D&D High-Level vs. Low-Level

[Bulix]

Well, I have three questions for you...

1.- What is the most enjoyable/fun level for 3 PCs to play? :smallbiggrin:
2.- Should I just create characters that level for them to start playing?
3.- Recommended classes for a party of 3.

They pretty much know all the rules, not as much as me (DM), and I want to give them characters who can survive an unarmed strike yet can't single-handedly destroy an entire city... (Exaggerated)
Three players and I want to kind of have different roles for each...

Thank you, :smallsmile:

[Urpriest]

If they pretty much know all the rules, why are you making their characters for them?

[The Boz]

Level 3-9 is my favorite zone.

[Gavinfoxx]

Ask the players! Ask them what sort of story they want to tell and be a part of. Then let them make characters -- but if you know the system, maybe you can coax them to a particular level range / optimization level / set of classes (and power level for said classes) that fit the sort of story they want. You can dial these three variables down to any given story set.

And don't make characters FOR the players. Set boundaries, sure, but much of the fun for many playes is in making a character!

I think you might be new to the D&D 3.5e thing... so I am going to give you my big essay that I give to newbies! Maybe you can find something useful in it?



"D&D 3.5e is a very...interesting game system. At it's heart, it is a game which started with several assumptions: that fantastically wealthy, violent hobo land pirates go underground to the homes of things that look different than them, kick down the doors to these homes, kill the inhabitants, and take their stuff. Then they go back to town, sell most of the stuff, keep the useful bits, buy things that help them go to newer and different places where things that look MORE different then they, kill them, take their stuff, et cetera. It is a game where the stalwart fighter stands in the front and swings his sword, the rogue looks for and disables traps, or perhaps sneaks around to stab bad things with a dagger, the Wizard stands in the back and blasts things, and the Cleric keeps all of them healed while doing this. This is the 'heart' of the game because that was how the game was played in the past, in the editions before 3.5e, often because it was a competitive, team event played at tournaments where people wargame for points, and there is a single team which is the winner. Further, you might not know the people on your team, having just met them five minutes ago at a convention, and so everyone played a simple role that was easy to understand and pick up and go, and in the old rules, was actually generally a fairly solid way to get through modules in a short amount of time. This is also where the idea of an adversarial GM that is trying to kill the player characters comes from. Every assumption that is 'weird' or arbitrary in the game stems from things inherited from this idea (or similar ideas from 'back then') regarding how the old games used to work.

However, that's not often how the game is *played* these days, and for the most part, we aren't interested in playing that particular legacy game with it. It has been quite some time since 3.5e books started coming out, and people have had lots of time to look at them and think about them and tinker with them and figure things out. They've come up with several interesting conclusions. Namely, that if you look at the toolset represented by all these books, you essentially have a fantastic array of lego pieces to make characters to tell any sort of fantasy story you want, because Wizards of the Coast tried to be inclusive of a huge variety of fantasy gaming styles in their rules. People have also figured out that there is a dramatic and huge variation in the power level of the 'lego pieces' -- that is the classes and options tied to them -- when you start doing things with them other than the old edition legacy assumptions. So given that, the question is this: what sort of story do you want to tell with your characters, and what power level and complexity level do you want in the rules? Do you want to be people altering the fabric of reality to fit their very whims, or the gritty soldier for whom permanent death is a real possibility in any fight -- in other words, something lower power level like Lord of the Rings, or the wuxia swordsman who is somewhere in between the two examples? Any sort of Fantasy story is a possibility, but you have to know what you want, first!

Of course, just because anything is possible, doesn't mean that there isn't something close to a consensus amongst experts as to what the system is best at. What they say is something along these lines: the system is best for fantastic characters, fantasy superheroes of some sort (but not silver age uber-superheroes though), doing crazy, incredible things to the world around them, things which are overtly superhuman and heroic. While 3.5e is capable of much lower power and grittier things, it really starts to shine when you accept the power level of 'everyone has superpowers of some sort', provided you make choices of the correct legos appropriate to that power level. This is the case especially because of, if you are attempting to actually simulate reality with the game rather than simulate certain types of stories, things get 'wonky'. Of course, if you want to use rules based on D&D 3.5e to simulate actual reality, there are third party products such as Codex Martialis which do this admirably.

