The "Apprentice Tier"

After looking over the packet a bit longer, while I was initially dismissive of the way the classes didn't start going until about 3rd or 4th level, Now, I actually am warming up to it a bit. While I see no reason to ever play starting at level 1, it actually provides a decent mechanism for multiclassing. If games generally start at level 3, you can look at this as though the effective level of a class is actually the real level-2. Thus it allows them to dejure front-load class features, while returning to a 3e Multiclassing method.

Moreover, the fact that if you look at a level 3 character as Effective Level 1, then you can broaden the options of a character you can play from session 1. (As an aside, I'm still aprehensive about the character customizability, in general, but at least at session 1, this is a step up from 3e)

The one big problem that this causes, however, is that ability score increases are a part of the class advancement. Thus multiclassing delays your feat-progression, which given the power of feats, is a huge disincentive; While this is still not my prefered way of multiclassing (I'd prefer a method similar to Pathfinder's Archetypes), if multiclassing, akin to 3e's methods, is a thing in DDN, this is something that must be solved.

So, what say you all on the way DDN is handling the "apprentice tier"? 

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

I appreciate the effort a LOT, but it's still far too powerful of characters, and passes too quickly (multiply experience needed by 5-10, and in my opinion expand the number of apprentice levels by 1-3).
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
I appreciate the effort a LOT, but it's still far too powerful of characters, and passes too quickly (multiply experience needed by 5-10, and in my opinion expand the number of apprentice levels by 1-3).


One thing I'm guessing that they will do, if not in the next playtest, then at least by the finished product, is to create alternate experience tables, for faster and slower progression. Possibly not even faster progression, since my guess is that they intentionally sped up the advancement table so playtest groups could play a broader range of levels faster than they would in a normal game. 

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

Not really a fan of the apprentice tier myself. It just feels likeyou get alot of nothing and then get a large bump. Im not sure if its the first 3 levels or that feats give so much now. Im also not sure how multiclassing is gonna work with it either and kinda think @nd edition mcing would be better than 3rd edition mcing.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I like it. Though, I don't agree with Phoenix at all. If EXP progression was any slower, I would not like it at all. The rapid progression out of apprentice tier is part of what makes it palatable.

Basically, rolling up your character gets divided into one or two game sessions, and some roleplaying gets worked into the process. You start out with a "level 1" character that is unfinished. By level 3 you are getting somewhere. By level 4 you get your first feat, and you really have a unique character. Then EXP gain slows down. Getting a character ready before your first game is quick. Roleplaying during the character building process makes the process more fun and allows you to build your character organically with the story. Meanwhile, the reduction of front-loaded abilities will make multiclassing work better. Great!
I agree with Cyber-Dave. I like it a lot, but I would NOT like it if it went by slower.

I like the feeling of learning your class organically. Sure, with a group of experienced players who just want to get into the crunchy bits, starting at level 3 is cool, but I expect that most of my games will start at level 1.
Well if they DRASTICALLY lowered the overall power for much of the rest I wouldn't need the tier so desperately. But right now it's a game we wouldn't touch due to massively overpowered characters.

It should also be noted that we don't use feats or multiclassing (or a lot of the other stuff being offered), and never will, so that might play into it.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
Well if they DRASTICALLY lowered the overall power for much of the rest I wouldn't need the tier so desperately. But right now it's a game we wouldn't touch due to massively overpowered characters.

It should also be noted that we don't use feats or multiclassing (or a lot of the other stuff being offered), and never will, so that might play into it.


Dude your playing a very different version of D&D than most of us(wich is fine).

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I think it might be more worthwhile for you and your players to just strip a lot of the class features.

It's also worth mentioning that prior to this packet, low level combat was actually pretty brutal. I didn't feel overpowered at all.
Well if they DRASTICALLY lowered the overall power for much of the rest I wouldn't need the tier so desperately. But right now it's a game we wouldn't touch due to massively overpowered characters.

It should also be noted that we don't use feats or multiclassing (or a lot of the other stuff being offered), and never will, so that might play into it.


Dude your playing a very different version of D&D than most of us(wich is fine).



Yeah, we're ultra-grognards. Even with the older systems we've come to strip them down though, to clarify the experience we found most iconic to D&D. We essentially want 1st edition 0 level common man campaigns without multiclassing.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
Well if they DRASTICALLY lowered the overall power for much of the rest I wouldn't need the tier so desperately. But right now it's a game we wouldn't touch due to massively overpowered characters.

