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

[I'm A Banana]

I just think it is weird and obtuse that you're expected to start playing the game at level 3.

Think of it instead like this:

Everyone is expected to start playing the game at level 1.

When you're an old hat at D&D and you don't want the "zero" part of zero-to-hero gameplay, you can opt into starting at a higher level.

Just so happens a lot of folks inclined to talk about the game on a message board about the game and who check updates on a website about the game are mostly old hat at this thing. So typically, we would start at level 3.

But the game assumes you start from level 1, that you start as an apprentice, and that if you want to not do that, you can not do that easily.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

I like the elegance and simplicity of your solution, both from a game mechanics perspective (avoids 4e newbie issue of power paralysis, which 5e may have issues as written today) and from a narrative perspective ( its luck that propels the hero through the story initially ).

Indeed, it seems the approach many posters take with younger players anyway.

(As a side note, add something like 4e page 42 and those fate points become actions players try to do creatively)

 

[VinylTap]

Think of it instead like this:

Everyone is expected to start playing the game at level 1.

When you're an old hat at D&D and you don't want the "zero" part of zero-to-hero gameplay, you can opt into starting at a higher level.

Much like its been done for the last 40 years

I still don't think the first two levels are exclusive to "apprentice story telling", but the option is neat and does help frame things in a way so that those types are stories can be played. We still don't know how limited these class levels will be in regards to overall utility.

In PF I don't feel like the classes "kick in" properly until Level 4, so level 3 isn't much different from that (actually quite a bit better), and no one really complains about it in PF.

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton

I like the elegance and simplicity of your solution, both from a game mechanics perspective (avoids 4e newbie issue of power paralysis, which 5e may have issues as written today) and from a narrative perspective ( its luck that propels the hero through the story initially ).

Indeed, it seems the approach many posters take with younger players anyway.

Cool, thanks.

 

[Ratskinner]

This is actually something really odd I'm starting to notice with the DDN discussions; between "unrestricted multiclassing", "bounded accuracy" and "more 'realistic' healing" it sounds like what is being called for is for D&D to look less like it has character classes, less like it has levels and less like it uses hit points as "generic life points". If that is the desired aim, I'm wondering why D&D is a good system to start with at all???

heh....the only reason I still play it is that its what everyone is playing (counting PF as D&D). Its a lot easier to start or find a local PF or D&D (any edition) group than to start a FATE group. (At least for me.)

 

[Balesir]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

I like the elegance and simplicity of your solution, both from a game mechanics perspective (avoids 4e newbie issue of power paralysis, which 5e may have issues as written today) and from a narrative perspective ( its luck that propels the hero through the story initially ).

Indeed, it seems the approach many posters take with younger players anyway.

(As a side note, add something like 4e page 42 and those fate points become actions players try to do creatively)

I was thinking something similar - it sounds like it could work well:

- Start the characters at 0-th level with a few Fate points;

- Allow Fate points to be spent to make 'page 42'-type moves and similar cool "pull out the stops" actions - for your own character or for others;

- Each FP spent is swapped for one class ability, ideally appropriate to the way you used the Fate point;

- When all the FPs are gone, you are at 1st level (and are told that you can use 'page 42' style stunts without spending points, now).

Sounds to me like a great way to introduce beginners, could even be fun for seasoned players and introduces improvised moves right up front in the game - result! It could even be used to restrict a mix'n'match type multiclass system, if that's your bag - just gain and spend FPs to get class abilities of your new class, one per level.

 

[DMZ2112]

This is actually something really odd I'm starting to notice with the DDN discussions; between "unrestricted multiclassing", "bounded accuracy" and "more 'realistic' healing" it sounds like what is being called for is for D&D to look less like it has character classes, less like it has levels and less like it uses hit points as "generic life points". If that is the desired aim, I'm wondering why D&D is a good system to start with at all???

heh....the only reason I still play it is that its what everyone is playing (counting PF as D&D). Its a lot easier to start or find a local PF or D&D (any edition) group than to start a FATE group. (At least for me.)

In a nutshell, I think this is why the D&DNext playtest is doomed. Wizards thinks they are receiving feedback from their users on what the users want to see in the next editon of D&D, and the users are providing feedback on what they want to see in a modern RPG.

These two things are very different and I'm not convinced they're at all compatible.

If Wizards had provided a solid ruleset, professionally designed and based firmly in the history of the D&D system, and then asked for feedback, I think this phenomenon would have been mitigated, but by basically throwing open the gates to the sandbox before they had the slightest idea what they were planning they've created a significant rift between the feedback they need and the feedback they are getting.

It doesn't bode well.

 

[VinylTap]

Ah, its good to know this thread has reached the point in the forum-cycle where detractors are suddenly hijacking the threading working on their own home-brews that will never see the light of day. The circle is complete.You'd think there was a different place in this forum for stuff like that...

Has anyone explained the concept of an 'echo chamber' to you people?

 

[Warbringer]

Has anyone explained the concept of an 'echo chamber' to you people?

The echo here is that the artifical precept of beginning at 3rd level, if you are not a beginner, is a poor solution. As this is a playtest the natural flow of the conversation is what then would be a better mechanic.

Not sure why this is considered thread crapping

 

[DMZ2112]

The echo here is that the artifical precept of beginning at 3rd level, if you are not a beginner, is a poor solution. As this is a playtest the natural flow of the conversation is what then would be a better mechanic.

Not sure why this is considered thread crapping

I think VinylTap doesn't understand, as I don't, the leap between "starting at 3rd level is confusing" and "fate points," especially when "start at 1st level instead" is still on the table as a perfectly valid choice.

I mean, this is /all/ academic. Even for a D&DNext playtest discussion, which is all essentially dust in the wind, this particular issue is not one. We haven't even seen what apprentice levels are going to look like yet. The current packet still uses the "old" system.