GM: You are at a table in a tavern, there are a bunch of adventurers around you who are waiting for your future patron. You can introduce yourself.
Druid: I'm a powerful druid, I can transform into a mouse to scratch my enemies' eyes.
Champion: I'm a mighty Champion of Shelyn and I will protect you with my shield and armor.
Rogue: Don't hesitate to stay behind me, mighty champion, as you clearly lack the armor. As for me, I'm an expert of all things... well, I'm expert at nothing, but it'll come sooner than later.
Two-Weapon Fighter: Has anyone seen a ring? A beautiful precious ring, I really need it otherwise my fighting style is just garbage.
Dwarven Barbarian: I'm a Giant Barbarian, the greatest of all.
Rogue: The smallest of all...
Sorcerer: I'm an elemental sorcerer, I destroy my enemies with fire, lightning and ice.
Druid: Wonderful, what's your signature spell? Fireball, Lightning Bolt?
Sorcerer: Heal...
I sometimes wonder: What's the point of level 1? Why level 1 is the basic expectation when it's one of the most boring level to play once you know the game? Why level 1 is not an optional rule, the equivalent of level 0, aimed at introducing the game to new players? Why a lot of APs and adventures start at level 1? Wouldn't it be better to have the first book of APs being an introductory adventure and the actual campaign starting at book 2 so experienced players can skip the lowest levels?
Low levels are the ones we play the most. But as soon as one knows the game (and you don't need tons of adventures for that) they become the less interesting to play. And I actually know a lot of people (myself included) who start campaigns at level 2, 3 or 5 so PCs can be fully fleshed out characters and not half baked ones.
I feel that level 1 is made the basic expectation from the way the book is written, the APs are released and all of that. But if the game was considering level 5 as a valid starting level and made sure APs and such could start from such a level without any hindrance for the players I'm pretty sure it would become as popular as Free Archetype is. Don't you think?
Tradition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I usually start campaigns at lvl 3-4
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of reasons.
It helps you, especially if you are using a new game or class, learn that new element better.
It makes sense, most of the time, from a storytelling standpoint. That's not to say you can't tell a good story starting at a higher level. You clearly can, but if you're doing a 1 to 20 campaign, for example, it makes sense to start at level one.
Most importantly, IMO, it lets characters grow organically. I think too many people make 'builds' and not characters. They make choices for mechanical reasons, and often they don't reflect what the character has experienced.
A good example of this is the feats in Dark Archive that can only be taken if something has happened to you in game.
Now, starting at level one does not prevent you from just following a build. But, starting at level 3, 4, 10, whatever, does prevent you from organically growing a character, since you've got nothing to grow it from.
A lot of folks like starting off in the dirt and developing from there.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is easy to mismatch starting level with character back story. A lot of your examples super bidi are confusing because no one has magic items or signature spells at level 1. Those aren’t level 1 character mechanics.
If finding your first magic items and growing together into team isn’t really a part of the fantasy you are looking for, then starting at a higher level makes sense. But I think level 1 works very well for establishing that the world is dangerous and you don’t start out an amazing hero, but you become a party of heroes together.
I also think a lot of players benefit from adding one piece of their character at a time and getting to see how a feat or combat style play out before choosing to add to it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here I am wondering if we could make the Level 0 variant more popular, given how much my players enjoyed it.
Easing people in is just too useful. If Paizo starts publishing stuff based around skipping level one, then the hobby becomes less friendly to new players. I get not wanting to skip the first level, but that's something that should probably be handled at a group level. Paizo makes campaigns that start at 11th for folks who want to start with a full character, and they put out a few early-but-not-first-level adventures. If those start taking off, then maybe they'll look into it more.
With regard to your examples, framing stuff less negatively definitely helps the experience. The Druid can still shapeshift to sneak around, the champion still has chain mail and a shield, the rogue is trained in practically everything, the two-weapon fighter is still hitting with unparalleled accuracy, the barbarian has an anime-scale weapon, and the sorcerer still has a cone of elemental damage with bonus damage and an elemental focus spell that they can use for a bonus to intimidate, in addition to healing and another spell of their choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is easy to mismatch starting level with character back story. A lot of your examples super bidi are confusing because no one has magic items or signature spells at level 1. Those aren’t level 1 character mechanics.