It should also be noted that we don't use feats or multiclassing (or a lot of the other stuff being offered), and never will, so that might play into it.


Dude your playing a very different version of D&D than most of us(wich is fine).



Yeah, we're ultra-grognards. Even with the older systems we've come to strip them down though, to clarify the experience we found most iconic to D&D. We essentially want 1st edition 0 level common man campaigns without multiclassing.



I think that's great and sounds like a lot of fun. I'd just gut the classes if I were you. D&D Next is super easy to houserule.
I think it might be more worthwhile for you and your players to just strip a lot of the class features.

It's also worth mentioning that prior to this packet, low level combat was actually pretty brutal. I didn't feel overpowered at all.



Well, there's two types of overpowered. What you're describing is comparative power (ie between players and opponents). We're talking about absolute power (ie how much skill/power is being utilized overall).

For instance, if you put Superman (or any superhero) against an equally mighty enemy, they're not comparatively overpowered....however they are still using phenomenal power overall.

We're looking for farmers with rusty axes and barely trained wizards hardly able to summon a slight breeze or small flame...at least at first. The game has felt more like genetically engineered elite soldiers and weilders of intense magical power...though facing off against comparatively touch opponents usually.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
Well if they DRASTICALLY lowered the overall power for much of the rest I wouldn't need the tier so desperately. But right now it's a game we wouldn't touch due to massively overpowered characters.

It should also be noted that we don't use feats or multiclassing (or a lot of the other stuff being offered), and never will, so that might play into it.


Dude your playing a very different version of D&D than most of us(wich is fine).



Yeah, we're ultra-grognards. Even with the older systems we've come to strip them down though, to clarify the experience we found most iconic to D&D. We essentially want 1st edition 0 level common man campaigns without multiclassing.



I think that's great and sounds like a lot of fun. I'd just gut the classes if I were you. D&D Next is super easy to houserule.


Honestly at that point I would just use the older edition and steal the things you like about next. Im not telling you to play your old edition, im just saying, I see some things Ilike about next but theres alot of areas im gonna have to fix for me to use next. So I could see you having the same problem, only in the opposit direction.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I think it might be more worthwhile for you and your players to just strip a lot of the class features.

It's also worth mentioning that prior to this packet, low level combat was actually pretty brutal. I didn't feel overpowered at all.



Well, there's two types of overpowered. What you're describing is comparative power (ie between players and opponents). We're talking about absolute power (ie how much skill/power is being utilized overall).

For instance, if you put Superman (or any superhero) against an equally mighty enemy, they're not comparatively overpowered....however they are still using phenomenal power overall.

We're looking for farmers with rusty axes and barely trained wizards hardly able to summon a slight breeze or small flame...at least at first. The game has felt more like genetically engineered elite soldiers and weilders of intense magical power...though facing off against comparatively touch opponents usually.



Hm. It does seem like you're just flat out trying to play a different game than what is being offered, which is cool, but I don't think apprentice teir is ever going to be what you're looking for for your group.
Well if they DRASTICALLY lowered the overall power for much of the rest I wouldn't need the tier so desperately. But right now it's a game we wouldn't touch due to massively overpowered characters.

It should also be noted that we don't use feats or multiclassing (or a lot of the other stuff being offered), and never will, so that might play into it.


Dude your playing a very different version of D&D than most of us(wich is fine).



Yeah, we're ultra-grognards. Even with the older systems we've come to strip them down though, to clarify the experience we found most iconic to D&D. We essentially want 1st edition 0 level common man campaigns without multiclassing.



I think that's great and sounds like a lot of fun. I'd just gut the classes if I were you. D&D Next is super easy to houserule.


Honestly at that point I would just use the older edition and steal the things you like about next. Im not telling you to play your old edition, im just saying, I see some things Ilike about next but theres alot of areas im gonna have to fix for me to use next. So I could see you having the same problem, only in the opposit direction.



Yes, but if I wanted 1st, I already own everything ever printed for it. We want a currently produced game, with cons and ongoing culture and so on, just one that can emphasize the aspects of pre-3rd editions (which are the only ones we like for D&D).

That's why we're all here...not to offer blank appraisals, but to hopefully steer them towards a direction that will inspire us to buy the game, thus keeping the franchise alive.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
I think it might be more worthwhile for you and your players to just strip a lot of the class features.

It's also worth mentioning that prior to this packet, low level combat was actually pretty brutal. I didn't feel overpowered at all.



