Should the game start at 3rd level?

[DRD1812]

I'm looking for opinions on “the first level experience.” I’ve run into lots of hot takes about "first level is boring" and "all my games start at higher level" over the years. So here's my question: Should third level be the new first level? Or is there some other way to solve the twin problems of "extremely-fragile low-level mages" and "boring low-level play?" And if there is value to be found in start at 1st, what is it?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

[Azothath]

that totally depends on the players and GM.
I don't think it's an option for new players who need to develop some Game System proficiency.

If people complain about wimpy low level wizards - well, they're not particularly and they're just playing them wrong and focused on power gaming.

I have felt for a long time that GMs need to play DnD 3.5, Champions 6ed, Call of Cthulhu(chaosium), Stormbringer, GURPS, Toon!, Paranoia, and HeroClicks or Marvel Super Heroes. The first 5 kinda span the RPG styles.

[OmniMage]

Death by papercut. Its what happens when you play wizard and don't invest in the toughness feat or constitution... or forget that you get max hit points at first level.

[TxSam88]

No, games should start at 1st level, however, that being said, you should advance very quickly the first few levels. Certainly 2nd level at the end of your first game, maybe even level 3 (taking time to level up to 2nd in the middle of game, after an encounter).

Mages are no more fragile than any other non-martial class at first level. Players just have to be conservative, and boring low level play is just code-speak for "I'm a power gamer" and want to do all the cool stuff.

[DeathlessOne]

For me, starting at 1st level is part of the 'hero's journey' that I like to experience in game play. Where chance is just as important to your survival as skill and brute strength. It is all about the emergent game play and how what the character experiences during those first few levels of struggle shape how they will progress in the future.

I'll echo TxSam88 and say that 'low level is boring' is quite telling of the type of player you have at your table.

As far as solving the 'fragile mage' issues, invest in Constitution, feats, or just don't play one. Each class has its inherent strengths and limitations.

[Chell Raighn]

Azothath wrote:

If people complain about wimpy low level wizards - well, they're not particularly and they're just playing them wrong and focused on power gaming.

I have to whole heartedly disagree with you on this… from my experience people complaining about wimpy low level wizards aren’t looking to powergame, they are looking to have their choice of class actually feel like the class they chose and not be forced to play as an amateur archer for half of every session because they don't have the spells to actually be a spellcaster beyond one encounter per day.

Its not even a “playing the class wrong” situation either, because that is just an endless back and forth debate topic that you’ll never get everyone to agree on.

Every class that is NOT a 9th level spell caster can actually play as their closen class at level 1… it is only 9th level spellcasters who have to find other ways to play their class at level 1. Honestly, Sorcerer, Oracle, and Arcanist are the only 9th level casters that actually get to play as full spellcasters at 1st level… and Druids rarely ever play as full spellcasters after they get wildshape (Druid honestly could have been changed to a 6th level caster and I doubt anyone would have really questioned it)

[Azothath]

Chell Raighn wrote:

Azothath wrote:

If people complain about wimpy low level wizards - well, they're not particularly and they're just playing them wrong and focused on power gaming.

I have to whole heartedly disagree with you on this…

That's fine. They read the class and knew what they signed up for in level 1-3...

The only real difference (in this level range) is in weapon proficiencies(at -4 that's big!), about 1 BAB, and maybe a feat.
The focus on ability scores is moot as there are class requirements and metagame build drivers that motivate players to take a tailored ability score array. Everyone has their reasons and why they made those choices. All these strategies have been well studied over 20 some odd years.

[Chell Raighn]

Azothath wrote:

Chell Raighn wrote:

Azothath wrote:

If people complain about wimpy low level wizards - well, they're not particularly and they're just playing them wrong and focused on power gaming.

I have to whole heartedly disagree with you on this…

That's fine. They read the class and knew what they signed up for in level 1-3...

The only real difference (in this level range) is in weapon proficiencies and about 1 BAB.
The focus on ability scores is moot as there are class requirements and metagame build drivers that motivate players to take a tailored ability score array. Everyone has their reasons and why they made those choices.

I could care less about BAB, HD, and weapon Profs… if I choose to play a full spellcaster, I’m choosing it to be a spellcaster… when at level 1 you have so few spells that you are forced to either cantrip spam for 1d3 or use a play like a different class until you gain a few more levels, to me (and many others) that is a problem. Imagine if as a Fighter you were told that you can only swing your sword 5 times per day, after that you have to throw rocks for 1d3 no strength bonus or attack with a fragile stick at -4 penalty. That is how spellcasters play at level 1.

[Azothath]

Chell Raighn wrote:

Azothath wrote:

Chell Raighn wrote:

Azothath wrote:

If people complain about wimpy low level wizards - well, they're not particularly and they're just playing them wrong and focused on power gaming.

I have to whole heartedly disagree with you on this…

That's fine. They read the class and knew what they signed up for in level 1-3...