A Paladin who can tank? An elemental sorcerer who can blast? A rogue with at least a single skill to expert? A wild druid who fights while wild shaped? Those aren't level 1 character mechanics? They sound pretty much like the backbone of what a Paladin, Elemental Sorcerer, Rogue or Wild Druid is to me.
QuidEst, you answered just before me.
The Druid can still shapeshift to sneak around
It's hardly a Wild Druid. A pest Druid.
the champion still has chain mail and a shield
You can dress like a Paladin, but you tank nothing with 17AC at level 1. Even with a shield.
the sorcerer still has a cone of elemental damage with bonus damage
That does less damage than a cantrip.
the rogue is trained in practically everything
Being Trained in a skill is so easy it can hardly be considered a feature.
If these were complex concepts, I could understand. But these are extremely basic builds with the most basic expectations from the class.
If Paizo starts publishing stuff based around skipping level one
As I said: Giving the option, not forcing players. If the first book of every AP is an introductory adventure in line with the AP but that can be skipped without losing anything, is the AP suddenly no more beginner friendly?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is easy to mismatch starting level with character back story. A lot of your examples super bidi are confusing because no one has magic items or signature spells at level 1. Those aren’t level 1 character mechanics.A Paladin who can tank? An elemental sorcerer who can blast? A rogue with at least a single skill to expert? A wild druid who fights while wild shaped? Those aren't level 1 character mechanics? They sound pretty much like the backbone of what a Paladin, Elemental Sorcerer, Rogue or Wild Druid is to me.
The paladin can tank thanks to good one-action self-healing and shield block, the elemental sorcerer can blast because their spells and cantrips are very effective against enemies around their level, the rogue has twice as many skill feats as anyone else and way more skills trained, and the wild druid fights with claws while morphed with their focus spell.
(Edit because you addressed skill training not mattering. Maybe my view is different, but if I'm playing a Rogue, it's to be good at everything. So my focus is always, "how many things do I have to pick to suck at?", and the Rogue's answer is "none, maybe one if you don't want intelligence or an ancestry feat focused on skill training". Getting free selection of a skill feat when everyone else has to rely on their background the other big perk.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you edited just before I posted, so let me add on...
As I said: Giving the option, not forcing players. If the first book of every AP is an introductory adventure in line with the AP but that can be skipped without losing anything, is the AP suddenly no more beginner friendly?
The unfriendly thing to new players would be having a bunch of games out there with second-level starts and free archetype. That's about twice as much work and complexity to jump into. Maybe by itself that's still worth it for the added enjoyment for experienced players, especially since it's optional.
But that's not the only thing. Every AP would now need the first level worth of adventure written to not matter and be disposable. That creates an even worse first level experience, and it probably sucks to work around as a writer.
To me, first level is something I put up with for the ease and convenience of finding AP-based games, or because a particular game works better that way (the bronze-age fantasy game using proficiency without level definitely benefited from a first level start). Paizo has really good reasons to not change up how their APs work and does provide alternative published material. It just probably doesn't work to make second level starts something that they write around.
Personally, I've got a character who doesn't work at first level, so I'm going to try to get them into a Stolen Fate game, which is perfect for them. When I run APs, I just start characters off at second level and run the party one level ahead throughout. It makes everyone feel a lot more competent and less pressured to wring out every combat advantage, and it fits with my groups better.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is easy to mismatch starting level with character back story. A lot of your examples super bidi are confusing because no one has magic items or signature spells at level 1. Those aren’t level 1 character mechanics.
If finding your first magic items and growing together into team isn’t really a part of the fantasy you are looking for, then starting at a higher level makes sense. But I think level 1 works very well for establishing that the world is dangerous and you don’t start out an amazing hero, but you become a party of heroes together.
I also think a lot of players benefit from adding one piece of their character at a time and getting to see how a feat or combat style play out before choosing to add to it.
I agree. SuperBidi's opening tale has each character imagining themselves as high-level characters when they are not higher-level characters. Thus, each one falls short of their dreams. The Two-Weapon Fighter is so confused that they want a set of 3rd-level (or greater) Doubling Rings before they have an enchanted weapon to double.
