D&D 5E Party size and level variance in 5e

[Lanefan]

Good or bad there was no real character depth/differentiation/even optimization in early editions outside of which spells you took or which weapon/armor you pick.

Well, actually there was - as much depth and differentiation as the player was willing to give it. All through fluff, roleplay, and personality.

An example: assuming you knew the characters, if you took Lanefan the character and Kit (played by [MENTION=40177]Wik[/MENTION] ) the character, equalized their levels and put them in the same party, within minutes if not seconds you'd be able to tell which was which just by listening. Yet mechanically they'd be nearly identical - they're both straight heavy Fighters, spec. in longsword - I think the only significant difference is Kit has a point or two of Strength on me. But in play they are vastly different - almost diametrically opposed alignments, completely different approaches to many situations, etc.

What's happened since, perhaps, is an expectation that many if not all differences must be reflected in hard mechanics. The problem this generates, of course, is a slew of mechanics where before relatively few would do; followed by balance and optimization concerns within all those mechanics, etc. etc.

Keep it simple.

Lan-"if I ever posted here in character as Lanefan, Eric's grandma would run screaming"-efan

 

[steeldragons]

Good or bad there was no real character depth/differentiation/even optimization in early editions outside of which spells you took or which weapon/armor you pick.

Well, first of all, there was no such thing as "optimization" in the "early editions." You made your character in the vein you wanted him/her. Did you try to make them "so cool" or the best they could be...sure. But no one I played with was hunching over the numbers and tweaking the charts to get an extra +1 to hit. Your experience, obviously, varies.

Second, if you had no "real character depth" or "differentiation" when you played early editions (and I'll admit, I am assuming from your posts you did) then I am very sorry for your experiences and your fellow players' lack of creativity.

Was never a problem anywhere I played...ya know...in those "earlier editions."

 

[steeldragons]

There's a couple of issues with your point here that really make no sense in your thinly-veiled swipes at players of later editions,

For the love, I said give everyone what they want...and I'm making "thinly veiled swipes"??? Mayhaps your skin is a bit too thin.

...the biggest being that there was not unified advancement in earlier editions.

Right...and this matters why?

You even mention thieves, who had faster advancement rates than anyone except maybe the Druid, who basically leveled for taking a dump in the woods.

Ok...gimme a sec...lemme go get the 1e PHB...ok. so. just going off of levels 1, 2 and 3 here. Will that suit you? If not let me know...Thieves leveled up at 1250, 2500 and 5,000...DRUIDS leveled up at...2000, 4000 and 7500...sooo there was a point you were making somehow?

( Characters with (even approximately) even levels of XP would often be different levels, not far apart, but still different.

Right...as I said. There was never very much of a difference. "Not far apart, but still different." And that is a problem because?

The other is that we've been shown a different way of doing things that's mathematically tighter. Heck I had a lot of fun doing things that are now() frowned upon by the legal authorities, but that doesn't mean I still would have fun doing them (or that certain things would be frowned upon any more at my age). I can still do a lot of those things, but the repercussions aren't as fun anymore. The old "That's just the way it was and we had fun" isn't a good excuse because new ways of thinking and learning change what we knew. In game terms, liking randomness, etc. is fine. I love 4E but have added a number of random elements to it when I DM a home game just to defy expectations a bit because any game I run's rules work for me, not the other way around.

I honestly have absolutely NO idea what the point is you're trying to make...or what or how it contradicts what I posted. I mean...you did illegal things when you were younger? Ya wanna cookie or a medal?

Somehow, from what I'm reading, what is "mathematically tighter" here is something Eric's grandmother would not approve.
--SD

 

[Herschel]

Well, first of all, there was no such thing as "optimization" in the "early editions." You made your character in the vein you wanted him/her. Did you try to make them "so cool" or the best they could be...sure. But no one I played with was hunching over the numbers and tweaking the charts to get an extra +1 to hit. Your experience, obviously, varies.

Second, if you had no "real character depth" or "differentiation" when you played early editions (and I'll admit, I am assuming from your posts you did) then I am very sorry for your experiences and your fellow players' lack of creativity.

Was never a problem anywhere I played...ya know...in those "earlier editions."

"No one you played with" is so statistically insignificant as to be meaningless. There weren't as many ways obviously but when I'd go to the game store or different people I met there were a number who did break things down. Dual-wielders went with Long Sword and Hand Axe (or two long swords if you could wield same-size) two-handed weapon users went Bastard Sword, racial bonuses, etc. I wasn't big on it but it was definitely there.

And it has nothing to do with creativity, fighters went for plate, Wizards wanted Sleep, Magic Missile, Fireball, Lightning Bolt etc. I still play 1E/2E on occasion and have fun with it, but those characters all ended up far more homogenous than they did in 3E/4E.

 

[keterys]

There are definitely people who optimized 1e or 2e*. I remember gaming with some back then.

I also remember gaming with some who _definitely did not_ Even the very young me who really had no idea observed that much.

