D&D 5E Discussion

[Larianshill]

Sometimes, I wonder how Viktor learnt to write with his room temperature IQ.

 

[Reinhardt]

i prefer low levels mainly because low level characters are still part of the society and must act like one and interract with people higher in foodchain which is pretty much everyone. few levels later and murderhobo transformation is complete "lol, whatever, if diplomacy option fails we can just kill everyone, how many guards can this city have after all".

 

[Cryomancer]

w level chump who needs mentor. not awesum. that's what i was talking about - if you don't play low level campaigns you skip all this in favor of "pew-pew many liches" until pew-pew is the only thing you know.

Wrong. Very wrong. The Wizard which I played in Dark Sun very small campaign which I played had an mentor in Veiled alliance. And BTW, the game which I played last year and started on lv 4 is cuz an group member leaved, was an ongoing campaign. The game started as an lv1 murder mystery.

Are you for low level or mid-level campaign starts?

That depends a lot. If the group is relative close friends which I will play for many months, with a fix schedule in a DM crafted world, lets start in lv 0 or 1. If is with random people in the internet and IDK if we will play for much time together, I rather start in higher level.

his room temperature IQ.

"hur dur, someone has an different taste than me in gaming, he must be retarded"

Nice logic. I'm an C++ developer which worked in many complex projects and am writing this message while wait my mana regen in EQ classic which I run in my archlinux. Wanna see people with room temperature IQ? Check my thread reading BS written by Larian cultists https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...-now-with-iwd-ee-reviews.141531/#post-7686435

murderhobo transformation is complete "lol, whatever, if diplomacy option fails we can just kill everyone, how many guards can this city have after all".

Yep. But if an mid level guy killed lets say 50 guards, this guards have family, an city to protect and so on. They would send bounty hunters to hunt the party. And don't matter how strong you are. In 2E, even an high level char caught by surprize can go down with a single longbow + poisoned arrow crit in his head...

The greatest problem of very high level characters is that everything becomes trivial. Dragons? Beholders? Ancient vampires? An mindlfayer colony? Cake walk for an high level character.

 

[JamesDixon]

i prefer low levels mainly because low level characters are still part of the society and must act like one and interract with people higher in foodchain which is pretty much everyone. few levels later and murderhobo transformation is complete "lol, whatever, if diplomacy option fails we can just kill everyone, how many guards can this city have after all".

The greatest problem of very high level characters is that everything becomes trivial. Dragons? Beholders? Ancient vampires? An mindlfayer colony? Cake walk for an high level character.

The thing both of you overlook is level scaling. Those critters and people gain experience as well to keep pace with the party. The other thing is that getting to level 10+ should take about 5 years of regular play sessions when you start from level zero or one. Time should take in game years for characters to get that high of a level as well. That's why AD&D leaned heavily on training times and gold costs. It should take weeks and months for characters to go up a level. The lower the level it's in weeks while level 6-9 should be months long. The higher the level the longer the training time. There is the matter of requiring a higher level character to teach the player character as well. Said teacher must be a minimum of one level higher. Thus, eventually your character will find they are the highest level person around and now needs to mentor other characters.

It's also encouraged to have the character retire by the time they reach level 9. This way they can train younger characters.

Also, earning enough experience to go up a level under the rules for AD&D 2E states that any excess experience is lost. Thus, you get just the amount of experience to hit the low end of the level and have to start from scratch.

Most DMs ignore this and let the players go wild.

 

[halfchad]

i prefer low levels mainly because low level characters are still part of the society and must act like one and interract with people higher in foodchain which is pretty much everyone. few levels later and murderhobo transformation is complete "lol, whatever, if diplomacy option fails we can just kill everyone, how many guards can this city have after all".

The greatest problem of very high level characters is that everything becomes trivial. Dragons? Beholders? Ancient vampires? An mindlfayer colony? Cake walk for an high level character.

The thing both of you overlook is level scaling. Those critters and people gain experience as well to keep pace with the party. The other thing is that getting to level 10+ should take about 5 years of regular play sessions when you start from level zero or one. Time should take in game years for characters to get that high of a level as well. That's why AD&D leaned heavily on training times and gold costs. It should take weeks and months for characters to go up a level. The lower the level it's in weeks while level 6-9 should be months long. The higher the level the longer the training time. There is the matter of requiring a higher level character to teach the player character as well. Said teacher must be a minimum of one level higher. Thus, eventually your character will find they are the highest level person around and now needs to mentor other characters.

