Is the math off?

[AdmundfortGeographer]

By the Epic Level, the 100+ hours spent together at the game table with the same characters should have forged the party into a Navy Seal unit - with each player at the table having intimate knowledge, not only of their own characters strengths and weaknesses, but of the entire party!

I don't buy it as an intentional scheme. Because eventually that Seal Unit of players will restart a new campaign in the Heroic Tier and "take their training with them". Then that systemic math bias is loses it's meaning you describe.

 

[Truename]

I don't buy it as an intentional scheme. Because eventually that Seal Unit of players will restart a new campaign in the Heroic Tier and "take their training with them". Then that systemic math bias is loses it's meaning you describe.

My players recently started a new campaign after progressing to the end of the heroic tier. They've gone from a well-tuned engine of destruction to a comedy of errors.

We've only played about 12 hours so far in the new campaign, but there's definitely a learning curve associated with new characters and new party synergies.

Also, as the previous party progressed, they tended to take feats and powers that played to each others' strengths. The cleric would emphasize CA-granting powers in order to help out the rogue; the fighter would emphasize movement restricting powers because everyone else was ranged; and so forth. With the new party, they haven't yet figured out what each others' strengths and weaknesses are. (Some of them haven't even figured out their own strengths and weaknesses yet.)

So I can see some merit in the argument.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My players recently started a new campaign after progressing to the end of the heroic tier. They've gone from a well-tuned engine of destruction to a comedy of errors.

We've only played about 12 hours so far in the new campaign, but there's definitely a learning curve associated with new characters and new party synergies.

Also, as the previous party progressed, they tended to take feats and powers that played to each others' strengths. The cleric would emphasize CA-granting powers in order to help out the rogue; the fighter would emphasize movement restricting powers because everyone else was ranged; and so forth. With the new party, they haven't yet figured out what each others' strengths and weaknesses are. (Some of them haven't even figured out their own strengths and weaknesses yet.)

So I can see some merit in the argument.

Over time, certainly this learning process will become faster. But if the players find heroic tier to easy over time, DM and players could still play at higher tiers - or just run against more challenging foes.

 

[kalani]

I admit that, once you have mastered the basic rules the learning curve is faster with each new character you create, but that does not mean its non-existent.

This of course assumes that your new character is not simply a (near perfect) copy of (one of) your previous character(s), and that you are trying something different (whether it be a different class in the same role, different build/MC/Hybrid, or a character from a different role entirely).

Even if your character is (mostly) identical to a previous character, the likelihood that your team-mates will be playing carbon-copy characters also, is very unlikely (and if they do, very boring) - and so you will still have a learning curve when it comes to developing team strategies (although again, it would be that much easier as your party will already know "exactly" what role your character plays within the party).

 

[Sadrik]

A possible solution here in this thread.