Starting First Time/New Players Off At Level 2?

[creakyaccordion]

Hey guys! I'm about to start a campaign where the players run heists for a local Black Market, where at the end of the first session they come back to their headquarters after their "trial mission" to see if they're fit for the job, but find that everyone else who organized the Black Market has been arrested and they're now in charge of the organization.

My question is this: do you think it would be too difficult/intimidating for the players to start off at level 2 instead of 1 in 3.5? I've started a lot of campaigns at level 1 in the past 2 years because I've played with a lot of new groups due to moving and having different friend groups wanting to play, and the mental strain on making so many level 1 appropriate first sessions has worn me dry. As someone who's been playing 3.5 for so long that I can't gauge how difficult character creation is for new players, is starting at level 2 that much harder? Here's the DnD experience level of all the players:

3 players have played ~2 sessions of 5e with me
1 player has played a whole campaign of 5e with another DM and then the same ~2 sessions of 5e with me
1 player has played said ~2 sessions of 5e and has passing familiarity with Pathfinder
1 player is totally new

Thank you for your input!!

[Palanan]

It doesn’t look like anyone in your group has actually played 3.5, so it’s probably safer to start them at level 1.

I remember very well how confused and overwhelmed I was the first time I tried making a character in 3.5. It didn’t help that there were other first-time players at the table who were garbling information from the DM and confusing us all further. And that was just to put together first-level characters, never mind adding a second level.

You know your players better than anyone on this forum, so ultimately it comes down to your familiarity with them and your instinct for what they’re capable of. But given their wide spread in gaming experience, starting at first seems like the safest option.

[Glimbur]

Level 2 characters are sturdier in a fight and a little more competent in general. +1 to many skills or another feat or more spells/day but still just level 1 spells. I would endorse starting at 2, but encourage them to have 2 levels in the same class. Multiclassing is a huge charm of the system but it is also easy to screw up.

[GrayDeath]

Level 2 characters are sturdier in a fight and a little more competent in general. +1 to many skills or another feat or more spells/day but still just level 1 spells. I would endorse starting at 2, but encourage them to have 2 levels in the same class. Multiclassing is a huge charm of the system but it is also easy to screw up.

Fully agree. Thats how I usually do my "newb Groups". On Level 1 totally random deaths are too prevalent for my tastes.
Be sure to help them build though, and be willing to allow some later changes if its encessary for them to enjoy their characters.

[Temotei]

A friend of mine gives +15 HP to all characters. Makes the first few levels a lot less dangerous in terms of hp damage, but you can still easily go down if you're not careful. If you think that's too much, maybe just give +5 or +10?

[MeimuHakurei]

Level 2 is also nice because when you level up in the campaign, Level 3 gives you a whole lot more than just stats - characters get their second feat (excluding possible bonus feats from classes), 2nd level spells become available and you should start to get your first magic items.

[bean illus]

Level one is fun to play, especially for new players. It's more fun to become someone important when you started out as nobody.

With that said. Time can stack up, and slip away in dnd campaigns. If time is limited, and you don't want it to take all summer ... this is what I do.

Abandon xp till your players reach the level you want to play at.

It's fairly easy for the DM to keep them alive for one or two sessions. Throw some 1/2 hd vermin, some understaffed goblins, some skill challenges, and some fist fights at them, until they learn their characters.

Advance them to 2nd (and then 3rd?) after 1 or 2 sessions (ask them if their ready).

After a few weeks they are where you need them, and you 'lose' nothing.

[Elkad]

I'd start at L1 as well.
Just make sure you give enemies simple d4 weapons if you worry about lethality.
Run two sessions and level them up, no matter what the XP table says.

[Quertus]

Personally, I'm all about starting off around level 6. That way, the differences between classes is more pronounced. Instead the Fighter having a +1 to hit over the Wizard, they have +3 to hit (before gear) and iterative attacks. Instead of the Rogue having +4 compared to untrained skill checks, they have +9, making a huge difference in their capabilities. Etc etc.

[Divine Susuryu]

Personally, I'm all about starting off around level 6. That way, the differences between classes is more pronounced. Instead the Fighter having a +1 to hit over the Wizard, they have +3 to hit (before gear) and iterative attacks. Instead of the Rogue having +4 compared to untrained skill checks, they have +9, making a huge difference in their capabilities. Etc etc.

