D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Charlaquin]

Tier 2 is arguably the sweet spot, where PCs are pretty pitent but not insanely so, but I would say Tier 1 is fun, as well. But starting at Level 4, everyone has their Class abd Subclass fully online, plus both Background and General Feats. So starting at Level 4 offers more distinct build opportunities.

I agree that tier 2 is the sweet spot, but I wouldn’t want to start in the sweet spot, or any growth at all takes you further from the sweet spot. If you start at level 4, the game just gets slightly worse every time you level up. If you start at level 1, the most fun part of the campaign is still ahead of you. You get to build up to it, spend a little time there, and then grow past it to the point where you feel ready to retire the character and start a new campaign. Better engagement curve that way. Plus, levels 1-3 are really the only time where combat feels scary, which I think is a valuable feeling to be able to grow out of by leveling up.

 

[Clint_L]

Most of the criticisms cited in the blog are personal justifications for not liking changes. Which is fine; humans generally dislike change and find reasons to justify it (c.f. your dad's opinion of your music...or your own opinion of your kid's). But personal justifications are seldom very persuasive to others. I find his perspective interesting, though, even if I don't share it.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, the simulationist importance of the 3-18 bellcurve basically died when the game abandoned using a d20 test to roll under the Ability number for action resolution instead of a d20 roll high test.

I think the instant you could trade attribute points to get your important ones up past an important threshold (which is to say oD&D, pre-supplements), the attribute system was no longer a perfect model of the population distribution of the quality measured. Attributes are a relative measure of various qualities, but as demographic indicator, they have always had one asterisk or another.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree that tier 2 is the sweet spot, but I wouldn’t want to start in the sweet spot, or any growth at all takes you further from the sweet spot. If you start at level 4, the game just gets slightly worse every time you level up. If you start at level 1, the most fun part of the campaign is still ahead of you. You get to build up to it, spend a little time there, and then grow past it to the point where you feel ready to retire the character and start a new campaign. Better engagement curve that way. Plus, levels 1-3 are really the only time where combat feels scary, which I think is a valuable feeling to be able to grow out of by leveling up.

I'd be inclined to agree, but the rulebooks do suggest it...which does somewhat mute the "the fluff for the Warlock or Sorcerer doesn't come online until Level 3!" somewhat. The design is that Level 3 is just when all the characters get up and online.

 

[Chaltab]

I agree that tier 2 is the sweet spot, but I wouldn’t want to start in the sweet spot, or any growth at all takes you further from the sweet spot. If you start at level 4, the game just gets slightly worse every time you level up. If you start at level 1, the most fun part of the campaign is still ahead of you. You get to build up to it, spend a little time there, and then grow past it to the point where you feel ready to retire the character and start a new campaign. Better engagement curve that way. Plus, levels 1-3 are really the only time where combat feels scary, which I think is a valuable feeling to be able to grow out of by leveling up.

Am I the only one who prefers late tier 2/early tier 3? Some of the coolest encounters I've run were levels 9 to 12.

 

[Charlaquin]

Am I the only one who prefers late tier 2/early tier 3? Some of the coolest encounters I've run were levels 9 to 12.

I’m sure you aren’t the only one. I do think that’s a great level range for a climax, and the climax is often the most memorable and exciting part of a campaign. But I wouldn’t want to spend a lot of time there; it’s fun for the grand finale of a campaign, but for me would wear out its welcome if it was the median power level of the campaign.

 

[Mephista]

That is what Keith’s post read like to me, that 2024 leaned into epic fantasy moreso than 2014 and to the detriment of everything else, and I do agree with that trend, 2014 was slightly more grounded than 2024, even if not by much

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that way? Honestly curious

The only thing I can think of is that Fighter and Rogue got their psionic subclasses in the core, making it two mundane and two supernatural subclasses each, instead of two and one, respectively, in 2014. And maybe the Barbarian, because if you squinted, Berserker and Totem are could be played as non-supernatural.

 

[Mephista]

You're right, I'm sorry. I forgot that part.

Wait... how do you play again?

Well, first you have to complete the scheduling mini-game before you can sit down to have a session, and...

 

[Mephista]

Am I the only one who prefers late tier 2/early tier 3? Some of the coolest encounters I've run were levels 9 to 12.

My favorite levels are 3 to 11. With 11 as a kind of capstone for the characters. 12 isn't bad, but its just a feat and, tbh, I feel like its more exciting to end on a high note.

Getting your subclass is such a qualitative change for some characters that its a hard fit sometimes to justify playing so vastly different for levels 1 and 2, then a hard shift at level 3. So I prefer just starting at 3 instead of going through the first two levels.

 

[Remathilis]

True, but we're talking about a CR 4 NPC whose stats resemble those of a level 10 PC martial (having 10 hit dice, two attacks, and 18 STR).

Obviously, NPC and PC stats don't translate 1 to 1 but unless a creature has spell slots (which isn't really a thing in 5E since MPMM) then hit dice are the only way to approximate its class levels.

(Incidentally, by this measure the Bandit Crime Lord that the blog post laments being so dexterous is a level 26 character... presumably 11 Fighter, 15 Rogue)

Its not just 1 to 1, but there is ZERO correlation between NPCs and PCs, an issue they have made painfully clear as 5e monster designed progressed through Monsters of the Multiverse and the new Monster Manual. Hit dice are an exceptionally bad way to measure PC stats because NPC HD does not resemble PC HD in the slightest. (NPC HD is based on Size and PCs have better average hp due to Max HD and more generous rounding) They aren't even internally consistent as the CR 2 druid is a 4th level caster with 5 HD. So is he fourth or fifth level? The answer is he's neither.

The problem is that if you try to make those connections, you have to make one of two choices: NPCs are mechanically weak (unable to withstand the far superior firepower a PC brings) but consistent or they are mechanically viable, but the math to get there bears no significance beyond mathing. That CR 4 guard needs those stats to be a challenge worth a CR 4. If he's built by the statistical averages the game world would assume, he's not gonna crack CR 1/4, let alone 4.