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

[Warbringer]

I think the issue is the experience that is modeled at 1st level will be percieved as the "real D&D", with a whole portion of the community saying "see" ... personally, I think is a big wagon of buffalo droppings and makes no sense, but people round here get far more upset over less

 

[Li Shenron]

Sure, but you'll then have to just do the same thing some other way. There is sure to be the guy who wants to play a sword-wielding caster, or a wizard with a bit of a talent with a shiv, etc. There is a HUGE difference between 2e-like MCs where the MC is really effectively a hybrid class, and 3e MCing which is effectively a classless template system. The former adds some flexibility to character creation, the later annihilates the very concept of class and makes it virtually meaningless.

So yeah, if you are forcing me to choose, none is better than ala-carte, but that's not an argument against doing it 2e-style.

My argument is not against the 2e-style but in favor of 3e-style because it actually includes 2e-style but also allows more.

If you go back to 3.0, notice how the multiclassing penalties look: no penalty if all your classes are max 1 level apart, penalty if they are more than 1 level apart (except favoured classes). This is clearly inspired by 2e multiclassing, dividing your XP equally (in 3e cannot be exactly equally since you take levels separately, but as equally as possible) gives no penalty, so this was the reference multiclassing they had in mind. However they also allowed other combinations with unevenly spread levels, in which case there were some penalties because they were predicting that some combinations were going to be better, and that actually turned out to be true... in general, a 3e martial class with a couple levels of spellcaster (or a spellcaster with 1-2 levels of a martial class) worked better than a 50/50. Unfortunately it also turned out that the former is generally quite enough on par with a single-class PC, therefore it shouldn't have had multiclassing penalties at all, and the latter is generally subpar even at no penalty.

However, the main reason why the latter is subpar in 3e is IMHO the fast scaling of BAB, ST and spells DC, so that giving up more than a couple of levels of spellcasting or more than ~3 martial levels, already makes you lag behind in numerical terms. Bounded accuracy should be able to significantly reduce this problem, so IMHO it's definitely worth to check how 3ed-style multiclassing would work on top of 5e!

It's the best choice for first attempt really, then if playtesting shows that it's not good enough, we'll try to come up with another system.

But if it does work, it covers a lot of ground in terms of possible characters, including all 2e-style multiclassed characters. It probably doesn't cover 4e-style multiclassing, but IMHO it is definitely possible to also allow that in the game, with a separate rules module that can fit in 1 page.

 

[Li Shenron]

The other thing that bothers me is that you don't get a tradition until 3rd level. To me, that makes no sense. Your tradition is supposed to reflect your style of magic, how you were trained, where your individual talents and focus are, and other such things. Why wouldn't you have a tradition while you are an apprentice? Should all apprentices be the same, despite having different masters, attending different academies, belonging to totally different magical societies, etc.? If my apprentice wizard joined a cabal of necromancers to learn their dark arts, shouldn't he be a necromancer from the very beginning? What else would he be?

[Edit] Another thing, this also means multiclass spellcasters can't have a specialty unless they have 3+ levels of wizard. Yuck.

I'm also interested to hear how this affects specialties. Do you not get a feat until 3rd level now, or do you still pick your specialty at level 1?

We're back to square one: gamestyles.

If you want a 1st level PC to be already specialized, it probably means you like a game where PCs are already heroes or special since day 1.

There's nothing wrong with that, but other people prefer the opposite, and if you make a game that only support your gamestyle, it doesn't support the other, while if you allow a more "start low" game this doesn't make your favourite gamestyle unsupported. Just think of another, even more heroic gamestyle e.g. "superheroes", does D&D support that? Yes, if you start e.g. at level 15th or even Epic, you are all superheroes, but if you try to make a game where the starting point lv 1 is superheroes, every other gamestyle is impossible.

There are quite a lot of people who feels that a wizard who is a necromancer from the beginning or a fighter who is a specialist sniper from the beginning is actually wrong. I had a few players in 3ed actually raise the question "why do wizard pick a specialization at 1st level, how does that make any sense?".

 

[Balesir]

My argument is not against the 2e-style but in favor of 3e-style because it actually includes 2e-style but also allows more.

Yeah, I think I'm basically with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], here, in that 3e multiclassing is essentially a system for those who don't like character classes. The "issue" that split characters aren't as good as single class ones in all cases is an indication of this.

This is actually something really odd I'm starting to notice with the DDN discussions; between "unrestricted multiclassing", "bounded accuracy" and "more 'realistic' healing" it sounds like what is being called for is for D&D to look less like it has character classes, less like it has levels and less like it uses hit points as "generic life points". If that is the desired aim, I'm wondering why D&D is a good system to start with at all???


Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[Li Shenron]

This is actually something really odd I'm starting to notice with the DDN discussions; between "unrestricted multiclassing", "bounded accuracy" and "more 'realistic' healing" it sounds like what is being called for is for D&D to look less like it has character classes, less like it has levels and less like it uses hit points as "generic life points". If that is the desired aim, I'm wondering why D&D is a good system to start with at all???

Because they are trying to expand, not replace. Traditional D&D is still inside, very much the core, and options grow from it, not in place of it.

