Einstein is a 5th Level Expert character

[Theo R Cwithin]

Why even HAVE a "sweet spot"?
Is everyone's enjoyment of the game based solely on which iconic monsters they get to fight?

I don't think "sweet spot" is really a judgement on the game, it's just the term for that point in the level advancement when all the classes are fairly well-balanced against each other. In my understanding, it's not explicitly designed into 3e; rather, it's something that emerges from the design, and happens to occur around 6th level or so by most estimates. Some feel that in an "ideal" game, the "sweet spot" should encompass all levels-- and this is exactly one of the things that 4e attempts to address.

The reasin why a master smith can be level 1 is because you should not have to slay dragons to make a good weapon. I mean really do you want a world inhabited by level 10 guys sitting on their asses being blacksmiths and farmers?

Agreed. And this is why standard D&D 3e isn't especially good for modeling real-world-style peasants and bakers and merchants beyond the first few levels.

And as always the obligatory "baisez votre canapé!" to any idea of nerfing any spells at all. I am sick of people moaning about how magic makes skills "redundant" or "useless". Shut up, you;re wrong. Stop trying to nerf magic.

I hope no one's grandmother here speaks French.

 

[Water Bob]

Hmmm, my interpretation of Alexander's essay is that virtually everyone is a 1st level character-- and probably in a measly NPC class, to boot! With respect to physical skills, frex, the essay actually says Olympians are 3rd-4th level, while 1st levels are like college athletes-- and that assumes max ranks in the relevant skill, as well as a good score in the relevant ability.

You may be right. I may need to re-read that sucker!