1st level, flavor vs, substance

[Eman Resu]

My 2nd gaming group wants to start a 1st level campaign, I havent done this for some time? We usually start at 5th to 10th level get 3 to 4 months in on same campaign and it dies. Starting so low was my idea, my intent was to add longevity to a campaign and see if players were more into their pc's if started from scratch.

For those of you that have played 1st level, often, whats the fun class's and whats the powerfull classes? Flavor vs substance or a class that has both. Actual or just your opinion is fine by me, just looking for base build and why? weapon selection, armor, spells if app. feats etc.

never played an Erudite nor an Arcanist & I usually play human.

cool builds, fun , powerful, well rounded...ideas, thoughts, opinions

Eman Resu

 

[BENINHB]

Cool, Fun, Powerful, Well rounded at level 1??

I'd have to say Druid.

Druids are also extremely survivable at low levels, which is something that cannot be said of most arcane casters. D8 hit die, Animal Companion, Cure Light Wounds, Lesser Vigor, Spontaneous SNA, Entangle.... All these thinks work together to put a lot of meat between you and -10


I personally prefer starting at lvl 1. You suck at level 1, at level 3 and 4 things get a little better and by level 6 really start to come together. You appreciate all the things you can do a lot more and it makes the game more fun. I love those "pay off" levels where you finally get the feat or spell or class feature that really makes your build work.

Wizards at low level can be fun cause you have to be cautious and creative just to survive. 1d4 hit die and no armor means you're living life on the edge.

 

[Dandu]

Cool, Fun, Powerful, Well rounded at level 1??

I'd have to say Druid.

I'd have to say a Warlock, provided he has the Dark Speech feat and the Summon Swarm invocation.

Just kidding.

Druid's good. Anything with lots of HP and the ability to stay out of melee's good. Wizards and Sorcerers do not have a lot of defenses yet, but Sleep's a killer for most things and can be cast at medium range (100+ft) so you can take someone out before they get close to your squishy meatbag body.

 

[Celebrim]

This may be off a bit from what you are really interested in, but my I suggest borrowing an idea from 4e?

The biggest problem with 1st level in stock D&D prior to 4e is that either:

a) Deaths would be random with little player control over whether they survived.

- or -

b) The DM would have to treat the PC's with kid gloves, never throwing a threat at them that did more than 1d4 damage in a round and relying heavily on fairly trivial challenges to pad XP without risking deaths.

4e tries to solve this by essentially tripling PC hit points. That's ok as far as it goes, but its not very 3rd edition-ish.

I try to solve this by giving bonuses to creatures based on size. For example, medium-sized creatures all recieve 8 additional hit points. For me the nice simulation effects (farmer don't fear house cats) are almost as cool, but it certainly opens up game design at 1st level which can otherwise feel a bit cramped and less than heroic if the DM doesn't expend an extraordinary amount of effort.

As for your actual question, I think you are very much missing the point. At 1st level, the actual differences between classes are pretty small. The fighter only has 1 more BAB than the wizard. Worse come to worse, whacking it with your staff may actually work. At 1st level, more than perhaps any other level, classes are well-rounded in comparison to their peers. Balance issues are fairly small, and skills are certainly not obselete even in campaigns that don't make an effort to avoid it and yet no one is necessarily useless in a ability or skill check. More so than at any other level, your character is defined not by what he can do, but who he is and the effort the player puts into characterization. More so than at any level the skill of the player really shines because you have so few 'easy' buttons. I'd be much much more concerned about the effort the player put into selecting a concept at this time than I would be about what class they selected or what build they are going for. Those are 'high level' considerations that will hardly impact you before 4th level or so.

If you are just going for power level, everyone in the party should play some flavor of cleric - elf archer-cleric, fighterish-cleric (with War domain), healing-cleric, wizardly-cleric, roguish trickery cleric, etc. Cleric is probably the most front loaded class, and everyone being a cleric means that a 1st level parties biggest limitation - quickly recovering from problems - is completely taken care of. However just about everything is playable at this level, so why restrict yourself? Even stock fighters rock before level 6 or so, and up to third level will easily be the parties stalwart lynchpin. Get a weapon with reach and the best armor you can afford, and you're golden.

 

[Empirate]

Celebrim has a point. In a 1st level game, most everything is essentially random. A single hit makes the difference between being healthy and well-rested, and bleeding out in the dirt. Attack, skill, and save bonuses are so low that the almighty d20 makes most of the difference in every single action. Being good at something (even maxed class skills) won't be as noticeable as sheer luck with the dice.

I recommend starting at 3rd. By that point, the game seems to stabilize a lot.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Celebrim has a point.

He really does.
First level characters are all about how you play them, not about their builds. If the campaign is going to go past level 7 then you need to keep an eye toward your build, but that's not your principal concern an level 1.