The only real difference (in this level range) is in weapon proficiencies and about 1 BAB.
The focus on ability scores is moot as there are class requirements and metagame build drivers that motivate players to take a tailored ability score array. Everyone has their reasons and why they made those choices.

I could care less about BAB, HD, and weapon Profs… if I choose to play a full spellcaster, I’m choosing it to be a spellcaster… when at level 1 you have so few spells that you are forced to either cantrip spam for 1d3 or use a play like a different class until you gain a few more levels, to me (and many others) that is a problem. Imagine if as a Fighter you were told that you can only swing your sword 5 times per day, after that you have to throw rocks for 1d3 no strength bonus or attack with a fragile stick at -4 penalty. That is how spellcasters play at level 1.

That's your personal axe to grind with the class.

I'm just not commenting on if it's balanced or not. That's not gonna go anywhere productive.

If you're throwing rocks or using sticks.. well... there IS a weapons list and some have 0gp cost or very low cost(obsidian dagger 1gp). After your first successful foray you could purchase a new weapon... that's part of the game.
===
back to the topic

I've played where we started at 3rd or 5th level. It does open up some options IF the GM uses the old ELs for races from 3.5. It takes a GMs touch to get the balance right for their game.

[Chell Raighn]

Azothath wrote:

That's your personal axe to grind with the class.
I'm just not commenting on if it's balanced or not. That's not gonna go anywhere productive.

My personal axe to grind is actually with the stupidity that is prepared spellcasting… but thats a discussion for a different topic… my point in this topic is that 9th level casters don’t feel like spellcasters until 3rd level… 1st and second level may be tough to survive, but that can be said of any class… 9th level spellcasters however don’t have the resources to play their actual class until later though…

“Azothath” wrote:

If you're throwing rocks or using sticks.. well... there IS a weapons list and some have 0gp cost or very low cost(obsidian dagger 1gp). After your first successful foray you could purchase a new weapon... that's part of the game.

I think you completely misunderstood my argument there… I’m not saying spellcasters are resorting to sticks and stones… I was pointing out how the way spellcasters are forced to play would be represented if applied to martial classes. Showing the absurdity of it.

[Wonderstell]

3rd level is a good spot to start. By then you should have some class features to separate yourself from the other players and get some mechanical identity. But I wouldn't mind doing what TxSam88 describes.

Personally I'm just so sick and tired of 1st level. I feel it restricts roleplaying opportunities as you can't really have achieved anything noteworthy if you're still lv 1 and I prefer to have a connection to the world other than "dirt farmer who wasted their first twenty-thirty years kicking rocks".

Slight hyperbole, but you may as well play 5e for the 1st level. The mechanical versatility that pathfinder excels at doesn't kick in until later so why bother. I'll pick Barbarian for the first two levels and then retrain into Wizard.

[DeathlessOne]

Wonderstell wrote:

Personally I'm just so sick and tired of 1st level. I feel it restricts roleplaying opportunities as you can't really have achieved anything noteworthy if you're still lv 1 and I prefer to have a connection to the world other than "dirt farmer who wasted their first twenty-thirty years kicking rocks".

Is that not the point of starting out at 1st level? That is the beginning of your adventuring career, where you flail around and figure out exactly what you are capable of? No one should really be 'established' at 1st level. You are correct when you suggest it starts around level 3.

[Heather 540]

One of my groups starts characters at second level. The rationale is that a crit is almost guaranteed to knock out, if not straight out kill, pretty much any first level characters that don't have d12 HD. And no one wants their character to die right off the bat just because the gm happened to roll a nat 20.

[thorin001]

TxSam88 wrote:

No, games should start at 1st level, however, that being said, you should advance very quickly the first few levels. Certainly 2nd level at the end of your first game, maybe even level 3 (taking time to level up to 2nd in the middle of game, after an encounter).

Mages are no more fragile than any other non-martial class at first level. Players just have to be conservative, and boring low level play is just code-speak for "I'm a power gamer" and want to do all the cool stuff.

The Minister of Approved Fun has spoken. No further opinions are welcomed.

[Dragonchess Player]

It really depends on both the play style of the group and the themes of the campaign.

Starting at 1st level usually helps enforce teamwork and resource conservation. Even the 1st level barbarian can't just expect to wade through waves of goblins solo; or the cleric can't outshine the fighter consistently with divine favor and other self-buffing choices; or the 1st level wizard can "nova" one or two fights, but doesn't have the staying power to shut down multiple encounters alone. Also, as mentioned, 1st level characters are only a couple (un)lucky rolls from being disabled or killed; this can be considered either a good or bad thing, depending on the campaign.

Starting at 2nd+ level gives characters a bit more survivability and they are more capable at what they do. Also, certain "builds" (including multiclassed concepts) don't start "coming online" until after 1st level. The characters' backstories can be more substantial ("meaningful"), since they are no longer "just starting out;" they already have an "adventure" or two under their belt (allowing the GM more leeway to introduce/tailor associated allies/foils/foes/rivals based on more than growing up and apprenticeship/initial training).

