• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

Gryph

First Post
Well if they stick to the stated leveling rate from the article then I tend to agree with [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] that giving up a couple levels at the top is a poor way to solve the starting character scaling issue. Start to done in under a year of weekly sessions seems terribly fast to me.

On the other hand, with some old school style increasing time to level as you break the double digits then I rather like the implications of this style of stripped down first two levels. Both for the true zero to hero campaign feel and to inhibit the minimal class dip that I found very troubling with 3.x multiclassing (assuming they are going to use 3.x style multiclassing).

I read on one of the OSR blogs (The Mule Abides, IIRC) that Gary's house rules included starting new characters in the existing campaign at level 3, so it certainly has a long and rich pedigree.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

VinylTap

First Post
its a roleplaying game guys... if you want more play time... just play more of the game... They're not taking anything away from you.. they're giving you a official ruling on skipping those low-power levels because some people have stated they don't like running around with 7 HP. its not a subtraction... its an addition. Those low-power levels aren't going anywhere in standard rules. (then again I could be wrong, perhaps WOTC will hire 'Imagination police', and all games will be ruined! DOOM!)

This is the best solution because it synergizes well with multiple play modes and multiclassing.
 
Last edited:

Cyberen

First Post
No, it's definitely not a coincidence.
If "level 1" is the power baseline for commoners, it is jarring to have "level 1" PCs far above that baseline.
It's VERY GOOD design to have a consistent power ladder throughout the whole game.
Having lvl 1 = human commoner favors consistency, including 3e style multiclassing, and leaves room for plausible/gritty adventures involving "normal" people and humanoids.
The return of "name level" souds good too !
 

gyor

Legend
I think that the real reason is that it makes multiclassing easier to do if classes aren't front loaded. The downside is jow levels 1 and 2 will be suck.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
I would believe that, if it weren't for the statement that most experienced groups would start off at third level. That implies they believe that the dial is fine.

IMXP most experienced groups in 3ed after the first few years started every game at some level between 3rd and 10th. That's what they called the "sweet spot". Lower than that, experienced players felt probably that their PCs weren't flexible or tactically interesting enough, and a few levels above 10 experienced DMs probably started to have issues designing adventures that could withstand the powers of the PCs. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean to me that the game would have been better if levels 1-2 and 15-20 had been totally missing. The choice was there, some people still managed to run a 15+ level game despite the difficulties, and almost everyone used levels 1-2 at least for learning the game, and still many people used levels 1-2 of a single class in multiclassing, even if their PC overall was higher level. Just because there is a "sweet spot" doesn't mean that the dial isn't fine, or that what is lower and higher should better not be available. Additionally, it is useful for NPCs, although clearly not essential (there are other ways for them).

Personally I consider myself experienced enough not to be called a beginner, and yet I have been writing here many times my feelings that 1st level was a bit too full of stuff.

There might be an issue of different expectations here: some gamers like thinking that all PCs are superior individuals, the only ones who can become heroes, thus they should be at 1st level already far better than commoners; other gamers prefer seeing PCs as people who started off as any other commoner but then raised high upon the masses thanks to good decisions and hard work, and sometimes those players they actually want to roleplay and not skip that early phase of PC's career.

I just think that a game that supports that option is simply better than a game that doesn't. Of course, the way suggested in L&L article is not the only way tho!

Basic had (essentially) two goals: provide a simplified experience to attract new players, and to provide a stream-lined experience for players who don't want a complex game. For whatever reason, the team has decided that approach isn't working as intended.

I agree those are the goals, but I don't get how you arrive at the conclusion...

First of all, Basic means two things, as there is Basic characters and Basic in-game rules, the second being IMO much more important for me. As a player I am not interested in Basic characters because I like customization, but as a DM I am very interested in Basic rules that let me focus on story and action without totally sacrifice tactics, but without the need for "system mastery" or long preparation times.

So let's focus on Basic characters only, and let's elaborate a bit on those goals...

First goal is not just to "attract" new players but to "keep them playing" after the first few levels. If the game gets too complicated (for both players and DMs, and both in character complexity and in-game rules alike) there is a risk that non-expert players are quitting the game after a few levels. This is one reason for Basic to cover at least 10 levels IIRC (otherwise it could have been enough to sell a Basic box that covered the regular first 3-5 levels like in the past) to give those players enough room for many adventures without having a burn-out. Adding apprentice levels below actually makes the room 20% larger.

