D&D 5E How long are you willing to wait for a build to "turn on?"

[EzekielRaiden]

It’s natural that more complicated backstories and classes would have more prerequisites.

Sure, but a PrC is generally not representative of backstory, it is rather representative of new growth. Yet, because of the way 3e handled PrC requirements, often you actually do kind of need to prepare, a lot, to qualify. E.g., if you don't take the specific feats you need soon enough, or "waste" (note the quotes) your skill points on non-critical skills, it may literally be possible (indeed, it is often possible) to price yourself out of ever qualifying for that PrC.

I remember that someone pointed out that Amiri, Pathfinder’s iconic Barbarian, should’ve been Level 6+ based on her backstory of killing a Frost Giant.

While that's sorta-kinda fair (I say "sorta-kinda" because I don't think you need to be that level, it's just unlikely if you aren't...and that's what makes it notable!), it's a bit tangential to the topic. Instead, this is more like "because I didn't spend a total of 8 skill points on Use Rope until level 11, I now cannot ever complete my Eagle Scout PrC, because it's a 10-level PrC and I'm already level 11."

3e, and as a consequence PF, heavily punishes a failure to plan one's build. Failing to pick up effective feats, skills, etc. early on actually can lock you out of important growth later.

I think my main issue is that people want these classes and archetypes at as low a level as possible even when it doesn’t really make sense to.

Why shouldn't they want that? Lots of folks like to highlight how rare true long-running campaigns are. Shouldn't people want to get to the "good stuff" soon, so they actually get a chance to see it in play?

A level 1 character is weak and not very savvy about anything. Why would they ten pages of abilities and stories about how awesome they are?

...is anyone actually asking for that?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why shouldn't they want that? Lots of folks like to highlight how rare true long-running campaigns are. Shouldn't people want to get to the "good stuff" soon, so they actually get a chance to see it in play?

It's simply that different people have different opinions of what the "good stuff" actually is. To me the most important thing about making games, and especially TTRPGs interesting are choices and consequences. And with it growth and character development.

This is why, to me, the third level subclass choice and with it deciding how an already experienced character chooses to progress and which path they set themselves on is very comfortably the best part of the game actually provided by the rules. It's where a character makes a significant choice about who they are and what they will do going forward. And the request to get start with a subclass is not a request to get to the good stuff but to move the starting line past where the good stuff actually is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's simply that different people have different opinions of what the "good stuff" actually is. To me the most important thing about making games, and especially TTRPGs interesting are choices and consequences. And with it growth and character development.

This is why, to me, the third level subclass choice and with it deciding how an already experienced character chooses to progress and which path they set themselves on is very comfortably the best part of the game actually provided by the rules. It's where a character makes a significant choice about who they are and what they will do going forward. And the request to get start with a subclass is not a request to get to the good stuff but to move the starting line past where the good stuff actually is.

Okay...I guess my issue with that is, a choice is a single moment. That moment may be awesome or boring or whatever, but it happens, once, and then it's done.

But you mention "consequences." Consequences, by their very nature, are a process, not an event. That is, "consequences" only have bite when there is the passage of time, when one must live with those consequences. Thus, we are not talking about a single individual moment of making an important decision. We are talking about enjoying playing through the consequences of that decision. This would seem to indicate, then, that while you very much enjoy having that "make a decision" moment, you enjoy it because there will be things to play through as a result.

Some folks want to get straight to that "things to play through as a result." Forcing them to dance to your tune is no better than them forcing you to dance to theirs. But there's a solution that gives you what you want without denying them what they want. As already stated, "novice" or "apprentice" levels. A structure specifically geared for giving you that "I don't know what I am yet, I must find out, I must make a decision and live with it" moment.

 

[Hussar]

Im a DM 99.99999% of the time. I don't have the luxury to wait for stuff to start working the few times I get out from behind the screen.

Preach.

I have to admit, I'm not a big "build" guy. I'm not. But, I do generally start from a pretty strong concept from the get go, mostly because I know that I don't get to play that often so waiting fifteen sessions of gaming to get to concept isn't really an option.

