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

[Scruffy nerf herder]

That's why I stated it was independent of DM.

The jump from level 4 to level 5 makes you feel more powerful, gives you scope, and allows you to make active pressure on the world.
It does it whether the DM is Alice, Bob, Charlie, Darla, or Edi.

And individul DM can make it happen earlier at levels 1-4. But they can't really prevent hat feeling by level 5 without running an adventure that would be killing them well before.

Lol but everything is dependent on the GM. If any person in general who likes playing D&D considers it, they shouldn't have to choose a poorly run game. They can run the game themselves and wait to meet other GMs who make the game whatever they (importantly) and their players will enjoy.

 

[Lyxen]

There's two places where adventurers would logically tend to gather:
1 - Wth a few exceptions (Rangers being the most obvious) each class tends to congregate somewhere: Monks at monasteries, Clerics and Paladins at temples, Bards at colleges, Mages and Rogues at guilds suitable to their subclass, and warrior-types at mercenaries' halls or arenas.

The thing is that you assume that because these places exist, all the NPCs gathering there are adventurers with levels. But (and see the discussion in the other thread), it does not have to be the case, I have many troubadours and trouveres congregating with bards, many fighters and gladiators without class level (and unable to progress much or indeed at all) in arenas, the same with mercenaries, etc. All of these are unlikely to have magical items or the fund to buy them, and even less to have them for sale.

When was the last time your party encountered real other adventurers ? For me, it happens now and then in some campaigns, but there are not that many over the world. Look at the FR, there are a few adventuring companies which are well known over the whole continent, they don't meet very often and I've never seen magic item shopping in any of the novels. Buying a few potions and consumable yes, no worries, but no real magic item shopping.

2 - the legendary "taverns" where parties meet and form and then head out into the field.

And we don't use that trope, since it's been way too overused, for one, and we favour building the party on stronger links than this, again for story purpose. So we don't have those.

Moreover, these would be really low level adventurers, and unlikely to have magic items, funds, or even less something to sell.

And it's not like whatever level of whatever class of adventurer is going to be available and-or willing to join you: the results are always random. But it is more likely that places like this - particularly the (trusted) temples and mages' guilds - will end up acting as clearing-houses for magic items that their members don't need but don't have the time to spend on selling them.

And how would these places have the means to defend their vault ? Who would they employ to prevent adventurers to raid their stores ? Or even nastier people actually...

Thieves' and Assassins' guilds, and Bard colleges, have been in place since at least 1e. Temples and monasteries pre-date that. Mages' and mercenaries' guilds might have appeared somewhere but even fi not they're a logical thing for a setting to have.

See above.

Then who makes the magic items? Also, isn't Artificer a class in 5e?

For us, that class is very setting specific and we don't like it despite WotC trying to explain that they have been in all worlds all along, we do know the truth from previous publications, these abominations have thankfully not spread beyond Eberron (and maybe Krynn with the Tinker gnomes but noone sane goes there these days anyway)

As for magic items, since they are quite resistant, they come from previous civilisations, or were created by powerful casters for themselves and their minions, and they have since passed away, the usual explanations.

I guess one thing I'd better clarify is that I'm not at all advocating for "magic shops" where you walk in and there's a rack of +1 weapons on one wall and a shelf of potions on another. I'm not a fan of that.

Cool. I suspect that, as usual, we are closer than our internet position comfortably allow us to state while arguing.

I'm not against magic items trade, actually, but I'm certainly against magic items shops, for two reasons:

• In game, as explained, I don't see how it would function and how it would be defended.
• Out of game, I don't want players to optimise their items for their build. 5e has thankfully gotten rid of the mandatory magic items of 3e and 4e just to get bonuses because they were not able to balance the game otherwise, so I can give fun items with a history and interesting powers, it's not for players to powergame, and come and buy exactly the right items to widen the power gap.

What I am advocating for is the logical and predictable outcome of a setting where adventurers are fairly regularly acquiring, disposing of, and in some cases building magic items: there's gonna be trade in them. Much of that trade will be between private individuals; some will involve a third party as a go-between, brokerage, or clearing house; and some will involve larger entities e.g. a trade between two guilds. Rarely, a high-end pawnshop might wind up with a magic item. Perhaps the only case where there'd be a bunch of stuff for sale all at once would be the estate sale of a rich ex-adventurer who had just died of old age.

And that I completely agree with, to a certain extent. In our settings, adventurers are not that common, and they have a tendency to die (except the PCs, of course, who are slightly less likely), which means that, in the general population of adventurers, they will be mostly low level, so without or with few items, and therefore unlikely to sell them.

