventure path, belong on the Shelf of Shame alongside the 2e DMG and Sword and Fist. 

So here's the deal. You silo high level stuff into another book, and I pretty much guarantee that the amount of followup will be.... sparse. And I argue that because that's how it has worked in *every* edition of D&D. 

Despite this, there are groups that play at high levels, that enjoy high level play, and shouldn't have to buy extra material just to get access to _maze _spells and balor stat blocks. This proposal boils down to, "Screw the guys who like high level play _even more than they are already screwed". _

I could be wrong, but is there some reason you guys keep claiming that siloing high level material into its own book will result in more support? Is there any kind of evidence that this is likely? Do you have a reason to believe that? Because I don't. 2e had the DM's Options: High Level Campaigns book. Ever seen that followed up with anything? We've already talked about 3e's ELH (though I don't think it's as bad as you seem to)- again, basically no support despite it being around for years of 3e's run. I'm arguing from experience, and it just seems like you guys are arguing based on a vague idea that a book means it will be followed up. It doesn't. We have seen this again and again.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 29, 2022)

It's an interesting idea. It would serve their goal of trying to reduce the sometimes overwhelming appearance of choices in a single book for new players.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 29, 2022)

the Jester said:


> I could be wrong, but is there some reason you guys keep claiming that siloing high level material into its own book will result in more support? Is there any kind of evidence that this is likely? Do you have a reason to believe that? Because I don't. 2e had the DM's Options: High Level Campaigns book. Ever seen that followed up with anything? We've already talked about 3e's ELH (though I don't think it's as bad as you seem to)- again, basically no support despite it being around for years of 3e's run. I'm arguing from experience, and it just seems like you guys are arguing based on a vague idea that a book means it will be followed up. It doesn't. We have seen this again and again.



I mean, we've also seen the high level included in the base book and hardly get played or anything written for it.   Just keep repeating what hasn't worked before?  

I mean, I'm good with just making the book levels 1-10 ...   If there are a sizeable number of people that would cheese off, then it feels like there is a sizable market for 11-20.  If there aren't, then there's no reason to waste energy on even putting it in the base book.  Right?


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 29, 2022)

the Jester said:


> I could be wrong, but is there some reason you guys keep claiming that siloing high level material into its own book will result in more support?



A dedicated upper Tier book would _itself_ be the increased support, compared to what exists in the current PHB.  Imagine, for example, instead of "improved divine smite," a book that offered several Paladin prestige classes with choices at each level.  A dedicated book would be able to build out upper tier play in a way that the phb simply does not do.

The reason wotc might not put out an upper tier adventure path is the same reason they are not likely to put out an Ebberon-specific AP.  Namely, because making products for a specific niche of the players is not a good strategy to make money. 

All that being said what I expect will happen is that Tier 3 and 4 will remain in the PHB, but still as an afterthought, with level 7-9 spells being more aspirational than useful.  I don't think they'll shift to putting out level 1-20 adventure paths; if anything they are realizing that many people are only able to schedule relatively short campaigns and are adapting by publishing more bite sized content:




> “One of the things that has been on our minds for several years now, as a result of the popularity of streamed games combined actually with the tidal wave of new people coming to _D&D_, is the need to have bite-size adventure content,” Crawford continued. “So you’ll notice that around the time we came out with the Essentials Kit and then continued on with a lot of our adventure content—even when it’s a large, epic campaign, like last year’s _Rime of the Frostmaiden__—_they’re much easier to divide up into digestible segments that where ... if the DM wants to just read a part of this big book, or just run one of these little quests, we’re making that easier to do. Not only to make things less arduous for a brand new Dungeon Master, and with new groups of players coming to _D&D_ for the first time, but also because of that format of play, also suits streamed games better.
> 
> But that shorter game session length isn’t just to cater to people who broadcast their games for an audience. It’s also part of an ongoing acknowledgment by the _D&D_ team that a lot of its players have either grown up with TTRPGs, or are coming to the genre as adults—adults who can’t necessarily commit regular, massive blocks of hours to an ongoing game campaign. “We know that people with busy lives often want _D&D_ in their life, but don’t have time maybe to have ... I remember as a kid, every week my friends and I have like our four plus hour session. A lot of people don’t have that much time to commit, but they still want that taste of _D&D _with their friends and family each week or several times a month,” Crawford concluded. “And so the more bite-sized we can make things, the easier we can make it so that you can take even an epic adventure like_ Rime of the Frostmaiden_, or now _The Wild Beyond the Witchlight_, the more likely people are going to feel like ‘OK, even though I’ve had a busy week, I can still get a little bit of _D&D_ in there with my friends and family.’


----------



## R_J_K75 (Aug 29, 2022)

Ive been playing D&D for 40 years I don't recall ever having any character reach above level 10. Last PC I played was a 5E tempest cleric and even at 7th level the number of spells and class abilities started to become overwhelming to the point I had to take 20 mins to half hour just refreshing my memory on what everything did before we played each week. Im all for WotC getting away from the 3 core book model, not sure what should replace it but I didn't like the multiple PHB/DMG of 4E.


----------



## Blue (Aug 29, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I get what you are saying, but if you want things to be "new player friendly" then 1-10 and 11-20 is up and by far easier to grok from a new player perspective than level 1-8 in a game that goes up to 20 levels.



I bought the Moldvey Basic D&D set back in late 80s and it was level 1-3, and the system eventually went up to 30.  I don't think there is a big issue with a split that isn't perfectly half and half.


----------



## Cadence (Aug 29, 2022)

@the Jester 

I'm not rooting for high level to fail.  I would love for it to work!  I don't see it working if they don't support it.  And if they do support it, my personal preference would be the two separate books.

If they aren't going to support it, then I guess one book so that at least that much gets published (because there are some people who certainly like high levels, and I'd hate for their desired play to get nuked).