A young friend of my wife's graduated college last week and is job hunting. A younger friend in my Ironfang Invasion campaign will graduate high school soon and head off to the University of Toronto to study engineering. Though they are journeying toward a future, they are still young. Don't measure them against the standards for experienced professionals. Judge them as the young hopefuls full of potential that they currently are. Before I retired, I delighted in meeting the new hires in my office, learning their skills and potential, and encouraging them on career paths more likely to lead to fulfillment rather than disappointment. The beginning of a career has its own excitement different from achieving the height of a career.
My players tend to give away their loot. Charity is part of heroism for them, and they are so good at teamwork that they don't need the top-level gear to win. But also, my wife has explained that extra power from purchased weapons feels like it is not part of her character. She wants her characters to earn their power. She has played crafter characters who invested feats to make their own enchanted weapons, and that felt earned to her, unlike purchased weapons. Leveling up reflects earning the abilities.
She also likes the stories of how and why the character became an adventurer. In Jade Regent, her ninja had been born in a defunct ninja clan, suffering because their Amatatsu lords had disappeared decades ago. She had travel with her sensei to follow a hint about the lost Amatatsu family fleeing to Varisia, and the sensei had died fighting a yeti while crossing the northern ice cap, so the young apprentice had to continue her mission alone. In Iron Gods, her orphaned dwarven smith had been casually cared for by her more distant relatives, but her first real job had been with the crafter wizard Khonnir Baine. She was very concerned about Khonnir's disappearance, so when Khonnir's field agent returned from an out-of-town project with a new friend, they and Khonnir's daughter went on a quest to find Khonnir. In Serpent's Skull, her halfling sorceress had been the subject of eldritch experiments from her Nidalese master. She developed abberant powers, escaped, stowed away on a ship, and revealed herself to the castaways after the shipwreck. In Ironfang Invasion, that halfling sorceress's cousin had also been a lab experiment, but had been rescued from slavery by the Bellflower Network before he developed powers. He was lying low as a stablehand in a small village when the invasion by the Ironfang Legion forced him into heroism and triggered his draconic powers.
These origins are all more fun than an experienced, well-equipped adventurer asking for a new quest from a wealthy patron.
Thus, to my wife, starting at 1st level is about the glamour of a new story, the challenge of facing danger while weak, and the excitement of earning advancement.
I think it is good that the game uses level 1 to teach some very core principles of the mechanics.
For example, a tank in PF2 has to use a shield. No character uses just their normal AC standing next to enemies at the end of their turn and expects to remain standing for very long. AC is important, but it is only one piece of the puzzle of tanking. You have to spend actions and reactions every turn making enemies want to attack you (which any two-hander can accomplish) but you also have to spend actions making attacking your character a pain compared to attacking other characters. Champions can do this with punishing reactions, but really, the default tanking mechanic of PF2 is the shield and it is important to learn that at level 1.
Blasting, but all spell casting really: Your spell slots are only one piece of your spell casting ability. An elemental sorcerer that even memorizes heal in the first place is probably being encouraged to do so by their party, with the expectation that the character is going to be acting at least partially as a healer. Asking a character with only 2 spells that they get to choose for themselves to invest one of them in a party role that probably isn't their intention for the character is a big ask. It is good for players to realize that each choice they make at each level is going to have a pretty big effect on what the rest of the party expects that character to do moving forward. The elemental sorcerer that doesn't pick heal at first level is not going to be spending most of their spell slots casting at level 1 casting heal instead of blasting. If blasting is what they want to do, they should not take heal at level 1. Maybe they pick it up at level 2 once their role as a blaster is set as a back up option, but if they pick it at level one, they are broadcasting to the rest of the party that they will be saving spell slots to cast heal spells when the party needs it.