But, seriously, it's odd how few darts and staff slings I've seen since the days they were optimal And spell selection really was the most evident subsystem for that kinda thing.

* Course, by then they'd make the book of elves and different types of specialty priests, so you could really cook with gas.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yes, I very much like the game to accommodate (not assume) parties of many different sizes (from 1 to ?), and not all character having to be the exact same level, so if the characters are a range of levels, from let's say, 5th to 8th, it's not a deal-breaker.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

Flatter math should go a long way towards making mixed level parties viable. The 6th level characters will be a lot more effective than the 3rd level characters--but then, that has to be true if level means anything--but in a way that's more likely to be fun: the 3rd level character hits almost as often as the 6th level character, but does less damage. And that also allows for lower level characters to act in ways that are helpful at making the whole party function at peak performance--if the 3rd level rogue spends her actions giving advantage to the 6th level rogue, you get nearly double the damage output of the 6th level rogue acting alone (6th level rogue always attacking with advantage is roughly double damage of 6th level rogue attacking with advantage every other round and without every other round).

As for flexible party size, I expect 5e to be good about that. A lot of it is just speed--an 8 person party in 4e drags like mad. An 8 person party in 1e, or in 5e so far, not nearly so much. That means that a 4 person party in 1e is fun, and an 8 person party in 1e is fun--perhaps less so in some ways (less active time) but more in others (can take on bigger challenges). If 5e combat is fast, then it will also support that wider range of fun parties.

 

[Herschel]

Right...and this matters why?

Because this means that characters will inherently not be at the same level even with the same amount of XP. You claim that "characters were different levels and nobody complained" well, yeah, because they didn't advance at the same rate. You would have to seriously bend XP awards to keep everyone at the same level. I always thought it was weird then and unified advancement is something that I really like.

Ok...gimme a sec...lemme go get the 1e PHB...ok. so. just going off of levels 1, 2 and 3 here. Will that suit you? If not let me know...Thieves leveled up at 1250, 2500 and 5,000...DRUIDS leveled up at...2000, 4000 and 7500...sooo there was a point you were making somehow?

You miss another point. Progression also wasn't consistent so the firstthree levels does not cover it. For example. Fighter progression slows later while Wizard progression increases. Most classes have a period where they level faster.

Right...as I said. There was never very much of a difference. "Not far apart, but still different." And that is a problem because?

And how is any edition any different? 4E handles best when characters are within foru levels of eachother. I'll admit my experience with 3E was less comfortable when characters got more than two levels apart

I honestly have absolutely NO idea what the point is you're trying to make...or what or how it contradicts what I posted. I mean...you did illegal things when you were younger? Ya wanna cookie or a medal?

Not even illegal, per se, but we rode in the backs of pickups without seat belts, never wore bicycle helmets, etc. Many people were lucky enough not to personally know someone who was hurt because of this.

Somehow, from what I'm reading, what is "mathematically tighter" here is something Eric's grandmother would not approve.
--SD

Fine, 3E is a better designed game than 2E and 4E is a better designed game than 3E. Just like rules and laws and societies and people, the game has evolved.

 

[the Jester]

Umm. Dragons dealt their hit points in damage. Half on a successful save.

True, with their breath weapon 3/day... but remember too that there was a chance (up to 50%!) that the dragon would be asleep when you encounter it.

Also, note that I pointed to the dragon stats as an example of a higher-damage monster; there are plenty of other, less lethal monsters at high HD.

And your AC 2 - 4 creatures you'd need a... 15-18 or so to hit with a 1st level PC? Is that so different from needing a 15-18 for a 1st level character to hit a L10 monster in 4e?

The difference is that even low level monsters have often got similar ACs; witness the giant ant (AC 3, HD 2), ankheg (3 to 8 HD, AC 2 overall), pseudodragon (AC 2, HD 2) or giant tick (2 to 4 HD, AC 2). In 4e, the much higher damage that the monster WILL dish out makes a huge difference; a 1st level party will pretty much always miss, always get hit and always take huge damage against a significantly higher level monster. When not all of these things are true, low-level pcs at least have a chance.


3e's ACs and attacks have a bit more disparity, but there are plenty of usable examples there too (especially if you look at more bestial enemies)

I think simplicity of play and speed around the table are more compelling arguments than them being well designed to handle level disparity.

I remember doing adventures with 2... and 8... people in 1st and 2nd ed, and boy were there some differences as a result. Not in the adventure itself, though - nobody really scaled adventures that I remember - but in how bloody hard and swingy things were? Absolutely. That's why I'm suspicious that things were pretty much like they were in the later editions, just with the expectation that the DM would change things to balance the encounter / adventure / whatever.[/QUOTE]

 

[Herschel]

Well, actually there was - as much depth and differentiation as the player was willing to give it. All through fluff, roleplay, and personality.
....

Keep it simple.

Lan-"if I ever posted here in character as Lanefan, Eric's grandma would run screaming"-efan

Nothing on that end has changed, it's just that mechanics also support differentiation. Ther's now ways to play that lightly-armored front-liner or that Warlock supported by the rules.