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

[Nine Hands]

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

The issue with that is it does not tie into multiclassing in a logical manner. You take a 0 level class when you multiclass? So you can be a Fighter 0/Wizard 0? Seems silly. Cutting down the amount of abilities for low level characters IS better for the game overall, if you want freeform multiclassing, which was one of the best things about 3E (except the power oddities it introduced). I like the ability of a character to grow into a class instead of just being awesome right away. Guy gets religious, he starts to pick up cleric levels. Wizard tired of being beat up, takes a level of Fighter.

Also, starting at a higher level doesn't reduce the game, you still have all the abilities and with the way that WotC is looking to advance characters, the loss is what...two game sessions? Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

 

[hbarsquared]

Going to have to agree with D&D being a "game." For me, also a story. Also, a social gathering. But, primarily, a game.

Which is (one of the reasons) why I like what I called "gritty" Apprentice levels (admittedly, not the best of adjectives). Low hit points, limited abilities dangerous monsters... The game is simple in terms of understanding the mechanics and the learning curve of the game and getting started quickly. But not simple in terms of how "easy" it is as a game to defeat your opponents. It should be difficult and challenging. New players would want to keep playing precisely because it's not going to be a walk in the park. There's value to that.
[MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]: Fair enough. I do predict that in actual play you will notice hardly any difference, while it will make a huge different to others who consider those aspects important.

 

[Obryn]

The issue with that is it does not tie into multiclassing in a logical manner. You take a 0 level class when you multiclass? So you can be a Fighter 0/Wizard 0? Seems silly. Cutting down the amount of abilities for low level characters IS better for the game overall, if you want freeform multiclassing, which was one of the best things about 3E (except the power oddities it introduced). I like the ability of a character to grow into a class instead of just being awesome right away. Guy gets religious, he starts to pick up cleric levels. Wizard tired of being beat up, takes a level of Fighter.

I disagree with your premise. I don't care for 3e-style multiclassing at all.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Which is (one of the reasons) why I like what I called "gritty" Apprentice levels (admittedly, not the best of adjectives). Low hit points, limited abilities dangerous monsters... The game is simple in terms of understanding the mechanics and the learning curve of the game and getting started quickly. But not simple in terms of how "easy" it is as a game to defeat your opponents. It should be difficult and challenging. New players would want to keep playing precisely because it's not going to be a walk in the park. There's value to that.

The more I think about it, the less sure I am that this is what you'll actually be getting.

I don't think levels 1-2 will be any more "gritty" than now, because Apprentice tier (as Mearls described it) is intended for new and/or casual players, not older players who want a gritty playstyle. It will certainly be simpler, but there's no indication it will be less "gritty." IMO, "gritty" and "newbie-friendly" are not compatible goals if you want mass audience appeal. (Especially if at 3rd level, the grittiness all of a sudden reverts to how "gritty" Next is right now; that'd be particularly weird.)

You need a whole separate "gritty" rules module for that sort of playstyle. Such a thing should certainly be an option, but I wouldn't get my hopes up that this will happen in the Apprentice tier.

-O

 

[hbarsquared]

I don't think levels 1-2 will be any more "gritty" than now ...
You need a whole separate "gritty" rules module for that sort of playstyle. Such a thing should certainly be an option, but I wouldn't get my hopes up that this will happen in the Apprentice tier.

I think we are actually in agreement, here. I'm misusing the term "gritty." Gritty should be a rules module, yes, separate from the concept of the Apprentice Tier

I'm just saying that I like the idea of levels 1-2 being a challenge for players. Not too hard, per se, but definitely not easy, either. I like the idea of limited character abilities, but just enough to give you the sense of the class, as an introduction. Players needing to think outside the box from the outset instead of relying on a list of abilities to choose from.

It seems to me that it will be more satisfying, as a whole and in the long run, as a game, to start like this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, but they don't always (or even usually) START as heroes. Cases in point:
Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn
The Riftwar Sage
A Wizard of Earthsea
Star Wars
The Belgariad
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant

Also if the hobbits (and dwarves in TH) are the PCs...
The Hobbit
The Lord of the Rings

I don't agree. Most of these characters are NOT AT ALL like average people, right from the start. Ged is a hugely promising student who has substantial ability (and we'd also have to consider at what point he becomes an adventurer, if it is after his training at the wizard school then he's already one of the most powerful mages in history with a heavy doom on him). Even if you assume his career starts when he leaves for Roke Isle he's already got years of training and substantial abilities, much like a 1st level PC. Luke Skywalker is already known as a great pilot and has substantial innate capabilities when he starts out, substantial enough that he is marked for death, and yet manages to escape. Thomas Covenant has great power, though he has little understanding of how to use it at first. The majority of the characters in both of Tolkien's works are hardened adventurers and heroes, if not actually higher powers. The hobbits are a sort of contrast, but all of them are still called out as unusual examples of the hobbit race, except possibly Sam in some sense.