Agreed in general but not in this case specifically. Levels 1 through 5 are the tutorial, and 6+ is the game proper.*

1st level is pretty crap for any player type no matter how you spin it, with characters dying pretty much at random, having few interesting capabilities, and being numerically quite similar.
2nd level would be my goto point for absolute newbies who had never played a TTRPG before simply because of the HP buffer preventing those random deaths.
3rd level is my ideal starting point for players who have played other games or very low system mastery players who still know some rules. There's a bit of variety in what you can do by this point.
4th level... nothing wrong with it as a starting point, but there's not much in the game that has an interesting breakpoint here. Sorcerers? Not enough to justify it over 3rd or 5th
5th level is when your character is starting to rise from "NPC but with a fancier backstory" to "Player Character" in my mind. Good place to play heroes who aren't just their village's strongest person.
6th level is when you are genuinely standing above NPCs and becoming someone special in the world. This is the point where the actual game begins.

So in this case, 2nd level or 3rd level would both work.

*In my opinion. Yes, some people like E6 blah blah blah, all hail the holy fixer of games etc.

[The Kool]

My large group starts brand new players out at level 3, with max HP for those three levels. It helps massively for survivability. I do like starting at 1 but it can be a risky grind, and you really have to gauge if your players will enjoy that or if they'll just be timidly trying to scrape by until they're a bit higher in level. On the other hand, if you want to start at level 1 and just be harder to kill, consider tripling level 1 HP. I've seen other games (SWSE for example) do this to fair success.

As some people have suggested, low levels often feel like a tutorial. I feel like the game starts at level 3, personally, but it's true to be said that around level 5-6 the game begins to step into a new tier of power. Starting here is a conscious decision to start the game in a higher power tier. The tiers of play from 5e translate perfectly fine into 3.5e. While a very valid choice, I don't recommend it for new players. The farther into the levels you get, the more choices and options are thrown at the players right at the front when they don't know what they're doing with them yet. This can easily lead to overwhelmed players and players making suboptimal choices because they don't know yet what works and what doesn't.

[bean illus]

Personally, I'm all about starting off around level 6. That way, the differences between classes is more pronounced. Instead the Fighter having a +1 to hit over the Wizard, they have +3 to hit (before gear) and iterative attacks. Instead of the Rogue having +4 compared to untrained skill checks, they have +9, making a huge difference in their capabilities. Etc etc.

This can still be accomplished with accelerated leveling. I wouldn't start a level 6 with these players who have never played 3.5.


Agreed in general but not in this case specifically. Levels 1 through 5 are the tutorial, and 6+ is the game proper.*

1st level is pretty crap for any player type no matter how you spin it, with characters dying pretty much at random, having few interesting capabilities, and being numerically quite similar.
2nd level would be my goto point for absolute newbies who had never played a TTRPG before simply because of the HP buffer preventing those random deaths.
3rd level is my ideal starting point for players who have played other games or very low system mastery players who still know some rules. There's a bit of variety in what you can do by this point.
4th level... nothing wrong with it as a starting point, but there's not much in the game that has an interesting breakpoint here. Sorcerers? Not enough to justify it over 3rd or 5th
5th level is when your character is starting to rise from "NPC but with a fancier backstory" to "Player Character" in my mind. Good place to play heroes who aren't just their village's strongest person.
6th level is when you are genuinely standing above NPCs and becoming someone special in the world. This is the point where the actual game begins.


So in this case, 2nd level or 3rd level would both work.
.

and still, playing one session at level 1, two sessions at level 2, and 3 sessions at level 3 and so on, would place beginning players much more comfortably in their builds. Level 5-6 play is only a few weeks away.

[Divine Susuryu]

and still, playing one session at level 1, two sessions at level 2, and 3 sessions at level 3 and so on, would place beginning players much more comfortably in their builds. Level 5-6 play is only a few weeks away.

