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

[Ratskinner]

And you can start playing as 1st level adventurer or apprentice. Multi class character should use apprentice levels.

That's a big advantage. No more level-dipping. ....or at least I can hope.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Also, if 3rd is the new 1st, people who want to start with more powerful, versatile characters are now... What? Starting at 5th? 6th?

And starting at Level 5 instead of at Level 3 (for a high-powered game where Adventurer tier starts at 1) is worse because...?

I find the whole argument silly. Everyone wants their favorite way of playing to be the one that "Gets to start at Level 1!!!" Like somehow starting at that number is what is going to make their game better.

 

[Li Shenron]

In particular, this article detailing the "Advanced" rules talked about the concept of "dials" - that the rules can be adjusted to fit a play-style, or rules can be stacked on top of the "Standard" rule set. To me, this seems like exactly the sort of thing that should fall under that banner. In fact, many of the examples in the cited article specifically point at grittier play.

Choosing the starting level of a campaign is a dial... a super-easy dial because the designers don't even need to worry about that, with one caveat: you cannot dial it below the minimum or above the maximum.

If today's article is real, they might have just realized that the current minimum for that dial is a bit too high, even considering the Basic version of the characters because Level 1 Basic PCs might have a lot of features technically "embedded", but they still have them.

 

[Obryn]

Actually... all it does is remove two levels of higher power "stuff" that has to be created in an effort to make gaining a level worthwhile. And inevitably, that additional "stuff" leads to more confusion or more overpoweredness or more delay while playing the game.

Rather than 15 levels worth of "stuff" you get if you started at Level 1... you instead get 13 by starting at Level 3. What exactly do you think you are missing out on by not getting those two extra levels of "stuff"?

And what if they suddenly decided to move levels 16 and 17 to the Adventurer tier? Would all of a sudden your game now open up into rainbows and delight because you got those two extra levels? I find it hard to believe that having 15 levels of a "tier" is somehow several times in magnitude greater in enjoyment than only having 13. Especially considering both of them are more than any particular tier of 4E to begin with.

I don't have any idea what you're addressing here, because it doesn't look like my point.

The game goes to level 20. If I start at 3rd, that's less "game. " Is it a game-killer? No more so than having 0-level stuff, I'd suspect.

Otherwise, it seems like you have difficulties with leveling up in general? Higher power "stuff" is part and parcel to the concept of levels.

-O

 

[Obryn]

I find the whole argument silly. Everyone wants their favorite way of playing to be the one that "Gets to start at Level 1!!!" Like somehow starting at that number is what is going to make their game better.

"You just want the game to be like what you want the game to be like!" is kind of a weird criticism.

-O

 

[Jester David]

I like it!!

Having the game call out 3rd level and making it an easy starting level solves many of the problems people have with low level play. You can have more class features, more hitpoints, less fragile characters and the rules are designed to make it easy to start at that level.
But those who like fragile heroes still get their weak squishy PCs as an option. And new players get some simple easy to run characters that quickly advance.

It also answers the question of "what are 1st level characters". People see this differently and this is the easiest way of satisfying both, by having two starting levels.

I see two problems with this.
First, 1st level characters don't get much in 5e. Taking away what they do have and spacing it out over three levels is a bit much. Instead, I think they should only halve the power of characters and give even more features and options to 3rd level characters.
This makes it easier to start playing the character you want at level 3 rather than having to wait until even higher levels.
Second, we need multiple advancement tracks. Some people might want to blow through the apprentice levels, getting through both in a single session while other groups might want a slower pace where advancement is constant.

This is basically Heroic and a combination of Paragon/Epic with a "Aprentice" tier added on at the begining (something I longed for in 4e). But Paragon and Epic are different things. I see the need for a fourth tier, but expect there might be an "epic" module added later.
Still, the "legacy" tier is also a pretty poor name. Yes, you're working on your legacy, but most heroes don't know that at the time. You only realize what your legacy is after the fact. Granted, I wasn't fond of "paragon" either though.
Higher levels are where the character is a legend, a hero. This would be when Hercules completed his twelve labours. So "Mythical" or "Legendary" might be better.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't have any idea what you're addressing here, because it doesn't look like my point.

The game goes to level 20. If I start at 3rd, that's less "game. " Is it a game-killer? No more so than having 0-level stuff, I'd suspect.

No... the amount of "game" can be exactly the same. That all depends on how you end up choosing to give out XP. Two campaigns can play the exact same length of time and do the exact same number of encounters, but one goes from Levels 1-20 and the other goes from Levels 1-15 based entirely on how the DM chooses to have PCs level up. All that's different in those two games is the amount of character-building "stuff" you got along the way. That was my point and goes exactly along with what you were saying.

To you... having 20 "levels" of stuff is somehow more meaningful than 18 "levels" of stuff. Somehow, those two extra demarcations in how your game gets broken up-- even though the only thing you gain from those two levels is some hit points and maybe a class ability or two-- matter to your campaign's story? I find that questionable. At the end of a three-year campaign, will what is remembered about it be that you only got to level up 18 times rather than 20? I find that unlikely.

 

[Jester David]

The game goes to level 20. If I start at 3rd, that's less "game. " Is it a game-killer? No more so than having 0-level stuff, I'd suspect.

This is a pretty valid concern.
Although, two levels is pretty minor and campaigns that run from 1-20 are in the minority.

Still, it wouldn't end the world to have the game go to level 25. Of course, they might still add an "epic" module that does just that and lets you play and advance endlessly.

 

[Obryn]

To you... having 20 "levels" of stuff is somehow more meaningful than 18 "levels" of stuff. Somehow, those two extra demarcations in how your game gets broken up-- even though the only thing you gain from those two levels is some hit points and maybe a class ability or two-- matter to your campaign's story? I find that questionable. At the end of a three-year campaign, will what is remembered about it be that you only got to level up 18 times rather than 20? I find that unlikely.

That's... fine? You can find it as doubtful as you like.

I think you're assuming this point is much more important to me than it is. It's something I dislike, just as you presumably dislike the idea of starting at Level 0. You can slice it any way you want, but I'd rather have 20 playable levels from a baseline of competence.

Exaggerating my concerns to caricature them is awesome, though.

-O

 

[DEFCON 1]

"You just want the game to be like what you want the game to be like!" is kind of a weird criticism.

Well, it's true. Like getting to start their game at "Level 1" instead of "Level 0" or "Level 3" actually means anything or somehow makes their game better. The game is exactly the same except for what number appears at the top of your character sheet-- a number that's going to be disappearing like three or four sessions in anyway.