Second goal is not just for a whole group of players wanting a low-complexity game, but more specifically to allow different players at the same table, the expert ones and the casual ones, the first playing highly customized complex PCs and the second being able to jump on board of some friends' evening game without fear of not being able to play. The coexistence of Basic and Standard PCs is quite a lot more ambitious that just making two versions of the game, but the latter wouldn't allow to mix expert and casual players on an existing game, it would require the DM to setup a new campaign with Basic characters for all in order to accomodate a newcomer. It might be too hard to achieve this goal, but it's IMHO a very worthwhile goal to let gamers try and bring friends, spouses, co-workers, children etc. to try out the real game together, without even stopping their current campaign. That said, this second goal has nothing to do with apprentice levels :)
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Obryn said:
(1) It abbreviates the level range for the kind of game I'm looking for. I'd rather see it expand downward, either below 1st or outside the normal heroic class/level system. (So, your apprentices may not have a class until they make it to 1st level.)

Does it do that in practice, though?

You could play levels 3-15 forever, never seeing either of the other sides of that (apparently 3-sided) coin, with XP adjustments or E6-ing the game at various points, with legions of options for a character. Given the "every two sessions" nature of leveling up, the rules anticipate you spend about six months in that tier, even if you don't do that.

I don't find an "abbreviated level range" to be an indicator of any lack of options or play time, necessarily. What do you imagine will be the effects on your game from that 12-level band?

Obryn said:
(2) Higher levels carry baggage with them beyond hit points. I do want a simpler starting point, but I also want a baseline of competence.

That "baggage" seems to be covered in the 15-20 tier. And the "baseline of competence" seems to come at level 3.

Just so all the cards are on the table, I'm stoked at the idea of apprentice levels being 1-3, not just because I love the "zero to hero" scope of play, but also because I recognize it as solving a tenacious multiclassing problem and helping to model NPC's who aren't heroes within the "level" structure.

Doing some quick math (assuming 1 session/week), it seems like we've got:
  • Apprentice-Tier: 2 weeks
  • Adventurer Tier: 24 weeks
  • Legacy Tier: 15 weeks
  • Total 1-20: 41 weeks

...ladies and gentlemen, the 1-year-game that I've been babbling about since 2008 is officially a go. :)
 

hbarsquared

Quantum Chronomancer
On Obryn's subject of "losing two level" in the Adventurer Tier... I don't see it as such. As Kamikaze said, "What are you losing?"

I see two possibilities. One, character abilities. Two, time spent playing.

One isn't an issue, since all of those same abilities will simply be compressed into the remaining levels. Your character isn't "missing out" on any cool stuff, and if anything this "solves" the problem of possible dead levels...

Two is a dial that can easily be changed, and there will likely be advice on how to exactly do this: want Adventurer Tier characters to level up once every three sessions instead of two? Multiply by 1.5. Done, and now you have a campaign that lasts two years instead of one, if you want!

In my opinion, this is an inclusive change that satisfies actual problems with the game that were issues until now. Starting character hit points. Multiclassing and front loaded classes. NPCs using the same level system. Gritty 1st-level characters. Super simple character creation for beginners. Super simple gameplay and initial leveling up for beginners (which should be just as important as just character creation).

In fact, I can envision myself and my group always wanting to play from Level 1, despite probably using Advanced and Expert as the campaign develops. We like the idea of quick character creation and diving into the game itself the first session or two.

It's elegant, makes sense, and in my opinion, does not detract from anyone else when it comes to actual play.
 

Grimmjow

First Post
Because they're taking what is 1st level right now and making you get that stuff gradually up to level 3. IMO, classes already are fairly lacking in interesting options at 1st level, and now they want to make us wait 3 levels just to get that? And considering the (IMO) extremely rapid rate that they suggest for leveling, I'd rather not have to start at level 3.

didnt they say these would be an optional way to play the game?

For
D&D Next, we've had some discussions about tiers and what they mean for the game. I've felt that a tier should be much like any other option a DM picks for a campaign—a flag that tells you what kind of game to expect.
 

Libramarian

Adventurer
Doing some quick math (assuming 1 session/week), it seems like we've got:
  • Apprentice-Tier: 2 weeks
  • Adventurer Tier: 24 weeks
  • Legacy Tier: 15 weeks
  • Total 1-20: 41 weeks

...ladies and gentlemen, the 1-year-game that I've been babbling about since 2008 is officially a go. :)

Yeah, this is the only part that I thought might be an April Fools joke. That is insanely fast. :eek:
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top