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 29, 2022)

The upper tiers, including epic, are fun. These characters seem worth supporting in a dedicated book. Even if only 5% of campaigners buy the upper tiers book, that would at least cover the cost of printing it. If done well, perhaps many more will buy it.



If I were to be draconian:

Apparently, tiers 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12, represents 95% of 5e campaigns.

If only 5% of campaigners complain about missing levels 13 and up, then by 5e standards of approval, that is a done deal.

• Players Handbook covers levels 1 to 12, only.

• Levels 13 to 20 relocates to the DMs Guide as options alongside epic.

But.



Tiers 13-16, 17-20, and 21-24 have potential. And need more comprehensive support anyway.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 29, 2022)

If the goal is to figure out what works well at upper tiers, does this chart, published 2019, give any insights?







Apparently, by the Legend tier, levels 17-20, the classes that make it are:

• Fighter (14.1)
• Rogue (10.1)
• Wizard (10.1)
• Barbarian (9.1)
• Warlock (8.5)
• Paladin (8.4)
• Sorcerer (8.0)

This is surprising because Clerics and Rangers start strong at the Student tier, 1-4, but lose steam by Legend. Wizards gain steam.

Maybe the pattern is? The classes that work well in the upper tiers are: classes with new toys (Wizard) and/or simple classes without too many moving parts (Fighter).


----------



## clearstream (Aug 29, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> It's an interesting idea. It would serve their goal of trying to reduce the sometimes overwhelming appearance of choices in a single book for new players.



In a way I agree, and in another way don't quite follow. The great majority of choices - and certainly the most impactfull ones - are made in the first two tiers. But then, what I would envision for a high tier focused book would be _additional_ choices of a similar impact to choosing race, background, subclass, and first few feats. Some type of paragon class branching, and perhaps some cultural choices akin to background.

My ideal would be that some elements - like HP - stop scaling. But that new ways to play open up, and power of a different sort becomes available.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 29, 2022)

clearstream said:


> In a way I agree, and in another way don't quite follow. The great majority of choices - and certainly the most impactfull ones - are made in the first two tiers. But then, what I would envision for a high tier focused book would be _additional_ choices of a similar impact to choosing race, background, subclass, and first few feats. Some type of paragon class branching, and perhaps some cultural choices akin to background.
> 
> My ideal would be that some elements - like HP - stop scaling. But that new ways to play open up, and power of a different sort becomes available.



That stuff is worthy of exploring in RPGs but I just don't see it happening in One D&D. It's too much of a "new edition" type vibe for this kind of update I suspect. It would be too far from compatibility to make it into this anniversary edition.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Aug 29, 2022)

Short answer to the OP. No.

What would make high level play more popular is if they got off their rears and rethought high-level play and designed for two styles of play

1 - Mundane 
2 - Supernatural (introducing Epic Feats)

BOTH options would see a hit point, HD, proficiency cap, power caps however - 

*Mundane *would see 
Casters - (i) access to more powerful spells at a cost of other resources (so you'd sacrifice spell slots or another resource when casting any 6th+ level spells) (ii) the ability of pooling of magic resources between 2 or more casters
Martials - (i) additional manuever/stance options (ii) pull of heroic-feats/manuevers that costs resources (HD, exhaustion levels...etc) 

*Supernatural* would allow
For the selection of Epic Feats (resistances, unshackling the hp, HD, proficiency caps, additional powers at no cost)


----------



## the Jester (Aug 29, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The upper tiers, including epic, are fun. These characters seem worth supporting in a dedicated book. Even if only 5% of campaigners buy the upper tiers book, that would at least cover the cost of printing it.



And that's super not the business model for 5e books. That's exactly what WotC wants to stay away from- niche products that don't sell enough to justify them. They have been very clear about this since the edition launched; they want every product to have the maximum appeal. 5%, 10%, even 20% is far below what is realistic for them to shoot for.


Yaarel said:


> If done well, perhaps many more will buy it.



WotC isn't taking a "let's hope for the best" approach with 5e publications, they're carefully thinking about what has the widest appeal and pitching every release appropriately.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 29, 2022)

the Jester said:


> And that's super not the business model for 5e books. That's exactly what WotC wants to stay away from- niche products that don't sell enough to justify them. They have been very clear about this since the edition launched; they want every product to have the maximum appeal. 5%, 10%, even 20% is far below what is realistic for them to shoot for.
> 
> WotC isn't taking a "let's hope for the best" approach with 5e publications, they're carefully thinking about what has the widest appeal and pitching every release appropriately.



I agree this is the case. And it is a problem that interferes with getting upper tier support.

To be generous, WotC seeks, say, at least a 63% approval rating.

Approval and usage are nonidentical, but the upper tiers must become widely appealing.


----------



## Haplo781 (Aug 29, 2022)

1-10 Heroic
11-20 Paragon
21-30 Epic


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 29, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> 1-10 Heroic
> 11-20 Paragon
> 21-30 Epic



That is the idea, but hardly anyone reaches level 9, nevermind level 30!

*Heroic 1-4*: Student (Basic)
*Heroic 5-8*: Professional (Expert)
*Paragon 9-12*: Master (Champion)

*Paragon 13-16*: Grandmaster (Master)
*Epic 17-20*: Legend (Immortal)
*Epic 21-24*: Epic (Immortal)


----------



## ReshiIRE (Aug 29, 2022)

I just do not see why WoTC don't release 1 to 20 adventures when it appears to work for other systems, has worked in the past, and appears to work for some third parties. I _assume_ other publishers do it because it does make them money and not out of stubbornness. So why does WoTC not persue the same idea? Does it have to do with their structure, or having to split those adventures into multiple books? Is it digitising or other issues? 

Is it simply that they feel that it won't work for the 5e audience?

Or do they feel there are design issues that they find difficult to tackle at higher levels and would prefer 5e third parties and game masters to provide their own opinionated take, so as to keep the design of their own adventures less suspectible to design issues?


