What's Your Level of Play?

[Pyromancer999]

Exactly what the title says. You see all of these 20-level builds out there, but according to what I've heard, not that many people get that far if they start out at 1st level. So, what level do you normally start your campaigns at, and at what level do they usually end?

[Lateral]

I prefer to start anywhere from about level 3 to level 14. Any lower and it's too easy to die and too hard to flesh out any particular concept, and any higher and I feel like I haven't earned that sort of power. For one-shots, anything would work, depending on the sort of game in question.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Four to eight is usually my group's sweet spot.

[Private]

Four to eight is usually my group's sweet spot.

Same here, although I'd love to play more games in the 10-15 range. I feel like that is when most builds really shine without getting silly powerful.

[Ezekiul]

My groups generally start around 4-6 and end from 9-11. Lets some character development/strength happen and ends before its starts getting rocket tag-isk

[umbergod]

My happy place is anywhere over level one, but generally not past 8, and preferably 3-6

[betelgeuce]

I like to make and play really late bloomer builds so I usually play 1-7 but would love to get a character up to 20 and seriously just finish the game. Everyone at some point in their mind, imagines D&D as the matrix or an anime just a little if not alot. So why not get to that level of epic broken where you make reality.

[Malimar]

I usually start in the 1-4 range.

I have never in my life played in a campaign that lasted long enough to get a character past level 8.

[theMycon]

Pretty much every campaign I've been in (of perhaps a dozen, spread between 3.x and 4) has started either at level 3 or level 5. The latter was far more common.

The level 5 ones universally petered out before we hit 12. The Level 3 ones either lasted past 15, or are currently ongoing (level 11). I generally try "fun but solid" builds until flight becomes common, then optimize just enough that no-one will die.

I find retraining helps casters, but is absolutely necessary for everyone else. Levels 4-10 seem to be the sweet spot for 3.5. Below you're fragile enough that a single bad roll can undo all planning, optimization, and strategy; above 10 most of your resources are spent on the "taxes" needed to keep a non-full-caster relevant (And a full caster loses its appeal to me when single spells go from "deciding a battle" to "winning a battle").

4E seems to work best at 5-20; the most common complaints melt away at higher levels, but it requires you to continually get more & more toys to make the book-keeping manageable. However, once you hit Epic levels, either you're high-op- and monsters you're supposed to fight are cannon fodder, or you're fighting gods half-again your level & it's rocket tag Vs. tactical crippling- or it's low-op- and monsters you're supposed to be fighting take forever and a day.

[Tim Proctor]

I usually start at 3, however in a certain campaign I start people at 1.

Basically when they start at 1 they are contestants in a game show (which is a giant dungeon crawl) with scrying sensor floating around them, but they don't know it yet, cause they have no memories except how to fight. They crawl through this massive dungeon where the first level is a level 1, second level is a level 2, etc. etc. At the end of each level is a shrine that heals them, as if they rested, etc. They go through and find out it is this big dystopian society, get their memories, etc. etc. At level 20 they break free from the dungeon and have the choice to change the society, etc. etc.

Other than that I can't see starting people at level 1 or 2 because they just die from bad dice way too much.

[Wookie-ranger]

I like lower level play, but with lots of versatility and "toughness"
That's why I Like E6-gestalt.
I also played in a fairly successful game with the simple houserule: 'double the treasure, half the exp".
Generally anything Level 1-12 are fine with me.
Above that and the only thing that prevents PCs from becoming gods and breaking the campaign is Rule0 or a gentleman's agreement.

I am fine with games starting at Level 1. Sure it can get though at the start, but if you play careful and smart bad things don't happen (or at least not to you) :smallwink:

I don't like playing high level games, and have never played Epic.

[Mirakk]

I always begin play at level 1. Typically, groups tend to start dropping off around level 10 when everyone gets character ADD and wants to make something else to play.

