D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[JamesonCourage]

"We just came off a farm. I am capable of casting magic spells with no chance of getting it wrong. He is capable of swinging an axe with no possibility of chopping his own foot off. She learnt how to pick locks from the chickens. He talks to his god, and the god answers back. Because people who come straight off the farm can do all these things."

Guess you'll just have to figure a way out to make these things make sense within the fiction, yeah?

Anyone who thinks it's possible to just pick up a weapon and start using it competently without training, please keep your distance from me and have an ambulance ready.

Well, you also have commoners that have no chance of hurting themselves, just like the "fresh off the farm" PCs you basically just railed against. Anyone in-game can just pick up a weapon and use it without any risk of hurting themselves / hitting an ally / whatever. It's just how the game abstraction works. As always, play what you like

 

[Li Shenron]

I had a thought..

If 3rd level Wizards get 1st level spells, well, apart from the fact we're back to two terms both called 'level' for all the fun that brings, then it will take a 19th level Wizard to cast a 9th level spell. With a 20 level limit, we finally have a reason for the lack of 10th level spells

My guess is that 1st level Wizards still get 1st level spells, maybe just 1/day and 1 spell known, and no rituals.

 

[Mon]

And yes, adventurers are heroes. Show me a story where they aren't (once in a while they're bad guys, fine).

Right, but they don't always (or even usually) START as heroes. Cases in point:
Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn
The Riftwar Sage
A Wizard of Earthsea
Star Wars
The Belgariad
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant

Also if the hobbits (and dwarves in TH) are the PCs...
The Hobbit
The Lord of the Rings

 

[Zardnaar]

Damn that is quick leveling. 1 level/2 sessions. 2nd it was 3-7 adventures per level in the DMG lol.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Starting at 3rd level allows for immediate multiclassing as well. Funny - I thought they'd shoot for starting at level 4 because it would allow an even split and due to the 4xskillpoints from 3E.

 

[Balesir]

I think this is really clever. Not what I want in a game, but clever, and quite possibly popular. It's a way to have several games, each with subtly different aesthetics, notionally/nominally part of "the same game". If you want grim and gritty meatgrinder, you will find your "sweet spot" around levels 1-6. For "heroic adventurers in a mostly mundane world", try levels 3-10. "Slightly gonzo big-assed heroes"? Levels 8-15. "Rulers and power brokers"? Levels 14-20. "Lords of Creation"? - sorry, we found that one too hard last time, and besides, not many people want it (if we produce nothing much to support it)...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Do you not see how incredibly limiting to gamestyles this would be?

If your group likes restriction, you can agree on some, and 3e-style multiclassing potentially contains 2e-style multiclassing if you just apply the proper restriction, in this case "max 2 classes, and must be max 1 level apart". Here's your 2e-style multiclass PC within 3e-style multiclassing framework.

We used this kind of restrictions in our 3e games very often, because we also weren't fans of heavy multiclassing driven only by "combo" powergaming. We switched several time between different combinations of max number of classes, max level difference, racial restrictions or benefits, and XP penalties.

No, I don't see it as 'incredibly limiting' at all. In contrast it leverages the strongest features of the class system, which are that it creates distinct archetypes, allows easy character generation and ease of understanding the character's role and place in the game, and GREATLY simplifies class design. In the 2e model MCing is more a way to leverage existing classes to make some additional options. 4e does a similar thing, though people seemed to get too focused on the 'cost' to really take advantage of it.

The problem with the "just restrict everyone" answer is that the negative effects on the DESIGN OF THE GAME still exist. Why do we need this awkward "you must start at 3rd level" etc nonsense? Basically to deal with MCing? And beyond that you're going to find all sorts of interesting class mechanics which will be bad ideas when they can be poached.

So, no, I frown heavily on 3e style MCing. It broke 3e hard and it will have detrimental effects on DDN as well, all to what point? If we really want a classless system then lets have a classless system. If we want 'classless with a theme' then implement a template pattern and something like RM has where you get a discount on advancing stuff in your template, so if you want to be a swordsman you'd probably not choose the 'wizard' template and pay 50% more for your weapon skills and get cheap spells that you won't use. IMHO ala-carte MCing is just the worst of all worlds.

 

[Li Shenron]

No, I don't see it as 'incredibly limiting' at all. In contrast it leverages the strongest features of the class system, which are that it creates distinct archetypes, allows easy character generation and ease of understanding the character's role and place in the game, and GREATLY simplifies class design. In the 2e model MCing is more a way to leverage existing classes to make some additional options.

All these are done even better, actually much better, by not using multiclassing at all.

 

[the Jester]

And yes, adventurers are heroes. Show me a story where they aren't (once in a while they're bad guys, fine).

But D&D is not a story, it's a game. And while, yes, many groups play in story-based campaigns, not all do.

Clever of me that I said 'story', not 'game'. While heroes DO sometimes start as anyman if you have any ambition to tell a story with your game you don't really have a lot of use for mundane non-heroic characters.

But you are assuming that everyone- or at least, most everyone- wants to tell a story with their games. Not everyone does. There is a whole slice of the rpg community that calls themselves "sandboxers" who don't.

I would recommend that you don't conflate the game with the story you tell about it afterwards; don't conflate the game with the story you want to tell; in fact, don't conflate the game with a story at all, because for some groups, it simply isn't.

 

[Nine Hands]

For me two levels "lost" is fine as long as multiclassing works well. I don't believe that two "apprentice" levels are a bad thing. Its MUCH better than 0 level characters!