D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: Caster Level, Multiclassing & The Apprentice Tier

[Li Shenron]

I can't believe they're even considering bringing back "caster level." One of the things that I have been praising 5e for is not having caster level. Why should a high elf of one class get more benefit from his cantrip racial feature than a high elf of another class? Cantrips scale because if they didn't they'd be useless at higher levels. Why is it okay to them for those spells to become useless for some characters? Why wouldn't a rogue be able to spend just as much time practicing the one cantrip he knows as a wizard who needs to practice dozens of spells?

It's far from a dealbreaker for me but I agree...

Character level and monster level (or just "level") is what spells can better be based on. We don't need a separate token in the game, and caster level would only work in a negative sense i.e. to reduce the effects of spells compared to what they would if character level was used.

There is already still the old problem that a multiclass spellcaster will lag behind in terms of general spells level, and we don't know yet if a half-Wizard/half-Fighter character for example would be balanced against a full-Wizard and a full-Fighter. Caster level makes this even worse... I don't think that in 3ed using character level (house rule) rather than caster level solved the main problem, but at least it's better.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Character level and monster level (or just "level") is what spells can better be based on. We don't need a separate token in the game, and caster level would only work in a negative sense i.e. to reduce the effects of spells compared to what they would if character level was used.

Exactly! Multiclass characters will (presumably) have lower level spells and fewer spells per day than single class spellcasters. They also tend to be more MAD (multi-ability dependent) than single class characters are. Making their spells less effective on top of that is just overkill.

 

[Raith5]

Yeah, most people don't make it to 20, and by the time you're up there, "more levels worth of content" isn't really the important thing.

And since the definition of "default" is "the way it's written before you mess with it," then it makes perfect sense that the option for beginners is the default option.

Also: Some experienced players like simplicity and low-level adventures too. It's not just for beginners.

I agree with your last point. The goal surely has to be to make low level play so brilliant that it would be silly to miss it! Make it great for both experienced players (bring in you advanced modules etc) and for newbs (slot in your basic module).

With regards to the first point, I think the problem is rather profound one. If people continue, in various editions of D&D not make it to high level, doesnt that say something about the game (aside from basic real life issues of people being unable to keep campaigns going because of changing personal circumstances)? It seems that different editions of D&D repeatedly run out of puff at mid to high levels (4th ed seemed to avoid some of this). I cant but help think that some D&D legacy tropes of flying nearly always being a lowish spell, teleport being too low, fighters lagging behind spell casters etc compresses the sweet spot so much a creates this problem that most people run out of interest after 13th level.

If you keep designing sportcars where people dont push it past 50mph (though technically can get to 100), isnt that a reoccurring design problem.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't see what the problem is with the Apprentice tier. What, do you actually lose those first three levels, or do that actually add to the overall character?

I like the idea of an apprentice level because it fits my playstyle.

 

[Li Shenron]

With regards to the first point, I think the problem is rather profound one. If people continue, in various editions of D&D not make it to high level, doesnt that say something about the game (aside from basic real life issues of people being unable to keep campaigns going because of changing personal circumstances)? It seems that different editions of D&D repeatedly run out of puff at mid to high levels (4th ed seemed to avoid some of this). I cant but help think that some D&D legacy tropes of flying nearly always being a lowish spell, teleport being too low, fighters lagging behind spell casters etc compresses the sweet spot so much a creates this problem that most people run out of interest after 13th level.

If you keep designing sportcars where people dont push it past 50mph (though technically can get to 100), isnt that a reoccurring design problem.

Well I guess part of the problem is that we don't all agree on what a high level Fighter could be.

To some, the only solution is adding supernatural powers to the Fighter as well, marvel-style or anime-style or else. For my personal tastes, that is the best way to ensure I won't play that game, at least not into high levels.

But what are the alternatives?

One alternative is to boost the Fighter "vertically" e.g. with a combination of (a) accuracy (less likely to miss), (b) lethality (more damage to each attack), (c) endurance (being able to last many more combats), (d) speed (dropping more targets per round). Examples of high+level nonmagical fighters in movies: Rambo, Bruce Lee, Gimli & Legolas, Bruce Willis in Die Hard movies... Some of their abilities can be borderline the magical, but without being openly so.

However, do gamers want this kind of fighter? Would they accept a Fighter that is plain and straight better than the others in combat, e.g. a high-level Fighter that kills twice as many foes in the same time compared to others? A Fighter that misses only on a 3-4 or lower while the other PCs pull off their powers at a lower rate? Personally I would love that but I think the majority wants a Fighter with same "damage output" as everyone else.

There is also the "horizontal" boosts alternative i.e. giving the fighter more and more options in combat. However, these can never be as many as those from magic, unless you introduce magic here as well, and very often these options end up underused because dealing plain damage is a safer choice. So overall this approach is IMHO quite important to have in the game to make the fighter interesting, but it hardly solves the problem alone.

