Weaker 1st level characters

[fjw70]

As a way of being more inclusive of different play styles I would like to see the power level of this play test's 1st level characters get moved to level 3 (except for hp) and make the first couple levels more old school (I.e. wizards and clerics get 1 spell at first, no CS for fighters until 3rd, only 1d6 sneak attack damage at 1st and 2nd levels, etc.).

I would personally start my games at 3rd level (or higher), but I am willing to give up 1st and 2nd levels in the spirit of inclusion.

 

[Chronikoce]

I think that would add a level of complexity to the game they are trying to avoid. If a group wants to run a lower power campaign I think that is achieved easily enough. DM's can always limit options at first level. For example, as a DM you could start the game and say nobody gets a specialty until level 3. With just their class and possibly background that would bring the power level down.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Most people are going to likely start with whatever is presented as the default in the core books. Even if there is text somewhere that says 'by the way, unless you want a really lethal, old-school game, we recommend you start at level 3', then a lot of new players are going to start at level 1 and the game is not going to play for them in the way the designers intend. Much easier to say: 'People who want a low-power, gritty experience (you know who you are), use these rules to reduce the power of level 1 characters'

 

[Li Shenron]

I think that would add a level of complexity to the game they are trying to avoid.

No, [MENTION=80924]fjw70[/MENTION] 's suggestion will decrease complexity of 1st level characters.

If a group wants to run a lower power campaign I think that is achieved easily enough. DM's can always limit options at first level. For example, as a DM you could start the game and say nobody gets a specialty until level 3. With just their class and possibly background that would bring the power level down.

Not enough. Some groups can choose to never use backgrounds and specialties, and that is all they can do safely (i.e. be sure that all PCs are toned down the same). But that includes just skill bonuses, a trait which is used outside encounters, and just one feat. Taking them away is not really going to lower the power level significantly.

You cannot lower the power level in other ways easily, because everything else is asymmetric across different classes and races.

For example, you cannot decrease the number of spells known or per day of 1st level wizard because there is no equivalent for the fighter or rogue class, and you'll be on your own figuring out what you should then take away from other classes to end up with a balanced lowering of everyone. It can be done but is not at all easy enough.

Viceversa, starting the game at a higher level everyone is always a piece of cake.

1st level sets the minimum power level for everyone without having to worry about maintaining balance yourself (not that I would worry very much about maintaining balance, but I'm speaking for others too) because presumably it has been measured by the designers. Lower than that, the game leaves you on your own, so it's a legitimate concern for those who like to start a campaign with frail PCs if they think 1st level is already too powerful.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I see no issue wityh DMs calling for characters to begin play at whatever experience level they see fit.

Personally, I like low leveled games though - at least to start with!

 

[GX.Sigma]

How would you make 1st-level characters weaker? I see wizards with 4 HP and fighters with 12. I suppose you could have 1st level characters with 1d2 hit dice, no sneak attack, no expertise dice, one spell per day. That would only make the game suck for everyone who start at 1st level (which is the default, regardless of if the book says it isn't).

 

[Li Shenron]

How would you make 1st-level characters weaker? I see wizards with 4 HP and fighters with 12. I suppose you could have 1st level characters with 1d2 hit dice, no sneak attack, no expertise dice, one spell per day. That would only make the game suck for everyone who start at 1st level (which is the default, regardless of if the book says it isn't).

All editions prior to 3.0 didn't suck, at least for a lot of people.

Notice that the OP specifically mentioned that HP should not be lowered further, because that would increase the lethality of the game too much. Removing other stuff reduces versatility (indirectly also affects lethality, but not in such a blunt way as playing with 1-2 HP) which is probably what the OP is looking after.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Notice that the OP specifically mentioned that HP should not be lowered further, because that would increase the lethality of the game too much. Removing other stuff reduces versatility (indirectly also affects lethality, but not in such a blunt way as playing with 1-2 HP) which is probably what the OP is looking after.

But removing the interesting stuff makes the game worse for a lot of people--and the people who don't care about the interesting stuff still have to deal with it when they reach level 3. It's just not a good solution for anyone.

 

[Li Shenron]

But removing the interesting stuff makes the game worse for a lot of people--and the people who don't care about the interesting stuff still have to deal with it when they reach level 3. It's just not a good solution for anyone.

Not really.

For those who want a more old-school feel, removing skills & feats is one way but apparently is not enough for all of them, specifically because of the general starting power of characters: it is this starting power that invalidates a certain playing style. You can say that such style is too niche to be relevant, particularly because after a few levels it doesn't apply anymore, but still the style wanted by the OP is not supported.

It wouldn't change much for everybody else, because most groups start their campaigns at levels higher than 1 after the first year or two playing a new edition. In fact even our subforum for play-by-post games during 3ed was typically largely dominated by games starting at higher levels. You can bet that such thing will still be pretty common in 5e just as it was in previous editions, except exactly in those groups who are into old-school and older editions.

That's what I also did in my 3ed years as a DM, after a while I settled on starting all campaigns at 3rd level to give everyone more room for character customization since the start, and secondarily skip the high lethality windows of very low levels.

But I want 5e to support as many playing styles as possible, and that include the OP's idea. I don't think this is going to damage my favourite playing style at all.

I doubt however that the desigers would do something like that, it's too late already from a design point of view. So at this stage the best they could do is add a "0th-level" option, it shouldn't take more than a page or even less. It was done before in 3.0 and it was ok, although it gives quite a small window for such playing style.

 

[Mattachine]

Some easy ways to tone down level 1 characters:

* Remove specialties until a higher level, as mentioned above.

* Give half hit dice in hit points at level one, instead of max (d10 starts with 5 hp, d6 starts with 3 hp, etc)

* Use both healing limitations in the playtest notes: no automatic full heal after a long rest, resting only recovers "hit dice"

* Start with worse stats at level 1, then give across the board bonuses at level 2 or level 3. For instance, start PCs with this array: 13, 12, 12, 10, 10, 8, then give +1 to all stats at level 2.


It's also worth noting that the new playtest packet suggests the idea that PCs are only level 1 for a couple of encounters (not even a full adventure). So, power level could be toned down by increasing the time spent at level 1, while making encounters tougher.