It's also encouraged to have the character retire by the time they reach level 9. This way they can train younger characters.

Also, earning enough experience to go up a level under the rules for AD&D 2E states that any excess experience is lost. Thus, you get just the amount of experience to hit the low end of the level and have to start from scratch.

Most DMs ignore this and let the players go wild.

This is why I don't believe in milestone leveling. Too many noobs are coming to DANDINO being taught they can do whatever they want, so they skip the "hard work" of low levels to get to whatever power fantasy build they want. Of course its a game where people can do whatever they want, but its like the Boy Scouts. When someone said they were an Eagle Badge, you know they earned it through a very long process. Nowadays they don't even require a final project to earn it, even a woman can claim an Eagle Badge now.
And its seems so loosey goosey on rules and at tables that no one is having a consistent experience, so there is a lot of mismatch problems at new tables. I've joined too many online tables recently where its just a rules lite bullshit session. I'm tired of the DM low key playing out his trap humiliation fantasies and noob players trying to recreate things they've seen in anime or CR.

 

[Mortmal]

while casters still scale exponentially.

This I strongly disagree.

Lv 5 evoker fireball = 8d6 hp.
Lv 11 freezing sphere = 10d6

6 levels gained and merely 2d6 damage gained. Now, how much hp does the average cr 11 mob gained in relation to the cr 5??

You're making a critical mistake here: Damage isn't the only way spells scale. Even with those two spells, Freezing Sphere is an anti-aquatic option that forces waterborn enemies to strength check or be immobilized.

Martials arent nerfed either, in 5E you are not supposed to get many magic items, its perfectly balanced to have standard equipment.

Magic item scarcity favors casters and always has. Casters don't need GM fiat magic items to keep scaling, whereas a 5E fighter without magic armor stops gaining AC, doesn't get any new out of combat tricks, and can't even damage anything that's immune to non-magic weapons (unless you have a caster willing to blow their Concentration slot on Magic Weapon).

Of course they doesnt get out of combat tricks, they are lackluster compare to caster in any edition and always will be unless they get titles , stronghold, land and retinues, but when it comes to strictly combat they are not subpar, they get more attacks and more feats.Yes the caster in a low magic setting should in this case use the magic weapon concentration spell as it will be more efficient on the fighter.

 

[Cryomancer]

It's also encouraged to have the character retire by the time they reach level 9.

power fantasy build they want

I don't get. Gygax himself wrote lots of modules far above lv 10. Paladins in 2E only start to get spells at lv 9.

People who believe that lv above 10 can only be power fantasies never heard about "Tomb of Horrors". You can play it with an character as strong as Karsus(lv 42) and it still will gonna be hard. And some modules more about "civilization building" like test of warlords.



Talking about levels, one of the greatest departures from D&D 4e/5e to previous editions is that even an lv 1 character fells "heroic".

f combat tricks, they are lackluster compare to caster in any edition

Yep. Most combat tricks aren't that interesting. If was up to me, lv 13 Barbarians/Fighters could decapitate most enemies and after it, grab his head and use the head to intimidate enemies and make then flee if they are weak. Legolas crazy shots in LoTR movies? High level fighters/rangers with bows should be able to do so.

Disarm, knock down, faint, grapple? This should't be feats, any lv 1 fighter should know how to do it.

 

[Reinhardt]

lv 13 Barbarians/Fighters could decapitate most enemies and after it, grab his head and use the head to intimidate enemies and make then flee if they are weak.

decapitated head! scary! what he's fighting? bunch of peasants?

 

[halfchad]

It's also encouraged to have the character retire by the time they reach level 9.

power fantasy build they want

I don't get. Gygax himself wrote lots of modules far above lv 10. Paladins in 2E only start to get spells at lv 9.

People who believe that lv above 10 can only be power fantasies never heard about "Tomb of Horrors". You can play it with an character as strong as Karsus(lv 42) and it still will gonna be hard. And some modules more about "civilization building" like test of warlords.



Talking about levels, one of the greatest departures from D&D 4e/5e to previous editions is that even an lv 1 character fells "heroic".

f combat tricks, they are lackluster compare to caster in any edition

Yep. Most combat tricks aren't that interesting. If was up to me, lv 13 Barbarians/Fighters could decapitate most enemies and after it, grab his head and use the head to intimidate enemies and make then flee if they are weak. Legolas crazy shots in LoTR movies? High level fighters/rangers with bows should be able to do so.

