D&D 5E Flow in D&DNext

[mkill]

Just talking about PC level here is missing the point. A group that just discovered gaming can move from level 1 to level 30 in one, two years of play, and sure, they'll get a lot more experienced as players along the way. But that doesn't mean they have seen everything that there is in the game. Because the cycle begins anew: New campaign, new characters...

What we should rather talk about is how the game can be as challenging and interesting with your fifteenth character as it was with your first.

At the start, gaming is about figuring out the rules, both the explicit ones (roll a d20, add this modifier) and the implicit ones (don't split the party). I think the real learning process is not the rules themselves, but all the possibilities of the game. The different play styles. All the different settings. How to work together as a group. How to make a character that is efficient in overcoming challenges and interesting to play as a personality. The great thing about RPGs is how much depth really is in the game, even though it's hard to explain it all in a rule book.

The first-level characters of a group of seasoned veterans will take on very different and more complex challenges than a group of 30-level beginners, and that has nothing to do with the numbers on their character sheets.

 

[Daven]

In my opinione, it depends on the game-style.

In an epic story game 20th level characters should match more difficult enemies than when they were 1st level. So the game has an exponential difficulty curve.

In a sand-box game, instead, one should expect that a 20th level character has finally become invincible, the most potewerful being of the kingdom. So the game has a logarithmic difficulty curve.

In a "kill enemies-find treasure" style of game, finally, one should get a linear difficulty curve, like that of 4th edition.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree with the people who speak off option change. In D&D, PC difficulty is DC and player difficulty is options (aka choosing the DCs). The flow is depending on whether the DM choose which form of difficulty.

At lowel level, the DM can control the flow by choosing to increase PC difficulty (giving the goblin more levels, a martial weapon, and plate armor) or player difficulty (giving the goblin a shaman caster ally). The first doesn't change the strategy but makes it harder (+4 attack/14 AC to +6attack/20AC). The latter doesn't make the fight harder per se but it changes which strategies that will work and not work (focus fire on the goblin or take the shaman or split up).

I believe the way 5E/D&DN is going is PC difficulty at low level and Player difficulty at higher ones. The same for the DM. From big numbers to bad numbers.

 

[El Mahdi]

I like a standard difficulty level or feel to be the standard for encounter design throughout all levels of the game. But mostly because I want a standardized reference for which to plan around.

I like to mix and match difficulty levels in encounters. I switch it up so that not every encounter is perfectly balanced. I want the Players to have the occasional encounter where they obviously outmatch their opponents, and just wipe the floor with them. Especially when it's an early encounter in the adventure and not a big boss fight...just kicking ass on the BBEG's mooks.

But then I sometimes like an encounter where it's a little bit above the PC's level. They may pull out a victory against odds not in their favor. Or determine they need to retreat and rethink.

The final big fight of an adventure, I like it to be balanced except for the BBEG. I like him to be just a tad above the PC's level so as to make it feel like an accomplishment when they win.

But I don't want the games default math to change the difficulty feel through progressive levels.

I want that standard reference so I can tailor the feel of the game.

 

[Rhenny]

If the game gets too challenging (too many options, too many rules or new rules) at higher levels, I think more campaigns will bite the dust prematurely.

I ran a 2 1/2 year online D&D 3.5 game for 6 or 7 players (depending on the session). It became a monster to run and plan after about 12 levels. Also, since we only played once every 3 weeks or so, the players often forgot a lot about their PCs (especially spellcasters who had so many spell possibilities).

The game should scale more gracefully for the player and not require hours of study and prep for DM and players at higher levels.

That being said, it can't be simplistic either. Some kind of balance at all levels would be nice.

 

[Ratskinner]

Is flow better achieved by having the monsters challenge the party, or by having the game challenge the players?

Yes.

The game in its entirety should always and everywhere present players with that sweet spot of difficulty, although probably at the low end (with modules to dial it up). Although, speaking about strictly mechanics, I'd like those to be dirt simple. Making or leveling up a basic character and using spells or abilities should all be "trained monkey" easy, with options to make it more interesting as your familiarity increases. Playing the game with the character you've created should be in the sweet spot. I think that can only happen when the party faces challenges in a variety of difficulties and flavors. I feel that the players only really engage the game rules while making it through encounters.

 

[kitsune9]

Maybe the needs of flow are better served by having the monsters get proportionally tougher, compared to PCs, as the game goes on. That a CR 1 encounter against a level 1 party is an auto-win, but a CR 20 encounter against a CR 20 party is a deathmatch.

I'm so down with this idea! But I would like to start the challenge ratings as CR 1 vs. Level 1 party a challenge (Hey, Not Too Rough Difficulty) to CR 20 encounter vs. Level 20 party a deathmatch (or Nightmare! Difficulty).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really see the value in having the same thing mean different things at different levels. Why wouldn't it be better to have an 'at-level' EL encounter always be a relatively straightforward encounter that presents a limited challenge. It is easy enough to throw EL 25 at your 20th level party if you want something really nasty and that way it is just plain simpler for the DM, level+5 EL is always really tough, level+0 is always moderately easy and anything in-between is gradually harder.

This way you have a nice consistent system instead of one where you have to grok some additional power curve and the DMG has to explain that difficulty isn't the same thing across the board. Nothing is gained by it and the game just gets more complicated to DM.