D&D 5E 5E is attempting to recalibrate our expectations

[Ichneumon]

I think WotC's intention is to return a sense of danger to the game, especially at low levels. They want to disavow players of the notion that, so long as they stay out of the grave, nothing can really hurt them. We have evidence of that from playtest reports, where a paladin had to rest for weeks due to blood loss from stirges.

Which I'm on board with, so long as lowly foes still get dispatched with ease. It's not much fun to be struggling against rats and fire beetles. Danger in the game still needs to look scary and dangerous, and needs to be defeatable with smart play. I'd like to see a version that lets beginning PCs beat small kobold groups without too much trouble, and have an ogre as a terrifying but viable opponent.

 

[MoxieFu]

I have a hard time understanding the mentality that want's to chop off the lower end of the adventuring spectrum so that they can feel that their characters are heroic. This way you completely cut off an established style of play. It seemed so obvious to me that if that style is what you want then simply start off your campaign with characters at 3rd or 5th level, or even 10th level.


If I want to do it, I should be able to play the D&D equivalent of Don Knotts!

 

[Tony Vargas]

What WotC seems to want to do with 5E is recalibrate D&D's own expectations for itself in order to return to that lower power-level across all of the levels. That is, it wants the gritty feeling to last more than five levels...quite possibly a lot more.

I haven't gotten that sense, at all, and it's at odds with the stated goal of catering to many play styles, including the respective 'feels' of older eds.

 

[Sigdel]

Gritty, death-certain, weeks of bed rest style of play should be an option, not the default.

From my experience, that style of play makes the players feel fragile and less likely to take great risks. If your character is laid out for weeks at a time then you should at least be allowed to have a substitute character. Otherwise you should not be surprised if the other PC's decide to leave you behind. After all, the mission must continue.

Gritty games have disposable characters. Disposable characters remind me too much of some video games I've played. And if I want that, I will play those games instead. After all, making a character for those game never let get invested in them. Paper dollies and all that...

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I have a hard time understanding the mentality that want's to chop off the lower end of the adventuring spectrum so that they can feel that their characters are heroic. This way you completely cut off an established style of play. It seemed so obvious to me that if that style is what you want then simply start off your campaign with characters at 3rd or 5th level, or even 10th level.


If I want to do it, I should be able to play the D&D equivalent of Don Knotts!

I do tend to agree. That was why when we played 1st and 3.x we started at 3rd level. I just want the high level game to be there, and fun to play.

 

[Mokona]

Well, the bit about the game transforming from gritty low-level heroes who become wuxia masters and then superheroes isn't how the game played before 3.X (and 4E) - or so I've been told (I haven't heard about many high-level and epic-level 1E and 2E characters).

Great thread idea. I am definitely in the gritty low-level camp! However, I'm also perfectly happy to have a game that goes to 30 levels and your play style can own levels 15-30.

Just so the designers know that they shouldn't carve all the cool design space out and only offer it to level 15-30. Paragon paths were a great idea in 4e but it was a terrible idea to lock them off up there in the level range where normal people couldn't access them. It's ok to have something like Epic destinies way up in the superhero realm but Paragon paths were more thematic along the lines that should have been made available to us level 1-10 players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Tiers are a good solution. They just need to slightly re-calibrate.

LV 1-10 = "Mundane" (you're in line with many of the rest of the people in the world, though perhaps you're at the far end of the bell curve)

LV 11-20 = "Heroic" (you're quite above many of the rest of the people in the world, and obviously so, but you still have mortal limits, and the obviously supernatural may be a big threat to you)

LV 20+ = "Epic" (you're on par with the greatest figures in history and myth, and may clash with the gods themselves)

Since D&D is functionally a 10-level game anyway, someone who wants to play in one camp can start and end there, and someone who wants to try the whole broach can start at level 5 (or whatever) and play through, experiencing the transition.

 

[kiltedyaksman]

Tiers are not the way to go. Those should be dropped. That's why there are "levels". Having a tier called "Heroic" is self-defeating to the point.

If I wanted to play superheroes then I'd play that game. When I want to play gritty low fantasy I play D&D (early editions).

 

[Tallifer]

Gritty, death-certain, weeks of bed rest style of play should be an option, not the default.

