D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?

[Elf Witch]

I agree. The system should reward 'stop and smell the roses' play with triple XP rewards.

It would certainly reward that style of play.

Rushed play receives half XP. That's how Gary did it (Gary Johnson).

The problem with this is that the stop and smelling the roses style play is leveling very quickly and that can lead to the game getting to high levels and the DM saying enough,

The other is just making the other style more miserable more impatient and telling them how dare you play in badwronghun style.

 

[Celebrim]

If I want to be a weapons master, as an easy example, why not follow the same arc? Half way through the campaign, I'm the weapons master and now there's a whole lot more story.

I'm still not certain what a 'weapons master' is, but it's now probably halfway through the story and I have a 6th level fighter PC in my group who I would consider a 'weapons master'. Certainly he has the 'weapons mastery' feat. Certainly he is from the perspective of the campaign, a one man (well, one hobgoblin) army, capable of defeating in need probably 2 dozen or more foes in single battle. NPCs hold him in awe and terror.

Using Elf Witch's Necromancer example - it's not unreasonable to think that "Necromancer" begins when you can animate dead. There might be other starting points, but, that's a pretty big one. For a wizard, that's seventh level. If Elf Witch was in Celebrim's campaign, she had to wait three years to reach that point. That's a pretty long wait to achieve the character you want to play.

Who says? Animate Dead is only 4th level because it has a permanent effect. In my game, even a 0th level apprentice can reanimate wasps and rats for a short period using 'Least Animation'. At first level, you can cast Undead Minions to start animating animals for short durations. It's quite possible to build a character that takes control over lesser undead like skeletons and zombies and orders them around as minion beginning around 2nd level, even if you can't permanently animate them yourself - essentially turning the skeletons and zombies you typically find in dungeons at that level into resources. Third level brings you a 2nd level spell slot and 'Ambulatory Dead', which is an animate dead spell with a duration of concentration.

I honestly don't know whether 3.5 brought low level undead animation/control options to Wizards, but considering the obviousness of doing that I'd be surprised if it hadn't done so somewhere in its vast array of (generally low quality) splatbooks if you went looking.

One of the reasons I was asking, "What does being a Necromancer mean to you?", is I'm honestly curious about what I'd need to do to provide for the feel of being a Necromancer to someone who was apparently hard to please beginning at as early of point as possible. I'm trying to finish my version of the Player's Handbook in a definitive way, and improved support for Necromancers, Psychics, and Illusionist concepts is high on the 'to do' list.

And, Forever Slayer, you've still failed to prove that levelling is significantly faster in later editions. That's a very contentious point. Like I said, I've always seen play at about 4-6 sessions (and 3-5 hour sessions by and large) since the early 80's and we always advanced at about the same rate.

It's hard to do a direct comparison for several reasons. One of them is that 1e was non-linear. Each additional level required as much XP as all the levels before it, and after name level additional levels involved hundreds of thousands of XP while monsters themselves generally capped out at a few hundred XP each. As I recall from 1e, leveling started out reasonably fast and then generally ground to a halt at 10th level. I happen to know that in the longest running 1e campaign I was in, levels every 10th level were taking like 30-40 5 hour sessions each. And I think the only reason anyone was gaining levels even then was we were giving Battlesystem commander's shares of the mass combat XP.

Now, on the other hand if you played 1e adventure paths like GDQ, characters were power leveled through high levels by enormous piles of treasure far in excess of anything suggested by the rules anywhere else - either the MM or the DMG. I know. Because I've calculated average returns in treasure XP for monsters by the rules, and its nowhere enough to level up anyone to high level. For example, for Demogorgon the average expected treasure is: 2000 gp, 1750 pp, 10 gems, 3 jewelry, 2 potions, ~1 scroll, ~2 magic items (not potions or scrolls). Demogorgon is worth 74000 XP per the 1e DMG, so even if you are powering through the fiend lords, your party of 6-8 1e name level characters is going to need a lot more than 13 encounters to level.

As the thread you earlier linked to noted, Gygax had ran his table for 4 years of fervent play and no one had gotten above 14th level in that time. Then again, 14th level in Greyhawk was - aside from pet Gygax NPCs - quite fully puissant.

 

[Hussar]

But, essentially Celebrim, you are achieving the same thing as levelling faster by simply giving more stuff earlier. Instead of waiting X levels to get undead controlling and creating abilities, you give it earlier.

What's the difference? If I get all the same stuff at 6th level that I would normally get at, say, 9th level, and it takes the same amount of time to reach 6th in your game as it takes to reach 9th in mine, there is no difference.

