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

[am181d]

Dislike.

So it's good that he called out the option to level at different speeds!

 

[Gargoyle]

My first impression was puzzlement (why even spell this out as it doesn't really affect much?), but I actually like the new tiers now that I think about it. Level 0 systems seem more inelegant to me because those rules in the past always made it so difficult to design challenging adventures for such characters without unfair TPK's due to the whims of the dice. If you think of levels 1 and 2 as the new level 0, it makes such player characters more robust and incidentally it makes the presence of numerous level 1 commoners more logical.

This does also sort of give "permission" to DM's to start adventurers off at level 3 to model more seasoned heroes. Not that most of us needed it, but a beginning DM might.

The rate of leveling at the apprentice tier seemed fast to me at first until I realized what they were going for, then it made sense. You shouldn't stay "level 0" long. And if you don't like it, he notes that it is trivial to change that for your group.

The part that is most interesting is the treatment of legacy levels. I like that there are fewer levels overall, never saw the need personally for levels 21+, although I know some people do enjoy that. The new "epic" tier is shorter and lower level, but these tiers are not totally analogous to the old tiers either, they are sort of their own thing. Perhaps the next article will deal with prestige classes and this will segue into that. I'm more worried about how they deal with those than any aspect of the game so far and I'm eager to see some examples.

 

[KidSnide]

I like the idea a lot. There are a lot of new DM's who like things like this spelled out, so I don't think its a completely unrealistic idea to give people guidelines "you should level up after x many sessions, on average", sometimes waiting too long can hamper momentum with a group of new.

QFT. It's important to remember that the default DM advice needs to be focused on games with relatively new DMs that usually don't last more than a year and are in significant danger of premature failure. Providing the PCs a reliable sense of progress is important with a marginal campaign because the sense of advancement can mitigate otherwise unremarkable sessions.

The idea that you can create characters and reach level 2 in your first session and then reach level 3 in your second session sounds totally great to me. I doubt I'd ever start a campaign like that if I intended to run it for the next decade, but it sounds like a great way to introduce new players.

-KS

 

[Li Shenron]

...and incidentally it makes the presence of numerous level 1 commoners more logical.

Good point!

All said, I'm going to be very pissed off this time if they reveal it's an april fool.

 

[tuxgeo]

I completely support this apprentice tier concept - it was an obvious solution to the HP and multiclassing problems. It's also more inclusive (hah, that old argument again), since it allows people to play fragile characters if they choose, and harms nobody who wants to start off heroic, unless they have obsessive-compulsive disorder for counting from 1.

But I guess framing is everything for the belligerent masses of the internet - I'm sure everyone would be happy if the apprentice levels were Alpha and Beta, but you still got triple HD at 'Level 1'.

Just so: "framing is everything. . . ."

I personally have no problem with calling the Apprentice tier "Level 0," but I know there are those who do have such a problem. If they wanted to stretch it out, they could name those apprentice-levels 0¹ – 0² – 0³ . . . where the little symbols after the "0" characters are supposed to be superscript 1, superscript 2, and superscript 3. (Overly complex; I know.)

Another framing device would be referring to the apprentice levels by letter instead of number: start at level "N" for New or Normal or Natural or Nobody; then advance to level "A" for Additive or Advanced or Apprentice; then advance to level "P" for Prodigious or Prepared.
Then at the nominal "Level 1," you are finished with your "NAP" and are ready to go on real adventures.

 

[Obryn]

I'm pretty sure it's not an April Fools.

I'm also pretty sure I don't really care for this implementation, as I've said the dozens of times "just start at level X!" has been suggested.

-O

 

[VinylTap]

I'm pretty sure it's not an April Fools.

I'm also pretty sure I don't really care for this implementation, as I've said the dozens of times "just start at level X!" has been suggested.

-O

But its not for people who are happy doing that, its for people who don't want to start at level 1 HP cap. This is a rule so people don't have to do that-- not for people who are fine with "starting at level one". They're doing it exactly like you suggested, but they're framing it in such a way that people have an 'official word' on starting at x level, so it doesn't feel like such a "cheat". i realize its something people have been doing for years, but its something that may not be completely apparent to a new DM. They get a lot of questions like these from new players, and the community usually has an answer, but I think its a good idea to standardize a lot of these 'so common of a house rule its not really a house rule anymore' nuances and play modes.

 

[Iosue]

Normally I agree with Obryn's reaction to "Just play at level 3", but to my mind there's a heck of a difference between a game that's designed to have a fair amount of time spent at 1st and 2nd level and "Just play at 3rd level" is a dismissive platitude that suggests my preferences are not important, and this, where 1st and 2nd level are essentially two sessions of stripped down characters for a newbie to ease into the game, and much of the game's design and playtesting has given attention to the level I want to start at.

It's like, what if someone took a 4e character, and said, "This is your first game, and your character is just starting out. So you get 1 at-will and 1/3 HP and Healing Surges." And after one session they said, "Okay, now you've gained 1 Encounter and 2/3 HP and surges." And at the third game they said, "Okay, now you have 1 Daily, and full HP and surges." I think that'd be a pretty neat, flavorful way to bring someone into the game that doesn't at all remove a chunk of the game for the majority of folks who are going to start with A/E/D and full HP and surges anyway. As near as I can see, that's what they've done here. That they call those first two sessions "Level 1" and "Level 2", and the starting level of long-term play "Level 3" doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[Li Shenron]

Another framing device would be referring to the apprentice levels by letter instead of number: start at level "N" for New or Normal or Natural or Nobody; then advance to level "A" for Additive or Advanced or Apprentice; then advance to level "P" for Prodigious or Prepared.
Then at the nominal "Level 1," you are finished with your "NAP" and are ready to go on real adventures.

I wouldn't mind if they called those levels e.g. Commoner and Apprentice (and Trainee in case of 3).

I would mind however if they had significantly less HP than current 1st level PCs. I don't think the purpose of the apprentice levels is reducing sheer survivability (1/3 of the HP of 4e is ok, 1/3 of the HP of 5e is not, although it would definitely fit with "CAT levels" ) but rather reducing complexity, flexibility and offensive power.

I think that the designers wouldn't want named levels however, because they are probably also looking forward to leverage this idea for designing non-frontloaded multiclassing, and adding level numbers looks a bit better.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm pretty sure it's not an April Fools.

I'm also pretty sure I don't really care for this implementation, as I've said the dozens of times "just start at level X!" has been suggested.

-O

Either you have to start at 3, or I have to start at 0. There's no way around it.

Even if you never want to play at Apprentice tier, starting at 3 solves so many problems (hit points, multiclassing) that I really don't understand the argument against it.