D&D 5E Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"

[Oofta]

Im not super experienced in 5E, but my gut tells me this is more about a GM knowing how to use the system optimally. 3E/PF1 is very swingy and the CR is more of a guideline. The bonus is that fights can be variable, and thus always interesting. The downside, is that it leaves pitfalls for inexperienced (with the system) GMs. If you want tighter math and encounters where you know exactly what to expect, something like 4E or particularly PF2 is much better suited.

It does take some work on side of the DM to challenge parties, but I think that's true at all levels. So many people seem to want to throw 1-2 encounters with solo monsters with no home team advantages for the monster and then wonder why the PCs can take them out even when they're much higher CR. In other cases, the fights are on an empty field with enemies showing up in fireball formation.

Mix it up. Change the goals of the encounter. Bring in waves of enemies attacking from all sides, flank and focus fire. Lots of options without changing a single rule in the book. It's not a problem with the system.

 

[Lyxen]

So you're saying there's no problem with the system because a good DM would just change the system until it works. Which means the system is flawed, and only through trial and error and the expense of the fun of the table (by running too easy/boring encounters, too difficult/deadly encounters that could end the campaign) can a DM hope to have a working game system.
Or do you mean that the system isn't important, because the only part of the game that matters is adding role-playing and character voices to make "interesting encounters?"

Neither, all systems are a compromise, which does not make them flawed, just more inherently suited to a given style of playing (which does not preclude playing them in a different style if wanted, of course). If I stereotype things a bit, at one end of the scale, you have 4e, which does computations precisely, but which is a very rigid system based on strong balance to guarantee the computations. At the other end you have 5e, which is a very open system, which gives you tons of flexibility, but which is not really precise, mostly based on guidelines which are still good enough to conduct games as long as you understand the spirit.

Neither is inherently flawed, they are just different compromises, and as such different people with different tastes will enjoy one more than the other depending on the style of game that they like.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hmmm. Interesting take, but (other than 4e, which is an outlier as usual) I'm not sure there's too much overall difference between levels in the various editions until you get up to about 10th or so, after which 3e and 5e somewhat separate themselves from 0e-1e-2e. At very low level in particular, which is what we've been discussing, I'm not sure there's much that's really edition-dependent.

In the early editions, levels are completely all over the map--there is no unified XP chart, and this is a very intentional function of the design. Wizards aren't just weak at early levels, they're comparatively stuck at early levels, while Thieves zoom off into their mid levels quickly. "A level" sans context has indeterminate value in early eds. You need to know both the class and when the level occurs. Further, does XP=GP? The answer changes what level means.

3e gave us a unified XP a la carte MCing. The intent was "a level is a level," e.g. taking a level in a new class should be roughly the same as taking a level in your current one. As with many intents of 3e's design, it failed miserably: sacrificing caster levels is orders of magnitude worse than sacrificing a point of BAB, frex. The value of "a level" was consistent in one sense, but not in another. 4e actually did make levels pretty consistent, but ditched a la carte MC and brought back the early-ed "level two classes at once" concept in Hybrids. 5e returned to the 3e model, but made tweaks as part of its "casters in 3e were too powerful, but just need some tweaks to be okay." (I, of course, do not entirely agree, but that's another topic.) It did, however, try to preserve some of 4e's consistency, by creating negative incentives against multiclassing (delaying ASIs, for example).

Far more edition-dependent is the degree of lethality assumed by the design; and here 5e is quite different from anything other than 4e.

Eh. I find only 4e is an outlier here myself. Yes, the earlier editions were more lethal, but in all of them, an unlucky crit at 1st level can still kill you even when you've made no mistakes and done nothing reckless. That's...very difficult in 4e, by design--it's meant to give players the opportunity to recover from a mistake, a foolish decision. (Believe me, I know what happens when a player decides to stick with a foolish decision: the character often dies. I've seen it happen three times in a single 4e game, all before 5th level. I was one such player.) You don't necessarily need it to be an unlucky crit in the early editions, but it's still a thing: one bad die roll literally can kill any 1st level character in 5e.

I tend to vary between a) and b) here, depending on the situation at hand.

Alright. None of those positions apply to me. I find the gameplay portion of RPG play quite enjoyable...assuming it's a good system. The only good system where I don't really enjoy certain aspects of gameplay (not all, just mostly combat) is Dungeon World, and even there, a cooperative DM can make it work. Ironically, it is for this exact reason that I actually do enjoy running it, because for me as DM, every combat is refreshing and different, every monster can be something new or a twist on a familiar idea etc. As a player, I could basically flowchart every battle (from a pure gameplay perspective, not an RP one) and do just fine in probably 90% of combats. DM worked with me to give me more options--not strictly more power since many of them required resources or couldn't be used consecutively--and it felt better, but it was still on the ragged edge of what I'm looking for.

