D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 01/24/2014

[Giltonio_Santos]

It's not about this or that class feature. In fact, I enjoy the idea of apprentice levels a lot, and I want it to apply to all classes. If clerics, sorcerers and warlocks have their defining features at 1st level, while a ranger will have to wait for his favored enemy and a paladin will take some time to choose his oath, then we'll have to agree that the concept of apprentice levels only apply to some of them.

By the current setup, a group of players who want to start as apprentices cannot define what would be the perfect level for their campaign to start at. A level 2 fighter is still an apprentice, but the mage has already chosen his tradition. At level 1 they're both apprentices (and it's kind of weird that, contrary to previous incarnations of the game, the mage actually has access to his goodies earlier than the fighter - I know that means nothing, but I think it's funny nonetheless), but their cleric fellow is not.

Now, make all characters apprentices at the first two levels of the game and now groups can simply choose if they want to start as complete characters of level 3 or apprentices of level 1.

"But the story I envisioned for my character calls for a fully competent cleric!" Cool, convince the others to start at level 3 or save that one for another day, today your creative exercise is to come up with the story of a young adult who just happened to understand that if you speak faithfully to the gods, maybe they'll answer your prayers.

I must confess I don't see the point in this whole "I want to start as a fully competent level 1 character" thing. Your character level is just a number in your character sheet, and by the rules of DnD Next, if you want to start fully competent, what you really want is to play a level 3 character.

Unless, by the current setup, you want to play a cleric...

Cheers,

 

[Marshall]

If having any patterns at all matter that much... at this point the easiest thing to do is to use 1st level for all spellcasting primary classes (cleric, druid, wizard, warlock, sorcerer), and 3rd level for all weapon-using (fighter, barbarian, rogue, monk) and spellcasting secondary classes (like the paladin, ranger, and bard). You then still have a "pattern" per se... it's just not one that needs to run across the entire game.

Oh yes, absolutely. The best way to show the masses that you've smashed the concept of caster supremacy is to make sure that casters are at 100% at level 1 and that all the martial classes dont come online until level 3....

As has been said before, there is NO narrative argument that can be made that 'apprentice' level spellcasters need to get their sub-class(and face it, thats what were talking about) but that martial classes do not.

Does the "peasant hero" fighter lose Heavy Armor Prof at level 3?

Simply give the spellcasters generic spellcasting until they firm up their connections to whatever power source they are using at level.

Or, preferably, ditch the idiotic 3e multi-classing and build classes from level 1.

 

[Rhenny]

At 1st level, Fighter gains Second Wind, and at 2nd level Fighter gains Action Surge.

At 1st level, Cleric chooses a domain, can cast a few cantrips, and gains access two 2 additional spells (although he can only cast 2 1st level spells per day), and at 2nd level, the cleric gains channel divinity 1/rest.

At 1st level, a Mage can cast 2 spells per day (in addition to cantrips), at 2nd level the Mage chooses a specialty and adds a few spells to his spellbook and can cast 3 spells per long rest. He also gains a specialty power.

Basically each class gets 1 feature per level (for the first 2 levels). The casters gain casting...the fighter gains 2nd wind. The casters gain either channel divinity or a specialty power...the fighter gains action surge.

As long as it is close to balance in the power department, it makes no difference when the spellcasters have to declare their domain/specialty commitment.

Just because a cleric has decided to follow the path of light or war, doesn't mean he's not a neophyte. Just because a wizard has made a choice to become an evoker doesn't mean he's not a novice.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't care when classes get abilities, as much as I care about discouraging frequent level-dipping. If they can deal with that issue, then I am good with however they deal with the rest.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's not about this or that class feature. In fact, I enjoy the idea of apprentice levels a lot, and I want it to apply to all classes. If clerics, sorcerers and warlocks have their defining features at 1st level, while a ranger will have to wait for his favored enemy and a paladin will take some time to choose his oath, then we'll have to agree that the concept of apprentice levels only apply to some of them.

Indeed... personally I don't like 1st-level PC to have too much stuff, there is still 19 levels to get a lot of powers, I really prefer a game where you start with a low-profile and become a hero by doing. If I want to start as a hero, I start the game a few levels later. If I want to start as a superhero, I start the game at level 10 or similar. But if level 1 is heroic already, less than that is not really possible, at least not without heavy houseruling.

But anyway, I don't think we actually asked WotC for this explicit "apprentice levels" concept. They brought it up themselves. Which is why it feels a bit dumb now to get some characters specializing/subclassing at 3rd level i.e. emphasizing level 3 as a point of change/specialization, while for others it really feels like there is only 1 apprentice level, and others they are never apprentices at all.

