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

[cmad1977]

Feature.

 

[the Jester]

Since level three is when you can pick your archetypes does that mean levels 1-2 are pointless for starting a game?

No.

 

[ad_hoc]

Level 1 is designed to take 1/2 session. So make characters for 1/2 session then play the other half and get a level.

Level 2 is designed to last 1 session.

Obviously this varies by session length and how much actual playing is happening.

Levels 3 and 4 don't take very long either.

Then once level 5 hits progression slows down significantly.

This is by design. Level 5 is when characters get their things. 2 attacks, level 3 spells, etc.

Personally I prefer to start at level 3 unless there is a particularly good adventure to be had earlier.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Barbarians gain thier iconic boost to strength and constitution at level 20. Does that make the first 19 levels pointless?

 

[Fanaelialae]

I prefer to start my players at level 3, but for my newbie group I started at level 1. As others have said, levels 1 and 2 are great for introducing the game.

 

[Tallifer]

I make Level 1 last at least 3 or 4 sessions, because it usually takes that long for a new campaign and group to get settled in. I also like the hardscrabble improvisation which players need to use to make up for the lack of equipment and kool powrz.

 

[mortwatcher]

Level 1, and to some extent level 2 feel like the scariest to me. 1 crit for monster and you're likely going down. Your class resources also feel very scarce. Not much at higher levels.

 

[delericho]

I've just finished running "Lost Mine of Phandelver" for a set of brand new players. Having done so, I most definitely appreciate the value of levels 1 and 2! Even by level 3 the complexity of characters has ramped up quite a bit - those few sessions of players being able to feel their way with simpler characters is definitely a boon.

If anything, I'd rather they'd deferred subclasses for all characters to 3rd level (Clerics, for example, choose a Domain even at level 1).

Plus, of course, it's easy for groups to start at level 3 if they wish. If levels 1&2 hadn't been in the game, then adding them would have been significant work.

 

[Eltab]

At L1 you have few powers, true. You also have few options to solve any given problem.

For new players, this is a feature not a bug. They can learn how combat works, when to roll a Save vs. a Check, what the skills do for them, try to synchronize their Theater of the Mind visions (or decide they'd better get a grid map), what each other's characters are good at / need help with / should stand back to let the expert do it.
Get this stuff under their belt early, when the most viable option is likely to be "I shoot an arrow at it and duck behind the boulder."

 

[Teemu]

For those that like the simplicity of levels 1 and 2 but dislike the lethality (some new players could be put off by a sudden death into the first session), there's an easy fix for the problem: at 1st level, characters add Constitution score to their hp total, not Con modifier. It's the way 4e does 1st level hp, and a reason why 1st-level PCs are tougher in that edition. I've done it in 5e too, and it worked really well.