I think its quite reasonable for all characters to have a degree of heroic stature. Again, this is the norm in fantasy, particularly in the sort of genre D&D is primarily focused on. Its FINE to allow for a "0 level" type of character, but I don't see a huge demand for this that justifies reworking the entire traditional level structure. I mean really, I find it quite amusing that you all find it fine for DDN to do this, but heaven forbid when 4e innovated in any way, that was anathema. I'd prefer to keep the existing and traditional pattern, PCs are heroic adventurers, qualitatively different from ordinary people.

I don't see where there is a problem with a typical 3e or 4e level progression WRT NPCs. Certainly in 4e NPCs can have a wide variety of stats. An ordinary non-combatant might be a minion, but there's no reason to assume that as a rule, they could also be low level standard stat blocks when required, or even higher level ones if they represent substantial potential threats. That doesn't make them in any way the same as PCs either, it just gives you tools to make them threats as required (or companions if you need that). Thus there is no untoward 'gap' between a 4e townsperson and a 4e PC. PERSONALLY I haven't had any issues portraying "new to the world of heroes" PCs with 4e rules. You just make sure they have the correct threats to face and their surroundings reflect that the character is not some amazing prodigy, its quite easy, and usually only requires some modest storytelling.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All these are done even better, actually much better, by not using multiclassing at all.

Sure, but you'll then have to just do the same thing some other way. There is sure to be the guy who wants to play a sword-wielding caster, or a wizard with a bit of a talent with a shiv, etc. There is a HUGE difference between 2e-like MCs where the MC is really effectively a hybrid class, and 3e MCing which is effectively a classless template system. The former adds some flexibility to character creation, the later annihilates the very concept of class and makes it virtually meaningless.

So yeah, if you are forcing me to choose, none is better than ala-carte, but that's not an argument against doing it 2e-style.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But D&D is not a story, it's a game. And while, yes, many groups play in story-based campaigns, not all do.



But you are assuming that everyone- or at least, most everyone- wants to tell a story with their games. Not everyone does. There is a whole slice of the rpg community that calls themselves "sandboxers" who don't.

I would recommend that you don't conflate the game with the story you tell about it afterwards; don't conflate the game with the story you want to tell; in fact, don't conflate the game with a story at all, because for some groups, it simply isn't.

Nor is there any necessity to have a specific starting point on the power curve to play a sandbox, which is why it need not be mentioned. In fact, as described, the Apprentice levels don't sound to me like they are particularly interesting levels for sandbox play either. What specifically makes these extremely weak and limited characters appealing in a procedural dungeon crawl type setting, or even in a more advanced sandbox? The weaker the PCs are the more surely the opening of the next door is fatal and the more you discourage the very world exploration activity which is the most appealing characteristic of that kind of play. IME it is quite common to see games of that sort starting at level 3 as well in AD&D for instance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think we are actually in agreement, here. I'm misusing the term "gritty." Gritty should be a rules module, yes, separate from the concept of the Apprentice Tier

I'm just saying that I like the idea of levels 1-2 being a challenge for players. Not too hard, per se, but definitely not easy, either. I like the idea of limited character abilities, but just enough to give you the sense of the class, as an introduction. Players needing to think outside the box from the outset instead of relying on a list of abilities to choose from.

It seems to me that it will be more satisfying, as a whole and in the long run, as a game, to start like this.

I have a hard time seeing how one level of play is more challenging than another. The game is designed to be equally challenging at all levels, perhaps even more challenging as you level up.

Also, as I interpret it, the 'Apprentice' levels would be basically just AD&D/OD&D levels 1 and 2. All this whole thing seems like to me is a way to say "well, this is really just us reverting back to AD&D design patterns, but we'll just tell everyone else to start at level 3. It seems like basically a sort of dust off. Instead of creating something special and saying "hey, here's added stuff some people might enjoy".

 

[VinylTap]

I feel like most of the problem is people just looking at the word "apprentice" and making a judgement on the types of stories/play it will force you to experience-- but this really isn't the case.

From everything we've seen so far...

- Level 1 was never going to have a ton of hit points
- Lower levels were going to have less powerful characters than higher levels
- They wanted to address MCing so people weren't dipping

All Mike really did was put a "label" on level 1-2, 3-15, 16-20. That's it, they're just labels, your character doesn't think of itself as having a level, only you do... 1, 2, 3, they're just numbers, they don't mean anything. Its an X value... its abstract and arbitrary... it put no limits on the types of stories you want to tell. (whether you're telling a big story or just a dungeon crawl... its all still a narrative, its your character doing things in a setting, a >> b >> c, story!). If you don't want your character to be a commoner at level 1, then don't tell that story. You might get less dice, but that's the very nature of the type of game we're playing, and there's a really great option if you don't like that solution too (start at level 3!).

That and he said level 1-2 would probably be quick to play through. Its really not a huge change... they've just framed the MCing mechanic a bit more and slapped a new tier on early levels.