Tiers 2 and 3 are larger. Why?

[Oramac]

I was thinking about this the other day. Tiers divide up the levels of play, and 20 is divisible by 4, so why not 5 levels per tier? (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20)

Instead we have this weird thing where Tiers 1 and 4 are 4 levels (1-4 and 17-20), while Tiers 2 and 3 are 6 levels (5-10 and 11-16).

So why are Tiers 2 and 3 larger? The only thing I can think of is that WOTC expected the majority of gameplay to happen at those levels, so the tiers are larger. But from seeing actual play that doesn't really pan out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was thinking about this the other day. Tiers divide up the levels of play, and 20 is divisible by 4, so why not 5 levels per tier? (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20)

Instead we have this weird thing where Tiers 1 and 4 are 4 levels (1-4 and 17-20), while Tiers 2 and 3 are 6 levels (5-10 and 11-16).

So why are Tiers 2 and 3 larger? The only thing I can think of is that WOTC expected the majority of gameplay to happen at those levels, so the tiers are larger. But from seeing actual play that doesn't really pan out.

Possible back-formation issues due to spell slots/progression?

3rd level spells have notoriously been a big power bump over 2nd level spells. Those happen at 5th level traditionally. Similarly, 9th level spells are A BIG DEAL. And they happen traditionally at 17.

Having your tier bumps at odd levels also lets you sync your power bumps with spell levels more generally (so going up a tier happens with getting access to a new level of spells).

Is that a good reason to keep it around? Dunno.

[Damon_Tor]

Because big power spikes at 5 and 17. I think that's the whole thing.

[stoutstien]

Exp needed to level up also significantly rises from lv 5-10 and then climbs out of that dip but has an almost rollercoaster look after that so it probably to toggle progression during T2-3.

[kazaryu]

I was thinking about this the other day. Tiers divide up the levels of play, and 20 is divisible by 4, so why not 5 levels per tier? (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20)

Instead we have this weird thing where Tiers 1 and 4 are 4 levels (1-4 and 17-20), while Tiers 2 and 3 are 6 levels (5-10 and 11-16).

So why are Tiers 2 and 3 larger? The only thing I can think of is that WOTC expected the majority of gameplay to happen at those levels, so the tiers are larger. But from seeing actual play that doesn't really pan out.

the tiers follow based on power spikes. levle 5 is a HUGE step up from level 4. caster get 3rd level spells, martials get extra attack.

the next major step up is level 11. 6yh level spells tend to be significantly more powerful than 5th level. and at this level many martials get significant features. fighters extra attack, rogues reliable talent, paladins imporved divine smite... but mostly, i think, its the 6ht level spells thing.

there's a reason its almost impossible to cast more than 1-2 6th+ level spells per day.

[PhoenixPhyre]

the tiers follow based on power spikes. levle 5 is a HUGE step up from level 4. caster get 3rd level spells, martials get extra attack.

the next major step up is level 11. 6yh level spells tend to be significantly more powerful than 5th level. and at this level many martials get significant features. fighters extra attack, rogues reliable talent, paladins imporved divine smite... but mostly, i think, its the 6ht level spells thing.

there's a reason its almost impossible to cast more than 1-2 6th+ level spells per day.

Isn't that circular though? There are those power spikes at those levels because those start a new tier. Why those particular levels? That's the original question. Personally, I think they thought "ok, fireball's a 3rd level spell and is a big jump and 3rds come in at 5 for full casters, so...big spike/power jump for everyone at 5 ==> new tier".

[JackPhoenix]

The only thing I can think of is that WOTC expected the majority of gameplay to happen at those levels, so the tiers are larger.

That's exactly the reason.

[kazaryu]

Isn't that circular though? There are those power spikes at those levels because those start a new tier. Why those particular levels? That's the original question. Personally, I think they thought "ok, fireball's a 3rd level spell and is a big jump and 3rds come in at 5 for full casters, so...big spike/power jump for everyone at 5 ==> new tier".

you and i are saying the same thing. i didn't say 'new tier, therefore must have power spike' i said 'those levels have a powerspike, therefore thats where the tiers exist'. as in, those levels were assigned the new tiers, because those levels had the major powerspikes.

[Rynjin]

Isn't that circular though? There are those power spikes at those levels because those start a new tier. Why those particular levels? That's the original question. Personally, I think they thought "ok, fireball's a 3rd level spell and is a big jump and 3rds come in at 5 for full casters, so...big spike/power jump for everyone at 5 ==> new tier".

Well...no, you have it backwards. The "tiers of play" are a post hoc explanation of the same power system that's been in plays since at least 3.0. it's not a circular thing at all. The tiers are marked where they are, because that's where the power spikes are. Not the other way around.

[Tanarii]

So why are Tiers 2 and 3 larger? The only thing I can think of is that WOTC expected the majority of gameplay to happen at those levels, so the tiers are larger. But from seeing actual play that doesn't really pan out.
Number of levels doesn't matter, time spent in those levels matters. The way the XP chart is tailored, if you break it down by adventuring days, you'll spend 2.4 per level in Tier 2 and 1.6 per level in Tier 3. Compare to Tier 1, it's 1 adventuring day to get to level 2-3, and 1.5 to levels 4, then (IIRC) a bit of a pause of 2.4 to get to 5.

And that's exactly because WotC had data that showed most folks preferred shooting through the first few levels, then hanging out in the mid level range (5-10), then liked to shoot up to Epic levels (17+). So the progression is very fast Tier 1, slow Tier 2, fast Tier 3, then a moderate Tier 4.

Edit: of course this doesn't work if your DM (or official play) does something intentional to break it. Like milestone leveling based on sessions or time played.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Number of levels doesn't matter, time spent in those levels matters. The way the XP chart is tailored, if you break it down by adventuring days, you'll spend 2.4 per level in Tier 2 and 1.6 per level in Tier 3. Compare to Tier 1, it's 1 adventuring day to get to level 2-3, and 1.5 to levels 4, then (IIRC) a bit of a pause of 2.4 to get to 5.

And that's exactly because WotC had data that showed most folks preferred shooting through the first few levels, then hanging out in the mid level range (5-10), then liked to shoot up to Epic levels (17+). So the progression is very fast Tier 1, slow Tier 2, fast Tier 3, then a moderate Tier 4.

Edit: of course this doesn't work if your DM (or official play) does something intentional to break it. Like milestone leveling based on sessions or time played.

When I've done that same analysis, that only works if you set adjusted (ie for monster count) xp == earned xp. It's really about twice that time per level in earned xp.

