[D&D Design Discussion] Preserving the "Sweet Spot"

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Rodrigo also mentioned that the current system forces characters to max the essential skills. I don't think you can change that.

It's not the maxxing per se that's the problem. I don't care if a rogue wants to be the best lockpicker in the universe. It's the disparity between max that results from other factors that becomes problematic at higher levels, IMO.

At a certain point, DMs have to decide whether or not certain skill checks become irrelevant. If you put a DC 30 Trap in a room, you're requiring a rogue of a certain level to disarm it, or placing it with the de facto intention of ensuring the party sets it off, because no secondary character (even a bard) is going to have the skill level necessary. So it boils down to 'put trap in, rogue automatically succeeds' or 'put trap in, it goes off' because no one else can substitute. Hence, the skill check becomes irrelevant.

Spot checks are the same way -- if you have it as a class skill, it's maxed, it it's not a class skill, after a certain point don't bother wasting skill points on it cause you'll never see the Xth level rogue that has hide as a maxxed class skill.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

At a certain point, DMs have to decide whether or not certain skill checks become irrelevant. If you put a DC 30 Trap in a room, you're requiring a rogue of a certain level to disarm it, or placing it with the de facto intention of ensuring the party sets it off, because no secondary character (even a bard) is going to have the skill level necessary. So it boils down to 'put trap in, rogue automatically succeeds' or 'put trap in, it goes off' because no one else can substitute. Hence, the skill check becomes irrelevant.

Heh heh... DDO much?

That's a very good post, though-- the kind of thinking that needs to be done on a very basic design level. It's a high-altitude view of the design. (As an aside, I think Mearls does a lot of thinking on this level.)

But to your DC30 problem-- I think this is the very definition of the sweet spot. A properly designed sweet spot ensures that there is no point on the curve of the sweet spot at which something is an automatic success or failure. At the far ends of the curve (1st-2nd or 9th-10th) you would approach automatics.

 

[Markn]

Sorry to jump in (and in some part this message is not related to the current discussion that is going on) but this is in response to the original post of extending the "sweet spot" of D&D.

I think there are two ways of extending the sweet spot. One is campaign design, the other is rules/mechanics/options in the game.

For the first part, I really feel that the original dungeons and dragons (with the basic, expert, companion, master and immortal boxed sets) had one of the best campaign designs ever created. Levels 1 - 3 were dungeon crawls, levels 4 - 13 ( I can't remember the exact level breakup so don't quote me on this part) were more dungeons/outdoor adventure, levels 14 - 20 were about attaining land and making a difference in the world, levels 21 - 28 were about making a bigger difference in the world and levels 29 - 36 were about becomming imortal (among other things). The elegance of this system was that a DM had a starting and stopping point for each phase of the campaign. Challenges seen on lower level were vastly different from higher levels. It kept the whole campaign fresh during each stage and it tested PC's in ever aspect of their character. It wasn't just focused on combat, it wasn't just focused on roleplaying, it wasn't just focused on the players being at the bottome of the power level, etc. In and of itself, it allowed the DM to change the campaign play and challenges he threw at them. During each "campaign phase" the PCs were at the bottom of the power level and rise to the top of that power level. For example, in levels 14 -20 they would buy a piece of land, build it up, deal with other owners more powerful than them and then eventually reach equal power with those other land owners. Then in the next "campaign phase" they would have to work with those same land owners to deal with threats on a country scale and deal with other political issues as well until they mastered that aspect.

In a nutshell, the campaign design allowed the character to reach a certain power level, then put them in a different environment where they were at the bottom of the power level and had to work their way back to the top again and so on and so on. This made for a sweet spot at all levels of play due to the inherent no power - gain power - top of the power - repeat cycle.

DISCLAIMER - The problem with the above mentioned system is that not all groups wanted to attain similar goals and it would meet everyones playing style. But lets ignore that for now shall we?!

Now for the mechanic aspect of the game. One issue I run into with higher level games is the amount of time required to prepare the game as a DM, particularly if I want a villain who is an NPC and not a monster. I could spend 2 - 3 hours designing a session and have the PCs fly through the encounter based on something I hadn't anticipated in 10 minutes. To me that is an issue. The flip side however is that in 3/3.5 we are experiencing higher level game play more than at any other incarnation of D&D ever before. This, then, is a testement to the current rules of the game in that they have already extended the sweet spot more than ever before.

While I have no idea what could be done I like some of the suggestions mentioned by other posters in the thread. One thing I do think needs to be done is reduce the buffs. High level buff management is insane (both on the DM and player side). I think it should be useful up to and including mid level play but beyond that it becomes a real bear to keep track of.

