D&D 5E Have the level ranking of 5th ed made levels 1 and 2 pointless?

[Tim Freerksen]

Since level three is when you can pick your archetypes does that mean levels 1-2 are pointless for starting a game? I mean most of the time when I DM most people know what they want right before the game. Has this always made you scratch your head?

 

[Jester David]

That’s the point.

Lots of people want advanced and tough characters at the start of the game. People stared at level 3 or 5 all the time in 2e and 3e. But there needs to be the option of simple, fragile characters for people who like that. As shown by some of the dislike for much tougher characters in 4e.

Level 1-2 is optional. It’s meant to be skipped by experienced players who don’t want to play fragile apprentices.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Since level three is when you can pick your archetypes does that mean levels 1-2 are pointless for starting a game? I mean most of the time when I DM most people know what they want right before the game. Has this always made you scratch your head?

Pointless at all tables? Not IME.

Not to mention Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards all choose an archetype before 3rd level.

Also, 1st and 2nd level help ease new players into the game.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with your table starting at 3rd level if you all find that more fun.

 

[generic]

Since level three is when you can pick your archetypes does that mean levels 1-2 are pointless for starting a game? I mean most of the time when I DM most people know what they want right before the game. Has this always made you scratch your head?

I think I might know what you mean. For example, fighters pick their archetypes at level three. In the case of Battle Master and Champion, this isn't a problem. However, suddenly gaining spellcasting ability from the Eldritch Knight subclass can be odd.

 

[Mistwell]

Since level three is when you can pick your archetypes does that mean levels 1-2 are pointless for starting a game? I mean most of the time when I DM most people know what they want right before the game. Has this always made you scratch your head?

Uh, what?

Level 1-2 are often the most fun levels of the games I've played. Pretty sure fun is the point, right? I don't recall the point of the game being "getting to the level where you get the mechanical benefit you want".

 

[Shiroiken]

I think they expect most games to start at level 3 (or at least hit it after 2 sessions). Starting at level 3 allows the players to start off as heroes, rather than a common person, which is a common theme. Starting at level 1 allows the zero-to-hero approach, which is also a popular theme.

However, I feel that WotC missed an opportunity here. If instead of front-loading most of the classes, they spread them out over the first three levels, and assumed that most games started at level 3, multi-classing would work a lot better. Instead of taking a single level of a class to get most of what you want, you had to take 2-3 levels, it would discourage the "level dip" that is both prevalent and disliked by many DMs.

 

[Blue]

I was just in a thread where people were strongly defending "level 0" rules for 5e, for playing before you start your classes. The idea that you don't have your class until 3rd was laughable to them - you have your class, you just don't have a specialization.

I think that 1st is a great place to have. It allows those who want to run true zero-to-hero arc, instead of characters being already established adventurers. It's an uncomplicated place to learn the game or a new class. It allows you to feel how your character fits within a group dynamic before lockign in choices liek subclass. The whole 1-3 + 5 range is very useful for multiclassing because you can prevent front-loaded cherry picking.

This isn't saying every campaign should start at 1st. It's saying I'm very glad we have a low powered 1st level. And DMs can chose from there where they want to start.

 

[rgoodbb]

We just levelled up to 3rd after doing 1 and 2 in a certain death house of Barovia.

We are all experienced gamers but that was pure gold at lowest levels. Brings back the excitement of almost dying many times. At 3rd onwards, that excitement can tend to drain rapidly as you start to become less fragile.

Pre-three is cool for me. I also developed some interesting character traits that I might not have by starting at a higher level.

 

[Charlaquin]

Levels 1 and 2 are specifically designed to be introductory levels, to get players used to the simplest version of their character that can still be reasonably described as being a member of their class, before introducing some of the more complex options. They are also intentionally much more deadly and go by much faster than all other levels. Think of them as the tutorial. If you want to skip the tutorial, you absolutely can and should. But its there for those who want it and/or prefer the higher-lethality playstyle.

 

[CrimsonCarcharodon]

In my Sunless Citadel adventure, one of my PCs almost got killed right off the bat by dropping into a giant rat nest, not ten minutes into the session. It was really exciting for a few minutes as the rest of the party tried to figure out how to get down there and save him with the very limited resources they had.

Low level play can be just as fun as mid or high level. It's all in your group and what you enjoy.

That said, I wish there was more parity in when archetypes get chosen. Clerics and sorcerers choose at 1st level. Wizards and druids at 2nd. The warlock gets part of it at 1st level (Patron) and the other half (pact boon) at 3rd. Everyone else gets it all at 3rd. I wish they'd done it so every class gets their big archetype thing at 3rd, to discourage one-level dips.