D&D 5E L&L 1/13/14: Low-Level Characters in D&D Next

[billd91]

By the way, it's interesting that Mike Mearls makes no mention of rules modules, differences between the basic and the standard game, and so on.

Considering he closes by explicitly mentioning D&D's flexibility, I don't think it's strictly necessary to mention rules modules to the same effect.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Considering he closes by explicitly mentioning D&D's flexibility, I don't think it's strictly necessary to mention rules modules to the same effect.

Kind of an ill omen, if you ask me. D&D is not that flexible an RPG. People invented class-less, level-less systems precisely because D&D was not flexible enough.

Which is not a slam against the game. I like the iconic, archetypical feel of D&D. But "flexibility" is not really a D&D hallmark.

(I suppose you can achieve infinite flexibility through houseruling but then that covers every other RPG as well.)

 

[Mercurius]

I like what I'm reading - sounds very "classic." I especially like what he says about backgrounds and "empty balance." Good stuff.

 

[Mistwell]

I think we are seeing hints of what will be in the Basic red box. Four races, four classes, no feats, goes up to level 3. Unclear if it will include backgrounds. Probably fixed backgrounds to select with no ability to choose your own skills. Probably also limited number of spells or fixed packages of spells like mentioned above (fire mage, enchanter mage, etc).

 

[Blackwarder]

The second count, and the one that's more relevant here, concerned what happened in the second campaign, when experienced players start again at low-level (and probably 1st level at that, since that's still where most campaigns start). Such a player won't want their character to just be "Dwarf Fighter", but will want the game to give them more options.

Now, the solution of "start at 3rd" is okay, as far as it goes, but it doesn't help the mixed group where the experienced player and the newbie are together - they probably want the same level, but different complexity.

.

Sure it is, the new players start at 1st and the experience players start a 3rd, the amount of experience needed to reach 3rd level is such that even one session will cause the new players to catch up with the experienced players.

Warder

 

[Mistwell]

I should also mention that in our playtests of the last package, it simply is not in any way true that you can level in a single session from level 1 to level 2, or level 2 to level 3. It took many many sessions for each. A lot of low level creatures are only 10 xp each. You would need to kill 25 creatures for each PC to get a level. Who is doing 25 encounters per session? Or even half that?

 

[delericho]

Sure it is, the new players start at 1st and the experience players start a 3rd, the amount of experience needed to reach 3rd level is such that even one session will cause the new players to catch up with the experienced players.

Racing new players through those early levels isn't going to be helpful - unlike our characters, players don't get to accumulate experience points. We need to actually accumulate experience, and that takes time.

 

[Blackwarder]

Racing new players through those early levels isn't going to be helpful - unlike our characters, players don't get to accumulate experience points. We need to actually accumulate experience, and that takes time.

1st to 3rd is 950 XP, 3rd to 4th require 1300 XP, so I think that no matter what the new guys will catch up, throw in some interesting side quests for them and they won't even remain behind the rest of the group for long.

Thats what I'd do anyway.

Warder

 

[Savage Wombat]

I've actually done this!

I came up with an idea for an all-psionic all-githzerai gestalt characters game - and I was concerned that my players, even as veterans, would have so many new options that they'd have trouble knowing what they were capable of at first. But I knew that most of them greatly disliked 1st level characters for being too vulnerable.

So rather than starting them at 3rd level as I usually would have, I started them at 1st and then ran them through two "training scenarios" at one night apiece that got them to level. And they all thought it worked quite well.

 

[delericho]

The other problem with starting the newbies at 1st and the old hands at 3rd is that character power is tied to level. This means that not only do the old hands get to dominate the game by virtue of their accumulated system mastery, they also get to dominate by virtue of simply having a better character. Given that most people don't like playing the sidekick, that's hardly going to be a good advert to the new guys.

I should note that this can work, provided the old hands are prepared to take a step into the background and let the new guys have their day. But all it takes is one of your "old hands" failing to do that, and it fails. And that guy is unfortunately not rare amongst gamers.