Why do levels one and two suck so bad?

[Moleculo]

A 1st-level fighter has almost the opposite problem. They're uber, but even they have trouble with attack rolls. A 1st-level NPC fighter could have an AC score of 21; the PC fighter might have an attack bonus of +4 to +6 (Strength 14 or Strength 16 with masterwork weapon). A 1st-level fighter has a really good chance of being dropped in one hit by, say, a 1st-level orc barbarian, or even from a crit from an ordinary 1st-level orc warrior wielding a greataxe. Other characters would be hit far harder.

Just out of curiosity, how does a level 1 fighter get a masterwork weapon? Aren't they outside the wealth range. I also think you're playing down the strengths of a wizard. I used to play an enchanter with a greatsword. Sleep + coup de grace = happy wizard. It's all in how you play your character.

 

[mmu1]

I don't like 1st level for some of the same reasons already mentioned - been there, done that, a lot of adventures can feel contrived because there are tons of more experienced characters out there, you run out of resources very quickly, and so on.

However, what I really hate the is the fact that many character archetypes just don't work at 1st level without a lot of hand-waving.

Sometimes I'd like to be able to play a 60 year old wizard, or a fighter who's a veteran of a couple of wars, or a rogue getting pulled out retirement for "one last job", and so on. Trying to shoehorn one of those (fairly simple) concept into Level 1 mechanics always feels like a variation on "Ok, you're really experienced, but you've been sick. Very sick. In fact, you got buried under a landslide, and only your magical equipment saved your life, but it got destroyed in the process. So you've forgotten most of your abilities and will have to re-learn them as you get better. Yeah."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why do players hate levels 1 and 2 so much?

A sense of player entitlement.

Seriously, though, I find low levels fun as both player and DM. They are a good time to define a character, and allow a character to acquire both enemies that he can't simply beat (right away) as well as friends that help now (and therefore earn being helped later).

Some people rail against being unable to play a fighter that's been in a couple of wars. I enjoy actually having that fighter having been through those wars by that point in his life.

Of course, I allow games to start at other levels as well, for a change of pace, and if the players know the setting well enough. Still, I find that there are quite a few players that feel cheated if they don't get to start out at 1st IMC. The level you earn is often sweeter than the level you are given.

RC

 

[DM-Rocco]

First, being trained in a skill gives you a flat +5 bonus (and sometimes gives you access to abilities within the skill that untrained character don't have). You don't have skill points, but choose which skills you are Trained in from your character's class skills.

Second, characters get (hit die x 3) hit points at first level, making them considerably less fragile.

So basically, a 1st level Saga Edition character is closer to a 2nd-3rd level D&D character in terms of their capability and endurance.

-The Gneech

That seems pretty cool. I think my friend just bought that6 book. I'll have to take a closer peek.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

From what I'm reading in these posts it sounds less like 1st and 2nd level sucks and more like certain players want to play to a certain concept (they dont want to be newbies, they want to already start out as established adventurers) and that's fine, that part I get.

Some of the rationalizations I have a problem with thematically are the "why would first level adventurers get this job when there are other more experienced and powerful ones to do the job". I would tend to think that those more experienced adventurers got their start probably doing the same kinds of missions. Also, maybe those other adventurers are busy taking care of more pressing matters that need their level of ability rather than a cake walk through a couple of orcs or kobolds.

Then there's the whole matter of people complaining about character death. Everytime I read about people who play D&D and griping about character death, it grates on my nerves something awful. If youre playing in a high politics type of game I can kind of understand, If youre playing as sort of a papers and paychecks sort of game then yeah I understand. But If youre playing anything near the default type of game where there is combat and there are things ACTIVELY TRYING TO KILL YOUR PC, then yeah, death? Good chance of that happening.

On a serious note though, have players changed that much where that someone's PC dying is honestly THAT big of a deal. I mean I've been playing an running games for over 20 years and have lost my share of PC's of varying levels and I remember most of them fondly, but I would have been annoyed with my various DM's had those PC's been kept alive artificially. Note, there's a difference between giving them a fighting chance by using things like Action points and death at - CON (vs -10) and hand-waving a PC's death in order to save the PC from death. I dont want to slaughter my PC's but if they die, they die. It's as simple as that, what I'm seeing on more than one occasion here on ENworld seems to be a pattern of "the game sucks if the PC's die" and it makes me glad that I dont have anyone like that at my gaming table.

