Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8514855" data-attributes="member: 29398"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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)</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>About the only computer games I play are puzzle games on my phone or rogue-likes (or solitaire!) on my destop.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>* - and in reality, I've got copies of it here somewhere.</p><p></p><p>Which isn't surprising, as given the choice most people naturally want to have and eat cake at the same time. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>To me it's on the designers to discourage this rather than lean into it.</p><p></p><p>Oh dear - you'd be the one my character would be playing practical jokes on all the time. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>That, and starting hard then becoming easier is always much better IMO than starting easy and trying to make it hard later.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8514855, member: 29398"] 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. About the only computer games I play are puzzle games on my phone or rogue-likes (or solitaire!) on my destop. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Oh dear - you'd be the one my character would be playing practical jokes on all the time. :) 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"
Top