Mike Mearls' latest ruminations on character abandonment (or rather, when players get bored with their PCs), got me thinking about class features and levels. In the next version of the game, when should PCs (a) reach the zenith of their class features, and (b) what do we do with PCs once they've hit that point? Assuming the PCs are full-fledged heroes at that point (at least conceptually), do they retire, keep playing, become an immortal incarnation of a hero, or what?
In 1st & 2nd edition, your PC tapped out of class features rather early. For instance, in 1st edition a fighter received a "body of men at arms" and received a "monthly revenue." From that point on, the PC didn't even dice for HP, they simply received a fixed +3HP (plus Constitution modifiers if applicable). Things weren't much different in 2nd edition. Third edition offered more class features spread out over the career of the PC, which was nice, but players then started to talk about "dead levels" (something which existed in 1st edition from 9th level on, but for some reason, we never really thought about it). Fourth edition enlarged upon the concept of "dead levels" even further by working to eliminate them altogether. As part of that design, "tiers" were introduced as a way of organizing levels of play. However, although I enjoyed the "tier" system, in introducing "epic destinies" - the PCs final incarnation - there was still one aspect of play that bothered me.
In 1st edition, I knew my fighter was going to hit his/her zenith (in terms of class features) at 9th level, but I didn't want to stop at 9th level and the game assumed we were going to play past that level. In 3rd edition, the PCs would hit their zenith at 19th or 20th level and then they were done - no more features, and at least until the "epic level handbook" arrived, the core assumption seemed to be that your PC was done adventuring (at least in our case. We finished out the last level with our newly "topped off" pcs and then ended the campaign. Even with the "Epic level handbook," Epic level adventures in 3.0/3.5 were just to onerous for us to consider). Fourth edition made the assumption that once your PC achieved all of the benefits of her/his epic destiny, that PC was then "out of play" and moved on to bigger and better things, which means that you get a level or so of a "fully realized hero" to play, but then the PC vanished to the Elysium fields or languished in darkened halls in the Shadowfell. You could always adventure past that point, but that kind of play suffered from at least three problems (1) epic destiny play (and in particular combat) was bloated and nearly as onerous as 3.5, (2) epic play was not well supported by WotC, and (3) epic-destiny level play was simply too non-threatening. I know that the "immortal hero" was the core assumption destination for PCs in 4e, but I still wanted to have a hero that could be threatened, and not simply inconvenienced, by death.
I've been thinking a lot about at what point do I want to move on to a new PC? Is it when my PC has achieved an epic destiny? If so, what happens when the PC achieves that level, but I still want to play that PC? Will there be a way for that to happen, or will the core assumption of the game be that at that point the PC has done everything he/she can do? Maybe I want to play my PC past it's "fully realized state?" What happens then? Do I rely on a published "5e epic level handbook," or will the core assumption be that I play the PC until I have felt like I've done everything I've wanted to do in the game?
Here's the gist of my thoughts right now. I've been re-visiting 1st edition ever since the announcement of 5e and this is where I'm at now:
I think I want my PC to "max out" her/his class features earlier (well before the "final level" - if there will be one) in his or her career and then receive minimal benefits from that point on (vis-a-vis 1st & 2nd edition). That way, I can play a "fully realized hero" and still go adventuring. If the benefit is something like "+3 HP/level" and "henchmen" (or another indirectly related benefit), then hopefully I get a "fully functioning" epic-level hero who at some point, acknowledges that he/she doesn't simply fight for a cause, but also, at a basic level, for survival as well.
What are your thoughts?
In 1st & 2nd edition, your PC tapped out of class features rather early. For instance, in 1st edition a fighter received a "body of men at arms" and received a "monthly revenue." From that point on, the PC didn't even dice for HP, they simply received a fixed +3HP (plus Constitution modifiers if applicable). Things weren't much different in 2nd edition. Third edition offered more class features spread out over the career of the PC, which was nice, but players then started to talk about "dead levels" (something which existed in 1st edition from 9th level on, but for some reason, we never really thought about it). Fourth edition enlarged upon the concept of "dead levels" even further by working to eliminate them altogether. As part of that design, "tiers" were introduced as a way of organizing levels of play. However, although I enjoyed the "tier" system, in introducing "epic destinies" - the PCs final incarnation - there was still one aspect of play that bothered me.
In 1st edition, I knew my fighter was going to hit his/her zenith (in terms of class features) at 9th level, but I didn't want to stop at 9th level and the game assumed we were going to play past that level. In 3rd edition, the PCs would hit their zenith at 19th or 20th level and then they were done - no more features, and at least until the "epic level handbook" arrived, the core assumption seemed to be that your PC was done adventuring (at least in our case. We finished out the last level with our newly "topped off" pcs and then ended the campaign. Even with the "Epic level handbook," Epic level adventures in 3.0/3.5 were just to onerous for us to consider). Fourth edition made the assumption that once your PC achieved all of the benefits of her/his epic destiny, that PC was then "out of play" and moved on to bigger and better things, which means that you get a level or so of a "fully realized hero" to play, but then the PC vanished to the Elysium fields or languished in darkened halls in the Shadowfell. You could always adventure past that point, but that kind of play suffered from at least three problems (1) epic destiny play (and in particular combat) was bloated and nearly as onerous as 3.5, (2) epic play was not well supported by WotC, and (3) epic-destiny level play was simply too non-threatening. I know that the "immortal hero" was the core assumption destination for PCs in 4e, but I still wanted to have a hero that could be threatened, and not simply inconvenienced, by death.
I've been thinking a lot about at what point do I want to move on to a new PC? Is it when my PC has achieved an epic destiny? If so, what happens when the PC achieves that level, but I still want to play that PC? Will there be a way for that to happen, or will the core assumption of the game be that at that point the PC has done everything he/she can do? Maybe I want to play my PC past it's "fully realized state?" What happens then? Do I rely on a published "5e epic level handbook," or will the core assumption be that I play the PC until I have felt like I've done everything I've wanted to do in the game?
Here's the gist of my thoughts right now. I've been re-visiting 1st edition ever since the announcement of 5e and this is where I'm at now:
I think I want my PC to "max out" her/his class features earlier (well before the "final level" - if there will be one) in his or her career and then receive minimal benefits from that point on (vis-a-vis 1st & 2nd edition). That way, I can play a "fully realized hero" and still go adventuring. If the benefit is something like "+3 HP/level" and "henchmen" (or another indirectly related benefit), then hopefully I get a "fully functioning" epic-level hero who at some point, acknowledges that he/she doesn't simply fight for a cause, but also, at a basic level, for survival as well.
What are your thoughts?
Last edited:
