favorite/despised rules

[gameablecontent]

For d&d, any edition, share your favorite and despised rules, house or not. im not trying to start a back and forth over the validity of said rules. i am seeking each person's opinion with their own commentary. maybe top three of each?

my first most despised rule is using stones or slots because they always fail the "how many small items (coins, gems, etc.) make up a stone or slot" question, and in answering that question one can see that the counting should be done in the smaller unit that all are familiar with: coins, pounds, or kilos.

ad&d, which i enthusiastically played for fifteen years, is a bloated corruption of the original ideas: height and weight charts, weapon armor class adjustments, and unarmed combat rules show that the PHB and DMG are filled with dead weight. it's cheating perhaps to include the whole system. i'll give myself a time out.

magic missiles, all spells really, should afford the target a saving throw,

my favorites include maximum damage on a "20" and turning undead, but i think clerics should be able to turn a broader class of monsters including demons, spirity-things like banshee and will-o-wisps, or djinn. i love race as class, too.

 

[The1True]

Unless it's rare and expensive, I hate components.

I didn't realize how much I hated THACO until it was gone. good riddance. Sorry brothers, you're not going to change my mind.

I hate Grappling in most of the editions. At least in 3e it corresponded with the d20 combat and skill system, I guess.

Perhaps as a natural extension of grappling, but not really a rule so much as a common feature of roleplaying, I hate the capture and interogation of prisoners. It brings up so much squicky morality at the game table. As a DM I go to great lengths to have my monsters either die or escape, and I know that's incredibly wrong, but the alternative is not very fun for me.

On the other hand, since we seem to also be doing this:

I love the Great Ring model of the Planes introduced in the 1e PH, fanatically. Designers like the Eberron guy who fuck with that model, fuck with my pseudo-religious views of the D&D multiverse. I don't like that. As a corollary to that, I think Lawful Neutral with Good Tendencies (LNG) is a legitimate alignment with a representative plane (Arcadia) between Nirvana (LN) and the Seven Heavens (LG) as a matter of D&D canon. This can also make player and monster alignment shifts more interesting.

I love the revized Psionics system introduced in 3.5. I played a psion in a Dark Sun campaign a few years back and it slotted right in with the rest of the 3.5e rules rather than being a sub-system unto itself. It was easy to use and really fun. 2.5e took a similarly game stab at psionics, but failed to integrate it with the rest of the rules.

I love 1e Weapon Speed and incremental casting times. We used to have a segment clock at the table. It was not onerous to use, and it meant choosing to use weaker weapons or spells often crucially mattered. The wide variety of 1e weapons had vital meaning to combat outcomes and that's been lost in later editions.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

ad&d, which i enthusiastically played for fifteen years, is a bloated corruption of the original ideas: height and weight charts, weapon armor class adjustments, and unarmed combat rules show that the PHB and DMG are filled with dead weight. it's cheating perhaps to include the whole system. i'll give myself a time out.

Heh, I've been saying this for years, but all the AD&D guys who were lurking around here weren't having any of it. They're not around anymore though, so internet social Darwinism wins again.

My favorite rule: Advantage/Disadvantage. So elegant, so simple. You wonder how it's never come up before.
Least favorite rule: The 5e short/long Rest system. I'll admit it does take some of the tension out of things, and kinda wonks the game balance. If I were re-designing the system, between Short or Long rests I'd say pick one to include, and nix the other.

 

[Malrex]

ad&d, which i enthusiastically played for fifteen years, is a bloated corruption of the original ideas: height and weight charts, weapon armor class adjustments, and unarmed combat rules show that the PHB and DMG are filled with dead weight. it's cheating perhaps to include the whole system. i'll give myself a time out.

I love the number crunching....sure, most of the time its hand-waved, but when you got 2 hp and its about to be a TPK, then all the rules come out and things slow down....to me it makes combat way more exciting because your decisions have consequences---or...sometimes its just the luck of the die. But having a quicker weapon sometimes matters.

Our DM makes us write down all our spell components...I hate doing that...BUT...I do like finding spell components in dungeons because then it feels like treasure. Admittedly, I also enjoy when my spell components are almost out and I have to scramble and think of doing something else (or trying a similar component to see if it works).

I hate psionics. Some of it is ok, but someone who dimension doors all over the place is super annoying and takes me out of the gritty fantasy I prefer. I just started DMing again for our group and I disallowed psionicists. I hate doing that, but my last campaign, psionics burned me out and I hated my life.

I just love 2e rules with all the bells and whistles (we took some components from 3e too)...but love 1e adventures. I've never played 4e....and sounds like I'm going to DM a 5e adventure soon for some kids and I know nothing of 5e (and had to hire someone to convert some of our adventures). So if anyone has the top 5 rules I should know about 5e, would love to hear them.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

So if anyone has the top 5 rules I should know about 5e, would love to hear them.

If you know 3e, you know about 80% of 5e. They changed the names of some skills and assigned each attribute its own Saving Throw (which is more sane, frankly), but otherwise it's mostly the same d20 system.

Some rules of thumb:

To hit with an attack, Melee attacks are d20 + STR Modifier + Proficiency Bonus, whereas Ranged attacks are d20 + DEX Modifier + Proficiency Bonus. STR/DEX Modifiers are also added to melee/ranged damage, respectively, but Proficiency Bonus is only ever added to hit chance. Some Weapon properties can change this, such as Finesse using DEX instead of STR to make melee attacks, or Thrown-property melee weapons using STR to hit instead of DEX.

The formula for hitting someone with a spell attack is d20 + Proficiency Bonus + Spellcasting Ability Modifier (WIS for Clerics, INT for Wizards, etc.) against the target's AC. If a spell requires a Saving Throw, the DC for said throw is 8 + the caster's Spellcasting Ability Modifier + their Proficiency Bonus.

A Short Rest allows players to recover hit points by rolling their hit dice (they have a pool with as many as they have character levels); the die type is based on class, the same die used to determine hit points. Players recover these Short Rest recovery hit dice through a Long Rest (which recovers half their pool of hit dice and heals them to full health), which they can only do once in a 24 hour period.

Grapple Rules are as follows: the one initiating the grapple rolls an Athletics skill check (d20 + Athletics Skill or STR Modifier), and the one being grappled can escape the grapple by using an action to perform a contesting roll against the attacker's grapple Athletics check - this contested roll can be either an Athletics or an Acrobatics skill check (Player's choice). So it becomes a contested check between both parties - Athletics vs. Athletics OR Acrobatics. Being "grappled" just means your speed is effectively zero; you can still attack and act in ways that don't require moving from your position. Unless the grappled target is at least 2 sizes smaller than the grappler, the grappler can move their target around at half their normal speed.

If someone makes a Ranged attack (either weapon or spell) while within melee distance of an opponent, their ranged attack is made with Disadvantage. If someone makes a melee attack against a prone opponent, they get Advantage on their attack; the opposite is true for Ranged attacks, which confers Disadvantage against prone opponents.

Surprise works this way: the attacker rolls a Stealth skill check, and compares it to the Passive Perception of the group (Passive Perception is 10 + Perception Skill or just WIS Modifier); everyone who doesn't beat the Stealth check is "Surprised"; Surprised characters merely have their actions skipped in the first round of combat.

If one side cannot see the other side (darkness, invisibility, etc.), the hidden side gets Advantage on attacks made against the visible side, and attacks made against the hidden side are made with Disadvantage.

Aside from some niche uses like rolling for ability power recharges (like a dragon's breath) or rolling 3d10 x 100gp or what have you, the only rolls that don't use a d20 are the ones relating to health and damage. Everything else is basically rolling d20 and adding modifiers and then comparing to a target number (DC or Armor Class) to determine success.

