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

[Mon]

I don't agree. Most of these characters are NOT AT ALL like average people, right from the start.

Who said anything about average people? They're not (yet) heroes is all. They certainly have potential and a bit more than the average joe. It is simply a matter of degree and playstyle.

Ged is a hugely promising student who has substantial ability

... making him a 1st level sorcerer or wizard. As opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC.

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.

Making him a 1st level [whatever class he fits best - cleric? monk? paladin?] as opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC.

On Tatooine he's maxed out skill: Pilot and has a force point (or whatever). He's not yet a fighter or force-user of any skill or renown. He can't even hold his own in a bar yet.

He only manages to escape with guidance and training under the apprenticeship of obiwan.

Thomas Covenant has great power, though he has little understanding of how to use it at first.

... making him a 1st level sorcerer or whatever the closest equivalent would be, as opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC.

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.

Which is precisely why I explicitly called out the hobbits (and maybe dwarfs from tH).

I think its quite reasonable for all characters to have a degree of heroic stature.

I agree. Being 1st level in an adventuring class sets them apart. That's what it's there for.

Again, this is the norm in fantasy, particularly in the sort of genre D&D is primarily focused on.

Except that starting out as a powerful hero isn't, necessarily, the norm in fantasy.

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 haven't read any posts in in this thread where someone advocates 0-level PCs as the starting point.

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 have no qualms with 4e. I won't be involved in discussing any kind of edition war sentiment.

I'd prefer to keep the existing and traditional pattern, PCs are heroic adventurers, qualitatively different from ordinary people.

I'd prefer both be supported: the OD&D-3e tradition of 1st level adventurers being a little better and having more potential than the average joe; and the 4e tradition of skipping that part and getting right on with the heroic stuff.

Both can make for a fun game IMO and IME.

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.

As I said, 4e is a fine game in my opinion so I won't engage with you on this other than to say that I agree for the most part.

 

[VinylTap]

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".

Its slightly more challenging because there's less of a buffer zone to death. Its much rarer to be 1-2 shot later in the game, but one lucky crit can get you killed at level one.. In that sense, there is a bit of a challenge because its less forgiving, being brash and running into a room is downright killer in level 1-2, but less so as the game goes on. I don't think its actually a design mechanic to have all level equally challenging, there's usually an ebb and flow to the metagame as you level up, it keeps things a little more interesting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mostly? The satisfaction of starting a character at 1st level without going through the process. I'll quote here...

Adventurer tier covers most of what we consider to be the standard D&D experience. Most experienced groups will simply jump straight to adventurer tier, and our rules for building such characters will include some simple story options (random tables and other idea generators) for setting down what happened to your character during his or her apprentice tier adventures.

...That seems an awful lot of a process to go through to push the "standard D&D experience" back to 3rd level.

...That seems like a lot to you?

First of all, I'm pretty sure that things like "idea generators" are going to be as optional and modular as the rest of the game. Rest assured, you won't HAVE to roll on tables to make your 3rd-level character.

Second, what in particular is onerous for you about saying "Everyone start at third level. You're already heroes?" Heck, Mearls is pretty explicit about there being bold and obvious rules for this, so how about even, "Everyone start at adventurer tier using the rules on Pg XX."

That's fewer decision points than whipping up even a LV 1 4e character with the Character Builder (not to mention a Lv 1 3e Wizard on paper!) right there.

I mean, everyone's got their thing, nobody NEEDS to play 5e, and I'm not trying to dump on your preferences, but "It's SO HARD to make a 3rd level character!" seems like a weird complaint to me.

I mean, download the playtest. Make a 1st level character now. That's about how hard it is being advertised to be to make a 3rd level character in 5e.

 

[Obryn]

I mean, everyone's got their thing, nobody NEEDS to play 5e, and I'm not trying to dump on your preferences, but "It's SO HARD to make a 3rd level character!" seems like a weird complaint to me.

That's not my criticism. That's a strawman, but I'm kind of used to it by now.

I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the "default D&D experience" should start at 1st level. I don't know why this is a radical take on the issue? I know and understand it's an issue of aesthetics. I'm trying not to present it as anything otherwise, but that's challenging when people like yourself are setting up strawmen around my concerns to knock down.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

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.

"Gritty" is what happens when you put apprentice-level characters into an adventurer-level situation. I think that's what people are talking about when they say this allows gritty games.

I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the "default D&D experience" should start at 1st level. I don't know why this is a radical take on the issue?

That's kind of the idea, though. They're redefining the default D&D experience to start at a level where you're new to your class and aren't a fully-fledged hero yet.

(And when I say "re"defining--check out the Fighter level titles in 1e. You're not a hero until level 4.)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

That's not my criticism. That's a strawman, but I'm kind of used to it by now.