[animorte]

The tiers are marked where they are, because that's where the power spikes are. Not the other way around.

I was going to say something like this as well. The strong spells being where they are is a matter of progression. Thus we, as a community, have labeled the Tiers.

The only fault I can see in the "tiers of play" logic is how some subclasses receive features at level 1, others at 2, and the rest at 3. This is probably why most games start at level 3, so everyone has their identity. The subclasses continue to have varying levels of progression. As such, different classes have different power spikes as well.

But the community decided over time that the metric ultimately lies in what the classes DO have in common, like spell progression for full casters. To be honest, full casters have had control of the game pace for a very long time now.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was going to say something like this as well. The strong spells being where they are is a matter of progression. Thus we, as a community, have labeled the Tiers.

The only fault I can see in the "tiers of play" logic is how some subclasses receive features at level 1, others at 2, and the rest at 3. This is probably why most games start at level 3, so everyone has their identity. The subclasses continue to have varying levels of progression. As such, different classes have different power spikes as well.

But the community decided over time that the metric ultimately lies in what the classes DO have in common, like spell progression for full casters. To be honest, full casters have had control of the game pace for a very long time now.

The Tiers of Play are actually defined in the DMG as such. Chapter 1, the section conveniently titled Tiers of Play. With descriptive text as to how the scope of campaigns/adventures is intended to change. So no, it's not just a community thing (unlike 3e's Tier system for classes).

[Rynjin]

The Tiers of Play are actually defined in the DMG as such. Chapter 1, the section conveniently titled Tiers of Play. With descriptive text as to how the scope of campaigns/adventures is intended to change. So no, it's not just a community thing (unlike 3e's Tier system for classes).

It's in the book, but the tiers are, again, based on the power spikes not the other way around.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's in the book, but the tiers are, again, based on the power spikes not the other way around.

That just pushes the analysis back one stage. Why were those levels chosen for power spikes? Saying "it's based on power spikes" doesn't actually answer the core question as to why those specific levels were chosen. Because there's no requirement or fundamental thing causing there to be power spikes in the first place--see the rogue who really doesn't have any discrete power spikes. Power spikes were intentionally placed at certain points. Which almost are every 5 levels.

The only answers so far that actually answer the question are
* Because they wanted to focus the play there (or believed that the play would focus there). Probably at least part of it.
* They decided to have power spikes (a priori) and used the traditional levels for "big spells" (1st level, 3rd level, 6th level, and 9th level spells) as their anchors. And since spell level access happens on odd levels, they couldn't have done 1, 6, 11, 16 and have it line up. That's probably also a part of it.

Just saying "because power spikes" is like answering "why is the sun yellow" with "it gives off photons in a distribution with a peak wavelength in what we call yellow". True, but not really answering the question. A more proper answer would go into the black-body spectrum and the temperature of the sun, which are the real independent parameters here. Power spikes are a derived detail, not a first-principles answer.

-------

But really, the thing you quoted was specifically and only replying to the idea that the tiers are community mindset, not something fundamentally intended by the system's design.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I was thinking about this the other day. Tiers divide up the levels of play, and 20 is divisible by 4, so why not 5 levels per tier? (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20)

Instead we have this weird thing where Tiers 1 and 4 are 4 levels (1-4 and 17-20), while Tiers 2 and 3 are 6 levels (5-10 and 11-16).

So why are Tiers 2 and 3 larger? The only thing I can think of is that WOTC expected the majority of gameplay to happen at those levels, so the tiers are larger. But from seeing actual play that doesn't really pan out.

If more play happening at those levels was the goal it has panned out. There was a thread recently that showed % of play through levels. The largest number of players reporting included 3rd level; the numbers declined slowly until mid-tier 3 then started to fall off a cliff. Many games are avoiding or moving through tier 1 fairly quickly then playing through mid levels before packing it in.

I'm not sure if this was a plan, but I'd say it has resulted in an increased number of levels that are both complex enough to make for interesting play, but not so overpowered to be prohibitive to play or DM.

[Rynjin]

That just pushes the analysis back one stage. Why were those levels chosen for power spikes?

They weren't chosen.

Those are the levels power spikes started appearing due to poor balancing in previous Editions. Unintentionally.

The numbers were reduced but they still increase at similar breakpoints. Same with acquisition of more powerful spells.

[animorte]

But really, the thing you quoted was specifically and only replying to the idea that the tiers are community mindset, not something fundamentally intended by the system's design.

This is precisely because older systems with very similar power spikes and progression that created the template before 5e wrote it down officially.

As a company they do tend to learn from their previous good and bad decisions which are defined by the community.

[Chronos]

One of the earliest editions of D&D is referred to as "BECMI", which stands for "Beginner Expert Companion Master Immortal", the five stages of play that a character was expected to progress through. OK, so there are only four stages now instead of five, but it's the same concept.

[Tanarii]

The Tiers of Play are actually defined in the DMG as such. Chapter 1, the section conveniently titled Tiers of Play. With descriptive text as to how the scope of campaigns/adventures is intended to change. So no, it's not just a community thing (unlike 3e's Tier system for classes).
And 5e wasn't the first to do it either. They were called Tiers in 4e as well. Tiers is definitely not a community thing, it's a WotC official thing.

Which is interesting, because they must have known the term was already in use by the community for something completely different when they decided to coin it for 4e. Maybe they were trying to redefine it because they hate the idea of the Tier System for Classes?


One of the earliest editions of D&D is referred to as "BECMI", which stands for "Beginner Expert Companion Master Immortal", the five stages of play that a character was expected to progress through. OK, so there are only four stages now instead of five, but it's the same concept.Eh. In BECMI play changed drastically with each stage, with new game structures and subsystems needed to handle the new things the PCs were doing,. In 5e, play more or less stays the same, despite what the Tier descriptive text says about scope of impact for their actions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Number of levels doesn't matter, time spent in those levels matters. {snip}
Some groups take three or four sessions to complete one to two adventure days.
Edit: of course this doesn't work if your DM (or official play) does something intentional to break it. Like milestone leveling based on sessions or time played. True, however the XP grind is for some people off putting.

One of the earliest editions of D&D is referred to as "BECMI", which stands for "Beginner Expert Companion Master Immortal", the five stages of play that a character was expected to progress through. OK, so there are only four stages now instead of five, but it's the same concept. Agree, with "immortal" being a tier of play that has (thankfully) been pruned from the system. That level of play really needs to be its own game system. (IMO)

for Tanarii, further comments

Maybe they were trying to redefine it because they hate the idea of the Tier System for Classes? Would not surprise me.

