D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[GX.Sigma]

IMO, classes already are fairly lacking in interesting options at 1st level, and now they want to make us wait 3 levels just to get that?

Us? No, they want us to make 3rd-level characters and start big-kid adventuring right away.

In this new scheme, level 1 and 2 characters are for newbies and old-school players. Which is, I think, as it should be. If you want your character to start out several steps above a normal person, that means you're starting at a higher level.

Another bonus: It solves the starting hit point problem beautifully. A beginning adventurer will have three levels' worth of hit dice. Apprentice-level characters will have less, but those levels are just for the starting adventures (and/or super lethal pulpy Gygaxian stylee), and will be clearly demarcated as such.

 

[Syunsuke]

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.

 

[Blackwarder]

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.

But it will also rub another segment of the population the wrong way, the ones who don't want to feel gimped.
Starting at higher is an accepted option in the game, starting at negative levels (or 0-lvl) isn't.

Warder

 

[Li Shenron]

I liked this article so much that I am now convinced that in fact it is and April's fool

I've been writing many times in this forum, that I thought 1st level characters have too much stuff and too much power (except HP), and that I would have wanted a more gradual start, that grim'n'gritty old-school adventures are a bit hard to do when characters start high, and that expecting the DM who wants that to make up her 0th level classes and keep them balance is harsh (always easier to balance while adding than while subtracting).

Furthermore, I totally like how they seem to be getting free from the nerdy constraint that all tiers must be equally long. There is no fundamental reason for that other that it looks good on paper, but it then creates serious design constraints that there really needn't be.

Overall, I would still like stuff such as "rule a kingdom" to be optional, and to be possible to locate differently across levels depending on gaming groups, so that you don't have to start worrying about domains management at level 15th if you prefer to still go dungeon crawling, while another group can anticipate that to level 5th if they want so. It shouldn't be difficult to let this stuff "slide" to whatever level, but let's see with what they come up with.

Also, in general I think what really changes the heroic/epic tone of the game, is not numbers and is not the size of monsters, but rather the nature of the spells the party has access to: flying, invisibility, teleport, scrying, resurrection... these are all example of stuff that truly changes the nature of adventures, and thus define whether the party is "heroic", "epic" or "god-like". And each of these may individually meet the favors or the woes of a gaming group (which can still ban some, or move them higher level, but clearly the Standard game can at most just put a warning sidebar for critical spells to mention how they can change your gaming experience).

Assuming it is not, I don't like this "apprentice tier" thing at all. If they really want to support "apprentice" characters, they should have optional rules for playing 0th level characters.

It doesn't give enough room, it's over too quickly and not even one step of progression is included. There was such option in 3.0 but it was seldom used because of that. 2 levels is already better, 3 would be even better, but if 3rd level PCs would be what 1st level have been so far (except with more HP) then I'd say you can still call yourself an apprentice until level 4, and 5th level is where your heroic career effectively starts.

Note that IMXP 3rd level is exactly the most common level in 3ed to start at, once you've played the game for a year or two already. It's what most gaming groups I've played with used, and it's also the most common I've seen in PbP. Just to say that IMHO most people who've played the game for a little while are already used to start at a higher level anyway.

One side benefit of this new approach is that if 3rd is the new standard starting level for non-beginners, it also has enough HP so that you won't be killed by one lucky swing. It is debatable and very gamestyle-dependent, but many of us think that starting HP are still too low: the current 1st level PC are capable of doing great things offensively (spells, maneuvers, special abilities...) but their low HP don't match that.

All that said, I still think the article is just an april's fool...

 

[Li Shenron]

Because they're taking what is 1st level right now and making you get that stuff gradually up to level 3. IMO, classes already are fairly lacking in interesting options at 1st level, and now they want to make us wait 3 levels just to get that? And considering the (IMO) extremely rapid rate that they suggest for leveling, I'd rather not have to start at level 3.

But if you were already thinking that 1st level is lacking then you were probably already considering starting at level e.g. 3. How is that different from starting at level 5?