Well, there's two types of overpowered. What you're describing is comparative power (ie between players and opponents). We're talking about absolute power (ie how much skill/power is being utilized overall).

For instance, if you put Superman (or any superhero) against an equally mighty enemy, they're not comparatively overpowered....however they are still using phenomenal power overall.

We're looking for farmers with rusty axes and barely trained wizards hardly able to summon a slight breeze or small flame...at least at first. The game has felt more like genetically engineered elite soldiers and weilders of intense magical power...though facing off against comparatively touch opponents usually.



Hm. It does seem like you're just flat out trying to play a different game than what is being offered, which is cool, but I don't think apprentice teir is ever going to be what you're looking for for your group.



Oh I don't suffer the illusion that they'll ever get it perfect...they just need options (remember all that talk about options) that can get us close enough to pre-3rd play for us to buy the game. That was the POINT of 5th (for ALL playstyles and preferences to be able to achieve their game). They either do it and succeed, or don't and fail.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
Well if they DRASTICALLY lowered the overall power for much of the rest I wouldn't need the tier so desperately. But right now it's a game we wouldn't touch due to massively overpowered characters.

It should also be noted that we don't use feats or multiclassing (or a lot of the other stuff being offered), and never will, so that might play into it.

Dude your playing a very different version of D&D than most of us(wich is fine).

Yeah, we're ultra-grognards. Even with the older systems we've come to strip them down though, to clarify the experience we found most iconic to D&D. We essentially want 1st edition 0 level common man campaigns without multiclassing.

I think that's great and sounds like a lot of fun. I'd just gut the classes if I were you. D&D Next is super easy to houserule.

Honestly at that point I would just use the older edition and steal the things you like about next. Im not telling you to play your old edition, im just saying, I see some things Ilike about next but theres alot of areas im gonna have to fix for me to use next. So I could see you having the same problem, only in the opposit direction.

Yes, but if I wanted 1st, I already own everything ever printed for it. We want a currently produced game, with cons and ongoing culture and so on, just one that can emphasize the aspects of pre-3rd editions (which are the only ones we like for D&D).

That's why we're all here...not to offer blank appraisals, but to hopefully steer them towards a direction that will inspire us to buy the game, thus keeping the franchise alive.

Isn't that a little one sided, though? I'm not here to steer WotC in any one direction. I understand they have to appeal to both you and myself (who likes customization and playing powerful yet balanced characters). Playing to any one crowd is definitely not going to keep the franchise alive, don't you think? Shouldn't we be finding the common ground, followed by modularity in the areas in which we disagree?
 
Hm. It does seem like you're just flat out trying to play a different game than what is being offered, which is cool, but I don't think apprentice teir is ever going to be what you're looking for for your group.



The Cleric in a 1e game would touch his hand on a dying MU and shazam he goes from bleeding out to fully healed at level 1.

The MU in that same game could wave hands and take out an Ogre (*a 4hd monster akin to something Beowulf fought in some ways) with 1 spell... single handedly... the fighting man was atleast called a Veteran.

It wasnt very consistant with farm hands no not just relatively but absolutely... nor was it meant to.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
Hm. It does seem like you're just flat out trying to play a different game than what is being offered, which is cool, but I don't think apprentice teir is ever going to be what you're looking for for your group.



The Cleric in a 1e game would touch his hand on a dying MU and shazam he goes from bleeding out to fully healed at level 1.

The MU in that same game could wave hands and take out an Ogre with 1 spell... single handedly... the fighting man was atleast called a Veteran.

It wasnt very consistant with farm hands no not just relatively but absolutely... nor was it meant to.


And yet that fighter who was called a veteran would get his ass handed too him by that ogre if the mage who was killed by an angry rat didnt get to one hit the ogre with his spell.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Well if they DRASTICALLY lowered the overall power for much of the rest I wouldn't need the tier so desperately. But right now it's a game we wouldn't touch due to massively overpowered characters.

It should also be noted that we don't use feats or multiclassing (or a lot of the other stuff being offered), and never will, so that might play into it.

Dude your playing a very different version of D&D than most of us(wich is fine).

Yeah, we're ultra-grognards. Even with the older systems we've come to strip them down though, to clarify the experience we found most iconic to D&D. We essentially want 1st edition 0 level common man campaigns without multiclassing.

I think that's great and sounds like a lot of fun. I'd just gut the classes if I were you. D&D Next is super easy to houserule.

Honestly at that point I would just use the older edition and steal the things you like about next. Im not telling you to play your old edition, im just saying, I see some things Ilike about next but theres alot of areas im gonna have to fix for me to use next. So I could see you having the same problem, only in the opposit direction.

