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

[dave2008]

Here is what the DMG has to say about it:

"Starting at Higher Level
Experienced players familiar with the capabilities of the character classes and impatient for more significant adventures might welcome the idea of starting a campaign with characters above 1st level. Creating a higher-level character uses the same character creation steps outlined in the Player’s Handbook. Such a character has more hit points, class features, and spells, and probably starts with better equipment.

Starting equipment for characters above 1st level is entirely at your discretion, since you give out treasure at your own pace. That said, you can use the Starting Equipment table as a guide."

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree that 1-4 are essentially "training wheels". Unless we're playing with newbies, my group usually starts at level 3. I would consider levels 1-2 to be the intro training, whereas level 3-4 are an intermediate training. Level 5 is around where classes are fully featured (advanced).

 

[Retreater]

Playing as glorified commoners at level one is a core principle of D&D. 4th Edition veered away from that and look what happened to it!

My player who made this statement had gone back and tried 4e, and she thinks it's the best edition of D&D.

 

[toucanbuzz]

"Levels 1-4 are just training wheels. The game doesn't even start until 5th level.

I'll totally disagree with the statement (but not the belief itself) because the game is more than hack-n-slash. There's that whole "role play" part that has nothing to do with starting at level 1 or level 5. And, there's some sense of "achievement" from having earned and survived those levels rather than having them handed out for free.

Further, anything past 1st level is pretty special, even 2-4. Level 1 is a time of discovering how you react to risk (of dying) and to experiment with races and classes before you end up with pages-long arrays of abilities. It shouldn't be missed. Levels 2 and 3 get into the "folk hero" range where death isn't as likely, leading to bolder play and more fantastic powers like changing into bears. That's pretty powerful. Level 3 and 4, PCs likely possess abilities 99% of the populace doesn't, and a dozen guards couldn't bring them down. Level 5, superheroes who can defy gravity by flying and even revive the dead. Tell that to the average peasant and they'll think avatars of the gawds have come down. Anything past that, relative to the rest of the world, a big deal.

However, while it's not my preferred style of play, I also know some people enjoy epic play. While I feel you might lose something in the role-play, making stories, finding out who your character is part, when you skip certain foundational levels, I am a firm believer in play what you like. So, I can agree with her belief that's where the fun starts even if I wouldn't personally do it.

 

[Retreater]

A question for you @Retreater is "how often are you playing levels 1-4 compared to levels 5 and higher"? If you barely get to levels 7+ before you start over with new characters, the player might become frustrated with that?

She has mentioned that she's never gotten to do high level. Her previous DM was running Curse of Strahd, and that campaign ended with Strahd's death ("just when it was getting good," as she said.) I guess that's around 10th level?

I've never been able to DM a "real campaign" with her - just sample test adventures to try out various systems. (Because of this phenomenon Switching Around Systems Due to Burnout?).

I guess my perspective is that levels 1-2 are too underpowered in 5e. By the time you get much beyond 5th level, you're unstoppable. For me there's a two level "sweet spot" in 5e where the game actually works the way I like, which is levels 3-5.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'll totally disagree with the statement (but not the belief itself) because the game is more than hack-n-slash. There's that whole "role play" part that has nothing to do with starting at level 1 or level 5. And, there's some sense of "achievement" from having earned and survived those levels rather than having them handed out for free.

Further, anything past 1st level is pretty special, even 2-4. Level 1 is a time of discovering how you react to risk (of dying) and to experiment with races and classes before you end up with pages-long arrays of abilities. It shouldn't be missed. Levels 2 and 3 get into the "folk hero" range where death isn't as likely, leading to bolder play and more fantastic powers like changing into bears. That's pretty powerful. Level 3 and 4, PCs likely possess abilities 99% of the populace doesn't, and a dozen guards couldn't bring them down. Level 5, superheroes who can defy gravity by flying and even revive the dead. Tell that to the average peasant and they'll think avatars of the gawds have come down. Anything past that, relative to the rest of the world, a big deal.

However, while it's not my preferred style of play, I also know some people enjoy epic play. While I feel you might lose something in the role-play, making stories, finding out who your character is part, when you skip certain foundational levels, I am a firm believer in play what you like. So, I can agree with her belief that's where the fun starts even if I wouldn't personally do it.

I don't think that anyone who says that means that you can't have fun and meaningful gameplay at levels 1-4. Just that the class complexity is relatively low at those levels.

It's ideal for players unfamiliar with the game, but players who have experience with playing those classes might find the features somewhat lacking in complexity at those levels.

 

[Oofta]

Level 5 is a big power jump and for a lot of people when the classes really start to kick in. On the other hand, levels 1-2 are the training wheel levels to get people acquainted with the class and how they mesh with the group. If you're already comfortable with the class or just the system it's not necessary.

On the other hand, I like the lower levels. If I had my choice they'd last longer, I feel like what I decide to do with the little I have is more important. Choices seem to matter more when you're so limited. That, and it feels more personal because generally you're still in your starting locale fighting immediate local threats to family and neighbors.

 

[Retreater]

On the other hand, I like the lower levels. If I had my choice they'd last longer, I feel like what I decide to do with the little I have is more important. Choices seem to matter more when you're so limited. That, and it feels more personal because generally you're still in your starting locale fighting immediate local threats to family and neighbors.

I totally understand. That's why I prefer "Fellowship of the Ring" to the other films in the LotR series.

 

[Jer]

My player who made this statement had gone back and tried 4e, and she thinks it's the best edition of D&D.

More evidence that she's telling you that she really likes the more Heroic level of play then

 

[Lyxen]

Because levels 1-4 were designed by Wizards to actually be the "training wheel" levels.

No, they were not, and why specifically those levels ? Why not 1, or 1-2, or 1-6 or whatever ?

Also, lots of people only play D&D at low level only, very few people play at high level anyway.

And then, some people play D&D as a roleplaying game (and not a purely technical game of skill needing "training"), and even experienced players enjoy the start of their character's adventures when they are just local heroes and not world-shaking ones.