Believe me, I have myself settle to start at level 3 when running 3ed games, because PCs are more interesting and durable, so probably I have the same preferences as you. But I have to acknowledge that if I wanted to instead run a grim'n'gritty game in 3ed, I couldn't do it, because 1st level would be already too high (except HP, let's keep that in mind!). A game can always allow higher level or added stuff, it's the other way around that is not always possible or at least easy. So IMHO a game is better if it provides support to both, even if the majority of players are more attracted by higher levels. You never know when you might feel like trying the opposite gamestyle, only to discover the game doesn't support it enough and you have to buy another system.

 

[Manabarbs]

Note that IMXP 3rd level is exactly the most common level in 3ed to start at, once you've played the game for a year or two already. It's what most gaming groups I've played with used, and it's also the most common I've seen in PbP. Just to say that IMHO most people who've played the game for a little while are already used to start at a higher level anyway.

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.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I completely support this apprentice tier concept - it was an obvious solution to the HP and multiclassing problems. It's also more inclusive (hah, that old argument again), since it allows people to play fragile characters if they choose, and harms nobody who wants to start off heroic, unless they have obsessive-compulsive disorder for counting from 1.

But I guess framing is everything for the belligerent masses of the internet - I'm sure everyone would be happy if the apprentice levels were Alpha and Beta, but you still got triple HD at 'Level 1'.

 

[Li Shenron]

Another thing, I thought that a character's background was supposed to represent his time before becoming an adventurer. Wasn't that the "apprentice" period in the character's life? How do you explain your character being a knight if he's just an apprentice?

Definitely something that needs to be clarified...

To me "background" doesn't simply mean what you were before but rather what you still are while not adventuring, in fact your skill dice/bonus in your background skills keeps improving.

There is a gamestyle issue hidden here however: if your PCs effectively start adventuring across the world (or the multiverse) and keep going and never come back (which is the case in a game where you have one adventure after another with almost no breaks or downtime), then it's clear they've left their backgrounds behind. But another DM may instead space adventures in time, so that the Cleric still spends much more time as a Priest in the temple than in dungeons.

Furthermore, there is no obligation for a PC to start at young age, and this complicates things... you can be a talented underage kid or an old city guard veteran, and in both case be a 1st level or 3rd level Fighter, so it's probably better to just let go of too many explanations on background benefits. In any case, XP and class levels normally are gained from adventures, so "apprentice" here means "apprentice adventurers" and has nothing to do with being an apprentice cook for instance.

"Knight" is a bit controversial, since it's one of the most notable backgrounds. It might be setting-dependent, but personally I don't see the archetypical knight to be someone who's been adventuring but rather someone who was born in a noble family, received some education and basic training, and then given the title of knighthood even if he's just a spoiled brat or a good child but still a child. Just take a look at the skills and traits granted by this background, and see there is nothing here that implies the "knight" has already done any significant deeds! He pratically only learned to ride (something that someone can be taught when underage if either from a noble family or living in the countryside) and had an educator or read some books

From an in-game perspective, who employs the obviously untrained to perform difficult and dangerous tasks for them? This looks like a half-thought-through idea if I've ever seen one. It can be done - Dungeon Crawl Classics does it - but it's not just a matter of throwing out class parts and saying you're done.

I think they should get the background, but let's see.

But the remark about "who employs you" makes no sense to me. Maybe no one does, so what? You don't have to be employed into an adventure, that's just one option, but there are at least two others: pick a quest yourself, or the adventure comes to you without asking.

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.

I wouldn't mind if they did this, I am more concerned with the game supporting this gamestyle rather than how they will do it.

I suppose however that indeed multiclassing is something they're keeping an eye on at the same time... they've mentioned before that they don't want a PC to pick up a second class and get too much of a sudden bump, so moving class stuff up a couple of levels is a way of decrease front-loading, and AFAIK people really appreciated that when it was done with the 3.5 revision.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Note that IMXP 3rd level is exactly the most common level in 3ed to start at, once you've played the game for a year or two already. It's what most gaming groups I've played with used, and it's also the most common I've seen in PbP. Just to say that IMHO most people who've played the game for a little while are already used to start at a higher level anyway.

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.

But if you were already thinking that 1st level is lacking then you were probably already considering starting at level e.g. 3. How is that different from starting at level 5?

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.

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.

 

[GX.Sigma]

This looks like a half-thought-through idea if I've ever seen one. It can be done - Dungeon Crawl Classics does it

I agree, Dungeon Crawl Classics does use a lot of half-thought-through ideas.