Why do levels one and two suck so bad?

[Jedi_Solo]

what are the hobgoblins carrying?
where did they get it?
why are they nervous?
where are they going?
have they travelled far?
do they have to travel far?
Where the heck did the firgiant come from?
If he (the fire giant) isn't the boss, who is?
Who should jnow about this?
Can we (the PC's) profit from this?
Is there weak oposition with stuff to loot left behind? (for the unethical PCs)
Could they use scouts/guides to get past the royal patrol?
How about we wait here and let them go about whatever they are doing since they haven't seen us yet?

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

 

[Delta]

Then why don't we just get rid of levels altogether then? Or make the standard that 3rd level is and make that 1st level.

Because...
(a) Many people enjoy playing those 1st & 2nd levels, and
(b) They're useful training ground for new D&D players, and
(c) Some people prefer the "realism" that one sword blow can be fatal, and
(d) It makes it easy to remember that 5th level = 5 hit dice, and
(e) They're useful for the NPCs who populate most of the world.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Grimlocks are Monstrous Humanoids which takes a Hold Monster spell. Having access to a 5th level spell normally makes short work of low level encounters. By the book you probably would have had a TPK.

huh, Good catch jody. I guess in the heat of the moment I missed that detail. It's Ok, in the end it worked out fine. The PC's are battered and bruised, they've lost one of their number and are wondering whether it's time to beat feet out of those grimlock caves.

 

[SteveC]

I thought I would use the ever popular "it depends" answer.

In a campaign that is based around story and role-play and character development, bring on the level one and two campaign, and let me shape my whole character's life over the course of the campaign!

In a campaign that is basically a series of tactical encounters with perhaps a theme or story behind it, get rid of those levels as quickly as possible.

Why in the second case? Because I'm going to be bored to tears. I've been gaming for just over 30 years now, and I've done the starting character thing many, many times. I've managed resources as a low level character, managed to trick my way through more difficult encounters and come out of a deadly situation by the skin of my teeth with only the luck of an amazing die roll at the right time saving me.

Now that there is a premium on my gaming time (as a working adult, I just don't have the time to game as much any more) I frankly have something better to do than roll dice hoping for a good result while I marshal my limited spell resources for an important encounter. It just stopped being fun after all these years. I guess I'd have to say that there are plenty of classes that you need to be third or higher level in to have a character that's very useful in terms of an average adventure that's more than two or three encounters.

So I certainly don't begrudge anyone enjoying months of low level play (far from it: I enjoyed it a lot when it was new to me) but I just have better things to do with my time these days.

I'll also agree that Star Wars Saga has changed a lot of the rules to a D20 game to the point where it would make the experience of low level play interesting to me again.

--Steve

 

[brainstorm]

1 level per game

I've been playing D&D for over 25 years and have never had a 20th level character due to campaign burnout. I have also been DMing for over 25 years and have only gotten a campaign up to 20th level once. I've determined that leveling once every 4 games or so is the problem, particularly as my gaming group gets older and we are able to play less. When we could play weekly for years at a time, it was easier to get characters up into the double digit levels, but now, it just isn't realistic to expect a group of middle-aged gamers to be able to commit to weekly games for extended periods of time. So, I've adapted my campaigns. At first, I was leveling once every other game and now I'm leveling them after every game. I can get through a campaign in 20 sessions, which will take us about a year with the amount of time we get for gaming. At first it was weird and just felt wrong because, well, it just didn't feel right to level after each game. Then I realized that it was the 25 years of the standard leveling that was talking and not the fact that we were having fun, the players were still role playing and enjoying the game and we actually got to complete a campaign through completion and start a new one within our lifetimes.

I'll never go back to standard leveling. Life is too short.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I don't think they suck ... I like low levels. High risk = high adventure = high reward.

Still, the low XP needed for advancement means that you don't spend more than 2 or 3 sessions at those levels under the normal assumptions.

 

[Odnasept]

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

As one who has played in more than one of Raven's campaigns (the Lakelands (as Firestar), which has thusfar gone to about 4th Level, and his World's Largest Dungeon campaign, which went to about 5th Level), both of which started at 1st Level, I would like to make a pair of points.

Firstly, I have found it quite possible to make a compelling backstory for a 1st Level PC and to have them gain some measure of fame or repute on the way to 2nd Level. 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. As one previous poster complained, it isn't much fun being 1st Level in a world where most people are better than you at whatever it is you do. However, when most people are also 1st Level (admittedly creating a more AD&D feel) one can feel special even without gaining a lot of XP first.

Secondly, I find that levels are gained far too swiftly and easily if 1st and 2nd Level are lumped together as they are in this post. A 2nd Level character is often (with the exception of skill points and perhaps wealth) roughly twice as powerful as they were at 1st Level, and thus considerably more capable.

I also agree that a level earned is a level appreciated!

 

[Grog]

Secondly, I find that levels are gained far too swiftly and easily if 1st and 2nd Level are lumped together as they are in this post. A 2nd Level character is often (with the exception of skill points and perhaps wealth) roughly twice as powerful as they were at 1st Level, and thus considerably more capable.

A 2nd level wizard isn't even close to twice as powerful as a 1st level wizard. He gets one extra spell per day, a few extra hit points (but can still easily be dropped in one hit), and a +1 to his Will save. That's it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A 2nd level wizard isn't even close to twice as powerful as a 1st level wizard. He gets one extra spell per day, a few extra hit points (but can still easily be dropped in one hit), and a +1 to his Will save. That's it.

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.

RC

 

[howandwhy99]

Still, the low XP needed for advancement means that you don't spend more than 2 or 3 sessions at those levels under the normal assumptions.

They do if you apply the proper lethality.