Topic: Are first level characters too weak?

[David Johansen]

RM2 characters are too incompetent.

RMSS characters can be if the players don't make a point of specializing in something fairly specific.

I much prefer RMSS in part because levels are less of an issue than in RM2.

[rafmeister]

     I play RMFRP now, and used to play RM2. No, first level characters are fine. However, as a GM you must make some decisions.

1) What is the standard power level for NPCs? I played in a campaign where the knights were second level, and great heroes were seventh. My lay healer got up to seventh and did quite nicely. If you decide the average merchant is a fifth level thief, the tavern dancer is a seventh level warrior monk, and the Watch Sargeant is tenth level then you need to remember this.

2) How quickly will characters gain levels? The higher the average level is, the more quickly a character should gain a level. A first level character who makes it to third level after three weeks is not a first level character for long. Playing a year and not gaining second level is really annoying. If characters quickly jump a few levels, then where they started does not matter. There is a reason for the 5x first time multipliers: starting characters can really use them! I tend to give 5000+ XP for a few sessions.

3) What are you sending them against? Giant rats, low level characters, vermin, and tournaments are good opponents. A guild of master assassins is not.

[RandalThor]

I guess since it was something I said that started all of this, I should chime in:

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.  

And if I ever had a game that lasted more than 2-3 months, I would likely agree with you, but since I haven't....... I just get sick and tired of "starting out at first level" only to never get past 3rd.

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!

With possible unlimited level advancement, there is always room for development.

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.

You can be challenged at 5th, 10th, 50th level, it is just that I prefer it if a housecat isn't a challenge.

Although a large portion of the reason I do not like to start out at first level is because I never get the chance to truly advance, the reason I believe RM characters shouldn't go out adventuring at 1st level is cold, hard numbers.

Only those uber (like having max stats and perfect/exact talents) focused on a very small skill-set have the skill bonuses to do well - in their very narrow range of ability. As we all know, "adventures" are comprised of a multitude of different situations that the over specialized cannot hope to accomplish. This means that adventurers need to have a much broader range of skills than the average joe. (A town guard can get away with not having a good climb skill, a good weather sense skill, a good foraging skill, etc along with the their combat and awareness and social skills - an adventurer can't.) To have all these skills, at greater and lesser levels of ability, takes Levels and the corresponding DPs.

Now, if their first "adventures" are basically in their backyard, then by all means, starting out at first level is fine. But, if they have to go more than 5-6 days travel away, into the badlands, near the dark forest, etc then first level just doesn't cut it.

Yes, we all assume that the group is going to be cohesive, so that all the skill sets are there - if not possessed by everyone. That is a recipe for disaster. What happens when your Ranger is killed while you are deep within the dark forest? Too bad you don't have half his outdoor skills, and even less than half of his bonus in the few you do have. There are many skills that should be very redundant in adventuring groups - other than fighting (though, that is a big one  ).

In order for the mage to do his job of having all the cool spells, and not be a total burden in all other matters, means he needs to take some of those precious DPs and put them into skills other than those dealing with spellcasting. The DP sink these necessary skills incur mean you need to be greater than 1st level to truly go out into the world adventuring.

Dang! Gotta get back to work.

PS: I really want to play in a 30+ level RM game (say about 50th level) very, very much.  

[Cory Magel]

Interestingly I find that first level characters are slightly too weak in RMSS/FRP, but we solved that easily by allowing the use of Hobby Ranks for Body Dev and Spell Points so long as you work the reasoning into your character description/history in some way.

[Arioch]

As we all know, "adventures" are comprised of a multitude of different situations that the over specialized cannot hope to accomplish. This means that adventurers need to have a much broader range of skills than the average joe.

I think that Randal underlined an important point here: note that with "too weak" I wasn't meaning too weak in combat, but that their skill bonuses tend to be too low in general.
If it was only for combat situations the solution to the problem would be simple: just put few, simple combats in low level adventures (or, even better, no combat at all).
The problem is that 1st level PCs will have an hard time even with non-combat situations: it will be really hard for them to solve mysteries, because they've very low awareness skills and they'll be able to notice only the most obvious clues; they can't go exploring because they'll lose themselves if they leave home, they can't do stealth missions because their stealth skills are too low; and so on.

Maybe the solution could be talents to give them a higher bonus in some skills, or maybe it could be changing somehow the effects of failure...

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........

I'll open a new topic to talk about this 

[RandalThor]

All these ideas of making the first level characters playable are just manifestatons of a need for us to conform this game to a way of thinking that isn't for this game. Just let go, and realize that a game that has unlimited levels doesn't need to be constrained by the thought process of a game with a more limited range of development - and whose core concept is much different than RM's.

Instead of coming up with all these new rules and methods for making a 1st level character more survivable, just give them a couple of levels and realize that that is a beginning character. Who wrote in stone where 1st was the only level at which to begin a campaign, anyway? Not only the young/inexperienced get thrust into exciting situations.

I truly believe that this way of thinking is a hold over from DnD where 0-level was everyone NOT and adventurer or very special NPC. Of course, that was before the 3.0 where they made some NPC specific classes, that were weaker than PC/Adventuring classes. Even then, it was generally assumed that the 30-year old farmer had only 2-3 levels of Commoner under his belt.

