Remove ads

Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Reader mode
Kinda got a dumb question. It's... I suppose about Pathfinder (since that's the system I know), but it's also kind of a broad RPG one, so, whatever:

What is level 1?

To explain what I mean... what does level one actually mean, in-universe. If a character is starting at level one, does that mean they haven't had any kind of adventuring experience before and the adventure to come is their first time? Does it mean that they've had some small events or escapades that push them above NPC's and justify them being "better"?

It's something I keep struggling with when it comes to making characters, something I enjoy; I like trying to include some kind of plot hooks for GM's to use (if they want), or for me to use to flesh the character out, but I worry that it ends up being... well, I guess, too much for a character at the very bottom of the levelling system.

On a related note, I guess... is it appropriate to use a character from an organisation at level one? Suppose you want to play a member of the Pathfinder Society, or a Hellknight, or a Lastwall Knight, is it acceptable to put that kind of thing in the backstory (with GM permission, obviously), or is it something that *should* only come later after the character has levelled up some and starting to get some cachet in the world?

(I mean, like most things it probably boils down to 'if the GM clears it, it's fine', but still. It's the kind of thing that makes me worried about presenting character concepts and trying to get a spot in games.)
 
I've had characters start as members of organizations. I had two characters who were armigers (trainees) of the hellknights working towards taking the final test to become a full fledged hellknight. I'd raise an eyebrow at a DM getting cross at a player trying to tie themselves into the setting unless some shenanigans are in play (trying to claim items at no expense etc.) I have thoughts on the concept of level 1 but I'll post that later when I have a computer and not just the phone keyboard.
 
Quiver said:
Kinda got a dumb question. It's... I suppose about Pathfinder (since that's the system I know), but it's also kind of a broad RPG one, so, whatever:

What is level 1?

To explain what I mean... what does level one actually mean, in-universe. If a character is starting at level one, does that mean they haven't had any kind of adventuring experience before and the adventure to come is their first time? Does it mean that they've had some small events or escapades that push them above NPC's and justify them being "better"?

It's something I keep struggling with when it comes to making characters, something I enjoy; I like trying to include some kind of plot hooks for GM's to use (if they want), or for me to use to flesh the character out, but I worry that it ends up being... well, I guess, too much for a character at the very bottom of the levelling system.

On a related note, I guess... is it appropriate to use a character from an organisation at level one? Suppose you want to play a member of the Pathfinder Society, or a Hellknight, or a Lastwall Knight, is it acceptable to put that kind of thing in the backstory (with GM permission, obviously), or is it something that *should* only come later after the character has levelled up some and starting to get some cachet in the world?

(I mean, like most things it probably boils down to 'if the GM clears it, it's fine', but still. It's the kind of thing that makes me worried about presenting character concepts and trying to get a spot in games.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Level one generally equates to a random "caravan guard" as they used to put it. SO essentially about as trained as a generic rent-a-cop in terms of combat ability.

Lastwall wants every soldier they can get, so being part of the crusade wouldn't be an issue.

As to the Hellknight option, in order to be a true hellknight you need to defeat a bearded devil in single combat. Those too low level can still be a member of the order but are "armigers", still in training.
 
Last edited:
That's an excellent question, because I frequently run into this problem.
It's especially annoying because the jump in competency and what a character can do is so big from level 1 to, say, 3. Especially if you multiclass.

One of my next characters will have grown up with a family of travelling/adventuring priests. They won't have be actively involved in said adventuring (one doesn't drag their kid into fights), but they'll have picked up training and advice and experience and stuff like that on the way. It's reasonable for them to be low level, and it also justifies their rather diverse skillset. I also want them to be middle-aged, rather than young.
Level 1 makes utterly no sense for them, unless you really really squint. Level 3 works, because they aren't supposed to be properly battle-hardened and all that yet, but nyeh.
 
Serafina said:
That's an excellent question, because I frequently run into this problem.
It's especially annoying because the jump in competency and what a character can do is so big from level 1 to, say, 3. Especially if you multiclass.

One of my next characters will have grown up with a family of travelling/adventuring priests. They won't have be actively involved in said adventuring (one doesn't drag their kid into fights), but they'll have picked up training and advice and experience and stuff like that on the way. It's reasonable for them to be low level, and it also justifies their rather diverse skillset. I also want them to be middle-aged, rather than young.
Level 1 makes utterly no sense for them, unless you really really squint. Level 3 works, because they aren't supposed to be properly battle-hardened and all that yet, but nyeh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Level 1 PC classes seem to be essentially "journeyman adventurers." They're green. They're rookies. But they have the training that puts them above the NPC classes in skill. They're elites, albeit young and inexperienced ones.