So, yeah, I tend to lean into the classes that have stronger flavor right out of the gate and then wed that to whatever concept I'm working with. It's pretty rare that I'd need to multiclass or anything like that to achieve the concept, so, build isn't really a thing. But, yeah, I'm not real happy with my experiences in the past where I would have to play many sessions just to reach about 3rd level and have a "real" character that wasn't just Fytor #23 because of the grind of lower level play.

The idea that 1st level characters must be fresh off the turnip truck newbies is one sacred cow that I really don't like. I have no problem with starting at 3rd level and I know the next campaign I run will start at 3rd or maybe 5th, just to skip over the endlessly repetitive early levels.

I am SO DONE TO DEATH with levels 1-3.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Okay...I guess my issue with that is, a choice is a single moment. That moment may be awesome or boring or whatever, but it happens, once, and then it's done.

But you mention "consequences." Consequences, by their very nature, are a process, not an event. That is, "consequences" only have bite when there is the passage of time, when one must live with those consequences. Thus, we are not talking about a single individual moment of making an important decision. We are talking about enjoying playing through the consequences of that decision. This would seem to indicate, then, that while you very much enjoy having that "make a decision" moment, you enjoy it because there will be things to play through as a result.

Some folks want to get straight to that "things to play through as a result." Forcing them to dance to your tune is no better than them forcing you to dance to theirs. But there's a solution that gives you what you want without denying them what they want. As already stated, "novice" or "apprentice" levels. A structure specifically geared for giving you that "I don't know what I am yet, I must find out, I must make a decision and live with it" moment.

The thing here is I don't believe that many people sit down and say "This is who I am and this is how I will change in the future" and then have things happen that way. I believe they do make choices - but that our skills and growth aren't on rails.

As mentioned I have started all my last three campaigns not at level one but at level zero. The PCs literally did not have a class until part way through the first session when they made certain big choices - and those choices had ongoing consequences, one of which was their class. And the consequences continued to play out. I want apprentice levels so much I house-ruled a level zero in all my last three campaigns. And I would rather have this or some level zero like it as part of the DMG because it is meaningful and useful.

You say "some folks want to get straight to the 'things to play through as a result'". And I accept this. I have not said that it is wrong to start campaigns at level 3. What I have said is that there is a lot of meaningful play in starting before level 3 as it currently exists and that to me this is one of the best parts of the core game especially when advancement is as on rails as it is in 5e.

I am not forcing them to dance to their tune. Starting at level 3 is fine and I don't force other groups to start at level 1. You on the other hand are advocating on burning what I find the most useful, interesting, and meaningful part of 5e out of the game - and at the same time causing significant harm to one of 5e's other major strengths. By destroying the gap between choosing your class and choosing your subclass you are ensuring that instead of being given a choice of 13 classes and then after that about ten subclasses per class, normally two levels later, you are advocating making new players choose out of all over 100 subclasses at the same time which makes it massively harder for newbies. And also because there are 100 odd choices rather than a dozen or so the "level zero - find/choose your class" also becomes functionally impossible.

If you find levels 1 and 2 to be boring then start at level 3. There is meaningful play in the first couple of levels both for new players and new characters, and meaningful play in reaching level 3. And there is a huge benefit for newbies in separating the choice - and not having the complexity of having the choice of class and subclass made together. There is a way within the rules you can play the way you advocate and I can play the way I do (especially if they put level 0 rules in there). We literally right now have level 1 and 2 as the apprentice levels.

I am not trying to force you to dance to my tune. You are on the other hand trying to relegate the echos of my tune to house rules while making it almost impossible to reach the most intense part of my tune. Please stop.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Preach.

I have to admit, I'm not a big "build" guy. I'm not. But, I do generally start from a pretty strong concept from the get go, mostly because I know that I don't get to play that often so waiting fifteen sessions of gaming to get to concept isn't really an option.

