PDA

View Full Version : I was a teenage Batman: level optimization



Maglubiyet
2015-03-08, 07:36 AM
In D&D it used to be taken for granted that when you started a campaign everyone would roll up a 1st-level character. You'd work your way up from the bottom, savoring that +1 broadsword you earned after 4 or 5 gaming sessions. Anyone still play that way?

From what I've seen it looks like most people now pull fully-formed superheroes fresh out of the box and start there.

sakuuya
2015-03-08, 09:11 AM
I think you'd be interested in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?397674-What-Levels-Do-You-Start-At).

johnbragg
2015-03-08, 09:38 AM
My impression is that starting at level 1 is still the plurality option, but not the majority option. Even if you group the levels-beyond-first, "first level" is probably the most common starting point. Unless you get silly and use really broad level ranges after 1st. I'm sure if you grouped "1st, 2-10, 10+", 1st level would not be the most common. But whether you go 1st, 2-3rd, 4-7th, 8-12, 13-20, 20+, or 1st, 2-4, 5-7, 8-10, 11-15, 16-20, 20+ I don't think it makes much different.

Also factor in the number of times an experienced player has joined an existing campaign. That's almost never at first level. So that's another set of characters started as "superheroes out of the box" in everyone's personal experience files.

EDIT: Solaris' survey says that I am wrong. 1st level is most common, but not by much.

Xyk
2015-03-08, 09:34 PM
I usually start at level 3 because it gives more customization and makes the PCs just a little bit heroic from the get-go. They're still basically mortals and have to think of interesting ways to get by difficult obstacles, and are strong enough to be willing to take risks.

jaydubs
2015-03-08, 09:43 PM
Most of my games (as both a player and a DM) start from 3 or lower.

That's only the start of the campaign though. After campaign start, new characters roll in at the same level as the rest of the party.

icefractal
2015-03-09, 04:23 AM
Since one DM has been running Paizo AP's for the last couple years, we've started at 1st several times. Other than that, it varies - sometimes I like to start at a higher level and just advance slower, because it lends itself to different concepts. Also because many campaigns don't run long enough to go 1-20, so if we want to play those upper levels at all we need to start closer to them - or advance incredibly fast, but I prefer the former.

Personally though, even when I start a campaign from low level, that usually means 2nd or 3rd, for several reasons:
* Characters much less likely to die to single lucky great-axe roll.
* Multiclass characters can have a background that involves both things, rather than suddenly becoming a Wizard while out adventuring.
* Some of the LA-having races are fun, and starting above 1st makes them usable without kludges.

Talyn
2015-03-09, 03:44 PM
I have never played in a successful D&D campaign (I am here defining "successful" as "lasting more than four sessions") that did not start at level 1. I have been playing the game for 20 years, since I got the AD&D starter kit in middle school, and I've played every edition.

Campaigns that start at higher than 1st level have never gotten any steam. I've had the occasional very fun one-or-two-shot that started higher, but for campaigns, the meat and drink of tabletop RPGs, starting at level one has always been a necessity for me.

oxybe
2015-03-09, 04:47 PM
In D&D it used to be taken for granted that when you started a campaign everyone would roll up a 1st-level character. You'd work your way up from the bottom, savoring that +1 broadsword you earned after 4 or 5 gaming sessions. Anyone still play that way?

From what I've seen it looks like most people now pull fully-formed superheroes fresh out of the box and start there.

Eh. The +1 magic sword is overrated, or should I say overly romanticized: once you've used it a few times, you realize that it's really not much better then your old sword. Anyone can appreciate the slight accuracy boost, but that's all it really is.

Now, onto the topic at hand. The low levels, 1-3, tend to be rather swingy and anything that doesn't have a d10 or better for HP is usually pretty frail, which means your margin of error is too small. Should you happen to get caught out of position or a bad roll comes your way, D&D doesn't really allow for a fighting retreat so you very often have to stand your ground and hope for the best while fully expecting the worst. You also don't really have many interesting options if you're playing a martial character at those low levels and if you're playing a caster you can only cast a few spells before becoming a commoner in a funny hat. The lack of character building options at low levels often means the character concepts you can begin play with already realized are pretty limited: you often have to pick a very broad concept or one that doesn't care if it has a mechanical backing.

I also find it hard to justify making a character with long-term goals at the low levels because of the swingyness involved, heck even being invested in a character is often a shot in the dark: how many characters have you(a general you, not the op in particular) lost due to a random crit or a max damage hit after taking a solid one? I don't know about anyone else, but I've had more then enough to turn me off of those levels.

The last few campaigns I played in, we started at level 1 as they were adventure paths and built around that level, but I can't say I enjoyed playing those levels.

And that's the reason why I always push for a slightly higher starting level: low level just isn't interesting in play for me and doesn't offer me anything I care for.