Another difference between us is that I don't really do CRPGs at all, not since the gold-box days in 2e.

While that's fair, it doesn't have to be a CRPG, I play lots of other video games. Stellaris is a 4x space game, I still want to try to Mend the Great Schism in CKII, working on the "post-post game" of Hades, I've recently gotten completely enthralled (pun absolutely intended) by Cult Simulator, and one of these days I'm going to unlock the Dragon "class" for Desktop Dungeons. There's a lot of no-RP-just-G gaming I can get out there.

I just want to roll the die and tell the DM a number.

This is a fair desire, and I support offering such things. A range of depth is desirable, from straightforward "I attack the guy" or "I shoot magic missile at the darkness" to intricate "I'll call out a Commanding Strike to Alice, and then Rally the Troops to get Bob and Carlos into position to thrash this thing when its turn comes up...", so that players can play what they like. Forcing all Fighter fans to only have the option to roll the die and tell the DM the number (despite the popularity of quite intricate fighting options in many computer games), and all Wizard fans to be planning spells four levels ahead and weigh the pros and cons of their six different preparation options (despite the popularity of very simple wizardry like Harry Potter) is unwise. Likewise, forcing all Fighter fans to feel like they must literally memorize a fencing manual to play, or all Wizards to have "BLUE WIZARD NEEDS FOOD BADLY"-level gameplay, is also unwise. A spread of options gives the best value. (Personally, I'm of the opinion that Barbarians should be the go-to "I roll a die and report a number" class, and Fighters should range from slightly, but not much, more complex than that all the way up to legit scholars of battle-tactics who have read several books on the subject and might be able to write one in-character.)

This is something that's long been a pet peeve of mine. There's casters, and there's fighters. Each does their own thing, and playing a character that does both always sounds to me like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

I mean, that's fair, but you should understand that this is a popular option. Popular enough that the edition specifically built around seeking broad appeal included it. It may not be your cuppa, but a lot of people really like it. Rather like dragonborn in that regard. A lot of old-school fans find them dumb or even annoying/actively bad, but they're only growing in popularity now, having risen to 3rd most popular race on D&D Beyond in 2020 (IIRC, dragonborn would drop to 4th if you merged together the different types of Elf--but that still means they'd overtaken tieflings, a significant feat in and of itself.)

It sounds like your DM did what he could with it, but yes, it's sometimes on the player to think outside the box and more than later editions it can reward being a bit gonzo in one's play. Plaing it conservative can get boring.

Yeah, I'm just...not a very gonzo player. I tend to be Team Dad, group conscience, that sort of thing.

That seems like a much wider separation than I'd give it. They're interlinked, in that the fictional position informs the mechanics and the mechanics in turn inform the fictional position; and some of the biggest debates I've seen here seem to revolve around which of those should take precedence if either. (personally I'd rather prioritize the fiction and let the mechanics try to keep up if they can)

I mean, fundamentally, the two really are separate things. If they weren't, you wouldn't have ever heard people accuse 3e of being "Spellcasters & Spreadsheets" (or "D&Diablo" or whatever) or the ever-popular, ever-grating screed of 4e being "an MMO on paper." It's clear that people are aware that the two are distinct things. That they're separate does not mean they never interact, but rather that the interaction of roleplay and gameplay is a design choice, something that must be made to happen rather than just being an innate fact of roleplaying. One does not need to roleplay in order to have gameplay, and one does not need gameplay in order to roleplay.

I don't know D-of-Pern or Lords of Creation but I'd hazard a guess those systems aren't too concerned with abstracting combat and other physical things that can't be done at the table.

Dragonriders of Pern is a science-fantasy series by Anne McCaffrey (and supplemented by her son...though that worked about as well as Frank Herbert's son "expanding" Dune). To the best of my knowledge, there is no system for it. We were literally just freeform writing out what our characters would do. The "rules" simply existed to maintain consistency with a given RP-site's twist on the official canon (since most such sites do so; it's more a way to add spice and a personal touch than anything else.) No mechanics of any kind, no levels or XP, anything like a "combat" would be very rare, and would be talked out between parties or resolved by moderator intervention if that wasn't working.

Lords of Creation is about as minimal as a system can get; it's a game where you play as a deity and shape the world and cosmology. You get certain amounts of Action Points every week, to spend on the various actions, which are designed to be about as open-ended as possible (e.g. there are three levels of Create Concept, which covers...literally almost anything, from basic tech like Writing to sci-fi advanced robots to magic.) Conflict between deities is very simple, resolved by basic head to head dice rolls with a few modifiers--it's meant to be a last resort when (player-side) diplomatic efforts have failed.