----------



## the Jester (Aug 29, 2022)

ReshiIRE said:


> I just do not see why WoTC don't release 1 to 20 adventures when it appears to work for other systems, has worked in the past, and appears to work for some third parties.



Yeah, I wonder about this, too. Even if not 1-20, if we could have one adventure for 8-20 for every three or even five we get for 1-10 or 1-12, I'd be happy.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

the Jester said:


> Yeah, I wonder about this, too. Even if not 1-20, if we could have one adventure for 8-20 for every three or even five we get for 1-10 or 1-12, I'd be happy.




They've certainly released PLOTS that ought to run L8-20. I mean, c'mon Out of the Abyss! How is "Captured by Drow, escape through the underdark, run into Demon Lords, finish in Menzobaranzan Archmages, Demons, and Beholders in between? (And did I mention Demon Lords? I think I did.)" How is that not a HIGH LEVEL Adventure?


----------



## Cadence (Aug 29, 2022)

ReshiIRE said:


> I just do not see why WoTC don't release 1 to 20 adventures when it appears to work for other systems, has worked in the past, and appears to work for some third parties. I _assume_ other publishers do it because it does make them money and not out of stubbornness.




I think it's a great question.  

But personally I love the shorter modular adventures (whether separate floppy ones like 1e or the collections like Yawning Portal).  A bunch that did 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20 would be great.  Although my suspicion is that there would be an exponential decrease by tier in which came out if they didn't work at it :-(


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 29, 2022)

Would switching to spell points as the default − instead of slots − make the upper tier simpler enough to be worthwhile?

At least for spell slots 1 to 5, and probably 6 too:
• 1+level points can refresh per short or long rest.
• One cannot spend more than level/2 (round up) per casting.
• The spell cost equals its slot. So, a slot-3 Fireball is the same thing as a 3-point Fireball.

The system balances solidly.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 29, 2022)

I think level 11+ (or 13+ if you go to 24) would be good to start _swapping out_ features for other features (and not necessarily more complicated ones, but more evocative ones) instead of gaining MORE abilities.

I think you'd find more people willing to play higher levels if you did that.

EDIT: I think one thing that nearly everyone on this thread would probably agree on, is this:

High Level play needs to be Supported. T
To achieve that, it probably needs to be re-thought.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 30, 2022)

Do Paizo APs go from level 1-20? I never played pathfinder.  Wotc adventures seem to make each chapter=1 level.  I don't know how they would fit levels 1-20 into one book without it being a) pure dungeon crawls or b) significantly less verbose and with less art than their current products.


----------



## Haplo781 (Aug 30, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Do Paizo APs go from level 1-20? I never played pathfinder.  Wotc adventures seem to make each chapter=1 level.  I don't know how they would fit levels 1-20 into one book without it being a) pure dungeon crawls or b) significantly less verbose and with less art than their current products.



Bring back Dungeon magazine


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 30, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Bring back Dungeon magazine



Don't AL modules sort of fit this purpose?


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 30, 2022)

The classic 1e adventure series could appropriately stretch out to fit:

9-12: Against the Giants
13-16: Descent into the Earth / Kuo-Toa
17-20: Vault of the Drow
21-24: Demonweb Pits

In 1e Lolth is a "demigod" (17-20), but in 5e more like an epic (21-24).


----------



## payn (Aug 30, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Do Paizo APs go from level 1-20? I never played pathfinder.  Wotc adventures seem to make each chapter=1 level.  I don't know how they would fit levels 1-20 into one book without it being a) pure dungeon crawls or b) significantly less verbose and with less art than their current products.



In PF1 era, the APs went into the teens. Typically, stopped somewhere between 14-16. A lot of that had to do with the gonzo math at upper levels and massive resources PCs had. You basically had to have 100 room dungeons to challenge them.

In PF2 they moved into running them 1-20, but also have experimented with 1-10 and 11-20 APs.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Aug 30, 2022)

Level-based games like D&D usually struggle with high-level play. At first glance, it seems enticing to players to reach the pinnacle of demigod or superhero status, with the promise of incredible challenges and rewards to enjoy. But the reality is that it just makes the game more complex to manage, to run, even to enjoy.

If you are one of those in a group that always gets past 10th level, playing consistently without issues or setbacks within your circle, just know that you are the exception rather than the rule. Not everyone that plays ever gets beyond a certain level in the game, no matter how long they've been playing or how exceptional their group may be. Most people, especially adults with less free time and more real life responsibilities, find it difficult to commit to such long-term endeavors. Others, in fact, choose to avoid high levels altogether as their enjoyment decreases when the complexity of the game increases. These groups represent the majority of players out there, as indicated by various polls, databases, etc.

So why sell more game than most of us will actually use? Everytime I purchase a core rulebook for any game system, I think to myself, how much of this will I actually get to use? How much print space and design space could have been used for more options during the beginning and most-played areas of my games? And if my games ever reach a point where I need more game options and rules to expand it, then I would purchase the next part of the game.

As far as increasing or decreasing demand for higher level support, its not a fluke. The designers know where the vast majority of the market plays. Not everyone gets to high levels, because it is a bigger commitment in terms of time, mastery, and investment. But almost everyone plays from the beginning or low-tier through mid-tier. That is the sweet spots, for the game and the market.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

If you take Tiers 3 and 4 out of the PHB, does Tier 2 start being less supported because everyone focuses just on Tier 1?