Anyway, that is my 2cp.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I think it's self evident. 5th level spells were available at 9th level-- "Name Level." That was very clearly the point of apotheosis for the PC heroes.

Ah, okay. Now I get it.

Just to reiterate, I didn't mean to imply before that 10th level was the sweet spot. 10th level is the cap. I wouldn't want post-apotheosis play to last very long, but I certainly wouldn't deny it to the players.

Again, okay. I somehow lost track of the argument and thought that 10th level was the sweet spot. Now I understand -- it's the cap, like the equivalent of 20th level now.

No, the problem with D&D is that it is basically designed to satisfy the needs of probability and the needs of verisimilitude simultaneously-- up through the sweet spot.

It's just that at high levels, that mechanic is broken.

I would debate that D&D is designed in any way to achieve verisimilitude (although don't we love to bandy that word about); I think it is designed to achieve the illusion of verisimilitude by being just barely plausible enough to conform to real-world constraints. Therefor, I don't see how high level play is any more broken than low level play, in regards to verisimilitude.

It bugs me that I generally think of essential skills only in terms of the rogue.

As with many such issues in the game, the problem is magic. All non-rogue skills (and eventually, even the rogue skills) can be totally superseded by magic.

Need to stabilize a dying PC? Don't bother with that DC 15 Heal check, just cast cure minor wounds. Need to get the scoop on a mysterious enemy? Don't bother with the DC whatever Gather Information check, just cast commune or contact other plane or legend lore. Need to Use Rope? Don't bother with the skill, just cast animate rope or rope trick or levitate as needed.

So I think that unless you totally eliminate magic from the game -- in which case I don't think it's recognizably D&D any more -- then skills will always be overshadowed by magic.

High-level D&D just doesn't scale realistically. Or satisfactorily.

Can you explain what you mean by "scale realistically"? Also, I think that realistically/satisfactorily are two separate (possibly mutally exclusive) goals.

A properly designed sweet spot ensures that there is no point on the curve of the sweet spot at which something is an automatic success or failure.

The question is, how much randomness is enough or too much? If the PCs always have a 50% chance of success, then some players might think that is too much randomness. So where do you draw the line?

 

[green slime]

Who's the "we" you're talking about?

If you aren't part of the consensus shown in this thread-- if the sweet spot is mythical to you-- find a different thread.

Pretty sure I made that clear in the first post.

EDIT: Pardon the "attitude" on display there. It's not meant to be that snarky, just that I think the "sweet spot" and a desire to prolong it is a pre-requisite to this thread. Your "semi-mythical" comment rattled me and made me overlook the fact that we can reasonably differ on where the sweet spot is. Hope that's clearer.

It's semi-mythical, because we can't pinpoint where it occurs, and we can't agree to it either. You point to 5th level spells being the apogee for you and your campaigns. For me, this occurs somewhere around 7th-8th level spells (I strongly dislike mordenkainen's nuclear disjunction).

Why, for instance is a DC30 trap assumed to be some kind of representation for something other than the prerequiste for having a rogue in the party? Without the rogue, the trap is still negotiable, it is just going to consume party resources that are more difficult to replace. This fact is the same whether the trap DC is 10, 30, or 50. Because of the trapfinding class ability restriction on a large case (in the game) of traps, no sane non-rogue character will place skill points in the skill.

I'd like to see a prolonged "sweet-spot", and I'd have to say, of all the ideas presented in this thread, the most conducive to this (IMO), is the now "old" idea of restricting characters to spellcasting levels every other level. Which would mean that, for me, this would extend the game's "playability and enjoyability" into the 30's.

That in itself might require some forethought, planning, and care regarding Epic level feats and abilities.

 

[ashockney]

Alt 3

Heh heh... DDO much?

That's a very good post, though-- the kind of thinking that needs to be done on a very basic design level. It's a high-altitude view of the design. (As an aside, I think Mearls does a lot of thinking on this level.)

But to your DC30 problem-- I think this is the very definition of the sweet spot. A properly designed sweet spot ensures that there is no point on the curve of the sweet spot at which something is an automatic success or failure. At the far ends of the curve (1st-2nd or 9th-10th) you would approach automatics.

If that is the case perhaps the game could benefit from logical caps? For example 10 BAB, 10 Caster levels, 10 ranks in a skill. Anything beyond that can be gained but at a ratio closer to 2:1. As a DM you work within tighter constraints around CR for your monsters, capping out between 10 - 15. I'd also mess with the party treasures table to keep the player loot more in check, and less of an impact to that curve.

