D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Remathilis]

Because in WotC-D&D that level 1 PC left the station ages ago and is already a fair way along its journey.

If you want to play a fully-developed powerful character right out the gate (and can convince your group and-or DM) then start play at level 10.

I don't need to. A level 1 PC in 2e*, 3e, 4e, and 5e all allow me to pick my race, class, background/kit/theme, and alignment. I'm not tossing farmers at kobolds until one of them makes to first level fighter. I don't rely on random rolls to figure out what race or class I can be. I say "I'm going to play a human ranger/monster hunter" and pick the options that let me. I don't say "I'm going to randomly generate 10 commoners and the one who makes it past Tucker's Kobold's gets to become a 1st level thief".

* While 2e did still use AD&D 1e style generation as default, I don't know many DMs who didn't use some form of customizable ability score placement, max HP at level one, and a number of options like kits and NWP to flesh out your PC. By the end of 2e, creating a PC was far more common than rolling one up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't need to. A level 1 PC in 2e*, 3e, 4e, and 5e all allow me to pick my race, class, background/kit/theme, and alignment. I'm not tossing farmers at kobolds until one of them makes to first level fighter. I don't rely on random rolls to figure out what race or class I can be. I say "I'm going to play a human ranger/monster hunter" and pick the options that let me. I don't say "I'm going to randomly generate 10 commoners and the one who makes it past Tucker's Kobold's gets to become a 1st level thief".

* While 2e did still use AD&D 1e style generation as default, I don't know many DMs who didn't use some form of customizable ability score placement, max HP at level one, and a number of options like kits and NWP to flesh out your PC. By the end of 2e, creating a PC was far more common than rolling one up.

I mostly used 1e rules with 2e material, so I can't agree with your statement about what most 2e games and DMs were like. When I did use 2e rules, I sure as heck didn't just decide what I was going to play before generating anything. I still don't like doing that, because my PC isn't a special unique hero just because I decide he is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(I should share a definition of balance that I encountered that I've found helpful
A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.)

I disagree that balance is inherently better. I want different classes to have different mechanisms, different beats, different goals, different implentations. I think that’s better design because I want each class to have it's own unique feel.

None of that precludes balance.

But you may be using a different definition of balance. The way say what you do want, as if it were different from balance, maybe your idea of balance is just a game that lacks choices about the character, at all. Like a coin toss dungeon or something?

At the end of the day, if you want meaningfully differentiated characters that all still consistently contribute to the success of the party, a balanced game will have a better shot at delivering that. More meaningful choices that actually work in play, more ways to differentiate your character.

If you want some characters that dominate play as a consequence of system mastery or other sorts of player skill, you might prefer an imbalanced game. (Tho, no game can be perfectly balanced, and system mastery is always going to be able to eke out some gains, so it's really more a matter of degree.)

Having different roles, having some classes that are "flashier" than another does not mean they are not balanced in the long run.

I mean, that still describes 4e, which was as close to balanced as D&D ever got.

 

[Oofta]

(I should share a definition of balance that I encountered that I've found helpful
A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.)

None of that precludes balance.

But you may be using a different definition of balance. The way say what you do want, as if it were different from balance, maybe your idea of balance is just a game that lacks choices about the character, at all. Like a coin toss dungeon or something?

At the end of the day, if you want meaningfully differentiated characters that all still consistently contribute to the success of the party, a balanced game will have a better shot at delivering that. More meaningful choices that actually work in play, more ways to differentiate your character.

If you want some characters that dominate play as a consequence of system mastery or other sorts of player skill, you might prefer an imbalanced game. (Tho, no game can be perfectly balanced, and system mastery is always going to be able to eke out some gains, so it's really more a matter of degree.)

I mean, that still describes 4e, which was as close to balanced as D&D ever got.

People contribute meaningfully no matter what their class in my games. As far as 4E, I don't want to play a game with those design principles ever again.

But you repeating that balance is important doesn't make it a priority for anyone else.

 

[Reynard]

In D&D, the fun for me is creating a character I want to play. Why do I want to spend hours grinding through toons to get a level 1 PC when I could just create a level 1PC?

If level 5 is really level 1 (the way you describe it),then you can easily just start at level 5 and be happy. And the person who wants a real zero to hero experience can actually start at level 1. Everyone is happy.

But if your level one is actually that other person's level 5, you are cutting them out of the game. Why design a system to actively exclude a fairly common preference for no real gain?

 

[mamba]

Pathfinder 2e is a game where the Martial / Caster divide doesn't exist and has quite a number of ways to have non-supernatural based Martials! (Assuming that 'has magic items for support' counts.)

and by what I heard is actually nerfing casters a little to make sure there is no gap, quite the opposite of what 5e likely does in its revision. I am tempted to take another look at PF2, but I assume the crunch still keeps me away

 

[mamba]

We don't know exactly what was asked, how the question was formatted or even what the real numbers are. If the majority of people hated the fighter I doubt it would be the most popular class.

plenty people might try it once and give up in disgust, not the most likely scenario, but then why would the favorability be in the 20s if there were not some truth to it

Doesn't mean it can't use improvement, but so far the only modifications released for the 2024 playtest have been pretty minor. The suggested changes wouldn't be minor if it was as big an issue as some people seem to think it is.

no idea, they had plenty of suggested changes I liked and that did not make it. Seems 5e found its crowd and that crowd wants no changes and/or WotC is too afraid to rock the boat

 

[mamba]

It shouldn't be a bad thing to say that maybe other games would be a better fit for specific preferences.

it isn't but saying 'go play something else then' probably is

 

[Micah Sweet]

plenty people might try it once and give up in disgust, not the most likely scenario, but then why would the favorability be in the 20s if there were not some truth to it


no idea, they had plenty of suggested changes I liked and that did not make it. Seems 5e found its crowd and that crowd wants no changes and/or WotC is too afraid to rock the boat

I would say "and".

 

[Micah Sweet]

it isn't but saying 'go play something else then' probably is

Sure, but sometimes to be fair it can be hard not to. Games are designed with styles and goals in mind, and not everyone is going to fit every game. They might actually be happier playing something else.