D&D 5E Let's discuss the Apprentice Tier.

[ForeverSlayer]

I just want to say that I'm not really digging Next so far, but the one thing I do like is the implementation of an Apprentice Tier that will allow you to actually play your character's beginning. A backstory is cool and all but it would be much better, in my opinion, to play it out and watch it develop.

I don't particularly like games that start me out as a hero or even someone who's destiny is to achieve a legendary status, I like to earn that status during the game by my actions. I don't want the game to be shoehorned into having to go in a particular direction because I have made my concept to where I achieve that status so therefore the DM needs to cater to that player and adjust the encounters so he will win. I think yhe apprentice tier will help tone down that style of play and I believe will give characters more depth.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree on everything you say and share your gamestyle preferences here, but I am still digging Next so far

One thing to add, is that I don't really care for labelling "tiers", so if someone is offended by having an "apprentice tier" or (as someone pointed out) that the tier is so small that it shouldn't be a tier at all, they could remove the references to "tiers" and I wouldn't mind*... I only care for the fact that if the game starts too strong, this cuts out some campaign options such as roleplaying the phase when your PC is still youngster trying to rise above the common folks. Maybe they're not popular campaign options, but the more options the game supports the better.

*by the way, I also think that using "hard tiers labels" can stuck the designers into unnecessary design constraints

 

[Raith5]

I just want to say that I'm not really digging Next so far, but the one thing I do like is the implementation of an Apprentice Tier that will allow you to actually play your character's beginning. A backstory is cool and all but it would be much better, in my opinion, to play it out and watch it develop.

I don't particularly like games that start me out as a hero or even someone who's destiny is to achieve a legendary status, I like to earn that status during the game by my actions. I don't want the game to be shoehorned into having to go in a particular direction because I have made my concept to where I achieve that status so therefore the DM needs to cater to that player and adjust the encounters so he will win. I think yhe apprentice tier will help tone down that style of play and I believe will give characters more depth.

Your explanation has sold the idea to me far better than the ones by WOTC! I have to say that I quite prefer heroic, cinematic almost gonzo (where PCs can take on demi gods) like play but I also like humble origins. However, it just seems strange that the problem of the starting point is so great that it is worth losing 2 levels of content over and for beginners to defaulted to level 3. It just seems confusing to me.

But I also 100% agree with Li Shenron that tiers should really be backgrounded or eliminated. If you want to play more than 3 levels of apprentice style stuff. Paragon paths/prestige classes should kick in within campaign determined actions rather than mechanically at level X. I liked 4th tiers from a campaign building guide point of view but I agree with Mr Shenron that it can place too much structure on the mechanics.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, maybe scratching the name from those tiers seems a good idea... there are hundreds of posts complaining about apprentice tier and instead request spreading out starting abilities over a few level, instead of frontloading at level 1...

So actually they seem requesting just a name change... they are just offended by the name apprentice...

I do want to see the actual implementation... done right, this system can work wonders. The advantage of having a predefined adventuring tier helps class designers. They know, that at level 3, the class needs to have his full list of abilities, which define the class. While at level 1 and 2, only the most fundamental abilities are there.

Maybe calling it different... basic, expert, companion.... for nostalgia (hope i get it right) or instead calling it Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3... i don´t know...

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Your explanation has sold the idea to me far better than the ones by WOTC! I have to say that I quite prefer heroic, cinematic almost gonzo (where PCs can take on demi gods) like play but I also like humble origins. However, it just seems strange that the problem of the starting point is so great that it is worth losing 2 levels of content over and for beginners to defaulted to level 3. It just seems confusing to me.

Levels 1 -2 (if not 1 - 4) have always been an apprentice tier. (4e excluded of course.) This is just the first time the devs are bothering to call out that fact.

So while 5e won't be my favored edition, I may end up playing it at some point and I appreciate that maybe, just maybe, my DM will start us at 3rd level so we don't have to play through the grim slapstick of the apprentice levels. (Lots of DMs will probably continue to think of 1st level beginnings as some sacred frakking rite of passage, but some of them will look at the tier labels and realize "Gee, maybe starting above 1st level isn't some kind of gaming sin.")

 

[1of3]

Yeah, maybe scratching the name from those tiers seems a good idea... there are hundreds of posts complaining about apprentice tier and instead request spreading out starting abilities over a few level, instead of frontloading at level 1...

Any name is better than no name. Without a designation it's impossible to tie levels to the game world. What level does a henchperson have? What's the level of a bishop? Etc.

 

[hbarsquared]

I'm fine with scratching the name of Tiers all together.

I do think that it should be spelled out in more than a sidebar that DMs and groups have the express ability, choice, and tools, to start at whichever level you want.

There should be rules for exactly how to create a higher level character spelled out right at the beginning, in "character creation," so there is no confusion and is not considered an add-on in some addendum or alternate rules somewhere.

And there should be short lines of included advice. "Level 1 is a great place to start to develop a background, play the kid off the farm, or the apprentice just setting out on his own." "Level 3 is a great place to start with a character who is already begun to make her mark on the world." "Level 11 is where characters gain access to impactful magic such as teleport, charming, and save-or-die comes into play." "Level 16 is for superheroes and truly epic confrontations."

I think it's quite fair to say that D&D encompasses play from apprentices, to adventurers, to those that leave legacies, and your group can choose the level where they want to start.

 

[Warbringer]

I think the tiers are a "head nod" towards different play styles that exist in D&D, but its just a head nod.

I think the rules should allow more flexibility than currently presented, to use the parlance that is used on these boards , "dials": Gritty, Traditional, Heroic, Exalted (or whatever).

Play style is not about what level I want to start at; its about the theme and experience of the campaign. A couple of levels that are less powerful doesn't capture that, and at most tables the PCs will reach current 1st level in less than a week in game time and 3 or so game sessions; not really a feel there.

These dials should address: hit dice, progression, maneuvers/spells, backgrounds, equipment, ability score ranges (point buy/#d6 rolled), healing

For example (assuming current play test is "Traditional")

Gritty
Hit Dice - all one size lower; no con modification
Progression: monsters value 1/10th value, adventurers must train between levels (1 week per level), no multiclassing (if not taken at 1st level)
Maneuvers/spells: Hardest to scale. Ideally, the rules would only give you so many slots (like 13th Age) then the power of those slots scale. In lieu of that, Spells do x*level points of damage per level. Expertise dice - 1 dice from traditional. Skill dice one step down (d4->d2, etc).
Backgrounds: All backgrounds are mundane (along lines of warhammer professions) with very low game impact. Gives access to one trained skill (only way of getting skills); no specialties until 3rd/5th
Equipment: Start with 50-100 silver and one simple weapon
Ability Score Range 3d6, matrix (15;13;12;11;10;8)
Healing: All damage is considered "meat"; healing is 1 hp per die, reaching 0 requires extended medical/magical healing. When below healing magical required to take you to 0, rest discarded; max healing healing level 10%/max: so a 3rd level spell can only ever return you to 30% of your max hit points (if you reached 0), rest must be natural healing ... this is the "i have done all I can do for him")

Anyway, won't happen ... but rules should be built to scale (or manage scaling modules).

 

[hbarsquared]

Play style is not about what level I want to start at; its about the theme and experience of the campaign.

Agreed!

Semantics and vocabulary are playing a part here. One can/should easily have an "Epic Gritty game" or an "Apprentice Supercharged game."

"Grit" should be a dial that involves healing and resource management. Level should determine the number of choices and power the players want to start with.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Play style is not about what level I want to start at; its about the theme and experience of the campaign.

Tiers-as-treasure strikes again!