First a disclaimer: I have never played PF and only played a little 3.5.
The people I know that play 3.5 rarely start their characters at 1st level (or if they do they breeze through the first couple levels in a session or two). They say this is due to low character survivability and characters don't start getting really fun until at least 3rd or 4th level (again this isn't my opinion just what others have told me).
Since PF had the option to change these things about 3.5 and diddn't I assume that either
1) most PF players prefer starting at one or
2) those changes would have changed the system too much and is was just an easy fix to start at a higher level.
So PF players, what level do you normally start your campaigns at?
|
It really all depends on the campaign. I know I've played/ran a few games that had players starting at 5th level. It was so the players had already established being heroes and could work in some daring deeds into their back stories. But on the same hand you don't always have those really cool stories for your character if you didn't start at first. So like I said before depends on the campaign.
My campaigns begin at 1, almost always. Certainly the best ones do.
Typically, when we start a new AP, we start at 1st level. I think there are some single-adventures for higher-level characters, in which case we would start at the suggested level.
For preference, I like starting at 1st. You really get to know the character when you do that.
Since PF had the option to change these things about 3.5 and diddn't I assume that either
1) most PF players prefer starting at one or
2) those changes would have changed the system too much and is was just an easy fix to start at a higher level.
I think there's a little bit of an incorrect assumption here. I believe one of the major reasons it wasn't changed was so that it was (on a very basic level) still fully compatible with the OGL 3.5 materials, wasn't it?
I know they play-tested some ways of padding HP pools at 1st level, but ended up disregarding those options.
not that this actually answers the question (and i could be mistaken)
1) most PF players prefer starting at one or
2) those changes would have changed the system too much and is was just an easy fix to start at a higher level.
3) Starting at level 1 means those who wish to start at level 1 can do that, while those who wish to start at higher levels can do that, too. If it was changed, those who would want to start at lower levels wouldn't be able to.
When I run games, I start at level 2 at the very lowest, but i have pre-gen characters for Lvls 2, 5, and 7. Higher levels than that involve too many character choices (I think) for me to make for the player. That being said, I've only ever run one-shot games.
I decline to play in any game which starts below 5th level. Pretty much the only backstory which makes sense for a 1st level character is 'newbie' and I derive no fun from playing newbies. 5 levels, I find, is enough to have a neat character concept without having to shoehorn it into whatever the campaign is doing. Let's say you want to go Arcane Trickster, from Lvl 1. Are you going to go rogue first, then try to find the time to go to wizard school mid storyline? Perhaps you want to start off as an alchemist, the pick up a level or two of fighter for the BAB- but your campaign is set in the wild where there is no one to give you fighter training. I like care of the character setup "off screen" so I can focus on actually playing that character.
Most of the games I have played in start at level 1 or 2. I prefer to start a little higher, but it depends on the campaign. Really it is all about the story you are trying to tell. By mid levels the players have the ability to greatly impact major events, 12th level characters arent chasing down common theives or dealing with a small goblin camp. they are shifting the fate of nations, or dealing with threats posed against whole populations.
My campaigns begin at 1, almost always. Certainly the best ones do.The campaign that started at 15th and ended around 30th refutes your statement. :)
No it doesn't. My statement refers to my games, not yours. The best campaigns of mine have began at 1st level. I'm glad you had fun at 15th level though.
I began one game at 13th level and another at 25th, and both were a lot of fun. They've simply not been as good as those that began at 1st level though.
First a disclaimer: I have never played PF and only played a little 3.5.
The people I know that play 3.5 rarely start their characters at 1st level (or if they do they breeze through the first couple levels in a session or two). They say this is due to low character survivability and characters don't start getting really fun until at least 3rd or 4th level (again this isn't my opinion just what others have told me).
Since PF had the option to change these things about 3.5 and diddn't I assume that either
1) most PF players prefer starting at one or
2) those changes would have changed the system too much and is was just an easy fix to start at a higher level.
So PF players, what level do you normally start your campaigns at?
My campaigns start at level 1.
Survivability is relative. Encounters are just as dangerous at higher levels as they are at lower levels. If your GM is experienced then he should know how to balance encounters more effectively so PC survivability is not an issue or at least the PCs have more control over it. Now if they're given the chance to survive and they blow it, well I can't help you there. The players described above sound like combat-heavy, min/max type who are bored by anything non-combat related.
Most of the Adventure Paths start at level 1.
It's still risky in PF because you're only a little better than crap and that means sometimes characters die. I prefer this starting point because if there isn't a risk of dying then, frankly, you're missing an important element of the game.
|
|
My campaigns begin at 1, almost always. Certainly the best ones do.The campaign that started at 15th and ended around 30th refutes your statement. :)No it doesn't. My statement refers to my games, not yours. The best campaigns of mine have began at 1st level. I'm glad you had fun at 15th level though.
I began one game at 13th level and another at 25th, and both were a lot of fun. They've simply not been as good as those that began at 1st level though.
Should have said 'my best ones do'. :P
Most of the Adventure Paths start at level 1.
It's still risky in PF because you're only a little better than crap and that means sometimes characters die. I prefer this starting point because if there isn't a risk of dying then, frankly, you're missing an important element of the game.
Back in 3.5 DND I had one game where everyone started at 1st level.
I lost 5 characters in succession.