For those who can get a game to work weekly, maybe, but many of us cannot. And I totally disagree that 1st level is necessary at all - in fact, it'd probably put off more players than it encourages because you're really weak and die really easily.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think Divine Susuryu wrote up a good breakdown, there. I personally favour starting at level 3 for low-level games, and level 7 or 8 for higher-level games. That's the era where the first sorcadins and Swiftblades come online, and those are the best.


and still, playing one session at level 1, two sessions at level 2, and 3 sessions at level 3 and so on, would place beginning players much more comfortably in their builds.
A lot of builds don't come online until level 5+. For example, the bog-standard paladin charger doesn't get its core trick (Spirited Charge) until level 3, and it doesn't get the related iconic class ability until level 5 (Special Mount). No amount of playing at level 1 will actually help you get comfortable in the build, because it plays totally differently at level 3. I think it's better to start at a higher level, and ignore* everything besides your core trick and some general mechanics (Spot checks and so on).


*Not literally ignore, but rather pick the defaults, i.e. the paladin always picks Ride and Diplomacy for skills. Saves a bit of effort and is still decently flavourful, if a bit, well, standard.

[Troacctid]

I'll add that you don't need to create a new level 1 scenario each time. You've got new players, so you can just reuse one of your old ones. Not only will they not know the difference, it'll save you prep time.

[Quertus]

This can still be accomplished with accelerated leveling. I wouldn't start a level 6 with these players who have never played 3.5.

I'll do you one better - I routinely start 7-year-olds off at level 6+.

Part of the reason is, per @ExLibrisMortis,

level 7 or 8... That's the era where the first sorcadins and Swiftblades come online, and those are the best.

A lot of builds don't come online until level 5+.

If you want to play X, it's best to start where you're actually playing X.


Agreed in general but not in this case specifically. Levels 1 through 5 are the tutorial, and 6+ is the game proper.*
[.

Good point. I use - ready for this? - an actual tutorial. I give new players 1-on-1 time to learn the system, their characters, etc. No point eating everyone's time with Billy's "learning the system" tutorial.


I'll add that you don't need to create a new level 1 scenario each time. You've got new players, so you can just reuse one of your old ones. Not only will they not know the difference, it'll save you prep time.

Also this. You can always reuse content.

[Divine Susuryu]

Good point. I use - ready for this? - an actual tutorial. I give new players 1-on-1 time to learn the system, their characters, etc. No point eating everyone's time with Billy's "learning the system" tutorial.

Using an actual tutorial as a tutorial? Your insight is tremendous :smallwink:

It was more an analogy, for what it's worth. A shorthand way of saying "skip this content if you know what you're doing". To actually teach, I agree that one-on-one is better.

[Cosi]

You could start players at level one, then give out a level per session up to ~6 (or wherever you wanted to start). That minimizes the initial complexity, but also lets you avoid spending too much time at very low levels.

[Quertus]

You could start players at level one, then give out a level per session up to ~6 (or wherever you wanted to start). That minimizes the initial complexity, but also lets you avoid spending too much time at very low levels.

Two issues with this: one, it means that you're playing 6 different games for the first 6 sessions; two, some players really hate leveling their characters.

New players are the ones who most need stability, most need the support to build instincts. When their character is constantly changing on them, and what was a TPK last week is roadkill this week, it runs counter to their ability to learn the finer points of the system.

And, as odd as it may sound, some players consider the act of leveling their character to be a chore. My gleeful "you get to level up" is often meet with "do I have to?". So this solution would be detrimental to many of my players' enjoyment.

[The Kool]

A lot of builds don't come online until level 5+

See, what you're missing here is the whole "new player" thing. For casual players who don't get to play often, for someone used to the system, for someone with an innate talent for optimizing, sure. But you're assuming these brand new players even have builds. If they don't by this level, they're certainly behind. But if they start lower level, they get the chance to grow into their build, decide as they go, and grow their understanding of the character with their understanding of the system. Starting them at level 5 or 6 is throwing them into the deep end, expecting them to, if not make the builds themselves, at least understand how they work and what they operate on and keep track of different feats and abilities and items when they don't even know how a skill check works yet.

[MeimuHakurei]

Two issues with this: one, it means that you're playing 6 different games for the first 6 sessions; two, some players really hate leveling their characters.

New players are the ones who most need stability, most need the support to build instincts. When their character is constantly changing on them, and what was a TPK last week is roadkill this week, it runs counter to their ability to learn the finer points of the system.