Also, there is a reason we aren't playing 4th edition. The reason is this: Wizards of the Coast realized that D&D 3.5e was laughably, ridiculously unbalanced. However, in their quest to make something manageable, they have reduced the game to only a miniatures tactical combat system where the scope of the sorts of things the characters can do which the actual rules can cover is very, very limited. This is intentional on their part, and is maybe what they had to do to balance the game. Unfortunately, it does greatly limit the sorts of stories that can be easily told with the rules in the system, even if you know your way around it backwards and forwards. This has been mitigated somewhat as 4e went on, but is still somewhat true. This is not the case with 3.5e -- if you know your way around it, you can make anything for any sort of Fantasy story.

Finally, I thought I should make a note about some of the continuations of 3.5e which you might have heard of, such as Pathfinder and it's lesser known cousin Trailblazer. Some folk may have claimed that these fix all of the balance problems in the game. This is not true; what they do is merely continue support for the game, though they do attempt to fix some balance problems that become issues for several groups, but they for the most part ignore the inherent power and versatility differences of the 'legos' themselves, though they have been gradually adding options that allow improvements in the capability of the lower performing classes, much like D&D 3.5e did in it's actual run. They do attempt to make changes so that everyone, especially those very low-optimization level players, has some interesting and fun things to do, and for the most part, they succeed in providing obvious options for lower power gamers. However, you should note that there is at least ONE D20 system which provides the breadth of possible abilities and feel of classes and customizability that 3.5e offers, and large parts of the 'feel' of 3.5e, while keeping balance intact between the classes. This system is Ruleofcool's Legend, and I encourage you to check it out."

[limejuicepowder]

If they are newer players I would suggest starting at 1st level. Yes characters at this level are very fragile and prone to TPK walking down a flight of stairs, but starting them at higher level can sometimes overwhelm a newer player just because of the number of abilities a character has (and the tactile and system mastery the monsters demand). I also firmly believe that players should "earn their stripes" by playing at least a few characters from 1st level before skipping to the higher stuff.

And yes, if the players have a decent grasp on the rules, why would you make their characters? My gf makes her own characters (well at least character concepts and class choices), and I have to remind her each session how to total up an attack roll.

[GenghisDon]

Well, I have three questions for you...

1.- What is the most enjoyable/fun level for 3 PCs to play? :smallbiggrin:
2.- Should I just create characters that level for them to start playing?
3.- Recommended classes for a party of 3.

They pretty much know all the rules, not as much as me (DM), and I want to give them characters who can survive an unarmed strike yet can't single-handedly destroy an entire city... (Exaggerated)
Three players and I want to kind of have different roles for each...

Thank you, :smallsmile:

5-10 (or 3-12)
sure
whatever works. try to cover the bases, but be mindful of relative power

Ex: Spirit Shaman (28 pts), Beguiler (31 pts), Barbarian (34 pts)
clericX/fighter4 (or simular dilution), warmage, rogue
psychic warrior, duskblade, scout (+3 pts)

note: if you are making the characters, you can certainly plan ahead long term or tweak the campaign to suit the PC's. This allows games that probably wouldn't work well otherwise.

[Talionis]

E6 is a variant where characters only get six levels then advance at a new feat every 5000 xp, so they amass a lot of feats.

People choose level 6 to end character growth because with no spells greater than third level and with fewer spells per day, Casters are not Gods and all types of characters can be developed pretty well.

I also think that six is a good place to start characters if they plan on going farther since you may have a level of a prestige class or might start one next level. But you have enough abilities to do more than swing sword every turn.

But the most important thing is that you have fun and create characters that don't outshine one another and a campaign that gives each character a moment in the sun.

[Eldariel]

All these questions are too subjective for our opinion to really be useful for you, but for what it's worth:


1.- What is the most enjoyable/fun level for 3 PCs to play? :smallbiggrin:

12-20 (13 or 15, generally; 6 & 9 are pretty good too). The lower the level the simpler the game is tho (as they level up, don't be scared or surprised by the paradigm shifts tho; things like distance and acquisition of information become near-trivial once Divinations and Teleportation come into play for instance).