[Mightypion]

I like starting at 3.

As a GM, I can actually try and kill my players fairly (you cant challenge a level 1 party fairly, low level combat is just too swingy), as a player, I can come up with an actually interesting background in terms of what my character has done. He can have seen or have done something mildly impressive, have preexisting connection, its much easier to setup plot beats or have specific, perhaps even mildly mutual animosity to some big bad.

Also, of COURSE you want to do cool stuff! Why wouldnt you?
I also like it if the enemies do cool stuff to me too.
Like disabling my double cha to ac build via a charm spell and transfer armor spell, locking my horribly minmaxed oracle/scaled fist/Bloodrager abomination down because a very friendly Succubus charmed him and then teleported her extremely restrctive corset on "Minmaximus the perpetually angry", like, I was affected by hideous laughter in real life when the GM pulled that off.

[zza ni]

games should start at level 1 in ether the tavern or the jail\mental ward\shipwrecked island. anything else is blasphemy.

the BESST games start on a shipwrecked island in the made-up tavern's jail of course! (the character's clothes should all have tags labeled 'property of St. Thilia, if found please return to ward C')

[Wonderstell]

DeathlessOne wrote:

Wonderstell wrote:

Personally I'm just so sick and tired of 1st level. I feel it restricts roleplaying opportunities as you can't really have achieved anything noteworthy if you're still lv 1 and I prefer to have a connection to the world other than "dirt farmer who wasted their first twenty-thirty years kicking rocks".

Is that not the point of starting out at 1st level? That is the beginning of your adventuring career, where you flail around and figure out exactly what you are capable of? No one should really be 'established' at 1st level. You are correct when you suggest it starts around level 3.

The novelty of the hero's journey has worn off for me. I've been through so many "beginning of your adventuring career" that it stopped giving any roleplaying opportunities that I haven't seen before. Rather the opposite, it just restricts them.

I believe you can still have your "beginning of your adventuring career" as a 3rd level character if you so like. Exceptional people become adventurers. Even if you haven't accomplished anything you can still have training and in that way justify being a capable person.
I'll concede it doesn't work with every backstory, like the bumbling fool who through happenstance is forced to do the right thing. But you restrict far, far, far more roleplaying aspects by starting at level 1.

[TxSam88]

Chell Raighn wrote:

Azothath wrote:

That's your personal axe to grind with the class.
I'm just not commenting on if it's balanced or not. That's not gonna go anywhere productive.

My personal axe to grind is actually with the stupidity that is prepared spellcasting… but thats a discussion for a different topic… my point in this topic is that 9th level casters don’t feel like spellcasters until 3rd level… 1st and second level may be tough to survive, but that can be said of any class… 9th level spellcasters however don’t have the resources to play their actual class until later though…

“Azothath” wrote:

If you're throwing rocks or using sticks.. well... there IS a weapons list and some have 0gp cost or very low cost(obsidian dagger 1gp). After your first successful foray you could purchase a new weapon... that's part of the game.

I think you completely misunderstood my argument there… I’m not saying spellcasters are resorting to sticks and stones… I was pointing out how the way spellcasters are forced to play would be represented if applied to martial classes. Showing the absurdity of it.

I've never had a problem with 1st level full casters not having enough spells for a full day of adventuring. As mentioned, at first level you really should only have 1 or 2 encounters before you level up (1 day) and with 3-4 spells, plus cantrip and class abilities, a caster can pretty much do a spell like thing every round for 2 encounters.

And as I already mentioned, you should be third level sometime during or at the end of the second game.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Any game, regardless of level, is as boring as the gamers playing make it. Boo hoo, your L1 wizard has 7 HP, a 10 Con, and 2 L1 spells. Only, after spending 10 GP on a flask of acid, this PC has a 1d3+1 ranged touch attack they can spam all day; they can start a fire in nearly any conditions with a Standard action; if they survive their first couple encounters, they've likely got enough GP to scribe 4 scrolls with that bonus feat you hopefully didn't trade away.

Not only the resources of L1 wizards... REALLY think about what they can accomplish with enough GP and time. I've watched survivalists IRL craft a comfortable dugout structure capable of surviving multiple seasons in the woods using only hand tools and about 3 days's worth of dedicated work. A PC with a couple scrolls of Expeditious Excavation, Unseen Servant and Expeditious Construction could create the same structure in an hour.

There is more PCs can do in a day than slay monsters, get treasure and talk to important NPCs. Do you have Craft or Profession skills? How about personal goals? What item creation feats did your class give you? There is so much your PC can accomplish that doesn't involve making an initiative roll.