So, yeah, I tend to lean into the classes that have stronger flavor right out of the gate and then wed that to whatever concept I'm working with. It's pretty rare that I'd need to multiclass or anything like that to achieve the concept, so, build isn't really a thing. But, yeah, I'm not real happy with my experiences in the past where I would have to play many sessions just to reach about 3rd level and have a "real" character that wasn't just Fytor #23 because of the grind of lower level play.

Oof. There is a reason it only takes 300 XP to reach level 2 and 900 XP to reach level 3. And if we look at DMG page 261 "a good rate of session based advancement is to have characters reach 2nd level after the first session and 3rd level after another session". Also the XP to reach level 2 is one single adventuring day's worth - and the XP to get from level 2 to 3 is also a single adventuring day's worth.

I'm slightly slower; I expect to have my players only reach level 1 at the end of the first session. Level 2 after 1-2 more sessions and level 3 after 2-3 further sessions but that's both slow and in all three campaigns has involved players brand new to D&D and non-newbies playing classes they've never played before (and sometimes haven't researched despite the class fitting them like a glove). If I were playing with all veterans who were responding fast and knew what their characters could do [/rant] I really wouldn't want to spend more than 3 sessions at levels 1-2

I will also say that Fytor who despite intended to be a fighter became a paladin because he literally told a demon to go back to hell in the course of the first session tends to be more interesting to the player than Fytor #23 who was just chosen out of a list of abstract options and the player is more invested in them in my experience regardless of how many previous characters they've played.

The idea that 1st level characters must be fresh off the turnip truck newbies is one sacred cow that I really don't like. I have no problem with starting at 3rd level and I know the next campaign I run will start at 3rd or maybe 5th, just to skip over the endlessly repetitive early levels.

I am SO DONE TO DEATH with levels 1-3.

And I'm all in favour of this

 

[Neonchameleon]

Some complex builds only seem to do their thing at mid levels. If you're going for a complicated multiclass or holding out for a specific weapon, it my be level 6 or 7 before you finally get to do your mechanical thing.

So like it says in the title: What’s the longest you’re willing to wait for a build to “turn on." Is there some particular weapon, ability, or prestige class that makes it worth the wait? Or is it better to wait for one of those "everyone starts at 10th level" campaigns to go for those builds?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Just realised I didn't reply to this. And a lot depends on what you mean by "turn on" and whether the build is decent against a benchmark or terrible before it "turns on".

The classic example of falling far behind benchmarks was the orthodox 3.5 Mystic Theurge which added caster levels to both the classes that enabled you to qualify. This looked great on paper - at level 16 a wizard 3/cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 10 would have the spell list and number of spells of a level 13 wizard plus those of a level 13 cleric. This was great. But a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1 would be a seventh level character casting second level spells and you only had first and second level spell slots for all you had a lot of them. It really wasn't good at this point especially as in 3.X upcasting your spells wasn't a thing.

I'm willing to wait quite a while (even after the campaign) for a build that will be great - but only as long as the lows are not that low. What I'm not willing to do is play a terrible character as opposed to an average one for any substantial time when the goal is long term power.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oof. There is a reason it only takes 300 XP to reach level 2 and 900 XP to reach level 3. And if we look at DMG page 261 "a good rate of session based advancement is to have characters reach 2nd level after the first session and 3rd level after another session". Also the XP to reach level 2 is one single adventuring day's worth - and the XP to get from level 2 to 3 is also a single adventuring day's worth.

I really, truly wish more DMs actually listened to this advice.

I'm slightly slower; I expect to have my players only reach level 1 at the end of the first session. Level 2 after 1-2 more sessions and level 3 after 2-3 further sessions but that's both slow and in all three campaigns has involved players brand new to D&D and non-newbies playing classes they've never played before (and sometimes haven't researched despite the class fitting them like a glove). If I were playing with all veterans who were responding fast and knew what their characters could do [/rant] I really wouldn't want to spend more than 3 sessions at levels 1-2

Yeah....it's not fun, let me tell you.

