Starting at Level 3

[Yakk]

Because players start at level 1, characters have to have a full set of flavour abilities right out of the gate.

But if they give too many abilities at level 1, multi-class splashing becomes too effective.

Even with the current bit of balance effort, L 1 characters have rather insane saves -- characters who repeatedly multi-class end up with far higher saves than a pure class character.

Then there is the (Level+3) skill caps, x 4 skill points at first level, max HP at first level, and a bunch of other rules that seem to exist to make L 1 characters sufficiently different from one another and viable.

What if characters started at Level 3?

You could move abilities around so that a character isn't fully defined until Level 3. A L 1 barbarian might not have rage yet, a L 1 fighter need not get a bonus feat, etc.

Characters would have room to multi-class from the start, without using strange "Level 0 times two" rules.

Because you can't just splash 1 level in order to get every ability a starting character gets, characters can start out more distinct.

Doing this would require a boost in the "baseline" power of NPCs. Children might be Level 1 and Adults mostly Level 2 (all that playground fighting sure adds up to alot of XP!).

This would require a bit of homebrewing to get it to work right. Can anyone think up any concerns?

[Gryndle]

I almost always start my campaigns at level 3. Not so much for the reasons you've stated, but for sheer survivability of the characters.

[Wizzardman]

Same here, actually. I find lvl 1 parties tend to die too easily--its fun to make players worry about their characters hp, but not so much fun if they can only handle five or six goblins before having to take a break and heal. I mean, at third lvl, even wizards won't die from a commoner's stray crossbow bolt--usually.

That, and at first lvl, most spellcasters are very weak. They only get two or three powerful spells a day, which means that they can have approximately two rounds of battle before they resort to tossing 'ray of frost' at people and hoping no one pays attention to them.

All the same, I find the idea of rearranging the class system to focus on lvl 3 isn't a bad idea. That might actually allow you to get rid of some of the NPC classes--commoners will just be low-lvl experts [you'll have to keep that class in], and warriors can just be low-lvl fighters.

[daggaz]

I like level one!
(but level two is twice as good)

[Bobthedwarf]

All the games I have played in I have always started at level three, Partially because level 1 and 2 are almost obeselete due to the fact that you gain XP really fast due to challenge rating. Plus one just sounds so..... lonley and crappy.

[El Jaspero, the Pirate King]

If I ever DM again I am absolutely starting my players at level 3 or 4. 1 is just so boring...you sit there and pray for good rolls and hope your HP hold out.

[Umarth]

Some of the most fun games I've been in and games I've run have been level 1 games.

Normally I see the low HPs and abilities, plus wrangling a new group together, mean that the first few levels are less combat focused.

I think you'll also find with changing classes to not really start until level 3 that you'll make multi-classing excessivly difficult. If you wanted to be a ranger / rogue you now have to accept two "dead levels" of minimal abilities before becoming effective in the new class.

It seems like one of your big concerns with character dipping is the saves (which I think are the brokenest part of multiclassing). If you use something like the rules below for saves you can avoid that.


Rules for multi-class saves
Each time you gain a level, instead of the standard save increase, you instead add 1/2 a point to your strong saves, and 1/3 of a point to your weaker saves. Total saves will round down (per standard DnD rules) at all times. If you gain a level in a class with a new strong save, the first level of that class will grant you a +1 bonus, instead of a +2. If you have any classes that have the same strong save as the new class, you do not receive this bonus. This reduces the total saves of multi-classed characters, and brings them in-line with the saves of a single-classed. Note that under this system, your starting saves are actually 2.5 and .333333.
An example of this system:
A first level fighter has saves of +2 (actually 2.5)/+0/+0 (actually .3333).
If he gains a 2nd fighter level, his saves go up to +3/+.6666/+666. If he then gains a level of rogue, his saves go up to +3.3333 (this is now a weak save)/+1.666 (+1 for rogue)/+1. If he gains a level of bard at 4th level, his saves would then increase again to +3.6666 (fort is weak for bards)/+2 (Rogue already gave him the +1 bonus)/+2 (will is strong for bards).
An equivalent character, under standard rules, would have saves of +3/+4/+2.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I almost always start my campaigns at level 3. Not so much for the reasons you've stated, but for sheer survivability of the characters.

