Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pickaxe" data-source="post: 4281225" data-attributes="member: 10812">i think you're missing the point.in 3e (and to a certain extent all previous editions), first level was difficult, challenging, and dangerous. It was also the level where fairly mundane challenges meant something. A lot of people apparently didn't like having first level characters killed, so 4e made 1st level characters a lot tougher. That's fine.Some of us, however, liked the challenging aspects of low-level play. For one thing, you didn't need uberpowerful foes for a challenge. Progression as a character felt like you were going from a bit exceptional toward being heroic, legendary, etc. Low-level play also required players to use all of the resources at hand-- not just class abilities and powers, but also their own wits and all the mundane items in the long lists of the PHB that every character is able to ignore after a few levels. One of the highest compliments I recall receiving during our 1e games was &quot;good first level player.&quot; In fact, most of the campaigns that I've been in have petered out before 12th level, because high level play just wasn't as interesting as low-level play.Marnak is not suggesting a level of &quot;what happens before you start adventuring;&quot; he is suggesting a way for the adventure to start when you still have the kind of vulnerability that characterized 3e first level characters. &quot;Nobody likes getting killed&quot; is not really an argument against this. if the chance of death or failure is minimal, why are you even playing?--Axe</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pickaxe, post: 4281225, member: 10812"] i think you're missing the point. in 3e (and to a certain extent all previous editions), first level was difficult, challenging, and dangerous. It was also the level where fairly mundane challenges meant something. A lot of people apparently didn't like having first level characters killed, so 4e made 1st level characters a lot tougher. That's fine. Some of us, however, liked the challenging aspects of low-level play. For one thing, you didn't need uberpowerful foes for a challenge. Progression as a character felt like you were going from a bit exceptional toward being heroic, legendary, etc. Low-level play also required players to use all of the resources at hand-- not just class abilities and powers, but also their own wits and all the mundane items in the long lists of the PHB that every character is able to ignore after a few levels. One of the highest compliments I recall receiving during our 1e games was "good first level player." In fact, most of the campaigns that I've been in have petered out before 12th level, because high level play just wasn't as interesting as low-level play. Marnak is not suggesting a level of "what happens before you start adventuring;" he is suggesting a way for the adventure to start when you still have the kind of vulnerability that characterized 3e first level characters. "Nobody likes getting killed" is not really an argument against this. if the chance of death or failure is minimal, why are you even playing? --Axe [/QUOTE]

Verification