D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Remathilis]

If level 5 is really level 1 (the way you describe it),then you can easily just start at level 5 and be happy. And the person who wants a real zero to hero experience can actually start at level 1. Everyone is happy.

But if your level one is actually that other person's level 5, you are cutting them out of the game. Why design a system to actively exclude a fairly common preference for no real gain?

I never said anything about level 5. I have only been saying that a level one PC isn't just a nobody and I've been arguing against level -0 style play. I don't like disposable toons, I like characters who start inexperienced but still somewhat competent. Less zero to hero and more Heroes Journey.

 

[ReshiIRE]

and by what I heard is actually nerfing casters a little to make sure there is no gap, quite the opposite of what 5e likely does in its revision. I am tempted to take another look at PF2, but I assume the crunch still keeps me away

It's complex.

It is a very different system compared to 5e from the core, but all these have an impact:

• Three action system changes up dramatically what you can do on turns - specifically, Martials can do multiple attacks per turn if they want.
• Attack of Opportunity (in the Remaster, this is called Reactive Strike) is not a feature any class or creature gets; about 25%~ of creatures have AoO (skewed towards lower level monsters rarely having it, and more higher level monsters having it more commonly), and the only class that gets AoO by default is Fighter. This means moving in combat, or casting spells, etc. in melee is often safe; this means that moving in combat is pretty important.
• Critical Successes happen either on a natural 20 OR when the result of the roll beats the DC / target by 10; vice versa for Critical Failures. So being able to hit well => more crits.
• Four degrees of success for everything means that spells are not save or suck; in addition, some spells have a 'trait' called Incapacitation which means that higher level creatures get a higher level of success on their roll (so if they Critically Fail, they only get the Failure effect, etc.)
• No special spells that are designed to break the limits placed on spell (of course, mistakes happen in spells!)
• PF2e's different type of casters are quite different; Spontaneous Casters are like 5e casting but with limitations on how many spells they know, whereas Prepared Casters have to prepare specific spells into their specific slots ala 3 / 3.5e / PF1e.
• Generally, yes, it is more complex in general, which does further change things.

Some of this could be done by 5e (iirc, Level Up 5e has 4 degrees of success, and did a MASSIVE rebalance of spells) and it'd help the problem immensely.

 

[Reynard]

I never said anything about level 5. I have only been saying that a level one PC isn't just a nobody and I've been arguing against level -0 style play. I don't like disposable toons, I like characters who start inexperienced but still somewhat competent.

but in order for you to get your preferences you don't have to make it so others can't have theirs. They can include "level zero" characters and it won't affect you one bit.

Less zero to hero and more Heroes Journey.

Umm, this seems a distinction without a difference in the context of D&D.

 

[mamba]

Sure, but sometimes to be fair it can be hard not to. Games are designed with styles and goals in mind, and not everyone is going to fit every game. They might actually be happier playing something else.

I know, I said something like that once too, but then a mod chided me for it

 

[haakon1]

While 2e did still use AD&D 1e style generation as default, I don't know many DMs who didn't use some form of customizable ability score placement, max HP at level one, and a number of options like kits and NWP to flesh out your PC. By the end of 2e, creating a PC was far more common than rolling one up.

For what it’s worth, yeah, I was going to say that’s late 2e, not 2e at release in 1988.

I’m not sure when kits became a thing, though I do think NWP were there from release, and came from Oriental Adventures & Unearthed Arcana, which we used to call 1.5e.

Max hit dice I never saw, and I don’t recall anything but “choose the order” for rolled stats in 1e or 2e “rolling up a character”.

Late in any edition, things often got (imho) overly complicated. Core Rules v. last version published (after the next edition was nearly done) can be very different games.

 

[Oofta]

plenty people might try it once and give up in disgust, not the most likely scenario, but then why would the favorability be in the 20s if there were not some truth to it


no idea, they had plenty of suggested changes I liked and that did not make it. Seems 5e found its crowd and that crowd wants no changes and/or WotC is too afraid to rock the boat

D&D could use a tuneup. The player base has changed and we've had nearly a decade to see the cracks. Personally I've put a couple of small patches on here and there and I can accept the other issues because they don't cause me much grief. If the 2024 edition changes too much in a way I don't want, I won't change. I assume a fair number of people are in the same boat. Meanwhile people that want radical change frequently seem to want very different things.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or at least don't fix it too much. They got lucky with 5E and it's rejuvenated the brand and then some. Why would they rock the boat when it's headed in the right direction?

 

[Reynard]

D&D could use a tuneup.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

These feel at odds.

 

[mamba]

D&D could use a tuneup. The player base has changed and we've had nearly a decade to see the cracks. Personally I've put a couple of small patches on here and there and I can accept the other issues because they don't cause me much grief. If the 2024 edition changes too much in a way I don't want, I won't change. I assume a fair number of people are in the same boat. Meanwhile people that want radical change frequently seem to want very different things.

the problem with this 'tune up' is that at least for me it does too little. I was looking forward to the 2024 changes but now I might not even get the PHB at all. I definitely am looking at alternatives instead and am much more open to homebrew things into my own little mix. Will see where all of this leads, but right now it does not look to be leading to the 2024 version, so yeah, there is such a thing as doing too little too

 

[Reynard]

the problem with this 'tune up' is that at least for me it does too little. I was looking forward to the 2024 changes but now I might not even get the PHB at all. I definitely am looking at alternatives instead and am much more open to homebrew things into my own little mix. Will see where all of this leads, but right now it does not look to be leading to the 2024 version, so yeah, there is such a thing as doing too little too

I think every version of D&D is a interesting and good game. I would actually love to see WotC decide to open up all previous editions to creators, and even create a nes "6E" while continuing to support 5e. D&D is an entity unto itself, bigger than any particular edition.

I didn't particularly like 4E but I would love to see its SRD released under CC or even the DMsGuild because there are people that love it. I want the whole 3.0 SRD released under CC because someone, somewhere thinks 3E is the PERFECT version of D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I never said anything about level 5. I have only been saying that a level one PC isn't just a nobody and I've been arguing against level -0 style play. I don't like disposable toons, I like characters who start inexperienced but still somewhat competent. Less zero to hero and more Heroes Journey.

Luke Skywalker was no more competent in Episode IV than a 1st level 1e character, and you don't get more Hero's Journey than Luke.