Topic: Are first level characters too weak?

[Arioch]

From another topic:

I flubbed a 1st lvl spell as a 1st lvl Mage and took hits/passed out! I can't use weapons or armor and I only pose a threat to myself.. I thought "In a world this dangerous, how could anyone study hard enough to learn magic?"

My immediate response to this is: That is why you don't go adventuring at 1st level. I firmly believe that the first 2 or 3 levels are for your younger, training days - i.e. while you are still "in school". Maybe even up to 4th level.

We need to remember that in RM there is no max level, you can keep going, and going, and going until you are stopped. (Anyone seen the levels of the NPCs in Shadow World recently?) Another thing telling me this is, because this game is so skill oriented, and that there are alot of skills, means that you need to develop quite a few different skills - even as a fighter - in order to be fleshed out/skilled enough to represent your profession in a competant manner. The idea that a +50 is fully professional needs to be thrown out the window. If you failed at your job at work anywhere close to 50% of the time you would be canned. And a +50 means more than 50% - yes, you can do things to add to your bonus/lessen the difficulty, but then there are plenty of things that do just the opposite, too.

I must say that I agree with that, first level characters won't live very long if they go off adventuring (note that just now I'm playing a campaign with characters starting at 1st level) as their skill bonuses are usually ridiculously low and they'll probably fail all but the easiest maneuvers.

I think it wouldn't be too bad if 1st level PCs were a little more powerful, not very much, just enough to be competent in one of their fields (like if 1st level thieves were actually able to pick a lock...).

What do you think? Are you perfectly fine with 1st level PCs or do you prefer to start at a higher level?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I don't if you are talking about RMFRP or RMC here.

If RMC, have you looked at the rules and options for RMC. Specifically the RMX or Character Creation Guidelines, and perhaps the issue of Express Additions that contains Cultures. One of the main purposes behind those is to make first level character much more viable without aids.

[GoblynByte]

Yes, they are too weak.  They should be.  I like the idea of characters starting out as total scrubs and rising to greatness over time.  If I lose a couple along the way, so be it. 

[Nders]

I agree to some degree with Rasyr here. With culture and training packages as presented in the express additions even level 1 characters can start of reasonably skilled at a few select skills. Pretty much any semi or pure arms can start of with between 6 and 10 ranks in their chosen combatstyle resulting in a OB of between 37 and 60 with an ag total of 0 and a st total of 10 add various miscelanious bonusses and background options you end up rather competent. Granted you would need to be a man at arms to end up with 10 ranks but it was meant to illustrate that if you want to you can start of skilled. If you use the background options presented in the recent reprint of companion one the problem evens out even more as the massive bonuses to either skills or stats also make for decent skill totals - even at level 1.
As for mages there are a good deal of rules in classic spell law that allow for bounesses to esf and thus you can with time cast spells of 2-3 levels above your own with reasonably low risks. Consider a suddenlight cast before melee at level 1 without the skill stunned manuvre.

[Arioch]

I don't if you are talking about RMFRP or RMC here.

If RMC, have you looked at the rules and options for RMC. Specifically the RMX or Character Creation Guidelines, and perhaps the issue of Express Additions that contains Cultures. One of the main purposes behind those is to make first level character much more viable without aids.

Doesn't this implicitly mean that otherwise 1st level PC would be too weak? 

[Right Wing Wacko]

Are the PC's too weak, or the 1st level adventure too hard?
I always understood 1st level RM PC's to be equivalent to 0 level D&D PC's. I also don't mind that PC's start out weak, as that only means there is plenty of room for development!
Also, I always understood that RM is more simulationist/realistic than most other games, and thus people generally start off weak and gain power over time/experience.
Now, having said that, it is quite difficult for a 1st level PC to succeed at just about anything that is considered challenging.

But these are just my observations/opinions....

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Doesn't this implicitly mean that otherwise 1st level PC would be too weak?  

Maybe. But I will say that, IMO, in the core RMC, 1st level characters ARE too weak -- in certain areas.

Not enough Hits, not enough power points -- these are the two biggest problems, IMO. RMX addresses these two issues directly by implementing specific options that increases the starting number of hits and power points that a character has.

The suggestion of using the Culture rules from EA is there as an aid, but they aren't really required (i.e. they are an added boost that can up the skill ranks in a few certain skills).

[phydaux42]

Am I the only one in the world who enjoys the challenge of playing low level characters?

Based on my experience with other players who always insist on starting out at lvl 5, minimum, I guess so.

But I've played a few campaigns where the players all started out at level one, and it was a lot of fun.  Yes, we all know a hard sneeze could kill any of us.  So we had to disengage dice and engage brains in order to think our way through problems rather than just hack & blast.