1) Dwarven Transmuter - beheaded by angry dwarf in town who thought a dwarven wizard was insulting.
2) Intelligent Fighter (18 int, spoke every language but druidic), cooked in his armor by a quasit via Heat Metal.
3) Stupid Barbarian. Charged an Ettin. Head knocked off like a teeball.
4) Human Ranger, killed while resting after being knocked into negatives twice. The monster came in, saw my character in bed, and slapped me to kill me.
5) Dwarven Cleric. Killed by being bullrushed off the side of a mountain.
I got REAL good at making new characters after that. The risk of dying can kiss my behind :P Most of those lasted 2 session max.
Freakin insane. I will always remember that.
Should have said 'my best ones do'. :PMy campaigns begin at 1, almost always. Certainly the best ones do.The campaign that started at 15th and ended around 30th refutes your statement. :)No it doesn't. My statement refers to my games, not yours. The best campaigns of mine have began at 1st level. I'm glad you had fun at 15th level though.
I began one game at 13th level and another at 25th, and both were a lot of fun. They've simply not been as good as those that began at 1st level though.
By your standards, perhaps. I was answering the question asked, and in perfectly valid English. I could say "You shouldn't take my comments to reflect on games I've not played," but I don't find that I need to qualify every potential interpretation of my comments, it is a message board and not a thesis paper. After all, if someone misunderstands, I can simply post a response to let them know they did so and clear it up.
:)
|
|
Should have said 'my best ones do'. :PMy campaigns begin at 1, almost always. Certainly the best ones do.The campaign that started at 15th and ended around 30th refutes your statement. :)No it doesn't. My statement refers to my games, not yours. The best campaigns of mine have began at 1st level. I'm glad you had fun at 15th level though.
I began one game at 13th level and another at 25th, and both were a lot of fun. They've simply not been as good as those that began at 1st level though.
By your standards, perhaps. I was answering the question asked, and in perfectly valid English. I could say "You shouldn't take my comments to reflect on games I've not played," but I don't find that I need to qualify every potential interpretation of my comments, it is a message board and not a thesis paper. After all, if someone misunderstands, I can simply post a response to let them know they did so and clear it up.
:)
This method of posting amazes me. Is it the fabled 'communication' I've heard about? X)
This method of posting amazes me. Is it the fabled 'communication' I've heard about? X)Should have said 'my best ones do'. :PNo it doesn't. My statement refers to my games, not yours.My campaigns begin at 1, almost always. Certainly the best ones do.The campaign that started at 15th and ended around 30th refutes your statement. :)After all, if someone misunderstands, I can simply post a response to let them know they did so and clear it up.
:)
A strange and wondrous beast, to be sure. And now I suppose I need to get the afore mentioned thesis paper into the printer and off to the professor....15 minutes til deadline!
We do start at 1st some time or at 3rd other time. Some games we just pick a level to start at and go from there.
Now as DM I find 1st level kind of dull. It's almost like wasting time gaining XP on mundane tasks before you get to a level were you can actually accomplish something. Not all games are like this but most are. Like CoT was like that but King Maker wasn't.
|
So PF players, what level do you normally start your campaigns at?
Well, my first Pathfinder I game, I ran it and we started everyone off at level 3 as a compromise.
My next one, I played and we all agreed to start at 1.
Holy crap, starting at level 1 is hard! We got our asses handed to us a LOT, especially when two hits with almost any weapon will drop you. "Medieval Vietnam" indeed.
Still, totally fun and I'd absolutely do it again. :)
|
If it's a homebrew game, I usually have my players start at 3rd level. They're a little more experienced and aren't likely to die from two hits. But they're still low enough level that they need to stick together and can still be motivated by the need to aquire things (wealth, magic items, glory, etc.).
If I'm running an adventure path then it's 1st level since that's what the adventure path usually assumes. That way I don't have to do a lot of converting.
Home setting.
1st is the default.
We recently started and finished a 12-15 level one to try out stuff for the campaing (and because we like high level play :P)
My campaigns start at level 1.
Survivability is relative. Encounters are just as dangerous at higher levels as they are at lower levels. If your GM is experienced then he should know how to balance encounters more effectively so PC survivability is not an issue or at least the PCs have more control over it. Now if they're given the chance to survive and they blow it, well I can't help you there. The players described above sound like combat-heavy, min/max type who are bored by anything non-combat related.
It actually inst relative. The danger is different at low levels for the same relative challenge. A single goblin is not meant to be a major challenge to even a 1st level adventurer, but 1 crit can kill even the toughest character at that level. At higher levels that isnt the case. Can encounters still be deadly? Ofcourse, but the ones that are have a CR reflecting that danger.
Any game I run starts at level 1.
So PF players, what level do you normally start your campaigns at?
If I'm running a full on 13+ levels gained campaign I usually start players at level 1. If I'm running a somewhat shorter campaign of 5 to 10 levels gained I usually begin somewhere around 4. If I'm just running a smaller adventure over a handful of sessions, levels 12 or 27 usually feels about right, depending on the group wants.
I like starting at level one becuase it is easier to make character taht way and harder to minmax starting gold. I like play at first level it is just fun and where I enjoy it and does not take forever shopping like starting at 5th level sometimes does and those campigns die out. Starting at higher levels does open up one new story for multiclass things like ninja paladins that was a ninja now is crusading to fix his past murders.