D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[nevin]

What is the age penalty on wisdom for being a toddler/k-4?

I don't think 5e has age penalties/bonuses.

 

[nevin]

There's space, but is it worth it wasn't levels 1 and 2 aren't worth playing now?

I seem to recall WOTC stating on more than one occasion that most tables start at 3rd level and most never play past 12th.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think we are going to agree on this. There have been several attempts since 1st edition to make zero level starter adventure's where your choices determine your class at the end or other such things and none of them were ever popular.

The adventures themselves were't popular but IMO that's because those adventures also generally weren't any good.

The success of DCCRPG and its character funnel would beg to differ with your point about the popularity of 0-level, however.

The driving players off wouldn't be fixed by zero level rules. That's almost always a DM or a table mismatch problem. Very very seldom does it happen because the players are trying to figure out the rules. In my experience that's the one time players are willing to go "oops" roll back lets try again because at the very beginning they expect to screw up. For as long as i can remember the fix for giving players a place to screw up and not die has been start at level 3 and start out easy and ramp up.

A player who isn't willing to have their character(s) die now and then isn't the sort of player I want at my table, and that's a gate I'll happily keep.

 

[Lanefan]

There's space, but is it worth it wasn't levels 1 and 2 aren't worth playing now?

Yes. If nothing else, as part of a gradual and very-much-needed focus change away from playing MCU-like superheroes detached from the real world (much like the wizarding world is detached from the muggle world in HP) toward playing ordinary-people-with-extras, where even at mid-high level there's still some call-back to their pre-adventuring roots and characters can relate to the villagers they pass.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes. If nothing else, as part of a gradual and very-much-needed focus change away from playing MCU-like superheroes detached from the real world (much like the wizarding world is detached from the muggle world in HP) toward playing ordinary-people-with-extras, where even at mid-high level there's still some call-back to their pre-adventuring roots and characters can relate to the villagers they pass.

People don't want to play that.

Making rules for it isn't going to make people want to play that.

 

[Minigiant]

And to @Minigiant 's point: yes low levels are lethal. So what?

It shouldn' be the default playstyle if any player is new or don't want a starting hard mode.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

More an example of low wisdom coupled with blind luck, I think.

In fairness, I don't think children typically have positive Wisdom modifiers. Not to humblebrag, but even though adults often told me I was very mature for my age, I still did a host of incredibly unwise things as a child and pre-teen. One of them could have actually killed my sister, but thankfully that didn't happen.

There's space, but is it worth it wasn't levels 1 and 2 aren't worth playing now?

Well, if I'm being full honest, I would set level 1 at or perhaps slightly below where 4e put it in terms of competence (e.g. maybe you don't pick a daily power at first level or have very slightly lower HP), and then develop the "zero-level" rules based around that. In the ideal case, there would even be recommendations for where to start to get certain kinds of feels. So, for example:

Start at Novice Level with no incremental advancements to have a significant fight for survival from the very beginning. This is good for players who enjoyed the difficulty of D&D's earliest editions, and the recommended setting for "funnel"-type adventures. Even small risks could kill a character.

Start at Novice Level with two incremental advancements to have a character that is less likely to die randomly, but still fragile. This will give an experience like some of the adaptations from early D&D editions, such as maximized HP at first level. You're still green, but you have a decent shot at surviving it.

Start at Novice Level with four incremental advancements to have a character that is still starting out, but not quite fragile (similar to 5e). You are not fully an adventurer--not yet--but you aren't a neophyte either. You still have a chance of instant death, but it is unlikely now, unless you take risks.

Start at 1st level--intended to be equivalent to a Novice Level character with ten incremental advancements--if you would like to play a competent starting adventurer. You are no longer green, you have seen a little bit of what the world can throw at you, and unless you act foolishly, death is unlikely to claim you.

Note that you do not have to become a 1st level character when you reach ten incremental advances. You can, if you choose, continue to work with Novice Level rules until it makes sense to advance to 1st level. This can be a pure formality, or becoming a proper Adventurer can be a rite of passage, or whatever makes sense for your game.

I've probably phrased this badly because it sounds like players selecting things, when this is more for GMs. But hopefully the gist is not ruined by the slightly off presentation.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd add 3 more levels to the Apprentice tier

1. Fighting Style <=== OS level 1
2. Second Wind
3. Action Surge <=== 5e Level 1
4. Warrior Ideal
5. Combat Focus <=== 4e Level 1
6. Subclass <=== 5e level 3
7. Feat
8. Extra Attack
9. Feat, Indomitable
10. Subclass
11. Extra Attack 2

 

[Swarmkeeper]

There is if the DM says there is. For example:

Player: "I am trying to pick up on subtle signs that indicate / tell me something about the situation I am in."
DM: "Ok, give me a DC 15 Wisdom(Insight) check. If you succeed, I'll tell you what you pick up on. If you fail, the NPC is going to find your observation unnerving and clam up."

Great idea. Not in the rules though, so those beholden to WotC won't be able to do that without player complaint.

Which part do you feel is "not in the rules"?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, if I'm being full honest, I would set level 1 at or perhaps slightly below where 4e put it in terms of competence (e.g. maybe you don't pick a daily power at first level or have very slightly lower HP)

No daily powers?

Hot Dog!