D&D 3E/3.5 Quadratic 3E/4E, Linear 5E

[Dausuul]

In today's Legends and Lore, Mike Mearls presents us with a draft copy of the "encounter building" XP chart. One thing about such charts is that, because they're designed to help the DM calibrate combat encounters to match the party, they're a great way to measure how PC combat prowess scales over the level range. I was looking over the chart to get a feel for the power curve, and something jumped out at me:

There is no curve. The power curve of 5E is a straight line.

Not exactly a straight line, of course. It jogs up and down some. But, to a first approximation, a challenging encounter XP budget (per PC) is equal to PC level times 100. This is an enormous change from 3E and 4E, both of which had exponential power curves. In 3E, your encounter budget* doubled roughly every two levels. In 4E, it doubled every four.

What does this mean? Instead of "zero to demigod," 5E follows a more E6-like model: Very rapid power gain at the low levels, followed by a semi-plateau in the higher ones. This is much more friendly to mixed-level parties. It also means a major rethink in how we envision high-level characters. In 3E, your combat prowess was expected to scale by a factor of 724 between the bottom of the level range and the top. In 4E, it scaled by a factor of 152**. In 5E, it scales by a factor of... 22. That's it. A 20th-level character is still a supreme badass, but not a slayer of armies. And two 10th-level characters have a decent chance to take that supreme badass down.

What do you think of this change?

[SIZE=-2]*3E didn't officially have "encounter budgets," but the CR system was a crude equivalent.
**Keeping in mind that the level range of 4E was 1 to 30, not 1 to 20.[/SIZE]

 

[Dausuul]

(Oh, with regard to the thread title, I know there's a difference between quadratic and exponential. I was making a play on "linear fighter, quadratic wizard.")

 

[Umbran]

I think "character power" is actually well-represented by the XP value of the challenges they face. Specifically, they note: "A creature with a CR higher than the party's level might easily fit into the budget, but such a creature could present a deadly threat to the party." And then go on to discuss other ways n which there is a mismatch between XP and power.

So, I don't think "linear" XP awards actually speak to linear power growth. And, since that article does not discuss how CRs are calculated, I don't think it at all fair to say that two 10th level characters are apt to be a challenge for one 20th level character.

Fact of the matter is, "character power" is not a clearly measurable thing, so we should not use exact mathematical terms (like linear, quadratic, or exponential) to describe it.

 

[Abstruse]

It doesn't bother me at all as long as the monster math works out. It also gives monsters more relevance across different levels of play without having to get weird with them, like giving the goblin tribe all several levels of Rogue or Fighter to keep using them. I miss out a lot of times on using several iconic monsters because they're either too hard or too easy at the stage. "Nope, can't put in the owlbear during this trip because it'll TPK." Then they get to the city, do the plot-related stuff and a couple of side quests I threw in, and when they leave, they've leveled too far and an owlbear would get curbstomped. And because I only have one mini, I can't have more than one because that's just how I am.

So I don't mind it at all. Make the monsters more useful at longer level ranges and I can have more fun with them.

 

[Nebulous]

So I don't mind it at all. Make the monsters more useful at longer level ranges and I can have more fun with them.

I agree. And it avoids the horrible issue of bandits all wearing chainmail +2 and carrying magic longswords just to pose a level-ready threat.