A Nat20 on a skill roll doesn't mean it auto-succeeds, but it does mean that an attack auto-hits. Critical Damage is a doubling of the base damage dice in an attack, but not the modifiers (so a Greatsword which does 2d6 damage base does 4d6 damage on a crit, then the additional damage modifiers like STR or an enchantment bonus are added).

Ranged weapons have their ranges listed in tiers (like 25/100) - the first number is the maximum range you can use the weapon effectively; if you attack beyond it, you suffer Disadvantage on the roll. The second number is the absolute maximum range of the weapons; you cannot attack beyond it.

 

[Beoric]

Hands down, my most hated mechanic would be skill challenges. They are just an abomination, either taking an element of the game that is inherently interesting and making it not interesting; or taking an element of the game that is inherently dull and should be handwaived, and forcing you to engage in the dullness over 4-12 repetitive skill checks, each broken up with dull and irrelevant narration.

Second is probably 1e weaponless combat. Third is probably something I never used and have forgotten about, likely having something to do with 1e initiative.

For best, I really like the 4e disease mechanic, which can be used for a lot more than disease. I think it is an elegant approach to handling longer term negative conditions, with built-in variability to simulate having good and bad days.

I'm a big fan of the Hazard Die mechanic.

It's a bit of a cheat, but I really like the core of the 4e healing surge mechanic, with some flavour and mechanical tweaks. I think it was a mistake to flavour it as healing damage, as opposed to recovering spent energy (I mean, the healing surge mechanic available to everybody is literally named a "second wind" in combat, and out of combat you recover it after taking a 5 minute break), and it would have benefited from not trying to adhere to D&D traditions that were just not applicable. It works so much better in terms of flavour if you treat 4e HP as a measure of fatigue, which you can actually see a person recovering from after taking 5, or finding a bit of extra energy when the warlord gives you a pep talk. And then combine that with a repurposed disease mechanic to simulate injuries, and you have this simple system that simulates fatigue due to combat, superficial wounds (the "bloodied" condition), and longer term minor or major injuries that have an impact on the game but are not insurmountable.

 

[The1True]

A Nat20 on a skill roll doesn't mean it auto-succeeds,

Booooooooooooo! Kill the witch!

So if anyone has the top 5 rules

If you can get your hands on the old 5e Starter Set (Mines of Phandelver), there is an extremely handy compressed rules book in there, as well as some very easy to read pregen characters that will give you an excellent idea about how characters work (Also, it's a surprisingly fun and well designed adventure!). Honestly, you can go 4-5 (up to 6!) levels with this without committing to $200-worth of hardcovers. Arguably easier to read and parse as well. The rest can be found on the dnd wikidot. It's a fun game. They fucked up combat movement a bit (especially Attacks of Opportunity) and I despise the spellcasting rules with a burning passion (bloody confusing Spells Known-Spells Prepared-Spell Slots). Trying to explain that byzantine bullshit to someone who's never played the game before when I barely understand it myself has not been fun. They did not need to tinker with how spell casting works.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Hands down, my most hated mechanic would be skill challenges. They are just an abomination, either taking an element of the game that is inherently interesting and making it not interesting; or taking an element of the game that is inherently dull and should be handwaived, and forcing you to engage in the dullness over 4-12 repetitive skill checks, each broken up with dull and irrelevant narration.

If you mean the act of players being able to just state "I want to roll Investigation to look for any secrets" versus "I want to inspect the shelf, pull on all the books, tap the walls, and poke at the ceiling", then I totally understand (and BTW, this issue can be mitigated easily - you merely state as iron-clad law that players cannot dictate which rolls to roll and when; only the DM can call for rolls once the players declare their approach). But if your issue is with Skills as a concept for action resolution, then I'm not sure what better system there would be for a TTRPG than rolling a die and comparing it to a target number.

I despise the spellcasting rules with a burning passion (bloody confusing Spells Known-Spells Prepared-Spell Slots).

Heh, I know what you mean. It's very simple when you know what you're doing, but it's not intuitive at all.