I will also say that Fytor who despite intended to be a fighter became a paladin because he literally told a demon to go back to hell in the course of the first session tends to be more interesting to the player than Fytor #23 who was just chosen out of a list of abstract options and the player is more invested in them in my experience regardless of how many previous characters they've played.

The problem for me, on this front, is that it's...really hard to actually make this satisfying. That is, "organic" development sounds nice, but I have repeatedly seen folks do that and end up with a character that never really went much of anywhere or made much of a mark.

And I'm all in favour of this

Then perhaps we are not as far apart as it seemed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem for me, on this front, is that it's...really hard to actually make this satisfying. That is, "organic" development sounds nice, but I have repeatedly seen folks do that and end up with a character that never really went much of anywhere or made much of a mark.

To do this properly 90% you need to absolutely push this hard from the DM side. What I do is build a specific and deliberate crunch point into my level 0 adventures; the one I've used two of the last three times has a basic setup.

• PCs trying to track down kidnap victim who was kidnapped by a cult.
• Victim is chained to a summoning circle with the high priest standing over them chanting
• About a dozen cultists around them (all wearing robes and carrying daggers and no other weapons; they aren't expecting the PCs).
• The ritual (they aren't yet aware) is a sacrifice to make the cult leader into a warlock
• The cultists aren't yet aware that anyone killed with their blood shed in the summoning circle when the rite is ongoing will lead to the killer being offered the power of an infernal pact warlock.
• The PCs and the cultists are both going to find out the first time a PC kills a cultist in the circle as a voice growls "Do you want my power?"
• How the PC responds to being offered power determines their class. (The one who says yes (and there's always been one) becomes an infernal warlock).

As a DM with organic development my job is a gardener, using choices like that to have the PCs reveal who they are, which may not be who they think they are. Without a gardener if you're looking for organic development in D&D you get the same effect that you get in an untended garden; a mess with weeds and most D&D players don't have the knowledge to do this sort of gardening.

Then perhaps we are not as far apart as it seemed.

As I said earlier in the thread I'd far rather that the characters gained a subclass at each tier, so their basic subclass at level 3, and something equivalent at 8, 13, and 18 (actual levels subject to negotiation) the way in 4e you got Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies to supplement your base class. I definitely think that levels 1 and 2 are needed for newbies - and that the default option should be the one that caters to newbies. I also find the 2-3 jump as is to be one of the most interesting. But that doesn't mean that I think everyone should do the same thing every time and see why people get frustrated, especially without aggressive gardening to assist character growth.

 

[niklinna]

How the PC responds to being offered power determines their class. (The one who says yes (and there's always been one) becomes an infernal warlock).

Interesting. What are your setups for other classes & subclasses? Presumably you have them picked out in advance for the players, but are there more possibilities than players? Can two players wind up with the same one? If a player already has an idea in mind, do you set that up for them?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Interesting. What are your setups for other classes & subclasses? Presumably you have them picked out in advance for the players, but are there more possibilities than players? Can two players wind up with the same one? If a player already has an idea in mind, do you set that up for them?

I don't actually have them picked out in advance, in part because I can't cover all angles and enjoy the players surprising me. If a player has an idea in mind then it's always a possibility but it doesn't always happen. Some of the ones that spring to mind have been:

• Just continuing to fight and ignore the voice is either a barbarian or a fighter (depending on how they fight)
• Telling the demon in no uncertain terms "No" is the Paladin choice
• Calling on a god is of course clerical
• Someone who was angling for bard decided to try to provoke the demon - and had a psychic entity slammed into them, ending up as an Aberrant Mind sorcerer (which they enjoyed)
• Hiding is either a ranger or a rogue depending on how, why, and the rest of what they did. (I suppose monk is a possibility but hasn't happened yet).

As for two players winding up with the same class, it's unlikely. I'd be far more likely to use "paired classes" like fighter and barbarian or rogue and ranger. But it's whatever feels right in the moment.