If you simply did these things you could extend the average game out to 20 levels from 10 with very minor adjustments.

Any comments on this, or my postings on the previous page?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Heh heh... DDO much?

That's a very good post, though-- the kind of thinking that needs to be done on a very basic design level. It's a high-altitude view of the design. (As an aside, I think Mearls does a lot of thinking on this level.)

But to your DC30 problem-- I think this is the very definition of the sweet spot. A properly designed sweet spot ensures that there is no point on the curve of the sweet spot at which something is an automatic success or failure. At the far ends of the curve (1st-2nd or 9th-10th) you would approach automatics.

Yeah, I had more on that subject, but a stupid client started bugging me about his website not working.

I was going to add that 30 is about the sweet spot for end-game at 10th level for challenging test. A character with it as a maxed cross-class skill can hit it barely -- 20+6 CC ranks + 2 stat + 2 misc or item or whatever. A character with it as a maxxed class skill will succeed 30% or maybe a little more since the relevant stat, etc. are likely to be higher.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'd just like to chime in as one of the dissenters that 10th level is somehow outside the sweetspot. I've never had a problem with teleport, commune, raise dead or plane shift ruining my game. In fact, sometimes I think the sweet spot starts when these spells come into play. When Wulf mentioned removing or nerfing these spells in an earlier post I got a shot vinegar in my mouth. They are D&D to me and anything that messes with them messes with some of the fun.

My current game has a party of 6 28th level characters and I find making adventurers for them just as fun as I did when they were 3rd level characters. My secret is not to invest as much time in the starting area of the campaign because when 10th level arrives, the game must start to be larger to hold the characters.

This thread should really be called Preserving the "Small World" Campaign. I agree that below 9th level the world is much smaller than after 9th level. But I disagree that this is in any way the sweet spot for D&D. It is just the sweet spot for Wulf Ratbane (and friends).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ah, okay. Now I get it.

Again, okay. I somehow lost track of the argument and thought that 10th level was the sweet spot. Now I understand -- it's the cap, like the equivalent of 20th level now.

Exactly.

And for me, in terms of "apotheosis," the problem is that what should be the climax of the game-- the point at which the heroes have access to powers typically reserved to the gods-- is dragged out from 10th to 20th level.

Therefor, I don't see how high level play is any more broken than low level play, in regards to verisimilitude.

I'm not having this argument again. It's settled, inasmuch as you're either in one camp or the other by now.

Can you explain what you mean by "scale realistically"? Also, I think that realistically/satisfactorily are two separate (possibly mutally exclusive) goals.

For the most part, skills increase linearly alongside DCs as the task gets more difficult.

And for the most part, the top end DC is 30, with some 35's and 40's occasionally. (For comparison, consider using the Climb skill to climb across a slippery overhang from underneath: DC30. That's impressive!)

There are points in the career of the D&D character where your skill bonus doesn't track linearly-- there are big bumps and boosts. For example, your character's first access to a +5 skill item; and again when he finds a +10 skill item. Those are really big bumps.

(And problematic. You'll note that 3.0 didn't even have +5 items; they were all +10. Somebody wiser than me figured out that you really needed to flatten those bumps out a little bit.)

And at high levels, you'll typically rack up a lot of those big bumps-- not just skills, either, but also your BAB, your AC, your saving throws, etc. When they exceed +20, then the panoply of "fixed DC tasks" can become either automatic failures or automatic successes.

The dramatic tension is embodied in the d20 roll.

The question is, how much randomness is enough or too much? If the PCs always have a 50% chance of success, then some players might think that is too much randomness. So where do you draw the line?

It's not a line, it's a bell curve. (And the bell changes shape and moves from PC to PC and task to task.)

The sweet spot is that portion of the curve that extends from just inside "always succeeds," reaches its apex at "50%", and tapers off on the right side just shy of "always fails."

And no, "1 always fails" and "20 always succeeds" isn't a satisfactory boundary on either end of this bell curve. I believe that's why it exists, but I don't believe it's working.

At least, it's not working for me.

 

[Nellisir]

So perhaps a better skill system would just give the PC a choice of skills that are always maxxed to his class level. Cut out the middleman.

Blue Rose (and True20?) take this approach. I tried it on my players, but they didn't go for it. Haven't devoted much thought to a middle ground.

It'd be nice, in a later edition of the game, to see skills integrated better. Heal might be more useful if it actually restored hitpoints, and cure spells gave a bonus to heal. Ditto anything that involves hiding, moving silently, finding out information, and so forth. Some of this is already present (ie jump), but it's haphazard at best.