I.e., how much of this is stretching and pinching levels? In 4e, enemies that are ~Lv 30 are only ~Lv20 in 5e because of fewer levels…


----------



## d24454_modern (Sep 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Becoming a god that gains polytheistic worshipers is only one of the possible ways of gaining immortality at level 17. One might become an archfey, a lich, an elemental, a construct, a supersoldier: 4e has many epic destinies to choose from. 5e can add more.
> 
> Lolth exemplifies an upper tier character. Something like at level 17 she became a demon, and at level 21 she gained the Spider domain in her "portfolio". At later level, her portfolio acquires the Trickery domain, which comes with the flavor of entangling victims within her web of lies. The community that she formed during the low tiers expanded as she further transformed it during higher tiers. Like how some spider hatchlings eat each other, her treacherous drow followers kill each other so only the strong survive.
> 
> ...



But that’s something that happens entirely separate from Level.

It could’ve happened at Level 1 for anyone who cared.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 1, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> But that’s something that happens entirely separate from Level.
> 
> It could’ve happened at Level 1 for anyone who cared.



You arent wrong. You can have become epic at level 1 at the age of 20, or even earlier at the age of 13, at level 0.

But if so, you still need to grow up, and learn, and develop, and discover yourself, the people around you, and the world around you. You still need to be a human (or whichever sapient being). Exert effort.

You still need to level up.

Only when you reach level 17 and higher, you attain the power to express yourself and your sense of destiny.


----------



## d24454_modern (Sep 1, 2022)

The way I see it:

Low-tier full of mooks and grunts: 1 to 8.

Mid-tier full of experts and captains: 9 to 14.

High-tier full of generals and veterans: 15 to 18.

BBEG tier: 19+.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> The way I see it:
> 
> Low-tier full of mooks and grunts: 1 to 8.
> 
> ...




That's not the core level assumptions in the 2014 MM, at least. That makes more sense if you have levels from 1-30 than if you have levels from 1-20. 

In 5e, King Arthur, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great could have easily been around level 11, low-third tier. 

1-4 = saving villages and farms
5-10 = saving cities and kingdoms
11-16 = saving regions and continents
17-20 = saving planes of existence or the multiverse itself

Generals and Veterans belong in Tiers 2 and 3. BBEGs could be all over the map, depending on the scope of the adventure campaign. If it's the Dark Lord of the Abyss, sure, they would be 19+. But if it's the black knight terrorizing the kingdom as the ultimate bad guy of the game? That's easily Tier 2.


----------



## kunadam (Sep 1, 2022)

If they would flesh out the army/thieves guild/wizard academy/etc part of those tier 3-4 levels, then I'm all for it.
What I miss now is that high level only means more damage, more hp, more spells. Characters can save the kingdom by slaying the dragon. But can they stop an army? Can they feed a city with 100 thousands citizens?

But then I wonder how fun would it be to play some kingdom simulation not as a boardgame but as an RPG?


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

kunadam said:


> If they would flesh out the army/thieves guild/wizard academy/etc part of those tier 3-4 levels, then I'm all for it.
> What I miss now is that high level only means more damage, more hp, more spells. Characters can save the kingdom by slaying the dragon. But can they stop an army? Can they feed a city with 100 thousands citizens?
> 
> But then I wonder how fun would it be to play some kingdom simulation not as a boardgame but as an RPG?




Are you going to buy Dragonlance: Warriors of Krynn?

Also, if you want to do kingdom simulation, maybe there's rules for a TTRPG version of something like SimCity.


----------



## d24454_modern (Sep 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> That's not the core level assumptions in the 2014 MM, at least. That makes more sense if you have levels from 1-30 than if you have levels from 1-20.
> 
> In 5e, King Arthur, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great could have easily been around level 11, low-third tier.
> 
> ...



I don’t understand the idea that *no one* is supposed to be able to achieve higher levels.

Raising the level cap just means that higher levels are worth less.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 1, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> The way I see it:
> 
> Low-tier full of mooks and grunts: 1 to 8.
> 
> ...



My view is more:

• Lowest tier: (college) students, mooks and grunts: 1 to 4.

• Professionals, experts and captains: 5-8.

• Leaders within a town of 30,000, up to a million-strong metropolis/nation: 9 to 12.

• A leader of several medievalesque nations: 13 to 16.
(Of course, "leadership" can be within a specific area of expertise.)

Crazy stuff: 17 to 20 and 21 to 24.


----------



## kunadam (Sep 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Are you going to buy Dragonlance: Warriors of Krynn?
> 
> Also, if you want to do kingdom simulation, maybe there's rules for a TTRPG version of something like SimCity.



Thanks for the hint, I have not yet seen DL: Warriors of Krynn

Birthright (during AD&D 2e) was built around characters being leaders of provinces, churches, thieves guilds, whatever. So such ideas are not new. There characters had some powers that would only have a meaning on a grand scale (institution level)


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

kunadam said:


> Thanks for the hint, I have not yet seen DL: Warriors of Krynn
> 
> Birthright (during AD&D 2e) was built around characters being leaders of provinces, churches, thieves guilds, whatever. So such ideas are not new. There characters had some powers that would only have a meaning on a grand scale (institution level)




Right, Birthright would be a fun setting to revisit. Or Council of Wyrms, perhaps.


----------



## pnewman (Sep 12, 2022)

The business reason to split this into two books would be so that you could cut the page count on the first book by leaving out all the higher level spells and options so that the page count would be lower so you could afford to charge a lower MSRP to increase sales and profits. 

So what if fewer people buy the High Level Handbook when it releases later? Adventures sell way less than Core Rulebooks but this does not stop WOTC from making money selling them.
(Some) people would freak out about a thick $75 PHB but be fine with a thinner $50 PHB and, six months later, a thinner $50 High Level PHB.


----------



## Alby87 (Sep 12, 2022)

5E creation rules are so easy and quick to use (respect to other versions) that I'm asking to myself why WotC never released upper tier campaign (T3-T4) with the idea that you can start a new campaign level 10 or more? There are a lot of upper tier levels DDAL adventures, so they can be write. DND 5E is almost 10 years old, so higher level campaign books would be bought by people wanting to start a new campaign who are intersted in higher level. New player have a plenty of adventures to start.

