Does anybody else miss 1st L Characters

[Ahnehnois]

I think lots of people SEE playing at level 1 as mandatory... And newer players who should be eased into the system but shouldn't necessarily be slaughtered wholesale while they're learning the ropes, as Keterys is speaking to, are likely to start at level 1 without understanding that maybe they ought to be starting at level 5.

Making the zero part of "zero-to-hero" a level 0 thing makes it purely optional for those who want that sort of thing without telling players who don't want to be zeroes that they're missing part of the base game by starting at level 5. It also fits thematically, "zeroes" are level 0.

And here's the crux of the OP's issue. The pitiful level 1 character (the "zero" in zero to hero if you will) is, in the opinion of the OP, myself, and some other posters (among many) a core part of D&D. There's nothing wrong with starting at above level 1, but if you do that, you are "missing" something.

For some, it's fine to skip the early levels. Depending on your style, they may be better off missed. However, I do think the inherent "opt-out" of the leveling system itself makes more sense than trying to reconceive the D&D power curve, turbocharge level 1 characters, and add on a new "opt-in" rule to cover what already existed in editions 1-3.

If there were a level 0, I'd rather see it cover the moment a kid walks out the door, someone who can't even be called an adventurer yet. I actually think that would be fun.

The issue of what level to start at is very easily covered in a good DMG. I'd like to see it advocated to start campaigns at a variety of places, in media res style.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I don't know what the 4E level 0 rules are like, but in older editions I believe they were intended to be the character before they even had any class training - a young pup without any class abilities at all - not the same thing as what most people here are suggesting, but more like "Commoners - the RPG".

 

[Nebulous]

And here's the crux of the OP's issue. The pitiful level 1 character (the "zero" in zero to hero if you will) is, in the opinion of the OP, myself, and some other posters (among many) a core part of D&D. There's nothing wrong with starting at above level 1, but if you do that, you are "missing" something.

For some, it's fine to skip the early levels. Depending on your style, they may be better off missed. However, I do think the inherent "opt-out" of the leveling system itself makes more sense than trying to reconceive the D&D power curve, turbocharge level 1 characters, and add on a new "opt-in" rule to cover what already existed in editions 1-3.

If there were a level 0, I'd rather see it cover the moment a kid walks out the door, someone who can't even be called an adventurer yet. I actually think that would be fun.

The issue of what level to start at is very easily covered in a good DMG. I'd like to see it advocated to start campaigns at a variety of places, in media res style.

I agree. i have run many 1st level campaigns, and i have run many where we start at 3rd or 5th because the players didn't want to be wussies who died at a hit or two. The DMG should completely lay this out and explain how to modify the game to incorporate these styles. 0-level should be there as the fresh farmboy option who just has a pitchfork and no idea how he's going to save the world.

4e had the assumption, out of the gate at 1st level, that everyone was a hardened hero already. Fine and dandy, but it alienated a lot players.

And i have said this before and i will say it again, the core books need to END at level 20, and leave 21+ for a completely optional supplement where you attain godlike powers.

 

[Tallifer]

I think extremely low level play should definitely be an option. I would certainly choose that option sometimes. Other times I would want to jump into the heroism. I think the default in the Starter Box and Players' handbook should be heroic, so people can jump right into dungeon delves and stuff; but the lower levels should be available in a module from the start in the Players' Handbook.

I read in this forum the idea that there be four tiers: -3 to 0 would be weak; 1-10 would be heroic; 11-20 would be paragon level; and 21-25 would be truly epic. (I would also create a GSL open enough to allow a third party publisher to make a book for Immortal play.)

 

[Nebulous]

I read in this forum the idea that there be four tiers: -3 to 0 would be weak; 1-10 would be heroic; 11-20 would be paragon level; and 21-25 would be truly epic. (I would also create a GSL open enough to allow a third party publisher to make a book for Immortal play.)

i think this can be done easily without resorting to negative levels, that just gets confusing. "I'm a level -2...um, Ratslayer? Dishboy?" And especially if 5e ties in skills or bonuses to level, dealing with negatives will be problematic.

 

[Aenghus]

I for one like that in 4e 1st level adventures aren't accompanied by 50% death rates. In earlier editions I and the people I gamed with often rushed through or skipped the early levels, as we had all played through them before, and lost lots of 1st level Pcs to one shot kills.

