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

[Lyxen]

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

It's true, just as it's true that as playing something complex is not necessarily the intent of the game, learning is not necessary, just as one can enjoy something less complex technically without it being called "training" or "learning".

And the other part is that the game not only has a continuous progression complexity, but that complexity is not the same for all classes for example which means that I really don't see the point in trying to define a range. It does not apply uniformly across the game system, and it's totally useless when considering the various styles of playing of the game.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

We did a variant of this for one game because we had players in short supply then. It allowed characters to cover more bases, and I did the same thing about moving ASI to character advancement instead of class advancement. All in all, it worked really well and I would run another game doing the same thing if the table wanted.

 

[Lanefan]

First, in our groups, renown works because the characters themselves spread it between them and externally. Second, it has the huge advantage - at least for us - to be story-centric and not artificial.

Renown isn't quite the same if it stems from self-promotion.

Equality has nothing to do with that, the DM decides what treasure is found. If the fighter was heroic, it can be a magic sword, and if the wizard was heroic, it could be a magic staff.

The DM decides what treasure is found but the players/PCs decide how to divide it; and round here everything gets divided equally. So, if all the party found in an adventure was a magic sword and a magic staff, they'd each be assessed a g.p. value and then each member of the party would get an equal share of the g.p. If the fighter wanted to claim the sword she could, but would have to pay its value for it into the party treasury (less her own share of course).

This way nobody gets left out, everybody gets what they earned, and as a side effect it somewhat puts to rest any threat of DM favouritism in treasure placing.

Are your adventurers all only adventuring because there is a threat ? Are they all such cowards that they need that kind of motivation to push them ?

Usually they're adventuring to get rich quick; the flip side of the high risk of adventuring is the fact that if you do succeed you'll almost certainly be rolling in wealth when you're done.

Glory/reputation allows you to receive support and help in case of real trouble. In our Avernus campaign, it's arguably much harder to play a good character rather than an evil one, but whereas the evil ones get backstabbed by their contacts, at least the good ones have fewer contacts, but reliable and really supportive.

True, making and keeping friends in high places can be useful.

 

[Lanefan]

This is still odd to me. ITs like the only way forward is through facing traps and enemies face first. I want my players to consider all their options. If they can find a workaround, diplomatic solution, or a way to pit factions against each other, why shouldnt they be rewarded for taking a smarter, albeit, safer path?

They should; and in these cases it'd be the party diplomats who would be more likely to get the lion's share of the xp as they're the ones getting things done. They're also the ones putting themselves at risk, as diplomacy can also go wrong.

Same if the party find a way to sneak around an encounter - this is where the sneaky/scout-y types shine, so xp for them.

And so on.

 

[payn]

They should; and in these cases it'd be the party diplomats who would be more likely to get the lion's share of the xp as they're the ones getting things done. They're also the ones putting themselves at risk, as diplomacy can also go wrong.

Same if the party find a way to sneak around an encounter - this is where the sneaky/scout-y types shine, so xp for them.

And so on.

Yikes. I left individual XP in the dust long ago.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, this is true for many RPG games. This is not a red herring. WotC has known in the past, with 3.X and 4E, the game was more difficult to get into at the start. so they made the first 4 levels of the game a lot easier to segway into. This isn't a red herring, this isn't even controversial, this is just good game design!

And in this WotC were really only correcting their own mistakes.

3e was hard to get into because of the wall of rules. 4e was hard to get into because even at 1st level the characters already had a lot going for them; there really wasn't a simple "zero" phase. With 5e they simply went back to a more 0-1-(early)2e setup where the first few levels were (relatively) straightforward and the characters are of power levels a real-world person can relate to.

 

[Lanefan]

Yikes. I left individual XP in the dust long ago.

I never will, as I immensely prefer a system where those who are involved in doing things are those who get the rewards (in this case, xp).

Otherwise IME some characters tend to become passengers.

 

[payn]

I never will, as I immensely prefer a system where those who are involved in doing things are those who get the rewards (in this case, xp).

Otherwise IME some characters tend to become passengers.

Thankfully, my players show up to play. They dont need an incentive to participate. Actually, the XP incentive lead to unwelcome behavior. I get that some folks are trained into it and prefer it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Thankfully, my players show up to play. They dont need an incentive to participate. Actually, the XP incentive lead to unwelcome behavior. I get that some folks are trained into it and prefer it.

I don't need to incentivize my players to play because I don't beat them with 'consequences' whenever they try.

 

[Lanefan]

Thankfully, my players show up to play. They dont need an incentive to participate. Actually, the XP incentive lead to unwelcome behavior.

Curious on this: define "unwelcome behavior" as you saw it. Was the xp reward turning the PCs into murderhobos?