Disarm, knock down, faint, grapple? This should't be feats, any lv 1 fighter should know how to do it.

No, that was my point. New players are going straight to power fantasy builds without doing the low level grunt work first. 2e was right in not giving Paladins spells until level 9. All classes shouldn't come out balanced and viable at level 1. There should be a feeling of accomplishment in taking a weak class to higher levels. Instead, people are just skipping to the higher levels or demanding Wotc make over powered abilities in the rules. If you did the hard work of taking a weak class to beyond level 10, that is not power fantasy. That is earned reward. So comparing your earned levels to someone who took meme races and builds, was given milestone leveling every other session, its not equal. So its down to did this player I just met do the work or just made bullshit up in their head?

 

[JamesDixon]

I don't get. Gygax himself wrote lots of modules far above lv 10. Paladins in 2E only start to get spells at lv 9.

People in Gary's games rarely got above level 10-12. Usually, the player retired the character and they started a new one. What Gary wrote for sale is a different story. Not everyone played like he did and let their characters get to level 20 in AD&D. He hated BECMI where player characters could challenge gods and become one.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I don't get. Gygax himself wrote lots of modules far above lv 10. Paladins in 2E only start to get spells at lv 9.

For reference, expected levels in AD&D modules by Gary Gygax:

• ≥9th level (~11th level average from pre-generated PCs), G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief
• ≥9th level (no pregens), G2 The Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Chief
• 9th level, G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King
• 10th level D1, Descent into the Depths of the Earth
• ≥9th level D2, Shrine of the Kuo-Toa
• 10th level D3, Vault of the Drow
• 12th level (range of 10-14), Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits (David Sutherland was the primary, possibly sole, author)
• ~10th level with range of 6-14 from pre-generated PCs, S1 Tomb of Horrors
• 1st-3rd level, T1 The Village of Hommlet (module T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil is again for starting characters 1st or 2nd level)
• 8th-12th level but the pregens average ~7.5, S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks
• 7th level with range 6-8, S4 Lost Cavern of Tsojcanth
• 9th level with range 8-10, WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun
• 10.5 with range 9-12, EX1 Dungeonland
• 10.5 with range 9-12, EX2 The Land beyond the Magic Mirror
• 10.5 with range 9-12, WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure (Rob Kuntz was the primary author)
• 16.5 average from 6 pre-generated PCs, WG6 Isle of the Ape

Gary Gygax in his published adventures preferred a level range of about 8-12, although he didn't have much scope for higher-level adventures (WG6 Isle of the Ape from 1985 being the sole exception), since a party in the level range 10-14 was already capable of confronting Lolth in her domain. The only low-level modules he wrote were T1 The Village of Hommlet and (for D&D) B2 The Keep on the Borderlands, both as introductory adventures for novice players, and the complete T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil was a fast way of advancing characters to at least 8th level, at which point they would be prepared for Gygax's other modules.

He hated BECMI where player characters could challenge gods and become one.

Gygax supposedly instructed his protege Frank Mentzer to include questing for immortality as the new endgame in the D&D 'Black Box' Master Set published in 1985.

 

[JamesDixon]

Gygax supposedly instructed his protege Frank Mentzer to include questing for immortality as the new endgame in the D&D 'Black Box' Master Set published in 1985.

Without proof I stand by my statement.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Gygax supposedly instructed his protege Frank Mentzer to include questing for immortality as the new endgame in the D&D 'Black Box' Master Set published in 1985.

Without proof I stand by my statement.

Given the date, it's perfectly possible that you're both right, and that Gygax formed JamesDixon's version of his opinion after getting tired of meeting munchkins with level 20+ immortal heroes who slew entire pantheons.

 

[JamesDixon]

Gygax supposedly instructed his protege Frank Mentzer to include questing for immortality as the new endgame in the D&D 'Black Box' Master Set published in 1985.

Without proof I stand by my statement.

Given the date, it's perfectly possible that you're both right, and that Gygax formed JamesDixon's version of his opinion after getting tired of meeting munchkins with level 20+ immortal heroes who slew entire pantheons.

Fair point.

 

[aleph]

Been playing 5e on and off for the past two years or so. What's so bad about it? Mechanics-wise, obviously, I just ignore all their gay lore, lol.