I guess it's just a preference thing, and I know I'm in the minority.

[markc]

 IMO compared to other games RMSS PC's of 1st level are weaker than 1st level PC's in other games.

MDC

[Dark Schneider]

This is my opinion:

Spell users -> yes, totally.
Semi-spell users -> um, not bad.
Non-spell users -> not at all.

And that is the reason a spell users may seem more powerfull at high levels, spell users are supposed to have a long development so they are too weak at low levels really, while non-spell usres can defend themselves perfectly.

[bottg]

I see it as relative.  They may not be very good but they are only too weak if the GM makes the adventure difficult.  A group of 5 1st lvl PC's can easily handle an adventure where the sum total of enemies are 10 1st lvl goblins and a lvl 2 Orc, spread over several encounters.

[Arioch]

Am I the only one in the world who enjoys the challenge of playing low level characters?

No, in fact I prefer low-level advetures to high-level ones usually.
But 1st level PCs in RM have very, very low skill bonuses and sometimes that's a bit annoying IMHO.

Now, having said that, it is quite difficult for a 1st level PC to succeed at just about anything that is considered challenging.

Yes, that's what I meant. Actually, it's quite difficult to succeed ad anything with a difficulty of Medium or higher. Probably if they had just a single skill with a higher bonus it'd be better... maybe gifts, TPs etc are the solution, as other said.

And that is the reason a spell users may seem more powerfull at high levels, spell users are supposed to have a long development so they are too weak at low levels really, while non-spell usres can defend themselves perfectly.

That's entirely another topic but:
- the "suck at low levels, kick asses at high levels" thing is probably one of the worst "balancing" solution ever thought. I mean, why? What sense there's in it? Why I can't be as useful as any other character from the start instead of going from being unable to do anything good to being uber-powerful? I can see the reason for it in a wargame, but not in a rpg! 
- spell users do no seem more powerful at high levels. They are more powerful than other professions. Much more powerful. Too powerful, actually.

[phydaux42]

the "suck at low levels, kick asses at high levels" thing is probably one of the worst "balancing" solution ever thought... spell users do no seem more powerful at high levels. They are more powerful than other professions. Much more powerful. Too powerful, actually.

D&D tried to get around this by introducing spell resistance.  That just meant that spell users sucked at low level and high level.

One thing to remember, though, about those "too powerful" high level spell users - A Thief with lots of ranks in Stalk & Hide and Ambush can work wonders.

[mibsweden]

Well there is not much room for "fooling around" as a 1st level PC in RM. I like it that way

You better put some effort into developing some weapons skill and body development, even as a 1st level pure spell user. And even if you might not feel like it, having low Quickness, Constitution and maybe Strength can be dangerous as a 1st level character.

In my game at the moment a 1st level Cleric of a God of Death has 86 OB with his two-handed sword.

You have to make some sacrifices to live through those first few levels. Being Arne the Magician with 10 hit points at level 1 is just not the way

[mibsweden]

One thing to remember, though, about those "too powerful" high level spell users - A Thief with lots of ranks in Stalk & Hide and Ambush can work wonders.

Hehe yes , and horrible for the GM at times heh

[Arioch]

One thing to remember, though, about those "too powerful" high level spell users - A Thief with lots of ranks in Stalk & Hide and Ambush can work wonders.

Nonsense, thieves cannot really hope to ambush a high level SC, unless the said spell caster is a fool (and, since he's survived through the first levels he probably isn't). Even if you have 30+ ranks in Stalking a simple second level spell like Presence used cleverly will foil any ambush attempt. Have fun ambushing my phantasm of myself as I fireball you invisible from the air...

[phydaux42]

Yes, Presence is the trick.  That's why Unpresence is the counter trick.

What?  Your GM doesn't allow Unpresence items?  When I GM, very high level NPCs go to great lengths to acquire Unpresence items.

And yeah, I said NPCs get them. Just NPCs.

[phydaux42]

But we're getting really far afield.  The question was are 1st level characters too weak.  The answer is no provided the players aren't stupid (big hoop to jump through right there) and that the GM provides challenges of appropriate difficulty.  

[kevinmccollum]

the "suck at low levels, kick asses at high levels" thing is probably one of the worst "balancing" solution ever thought. I mean, why? What sense there's in it? Why I can't be as useful as any other character from the start instead of going from being unable to do anything good to being uber-powerful? I can see the reason for it in a wargame, but not in a rpg! 

Why do you think it is supposed to be balanced? I have always viewed high level casters as much more dangerous than the warriors. It takes more to get there but........

[kevinmccollum]

Are first level characters too weak? No. they are supposed to be weak. The "adventures" they go on should be appropriate. There may be an issue of GM's who don't know how to balance an encounter/adventure with a 1st level party.