Oh, but that's the point. An old way was to make everyone make 2 characters, because only 1 was likely to survive the dungeon. All this detailed character backgrounds and progression planning had the fatality of the game. First level characters are supposed to die with only a few reaching level 2. In 3rd ed you have too many choices to make at first level which in turn makes you too attatched to your first level characters. Dungeons and Dragons is supposed to be about glory seeking adventurers as likely to succeed as the migrants during the Gold Rushes.

In my most recent game I made everyone start at level one with identacle equipment and 15 NPCs of the same level and equipment. Only two of the original characters survived the first adventure to make it to second level but that makes them so much more meaningful.

I've personally always wanted to do a campaign where PCs frequently die and by the end the party will contain none of the original members just have a single goal continued on across the generations. Every time most of the PCs die then I'd advance the game 30 years, age the surviving characters and have the players with dead characters make new younger ones. Aging penalties would make sure nobody lasts past too many near total party kills

Legendary heroes are always as defined by their death as much as they are by their life.

[Triaxx]

I made an item to counter act this sort of thing, called the 'Order of the King'. Or something similar in the event there isn't a king...

Order of the King
Description:This silver scroll resides in the inventory of the leader of the group, and heartens the group giving them the strength of the knowledge that the King has utter faith in them in the beginnings of their quest, and ultimate victory.
Effects: A party in possesion of an Order of the King has double hit points, and takes a +3 on all saves.

It lasts until terminated by the GM, so you can cancel it at level 3, or a specific point in the campaign.

[bosssmiley]

Starting at level 3 is great sometimes. It means characters have a bit more survivability (better hp), a bit more equipping cash to throw around (how many starting level 1 characters have you lost to lack of a potion of CLW? :smallfurious: ), and they get those tasty synergy bonuses to skills from the get-go.

Personal note: I play with Action Points usually. With those in the game tasteless bleeding to death, or dying through sheer bad dice rolls, isn't so common a 1st level experience. Most players I know resent spending more time on char gen than they do on playing; and character death half-an-hour into their first adventure puts *some* newby players off entirely.

"Since when does the hero die halfway through the first reel?" :smallfrown:

[Maroon]

Legendary heroes are always as defined by their death as much as they are by their life.
"Corion. L1 high elven fighter (M). 198 xps. 328 turns.
Died on 3/4/2005.
He broke his leg while kicking at the air on level 3 of a dangerous cave at the Drakalor Pass."

I've always defined legendary heroes by the length of their adventuring life, myself. The problem with level one characters dying is, obviously, that they die at the paws of a ailing rat.

[magic8BALL]

...why level 3?

Fighters Specialise at level 4.
Paladins gain their mount at level 5.
3rd level spells start flying around at level 5-6.
[insert favourite BAB max class here] gets two attacks at level 6.

oh... I may have answered my own question...

...but I like to start campaigns at level 6. I call levels 1-4 training. Anyone with under 4 HD is still in training, an adolecent, and so forth. This give the group a little lee-way to muticlass, have a bit of level adjustment, a few racial hit dice, and still stand up to what I throw at them.

At level 6, the PC's arn't fresh out of [wizard, fighter, etc etc...]school, but they are still far from masters, particularly if they are multiclassed and/or of an unusual race.

[The_Ferg]

I don't think level one is all that bad, really. Yeah, you're low on HP, but you should be going up against things that either dole out little damage or have a hard time hitting an AC above 13 or 14 (and if you have below that, then don't get in melee). At 3rd level, it should be no less difficult to survive than at 1st. This is a DM problem, not a character creation problem.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Agreed with Ferg. The point of DnD is character development, actually thats the whole point of any role playing game. Its like saying, "well he was born, some stuff happened, and now hes level 3, go from there." it gives no backstory, or true development of character. sure one can be invented for the character if so desired, but the reason that i see for making a lvl 3 or higher starting party is so you can skip all that and get to the doing stuff. Im not saying that it isnt good to start at higher levels once and a while (about every third game or so with my DM we start at 3rd level, but those are reserved for times when its just one or two players and the dm and we just want to kill some monsters, run a crawl of some sort, and have some fun around the table, not for his epic quests). So, obviously you can houserule whatever you think works best, just from experience, starting at level one makes the game more involving and therefore more fun for multiple sessions.

