D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[Hussar]

References would be good here to clarify what you're talking about. It wasn't an assumption in AD&D2, and it's not an assumption in 5E, so maybe your "three editions" are 3/3.5/4? Or if you're referring to 5E, please provide references.

The party being the same level is an assumption in 3e, 4e and 5e.

 

[Parmandur]

BTW, when I'm talking about assumptions, I'm talking about GAME ASSUMPTIONS, not what happens at your table. The game assumes everyone is the same level and has done so since 3e.

Not in 5E it is not.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The party being the same level is an assumption in 3e, 4e and 5e.

References please? The encounter building rules on DMG 82 do not assume that, is there somewhere else that does? On DMG 82 they even walk you through an example of building encounters for a heterogenously-levelled party with a 33% level disparity (multiple 3rds and a 2nd).

Where does your belief about 5E's assumptions come from?

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, anyone that disagrees with you is guilty of jealousy or sour grapes and is just whining. Since you haven't seen "a single argument" in the whole thread otherwise.

But, hey, I'm just building strawmen right? Ascribing motives and all that. Funny how that's only ever, one way.

yeah, as a matter of fact you are. Just did it again in fact. I think you seriously need to look up what a strawman is. It's almost comical at this point

 

[Sunseeker]

BTW, when I'm talking about assumptions, I'm talking about GAME ASSUMPTIONS, not what happens at your table. The game assumes everyone is the same level and has done so since 3e.

Average party level is not the same as assuming everyone is at the average party level. That's the reason it's called "average" party level. That's why CR is a somewhat more complicated mess than it appears. A CR 7 creature is a challenge for a party where 1 person is level 13 and 1 person is level 1 because the creature is probably going to go after the mook a lot and the higher-level player will have to protect them.

I can't think of any explicit or implicit rules in 3.5, 4th, or 5th where the game assumes you are all the same level.

The party being the same level is an assumption in 3e, 4e and 5e.

Saying it is isn't providing proof that it is. Do you have a page number you could reference from the PHB or DMG from any of your specified editions?

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, the points I made about game balance and encounter design are what? Jealousy or sour grapes?

no, just not very strong or compelling ones. Unless you expect me to believe that a PC having an additional +1 or +2 bonus is so significant that you have to adjust encounter design for it. Which I wouldn't buy it anyway because I've never seen that difference being so severe to warrant what you claim. Not in 35 years of playing

 

[Hussar]

References please? The encounter building rules on DMG 82 do not assume that, is there somewhere else that does? On DMG 82 they even walk you through an example of building encounters for a heterogenously-levelled party with a 33% level disparity (multiple 3rds and a 2nd).

Where does your belief about 5E's assumptions come from?

Interesting spin. I'd say that they had a group with one character with a one level difference. But, hey, whatever. It's not like we have two adventure path modules out now where characters are generally assumed to be within a level of each other. But, yeah, groups with four, five, or more level disparity are perfectly common and I'm sure that the majority of tables out there see that.

 

[Hussar]

no, just not very strong or compelling ones. Unless you expect me to believe that a PC having an additional +1 or +2 bonus is so significant that you have to adjust encounter design for it. Which I wouldn't buy it anyway because I've never seen that difference being so severe to warrant what you claim. Not in 35 years of playing

Oh, cool. So, Sacrosanct has never seen the problem, it cannot possibly exist. Fantastic, problem solved.

Yeah, this is more about arguing against me rather than the points I'm making, so, I'm out.

 

[SteveC]

I "flat out said that"? Where is my quote? I said that I haven't seen a single argument so far for why one player having better stats than another is a bad thing that doesn't come down to jealousy or sour grapes.

Those are two totally different statements. For one, my statement has nothing to do with liking or disliking something, but has focused solely on the arguments presented. Then again, I'm not all that surprised that someone who is ascribing behavior of others (you) would resort to a strawman. So there's that.

Uh, this isn't that difficult to figure out: equality of opportunity and fairness at the table. Pretty simple really. No sour grapes at all.

I'm not interested in playing a game where one character is significantly more powerful than the others.

I know other people don't mind, and that's fine (of course) but man, I just don't get why "everyone gets equal potential" seems to constantly be debated and argued all the time. You either care about it or you don't, but neither side of the discussion is that hard to understand.

 

[bedir than]

I implemented this as a javascript+html page.
http://aramis.hostman.us/dnd/RedrickRoller.html

Thanks for the idea! (I'll remove your handle from it if you want, but credit where it's due until otherwise told).

Bookmarked.