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

[Oofta]

Personally I like to start at level 0 which is more about figuring out who your character is than what your character is. I'm also fairly liberal when it comes to redoing aspects of your character for the first couple of levels - so if being a barbarian isn't a good fit after all, feel free to switch over to fighter. If it makes sense for the character and you can come up with a story behind it all the better. I don't go as far as AL though, so no complete rewrites.

But even with seasoned players, the first couple of levels are good for getting a feel for the class and what the group needs. Maybe I thought I'd be a peace loving Oath of Devotion paladin reluctantly called to duty but after a couple of sessions I realize the campaign is darker tone than I thought and based on the campaign a Vengeance paladin makes more sense.

Different people play for different reasons, and while I enjoy the mechanical bits of character building, it's secondary to personality and story. I also like that i don't start out as a nearly invincible hero unless we start at a higher level. It gives me a sense of growth.

 

[Kobold Boots]

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.

Keeping in mind general flavor of the classes, here's some guidelines that you may find interesting or just not like at all.
- Start Clerics as Healers - kill their spell casting but allow them to manually heal 1-2 points at a go or know how to create a potion or two.
- Start any other spell casting class as an adept of whatever flavor they like. kill the casting ability minus flavored cantrips to reflect how special they are in their own way

Tune down the game so you can go up in level without killing them outright. Four characters like this shouldn't be going after an entire kobold den, but they can handle a largely social first adventure with a wonderous enemy for flavor.. maybe the problem is that a blacksmith is dominated by a lesser imp (minion-esque) that eventually leads back to a low level wizard who has an agenda..

Essentially when you tune things down like this you're running an episode of Merlin. When they hit 3rd level, you're into regular gaming.

KB

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I don't think this is true. I don't think level 1 and 2 were specifically designed to be introductory, as they most certainly are meant to be used by people long after they are familiar with the rules. I've been playing D&D for 37 years, and I still prefer to start at level 1. Rather, we know what they were designed for, because the developers came right out and said it. They exist for those players who prefer the zero to hero model, and players who prefer hero to start model can skip right to level 3. I.e., the design of level 1 and 2 were primarily playstyle based, and not meant only for new players. That's what the Starter set is for. So just because level 1 and 2 are part of the introductory phase, doesn't mean they were designed for that purpose primarily.

 

[aco175]

My group hasn't skipped these in the several campaigns in 5e so far. Some of them have been with new players as others mentioned and it takes a few levels to warm to your class and powers. They go by one a night as well which is good for new players to feel like they gained something, but also for the experienced player to develop the character before choosing a path. Although most already know what path they want. I made a thief that was going to go trickster, but chose regular thief and now I have a great Intelligence at the detriment of Cha and Wis. I still have the multiclass option open though.

 

[CrimsonCarcharodon]

Keeping in mind general flavor of the classes, here's some guidelines that you may find interesting or just not like at all.
- Start Clerics as Healers - kill their spell casting but allow them to manually heal 1-2 points at a go or know how to create a potion or two.
- Start any other spell casting class as an adept of whatever flavor they like. kill the casting ability minus flavored cantrips to reflect how special they are in their own way

Tune down the game so you can go up in level without killing them outright. Four characters like this shouldn't be going after an entire kobold den, but they can handle a largely social first adventure with a wonderous enemy for flavor.. maybe the problem is that a blacksmith is dominated by a lesser imp (minion-esque) that eventually leads back to a low level wizard who has an agenda..

Essentially when you tune things down like this you're running an episode of Merlin. When they hit 3rd level, you're into regular gaming.

KB

I don't think you're really getting what I was saying. I don't want to turn casters down. I don't want to turn the game down at all. I like the way the game plays at low levels. I just think it would have been a better design choice to have all archetypes kick in at 3rd level instead of a mix of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I don't think you're really getting what I was saying. I don't want to turn casters down. I don't want to turn the game down at all. I like the way the game plays at low levels. I just think it would have been a better design choice to have all archetypes kick in at 3rd level instead of a mix of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

Thanks and I hear you. I was offering in case you wanted a potential solution to the problem. Only reason I did so was because I like solving problems and hacking systems.

Be well
KB

 

[jasper]

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?

No. Half the gamers I played with have not picked an archetype. I have changed my own mind on what I run either due to game play at the first two levels, or just a whim.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Levels 1 and 2 can be introductory levels, but don't have to be.

In my experience this is where the party establishes their best ties to each other, in no small part because 1-2 is the most deadly part of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think this is true. I don't think level 1 and 2 were specifically designed to be introductory, as they most certainly are meant to be used by people long after they are familiar with the rules. I've been playing D&D for 37 years, and I still prefer to start at level 1. Rather, we know what they were designed for, because the developers came right out and said it. They exist for those players who prefer the zero to hero model, and players who prefer hero to start model can skip right to level 3. I.e., the design of level 1 and 2 were primarily playstyle based, and not meant only for new players. That's what the Starter set is for. So just because level 1 and 2 are part of the introductory phase, doesn't mean they were designed for that purpose primarily.

They also came right out and said that they kept those levels as simple as possible and require so little experience to level up so they could serve as introductory levels. They serve both purposes, and I did say “and(/or) prefer the higher-lethality playstyle.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Levels 1 and 2 can be introductory levels, but don't have to be.

In my experience this is where the party establishes their best ties to each other, in no small part because 1-2 is the most deadly part of the game.

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 in D&D are an extremely well-done tutorial, and they are just as much fun as later levels, if not moreso.