You can be a level 1 PC and be venerably old; it's just a matter of not having done much to exercise those adventurer muscles. To a degree, levels are abstractions. I'm not going to argue they have no meaning in-story, but neither that the same NPC Expert who's level 5 might not be represented instead as a level 1 Rogue if he were a PC rather than an NPC. To a degree, the mechanics need to be chosen for what you want to represent.

But in general, a level 1 PC character is a newbie. He's no longer an apprentice, and he's not expected to check with an authority figure before making decisions, and he's trusted to take matters into his own hands, but he's not a grizzled veteran.

(If he is, well, so be it. You're going to have to deal with any disparity that gameplay/story segregation inveigles.)
 
Serafina said:
That's an excellent question, because I frequently run into this problem.
It's especially annoying because the jump in competency and what a character can do is so big from level 1 to, say, 3. Especially if you multiclass.

One of my next characters will have grown up with a family of travelling/adventuring priests. They won't have be actively involved in said adventuring (one doesn't drag their kid into fights), but they'll have picked up training and advice and experience and stuff like that on the way. It's reasonable for them to be low level, and it also justifies their rather diverse skillset. I also want them to be middle-aged, rather than young.
Level 1 makes utterly no sense for them, unless you really really squint. Level 3 works, because they aren't supposed to be properly battle-hardened and all that yet, but nyeh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I can see starting a campaign above level 1 working. The head GM of my PF1E campaign holds that levels 2-3 is fairly common, level 5 is noticeably above the average person, level 10 is rare and the maximum for plot irrelevant NPCs, and a level 15+ party happens about once a generation. Not sure if this is an official or house rule. For example, the party's Paladin went to the main temple for his religion and was easily able to find level 2-3 clerics, but finding a level 5 or 6 cleric would've required a couple days. Having the party start off at the upper end of everyday people (level 3) seems reasonable.

It also could help make the characters' choices to start adventuring more sensible. A level 1 wizard kind of sucks, at least in PF1E, why would they risk adventuring?

Honestly, I feel like the 20 based level system is "legacy code" that is too granular. I've seen a system for mid-level progression, but it requires using xp instead of milestones for level-up. Milestones work much better than xp when some players have health issues and can't always make it to the sessions. Plus it's less work for the GM team when we don't have to worry about giving the players too much xp and having them end up being overleveled.
 
In "canon" PF, a level 6 fighter is a World War I era soldier with like 4 years of experience, so level 2ish is probably a early 1900s fit person.

City rules in PF list items they have and casters they have, and big cities tend to have at least one caster above level 9, and the really big cities have at least 1 caster of level 17, if not more.


The leaders of most empires in PF are above level 13, AFAIK.

The Shackles was ruled by a level 20 fighter. The Elf Kingdom Kyonin's monarch is a level 15 wizard. Razmir, who runs a small kingdom where he's built a cult to himself, is a level 19 wizard. Both Nex and Geb have rulers who can cast 9th level spells. The head of the Padishah Empire of Kelesh doesn't have a listed level AFAIK, but his satraps are around level 14 if Xerbystes II is anything to go by.

Basically, most big nations have a handful of high-level people, usually as rulers.


So that's a houserule on the part of the GM. Which is fine, "power level" shouldn't have a canon.
 
Quiver said:
Kinda got a dumb question. It's... I suppose about Pathfinder (since that's the system I know), but it's also kind of a broad RPG one, so, whatever:

What is level 1?

To explain what I mean... what does level one actually mean, in-universe. If a character is starting at level one, does that mean they haven't had any kind of adventuring experience before and the adventure to come is their first time? Does it mean that they've had some small events or escapades that push them above NPC's and justify them being "better"?

It's something I keep struggling with when it comes to making characters, something I enjoy; I like trying to include some kind of plot hooks for GM's to use (if they want), or for me to use to flesh the character out, but I worry that it ends up being... well, I guess, too much for a character at the very bottom of the levelling system.

On a related note, I guess... is it appropriate to use a character from an organisation at level one? Suppose you want to play a member of the Pathfinder Society, or a Hellknight, or a Lastwall Knight, is it acceptable to put that kind of thing in the backstory (with GM permission, obviously), or is it something that *should* only come later after the character has levelled up some and starting to get some cachet in the world?