If your GM is intent on leveling the PCs to 3 quick, they'll do it. If not, take your time from L1-L3 to appreciate the game world the GM has given you. Oh yeah, and as for full arcane casters being weak from L1-L3:

If the GM is tracking XP, a Medium progression campaign requires 20 CR1 encounters to make it to L2, another 20 CR2 encounters to make it to L3. A PC with access to Acid Splash and a single Acid Flask has a 1d3 +1 Ranged Touch attack they can spam all day. On top of that, they can potentially start fires with a Standard, hand out +1 Resistance bonuses, give yourself DR 1/Cold Iron for 1 hit and many more minor abilities usable all day so long as you have a Standard to spend.

Oh yeah, and don't forget about scrolls. A 5 room dungeon generally has 4 conflicts, with CR's between APL-1 to APL+3. If a L1 spellcaster survives just one of these, they likely have enough money to buy if not craft scrolls which are free spells they can cast in a day.

If a 5 room dungeon provided the four PCs, say, 1040 GP, the L1 full arcane caster now has 260 GP to spend. That buys 10 L1/CL1 scrolls right there, but does the PC have Scribe Scroll? If so and the GM is willing to give the PCs the time between adventures, that's 20 scrolls. Is the GM using Downtime? That's potentially 40 scrolls.

My point is only that there are plenty of resources and potential to keep players and GM's engaged at L1, but if the folks at the session don't WANT to engage, it won't be fun.

[Dastis]

I'm just not a big fan of lv1 combat. Its too swingy. I will start there if I want the campaign to be more brutal and feel more on the edge because session 1 really is about establishing tone for the rest of the campaign. Otherwise we are starting at lv3 so they actually can definitely beat generic goon squad. Also lets the players start with a small variety of options.

[Chell Raighn]

@TxSam88, your ideal is rarely how things actually go though… normally you’re level 1 for the first couple sessions at least… I’ve been in games were we hit level 2 at the end of session 2 and games where we didn’t reach level 2 until session 7. If every hame hit level 2 in session 1 and 3 no later than the end of session 2 possibly end of session 1, you’d never hear complaints about how bad level 1 is.

@Mark Hoover 300, you seem to be placing blame squarely on the shoulders of the players, when that is not always the case. Its not unheard of or even really that uncommon for DMs to not hive adequate downtime for any sort of crafting until after certain major plot points are resolved. Some DMs won’t even allow crafting during adventuring days because “you don’t have the time or resources to craft that on the road or while camping.” Not kidding I’ve heard that exact reason in multiple campaigns. Sometimes encounters yield woefully little wealth, and if a DM adheres strictly to WBL you may have several encounters that yield nothing at all… sometimes a DM may inadvertently deprive a wizard of coin for crafting scrolls by thinking they are being nice to the party by having encounters reward useful items that various members of the party will want instead of loot to be sold or loose coin… if your DM adheres to PFS rules then crafting those scrolls isn't even an option at all… in an ideal game these options exist for everyone and will be taken advantage of, but ideal games don't happen all the time. Additionally crafting a scroll requires you to prepare the spell to be scribed and then cast it during the scribing process. So even if your DM does let you craft scrolls while camping, there is no guarantee that you’ll even still have the spells you want to craft prepared or even that you prepared them at all that day since you may have prepared a specific set of spells expecting certain encounters and may have even used them all. Personally I’d have no issues with scribe scroll being “a solution” if it still worked like in 3.5 where a wizard just needed to have a similar scroll of it or to reference it from their spellbook, no casting or preparation required, just special magic imbued inks and runic symbols.

[DeathlessOne]

Wonderstell wrote:

I believe you can still have your "beginning of your adventuring career" as a 3rd level character if you so like. Exceptional people become adventurers. Even if you haven't accomplished anything you can still have training and in that way justify being a capable person.

I'll concede it doesn't work with every backstory, like the bumbling fool who through happenstance is forced to do the right thing. But you restrict far, far, far more roleplaying aspects by starting at level 1.

I can certainly understand the concept of exceptional characters becoming adventurers well after level 1, though I can only imagine it working in fairly specific circumstances. Though I did toy around with the concept of taking exceptional NPCs and having them become player characters...

I started off my players as a 2nd level PCs with NPC class levels during the Iron Fang adventure path, letting them have a sort of mini-adventure before the actual start of the campaigns events in order to let them 'acquire' their first PC class level (ie, retrain one of those levels). It let them get the feel for what the life of a typical NPC was. The lesser dangers, the lesser challenges, the focus on relationships rather than combat, etc, etc. Since they had PC ability scores, they knew they were destined for something greater and when the mundane challenges of daily life grew monotonous and simplistic, the events that triggered their greater destiny were made manifest.

I do always wonder about the 'bumbling fool' analogy that is applied to first level PCs, though. They are generally just as strong, if not stronger, than a well developed 2nd level NPC that focuses on their area of expertise. Twice the HP (due to maxed HP at first level) and fairly robust class features. It always makes me wonder exactly what measuring stick these 'bumbling fools' are being measured up to.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

I like starting at level one, both as a player and as a GM. It's part of the game, going from not-quite-zero to (hopefully)hero.