The same is true for rogues. At level 1, trained in a skill with a decent modifier is pretty good. Even more, having certain skill feats is much more important than the +1 or +2 that another character might have. Medicine is a very good example. Rogues rarely will have the highest medicine bonus at level 1, but they are much more likely than anyone else in the party to actually have battle medicine at level 1 unless someone goes into a medical background specifically to get it. With a +4 or +5 to medicine, it will actually be dangerous for them to use it at times, which again is an important lesson for the entire party. The biggest problem I have with medicine and the skill/skill feat system in PF2 is that it will quickly become obvious to everyone, starting at level 1, that you need one character to go all in on this skill and skill feats and rogues suddenly become the obvious character to expect this from, even though very few new players choose to play rogues in order to fill the fantasy of being a healer. Again, the issue here is actually party expectations for other players characters.
Many groups, even of experienced players, need time playing together to decide roles and to communicate around what they want to do with their characters vs what the game seems to be expecting them to do with their characters. Starting at level 1 can give parties a chance to do this. At the same time, it can reinforce "x class needs to fill x role" which can lead to player feeling like they are not playing the character they want to play. As can be seen in these examples, "healer" is particularly egregious for this. As a GM, level 1 is also your opportunity to "read the room" and make adjustments to let your players play the characters they want and not the ones other players expect them to play. For example, if no one wants to be a primary healer, than you can give out a lot more healing potions, elixirs of life, etc, and there will be less pressure for anyone to have to fill this role. I think starting at level 1, even with experienced players, who haven't played much together, is still a very good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the problem with level 1 in my opinion is that on virtually all D20 systems is that it's the introductory level for new players.
It basically exists to force players to deal with the basic mechanics of the game without worrying too much about the characteristics of their own class. In fact, in PF2 it is even improved compared to other D20 systems, since at least one extra HP was added to level 1 given by ancestry.
Already with experienced players, the tendency is that you want to ignore this low level, because you already understand how the system works, and want to better explore your own character's capabilities, this makes many experienced PF2 tables start at the 2nd level (when access to archetypes is given and your character gains its own "personality"), similarly in 5e it is at level 3 when you gain the subclass, in 3.5 I played many tables where you started at 6th level to meet most of the prestige classes and when most spellcasters had access to 3rd-level spells, making them less reliant on weapons.
Probably no D20 style game designer with levels wanted to put the too much class mechanics in the 1st level precisely for that reason, to allow new players to get used to the system, also knowing that experienced players tend to skip initial levels.
The only real problem I see with this is in APs and other ready-made adventures, where many of them start at level 1. But it's not as if there aren't options that start at higher levels, nor as if it's impossible for GMs to adapt (but it's need to slow down the progression, something that isn't even difficult in PF2).
I'll note that there's a degree of learning to play your class, as well as learning to play in general. Like, there's some really basic stuff about overall strategy, and a decent amount of it is class-dependent. Having a level where all of that is still relatively simple and you can start to pick up on it slowly isn't a bad thing.
I'll also note that if you aren't using an online build tool and are just working out of books with paper, level 1 already has a huge amount of decisions to make and things to cross-reference.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin can tank thanks to good one-action self-healing and shield block
Let me add that shield block is awesome at 1st level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level 1 has a specific narrative use, setting PCs a just a slight cut above average NPCs and thus creating certain setting and story expectations. Level 1 has a mechanical use in teaching players how to play their classes and setting their expectations in what their characters can do before the differences between classes become vast gulfs in ability.
Being annoyed that level 1 characters cannot wield army-slaughtering magics, shapeshift into a t-rex, or become whirlwinds of steel and death is like being annoyed that a screwdriver is a poor choice for hammering nails. If you do not like playing level 1 characters... don't play level 1 characters. That's kind of the point of a leveling system.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, level one PF2 is a ton of fun. I don't get this attitude at all, even if I respect it. I do kind of feel put out by people saying our reasons are "tradition", like we don't have any rational reasons.
1. It's fun to start out with a blanker slate, to start as a nobody, and watch your characters transform.
2. It's best for many new players to start with something simple.
3. You're generally starting the PCs' adventures together at the start of the campaign. It makes sense to start small, since really, it's the party coming together, and the quest, that allows your character to become great. That's arguably PF2's whole theme: "My teammates and my adventures inspire me to ascend to something mighty."
