D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

[Nagol]

Ok.



Where is that written? Your setting is your setting, but that's a homebrew setting and not a tightly woven expectation of the system. My setting assumes only that spells known by casters do not have to be strongly linked by theme. That is something different. How in the world can you say that D&D didn't expect spellcasters to have spells linked by theme? Bigby?? Otiluke???

Bigby, Otlieke, Tenser, and Leomund didn't have spells linked by theme. They promulgated spells they created in a theme. I'm pretty sure their books had a whole bunch of other spells in them and they didn't start with spells other than the spells known to their civilisations and almost certainly no spell on their initial list fit the themes these casters are now known for (that's why they invented what they did after all).

Diidn't I just prove how easy tighter themes and spell creation was in this trivial case? I think your justification for saying, "No.", here is pretty darn thin - and I say that as an advocate for DM's saying "No."

No not really. The value of a unique spell goes farther than the player feeling good that his PC is representing whatever theme the player wants. It exists inside the universe; it affects and informs the universe. The spells presented effectively represent the known "tech-level". New spells are a disrupting force, intellectual property that can be leveraged by those in the know in different ways.

In a universe where spell creation is hard and effects can only be generated if one knows the appropriate spell, the spell itself has potential value to other practitioners. Perhaps there are others who want spells in a similar theme. Perhaps they'd pay -- in cash or kind -- for access to this new ability. Perhaps this spell, now that it is known, can be used to make specific magic items more cheaply -- dropping the cost of a Frost Brand to rival that of a Flame Tongue, for example.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, I'd be a third DM that would say "if you want spells like that go ahead and try to acquire them in-world, but you can only start with what is on the menu".

For me it's not about game balance though. The number of low-level critters with any form of energy resistance is negligible. It's about the game atmosphere and expectations. The setting expectation is spells known by casters are not strongly linked by theme..

The list of spells provided in the PHB are the common and codified spells that exist sufficiently widely in the universe that a starting character can access. The game does have methods of creating singular spells though every edition has effectively put that cost out of the range of starting characters.

If I wanted a game with tighter themes, more singular effects, or simple spell creation, I'd be using a game engine that supports easier construction of such spells like Ars Magica or Champions.

The thing is low level ice spells eventually were made in supplements. The issue is that game doesn't provide good creation tools early. So DMs end up fending for themselves. Some don't bother and make excuses.

And the players suffer.

No system can compensate for bad GMs. Maybe bad GMs are more common than I think.

And frankly, I think I'm pretty darn strict on what I allow. But, "there are fewer cold resistances so you can't sub Fire for Cold"??? Seriously? Wow.

The only energy resistance that needs fixing in Elemental Substitution is sonic, which is actually a notably rare resistance and is what most power gamers substitute for. That imagined conversation above probably should and would go differently if the player was power gaming for a sonic (or force) damage. But even so, direct damage is far far from the most broken thing you can do in 3e with spells and it's the easiest part to balance. Save or suck, shapechanging, and summoning/calling are far more problematic.

But ok, so you've got a DM who isn't a rule smith and is a moron, just take Lesser Cold Orb, Elemental Dart, Frost Breath, Ice Dagger, and/or Icicle as your low level spells. At least a couple of those should pass muster, and if they don't well it sucks that you have such an idiot for a DM.

Both were great DMs. Just restrictive on creation as they were afraid of unintended consequences. Energy substitution sonic is a bit broken. Letting player create summon spells that match their theme would be risky as well.

I have banned many things that players tried to submit to try in theme. But I have create substitutes but only after careful research. It isn't that D&D can't do it, it is that many see it as low propriety while others have a great desire for it.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] , you are missing my point though.

I don't mind starting off as apprentice Batman. No problem. But, how long should it take to become "pro" Batman?

Just how much time do we need to take to make things "deep and meaningful"? If we stick to 5th level, which a couple of posters have posited, and your levelling speed, we're talking about 50-60 sessions. Assume 4 hours per session. That's TWO HUNDRED hours of play just to get to the point where I'm actually playing the character I want to play.

Do you honestly believe it takes that long to tell a story? Does it really take you that long to get depth and meaning? Good grief, two hundred hours of play? Really?

I mean, Christopher Nolan manages to tell that entire story in two hours. He goes from boy Bruce Wayne to Batman in a bit over two hours. Now, sure, granted, gaming is slower than a movie, but one hundred times slower? Really?

