Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9051701" data-attributes="member: 6790260">To explain the possible clickbait title, D&D, even 5e, is designed depth-first, not breadth-first. Devs lay out a 1-20 framework, basic math/scaling, spell progression, HP values, etc., and then design 20-level classes to fill 20-level spaces. This creates tensions: balance across a wide range of levels, the idea of "too many" classes, the "it's okay to become godlike if you start pathetic" issue, multicass fears (whether overblown or reasonable), issues of "bloat" or "power creep," etc.But what if that's got things backwards?Imagine a D&D designed breadth-first, going only to level 10. Not the 13th Age way, where 20 levels have been compressed to 10. I mean it actually stops at (more or less) the power level of level 10 that 5e has today. No 6th+ spells. Nothing with prerequisites higher than 10. No Extra Attack x4. Etc. Some tweaks are likely--you'd want to create new, level 10-appropriate capstones for example--but the core idea is, it's D&D that actually stops at 10. Then, fill all the space gained with a few more classes. Say 7, to bring things up to a nice round 20. Breadth, not depth.Then, instead of adding breadth (or, as some might say, bloat) to an already tall game, add depth to an already wide game. N more levels (probably 10), truly designed and balanced for use AS higher-level, more-powerful characters, with real adventures designed for that purpose. IOW, the way Expert expanded on Basic. And then repeat it, if it proves successful, the way Companion, Master, and Immortal built on Basic+Expert.Instead of "nobody plays past 10-12" being a bug, it would be a feature: the game is designed to be genuinely, fully enjoyable across that range. And if folks want to progress further--or start higher--that's where the 11-20 rules (call it "Paragon" or "Expert" or whatever) come in. And you could even do the reverse, build up "novice" levels meant to give the absolute zero-to-hero experience some folks crave.Consider the impact on multiclassing, everyone's favorite bugaboo. Giving up a level or two in 5e now is small potatoes, and often brings big rewards. With smaller but still valuable 10th level capstones and fewer bonuses, sacrificing two or three levels becomes a pretty serious investment. And then those 7 extra classes come in: rather than the power creep from multiclassing or constant subclass one-upmanship, the extra classes can fill in thematic gaps and offer a smooth progression without weird intermixing.Further, consider the boon to homebrewers and third-party publishers. You only need to design for half as big a range; for spells, you only need to design 2/3 of the spell levels (cantrips + 1st-5th.) Smaller, more focused additions. Anyone wanting to rebuild the base game for a more specific flavor, such as low/no-magic "Sword and Sandal" or high-tech "Science Fantasy" or period fantasy (e.g. Wyld West) would have a much easier time, taking it in comparatively bite-sized chunks.There could still be horizontal progression, e.g. perhaps the first couple years are dedicated to new subclasses and races, and then the "Paragon"/"Expert" rules come out at the start of the second year. Add a little more breadth to those for a couple years and determine the best direction to go from there. Etc.So...am I crazy? Or have we gotten so wrapped up in a specific kind of depth-first design that we fail to see the obvious solution to a bunch of problems D&D design currently deals with?</blockquote>

Verification