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?