The idea that it should take that long to tell a story is, to me, utterly ridiculous. There's no way a story should take that long to tell. But, I've certainly seen far too many DM's drag things out in incredibly painful, tedious detail out of some strange sense that we should "take time to smell the roses". No thank you. I'll tell that story in about half the time, possibly a bit less thanks.

But, before I get jumped on yet again for trying to tell other people how to play, I'd point out a couple of things. Taking things so slowly works for you. Great. Your group seems to like it. Again, great. I'm simply answering the OP - why do some of us want to level faster. Well, it's because there are stories in D&D, because it's a level system, that cannot really be told until you are a certain level. I want to play Batman, therefore, I have to be a certain level. So, advancing along at a faster pace helps get to the point where I'm playing what I want to play.

If you don't want players who want faster levelling, there's all sorts of things you can do - they've been outlined in the thread - front end load classes, house rules, change things, whatever. Or, you can simply advance faster. It's works out in the end anyway.

As the wise man said, play what you like.

 

[Nagol]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] , you are missing my point though.

I don't mind starting off as apprentice Batman. No problem. But, how long should it take to become "pro" Batman?

Just how much time do we need to take to make things "deep and meaningful"? If we stick to 5th level, which a couple of posters have posited, and your levelling speed, we're talking about 50-60 sessions. Assume 4 hours per session. That's TWO HUNDRED hours of play just to get to the point where I'm actually playing the character I want to play.

Do you honestly believe it takes that long to tell a story? Does it really take you that long to get depth and meaning? Good grief, two hundred hours of play? Really?

I mean, Christopher Nolan manages to tell that entire story in two hours. He goes from boy Bruce Wayne to Batman in a bit over two hours. Now, sure, granted, gaming is slower than a movie, but one hundred times slower? Really?

The idea that it should take that long to tell a story is, to me, utterly ridiculous. There's no way a story should take that long to tell. But, I've certainly seen far too many DM's drag things out in incredibly painful, tedious detail out of some strange sense that we should "take time to smell the roses". No thank you. I'll tell that story in about half the time, possibly a bit less thanks.

But, before I get jumped on yet again for trying to tell other people how to play, I'd point out a couple of things. Taking things so slowly works for you. Great. Your group seems to like it. Again, great. I'm simply answering the OP - why do some of us want to level faster. Well, it's because there are stories in D&D, because it's a level system, that cannot really be told until you are a certain level. I want to play Batman, therefore, I have to be a certain level. So, advancing along at a faster pace helps get to the point where I'm playing what I want to play.

If you don't want players who want faster levelling, there's all sorts of things you can do - they've been outlined in the thread - front end load classes, house rules, change things, whatever. Or, you can simply advance faster. It's works out in the end anyway.

As the wise man said, play what you like.

I really comes down to picking a game engine that fits well with the stories and character types desired. I always go through a brainstorming session pre-campaign where I narrow down what I want -- genre, power level, type of setting, etc. to pick a game that is the closest match for the game I want to see at the table.

D&D, pretty much all editions, has been a game with a very strong heroic journey focus. Characters start off weak and grow in power until they are the pivotal actors on the scene. It's not a good choice out-of-the-box for playing a character that is a pivotal actor on the scene quickly because that growth is necessary.

You can do it by cutting through those assumptions and starting at higher level and appropriately equipped or you can choose a system that is designed for different style of play. The question becomes what does the table want and what is the best way to get that desire realised?

If you are starting low level then the focus is on the growth and not on the actions once the PCs are the pivotal actors they may become.

 

[D'karr]

I've certainly seen far too many DM's drag things out in incredibly painful, tedious detail out of some strange sense that we should "take time to smell the roses". No thank you. I'll tell that story in about half the time, possibly a bit less thanks.

Most of the times that I've seen DMs use an unsatisfying "slow" advancement pace (slow is a relative measure) it has usually boiled down to 2 main issues:

• The "story" they are trying to play out only works with a campaign climax at X level.
• They are either not familiar, or uncomfortable with running higher level games.

There has only been one satisfying "slow" advancement campaign that I've played in. It worked out that way because the DM specifically was not making it slow to "take time and smell the roses". Every game session in that campaign was very exciting because the DM had a great sense of pacing.

There is indeed a "sweet spot" to some versions of D&D. Where playing outside that "sweet spot" is either worthless, or painful on either the DM or player side of the screen. A DM that tries to keep play at those levels is sometimes trying to artificially extend the playability of that "sweet spot".

When I was much younger I had a lot more time to game. Back then I didn't really care that I'd never reach name level, that we always started at first level, or that my character would die 3 ways til Sunday because I had 4 HP. Nowadays my time is rather limited, and therefore much more valuable to me. I have less patience when it comes to getting to the good parts, and a "smell the roses" campaing is definitely not something I'd enjoy. Gaming should not be drudgery, and nowadays I find artificially slow advancement quite annoying.

