D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[am181d]

...and campaigns that run from 1-20 are in the minority.

This is the relevant point. If a very small percentage of players are using certain level ranges, it's incumbent on the designers to adjust those ranges to make them more usable. If most people only play 10-12 levels, then this won't impact them at all. If these changes make additional levels play better for the vast majority of players, that's a broad win.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's... fine? You can find it as doubtful as you like.

I think you're assuming this point is much more important to me than it is. It's something I dislike, just as you presumably dislike the idea of starting at Level 0.

Actually... I don't care either way. Because I realize all it is is just a number at the top of a character sheet. And if the need to start at "Level 1" mattered all that much... I'd just add or subtract a couple numbers from whatever the game was using to illustrate the first level of competence.

If the Adventurer tier starts at Level 3, and I feel like I HAVE to have the game start at Level 1... I'd just subtract 2 from each number on the leveling up chart (which means it ends at Level 18.) My game will end up exactly the same regardless. (And conversely, I'd add one to my Level 0 Apprentice tier number, if that is how the chart ended up being written.)

 

[Obryn]

Well, it's true. Like getting to start their game at "Level 1" instead of "Level 0" or "Level 3" actually means anything or somehow makes their game better. The game is exactly the same except for what number appears at the top of your character sheet-- a number that's going to be disappearing like three or four sessions in anyway.

Okay. So start your characters at level 0 or level "Apprentice" and leave Level 1 as a competent, capable baseline.

Edit: as dismissive as you are of the concept, levelling up is an important part of D&D. Would it be the same stories or a better game with only 3 levels? 6? 10? It matters, at least a bit. It's not earth-shaking, as you seem to think I think, but it deserves more than dismissiveness.

-O

 

[DEFCON 1]

Okay. So start your characters at level 0 or level "Apprentice" and leave Level 1 as a competent, capable baseline.

-O

And Apprentice Level 0 / Adventurer Level 1 is better than Apprentice Level 1 / Adventurer Level 3 because...?

 

[Blackwarder]

And Apprentice Level 0 / Adventurer Level 1 is better than Apprentice Level 1 / Adventurer Level 3 because...?

Obryn said so...

Warder

How about we let posters speak for themselves instead of putting words in their mouth, eh? ~KM

 

[Obryn]

And Apprentice Level 0 / Adventurer Level 1 is better than Apprentice Level 1 / Adventurer Level 3 because...?

More playable levels if you're capping at 20. Like I said.

Also, I think classless Apprentice levels sound a lot better than this proposal.

-O

 

[DEFCON 1]

More playable levels if you're capping at 20. Like I said.

Also, I think classless Apprentice levels sound a lot better than this proposal.

-O

You must be really bummed that the game isn't going to Level 30 anymore then.

 

[am181d]

Okay. So start your characters at level 0 or level "Apprentice" and leave Level 1 as a competent, capable baseline.

But there are people who *don't want 1st level characters to be a competent, capable baseline.* Those people want OD&D/1e style fragility in their first level characters and this gives them that. And it solves the multi-class dip problem.

It solves two specific existing problems while introducing something that will be a problem for very few (as very few play through all levels anyway). I get that this wouldn't be your preference, but it seems like the best option.

 

[Obryn]

You must be really bummed that the game isn't going to Level 30 anymore then.

It depends. There is a point of diminishing returns, but I don't think it's at 18th-20th. Keep in mind, it's not just character power. It's also everything else in the system that's expanded or constrained based on it.

But there are people who *don't want 1st level characters to be a competent, capable baseline.* Those people want OD&D/1e style fragility in their first level characters and this gives them that. And it solves the multi-class dip problem.

It solves two specific existing problems while introducing something that will be a problem for very few (as very few play through all levels anyway). I get that this wouldn't be your preference, but it seems like the best option.

I understand some will like it better this way. I don't. I don't see why this is problematic?

-O

 

[LightPhoenix]

If today's article is real, they might have just realized that the current minimum for that dial is a bit too high, even considering the Basic version of the characters because Level 1 Basic PCs might have a lot of features technically "embedded", but they still have them.

I would believe that, if it weren't for the statement that most experienced groups would start off at third level. That implies they believe that the dial is fine.

I've stated before that I don't think B/S/A (and especially Basic) will really work. Personally, I think this is a symptom of that breakdown. Basic had (essentially) two goals: provide a simplified experience to attract new players, and to provide a stream-lined experience for players who don't want a complex game. For whatever reason, the team has decided that approach isn't working as intended. If they expect most players to skip "apprentice tier," it follows that the only reason for the change is to attract new players. As such, they've folded the simplicity of Basic into Standard. Obviously, I feel that's a mistake.