Splitting the PHB... I don't think it would the viable strategy. It's one of DND sacred cows, and the last game with more than one PHB (4e) was... controversial. If ever a change of the PHB format is allowed, I think that it can be sold in two ways, at the same time:
- Beginner box with softcover perfect bound books split in: 
1) Start Here (Example of play, quick solo adventure like the red box)
2) Character Creation
3) Spellbook
4) Rules of play
5) Dungeon's Master Quick Guide (the base essentials to generate and master Tier 1)
and dices, character sheets (also pregenerated), tokens, rewritable map and DM Screen.

This would be a "pricey product" (like Curse of Strahd Revamped), but would be the perfect entry point of people coming from a starter set (that doesn't have generation rules and mastering new adventures rules), people that have seen/tried the game and more sure to invest a bigger sum of money than the essentials kit. It's like the essentials kit, but what you have at the end is a perfectly usable PHB.

- PHB Hardcover: Then the PHB can be also sold as normaly (Hardcover), without the (1) and (5) parts. That could be used as a reference by experienced players.


----------



## Mephista (Sep 12, 2022)

Going to level 20 would probably be a sacred cow. I can't see people liking that, simply for tradition's sake.

Personally, I think that making a 5e version of EL 6 rules would be worth looking into.  Cap the game at level 10.  Work out a way to make higher level spells work as rituals.  Set the third subclass gift at level 10 as a class capstone. Bring iconic magic items down from  17 plus levels, rebalance and let the level 10 characters use them.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 13, 2022)

Mephista said:


> Going to level 20 would probably be a sacred cow. I can't see people liking that, simply for tradition's sake.
> 
> Personally, I think that making a 5e version of EL 6 rules would be worth looking into.  Cap the game at level 10.  Work out a way to make higher level spells work as rituals.  Set the third subclass gift at level 10 as a class capstone. Bring iconic magic items down from  17 plus levels, rebalance and let the level 10 characters use them.



Where the Lower Tier Players Handbook covers tiers 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, then the Upper Tier Players Handbook can mention the variant option of jumping to the epic tier 21-24, instead of continuing on with tiers 13-16 and 17-20.

In 5e, the tiers 9-12 work fine. The gain of new caster spell slots is already slowing down.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 13, 2022)

How to simplify the Upper Tiers?

In the video, Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson present how the 5e designers used the D&DNext playtests and its surveys to create 5e.



The statistical relationship between Complexity and Satisfaction catches my attention. These principles apply to the Upper Tiers too.

• In COMBAT: Simplicity=Satisfaction
• In NONCOMBAT: Complexity=Satisfaction

In other words, during the stress of combat, especially when other players are waiting for you finish your turn, complexity is nonhelpful. To streamline combat makes the greatest majority of players happier. Think more about the choices that players make when they build their character for combat. (Less about extra choices to have during combat.)

Oppositely, in exploration and socializing, when players dont take turns and can relax, players enjoy rummaging thru their character sheets to explore what options they have and to think about the different ways to utilize each.

These two principles have so many deep design implications.

For the upper-tier Fighter: It is good to keep combat simple. But ADD complex options for the social and exploratory pillars.

For the upper-tier Wizard: Simplify spell combat. Separate out the combat spells, and simplify the slot system for them. Turn noncombat spells into rituals that dont use slots.

These two class adjustments can help more players extend their campaigns into higher tiers.



With regard to any complexity: "You can choose to use any of these options or this default option".



Note, at the upper tiers, big-bag-of-hit-points is simple but less appealing as a slog. Especially upper-tier monsters need to have interesting things to do, but each monster need not be too complex. Different monsters can do different things. 4e did this aspect well, with different stat blocks for the different roles of a creature.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 13, 2022)

Spell points.

It happened in the context of psionic discussions.

In principle, I strongly require psionic to use normal mechanics. That includes normal spellcasting mechanics like Warlock spell slots.

Of course, many 3e psionic fans want spell points. I am a 3e psionic fan but require normal 5e mechanics.

The 5e spell point system in the DMs Guide is an eyesore − awkward to the point of unusuable in gameplay. It still suffers from possible "nova" abuses.

Nevertheless, when looking into an alternative spell point system, it proved so simple and so balanced, I eventually agreed that it would be ok if the 5e Psion class used this spell point system.

Now, I think every 5e spell caster should use this spell point system.

At the upper tiers, the spell slots of the Wizard and other full casters become increasingly cumbersome and complex. A single pool of spell points cuts thru all of this. Upper tier Wizards suddenly become simple and easy to play.



The spell point system works as follows.
• Pool of spell points = full caster level + 1
• Spell cost = spell level of spell
• Each casting cant spend more points than ½(caster level+1)
• Spell pool refreshes after each short or long rest

Notice, one cant spend more points than the highest spell level available.

Only SHORT RESTS can make the spell point system work in a balanced way. It allows the number of points to remain small, and the ability to cast the highest level spells available a maximum of two times, which depletes the entire pool, and then requires rest to refresh. A caster can still rely on cantrips and rituals meanwhile.

The smaller short-rest spell point pool can even be used for to cast spell level 9 spells. It can only happen twice, and then caster is out of spells for the rest of the combat.

The short-rest Warlock class can use this spell point system naturally. It is roughly equivalent to the Warlock slots converting to points. While leveling, the points advance smoothly while the slots lumpily, but the difference is a wash. It is balanced.

The long-rest caster classes including Wizard, Bard, Druid, Cleric, and Sorcerer, must instead adjust to a short-rest refresh schedule. Otherwise, getting excessively many spell points at each long rest becomes broken, when casting the highest level spells available many times during a "nova".

The spell slot system keep the spellcasting classes balanced and simple to use. Anyone who knows how to use hit points, knows how to use spell points. The smaller number of spell points because of short rests also keeps the math simpler.