(I mean, like most things it probably boils down to 'if the GM clears it, it's fine', but still. It's the kind of thing that makes me worried about presenting character concepts and trying to get a spot in games.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Levels designate power, not experience. Sam wise Gangee went on an epic quest and saved the world, but he never really progressed past level 1
 
The Imperator said:
In "canon" PF, a level 6 fighter is a World War I era soldier with like 4 years of experience, so level 2ish is probably a early 1900s fit person.

City rules in PF list items they have and casters they have, and big cities tend to have at least one caster above level 9, and the really big cities have at least 1 caster of level 17, if not more.


The leaders of most empires in PF are above level 13, AFAIK.

The Shackles was ruled by a level 20 fighter. The Elf Kingdom Kyonin's monarch is a level 15 wizard. Razmir, who runs a small kingdom where he's built a cult to himself, is a level 19 wizard. Both Nex and Geb have rulers who can cast 9th level spells. The head of the Padishah Empire of Kelesh doesn't have a listed level AFAIK, but his satraps are around level 14 if Xerbystes II is anything to go by.

Basically, most big nations have a handful of high-level people, usually as rulers.


So that's a houserule on the part of the GM. Which is fine, "power level" shouldn't have a canon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'd worry that NPCs of that strength would break the plot, but I'm new to this whole GM'ing thing. Starting as an assistant GM is nice.

I've got no idea whom any of those characters are though. I haven't read any of the official settings because the campaign is in the GM's homebrew world. The setting does have some issues, the big one being the world is still predominantly agrarian with big cities being rare but somehow we're skipping straight to railroads. Though I imagine using an official setting would give us less creative freedom.

Edit: That's not to say the head GM is bad, just that figuring out the details of fictional macroeconomies isn't his strong point. He's far better at improv and storytelling than I am. I'm just better with numbers than the average person, so questions like "how do you support the economy needed to produce trains and make them profitable if cities with populations in the millions don't exist?" are more my thing.
 
Last edited:
PhoenixMercurous said:
I'd worry that NPCs of that strength would break the plot, but I'm new to this whole GM'ing thing. Starting as an assistant GM is nice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The thing to remember about even high-level NPCs is that politics matter.

Let's look at the shackles. (I was wrong, Bonefist was level 18, but close enough).

Bonefist is effectively a PC, he's spent decades adventuring in probably the second or third most hostile place on Golarion. random encounters, i.e. normal creatures in the area, span from CR 2 to CR 19. There is a giant island filled with dragons, and a great Wyrm too IIRC. There are dozens of other pirates, many with massive fleets, who despite only being around 5th to 11th levels still have the forces needed to sink boats, siege cities, etc., because even high-level fighters can't stop a bunch of cannonballs from destroying a coast. Politics ties his hands, despite his darker tendencies. He has some casters with him, but much of their efforts are spent ruling, organizing and managing the kingdom that they are trying to build up.

The Elves are in a constant state of war with Razmir. Their leaders are roughly equal, but both have actual armies that do most of the fighting. A single wizard can hold a fort on their own if they prep, but the Elves aren't evil so they're not binding outsiders non stop, relying on help from planar calling sometimes. For the most part, outsiders don't care about that fight, so it's not like they're going to get a constant stream of help. There are plenty of high level elves (greater than level 13), but Razmir also has casters and warriors of that level and higher. The elves also have a nascent demon lord living in their backyard, who has his own army, that they have to deal with. On top of that, politics with surrounding nations, alignment, etc. all constrict the elven queen from just wandering around as a level 15 wizard.

Same with Qadira. Xerbystes has a country to run. Sure he can go out and lead an army, but statistically he can't hold a fortress on his own (in a large battle, statistically 1/20 shots will hit him, and in armies of thousands if not hundreds of thousands, that's not great odds) and he is also beholden by politics.



Adventurers, when they're wandering, have the benefit of not having large kingdoms relying on them. And if they are rulers, then play up the problems that would arise if they leave their kingdom leaderless. Even Alexander had to turn back when his forces didn't want to press on.
 
KingseekerFreyr said:
If someone makes flying mounts, would it make Animal Handling and the Cavalier MA more attractive? For 5e.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Cavalier is fine even unmounted. Only one of their features is specifically and exclusively relevant for mounted combat - Born to the Saddle, which makes it harder to knock them off a mount and reduces the amount of movement it takes to mount or dismount. Everything else can be used on foot. People just tend to gloss over it, probably because they see the description and think the entire subclass falls apart when you don't have a mount - which is admittedly fair since mounts in 5e are expensive and rather less than practical is situations like dungeons.