Personally I hate how spells have levels that are detached from class levels. A 5th-level Wizard can only cast up to 2nd-level spells... it's just silly. Either call the spell levels something else (like "Tier" or "Difficulty" or something), or make the levels on par with each other (5th level Wizards can cast up to 5th level spells; 20th level Wizards can cast 20th level spells, etc.).

 

[Two orcs]

Good
4e: Bloodied condition, severely under explored. Evocative. Elegant. Probably easy to port to other versions.
All editions except 5e: Spell slots are cooler than mana, I especially like when they're not fungible, if you're out of 1st level slots you're out.

Bad
3e: Uniform XP requirements between classes. Creates the sort of direct comparisons that destroy relationships. I'll elaborate if I remember to.
All editions: I don't like how infravision is common on races, and how Continual Light (or items of similar potency) removes darkness as a significant problem even at low levels. ACKS fixes this is in part by making sure only thief-types have a sort-of infravision, but Perpetual Illumination is just bumped to a 3rd level spell (and you can pay people to cast it on you for a small fee!).

 

[Beoric]

All editions: I don't like how infravision is common on races, and how Continual Light (or items of similar potency) removes darkness as a significant problem even at low levels. ACKS fixes this is in part by making sure only thief-types have a sort-of infravision, but Perpetual Illumination is just bumped to a 3rd level spell (and you can pay people to cast it on you for a small fee!).

In 4e they took away darkvision/infravision from most of the playable races, including goblinoids, gnolls and orcs, for just that reason. And then they screwed it up by handing out sunrods like candy. That should mean the party can never gain surprise, but I don't think it was called out in the rules, and I don't think it occurred to many DMs who didn't use VTTs with dymanic lighting. The other issue was, who had a hand free to hold the thing?

I don't know that it made that big a difference, though. In 1e (DMG p. 59) you had limitations on infravision that made light sources necessary in most circumstances. Under even the best circumstances you couldn't make out much in the way of detail. If everything in a room is the same temperature, you couldn't see anything with infravision (with the exception of 90'+ infravision, which had a different rule). As described, I don't see how anyone relying solely on infravision could make out enough detail to notice most of the things that are written in boxed text. And if anyone in the party needed to use a light, that messed up everyone else's infravision anyway. So basically, if you run out of torches it isn't a death sentence, must most of the time you need a light source anyway.

I think 3e was more generous, with darkvision allowing you to see as you normally did, just in black and white.

If you mean the act of players being able to just state "I want to roll Investigation to look for any secrets" versus "I want to inspect the shelf, pull on all the books, tap the walls, and poke at the ceiling", then I totally understand (and BTW, this issue can be mitigated easily - you merely state as iron-clad law that players cannot dictate which rolls to roll and when; only the DM can call for rolls once the players declare their approach). But if your issue is with Skills as a concept for action resolution, then I'm not sure what better system there would be for a TTRPG than rolling a die and comparing it to a target number.

No, a skill challenge is a minigame that requires multiple die rolls, and very much encourages players to advise what skill they intend you use. It was intended to be a resolution mechanic for complex non-combat situations, but it suuuucked.

In order to win, you needed to get a certain number of successes before having three failures, with the number of successes ranging from 4-12. So the designer needed to make a situation that was complicated enough that multiple rolls would be required using multiple skills AND the types of skills available had to vary sufficiently that a given character probably had something to contribute, no matter your class. Because you didn't want to exclude any players from the minigame.

It suffered from the problem that most complex, non-combat situations don't actually need very many skills. It was commonly used for overland travel, investigations or negotiations. And it sort of turned narrative style play on it's head. Instead of the DM presenting a situation in detail and letting the players react to it, the situation was only outlined in broad strokes, and the players basically picked skills they were good at and tried to narrate a justification for using the skill.

Shoehorning obviously irrelevant skills into a skill challenge could get pretty silly; I saw one "persuading the duke" challenge where the designer suggested the fighter could impress the duke by doing athletic things - in the throneroom, in the middle of the discussion.

