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

[BookBarbarian]

They are introductory levels. They introduce you to the class. Whether you need the introduction or not, they do, and it’s ok to enjoy playing those levels as an experienced player. I know I do.

Half of Portal is tutorial. Portal is an amazing game. Turorials are a very important part of any game, and when done well, can be as enjoyable as the rest of the game, if not moreso. Levels 1 and 2 I’m D&D are an extremely well-done tutorial, and they are just as much fun as later levels, if not moreso.

What makes them more of a tutorial than level 3?

 

[Kobold Boots]

What makes them more of a tutorial than level 3?

Read the entire thread?

 

[BookBarbarian]

Read the entire thread?

I've read every post. And level 3 just like level 1 and 2 has some classes select a subclass.

So again I ask, what specifically makes level 3 different.

Please enlighten me.

 

[cbwjm]

My preference would be to have all archetypes start at level 1 in a class. Sadly, that ship has sailed.

 

[oreofox]

I prefer starting at level 1. I prefer when I DM to have my PCs start at level 1. I feel it gives a better opportunity to get to know your character, and everyone else's, and get more of an attachment to that character, than to start at a higher level. That, and I always enjoyed the "zero to hero" more than starting out a badass powerhouse. Also why I don't mind lower ability scores on my characters. I don't feel I need to have a 20 in my class's main stat at level 1. But that's for another thread.

So no, levels 1 and 2 are not pointless. If they removed level 1 and 2, then level 3 would become the new level 1. And to be honest, having level 1 characters that are on par with level 3 characters isn't very attractive to me. But that's just me, and it is different for everyone.

 

[Charlaquin]

What makes them more of a tutorial than level 3?

Level 3 is when classes become fully realized. All characters will have their subclass by level 3, full casters will have multiple levels of spells for the first time. It’s also the first level that isn’t specifically designed to be attained in one session or less.

And, again, the fact that they’re tutorial levels is the explicit design intent. One could probably dig up the articles where this was discussed in the D&D Next Playtest process if one was of a mind to. Unless Wizards deleted them, which is entirely possible. Might still be able to dig them up with the waybac machine if so.

 

[happyhermit]

A "tutorial" might have a few definitions, but one would have to stretch to find one that covers the first few levels of D&D. There were however things that very much approached "tutorial" in some earlier editions/products.

The first few levels are designed for ease of entry, sure, but that really isn't the same thing. They are also designed for people who like playing those scenarios and with those types of characters, lethality isn't necessarily a part of that.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

First of all, I don't think the archetype is necessarily the most important thing for all players.

In some games, everyone's archetype is strongly rooted into the fantasy world, if the DM has decided to treat archetypes as organizations of characters, so that for example "Druids of the Circle of the Moon" are actually a different network of people compared to "Druids of the Circle of the Land (Desert)" and so on.

But there are also plenty of games where even the base class is not rooted into the fantasy world, and being a Wizard or a Cleric doesn't mean to part of a whole group but merely owning a set of skills, and instead most groups are cross-class. You have the church of Thor with its own Clerics, Paladins and why not Fighters and some Wizards, and then the church of Loki with people who could be of those classes too without any relationship to those of the other group.

My guess is that in most gaming groups, every player has its own opinion on what mostly defines their PC, and some might not even care much about their archetype. Different classes suggest difference importance of their archetypes... for instance, for a Ranger being a Hunter vs a Beastmaster or for a Fighter being a Champion or a Battlemaster is more a matter of tools they can use, while even Druids sub-archetypes (Circle of the Land) have stronger implications on how (or where!) the character lives.

But it is true, that the choice of archetype is a major choice which affects the future levels of the PC, certainly a bigger "choice point" than feats, spells or variable class features. Still, I don't think this makes the first 2 levels unimportant.

That said, in 3rd edition we did pretty much end up starting all games at 3rd level after a couple of years... I think the reason was that in such edition there were stronger incentives towards character builds based on combos, and at least for us feats were a major part of that. So one feat (at 1st level) quickly felt too little to give your PC enough identity to start with, unless you were a human (or Fighter), while 3rd level already gave you at least 2 feats to combine together.

Maybe I haven't played 5th edition enough, but so far I never got that feeling, that my PC was still too little defined at 1st level. I am also generally not looking forward to future levels nearly as much as I used to be in 3rd edition, once again because I don't feel like character building is as important as before.

Survivability is a separate matter altogether. While it is less easy to die in 5e than previous editions, it's understandable that many players are still scared of that at low levels, because they just see their low HP. Level 3 already more than doubles your HP (and symmetrically, your negative HP threshold to avoid instant death from massive damage, which is IMHO the real deal). I am not 100% sure however whether this is only a matter of perception... with some statistical calculations, it should be possible to check if really low level PCs have a higher chance of death, or if instead the scaling monster damage offsets the increasing HP.

 

[S'mon]

I think with 5e, as a player I do prefer starting at 3 or 5. 1st level is just too squishy, especially with the lethality of giant rats, kobolds, goblins, orcs and hobgoblins - traditional level 1 foes. Plus I don't really have my class abilities until level 2 or 3 - eg my level 1 barbarian (started new campaign last Sunday) can Rage but he can't Reckless Attack; I missed nearly all* my attacks that whole session, while in the first fight a couple wolves took me from 15 hp to 6 hp in 1 round - I couldn't reach them with my movement (and I think I failed a perception check to spot them in the darkness) so couldn't Rage.

*And I'm a Polearm master, so mostly rolling 3 attacks a round!

 

[Leatherhead]

First of all, I don't think the archetype is necessarily the most important thing for all players.

There is a problem where some archetypes radically change the way a class is played after level one. Such as Valor Bards who spend the first two levels in light armor with simple weapons or a sword at best; suddenly being able to use medium armor, shields, and all martial weapons. Or Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights being able to cast spells one day.

This makes me wish they had normalized the subclasses to start out at level one, and then implement a "level 0" where only the basic class features apply, and maybe even a "level -1" where only things like your race, background, and maybe an ability related to the class you want to play in the future work.