That is nice but what about a first level character who gets caught in an AOE spell or a dragons breath, etc at 1st level when the other characters are a much higher level.
That's the most likely scenario for a low level guy mixing with high level guys dying too easily, sure. And it's not hard to avoid.
After all, it's not like I have
decades of experience running a game this way or anything.
It's not the +4 to hit difference.
It's the +4 to hit difference, the +3 to AC difference, the +4 to save difference, the 150 hit point difference, the 21 spells 12 of which are really worthwhile versus 3 spells all 3 of which are basically worthless difference, it's the versatile vs. the restricted.
New first level PC: "I cast my Sleep spell and get 23 hit points with it."
DM laughing: "Bwa ha ha. Your puny spell doesn't affect the monster's 187 hit points."
I guess you have missed or ignored my repeatedly pointing out that low-level monsters still work against high-level opponents in 5e. Every time you (or anyone else) posits that the low-level guys will be useless, there seems to be an assumption that every enemy faced will be aimed at the highest-level guy in the party. That's not necessarily true, though the party could certainly choose to face only opponents powerful enough to wipe out the lower-level guys. I don't anticipate that, but it could happen, and then the pcs will face the consequences of that choice. More likely, a mixed-level group will seek out challenges that won't include an obvious, enough-damage-to-auto-kill breath weapon using/spellcasting/whatever enemy. I suspect that, when the group includes low-level pcs, they'll seek low-level challenges in higher numbers.
And suddenly that
sleep spell is actually pretty decent again.
You won't get people agreeing with you if your point is that the low level guy doesn't suck as much as he would have in 3E.
That isn't my point, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, to be honest. I am celebrating the fact that 5e re-enables a playstyle that both 3e and 4e disabled.
He still sucks and big time. The low level PC has no real chance of significantly contributing to a party in combat, regardless of level. Your point is totally moot.
Decades of experience has shown me that this is utterly untrue. Low-level characters can and have contributed meaningfully to a party in combat. Will the high-level guy be the team's MVP much of the time in combat? Sure. Will he necessarily be the MVP every time? No. And there's plenty of non-combat in the game (at least in my game) anyhow.
Nobody really wants to play Nodwick to everyone else's Conan and Gandalf.
Well, that's a completely separate issue, but it's also untrue. Some people do like playing Nodwick. Heck, in one game I was in, one player ran a flock of seagulls (not the band) with no special abilities or powers- because it was fun for her. Not everyone has the same wants in a group.
You want to treat people that way, go for it. I've been on the receiving end of that in the past (in GURPS, not D&D) and it totally sucked. Never going back there and never going to treat other players with a taste of that. Why would a DM want to treat his players this way?
And here we go back to the incorrect assumption that it's punitive and so on.
I've explained why I like ES@1st upthread. I get that it's not everyone's playstyle, and there is nothing wrong with not using it. But there's also nothing wrong with using it. "Why would a DM want to treat his players this way?" sounds like it's an abusive, mean-spirited thing. It isn't. It is just a playstyle that you don't enjoy. And that's okay- you don't have to play at a table that uses it.
It just doesn't make sense to stick to a 35 year old outdated gaming convention that actually segregates players into haves and have nots. PCs that are capable vs. PCs that are cannon fodder. A DM treating people this way is just so illogical that I can barely get my mind around it. Why would your players put up with this crap? Probably because of like when I joined the GURP game, a) I didn't know ahead of time that I was going to be the party henchmen, and b) once in the situation, it was the only game in town at the time, so my only chance to play.
And yes, the severity of this is less in 5E than 3E, but it's still a crappy thing to do to people.
You're getting pretty close to personal insults here. How about, "Wow, it's not for me, and I certainly don't get it, and I certainly wouldn't want to play that way myself, but have fun!" instead of what amounts to "You must be a real jerk of a DM and I bet if your players could find another game, they would!"
Nothing wrong with a PC starting one or two levels back to get more time to learn abilities and to earn his spurs. Nothing wrong with him not starting with magic items. Eventually they will catch up (unless maybe starting at level 18). But first level is just a terrible idea (unless the PCs are in the level 2 to 4 range). It has always been a terrible idea and no amount of "it's not as bad as 3E" justification makes it a better idea. It just means that the person making that justification is grasping at straws to support an unsupportable POV.
Right, because you certainly play the One True Way of D&D.
Oh wait,
there is no One True Way, and my players stick to my game because they enjoy it, and your preferences are not absolute, objective truth. Maybe you could stop pushing your playstyle preference at me so aggressively, either by accepting that it's just as valid as yours or by bowing out of the thread if you have nothing constructive or new to add. At this point, you're kind of just repeating the same lines over and over again, you appear to be ignoring the meat of what I've posted about how it actually works, and you're getting to the point of tossing insults.
As always, play how you like- but don't expect everyone to play the same way as you. We don't all want to do it your way. Just because someone likes a different playstyle doesn't make it, or them, wrong or inferior.