I'm pretty sure it was mandated that every 4e module had to have at least one, because there is not a single one that doesn't, and some of them you can tell the designer has no actualy interest in the mechanic.

I hunted around and found a 4e module that's still available on line, if you want to look at it (go to "Encounter 1: Where's Doria?"). This is actually one of the most thoughtful skill challenges I've seen, the designer put a lot of work into trying to make it interesting. And the irony is (and this is true of all skill challenges that are remotely interesting), the thought that has been put into the skill challenge reveals why it would have been more interesting to not use a skill challenge. I actually think that building a decent skill challenge is a really good way to design an encounter that can be resolved without a skill challenge.

 

[The1True]

3e: Uniform XP requirements between classes. Creates the sort of direct comparisons that destroy relationships. I'll elaborate if I remember to.

Aw. In my old 1&2e games, I used to hate when the other guys went up in level and I didn't because of some weird class thing. The other issue is that, when people level up, it tends to eat up a session no matter how you exhort people to do their paperwork between sessions. If everyone's leveling at a different pace, it's chaos. I was also just thinking how I liked the relative CR to XP charts in 3e. Made it really easy to calculate XP awards.

It suffered from the problem that most complex, non-combat situations don't actually need very many skills.

They also have a way of either gating progress in an adventure, or being utterly irrelevent. Like I'm just going to read this narrative and now you roll a dice, and I continue reading because it's pretty much a given that you will succeed on this or the next roll. And if you don't, well, the whole adventure just went out the window. Nice going you 1-rolling loser.
I don't mind if the fate of the world rides on the PC making that difficult leap, or clinging to that cliff face for one more round, or not being seen in the shadows, but yeah, those challenges seemed neat when they popped up in late 3.5, but once we tried them in the wild, we realized they're pointless and tedious. They're a product of siloed specializations (party face, party toolbox, party loremaster, party door-crasher etc.). Exploratory or investigatory adventures start to feel exclusionary to everyone but the rogue and the know-it-all, so these skill-challenges came about. The solution is to give everyone a shot by rewarding good role playing and interactive investigation. If someone says they're going through the library, pulling books, lamp brackets, and book cases, looking for a secret door, you shouldn't force them to roll against there (possibly) mediocre Investigate skill. If a player delivers an impassioned soliloquy at the gaming table, they shouldn't have to roll against their (probably) sad Persuasion skill.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

No, a skill challenge is a minigame that requires multiple die rolls, and very much encourages players to advise what skill they intend you use.

Ok, yeah I know what you're talking about now. That was one of the weirder additions to the game around the 4e era, for sure, along with combatants being classified by "roles" in combat. I see what they were going for, but I also see why those additions gamified D&D into more of a tactical minis game.

 

[Beoric]

They also have a way of either gating progress in an adventure, or being utterly irrelevent. Like I'm just going to read this narrative and now you roll a dice, and I continue reading because it's pretty much a given that you will succeed on this or the next roll. And if you don't, well, the whole adventure just went out the window. Nice going you 1-rolling loser.

They mitigated against that by making losing not much worse than winning. If you lose the travel skill challenge, you lose a healing surge. If you lose the diplomacy SC, the duke gives you slightly less resources. If you lose the sneaking into the castle SC, at the outset of the first (railroaded) encounter the enemy surrounds you rather than facing off against you.

Aw. In my old 1&2e games, I used to hate when the other guys went up in level and I didn't because of some weird class thing. The other issue is that, when people level up, it tends to eat up a session no matter how you exhort people to do their paperwork between sessions. If everyone's leveling at a different pace, it's chaos. I was also just thinking how I liked the relative CR to XP charts in 3e. Made it really easy to calculate XP awards.

I only allow limited leveling during a session. Basically, purely mathematical adjustments (level, AC, NADs, HP) are fine, but not feats or powers. Plus I have training rules for feats, powers and other features, so there's a decent chance they haven't trained in the new features by the time they level.

