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).
In all cases the designers intended that a level be a measure of relative power and in all cases this intent hasn't exactly come through in practice.
In 1e a 2nd or even 3rd level Thief can quite rightly be said to be about equal in power to a 1st level Ranger, which is why Thieves bump every time they sneeze and Rangers take a while. (the RAW MU progression in 1e is just bizarre, thus I try not to use it as an example of anything)
You're right that 3e's multiclassing rules were a hot mess, and in case it matters I was thinking only of single-class characters (in all editions) in what I wrote before. I greatly prefer the non-additive "advance two classes at once" model which was I think best implemented in 2e, where a 4th-4th, say, is considered about equal to a 5th rather than an 8th.
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.
About the only computer games I play are puzzle games on my phone or rogue-likes (or solitaire!) on my destop.
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.
My problem there is if the system has abilities like Commanding Strike and Rally the Troops then in theory my Fighter has them, meaning I-as-player have to a) remember they exist and b) remember to use them at the appropriate moment.
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.
I agree. To counter this, mages' spell acquisition in my game is pretty random. You don't get to pick your new spell at level-up, you get whatever your trainer randomly decided to teach you. Spells aren't always available to learn and those that are are somewhat random (and always a bit costly), and scrolls found in the field are of course unpredictable as to their contents. But I've simplfied it in removing all pre-memorization requirements: everyone casts like 3e Sorcerers.
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.
Thing is, a spread of options has a bunch of baked-in problems, not least of which is trying to balance the "simple" classes with the "complex" ones.
(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.)
Agreed. I just don't see the need to have the mechanics reflect all this. Wanna play a tactician? Come up with good tactics (and then hope your party pay attention to you!).
My namesake character, a pure Fighter, wrote in-character* a fairly detailed treatise on how to field-test magic items found in the field (we don't go in for this 'spend a few hours with an item and it'll tell you what it does' malarkey) as field-testing had become something he'd kinda ended up doing a lot of over his career. Didn't make a damn bit of difference mechanically, and nor should it have, but it developed his character etc. notwithstanding; and as a pleasant side effect it gave anyone who knew him a SOP for item-testing, which saved a lot of time.
* - and in reality, I've got copies of it here somewhere.
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.
Which isn't surprising, as given the choice most people naturally want to have and eat cake at the same time.
To me it's on the designers to discourage this rather than lean into it.
Yeah, I'm just...not a very gonzo player. I tend to be Team Dad, group conscience, that sort of thing.
Oh dear - you'd be the one my character would be playing practical jokes on all the time.
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.
Flip it around: I'm not unveiling the stark-naked. The stark-naked is already unveiled, sitting there like a mannequin as the mechanics on the character sheet. The concept and personality is the clothing, of whatever type-fashion-etc. I decide, that at whatever rate or speed I cover that mannequin with and in so doing bring it to life.
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.
This is one area IMO where 4e really missed the boat. There's about 5 levels worth of development between a commoner and a 1st-level 4e character. In all the other editions except Basic there's certainly room for 0th level but it'd be hard to squeeze in any more.
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:
One thing to keep in mind is that new players often come with new DMs, and tossing a new DM in at the half-deep end might be asking a bit much.
That, and starting hard then becoming easier is always much better IMO than starting easy and trying to make it hard later.
