Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Does anybody else miss 1st L Characters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Deadboy" data-source="post: 5788372" data-attributes="member: 61779"><p>The ship has already left on the changing the D&D paradigm thing. 4th did it. If 4th hadn't done things slightly differently, no one would be questioning the mook 1st level paradigm. And I still feel like 4th level characters are beginners while not being boring to play and dying so quickly that I spent longer writing my four pages of character background then I did playing the character.</p><p> </p><p>I don't see how the way I suggested things working forces anyone to do anything. You get your mook levels. The rest of us don't have to play those without having to skip level 1. If the level 0 stuff is roughly equivalent to a starting 1e/2e/3e character and level 1 is roughly equivalent to a 4e character, then everyone has a starting point they can like.</p><p> </p><p>D&DN is likely going to deal with a lot of things using modular subsystems. As a 4e fan, I'm most likely looking at much of what I like about my edition becoming optional rules - tactical minis combat, encounters and dailies for martial characters, who knows what else... Matter of fact, it's sounding like most of everything except the very most basics will be relegated to optional subsystems, regardless of the edition they came from. So why wouldn't it also be fair to relegate something that only appeals to one playstyle to an optional subsystem? It's not like your playstyle precludes slightly more heroic characters, its part of the levelling process to you.</p><p> </p><p>*shrug* I guess in the end we're both getting hung up on wanting to see level 1 being the baseline for our own style of play. I just feel that catering to your playstyle and forcing me to start at level 3 or 5 or whatever is more exclusionary than creating an optional subsystem to cater to yours, so that you're getting extra content AND not skipping level 1, especially when this is going to be the game OF optional subsystems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Deadboy, post: 5788372, member: 61779"] The ship has already left on the changing the D&D paradigm thing. 4th did it. If 4th hadn't done things slightly differently, no one would be questioning the mook 1st level paradigm. And I still feel like 4th level characters are beginners while not being boring to play and dying so quickly that I spent longer writing my four pages of character background then I did playing the character. I don't see how the way I suggested things working forces anyone to do anything. You get your mook levels. The rest of us don't have to play those without having to skip level 1. If the level 0 stuff is roughly equivalent to a starting 1e/2e/3e character and level 1 is roughly equivalent to a 4e character, then everyone has a starting point they can like. D&DN is likely going to deal with a lot of things using modular subsystems. As a 4e fan, I'm most likely looking at much of what I like about my edition becoming optional rules - tactical minis combat, encounters and dailies for martial characters, who knows what else... Matter of fact, it's sounding like most of everything except the very most basics will be relegated to optional subsystems, regardless of the edition they came from. So why wouldn't it also be fair to relegate something that only appeals to one playstyle to an optional subsystem? It's not like your playstyle precludes slightly more heroic characters, its part of the levelling process to you. *shrug* I guess in the end we're both getting hung up on wanting to see level 1 being the baseline for our own style of play. I just feel that catering to your playstyle and forcing me to start at level 3 or 5 or whatever is more exclusionary than creating an optional subsystem to cater to yours, so that you're getting extra content AND not skipping level 1, especially when this is going to be the game OF optional subsystems. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Does anybody else miss 1st L Characters
Top