And that is exactly why they have issues - there are so many choices that they can spend a lot of time playing games that don't fit them well before they find one that works.
D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?
- Thread starter JohnSnow
- Start date
And that is exactly why they have issues - there are so many choices that they can spend a lot of time playing games that don't fit them well before they find one that works.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
A level spread of 1-4-4-4-5-5 (unless the '1') is a hench) is going to be hell on the '1' in any edition. And it goes both ways: I've run parties in the past with spreads like 3-3-3-4-4-8 and the '8' just dominates.
Contrast how well each of 1e and 3e would (or try to) handle parties with characters of these levels:
1-2-3-3-4-5
3-3-4-4-5-5-6
4-5-5-5-5
6-7-8-8-9-11 (I just finished running this party for an adventure in our 1e-adjacent system)
For the first of those, 1e would do OK (I've run parties with spreads like this many a time) though the '1' would have to be careful, while 3e would either slaughter the 1 and 2 or completely fail to challenge the 4 and 5.
For the second, that's a breeze for 1e - many modules were written in the specific expectation of a spread like this, as proven by the pre-gen characters included. In 3e, our party had a similar spread for a while and the differences were very stark: the 3s often couldn't hit while the 6 hit seemingly every time.
The third is nothing to 1e but is huge to 3e - the 4 is an appendage, as I saw firsthand in play. (and this isn't personal griping, I was not playing the lower-level character in either case)
In the fourth, that '11' stands out like a sore thumb. In the adventure I just ran that character was a bit too dominant for my liking; though even one level lower would probably have been OK. In 3e, though the lower-levels would at least have more going for them, I suspect a single 11 would rule the roost power-wise.
My usual rough guideline for our system is that if everyone is within 2 of the party average and the mode and median are also close to that average it'll probably work just fine. We found that to very much not be the case when playing 3e, where even a 1-level variance was a big deal.
From 3e to 5e I'd even say the power gap between levels has shrunk somewhat; 5e seems way better at handling mixed-level parties than 3e ever was, simply because of that flatter power curve.
The investment-in-character piece is a different discussion, one we've had before.
A further factor to remember about earlier editions was that the game was in some ways specifically designed to generate level variance over the long run, via:
--- staggered advancement tables (e.g. Thieves needed fewer xp to bump than did Fighters)
--- level-draining undead and other effects
--- level-granting or xp-granting items and other effects
The game design paradigm also defines and uses level range differently.
When a 1e module says it's written for level range 2-4 it means characters within that range - no matter what specific spread - will find it a roughly-appropriate challenge. When a 4e module says it's written for level range 1-3 it means all the characters are supposed to be 1st level going in and all be 3rd level when they come out. That's a fairly major difference.
Voadam
Legend
My experience as a crafter heavy wizard one level behind with more half price wands, miscellaneous items, and scrolls of my choice in a 3.5 game was not as an appendage to the party.
The hit of being down a caster level for lightning bolts and spell slots and a spell level every other level was heavily felt as an opportunity cost though.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Actually, with 4e, it's not as different as you allege from the original. At the extreme ends, naturally, things are liable to go pear-shaped faster because that's how things work in basically every edition. But if we bump that up to even 2-4 or 3-5, it's actually completely on-math to do that adventure at any level between level 1 (where the party will level quickly) and level 6 (where the party will level slowly, but have an easy time of things).
Some folks have a tendency to significantly over-state how sensitive 4e is to level differences. The encounter-building rules explicitly say that things up to level+4 (so if you're level 1, a level 5 combat) are fine, albeit dangerous/challenging. The text also repeatedly recommends including some clearly low-level combats, both because variety is important, and because those are a good way for players to feel the progress they've made. It does note that over-use of either end, whether extremely high- or extremely low-level combats relative to the party, usually results in a not very fun experience, though, unless you handle the combats differently. IIRC, I think it uses an example of a level+8 encounter where the players are expected to run away or find an advantage that tilts things more in their favor?
I say this despite playing my own Thief*
* - and yes, her name is Black Leaf.
Lanefan, get out of here. YOU'RE DEAD! You don't exist any more.
Zardnaar
Legend
Death isn't that common in older D&D. PCs are a lot more careful though. We've been playing it including official adventures so wasn't going easy on them either.
A level or two behind was usually optional. Usually because of multiclassing. You also had the full powers of the other class.
Even multiclassing 2 slow leveling classes togather wasn't that bad.
Was funny seeing my powergaming wife's ranger/cleric fall two levels behind recently vs the bard. Mostly in her head as she was still very good. Level 3 vs 5 though got to her.
It's buy in though (don't multiclass).
I ram a thought experiment back in 3E. Gestalt classes how many levels they would give up to be one in a normal game. 1 level was absolutely, 2 levels maybe 3 levels was hell no exception in a game that started at level 10+.
I di warn new players about multi and dual classing if they're looking at it. Mostly read the rules very carefully
Voadam
Legend
In my 3e games I offered gestalt as options at character creation, an eight point hit on point buy stats could get you gestalt with an NPC class. A sixteen point hit could get you a full gestalt. Seemed a reasonable tradeoff to me given the importance of stats in 3e and how power for both MAD and SAD 3e character classes relied heavily on good stats. I had PCs in my games who took both options, but the majority took single classed PCs.
Zardnaar
Legend
What was 3E point buy again?
Voadam
Legend
Start at 8s with 25 points. 9-13 = 1 point each, 14-16 = 2 points each, 17-18 = 3 points each. Standard PC array fits in standard point buy (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 arrange to taste).
3.0 DMG pages 19 & 20:
My games had started at a higher heroic point buy as well though. 32 point buy for my swashbucklery themed high skill low armor Death in Freeport game and 48 point buy for my very high-powered Wildwood Red in Tooth and Claw game. I can't remember what point buy I did for my in person campaigns, I remember having an inquisitor/fighter, a rogue/sorcerer and I can't remember if a third was a magus with a witch archetype or a witch with a magus black sword archetype/warrior gestalt all in my Pathfinder Reign of Winter AP campaign alongside single classed bard and paladin and a multiclassed but non-gestalt barbarian sorcerer dragon whatever prestige class.
A friend of mine ran a pathfinder game for the mythic rules demon fighting adventure path he ran and adopted my point buy gestalt option for his game but made it a lower (four point?) point buy cost to fully gestalt and an option to triple gestalt. I chose to triple gestalt fighter/wizard/custom martial artist with my highest starting point buy stat at a 13 or 14 IIRC for a concept of mage who punches demons in the face concept. I think everyone else chose to more efficiently focus fire their concepts and max out their stats for one class.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Why Combat is a Fail State - Blog and Thoughts