I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the "default D&D experience" should start at 1st level. I don't know why this is a radical take on the issue? I know and understand it's an issue of aesthetics. I'm trying not to present it as anything otherwise, but that's challenging when people like yourself are setting up strawmen around my concerns to knock down.

-O

I think you've found the terminology we can work with. I actually agree that the default experience should start at first level. Where we might disagree is whether or not experienced players should be the basis for the default experience.

The concept of playing from apprentice to legend strikes me as the proper default for new players. Experienced players are the ones who need all the tools, options, and modules to alter the default game to their tastes.

That said, I understand the argument that new players should start with more hit points and abilities for survivability and engagement. I disagree, but I do understand. I don't think we have conclusive data available to know who is right.

Lastly, do you find the length of this discussion as absurd as I do? I think we all enjoy the argument far more than we care about the thing we're talking about.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Who said anything about average people? They're not (yet) heroes is all. They certainly have potential and a bit more than the average joe. It is simply a matter of degree and playstyle.



... making him a 1st level sorcerer or wizard. As opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC.



Making him a 1st level [whatever class he fits best - cleric? monk? paladin?] as opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC.

On Tatooine he's maxed out skill: Pilot and has a force point (or whatever). He's not yet a fighter or force-user of any skill or renown. He can't even hold his own in a bar yet.

He only manages to escape with guidance and training under the apprenticeship of obiwan.



... making him a 1st level sorcerer or whatever the closest equivalent would be, as opposed to a 1st level commoner or zero-level NPC.



Which is precisely why I explicitly called out the hobbits (and maybe dwarfs from tH).



I agree. Being 1st level in an adventuring class sets them apart. That's what it's there for.



Except that starting out as a powerful hero isn't, necessarily, the norm in fantasy.



I haven't read any posts in in this thread where someone advocates 0-level PCs as the starting point.



I have no qualms with 4e. I won't be involved in discussing any kind of edition war sentiment.



I'd prefer both be supported: the OD&D-3e tradition of 1st level adventurers being a little better and having more potential than the average joe; and the 4e tradition of skipping that part and getting right on with the heroic stuff.

Both can make for a fun game IMO and IME.



As I said, 4e is a fine game in my opinion so I won't engage with you on this other than to say that I agree for the most part.

I don't think there's a very appreciable difference. Characters should always be quite capable, you are just IMHO reinforcing my point. "0 level" is traditionally the label for a 'almost commoner' type of starting character variation. Even 2e had a pretty well developed set of rules for this (albeit I don't recall them showing up in a book, they were in Dragon though). There is no such thing as a "level 1 commoner", commoner isn't a class because PCs aren't ever commoners, so no such class is needed, nor is the giant headache of 3e's nonsensical insistence on trying to mush class rules into NPCs/Monsters a good idea, it was horrible in fact.

So, given that you agree that the literary characters you mentioned all (or virtually all) begin as highly capable characters then you would agree that 4e depicts them quite adequately. I'm not real sure there's a disagreement here. Ged is quite adequately (modulo the huge differences in magic systems) modeled by a level 1 4e wizard for instance, etc. OTOH 1e AD&D characters represent these types not so well in most cases.

 

[Obryn]

That's kind of the idea, though. They're redefining the default D&D experience to start at a level where you're new to your class and aren't a fully-fledged hero yet.

No. Mearls clearly said the "default D&D experience" starts at level 3. That's directly from the article, and not something I'm inventing.

Lastly, do you find the length of this discussion as absurd as I do? I think we all enjoy the argument far more than we care about the thing we're talking about.

My goodness, yes. I'm mostly talking about aesthetics which are completely subjective and mutable, and really just trying to say, "boy, I think it'd be nice if it works this way" at this point. But you'd think from the conversation that it's a dire, bitter bone of contention for me. I don't mind disagreement, but I really mind mischaracterization like KM's above.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

No. Mearls clearly said the "default D&D experience" starts at level 3. That's directly from the article, and not something I'm inventing.

Except that's not what he said at all.

Adventurer tier covers most of what we consider to be the standard D&D experience.

The "standard D&D experience" is levels 1-20. Adventurer tier (3-15) covers most of it.

 

[VinylTap]

I'm really curious to see how much of a discrepancy in utility there will be between say a level 1 Pathfinder character, a level 1 DND next character and a level 1 DND 4th ed character.

I think the best thing to do is slant the beginning abilities to be useful to the initial class, but less useful to a multi-classer. There's no reason the game has to completely brainless at level one, even with the apprentice tier.

Level 1 character don't need to be boring, there just needs to be a power creep in utility as the levels progress. Its all so arbitrary and dependent on other factors we don't know.