[Wonderstell]

In this case "bumbling fool" was referring to the character archetype, rather than the mechanical equivalent. Think "unprepared average person thrown into adventure and forced to rise to the occasion". Taking Bilbo as an example:

Many of the dwarves have lived through notable events and fought in wars. It would (in my opinion) be very odd to start them out as 1st level characters as they're supposed to be experienced in these matters. Some less than others, though.
Bilbo, however, led a tranquil life free of danger. He is not prepared for this adventure in any way and shouldn't really have any applicable skills. A good example of a 1st level character.

Now, in movies and books there isn't an issue with a varying degree of "levels" in the party and it's rather the rule than the exception. But in a game where everyone should be the same level, starting the campaign at level 1 restricts your character's background and the roleplaying aspects that follow, to being Bilbo.

And after 10, 20, 30 games of being Bilbo, I'd just really rather be a dwarf. I want my character to have had a life outside of the campaign. I want my character to have had a story and then build upon it.

[TxSam88]

Chell Raighn wrote:

@TxSam88, your ideal is rarely how things actually go though… normally you’re level 1 for the first couple sessions at least… I’ve been in games were we hit level 2 at the end of session 2 and games where we didn’t reach level 2 until session 7. If every game hit level 2 in session 1 and 3 no later than the end of session 2 possibly end of session 1, you’d never hear complaints about how bad level 1 is.

I'll admit that I have the benefit of playing with the same group for almost 35 years and we have distilled the game way down to our preferred way to play. We have historically had issues with the game taking 5-10 games to get to level 2 and had issue being stuck at 1st level for so long. we also had issue with campaigns ending between levels 7-11. There was also an on going issue with GM's making their stories reactive rather than proactive (i.e. not having a story in mind for us).

We sat down as a group and discussed expectations and desires. We quickly ditched XP and switched to Milestone leveling, Embraced Adventure Paths (a pre-set story), and decided to expand those AP's to always go from level 1-20. With milestone leveling - it's very easy set the pace at which you level up, and with 20 levels to advance over a 6 book AP, it means you level quite often, typically 5-6 levels in book 1, so about every game at the beginning and every other to every third game by the end of book one. With Combat Manager encounters can be adjusted on the fly to meet appropriate CR, so game prep isn't that much more intensive.

Our games have become tremendously more enjoyable since we made these decisions.

I know not everyone has the luxury of always playing with the same group for as long as we have. But we have had all these same issues people bring up, and we found solutions that worked for us, I simply offer them up to others as a solution when they mention the same issues we have already dealt with.

[DeathlessOne]

I agree, I don't think the adventure of Bilbo in The Hobbit is a good example of 1st level gameplay. The dwarves undoubtedly had previous, hard, life experiences and came packed with adventuring levels. Bilbo was, at best, a 3rd level Expert that cashed in those level for PC class levels rather quickly as the 'game' progressed.

I'd place the ECL for the start of The Hobbit at around 5, with Bilbo being an NPC hireling hand picked by the Wizard (GM) for plot purposes.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Chell, the point I was trying to make is that there is MORE that a L1 PC can do than cast a couple spells/day, eat and sleep. You're right though, the ability to do those things requires GM buy in.

If your GM won't allow you to craft items, scrolls, potions etc while adventuring, find out why. Not the surface answer, like you don't have the materials or the time; those things can be solved in game. No, find out why the GM refuses to let you play your character.

Are they afraid of power creep? Maybe they're inexperienced or they're punishing you for the bad behavior of some previous player. Maybe they just don't understand the crafting rules. Whatever the case, engage with your GM and figure this out.

Oh, and if you're fighting a lot of foes who don't have treasure... Survival and Heal checks as well as other skills for harvesting and preserving Trophies; collect Poison or other such materials from monster corpses; use Knowledge (Nature) or similar skills to watch for rare plant resources while you travel; Mending or later Make Whole along with Prestidigitation for more than just keeping your own gear intact.

The list goes on. What I'm getting at is that a L1 PC is more than just their combat abilities. The GM and players all need to work together to capitalize on the totality of what those PCs can really do.

[Mysterious Stranger]

A 1st level wizard with average starting gold and an 18 INT will be able to cast 3 1st level spells. The wizard will also have 3 cantrips memorized. One of the cantrips can be an offensive spell like ray of frost. They can cast that an unlimited number of times per day. They also have scribe scroll so they can create a scroll with a 1st level spell for 12.5 GP. With 70 GP that means they can have 5 scrolls at character creation and still afford a wizard's kit and have a few GP left over. In addition, they can start with a bonded item they can use it to cast any spell they know. That brings up the number of 1st level spells to 4 without having to use scrolls. At this level ray of frost is about 1.5 points less damage than a magic missile. This is also without the wizard's 1st level school ability. There is no reason a 1st level wizard needs cannot contribute to combat that does not involve magic. Even at 2nd level they should still have enough resources to be able to be a spell caster.

