D&D 5E (2014) L&L 1/13/14: Low-Level Characters in D&D Next

[dd.stevenson]

Check it out here.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

So we have an iterative approach to character creation, which leads to a first level character who's called third level?

I assume in this thread we'll see the following complaints:

1. Argh, one level per session? It's a computer game!
2. But third level characters are much too poweful!
3. But I can't play a beginning evoker specialist with two spells per day!

By the way, it's interesting that Mike Mearls makes no mention of rules modules, differences between the basic and the standard game, and so on.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I assume in this thread we'll see the following complaints:

1. Argh, one level per session? It's a computer game!
2. But third level characters are much too poweful!
3. But I can't play a beginning evoker specialist with two spells per day!

Oh, and:

• I don't want to wait 'till 3rd level to be a hero! Why can't the game work from level 1! Who plays D&D if they don't want to be heroic anyway?

For me, this works pretty well. Allowing anyone to take any skill is solid (assuming skills are better designed than 3e and 4e skills), and I'm fond of the ability to start at low level and introduce campaign elements in play, rather than in background material.

 

[delericho]

To me it sounds quite a lot like something Monte said about complexity, that I disagreed with at the time and disagree with now.

His argument, as I recall it, was:

- New players will probably start at 1st level, and should have the easiest-possible entry route to the game. (I agree with this.)

- As they play, their PC will gain levels. Meanwhile, they will both become ready for more complexity, and will probably find it desirable. (I agree with this also.)

- Therefore, complexity should rise with level.

I disagreed with this conclusion, on two counts.

The first was to do with higher-level PCs. The problem is that each player will almost certainly reach a point where they say "that's complex enough; no more, please". This point will differ from one player to another, but each player will probably have a maximum threshold. But if complexity just keeps rising with level, this means the game will reach a point where, as a "reward" for continued play, the player finds his favourite PC is no longer fun. Which obviously isn't good.

The second count, and the one that's more relevant here, concerned what happened in the second campaign, when experienced players start again at low-level (and probably 1st level at that, since that's still where most campaigns start). Such a player won't want their character to just be "Dwarf Fighter", but will want the game to give them more options.

Now, the solution of "start at 3rd" is okay, as far as it goes, but it doesn't help the mixed group where the experienced player and the newbie are together - they probably want the same level, but different complexity.

I believe the better solution, and one place where modularity gives clear benefits, would be to present the classes in their simplest form in the Basic Game (and maybe the PHB). Then, in later spatbooks and/or an Advanced Players Guide, present the classes in a much more flexible manner, showing all the building blocks and allowing any and all of them to be switched out - perhaps even to the extent of offering a point-buy option at the top end.

That way, you can cater for everyone - the new player gets the simplest possible 1st level. The player who wants complexity to plateau can probably arrange that. And the guy who wants all the bells and whistles can choose that option as well.

 

[Dausuul]

Not much new here, but the details are appreciated. Personally, I suspect I'll be starting all my campaigns at 3rd level or higher. My group only meets once every three weeks or so (that's the problem with being grown-ups, people have kids and demanding jobs and stuff), so two sessions of being lowbies is too much for us. I don't have a problem with that, though; we've almost always started off at higher levels anyway.

 

[Sage Genesis]

The idea that 1st level characters are uncomplicated and can be quickly made by new players kind of falls apart when you look at spellcasters. A Mage gets three cantrips and four 1st level spells. If you want to make an informed selection rather than just picking randomly, you'll need to read them first. That's (currently) 33 spells to read. The goal sounds good, but the actual execution seems lacking.

The same goes for skills. It is true that more skills gives more opportunity to influence the game. So opening up choice sounds good... but the Rogue still has way more skills than the Fighter, which doesn't sit well with the initial starting point. I understand that you can justify the Rogue's skills with some appeal to tradition, but then you shouldn't also claim that your design is influenced by the idea that more skills leads to more influence on the game. (Unless you explicitly want the Fighter to have less influence I suppose.)

I've said it many times before (though not often on ENworld I think), but DDN's development really smacks of "feels right, thinks wrong" to me. That is to say, I can agree with all of their goals and hopes and dreams... but then when it comes to achieving those they do something entirely different. Sifting through 30+ spells will not result in a newbie creating a Mage or Cleric character in 30 minutes or less. It just self-evidently doesn't. Either change the goal (Mages get tons of spells because that's very D&D and we like that) or change the approach (you only get to pick a few spells out of a far smaller list at 1st level and then rapidly gain more at 2nd and 3rd, then back to the slower rate).

 

[Halivar]

This is not so unusual. In 3E my group frequently started at 4th level for new campaigns, with the expectation of a backstory for how you got there.

 

[delericho]

The idea that 1st level characters are uncomplicated and can be quickly made by new players kind of falls apart when you look at spellcasters. A Mage gets three cantrips and four 1st level spells. If you want to make an informed selection rather than just picking randomly, you'll need to read them first. That's (currently) 33 spells to read.

This is a good point, but one that's quite easily fixed - they should offer one or more fixed packages of spells for the new player to choose from. So, if they're a fire-based Wizard they should choose the fire package, for an enchanter choose the appropriate package, and so on. That way, it's reduced down to a single choice between a handful of easily-understood options.

(And, for the more advanced player, of course, they can just offer a free choice of the 33 spells.)

 

[Sage Genesis]

This is a good point, but one that's quite easily fixed - they should offer one or more fixed packages of spells for the new player to choose from. So, if they're a fire-based Wizard they should choose the fire package, for an enchanter choose the appropriate package, and so on. That way, it's reduced down to a single choice between a handful of easily-understood options.

(And, for the more advanced player, of course, they can just offer a free choice of the 33 spells.)

Oh absolutely, there's ways to fix it. I just wonder why they say "it'll be quick guys!" and tell us about some methods to make it quicker... but leave out mentioning methods like the one you talked about. Could be just shoddy communication, or it could be that they're not doing something like that. As always, time will tell.

 

[billd91]

The second count, and the one that's more relevant here, concerned what happened in the second campaign, when experienced players start again at low-level (and probably 1st level at that, since that's still where most campaigns start). Such a player won't want their character to just be "Dwarf Fighter", but will want the game to give them more options.

Now, the solution of "start at 3rd" is okay, as far as it goes, but it doesn't help the mixed group where the experienced player and the newbie are together - they probably want the same level, but different complexity.

I don't think there's ever really a way around the issue of mixing experienced and advanced players together. In order to keep the new players in the game, you need to minimize certain complexities that more experienced players may want. And I don't think putting each player on different levels of complexity really helps. The new player just gets confused by all of the more complex things his fellow players are doing compared to what he's doing and that's not going to help him build a consistent mental model of how the game works. Putting the experienced players through the 2-level boot camp for the benefit of the new players should be a burden they can bear easily. At least Next is making it short.