2.- Should I just create characters that level for them to start playing?

At least ask them what types of characters they want to play (like the broad strokes of what they want to be doing; magical or mundane, stealthy or heavy, support or frontline, etc.). Depending on the power level you're aiming at, you can then proceed to suggest appropriate stuff or let 'em do everything themselves with some DM help to avoid the traps in the system (that one guy going Monk and taking Toughness as every feat he gets).

It's important to let them do stuff themselves, of course; it's their character after all. At the same time if they're newish you should help them out tho; how to mechanically realize a concept. For instance, a friend of mine who hasn't had much time to play D&D over the last years started again with us and wanted to play a big, strong frontline warrior with a huge sword. So I pulled Warblade out for him, had him take Exotic Armor Prof. (since he was going heavier-than-heavy anyways), put him on a Large-sized Fullblade, had him take the "Jotunbrud"-feat and helped him pick his maneuvers a bit. This way he's playing pretty much exactly the character he envisioned, he's in line with the power level of the rest of the party and the game's been a blast for everybody thus far.


3.- Recommended classes for a party of 3.

Well, you generally want one guy with Trapfinding (or handwave away the need of having that class feature to find more difficult-to-find traps), one guy capable of casting Cure/Vigor-spells or using Wands there-of & somebody who can somehow take hits (whether it's by being immune to damage or having a lot of HP is immaterial).

[ericgrau]

(3-5)-(13-15) IMO. Better to start low and level up yourself, gives a closer connection to your character.

Players generally enjoy making their own characters rather than being handed one. Just ask them to not go too overboard and check them over for problems before you start. If you don't know something really well then read it in the book and google it. If it pops up in 15 high optimization builds, that might be a red flag.

I don't think any class or class combination is truly essential but at low levels you might want at least one heavy melee and at high levels you might want at least one caster. The classic 3 man party is fighter, thief and wizard though in D&D at minimum some between battle healing (e.g., via a wand) might be necessary for such a group. Besides clerics and druids, bards, paladins and rangers can use cure wands. Or even rogues with use magic device (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm) (and a lot of rerolls and a backup wand in case he jams the first one for 24 hours).

[Eldariel]

I don't think any class or class combination is truly essential but at low levels you might want at least one heavy melee and at high levels you might want at least one caster. The classic 3 man party is fighter, thief and wizard though in D&D at minimum some between battle healing (e.g., via a wand) might be necessary for such a group. Besides clerics and druids, bards, paladins and rangers can use cure wands. Or even rogues with use magic device (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm) (and a lot of rerolls and a backup wand in case he jams the first one for 24 hours).

Really, the way it was usually done is going Rogue/Cleric/Wizard (tho in 3.5, Rogue/Druid/Wizard is probably even easier) since the Fighter is the only role that doesn't bring anything unique to the table (basically just a Cleric+ for combat lacking all the utility). Of course, in 3e there are a billion ways to do it in other ways too but this is how we generally did it in AD&D 1e.

Low-level play was too hard without a Cleric, Rogue/Thief was necessary for trapfinding and higher level play was too hard without Wizard (not to mention, Sleep on level 1 is such a get-out-of-jail-for-free card).

[Coidzor]

Most of the classes with a lot of options can destroy a city singlehandedly or at least "creating" their own help by level 9 or so, so you're mostly going to have to rely on your players agreeing not to go out of their way to be like that.

[Amphetryon]

My 2cp:
Start around 6th level with Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage. Have them all take Tomb-Tainted Soul. Warmage can aim toward a Rainbow Warsnake so his power level doesn't drop off as the game advances, while the Dread Necromancer can take a slightly more martial bent to augment his undead army, and the Beguiler is the trapmonkey and "subtle" magic wielder; all three have at least half-decent social skills due to casting stat or available Class Skills. Everyone is competent, everyone has a different role and a different feel to their Character, nobody is dead weight.

[Ashtagon]

Well, I have three questions for you...

