PC survivability and starting at 1st level

[green slime]

Grognard three.

I like those trying, low level, desperate battles, where the conflict can go rounds before anyone lands a blow.

A large part, I believe, is due to "getting to good stuff", and the investment many players make into their characters, which is remarkable considering many lack of rules knowledge.

 

[Treebore]

1st level fragility? Only if the DM is too ham fisted for them to survive with some good tactics, such as being and staying at range, etc... Plus if the DM rolls, or wants, a surprise attack at night only do it with ahalf dozen orcs, not 24.

1st level fightes boring? Bull!! Its the only level you play where you sweat dying from the first swing of combat until the last.

BTW, I've been playing for 20+ years, non-stop (sometimes I wish that meant daily). So I guess that makes me a grognard too.

 

[ThirdWizard]

As D&D moved away from the dungeon delving, it went into more esoteric aspects as well as larger "campaign" story arcs. 'Twas a slow process, but things got more epic, more story oriented, and more character based. As intrigue developed and PCs started interacting with NPCs in more and more complex ways, forming alliances, making friends, making long term enemies, it became more and more important for PCs to not be lost forever.

Backstories, grandiose undertakings, became more commonplace. Ramazalt wasn't just a farmboy who picked up a sword to decide to adventure, no, there was a grand purpose in his adventuring, he was trained by the Grandmaster Tralliath in the way of the sword, and when the dojo burned to the ground he swore revenge on the ones who did it, using adventuring as a means to an end other than gold and fortune. This became the norm.

And, so for one you don't want the PC to die so easily, so you start at 2nd level. But, also, 2nd level allows for more things. In 3E you can start with multiclassiing built in if you start at 2nd (before you could at 1st). Now I'm not a rogue who will take a fighter level next level and finally have my archetype completed after the game has started. If we start at 2nd level then I can be a rogue/fighter and pretend I've always been like that. Less clunky.

Also, that huge backstory I wrote? Well, it makes more sense if I'm higher level if I've done all this stuff already. So, I'm 2nd level and my backstory was me going from 1st to 2nd level. It works out, there's not some ambiuous gap. It all fits together.

And, especially in 3E, a 2nd level character is no hero. He can die, too, to a random critical. He's barely adventured and hasn't made a name for himself. He's not established. He's still just some guy. So, you can have your cake and eat it too. You can start multiclass with a backstory, have it all make sense, and be 2nd level (or higher). It works very well.

And, lastly, I don't care about "earning" levels. It's a number on a character sheet. I come to game, not to level, not to get rich, but to adventure and have fun around the table with my friends, roleplay my character and develop him, and enjoy the world the DM provides. Leveling is inherent in the game, and I wouldn't really want to play without it, but its still an arbitrary number. I could start at 2nd, renumber the levels, and call myself 1st level. Doesn't matter to me at all, really.

1st level fightes boring? Bull!! Its the only level you play where you sweat dying from the first swing of combat until the last.

Just last session, had an 11th level PC wizard die before he even acted in combat.

 

[Quasqueton]

If “grognard” in this sense means “been playing very long time”, then I am. If it means “was first a wargamer”, then I’m not (became wargamer after D&D).

In BD&D, 1st-level PCs died in droves, and they rarely made it to 2nd level. In AD&D1, I started PCs and campaigns at 3rd level. Now, in D&D3, I start PCs and campaigns at 2nd level. But 1st-level fragility is not the only or main reason for this.

***

For me, as a DM, PC death is annoying for the logistical problems of getting the replacement PC into the group. The party has to travel back to town (1-7 days travel), find the new PC, then travel back to the adventure. Or the game continues while the Player of the dead PC just sits and waits. Or the new PC steps out of the wilderness and says, “Hi, can I join your group?” Or I have to insert the new PC into the adventure (a prisoner to be rescued, or something) – and not all adventures lend themselves to this kind of thing.

Quasqueton

 

[Akrasia]

... In 3E you can start with multiclassiing built in if you start at 2nd (before you could at 1st). Now I'm not a rogue who will take a fighter level next level and finally have my archetype completed after the game has started. If we start at 2nd level then I can be a rogue/fighter and pretend I've always been like that. Less clunky...

There are rules for first-level 'multiclass' characters in the DMG (at least in the 3e version; I'm not familiar with the 3.5 version).

 

[Akrasia]

... Oh, and by the way, it is nice to see someone from Eire posting in here.

Cool! There's not many.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Unfortunately, they took out the rules for half level (I believe it was) in the 3.5 DMG.

 

[reanjr]

I find the biggest problem cases are the one trick pony players who can't create a new character concept and just try to come up with some new excuse to create the same character.

There is also the idea of oneupmanship, wanting your character to "win" by becoming more powerful than the others.

And then there's players who genuinely identify with their character and don't want to lose that character.

Lastly there are powergamers who usually take 4 hours to create a character because they need to go over every possible feat combination, etc. to maximize their character's potential. These players identify with their character in a totally different way.

In any of these cases, I feel liberal use of player death fixes them quickly.

 

[Lanefan]

If “grognard” in this sense means “been playing very long time”, then I am. If it means “was first a wargamer”, then I’m not (became wargamer after D&D).

Never did the wargame thing, but if "grognard" means been playing a long time, then guilty as charged here too.

For me, as a DM, PC death is annoying for the logistical problems of getting the replacement PC into the group. The party has to travel back to town (1-7 days travel), find the new PC, then travel back to the adventure. Or the game continues while the Player of the dead PC just sits and waits. Or the new PC steps out of the wilderness and says, “Hi, can I join your group?” Or I have to insert the new PC into the adventure (a prisoner to be rescued, or something) – and not all adventures lend themselves to this kind of thing.

I try to make the first adventure a bit less deadly than it might be, but that said I still tend toward the attitude of "kill 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out" if that's what it comes to. As a player, I don't bother too much with backstory until my PC has survived a few adventures and got its career off to a decent start, and I don't ask it of my players as DM. (if someone wants to do an elaborate backstory, then fine, but the caveat is always there that bad luck or foolish play might still lead to having the life expectancy of a fruit fly)

The "logistics" of bringing in new PC's have never been much of a headache for me, unless the party is somewhere completely unreachable; an unlikely situation for 1st-level types. On occasion, I've had to switch off the reality simulator for a moment in order to get a new PC into the game in a manner that might not make complete sense, but hey...what the heck.

Lanefan

 

[haakon1]

Perhaps it's because I'm a grognard, but I feel that when running a 'real' D&D campaign (any edition), as opposed to a one-shot adventure or 'mini' campaign, it is best to start at first level. Starting at first level lets players see their PCs grow organically, as opposed to sprouting fully armed from the head of Zeus. In addition, IME, players (including myself) gain a greater sense of accomplishment when running a PC from level one onwards. And frankly starting at a higher level seems kind of cheesy (just my opinion, of course).

I agree completely. I'm also a wannabe grognard, and certainly an old schooler.

The one concession I made to "modernity" was allowing a to bring a first level ranger with an ECL that was higher, because he was playing a centaur. That got him extra hp than a normal 1st level character joining a 9th level party, but it also kept the "no free levels" rule.

3e 1st level characters are more like 1st Edition 2nd level characters anyhow, with extra spells and maxed out hit points.