You're not levelling faster, true, but, each level is much more powerful. In the end it's a wash.

As far as AD&D goes, it tends to be a level 1-10 game. After 10th level, your party is basically the Justice League anyway, capable of mopping the floor with any non-unique entity in the game. In relative terms, a 10th level AD&D party is the equivalent of a 20th level 3e party or a 30th level 4e party.

The primary difference here is granularity. One level in 4e is a heck of a lot less difference than 1 level in 3e which, in turn, was a heck of a lot less of a difference than in 2e or 1e.

In 1e, at 5th level, you are fighting orcs in the Slave Pits of the Undercity. At 10th level, you are fighting a demon queen of spiders in her home plane.

In 3e, at 5th level, you are fighting trolls. At 10th level, you are fighting giants. A trip to the Abyss would be certain death.

In 4e, at 5th level, you are fighting orcs. At 10th level, you are fighting trolls. A trip to the next city is still a very dangerous undertaking.

 

[Celebrim]

But, essentially Celebrim, you are achieving the same thing as levelling faster by simply giving more stuff earlier. Instead of waiting X levels to get undead controlling and creating abilities, you give it earlier.

No. I'm giving it at a lower more manageable power level.

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that Minor Creation is the same as Wish, or that Alter Self is the same as Shapechange. I'm not giving more power. I'm giving smaller pieces of power that have the same sort of color.

What I'm allowing the PC to be is someone who has the color of particular legendary heroic powers, without needing the more unlimited powers that come with higher level. There is in some sense a huge difference between a 3rd level wizard casting Alter Self (note I use a 3.0 version), and a 17th level wizard casting Shapechange. I think anyone familiar with the system can recognize some of the differences, and I think anyone that has DMed 3rd level PC's and 17th level PC's will note further differences. There is certainly differences in your capabilities as a character, not just in the differences in the spells but the implied differences of 17 HD versus 3 HD.

But at some level, I let characters play shapechanger. And if your concept is, "I want to play a shapechanger", isn't Alter Self as good as Shapechange?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that flavor is as important or more important than mechanics. Why doesn't 'Ray of Exhaustion' satisfy the desire to be a necromancer? Because it doesn't have any thrilling flavor to it, would be my answer, and not because of its weakness of mechanic. Now, if the power involved slinging tentacles of your own blood around your foes to choke them to death, it need not be excessively more powerful, but it would let the player feel like they were a real necromancer I think.

You're not levelling faster, true, but, each level is much more powerful. In the end it's a wash.

You cannot seriously believe that.

If anything, my characters are less powerful at a given level than 3.5 characters. Not only do they have lowered expected wealth by level, but spellcasters are considerably less powerful, prestige classes aren't available, and many of the potent sorts of things you could do in 3.5 on the optimization boards just aren't available. Heck, I've dropped Druid from the class list because among other things it was too powerful.

Quite honestly, I'm struggling to find a way to make the classic Necromancer of D&D fantasy playable as a PC concept because they are handicapped as a concept (to say nothing of mechanics) in so many ways. They have probably the most difficult, awkward, cumbersome, and consequence engendering material component in the game - a corpse. To the extent that the classic necromancer is tied to the idea of creating zombies and manipulating dead things, they are always going to be hampered. It's a concept suited for someone who sets up camp in a graveyard, but which is too circumstantial in utility outside of that.

 

[Elf Witch]

Who says? Animate Dead is only 4th level because it has a permanent effect. In my game, even a 0th level apprentice can reanimate wasps and rats for a short period using 'Least Animation'. At first level, you can cast Undead Minions to start animating animals for short durations. It's quite possible to build a character that takes control over lesser undead like skeletons and zombies and orders them around as minion beginning around 2nd level, even if you can't permanently animate them yourself - essentially turning the skeletons and zombies you typically find in dungeons at that level into resources. Third level brings you a 2nd level spell slot and 'Ambulatory Dead', which is an animate dead spell with a duration of concentration.

I honestly don't know whether 3.5 brought low level undead animation/control options to Wizards, but considering the obviousness of doing that I'd be surprised if it hadn't done so somewhere in its vast array of (generally low quality) splatbooks if you went looking.

One of the reasons I was asking, "What does being a Necromancer mean to you?", is I'm honestly curious about what I'd need to do to provide for the feel of being a Necromancer to someone who was apparently hard to please beginning at as early of point as possible. I'm trying to finish my version of the Player's Handbook in a definitive way, and improved support for Necromancers, Psychics, and Illusionist concepts is high on the 'to do' list.