At level 1 you worry about a) surviving, b) getting stuff done. Since b) is at the whim of the d20, you have an infinite variety of options. Every class can rock and suck with equal frequency at level 1.

(Although, a halfling fighter specialized in throwing daggers [PBS, WF (dagger)] can get up to a +10 attack before masterwork. Which is pretty fun and extremely reliable. [+1 BAB +5 Dex +1 PBS +1WF +1 throw +1 size = +10 for 1d3+Str / 19-20])

In a 1st level game, most everything is essentially random.

Just check out the lowly CR 1/2 Orc.
+4 attack for 2d4+4 / 18-20.
He hits Tordek (Lvl 1 Dwarf Fighter) on a 13+ / 14+ (35-40%; thanks Dodge!), his min damage (6) will drop most arcane casters, and ~7.5% of the time he can one-shot the Barbarian (4d4+8, 12-24).
And the party is expected to fight at least two at a time!


Best of luck, and pick something that you'll remember for who it is, not it's class and feats.

 

[Celebrim]

(Although, a halfling fighter specialized in throwing daggers [PBS, WF (dagger)] can get up to a +10 attack before masterwork. Which is pretty fun and extremely reliable. [+1 BAB +5 Dex +1 PBS +1WF +1 throw +1 size = +10 for 1d3+Str / 19-20])

Fun, flavorful and helpful if you are killing rats in the sewers, but otherwise not so much. The important mechanical consideration with your 1st level build is doing enough damage to drop something before they drop you. Hitting most of the time with an expected damage of 2 is not nearly as good as hitting half of the time with an expected damage of 10. Missile weapons will rule the game in a few levels, but until +energy damage weapons and masterwork composite starts to become available, they don't hit hard enough to have a significant impact (although a longbow + PBS + RS isn't bad). Firing off a longbow or heavy crossbow from the back rank is a good idea, but reach weapons are the ranged weapons of low level and two-handed weapon users will likely dominate party total damage.

Best of luck, and pick something that you'll remember for who it is, not it's class and feats.

This is absolutely the key to enjoying a role-playing game regardless of what power level you play at. Work with your DM to become emersed in and connected to the setting so that you depend on the setting and the setting depends on you. That way your actions have significance. In a RPing game, you don't 'win' the game by defeating the monsters. You 'win' the game by becoming important to the story and shaping it in your own unique way. If your story is just, 'we killed some monsters, and then we killed some more monsters', you might as well be going alphabeticly through the monster manual.

 

[Eman Resu]

experience with Erudite? Arcanist? any build suggestions, I have never played either, therefor had spark of interest. Along these lines I never played a Hexblade either. So any thoughts of a 1st level, one of the above, and plans for this builds future.

Looking at all those squishy Wizards out there of 7th and higher level makes you want to ask them how they made it out of 1st level.

 

[Celebrim]

Looking at all those squishy Wizards out there of 7th and higher level makes you want to ask them how they made it out of 1st level.

Indeed.

I always start my campaigns at 1st level, and I've never had a pure wizard make it past level 6. The most successful wizard in the history of my players started out as a 1st level fighter, then multiclassed into wizard at 2nd level and began to progress. He sacrificed a caster level, but it proved to be the only way to avoid being too squishy.

My game has changed since then and it greatly improves survivability of low level characters, but if I had to bet at which of my current PC's would die first it would be the non-multiclassed sorcerer.

 

[Eman Resu]

I’m thinking out loud here, so bear with me, please. Most gamers will admit there is a large disparity in power between the classes. This disparity exist no where more amplified than between most spellcasters and non. Most gamers will admit that the greater the level the greater the disparity that exists between the two. To further compound the problem of spellcaster domination at the higher levels, most gaming groups, were no exception, start at higher level making it easier for the squishy spellcasters to exist. In fact the higher level you start the less multicasting you will probably see, as the necessity for such decreases with every level your campaign starts beyond 1st exponentially beyond 8th. As a result more pure straight, single classed spellcaster classes are selected making them gain access to even more powerful spells and having more of them to cast. This will also increase the spellcaster demographic, making them more numerous, increasing the amount of players opting for spellslingers. So we, the gamers, are guilty of making it worse, widening the gap between them into a cavern!
So if the above is true, and IMO I would be hard pressed to find anyone of sound mind to disagree, the opposite most then be true. Starting off at 1st level, although tedious in the minds of most, will encourage multicasting, less spellcasters will survive thus thinning the spellcaster heard, and in the end less players will choose spellcasters, with this in mind. As a result of this you will have less spellcasters, players wont be so eager to select them, and they will more than likely be the party “red shirts” and get killed in the 1st scene. The spellcasters you do have will more than likely be multi classed to some degree, and thusly a slowed progress to higher level spells.
So basically those of us with the “spellcasters are to strong” chip on the shoulder are in fact perpetuating the disparity. But by starting off at 1st level the way the D&D creaters envisioned in the first place, we will add balance.
Eman Resu