Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7254575" data-attributes="member: 996">I didn't make up Tier 1 or E6.&nbsp; It's just an observation.&nbsp;CRs that Tier 1 caters could increasingly trivialize at higher levels, and items they could make?&nbsp;S'OK.&nbsp; I think you're 'protesting too much' about the rating of Tier 1 classes being 'hate.'&nbsp; Those classes were what they were.&nbsp;I agree, which is why I think E6 wouldn't be ideal for 5e.&nbsp; It starts and caps too low.&nbsp; 5e starts working later than 3e did, but&nbsp; hangs onto it's sweet spot a bit longer.&nbsp;To be fair, spellcasters in 5e have returned to a design more like that of prior editions such as 3e.&nbsp;The sweet spot concept is that the game is at its best withing a range of levels, in the case of 5e, there's a lower bound as well as an upper one, that's fairly typical.&nbsp; I'm sure there's plenty of folks who would like to play the game at levels outside that range, in spite of them being less than ideally implemented.&nbsp; 5e, though, does speed through the first few levels, of course.&nbsp; It also speeds up advancement at the higher levels.&nbsp; In effect, seemingly acknowledging a sweet spot from levels 4 or&nbsp; 5 through 10 or 11.&nbsp; An E6 style extension of the sweet spot should probably try to do something with the low end, too, for 5e, unlike 3e which held together pretty well at 1st level, IMHO.For instance, in this hypothetical play variant, you might start all PCs with 3 HD, even at first level, gaining their 4th HD at 4th.&nbsp; Giving some advancement normally gained up to a certain level, up-front would be a reasonable addition to stopping most advancement at a given level, to extend the sweet spot between those two given levels.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7254575, member: 996"] I didn't make up Tier 1 or E6. It's just an observation. CRs that Tier 1 caters could increasingly trivialize at higher levels, and items they could make? S'OK. I think you're 'protesting too much' about the rating of Tier 1 classes being 'hate.' Those classes were what they were. I agree, which is why I think E6 wouldn't be ideal for 5e. It starts and caps too low. 5e starts working later than 3e did, but hangs onto it's sweet spot a bit longer. To be fair, spellcasters in 5e have returned to a design more like that of prior editions such as 3e. The sweet spot concept is that the game is at its best withing a range of levels, in the case of 5e, there's a lower bound as well as an upper one, that's fairly typical. I'm sure there's plenty of folks who would like to play the game at levels outside that range, in spite of them being less than ideally implemented. 5e, though, does speed through the first few levels, of course. It also speeds up advancement at the higher levels. In effect, seemingly acknowledging a sweet spot from levels 4 or 5 through 10 or 11. An E6 style extension of the sweet spot should probably try to do something with the low end, too, for 5e, unlike 3e which held together pretty well at 1st level, IMHO. For instance, in this hypothetical play variant, you might start all PCs with 3 HD, even at first level, gaining their 4th HD at 4th. Giving some advancement normally gained up to a certain level, up-front would be a reasonable addition to stopping most advancement at a given level, to extend the sweet spot between those two given levels. [/QUOTE]

Verification