Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="r0gershrubber" data-source="post: 6004419" data-attributes="member: 57828">This is a difficult question, but I hope that the designers are thinking about this as they develop the classes.  [edit: as opposed to as an after thought.]One idea I remember bandied about earlier in the process was the idea that 1st level characters shouldn't necessarily be the standard starting point for starting a campaign; rather, the typical group would be encouraged to start at level 2 or 3.  There are a lot of virtues to this idea, including<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Typical starting characters (level 2 or 3) have a decent base of HP, drastically improving survivability.  In this regard, the typical starting character looks more like a 4E character in terms of attack bonus, HP, etc.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The option of playing a gritty game where being first level is dangerous or achieving the "zero level" pre-adventurer play is available with 1st level characters.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This approach allows the designers to spread iconic class abilities over the first two or three levels so that the typical starting character has all of the expected abilities, and level dipping is discouraged.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players can even start multi-classed, opening some new character concepts from the beginning and might otherwise be difficult to explain in the context of a campaign.  (E.g. when the Wizard1 suddenly gains a level of Fighter, there is some head scratching.  How did the character suddenly gain all of those armor, shield, and weapon proficiencies?)</li> </ol>It's not a perfect solution, and it seems from the playtest so far that this option has been ruled out, but I think it could work really well.</blockquote>

Verification