In BECMI play changed drastically with each stage, with new game structures and subsystems needed to handle the new things the PCs were doing,. In 5e, it more or less stays the same, despite what the Tier descriptive text says. 5e's lack of a good campaign structure is a notable gap, yes, but folks who didn't play TSR editions probably don't miss it.

[Psyren]

Why were those levels chosen for power spikes?

5th level is the optimal place for stuff like Fireball and Extra Attack that cause the first power spike. It's early enough that Timmy doesn't have to wait long, but he does have to wait.

[Amechra]

5e's lack of a good campaign structure is a notable gap, yes, but folks who didn't play TSR editions probably don't miss it.

I miss it so much, honestly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh. In BECMI play changed drastically with each stage, with new game structures and subsystems needed to handle the new things the PCs were doing,. In 5e, play more or less stays the same, despite what the Tier descriptive text says about scope of impact for their actions.

And I'd consider 5e's a way better idea. Games that radically change periodically mean that anyone who prefers any one of those phases is disappointed most of the time. And usually means that each of those implementations is half-baked (or worse if there are more than two phases). For example, going from "special forces" to "lords of the manor" mean that anyone not interested in the strategic map only gets to play half the game. And vice versa--those interested mostly in the strategic map are bored for the first chunk. And even if the types (likes A, likes B, likes both) are evenly divided, you end up boring 1/3 of your people at any instant.

IMO, game makers should choose a paradigm and go all in on that. 5e's chosen "special forces/SWAT team" as their basic paradigm. As with everything WotC (and not just them), the implementation isn't perfect. But it's a lot better than it would be if they tried to go all split-brain on us.

[Psyren]

And I'd consider 5e's a way better idea. Games that radically change periodically mean that anyone who prefers any one of those phases is disappointed most of the time. And usually means that each of those implementations is half-baked (or worse if there are more than two phases). For example, going from "special forces" to "lords of the manor" mean that anyone not interested in the strategic map only gets to play half the game. And vice versa--those interested mostly in the strategic map are bored for the first chunk. And even if the types (likes A, likes B, likes both) are evenly divided, you end up boring 1/3 of your people at any instant.

IMO, game makers should choose a paradigm and go all in on that. 5e's chosen "special forces/SWAT team" as their basic paradigm. As with everything WotC (and not just them), the implementation isn't perfect. But it's a lot better than it would be if they tried to go all split-brain on us.

^ This. If I wanted to play Civilization/Godus then I'd play those. Don't spring them on me just because I crossed a level threshold, or force me to choose between playing a genre I don't want to play or not getting to see the end of the story I've become invested in for the last several months if not years.

It can work as an add-on system like a Kingmaker-type deal but in no way should it be the default for the game.

[Snails]

* They decided to have power spikes (a priori) and used the traditional levels for "big spells" (1st level, 3rd level, 6th level, and 9th level spells) as their anchors. And since spell level access happens on odd levels, they couldn't have done 1, 6, 11, 16 and have it line up. That's probably also a part of it.


This is the most correct answer. The designers recognized there would be a power spike, and aligned the classes to have the spike at the same time. Not like the 3e sorcerer whose 3rd level spells are delayed until 6th, nor the 3e Fighter whose second iterative attack is also delayed until 6th.

Why not label that spike?

Oh, look, there is another spike at 9th level. Why not label that spike, too? (This second spike is primarily a caster spike, but non-casters do benefit from their hit bonus and skill bonus going up.)



But really, the thing you quoted was specifically and only replying to the idea that the tiers are community mindset, not something fundamentally intended by the system's design.

The tiers are, to a significant degree, arbitrary labels for the convenience of discussing what power level is involved. If not tiers, we would go back to "low level", "low-mid level", "high-mid level", "someteenth level", "high level". But the disadvantage here is obvious -- which levels do I mean?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The tiers are, to a significant degree, arbitrary labels for the convenience of discussing what power level is involved. If not tiers, we would go back to "low level", "low-mid level", "high-mid level", "someteenth level", "high level". But the disadvantage here is obvious -- which levels do I mean?

Minor expansion--there is guidance (in the DMG, because the notion is really DM-facing, not player-facing) around the tiers, especially in monster design. We usually say "well, a CR 12 monster is T3". But that's not how the system was intended. Instead, it looks at what tier the players will be when they face it. A monster intended to be faced in T3 is different than one intended for T2 (different modifiers to CR have different weights) no matter what their CR is. Because you can (and often do) face CR 5-10 monsters in T1 and there are some CR 0-4 monsters that are designed to be minions of T2+ monsters (the intellect devourer comes immediately to mind, since mind flayers are all CR 8+).

But that guidance is honored mostly in the breech, it seems to me.

[Amechra]

IMO, game makers should choose a paradigm and go all in on that. 5e's chosen "special forces/SWAT team" as their basic paradigm. As with everything WotC (and not just them), the implementation isn't perfect. But it's a lot better than it would be if they tried to go all split-brain on us.

Eh, 5e failed to follow a consistent paradigm the second they wrote the spell list.

...

Also, I disagree with your position... as long as the devs aren't doing something silly like going "as part of domain-level play, you must now calculate trade matrices" or something equally as foul. You can always have something like the "domain management" system from Renegade Crowns, where it's primarily a clock for how often you have to deal with external and internal threats (which you do by adventuring, obviously).

Personally, my ideal FANTASY ADVENTURE experience is to cap out on actual mechanical power early and then spend the rest of the adventure enmeshing myself within the world. That maximizes the amount of time I get to play with my cool toys, after all.

[Psyren]

Eh, 5e failed to follow a consistent paradigm the second they wrote the spell list.

Disagree; the spell lists can certainly do a lot of things, but "Special Forces" is still a decent baseline expectation for what a D&D party should represent at all levels, with the primary evolution being their operating theater - ranging from things like "bandit camp" at low levels, to "extraplanar stronghold" or "divine domain" at the high end.


Also, I disagree with your position... as long as the devs aren't doing something silly like going "as part of domain-level play, you must now calculate trade matrices" or something equally as foul. You can always have something like the "domain management" system from Renegade Crowns, where it's primarily a clock for how often you have to deal with external and internal threats (which you do by adventuring, obviously).

Personally, my ideal FANTASY ADVENTURE experience is to cap out on actual mechanical power early and then spend the rest of the adventure enmeshing myself within the world. That maximizes the amount of time I get to play with my cool toys, after all.