Yes, but if I wanted 1st, I already own everything ever printed for it. We want a currently produced game, with cons and ongoing culture and so on, just one that can emphasize the aspects of pre-3rd editions (which are the only ones we like for D&D).

That's why we're all here...not to offer blank appraisals, but to hopefully steer them towards a direction that will inspire us to buy the game, thus keeping the franchise alive.

Isn't that a little one sided, though? I'm not here to steer WotC in any one direction. I understand they have to appeal to both you and myself (who likes customization and playing powerful yet balanced characters). Playing to any one crowd is definitely not going to keep the franchise alive, don't you think? Shouldn't we be finding the common ground, followed by modularity in the areas in which we disagree?



Not remotely one sided. It's what they asked for, based upon their design goals. Help them make a game that can represent your playstyle and preference. Not just yours, or just mine, but each of ours (at least as epitomized by the pre-3rd, 3rd, and 4th game paradigms). In order to do that we each have to give our honest feedback on what the game needs to fit us.

I don't want them to produce MY game, I want their game to have the options I need to play it happily. Much like you say, see where we're common, make that core, and then make everything else optional.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
 
Hm. It does seem like you're just flat out trying to play a different game than what is being offered, which is cool, but I don't think apprentice teir is ever going to be what you're looking for for your group.



The Cleric in a 1e game would touch his hand on a dying MU and shazam he goes from bleeding out to fully healed at level 1.

The MU in that same game could wave hands and take out an Ogre with 1 spell... single handedly... the fighting man was atleast called a Veteran.

It wasnt very consistant with farm hands no not just relatively but absolutely... nor was it meant to.


And yet that fighter who was called a veteran would get his ass handed too him by that ogre if the mage who was killed by an angry rat didnt get to one hit the ogre with his spell.



It was definitely schwingy schwingy.... thats for sure. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
Hm. It does seem like you're just flat out trying to play a different game than what is being offered, which is cool, but I don't think apprentice teir is ever going to be what you're looking for for your group.



The Cleric in a 1e game would touch his hand on a dying MU and shazam he goes from bleeding out to fully healed at level 1.

The MU in that same game could wave hands and take out an Ogre with 1 spell... single handedly... the fighting man was atleast called a Veteran.

It wasnt very consistant with farm hands no not just relatively but absolutely... nor was it meant to.



And yet that fighter who was called a veteran would get his ass handed too him by that ogre if the mage who was killed by an angry rat didnt get to one hit the ogre with his spell.



This.

It wsa a bunch of people with attributes around 6-14 (that gave no benefits at those rankings) facing creatures that could EASILY kill them with a single blow...sometimes for several levels. Any special abilities (other than basic magic and thieving abilities) were so carefully restricted as to seldom appear in games, keeping them rare and the power level overall VERY VERY low.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
I remember one of the first characters I played in basic was an elf with a 18 str and dex and a 3 in con. Hi stats where rolled with 3d6 and wasnt allowed to move them. He died at 2nd level from a woolt mamoth.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I remember one of the first characters I played in basic was an elf with a 18 str and dex and a 3 in con. Hi stats where rolled with 3d6 and wasnt allowed to move them. He died at 2nd level from a woolt mamoth.



While anomolies do happen, statistically you'd have to roll 46,656 characters to get two 18s with 3d6 (and 10,077,696 to get one with 2 18s and a 3). Not including racial adjustments of course.

Point being it's too bad he died, because that was an ultra rare character.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own. WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
I remember one of the first characters I played in basic was an elf with a 18 str and dex and a 3 in con. Hi stats where rolled with 3d6 and wasnt allowed to move them. He died at 2nd level from a woolt mamoth.



While anomolies do happen, statistically you'd have to roll 46,656 characters to get two 18s with 3d6. Not including racial adjustments of course.


What your missing with that caculation is the 3 stat wich makes it enan more bizzarre

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I remember one of the first characters I played in basic was an elf with a 18 str and dex and a 3 in con. Hi stats where rolled with 3d6 and wasnt allowed to move them. He died at 2nd level from a woolt mamoth.

I think the bigger shock than the 1 in 46656 chance is that you made it to second level with a 3 in con in Basic.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

I remember one of the first characters I played in basic was an elf with a 18 str and dex and a 3 in con. Hi stats where rolled with 3d6 and wasnt allowed to move them. He died at 2nd level from a woolt mamoth.