 

[Hussar]

Ok fair enough. But let's break it down shall we?

It takes about ten xp awarding challenges to gain a level in 3e DnD. Give or take. Now staying with the ten session level we've been using that means that we would have one actual encounter per session. Little more maybe but about one challenge every four hours.

Does that sound like an exciting game to you?

 

[billd91]

Ok fair enough. But let's break it down shall we?

It takes about ten xp awarding challenges to gain a level in 3e DnD. Give or take. Now staying with the ten session level we've been using that means that we would have one actual encounter per session. Little more maybe but about one challenge every four hours.

Does that sound like an exciting game to you?

Depends on what else you're doing. If the role playing is good and fun and everybody's reasonably on board and participating, this is fine.

 

[billd91]

Just how much time do we need to take to make things "deep and meaningful"? If we stick to 5th level, which a couple of posters have posited, and your levelling speed, we're talking about 50-60 sessions. Assume 4 hours per session. That's TWO HUNDRED hours of play just to get to the point where I'm actually playing the character I want to play.

If this is the case, why are you not starting the game at a higher level? If it's because everybody else is fine with starting at 1st level and you're the only one who isn't, you'll just have to get used to being disappointed in this aspect or find another group.

Do you honestly believe it takes that long to tell a story? Does it really take you that long to get depth and meaning? Good grief, two hundred hours of play? Really?

If the story and play are good, why not? Why is that a problem?

I mean, Christopher Nolan manages to tell that entire story in two hours. He goes from boy Bruce Wayne to Batman in a bit over two hours. Now, sure, granted, gaming is slower than a movie, but one hundred times slower? Really?

Is this really even relevant? The media are entirely different. The processes of participation are different. If I go to a movie, I'm passively watching a story unfold rather than playing through the story. Who cares if the Batman movie is only a couple of hours long? That's not really relevant to how long it takes to play through a particular scenario in D&D (particularly not with long combats that are over in seconds according to game terms). And if you're trying to make a comparison, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Now, if you could record what the PCs do and play back as a movie based on what the players do and discuss and all that, then it's a bit more like making a movie and I can tell you it took way more than 2 hours (or even 200 hours) for Christopher Nolan to make any of his Batman films. I don't think any of the major fight scenes could have been made in less than 2 hours and probably take even longer to make than your average D&D fight.

As the wise man said, play what you like.

I think we're telling you this - start the game at the level you want to play at if you want someone with Batmanic utilitarian and fighting abilities. Start at 1st if you want the whole Hero's Journey/Luke Skywalker/Joseph Campbell thing. Start at 8th or so if you want the Conan/Aragorn/John Carter exceptional hero kind of thing.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D can do a lot and hit a lot more styles of play. The problem is a lots of its designers and a percentage of the fan base won't think about it during its creation. And a lot of the design decisions in D&D's lifetime has made it hard.

So it is not exactly easy for players to get DMs to design things for them or to get supplementary books allowed. Sure, you could make a level 1 Batmanwannabe in 3e via the thug variant and Sneak Attack trade for feats on a fighter. But good luck getting it allowed or it balanced.


So many are forced to do it in core. And that causes rushing.

 

[Nagol]

Ok fair enough. But let's break it down shall we?

It takes about ten xp awarding challenges to gain a level in 3e DnD. Give or take. Now staying with the ten session level we've been using that means that we would have one actual encounter per session. Little more maybe but about one challenge every four hours.

Does that sound like an exciting game to you?

It's about 13 equal-EL encounters per level in 3.5.

My last D&D campaign had a really weird leveling rate.

The first few levels went by about 1 level per adventure or so or in terms of session count, about 1 level per two/three sessions.

Once the party got to about 4th they headed to a different area and embarked in a lot of overland travel and fiddly exploration of towns and environments. Leveling slowed down to about 1 level per four sessions and stayed there until the party hit about 10th level or so. Then leveling pretty much stopped. The party took like 10 sessions to hit 11 and another 10 to hit 12. A few bad breaks and nasty situations costing various PCs level loss from Raise Dead was part of it. Another part was how long combats were becoming. Getting to 13 was another 6-8 sessions.

Then leveling sped back up. PCs started to level every other session again until the campaign ended with characters between 19 and 20th level.

The campaign ran for about 5 years. At least a year was spent between 10-12 level. At no point did I change the rate of award.