Right now I'm making a new campaign, and I'm going to try starting at level 9 though. Interested to see how that takes shape, and how long I can keep it going.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The minimum needed to go Devil-Tiger. And ah'm not goin' to pick one for yer d n d! *narrows eyes*

[Techwarrior]

I have played multiple campaigns from 1 to 20. I don't use the epic rules, instead doing some brewed epic rules. Several of those epic characters get folded into the backsrory for my campaign world. For instance, the only paladins I've seen actually go from 1 to 26 is featured in my campaign works. Can't say too much about whats going on for fear of lurkers though.

With that in mind, I personally prefer the ten to fifteen range as a dm, but the five to eight range as a player.

As a dm, at the specified range I find it to be the easiest range to come up with appropriate challenges.

As a player, this is where you really start to be able to shine at what you do, without getting ridiculous.

My 2cp

[LordBlades]

Usually 3-5 as a start level, as it's high enough for giving a basic shape to most concepts and avoiding death in 1-2 lucky hits, but low enough so there's plenty of room for the character to grow.

End level? Anything pre-epic. I hate epic rules with a passion.

[Krazzman]

since i lack experience of high level play... i would say between 3 to 8.

The first campaign of dnd was from level 6 to 11 or 12 and it was a bit weird.

If I play a mundane I think the best spot is about between 3 and 6, maybe a bit higher.

A few oneshots were... hard. Starting level 15 core only took really long... we actually did... fight a water elemental and 3 ogres... the other thing I didn't get with my old group were level 1 oneshots. It was a pain in the ass most of the times, any real start of a campaign was good but the campaign dissolved itself... we had 4 campaigns running because the 3 main people could every weekend and the others every once in a while... but the campaigns either stopped after 1 level up or after a few sessions. Just recently i found the binder of these campaigns... I laughed at my attempts to do something^^


Anyways I hope I can find my sweet spot in the two campaigns that run in our group. In one I'm the DM and the party reached level 4, in the other I'm the player.

[nedz]

Usually start at level 1 or thereabouts.

I tend to lose interest after about level 15, I have played epic but its a lot of work for the DM as it all comes down to the casters v. casters at that stage.

[Tvtyrant]

I like levels 3-6 the most, and feel the game gets unbearable after level 12.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I love the feel of high-power play, so I prefer to run games at around levels 10-15. Personally though, in my games combat isn't all that important. If I wanted to run a tactical, combat-heavy game I'd run it at a much lower power level. A combat-heavy high-power game could work, but D&D is not the game to do it with.

[sonofzeal]

Personally, I've mostly played 7-12, although I'm starting to prefer 9-15.

[Kol Korran]

my current group played onw campaign from level 4- 13, one from 2-12, a short adventure from 1-5 (fast tracking progression) and now we'll start at 2-? (sandbox, unknown end)

[Wavelab]

Well I'm one of those "different" players. I prefer to start at least at level 20. With 20+ games your character concepts have just that much more room to function. It's quite fun.

[Kaeso]

As a PbP player, most games tend to end before level 5 or so. The furthest I've gotten is an (ongoing) game where I'm level 8.

[hoverfrog]

I prefer to start at first but most games actually start out at about third. Play is typically best from 6th to 12th level.

[ThiagoMartell]

I prefer 6-12. The system seems to work best at those levels.

[Andry]

We are running a long-term campaign that started at level 5 and we have reached level 15 and are now running our character's soldiers/followers in a sub-campaign with an occasional dip back to the big guys. It has been fun. Also to give the other dm a break I have started to dm the Legacy of Fire an adventure path by Paizo it's been fun so far if a bit lethal.

[RaggedAngel]

I've always felt that for a longterm campaign, 4-6 is a good place for starting out. Your characters are still fairly 'weak' in the grand scheme of things, but you're not terribly fragile and you have more to do in combat than cast one of your three spells or make a single attack with your sword. You also have room for fuller, more interesting backstories, which really make or break a good game.

[Kurald Galain]

3-10, usually. Lower levels are reserved for the really gritty moments, and most of our campaigns aren't like that. Higher than that, we simply never get around to, and there are some balance concerns of course.

