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

Sorcerers Apprentice said:

4E was exactly like that, 1st level characters had powerful, flavorful class abilities and enough HP to not go down to a single lucky hit. But not everyone liked that, some people really enjoy the "zero-to-hero" gameplay, so in 5E we get starting at 3rd level as a compromise for groups who want to start a campaign with actually competent characters.

Click to expand...

Crimson Longinus said:

Right. And I think the latter is better as it serves both camps just fine.

In any case, I feel that the point of a level based games such as D&D is the journey and the growth of the character, not just being some specific fixed unchanging concept. But if people like more fully-fledged and competent characters from the get go, one can always start the campaign at a higher level.

Click to expand...

EzekielRaiden said:

There's a huge problem with 5e's solution though. And it's a problem that has shown up in other approaches 5e has used.

People don't actually use it "correctly."

I have seen it happen at least four separate times with for unrelated DMs. I have  begged them to start their campaigns at a higher level to avoid problems with early levels being punishingly, brutally difficult. They have ignored me each time, and their choice to start at first level simply because it is first level has been directly responsible for ending at least two campaigns I played in.

There is a HUGE psychological push toward starting at first level ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS, no matter what, no matter how much better it might be to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever else. As a result, while it is theoretically valid to say "just start at higher level," in practice this hasn't worked so well. One might even call it speculation in a chamber most pale...

Hence my advocacy of well-supported, positively-presented, but purely opt-in "zero level" rules. These would empower fans of "zero to hero," indeed would give them even more control and ideally a fuller experience of the kind they desire, while recognizing the practical truth that many DMs see 1st level as the ONLY starting point always and forever, no matter how silly that position might be from a purely logical, theoretical standpoint.

Again, I want to emphasize that using this approach, it is incredibly important to avoid even the tiniest hint of deprecation or inferiority. Any form of opt-in "zero level" rules must be both fully recognized as a fun and historically popular approach to play, and treated with the same respect and serious design rigor as any other portion of the game.

Click to expand...

Fauchard1520 said:

Some complex builds only seem to do their thing at mid levels. If you're going for a complicated multiclass or holding out for a specific weapon, it my be level 6 or 7 before you finally get to do your mechanical thing.

So like it says in the title: What’s the longest you’re willing to wait for a build to “turn on." Is there some particular weapon, ability, or prestige class that makes it worth the wait? Or is it better to wait for one of those "everyone starts at 10th level" campaigns to go for those builds?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Click to expand...

payn said:

Seems like a lot of trouble to goto to fix four tables.

Click to expand...

EzekielRaiden said:

....yes. because literally no one else has ever done this. I am literally the only person on the planet who has had this experience.

Click to expand...

EzekielRaiden said:

There's a huge problem with 5e's solution though. And it's a problem that has shown up in other approaches 5e has used.

People don't actually use it "correctly."

I have seen it happen at least four separate times with for unrelated DMs. I have  begged them to start their campaigns at a higher level to avoid problems with early levels being punishingly, brutally difficult. They have ignored me each time, and their choice to start at first level simply because it is first level has been directly responsible for ending at least two campaigns I played in.

There is a HUGE psychological push toward starting at first level ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS, no matter what, no matter how much better it might be to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever else. As a result, while it is theoretically valid to say "just start at higher level," in practice this hasn't worked so well. One might even call it speculation in a chamber most pale...

Hence my advocacy of well-supported, positively-presented, but purely opt-in "zero level" rules. These would empower fans of "zero to hero," indeed would give them even more control and ideally a fuller experience of the kind they desire, while recognizing the practical truth that many DMs see 1st level as the ONLY starting point always and forever, no matter how silly that position might be from a purely logical, theoretical standpoint.

Again, I want to emphasize that using this approach, it is incredibly important to avoid even the tiniest hint of deprecation or inferiority. Any form of opt-in "zero level" rules must be both fully recognized as a fun and historically popular approach to play, and treated with the same respect and serious design rigor as any other portion of the game.

Click to expand...

Crimson Longinus said:

Option to start at a higher level is presented, It could perhaps be clearer, but it exists and people use it. Now they might not use it often, because they don't want to. I feel your main issue simply is that you want to play in a different way than most other people.

Click to expand...

NaturalZero said:

I'd definitely like more customization points. I think one option would be to retool feats to be mini subclasses and give them out for free at certain points.

Reading this thread has made me realize that 4e was pretty much the best DnD at organic growth because of the freedom to pick paragon paths and epic destinies, often times regardless of class or stringent prereqs. 3e was really, really, really, bad at organic growth because you had to micro-plan your build for it to come out correctly and 5e has most people locking in decision points early on, with less feat points than either 3e or 4e.

Click to expand...

Crimson Longinus said:

Right. And I think the latter is better as it serves both camps just fine.

Click to expand...