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

[billd91]

To return back to the topic at hand, yes, levels 1-4 are training wheels. That isn't a bad thing at all, and I think a lot of people in this thread have negative connotations when using this phrase. So, a better turn of phrase would be that levels 1-4 are the "getting started" levels for D&D.

Negative connotations is right - it may not be as bad as the comment "dumbing down" or "D&D on easy mode" that you tend to see on the internet, but it's no surprise people find "training wheels" condescending.

There's a lot of hostility around here that hinges on connotation.

 

[Shardstone]

Negative connotations is right - it may not be as bad as the comment "dumbing down" or "D&D on easy mode" that you tend to see on the internet, but it's no surprise people find "training wheels" condescending.

There's a lot of hostility around here that hinges on connotation.

I'm noticing. That's why, early on, I tried to get away from that terminology with "getting started" but I was dragged back to training wheels by Lyxen numerous times, who could not move on from the topic alongside me.

 

[Morrus]

OK, folks, it's time to calm down. This is not a topic which should be provoking anger.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This comparison fails to account that L5 gain 1 feature yes, but that adds on top of features gained at L1-4 so whenever you gain a level after 1st, you do gain more options. And the more options you get, the more complex things become.

Not really, because by the time you are at L5, you already know features for L1-4, so they aren't adding to the complexity of learning a single new feature at L5.

 

[Oofta]

Different people play for different reasons and with different expectations. I ran a 1-shot for my family over Christmas because my nephew and significant other were in town (they usually remote in for my wife's game).

I gave them level 5 pregen PCs because at that level they start getting some cool abilities such as multiple attacks and 3rd level spells. It feels like a significant tier of power increase you don't really get at other points when you level up. To me, the PCs do feel a bit more heroic at that point.

While I find lower levels fun and IIRC from previous polls most people start at level 1, I would consider starting at level 5 if my players wanted.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Not really, because by the time you are at L5, you already know features for L1-4, so they aren't adding to the complexity of learning a single new feature at L5.

You basically said that at levels 1 - 4 you don't have fewer options than at L5. You do. And every new feature is added complexity wether you already know them or not. Inferring that a L5 character is not more complex than a L1 is erroneous.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Playing at low level while inexperienced make it easier to learn the game yes. But the purpose of L1-4 is not to train anyone who haven't played D&D. Tier 1 has the same design purpose as any other Tier, to roleplay and have fun!

Tier 1 wasn't made less complex than higher Tiers to be easier to learn any more than Tier 2 wasn't made less complex than higher Tiers to be easier to learn and so forth. Each Tier is less complex because the higher the levels, the more options there is and the more complex it becomes.

It's usually easier to learn anything by starting with less complex options depending on experience.

 

[Kinematics]

I like low-level play, but I don't like the feeling of being "trapped" at a given level, such as suggested with just making the levels take longer. The one thing I've found that helped make it workable in D&D is leaning heavily into multiclassing (which I otherwise avoid because it introduces strong power disparities).

Basically, every player picks two classes to level up, instead of just one, and has to keep them within one level of each other. That means you don't hit the power jump of level 5 until character level 9, but you do get plenty of features to expand your character with along the way. For example, you don't get 2nd level spells until character level 5 or 6, so it leans more into creatively using and mixing up low-level abilities.

I also adjust things so that you get the ASI at character level 4, instead of class level 4, so that you get the ASI bumps at levels 4 and 8 instead of 7 and 8. A few minor tweaks are made to compensate for the weaknesses of using multiclassing in general. That's also why all the players have to agree to it.

 

[Shardstone]

I like low-level play, but I don't like the feeling of being "trapped" at a given level, such as suggested with just making the levels take longer. The one thing I've found that helped make it workable in D&D is leaning heavily into multiclassing (which I otherwise avoid because it introduces strong power disparities).

Basically, every player picks two classes to level up, instead of just one, and has to keep them within one level of each other. That means you don't hit the power jump of level 5 until character level 9, but you do get plenty of features to expand your character with along the way. For example, you don't get 2nd level spells until character level 5 or 6, so it leans more into creatively using and mixing up low-level abilities.

I also adjust things so that you get the ASI at character level 4, instead of class level 4, so that you get the ASI bumps at levels 4 and 8 instead of 7 and 8. A few minor tweaks are made to compensate for the weaknesses of using multiclassing in general. That's also why all the players have to agree to it.

This is an interesting way to run, and I like it! I think I'd have to manage expectations in the form of monsters, but otherwise this is a solid way of playing the game and not breaking anything. Do you play to level 20 still, or level 40?

 

[DND_Reborn]

You basically said that at levels 1 - 4 you don't have fewer options than at L5. You do. And every new feature is added complexity wether you already know them or not. Inferring that a L5 character is not more complex than a L1 is erroneous.

We are discussing two separate, however related, issues. I am correct in my statements concerning the issue I am discussing.