4. This one's trivial, but buying gear at level 3 is incredibly annoying. The first-level permanent magic items just aren't there. XD
5. Level 1 is fun! Seriously, I don't get people saying it's boring. Intelligence-based characters get the most bang for their buck at this level, rogues get a huge edge on everyone else with skills, Treat Wounds and Battle Medicine can change the direction of a fight, anyone can try to succeed at a task since the DCs aren't too absurd yet, and there's a lot of exciting tension to encounters when the healing is limited. You have so much customization, too. Sure, you get more later, but I feel incredibly freed by first-level PF2.
6. Levels 1-10 are arguably the cleanest. Past the halfway mark, you get stronger and stronger, the stakes get bigger, and the toolsets expand to include the Big Guns like teleport. The game changes. Some of us like to maximize our early-levels fun.
I think it's a good middle ground, personally! Good decisions don't much matter if you're rolling badly, but the choice to spend your Hero Point on an attack roll can be the "bad decision" if the next round knocks you unconscious. Hero Points provide an extra degree of control over your PC's death, but part of the low levels is learning that sometimes you need to risk them to keep everyone else alive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a good middle ground, personally! Good decisions don't much matter if you're rolling badly, but the choice to spend your Hero Point on an attack roll can be the "bad decision" if the next round knocks you unconscious. Hero Points provide an extra degree of control over your PC's death, but part of the low levels is learning that sometimes you need to risk them to keep everyone else alive.
...and part of it is learning that sometimes when you reroll a 2, the result you get is still a 2.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always enjoy level 1.
I like getting to know my team mates.
I'll be starting "Abomination Vaults" with a group of players experiencing PF2 for the first time...including the GM! I've been mostly playing PFS2 for the past 4 years, so am the only one with any real practical expertise.
I'm playing a cleric for the first time in this system: A Grippli Cloistered Cleric of Atreia, my fellow party members being a Sorcerer, a Fighter, 2 Alchemists, and a Rogue.
We'd been playing 5h ed. and AD&D for the past year.
Anything other than starting at 1st level would be madness in this situation.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is easy to mismatch starting level with character back story. A lot of your examples super bidi are confusing because no one has magic items or signature spells at level 1. Those aren’t level 1 character mechanics.A Paladin who can tank? An elemental sorcerer who can blast? A rogue with at least a single skill to expert? A wild druid who fights while wild shaped? Those aren't level 1 character mechanics? They sound pretty much like the backbone of what a Paladin, Elemental Sorcerer, Rogue or Wild Druid is to me.
QuidEst, you answered just before me.
The Druid can still shapeshift to sneak aroundIt's hardly a Wild Druid. A pest Druid.
the champion still has chain mail and a shieldYou can dress like a Paladin, but you tank nothing with 17AC at level 1. Even with a shield.
the sorcerer still has a cone of elemental damage with bonus damageThat does less damage than a cantrip.
the rogue is trained in practically everythingBeing Trained in a skill is so easy it can hardly be considered a feature.
If these were complex concepts, I could understand. But these are extremely basic builds with the most basic expectations from the class.
If Paizo starts publishing stuff based around skipping level oneAs I said: Giving the option, not forcing players. If the first book of every AP is an introductory adventure in line with the AP but that can be skipped without losing anything, is the AP suddenly no more beginner friendly?
Paladins absolutely can tank at level 1, against foes appropriate to their level. Lets look at a Low encounter from Abomination Vaults - Mitflits have +8 to hit an AC 17 Champion. So they hit on a 9, crit on a 19. They deal 1d6-1 damage for an average of 2.5 damage to the Champion's 20 HP. So 12.5% of their health.
Now lets look at a level 14 Low encounter. A dalos has a strike at +27. My level 14 paladin had a 36 AC. So the dalos would hit on 9, crit on 19. Just like the mitflit. The dalos's strike deals 3d8+11+2d6 damage for an average of 31.5 damage. My level 14 paladin had 219 hit points.31.5 damage is 14.4% of that character's HP. Seems to me that my level 14 champion was actually worse at tanking just looking at the numbers raw like that.
I think it's a good middle ground, personally! Good decisions don't much matter if you're rolling badly, but the choice to spend your Hero Point on an attack roll can be the "bad decision" if the next round knocks you unconscious. Hero Points provide an extra degree of control over your PC's death, but part of the low levels is learning that sometimes you need to risk them to keep everyone else alive....and part of it is learning that sometimes when you reroll a 2, the result you get is still a 2.