A sorcerer will actually be worse off than the wizard. They don’t get scribe scroll so cannot create scrolls. They have a similar number of spells they can cast but will have more cantrips. At this level taking the favored class bonus of extra spells know will boost that number even higher. Their 1st level bloodline ability can offer some extra offensive ability to help. Even with that they should still be able to function as a caster.

A 1st level paladin is actually one of the worst in the game as far as being able to play their concept. They can detect evil at will and get 1 smite evil per day. At first level smite evil is only adding 1 point of damage and CHA to hit and AC. At this level it is not bad but is not really that impressive. AT 1st level DR is not that common so ignoring it is not really significant. A paladin does not really start to be able to do much until 2nd level. Divine grace and lay on hands come online at that point and they actually start to be able to do what they are supposed to do. By 3rd level they gain some immunities and have enough class features that they can be distinguished from other marital classes.

[Heather 540]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Oh, and if you're fighting a lot of foes who don't have treasure... Survival and Heal checks as well as other skills for harvesting and preserving Trophies; collect Poison or other such materials from monster corpses; use Knowledge (Nature) or similar skills to watch for rare plant resources while you travel; Mending or later Make Whole along with Prestidigitation for more than just keeping your own gear intact.

In an old campaign, we were fighting a LOT of dragons. We started harvesting the meat and skin to sell for extra gold. We made a small fortune.

[Sysryke]

As usual, this all comes down to preference. I'm an O.C.D., follow directions, order of operations type player. I enjoy level 1, and I often do play casters. However, I also play in bigger groups, we are generous with stat generation, and we always have eager/willing healers in the party.
I enjoy playing the "entirety" of my character's adventuring life. As far as backstory options go, most classes imply some level of training or experience to aquire the power and features of a level one character, so I see numerous options as still open. The truly new/raw/green character to me, is if you run the "level 0" session.
I tend to make themed characters. Not necessarily min/max, but certainly somewhat focused or specialized. Cantrips are actually part of this flavor to me. I like the "small" spells. The accuracy of cantrips helps offset the low damage for me, and I'm okay with not being a damage powerhouse at low levels, even if I am working towards being a blaster caster. As mentioned above, class features fill out enough, that a caster can do something magical every turn, even at level 1. However, if your game focuses more heavily to combat, I can see the desire to forgo the lowest levels.

[Ryze Kuja]

I typically start campaigns at level 3. Honestly the only reason to start at level 1 is to acclimate a newbie to the game or to increase the difficulty for veterans looking for a low-level challenge.

[SheepishEidolon]

I start at level 1, but I don't throw very deadly foes at my players at this level. Together with Pathfinder's safety belt (don't die before -Con score) they are safe to explore their new characters.

Wizards and sorcers might struggle, but I'd tell such a player: You don't have to do two-digit damage at level 1. The martial PC might dish out such amounts, but then the player sacrificed a lot of utility in favor of damage. And a good share of it will be wasted, most of the time - a standard goblin has 6 HP. A Knowledge check can also contribute to combat, as well as identifying enemy spells or demoralizing a foe.

Finally, starting at 1 means we have more time before Pathfinder gets into higher level play - a stage where the game IMO becomes less fun: Weaker class balance, more bookkeeping, fewer possible noncombat challenges, longer combat duration.

[VoodistMonk]

Everyone should experience their first swarm at level 1. How the party deals with that tells you everything you need to know about the people at your table.

And, honestly, there should be no sympathy for spellcasters with oh-so-few spells... the guy with the greatsword only has one sword... cry me a river, build a bridge, and get TF over it. It's level 1, guys... literally do SOMETHING... anything, really. It's not rocket surgery. Use a cantrip, use a crossbow, use Aid Another [it's freaking free], get creative with mundane equipment... impress me with your ingenuity.

My god, though, why would levels 1 and 2 exist, at all, if we were supposed to start at 3? No, my friends, you have to earn it... you don't get the cool stuff until you show me you're cool.

Should we start at level 3? Lmfao...

[Kurald Galain]

Chell Raighn wrote:

if I choose to play a full spellcaster, I’m choosing it to be a spellcaster… when at level 1 you have so few spells that you are forced to either cantrip spam for 1d3 or use a play like a different class

Yes, pinging Ray of Frost every round is rather boring and not very effective. But what you're overlooking here is (1) school or bloodline powers, (2) cheap scrolls, and (3) combat cantrips that aren't 1d3 damage, such as Daze and Disrupt Undead.

Also, if you're a wizard, apply those knowledge skills. A decently-played wiz or sorc has no problem at all contributing at level one; and in the right combat, spamming Daze or Disrupt Undead can easily make you MVP.

That said, I do agree that level 1 should only take one or two sessions. Level up quickly.

[DeathlessOne]

VoodistMonk wrote:

Everyone should experience their first swarm at level 1. How the party deals with that tells you everything you need to know about the people at your table.

Encountering a swarm at level 1 tells me a lot more about the GM I am playing with than it does about the players I am partied up with. Especially the ones you cannot damage with weapon attacks.

