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

[KidSnide]

I don't agree that making 'Apprentice levels' normal levels is "doing it right" (see my previous post, it skews the game design). I'm find if it is in the core, but it MAY be better to have it be very clearly a separate optional thing you can use if you so choose.

Not having seen these Apprentice level rules, it's hard to say whether it's "doing it right" or not. But, fwiw, I don't think the designers are thinking that a meat grinder is the "doing it right" level 1 experience. Based on the article, I would expect the designers to promote super-easy adventures for the first two levels that are supposed to represent the nascent heroic actions of PCs who start becoming proper adventurers at level 3.

Of course, "super simple characters with survival capabilities below a beginning heroic adventurer" is also the right starting point for a meat grinder campaign. But I see that as killing two design-goal-birds with one design-structure-stone, not an endorsement of meat grinders per se.

-KS

P.S. I heartily recommend meat grinders: homemade sausage ftw! But I wouldn't use it on PCs... imaginary adventurers make terrible sausage.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

First off, I think 3.x style multiclassing is pretty terrible and I'm in no hurry to see it come back. I may be a minority here, but I'm not interested.

If you're in the minority, so am I. 3.x style multiclassing is the major factor that drove me away from 3.x. But that's the style of multiclassing the design team has supported from the get-go of 5E and they don't seem to be backing off of it. The apprentice levels would alleviate the most egregious problems caused by 3.x multiclassing, and to flow logically into those rules must be levels 1 and 2. What kind of convoluted multicalssing rules would have you add "level negative one" to your character when advancing. This is the first concept that has piqued my interest since they pronounced the move back to 3.x multiclassing as they designed 5E.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From Mike Mearls: "These examples are just that: examples. Other legacies might include becoming a divine saint, striving to the immortality offered by lichdom, or countering the influence an archdevil or demon prince claims over the material world. Your legacy reflects the tales and legends that will be told about your character years after his or her death."

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.

Yes, Mike mentioned other things, but I don't know why fighting a demon prince would be a 'legacy', it would be an epic battle, but your legacy is most likely a smoking hole in the ground. Likewise epics are told about great heroes, so I see no compelling reason to change the terminology. Epic has been the term since 3e and IIRC was even referred to as a term in some 2e material.

I mean, really, the terminology isn't a huge big deal, but Hero, Paragon, and Epic sound better IMHO and have precedent.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you're in the minority, so am I. 3.x style multiclassing is the major factor that drove me away from 3.x. But that's the style of multiclassing the design team has supported from the get-go of 5E and they don't seem to be backing off of it. The apprentice levels would alleviate the most egregious problems caused by 3.x multiclassing, and to flow logically into those rules must be levels 1 and 2. What kind of convoluted multicalssing rules would have you add "level negative one" to your character when advancing. This is the first concept that has piqued my interest since they pronounced the move back to 3.x multiclassing as they designed 5E.

Then I'm the super-minority, because I don't like 3e style ala-carte MCing either, but I don't think front-loaded class issues are the major problem with it. I think it undermines the whole concept of classes and complicates their implementation in many ways. So frankly I don't see this level 1 and 2 'solution to MCing' thing as being a plus at all. Ditching the terrible idea of 3e-style MCing would be the correct response there. Instead, given 5e's abandoning of a unified leveling chart, I'd go with something like 2e MCing. You can select ONE secondary class at level 1, that's all you get. Maybe extend it to "pick your MC at any level" and then you advance equally in both at the combined XP total of the next level of each. That would allow for some changing of direction, but not cherry picking and it keeps the classes whole and avoids too much mixing.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yes, Mike mentioned other things, but I don't know why fighting a demon prince would be a 'legacy', it would be an epic battle, but your legacy is most likely a smoking hole in the ground. Likewise epics are told about great heroes, so I see no compelling reason to change the terminology. Epic has been the term since 3e and IIRC was even referred to as a term in some 2e material.

I think the idea is that epic will be a separate thing.

 

[Iosue]

You know, I would be very on board with arguments that it skews the game if this was any other edition, with the typical Level 1/Level 2 advancement. That is not the case here. We're literally talking about two sessions. Even at the fast rate noted by Kamikaze Midget, that's 39 weeks vs 41 weeks.

 

[GX.Sigma]

You know, I would be very on board with arguments that it skews the game if this was any other edition, with the typical Level 1/Level 2 advancement. That is not the case here. We're literally talking about two sessions. Even at the fast rate noted by Kamikaze Midget, that's 39 weeks vs 41 weeks.

Not to mention, advancement will slow down at later levels, so it'll probably be more when you do the math.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd go with something like 2e MCing. You can select ONE secondary class at level 1, that's all you get. Maybe extend it to "pick your MC at any level" and then you advance equally in both at the combined XP total of the next level of each.

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.

 

[Bluenose]

Pure genius!

This solves no less than five distinct problems:
The current lack of a 'fresh off the farm" option of gameplay.

"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."

The verisimilitude disconnect between a world full of commoners and powerful 1st level adventurers.

I'd suggest that people who have been trained for several years to be capable with weapons/magic/thievery/whatever are very likely to be considerably more capable at those things than someone who hasn't spent several years learning those things. And let's be frank, that's how apprenticeship worked in the Middle Ages, you spent several years working and learning in supervised conditions. 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.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

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