D&D 5E Why is level 5-10 the "sweet spot" in D&D

[S'mon]

IF the sweet spot is now 3-12, I think that is a significant improvement over 5-10 - that's 9 levels instead of 5

To everyone who plays 5e: Is this true? I have no idea.

Well my 5e Wilderlands game has been sweet all through that 3-12 range, but yes the challenge notably lessens after about 8th. Highest PC now is 14th. I get the impression the game will stay fun all the way to 20th (so very unlike my experience of 3e) but challenge/threat will continue to lessen, much like 4e only not as slow.

 

[Shiroiken]

During my optimization research, I was told repeatedly that there is a point in 5E where the casters begin to dominate, but it was never specifically described when that was.

It's all subjective, based on the opinions of the individual. I recall during the playtest on the WotC forums, during the 3rd packet (which had the WORST iteration of the wizard from the entire playtest), several people still claimed the wizard was dominate from level 1. It was because they hated spellcasters (probably leftover hate from 3E), and wanted them to be as bad as possible. Others deny that spellcasters have ever been dominate, even at the higher levels of 3E. I'm sure that the average person will probably feel that spellcasters will eventually dominate, but at what point is going to be debatable.

With 5E, it also because complicated because of the varying level of casters. The most powerful character in my campaign right now is a level 10 Paladin of Vengeance. As a half-caster, some might consider him a caster, but he spends about half his spells on Smite, and the other on restorative magic. If you consider anyone who can cast a spell a caster, then there's probably going to be a high percentage of "casters" in any group.

Full Disclosure: my group doesn't really optimize/powergame; they build strong characters, but none try to "break" the game. In fact, last session they debated the "chessyness" of casting Divination a second time (after a long rest, so no chance of failure), because they felt they should have to figure it out themselves. I told them the spell is there to be used as they saw fit, and with its component cost (and a long trek to civilization to replace it), I had no concerns of "abuse." Due to this, I would guess that I will have FAR fewer problems at higher levels that other DMs might.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hello

A comment in passing in another thread made me think. It seems that in 5e the "sweet spot" is level 5-10. Now is it *exactly* 5-10? (4-9? 5-9? etc etc) but let's not worry about the exact value. The thing that is remarkable about this is that the "sweet spot" for 2e and 3e were *also* level 5-10 (roughly speaking). I don't think that everyone would agree (it would be a miracle ha!) but there seems to be a general consensus.

Why is that?

Low levels move by quickly in any edition of D&D, and doubly so in 5e. Low levels are also relatively low on choices--especially in older editions, but even in 4e that's true. In 5e in particular, you aren't really a "full" member of your class until level 3 for most characters. Low levels are swingy, and I feel 5e is more similar to the TSR editions on that front than 3e or 4e (though I have seen death in 4e games at early levels too). Things are often really gritty, and it's hard to get the "heroic" feel early on...especially when you're just punching rats in the sewer or whatever because you'd be massacred by anything much tougher (and yes, even in 5e, just a couple orcs is a naaaaaasty threat for a low-level party).

The higher levels are difficult to reach--in any edition of D&D. They tend to receive less overt support than low/mid levels, something that's held true with pretty much every edition (IIRC, 5e doesn't yet have a single official adventure meant for characters higher than...I want to say it's 15th level, but it might be 17th). Crucially, they also tend to receive much less playtesting than low/mid levels: 3e suffered terribly from designers assuming that testing up to about level 6 or 8 reflected the power curve for the rest of the game, and 4e might have avoided the outcry against "feat taxes" if they'd tested Paragon and Epic more heavily. Finally, high levels have often meant a fundamental change in tone for the game; in older editions, you were "expected" to shift to domain management or to even retire the character, well before reaching 20th level, and in newer editions, keeping up the threat escalation can result in..."drama fatigue" for lack of a better word (I've never felt that myself, but I hear rumblings often enough to think it's a thing, even if never named as such).

The middle levels--which vary from edition to edition--are desirable because they're a crossroads. The game has enough moving parts and challenges to be interesting, it retains the "expected" tone, it's generally not TOO unbalanced, characters are more likely to endure (perhaps by the skin of their teeth) and thus generate a longer and "richer" history, DMs are better-supported with setting material/monsters/premade adventures/etc., it generally takes a little longer to get from level to level...

It's a D&D "Goldilocks zone." Not too weak, not too powerful...just right. Not too quick, not too slow...just right. Not too gritty, not to "distant" (for lack of a better term for what happens when you switch to domain management rather than cleaning out dungeons yourself). Not too "mundane" (punching rats in the sewer), not too "gonzo" (sailing the Astral Sea to kill a dead god). That plus the breadth of official support makes it, IMO, practically guaranteed that "the mid-levels" will be the subjectively "best" parts of the game.

Edit:
If I had to rate my estimates of the "sweet spots" for the editions I've actually played (not counting B/X because I didn't even get a level up in that)...
3e: 1-6 or perhaps 1-8, but no higher
4e: The whole thing? Level 1/2 is still on the dangerous side, but everything I've heard suggests that it hits the "sweet spot" quickly and doesn't leave it. I have, in fairness, also heard that Epic can get bogged down if you aren't careful, so I guess at bare minimum it'd be like 3-21 (which equates to 2-14 in those editions that go to 20).
5e: at very best, 3-14. Probably more like 5-12. 3 is when the game finally gives you all your basic toys--you need a couple more levels to get to "juicy" stuff (2nd attack for melee types, 3rd level spells for full casters, 2nd level spells for half-casters, Font of Inspiration for Bards, Uncanny Dodge for Rogues)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I thought level 20 was the sweet spot. You know...all those forums threads where people carefully plan out their level 20 build.