Edit: And the only setup for another warlock subclass is if the warlock tries later to find a new patron; it hasn't happened yet but that's both the easiest and safest route out of a pact (not that it's either easy or safe).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sounds not too far off from how I run my DW game, @Neonchameleon. That is, of the players currently in the group or on hiatus, we have:

• A Bard who has actively dabbled in various other things (esp. thievery) and specialized in healing, but is branching out. His story has centered on his tiefling heritage and what it means, so his powers have grown by becoming first a proper cambion, and then something beyond cambion. (Long story short, he absorbed the fiendish power that had made some people the party likes into tieflings, freeing them from this unwanted connection, because the being who granted that power is his devilish ancestor on his dad's side; this power turned him into an effective half-devil. Then he also took on his maternal great-grandmother's succubus powers....so he's now, in a sense, 90% human, 50% devil, 50% incubus.)
• A Druid who has pulled at the edges of knowledge, and in so doing...basically found God. Or at least that's what he believes. I've taken pains to make sure that he knows: there is no proof. He's had one "interaction" (which was left deliberately ambiguous), and all his other contact with the divine has been mediated through third parties (a couatl the party has befriended, and their close ally, Tenryu Shen, a gold dragon). These allies have made clear, even the One Themself cannot prove Their divinity beyond doubt; it must be an act of faith. But the One believes he is the right man for the mission of revealing new understandings of old, old truths.
• A Battlemaster who was, once, a perfectly, completely normal half-elf. Zero magic. This made him unique in the party. Everyone else has relatively rigorous magical training. He has since slowly come to terms with that aspect of existence, and begun to learn the ways it can be turned toward war....and learned that the mysteries of his elven heritage are much more complicated than he ever expected. The powerful heirloom sword he inherited from his elven mother is the key--or part of the key--to an ancient, disappeared civilization.
• A Ranger who has found God in his own way, becoming the terrible swift sword that hunts down the things which lurk in the darkness and among the dunes....and who has also learned that he is an heir to the First Sultan, twice over, that the blood runs strong in his veins, and that his dreams of leading his nomad tribe away from the comfortable city life his maternal grandmother has chosen for them may now instead bloom as founding his own city-state. But will he succumb to the temptations that his hated paternal grandfather did, and become everything he hates in the process of trying to secure everything he loves...? (Player currently on hiatus: character is off getting logistics going for the foundation of his new city-state.)

We also have a Spellslinger, but she's still pretty new to the party. We haven't yet worked out a suitably epic story for her. It's a work in progress.

 

[Garthanos]

Okay...I guess my issue with that is, a choice is a single moment. That moment may be awesome or boring or whatever, but it happens, once, and then it's done.

exactly one and its done is not evolution its like going to college and picking a minor and zip the school then gives you exactly the same classes as every other student with that minor (not how it works IRL)

 

[Hussar]

Thinking about it I think my next campaign will start at 4th. 4th to 5th is a big jump for pretty much all classes and it usually takes a few sessions. At least at my table anyway.

So use 4th level to really nail down who this character is and then at 5th your pretty much good to go.

I think I like this plan.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, for me it really depends on the build, and how much of the “seeds” of the build I can get early on.

For my recent “Star Wars to Planesjammer/MtG mashup” PC, Ianthe, she was a Scout/Jedi in SWSE with very strong telekenetic powers, and a very deadly duelist, who made it to early teen years as a prodigy Tapani saber rake and racing pilot, until her “uncle” (actually father) realized she was force sensitive and sent her to train with her Jedi uncle. Her mom is an Umbaran smuggler and former assassin, and her father is a Tapani Noble/Ace Pilot/Jedi who likes the Jedi but doesn’t especially want to be one. He just trained with them to learn how to avoid the Dark Side and focus his abilities. He’d rather run his racing syndicate that is a front for a smuggling ring.

So Ianthe is deadly with a dueling saber or lightfoil, powerfully telekinetic, incorporates the force into her dueling, and is an athlete and starfighter and swoop bike racer. She’s a bit of a tech head, but not super invested in that, just at the “solid mechanic” level.

But the D&D version needs to start at 1.