1) You can "cap out on mechanical power" as early as you want - just start at or near the level where you consider that to occur, and progress instead via things like Boons or favors/connections. The tools exist for you to do that.

2) Something like Renegade Crowns or Kingmaker is exactly how they should treat these kinds of subsystems - campaign/module-specific, not baseline expectations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also, I disagree with your position... as long as the devs aren't doing something silly like going "as part of domain-level play, you must now calculate trade matrices" or something equally as foul. You can always have something like the "domain management" system from Renegade Crowns, where it's primarily a clock for how often you have to deal with external and internal threats (which you do by adventuring, obviously).


As far as the spells go, I think that's overstated. Mainly because people let spells get away with way more than they actually do, because magic[1].

As far as the domain management stuff...encoding that into the system itself means that every single campaign has to feature "now I'm lord of a domain". Which only fits a tiny tiny tiny fraction of all characters. Exactly...3 of the dozens of characters I've played with over the last 15 groups. And those systems always end up putting weird worldbuilding things.

In general, adventurers make really bad rulers. The skills and necessary tasks of ruling and adventuring are in strong tension. If you're a ruler and are leaving your domain to go adventuring...you're a bad ruler. You have people for that.

[1] and then do the opposite for anything not explicitly marked as overtly magical.

[Willie the Duck]

The only answers so far that actually answer the question are
* Because they wanted to focus the play there (or believed that the play would focus there). Probably at least part of it.
* They decided to have power spikes (a priori) and used the traditional levels for "big spells" (1st level, 3rd level, 6th level, and 9th level spells) as their anchors. And since spell level access happens on odd levels, they couldn't have done 1, 6, 11, 16 and have it line up. That's probably also a part of it.
Fundamentally, that's what is is going to be. People like getting fly and fireball at level 5 (and for fireball to be definitive again) a wish at 17 and so they built a mostly descriptive model around such milestones. If they made tiers which didn't account for these shifts in ability, the term would have less meaning (and I guess if they shifted where these abilities came in, they might lose buyers to a 'doesn't feel like D&D to me' problem, or at least that might have been the fear).



Agree, with "immortal" being a tier of play that has (thankfully) been pruned from the system. That level of play really needs to be its own game system. (IMO)

I just perused my Immortal set in the last year. It really pretty much was a different game (and not really a great one, to be honest, although I find its' cosmology more interesting that AD&D's default one). If I wanted to play a real or aspiring godling in a D&D-esque gameplay mode, Godbound works so much better.

[OldTrees1]

For everyone saying the power spikes came first, you are only partially right. 5E decided to make 3rd level spells relatively stronger compared to 2nd / 4th than they were before. I would argue this choice was a result of them deciding 5th level needed a bigger power spike.

There is a spike at every odd level, but WotC decided to exacerbate the spike at 5th. That is why Tier 2 starts at 5th instead of 3rd or 7th.

Why did they choose 5th? Well the alternatives (sticking to spell level levels) don't divide as nicely. The closest is 3 tiers at 1st / 7th / 13th. That alternative conveniently divides the spell levels into thirds, 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For everyone saying the power spikes came first, you are only partially right. 5E decided to make 3rd level spells relatively stronger compared to 2nd / 4th than they were before. I would argue this choice was a result of them deciding 5th level needed a bigger power spike.

There is a spike at every odd level, but WotC decided to exacerbate the spike at 5th. That is why Tier 2 starts at 5th instead of 3rd or 7th.

Why did they choose 5th? Well the alternatives (sticking to spell level levels) don't divide as nicely. The closest is 3 tiers at 1st / 7th / 13th. That alternative conveniently divides the spell levels into thirds, 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9.

Even in 3e and 2e, 3rd level spells were a big jump up from 2nd level spells. As were 9ths vs 8ths. So that says that 5th and 17th levels are "natural" (historically) breakpoints. Which really doesn't leave you much choice--you can do 9th character level (5th level spells), but then you need 5 groups (with another break at 13th). That's what they did for proficiency, and they could have done the same for the overall tiers. But coming up with 5 descriptions is harder than 4 descriptions, so they scrapped that.

[Hytheter]

The Tiers of Play are actually defined in the DMG as such. Chapter 1, the section conveniently titled Tiers of Play. With descriptive text as to how the scope of campaigns/adventures is intended to change. So no, it's not just a community thing (unlike 3e's Tier system for classes).

It's also in the PHB, on page 15. And yet the notion that the tiers of play are a community fabrication persists. I guess it is asking too much to expect players to read the rules of the game, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess it is asking too much to expect players to read the rules of the game, though.

This, but not blue. Sadly. I guess the phrase "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest[1]" applies rather broadly.

[1] I know it from Simon and Garfunkel's song The Boxer, but doubt it's from there originally.

[Dame_Mechanus]

This, but not blue. Sadly. I guess the phrase "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest[1]" applies rather broadly.

[1] I know it from Simon and Garfunkel's song The Boxer, but doubt it's from there originally.

It is, in fact, originally from the song! It's not sourced from elsewhere, it's just a really great line.

As someone whose brain regularly stores vast quantities of useless information, though, it really does amaze me how well some people are able to store even small references within game books in their memory. My approach to them has always been more a matter of using them as reference texts; what matters most is knowing where the information is and how to look it up than remembering every single point. That's not to diminish people who can remember this stuff cleanly, there's no sarcasm here. It's just never been how my brain works.

To answer the topic at hand, though, it always struck me that tiers two and three are bigger because there's more opportunity for interesting adventures there. The earliest tier is when a few things going wrong can wreck your whole day handily and you're kind of fumbling through basic challenges, and the highest tier is when you can generally do whatever you want in your chosen field without too much trouble. Two and three are tiers where you have a fair amount of flexibility and can take on some bigger challenges at either low or high power, but you're not invulnerable or easily chumped.

[noob]

Isn't that circular though? There are those power spikes at those levels because those start a new tier. Why those particular levels? That's the original question. Personally, I think they thought "ok, fireball's a 3rd level spell and is a big jump and 3rds come in at 5 for full casters, so...big spike/power jump for everyone at 5 ==> new tier".

The power spikes at those levels comes from the dnd tradition about giving new spell levels at odd levels.
So it is not circular because the power spikes came prior to the dnd concept of tier (which I did observe in 4e first).

[OldTrees1]

Even in 3e and 2e, 3rd level spells were a big jump up from 2nd level spells. As were 9ths vs 8ths. So that says that 5th and 17th levels are "natural" (historically) breakpoints. Which really doesn't leave you much choice--you can do 9th character level (5th level spells), but then you need 5 groups (with another break at 13th). That's what they did for proficiency, and they could have done the same for the overall tiers. But coming up with 5 descriptions is harder than 4 descriptions, so they scrapped that.