[trollkin]

Agreed with the last two posts.

Basically levels 1-5 are some of the most fun levels for the games I run. The players tend to feel more vulnerable, and tend to think things out more and plan. I generally see more interesting tactics and problem solving from low level characters than high levels who tend to rely more on just using their combat prowess.

Plus, I like starting the players off with that feeling of insignificance in the world, and gradually having them climb up the social ladder.

[Tormsskull]

My group always starts at level 1. If you skip levels 1 and 2 (or even worse, levels 1-5) your characters aren't really legitimized. IMC it is an accomplishment to survive until level 6, as often PCs die before hand. I'm not sure how you could really take pride in your accomplishments as a player if you skip some of the most difficult portions.

[StickMan]

Then there is the (Level+3) skill caps, x 4 skill points at first level, max HP at first level, and a bunch of other rules that seem to exist to make L 1 characters sufficiently different from one another and viable.

What if characters started at Level 3?

You know they only gain X4 skill points and max HP at Charater level 1 not ever class level one right. You only get thoughs things for your first class.

[Dausuul]

I always start people off at level 3, absolute minimum--more often 4-6. I can't stand playing, or running games for, low-level characters.

[Yakk]

You know they only gain X4 skill points and max HP at Charater level 1 not ever class level one right. You only get thoughs things for your first class.

Yes, I know. And I find it cheesy that your first level gives 4 times as many skill points. It seems to exist in order to make level one characters sufficiently different from one another.

Level one players have double-HD (max roll is about the same as double) and quad-skill points. Level one characters get about twice as many benefits per level as other classes.

Heck, look at the assload of feats a L 1 fighter gets:
Martial Weapons (all), Simple weapons (all)
Tower Shield Proficiency
3 armor proficiencies
1 bonus warrior feat

Because a Fighter needs to be sufficiently different than other classes at level one, they have to front-load fighter abilities.

This cheapens the abilities fighters get -- the fighter "core" only costs a single splash level. A class that only knows how to use light armor, who doesn't have lots of abilities that require light armor, is one fighter splash level away from being able to use every weapon and armor and shield in the game.

And the skill monkey classes? Why don't they add rules to other classes like "if your first level is paladin, your lay on hands is that of a paladin 3 levels higher". It seems tacked on.

Heck, look at the ranger -- because of fears of ranger-splashing, ranger's don't get their combat style until L 2. So we have a L 1 ranger who knows he is about to dual-wield weapons, but should not buy the feats to actually do it until he reaches L 2.

You can see this kind of thing done to alot of 3.0 classes for 3.5. Moving flavour abilities up to L 2 and 3 in order to prevent spla****is, and stripping flavour from starting characters in the process.

I can't help but think that things would work out neater if players started at a level above 1. This gives multiple levels for classes to gain core abilities and differentiate from each other, it removes alot of the need for L 1 exceptions (max HP, 4x skill points, etc) and level-space to make truely different classes.

[fangthane]

"Corion. L1 high elven fighter (M). 198 xps. 328 turns.
Died on 3/4/2005.
He broke his leg while kicking at the air on level 3 of a dangerous cave at the Drakalor Pass."

I've always defined legendary heroes by the length of their adventuring life, myself. The problem with level one characters dying is, obviously, that they die at the paws of a ailing rat.
Heh... I'm currently running my players through a personally-developed, homebrewed adaptation of the Drakalor Chain... The idea being that it's a pocket dimension trapped behind an artifact (and Khelevaster and Guth'Alak are still around, though most others have died in the thousand years since Andor was defeated) Glad to see that someone other than me still knows about ADOM though. :)

I agree though, first level characters are meant to die. Usually when I run a level 1 start, I have my players make up two characters with the same rolls so that they've got a spare "in case." I've never had a level 1 party with less than 25% fatality prior to level 2.

[magic8BALL]

...dont get me wrong... I love playing level 1-6. Some of my best characters have been levels 1-6... thing is, there's not a lot to do at level 1-6. everything is... tame.

Wizard: "oh no! TWO 3rd level warriors! What are we to do?" *burning hands*
Fighter: *hit* *cleave* "...I'm done...oh, combat over."
Cleric: "woot, I dont need to burn a cure light wounds like with the Orc Horde"

...and the dragons are... wyrmlings. They shouldn't be out on their own. And if they're not, well, mummy and daddy are nearby, for a nice EL15+ at least.

