D&D 5E Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"

[LongTimeLurker]

Last night a player commented: "Levels 1-4 are just training wheels. The game doesn't even start until 5th level. Unless you're playing D&D for the first time, you should just start at 5th level."

Now, she hasn't been playing for ages - probably just around 5 years. I would expect it to take longer than that to become that jaded to low-level play.

Do you agree? If not, how do you address this? Start at 5th level? Speed through Levels 1-4? House rules to give more power or better options?

coming from 1E then 3/3.5, this whole ecition feels like training wheels.

 

[Retreater]

My experience with 5e in higher levels is that monsters don't level with attack bonuses like the heroes do (so they don't hit as regularly), and the monsters' damage doesn't scale with the increase in character HP or their ability to heal damage.
At low levels 5e is boring for some players. At high levels it's difficult for a DM to challenge them.
I don't think it's the perfectly designed system many players do. It's almost ... flawed?

 

[TheSword]

Honestly, I don't agree with your list, even from a predominantly combat-oriented game, except maybe the first one. What I think a DM needs is an understanding of the mechanics of high magic (teleportation, resurrection, protections, attacks, etc.) so that he can create appropriate challenges and not be surprised by what his players pull off. Once he has that, he can apply that knowledge to combat or intrigue, but for me it's the real differentiator, because some things that you take for granted in the real world just don't work like that in the high magic world of high level D&D.

Disagreement is only natural. I think your points do actually fall within my three categories though.

The mechanics of high level magic would fall under PCs understanding their capabilities. Along with their risks and opportunities. So point two.

Teleportation is a good example of something that becomes far more practical and usable in a well detailed campaign world. (Point 3) If Players have spent a bit of time in Waterdeep and understand the vibe of the place and the kinds of resources there (even if it was with different PCs). It makes it a lot easier when they then teleport there. Contrast that with the high level Pcs deciding in an instant to teleport to Waterdeep and your campaign has never been there, you have no prepared materials and no idea what to throw at them when they get there.

I don’t think the actual mechanics of the high level abilities are anywhere near as hard to adjudicate as the ramifications of using those abilities… What happens when the teleport spell goes off target, what happens when that exploding bag of holding sucks them into the astral sea, what happens when they true resurrect the founder of the temple. This stuff is much easier (and more satisfying) when the world is more detailed and PCs understand what they are capable of at high level. Combat is actually the easiest bit to run at high level… it’s just turning dials. The rest is much harder.

 

[Lyxen]

My experience with 5e in higher levels is that monsters don't level with attack bonuses like the heroes do (so they don't hit as regularly), and the monsters' damage doesn't scale with the increase in character HP or their ability to heal damage.
At low levels 5e is boring for some players. At high levels it's difficult for a DM to challenge them.
I don't think it's the perfectly designed system many players do. It's almost ... flawed?

And my experience, after several extremely enjoyable campaigns including up to level 20 is that there is no problem for a DM to create interesting encounters at any level, because attack bonuses and scaling are not the most important things. So maybe the game is actually quite fine if not perfect, and it's just your reasoning that makes no sense and is flawed ?

 

[Lyxen]

Disagreement is only natural. I think your points do actually fall within my three categories though.

The mechanics of high level magic would fall under PCs understanding their capabilities. Along with their risks and opportunities. So point two.

Not really, since my advice was for the DM, not the players. Or maybe you included the DM in the players (which is certainly one way to describe him) ?

Teleportation is a good example of something that becomes far more practical and usable in a well detailed campaign world. (Point 3) If Players have spent a bit of time in Waterdeep and understand the vibe of the place and the kinds of resources there (even if it was with different PCs). It makes it a lot easier when they then teleport there. Contrast that with the high level Pcs deciding in an instant to teleport to Waterdeep and your campaign has never been there, you have no prepared materials and no idea what to throw at them when they get there.