I think the bigger shock than the 1 in 46656 chance is that you made it to second level with a 3 in con in Basic.



We where using campaign in the boxes, there is a suit of magical platemail and a magical shield in the insides of a giant toad I believe. Had a very high AC and made it along way until random encouter had high Hd monsters in it. Tried to stay away but that didnt work that time.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I don't like the apprentice tier at all. If they want an introductory thing for new players, they should make a level 0 rule module.

I hate the total lack of character customization that level 1 characters have now. Every character of the same race and class is basically the same as any other. You don't get any skills, feats, or class choices to distinguish yourself. You have your ability scores, race and background and that's about it. I hate having characters that are so cookie-cutter.

The rapid progression out of the apprentice tier also totally defeats the purpose. They sacrifice so much to make character creation as basic as possible, but then you just end up leveling your character on the very next session. I'd rather just get character creation over all at once, thank you very much. Besides, when those two levels are over so quickly, it feels to me like there's no point in even having them in the game.

People say this helps multiclassing, but I just don't see it. Since most classes don't get a feat until level 4, and since feats are based on class level instead of character level, multiclassing can severely delay your aquisition of feats. And people are still going to take 1 level in certain classes just for things like proficiencies.
I dont think feats are going to be good for dipping into the other classes. Im still waiting for some actual multiclass rules.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.


I hate the total lack of character customization that level 1 characters have now. Every character of the same race and class is basically the same as any other. You don't get any skills, feats, or class choices to distinguish yourself. You have your ability scores, race and background and that's about it. I hate having characters that are so cookie-cutter.

The rapid progression out of the apprentice tier also totally defeats the purpose. They sacrifice so much to make character creation as basic as possible, but then you just end up leveling your character on the very next session. I'd rather just get character creation over all at once, thank you very much. Besides, when those two levels are over so quickly, it feels to me like there's no point in even having them in the game.

People say this helps multiclassing, but I just don't see it. Since most classes don't get a feat until level 4, and since feats are based on class level instead of character level, multiclassing can severely delay your aquisition of feats. And people are still going to take 1 level in certain classes just for things like proficiencies.



This.

I think I sort of understand where  Phoenix is coming from, at the same time.  My idea of fun and his are radically different (I don't want to spend my Friday nights being a farmer with a rusty axe- I want a more action-movie escapism), this if the designers really want to build something flexible enough to satisfy us both, then expand the Apprentice Tier for him and let me and my friends just start at level 3.  

If the  issue is trying to balance out multiclassing, this is NOT the way to do it.  Personally, I favor the 4E feat-based approach- if you want to get class abilities, spend a feat to buy in, then use feats to expand that skill set.  All of Icicle's points on this issue are ones I agree with.
I dont think feats are going to be good for dipping into the other classes. Im still waiting for some actual multiclass rules.



I'd like to see the option, but why don't you think feats could work?  I'm sincerely curious for your take.
Right now its just a feeling, but I had this same kinda feeling about the warlord getting a real next treatment. The of the most disappointing aspects of 4th ed. was how long it took wizards to do MCing. It is something that should be dealt with early on in the design cycle and not just tacked on in the end.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I like it. Though, I don't agree with Phoenix at all. If EXP progression was any slower, I would not like it at all. The rapid progression out of apprentice tier is part of what makes it palatable.

Basically, rolling up your character gets divided into one or two game sessions, and some roleplaying gets worked into the process. You start out with a "level 1" character that is unfinished. By level 3 you are getting somewhere. By level 4 you get your first feat, and you really have a unique character. Then EXP gain slows down. Getting a character ready before your first game is quick. Roleplaying during the character building process makes the process more fun and allows you to build your character organically with the story. Meanwhile, the reduction of front-loaded abilities will make multiclassing work better. Great!

I agree with Dave on all level, it also changes the way it plays and feels compared to other editions. And if it help Multiclassing transition, i am all for it. 

I dislike it because it forces one style of class progression, because they want multiclassing to work. And multiclassing is not big on my list. And since it tends to get abused anyway, I prefer they just add multiclassing as an advanced module and choose the type you want, i.e. all classes level at the same time, use character level, hybrid, gestalt, etc.

For standard character level progression, I want a dial for hit points, abilities, skills, talents (maneuvers/spells), feats, etc. where you determine you baseline power at first level (gritty, standard, heroic) and everything progresses from that point. So with gritty, you have less hit points, and choices are stretched over more levels, where heroic hit points are doubled and you get choices every level.
Sign In to post comments