Feature or Bug: D&D's Power and Complexity Curve

[Mistwell]

One misconception I see is that in the LOTR, most of the company had room to grow. I don't think that's true - they were all (except the hobbits) high level at the start of the movie. Since they were already maxed out or close to it for the power level appropriate to the world, there was no reason to show growth.*

The hobbits? I think there was quite a bit of growth there, just not growth in terms that would fit a game like D&D.

Or the hobbits are the PCs and the rest of the fellowship are all high level NPCs the DM was running to help make sure the party doesn't get killed and to help railroad the party.

 

[Reynard]

Or the hobbits are the PCs and the rest of the fellowship are all high level NPCs the DM was running to help make sure the party doesn't get killed and to help railroad the party.

That GM made SO MUCH work for himself. I guess he was overcompensating after that debacle with the 12 dwarf hirelings...

 

[Li Shenron]

Well I suppose that if it bugs you, it's a bug

 

[Krachek]

Level advancement is iconic to DnD, but not mandatory.
A dm may run months of play at the same level.
Leveling allow readjustment for spell and some features, pc can use downtime instead.

 

[Li Shenron]

Seriously though, it's complicated...

On one hand we have hit points which are essentially linear for everyone.

We then have the Proficiency bonus, affecting attacks and spells, skills and saves. It is also linear but it's SLOW. See bounded accuracy.

Spellcasters daily slots also more or less linear, just a bit tumbling around the line. They start with 2, end up with over 20.

But then how about average damage per round, does it increase proportionately with level? I don't usually care for damage statistics, my gut feeling says it's less than linear but I'll leave it to the experts to enlighten us.

And then there is known spells, and here it's unclear. Wizards are linear, but Clerics and Druid get A LOT more spells at low levels, and then progressively less. This IMHO it's too complex for beginners. OTOH the range of utility from those spells is limited, especially from Clerics: many healing and defensive spells with different details don't really open up dramatically new tactics, not in the same way as some Wizard spells can.

So different aspects of character progression don't increase in the same way, and non-spellcasters rarely unlock more than one single new trick per level.

I do think that 5e is still not the best for beginners due to some excess complexity, but I think the problem is more at levels 1-3: races get too much all at once, and different spellcasting options are immediately thrown into the game. The most complex class at 1st level is IMHO the Cleric who at 1st level already has cantrips, bonus action spells, rituals, channel divinity, concentration spells, domain spells, and 15+ spells known... aargh!

What bothers me afterwards is the default speed. It's easy to change, but I don't like the general culture of speeding 1-20 in every campaign. It does feel unsatisfying for the story when this maps to just a couple of years in-characters at most. It makes you wonder why the PCs were stuck at level 1 all the years before the campaign, and what they are going to do all the years after...

 

[dave2008]

Just as a quick note: I am not looking for advice. I know how to "fix it" if I were so inclined. So while I appreciate the input from people who read my OP that way, it wasn't the intent.

You should put this in the OP or you are going to continue to get advice. I was about to do the same thing when I read this response.

Now personally for me and my group it is not a "bug," but I am not sure it is a feature either. It just is I guess - I've never really thought about it. We don't use XP and tend level really slowly, so it is possible that the issue just doesn't come up.

 

[5ekyu]

Seriously though, it's complicated...

On one hand we have hit points which are essentially linear for everyone.

We then have the Proficiency bonus, affecting attacks and spells, skills and saves. It is also linear but it's SLOW. See bounded accuracy.

Spellcasters daily slots also more or less linear, just a bit tumbling around the line. They start with 2, end up with over 20.

But then how about average damage per round, does it increase proportionately with level? I don't usually care for damage statistics, my gut feeling says it's less than linear but I'll leave it to the experts to enlighten us.

And then there is known spells, and here it's unclear. Wizards are linear, but Clerics and Druid get A LOT more spells at low levels, and then progressively less. This IMHO it's too complex for beginners. OTOH the range of utility from those spells is limited, especially from Clerics: many healing and defensive spells with different details don't really open up dramatically new tactics, not in the same way as some Wizard spells can.

So different aspects of character progression don't increase in the same way, and non-spellcasters rarely unlock more than one single new trick per level.

I do think that 5e is still not the best for beginners due to some excess complexity, but I think the problem is more at levels 1-3: races get too much all at once, and different spellcasting options are immediately thrown into the game. The most complex class at 1st level is IMHO the Cleric who at 1st level already has cantrips, bonus action spells, rituals, channel divinity, concentration spells, domain spells, and 15+ spells known... aargh!

What bothers me afterwards is the default speed. It's easy to change, but I don't like the general culture of speeding 1-20 in every campaign. It does feel unsatisfying for the story when this maps to just a couple of years in-characters at most. It makes you wonder why the PCs were stuck at level 1 all the years before the campaign, and what they are going to do all the years after...

" It's easy to change, but I don't like the general culture of speeding 1-20 in every campaign."

It's not really a change but a choice. There are a lot of leveling and xp options given that allows the hm to run game very different from 1-20 in a year or two. A whole lot of 3.x and others use them. 5e allows them too.

I have never run or played in a D&D game where 1-20 was expected.

 

[TwoSix]

First, characters still gain levels. Every few levels their Proficiency bonus increases and they get a feat or an ability boost. They get their class features ever couple levels as well. So they are getting "better." However, an orc is still an orc because they still only have the same hit points they started with, and the bigger, tougher, scarier higher CR monsters really are bigger, tougher and scarier. In addition, a yawning chasm or a sheer cliff or a murder mystery are still actual obstacles for the characters. They can't just fly over it or spider climb up it or speak with the deceased. The world looks the same over the course of their careers and remains more immersive and viable in the face of the PCs.

Bolded for emphasis. I'm sure you can see why that's a flaw for a lot of people, not a feature, right? Being able to laugh off threats that used to scare you is part of the fun of the power fantasy that D&D emphasizes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm largely sympathetic to the OP's point (I don't like zero-to-hero either) but there are so many things about RPGs that "break immersion"...probably more things that break it than reinforce it...that I pretty firmly believe "X broke my immersion" really just means "X really annoys me".

I just don't buy that someone is totally immersed in this fantasy world with make-believe creatures, bad physics, and illogical magic, surrounded by polyhedral dice, miniatures, and Doritos, with friends cracking jokes and making Star Wars references, but...oh noes!...zero-to-hero is what finally breaks immersion.

Maybe it breaks immersion in the sense that the aggrieved party interrupts the game to gripe about his/her favorite pet peeve.

 

[Raith5]

I dont think it can be categorised as a bug for me - but I notice it.

While I like the zero to hero dynamic, I do agree that the speed of the curve in D&D (in most editions) can be too fast for many stories and can stretch believably is key ways. I find in 5e that the way progress stresses hp in terms of progress actually accentuates that for me - my Barbarian more than quadrupled his hp in 2 -3 weeks of game time.

Across the editions of D&D I will say that the game overemphasizes progress it terms of depth - doing existing things better (things like hp, better to hit and more powerful spells) - rather than breadth (learning new skills, abilities etc). Obviously, 5e tuned down progress in terms of bounded accuracy, given the way D&D leans on its legacy, I doubt that this is a something that would change much in future editions.