D&D 3E/3.5 1e-3e vs. 4e: The inverted difficulty curve in D&D 5e design

[Crazy Jerome]

There is complexity from "involved and details procedures." I think this complexity should be relatively constant over all the power levels of a given game--as long as your doing roughly the same kind of things. That last part is a big caveat.

There is also complexity from "more options and choices." I think ideally this complexity should be available relatively early, but not imposed. That is, you can delve into this stuff as you are ready. However, for thematic and sensibility reasons, there is naturally going to be a growth of such options and choices as power increases.

So say that you have a subsystem for running a political domain. It may even pertain at the early levels, though of course if you've got a bunch of new players, they may prefer to ignore it. A bunch of experienced players starting a new campaign at 1st level may be happy to run a domain. It's just likely that the domain will be relatively small and uncomplicated compared to what they might get at 10th level.

Either way, the procedures they are following for killing monsters and taking their stuff should be roughly the same complexity at 1st and 10th. The sheer options for more magic items, more spells, more abilities is already racheting up the complexity naturally. Don't compound that by making the game itself more complex.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I have picked up on something equally strange. It seems people think beginners need a less formal game with rules for every situation being added as the levels go up. Shouldn't that also be reversed?

There is evidence for this. Back in the days when BD&D and AD&D were being produced simultaneously, it appeared that many newer players felt more comfortable with AD&D and its apparent 'rules for everything', while more experienced players were more comfortable with BD&D and its looser, more open structure.

The heroic levels can have minis, a grid and encounter powers but the paragon levels could do without. At paragon levels the training wheels can be taken off.

I'm not sure that minis and a grid make the gamer either simpler or more complex--they allow for greater precision, but at the expense of more factors to manage. I also disagree that complexity should really be tied to level. Starting players may start at 1st level with a simpler set, yes, but experienced gamers may want to start low-level campaigns, new gamers may want to give a high-level module a whirl, or gamers who progress through the levels may prefer different levels of complexity than the game proscribes.

 

[Glade Riven]

How dangerous the world is at any level is up to the DM.

Yet I think the problem is with the power curve in advancement. For melee in 3.5, advancement was close to a straight, upward slope. Spellcasters had a curve that was more along the lines of an exponential one. Many higher level spells are exceedingly powerful. In 4e, WotC attempted to have that straight upward slope for all classes with mixed results.

I would rather there be better gains at lower levels than at high levels. Say, the figher gains a +1 to Bab for the first 10 levels, then gets a +1 to BAB every other level up to level 14, and then +1 to Bab every 3 levels from 14 to 20. Spell progression would be similar - less gains per level at higher level.

The problem this creates is front-heavy classes, so the power curve would have to be designed based on character level instead of class level.

 

[Hassassin]

When comparing to video games, keep in mind that many (single player ones) are often (designed to be?) played through only once. I think most 1st level PCs are created by experienced players.

 

[TerraDave]

There is the lethality of the game over time.

There is the complexity of the game over time.

And (as Hassasin has implied) there is specifically the above for new players.

These are different things.

In all editions, as you level, it gets more complicated. It can actually be pretty hard to get the most out of a high level character.

In most editions, lethality is actually sort of "U" shaped. Obviously it goes down for a long time, but then the nature of the threat changes. To balance out those high level characters, opponents are going to have more unusual and extreme defenses and attacks (or the PCs will just hose them). High level play can actually be pretty swingy. Of course, I would say the big difference is that death (or turning to stone, horrible curses, etc) is far less of an obstacle at high levels.

As for new players...I don't know, having that PC die early on is sort of a right of passage.

 

[Lanefan]

I would rather there be better gains at lower levels than at high levels. Say, the figher gains a +1 to Bab for the first 10 levels, then gets a +1 to BAB every other level up to level 14, and then +1 to Bab every 3 levels from 14 to 20. Spell progression would be similar - less gains per level at higher level.

Why not just get rid of all the intervening levels by sharply slowing down the advancement rate after 10th? Thus, your level 14 becomes the new 12th, and your level 20 becomes the new 14th...but they still require the same actual number of ExP as the old level did. (thus, if you used to get to 20th at 750,000 ExP that now gets you to 14th instead) Progression continues - slowly - from there.

As a nice side effect this would also help reduce numbers bloat in many other areas.

The problem this creates is front-heavy classes, so the power curve would have to be designed based on character level instead of class level.

For this to work multiclassing as we know it would have to go away completely; and while I wouldn't mind this at all, others would complain.

Lanefan

 

[nightwalker450]

If I may say this about 4e.. this was part of why I think the math fix feats were a mistake. There were so many power bonuses, at that point that they were unnecessary. If you couldn't get the power bonuses, then it helped to escalate difficulty with level, otherwise once put in they took some things back to the inverse curve.

Ok, no derail... But I like escalating difficulty.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

But 4e was the first D&D to recognize this ascending difficulty issue and went the other way. It tried to start the game out easier for beginning players and then make it harder.

Ironically though, what actually ends up happening is that in 4E the game does get easier as you level up.

By the time your party gets to the epic tier, the monsters are about 4-5 levels too weak to have the same impact.

So basically an epic tier solo monster (of level equal to the party) is about as dangerous as a heroic tier elite monster (of level equal to the party).

 

[Mark CMG]

My solution? 10 levels, all sweet spot.

 

[Mallus]

My solution? 10 levels, all sweet spot.

As suggestion go, I've seen a lot worse!