 

[Two orcs]

Aw. In my old 1&2e games, I used to hate when the other guys went up in level and I didn't because of some weird class thing. The other issue is that, when people level up, it tends to eat up a session no matter how you exhort people to do their paperwork between sessions. If everyone's leveling at a different pace, it's chaos. I was also just thinking how I liked the relative CR to XP charts in 3e. Made it really easy to calculate XP awards.

My elaboration why different XP tables are good for the game:
1. Originally I suspect they were a dial to more precisely control relative power. Both thieves and clerics have the same fighting prowess at a set level but thieves level slightly faster. Thieves and mages have the same HD, but thieves level much faster so their actual hp isn't that far off from a fighter with the same XP total.

2. More imortant: they make direct comparisons between characters more difficult. Class differentiation is very important for making D&D work, different classes have different jobs and abilities. But if the game is one dimensional (say, only combat) and everyone is the same level, you can directly see who contributes the most. Then some classes (and players) are superior or inferior in their contribution and there is a sting of envy and regret. This is a deeply important human social dynamic, if hierarchy is absolute and obvious within a group of friends the lowest and highest ranking members are likely to find new friends who they don't feel so superior or inferior to. If instead everyone has their thing or because you do different activities so different people have a chance to show off their strengths the friend group is stable because you're hanging out with equals.

In a living campaign characters die, and players have varied attendance, total XP accumulated is going to be different. But if the 20,000 XP thief, the 35,000 XP mage, and 50,000 XP cleric all contribute different things to the success of the adventuring party judging their relatives strengths isn't possible and everyone can be strong in different circumstances.

 

[Beoric]

My elaboration why different XP tables are good for the game:
1. Originally I suspect they were a dial to more precisely control relative power. Both thieves and clerics have the same fighting prowess at a set level but thieves level slightly faster. Thieves and mages have the same HD, but thieves level much faster so their actual hp isn't that far off from a fighter with the same XP total.

This is true, and for a while I was taking it into account when I was doing conversions. But it ended up being a lot of work for little benefit, because I don't think it ever made more than one level difference, at least until they hit "name" level.

2. More imortant: they make direct comparisons between characters more difficult. Class differentiation is very important for making D&D work, different classes have different jobs and abilities. But if the game is one dimensional (say, only combat) and everyone is the same level, you can directly see who contributes the most. Then some classes (and players) are superior or inferior in their contribution and there is a sting of envy and regret. This is a deeply important human social dynamic, if hierarchy is absolute and obvious within a group of friends the lowest and highest ranking members are likely to find new friends who they don't feel so superior or inferior to. If instead everyone has their thing or because you do different activities so different people have a chance to show off their strengths the friend group is stable because you're hanging out with equals.

It seems to me that a better solution is to not make the game one-dimensional.

This is a deeply important human social dynamic, if hierarchy is absolute and obvious within a group of friends the lowest and highest ranking members are likely to find new friends who they don't feel so superior or inferior to.

That's harsh. I'm not sure I have ever encountered this phenomenon.

In a living campaign characters die, and players have varied attendance, total XP accumulated is going to be different. But if the 20,000 XP thief, the 35,000 XP mage, and 50,000 XP cleric all contribute different things to the success of the adventuring party judging their relatives strengths isn't possible and everyone can be strong in different circumstances.

Part of the issue is that XP-to-level progression is flatter in later editions. If the amount of XPs necessary to level more or less doubles every time, that means that, if your character dies and you need to start a new one at first level, by the time the old characters hit their next level, the new character will have almost caught up. At least, if you aren't using training rules.

With newer XP progression, if you restart at first level, you are never going to come even close to catching up. I still want new characters to have to start at first level, or at least a lower level; but I accomplish this by doubling XPs earned until they catch up.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

This is a deeply important human social dynamic, if hierarchy is absolute and obvious within a group of friends the lowest and highest ranking members are likely to find new friends who they don't feel so superior or inferior to.

I gotta agree with Beoric's sentiments of incredulity on this one. I've never had a group of friends who act like this. A group of strangers or loosely-acquainted colleagues might arrange themselves this way, maybe, but actual friends constantly jockeying with one another for social clout? I don't know if that's as common as you believe it to be. Either that, or your friends are all teenagers.