There is no need to distinguish between slots 1-5 and then 6-9 separately. This simple spell point system can handle any slot in a balanced way.

We can stop using the term "level" to mean both class level and differently spell level. There are only points. _Fireball_ is a 3-point spell.



The upper tier spellcasters suddenly become easy to play.


----------



## Mephista (Sep 13, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Where the Lower Tier Players Handbook covers tiers 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, then the Upper Tier Players Handbook can mention the variant option of jumping to the epic tier 21-24, instead of continuing on with tiers 13-16 and 17-20.
> 
> In 5e, the tiers 9-12 work fine. The gain of new caster spell slots is already slowing down.



Okay,  gotta ask.  Where you getting those levels?  Because 5e is broken into four tiers 1 through 4, 5 to 10, 11 to 16, and 17+. Breaking up the established tiers is odd. Especially for warlock players.

Either way, still doesn't change that going to level 20 is very likely a sacred cow and not something a core book wants to abolish without very good reason. No matter if you consider it balanced or not, its something you need to consider in the game design. And if there will be more outrage over it or not.


Yaarel said:


> These two principles have so many deep design implications.
> 
> For the upper-tier Fighter: It is good to keep combat simple. But ADD complex options for the social and exploratory pillars.
> 
> ...



While there are solid arguments for and against Fighters getting stuff to do in exploration pillar, and how (feat monkey versus the rogue's skill monkey), that has little to do with extending into the higher tiers; its something that needs to be considered from level 1.  

Ultimately, the fundamental problem is that Fighters and Rogues are limited by being non-magical classes and there is a more than subtle bias that says that purely physical classes should be limited by purely mundane ability. Whereas magic classes lack that caveat. A level 16 fighter needs to walk to get around. A  level 16 wizard just teleports. A level 16 artificer builds a flying mount. These are not equal by nature of their very classes.

Likewise, not using spell slots is terrible balancing for spellcasters.  A huge chunk of being a wizard is spell management. Knowing when to use that sole level 6 slot on True Sight or save it for Disintegrate or Mass Suggestion. Turning everything utility into a ritual means True Sight is always on AND you still have a pocket Disintegrate. This is just going to ensure caster dominance at higher levels and make martial characters feel even more useless.


Yaarel said:


> At the upper tiers, the spell slots of the Wizard and other full casters become increasingly cumbersome and complex. A single pool of spell points cuts thru all of this. Upper tier Wizards suddenly become simple and easy to play.
> ....
> The upper tier spellcasters suddenly become easy to play.



Complexity of spellcasters has never been the issue here.  Or, rather, this kind of complexity has never been an issue. 

The fundamental problem with high level casters is the breadth of possible abilities makes it difficult to plan a game around.  Let me give an example.  I remember that an adventurer writer for D&D made a level 12 adventure about a temple full of fiends.  The party's job was to clear the place out. If the group had a cleric? Forbiddence. Level 6 spell.  Could cover the entire building, prevent teleports, and rather quickly killed all fiends in it. Quest over.

That's the problem - not only can high level casters do things like this whereas high level martials can't, but DMs need to plan entire adventurers around these abilities that will trivialize the story.  And that's not always easy. And that's just one spell - there's multiple game changing spells between the cleric, druid and wizard lists that need consideration.


----------



## Mephista (Sep 13, 2022)

I mean, its great that you're putting such serious thought into the lack of high level play issue, but I feel like you are so completely misidentifying the actual problems with high level play that you are accidentily compounding the actual problems rather than solving anything.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 13, 2022)

My impression is, you only like low level settings. That is a matter of taste.

For other players, high level settings are part of the D&D traditions.



Mephista said:


> Okay,  gotta ask.  Where you getting those levels?  Because 5e is broken into four tiers 1 through 4, 5 to 10, 11 to 16, and 17+. Breaking up the established tiers is odd. Especially for warlock players.



As far as I know, only one page in Players Handbook mentions the tiers that way, and nothing else ever refers to it again.

The defacto tiers are four levels each, where the levels 9-12 feel − and have features that are − notably different from 5-8 and 13-16.

Each defacto tier also corresponds to the proficiency bonus, which improves every level. Each tier has feat as a capstone.

The four-level tier of levels 9-12 is important for flavor reasons, but also comes with meaningful mechanical differences from the other tiers. Significant class features can come online during this tier.



Mephista said:


> Either way, still doesn't change that going to level 20 is very likely a sacred cow and not something a core book wants to abolish without very good reason. No matter if you consider it balanced or not, its something you need to consider in the game design. And if there will be more outrage over it or not.



I love high level characters. I like tiers 13-16 and 17-20, and want characters that advance thru these tiers. Also, I want 21-24 epic characters to be standard.



Mephista said:


> While there are solid arguments for and against Fighters getting stuff to do in exploration pillar, and how (feat monkey versus the rogue's skill monkey), that has little to do with extending into the higher tiers; its something that needs to be considered from level 1.



Fighters getting complex noncombat abilities has everything to do with upper tiers, when their fellow partymembers who are spellcasters are gaining powerful noncombat spells, and lots of low-level slots to spend on noncombat.



Mephista said:


> Ultimately, the fundamental problem is that Fighters and Rogues are limited by being non-magical classes and there is a more than subtle bias that says that purely physical classes should be limited by purely mundane ability.



Where there is a will, there is a way.

If players demand Fighter class options that are more competent at noncombat encounters, designers will make it happen.

For example, because most damage before getting Downed is nonphysical, a Fighter can easily "heal" or rather restore the nonphysical hit points, in the form of morale and first aid.

It is reasonable for a high-level Fighter to deal half damage on a miss. The Fighter technique is simply that effective.

Most spells can have some kind of mundane equivalent.



Mephista said:


> Whereas magic classes lack that caveat. A level 16 fighter needs to walk to get around. A  level 16 wizard just teleports. A level 16 artificer builds a flying mount. These are not equal by nature of their very classes.



