LightPhoenix
First Post
That's a further argument against it - if most campaigns only run 1-10, that's 20% of the content not being used.
D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013
- Thread starter Blackwarder
- Start date
That's a further argument against it - if most campaigns only run 1-10, that's 20% of the content not being used.
Stating what you like is not problematic. Wanting WotC to actually ACT on it with no meaningful reasoning other than that's what you like, is where you're going to run into trouble.
If you don't really care if they act on what you wish for... then you're all set. But if you're actually hoping for a change, you probably'll need to state a couple actual meaningful reasons why the game is better starting at Level -1 or 0 rather than Level 1. Otherwise its easier to dismiss your criticism.
)... or maybe just need that idea to grow up.I don't think they make any expectations for what people are going to do. I think they're looking for patterns in the way the game is play, off the rulebook, and trying to implement some of those differences as optional rules.
The rule is to address people who are uncomfortable with being low powered early in the game because they're bored with low-level options (or whatever your reason is).
There's enough, but not an overwhelming, demand to not have those 'low power' levels in the game. Its not an issue with "complexity", really, although that's sort of part of the effect of handling things this way. This is a way of them addressing that.
Last edited:
Obryn
Hero
I gave my criticism and my reasoning. The fact that you disagree does not mean it wasn't spelled out.
I'm still finding this bizarre. You're both arguing that it's silly to care about this and that the current method is better.
-O
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
What is 'Apprentice' about them? Do the PCs have 'masters'? What does this terminology have going for it? Every edition has had at least unofficial '0 level' rules that deal with ordinary people becoming adventurers. In this case all it seems like is we're going to get 2 levels that are not accurately labeled. At least tiers in 4e indicated a set of different assumptions that would apply in each block of levels.
Beyond that I have no idea what "Legacy" means. We have a rich set of terms to describe these things, from Companions and Immortals, to Paragon and Epic, what is the point of making up some new and more forced terminology? Just call Epic, Epic for goodness sake. For that matter what was wrong with Heroic either? All D&D characters are 'adventurers'.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Two arguments:
- If every edition has it as an afterthought, why not have it in the core and get it right from the start?
- Apprentice levels are not 0-level. A 0-level character has no class. An apprentice character has a class, but isn't very good at it yet. Which is what 1st level should be, isn't it?
It's a system they're planning for D&D Next, whereby you make your mark on the world--by building a castle, becoming an archmage, etc. This gives characters a "retirement plan" similar to 4e's epic destinies.
Except it's not Epic. Epic is more... well, epic. Legacy is more like "name level."
Yeah, but not all adventurers are heroes.
Last edited:
tuxgeo
Adventurer
Here's another oddball idea about having "Apprentice" levels below nominal "Level 1":
Since most PCs will be started at what WotC is now calling Level 3 (according to the article), and WotC would want most new players to begin at the same level, so the newbies could learn the game as played by most other people who are playing it, WotC should treat the "Apprentice" levels as at least a Standard (and possibly an Advanced) option -- with the common starting point (called "Level 3" in the article) renamed to "Level 1," and:
Two (optional) earlier "Apprentice" levels numbered "0" and "0+", with hit points allocated thus:
Level 0: You're not yet a member of any class, so you don't yet have any Hit Dice. What you have, instead, is 1 hit point for being alive, plus a "Racial Health Die" (RHD)*. You roll you RHD and add its result to your 1 HP for being alive, and that is you number of hit points at "Level 0." (You do not add your Constitution modifier, so there is no chance of dying during character creation).
Level 0+: You have begun training in what will become your class, so you have gained a Hit Die; however, you don't yet maximize it. Instead, you roll you Hit Die, maximize your RHD, add your Constitution modifier, and add your 1 HP for being alive; the result is your number of hit points at "Level 0+."
Level 1: You're finally well-trained enough to be considered an starting adventurer having a chosen class. You add your 1 "alive" HP to your Constitution modifier and your maximized RHD and your maximized 1 Hit Die; the result is your number of hit points at "Level 1."
Could that work?
* I envision Pixies as having RHD=1d4; Elves and Gnomes as having RHD=1d6; Humans and Halflings as having RHD=1d8; Dwarves as having RHD=1d10; and maybe Half-Orcs as having RHD=1d12. The scale could adjust as needed; that's just a first, "off-the-top-of-my-head" suggestion.
Since most PCs will be started at what WotC is now calling Level 3 (according to the article), and WotC would want most new players to begin at the same level, so the newbies could learn the game as played by most other people who are playing it, WotC should treat the "Apprentice" levels as at least a Standard (and possibly an Advanced) option -- with the common starting point (called "Level 3" in the article) renamed to "Level 1," and:
Two (optional) earlier "Apprentice" levels numbered "0" and "0+", with hit points allocated thus:
Level 0: You're not yet a member of any class, so you don't yet have any Hit Dice. What you have, instead, is 1 hit point for being alive, plus a "Racial Health Die" (RHD)*. You roll you RHD and add its result to your 1 HP for being alive, and that is you number of hit points at "Level 0." (You do not add your Constitution modifier, so there is no chance of dying during character creation).
Level 0+: You have begun training in what will become your class, so you have gained a Hit Die; however, you don't yet maximize it. Instead, you roll you Hit Die, maximize your RHD, add your Constitution modifier, and add your 1 HP for being alive; the result is your number of hit points at "Level 0+."
Level 1: You're finally well-trained enough to be considered an starting adventurer having a chosen class. You add your 1 "alive" HP to your Constitution modifier and your maximized RHD and your maximized 1 Hit Die; the result is your number of hit points at "Level 1."
Could that work?
* I envision Pixies as having RHD=1d4; Elves and Gnomes as having RHD=1d6; Humans and Halflings as having RHD=1d8; Dwarves as having RHD=1d10; and maybe Half-Orcs as having RHD=1d12. The scale could adjust as needed; that's just a first, "off-the-top-of-my-head" suggestion.
[h=3]What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;[/h]
Seriously guys, most of these terms are just place holders to get the game theory down. Complaining about the name of some of these things is a little silly... Its also the easiest thing to change in any set of rules... its the application of the mechanic that's important...
By any other name would smell as sweet;[/h]
Seriously guys, most of these terms are just place holders to get the game theory down. Complaining about the name of some of these things is a little silly... Its also the easiest thing to change in any set of rules... its the application of the mechanic that's important...
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Whoa whoa whoa. I think you're misunderstanding. The whole idea of apprentice levels is to give new players some time to learn how their characters work. It's not just for advanced players who want to start at a lower level--that's a happy coincidence at best.
Similar Threads
