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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Right. And I think the latter is better as it serves both camps just fine.

In any case, I feel that the point of a level based games such as D&D is the journey and the growth of the character, not just being some specific fixed unchanging concept. But if people like more fully-fledged and competent characters from the get go, one can always start the campaign at a higher level.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Right. And I think the latter is better as it serves both camps just fine.

In any case, I feel that the point of a level based games such as D&D is the journey and the growth of the character, not just being some specific fixed unchanging concept. But if people like more fully-fledged and competent characters from the get go, one can always start the campaign at a higher level.

There's a huge problem with 5e's solution though. And it's a problem that has shown up in other approaches 5e has used.

People don't actually use it "correctly."

I have seen it happen at least four separate times with for unrelated DMs. I have  begged them to start their campaigns at a higher level to avoid problems with early levels being punishingly, brutally difficult. They have ignored me each time, and their choice to start at first level simply because it is first level has been directly responsible for ending at least two campaigns I played in.

There is a HUGE psychological push toward starting at first level ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS, no matter what, no matter how much better it might be to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever else. As a result, while it is theoretically valid to say "just start at higher level," in practice this hasn't worked so well. One might even call it speculation in a chamber most pale...

Hence my advocacy of well-supported, positively-presented, but purely opt-in "zero level" rules. These would empower fans of "zero to hero," indeed would give them even more control and ideally a fuller experience of the kind they desire, while recognizing the practical truth that many DMs see 1st level as the ONLY starting point always and forever, no matter how silly that position might be from a purely logical, theoretical standpoint.

Again, I want to emphasize that using this approach, it is incredibly important to avoid even the tiniest hint of deprecation or inferiority. Any form of opt-in "zero level" rules must be both fully recognized as a fun and historically popular approach to play, and treated with the same respect and serious design rigor as any other portion of the game.

 

[payn]

There's a huge problem with 5e's solution though. And it's a problem that has shown up in other approaches 5e has used.

People don't actually use it "correctly."

I have seen it happen at least four separate times with for unrelated DMs. I have  begged them to start their campaigns at a higher level to avoid problems with early levels being punishingly, brutally difficult. They have ignored me each time, and their choice to start at first level simply because it is first level has been directly responsible for ending at least two campaigns I played in.

There is a HUGE psychological push toward starting at first level ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS, no matter what, no matter how much better it might be to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever else. As a result, while it is theoretically valid to say "just start at higher level," in practice this hasn't worked so well. One might even call it speculation in a chamber most pale...

Hence my advocacy of well-supported, positively-presented, but purely opt-in "zero level" rules. These would empower fans of "zero to hero," indeed would give them even more control and ideally a fuller experience of the kind they desire, while recognizing the practical truth that many DMs see 1st level as the ONLY starting point always and forever, no matter how silly that position might be from a purely logical, theoretical standpoint.

Again, I want to emphasize that using this approach, it is incredibly important to avoid even the tiniest hint of deprecation or inferiority. Any form of opt-in "zero level" rules must be both fully recognized as a fun and historically popular approach to play, and treated with the same respect and serious design rigor as any other portion of the game.

Seems like a lot of trouble to goto to fix four tables.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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.)

Not long at all. I try to telegraph things with background and feats.

If I were to play a fighter-wizard, I would take either sage background or magic initiate out of the gate for a variant human.

As to stacking 4 classes to get a mega combo? Nope. Not waiting for half a character’s life to become what he is supposed to be all along.

In fact, I prefer to take a level in one class and then the other right away vs. way down the line.

I am not against dips but those bear immediate fruit.

We don’t play to super high level 8 or 9 most recently). I refuse to wait that long to have my immersion!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Seems like a lot of trouble to goto to fix four tables.

....yes. because literally no one else has ever done this. I am literally the only person on the planet who has had this experience.

 

[payn]

....yes. because literally no one else has ever done this. I am literally the only person on the planet who has had this experience.

Well, it was discussed during development, run through a playtest, and surveyed by players. It's not ideal for everyone, but seems to be the popular position at the time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's a huge problem with 5e's solution though. And it's a problem that has shown up in other approaches 5e has used.

People don't actually use it "correctly."

I have seen it happen at least four separate times with for unrelated DMs. I have  begged them to start their campaigns at a higher level to avoid problems with early levels being punishingly, brutally difficult. They have ignored me each time, and their choice to start at first level simply because it is first level has been directly responsible for ending at least two campaigns I played in.

There is a HUGE psychological push toward starting at first level ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS, no matter what, no matter how much better it might be to start at 3rd or 5th or whatever else. As a result, while it is theoretically valid to say "just start at higher level," in practice this hasn't worked so well. One might even call it speculation in a chamber most pale...

Hence my advocacy of well-supported, positively-presented, but purely opt-in "zero level" rules. These would empower fans of "zero to hero," indeed would give them even more control and ideally a fuller experience of the kind they desire, while recognizing the practical truth that many DMs see 1st level as the ONLY starting point always and forever, no matter how silly that position might be from a purely logical, theoretical standpoint.

Again, I want to emphasize that using this approach, it is incredibly important to avoid even the tiniest hint of deprecation or inferiority. Any form of opt-in "zero level" rules must be both fully recognized as a fun and historically popular approach to play, and treated with the same respect and serious design rigor as any other portion of the game.

Option to start at a higher level is presented, It could perhaps be clearer, but it exists and people use it. Now they might not use it often, because they don't want to. I feel your main issue simply is that you want to play in a different way than most other people.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Option to start at a higher level is presented, It could perhaps be clearer, but it exists and people use it. Now they might not use it often, because they don't want to. I feel your main issue simply is that you want to play in a different way than most other people.

