dave2008
Legend
I do run 5e and though that is definitely an option, it doesn't have to be played that way. Milestone leveling is thing and when you use it, well levels 1-3 (0-3 for my group) can take a long time!
D&D 5E Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"
Helldritch
Hero
Strange how people see things.
The only thing going against 1-4th level characters is their lack of revival spells such as revivify.
Otherwise, if you know your math, all levels are pretty much the same except, of course, that higher level characters have more tools. But mathematically, if the DM plays fair (for both enemies and players) the only difference will the length of the fights as the math keeps the game "balanced".
I have seen more TPK in the early 5ed than in any other edition combined. Why? Would you ask? Simple, this is the first edition where the rabble keeps a chance to hit mid to high level characters. I do not build encounters with mono groups. You encounter 10 goblins? You can bet that there will be a priest or some other casters. Just one priest in a group can make a huge difference. Take the goblins, on bless will make it so that a simple +4 to hit is now +6.5. This means that an AC of 20 only needs a 13 or 14 to hit. Make the goblins into hobgoblins and now you get simple rabble that will hit an AC 20 for a mere 15 on the rolls (sometimes as low as 13) and hit for 1d8 + 2d6 +1 of damage (average 13 of damage). Put these on archers and now your "rabble" can hit the casters in the rear. Add in a hobgoblin iron shadow and it is more than possible that the casters will be hit with the full 13 damage almost every shot as the Iron Shadow will get in hand to hand combat with the casters. And casters still have the weakest AC. Add in some optional rules such as Flanking, and even an AC 20 will be hit way more often that what is healthy for any character level. This is this simple fact that led to so many TPKs. The underestimation of the rabble.
In previous editions, the math was more instinctual. As the character would progress, so would the type of opponents. From goblins, to hobgoblins (orcs) to gnolls, ogres, trolls and giants. The only difference was the length it would take to neutralize your opponent. The rabble was quickly left in the dust behind the characters. Now, with 5ed, the rabble keeps a good chance to hit as the max AC is 20. (I know you can raise it higher with spells and such, but these are not available to everyone) and depending on the level, the rabble can become ogres, orogs and so on. Just one priest or wizard can make a huge difference.
So no. The level 1-4 are not truly training levels. These are just "deadlier" levels where the characters do not have access to revival spells. The game plays the same for all its length but as you grow in levels, so are tools. This is this "augmentation" of tools that makes the game much harder to play for DM and Players alike. The more choice you have, the bigger the chance you are to forget something. It is this level of complexity that most players (and DMs) are not ready to face and thus, most campaigns ends around level 10.
Creating adventures for 10th level characters and up takes a lot of time, much more than the first few levels. And taking great care that character can and will be challenged all the way through takes experience and dedication to learn both your players, their characters and the motivations of both. Multiply that by the number of players and it begins to take quite a toll on the DM's time. For me, to make my players play 1st or 20th is almost the same as I know them and their character almost by heart. But not all DM are ready to spend that amount of time.
The only thing going against 1-4th level characters is their lack of revival spells such as revivify.
Otherwise, if you know your math, all levels are pretty much the same except, of course, that higher level characters have more tools. But mathematically, if the DM plays fair (for both enemies and players) the only difference will the length of the fights as the math keeps the game "balanced".
I have seen more TPK in the early 5ed than in any other edition combined. Why? Would you ask? Simple, this is the first edition where the rabble keeps a chance to hit mid to high level characters. I do not build encounters with mono groups. You encounter 10 goblins? You can bet that there will be a priest or some other casters. Just one priest in a group can make a huge difference. Take the goblins, on bless will make it so that a simple +4 to hit is now +6.5. This means that an AC of 20 only needs a 13 or 14 to hit. Make the goblins into hobgoblins and now you get simple rabble that will hit an AC 20 for a mere 15 on the rolls (sometimes as low as 13) and hit for 1d8 + 2d6 +1 of damage (average 13 of damage). Put these on archers and now your "rabble" can hit the casters in the rear. Add in a hobgoblin iron shadow and it is more than possible that the casters will be hit with the full 13 damage almost every shot as the Iron Shadow will get in hand to hand combat with the casters. And casters still have the weakest AC. Add in some optional rules such as Flanking, and even an AC 20 will be hit way more often that what is healthy for any character level. This is this simple fact that led to so many TPKs. The underestimation of the rabble.
In previous editions, the math was more instinctual. As the character would progress, so would the type of opponents. From goblins, to hobgoblins (orcs) to gnolls, ogres, trolls and giants. The only difference was the length it would take to neutralize your opponent. The rabble was quickly left in the dust behind the characters. Now, with 5ed, the rabble keeps a good chance to hit as the max AC is 20. (I know you can raise it higher with spells and such, but these are not available to everyone) and depending on the level, the rabble can become ogres, orogs and so on. Just one priest or wizard can make a huge difference.
So no. The level 1-4 are not truly training levels. These are just "deadlier" levels where the characters do not have access to revival spells. The game plays the same for all its length but as you grow in levels, so are tools. This is this "augmentation" of tools that makes the game much harder to play for DM and Players alike. The more choice you have, the bigger the chance you are to forget something. It is this level of complexity that most players (and DMs) are not ready to face and thus, most campaigns ends around level 10.
Creating adventures for 10th level characters and up takes a lot of time, much more than the first few levels. And taking great care that character can and will be challenged all the way through takes experience and dedication to learn both your players, their characters and the motivations of both. Multiply that by the number of players and it begins to take quite a toll on the DM's time. For me, to make my players play 1st or 20th is almost the same as I know them and their character almost by heart. But not all DM are ready to spend that amount of time.
