LEB Discussion Thread '09

[DEFCON 1]

Personally... I'd say that if you weren't going to start at 1st level, then your best option would be to start at 4th level. Reason being... that is the point where you gain your first two stat increases, your half-level is now based at +2, and you also have 2 encounters, a utility, and a daily to use, along with 3 feats. Everyone can start out balanced across the board from each other.

If you give a starting range of 1-3... those folks who start at 3 will be slightly overbalanced compared to everyone else as soon as they reach 4th (what with the stat increases and such). They might also choose to fudge things a bit by suffering through the first few months with an odd main stat or two, knowing they will get to 4th quickly and bump it up... as opposed to those start at 1 and will usually choose to overspend on their main stat since they are going to have to live with that choice for over a year. This allows the 3rd level starters to squeeze more points into the lower stats for pre-req purposes to gain certain feats to begin with that the 1st level starters probably wouldn't get to have or probably reach.

But perhaps this doesn't bother anyone else? It's not a huge deal by any stretch... I just know for me, the best starting levels for new games are 1, 4, 8, & 11, because that hits many of the best benchmarks of the heroic tier.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Hi, I wasn't involved with the orginal LEB but I'm interested in this and thought I'd let my thoughts be known.


On the subject of approval by character builder, I don't like it. I'm a subcriber, and generally like less nerfing then we do at L4W but there has to be some sort of review process. WOTC makes mistakes sometimes, everyone does. So I do think things should be reviewed.

On the subject of differing starting levels I don't think it's reasonable to assume that everyone would automatically start at the highest level, some people like to start off at the begining and work their way through, I know I for one would start at 1 if the option was there.


I think 22 points is the best rather than trying to rewrite the whole game to change the places where it's assumed

 

[Oni]

Here's a question. If people can start off higher level, will they be allowed level appropriate gear or will they have to start fresh just like a first level character?

Personally I'd recommend the second option. Selected gear tends to be my synergistic and without any kind of magical gear or greater funds the power gap between different character levels will be smaller, which would be handy if the starting pool of players is small enough that multi-level parties are happening.

 

[EvolutionKB]

Several good points by some people. SG has commented on treasure and xp in the L4E thread. Perhaps we can steal some the ideas. I think time and gold for time played in the game should be there. Only gold though. I think DMs have enough time and foreplanning with the pacing that they can adjust magic items without too much trouble.

 

[stonegod]

Here are my comments from the loot/xp thread Evo mentioned:

The parcel system is designed for a PC staying with the same party/DM over a period of time. But looking at the Living FR campaign guide, it appears they use pretty much the same system there. So, it might just be advantageous to have DMs submitting adventures discuss their rough parcels so we can insure they are at least thinking about the issue initially.

GP with time (and DM credits) is good. I might take the monetary treasure and the gp value of one level n+1 or n+2 item to account for item discrepancy especially in the case of DM credits. This discussion, after all, is something I'm thinking about for LEB as well.

This builds upon comments from Lord Sessadore. I think a system like above would work for time/xp.

As for new characters: Yes, choice gives you an advantage for selection. But the "wishlist" system does similar, though DMs don't necessarily always give out directly from there. Staring all characters at 100gp puts a burden on games with mixed level characters as the high level characters should generally earn (by DMG standards) treasure in a much higher range than their lower level brethren. It is then entirely possible that the lower level characters then get these items, potentially unbalancing things for later if that character traveled in low level parties again. Finally, higher level characters are expected by the system to have a certain level of items that depriving of them removes; this makes addys for parties of just new higher level characters of this sort more difficult to design.

In summary, I'm fine for the current DMG system for new characters. I'll listen to other proposals on this though.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I agree that the time gold idea is a very good one. Takes some burden off the DMs, since it means that they know how much XP they'll be giving out and therefore how much treasure to give as well, and it deals with DM credits in the same fell swoop. As long as DM credits work the same here as in L4W, at least. I think it'd be good to have it in the 4e incarnation of LEB from the start.

That reminds me - what acronym is going to be used for LEB 4th edition? That's something that should probably be decided as well ...

As for higher level starting characters, I'm sort of partial to both ideas - using the DMG system as-is, or keeping higher starting level characters' wealth on par with the lower level ones. So, a compromise idea: what about just giving them 2 items instead of 3, plus gold equal to the value of a level-1 magic item? Or 1 item plus the gold? Something like that both puts them closer to level 1 characters and closer to where they would be if they played through the first two levels.

 

[stonegod]

That reminds me - what acronym is going to be used for LEB 4th edition? That's something that should probably be decided as well ...

I've been using LEB. There isn't going to be any confusion as the old LEB is becoming the new LEB. A few have used LEB4. I think I've seen L4B or L4EB, neither of which look that great.

As for higher level starting characters, I'm sort of partial to both ideas - using the DMG system as-is, or keeping higher starting level characters' wealth on par with the lower level ones. So, a compromise idea: what about just giving them 2 items instead of 3, plus gold equal to the value of a level-1 magic item? Or 1 item plus the gold? Something like that both puts them closer to level 1 characters and closer to where they would be if they played through the first two levels.

So n+1 and n for items or n and n-1? I know which one would be more popular...

 

[Lord Sessadore]

So n+1 and n for items or n and n-1? I know which one would be more popular...

Hah, more popular indeed

Anyway, I think either would be fine. To be fair, if one adventured from level 1 to level 3, there's a chance that they could have two items of level n+2 and n+1.

Oh, another brainwave. It might be a good idea to make the higher starting level PCs actually pay for their mundane equipment as well out of their pool of gold. Or maybe it doesn't matter.

 

[stonegod]

Oh, another brainwave. It might be a good idea to make the higher starting level PCs actually pay for their mundane equipment as well out of their pool of gold. Or maybe it doesn't matter.

I think we want to provide a method for ensuring things are w/in reason. Maybe a 100/150gp mundane allowance. That way we won't have infinite arcane reagents.

 

[Walking Dad]

Here's a question. If people can start off higher level, will they be allowed level appropriate gear or will they have to start fresh just like a first level character?

Personally I'd recommend the second option. Selected gear tends to be my synergistic and without any kind of magical gear or greater funds the power gap between different character levels will be smaller, which would be handy if the starting pool of players is small enough that multi-level parties are happening.

(Underlining by me)

And the problem is...?

The DMG encourages DM's to ask player's for a 'wishlist'. No magic gear would underbalance the PCs for their level.