D&D (2024) If Your Builds Not Online By Level 6 Dont Bother?

[SteveC]

A lot of this depends on the level you start at and how often you're going to level up. If you think about it, the "how soon does your build come online?" is compatible with early editions of the game. As someone who played OE/1E/BECMI wizards, they didn't come on line in many ways until later levels.

For me, I do multiclass dips for my characters, but I also want to play and have fun for the whole campaign. Actual fun when playing at the table trumps the fun you might eventually have one day if the game reaches high enough levels.

 

[Larnievc]

I've seen comments similar to this online a lot. Combine that with WotC saying 70% of games end level 7 or lower. A typical campaign might be 6 sessions (mine are probably 20-30).

Going back further a lot of the 3.5 builds would be theorycrafting. 4E tanking I suspect was due to fixing problems the vast majority never experienced. Druid existed but also wasn't a very popular class regardless of its power. Outside that you needed generally 5 levels of XYZ and probably another 5-10 levels or prestige classes and non core options.

The theory craft meta continues on you tube. 200 damage by level 12!!! Watching the video the builds basically hot garbage until level 8 or 9.

I don't mind builds not 100% switched on until xyz but not to the extent of hot garbage. 5.5 has buffed a lot of classes anywhere between 5-8 levels for me personally before I consider multiclassing outside of say rogues and a level dip in Fighter/Paladin/Ranger maybe Sorcerer.
Missing that 3rd level spell slot or 2nd attack at 5th hurts.

I don’t think any of my players think about builds. All but one have never multi classed dipped.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that's a fantasy tbh.

And I do not. Instead, I think that that stance is needlessly dismissive without any actual justification or reason.

I know you love 4E we never made it past level 7. Alot didn't make it that far or play it at all.

Not really sure how that's relevant?

It's not purely a game rules problem. It it is D&D (all of them) being a 600-1000 page rule set may be part of the problem.

I really, really don't think page count is the problem. The fact is, many campaigns do not last enough time to reach higher level. It's not that higher levels are necessarily a huge amount complex or challenging to run (though in some versions, they absolutely are, e.g. 3rd edition). It's that few campaigns last longer than X number of sessions before something or other happens to take it down.

Hence, we should be designing games such that well before that point, most character setups should be active and online. Making 1st level be training wheels has conflicted with this goal, because too many people, even when told that starting at higher level is the design intent, do not actually start at the intended level. As I've said previously, the "it's FIRST level, meaning the place you START, that's what FIRST means, 4head!"

If 5.5 follows the traditional trajectory I suspect complexity is part of it.

See above.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that most campaigns start with the ideal of going that far, but stuff happens.

Is some of the issue with player thinking of a build that really cannot be built- or built by level 17?

Should some campaign PC ideas be limited if it going to be a short campaign of say the summer or only to level 5 like a box set?

Let us not be hyperbolic. Few if any builds "come online" at 17, unless artificially constructed specifically to be builds that only come online at that point.

But if most games end before level 10 and a plurality end before level 7....the fact that in 5e you don't really come into your own until at least 3rd level and usually closer to level 5-6 isn't exactly ideal. It means the majority of any player's experience is build-up, with comparatively far less payoff. (Especially the way I see people run the game, where 1st and 2nd level are not a breeze, but take forever to finish...)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Apparently you, me, and Zard like the same threads

2 things:
My suspicion is that the vast majorty (80%?) of games fall apart because of the classic D&D villan: scheduling. Another small percent die due to a toxic person in the group. I suspect only a few die because of rule complexity. Maybe a bunch don't go more than one or two games because of complexity, and maybe that's what you meant, but if you get past the first couple sessions, I feel like that's not what stops you.

That's said: I believe that on a crunch scale, where 1 is freestyle and 10 is like GURPS or something, D&D 5.0 is still about a 7, and 5.5 is about an 8. So your point that reducing complexity could help is valid, and I believe there's a lot of runway there.

I'm not necessarily saying we should reduce complexity (I find that that is an easy design trap to fall into, mistaking the removal of crufty or unproductive intricacy for the removal of all texture and expected engagement). Just saying that if the current situation means half to two-thirds of the rules simply never get used because campaigns don't last long enough....maybe we should speed up the pace of advancement just a little so that more than half of the game is typically actually seen by players?

 

[Zardnaar]

Let us not be hyperbolic. Few if any builds "come online" at 17, unless artificially constructed specifically to be builds that only come online at that point.