[prufock]

It varies. Currently I'm DM for a game that started at 1 and I plan to go to 20 or beyond. It's a long-term campaign, and it really depends on how the players take to it. Currently they just made level 4 after about 8 or 9 sessions.

Prior to this I was playing in a level 5 game (that we may pick up later), a level 8-9 game, and a level 19 game.

I'm not sure I have a preference. I can have fun being a newbie or a grizzled veteran; I can have fun as a lowly town's guard or as a nigh-omnipotent god wizard. There is a sweet spot in the middle, though, where the classes are more balanced against each other, you aren't likely to die on a single lucky crit, you have a suite of interesting powers/abilities, but aren't all-powerful, and there isn't an unhealthy amount of bookkeeping. I'd say anywhere from level 3 (2nd level spells, feat) and 12 (before 7th level spells, and you get a feat AND a stat boost at this level, which I love).

[CigarPete]

Campaign I'm in now started at level 1, I joined as level 6 when everyone else was about level 9-10 and the group is now 18-19. We're almost done, after more than 5 years, and at least one or two of us will get to 20. We've started discussing the next campaign, and that will be at level 1. I'm not really fond of the really low level stuff, but it's awesome seeing the character grow organically though the campaign.

[some guy]

I usually DM campaigns that go from lvl 1 to 5. In my longest running campaign the highest level character got to 11. Most one-shots I run are level 2 or 3.

As a player the longest run I got was from 1 to 7, but the highest I got in in a campaign was 8 (we started at 5).

[Kansaschaser]

At minimum, I start my players off at level 3. The last campaign I ran went up to level 26 and it took almost 3 years to get there. This campaign was taking place during the time when they kept putting out 3.5 books every few months. Every time Wizards of the Coast put out another book, I would let my players "rebuild" their characters if there was new material in the newely released book they wanted to use. Even if it was just a feat or a new spell.

[Grail]

Depending upon the game, it is usually 1 - 5 to start out. I've run games that have finished in the low single digits, the early teens or post-epic. It depends upon the story that i wish to tell and the longevity of the players.

Personally, I dislike the game once it gets over level 10 generally, but i will still run them over level 10 if the story demands it.

I do prefer the gritty styled game moreso, which is why i am constantly trying to push my groups away from PF onto something like GURPS, True20, MERP, Rolemaster, Maelstrom or any of my homebrewed rulesets.

[whibla]

The majority of campaigns I play or (have) DM('d) start in the 1-4 range. For one-off sessions low to mid teens seems to be the common range.

The majority of campaigns I've played in tend to peter out as we hit 20, for somewhat understandable reasons. Combats have a tendancy to become a bit binary at that stage, and creating balanced and enjoyable encounters becomes significantly more difficult passed this point. Or, it seems that way to me.

The game I've recently started running, based in a setting I created way back when, and have expanded on over the years (with the aid and input of many players and their characters, I must add) started at 1, has currently reached 5..and I found myself, today, creating one of the plot arc finale encounters for when they're about 16-18. :smallconfused:

This time I would like to continue into the 20's and maybe even 30's at least, but we'll see...

...I'm already missing playing. :smallwink:

[AmberVael]

I rarely have interest in starting lower than level five. However, I prefer very high level games, so long as the DM and party are capable of maintaining some level of balance (given that the system pretty much can't on its own). I will gladly play into epic territory, though I'll probably start being far more skeptical beyond 30.

[zorenathres]

I am currently DMing for new players who know nothing about optimizing (yet) & i prefer to start them around levels 2-3, we have two separate campaigns going, one is d20 apocalypse, & one is E6 D&D 3.5.

I have yet to run an epic campaign, & lately we have really enjoyed E6. As a player I have played up to 15th level, & I enjoy the grittier stuff (3-8).

[Aegis013]

I've DM'd a level 1-19 game for a full group, a 1-20 game for a single player.