And, as odd as it may sound, some players consider the act of leveling their character to be a chore. My gleeful "you get to level up" is often meet with "do I have to?". So this solution would be detrimental to many of my players' enjoyment.

I agree with you that there isn't a single correct answer for both starting level and levelling speed. I for one enjoy building for Level 1-3 because it's a space that requires utmost care and there's very little online resources on handling lower level environments well (in fact, most build optimizations only look at Level 20). I still enjoy levelling up, because I both enjoy having a character built up from the ground as well as having a clearer image of the character's strengths and weaknesses, allowing me to pick magic items and feats etc. much more effectively than I would starting out.

Level 6 as a starting point enables iterative attacks for martial characters, spontaneous casters will have 3rd level spells available, the third base feat comes online (which includes Leadership as an option) and the vast majority of Prestige Classes are now attainable. It's a very solid starting point.

[Quertus]

See, what you're missing here is the whole "new player" thing. For casual players who don't get to play often, for someone used to the system, for someone with an innate talent for optimizing, sure. But you're assuming these brand new players even have builds.

Less "build" and more "concept". Let's look at some concepts I've fielded.

"I want to play..."
* A werewolf Ninja
* A shapeshifting Druid
* A Dragon Monk
* An Assassin
* Someone with undead minions
* Someone with minions
* A fairy
* A knight (in full plate) with a magic sword
* The head of the thieves' guild

Let alone the stories they want to tell, like hunting a T-Rex, or fighting demons, or rescuing the princess from a Dragon.

Playing at 1st level, and fighting goblins with what is barely more than a goblin themselves? It just doesn't measure up to new players' expectations of how cool the game should be, IME.

[The Kool]

I'll have to halfway concede your point there. Halfway, because it's significantly dependent on what the players expect from the game and can handle in complexity. Which is where it falls back to the DM to get a feel for the players and make the call. I'm always a fan of introducing brand new players with premade characters (pick one of these that you like and give them some fluff) that are very simple to handle (fewer active abilities or things that you need to remember you have) just until they get the basics handled and their feet under them in the system. Once they can follow what's happening, I let them completely rebuild their character. If you have a group of players that want to be level 6, and you want to let them be level 6, but they can't handle it mechanically yet? Create a set of premades at a low level and run them through a one-shot to walk them through the basics of the system. If they don't need the tutorial, then let them dive in headfirst.

[Piggy Knowles]

I'm currently DMing a group IRL consisting of one person who has a little bit of 3.5 experience (and a lot of tabletop RPG experience in general), one person with a decent amount of tabletop RPG experience but no 3.5 experience, and two people with little to no experience at all. I made the decision to start at level 3. We're only one session in but thus far it seems to be going well - all the players can do something interesting and it's not ridiculously fatal, and we're still about four levels off from rocket tag being feasible without silly levels of optimization.

Creating characters was a bit more complicated because of the late start, but I helped the newer players out, and I'm being very generous with retraining rules while the players get a good idea of how 3.5 works and what exactly they want their characters to do. The only real stumbling block almost everyone seemed to have was figuring out exactly how the skill point system worked for a non-1st level character, but the fact that I'm allowing skill retraining for the early part of the campaign means that I was able to encourage my newer players to just pick something simple for now, and retrain later if they end up deciding that their original choices were a mistake.

[Quertus]

If you have a group of players that want to be level 6, and you want to let them be level 6, but they can't handle it mechanically yet? Create a set of premades at a low level and run them through a one-shot to walk them through the basics of the system. If they don't need the tutorial, then let them dive in headfirst.

I take the opposite approach, and give them more options than they can handle. That way, they learn what they enjoy, and their next character can focus on that, if they so choose.

I find having options to choose from far better for new players than the linear Fighter, who can only contribute by hitting things with a stick.


The only real stumbling block almost everyone seemed to have was figuring out exactly how the skill point system worked for a non-1st level character, but the fact that I'm allowing skill retraining for the early part of the campaign means that I was able to encourage my newer players to just pick something simple for now, and retrain later if they end up deciding that their original choices were a mistake.

That's... a good idea. I might have to steal that plan, should my players ever have such issues.