Oofta
Legend
A lot of people no longer use XP and instead use some variation of optional milestone leveling rule.
I haven't used XP for a few editions now, the game works just fine.
Helldritch
Hero
And I use a combination of the two.
If you get a milestone, you raise your level, but not the experience. There are a few mile stones in a campaign and when they get it, they just raise their level. The experience still must be gained normally.
TheSword
Legend
3rd to 9th level are the most fun in my experience. After 9th things start to get more and more unbalanced. The HP really start to ramp up and unless PCs are keeping up with damage things start to really bog down.
I have 3 campaigns running now, one has reached 11 level (from 1st) over about 2 years, one is at 7th after about about 9 month, one is at about 5th after about six months. Of these there seems to be no correlation between the speed of progress and the ‘fun’ of the adventure. DMing all of them is a good experience and there doesn’t seem to be any noticeable greater number of issues in one campaign over the others.
I was able to play in a game loosely based on Bloodborne, where we stayed at one level for a long time, then jumped several levels in one go. This was quite interesting and was a way of removing the ‘crack’ that is leveling up and enjoying the moment a bit more.
I always enjoyed the original Guild Wars game that works off the premise of always being at level 20 (You get from level 1 to 20 in a very short introduction section). Development came from gaining new skills and between equipment.
Development is really important, I’m not sure that has to mean leveling up. Maybe it’s worth considering what other ways of developing your character there is?
I have 3 campaigns running now, one has reached 11 level (from 1st) over about 2 years, one is at 7th after about about 9 month, one is at about 5th after about six months. Of these there seems to be no correlation between the speed of progress and the ‘fun’ of the adventure. DMing all of them is a good experience and there doesn’t seem to be any noticeable greater number of issues in one campaign over the others.
I was able to play in a game loosely based on Bloodborne, where we stayed at one level for a long time, then jumped several levels in one go. This was quite interesting and was a way of removing the ‘crack’ that is leveling up and enjoying the moment a bit more.
I always enjoyed the original Guild Wars game that works off the premise of always being at level 20 (You get from level 1 to 20 in a very short introduction section). Development came from gaining new skills and between equipment.
Development is really important, I’m not sure that has to mean leveling up. Maybe it’s worth considering what other ways of developing your character there is?
Oofta
Legend
I know for some people, development is only represented by leveling up. Of course people have different expectations and experiences, I enjoy games where I feel like my PC is making a difference because of what they do, whether it's making the neighborhood safer or stopping an invasion.
TheSword
Legend
I should make it clear that I think playing above 9th level can be extremely rewarding just that I think it’s requires a few extra things.
- If predominantly combat led then those combats do need fine tuning pretty closely otherwise they can be either pointless or overwhelming (with sometimes a 50-50 chance of either)
- It works better when players need to really invest some time into understanding and utilizing their capabilities. Some of which may be more than just daily allotments powers or spells. Research, preparation, planning, should all come into play. Unfortunately this is a learned skill and not something necessary or even encouraged in earlier levels.
- It requires a pretty well detailed game world. The speed and flexibility of decision making in a high level campaign and the scale of level appropriate threats mean a well understood and detailed game world makes higher level play far more rewarding.
- If predominantly combat led then those combats do need fine tuning pretty closely otherwise they can be either pointless or overwhelming (with sometimes a 50-50 chance of either)
- It works better when players need to really invest some time into understanding and utilizing their capabilities. Some of which may be more than just daily allotments powers or spells. Research, preparation, planning, should all come into play. Unfortunately this is a learned skill and not something necessary or even encouraged in earlier levels.
- It requires a pretty well detailed game world. The speed and flexibility of decision making in a high level campaign and the scale of level appropriate threats mean a well understood and detailed game world makes higher level play far more rewarding.
TheSword
Legend
Just off the top of my head some possible development opportunities aside from level up could be…
I am also really intrigued by the idea of running a campaign at Tier 1 with Level 3 characters. Then after a set period of bedding in let the players agree to upgrade to Level 7. Then power up again to level 13. Then finally to Level 19. All the development comes from the first set of options, it’s time to punch it up a notch.
- Learning more spells (particularly if some are rare more powerful spells, like in LU)
- Acquiring magic items or improved equipment.
- Retraining of abilities or powers that aren’t so useful.
- Gaining contacts and resources through NPCs
- Languages
- Areas of influence - an increasing number of cities or baronies.
- Gaining followers.
- Adding skills
- Adding Feats
- Improving ability scores
- Gaining hp
- Gaining additional uses of daily or per encounter powers
- Gaining higher level spell slots
- Gaining more lower level spell slots
I am also really intrigued by the idea of running a campaign at Tier 1 with Level 3 characters. Then after a set period of bedding in let the players agree to upgrade to Level 7. Then power up again to level 13. Then finally to Level 19. All the development comes from the first set of options, it’s time to punch it up a notch.
I would certainly be interested in 5e/a5e rules that gave things for running an e6 to e9 version of 5e/a5e. Granted it would be more fun if I could just throw money at @Morrus because they did all the managing of the work and playtesting so I could just play it...
Lyxen
Great Old One
Honestly, I don't agree with your list, even from a predominantly combat-oriented game, except maybe the first one. What I think a DM needs is an understanding of the mechanics of high magic (teleportation, resurrection, protections, attacks, etc.) so that he can create appropriate challenges and not be surprised by what his players pull off. Once he has that, he can apply that knowledge to combat or intrigue, but for me it's the real differentiator, because some things that you take for granted in the real world just don't work like that in the high magic world of high level D&D.
Similar Threads