While every spell level was a big jump (power was exponential in 3e), I don't feel 3rd were remarkably larger of a jump historically. 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th felt like the bigger jumps previously, but even then it was all big jumps.

However once you agree that spell levels are a good choice for a tier break, all you need to do is exacerbate that particular power spike and you are good to go.

Likewise once you agree that spell levels are a good choice for a tier break, which levels you choose depends on how many tiers you want.
3: 1st 4th 6th
4: 1st 3rd 6th 9th
5: 1st 3rd 5th 7th 9th
If you can't decide just prepare for all of them with 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th. (oh wait)

[PhoenixPhyre]

It is, in fact, originally from the song! It's not sourced from elsewhere, it's just a really great line.

As someone whose brain regularly stores vast quantities of useless information, though, it really does amaze me how well some people are able to store even small references within game books in their memory. My approach to them has always been more a matter of using them as reference texts; what matters most is knowing where the information is and how to look it up than remembering every single point. That's not to diminish people who can remember this stuff cleanly, there's no sarcasm here. It's just never been how my brain works.

To answer the topic at hand, though, it always struck me that tiers two and three are bigger because there's more opportunity for interesting adventures there. The earliest tier is when a few things going wrong can wreck your whole day handily and you're kind of fumbling through basic challenges, and the highest tier is when you can generally do whatever you want in your chosen field without too much trouble. Two and three are tiers where you have a fair amount of flexibility and can take on some bigger challenges at either low or high power, but you're not invulnerable or easily chumped.

After I wrote that, I looked it up and was surprised that it was original there, because most great lines have been taken a long time ago. =)

As for memory, I have a really good memory for remembering that I read that somewhere. But my brain doesn't store where. Page references get stripped. I remember "that's in the DMG" or "isn't that written somewhere?" and then have to do a text search for it to find it. It's worst for things like song or movie quotes--my brain is a nest of quotes from somewhere. I just don't remember where.

[noob]

While every spell level was a big jump (power was exponential in 3e), I don't feel 3rd were remarkably larger of a jump historically. 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th felt like the bigger jumps previously, but even then it was all big jumps.

However once you agree that spell levels are a good choice for a tier break, all you need to do is exacerbate that particular power spike and you are good to go.

Likewise once you agree that spell levels are a good choice for a tier break, which levels you choose depends on how many tiers you want.
3: 1st 4th 6th
4: 1st 3rd 6th 9th
5: 1st 3rd 5th 7th 9th
If you can't decide just prepare for all of them with 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th. (oh wait)
Level 3 spells is where you get fireball and wotc always valued it highly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Level 3 spells is where you get fireball and wotc always valued it highly.

Yeah. It's why it's 8d6 (which is "out of band" for aoe damage spells of 3rd level)--it's considered "traditionally powerful" and thus intentionally imbalanced. Which is crappy design IMO, but...

And it's not just fireball -- fly in 3e is 3rd level (for Sorc/Wiz, which is the definer) and in 5e. And that's a gamechanger--reliable access to flight meaningfully changes the situations you find difficult. It's also the level for dispel magic (in both 3e and 5e) and the point where the summon Monster line really starts picking up/being useful. As well as haste, but that's slightly different.

6th in 3e has planar binding, which is a huge power shift, as well as contingency.

On the cleric side, 3e's 3rd level spells had the first big group of "remove X" debuff removal (curse and disease). 5th level was Raise Dead and Scrying, but 6th had Harm/Heal as well as Create Undead, a milestone for necromancy (the other one happening at...wait for it...3rd spell level).

So I could see arguments for breakpoints at

1/5/9/13/17 (1, 3, 5, 7, 9 level spells)
or
1/5/11/17 (1, 3, 6, 9 level spells)

And 4 is a nicer number than 5 =)

[Chronos]

Quoth PhoenixPhyre:

Minor expansion--there is guidance (in the DMG, because the notion is really DM-facing, not player-facing) around the tiers, especially in monster design. We usually say "well, a CR 12 monster is T3". But that's not how the system was intended. Instead, it looks at what tier the players will be when they face it. A monster intended to be faced in T3 is different than one intended for T2 (different modifiers to CR have different weights) no matter what their CR is. Because you can (and often do) face CR 5-10 monsters in T1 and there are some CR 0-4 monsters that are designed to be minions of T2+ monsters (the intellect devourer comes immediately to mind, since mind flayers are all CR 8+).
If "what tier a monster should be used in" is more important information than "what CR is the monster", then why the heck isn't that what they list in the monster's statblock, where one would expect to find information like that? Along with information on what size groups you can expect to find the monster in: If you have a monster that's usually solitary, and put in a whole bunch of them, or vice-versa, you're likely to break balance even if you're following the XP budgets by the book.

[KorvinStarmast]

If "what tier a monster should be used in" is more important information than "what CR is the monster", then why the heck isn't that what they list in the monster's statblock, where one would expect to find information like that? All useful info if one is designing a module for a con, to be sure. But I think that "it's a point of departure" is the approach rather than 'this is tightly and finely balanced for all encounters"

As to the spells and levels and tiers: Just saw something odd: in the original game, the MU learned his first 5th level spell at level 9, but at Wizard (name level) level 11 no 6th level spell arrived. That showed up at level 12. Same in AD&D 1e. Been doing 5e long enough that I've got the 'boost at the odd level' beaten into my brain.

[Tanarii]

Minor expansion--there is guidance (in the DMG, because the notion is really DM-facing, not player-facing) around the tiers, especially in monster design. We usually say "well, a CR 12 monster is T3". But that's not how the system was intended. Instead, it looks at what tier the players will be when they face it. A monster intended to be faced in T3 is different than one intended for T2 (different modifiers to CR have different weights) no matter what their CR is. Because you can (and often do) face CR 5-10 monsters in T1 and there are some CR 0-4 monsters that are designed to be minions of T2+ monsters (the intellect devourer comes immediately to mind, since mind flayers are all CR 8+).

But that guidance is honored mostly in the breech, it seems to me.