What I mean to say is that, at this point I don't care much, because if 1/3 of classes get their subclass at level 1, then another 1/3 get it at level 2, and the other 1/3 get it at level 3, then the level of subclass choice is just a class feature (while if there was just one class getting it at 1st, then it would just feel like an unfair exception). No big deal then, but the whole concept of "apprentice levels" is just gone, and they should quit talking about it.

 

[Rhenny]

Interestingly, I don't think WoTC is going to actually label the first 2 levels "Apprentice Levels." It will just be implied. It is really just a way to make it clear that beginning adventurers are still learning the basic tricks of their trade. That seems necessary to satisfy "Zero to Hero" gaming style.

 

[Lokiare]

1. [summary: Some things can't be forced into the structure we chose] Yeah, we thought you learned that from 4E. Maybe not though. Instead you should avoid using those structures and come up with alternatives like templated characters where new players or those that want simple characters can slap the template onto a race and a package of gear and go play. Throw in a rule about optionally adding Constitution score to your hit points at first level (for monsters too) and you end up pleasing everyone (1E,2E, 3.5E, 4E).

2. [summary: We won't add character defining points, except sometimes we will] Sure, which is what you should have done with #1.

3. [summary: Rules question] So uh, when 5E comes out and its totally different, what is the point of answering rules questions here?

Overall the more I read the less I want to do with 5E...

 

[Lokiare]

I don't buy the idea that some classes must get their path at level 1, but not others. They mention things like a cleric's armor proficiencies as a reason why they have to get their domain at 1st level, but why wouldn't that also be the case for subclasses of other classes that might have different proficiencies than others of their class? I can imagine subclasses like war wizards that have better weapon or armor proficiencies than most wizards, or swashbuckler fighters that don't have proficiency in heavy armor, for example. They may not be planning on any such subclasses right now, but that design space should still be possible in the future, and they should plan accordingly.

I agree for the most part. This falls under inflexible design that should be avoided.

As for action surge, this mechanic is terribly broken as written, and gives fighters ridiculous burst damage potential. I'd prefer for action surge to only give one extra attack. They could always give fighters more action surges between rests to compensate.

How else are they going to keep up with caster's throwing around 2-3 big spells per encounter (fireball, burning hands, stinking cloud, then magic missile the rest of the time)?

They are trying to balance the Fighters against the god-wizard's of editions before 4E...

 

[Lokiare]

I never look over at the person sitting next to me with envy because his totally different class than mine received some cool ability at a specific level. I'm not worried about what the other person gets, if I was then I would be playing that class instead of a different one. If it makes sense for my class to obtain a certain ability at such and such level then I find that more appealing.

I've had players that have rage quit because of things like this. One of them rage quit because he couldn't reach the nearest enemy before another character had defeated it in the first round.

At mid to high levels in editions before 4E casters could end an encounter with a spell or two before the melee classes could even close to attack range. This is the problem because while some are completely altruistic like yourself, others come to the game and want to have as much fun as the other players, and we can't really fault them for that. 5E is making the same mistakes instead of trying to solve them in a different way than 4E did...

 

[Lokiare]

It's not about this or that class feature. In fact, I enjoy the idea of apprentice levels a lot, and I want it to apply to all classes. If clerics, sorcerers and warlocks have their defining features at 1st level, while a ranger will have to wait for his favored enemy and a paladin will take some time to choose his oath, then we'll have to agree that the concept of apprentice levels only apply to some of them.

By the current setup, a group of players who want to start as apprentices cannot define what would be the perfect level for their campaign to start at. A level 2 fighter is still an apprentice, but the mage has already chosen his tradition. At level 1 they're both apprentices (and it's kind of weird that, contrary to previous incarnations of the game, the mage actually has access to his goodies earlier than the fighter - I know that means nothing, but I think it's funny nonetheless), but their cleric fellow is not.

Now, make all characters apprentices at the first two levels of the game and now groups can simply choose if they want to start as complete characters of level 3 or apprentices of level 1.

"But the story I envisioned for my character calls for a fully competent cleric!" Cool, convince the others to start at level 3 or save that one for another day, today your creative exercise is to come up with the story of a young adult who just happened to understand that if you speak faithfully to the gods, maybe they'll answer your prayers.

I must confess I don't see the point in this whole "I want to start as a fully competent level 1 character" thing. Your character level is just a number in your character sheet, and by the rules of DnD Next, if you want to start fully competent, what you really want is to play a level 3 character.

Unless, by the current setup, you want to play a cleric...

Cheers,

Unless of course we want to play an RPG where you advance levels and gain abilities as your character progresses and don't like losing 13 levels (4E goes from 1-30, -10, -3). Then apprentice levels are like a second slap in the face (the first being losing 10 levels)...