D&D 5E How long are you willing to wait for a build to "turn on?"

[Stoutstien]

Im a DM 99.99999% of the time. I don't have the luxury to wait for stuff to start working the few times I get out from behind the screen.

 

[ad_hoc]

"Builds" aren't much in 5e compared to 3e and 4e but my big gripe with class design is that most games don't go past level 10 and yet you have to wait until 3rd level to start getting a trickle of unique stuff. 3rd level feels late for the Eldritch Knight to start getting a drip of magic, and so on. I hope 5.5e makes a course correction and lets everyone start playing their assassin or rune knight or berserker or whatever, right at level 1.

Many people start at 3rd level.
Looking at the experience charts levels 1 and 2 are designed to go by very quickly.

1/2 a day for level 1 and 1 day for level 2.

Just long enough to know what it was like to be starting out but not long enough to linger.

 

[NaturalZero]

Many people start at 3rd level.
Looking at the experience charts levels 1 and 2 are designed to go by very quickly.

1/2 a day for level 1 and 1 day for level 2.

Just long enough to know what it was like to be starting out but not long enough to linger.

I realize that but imagine a game where 1 and 2 were "real" levels that you got to fully enjoy as part of the average 1-10 game instead of being skipped over?

 

[bloodtide]

Well, I'm not a "build" person, but I say: right away at 1st level.

I really don't like the odd idea in more core D&D that you have to play a normal bland character for 5, 7, or 10 levels before it becomes the character you want.

Sure abilities should scale with levels, but they should be more spread out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

"Builds" aren't much in 5e compared to 3e and 4e but my big gripe with class design is that most games don't go past level 10 and yet you have to wait until 3rd level to start getting a trickle of unique stuff. 3rd level feels late for the Eldritch Knight to start getting a drip of magic, and so on. I hope 5.5e makes a course correction and lets everyone start playing their assassin or rune knight or berserker or whatever, right at level 1.

I really disagree with this. I've started my last three campaigns at level zero with PCs developing their class near the end of each session partly due to the presence of new players, and the classes feel very different from each other. I understand the case for the subclasses coming in consistently at level 2 - but developing your subclass at level 3 for more differentiation earned in play and as a response to how you play rather than the character you had in your head before you started playing feels good to me.

And from a class design perspective my big gripe is how bland the levels after 11 are.

 

[d24454_modern]

Certainly not. Most PrCs (in 3e, anyway) had extensive and complex prerequisites, which made it difficult or even nigh-impossible to qualify unless you actively prepared, e.g. taking specific narrow skills like Profession (Calligraphy), having a certain number of spells from a certain school, or having a sequence of feats.


I fear I don't understand what you're saying here.

It’s natural that more complicated backstories and classes would have more prerequisites.

I remember that someone pointed out that Amiri, Pathfinder’s iconic Barbarian, should’ve been Level 6+ based on her backstory of killing a Frost Giant.

I think my main issue is that people want these classes and archetypes at as low a level as possible even when it doesn’t really make sense to.

A level 1 character is weak and not very savvy about anything. Why would they ten pages of abilities and stories about how awesome they are?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, I'm not a "build" person, but I say: right away at 1st level.

I really don't like the odd idea in more core D&D that you have to play a normal bland character for 5, 7, or 10 levels before it becomes the character you want.

Sure abilities should scale with levels, but they should be more spread out.

Meanwhile I think that builds were significantly over-emphasised in 3.X and in 4e - but I'll take the scylla of builds over the charybdis of setting almost your entire character's mechanical development at level 1 when you choose a class (and possibly a subclass) and as they set out at level 1 so shall they be for ever more, with numbers and abilities ticking up but only in ways that could have been predicted half a lifetime ago.

If I had my choice I think I'd hand out a new subclass half way through every tier (so at levels 3, 8, 13, and 17 or so). A big meaningful choice you can make that fundamentally affects who you are and how you approach the world from then on.

 

[d24454_modern]

I realize that but imagine a game where 1 and 2 were "real" levels that you got to fully enjoy as part of the average 1-10 game instead of being skipped over?

Level 1 characters are noobs and therefore should be played as such.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I realize that but imagine a game where 1 and 2 were "real" levels that you got to fully enjoy as part of the average 1-10 game instead of being skipped over?

Then you'd have people arguing for level zero or even negative level games to get that zero-to-hero feel that a significant minority do, if fact, want.

 

[payn]

I realize that but imagine a game where 1 and 2 were "real" levels that you got to fully enjoy as part of the average 1-10 game instead of being skipped over?

Slide the average level 1-10 game to level 3-12?