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

[Remathilis]

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.

Clearly, you never played where EVERY fighter had exceptional Strength.

Now, I PLAY 2nd edition right now, so I'm not bias'd against OS, but you're off on this one. There was optimization in AD&D, and a lot of it. Why were there more halfling thieves than halfling fighters? (Short answer: halflings were optimized to be thieves). Why did most elves use longswords? Why do you think dual-classing exists?

Still not convinced? Two words: Unearthed Arcana. Two more: Player's Option.

Just because CharOps boards existed in the time of 3e and 4e doesn't mean people weren't squeezing every last bonus out of their PCs as far back as 1977.

EDIT: To be fair, there is no optimization in Basic D&D. That is because there are so few moving parts that the only thing you could do to optimize is put an 18 in your prime requisite. Everything else was fixed to your class (even your race) and dependent on level/XP.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Yep - and I would had to see it go back to where there was no longer enough mechanical differentiation between characters of the same class.

 

[keterys]

EDIT: To be fair, there is no optimization in Basic D&D. That is because there are so few moving parts that the only thing you could do to optimize is put an 18 in your prime requisite. Everything else was fixed to your class (even your race) and dependent on level/XP.

Eh... there was still optimization. It was just a little more blunt.

We rolled up some OD&D characters several months ago, and there was quite a bit of optimization.

'So I can trade out my Charisma for more Strength at (3 to 1?)?'
'So... (Dwarves / Elves) are just like humans, but better in every way?'
'Uhh, why would I use this weapon instead of this one that's just better?'
Etc.

In Basic, play one of the combo class-races if you're just playing low level. (Ex: For a one shot)

I remember seeing an article about how people looked at the random treasure tables and suggested your weapon choice based on your likelyhood of getting a magic one (answer: Use a sword)

Etc.

 

[haakon1]

I'll just add my voice to Lanefan's original post. I would very much like to see 5e be able to handle groups of 1) various numbers of PCs and 2) variable levels of those PCs within the same party.

. . .

There was never "Hey no fair! They're 5th level and I'm still 4th!" or "How come they get to be 4th but I haven't made 2nd yet! This isn't 'Balanced'!" It was just the way it was...and we had fun doing it.

Nod, I also want to see this. I run two campaigns, in 3.5e.

1) Five characters, levels 2-4. After leveling up when they finish the current adventure, it will be levels 3-5.

2) Nine characters, levels 4-9.
-- 1 9th level human monk, who started at 1st level, and has been played in 3 of my campaigns in the same world

-- 1 8th level human fighter, in this party from the beginning starting at 1st level, party leader and done some stuff on his own

-- 2 7th level, human cleric & human wizard/sorcerer, in this party from the beginning starting at 1st level

-- 2 6th level, human ranger/rogue and half-elf druid, in this party from the beginning starting at 1st level, but actually changed players, as old players left and new players joined and took them over. One of them just needs to train to get 7th, has the XP already.

-- 2 5th level, elf wizard and elf fighter/wizard, joined together after the party was up and running for a while, started at 1st level when the others were 2-3 level. Both have the XP for 6th, but haven't trained yet.

-- 1 4th level human cleric, just joined by taking over an NPC who had helped the PC's on a previous mission. The player got to level up one level from the original module stats for the NPC, for the NPC's "on screen" experience before he joined. Will easily jump to 6th if she survives this adventure.

Nobody complains about the level differences, because every PC EARNED the levels fairly -- no free lunches, except maybe the most junior character, which nobody begrudges (and taking over an NPC with levels and experience seems fair, too).

To deal with this group, I build major set-piece combat encounters so there's a big diverse mix of stuff to fight, appropriate to a wide range of levels (e.g.,2nd level enemy warriors with poison and potions, hell hounds, gargoyles, and a flesh golem in one fight; dire rats, owlbears, and wererats, some with PC levels, in another). It's more dangerous for the low level characters (sometimes they tangle it up with the big bads), but it's exciting and everybody gets a chance to contribute and a chance to be in danger.

There's also a lot of non-combat stuff, where level doesn't really matter. Right now, the PC's are helping fight a fire and rescue people, in between trying to figure out a mystery. Level doesn't seem to affect any of that.

