D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Minigiant]

Really, yes you can. If you are a PC. If you are not a PC you can never be a fighter, no matter how hard you train.

No. That's not true. A NPC can get all the features of a class and count as one. But an actual PC starts as a highly trained individual*.

That's one big reason old school fans dislike 4e and 5e. There is no zero in the class system of 5e. It's a major change in 5e.

A first level character can be a veteran soldier of any number wars. It's a background.

The background says you are member of the military organization. In fact, it says you trained.

A 1st level member of a PC class is a highly trained individual.

You're not Dick Grayson as Nightwing** That's a hero.
You're not Dick Grayson as Dick Grayson of the Flying Graysons. That's a zero.
You're not Dick Grayson as Batman. That's a superhero.
You're Dick Grayson as Robin. That's a hero in training. Highly skilled but you can't take any of the Rogue's gallery on your own.

*except warlock if your patron is a jerk
**his first stint as Nightwing

 

[Vaalingrade]

All this plus the whole 'levels 1 and 2 are things you need to speedrun because level 3 is where you actually get the class features you signed up for' deal would be solved if WotC had just provided optional level 0 rules so the people who want them can have them without taking away 10% of the game from those who don't.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I don't think so. What makes it a game is that your actions have an effect on how successful you are and the eventual outcome (whether or not you achieve your goals). Buttons are just fancy choices you can make.

A choose-your-own-adventure book isn't considered an RPG but in it your actions have an input on your success or failure.

RPG generally have to have some framework of rules for how things in the world interact.

Buttons are ways the rules give players some agency to interact with the world in a known way with a defined result. In Basic DnD there is no button the Fighter has that is unique to the class (until I believe the companion set gave them a few things to play with?)

 

[Minigiant]

All this plus the whole 'levels 1 and 2 are things you need to speedrun because level 3 is where you actually get the class features you signed up for' deal would be solved if WotC had just provided optional level 0 rules so the people who want them can have them without taking away 10% of the game from those who don't.

Well you'd still have weak level 1 and 2 because of multiclassing.

But sidekick classes work as level 0.
All you need is NPC classes (commoner, aristocrat, merchant, smith) for level -1.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think maybe the prevalence of a somewhat more narrative focus has led to character survivability. In campaigns that are character driven, what happens when the character dies? It's not just a simple matter of replacing that Fighter with a Rogue but it's figuring out how this new character fits into the plot which can be a little complicated. I've had some campaigns come to an end (not D&D) when too many characters died. This was because both the DM and the players had a lot invested in those characters and investing in new characters would be a chore.

Sounds to me like an epic campaign that can now be part of the history of the group's campaign setting. It becomes lore for the NPCs (Ah, yes, the fateful Blue Company, the struggled mightily to do right, but in the end they fell to a coven of mind flayers) while becoming fodder for the inside jokes and stories the players tell each other around the table (Don't be like Golf and cast fireball in the tavern!).

 

[Cruentus]

And buried in there is the seed of why I will never play a fighter in older editions...the idea that I can potentially be playing the same character for a year or longer and in that time what I can do to engage with the game is exactly the same as what I could do on the first day.

There is a lot of negative attitude towards "buttons" in this (and many) discussions, but the "buttons" are what makes this a role-playing GAME and not just a role-playing ACTIVITY.

I don't see it that way. What exactly is limiting your engagement as a Fighter in an older edition? The lack of "game-given" buttons to push? Action Surge? Second Wind? One pip better on criticals?

My Basic Fighter has zero "skills" on my sheet, and zero bonuses to anything. Yet he is still a fighter, has decent hit points for the party (5!), and engages in fights when he has to, not all willy nilly. But he will get in front of the caster (actually an elf, so a "capable" fighter on his own.)

But what buttons can I push other than attack? Hmm. I can tell the DM that I'm going to look around for tracks to follow. I can search for secret doors and traps the same as everyone else. I purposely put my "better" (in this case an 11 or 12) stat in CHA so I can get a few more hirelings/henchmen if need be, and have them be more loyal. And guess what, other "buttons" like talking to people, social stuff, keys off CHA, so my "Fighter" can act as a Ranger, a Face, whatever I want, BECAUSE I'm not tied to the buttons on my character sheet.

You only are really limited to what you can do to engage based on how you approach the game, and how your DM runs it.

I don't think I define Game the way you do. To me, a board game (start, play, end state and goals) are a game, ie. competitive. Role playing for me is not a "game" in the same way, though we are "playing" together mostly to build a story and enjoy the growth of (at least for me) my character, but not just on stats and raw power.

Heck, I'm playing a 5e Fighter and NOT pushing any of the character sheet buttons unless I really need to. Most of my activity has been (with a Noble background) going around and trying to assist villagers with various problems (bandits, cultists, etc.), and when I succeed, often with the help of those same villagers, I split the treasure with them, donate to them from my personal money, and return items stolen from them. None of that has anything to do with the "buttons" on my sheet, or being a fighter. Its trying to build my character in a Role, and build the story and background of the village and NPCs I interact with.

 

[LordEntrails]

You can't just pick up a sword and be a fighter in 5e.

Actually you can. It's the basis for many campaigns that start with the PCs being villagers and the village getting attacked.

But regardless, you are all getting back to the "This is my experience/opinion/reality, so it must be that way for everyone" BS. Give it a break folks, realize that D&D is amorphous and different for each of us.

 

[Minigiant]

Actually you can. It's the basis for many campaigns that start with the PCs being villagers and the village getting attacked.

But regardless, you are all getting back to the "This is my experience/opinion/reality, so it must be that way for everyone" BS. Give it a break folks, realize that D&D is amorphous and different for each of us.

You can do whatever you want at your table.

However the 5th edition PC classes' in design in mechanics and lore use a basis of having actual training. The first level of every class were designed to represent trained individuals.

If you take a village and give them PC classes without training then complain that they are too strong, that's why. The 5th edition classes were not designed to replicated untrained green novices. This is a change from 0e, 1e and 2e.

 

[MGibster]

That's one big reason old school fans dislike 4e and 5e. There is no zero in the class system of 5e. It's a major change in 5e.

I will humbly submit that there is still a zero in 5th edition. Most of the players look at the world through the eyes of a PC. Level 1 to 20 is zero to hero. The fact that the scale has changed since first edition doesn't change the zero to hero dynamic much.

 

[Yaarel]

Re level 1:

In the PH, Tiers of Play, the "apprentice" tier of levels 1 to 4 feels like college students, approximately age 20.

On the one hand, they are fresh "learning the features that define them as members of particular classes". In other words they are on their way to becoming a lifelong professional in a chosen career but are not there yet.

On the other hand, they already have skills from a background experience ... which feels equivalent to highschool training. Perhaps they went to a prestigious military academy, or went with their parent to train in the town militia. It is even possible they were a Soldier, who was forced to fight at a young age of a teen, even before reaching level 1.

It is even possible, that this Soldier background represents a "life" of fighting in war, while somehow remaining a level 0 Fighter. Heh, but this narrative feels awkward mechanically. Likely, the soldier is still a "youth", but has fought during much of that youth.

In any case, level 1 represents not yet professionals who nevertheless have meaningful training. Something like accomplished highschool entering college.