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

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Well if that's the case... then the advanced players just have to suck it up. If the DM feels the need to run the "extended" 1st and 2nd level in order to get his new players up to speed because they won't grasp it in the two or three sessions the normal run of 1st and 2nd level is supposed to be (according to Mike)... then the advanced players ought to WANT to help those player out by going along with the slower progression. And more importantly... not whining about the "lack of options" for their characters at 1st and 2nd level. So what if 1st and 2nd level are "basic"? They're getting their friends and new players up to speed on how to play the game. Maybe they should forego their own egos in the short-term in order to make a more solid campaign for themselves and the table in the long-term?

 

[TerraDave]

I like it, as it allows someone to ease into the character, and develop it in game, versus having a very elaborate concept that may or may not work that well in actual play.

The more of the game that happens in the game, the better.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Well if that's the case... then the advanced players just have to suck it up. If the DM feels the need to run the "extended" 1st and 2nd level in order to get his new players up to speed because they won't grasp it in the two or three sessions the normal run of 1st and 2nd level is supposed to be (according to Mike)... then the advanced players ought to WANT to help those player out by going along with the slower progression. And more importantly... not whining about the "lack of options" for their characters at 1st and 2nd level. So what if 1st and 2nd level are "basic"? They're getting their friends and new players up to speed on how to play the game. Maybe they should forego their own egos in the short-term in order to make a more solid campaign for themselves and the table in the long-term?

Can't give Xp, but he already has plenty anyway. Maybe he should forgo it in favor of newer posters.

 

[Jester David]

I like it.
People have always started at higher levels anyway if they didn't want the first level style gameplay. It's codified so people know exactly what level works as a different start for more heroic play.

Most of the time I'll start at level 1, because I like the squishiness and uncertainty, but some campaigns definitely have a level 3 vibe.
While I lose out on two levels if I start at level 3 rather than 1 most of my campaigns don't make it to 20 anyway. None actually. I think 16 was the highest we've hit. And if I did have a longer campaign in mind, I could either condenses the story and have fewer filler high level encounters or adventure longer at level 20 and let everyone enjoy the capstones.

Really, my only complaint is we kinda knew all this already. Mearls already dedicated at least one article to low level play. Possibly two. I'd rather hear more new information, like how balancing high level play went and if level 15-20 works as intended. Or a progress report on the final game.

 

[Blackwarder]

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.

I disagree, with bounded accuracy there isn't a big difference with to hit chances between 1st and 3rd and the fact that no one gets a feat at 3rd level (iirc) means that the actual difference is small, couple that with the fact that the new players get to see the class mechanics of the other characters in play before they have to commit to them is a plus in my book.

Warder

 

[RevTurkey]

Hmm..

I might like it. Everything hinges on the execution in the final game.

The quick progression thing is an easy fix. Just change it if you don't like it.

Of more interest and pause for thought is the bit about skills...

I like D&D to have distinctive classes that are different from each other. I hope this is the case.

I don't want to see Fighters being better than thieves at thievery skills and such.

I am worried that because they (according to what they showed us) only starting tackling the maths late on in development...won't have enough time to get things right in time for release.

I am nervous about this incarnation of D&D....I so want them to deliver a brilliant game but everytime I read something about it or looked at the playtest material...something irked me and felt weird.

I suspect that maybe this new version isn't aimed at me or my generation of players.

My favourite editions were B/X and 1e but I have played and enjoyed every edition since and also many clones and leftfield interpretations. I am not stuck in a nostalgic rut and am happy to see the game changed as long as it is for the better and an actual improvement rather than being just for the sake of change and selling new product. I think a more OSR simpler, more DM friendly version of 3e might have been a good idea. I thought the first playtest showed incredible promise but then the followeing versions started to seem to get confused as to what they wanted the new game to be.

Just a nice clean, tidied up and more focussed, less rule heavy version of 3e would have pleased most older players and the Pathfinder crowd and also provided a good game to introduce new blood into.

Castles & Crusades is close but a bit buggy (saves) and a bit too lean for most of the 3.5 crowd. 13th Age is very interesting but maybe too modern for the old school guys. DCC is groovy and fun but perhaps too blatant in it's worship of nostalgia (race as class etc)...I could keep going...

At first it looked like WoTC were making a greatest hits edition....taking all the very best ideas from the OGL versions and actually benefitting from the open licence instead of being afraid of it...as the mew edition started to playtest more (I think the playtest was a bit lame but that is maybe just me) I think they missed the oppurtunity to do this as they started trying to introduce new ways of their own devising to rule the games mechanics...great if those new ways are better that what everybody else came up with but honestly I don't see much of a consensus on forums that these new mechanics are very exciting or what players want from the game....just me? Possibly.

Anyway...I go back and forth wondering if I might love or hate this new edition or maybe just shrug and carry on playing what I already have in my cupboard and on my shelves...I wonder what they might offer me beyond cool artwork that actually sells the game to me over existing choices that I understand and have experience with.

I waffled a bit there....hope at least some of you agree. I am not bashing really, I love D&D.

Fingers crossed thoughts anyone?

 

[Kobold Stew]

I love that the devs are continuing to keep the bulk of skills tied to background -- that represents one of the biggest boons in the new edition, to my eyes, allowing a much more personalized character.

I am surprised that the biggest benefit of the apprentice levels is not mentioned: solving the problem of one-level dips. I'm not convinced that beginners need the coddling that is sometimes suggested (I sometimes run games for my son and his friends, a constantly rotating crew with a newcomer almost always among them). But the impact that apprentice levels have on multi classing goes far in remedying its biggest abuses. (There are other ways to do that, of course; but (e.g.) 2E-style multi classing does not seem to be on the cards.)

Yay apprentice levels, for reasons other than those stated here.

 

[fjw70]

I am worried that because they (according to what they showed us) only starting tackling the maths late on in development...won't have enough time to get things right in time for release.

Someone on RPG.net posted a quote from someone on the MtG team that said for the last year he has been on loan to the D&D team to work on the math for DDN. So apparently a lot of work has been done on the math already.

 

[RevTurkey]

Interesting ....hope the MtG person can help make it all fit together properly

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I like D&D to have distinctive classes that are different from each other. I hope this is the case.

I don't want to see Fighters being better than thieves at thievery skills and such.

My problem is who say's my rogue is a thief, and that your fighter isn't one?

That is why I LOVE backgrounds... hey my fighter is a Sage, cool my Wizard is a Soldier, NIce my cleric is a thief, Awsome my Rogue is a SPy...