Of course, if you have a world where there are tons of adventurers, including many high level ones, it's a different story, but then I'm not sure how the setting works with these powerful "free electrons" all over the place. Note that it looks impossible to run, but the world's organisation should take that into account, it's not even the case in the FR where most of the powerful bands actually settle (and it's the way I tend to run things again, I've been raised on BECMI and adventurers having dominions after a while, etc.).

When a party gets to town in my game, ask for a shopping list, and I run my randomized spreadsheet and tell them what happens to be available right now, those items aren't all being sold at the same place! The list is simply what the PCs can find out about fairly easily via inquiring at the most common places - temples, mage guilds, local adventuring contacts, and so on - but if there's fifteen things on the list they're probably being sold at twelve different places by as many different people or guilds.

I can go with that, it's just that for me it requires a really large city, you won't find it in the provinces. Waterdeep, Greyhawk, Sharn, that kind of city. That being said, I love city adventures and I am happy with that kind of process, and actually it's the one 5e suggests.

But all of that also means that it's not easy to get a reliable estimate for an item, since there are no lists to compare things to. Moreover, as mentioned above, I tend to give really singular items with complex powers, not ones out of the books (or after careful selection), and very " plusses" items, so how does one assess this ?

Some people just like making stuff.

Exactly, but they will make their stuff, with specificities, not always what some PCs want, and the price tag will refer their own costs, etc.

I think I see what you're getting at. I guess I'm less willing to sacrifice realism on the altar of fun, in that I expect the treasure in an adventure (along with everything else in the adventure!) to be exactly the same regardless of what we happen to take in there as PCs; and if we take an all-mage party into an adventure where 90+% of the treasure consists of enchanted heavy armour and big weapons then so be it - we pulled the short straw this time, and it's up to us to find a way to turn it all into coinage or things we can use once back in town.

And I understand the way you are running things as well, we did it for a long time in particular under 3e, but the thing is that most of our players realised that they don't like this that much. It's a lot of bookkeeping, counting, etc. and they do enough of that in their job if not in their day-to-day life. So for me it's not a question or realism, these things exist and we assume the characters take care of it, they are simply under the radar and assumed to be done in the background, so that we can concentrate on what makes it fun for us.

But if your players prefer managing that and enjoy the details of the computation and the lists of things, good for them, have fun !

5e has training-to-level as an optional, I believe. I don't recall if 4e had any provision for training; if it didn't it's the only edition thus far to not even have it as an option.

Not sure I saw it, but I believe you, no worries, it's just that once more we assume that training is done in the background and we move on directly to exciting adventures.

 

[Minigiant]

This does point at a corollary topic, I suppose: is it a good idea that the jump between 4 and 5 is so much greater than the jump between any other two levels nearby (e.g. 3-4, or 6-7)? Or would a smoother progression where the jump between any two levels represents a more similar increase in power/ability be more desirable?

In other words, does making the concept of "tiers" more obvious accomplish anything? Are tiers even necessary? Discuss.

Unless we are adding half spell leves and 2/1 round attacks, there is no way to avoid drastic jumps of power.

Same with tier. Is there a way to even stay Tier 1 for 20 levels?

 

[Minigiant]

Lol but everything is dependent on the GM. If any person in general who likes playing D&D considers it, they shouldn't have to choose a poorly run game. They can run the game themselves and wait to meet other GMs who make the game whatever they (importantly) and their players will enjoy.

Nope. Everything is not dependent on the DM. That's the point.

If I'm playing a fighter, I get extra attacks on 5,11,&,17. The DM can only make a major change like that by getting Player Permission. Such a change is so major and tied to the game base that a DM can't alter if without major Player Buyin.

 

[Lyxen]

Unless we are adding half spell leves and 2/1 round attacks, there is no way to avoid drastic jumps of power.

While it's true that level 5 brings 2 attacks to melee and lvl 3 spells, this is for a number of classes and not all, and other archetypes have major boosts at other levels, the best known one being moon druid at level 2. And that is without considering multiclassing and other shenanigans like a feat at level 4, etc.

Does this mean that we have to ascribe terms to ranges which heavily depend on the character choice, but which even more depend on what the DM does in terms of adversaries and situations ? Especially derogatory terms. coined by people who fancy themselves better players because they play more technically at higher level ?

This is what we are denying here, both the existence of absolute ranges, and the fact that some ranges are somehow superior to others.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Nope. Everything is not dependent on the DM. That's the point.