Reminds me of a certain adventure path in PF2 that throws a CR4 monster at a level 2 group of players, in that monsters preferred environment, with little to no warning and nothing but a really good (critical) roll in order to avoid having one of the players pretty much disabled for the fight.

[Mark Hoover 330]

A Level 1 vanilla Wizard optimized for spellcasting has, say, an Int 18. This gives them 3 Cantrips and 2 L1 spells to cast per day. Depending on your school specialization you've got an ability there to exploit. If you don't dump stat your Str you might have a 55% chance to succeed in an Aid Another check if you're stuck in melee, but considering how many attack spells have a range component, it's likely that you've got at least a Dex 12 or better for ranged touch attacks.

Arcane bond is also a thing. Either you've got another spell to cast through an item or you've got a familiar for tons of non-combat or even combat functionality, depending on how you build. Finally, Wizards start with 2d6x10 GP by RAW (avg 70) unless your GM starts you differently. You automatically get clothes and a spellbook containing all Cantrips and 7 L1 spells.

Oh yeah... and Scribe Scroll is a bonus feat. I know this is controversial, but I houserule to allow PCs to use Craft or Profession skills along with Item Creation feats when spending their starting GP, representing pieces of gear the PC might've made themselves. Assuming most folks don't use that rule though, consider the following gear package:

common survival kit, dagger, x2 flasks: acid, 1 scroll: Mage Armor. Spend 10 GP on one extra L1 spell you've transcribed in your spellbook for a total of 8 L1 spells

Starting off this way, this PC has a 1d3+1 Acid ranged touch attack, x2 L1 spells/day but a decent variety from which to prepare, a potential Touch of Fatigue DC 14 (at least) if you want to put it on a Familiar and risk sending it into battle. You can either attempt Aid Another checks with the dagger or set up Flanks w/the weapon if you want to risk yourself in combat.

I'm guessing, top of my head, this PC could survive 3 rounds of CR1 melee combat. Barring that, at a range of 25' they've got unlimited Acid damage. Against swarms they throw the extra Acid Flask, keeping one for their Acid Splash spell. They can armor themselves to at least a 15 AC with a scroll, immediately increasing their # of melee round survival to 5.

Any time you've got GP, a Settlement or otherwise access to the resources and 2 hours to kill, this PC can spend 12.5 GP and scribe a scroll. Any day that ends w/you not having cast one of your L1 spells, take the time to scribe. If your GM won't let you, figure out why and take steps to mitigate that in the future. From L1-L3, scrolls are important.

[Mark Hoover 330]

And don't forget, this is a team game: L1 martial types will likely be eating up most of the attacks, but then they also likely have an AC 15 or better so they can survive about 5-6 combat rounds before they're under 0 HP. Got a "healer/revitalizer" type? Have them prop up the martial type to extend the # of combat rounds. Ranged attackers or arcane spellcasters are likely more squishy but targeted less often by enemies.

Are the players noobs? Reduce the number of combat rounds they can go before a TPK. Veterans? Increase the combat rounds by half again. Loot drops are important, access to Downtime is critical, and the GM has to really focus on encounter balance and how many encounters to throw in on any given adventuring day.

Players: there are more options than attack or run. This is very important at L1. Scouting and pre-combat prep, even if all you're doing is casting Resistance x4, that's still a way to protect yourself. Meeting intelligent creatures you might be able to speak to, consider Diplomacy or Intimidate.

A CR1 encounter with 4 kobolds is 4 individual kobolds. Depending on their access to reinforcements, the build of their class levels or their narrative motivations, this band of kobolds may have no desire to actually fight the party. Perhaps they can be reasoned with, bargained with, or frightened into fleeing.

[TxSam88]

DeathlessOne wrote:

Reminds me of a certain adventure path in PF2 that throws a CR4 monster at a level 2 group of players, in that monsters preferred environment, with little to no warning and nothing but a really good (critical) roll in order to avoid having one of the players pretty much disabled for the fight.

Not all encounters are meant to be beaten - some are meant to teach you when to run away

[Mark Hoover 330]

Is it to run away though? 4 PCs, they rolled their stats; one is a paladin 1 with a 20 Cha. This PC took a Trait for a +1 on Diplomacy checks. Rolling out the door at L1, this PC has a Diplomacy +10.

As the party is moving through Hills terrain, they realize that a hill giant has taken up residence right beside the road. This giant is out in the open, tending to a flock of "dire sheep." PCs can see a cairn, pile of stones marking a grave roughly the size of the male giant and said giant is observed to have been crying.

The area of the road w/in about a mile of the giant's steading is too open for the caravan the PCs are guarding to pass through undetected. The area is steep and rugged, but they COULD try to off-road it. That being said the merchant leader of the caravan is in a hurry and has promised the party extra pay if they get his wares to the city on time.