If "what tier a monster should be used in" is more important information than "what CR is the monster", then why the heck isn't that what they list in the monster's statblock, where one would expect to find information like that? Along with information on what size groups you can expect to find the monster in: If you have a monster that's usually solitary, and put in a whole bunch of them, or vice-versa, you're likely to break balance even if you're following the XP budgets by the book.Because the expectation isn't CR = APL. CR 4 isn't a Tier 1 monster, it's a Tier 2 monster you'd mostly expect to see around levels 7-8. CR 8 isn't a Tier 2 monster, it's a Tier 3 monster you'd mostly expect to see them mostly around level 11-16. That's inherent in the encounter difficulty guidelines, unless you're using non-legendary solos all the time, which is definitely not an assumption of the system. So it's not needed explicitly in a stat block. (Also this was expanded Xanathars too.)

Part of me thinks they really should revamp the CR system so it's based on a group of 4 creatures to prevent the constant jumping to conclusion that CR should be compared to APL. It's a nice easy number to look at and the encounter difficulty tables aren't, so they don't have the same impact on assumptions.

[OldTrees1]

Part of me thinks they really should revamp the CR system so it's based on a group of 4 creatures to prevent the constant jumping to conclusion that CR should be compared to APL. It's a nice easy number to look at and the encounter difficulty tables aren't, so they don't have the same impact on assumptions.

I think we want calculating encounter difficulty to be easy. Easy both as a final step (to know the strength of the encounter) and during the process (so you know how much budget remains / know if you are deviating from your target).

Imagine wanting an encounter with a captain, their lieutenant, and 3 guards. How much harder would it be to calculate the encounter difficulty if you need the extra step of noting the captain and lieutenant are single creatures? Obviously the step of accounting for the guards being 3 creatures instead of 1 or 4 has no difference.

Although this question does depend on the encounter power curve of the system. As far as I understand, 5E can be approximated as CR X + CR X ~ EL 2X. As far as I understand, 3E can be approximated as CR X + CR X ~ EL X+2. Your suggestion might have different UX costs depending on whether the curve is linear or exponential.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think we want calculating encounter difficulty to be easy. Easy both as a final step (to know the strength of the encounter) and during the process (so you know how much budget remains / know if you are deviating from your target).

Imagine wanting an encounter with a captain, their lieutenant, and 3 guards. How much harder would it be to calculate the encounter difficulty if you need the extra step of noting the captain and lieutenant are single creatures? Obviously the step of accounting for the guards being 3 creatures instead of 1 or 4 has no difference.

Although this question does depend on the encounter power curve of the system. As far as I understand, 5E can be approximated as CR X + CR X ~ EL 2X. As far as I understand, 3E can be approximated as CR X + CR X ~ EL X+2. Your suggestion might have different UX costs depending on whether the curve is linear or exponential.

CR isn't actually designed with encounter balance in mind. EL is just not a thing in 5e. The median fight (by Xanathar's guidance) has roughly 1.5-2 creatures of CR ~ level / 2...but only very roughly. If you put a single CR X against a party of level X characters, it will be an utter pushover, and a non-interesting one. If you put two CR 5s against a party of level 10s, it will also be an utter pushover. Even if the party isn't optimized.

Encounter balance isn't an algorithmic thing at all. It's an art that requires knowing
1) the party's interests
2) the party's actual power level
3) the party's strengths and weaknesses[1]
4) the terrain and other circumstances
5) the chosen monsters' strengths and weaknesses
6) (and ideally) the fiction

CR is a first-pass filter for monster selection. It narrows down the whole range of possibilities, along with theme and fiction. Specifically, it's concerned with "will this monster evaporate when the party looks at it" and "will this monster ORKO my party members". That's all. And for that, it works fairly well (within its assumptions). It is not a standalone tool for encounter balance, and the encounter guidelines even call this out explicitly.

[1] a group of weak flying monsters with a ranged attack will act very differently against a party of ranged types and a party of melee-only types. As will monsters with heavy reliance on various saves against various parties.

[OldTrees1]

CR isn't actually designed with encounter balance in mind. EL is just not a thing in 5e.
I am not sure it is safe to conclude that when the DMG spends so much ink on calculating encounter difficulty based on creature XP. Or so much ink on calculating monster CR based on stats. The quality and accuracy on the other hand ...


Encounter balance isn't an algorithmic thing at all. It's an art that requires knowing
1) the party's interests
2) the party's actual power level
3) the party's strengths and weaknesses[1]
4) the terrain and other circumstances
5) the chosen monsters' strengths and weaknesses
6) (and ideally) the fiction

CR is a first-pass filter for monster selection.[/QUOTE]

EL is another quick estimation. Encounter balance is still an art after the quick estimation, but it is good for a system to consider the UX of that quick estimation.

However that is getting off topic. I was asking about how Tanarii's suggestion would impact that UX. I don't think WotC calculating monster CR as if there were 4 of them would have an impact on the art side of encounter balance. I think it would only affect the quick estimation side.

[stoutstien]

I am not sure it is safe to conclude that when the DMG spends so much ink on calculating encounter difficulty based on creature XP. Or so much ink on calculating monster CR based on stats. The quality and accuracy on the other hand ...


1) the party's interests
2) the party's actual power level
3) the party's strengths and weaknesses[1]
4) the terrain and other circumstances
5) the chosen monsters' strengths and weaknesses
6) (and ideally) the fiction

CR is a first-pass filter for monster selection.



The DMG exp/CR relationship is only in context of using an exp budget as a planning strategy. It's mostly a safety net for newer DMs to not unintentionally murder the party by setting both a relatively low threshold of challenge per day and a relaxed pacing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The DMG exp/CR relationship is only in context of using an exp budget as a planning strategy. It's mostly a safety net for newer DMs to not unintentionally murder the party by setting both a relatively low threshold of challenge per day and a relaxed pacing.

Right. CR itself is a safety net for new DMs, and there is developer text to that exact effect--it's designed as a crutch for new DMs, to be discarded by experienced ones. Not rules. That goes for...well...the vast majority of things in the DMG. They're examples for people who aren't confident enough to do it themselves. They're not binding on anyone, least of all the DMs. Yes, that includes items. You're expected to make your own whenever you feel like it and don't have to follow some process to do so.

[KorvinStarmast]

The DMG exp/CR relationship is only in context of using an exp budget as a planning strategy. It's mostly a safety net for newer DMs to not unintentionally murder the party by setting both a relatively low threshold of challenge per day and a relaxed pacing.


Right. CR itself is a safety net for new DMs, and there is developer text to that exact effect--it's designed as a crutch for new DMs, to be discarded by experienced ones. Not rules. That goes for...well...the vast majority of things in the DMG. They're examples for people who aren't confident enough to do it themselves. They're not binding on anyone, least of all the DMs. Yes, that includes items. You're expected to make your own whenever you feel like it and don't have to follow some process to do so.
It was helpful to me to use the daily XP Budget as a beginning point, and then backwards plan an "adventure day's worth of encounters" for certain scenarios. Other times, I made the encounter deliberately harder, or easier, depending on which players were going to show up.