Also, RM is different than DnD in the fact that you don't have to go through all of an individuals hits in order to knock them out or kill them (which was likely a very big reason for the 0-level NPC rule), so it really doesn't matter how many hits that farmer has, it only matters how skilled he is in combat.

[Arioch]

Who wrote in stone where 1st was the only level at which to begin a campaign, anyway? Not only the young/inexperienced get thrust into exciting situations.

I dunno, I get this silly idea because it's called First level, so I thought that PC should start first from there... 

Jokes a part, it's an interesting point of view, and you're right: higher level PCs are perfectly playable. Maybe including a power scale like this:
1st-3rd level: newbie
4th-7th: expert
etc
in the main book could help...

[Ecthelion]

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

We never had an issue with 1st level PCs and almost always started our characters at 1st level. Especially with RMSS/RMFRP I don't see a real problem with 1st level characters since, through Adolescence Ranks, Training Packages and also Hobby Skills, a character can easily gain reasonable competence (lets say up to 5 ranks) in a few areas or develop even 6-10 ranks in one area (e.g. combat). And running adventures like from the old ME RPG modules with such characters has never been an issue.

[vroomfogle]

I see 1st level characters still as Apprentices still, especially with casters.    Casters aren't going to study magic to years to learn a few spells and then take off.   For one, where are they going to learn their spells after that?    Apprenticeship lasts to level 3-5.

The problem with boosting up the 1st level characters is that it's raising the bar and removing less powerful, less skilled, and younger people from your game world entirely!    With weak 1st level characters you have a continuum where the range of levels accurately reflects the wide range in competence (and ages) of the general populace.  If instead you boost 1st level you've compressed the range of youths and unskilled into "Adolescence" and "Apprenticeship".

[providence13]

If I may,

It isn't so much that 1st level characters are too weak...
IMO, its that chance mistakes are too powerful.

A Fighter can fumble a weapon and cut themselves really, really bad.
A Mage can also fumble a spell and hurt themselves really, really bad.

A Thief won't die from just using Lock Lore; "The complexities of the Lock assault your senses- roll vs coma!"
A Mage can become seriously injured from using a spell to do the same thing. "The Lore spell assaults your senses- Roll on the spontaneous human combustion table; twice!"

Many could argue that these PC's unleash cosmic power that can barely be contained!!....
I say to that, come on! 1st lvl spells are not great cosmic power. It should be scaleable to that persons power... or something. Every 1st lvl Mage is their own weapon of mass destruction? I don't think so.

If everyone is 1st lvl...Cool!
But the fumbles aren't the same.

[dutch206]

Just MHO:

There is a world of difference between a first level fighter and a first level pure Essence user.  I wouldn't let a first level magician enter combat (even against a rabid squirrel).

I use the optional "Secondary Skills" rules, giving each character 10dp's per level to spend on hobbies and lore skills.  The magician usually ends up spending their secondary DP's on History, Geography, and Artifact Lore.  Apprentice mages may stink at combat, but you can't beat having a mobile encyclopedia on hand.

I don't want first level characters to be ultra-powerful toons.  Those early levels are very important in helping players understand that in Rolemaster, a full-frontal assault should be your last resort, not your first option.

[sunwolf]

One thing you can do for first level characters is modify the tasks.  Make all the tasks Easy (+30 bonus?) that takes care of non-combat, non-spellcasting.  For combat you could let the PC's have higher ground or fortifications if they make any effort at all to plan.  Spell casting have your PC's take extra time and get a casting bonus.

[providence13]

Honestly, I think it could have been "Enchanted Rope" or something like that.
We had to climb a tree to get away from a fox that had our scent, or something...
The GM kept stressing that if I fell out of the tree, then I would probably die!
The spell wasn't even cast in combat.

(Maybe it was "Find Familiar" to get a crow to scout for the wicked beast that was hot on our heals..)

Anyway, I love the smell and clean feel of a 1st lvl character sheet. I use wide rule kindergarden paper 'cause it can handle more erasing!
But I'm not playing the dad from the movie Firestarter!

[Nders]

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...

This I'm afraid is absolute nonsense.
There is absolutely no way that a spell user will be casting presence or the like near enough to castch a thief in the act. The radius of awarenes and presence spells plus duration maes it a good spell for detecting invisible or hidden foes but as an efecient counter measure against ambush it is neigh useless

[Elton Robb]

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.

Like beat on a few goblins and scare them away?

[providence13]

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.

Like beat on a few goblins and scare them away?

Like get beat on by a few goblins and the PC's have the good sense to run away!

[providence13]

It's not just GM's.
Other games do give you the "I can handle this" feeling. In RM, you just never know; at any level.

[dutch206]

It's not just GM's.
Other games do give you the "I can handle this" feeling. In RM, you just never know; at any level.

Situational Paranoia, a GM's best friend. 

[mibsweden]

It's not just GM's.
Other games do give you the "I can handle this" feeling. In RM, you just never know; at any level.

Isn't it beautiful? 

[Elton Robb]

I love it.   That's the feeling of realism.  I mean, you join the army, they train you to fight and send you to Afganistan or Iraq.  You get into a combat situation, you know what to do and feel confident you can handle it, but statistically you don't know the outcome.