[MeimuHakurei]

I take the opposite approach, and give them more options than they can handle. That way, they learn what they enjoy, and their next character can focus on that, if they so choose.

I find having options to choose from far better for new players than the linear Fighter, who can only contribute by hitting things with a stick.

I also think that you're fine giving newbies a character with wide options as long as they have some simple fallback plan that requires little skill to do effectively. The Cleric in particular is exceptionally newbie-friendly: You can give a player a premade loadout in spells and explain the preparation mechanic, which allows them by RAW to replace as many of those spells as they desire. Even if they choose ineffective options, they can easily spontaneously convert them into a cure spell that helps out the party quite a bit. Additionally, clerics have quite a bit of martial prowess, allowing them to hit things with a stick if they don't feel like spellcasting at the moment. Finally, the vast array of support spells allows them even to help out a party that has a higher optimization, although it may require some help by the more experienced party (like the Wizard briefing them on what they found out with divinations).


That's... a good idea. I might have to steal that plan, should my players ever have such issues.

One interesting gateway option I saw was that a player was running some kind of undead minionmancer (I don't recall all the details) and they let a newbie join in by having them control their tricked out undead minotaur to just ram in the monsters with. A similar thing could be done for other kinds of intelligent player minions like cohorts or a select few bound outsiders/elementals.

[The Kool]

I take the opposite approach, and give them more options than they can handle. That way, they learn what they enjoy, and their next character can focus on that, if they so choose.

I find having options to choose from far better for new players than the linear Fighter, who can only contribute by hitting things with a stick.

I prep these options for players who wind up asking "now which one do I roll for that again? Ok the 20-sider..." *picks up d12* "now what do I add to that again?" for the 12th time that session. I'm more than happy to help them learn, but I've seen enough of this that I gear things to smooth out the learning curve as much as possible. In my experience, if a new player is capable of handling more, they'll ask to make their own character anyway. And if they offer to make their own character then they can handle it.

[ExLibrisMortis]

But you're assuming these brand new players even have builds.
Yes. Any player, new or old, has a character concept, and a build that gives it mechanical form. For new players, the build often sucks (e.g. druid with Self-Sufficient, I'm the master of the wilds!), but it's still a build.

Pointing a brand new player to a simple combo, like Spirited Charge + Special Mount, is the best way to introduce 3.5-style character building. If you're worried your players won't be able to mechanically support their concept, either go with premade characters, or do a thorough session 0.

[Quertus]

I prep these options for players who wind up asking "now which one do I roll for that again? Ok the 20-sider..." *picks up d12* "now what do I add to that again?" for the 12th time that session. I'm more than happy to help them learn, but I've seen enough of this that I gear things to smooth out the learning curve as much as possible. In my experience, if a new player is capable of handling more, they'll ask to make their own character anyway. And if they offer to make their own character then they can handle it.

... wow. Having taught multiple 7-year-olds to play (mechanically if not tactically) competently, I am aghast that you are playing with people less competent than 7-year-olds. I... I'm not sure what I'd do in such a situation.

[The Kool]

... wow. Having taught multiple 7-year-olds to play (mechanically if not tactically) competently, I am aghast that you are playing with people less competent than 7-year-olds. I... I'm not sure what I'd do in such a situation.

I have also played with people who have never played before and dive right into making their own character with no help, catch right up to speed with almost no questions asked. People tend to fall in the middle, where they make their own character and just need some help understanding it and some assistance getting a solid grasp of the system in the first session (a lot of "make sure I'm doing this right" and not "what do I do"). I DM for a large-scale group that's seen something on the order of 200 new players in the past several years, so I've seen it all. But all the same, I'm impressed at your 7-year olds.

The point I'm trying to make is that when your character is littered with things that need to be remembered in order to be useful, a new player more often than not is going to be focused on remembering core mechanics and will forget about situational bonuses and special actions. Casters can be good but there will be a lot of stopping to explain how the spells work, fighters are great for people who are not terribly invested and just want some simple way to participate, etc.

[MeimuHakurei]

... wow. Having taught multiple 7-year-olds to play (mechanically if not tactically) competently, I am aghast that you are playing with people less competent than 7-year-olds. I... I'm not sure what I'd do in such a situation.