If the amount of XPs necessary to level more or less doubles every time, that means that, if your character dies and you need to start a new one at first level, by the time the old characters hit their next level, the new character will have almost caught up. At least, if you aren't using training rules.

You've got to be pretty sadistic to start dead characters over at level 1, at least so long as the other characters in the game are around or above level 5. You know those games of Monopoly where one guy loses and has to spend the next two hours waiting around while everyone else plays the game? It's like that, except the game lasts for years.

Yeah yeah, "catch up mechanisms" and "sense of character accomplishment" and "old school feels"... I get it. I just don't agree with inflicting it.

 

[Two orcs]

I gotta agree with Beoric's sentiments of incredulity on this one. I've never had a group of friends who act like this. A group of strangers or loosely-acquainted colleagues might arrange themselves this way, maybe, but actual friends constantly jockeying with one another for social clout? I don't know if that's as common as you believe it to be. Either that, or your friends are all teenagers.

You're misreading me, friend groups actively exaggerate each others different roles, and do different activities, to make everyone feel as an equal part of the group. Sometimes it's not possible and the group splits up.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

You're misreading me, friend groups actively exaggerate each others different roles, and do different activities, to make everyone feel as an equal part of the group. Sometimes it's not possible and the group splits up.

You're misreading us - all we're saying is that this is not the norm (albeit anecdotally). Most of the friend groups I know/have are bonded by proximity and interests, and then kept together through familiarity and shared experience. The ones that split up generally either split up due to logistics (somebody moves away or has kids or whatever), or due to drama.

I'm not saying friend groups don't dissolve because of feelings of exclusion or inequality; I'm just saying it's not the baseline. At least, not in a healthy friendship circle.

 

[Beoric]

=

You've got to be pretty sadistic to start dead characters over at level 1, at least so long as the other characters in the game are around or above level 5. You know those games of Monopoly where one guy loses and has to spend the next two hours waiting around while everyone else plays the game? It's like that, except the game lasts for years.

Yeah yeah, "catch up mechanisms" and "sense of character accomplishment" and "old school feels"... I get it. I just don't agree with inflicting it.

I waffle on this, TBH. There are useful things a lower level character can do in 4e, maybe in all the later editions. Flanking, for instance, or aid another. And I like the story of how a character gets their gear and character options, which you don't get if you build a higher level character. But yeah, you don't want that to go on forever.

 

[The1True]

I waffle on this, TBH. There are useful things a lower level character can do in 4e, maybe in all the later editions. Flanking, for instance, or aid another. And I like the story of how a character gets their gear and character options, which you don't get if you build a higher level character. But yeah, you don't want that to go on forever.

I liked how the 3 and 3.5e DMG explicitly presents tools for building higher level characters. Generally my group has found was to Raise/Resurrect much loved characters, but occassionally a player has gone way too far up the wrong branch of a Skill/Feat/Sub-class tree, or just found out that they hated or couldn't manage a character class (druid in particular is a bitch if you're not familiar with the Monster Manual), and built a new character between sessions.
You can split the difference and go by resurrect rules where characters brought back permanently lose a level. So, build a new character one level lower to match that. Starting way back at lvl 1 is ass. I have done it, starting 7 lvls behind in a 2.5e game, and it was fine. I got a bunch of op hand-me-down equipment and went up 3 levels in the first session, and closed the gap quickly, as noted, over the next few months. But I never fully caught up and it sucked. The DM was also handing out bonus XP based on those old 1-2e 10% race/class bonuses as well as handing out subjective awards for accomplishing role-playing goals, good gaming, and MKS's (Made Kill Strike), which lead to some feelings of unfairness when XP got awarded. I'd much rather everyone advance at the same rate and gain the same experience awards. It makes it easier to prevent cheating if you know exactly how much everyone should have and it prevents in-group competition and feelings of unfairness.