Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
That seems silly to me, like they want illusionism but also want to know that's what it is. If you want six levels of play, why go to 20?
D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
What @Minigiant said. Apparently leveling and advancing are huge deals to a lot of people. So, my guess is that having more levels to work through (assuming something impactful came with each level) might be useful. Did Pathfinder 1e have an alternate advancement scheme where each level was divided up in a few pieces so you would get things part way through a level?
For me, it's not wanting six levels of play, it's wanting the big heroes in the world to be the ones with 3rd level spells (for e6, 4th for e8, 5th for e10), and the same for the other classes (the Conan-esque top tier fighter is what is currently listed for the 6th, 8th, or 10th level fighter).
And it's wanting it to take as long as it takes to get to 20th level now... not to be shorter and just take as long as it takes to get to the 6/8/10th.
And I think lots of people would still like to get some sort of power,-up every x sessions like they do now (even if it is smaller) instead of just every 2x or 3x sessions.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Honestly, about the "likes low level play", I'm reminded of a guy I used to play D&D with, Tom. One day, he got to talking about the game he wanted to run, and it sounded really cool; there was this island with ruins and monsters, the players would have to hire a ship to get there and back, there were no services there other than what you brought with you, so there was always this risk that if you didn't snag enough treasure, you wouldn't be able to afford another expedition. Thus we had to be careful with our money.
But we started off with quite a bit for whatever reason, so I suggested we pool our resources to buy a lot of equipment, and good armor for the fighter and cleric, and Tom was like "wait, you shouldn't do that."
"Why is that?", we asked.
"Well, you need to afford training or you won't be able to level." He then showed us his training cost rules, and they didn't start off bad, but after level 5, they spiked.
So we played for a bit, and it was fun, but even though we were able to do more on later expeditions, the treasure to xp (this was a 2e game) started getting very skewed. As in, we quickly ended up with characters who had the xp to level up, but we couldn't afford it.
I brought my concerns to Tom, and this is what he said, pretty much verbatim:
"That's why I like training so much. It keeps you from being able to level up past the point where the game is fun."
In light of this revelation, us players got together at Steak & Shake one night to discuss the game. We decided to pool our gold to put the Wizard through training, as we felt he needed more hit points (and his 4th level spells would be a great thing to have).
A session or two later, we announced the Wizard was level 7, Tom cried foul, we showed him how we'd divided the wealth, and he actually sulked, saying "we didn't get how to play D&D the right way".
And then he said he had to put in more hours at work, and we never got back to that campaign.
But we started off with quite a bit for whatever reason, so I suggested we pool our resources to buy a lot of equipment, and good armor for the fighter and cleric, and Tom was like "wait, you shouldn't do that."
"Why is that?", we asked.
"Well, you need to afford training or you won't be able to level." He then showed us his training cost rules, and they didn't start off bad, but after level 5, they spiked.
So we played for a bit, and it was fun, but even though we were able to do more on later expeditions, the treasure to xp (this was a 2e game) started getting very skewed. As in, we quickly ended up with characters who had the xp to level up, but we couldn't afford it.
I brought my concerns to Tom, and this is what he said, pretty much verbatim:
"That's why I like training so much. It keeps you from being able to level up past the point where the game is fun."
In light of this revelation, us players got together at Steak & Shake one night to discuss the game. We decided to pool our gold to put the Wizard through training, as we felt he needed more hit points (and his 4th level spells would be a great thing to have).
A session or two later, we announced the Wizard was level 7, Tom cried foul, we showed him how we'd divided the wealth, and he actually sulked, saying "we didn't get how to play D&D the right way".
And then he said he had to put in more hours at work, and we never got back to that campaign.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Well I'd guess that Hasbro has something to say about that- maybe a game where you are pushed towards playing morally questionable jerks will cause bad pr or lose money in their opinion.
Not that it matters much, most of the characters I've seen in D&D for a long time are morally questionable jerks, regardless of what the books imply.
@Micah Sweet This feels like an example of where being able to keep leveling matters.
Because leveling up is fun.
But high level is not the same as low level.
A large portion of the community want high level low power D&D.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Why couldn't you just require more xp to level? That DM clearly didn't want 4th level spells in their game. Ideally, they should have just said so.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I can accept that's true, but I absolutely don't understand it.
Low level play, mid level play, and high level play are different styles of play.
Some people like Low level play and want to do low level play style from level 1 to level 20 for the whole campaign. That's 1e.
Some people like Mid level play and want to do mid level play style from level 1 to level 20 for the whole campaign. That's 4e.
Some people like high level play and want to do high level play style from level 1 to level 20 for the whole campaign. That's err..err Exalted or something
Similar Threads