I think the major problem with system learning for such players has more to do with motivation than actual capability - it does take a notable amount of effort to understand the mechanics of 3.5; just a few hours at most, but still significant enough for the game to look too complex to want to learn it (and 5e didn't actually significantly trim the mechanics down, just the math portion). Although there's some learning disabilities such as dyscalculia that could play a factor there.

[Troacctid]

Less "build" and more "concept". Let's look at some concepts I've fielded.

"I want to play..."
* A werewolf Ninja
* A shapeshifting Druid
* A Dragon Monk
* An Assassin
* Someone with undead minions
* Someone with minions
* A fairy
* A knight (in full plate) with a magic sword
* The head of the thieves' guild
All of those can be done at level 2.
* Shifter, lupin, werewolf template class, or PHB2 variant druid
* PHB2 variant druid or totem druid
* Dragonborn
* Swordsage
* UA variant necromancer, death master, or evil incarnate
* UA variant necromancer, death master, evil incarnate, druid, or UA variant bard
* Feytouched w/ half-fey transition class
* Psychic warrior and craft the full plate yourself with starting gold
* A rival ousted you as guildmaster and now you have to win your guild back

[Quertus]

something on the order of 200 new players in the past several years, so I've seen it all. But all the same, I'm impressed at your 7-year olds.

The point I'm trying to make is that when your character is littered with things that need to be remembered in order to be useful, a new player more often than not is going to be focused on remembering core mechanics and will forget about situational bonuses and special actions. Casters can be good but there will be a lot of stopping to explain how the spells work, fighters are great for people who are not terribly invested and just want some simple way to participate, etc.

Thanks.

200 new players in 5 years would be almost 1 a week. So :smalleek:

What I find is, IME, it's better to give the players 5 options, and them only use 1, than give them 1 option, and find that they want 5.

I'm not fond of forcing the player to remember lots of things; I like letting them play the game by remembering any of several things.


I think the major problem with system learning for such players has more to do with motivation than actual capability - it does take a notable amount of effort to understand the mechanics of 3.5; just a few hours at most, but still significant enough for the game to look too complex to want to learn it (and 5e didn't actually significantly trim the mechanics down, just the math portion). Although there's some learning disabilities such as dyscalculia that could play a factor there.

"dyscalculia"? I think you just made that up.

The mechanics of 2e (and earlier) are roll a d20, or a d10, or maybe something else, you want high, or low, or high without going over, or... And how you arrive at your target number is equally arcane.

The mechanics for 3e are roll a d20, you want high. Add it to your bonus, done.

Just a few minutes is more like it.


All of those can be done at level 2.

* A rival ousted you as guildmaster and now you have to win your guild back

That's pretty impressive... Well, other than the last one.

[Troacctid]

That's pretty impressive... Well, other than the last one.
If you don't like that, then:

* Extra Contacts feat or literally just backstory and that's it

Done.

[Powerdork]

"dyscalculia"? I think you just made that up.

Google is right over there, or DuckDuckGo if you prefer.

Edit: No, seriously, all the world's best public knowledge repositories are at your fingertips if you have access to the Giant in the Playground Forum. Exercise that privilege, please.

[The Kool]

Google is right over there

I'm particularly fond of linking to LMGTFY. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=discalculia) There's even a checkbox for if you want to be extra passive aggressive. (http://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=discalculia)

EDIT: But I will, in all honesty, always encourage people to take advantage of this astounding privilege and educate themselves at every opportunity.

[Divine Susuryu]

Google is right over there, or DuckDuckGo if you prefer.

Edit: No, seriously, all the world's best public knowledge repositories are at your fingertips if you have access to the Giant in the Playground Forum. Exercise that privilege, please.

Not being condescending is also free. Perhaps Quertus genuinely didn't know the term.

[Quertus]

Not being condescending is also free. Perhaps Quertus genuinely didn't know the term.

Thanks, but I deserved it. I am not familiar with the term, and forgot the emoji (or color) to indicate that I was joking.

Plus, I happen to have too many people in my life right now trying to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions by blaming conditions (which they usually don't actually have), so my irritation bled through unfairly.

I love learning, so I may actually research the term when I'm less irritated. Senility willing.