[OldTrees1]

The DMG exp/CR relationship is only in context of using an exp budget as a planning strategy. It's mostly a safety net for newer DMs to not unintentionally murder the party by setting both a relatively low threshold of challenge per day and a relaxed pacing.


Right. CR itself is a safety net for new DMs, and there is developer text to that exact effect--it's designed as a crutch for new DMs, to be discarded by experienced ones. Not rules. That goes for...well...the vast majority of things in the DMG. They're examples for people who aren't confident enough to do it themselves. They're not binding on anyone, least of all the DMs. Yes, that includes items. You're expected to make your own whenever you feel like it and don't have to follow some process to do so.

I know this. I assume that is the end of the friendly reminder of what I already know.

Out of curiosity, did you have any thoughts on my question? If WotC starts printing CR with the assumption each creature shows up in groups of 4 copies (Tanarii's suggestion to help fix some assumptions), how much will that affect the UX of the EL estimation process? Considering this both for 5E and for future editions with different power curves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I know this. I assume that is the end of the friendly reminder of what I already know.

Out of curiosity, did you have any thoughts on my question? If WotC starts printing CR with the assumption each creature shows up in groups of 4 copies (Tanarii's suggestion to help fix some assumptions), how much will that affect the UX of the EL estimation process? Considering this both for 5E and for future editions with different power curves.

It would break what CR is currently, which actually works. And make everything else redundant. There's a distinct difference between "is this individual monster too strong/weak for a party of level X (under some assumptions)" and "is a group of this monster a reasonable encounter, standing alone, for a party of Y level X PCs". Both are important, but they are different questions that need to be analyzed differently and can't be collapsed into one. CR, as it is, answers the first question (or attempts to), not the second question. The encounter guidelines give rough guidelines for the second question, but not at all for the first question. Trying to force CR to answer both means it will do neither right.

And "groups of 4" is a really really really bad assumption (in that it's both too specific and not specific enough). Because that encourages you to make homogenous combats, which are some of the worst (other than solo monsters) kinds of combats. Diversity of monsters is key (in my experience) to having satisfying encounters. 4 orcs isn't as good as 2 orcs, 1 caster-type, and one ranged/skirmisher type even if they're all the same CR.

CR doesn't work as an encounter balancing system (used directly). Nor is it designed to, nor should it be designed to (in my experience).

[stoutstien]

I know this. I assume that is the end of the friendly reminder of what I already know.

Out of curiosity, did you have any thoughts on my question? If WotC starts printing CR with the assumption each creature shows up in groups of 4 copies (Tanarii's suggestion to help fix some assumptions), how much will that affect the UX of the EL estimation process? Considering this both for 5E and for future editions with different power curves.

The power curve in 5e isn't actually a curve which is one of the major hangup CR has even if it was better tuned for a more exact relationship with the party. HP, damage output, non-damage solutions, and just about every other metric advance at different speeds and intensity that any changes to cr will be lost in the background noise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The power curve in 5e isn't actually a curve which is one of the major hangup CR has even if it was better tuned for a more exact relationship with the party. HP, damage output, non-damage solutions, and just about every other metric advance at different speeds and intensity that any changes to cr will be lost in the background noise.

I agree with the final point of this. But from a different perspective, 5e isn't designed to be hard balanced (ie have a tight, predictable power curve with little deviation). Because they tried to do that in 4e and 4e failed, so they drew the conclusion that tight balancing isn't that important (whether or not that's the right takeaway is a different matter). And for me, I agree with that takeaway. It means that I can have tables that all play at very different areas on the power space (it's a multi-dimensional surface, not a 2d curve) and the system holds together well. I don't want a tight balance.

My experience with tightly-balanced systems is that any cracks in it mean the whole thing goes sideways--tighter balance means more fragility under change. 4e, for instance, was fairly tightly balanced--monsters and PCs were designed around hard targets. But it was trivial to end up outside that, especially if you weren't playing exactly and only by the books. Someone forgot to take the appropriate focus feat at level 1? They're in big trouble. Someone tries to do something outside their narrow specialty? Out of luck. It also means that you'll end up with significantly more homogenaity--everyone has to have the same formulas for it to work.

And I understand (from reports, not that I've actually played it) that Starfinder is similar--you're either on the power curve (in which case things work ok) or you get off and suddenly everything is broken. Which basically means you have to use the printed material only, because that's the only thing that has a fair chance of being on-curve.

Tight balance is critical for PvP games or competitive games. D&D, in my opinion, isn't either.

[OldTrees1]

And "groups of 4" is a really really really bad assumption (in that it's both too specific and not specific enough). Because that encourages you to make homogenous combats, which are some of the worst (other than solo monsters) kinds of combats. Diversity of monsters is key (in my experience) to having satisfying encounters. 4 orcs isn't as good as 2 orcs, 1 caster-type, and one ranged/skirmisher type even if they're all the same CR.

I used an example of 1 captain, 1 lieutenant, and 3 guards. You are right that it would encourage homogeneous 4x encounters. However how strong of an encouragement? If it is a mild burden on the UX, then it will be a minor encouragement. This might be a negligible critique of Tanarii's suggestion. On the other hand if it is a significant burden on the UX, then it will be a significant encouragement. That would be a more serious critique of Tanarii's suggestion.


It would break what CR is currently, which actually works. And make everything else redundant. There's a distinct difference between "is this individual monster too strong/weak for a party of level X (under some assumptions)" and "is a group of this monster a reasonable encounter, standing alone, for a party of Y level X PCs". Both are important, but they are different questions that need to be analyzed differently and can't be collapsed into one. CR, as it is, answers the first question (or attempts to), not the second question. The encounter guidelines give rough guidelines for the second question, but not at all for the first question. Trying to force CR to answer both means it will do neither right.

A fair critique. CR will always try to answer both questions as long as WotC uses CR as an input to the encounter guideline process. Tanarii's suggestion would not change that split focus. It would adjust how CR tries to answer both questions.


Edit:

The power curve in 5e isn't actually a curve which is one of the major hangup CR has even if it was better tuned for a more exact relationship with the party. HP, damage output, non-damage solutions, and just about every other metric advance at different speeds and intensity that any changes to cr will be lost in the background noise.