.

When I hear the term necromancer I think someone who has power over the dead. Now I don't expect low level necromancers to control huge hoards of undead. I think it would be cool to animate temporarily wasps, rats like you suggested and build from there. I would also give them control undead based on level. Clerics at first level can do it why not necromancers. It would start weaker and build in strength. Maybe give them knowledge skills of healing or anatomy because of their studies. I think necromancers could make the equivalent of a fantasy coroner.

I have not looked at a lot of the splat books mainly because I have not had access to the bulk of my books in over a year. Though I did look at the dread necromancer class. It does some of this you can summon undead, you can bestow curses to heal yourself the goal is to eventually become a lich. It casts from a limited spell list like a sorcerer. But as it goes up in level its flavor becomes more and more evil. I don't believe all necromancers should have to be evil. I like the idea of a good necromancer who does not want to be a lich.

I also think that except for the blaster specialists most specialist wizards need work.

 

[Hussar]

No. I'm giving it at a lower more manageable power level.

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that Minor Creation is the same as Wish, or that Alter Self is the same as Shapechange. I'm not giving more power. I'm giving smaller pieces of power that have the same sort of colour.

But, you are now giving Minor Creation (or more specifically the ability to animate something dead) at a lower level. Which makes that lower level more powerful since it now has abilities that it lacked before.

What I'm allowing the PC to be is someone who has the color of particular legendary heroic powers, without needing the more unlimited powers that come with higher level. There is in some sense a huge difference between a 3rd level wizard casting Alter Self (note I use a 3.0 version), and a 17th level wizard casting Shapechange. I think anyone familiar with the system can recognize some of the differences, and I think anyone that has DMed 3rd level PC's and 17th level PC's will note further differences. There is certainly differences in your capabilities as a character, not just in the differences in the spells but the implied differences of 17 HD versus 3 HD.

But, that's not what you are talking about. You are effectively now giving Alter Self to a 1st level character. You are allowing a lower level character access to new powers which it didn't previously have. Granted, it's not as powerful as the full effect, but, it's still more powerful than not having the effect at all.

But at some level, I let characters play shapechanger. And if your concept is, "I want to play a shapechanger", isn't Alter Self as good as Shapechange?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that flavor is as important or more important than mechanics. Why doesn't 'Ray of Exhaustion' satisfy the desire to be a necromancer? Because it doesn't have any thrilling flavor to it, would be my answer, and not because of its weakness of mechanic. Now, if the power involved slinging tentacles of your own blood around your foes to choke them to death, it need not be excessively more powerful, but it would let the player feel like they were a real necromancer I think.



You cannot seriously believe that.

If anything, my characters are less powerful at a given level than 3.5 characters. Not only do they have lowered expected wealth by level, but spellcasters are considerably less powerful, prestige classes aren't available, and many of the potent sorts of things you could do in 3.5 on the optimization boards just aren't available. Heck, I've dropped Druid from the class list because among other things it was too powerful.

Quite honestly, I'm struggling to find a way to make the classic Necromancer of D&D fantasy playable as a PC concept because they are handicapped as a concept (to say nothing of mechanics) in so many ways. They have probably the most difficult, awkward, cumbersome, and consequence engendering material component in the game - a corpse. To the extent that the classic necromancer is tied to the idea of creating zombies and manipulating dead things, they are always going to be hampered. It's a concept suited for someone who sets up camp in a graveyard, but which is too circumstantial in utility outside of that.

[/quote]

Ok, see, now it goes into territory that we're no longer even talking about the same game. I don't play your game. Your game is great and all, but, playing guess the mechanics isn't much fun.

Of course prestige classes aren't available if it takes you THREE YEARS of play to get to 7th level. You can make them available if you want, no one is going to take them because it takes so long to get there. Of course none of the potent things you can do aren't available if you limit the game to single digit levels.

But, that's not the point.

Your sixth level character with the lesser necromantic powers is more of a necromancer than my sixth level core D&D necromancer which lacks virtually any necromantic powers. IOW, in a core D&D game, to get the same level of archetype, I need to get to 9th level. I can do it in your game at 6th. Granted the powers might not be exactly the same, but, they are close enough.

