D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[EzekielRaiden]

because zero level rules are a step backwards from what we have now. Most don't want to start weaker, most don't want to roleplay part of the backstory that got them to level one. It's like record keeping. yech..

Who cares if "most" people don't want them? Most people don't want the "gritty healing" rules, but we already have those.

Make zero-level rules. Make them good. Test them thoroughly and ensure they do exactly what they were designed for. Because that's how you actually make a big-tent game.

 

[Minigiant]

Whereas for me, I would also do 30 levels. But you start at level 1.

All the "you are not an adventurer yet" would be handled by distinct "zero level"/"novice level" rules, which could be theoretically extended, if not totally indefinitely, then to a pretty extreme degree. That way, folks who really really really love the "zero" end of Zero to Hero can stick with it for a really long time, while others can move past it if they wish, and still others (read: most folks) can skip it entirely, as is done in a lot of fantasy fiction.

I'd have hero start at level 5 to avoid the lethality of level 1.

PCs would start with 5HD (no CON bonus to HP). Wizards would go back to d4 HP but start with 12-13 HP at level 5.

 

[Vaalingrade]

because zero level rules are a step backwards from what we have now. Most don't want to start weaker, most don't want to roleplay part of the backstory that got them to level one. It's like record keeping. yech..

We already have 0 level rules. We just call them levels 1 and 2 now.

 

[Lanefan]

This it 100%. Although the play is fun alone, advancing and acquiring is very compelling.

We used to have the desire to play longer and get more experience and frankly gold.

While I "like"d this post, I prefer a game where levelling up is an occasional side effect of ongoing play rather than the primary reason for it.

But gimme that loot!

 

[nevin]

I don't think we are going to agree on this. There have been several attempts since 1st edition to make zero level starter adventure's where your choices determine your class at the end or other such things and none of them were ever popular.

The driving players off wouldn't be fixed by zero level rules. That's almost always a DM or a table mismatch problem. Very very seldom does it happen because the players are trying to figure out the rules. In my experience that's the one time players are willing to go "oops" roll back lets try again because at the very beginning they expect to screw up. For as long as i can remember the fix for giving players a place to screw up and not die has been start at level 3 and start out easy and ramp up. But again. I don't think we are going to agree .

 

[Lanefan]

So, if I parse this correctly, you yourself are an example of skipping zero!!

More an example of low wisdom coupled with blind luck, I think.

 

[nevin]

While I "like"d this post, I prefer a game where levelling up is an occasional side effect of ongoing play rather than the primary reason for it.

But gimme that loot!

Problem is that usually turns into DM doesn't want to deal with "x level" abilities and then leveling is jsut an arbitrary mess that rewards no one. It's just that random thing that happens while you are eating your gruel. I'll give you enough loot can distract you from that.. Loot is advancement as well in a good game.

 

[Cadence]

More an example of low wisdom coupled with blind luck, I think.

What is the age penalty on wisdom for being a toddler/k-4?

 

[Lanefan]

We already have 0 level rules. We just call them levels 1 and 2 now.

There's easily mechanical "space" for another level - maybe even two - between commoner and what is now 1st level in 5e; ditto 3e. In 4e there was space for maybe 4 or 5 levels in there. Even in 1e there's room for a 0th level.

Put 'em in!

=================
And to @Minigiant 's point: yes low levels are lethal. So what?

 

[Vaalingrade]

There's easily mechanical "space" for another level - maybe even two - between commoner and what is now 1st level in 5e; ditto 3e. In 4e there was space for maybe 4 or 5 levels in there. Even in 1e there's room for a 0th level.

Put 'em in!

=================
And to @Minigiant 's point: yes low levels are lethal. So what?

There's space, but is it worth it wasn't levels 1 and 2 aren't worth playing now?