Ha! Tell me about it. From questions I have asked in other threads and insights others have shared, it seems like 5E treats the power curve as roughly additive. However it is a much worse approximation due to various design decisions.

I wonder what 6E will look like.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I used an example of 1 captain, 1 lieutenant, and 3 guards. You are right that it would encourage homogeneous 4x encounters. However how strong of an encouragement? If it is a mild burden on the UX, then it will be a minor encouragement. This might be a negligible critique of Tanarii's suggestion. On the other hand if it is a significant burden on the UX, then it will be a significant encouragement. That would be a more serious critique of Tanarii's suggestion.


The devil is in the details, but if I have to back out the contributions to break them into individuals (ie recalculate with 1/4 of a captain-group's contribution, 1/4 of a lieutenant-group's contribution, and 3/4 of a guard-group's contribution), I'd consider that a major burden. Especially when scaling to things that don't actually add up to 4. And especially since contribution isn't linear--1 monster isn't 1/4 of 4 monsters, even as part of a homogenous encounter. It scales roughly as a fractional power (3/2 power?) for homogenous encounters, but really really irregularly for non-homogenous ones. Two ogres is a very different encounter than 1 archer and 1 ogre (assuming the same CR for both). In fact, for many parties, the second is way more difficult.



A fair critique. CR will always try to answer both questions as long as WotC uses CR as an input to the encounter guideline process. Tanarii's suggestion would not change that split focus. It would adjust how CR tries to answer both questions.



CR isn't a direct input in encounter balance. That's the whole point. It's mediated through a non-formulaic process involving non-linear transformations between CR and XP and then XP to adjusted XP (adjusting for party size). It's decoupled by those transformations, which "erase" the original CR in the process. 10k adjusted XP is 10k adjusted XP for the encounter budget, no matter how it was arrived at. It's a many-to-one mapping, much like statistical mechanics maps many microstates to the same macrostate. So CR, itself, doesn't have to address the second question at all.

In fact, the big error people get into when looking at mechanics and comparing builds, etc, is to assume more of a link than there is. To assume that CR = level is a good approximation, when it's actually the worst approximation for real encounters (which tend to be solos of CR > level OR groups with CR << level).

[OldTrees1]

The devil is in the details, but if I have to back out the contributions to break them into individuals (ie recalculate with 1/4 of a captain-group's contribution, 1/4 of a lieutenant-group's contribution, and 3/4 of a guard-group's contribution), I'd consider that a major burden. Especially when scaling to things that don't actually add up to 4. And especially since contribution isn't linear--1 monster isn't 1/4 of 4 monsters, even as part of a homogenous encounter. It scales roughly as a fractional power (3/2 power?) for homogenous encounters, but really really irregularly for non-homogenous ones. Two ogres is a very different encounter than 1 archer and 1 ogre (assuming the same CR for both). In fact, for many parties, the second is way more difficult.

That was my concern. Tanarii might have additional insights that quell the concerns. So I asked.


CR isn't a direct input in encounter balance. That's the whole point.
-snip-
It's a many-to-one mapping, much like statistical mechanics maps many microstates to the same microstate. So CR, itself, doesn't have to address the second question at all.

WotC uses CR (or its proxy: creature xp) as a direct input (among other direct inputs) in the encounter guideline process to determine EL (or its proxy: encounter xp). Regardless of your meritorious point that CR is not a direct input in encounter balance, WotC uses it for the encounter guideline process. Probably because it makes a better UX for quick estimations than anything else they thought of.

WotC intends to use CR (or its proxy: creature xp) in this encounter guideline process. CR does not have to be applicable to this application. However WotC does keep using it, and as long as they are using it, CR is being used to address the second question.

And maybe that is okay. The process only needs to be "good enough" instead of great. Encounter balance is partially an art.


In fact, the big error people get into when looking at mechanics and comparing builds, etc, is to assume more of a link than there is. To assume that CR = level is a good approximation, when it's actually the worst approximation for real encounters (which tend to be solos of CR > level OR groups with CR << level).

I think breaking the source of these assumptions was part of the goal of Tanarii's suggestion.

[Tanarii]

Out of curiosity, did you have any thoughts on my question? If WotC starts printing CR with the assumption each creature shows up in groups of 4 copies (Tanarii's suggestion to help fix some assumptions), how much will that affect the UX of the EL estimation process? Considering this both for 5E and for future editions with different power curves.
Sorry, I should have put blue text on that. It would definitely cause more problems than it "solved". Assuming it really did even solve the issue I was addressing.

[OldTrees1]

Sorry, I should have put blue text on that. It would definitely cause more problems than it "solved". Assuming it really did even solve the issue I was addressing.


Ha ha. That makes more sense.

[stoutstien]

I agree with the final point of this. But from a different perspective, 5e isn't designed to be hard balanced (ie have a tight, predictable power curve with little deviation). Because they tried to do that in 4e and 4e failed, so they drew the conclusion that tight balancing isn't that important (whether or not that's the right takeaway is a different matter). And for me, I agree with that takeaway. It means that I can have tables that all play at very different areas on the power space (it's a multi-dimensional surface, not a 2d curve) and the system holds together well. I don't want a tight balance.

My experience with tightly-balanced systems is that any cracks in it mean the whole thing goes sideways--tighter balance means more fragility under change. 4e, for instance, was fairly tightly balanced--monsters and PCs were designed around hard targets. But it was trivial to end up outside that, especially if you weren't playing exactly and only by the books. Someone forgot to take the appropriate focus feat at level 1? They're in big trouble. Someone tries to do something outside their narrow specialty? Out of luck. It also means that you'll end up with significantly more homogenaity--everyone has to have the same formulas for it to work.

And I understand (from reports, not that I've actually played it) that Starfinder is similar--you're either on the power curve (in which case things work ok) or you get off and suddenly everything is broken. Which basically means you have to use the printed material only, because that's the only thing that has a fair chance of being on-curve.

Tight balance is critical for PvP games or competitive games. D&D, in my opinion, isn't either.

Aye. 5e has it's issues but as far as balanced is concerned they won by not playing. All in all probably their best design decision (though it looks like they are slowly falling back into old habits with recent play test material. Also while Tasha isn't broken it doesn't inspire me with confidence as a direction and is picking at the seams of their evergreen philosophy)

I always describe 5e as tight fit but high clearance and tolerance. 90% of the time you can see how everything fits together without knowing every little nuance or detail. From a DM perspective it's amazing but I can relate to the slightly unnerving filling players have with that entering a new table dynamic or even progression from one tier to the next.