The players that I just ran through the 1st level adventure THE WHISPERING CAIRN almost died several times and survived through teamwork, guts and luck. For me that's the type
of player I want at my table, not the one who's gonna complain about a character death ruining the story. Hell, a character death is a perfect chance to BUILD on that characters story after the fact especially if that character had viable relationships outside of the party.

Sorry to go off on such a tangent, but I've been meaning to address this for a while.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I enjoy the low levels. My only issue is that in most games since 3e came out is that PCs seem to get a level after only one or two sessions. It is great levelling up fast, but is slows down usually after level 3 or 4 and some players, having become used to fast levelling, get disgruntled playing more than a session or two without going up.

 

[Grog]

Just out of curiosity, how does a level 1 fighter get a masterwork weapon? Aren't they outside the wealth range. I also think you're playing down the strengths of a wizard. I used to play an enchanter with a greatsword. Sleep + coup de grace = happy wizard. It's all in how you play your character.

Sleep sucks in 3.5. The full-round casting time means that, once your opponents see you casting it, everyone on the field is probably going to try to interrupt you. And at first level, being interrupted could very well mean being knocked to negative HP or even killed if someone lands a crit.

If you're playing a fighter-type, first level is fine. If you're playing a wizard, first level sucks. You only have a tiny number of spells and the spells aren't even very good. Sleep has the aforementioned full-round casting time. Color spray requires you to get right up on the front line. Magic missile hits one target and does pathetic damage.

And then, once you're out of spells, you're essentially playing a commoner for the rest of the adventure. What fun!

Sorcerors are a little better, but not much, and if you're playing a sorceror, you have to put up with the tremendously crappy third level, so it's a trade-off.

 

[Flynn]

Yeah, the whole being taken out by a gnome who threw a carrot at you can get kind of old.

I usually start my campaigns at ECL 3.

I have to say, having heard you quote that so many times, Baby Samurai, that you must have had one hell of a memorable encounter with a vegetarian lawn ornament to make you repeat it so often.

Just one of many reasons not to have gnomes in my campaign settings,
Flynn

 

[Pickaxe]

I've only played in about dozen campaigns since 3e came out, so maybe I haven't played enough 1st level characters to become jaded. I also haven't been in a campaign that got past 11th level, so it could be said that I haven't experienced enough high-level play to know how much better it is than low-level.

But I'd like to throw out a couple of reasons why I actually like 1st and 2nd level:

1) Everything's a challenge. One of the big complaints is essentially that low-level characters have limited resources. For me, one of the fun aspects of D&D is problem-solving, and problem-solving is much more difficult (and more fun) when you have limited resources. Low-levels are the only time that half of the equipment in PHB is even useful, so there is some reward for buying these things. At higher levels, characters have to go much further afield to find challenges.

Related to this, I don't understand the claim that encounter possibilities are so limited at low-levels, especially in 3e. There are infinite ways to create a challenging encounter with any group of humanoids, especially since they can have class levels. I also don't see this as a criticism unique to low-levels; one could argue that every level has a finite number of creatures with an appropriate CR for a given level, and I get the impression that 20th level adventures have their own issue of scarcity of encounter possibilities. ("We're killing another god?")

2) Players can relate to the challenges of low-level play better than those of high-level play. Many of things you run into in a low-level campaign are situations not entirely removed from our experience, or at least from experiences we've heard or read about. This means that I can approach an encounter or an adventure from a perspective informed by my own knowledge; in high-level adventures, the encounters are often so alien that your only feasible approach is through your knowledge of the core rules. Thus, in a low-level campaign, someone new to D&D, or at least to 3e, can come in and be successful just by using his/her head, even if they have little knowledge of the rules. In contrast, success at higher levels appears to be dependent on having and using the right magic, which is really about knowing the rules.

When my friends and I played 1e, one of the highest compliments we could give was "good first level player", for those who asked good questions and sought creative solutions to problems.

--Axe

 

[Jack99]

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.

You Sir, win at DnD