If I'm playing a fighter, I get extra attacks on 5,11,&,17. The DM can only make a major change like that by getting Player Permission. Such a change is so major and tied to the game base that a DM can't alter if without major Player Buyin.

The DM determines the math. The AC, DC, bonuses to hit, HP, you name it. Yes there are abilities that are beyond your control, but the sheer level of control you have to even fine tune it all on the fly by just monkeying with what you have available to you, is enough for you to achieve whatever degree of difficulty, tension, etc. you want.

The fighter isn't somehow inherently a problem at lvl 5 as if he's significantly changed the balance for himself. Hell I can give a monster 20 more HP if I want it's all the same.

 

[Lyxen]

Nope. Everything is not dependent on the DM. That's the point.

Actually it is. Just read the rules. It always amazes me that some people can quote part of the rules to the letter and completely ignore the other rules, much more important ones, which decree how the game is run.

If I'm playing a fighter, I get extra attacks on 5,11,&,17. The DM can only make a major change like that by getting Player Permission.

Where does this come from ? Did you read the rules ? Did you read things like : "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions." If a DM states that a fighter does not have extra-attacks at these level, that's it, it does not. There is no such thing as "player permission". Please explain where this is stated anywhere.

Such a change is so major and tied to the game base that a DM can't alter if without major Player Buyin.

That is another matter entirely. First, the rules are clear and so is the intent. After that, it's possibly a matter of table rules, more likely a question of a DM usually wanting to please his players. But in terms of "rights", written, supported by the rules, there is no such thing as "player buyin".

And in particular if the DM creates an adventure that alters the characters, maybe temporarily, or maybe replacing things by others, he has every right to do so. Hopefully, it will please the players, or the majority of them, but he does not need to get written permission from a player. The principle of the game, barring specific alteration through table rules and session 0 is that the DM runs the games, decides the rules, etc.

If a player, duly warned during play, and conscious of what he is doing, has his character jump in to a chaos cauldron which causes him to get one level of "chaotic monstrosity" instead of one level of fighter, he will not get an extra-attack at level 17. He might get an ability callaed shoggoth breath or whatever instead.

That being said, once more DMs usually try to please their players, if a player considers his extra-attack so important that he would throw away a great campaign for not having it, it's probable that the DM will allow it. But that does not mean that the DM will not compensate by having more dangerous melee adversaries anyway. You can't get around the DM, it's his role and his responsability.

 

[Minigiant]

While it's true that level 5 brings 2 attacks to melee and lvl 3 spells, this is for a number of classes and not all, and other archetypes have major boosts at other levels, the best known one being moon druid at level 2. And that is without considering multiclassing and other shenanigans like a feat at level 4, etc

The moon druid boost actually isn't big. The CR limits still keep it tameit until higher levels

And multiclass sucks low level because it delays the level 5 boost.

Does this mean that we have to ascribe terms to ranges which heavily depend on the character choice, but which even more depend on what the DM does in terms of adversaries and situations ? Especially derogatory terms. coined by people who fancy themselves better players because they play more technically at higher level

Training wheels being derogatory hinges on there being a positive term that phase of play.

Tiers are a part of level based games. There is no alternative without adding more levels.

 

[Minigiant]

The DM determines the math. The AC, DC, bonuses to hit, HP, you name it. Yes there are abilities that are beyond your control, but the sheer level of control you have to even fine tune it all on the fly by just monkeying with what you have available to you, is enough for you to achieve whatever degree of difficulty, tension, etc. you want.

The fighter isn't somehow inherently a problem at lvl 5 as if he's significantly changed the balance for himself. Hell I can give a monster 20 more HP if I want it's all the same.

If the DM changes all the core math, you are no longer playing that edition of that game.

THe DM can't say "We are playing 5E but using 3e rules". That would be playing 3e.

 

[Lyxen]

The fighter isn't somehow inherently a problem at lvl 5 as if he's significantly changed the balance for himself. Hell I can give a monster 20 more HP if I want it's all the same.

Exactly, this is why this view of "tiering" the game in terms of "training wheels" is absurd. The tiers in the DMG are just advice to the DM as to how a typical campaign might run, so that he sees potential connections between the abilities of the players and the influence that they can have on the world. But they are only guidelines which are actually not implemented in particular in published setting and adventures.

At each and every level it's up to the DM to provide appropriate situations and potentially challenges. If the character get a significant boost in power (which can happen at any level, for example through a powerful magic item), then the situations will be tailored to correspond.

And back to the OP, it's not only the "training wheel" which causes problems, it's the "The game doesn't even start until 5th level" which is annoying and derogatory.