Why do levels one and two suck so bad?

[Slaved]

I know this thread has a lot of replies already but I thought I would put up my preferences.

I like to start out somewhere between level 3 and 5, preferably closer to the top end of that.

The first few levels I see as character background. It is where you tell how you grew up, who your friends are, minor adventures that you had, and you have the ability to have set some life goals and be working towards them.

Most prestige classes let you enter at level 6 or higher. Starting at level 5 but dragging it out longer means that you get to play through your backstory, work up a storyline to further your goals, and you are still in the very vulnerable range.

If the non player characters that you interact with in important ways are sufficiently tough you could still be seen as a budding hero. Whether that will be reached at level 8, 10, 20, or anything else is up to the dungeon master and his campaign.

The extra levels provide extra padding for a more rounded backstory and allow a lot of off camera action to take place, leaving more time in game for fun interactions.


I have also been a part of so many games that start at first and typically end well before level 5 is reached. It gets dull. Why plan for the future if it is not going to happen? Who cares about trying to make a backstory when it is vitually gaurenteed to be boring or inconsistant since you start with little skill and no experience.

 

[Grog]

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.

But like I said, that has nothing to do with character level, which is what's being discussed in this thread.

Sure, characters gain contacts and resources and knowledge over the course of a campaign - but the degree to which this happens is completely campaign-dependent. You can play a campaign where 5th level characters have the ear of kings and princes, and you can play a campaign where 15th level characters don't know any nobles at all.

Similarly, you can play a campaign where 2nd level characters have vastly more potential than 1st level characters because of contacts and knowledge and whatnot, and if that's the type of campaign you enjoy, more power to you - but I hardly think this is the norm for D&D. (And if you're going to play this type of campaign, the PCs could just as easily have these contacts and this knowledge at 1st level - there's no reason they'd have to wait for 2nd).

The point is, stuff that can happen at any time regardless of character level is irrelevant to a discussion about character level.

 

[Grog]

Sure you can still be dropped by one blow, but so can the fighter. Any creature could get in a lucky blow at any time to finish off a character regardless of hit points.

Not really. A second level wizard will probably have 10 or 11 hit points or so (assuming a 14 CON). A gnoll swinging a greataxe could easily drop the wizard in one hit, and that's without a crit. The same gnoll couldn't do the same to a second level fighter (unless he managed a crit).

The 2nd level wizard doubles hit WIll save.

Going from a +2 to a +3 isn't doubling, but that's not even the real issue, since that +3 bonus is going to be completely overwhelmed by the randomness of the d20 roll. We're talking about going from an average of 12.5 to 13.5. That's not even close to a doubling. And his other saves don't move an inch.

The 2nd level wizard doubles his first level spells (minus bonus spells).

But bonus spells exist (unless you're playing a wizard with an 11 INT, in which case, have fun at level 3 and beyond), so this isn't a doubling either. Plus, as I said, first level spells aren't that great, so one extra one per day doesn't really represent a significant increase in power.

The 2nd level wizard double his BAB.

He gets a +1 BAB, which is not especially helpful to a wizard, and again, is completely overwhelmed by the randomness of the d20 roll.

You more than double your 1st level gear, equipment and money.

True, and the wizard could pick up a few scrolls which would let him throw out some more first level spells - but once they're gone, he's back to square one.

Does this equal double power? No, not really, but you are not going to start out as a god and work your way up. Well, you might if you find a sympathitic DM. Good luck to ya.

I never said that characters should start out as gods. Where did you get that? I was responding to someone who said that second level characters are twice as powerful as first level characters. If you're talking fighters and barbarians, they might be close, but if you're talking wizards or sorcerors? Not so much.

 

[Eric Tolle]

I think that starting at 1st level is the best way to go, because the characters go from being formidable but yet very mortal to becoming highly capable and rising in notoriety.

Or more likely, start off being barely more competent than commoners, dick around for a few sessions, and then watch the game end without having gone anywhere at all. If I want a level grind, I'll play World of Warcraft: otherwise, life's too goddamn short.

These days, I'd estimate that each game of D&D I get into has about an 80% chance of continuing to the next session. This means that there's about a 50% chance it will make it to 4 sessions. Am I supposed to do a continuing string of first level characters? Or, since I'm dealing with short scenarios, can I just make a character for the scenario the GM comes up with, whether its 5th level 10th level, or whatever?

There is something cool about having the 1st level paladin block a swarm of rats running up the stairs with his large shield while his buddies light their last remaining oil flasks and toss them over their tank in the hopes to wipe the little buggers out before they infect anyone with their diseased teeth.

And when I've done it for the fifteenth time? Again, life's too damn short to do the same crap over an over and over.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Most people want to play mighty heroes in their escapist fantasy roleplaying games. 1-2 level characters are not mighty heroes. They die too easily and are totally unable to handle a variety of challenges. They don't know much about the world or about themselves, either in character or out. Mechanically, they're boring.

The question I ask myself when determining campaign starting level is like what you'd ask yourself before doing any superhero story: do you want to see their origins or not? Origin stories worked great for some of the better superhero movies, so I lean towards doing them rather than jjust starting at 3 and having everyone write detailed backgrounds of how they got there. I play low-level sessions as what I call a "prologue" to get the group together, establish everyone's character and get them to a power level where they can realistically have a meaningful impact on the world around them. I thus consider levels 1-2 useful but I wouldn't want to DM or play preheroic characters for more than a couple sessions.