Honestly the only thing that really limits a Cavalier is the chassis pigeonholes you into a Strength build.
 
Last edited:
Level 1 is for NPCs unless you are playing 4e.

Stabbing someone with a fork is a perfectly reasoned and proportionate response to being told to start at level mook in a high fantasy game.

I play D&D to play a *hero*, not a "has 40% chance to die instantly, lol."

level 3 is the "capable rookie" level to start at for a character just starting out.

I usually play games that start at level 5+, but then, my local group is well and fed up with "you have to earn higher levels" bullshit.

Level 1 is great for horror games or OSR crawls where you fully expect to lose a character or five before you clear the tomb. If you want to play actual heroic fantasy, Level 3 is the absolute minimum for 3e, preferably level 5.

5e at least makes level 1-2 a lot more survivable, but several classes don't really have distinct class features until level 3, so again, if you want heroic fantasy, start at level 3+
 
Valette.Serafina said:
So, to start: Spaghetti posting is explicitly against SV's rules. Setting that aside, however:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The relevant issue is 'making it hard for casual readers to understand, thus disrupting the proper running of the thread'. Since this is a Megathread, it shouldn't be a problem if we're careful.
Valette.Serafina said:
Tanking is a two-part thing: Part the first is being able to take being attacked, and a number of classes in D&D can manage that. On its own, this is called being tough, or being sturdy, or not being made of glass.
It is not, however, Tanking without the second part: Forcing enemies to focus on the Tank, rather than the squishy non-tanks. In MMOs that include Tanking, this is done by hard mechanics.

In D&D 5th, there are... A few spells, I think, and class abilities, mostly in the hands of the Paladin. For the most part, however, you're limited to roleplaying, and cannot mechanically force enemies to target the character most capable of handling their attacks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Opportunity attacks, for a start. The Polearm Master and Sentinel feats, especially the latter. Booming Blade, the War Caster feat, or both. I'm pretty sure I've seen a Barbarian subclass that can move as a reaction in order to chase enemies, but it might've been homebrew.
Oddly enough, the Rogue is probably a very good tank if you can make them tough enough to survive it. A Barbarian dip is great for that.
Any tough Grappler can make a viable tank.
Heck, you can even just play a gish and take lockdown spells!
Those are all viable methods for forcing opponents to focus on your tank, and that's leaving aside the support spells (Wizards have a lot) designed to provide lockdown for tanks who can't do it themselves.
Valette.Serafina said:
Passive powers are only interesting when they're used. Having a Phylactery, for example, only comes up when one is using it to refuse to die. Further, that's an NPC ability, and thus derives most of its interesting elements from the players doing things to break it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Phylactery may be a bad example, because it's probably more fun to abuse your resurrective immortality than it is to go to ridiculous measures to guard your heart, at least most of the time. I'll try to rephrase.
Active powers, like most attacks and skills and so forth, are interesting for what they let you do.
Limitations, such as 'nearly perfect' defenses, are interesting for what they make you avoid.
Since passive defenses are rarely interesting, and the Wondrous Items chapter talks up magic items as being wondrous and awesome and special, I want magic defenses to be powerful but with interesting flaws. It's a very old trope for a reason.
Valette.Serafina said:
Now, setting aside the basic concept itself, what on any plane are you talking about regarding Fighter? Avoidance tank? Where in the seven hells are you pulling that from? The only survivability feature the core class has is Second Wind, a once per rest recovery ability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Their AC is some of the best in the game. Between the bonus feats (for defensive feats and stat maxing), their full armor proficiency, and their Fighting Style options, Fighters can be quite difficult to hit, and they get Indomitable for saves. That's also before considering subclass features.
Valette.Serafina said:
The standard assumption in D&D is that magical items are good, and do not hurt you. Cursed items are the exception, and most players will avoid them if non-cursed items are avalable, regardless of the bonuses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think it's doable with some balancing. People do seem willing to wear Heavy Armor despite the disadvantages.
Chloe Sullivan said:
Do I need to go dig up my long effort post about why the MMO comparison for 4e is wrong? I can.


I'm curious what people think the best D&D video/computer games were. Anyone?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've heard 4E is actually a very close comparison for Overwatch.
 
Last edited:
HoratioVonBecker said:
The relevant issue is 'making it hard for casual readers to understand, thus disrupting the proper running of the thread'. Since this is a Megathread, it shouldn't be a problem if we're careful.

