Level 2 [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Level 2 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Khadmus
04-06-07, 02:40 PM What are your experiences about starting at level 2? Good or Bad? Whether or not you have, what do you think? I'm thinking mostly about the exotic weapons (the more expensive ones, a core example is repeating crossbow) and the armors when thinking about this.
Xavon
04-06-07, 11:12 PM Really? This isn't a joke?

Unless you are planning a year or longer campaign that never goes past level 5, the difference between level 1 and level 2 are negligible. With a few glaring exceptions, exotic weapons aren't that much better than martial weapons. And any fighter or human with a martial class can take an exotic weapon at first level.

And the gold difference is not that great.
Khadmus
04-07-07, 06:57 AM "Glaring exceptions"? What would those be? I may or may not have seen them.
Thank you for the feedback. It was useful. So I should have little/no noticable change?
UAMDB
04-07-07, 08:34 AM "Glaring exceptions"? What would those be? I may or may not have seen them.
Thank you for the feedback. It was useful. So I should have little/no noticable change?

The Glaring Exception is that the players will have an extra hit die. That means that they can survive a hit.

On a side note I rarely start my PC's off lower than level 3.
RobbyPants
04-09-07, 12:26 PM The only reason I like starting the PCs off at level 1 is that I've noticed that players are more likely to develop an attachment to their PCs if they start at 1st level. They tend to play and build them differently, and talk about instances that happened at low level that helped shape who they are.

That being said, if you don't mind getting rid of that "intimacy", there's nothing wrong with starting at a higher level. In the next game I'm going to run, I'm starting the PCs at level 3. The two biggest reasons I'm doing this is that it opens up the ability to play some different races (if they are okay with taking the LA hit), and that I'm planning on running a survivor campaign. A survivor campaign would be more difficult to pull of at level 1, I think.
DarkflameX
04-09-07, 12:38 PM i think it often would make more sense to start at level 2.
i mean an elf wizard would surely have some combat experience after his 100 years of whatever he was doing
trapspringer
04-09-07, 12:54 PM That's my one beef with elves.

It must take those jokers, like, twenty years to walk or something. Clearly humans are t3h ub3r, 'cuz we can learn to use the toilet in less than a decade.

On topic:

Yea, I start my players at level 3 most of the time just so I can actually run the game in a fairly ubiased fasion. If you don't babysit level one toons you will most likely kill level one toons.
Sarrazon
04-09-07, 01:14 PM It must take those jokers, like, twenty years to walk or something. Clearly humans are t3h ub3r, 'cuz we can learn to use the toilet in less than a decade.
Technically, they mature at the same rate as humans, they just don't consider themselves adults till about 100. Load of BS, imo.

On topic, I have started all my characters at level one, and i feel it gives you more control over how your character progresses.
The_Levitator
04-10-07, 12:59 PM We tried something a little different for our current campaign that the players like so much, we've decided to start every campaign this way. Basically, we start at 2nd level, but I run the 1st level of the PC's as solo sessions to flesh out their backstory. So basically, 1st level represents the key moments of their upbringing before the main campaign begins. I ran the solo sessions for a couple of weeks before our first group session and it was a blast.

It was really fun because the players had deeper characters, as they got to "live out" important moments in that character's early life. The other great thing about running 1st lvl. as solo's is that nobody knew what anyone else was running. This really added to the suspense of "meeting" for the first time. It also allowed the players to decide what they wanted to share about their characters and what they wanted to keep secret.

It's a little more work for me, as I basically had to run 5 mini-adventures before we started the main campaign. But, it was well worth it because this has been our best campaign to date (4th with this group). I plan to begin every campaign this way from now on! :D
RobbyPants
04-10-07, 01:16 PM Interesting idea The_Levitator. I might try this some time. It helps having a smaller group to do it. Currently, I only have three players, so it would be realatively easy to do.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Khadmus 04-06-07, 02:40 PM	What are your experiences about starting at level 2? Good or Bad? Whether or not you have, what do you think? I'm thinking mostly about the exotic weapons (the more expensive ones, a core example is repeating crossbow) and the armors when thinking about this.
Xavon 04-06-07, 11:12 PM	Really? This isn't a joke? Unless you are planning a year or longer campaign that never goes past level 5, the difference between level 1 and level 2 are negligible. With a few glaring exceptions, exotic weapons aren't that much better than martial weapons. And any fighter or human with a martial class can take an exotic weapon at first level. And the gold difference is not that great.
Khadmus 04-07-07, 06:57 AM	"Glaring exceptions"? What would those be? I may or may not have seen them. Thank you for the feedback. It was useful. So I should have little/no noticable change?
UAMDB 04-07-07, 08:34 AM	"Glaring exceptions"? What would those be? I may or may not have seen them. Thank you for the feedback. It was useful. So I should have little/no noticable change? The Glaring Exception is that the players will have an extra hit die. That means that they can survive a hit. On a side note I rarely start my PC's off lower than level 3.
RobbyPants 04-09-07, 12:26 PM	The only reason I like starting the PCs off at level 1 is that I've noticed that players are more likely to develop an attachment to their PCs if they start at 1st level. They tend to play and build them differently, and talk about instances that happened at low level that helped shape who they are. That being said, if you don't mind getting rid of that "intimacy", there's nothing wrong with starting at a higher level. In the next game I'm going to run, I'm starting the PCs at level 3. The two biggest reasons I'm doing this is that it opens up the ability to play some different races (if they are okay with taking the LA hit), and that I'm planning on running a survivor campaign. A survivor campaign would be more difficult to pull of at level 1, I think.
DarkflameX 04-09-07, 12:38 PM	i think it often would make more sense to start at level 2. i mean an elf wizard would surely have some combat experience after his 100 years of whatever he was doing
trapspringer 04-09-07, 12:54 PM	That's my one beef with elves. It must take those jokers, like, twenty years to walk or something. Clearly humans are t3h ub3r, 'cuz we can learn to use the toilet in less than a decade. On topic: Yea, I start my players at level 3 most of the time just so I can actually run the game in a fairly ubiased fasion. If you don't babysit level one toons you will most likely kill level one toons.
Sarrazon 04-09-07, 01:14 PM	It must take those jokers, like, twenty years to walk or something. Clearly humans are t3h ub3r, 'cuz we can learn to use the toilet in less than a decade. Technically, they mature at the same rate as humans, they just don't consider themselves adults till about 100. Load of BS, imo. On topic, I have started all my characters at level one, and i feel it gives you more control over how your character progresses.
The_Levitator 04-10-07, 12:59 PM	We tried something a little different for our current campaign that the players like so much, we've decided to start every campaign this way. Basically, we start at 2nd level, but I run the 1st level of the PC's as solo sessions to flesh out their backstory. So basically, 1st level represents the key moments of their upbringing before the main campaign begins. I ran the solo sessions for a couple of weeks before our first group session and it was a blast. It was really fun because the players had deeper characters, as they got to "live out" important moments in that character's early life. The other great thing about running 1st lvl. as solo's is that nobody knew what anyone else was running. This really added to the suspense of "meeting" for the first time. It also allowed the players to decide what they wanted to share about their characters and what they wanted to keep secret. It's a little more work for me, as I basically had to run 5 mini-adventures before we started the main campaign. But, it was well worth it because this has been our best campaign to date (4th with this group). I plan to begin every campaign this way from now on! :D
RobbyPants 04-10-07, 01:16 PM	Interesting idea The_Levitator. I might try this some time. It helps having a smaller group to do it. Currently, I only have three players, so it would be realatively easy to do.