 

[Celebrim]

These days, I'd estimate that each game of D&D I get into has about an 80% chance of continuing to the next session. This means that there's about a 50% chance it will make it to 4 sessions. Am I supposed to do a continuing string of first level characters? Or, since I'm dealing with short scenarios, can I just make a character for the scenario the GM comes up with, whether its 5th level 10th level, or whatever?

I think there is a significant difference between a 'one shot' like you are describing, where (at most) you are just playing through one module with a basically disposable character, and a continuing campaign which is anticipated to last many sessions and where you are likely to develop a significant attachment to the character.

Sure, if this is a one shot, start anywhere that you like. Level hardly matters then. One shot adventure starting at 21st level? Sure, why not. One shot adventure as 0th level apprentices? Could be fun. Novelty is a big part of choosing a one shot adventure, because you aren't really caring about character development. One shot adventure where everyone is going to be dead at the end? Go for it. 'Tomb of Horrors' is great in that capacity.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think there is a significant difference between a 'one shot' like you are describing

He's not describing a one shot. He's discussing a campaign that was supposed to last, but didn't.

 

[kaomera]

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./QUOTE]
That's great if you can keep the high(er)-level game going. It's been my experience that games starting at lower levels (say 5 or less) are more likely (barring TPKs) to last than those I've seen started at higher levels (6+). This does still leave the option open for starting at 2nd or 3rd level (or even 4th or 5th); it's great to actually claw your way up from 1st level but many players (IMO) need a bit of time to get used to or "break in" a new character before they're really competent with them. Starting at first can therefore lead to unwanted TPKs just because of unfamiliarity with the character... (And this would happen less if more players stayed with familiar characters, even half of a party playing character types they're already competent with can make a big difference; but a lot of players simply want to try out the new stuff.)

Higher-level characters suffer from this too, and I think it's a combination of players trying to come to grips with a class / build they just aren't familiar with (and possibly one that isn't performing the way they thought it would) on top of the generally greater complexity of higher-level characters that has caused a number of games I've run starting at higher levels to implode early on. I'm not entirely without blame either; I tend to kind of expect a bit more (in terms of roleplay as well as skill at handling the character) from higher-level characters. Specifically I'm likely to have a bit less patience, both because I'm usually one of the ones pulling for a lower starting level and because as level climbs so does my workload as a DM. When several players want to tweak their characters each week for the first several weeks of a game (because they've made choices that don't end up being much fun / doing what they wanted or thought they would) it gets frustrating: for the players who just can't seem to "get it right", as well as for the rest of the group (including me) having to deal with it.

 

[boredgremlin]

Right. Hide or run away.

The rest aren't options. They're questions the PCs can answer, not actions the PCs can take.

IMHO this is an excellent opportunity for an event to happen out of game. In the precious few hours I have to play, I don't want unexciting things to happen, and I don't want to force my PCs into unexciting situations.

If they realistically have very few options, pick the smartest (or most fun) option, assume they took it, and let them read about the results. Then, start the action where the PC's choices start to matter, and let them have some fun with the exciting parts of the game.

Cheers, -- N

Player choices can matter a lot without them being "which way do i slaughter these enemies?".

I think that example was great. It offered players lots of opportunities to decide not only who thier players are (do i backtrack the enemies and pick off weakened survivors for loot? Or do i sneakily follow them and see who they are working for, maybe arrange a few ambushes or tail their boss back to his lair?) but also how they fight. Sure if they charge and roll initiative they will be slaughtered and rightly so because that would be moronic. But if they follow the enemies and wait for a good time, maybe they can do some real damage.

I once had a 2nd level ranger in one of my older campaigns trail a hydra into a mountain pass then use his climb skill to run ahead of it and his knowledge nature skill to arrange a rock slide that buried the trail it was using, and the hydra on it. The same trick could easily work in this case. As could hit and run attacks at night using arrows, prepared traps and lots enemies being sent on wild goose chases.
Not all encounters come down to number crunching, usually that only happens if the players mess up and make bad tactical decisions.

 

[prosfilaes]

survival is a reward. The passings and buisness of the powerful also poitn out opportunities to the PCs they wouldn't get if they didn't note the passings and buisness of the more powerful.
as to that dragon flying over head-

"hey Furde what color is Frostshrike ?"
"White of course Dannic"
"Isn't Frostshrike supposed tolive on white Owl Peak?"
"Yeah, that's what the sage told us, man we wasted a lot of coin for that bit of lore...oh hey..."
"yup, he is flying away from his layer at a good pace isn't he?"
"Let me get out the map, maybe we have a chance for some easy loot"

Even a white dragon has some serious traps on his lair, and may return by the time you get there. As a DM, at first level, I wouldn't expect the party to head to the lair, and I would try to give them plenty of warning before the TPK that would happen if they continued. As a player, not only would I be more interested in where he was going, instead of his presumably safe treasure, if we did head to the lair, I'd feel uninspired by a simple lair robbing.