Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9806914" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I'm sure you would rather that.I'm even more sure that it isn't gonna happen. Folks are already souring on what 5e's designers sold them on this front. "No no, if we just do it even more, then people will LOVE it!" is not and has never been a successful policy argument.Also, you mischaracterize 3e. I have little love for 3e as a mechanical system, so I assure you that a window of only two levels is simply not accurate.The only reason you'd have windows like that is because of the horrible, horrible, horrible spellcasting stuff that would make a creature only really viable as long as you had access to the right spell level. In terms of AC and such, the range is far broader, in part because of the design behind 3e's (very stupid) "iterative attacks" thing.Certainly, I can say 4e was verifiably much better than that. The 4e rules explicitly instruct the GM to vary typical combats in at least a 5 level range (roughly party level ±2), and further, that the GM should include combats that are as much as 8 levels above or below the party, because routing your enemies every now and then feels really good, and getting routed every now and then reminds the party that they aren't invincible. When added to the natural variation that arises from luck, you get just the right feeling of the world being challenging but worth tackling, as opposed to forbidding or forgettable.</blockquote>

Verification