First I tried 1 level of Rogue with a feat to get a few appropriate spells. It’s close. High Elf gets another cantrip, swap proficiencies to get smiths and tinker tools and a vehicle type, background for another vehicle type, looks good. Couple levels I’ll be rocking and rolling. Magic Initiate gets me Mage Hand and Message, and catapult, high elf for booming blade.

If I couldn’t have some magic and mechanic vibe and sword fighting at level 1, she wouldn’t work.

I also did a Wood Elf wizard build with Skill Expert, swap profs for rapiers and tools as above, get same cantrips as above with wizard, grab catapult, jump, mage armor, shield (flavored as block/deflect), etc. wood elf gives perception and a hiding benefit, which fits Umbaran.

Both builds work at level 1, but wouldn’t pre-Tasha’s.

Other PCs I love had a harder time coming together early.

 

[NaturalZero]

I think my main issue is that people want these classes and archetypes at as low a level as possible even when it doesn’t really make sense to.

They make as much sense as the base classes and options that are already there though. You have a 1st level wizard that can shoot magic all day, the guy with ancient dragon blood, an aasimar who is descended from God, and a guy who's made a pact with Satan. But the Arcane Trickster using mage hand at level 1 doesn't make sense? The 1st level Barbarian doesn't worship a totem?

If I had my choice I think I'd hand out a new subclass half way through every tier (so at levels 3, 8, 13, and 17 or so). A big meaningful choice you can make that fundamentally affects who you are and how you approach the world from then on.

I'd definitely like more customization points. I think one option would be to retool feats to be mini subclasses and give them out for free at certain points.

Reading this thread has made me realize that 4e was pretty much the best DnD at organic growth because of the freedom to pick paragon paths and epic destinies, often times regardless of class or stringent prereqs. 3e was really, really, really, bad at organic growth because you had to micro-plan your build for it to come out correctly and 5e has most people locking in decision points early on, with less feat points than either 3e or 4e.

Slide the average level 1-10 game to level 3-12?

The thing is that no one decided that the average game was level 1-10, that's just roughly how 5e turned out after the community played it for 8 years. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd love to change things so that every game averaged levels 3-20 but I don't see that being adopted as the average campaign.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I am SO DONE TO DEATH with levels 1-3.

As a DM who also gets rare time to play, I get this.

A while ago I was thinking about the E6 variant of the game (or whatever, so you only have 6 levels), and also about how tier 2 is considered the sweet spot in the game. I realized, why not have levels 5-10 BE what is "E6"??? After all, IME most games only take 6-10 sessions to reach level 5.

Most important features come online near 5th level (give or take 1-2 levels) and you always have your subclass chosen. By 10th level you can handle most threats in the game, but there are still many threats that can be extremely challenging, perhaps even requiring a McGuffin or something to be successful.

Since most games seem to end around 10th levels, it also works in that sense.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I realize that but imagine a game where 1 and 2 were "real" levels that you got to fully enjoy as part of the average 1-10 game instead of being skipped over?

4E was exactly like that, 1st level characters had powerful, flavorful class abilities and enough HP to not go down to a single lucky hit. But not everyone liked that, some people really enjoy the "zero-to-hero" gameplay, so in 5E we get starting at 3rd level as a compromise for groups who want to start a campaign with actually competent characters.

 

[payn]

The thing is that no one decided that the average game was level 1-10, that's just roughly how 5e turned out after the community played it for 8 years. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd love to change things so that every game averaged levels 3-20 but I don't see that being adopted as the average campaign.

Is it? I have only played a couple 5E games and one went to level 20. How has that average settled across the community?

 

[d24454_modern]

Reading this thread has made me realize that 4e was pretty much the best DnD at organic growth because of the freedom to pick paragon paths and epic destinies, often times regardless of class or stringent prereqs. 3e was really, really, really, bad at organic growth because you had to micro-plan your build for it to come out correctly and 5e has most people locking in decision points early on, with less feat points than either 3e or 4e.

Personally, I feel like the most organic type of growth is just picking up whatever comes your way rather than the set paths that a lot of later editions try to force us down.