Also, in RP terms, I don't make lower level = less influence or less important. The 4th level NPC turned PC is the daughter of the city's bishop, who is an adviser and old friend of the national ruler -- so she's more "connected" than anyone else. And she's the only PC from the city they're in, so she gets to play "Basil Exposition" in explaining who big NPC's are, what's going on in the city, etc. She and 3 of the 4 high level PC's and the ones who NPC's often recognize and defer to -- not because of their levels, but because of who they are in the setting.

 

[Remathilis]

Eh... there was still optimization. It was just a little more blunt.

We rolled up some OD&D characters several months ago, and there was quite a bit of optimization.

'So I can trade out my Charisma for more Strength at (3 to 1?)?'
'So... (Dwarves / Elves) are just like humans, but better in every way?'
'Uhh, why would I use this weapon instead of this one that's just better?'
Etc.

In Basic, play one of the combo class-races if you're just playing low level. (Ex: For a one shot)

I remember seeing an article about how people looked at the random treasure tables and suggested your weapon choice based on your likelyhood of getting a magic one (answer: Use a sword)

Etc.

There is a difference between optimizing and smart play.

Optimization is the use of rules to find the "best combo" of options to do what you want. Basic only gave you 7 steps (roll scores, choose race, pick alignment, buy gear, select spells, roll hp, and name) and only one was based on a permanent choice. (Scores and HP were random rolls, equipment could be changed, and alignment was an RP tool with no mechanical advantage, though I guess spell choice for magic-users could count as well). Because of this, the only optimization you really had was matching your prime ability score to the class that it goes with, which was only advantageous in gaining bonus XP (since Dex did not affect thief skills and Int/Wis had no bearing on spellcasting).

I guess you could argue the advantage of comparing demi-humans to normal humans, but the low level limits (12 dwarf, 10 elf, 8 halfling) and other disadvantages (halfling size and HP, elf XP progression, dwarf weapon restriction) didn't make them as superior as they first appeared on paper.

Still, unless we're going back to the seven steps (and by all accounts no we're not, since at the very least race/class synergy is promised at a core rule) were class controls everything, its going to be hard to avoid some optimizing. From AD&D on its been prevalent.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Not nasssty optimizzzzation. No. Not that, my precioussss.

I am surprised how eager some seem to dance around the word "optimization", with the implied presumption the word were a pejorative. It is as if some editions rise above by the blessing of "good play", "smart play", "making the best characters", and "making cool characters". Let's not call it optimization, no, no, no.

If low optimization were the prize, 4e gives even Oe a run for its money, because it is sufficiently well balanced that any reasonable sounding guess is mechanically okay. None of the good old "Oh, humans are just as good. You will see on that day you reach 13th level. If. Ha! Ha! Ha!"

3e surely does go the the bottom of the ladder, but primarily because of so many excellent expansions and optional fun like monsters with levels, a "problem" most of its competitors conspicuously lack. Regarding Core, the number of important charts in 1e/2e/3e is not very different at all. No one ever put a gun to your head to carefully consider every possible 3e feat choice, instead of grabbing an obvious one. "Fighter? Weapon Focus, Improved Initiative, Power Attack. Pick any two."

Gygax himself was a dyed in the wool wargamer, and numerical optimization is a basic tool in the toolbox of every competent grognard. I can hear him laughing at these nostalgia-induced hallucinations, from beyond the grave.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yep - and I would had to see it go back to where there was no longer enough mechanical differentiation between characters of the same class.

There was mechanical differentiation. M-a-g-i-c. I-t-e-m-s. The DM customized your character to his liking, and you were grateful.

That sounds harsh. Over time, I am finding greater and greater affection for 1e. It is not that I have any particular interest in playing or DMing that game, but past frustrations have become nuanced as I have come to understand why many of the design decisions were probably well-motivated and useful in the context of the time.

However if I want to play Robbyn Hud, the greatest archer in the Angel Isles, I am not going to go back to a game where I have to beg the DM to ever acquire a magic bow. Or where I can be suddenly upstaged in my schtick by an Elf who rolled a high Dex, and can also cast Fireballs. No. Thank. You.