Sorry 'bout that. I'm speaking from what I've seen at my own table.

Understood. No hard feelings.

Agreed; and this can happen whether one starts out with a fully-formed character concept or a blank slate.

Eh, I don't really see the "concept unfolding" aspect from a blank slate. A blank slate has nothing to unfold. There can't be any subtext if there isn't any text, nor any unveiling of the already-stark-naked.

She's gone on to become my longest-serving character and is still on-and-off active, and between one development and another over the years she's probably got more character, history, and personality than I do.

I suppose that while I also like experiencing the journey* I willingly accept that said journey is possibly (probably?) going to end before its completion.

* - I don't call it the hero's journey as I don't play many heroic types.

That's all fair, and all I can really say is...I just would like systems that support your way of doing things no better or worse than mine. It is possible. Some compromises usually have to happen, but they don't have to be radical ones. E.g. people in this thread have already indicated that they'd really like it if 5e had had actual "zero level" rules, so they could start even earlier than at the level of classes. That's a thing I've been advocating for for years--since before 5e launched, actually--despite having zero interest in using them myself. Because I believe zero-levels are the best and fullest way to serve all three seemingly-competing masters: the "I want the most zero-ish zero-to-hero I can get" crowd, the "I'm new and have no idea what's going on" crowd, and the "can we get past the tutorial, please?" crowd.

The third group (meaning, people like me) would have to accept that starting actually at 1st level isn't really appropriate for that: first level should be where new players start, with relatively few tools so they can acclimate. The first group (meaning, from what I understand, people like you) need to accept that having their playstyle be the default at first is punishing to those new players, and is thus better opt-in--dare I say, as a module--rather than opt-out. A sidebar saying as much, coupled with a robust "zero-level" system represented in both the PHB and DMG, would let a system genuinely and non-pejoratively support all three needs, in principle without issues. Obviously, the execution matters a great deal, but it's not like this is a revolutionary thing (since, as noted, many people in this very thread already have an ad-hoc system for doing just that). But I could see a sidebar of the type:

Where to Start Playing?
When you're about to start a new game of Dungeons & Dragons, you might assume you'd start at first level. After all, it's first, isn't it? But there's more to the story. Characters at first level are intended to have fewer tools and generally be simpler to play. This is very useful for brand-new players, or players who prefer their characters to grow into their full role. But for experienced players, this could be an impediment, but not always in the same way.
Some players may be frustrated by starting at first level, since they already know how to play and don't need a slower introduction. If you have a group of experienced players, the DM might have players start at higher levels. Common choices would be third level, so everyone has their subclass, or fifth level, when greater powers begin to manifest and characters begin to transition into a new tier of play. For some campaign concepts, you may
Other players may, on the other hand, find first level too tame. It has been designed to be a relatively friendly environment for new players, so they can survive making some mistakes and live to fight another day. For some players, this may feel like coddling--they want the thrill of surviving against difficult odds, or prefer to have an extremely straightforward experience without distractions. A group interested in an experience like this should check out the Zero-Level rules in chapter N. They have been specifically designed to support this kind of play, and are highly extensible.
No matter what, this should always be the result of a conversation between players and DM. Like with most campaign choices, it is ultimately the DM's decision. It's usually a good idea to give player requests a fair shot--especially if they come from several players or even the whole group--but ultimately the DM decides what game to offer.

 

[Retreater]

Ok. So how do you make low-level play fun and dynamic without it seeming like you're breaking rules to be adversarial?
Now I'm not talking about story, giving characterization to villains, describing things vividly. That's all stuff I can do regardless of system. And you're not going to break the system if you adopt the mannerisms of Peter Lorre for a goblin shaman.
But let's say the goblin kicks over a cauldron, spilling boiling stew on the rogue, creating a slippery floor while another cuts down a tapestry to drop it like a net over the fighter? How do you assign damage, difficulty numbers, actions required, etc.? And how do you do it without it looking like you're cheating?

 

[Lyxen]

Ok. So how do you make low-level play fun and dynamic without it seeming like you're breaking rules to be adversarial?
Now I'm not talking about story, giving characterization to villains, describing things vividly. That's all stuff I can do regardless of system. And you're not going to break the system if you adopt the mannerisms of Peter Lorre for a goblin shaman.
But let's say the goblin kicks over a cauldron, spilling boiling stew on the rogue, creating a slippery floor while another cuts down a tapestry to drop it like a net over the fighter? How do you assign damage, difficulty numbers, actions required, etc.? And how do you do it without it looking like you're cheating?