/irony

 

[Raith5]

Aside from the math and swingy combats, I cant help but think there maybe another supply factor here. The supply of spells and monsters seems to me be roughly templated off the Basic/Expert rules, ie Sleep is a first level spell, Fireball a 3rd level spell, Orcs have 1 HD, Ogres 4HD, Hill Giants 8HD etc. I feel that 5e follows similar lines - but I am player who has not read the MM.

Basically, it seems that D&D has traditionally had a huge logjam of stuff at these levels (except 4e). It could spread this stuff in different ways - but at the risk of going against traditional expectations.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes. Levels 1-2 aren't very good, both because of character frailty and limited options (not everyone has their theme/sub-class).

I think it bears repeating that the "sweet spot" will never be truly nailed down, because it's different for everyone. For example, you're saying level 1-2 aren't very good. I disagree. I like them. I like how players actually spend their time thinking about risk vs. reward and don't just assume, "Oh, we can do this, I have enough resources to soak up whatever happens" without bothering to spend the time to think about strategy or anything. It's almost like D&D moved to this area where you can never run away from anything anymore, and anything with stats is meant to be fought.

 

[Ancalagon]

I thought level 20 was the sweet spot. You know...all those forums threads where people carefully plan out their level 20 build.

/irony

Oh man. This is how it usually goes:

Supaoptimizer: Dear lord, if I take class X level 3, Class Y level 5 and class Z level 2 this super synergy of doom will be enabled!!! mwahahaha!!!

Supaoptimizer to GM: For the next campaign I will play a multiclass XYZ!
GM: That's... bizarre. And not very good. But hey, if you want to go ahead. We are starting a level 3, conveniently for you.

Campaign goes on for a while, with PC XYZ not being very good but supaoptimizer wispering to himself "soon... sooooon..." Eventually level 10 is reached. At this point, 1 of 2 things happens.

1:
Supaoptimizer: Mmahaha, I now have the power from beyond the stars! DOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!
GM: Holy crap that's broken... *reads rules* I'm sorry that's just not right, I will have to houserule against it
Supaoptimizer: NOOOOOOOOoooooo.....

2:
GM: Well folks we had a good run, but now that the Zxforlnian invasion has been repelled and such, I'm a bit burned out! I think we could all use a little break, and I'll start a new campaign in a few months. Unless someone else wants to run something quick in the meantime?
Supaoptimizer: But but... NOOOOOooooooo

 

[TerraDave]

Lots of good stuff up-thread, but levels 4-8 or so really feel like the levels that the game was actually designed for.

As "leveling" is such an important part of the game, you needed some kind of lead in. And its always fun to make up cool high level stuff, with kind of a wink knowing that it will only see a bit of use in play, and most games will end between levels 8-12.

Aside from the math and swingy combats, I cant help but think there maybe another supply factor here....Basically, it seems that D&D has traditionally had a huge logjam of stuff at these levels (except 4e).

This is another....huge...factor. 5th-7th level is where you could start to use most of the MM, with low HD things in numbers and with leaders, and moderate use of the dragons, demons, and devils, but 85% can be thrown at a part in that range with some thought. One thing 5E does is make that even easier to do.

Most magical effects a DM can stand to adjudicate will also come into play around that time.

And its generally easiest to imagine the players place in the world. They are clearly heroic, but not in a potential game breaking kind of way.

To go back to my first point, it seems like their is a circularity here. As those levels are in the sweetspot, both official support and the way campaigns tend to work put the focus there, making it even sweeter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

They could have just toned down the overall power level, and kept the 20 levels. Players who love to be able to min/max and run roughshod over encounters would probably hate it, but they're generally better served with Pathfinder or 4E in the first place.

It's got less to do with pure power level than with quantity of levels. Even if each level is a smaller slice of power, the 1/month leveling rate isn't likely to suddenly spike to 2/month (especially given the amount of DM's who just wing it with XP/levels).

Also, 20 levels really isn't a brand thing that I'd consider sacred. Until 3e, most classes started topping out at 12 or 13, and some even had straight up restrictions in place that prevented you from advancing unless non-xp conditions were met. For example, 2e druids can't actually go beyond 11 without taking the place of another druid (usually 9 in the world at any given time), can't go beyond 12 without taking the place of another archdruid (usually 3 total), and can't go beyond 15 without replacing grand druid (only 1).

Fighters got "capstone" type abilities at around 10, which is when they attracted followers and could manage a keep or castle or tower or something. Thieves had actually rise through the ranks of a thieves guild to get past certain levels, etc.

My point is, pre-3e may have had 20 levels on the chart, but the core game really didn't expect characters to go too far past level 10. And if/when they did, those extra levels were supposed to be really special and well-earned.

However true this might be, I think a 5e that came out with only 10 levels would've been savaged for that fact, simply because of broken expectations.

 

[Blue]

I think the sweet spot range for 5e is wider that 5-10. I see levels 1-4 as ramp up, where you are learning you character and creating a group dynamic. 3 and 5 are important milestones for becoming your class and I think the sweet spot starts at 3 when you get the first sweet cool things that others can't do and you're far less squishy than 1st and feel like you're pretty cool. 11th is another important milestone, the sweet spot goes up at least that high. After that I think that there's a real, if not rules-encouraged, drop-off in campaign longevity. I'd say the sweet spot could go up to 13-14 where you have 7th level spells, good multiclass combos, had a chance to use your 11th level abilities and grow them, and fight most types of creatures in the MM. But it's hard to put a hard cap, 5e did a great job of reducing the high level complexity of earlier editions that made a clear point obvious.