I've been in numerous games that didn't level up at all, and started low.
I've been in a one-shot where I got to be level 19 as a Draconic Lich.
I got from level 3 to level 6 in a solo game.
I got from level 3 to level 10 in a full game, I liked this game quite a lot. I was sad when the DM quit.
I've gotten from level 3 to 5 in a current game.

Hopefully we'll get past level 10. Every level has always been more enjoyable than the last for me, but no DM seems willing to allow sufficient advancement before quitting, and while playing the level 19 in the one shot was great fun, I'd like to actually feel like I got there myself.

[Alaris]

Well, let me see.

Usually, our campaigns can start between levels 1-3, and rarely, 4 or 5. I prefer the 1-3 range, as it gives PLENTY of time to grow, and get attached to the character as he or she grows.

I have honestly yet to finish out a campaign itself. I've played in several "Multi-Chapter Campaigns," where you play out different stories (Main plot) in the same world and setting.

I've finished 2 chapters, in 2 different campaigns.

-First one, we started at Level 1, and ended around level 6.
-Second one, we start at Level 1, and ended at level 5.

The second chapter of the first campaign is currently on Hiatus, but my character is level 14, and that is the "Level Cap" for that chapter, so whenever it starts back up again, we'll be sitting there I think.

[eggs]

We typically start at 1 or 5, depending on DMs, and rarely go much past 13.

Even if player enthusiasm keeps up at levels 9+, that seems to be where magic rules start fouling up maintained plotlines.

[Malachei]

We typically start level 1. I think it is an exciting and challenging time, and it feels great to not skip part of a character's history. Sometimes, in play-by-post campaigns, we start level 3+, because play-by-post tends to move more slowly.

The highest I've played was 36, and one campaign I'm running is level 18.

I find that if campaigns end or fade out, they usually stop either low-level, or mid-level. Often this is was due to people moving out of the area. One game that went into hiatus was level 11, another level 12.

[Ranting Fool]

Last few games have started at 1, 3 or 5 and have been ending around level 15 though the last few times has been me as a DM not planning ahead enough and disliking the way my campaign world has grown. And partly PC's wanting to try something new.

Current game is around level 9, started off at level 3. I've planned it out to last till around level 20 or until D&D "Next" comes out which ever happens first :smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[Gorgon_Heap]

I am most often the DM and I always start my players at level 1, simply because it's much faster and as a roleplay-heavy DM being super combat-capable isn't such a big deal. By level three of four the players are always exceedingly comfortable with their characters and satisfied with how the builds are going. I may do something different in the future.



That said, experiece has led me to prefer no less than level 2-3 for starting on PbP games because of just how long they take and fight swarms of weak opponents is terribly dull.

As for higher-level games ... the highest we've ever gone in what I'd call a real campaign was about level 9-10, so I have little experiece beyond that.

[Terazul]

Generally prefer the 3-6 range for starting a game; Characters tend to have 2-3 feats under their belts, a few class abilities, and skill choices and specialization disparities are easier to notice. Some are preparing to enter or have entered their first prestige class at this point. Short feat trees and ability combinations are coming online so some concepts are more playable, and less goofy (gishes, I'm looking at you). In general, the characters feel alot more fleshed out and capable of pulling off their own shticks and having their niches. You tend to have more options in and out of combat, allowing for far more dynamic play.

On the same token, I can't stand starting at level 1. I mean, I can, and have, but I find it too swingy, and you generally have one trick you can pull off once or twice, or a handful of tricks that you can do all day but aren't that spectacular. Things get repetitive fairly quickly, though one could argue that you could get inventive with things, I can do the same while also having actual resources at my disposal. Endwise, I like the 9-15 range for topping things off. I kind of like the ridiculous aspects at times.

[ThiagoMartell]

I am most often the DM and I always start my players at level 1, simply because it's much faster and as a roleplay-heavy DM being super combat-capable isn't such a big deal.

But level is not only about combat, it's about all-around competence. A level 5 diplomat is better than a level 1 diplomat.
The range of concepts possible at level 1 is really small. You're limited to being a rookie in just about everything. Unless you don't care about consistency, I think this is a major point, specially in a RP-heavy campaign.