I can understand that there are tastes other than mine though

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like having multiple choices at first level (need more options than: I swing my sword), but I also like a certain amount of fragility so that survival is a challenge and careful thoughtful play is called for.

Leeroy Jenkins should be a successful paladin at some point in the game, but not at first level.

 

[Aramax]

The players in my game are ALWAYS(even at 1st)the ONLY heros in town,
first doent ever have to be about ratcatching!

 

[Lanefan]

But we both played RPGs to be a larger than life hero. And that should start from the moment one begins playing the game. At level 1.

Where I prefer to watch my character...and the party...become the heroes as they develop. Diving right in as a hero before you start is like starting a 20-chapter book at the beginning of chapter ten.

I want to play a wizard. A WIZARD who uses MAGIC. Not a guy who uses CROSSBOWS.

Again, I don't want to play an RPG to experience a fantasy simulation of a cruel and unjust world. I want to be a hero who saves princess, battles dragons, and does other cool cinematic things. Getting stabbed by a kobold and dying in the first encounter is none of those things. Its frustrating

In 3e and 4e where generating a new character is a chore, I have some sympathy here. In older editions you can usually have a new one banged out before the combat's finished in which your last one died.

and absurd.

No, it's simply realistic.

"Sorry new player, you thought you could be like Harry Potter and do all sorts of cool things? Guess again. You get one spell and a crossbow and you better learn to run away and hide anytime you get into combat with anything tougher than a house cat."

What everyone seems to forget here is that in all editions a Wizard/MU's attack matrix/BAB at 1st level is not that much worse than a Fighter (at worst [1e] I think it represents a difference of 2 on a d20, or 10%). Yes, as a mage you won't have much for armour, but you're just about as good at clubbing Goblins senseless as anyone else in the party.

The flashy magic comes later; and by then fighting is for Fighters.

Lanefan

 

[Celebrim]

In general I sympathize with the sentiment. I don't like the model of 1st level = Hero.

My tiers tend to look something like:

1st-3rd: Gritty
4th-6th: Heroic
7th-9th: Paragon
10th-12th: Epic
13th-15th: The levels my game never seems to reach because by this point we've been playing for like 5 years and either we are burned out, or else people have moved away (especially me).

One of the problems I have with having large numbers at 1st level is that by 10th level they are 10 times as big, which means 5 times as many modifiers from buffs, and 10 times as many dice being rolled. There is a certain point were the simple number of dice being rolled slows down the game.

But there are two areas that bug me coming at the rules as I do from a simulationist stance.

The first one is the 'housecast problem'. It's probably familiar to anyone in D&D, and the basic problem is this: there just aren't many useful numbers smaller than '1'. If a 1st level human is a 1HD monster, then there isn't much room for things smaller and weaker than a 1st level human. Therefore, mechanically speaking, wasps, mice, rats, cats, dogs, and humans are all roughly comparable in attack power, and indeed their is a good chance that a wasp defeats a cat in combat or a house cat defeats a farmer.

My own house rules have solved the house cat problem. A house cat now needs suitably fear his owners wrath, and neither house cat nor owner is going to die from the sting of a single rather large or lucky wasp.

But the solution here has made another related problem even more severe, and that's the "white tailed deer" problem. The 'white tailed deer' problem says, "If bows only do 1d6 damage, how do low level hunters kill deer with a bow?" Keeping in mind that I know a bit about hunting and the answer is, "They let the deer bleed out.", I'm not sure that having every wound bleed is a great answer. In fact, it was more my assumption that, "They let the deer bleed out = the deer has negative hit points". In order to give 1st level characters a margin of utility, the system has always had weapons do comparitively little damage which means that high HD creature (where high means anything above 1) can generally scoff at weapon damage. Anything you do to increase the hit points at low level magnifies the problem. While my house cat problem is solved, the poor hunters of my land are in a situation where they need a critical hit to have a 50/50 chance of killing a deer. Still working on that problem.

I'm thinking now that if I started a game system from scratch with D&D like goals, I might make the starting point for a character like '5th level', increase base weapon damage somewhat, and solve the big numbers problem by decreasing the rate at which things got bigger. That way there is plenty of room for things at a smaller scale than the PC's but starting PC's have a reasonable chance of killing other things about their size.