A Wizard doesnt "just" _Teleport_.  The spell is dangerous if traveling to a less familiar location. Unless someone plans to start fight in their own house or favorite pub, the Teleport spell is useless in combat except to avoid a TPK at the last second.

_Teleportation Circle_ takes a minute to cast and requires planning long before ever casting it.



Mephista said:


> Likewise, not using spell slots is terrible balancing for spellcasters.  A huge chunk of being a wizard is spell management. Knowing when to use that sole level 6 slot on True Sight or save it for Disintegrate or Mass Suggestion. Turning everything utility into a ritual means True Sight is always on AND you still have a pocket Disintegrate. This is just going to ensure caster dominance at higher levels and make martial characters feel even more useless.



Combat includes Stealth/Detection and Mobility/Barrier, thus spells like _True Sight_ are combat spells.

A "mundane" class might also have an effect like True Sight − to better sense invisible opponents or perceive fraudulent illusions.



Mephista said:


> Complexity of spellcasters has never been the issue here.  Or, rather, this kind of complexity has never been an issue.



The fact that 95% of players dont bother with tiers 13-16 and 17-20, suggests there are many issues that discourage players.

As for resource management. Counting arrows, calculating encumbrance, and tracking light sources are examples of unfun resource management. Not everything is fun for everyone.

That said, it is the combat that spellcasting needs to streamline. The noncombat challenges can still have a complex "junkyard" approach.



Mephista said:


> The fundamental problem with high level casters is the breadth of possible abilities makes it difficult to plan a game around.



WAIT. You just said. COMPLEXITY is a problem at high levels.

Yes. That the point.

Also, I do want spellcasters including Wizard to specialize more thematically. I want this for flavor reasons, but it also reduces access to every spell.





Mephista said:


> Let me give an example.  I remember that an adventurer writer for D&D made a level 12 adventure about a temple full of fiends.  The party's job was to clear the place out. If the group had a cleric? Forbiddence. Level 6 spell.  Could cover the entire building, prevent teleports, and rather quickly killed all fiends in it. Quest over.



I like high-level settings with high level challenges.

Dont make low level challenges for high level characters.

When characters _Fly_, dont waste time designing pits.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 13, 2022)

More ways for them to get more money out of us?


----------



## Mephista (Sep 13, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> My impression is, you only like low level settings. That is a matter of taste.
> 
> For other players, high level settings are part of the D&D traditions.




Yaarel, you are wrong.  My problem with your posts has nothing to do with any playstyle I might or might not enjoy; rather, I don't think you know what the problems with high level play actually are. You're breaking and "fixing" the parts that have nothing to do with high level play, and I'm afraid that you're making things WORSE.

A good chunk of the issues with high level play can be attributed to the martial-caster divide.  

Casters have the ability to target weak points with their spells - sometimes its AC, othertimes its a weak CON, DEX or WIS save.  Or bypass all and use one of the rare no-save spells like Force Cube or something that targets CHA or INT (monsters rarely have INT or CHA saves).   Martials only target AC.

Casters have a multitude of spells that act as game changers - summons, teleports, spells like Forbiddence, Wish, a clerics Divine Intervention...  Relatedly, casters can cast large AoEs, whereas martials have to deal with groups one at a time. But martials are generally restricted to what a human could realistically acomplish, or if they do have some magic, its usually extremely limited.

You need a caster to counter another caster's ability, whereas anyone can counter martials.

The quadratic wizard versus linear warrior thing isn't as big problem in 5e as it is in other editions, though some argue its still there.

Other problems include-
Depending on party composition and magic items, monsters become increasingly difficult to pair up in terms of level.  One party might have an easier time dealing with one monster, but struggle against a lower level one.

Fighters have a tendacy to fall into a rocket tag situation - person who goes first and reaches the opponent first has a strong chance of putting the enemy down first. They're not the only ones with this problem,but it is notable.

Harder to plan as a DM - abiliteis that characters have make the usual dungeon-crawl, get the McGuffin trivial, whereas earlier levels it could take up more than one session.  There is a definitive SHIFT in tone and scope of the game that most DMs simply are unprepared to handle, let alone covered in enough detail. Or if its even desired.

More that I just can't remember at the moment.

Now, having specific adventures or a high level adventuring guide put out by WotC or a third party could alievate some of these issues, but not all.

Things that are not high level problems:

spell slots versus spell points. "Cumbersome and complex" spell pool was never a barrier .
simple fighters without exploration features.  That's either a low level problem, or a highly desired *feature*.

Wanting to make houserules around these? Okay, sure, that's cool.  But that has nothing to do with high level play or the issues thereof.


Yaarel said:


> As far as I know, only one page in Players Handbook mentions the tiers that way, and nothing else ever refers to it again.
> 
> The defacto tiers are four levels each, where the levels 9-12 feel − and have features that are − notably different from 5-8 and 13-16.



Nope!  See, the classes themselves are based around the four tiers.  At level 5, martial characters get Extra Attack.  Spellcasters get level 3 spells, which are deliberately and quantiatively stronger than previous levels - Fly. Fireball. Counterspell and Dispel Magic. 

It happens once again at level 11 - bigger spike in damage and survivability for martial classes, and level 6 spells are massive improvements over the previous levels, to the point that you only get one of them for nearly the rest of the game.

Monsters are likewise balanced - as much as they are balanced - around these tiers.  

Remember, feats are technically optional - the devs have stated more than once that the game was never designed nor balanced around the existance of feats.  Users beware.


As for the rest?  If you don't want to listen to flaws, then fine. I'm not going to bother you with it. I'm not going to bother with addressing the rest of that post, simply because practically every single responce is twisting what I said, and I'm frankly not going to bother with repeating "That's not what I wrote!" ad nausium.  Good day


----------



## Gammadoodler (Sep 13, 2022)

Creating an economic barrier to entry for high level play is bad for encouraging high level play. 