You use the guidelines of the DMG for the DCs, as for the damage, a simple fire is 1d6, so you go from there. What more do you need than this ? And by definition the DM cannot cheat anyway. Just be creative, do the local rulings that you need, and that specific situation will not happen again in the campaign anyway, so why worry ?

 

[LordEntrails]

No, levels 1-4 are not training wheels. They are where your backstory is written. It's where your characters develop into who they will become. And it is done with the party.

Rather than someone writing pages of backstory knowing nothing about the other characters, instead they develop back story together. To me, it's the funnest and most creative part of the campaign.

 

[payn]

Ok. So how do you make low-level play fun and dynamic without it seeming like you're breaking rules to be adversarial?
Now I'm not talking about story, giving characterization to villains, describing things vividly. That's all stuff I can do regardless of system. And you're not going to break the system if you adopt the mannerisms of Peter Lorre for a goblin shaman.
But let's say the goblin kicks over a cauldron, spilling boiling stew on the rogue, creating a slippery floor while another cuts down a tapestry to drop it like a net over the fighter? How do you assign damage, difficulty numbers, actions required, etc.? And how do you do it without it looking like you're cheating?

Rulings over rules is the intent. I know that doesn't sit well with a lot of folks, but its one way to give variance to gameplay. The cons are obviously fairness and disappointing encounters due to misapplied rulings. However, the alternative is a more complex simulation style that tries to account for every occurrence for the sake of fairness. The pendulum between these two schools has swung several times over the decades.

That answer might seem a bit oberoni in favor of 5E, but thats just a perceived weakness of rulings over rules style. Really you have to be comfortable with ambiguity and trust one another to make it work well. Its not ideal for all situations and playstyles. No game can successfully account for everything, that doesn't make them flawed, but instead, suited to particular playstyle.

 

[TheSword]

Not really, since my advice was for the DM, not the players. Or maybe you included the DM in the players (which is certainly one way to describe him) ?



My point about teleportation is that it really changes what people think about what is possible and is not possible. And I do not only mean the teleport spell, but even dimension door completely changes how onw should design a fortress or protect something or someone.



I'm sorry, I did not make it clear, but it's exactly what I was thinking, the implications for the world and the adventures.



It's one way to look at it but I agree, it's not the powers themselves, for me, it's what they mean in terms of adventures building and world design.

I agree. I do think it’s much more common for the DM to think about the wider world and their impact than players (probably due to the role) I think a lot of players (particularly those who have never DM’d) come with a plug and play mentality, that involves interacting solely with the world in front of them. When high level play opens up they don’t necessarily bring the creativity with it. This puts all the grunt work on the DM who is already having to do more prep.

 

[Monayuris]

Ok. So how do you make low-level play fun and dynamic without it seeming like you're breaking rules to be adversarial?
Now I'm not talking about story, giving characterization to villains, describing things vividly. That's all stuff I can do regardless of system. And you're not going to break the system if you adopt the mannerisms of Peter Lorre for a goblin shaman.
But let's say the goblin kicks over a cauldron, spilling boiling stew on the rogue, creating a slippery floor while another cuts down a tapestry to drop it like a net over the fighter? How do you assign damage, difficulty numbers, actions required, etc.? And how do you do it without it looking like you're cheating?

You use the guidelines of the DMG for the DCs, as for the damage, a simple fire is 1d6, so you go from there. What more do you need than this ? And by definition the DM cannot cheat anyway. Just be creative, do the local rulings that you need, and that specific situation will not happen again in the campaign anyway, so why worry ?

Yeah the 5E DMG has the same guidance as the 4E pg 42. It is just hidden in the traps section. It will give you typical DC's, attack bonuses, and damage for traps of various danger levels. Just apply them to the situation.

Look at the conditions and apply them as warranted. In your specific example I believe there is precedent in how caltrops work (check their description). You could do something similar, the area requires a DC XX Dexterity or fall prone, if you move at half rate you can avoid the check.

Look at a certain spells that create effects that match what is happening in fiction. In your example, perhaps you can use the effects of Grease or find similar spell that creates the same effect. When in doubt, you can always fall back to granting Advantage or Disadvantage on actions.

The most important thing about making these rulings is to provide clear and logical consequences to the players. If your rulings are sensical and clear you can't be cheating. The second most important thing is to make these rulings comparable to just attacking and doing damage.

 

[Monayuris]

This is such an important distinction to make. It's also why I prefer milestone leveling. Playing the game is its own reward, not just collecting XP and leveling up. Being part of the story is very appealing.

For me it depends on the way it is setup. I don’t mind milestone leveling if there are clear and understandable milestones that I can use to make intelligent choices for my character.

Sometimes people make milestone leveling into level based on story or when the DM feels like it. I wouldn’t want to play in a game like that.