When I threw this encounter at my L1 players they looked at me like I grew a second head. Despite all being veteran TTRPG players, they figured they were either going to have to fight the giant and die or try and drive 2 teams of ponies hauling heavy loads SUPER fast through the area to avoid rock throwing. I said "maybe he just wants someone to talk to."

What followed was a painfully slow introduction to my play style for these players. The giant started at Unfriendly, not Hostile, and had just recently buried his wife due to a band of hobgoblins raiding his farm for sheep. The PCs had slain a couple hobgoblins earlier and I noted how starved they looked.

Eventually the players just... talked to the giant, or at least said how their characters would talk to the giant. He was gloomy, vengeful; he wanted to pay the hobgoblins back in kind. The party also learned that the main bulk of the humanoids were still ahead and that there were a lot of them.

The PCs took a few hours' detour out of their caravan travel, sought the hobgoblins, challenged for an honor duel, the paladin won (barely) and so the giant had his vengeance. The paladin however took it a step further, negotiated a truce between the giant and 'goblins saying that the warband would pay the giant for 1 of his sheep each year and find a way to otherwise survive while leaving the giant in peace. In return, the Hill Giant had to ignore the 'goblins crossing the hills near his steading in order to go hunting.

Finally in the end the giant gave them an NPC boon; the PCs gained a +4 on a Knowledge (Geography) to find a hidden way through the hills to make up the time they'd lost. They pulled it off, circumvented an area of the main pass and ended up actually ahead of schedule.

[DeathlessOne]

TxSam88 wrote:

Not all encounters are meant to be beaten - some are meant to teach you when to run away

If it was one of those kinds of encounters, I wouldn't have brought it up. I am well aware of those situations. Running away was not an option without sacrificing the life of one of the characters.

[thorin001]

TxSam88 wrote:

DeathlessOne wrote:

Reminds me of a certain adventure path in PF2 that throws a CR4 monster at a level 2 group of players, in that monsters preferred environment, with little to no warning and nothing but a really good (critical) roll in order to avoid having one of the players pretty much disabled for the fight.

Not all encounters are meant to be beaten - some are meant to teach you when to run away

If you do not know that you are supposed to run at the beginning of the encounter at least one character has to die to let the others get away.

[ErichAD]

I don't like to deal with the awkwardness of multiclass characters needing new items for their abilities when they pick up the second class. I also don't like doubling survivability over the first three levels. I start at third so your mage/thief has lock picks and a spell book, and so that guy who spent all his money on a light warhorse isn't the most dangerous member of the party.

[Vellimir]

Azothath wrote:

that totally depends on the players and GM.

I don't think it's an option for new players who need to develop some Game System proficiency.

If people complain about wimpy low level wizards - well, they're not particularly and they're just playing them wrong and focused on power gaming.

I have felt for a long time that GMs need to play DnD 3.5, Champions 6ed, Call of Cthulhu(chaosium), Stormbringer, GURPS, Toon!, Paranoia, and HeroClicks or Marvel Super Heroes. The first 5 kinda span the RPG styles.

I think that characters should start at first level because you cannot get the same experiences with a character that is created at a higher level. Getting up to third level can take months or even years. By creating a character at a higher level, you rob yourself of experiencing all those wonderful and terrible moments as you level them up. Sure, sometimes characters die at lower levels, but that's just part of the game. You can learn from it and move on.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Advancement from L1 to L2 requires 3k XP for slow advancement, 2k for medium and 1300 for fast. Maybe your GM doesn't use XP so leveling is even quicker, but using these totals we set a baseline for how fast our PCs move up.

A standard CR1 encounter hands out 100 XP to each PC in a 4-5 person party. Therefore it takes 13 CR1 encounters on Fast, 20 on Medium, and 30 on slow for PCs to get to L2. Based on the number of spell resources available though in any party containing a full caster where that caster relies on their spells almost exclusively, most parties can only survive, what... 4-6 encounters a day? Figure half of those the full caster is using Cantrips, Orisons, Class Abilities or a consumable, but they've got 2-3 L1 spells they can use in a day and then they're done.

So if an adventuring day is an average of 5 CR1 encounters, or 500 XP/day for the PCs, it's gonna take 3 days on fast, 4 days on medium and 6 days on slow. Granted I'm assuming a lot and only looking at CR1 encounters; these might vary a bit. Still, I'd say PCs will likely spend 2-8 in-game days at L1 if the campaign uses XP.

If a game was going to take months for my PC to go from L1 to L2, I'd ask to start at 3rd level. Again, if we were following the XP rules, even if we assume the GM is using the slow track, taking 30 in-game days to reach L2 would mean that my PC was only gaining 100 XP/day, or put another way, the PCs averaged a single CR1 encounter a day for 30 days.

Now, that might be explained as the party finishes a short dungeon, goes back to town, takes 1 week of Downtime, then gets out after their second quest and so on for a month, but like, that's a TON of Downtime and I'm a guy that enjoys PCs taking time to craft, scribe scrolls and so on.