D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[doctorbadwolf]

Ugh! So I have slog around for a pretty long time before I even get ANY of my character concept! That was a big issue with 3.x (I'm not sure exactly how PF deals with it, never played it). 4e is a huge win here. A level 1 Ranger is a RANGER, not some guy that just has a bow and light armor. 5e went backwards here, though admittedly levels 1 and 2 are pretty trivial.

That’s also one of my few real beefs with Star Wars Saga Edition. Pretty much no one is playing their concept until at least 4th level, though it got better for a lot of concepts with the last few books.

5e is another system where we always start at level 3, because we generally want to play that subclass concept, not “the guy who will someday be a swashbuckler” or whatever.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That’s also one of my few real beefs with Star Wars Saga Edition. Pretty much no one is playing their concept until at least 4th level, though it got better for a lot of concepts with the last few books.

5e is another system where we always start at level 3, because we generally want to play that subclass concept, not “the guy who will someday be a swashbuckler” or whatever.

Yeah, its a beef I have with 5e too, though the two 'toy' levels, 1, and 2, kinda makes it less onerous. Still, its hard to create a backstory that explains how you got to be a paladin, and then you have to play 2 levels of not REALLY being a paladin. Its a little weird. Skipping to level 3 is obviously a possible solution that the designers quite clearly wanted to be left open, and I will credit them for that.

There are a few other aspects of 5e that I like, its just that they're kinda stuck in with too much stuff that I'm not into, lol.

 

[Tony Vargas]

...most hopefully because they made a character COOLER than Gandalf

Well even a classic D&D MU was out-casting Gandalf by 7th level...

 

[Tony Vargas]

. Skipping to level 3 is obviously a possible solution that the designers quite clearly wanted to be left open, and I will credit them for that.

That's how I saw it, too, initially: "Third is the new First!"

But everything starts at first and organizers always seem to want intro games to be 1st. Just too intuitive, I guess...

 

[Oofta]

Well even a classic D&D MU was out-casting Gandalf by 7th level...

Yeah, but based on the books Gandalf was just a diplomat with a cool horse and some flash-bangs. Ever notice how everything he did that was incredibly super-awesome was done off screen? Or explained by his expertise in fireworks? How he took credit for things that other people did like Pip and Merry getting the Ents to help take out Saruman was all his idea because he set them on their path?

P.S. I kid. Sort of.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, its a beef I have with 5e too, though the two 'toy' levels, 1, and 2, kinda makes it less onerous. Still, its hard to create a backstory that explains how you got to be a paladin, and then you have to play 2 levels of not REALLY being a paladin. Its a little weird. Skipping to level 3 is obviously a possible solution that the designers quite clearly wanted to be left open, and I will credit them for that.

There are a few other aspects of 5e that I like, its just that they're kinda stuck in with too much stuff that I'm not into, lol.

Fair enough. I like 5e more than I dislike it, and enough of my group prefers it to 4e, that it’s what I primarily run now, but I still wish it was more of a fixed up streamlined 4e lol.

Either way, though, as a ranger or Paladin particularly it’s frustrating to really “come online” until level 3, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. My backstory is a Paladin, but level 1 feels more like a Squire about to graduate to knighthood.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Fair enough. I like 5e more than I dislike it, and enough of my group prefers it to 4e, that it’s what I primarily run now, but I still wish it was more of a fixed up streamlined 4e lol.

Either way, though, as a ranger or Paladin particularly it’s frustrating to really “come online” until level 3, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. My backstory is a Paladin, but level 1 feels more like a Squire about to graduate to knighthood.

Perhaps you're just writing a 3rd level backstory for a 1st level character. Perhaps you might try writing a backstory of being a squire about to graduate to knighthood instead. Just a suggestion

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps you're just writing a 3rd level backstory for a 1st level character. Perhaps you might try writing a backstory of being a squire about to graduate to knighthood instead. Just a suggestion

OK, but why should the game dictate that? Generally speaking, players have a character concept, and they don't really desire to play something that doesn't fulfill that concept in at least the key areas. I mean, a 4e level 1 PC is still a starting character, but it has access to the key traits which identify a character of that archetype, plus enough options (at least one, possibly up the 3 feats, 4 power choices, a theme choice, background choices, and maybe some race option choices, plus skill selection for 3-5 skills) to particularize that.

Now, 5e has a pretty fair number of options, particularly for some classes, but you still have to go into this weird holding pattern for 2 levels. There are a few edge-case starting scenarios where that might be useful, but not for most. If you REALLY REALLY want a 'level 0' in 4e its trivial to cook one up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Perhaps you're just writing a 3rd level backstory for a 1st level character. Perhaps you might try writing a backstory of being a squire about to graduate to knighthood instead. Just a suggestion

Nah. If I want to play a squire, I’d rather need to reflavor the fact that they play like a full Paladin, than have to make sense of being a Paladin that plays like a Squire. There’s no reason that the squire can’t be as powerful as a newly knighted Paladin, as well, but OTOH it’s weird if a Knighted Paladin doesn’t really play like a Paladin.

Im mostly ok with levels 1-2 being analogous to level 0 in my group, though, for most campaigns. I just wish they would support that concept, and have a whole outline somewhere for starting at 3rd level, and a half page of notes in the APs on how to run the first part of the adventure with a 3rd level party.

OK, but why should the game dictate that? Generally speaking, players have a character concept, and they don't really desire to play something that doesn't fulfill that concept in at least the key areas. I mean, a 4e level 1 PC is still a starting character, but it has access to the key traits which identify a character of that archetype, plus enough options (at least one, possibly up the 3 feats, 4 power choices, a theme choice, background choices, and maybe some race option choices, plus skill selection for 3-5 skills) to particularize that.

Now, 5e has a pretty fair number of options, particularly for some classes, but you still have to go into this weird holding pattern for 2 levels. There are a few edge-case starting scenarios where that might be useful, but not for most. If you REALLY REALLY want a 'level 0' in 4e its trivial to cook one up.

Yeah, we did it once, and we just started with all our lvl one things except for limited use powers and lvl 1 feat. At certain milestones in the first adventure arc, we gained our lvl1 encounter power, then our feat, then daily power, IIRC.

But initially, we started somewhere from level 2-4 out of habit, then began starting at level 1 when it became clear that level 1 didn’t feel like level 0.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nah. If I want to play a squire, I’d rather need to reflavor the fact that they play like a full Paladin, than have to make sense of being a Paladin that plays like a Squire. There’s no reason that the squire can’t be as powerful as a newly knighted Paladin, as well, but OTOH it’s weird if a Knighted Paladin doesn’t really play like a Paladin.

Im mostly ok with levels 1-2 being analogous to level 0 in my group, though, for most campaigns. I just wish they would support that concept, and have a whole outline somewhere for starting at 3rd level, and a half page of notes in the APs on how to run the first part of the adventure with a 3rd level party.



Yeah, we did it once, and we just started with all our lvl one things except for limited use powers and lvl 1 feat. At certain milestones in the first adventure arc, we gained our lvl1 encounter power, then our feat, then daily power, IIRC.

But initially, we started somewhere from level 2-4 out of habit, then began starting at level 1 when it became clear that level 1 didn’t feel like level 0.

Right, most material is going to assume you actually use levels 1, and 2, in 5e, so its a bit annoying to have to skip it and adjust things. There was an 'official' level 0 option in one of the Dragon magazines, and a companion adventure in Dungeon, but I didn't actually like their take very much. It was cut down a lot more than I would have done, or what your example indicates. I think your spin on it is about what I'd have done, had the issue ever come up.