You've simply taken the more powerful powers, watered them down and then made them available earlier. Not a bad way of doing it. But, not terribly different than just letting the game rise in level faster. The end result is pretty much identical - you get to play your archetype after a reasonable amount of time. It takes your players the same amount of time to reach their archetype goals as my players.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

When I hear the term necromancer I think someone who has power over the dead. Now I don't expect low level necromancers to control huge hoards of undead. I think it would be cool to animate temporarily wasps, rats like you suggested and build from there. I would also give them control undead based on level. Clerics at first level can do it why not necromancers. It would start weaker and build in strength. Maybe give them knowledge skills of healing or anatomy because of their studies. I think necromancers could make the equivalent of a fantasy coroner.

I have not looked at a lot of the splat books mainly because I have not had access to the bulk of my books in over a year. Though I did look at the dread necromancer class. It does some of this you can summon undead, you can bestow curses to heal yourself the goal is to eventually become a lich. It casts from a limited spell list like a sorcerer. But as it goes up in level its flavor becomes more and more evil. I don't believe all necromancers should have to be evil. I like the idea of a good necromancer who does not want to be a lich.

I also think that except for the blaster specialists most specialist wizards need work.

I highly recommend you play a Pathfinder Necromancer because they receive Command Undead at 1st level.

 

[Lanefan]

When I hear the term necromancer I think someone who has power over the dead. Now I don't expect low level necromancers to control huge hoards of undead. I think it would be cool to animate temporarily wasps, rats like you suggested and build from there. I would also give them control undead based on level. Clerics at first level can do it why not necromancers. It would start weaker and build in strength. Maybe give them knowledge skills of healing or anatomy because of their studies. I think necromancers could make the equivalent of a fantasy coroner.

I designed a Necromancer class for 1e - sub-class of MU alongside Illusionist - and they get as a class ability "Control Undead", using the same table that Clerics use to turn the things; in other words, exactly what you suggest. They also get "Animate Dead" as a 2nd-level spell (assuming they can find it) but there's no lesser-animation to practice on rats. In fact, to animate a rat requires "Animate Dead Monster", a higher-level spell.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

Look, in a level based system, some things require you to be a certain level before you do them.

It's pretty hard to be a first level weapon master.

It's pretty hard to be head of a religious order at first level.

It's pretty hard to be king of a land at first level.

So, the higher the goal, the further off it's going to be.

I think that a level-based system can make the requirement of "minimum level" more or less demanding.

Of your examples, one is not really story-based, the other two are. Off the top of my head I can't think of a "head of a religious order" option in 4e, but by default that would be a paragon path. (Much as being a Knight Commander is a paragon path.) And being a Legendary Sovereign is an epic destiny. 4e doesn't accelerate access to these ways of being a character.

But the one that is more closely related to personal capabilities - being a weapon master - is more easily available at low levels, I think. If your 3rd level fighter has Footwork Lure, Passing Attack and Sweeping Blow (or Rain of Blows instead, depending on weapon), s/he is going to play like a weapon master, even if the fights are against goblins and orcs rather than trolls and giants.

I think this is part of what inspired 4e to do Neverwinter - that realised that the mechanics of Heroic tier can fully support the full sweep of story options, provided you reflavour your challenges appropriately. Approached this way, 4e would make it easy to play a 7th level warlord as a legendary sovereign - it's not like that character is going to feel deficient in play.

I have noticed that when I play Shadowrun or other non level type games this is not a problem mainly because you start with a more effective character and usually can play your character concept right away.

<snip>

I am not sure how to fix this as long as we have a game where your character improves through gaining levels.

One solution is for that improvement to be framed in story terms rather than "puissance" terms.

In 4e, for instance, 7th level PCs have 3 encounter powers; 9th level PCs also have 3 daily powers; and 10th level PCs have 3 utility powers. A 7th level 4e fighter can be played as a plausible weapons master, because s/he has access to Come and Get It, which is about the best martial control ability in the game.

Higher level abilities in 4e tend to amp up the gonzo, but apart from a few abilities - invisibility, flight, stun and dominate - they don't necessarily change the basic mechanical scope of play. The growth is more in breadth - more powers to choose from in a given situation - and in flavour - "Look, we're fighting Demogorgon!" - than in effectiveness relative to typical challenge.

I don't want to exaggerate - it's not Traveller. But I think it does a better job of letting you play the character that you want to play from the get-go, while making that work within a traditional D&D level-up framework.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Ok, see, now it goes into territory that we're no longer even talking about the same game. I don't play your game. Your game is great and all, but, playing guess the mechanics isn't much fun.

I knew this would happen as soon as you took it there:

If Elf Witch was in Celebrim's campaign,