As far as storey line and plot go, level 1-6 are a failure. To call upon Oots, their storey starts in a litches dungeon. A litch has a minimum CR of 11 or somthing, yes? They level up a few times, meybe, then defeat the Undead Villan in how maney rounds? It wasn't even a fight!

Yes thats a cartoon loosly based on D&D, but it's still got a point. Level 3-5 for a campaign start if you dont want to bore your players with a few levels of "two, maybe three hits dead" encounters, and instead want to jump straight into the storey line of your freshly prepared world.

[Triaxx]

For some reason, AD&D did levels one-three better than plain D&D.

[Mewtarthio]

As far as storey line and plot go, level 1-6 are a failure. To call upon Oots, their storey starts in a litches dungeon. A litch has a minimum CR of 11 or somthing, yes? They level up a few times, meybe, then defeat the Undead Villan in how maney rounds? It wasn't even a fight!

The Order is believed to be around level 12.

[Logos7]

I Tend to start at level 2 but no higher, because it allow's multiclassing without resorting to either 3.0 dual class start off ( which in my opionion blew balls) or just a story part, sure i lived with monks all my child hood, but am a fighter, but im sure that the monk training is going to kick in any minuet now.

I heavily favor low level's

[Balesirion]

I generally like starting somewhere between levels 6-10, lower when I want to develop the character more, higher when I want to start out with more power. I generally don't like playing at the very low levels.

[belboz]

It looks to me like a fair bit of this discussion is off the OP's point: How do you nerf one-level "splash" characters? This doesn't just mean starting the party at L.3, like some people do for survivability. It means starting the party at level 3 and changing the rules for levels 1-3 so that level 1 abilities are spread out across those three levels. That second part is really important, and is the core of the idea.

I don't think it's a bad one. Here are some other ways to do it, though:

1) Drop the notion of a preferred class. That *seriously* discourages a 1-level splash.
2) Don't allow multiclass characters to get the free proficiencies, feats, etc. granted by level 1 in a class (except their first). They can be taken normally, of course.
3) (Harsher version of 2) Make the (usually bonus) proficiencies, feats, etc. requirements for taking a level of the new class. This allows you (partially) to drop the strange conceit that you can ret-con a character so that they were studying the second class on the sly the whole time.
4) Make a feat type, "Class training [class]," which is a prerequisite for entry into the relevant class. First-level chars get the appropriate feat for their class as a bonus feat (it represents their apprenticeship or whatever). Multiclassing characters must take it normally before they can multiclass; in that case, it represents a significant investment of time into studying the new class.

[Tormsskull]

2) Don't allow multiclass characters to get the free proficiencies, feats, etc. granted by level 1 in a class (except their first). They can be taken normally, of course.
3) (Harsher version of 2) Make the (usually bonus) proficiencies, feats, etc. requirements for taking a level of the new class. This allows you (partially) to drop the strange conceit that you can ret-con a character so that they were studying the second class on the sly the whole time.
4) Make a feat type, "Class training [class]," which is a prerequisite for entry into the relevant class. First-level chars get the appropriate feat for their class as a bonus feat (it represents their apprenticeship or whatever). Multiclassing characters must take it normally before they can multiclass; in that case, it represents a significant investment of time into studying the new class.

Somewhere, a powergamer's head just exploded.

[belboz]

Well, yeah. Not that there's anything wrong with powergaming (ultra-high-powered campaigns aren't my preference, but that's a taste thing), but given that Yakk doesn't like 1-level splashes, I assume he/she wants a campaign with a lower level of power. Splashing 1-3 levels to get "the good stuff" is at the absolute center of powergaming.

I particularly like #4, myself. It's a fairly small cost to someone who wants to take a couple of classes far enough to qualify for a combo PrC (just one feat--PrCs explicitly obey different rules), but it's probably not worth it for a "good stuff" splash into a class.

[TheOOB]

I generally start my campaigns somewhere between level 3 and 6, I usually only start at level 1 if theres some very new players.

Level 1 characters are extreamly fragile and hard to design encounters for, a couple levels really makes it easier to make things that are challenging, but not deadly.