D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

Manabarbs said:

I don't think that so many groups start at third level is a feature of 3.5, I think it's a bug. I think that people start at 3rd level not because of a desire for a particular power level, but because of a desire to play the game during the segment where the math, customizability, combat engine, magic item system, spell system and a few other subsystems come together to produce the edition's best experiences. I think that if the first two levels weren't comparatively boring, more people would start there. Campaign time is too precious for a lot of people to blow a bunch of it outside of the sweet spot. I'd hope that Next absolutely does not have the property that one level range shines much brighter than the rest of the level range in terms of how well the system works. I'd like for it to all be fantastic.

Click to expand...

Yes these are precisely the reasons!

But it's not the bug. The bug is that even 1st level is a bit too much for old-school grim'n'gritty, and one of the most common reason for several old-schooler to never switch to 3e, because their felt their favourite gamestyle was unsupported.

And if 3e had started at 1st level with characters equivalent to 3rd level, that would have been two bugs, because it would have made it very hard for beginners and casual players, less likely to get hooked to the game.

As [MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION] said, beginners and old-schooler are the target of the apprentice level idea. You're neither of them, and neither am I (except that I might want to play more old-school sometimes, and I might need to run the game for beginners as well), but why not wanting them in the target audience when we can still play our way starting at 5th instead of 3rd as in ed?

Falling Icicle said:

I was hoping that I wouldn't have to start at 3rd level or higher in Next. I always considered having to skip the first couple levels in past editions to be an element of poor design, to be honest.

Click to expand...

Personally, I always loved the gritty feeling of the first couples of levels, it made me feel that if I managed to survive that than I accomplished something.
So I don't consider it to be an element of poor design, I consider it to be a feature that is easily avoidable by starting at higher levels.

Warder

Also keep in mind that, as Mike describes it, apprentice levels are like the first few levels in Diablo 3, where you're level 3 before you even leave the first town.

Falling Icicle said:

I was hoping that I wouldn't have to start at 3rd level or higher in Next. I always considered having to skip the first couple levels in past editions to be an element of poor design, to be honest.

Click to expand...

I've already responded to Manabarbs about this... It's poor design if the target is limited to audience like you or me. It is good design if the target audience is larger. At least, I also started at level 1st in 3ed for the first couple of years when I still didn't have enough experience on the rules, and considering I started as a DM I don't know if I would have ever managed to run my first adventure if 1st level had been 3rd.

Falling Icicle said:

Well, there is the difference that it leaves 15 levels left instead of 19 . My objection to the idea isn't really mechanical, it's just my personal taste. Should this make it into the final game, it's far from a dealbreaker for me. It would just be an annoyance I could work around.

Click to expand...

Ok on having 2 less levels of room, although to be honest while reading the article I was having the feeling that it would have ended with revealing that level cap was being raised to 25.

Falling Icicle said:

I'm more concerned with the leveling speeds they suggest in the article. Leveling every 2 sessions of play from 3-15, and every 3 sessions from 16-20th level? That's a total of 41 sessions to get all the way from 3rd level to 20th, or about 10 months assuming you play once a week. That's way too fast for my tastes.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree on this.

I do like the idea of progressively longer times for levelling up. I don't think however 2 or 3 sessions are good for my tastes... they are definitely too fast!

I have to recognize however that IMXP the speed of advancement is more commonly house ruled to be slower than default, in contrast with practically everything else! Usually you get more DMs running "high-powered campaign" i.e. granting more-more-more stuff to the players, more feats, more skill points, better ability scores... but when it comes to XP I have more commonly found DMs who slowed them down rather than make it faster, and I have done the same myself.

I would certainly do the same in 5e if these are the suggested rates of advancement. I think they are so fast now to calm down exactly those players who are uncomfortable with apprentice levels or low levels in general, they are promising that they don't have to suffer long, but truth is that if they are uncomfortable they should skip them outright, and OTOH 1 session per level is incredibly fast for those who actually want to play a lower-level game.

But as usual, XP rules never really bother me that much, I just know that every DM is going to play XP in a different way anyway.

Manabarbs said:

I don't think that so many groups start at third level is a feature of 3.5, I think it's a bug.

Click to expand...

That's what the 4e designers thought too, but it turns out a significant number of people like the lower powered levels. I don't but I accept that others do.

Manabarbs said:

I don't think that so many groups start at third level is a feature of 3.5, I think it's a bug. I think that people start at 3rd level not because of a desire for a particular power level, but because of a desire to play the game during the segment where the math, customizability, combat engine, magic item system, spell system and a few other subsystems come together to produce the edition's best experiences. I think that if the first two levels weren't comparatively boring, more people would start there. Campaign time is too precious for a lot of people to blow a bunch of it outside of the sweet spot. I'd hope that Next absolutely does not have the property that one level range shines much brighter than the rest of the level range in terms of how well the system works. I'd like for it to all be fantastic.

Click to expand...

100% agree (assuming the post was not an April Fools Joke). I like the idea of DDN having a starting point which is lower than that of 4th ed but the thing that 4th ed got right was having tiers based on the scale and impact of adventures and the impact of magic. This meant that low level play was fun with climb checks etc but so was gravity bending stuff later on. Surely the goal has to be to make it all fun (in different ways) rather than rush through low level play.

Id rather this sort of thing be dealt with different XP advancement rates/rules rather than having the option to ignore levels.

I believe those levels 1-2 solve a lot of problems:

-current imbalance of offense and defense (HP) in level 1
-goblins and kobolds, that are weaker than "1st" level characters
-multiclassing 3e style
-a switch beween gritty and heroic

Some of us very advocating two levels before 1st for a while now. I am glad they are following (already planned) those levels. It is the only thing that makes sense.
As a side note, i hope wizards go back to 1d4 hp. With 2 levels worth of hp, it should be enough.

Please dear designers. Stay on track and we get the best edition ever. Even though I don´t like the last packet all that much, I believe "this week in D&D" really describes a game that I like to play and DM. It is just, that I feel the current playtest does not reflect the described game too well. (In parts yes, but I seriously believe, there are things in it, where a negative reaction is desired)

Speaking of which:

New playtest packet is out!

Syunsuke said:

I have no problem with apprentice level thing. Actually, I like the concept.But I prefer a first level character being a first level adventurer. Not a problem, just preference.So, IMO, apprentice levels should be separated from adventurer level…maybe "level 0" and "level 0.5" (or level one-third and two-thirds, whatever).And you can start playing as 1st level adventurer or apprentice. Multi class character should use apprentice levels.It's very cosmetic, but presentation is very important to avoid robbing people wrong way.

Click to expand...

+1 I agree with all your points.

UngeheuerLich said:

Speaking of which:

New playtest packet is out!

Click to expand...

To include Mines of Madness or is this another classic joke?