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

[Glade Riven]

100% sweet spot may not be possible.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]: Maybe. Long stretches of not getting any type of advancement kinda sucks, too. One reason why e6 works is that you still get something (bonus feat every so often) over time.

 

[MarkChevallier]

100% sweet spot may not be possible.

I'm not sure it's advisable; I enjoy a changing experience as I play; going from the weak end to the strong end, from a fragile character to a powerful one. This implies a change in how the game is played over time, and to an extent, to the mathematical nature of the game (from rocket-tag to... whatever the other one is, hedge-trimming?), and it's one I enjoy pretty much all the way through.

Some people will enjoy some types of game more than others, and it's within them to play E6 or E9+3 (levels from 4 to 12, for a more 4E kind of game) or whatever other variation they like - perhaps that'll be reflected in GMs advice in 5E?

I like the variety, and different people find a "sweet spot" in different places.

 

[trancejeremy]

I think it's just because you improve. If you look at video games, there are ones where you basically stay the same (in terms of ability) through out the game, while others have you start out weak and improve dramatically by the end of the game. D&D follows the latter tack.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like the variety, and different people find a "sweet spot" in different places.

I think lack of a wide ranging sweet spot would be more acceptable to some who would otherwise want it, if the curve was a bit smoother. It's the dramatic jump between 1st and where ever the sweet spot starts, then another dramatic jump when the sweet spot ends, that makes it seem to cut out half the levels of play.

That's not entirely true, of course. For example, I've heard people say that everything was great with 3E as long as they could start at level 2 and quit before anyone got 9th level spells. And similar things for other editions. Everyone has their own tolerances. But I think it is generally accepted in pre 4E D&D that you get this huge bump when you get 3rd level spells, and again at 6th. Monte Cook talked about this explicitly in the design notes for Arcana Evolved, and how he tried to smooth it out by moving some of the power to 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 7th level spells (up or down as warranted).

If I remember correctly, early D&D got around some of this by providing some pretty sweet cleric spells at spell levels 2nd and 4th.

 

[Griego]

This assumes that using grids and minis is "easy mode" and not using them is harder. Which I do not believe to be the case. The game can be easy with or without minis and grid depending on the ruleset you are using.

For my 3.5 group, the grid was definitely harder for the newbies.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I think lack of a wide ranging sweet spot would be more acceptable to some who would otherwise want it, if the curve was a bit smoother. It's the dramatic jump between 1st and where ever the sweet spot starts, then another dramatic jump when the sweet spot ends, that makes it seem to cut out half the levels of play.

I agree, the curve of play should be smooth rather than jagged! But there should be a curve.

 

[howandwhy99]

I disagree with the OP that earlier levels were harder in previous editions. I'm not denying anyone else's experiences. For me it was simply easier to avoid commensurate challenges once the lower levels had been progressed through, so it was easier to face weaker foes and stay alive longer. The change up was, it meant the game went on longer during the mid-levels as players chose to face lower level challenges and get less XP than they would have over time. This slows advancement too, but it makes for an easier game as was suggested.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Hmm, I think the other way makes more sense. Complexity, which also means more rules to know, should come more into play at higher level with the lower levels being a more old school freeform game. Monte Cook talked about this in an L&L column. Though I don't fully agree with him. I think the rules should be consistent at all levels. Just that lower level PCs shouldn't need to know as many because they would have fewer options.

One thing I liked about 1e/2e and 4e is that the rules feel like they get out of the way. 4e may seem like it is complex, but once you understand it its very intuitive. I have played entire sessions of 1e/2e and 4e without ever cracking my PHB open once. But when I play 3e/Pathfinder I feel suffocated by rules everywhere even at level 1.

I think using miniatures should be optional system you add or not depending on how a DM wants to run a specific encounter.

I think this is that case always mentioned where it's really the players and DM.

In 3E we didn't open books too much after character creation. I mean I did (DM) but everyone else knew enough about the basics of the game to figure out most everything for themselves.

4E felt quite the opposite to me actually. Everything is perfectly arranged and calculated I felt really forced into being EXACTLY by the book at all times. 3E I really didn't feel that pressure.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe. Long stretches of not getting any type of advancement kinda sucks, too. One reason why e6 works is that you still get something (bonus feat every so often) over time.

Depends what one wants out of the game, I suppose; whether advancement is a primary goal of play or a side effect of it.

Lanefan

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I observe the exact opposite.

Low level is harder and that's when PCs can die the easiest.

Once past 5th level, 4E becomes a piece of cake and gets easier and easier due to the vast plethora of options that become available. I'm never threatened in Paragon or Epic as a player.

Could you give some examples to support your POV?