[DrDeth]

In PF I have a 5th and a 8th. 3.5 I have a 7th and a 15th. 4Th ed I have a 15th.

Most games start at 1st or 2nd, and continue until the mid-teens. I prefer starting my games @ 2nd level.

One 3.5 game went until Epic. WLD went nigh Epic.

BUT, I have never had a single PC live all the way thru. Thus, in general, I find the whole ‘20th level build’ meme to be mostly worthless. Like the meme that3.5 Toughness is useless, whereas for a 1st level Elf wizard it can easily double their HP. Now sure, if you can retrain later, you do so. But you have to live past 3rd level to make other feats as good.

[Curmudgeon]

14-25, with some limits on spellcasters:

no metamagic cost reducers
no metamagic under +1 spell level per feat
no use of Alter Self, Polymorph, & c. except on forms the spellcasting PC has personally encountered in the current game
scrolls are much more expensive, and spellbooks aren't loaned out
Epic spellcasting doesn't exist

[Wonton]

In 3.5, I've played in a 1-7 campaign, a 1-6 campaign, and a 6-10 campaign. Currently, I am playing a 3rd level character in a PF campaign that also started at level 1. I've also played some 2nd edition... I think we were level 2-3? I was only about 13 years old and knew nothing about D&D.

[willpell]

I like to start at 5; characters below that are utterly boring, but characters above that are starting to get complicated with PrCs and whatnot. Starting right at 5 gives you something to really look forward to (assuming you're not a Fighter).

[Crasical]

I like level 5 as the point where the PCs feel like heroic, competent individuals. So far 7-8 is about where we have hit the wall for levelups though.

[Techwarrior]

In 3.5, I've played in a 1-7 campaign, a 1-6 campaign, and a 6-10 campaign. Currently, I am playing a 3rd level character in a PF campaign that also started at level 1. I've also played some 2nd edition... I think we were level 2-3? I was only about 13 years old and knew nothing about D&D.

2nd edition still had the whole people level at different rates thing. (Which is part of why rogues got screwed in 3.5, nobody thought to up their hit die or base attack) So the rogue in the group could be about level 5 while the mage was 2, maybe 3 if he was lucky.

[ThiagoMartell]

2nd edition still had the whole people level at different rates thing. (Which is part of why rogues got screwed in 3.5, nobody thought to up their hit die or base attack) So the rogue in the group could be about level 5 while the mage was 2, maybe 3 if he was lucky.

They did up Rogue's base attack for 3rd edition.

[hoverfrog]

It's true that the Rogues were consistently two to three levels ahead of anyone else. Not just the 2nd Edition Druid who got to double figures and just stopped.

[robertbevan]

as a player, i always like to start out at level 1. i want to experience everything my character experiences on his path to... well, usually an untimely death, but sometimes some badassery on the way.

we normally get to around level 12 or so before we get the snot beaten out of us by something we were to stupid to leave alone.

[Seharvepernfan]

I've only rarely played D&D with a live group; perhaps twenty times over a twelve-year span. That said, I've played a lot of D&D based computer games, and I know all about 3.5 D&D. I have a bunch of theories on how it should be played, some strong opinions on game-world building, and a fairly massive list of houserules.

I prefer starting at 1st level, and earning my way to 20th and possibly above. I don't like starting above 1st, I feel like I haven't earned those levels and that the character isn't really mine. Also, first level requires a playstyle and tactics that aren't present for higher level play. I like starting off dealing with tavern-basement infestations and feeling threatened by rats/dogs/birds/goblins/etc.

I can enjoy any level, and I don't think I would actually prefer one level over another, as long as I started at 1st.

[Doomboy911]

I usually start my games at level one and expect my players to develop their characters over time as they get stronger I seriously reward emotion motivated activities and character based. For example a cleric who was genuinely scared by a moment and prayed to his god for a healing spell felt an extra set of hands on his arms as his arm healed and it felt like it healed back stronger.