I used to house rule that you kept your Hero Point when that happened. Now I just laugh.
To be clear, I don’t mean to hate on games starting at higher levels, but I do think that is definitely the “niche” situation, and still works best with players that know each other and have a proven track record of playing together well, communicating, and having fun. Even players that are pretty familiar with the game can slow down trying to run a higher level character, and forget abilites easily, and not really be sure how a GM is going to run things like recalling knowledge, exploration mode choices, table talk, all things that can cause extra pain points when player expectations don’t match.
Some of this pops up at lower level too, but I see players get more upset when a character they have built up to work a specific way won’t wirk that exact way in a specific GM’s game and it can lead to harder feelings than reading it after a first session or session 0 before a character has a full, fleshed out identity.
You can't have the rest of the levels without the first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in here with the champion AC issue. This can easily be mitigated by starting with a chain shirt and armored skirt.
Armored skirts increase AC by 1 and also the str requirement to 18, along with a few other penalties you mitigate by being trained in heavy armor with 18 str.
A paladin with chain mail + armored skirt has 10+3 prof+5 item=18 AC then can buy a steel shield for 20 AC with a shield raised.
The gold cost this comes out to is 10gp which leaves you plenty for an adventuring kit, a longsword, a few javelins a tool kit and some extras.
Plenty good to tank at level 1. Never underestimate the armored skirt!
I'm generally for making level 1 either very short, a single session versus 3 or 4 for later levels, or front-loading it with abilities that make level 1 mechanically interesting instead of "I have two real spells, and then I'm a cantrip/crossbow bot." I'm also not sure that I'd use PF2 as a new player introduction for completely green players, especially those that are rules-shy. I'd probably use something rules-light or default to a D&D 5e one-shot and then if they enjoy it I'd invite them to a crunchier game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several good points have been made, IMO. As I stated about 3 months ago, the decision to start at 1st level or at a higher level should made by each group for each given campaign.
Starting at 1st level has both narrative and mechanical benefits for certain types of stories. The "farm-boy to knight [bishop, noble, etc.]" arc has a long history in myth, literature, etc. and can (using session 0 and/or coordination with the GM and other players) provide a stronger sense of identity for the party as a group rather than a bunch of random "adventurers in a tavern." Because they are all just starting out, they should highlight how they know each other and why they made the decision to engage with the initial plot hooks (e.g., explore the Whispering Cairn to gain enough treasure to get out of Diamond Lake). The mechanical benefits come when the characters level up and make choices around teamwork (a big determiner of success in PF2) with the other characters in the party rather than "building" the character in isolation with options that may not provide much benefit for the specific party make up (e.g., taking Bon Mot when no one will be targeting Will saves frequently).
For other types of stories, starting at 2nd, 3rd, or higher level will be more appropriate. The PCs are already established figures and the backstories can be more elaborate; the opposition and stakes can also be more substantial. The session 0 usually becomes more important when starting at a higher level to establish the narrative ties between characters and possibly tweak the mechanical choices so that they mesh better with the other characters' choices (e.g., a rogue with Dread Striker teaming with a barbarian with Raging Intimidation/Rogue Dedication/Basic Trickery [You're Next] or a fighter with Intimidating Strike).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the same reason Cinderella starts out as the orphan cleaning the fireplace.
There's another advantage of starting from lvl 2 or lvl 3. The GM have access to lvl -3 and lvl -4 opponents to use. During first level GMs are limited and indirectly stimulated to stronger opponents vs low HP players (including I have a theory that this whats also make a larger number of TPKs complains from some newbie tables).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is easy to mismatch starting level with character back story. A lot of your examples super bidi are confusing because no one has magic items or signature spells at level 1. Those aren’t level 1 character mechanics.A Paladin who can tank? An elemental sorcerer who can blast? A rogue with at least a single skill to expert? A wild druid who fights while wild shaped? Those aren't level 1 character mechanics? They sound pretty much like the backbone of what a Paladin, Elemental Sorcerer, Rogue or Wild Druid is to me.
QuidEst, you answered just before me.