Classes are still more important than multiclassing, you can play with or without multiclassing, you cannot play without classes. At most, you can house rule that in your campaign every PC must multiclass, but this will be a rare case, almost all groups will play either with multiclassing allowed or disallowed, but not mandatory.

Bounded accuracy in terms of limits to ability scores was there in old D&D in some form, although I am not sure the exact terms, but IIRC it was 3e that "unbound" ability scores big time.

OTOH bounded accuracy in terms of scaling attack bonuses in no way reduces the role of levels in the game. It just stretches the waiting times for the next increase, but this is compensated by those levels giving other benefits.

 

[pemerton]

Gritty 1st-level characters? To me this does not mix well at all with "this stuff is for beginners." I see the Gritty bit and the Beginner bit in conflict; jamming both a gritty experience for experts and a simple experience for beginners into the same levels is madness, as far as I'm concerned.

IMO, "gritty" and "newbie-friendly" are not compatible goals if you want mass audience appeal.

Agreed. I can see the argument that beginners need less complexity on the PC capabilities side, but if anything they need more hit points, not fewer!

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

I tend to agree with this too.

I just think it is weird and obtuse that you're expected to start playing the game at level 3. Call it a visceral reaction or whatever you want, but I think players will feel awkward about that and people will always feel like somehow there was some part of the game that they should be playing that got missed. I mean talk about the most basic fact of the game, it is that the game starts at level 1 and you normally start there. Granted I'm sure we've all probably started at higher than level one at least now and then, but it definitely feels wrong to me to have that be the normal assumption. It feels like its starting to break down THE most basic assumption of the game, the progress through levels, which IMHO is more core to D&D than any other element.

And I definitely agree with this.

Assuming that hit dice are still proportionate to levels (and if they're not, that's even weirder, AD&D monks and rangers to one side), then these Apprentice levels are no good for newbies - because their PCs will die too often. But they're no good for the typical seasoned player either, who is advised to start at 3rd level, quite counterintuitively in my view for the reasons AbdulAlhazred has stated. So who exactly are they for? Those who want to replicate classic D&D 1st level meatgrinders, as AbdulAlhazed suggested upthread?

There seem to be other, more elegant, ways of solving the newbie problem eg give the newbie a Fate Point or reroll ability in lieu of class features - which deals with the "we don't want newbies to have their PCs die on them problem", as well as the complexity problem - and then have rules for trading out your Fate Points for class abilities, which are separate from the levelling process and reflect the real world transition from newbie to experienced player who needs less Fate Point-style hand holding and can handle a more complex character.

And if someone never wants to make that transition, that's fine too - you balance the reroll/Fate Point rules against class abilities all the way to 10th level, say, or even 20th if you're really ambitious!

Also, on an only marginally related note, there is just no way you can model Ged, from A Wizard of Earthsea, as a 1st level wizard or sorcerer, except perhaps in 4e (and even then I've got grave doubts). In his first "adventure" he summons an Obscuring Mist that covers a whole village. He can call and command animals. And in his first real adventure - against the dragon - he defeats mutlipel dragonlings by himself using a Hold Monster-style binding of their wings (the reason I mention 4e is because the dragonlings can be statted as minions, but you're a long way out of Monster Manual territoriy if you have low level dragon minions!).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I just think it is weird and obtuse that you're expected to start playing the game at level 3.

I think it's even more weird that a game aiming to be inclusive of playstyles would ask those who like to start with lower-powered characters (ala OD&D & Basic) would ever consider asking those players to start at level -1 or zero. The 1st-level characters under the apprentice tier seem equivalent to the older edition's 1st-level characters. They are still more capable than the tacked on 0-level concepts. Instead of trying to build down to those levels of power the are proposing to start from those levels.

People are also using Mearls' comment about "most experienced players starting at 3rd level." I don't think he has the right to claim that. I would definitely use these levels as a long-time, experienced DM to create an in-game prologue. What was once only a mention in background stories could see more life in-game and connect the players more to a campaign. Others would use these levels to emulate old-school play power levels that were missing before this concept. I don't think experience has anything to do with what level most people will start their games, it will rely much more upon taste and style.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it's even more weird that a game aiming to be inclusive of playstyles would ask those who like to start with lower-powered characters (ala OD&D & Basic) would ever consider asking those players to start at level -1 or zero.

I agree that if we're talking "weird" and "obtuse"... starting the game Level -1, Level 0, Level 1 is much worse than Level 1, Level 2, Level 3.

And the fact that it's the experienced D&D players (the ones who theoretically have been dealing with all of D&D's idiosycracies for almost 40 years) who are the ones who just can't seem to handle starting at 3rd level for an "Already a hero" type of game... I find it to be quite ironic.

 

[the Jester]

And the fact that it's the experienced D&D players (the ones who theoretically have been dealing with all of D&D's idiosycracies for almost 40 years) who are the ones who just can't seem to handle starting at 3rd level for an "Already a hero" type of game... I find it to be quite ironic.

There is a world of difference between "can't seem to handle" and "prefer not to".

 

[Warbringer]

And the fact that it's the experienced D&D players (the ones who theoretically have been dealing with all of D&D's idiosycracies for almost 40 years) who are the ones who just can't seem to handle starting at 3rd level for an "Already a hero" type of game... I find it to be quite ironic.

... Because he who starts at 1st level is playing the real D&D .... But I agree its silly