If the game calls for a great epic that we want to dive into right away than I start everyone a lot higher around the 8-10 cap where they start to feel awesome. I also think it's still the point where a bad fighter and a good wizard are relatively equal (now if it's a smart fighter it's a whole other story).

I enjoy playing myself at level 1 despite how weak I feel but I enjoy that fighting everything is sort of a bad idea. More stealth and intelligence comes in at around level 1 and slowly dissipates whenever someone can just fireball it. I've recently started in a game where we started at level 25 though and I have to say playing the mystic theurge is just too much fun to be healthy. I am hard-pressed to actually run out of spells. I'm severely overpowered but oddly enough everyone is roleplaying really well. The relationship between each other seems genuine and we've stopped caring about our mission (to kill off another party who are giants) and have set about screwing around. We're thinking about going on a fishing trip now that we've become gods. (Someone blew up Lolth).

I enjoy some decent experimentation.

[Gorgon_Heap]

But level is not only about combat, it's about all-around competence. A level 5 diplomat is better than a level 1 diplomat.
The range of concepts possible at level 1 is really small. You're limited to being a rookie in just about everything. Unless you don't care about consistency, I think this is a major point, specially in a RP-heavy campaign.

As I said, I just find it easier to ease people into their characters. If their "opponents" are of the same minimal level then their all-around competence is right where it's supposed to be.

I could ask why you're putting a level 1 diplomat into level 5 challenges. You're not, I know, but it's just the flip side of the way you phrased it. Anyway, they level after a few fun sessions and it's no big.

[ThiagoMartell]

As I said, I just find it easier to ease people into their characters. If their "opponents" are of the same minimal level then their all-around competence is right where it's supposed to be.

I could ask why you're putting a level 1 diplomat into level 5 challenges. You're not, I know, but it's just the flip side of the way you phrased it. Anyway, they level after a few fun sessions and it's no big.

I think you missed my point. I'm just saying level 1 games have less possible character concepts than higher level games and I thought that would be a concer in RP heavy games.

[Arbane]

I've been in two PF games - 1 started us at level 1, we've clawed our way up to level 6. It'll probably go a lot higher, given the Big bad we've seen...

The other one started us at level 2, which seems to make sense to me. It reached level 9 before going on hiatus, and who knows where that one will end.

[Wonton]

2nd edition still had the whole people level at different rates thing. (Which is part of why rogues got screwed in 3.5, nobody thought to up their hit die or base attack) So the rogue in the group could be about level 5 while the mage was 2, maybe 3 if he was lucky.

I think we had 3 fighters and 1 magic-user.

...What? Why are you looking at me like that? I said we were 13. :smalltongue:

[bigstipidfighte]

I tend to prefer levels 3-10. Earlier levels can be fun but are also a bit restrictive, and while high-level D&D can also be fun, I feel other systems do that sort of game better.

The game I'm currently running started at level 3 and has now reached 6, the current loose ends (one PCs gish enemy, one PCs upcoming attempt to destroy the world, and a festival I intend to hype more as the game goes on) should be wrapped up around level 10.

[Gorgon_Heap]

I think you missed my point.

Very likely.

And you are totally not wrong. For most people that is an insurmountable challenge.

[Roguenewb]

My personal preference is the danger level of 3-6, but I prefer the class features and abilities of 9-12. As a result, I usually have to give on one or the other. Its partially why I'm optimistic about 5e.

[Calimehter]

I've found many levels of D&D to be enjoyable.

Favorites are the E6 levels, though, at least for 3.X

[Element Zero]

I love to start at first level, but my optimum starting level is third. First feat, second level spells...you are no longer in as much danger of dying to a single, errant blow....and yet you are still weak and easily challenged. Third level is doubtless my favorite place to start.

[Techwarrior]

They did up Rogue's base attack for 3rd edition.

