Why do levels one and two suck so bad?

[Keith Robinson]

That said, it's not the easiest thing to do to write adventures that allow them to explore and feel like heroes.

I don't regard 1st level characters as heroes - but, rather, aspiring heroes. To me, that's what the lower levels are about, struggling through the early adventures, making their way and establishing their reputation. For the first few levels they're low on cash, low on resources and low on heroism!

But it's really a case of each to their own. I tend to run long campaigns, so when I start a new one it's at 1st level. However, if I were to only run short campaigns, then I'd probably vary it more - as much to keep myself interested as the players!

 

[delericho]

Why do players hate levels 1 and 2 so much?

I'm debating on how long to drag out levels 1 and 2 now considering that my campaigns dont' typically go past 12th anymore. I'm considering making it 4-5 DUNGEON adventures to get out of first level as a change of pace from the "let's dance to epic tomorrow" concept.

If your players hate levels 1 and 2, why would you even consider dragging them out longer? Surely that's a quick way not to have any players left?

Personally, I find that my players also dislike levels 1 and 2 (and 3 and 4, but to a lesser extent), but they also like having the more 'organic' characters that come from playing through those early levels. If there was a really strong way to generate 'organic' higher level characters, that would be ideal for my group, but I've never seen such a thing.

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

"We played Dungeons and Dragons for six hours. Then I got killed by an elf."

I have always loved that Homer Simpson quote.

Why would anyone hire first-level characters when they could hire more experienced, better equipped characters?

It's cheaper. The value of having to pay less means, if they fail, you can just afford a completely different group to pay. And again, look at the comparitive power difference between a lvl-1 Fighter and a lvl-1 Warrior.

I agree too that levels 1 and 2 are really about cutting corners and being tricky with your cheap gear. All until you somehow manage to find some decent items, or find something valuable to sell.

 

[Midknightsun]

As a DM, I don't even like levels 1 and 2 for many of the reasons listed. Just doesn't seem very fun. That's why I'm starting my characters for my next campaign out at 3rd level, but with 0xp. (With the normal xp requirement required to reach fourth. That way they can spend plenty of time developing their characters at "low level" without being a danger to themselves (only). But, to each their own, I guess.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Charcaters at those levels are very fragile. A single critical could end the character right there (some may view this as a plus, but others don't).

There isn't a lot that seporates one character from another, on the paper at any rate. So you're a fighter that uses a two-handed weapon. Your personality may be different from the fighter from the last campaign, but when it comes time to kill the kobalds it's much like that other two-handed weapon fighter. It isn't until level three or four when you can start setting yourself apart from the last fighter. Same for the "Face Man" rogue or the "Summoner" wizard. They can't start coming into their own (in terms of what they can do) until around level three or four.

 

[Darklone]

Because your character can be killed by dire rats and thrown rocks? I'd say it's tough to be/play, or at least to feel heroic when your character is so fragile.

Rats and pits.... rats and pits says the Old One.

I love the low levels and usually my players die more often at higher levels.

 

[green slime]

On saturday, I gave my players a choice. They got to choose what level they were going to start at for the new campaign.

They were unanamious. 1st level. For the pure joy of actually having struggled to get where they end up.

So I guess not all players hate it quite so much as the OP suggested.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I love DMing AND playing the lower level characters.
I like watching my PC's survive really tough encounters that should have by all rights killed them. I like when they have like, no money, and then at the end of an adventure they tally up their loot and they have enough to afford better equipment. I like watching them go from relatively fragile to pretty competent to bad ass. That's how the history and the stories of these characters get built.

On the other hand, this past session my players lost their halfling rogue to a choker and almost lost their sorcerer to a choker as well. The encounter that I thought would have killed them (a fight with a raging barbarian grimlock) ended when the cleric cast a hold person and the grimlock failed the save with a 2. The rest of the party made short work of the held grimlock. This is after the Barbarian dropped the party Paladin to below 0 in one round.

My PC's are all 3rd level by the way and started at level 1.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

They don't. Your thesis is argumentative and misguided. Everyone I've ever played with on a regular basis has expressed a disctinct preference for low-level play.

Furthermore, first level characters can be heroic, because being heroic is relative, not absolute. It's not about the sword, it's about the person wielding it. The band of first level adventurers that goes forth into the woods to defeat the kobolds are braver and more heroic than the party of 10th level adventurers who have equipped themselves at the MagicMart and for whom death is a mere line-item expense.

 

[rgard]

Some of my absolute best game sessions as a player were when our characters were 1st & 2nd level. This from Od&D through 3.5E.

Whether it be running in a zig-zag pattern across a field hoping the single goblin archer doesn't hit my character with 1 hp left or the character casts sleep spell and manages to roll an 8 on 2d4 that sleeps all 8 orcs who certainly would have wiped out the party, I do enjoy hanging by a thread at low levels.

To add, I prefer not to roll up higher level characters. Instead, I would rather always start the character at 1st level.

Thanks,
Rich