The Druid can still shapeshift to sneak aroundIt's hardly a Wild Druid. A pest Druid.
the champion still has chain mail and a shieldYou can dress like a Paladin, but you tank nothing with 17AC at level 1. Even with a shield.
the sorcerer still has a cone of elemental damage with bonus damageThat does less damage than a cantrip.
the rogue is trained in practically everythingBeing Trained in a skill is so easy it can hardly be considered a feature.
If these were complex concepts, I could understand. But these are extremely basic builds with the most basic expectations from the class.
If Paizo starts publishing stuff based around skipping level oneAs I said: Giving the option, not forcing players. If the first book of every AP is an introductory adventure in line with the AP but that can be skipped without losing anything, is the AP suddenly no more beginner friendly?Paladins absolutely can tank at level 1, against foes appropriate to their level. Lets look at a Low encounter from Abomination Vaults - Mitflits have +8 to hit an AC 17 Champion. So they hit on a 9, crit on a 19. They deal 1d6-1 damage for an average of 2.5 damage to the Champion's 20 HP. So 12.5% of their health.
Now lets look at a level 14 Low encounter. A dalos...
In addition, a large part of a champion's tanking is their reaction, which prevents damage to their allies. At level 1 a champion is preventing 3 damage on their reaction, which is all of that mitflit's strike. At level 14 the champion is preventing 16 damage with a reaction. Which is only about half of the damage dealt by the dalos.
There are a lot of reasons.
It helps you, especially if you are using a new game or class, learn that new element better.
It makes sense, most of the time, from a storytelling standpoint. That's not to say you can't tell a good story starting at a higher level. You clearly can, but if you're doing a 1 to 20 campaign, for example, it makes sense to start at level one.
Most importantly, IMO, it lets characters grow organically. I think too many people make 'builds' and not characters. They make choices for mechanical reasons, and often they don't reflect what the character has experienced.
A good example of this is the feats in Dark Archive that can only be taken if something has happened to you in game.
Now, starting at level one does not prevent you from just following a build. But, starting at level 3, 4, 10, whatever, does prevent you from organically growing a character, since you've got nothing to grow it from.
I agree with this only to a limited degree
Of course playing a Charakter from Level 1 gives a more Natural ProgressionBut for some builds and archetypes ist makes No difference
You want a flying eidolon, be it beast or dragon you are almost always Picking glider Form
You want a mount or animal companion - same feats for almost all who have the Option
You want your character with heavy 2 handed weapons? You are most likely going to Pick up Power attack as fighter or are likely to Pick up the mauler archetype
Of course it's bot a Universal truth but some character concepts have some feats basically engraved into them and those are Low Level feats usually even more then High Level ones
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is not that level 1 is bad. Its that you need to be level 5 or 10 to actually play the character you wanted to play. Its why free archetype and double feats is such a popular rule, as it makes it so you can actually play the character in half the time it normally take.
That's not a fault of level 1 being a bad starting point. That's a fault of the game being poorly designed at that level in regards to what characters can actually do. Also a matter of the game not setting proper spectations by talking about how good you will may eventually be, maybe. (some characters never get good by virtue of having 0 or negative support)
Once again, you're trying to hammer nails with a screwdriver.
Pathfinder 1e is not poorly designed at level 1 for not meeting your expectations at level 1 because the expectations they are clearly trying to set are seemingly not what you want. Level 1 is, like, the toughest town guard or an apprentice wizard with just enough magic under their belt to be a problem. If the character you want to play does not meet these expectations, then I will suggest adjusting to match what the game is built to do or not playing at level 1.
I've yet to be disappointed by the power level of my level 1 characters because I know what playing a level 1 character tends to mean. If my GM were to, say, try to retell LotR but limit the Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas expies to fully work as level 1 characters, I might chafe at that. However, it works just fine for a crew composed of a town's oddballs going to see what's been killing workers at the local iron mine.
That's why I usually start campaigns at lvl 3-4
After you have done level 1 a few times, it can be worth starting higher.
I agree with Temperans that the key issue is that 1st level has the wrong power level for fully capable heroics with all the abilities the player wants. My difference from many of the other posts is that I think that 1st level has the right power level for playing less capable heroics.