On the table yes they did. In practice the 2nd ed rogue had very close to the same numbers as a fighter did. So we lost plenty of to hit there, and they still left us rogues with our measly d6 hit die. :smallsigh:

[Curmudgeon]

On the table yes they did. In practice the 2nd ed rogue had very close to the same numbers as a fighter did. So we lost plenty of to hit there, and they still left us rogues with our measly d6 hit die. :smallsigh:
Yes, the core 3.x Rogue is really not suitable for combat. It took a lot of supplementary rules to address the problems of the class. Some of the highlights, which leverage the class's strengths (sneak attack and skills) for greater combat effectiveness:

Craven feat (Champions of Ruin): boost sneak attack damage, but become more vulnerable to fear effects
Uncanny Bravery ACF (Dragon Magic): trade uncanny dodge for resistance to fear effects
Lightbringer Rogue Penetrating Strike ACF (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft): make sneak attack apply to more enemies (but with reduced damage)
Greater Demolition and Greater Truedeath weapon augment crystals (Magic Item Compendium): makes sneak attack apply to particular types of sneak-immune enemies, with full damage
Golem Strike, Grave Strike, and Vine Strike swift action spells (Spell Compendium): sneak attack constructs, undead, and plants
spell trigger rule change (Rules Compendium): trigger a spell with the same action as casting it, instead of a standard action
Move between Cover use of Hide (Complete Adventurer): sneak attack away from a hiding place
Darkstalker feat (Lords of Madness): Hide from tremorsense, blindsight, & c.
Education feat (Eberron Campaign Setting): make all Knowledge skills class skills
Knowledge Devotion feat (Complete Champion): use Knowledge skill checks to increase attack and damage rolls
Savvy Rogue feat (Complete Scoundrel): make Rogue special abilities work better: deal STR damage even against sneak-immune foes, and "take 12" on skill checks

[ThiagoMartell]

On the table yes they did. In practice the 2nd ed rogue had very close to the same numbers as a fighter did. So we lost plenty of to hit there, and they still left us rogues with our measly d6 hit die. :smallsigh:

I can't see that.
Rogues had 1/2 base attack.
Fighters had full base attack, exceptional Str and weapon specialization.

[Techwarrior]

I can't see that.
Rogues had 1/2 base attack.
Fighters had full base attack, exceptional Str and weapon specialization.

Granted, but here's the important bit to a rogue, they had twice as many levels as most other characters. So, they had similar numbers to fighters, although were much more on par with Rangers and Paladins, which was fine as they had very similar ideas (trade Fighter only stuff for their special things).

[DrDeth]

Granted, but here's the important bit to a rogue, they had twice as many levels as most other characters. .

Having played it for a looong time, this was rarely the case. Generally the rogue would be one level ahead, the wizard one behind.

[metabolicjosh]

I go from level 1 to level 22
DM tries to kill us. We struggle until TPK and gain a level per fight because we fight epic guys at level 4

It is the suckiest most awesome thing ever

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm good anywhere below 17. Level 17, imho, is the point at which the system reaches the breaking point.

1, 2, and 3 are rough, since you're basically completely at the mercy of the dice, and they don't have any. These levels do have potential for certain types of adventures, that you can't reasonably do at higher levels, though.

I guess I'd have to say I'm a 5- 16 man, barring special circumstances.

[Gimur]

In my group, we usually start out at 5, and just play through the story arc the DM has planned. Although, to be honest, we have yet to actually finish one. Something always gets in the way, sheets are lost, and things just get completely out of whack. :smallfrown:

Currently, in the game I'm playing, we've reached 13, and the DM is expecting to be finishing up at ~17.
In the last game (which I DM'ed) the players got to ~15 before it just fell apart.

And, the next game (which I will be returning to the role of DM), I plan on running them through Curse of the Crimson Throne, then expanding from there. I'd like to see us hit 20, at least.

[ThiagoMartell]

Having played it for a looong time, this was rarely the case. Generally the rogue would be one level ahead, the wizard one behind.

Yeah, that doesn't even happen in Baldur's Gate and that game gives XP away like candy.