This lack of scaling is totally ignored by spellcasters though. While everyone else gains +2 chance of success every five levels, full casters gain exponentially greater powers every three levels. Complain about 3.P's martial/caster disparity all you want, but at least fighters scaled fully linearly there: In 5E martials scale less than linearly (thanks to no more attribute bonus increase after +5 at the cap of 20, and no more armor bonus increase after the cap of 20,) while casters still scale exponentially.

Seems you forgot to mention things like Extra Attack, Action Surge, Feats, Maneuvers etc. and just focused on the bonuses. You also forgot about Expertise when calculating the maximum bonus for skill checks above. And Guidance, and Bardic Inspiration...

Could it be you don't actually know that much about 5e?

 

[aleph]

Nice logic. I'm an C++ developer which worked in many complex projects

You? A software developer, let alone in C++? Prove it.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

If was up to me, lv 13 Barbarians/Fighters could decapitate most enemies and after it, grab his head and use the head to intimidate enemies and make then flee if they are weak

This is the sort of thing I do not want to formalize into a rule. It's likely more work for the DM, but I'd rather leave actions open than restrict them to learned feats.

 

[Reinhardt]

This is the sort of thing I do not want to formalize into a rule

that's exactly what i was talking about -

beginner levels is where you can learn creative use of your limited resources

it's something you improvise at the moment, not do because it's somewhere in the rules. why only lvl 13 barbarian could do it? it's something they teach them in lacrymas wommyn school in final years?

 

[Nortar]

2E is the best.

• No "cr 2" monsters capable of soaking cannon balls like on 5e.

Who needs cr-2 monsters, when a domestic cat easily kills a commoner.
The most humiliating way to kill a level 1 wizard? Sick a bunch of cats on him.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

The most humiliating way to kill a level 1 wizard?

Weightlifting competition.

 

[Cryomancer]

This is the sort of thing I do not want to formalize into a rule. It's likely more work for the DM, but I'd rather leave actions open than restrict them to learned feats.

I think that "decapitate" could be formalized into a rule, but picking the head and using it to intimidate, up to the DM...

Mu point is not that everything needs to be formalized in rules, is just that high level martials needs more cool stuff to do.

The most humiliating way to kill a level 1 wizard? Sick a bunch of cats on him.

Why a bunch of cats? a single house cat can kill an lv 1 magic user if he is out of spells and he only has two spells per day. And unless he rolled high in con, he has 25% chances(d4) of having literally 1hp...

LV 1 chars in AD&D = Slightly better than an lv 0 commoner
Lv 1 in 4/5E = Hero.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

is just that high level martials needs more cool stuff to do.

Cool stuff is in what you can think up. Not what the book says you can do.

 

[JamesDixon]

The most humiliating way to kill a level 1 wizard? Sick a bunch of cats on him.

Well a duo of house cats would kill any first level class in a single round. A single house cat has three attacks per round that are two claws and a bite with a rear claw rake of 1-2 points of damage. If the cat hits with the front two paws the special attack is automatically applied and does not count as a separate attack. The claws do 1-2 points of damage while the bite does 1 point. The total amount of damage a cat can do is 4-7 points of damage. Two cats can kill a rogue in one round or a fighter and a cleric in two. Three cats could kill a fighter and a cleric in a single round.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

The most humiliating way to kill a level 1 wizard? Sick a bunch of cats on him.

Well a duo of house cats would kill any first level class in a single round. A single house cat has three attacks per round that are two claws and a bite with a rear claw rake of 1-2 points of damage. If the cat hits with the front two paws the special attack is automatically applied and does not count as a separate attack. The claws do 1-2 points of damage while the bite does 1 point. The total amount of damage a cat can do is 4-7 points of damage. Two cats can kill a rogue in one round or a fighter and a cleric in two. Three cats could kill a fighter and a cleric in a single round.

This is why you roll barbarians

 

[Reinhardt]

The most humiliating way to kill a level 1 wizard? Sick a bunch of cats on him.

Well a duo of house cats would kill any first level class in a single round. A single house cat has three attacks per round that are two claws and a bite with a rear claw rake of 1-2 points of damage. If the cat hits with the front two paws the special attack is automatically applied and does not count as a separate attack. The claws do 1-2 points of damage while the bite does 1 point. The total amount of damage a cat can do is 4-7 points of damage. Two cats can kill a rogue in one round or a fighter and a cleric in two. Three cats could kill a fighter and a cleric in a single round.

This is why you roll barbarians

and live four?