Forsooth. It is an option I have enjoyed from time to time, but too often it is a grinding prelude to a story that never in fact has a chance to happen because the campaign peters out before the fun really starts.

 

[Tallifer]

Tiers are not the way to go.

You are probably right in that neither Tiers nor Levels can satisfy the desires of these two types of gamers (or rather two sides of the same gamer at different times). Some of us want a gritty campaign to remain gritty, pulpy and noir, and some of us want an epic tale which starts with Hercules the son of Zeus who strangles snakes in his cradle, or with Feanor the Noldor, or with Galahad the perfect knight from birth.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Well, the bit about the game transforming from gritty low-level heroes who become wuxia masters and then superheroes isn't how the game played before 3.X (and 4E) - or so I've been told (I haven't heard about many high-level and epic-level 1E and 2E characters).

I can speak only for myself, of course, but I saw and played plenty of wuxia masters and superheroes in my 1e days.

Now, I love me some gritty, low-level fantasy role-playing, but I'd hate to see D&D become only (or even mostly) that. The great thing about 3E's "tiers" is that if you do want your game to have only gritty, low-level heroes (or only superheroes), it's fairly easy to accomplish that with something like E6. I hope the next edition will be as flexible.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think heroic-paragon-epic has little to do with level, It's more of a point buy budget thing. Heroic (in 3e terms) is 25 points, paragon is 30 and epic is 35.

Achilles, while being invulnerable, is not an epic D&D character. He just has terrific scores.

I'd like ten levels of play, but each level should have mechanical options to explore. Retraining shouldn't be something you can do while levelling but something you can do at any time to suit the story. If the characters join a Roman legion they should be able to pick up roman weapons and quickly retrain so they can be effective with them.

 

[corwyn77]

You are probably right in that neither Tiers nor Levels can satisfy the desires of these two types of gamers (or rather two sides of the same gamer at different times). Some of us want a gritty campaign to remain gritty, pulpy and noir, and some of us want an epic tale which starts with Hercules the son of Zeus who strangles snakes in his cradle, or with Feanor the Noldor, or with Galahad the perfect knight from birth.

I agree with this completely. One of my biggest complaints about dnd (in all of its editions) is that, beginning to end, it is not the same genre. I don't really care so much what dnd 5 is, gritty or epic; I'd just like the ability to make it the same genre. Fresh off the turnip truck to demi-god is not a common theme in fantasy (Belgariad and Star Wars notwithstanding).

If I get to play Aragorn, I don't want to wait 10 levels to get there. And if I'm playing Bilbo, I don't want to be slaying Dragons in 10 levels. that's what Bard is for.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Speaking for myself, I find something enjoyable at each level of play. My buddies and I have a 27 year old campaign world in which we have PCs ranging from 1st to 31st.

If 5th doesn't support a broad range of levels to play, I think it will turn off a lot of people. The only question is how many.

 

[Ratskinner]

Modules? Anyone?

I agree with this completely. One of my biggest complaints about dnd (in all of its editions) is that, beginning to end, it is not the same genre. I don't really care so much what dnd 5 is, gritty or epic; I'd just like the ability to make it the same genre. Fresh off the turnip truck to demi-god is not a common theme in fantasy (Belgariad and Star Wars notwithstanding).

If I get to play Aragorn, I don't want to wait 10 levels to get there. And if I'm playing Bilbo, I don't want to be slaying Dragons in 10 levels. that's what Bard is for.

It seems to me that this kind of "dial" is exactly what they intend the modules to be. I'm not even sure you'd need a big module for this, just a short chapter on how to adjust for grittiness (change some hp/HD, changes to healing, treasure tables(?), etc.) I'd personally recommend splitting it into several mini-modules depending on the flavor of "grittiness" you want. If you want to go from zero to superhero, just engage more of the anti-gritty modules as you go (or disengage the gritty modules).

As for Aragorn vs Bilbo, well I actually think that's what they are talking about when they speak of flattening the curve. A flatter curve makes it easier to have a Lvl10 Aragorn and Lvl2 Bilbo show up at the same game and both contribute. Having a dials that can turn up to Monte Haul, cinematicity, super-heroics or wuxiosity; or back down to grit, grimness, lethality or scarcity is what those dials are for.

As far as the default game....I dunno, maybe split the difference between 2 and 3e. Of course that's totally by feel, since you can't really average the two sets of mechanics.