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

payn

Legend
The problem with consensus on any of this is the contradicting viewpoints. Some folks say first and second level are brutal, others complain that its impossible to kill a PC in 5E. Some folks are worried about modules being less useful by starting at higher level, many folks say the modules suck and you should be homebrewing anyways. Who is to say what is more popular or desirable? I'd say WOTC has more data on this than any of us.

Nobody wants their preferred method as optional. Those who don't like low power low level PCs don't want to start higher level for reasons. Those who like low powered low level PCs don't want to have to use level zero options also for reasons. Dammed if you do...

Wanting to start at level 3 or seeing level 3 as come online level, why is that? Is it the subclass and abilities collected by then feels about right for a starting PC?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Fauchard1520

Explorer
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.
I think this is why 3rd is such a popular starting point amongst the groups where I play. When the archetypes enter the game, that "core" begins to take shape. Or at least that seems to be the perception.
 

Fauchard1520

Explorer
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.
It's too bad that some of these character concepts only work when the campaign premise is, "Let's start out at epic level." Mystic theurge looks cool and fun and flavorful, but you might be staring down the barrel of literal years of sucking only to find that the campaign peters out before you ever get to do your thing. Thanks, no thanks.
 

It's too bad that some of these character concepts only work when the campaign premise is, "Let's start out at epic level." Mystic theurge looks cool and fun and flavorful, but you might be staring down the barrel of literal years of sucking only to find that the campaign peters out before you ever get to do your thing. Thanks, no thanks.
I honestly don't see why 5e hasn't made a mystic theurge type subclass of wizard. All you need to do is have its special thing being to open other spell lists and choices as you level up as a wizard. As others get better in their school you gain pure breadth of spells availabile. Gotta catch em all.
 

Something I've used I the past is a weighted scale for stuff I see as central to a concept I want to create. If it's available lv 1-4 it has full value. 5-10 is 1/2 value, 10-15 is 1/4 , and 15-20 is 1/10. Obviously value is subjective but it helps keep everything in perspective when Im looking at options.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top