Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6398085" data-attributes="member: 2011">It's not the +4 to hit difference.It's the +4 to hit difference, the +3 to AC difference, the +4 to save difference, the 150 hit point difference, the 21 spells 12 of which are really worthwhile versus 3 spells all 3 of which are basically worthless difference, it's the versatile vs. the restricted.New first level PC: "I cast my Sleep spell and get 23 hit points with it."DM laughing: "Bwa ha ha. Your puny spell doesn't affect the monster's 187 hit points."You won't get people agreeing with you if your point is that the low level guy doesn't suck as much as he would have in 3E.He still sucks and big time. The low level PC has no real chance of significantly contributing to a party in combat, regardless of level. Your point is totally moot.Nobody really wants to play Nodwick to everyone else's Conan and Gandalf.You want to treat people that way, go for it. I've been on the receiving end of that in the past (in GURPS, not D&D) and it totally sucked. Never going back there and never going to treat other players with a taste of that. Why would a DM want to treat his players this way? It just doesn't make sense to stick to a 35 year old outdated gaming convention that actually segregates players into haves and have nots. PCs that are capable vs. PCs that are cannon fodder. A DM treating people this way is just so illogical that I can barely get my mind around it. Why would your players put up with this crap? Probably because of like when I joined the GURP game, a) I didn't know ahead of time that I was going to be the party henchmen, and b) once in the situation, it was the only game in town at the time, so my only chance to play.And yes, the severity of this is less in 5E than 3E, but it's still a crappy thing to do to people.Nothing wrong with a PC starting one or two levels back to get more time to learn abilities and to earn his spurs. Nothing wrong with him not starting with magic items. Eventually they will catch up (unless maybe starting at level 18). But first level is just a terrible idea (unless the PCs are in the level 2 to 4 range). It has always been a terrible idea and no amount of "it's not as bad as 3E" justification makes it a better idea. It just means that the person making that justification is grasping at straws to support an unsupportable POV.Bounded accuracy does not make this a good rule, it just makes it a slightly less horrible rule.</blockquote>

Verification