1.- What is the most enjoyable/fun level for 3 PCs to play? :smallbiggrin:
2.- Should I just create characters that level for them to start playing?
3.- Recommended classes for a party of 3.


Have you tried asking your players these questions? They are the ones wo will have the correct answers, not us.

[Wonton]

Have you tried asking your players these questions? They are the ones wo will have the correct answers, not us.

I wish I could upvote this. Talk to your players first and foremost. But, since you asked...

Most people say that the "Sweet Spot" is about levels 3-8. Personally, I would say anything below 9 is fine - that's the point where the PCs start using Teleport as the solution to every problem and the game starts going downhill. It's also the same point where the Fighter stops being the sum of his feats and starts being the sum of his magic items (assuming the regular WBL and "Magic Mart" rules).

[HunterOfJello]

I think the level of a game largely depends on the DM. I know how to DM for low level games, but not for high level ones. I tried and didn't know what the crap I was doing, so things got a bit weird and out of hand.


I'd like to learn how to DM for high level parties, but I'm not sure where to start learning that sort of thing.

[eggs]

Well, I have three questions for you...

1.- What is the most enjoyable/fun level for 3 PCs to play? :smallbiggrin:
2.- Should I just create characters that level for them to start playing?
3.- Recommended classes for a party of 3.
1. I prefer starting at 5. All the characters can do their things (the Paladin mount or ranger spells don't just pop up out of nowhere) and the low-level frailty is mostly gone, while daily uses and the scope of available effects remains limited. I usually enjoy levels 8-10 most, but growing to and from that range is less inelegant than just throwing the PCs there to stagnate.

2. Character-building is like half the d20 game. I would seriously lose interest if anyone were building my character for me; probably not a great idea.

3. For new players? Beguiler/Cleric/Duskblade is pretty slick. But I'd open the PHB and ask them.

[Malroth]

5-12, lower than that and you can't meet the prerequs for any good combos without tons of cheese, higher than that and most DM's don't really know how to keep up with party capibilities. As for suggested party, I like Ampatheron's suggestion of Warmage/Dread Necro/Beguiler

[ericgrau]

Really, the way it was usually done is going Rogue/Cleric/Wizard (tho in 3.5, Rogue/Druid/Wizard is probably even easier) since the Fighter is the only role that doesn't bring anything unique to the table (basically just a Cleric+ for combat lacking all the utility). Of course, in 3e there are a billion ways to do it in other ways too but this is how we generally did it in AD&D 1e.

Low-level play was too hard without a Cleric, Rogue/Thief was necessary for trapfinding and higher level play was too hard without Wizard (not to mention, Sleep on level 1 is such a get-out-of-jail-for-free card).

In most casual games a low level cleric won't hit hard enough. Just hand someone a wand. If anything trapfinding isn't really essential, or if you really want it all it takes is a 1 level dip. Tricky dungeons (not just traps) are pretty sweet and it would be nice to be in a dungeon with all kinds of unusual challenges constructed, but this is unfortunately uncommon nowadays. Anything's possible but low level is a pain with a squishy low damage party like that. It may do everything but at low levels it does everything poorly.

I ran a level 1 competition a long long time ago (starting at long range), though it stopped partway through due to time constraints. One of the better entrants was the simple barbarian, whereas the sleep bomber was near the bottom. Sure it's great when you both go first and it works, but otherwise stabbing the clothy was much more reliable.

Like I said any party might do well enough no matter what the mix and you don't truly need any role. But I might put together some kind of fighterish/wizardish combo where the buffed out fighter(s) cleans up after the foes the wizard(s) divided before they can recover.

[MukkTB]

Party Roles
Healing
Out of combat healing can be taken care of with cheap magic items. In combat healing isn't very effective.
-You don't need a dedicated healer.

Fighting
Monsters will try to kill all members of the party that go into combat. Anyone too squishy will die. Combat is the main challenge the party is likely to face. If the party can't end combats quickly and decisively people will end up dead.
-If you are going into combat everyone needs to be capable of fighting. That doesn't mean using mundane weapons and defenses but at low level mundane fighting styles are more efficient.