Most people are only going to pay the minimum "required" to "play D&D"

The only way this works to encourage high level play is if content is explicitly created for UT only..and
If *all* the character generation information you need for UT characters is included the UT book.

If you need *both* books to play Upper tier, and only Lower Tier to play Lower Tier, fewer people will ever see UT play.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 13, 2022)

Mephista said:


> Yaarel, you are wrong.  My problem with your posts has nothing to do with any playstyle I might or might not enjoy; rather, I don't think you know what the problems with high level play actually are. You're breaking and "fixing" the parts that have nothing to do with high level play, and I'm afraid that you're making things WORSE.
> 
> A good chunk of the issues with high level play can be attributed to the martial-caster divide.



The martial/caster divide = combat versus noncombat

The Fighter class is defective at noncombat options.

The Fighter class is solid at combat options.



Mephista said:


> Casters have the ability to target weak points with their spells - sometimes its AC, othertimes its a weak CON, DEX or WIS save.  Or bypass all and use one of the rare no-save spells like Force Cube or something that targets CHA or INT (monsters rarely have INT or CHA saves).   Martials only target AC.



It makes sense for Fighters to also have features that attack abilities directly.

For example, using Intimidation to force surrender is a thing. This is a powerful combat ending ability that a martial character can have too.

In principle, Fighters could inflict the Stunned condition, and so on, swapping damage for other effects.



Mephista said:


> Casters have a multitude of spells that act as game changers - summons, teleports, spells like Forbiddence, Wish, a clerics Divine Intervention...



In principle, the Fighter can have a "summoning" in the sense of an animal companion, mount, and hirelings.

Teleport and Forbiddence are noncombat. A Fighter can also have ways to travel conveniently, fortify a location, and even if wanted learn how to perform magical rituals.

Moreover, if the Fighter class has the design space to choose a magic item, the item can do these and other things.

Again the problem isnt combat. The problem is the Fighter is defective at noncombat.



Mephista said:


> Relatedly, casters can cast large AoEs, whereas martials have to deal with groups one at a time.



There are plenty of area-of-effects that make sense for a Fighter, including "cleave" and burning oil-flask granades.  Poison, and so on.



Mephista said:


> But martials are generally restricted to what a human could realistically acomplish, or if they do have some magic, its usually extremely limited.



D&D traditions are way too quick to make an effect "magic", such as healing, when it can just as easily be nonmagic.



Mephista said:


> You need a caster to counter another caster's ability, whereas anyone can counter martials.



A Fighter has saving throws versus magic, same as spellcasters.

In principle, a Fighter could have a feature that grants a reaction to try break the concentration of caster who is casting.



Mephista said:


> The quadratic wizard versus linear warrior thing isn't as big problem in 5e as it is in other editions, though some argue its still there.



The "quadratic" lacks existence in 5e.

Nevertheless it can feel something like it, when the casters have so many noncombat concepts to build a character around, and the Fighter so few.



Mephista said:


> Other problems include-
> Depending on party composition and magic items, monsters become increasingly difficult to pair up in terms of level.  One party might have an easier time dealing with one monster, but struggle against a lower level one.



I agree, the DM encounter building guidelines need rethinking.

I prefer all monsters are given an equivalent character level. Then delete challenge rating and xp.

The guidelines should communicate what level monsters are appropriate for what level player characters.

Use level for everything.



Mephista said:


> Fighters have a tendacy to fall into a rocket tag situation - person who goes first and reaches the opponent first has a strong chance of putting the enemy down first. They're not the only ones with this problem, but it is notable.



Ok.



Mephista said:


> Harder to plan as a DM - abiliteis that characters have make the usual dungeon-crawl, get the McGuffin trivial, whereas earlier levels it could take up more than one session.  There is a definitive SHIFT in tone and scope of the game that most DMs simply are unprepared to handle, let alone covered in enough detail. Or if its even desired.



Yes, the lower tiers and the upper tiers have a shift in tone.

It is like a shift from low-tech medievalesque to high-tech magic-scape.

The low-tech ways of thinking are no longer a challenge in the high-tech arms race.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 29, 2022)

The initial UA playtests indicate the 2024 designers are thinking more about high-level gameplay.

The capstone for every class is a choice of epic boon. Each class suggests a specific boon, but allows the choice of any.

The highest tier, the Legend tier of levels 17-20, now has a feat at level 19 and an epic boon at level 20. These two levels are standard for all classes.

In the video, Crawford makes a passing remark about an "epic Thief" having played for 13 levels. Possibly, the specific tiers of Grandmaster 13-16 and Legend 17-20, are reconceived as high-level play as a genre, and the referred to as "epic" tiers.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 30, 2022)

In the playtest, the Bard class feature Bardic Inspiration improves "At Higher Levels": level 5, level 10, and ... level 15!

Assuming this isnt a typo, there are new tiers, each with 5 levels.



*In the 2024 Players Handbook

0-4*: Student Tier (Apprentice, Basic)
*5-9*: Professional Tier (Journeyer, Squire, Expert)

_"Epic" Tiers?_
*10-14*: Master Tier (Chief, Knight, Noble, Champion)
*15-19*: Legend Tier (Grandmaster, Arch)
*20-24*: Immortal Tier



Note:

Player Characters start at level 1 but level 1 is front loaded. One can easily play a "level 0" character by using the race, background, and background feat. Then select a class at level 1.

The boost At Higher Levels happens at levels 10 and 15, not at levels 11 and 17. So the boost happens earlier within a bit easier reach of more campaigns.

Every character becomes "Immortal" or some such at level 20. Since higher levels above 20 also gain a boon instead of a class feature, this tier can extend for several levels.

I am happy with these levels for standard tiers.


----------