Do they not want to because they very specifically want the brutal low-level experience?

Or do they not want to because "1st level is the level you start at. That's what 1st means. Why would you ever start at any other level?" Because I can tell you, that was what all four of those DMs told me. Not in exactly those words, but that was the point.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Definitely. 4e had another thing that warlocks and artificers have; you make regular decisions that aren't just picking your spells (which are effectively equipment, especially for wizards). With 4e you picked something at every level; a combat power every odd level, and a feat plus either a utility or an ASI every even. It was possibly too much. With warlocks you pick invocations and artificers infusions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Right. And I think the latter is better as it serves both camps just fine.

I don't feel like stealing two levels from one camp is 'just fine'.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Do they not want to because they very specifically want the brutal low-level experience?

Or do they not want to because "1st level is the level you start at. That's what 1st means. Why would you ever start at any other level?" Because I can tell you, that was what all four of those DMs told me. Not in exactly those words, but that was the point.

Starting at a level higher than first is explicitly recommended as an option for veteran players in the DMG on page 38.

If there are a substantial number of DMs that won't even look at that rule then I can understand why the modular options did not, in the end, make the cut...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't feel like stealing two levels from one camp is 'just fine'.

I don't feel any theft going on. The default start is the one that is easier for newbies.

And I feel that the current situation where the DMG explicitly recommends starting at higher level is a better option than burning one camp to the ground and salting the earth by taking the existing levels 1 and 2 out of the game. And it would be better than salting the earth even if the newbie experience wasn't the one being prioritised.

 

[Older Beholder]

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.)

I usually like to plan ahead a little and have a vague idea of what abilities will be gained as I level up so I can steer my character in that direction when playing. Usually I would have an idea that might 'turn on' at either 5 or 6, but might be higher for a multiclass character. Other times it might not be a build so much as a character concept, or an end goal...

egs:
I once played a Kenku dragonblood sorcerer with the idea that they get wings at level 14, breaking a part of the racial curse. (The game folded at level 7 or 8 because the GM wanted to run Traveller instead) As much as a that was the long goal, there were still build ideas that came on earlier, like focusing on acid damage spells.

I'm playing a Fire Genasi Arcana cleric, and getting a wizard spell of 6,7,8 and 9th level at 17th level was in the back of my mind from pretty early on, I considered multiclassing into cleric/wizard a few times, but it never seemed worth it compared to just sticking with Arcana Cleric the whole way. (The main idea here was to get Wish as a Genasi, but only ever cast it for others in keeping with the Genie heritage)

 

[Hussar]

I don't feel like stealing two levels from one camp is 'just fine'.

The problem being though, there is zero support for any campaign that starts higher than 1st. Most WotC modules start at 1st level. The only one that doesn't that I can think of is Dungeon of the Mad Mage and that's because you're supposed to play Dragonheist first.

So, if I want to start at 3rd level, say, I have to cut at least one, and probably two adventures out of the module I just bought. Which, by and large, is where all the motivation for doing these adventures lies. Never minding all the set up and exposition and everything else. By skipping the opening adventure or two, a lot of these modules don't make much sense.

Saltmarsh without Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh setting up two of the main modules of the campaign loses considerably. It's the first adventure in Candlekeep that primarily focuses on Candlekeep. The next actual adventure in Candlekeep is three or four levels down the road and would be a really strange one to start with.

I'd say that it's not quite as cut and dried to just tell everyone else that they can "start at level 3" or level 5 for that matter. By doing so, you do make a lot of those modules a lot less useful. And, never minding that poor DM that wants to start at level 9 or 10. You're pretty much entirely on your own at that point. There's so little material for you in the double digit levels by comparison.

 

[Hussar]

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.

You mean like in AD&D where your growth was locked in at 1st level and you were forced down a single path of mechanics regardless of whether or not it made sense? That sort of freedom?

 

[billd91]

The problem being though, there is zero support for any campaign that starts higher than 1st. Most WotC modules start at 1st level. The only one that doesn't that I can think of is Dungeon of the Mad Mage and that's because you're supposed to play Dragonheist first.

Princes of the Apocalypse and Storm King’s Thunder both address the idea of starting after first level.

 

[Hussar]

Princes of the Apocalypse and Storm King’s Thunder both address the idea of starting after first level.

True. But you do see what I mean though, right? Those opening adventures are typically where all the setting stuff is.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do they not want to because they very specifically want the brutal low-level experience?

Or do they not want to because "1st level is the level you start at. That's what 1st means. Why would you ever start at any other level?" Because I can tell you, that was what all four of those DMs told me. Not in exactly those words, but that was the point.

I actually prefer to start at 1st level because its more brutal. But you make a strong point. How many people start at 1st because 'you're supposed to start at first level DUH!' and how many start at it because they like the more brutal experience.

 

[FrogReaver]

I want the core of my build together asap. I don't like to play a build that takes longer than level 6-7 to really come together. Preferably it comes together earlier.

 

[Hussar]

I actually prefer to start at 1st level because its more brutal. But you make a strong point. How many people start at 1st because 'you're supposed to start at first level DUH!' and how many start at it because they like the more brutal experience.

Well, like I said earlier, there's a very strong push towards starting at 1st level. Most of the AP's, for example, start out at 1st level. And, they are very much structured around the assumption that you are going to play that 1st adventure. Typically that first adventure is going to have strong links to a lot of the stuff that comes later.