Trapfinding
Traps often just penalize you some HPs. You don't need a trapfinder if you have enough charges in a wand of healing. But that depends more on the DM than anything. A DM that sticks tons of deadly traps everywhere needs to be catered to. Most of the time though it really doesn't matter.
-You need trapfinding or you need an extra wand of cure light wounds. IE you don't need trapfinding.

Utility Magic
Magic tends to break campaigns. "I'll teleport across the valley past all the encounters you prepared." The DM would probably prefer you not make huge use of it. On the other hand some adventures may require that you be capable enough with magic to deal with a magic related challenge or enemy.
-Magic is more powerful than not magic so you probably want some.

Party Face
The DM will cut you a ton of slack if you are entertaining in your roleplay and spend time talking to his NPCs. Magic can replace diplomacy pretty early on. These things make a high charisma/diplomacy nice, but not entirely necessary.
-Its nice to have a party face.

Survival Expert
Mages can make food and water.
-Survival expert means you maxed out your perception role. You spend your time hoping to see the monsters before they see you. This is necessary.


I'd like to point out that most campaigns are run at moderate or easy difficulty with lowish optimization. Basic competence will see you along just fine. Parties don't have to be built to be able to deal with all circumstances either. A dungeon delving group will require something different than an all mounted party or a pirate crew.


I've had an idea for a while for an evil party wizard/dread necromancer/cleric with all party members taking the feat to heal from negative energy. They all keep undead and in combat they lay down negative energy indiscriminately. It would be terribly amusing. Amusingly terrible.


Maybe you want a group of competent good adventurers that aren't to hard to DM for. Crusader/Ranger/Bard would do the trick. They're not overly squishy. They have a wide variety of competence, but they don't bring tier 1 or 2 brokenness to the table.

[Gnorman]

I would also chime in for E6, because it manages to keep games engaging and exciting while still affording your players the chance to feel like conquering heroes. The vast gap in power level between the classes is not nearly as prominent, and the mundane sword-swinging fighter can still feel like he's contributing as much as the all-powerful wizard (who isn't exactly all that powerful when limited to third level spells, though he's certainly still a force to be reckoned with). Encounters are memorable because they're all dangerous - a roving band of orcs or a cunning troupe of kobolds can still pose an enormous threat, and no enemy is reduced to a sad little speed bump. Large threats like dragons and giants feel world-shatteringly powerful, which makes for a victory all the sweeter when your players triumph against overwhelming odds using tactics, strategy, and planning. The tarrasque is an apocalyptic scenario instead of a feather in your cap. From a DM's perspective, it's also a lot easier to manage - there aren't as many variables to keep track of, creating opponents and challenges can be done fairly quickly and dirtily, et cetera.

It's also the basis for most of the kinds of fantasy stories traditionally associated with D&D - Tolkien, Howard, Moorcock, Anderson, and Vance, so there's a nice bit of history and legacy involved. Depending on what kind of touchstones you have for the fantasy genre, this can be a good or a bad thing.

Yes, there's a place for plane-hopping, god-killing, reality-altering adventures in D&D. But if these are new players, you might want to ease them into that.

[RFLS]

-snip-

This is...very useful. Would you mind if I copied this out to give to my players? It covers basically everything.

[ericgrau]

It's pretty good except balance has been laughed at in every single edition including 4th, and every edition has involved some claims of "now it's balanced unlike before" too. It's all relative I suppose. I've noticed a lot of other gaming systems and homebrew that makes me shudder (tho I love homebrew otherwise) by comparison, including those that are supposed to be super balanced. It's both a problem to watch out for and yet it's a problem to overfix it. Like a seesaw.

[ThiagoMartell]

Have you tried asking your players these questions? They are the ones wo will have the correct answers, not us.

So much this.
Ashtagon is my Favorite Playgrounder of the Week.

[Endarire]

My recommended party of 3 is Wizard, Druid, Psion/Spell to Power Erudite going Thrallherd for minions. You cover the essentials.

[Gavinfoxx]

This is...very useful. Would you mind if I copied this out to give to my players? It covers basically everything.

Go right ahead! Just be sure to tell us how it was received!