My point about teleportation is that it really changes what people think about what is possible and is not possible. And I do not only mean the teleport spell, but even dimension door completely changes how onw should design a fortress or protect something or someone.

I don’t think the actual mechanics of the high level abilities are anywhere near as hard to adjudicate as the ramifications of using those abilities…

I'm sorry, I did not make it clear, but it's exactly what I was thinking, the implications for the world and the adventures.

What happens when the teleport spell goes off target, what happens when that exploding bag of holding sucks them into the astral sea, what happens when they true resurrect the founder of the temple. This stuff is much easier (and more satisfying) when the world is more detailed and PCs understand what they are capable of at high level. Combat is actually the easiest bit to run at high level… it’s just turning dials. The rest is much harder.

It's one way to look at it but I agree, it's not the powers themselves, for me, it's what they mean in terms of adventures building and world design.

 

[payn]

I know for some people, development is only represented by leveling up. Of course people have different expectations and experiences, I enjoy games where I feel like my PC is making a difference because of what they do, whether it's making the neighborhood safer or stopping an invasion.

This is such an important distinction to make. It's also why I prefer milestone leveling. Playing the game is its own reward, not just collecting XP and leveling up. Being part of the story is very appealing.

 

[payn]

My experience with 5e in higher levels is that monsters don't level with attack bonuses like the heroes do (so they don't hit as regularly), and the monsters' damage doesn't scale with the increase in character HP or their ability to heal damage.
At low levels 5e is boring for some players. At high levels it's difficult for a DM to challenge them.
I don't think it's the perfectly designed system many players do. It's almost ... flawed?

Im not super experienced in 5E, but my gut tells me this is more about a GM knowing how to use the system optimally. 3E/PF1 is very swingy and the CR is more of a guideline. The bonus is that fights can be variable, and thus always interesting. The downside, is that it leaves pitfalls for inexperienced (with the system) GMs. If you want tighter math and encounters where you know exactly what to expect, something like 4E or particularly PF2 is much better suited.

 

[Lyxen]

This is such an important distinction to make. It's also why I prefer milestone leveling. Playing the game is its own reward, not just collecting XP and leveling up. Being part of the story is very appealing.

I can't properly express how much I support this take. We don't even use milestones at our tables, we just level when we (collectively, although of course the DM can veto mostly for story reasons, i.e. not wanting more powerful abilities to derail the plot) want to, either because it makes sense in terms of story or when the players feel that they have explored their current possibilities and want to try out a few newer and powerful ones.

 

[Retreater]

And my experience, after several extremely enjoyable campaigns including up to level 20 is that there is no problem for a DM to create interesting encounters at any level, because attack bonuses and scaling are not the most important things. So maybe the game is actually quite fine if not perfect, and it's just your reasoning that makes no sense and is flawed ?

So you're saying there's no problem with the system because a good DM would just change the system until it works. Which means the system is flawed, and only through trial and error and the expense of the fun of the table (by running too easy/boring encounters, too difficult/deadly encounters that could end the campaign) can a DM hope to have a working game system.
Or do you mean that the system isn't important, because the only part of the game that matters is adding role-playing and character voices to make "interesting encounters?"

 

[Lyxen]

Im not super experienced in 5E, but my gut tells me this is more about a GM knowing how to use the system optimally. 3E/PF1 is very swingy and the CR is more of a guideline. The bonus is that fights can be variable, and thus always interesting. The downside, is that it leaves pitfalls for inexperienced (with the system) GMs. If you want tighter math and encounters where you know exactly what to expect, something like 4E or particularly PF2 is much better suited.

Exactly. 3e/PF1 is still a bit more precise than 5e (in particular due to the monster design being more precise, which in turn leads to CR being more precise and encounter calculation follows), but way under PF2, and then there is 4e which has been designed from the ground up so that encounter can be as precise as can be in a roleplaying game. It has other implications/ drawbacks, but they got that part of the system really good.