D&D 5E (2014) D&D Next Q&A: Caster Level, Multiclassing & The Apprentice Tier

[Blackwarder]

It's Here!

The last one really made me bump my head repeatedly to a wall, especially because of the folks who complained that having an apprentice Tier will shoerten their play length, it's really that simple.

Warder

 

[LightPhoenix]

You've misunderstood the complaint about Apprentice Tier; it was never about amount of time played. The actual complaint is that (if implemented) we'd be getting 17 levels of content versus 20, since most veteran players will be starting at level 3 (Mike's words from his column).

On that note, I want to point out that Rodney's second answer essentially confirms my explanation on that thread. I'll stop short of quoting myself so as to avoid a gigantic egotistical trip. It has nothing to do with mechanics or style and everything to do with attracting new players.

Regarding cantrip damage... I thought there was a whole push to get rid of caster level due to these issues like these. Either tie it directly to level or tie it to spellcasting bonus and be done with it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The actual complaint is that (if implemented) we'd be getting 17 levels of content versus 20, since most veteran players will be starting at level 3 (Mike's words from his column).

Since most tables don't actually get to see 20 levels of content anyway (and veteran tables typically have more content than they can use even in 20 levels), methinks that complaint might ring a little hollow.

I think easing new folks into the game is one of the best reasons for it (and one of the reasons it can't be a "zero level optional rule" or anything like that), though I like it for a pretty big range of reasons.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yeah, most people don't make it to 20, and by the time you're up there, "more levels worth of content" isn't really the important thing.

And since the definition of "default" is "the way it's written before you mess with it," then it makes perfect sense that the option for beginners is the default option.

Also: Some experienced players like simplicity and low-level adventures too. It's not just for beginners.

 

[Li Shenron]

Since most tables don't actually get to see 20 levels of content anyway...

This.

Apart from the fact that it is 2 levels of "missing content" and not 3, we have a lot of people already complaining about "dead levels": pushing features from level 1 upward both reduces the front-loading of the class and helps filling up those dead levels, rather than having to fill them with "+2 to tying your shoes" garbage.

 

[Danzauker]

Perhaps I think that the "disconnection" that many people have with "why do I have to start at level 3??!!?" could be fixed simply by starting again the level numbering at each tier.

So you'd have:

Apprentice 1, Apprentice 2 (who knows, maybe Apprentice 3...)

Then you make the grade and start again as an Adventurer

Adventurer 1, Adventurer 2, up to Adventurer 17 or 20 or whatever.

This I think can also solve a little problem that may seem insignificant, but actually I don't think it is.

When they sell adventure modules, putting on the cover "for level 1-3" has a big different psychological impact than writing "for level 3-6". The former instantly marks the adventure ad introductory, does not turn away novice player to the 5ED game.

Mind, not novice players to roleplaying games in general, that's what Apprentice tier adventures, if any, should be targeted. I'm talking about Adventurer tier adventure modules, which should be the bulk of the published modules.

 

[Bluenose]

This.

Apart from the fact that it is 2 levels of "missing content" and not 3, we have a lot of people already complaining about "dead levels": pushing features from level 1 upward both reduces the front-loading of the class and helps filling up those dead levels, rather than having to fill them with "+2 to tying your shoes" garbage.

How do you reduce the front-loading of a Rogue? What are they expected to do on an adventure? Do they not learn to pick locks until 3rd level, perhaps? Or sneak around, or spot things, or deal with traps, or the other things in the set of Rogue skills? If they can't do those things, do they feel like a rogue?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Regarding cantrip damage... I thought there was a whole push to get rid of caster level due to these issues like these. Either tie it directly to level or tie it to spellcasting bonus and be done with it.

They did a good job getting rid of caster level in all of the other spells, since the level of the spell now determines all the variable factors. The trouble is that they want cantrips to be useful at every level. I would suggest maybe keying them off of the relevant ability score, but the bonus barely changes. I would agree on spellcasting bonus, but since only spellcasters get to increase that you're still being cruel to multiclassers.

How about, at key levels, you get to pick a new spell to master as if it was a cantrip? Top level Ray of Frost does 5d8. So.. let's say you get to master a 1st level spell as a cantrip at levels 5 and 8, a 2nd level spell at levels 11 and 14 and a 3rd level spell at levels 17 and 20? Like, um, Signature Spell was it from 3e? I'm sure we can adjust spell progression in a way that makes all this feasable.

 

[Li Shenron]

How do you reduce the front-loading of a Rogue? What are they expected to do on an adventure? Do they not learn to pick locks until 3rd level, perhaps? Or sneak around, or spot things, or deal with traps, or the other things in the set of Rogue skills? If they can't do those things, do they feel like a rogue?

Uhm, in the current packet the Rogue seems to me actually one of the easiest to reduce front-loading...

At first level a Rogue gets:

- two extra skills
- three extra feats
- two mastery skills
- one special scheme feature
- sneak attack
- thieves' tools prof

Leave the tools prof, the bonus skills, the bonus feats which grant even more skills (tho I think these are a design mistake, but that's another matter) and the master skills, and it's a Rogue with more skills than everyone and better than anyone at them.

You can OTOH easily delay the rest of the feats (once again a mistake IMO, there should be no bonus feats at all), the sneak attack and the unique special feature to 2nd and 3rd level.

Optionally you could also grant only one mastery skill at 1st, or half/reduce the 1d6 bonus until 2nd or 3rd (anyway in previous editions Rogues didn't have huge chances of success at skills OR they weren't better at them compared to others).

 

[Falling Icicle]

I can't believe they're even considering bringing back "caster level." One of the things that I have been praising 5e for is not having caster level. Why should a high elf of one class get more benefit from his cantrip racial feature than a high elf of another class? Cantrips scale because if they didn't they'd be useless at higher levels. Why is it okay to them for those spells to become useless for some characters? Why wouldn't a rogue be able to spend just as much time practicing the one cantrip he knows as a wizard who needs to practice dozens of spells? If they bring back caster level, that could be a deal-breaker for me.