Why do levels one and two suck so bad?

[shadow]

Well, 3e has upped character power somewhat on low levels (e.g. max hit points on first level). Still low level characters are relatively weak. However, they're not as weak as 1st level characters from 1e and 2e - in the old days a house cat could take out a first level character.

 

[shilsen]

If I may quote Odnasept, "The key to doing this lies not so much with the number of one's skills or abilities as it does with the nature of the world around them."

Adventurers who interact with the world to gain levels gain more in terms of contacts and resources than stat builds would suggest. Moreover, knowledge is a valuable asset....perhaps the most valuable asset a PC can have.

I presume you're referring to your game above in your latter paragraph. It's true for the games I run as well, but it's certainly not universally true for all D&D campaigns. Many DMs run games where contacts and resources will be much less important than your PC's levels, and where knowledge is much less important than your BAB or hit points or spellcasting level. Which, of course, goes to show that Odnasept is right, since the nature of the world in one kind of campaign is very different than the other.

So I throw my hat into the "it depends" ring with SteveC. Personally, the primary reason I prefer not to play or DM levels 1-2 is because I and my players have all played those levels over and over ad nauseam in games which didn't progress much beyond them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I quite like to start at 1st as the long level track is such a distinctive feature of D&D. Only the 'D&D family' of games have this massive contrast between starting and finishing position. I think it would be fun to look back on your PC running away from a goblin or whatever when he first started out.

However one player in our group very much dislikes to start at 1st-2nd, so we never start lower than 3rd, out of deference to his wishes.

 

[Eric Tolle]

In the last twenty-five years I've been in dozens of games that started at 1st. level. It's gotten kind of boring to make a character with a "promise of greatness", and watch the game peter out after a level or three, because nobody had the endurance to play week after week, year after year to get characters up to a name level.

I think it points up the dichotomy between two basic styles of making characters: "define in play", and "define then play": the former is basically classic gaming: you roll up a random character, one with no history and personality, and gradually build up a character in play. the alternative, which really stated to come into its own when Champions came around, is to develop a character and history, and then arrange the stats to match.

My friends and I prefer the latter method, because really, life is too short, we're all too old, and we're all really busy people. If the game is likely to only last a dozen or so sessions anyway, why not make the characters where we want them to be?

There are twenty levels of character development, and in a 1-20 game, it's highly unlikely our groups will be around to even taste the higher levels. So, if my SO wants to play an Inigo Montoya or Lina Inverse, she's not going to be very happy if I make her play a Neville Longbottom for the first six months of the game.

 

[Grog]

If I may quote Odnasept, "The key to doing this lies not so much with the number of one's skills or abilities as it does with the nature of the world around them."

Adventurers who interact with the world to gain levels gain more in terms of contacts and resources than stat builds would suggest. Moreover, knowledge is a valuable asset....perhaps the most valuable asset a PC can have.

Everything you're talking about there has absolutely nothing to do with character level.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Everything you're talking about there has absolutely nothing to do with character level.

True; but it does have something to do with the idea that a character cannot have vastly more potential at 2nd level than at first simply because his statistics do not, which is the point I was addressing with my post.


RC

 

[Psion]

Because you're not playing Star Wars Saga Edition?

I would generalize this and say "hit points".

1st level in Spycraft ain't shabby either.

 

[Alan Shutko]

I've been gaming since the late 80s... I've never played a character from first to third. Someday I'd like to, but I keep gaming with people who have "done it all". Actually, I think I've just been gaming with a lot of different people with short attention spans, because I can't think of a single D&D campaign I've been in which has lasted 10 sessions before the DM gets bored and switches things up.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Um, you do know I was having fun at your expense don't you? I wasn't really on your side here.

Although, for the record, I do think 1st level has its place. But, mostly I think anything but a quick progression to 2nd or 3rd is a waste of time. You can get a sense of background and purpose in other ways. Although, the more I think about it, the more I am digging on the saga thing.

SOOOOOOO. That said and now that everyone hates 1st level. How many people would foo foo the idea of a 0th level start? *avoids thrown kittens from bleeding 1st level noobs*

Gee I couldn't tell. you did point out there are chances for crazy options.They don'
t all have to take place directly in combat.

 

[JDJblatherings]

While I agree that a bloodbath isn't the point of every encounter... How do these point out options besides hiding and running away?

An encounter even a visual one with an overwhelming force opens opportunities. Maybe there is a village with some survivors in desperate need of help. Maybe there are a few folks on the giant and hobgoblins back trail in need of rescue vs the few staggling hobgoblin marauders. Maybe there is a nad of 12th level characters that could benefit from knowing where the fleeing marauders actually are (or are going).

Every encoutner doesn't lead to a resolution right then during that encounter or durign the next encounter.

A dragon could fly by at a height of 300', wise players wouldnt shoot at it until they are ready to deal with it. But players get to have PCS that live in a world with dragons and giants before they can tackle them they shouldn't all be off stage until the PCs can beat them.