Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9202123" data-attributes="member: 29398">And 1e, where either the invisible target had a 4 AC bonus or the attacker had a -4 penalty to hit; I forget which is the RAW version, I've always used the to-hit penalty.I wasn't much of a fan of the way 3e did that either.  I don't care much about the feel-bad aspect but it did mean more dice-rolling.In my view, the biggest overall problem with 3e (and its direct successors) was the steepness of the overall power curve from 1st level to xth level, where x could be any number you like.  Most of its smaller issues IMO stem from that one element.5e has flattened this out fairly significantly, from what I can tell; it's more like 1e-2e in that regard.The easiest way to check the flatness/steepness of the power curve is to look at how much level variation there can be between the characters in a party and have the game remain playable.  3e didn't really tolerate any variation at all, while 1-2-5e all tolerate it to a fairly wide extent (1e almost expects it).  4e, from what I've seen/read/heard, falls somewhere between.</blockquote>