A lot of stories start out with ordinary people thrown into challenging situations. Paizo does this with several adventure paths. In Burnt Offerings at the beginning of Rise of the Runelords, the PCs are enjoying a local festival in the town of Sandpoint when goblins raid. If they were mighty heroes, fighting goblins would be routine, but the PCs are 1st level, only slightly better at combat than most townsfolk. In Souls for Smuggler's Shiv at the beginning of Serpent's Skull, the PCs and many other passengers are shipwrecked. This is a tough survival challenge for 1st-level characters, but for 5th-level characters it would be a breeze. In Trail of the Hunted at the beginning of Ironfang Invasion, a hobgoblin army of raw recruits invades the local village. A couple of 10th-level PCs would have repelled the invasion, but the point of the module is for the PCs and other villagers to flee into the dangerous Fangwood forest to survive the hazards there while also avoiding Ironfang patrols.
Higher levels are about power fantasies in which the PCs are the strongest heroes around and therefore are the best people to take on the quest. First level is about unexpected struggles, where the PCs are not the best, but they face the challenge either involuntarily out of necessity or voluntarily to earn credit as starting adventurers.
First level is not simply the level for beginning players or the level to let the players gradually practice their abilities and learn to function as a team. First level is the level for stories of the heroes not being fully equipped and capable, but managing with what they have. Often that is more heroic than being the best.
Some of my players, especially my wife who has been roleplaying since 1979, love the 1st-level heroic-out-of-necessity stories. The plot hook of Fires of Creation at the beginning of Iron Gods is a voluntary quest. The local wizard has gone missing and the town is hiring adventurers to find and rescue him. The twist my player put on it in my Iron Gods campaign is that the PCs were mostly close associates of the wizard, so they took on the mission to rescue their friend. This switched the story to a quest out of necessity.
My only level 1 complaint is ever wild druid because if I'm making a wild druid type character in any game it's because I want to shapeshift but pf2e gotta wait until level 3 to do that in combat (but then I also feel that wild druid would be better as a class archetype at least to be a much bigger change from the base class and that's not something for this thread) but everything else starting at level 1 I enjoy in this
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I still don't know if I get it. At Level One, sure, my PC doesn't feel like a great hero or an archmage yet. That's gonna come later. But the skills she has at the start are still enough to imply she's pretty badass. She can invest in Battle Medicine and single-handedly save someone's life. She can invest in magic and blast two enemies half-dead with electric arc. In an AoW PbP I'm running, second encounter, the sorceress just cast three-action magic missile and absolutely obliterated a deadly enemy who'd nearly killed her colleague. Earlier, the ruffian rogue used his pick to break a monster's spine from beneath it after the bard revived him from unconsciousness with a single spell.
Those aren't things pure rookies can do. For that, I'd go to Level 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I still don't know if I get it. At Level One, sure, my PC doesn't feel like a great hero or an archmage yet. That's gonna come later. But the skills she has at the start are still enough to imply she's pretty badass. She can invest in Battle Medicine and single-handedly save someone's life. She can invest in magic and blast two enemies half-dead with electric arc. In an AoW PbP I'm running, second encounter, the sorceress just cast three-action magic missile and absolutely obliterated a deadly enemy who'd nearly killed her colleague. Earlier, the ruffian rogue used his pick to break a monster's spine from beneath it after the bard revived him from unconsciousness with a single spell.
Those aren't things pure rookies can do. For that, I'd go to Level 0.
Those are the things that rookies can do, if I interpret "rookie" as "first-year player in a professional sport" rather than "inexperienced beginner." First-level characters have some training, a feat, and class features. As I said above, they are slightly better at combat than most townsfolk, not average in combat. A rookie adventurer will save the day sometimes, if they have the right ability for the particular situation. Among a party of four rookies, one is likely to be able to show off the right ability.
If the sorceress took Academic Dropout background rather than Field Medic background, then she won't be saving the day with Battle Medicine. Instead, she might save the day by identifying a weakness that she can exploit with her cantrips. At higher levels, she could have feats in both Arcana and Medicine, but at 1st level she had to chose one or the other. To a player who had planned a healer sorceress, at 1st level she would feel incomplete. But she is still a good rookie.