Opportunity attacks, for a start. The Polearm Master and Sentinel feats, especially the latter. Booming Blade, the War Caster feat, or both. I'm pretty sure I've seen a Barbarian subclass that can move as a reaction in order to chase enemies, but it might've been homebrew.
Oddly enough, the Rogue is probably a very good tank if you can make them tough enough to survive it. A Barbarian dip is great for that.
Any tough Grappler can make a viable tank.
Heck, you can even just play a gish and take lockdown spells!
Those are all viable methods for forcing opponents to focus on your tank, and that's leaving aside the support spells (Wizards have a lot) designed to provide lockdown for tanks who can't do it themselves.

Phylactery may be a bad example, because it's probably more fun to abuse your resurrective immortality than it is to go to ridiculous measures to guard your heart, at least most of the time. I'll try to rephrase.
Active powers, like most attacks and skills and so forth, are interesting for what they let you do.
Limitations, such as 'nearly perfect' defenses, are interesting for what they make you avoid.
Since passive defenses are rarely interesting, and the Wondrous Items chapter talks up magic items as being wondrous and awesome and special, I want magic defenses to be powerful but with interesting flaws. It's a very old trope for a reason.

Their AC is some of the best in the game. Between the bonus feats (for defensive feats and stat maxing), their full armor proficiency, and their Fighting Style options, Fighters can be quite difficult to hit, and they get Indomitable for saves. That's also before considering subclass features.



I've heard 4E is actually a very close comparison for Overwatch.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
4e is actually a lot closer to WoW. Complete with all the original classes having 3 possible talent trees.
 
KingseekerFreyr said:
If someone makes flying mounts, would it make Animal Handling and the Cavalier MA more attractive? For 5e.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are basically 4 issues with mounted combat in d&d:
  1. Mounts cannot go everywhere the player goes and thus the player can't always be mounted. The solution is a friendly dm or being small and riding a medium creature. And ignoring the social faux pas of bringing a boar into a king's throne room.
  2. If only one player wants to be mounted, there'll be weird party issues.
  3. Mounts are either super fragile non-pc companions that you have to baby sit or they're about as good as a pc and can steal the spotlight or slow down play (like summons).
  4. Mounts need gear, though thankfully not as much as pcs do.
Various editions have solved them in different ways, but 5e is kinda terrible for this. Horses have terrible hp and even with barding their ac is static, and while a pegasus is an upgrade it will drop off if the dm doesn't make sure to upgrade it.
 
HoratioVonBecker said:
I haven't played either, but my sources tell me that 4E and Overwatch are a lot more concerned with tactical positioning where WoW cares about aggro management.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For an aggrocentric game, WoW cares an awful lot about tactical positioning, though :)

Don't stand in front of the dragon unless you are the main tank. Don't stand directly behind the dragon. Don't stand in fire (spooky black circles on the floor and green clouds in the air are fire). Don't stand where the adds are going to spawn unless you're the off tank. Don't stand near people marked with the opposite polarity debuff. Don't stand near anyone if you're about to explode.
 
If I was going to compare 4E to any MMO it'd be Guild Wars 1. It's by far the closest comparison to it, what with the standardized resource mechanics with a couple of extras added on top, picking from a list of class powers to fill limited slots, multiclassing that enables you to poach powers from other classes and a little bit extra on top, obvious class roles that can still be worked around, and all the reactive abilities.

That said they still don't play much like each other.
 
grommile said:
For an aggrocentric game, WoW cares an awful lot about tactical positioning, though :)

Don't stand in front of the dragon unless you are the main tank. Don't stand directly behind the dragon. Don't stand in fire (spooky black circles on the floor and green clouds in the air are fire). Don't stand where the adds are going to spawn unless you're the off tank. Don't stand near people marked with the opposite polarity debuff. Don't stand near anyone if you're about to explode.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Good to know. I played it like once, and didn't get nearly far enough to learn that stuff. Probably didn't help that I was alone at the time.
csjorm said:
If I was going to compare 4E to any MMO it'd be Guild Wars 1. It's by far the closest comparison to it, what with the standardized resource mechanics with a couple of extras added on top, picking from a list of class powers to fill limited slots, multiclassing that enables you to poach powers from other classes and a little bit extra on top, obvious class roles that can still be worked around, and all the reactive abilities.

That said they still don't play much like each other.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Could be that the charbuild subgame is very similar and the combat subgame isn't.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top