But if most games end before level 10 and a plurality end before level 7....the fact that in 5e you don't really come into your own until at least 3rd level and usually closer to level 5-6 isn't exactly ideal. It means the majority of any player's experience is build-up, with comparatively far less payoff. (Especially the way I see people run the game, where 1st and 2nd level are not a breeze, but take forever to finish...)

Level 1 is usually a session, 2 is maybe two at least how i pace it.

Players usually get choice to start at 1 or 3.

Only reason I started at 1 was new players tbh.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Level 1 is usually a session, 2 is maybe two at least how i pace it.

And I've seen this from all of two distinct DMs.

Out of about...seven...at this point?

Players usually get choice to start at 1 or 3.

Absolutely not. I've never, not once, seen a DM who gives their players the choice of whether the group starts at 1st or 3rd or whatever else.

Only reason I started at 1 was new players tbh.

And in my experience, that position is rarer than hens' teeth. Instead, nearly every campaign starts at 1st level because it is 1st, and thus it is the start. Why else would they call it first if it weren't the level you first play???

 

[DrJawaPhD]

And in my experience, that position is rarer than hens' teeth. Instead, nearly every campaign starts at 1st level because it is 1st, and thus it is the start. Why else would they call it first if it weren't the level you first play???

First level is like the tutorial. You start there if you've never played the game before. Otherwise you skip it and start later.

I typically start campaigns at Level 2 even with brand new players.

 

[cbwjm]

Absolutely not. I've never, not once, seen a DM who gives their players the choice of whether the group starts at 1st or 3rd or whatever else.

Pretty sure he's telling you about the games he runs with that comment.

 

[jgsugden]

One would think that if the problem is "stuff never gets to come online because campaigns don't make it that far"...

The reasonable choice would be to design games such that most campaigns DO "make it that far", and then provide robust rules for playing at other paces or with other focuses.

While additional rule support that supports higher level play would be welcome: It is not required. You can run successful adventures through 20th level that are exciting, interesting and entirely within RAW.

What is needed in many groups is training on how to build and run high level games that are not just attempts to "level up" low level games. Even published adventures run afoul of this challenge.

Too many DMs try to run a high level adventure in the same way that a low level adventure is typically built. They present the same types of challenges as low level play and there is frustration because there is magic available that negates the challenges. In turn, the DM negates the availability of the magic. That makes players feel like their choices in development are being invalidated - which is true. The DM, in these instances, ends up dictating the game. That kills a game fast.

A murder mystery works at level 1 or 2 ... but once you can speak with dead, most murder mysteries should be pretty darn easy to resolve. If they're not, it is because the DM is selecting to make the spell worthless in that instance - which feels like a DM taking away a player's toys. That is not to say that being true to the story will always mean a corpse will have valuable information ... just that it inherently feels like the DM is taking away the player tools almost all the time when the corpse does not give up information as the spell is designed to do. A little bit of a player ability being confounded is probably fine ... but if every time you want to use an ability it is negated by the DM because it is too useful - the game crashes.

This type of evolution of the game where challenges become trivial needs to happen. If the PCs have a magical solution that makes it easy to travel, to make money, to help people ... let it happen as a DM. Let them enjoy the free use of their powers. It makes them feel like powerful figures. If they're constantly forced to struggle to do everything they never get that chance to really feel powerful - which is a big part of higher level games.

Then, start to focus on the types of problems that these magics do not solve in one easy blow. An example is a political situation. You have a society of 250,000 people with 75,000 wanting to break up the society and form a smaller society of their own, another 75,000 that want to change the balance of power so that everyone has the same rights and another 50,000 that want the status quo not to change. There is no magic solution that just solves that problem. You can look to books, movies and TV series for inspiration for these types of storylines.

This type of evolution challenges your typical dungeon design. Fighting your way through a 40 room dungeon to get to the MacGuffin at the end does not make sense when the PCs can magically scout it out and then teleport to the end ... unless the DM takes away their toys. To that end, most dungeon delving needs to be rethought and different approaches need to be used, such as anticipate them teleporting to the focal point they need to engage and design the encounters so that enemies come to them in waves while the PCs do what they need to do or wait for something to happen.

Use "Yes and" improve mentalities to make the story work where you build upon what the PCs do rather than negate it.

TLDR: Games work at higher levels when DMs run higher level games that make sense. They fail when DMs try to run low level games at higher levels - and players get bored while the DM is constantly frustrated.