 

[Dausuul]

This.

Apart from the fact that it is 2 levels of "missing content" and not 3, we have a lot of people already complaining about "dead levels": pushing features from level 1 upward both reduces the front-loading of the class and helps filling up those dead levels, rather than having to fill them with "+2 to tying your shoes" garbage.

What? Are you telling me that in 5E, no class will grant Skill Focus (Shoe Tying)?

5E is dead to me.

 

[Dausuul]

With regards to the first point, I think the problem is rather profound one. If people continue, in various editions of D&D not make it to high level, doesnt that say something about the game (aside from basic real life issues of people being unable to keep campaigns going because of changing personal circumstances)? It seems that different editions of D&D repeatedly run out of puff at mid to high levels (4th ed seemed to avoid some of this). I cant but help think that some D&D legacy tropes of flying nearly always being a lowish spell, teleport being too low, fighters lagging behind spell casters etc compresses the sweet spot so much a creates this problem that most people run out of interest after 13th level.

In 25 years of gaming--mostly D&D but with occasional forays into other systems--I've never once seen a campaign last more than a year and a half. My experience has been that mechanical issues are not what kill most campaigns. Often the DM either burns out or is unable to work out a way to keep the story going and hold everyone's interest. Other times, a critical mass of players are forced to drop out for one reason or another. (And the DM, of course, constitutes a critical mass all by him/herself.) Once in a blue moon, the campaign reaches a planned conclusion and then, well, concludes.

Mechanical problems at high levels might hasten DM burnout, to be sure, but I don't think it's a major factor. It's just rare to be able to keep a single story going for years at a time.

 

[Raith5]

In 25 years of gaming--mostly D&D but with occasional forays into other systems--I've never once seen a campaign last more than a year and a half. My experience has been that mechanical issues are not what kill most campaigns. Often the DM either burns out or is unable to work out a way to keep the story going and hold everyone's interest. Other times, a critical mass of players are forced to drop out for one reason or another. (And the DM, of course, constitutes a critical mass all by him/herself.) Once in a blue moon, the campaign reaches a planned conclusion and then, well, concludes.

Mechanical problems at high levels might hasten DM burnout, to be sure, but I don't think it's a major factor. It's just rare to be able to keep a single story going for years at a time.

I am in the opposite camp. I have been playing since 1982 and i have played 3 campaigns that have gone on for more than 5 years - 2nd, 3rd and 4th eds were all one campaign editions for me. But you are right DM (and player) burnout is the biggest issue but i cant help but think that there is something the deeper in legacy/ makeup of D&D that exacerbates this.

One of things I like about 4th ed is that it went against some of the legacy issues by lifting the level of gravity bending magic and shifting dramatic magical effects to rituals, but it seemed to me to be at cross purposes with itself by giving high heroic fighters the ability to do quite dramatic movement effects at a reasonably modest level.

 

[Kinak]

The idea of hyper-simple 1st level characters is really appealing to me, so apprentice tier sounds good in theory. But I'd rather just see the classes than listen to Wizards talk about it in theory.

As an example, one of the biggest things that will effect how well apprentice tier works will be how hit points scale. If survivability and complexity are tied together closely, that might be a serious issue. But we're not going to know until they show us an "apprenticed" class.

Mechanical problems at high levels might hasten DM burnout, to be sure, but I don't think it's a major factor. It's just rare to be able to keep a single story going for years at a time.

I think more than mechanical problems, monsters and NPCs scale in complexity with level, making running encounters a pain. You're absolutely right that there are a lot of contributing factors, though.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Nagol]

In 25 years of gaming--mostly D&D but with occasional forays into other systems--I've never once seen a campaign last more than a year and a half. My experience has been that mechanical issues are not what kill most campaigns. Often the DM either burns out or is unable to work out a way to keep the story going and hold everyone's interest. Other times, a critical mass of players are forced to drop out for one reason or another. (And the DM, of course, constitutes a critical mass all by him/herself.) Once in a blue moon, the campaign reaches a planned conclusion and then, well, concludes.

Mechanical problems at high levels might hasten DM burnout, to be sure, but I don't think it's a major factor. It's just rare to be able to keep a single story going for years at a time.

Huh. Very different experience in terms of length. My mean run for a typical "open-ended" campaign (as opposed to single-adventure games) runs a bit over two years and that includes campaigns that failed in less than a year. If I remove the quick failures, my average run is a bit over 4 years. Long term games I've been in tend to run at least a couple of years.

I agree mechanical problems typically aren't a major factor in campaign destruction. The big killers are player loss, GM burnout, major PC loss coupled with player burnout, completion of PC goals and the players saying they're done or intra-group politics.