1st Edition D&D, How to play? Options

[Bigity]

90 percent kill rate? I play mean, and that's out of my reach. Maybe you should run away from a fight or two, or stop mucking around in every privvy you find looking for the gems.

[Nikoli]

Funny, I've had monks be among the best suited for survival. They are ready for a fight when they wake up, they can othen deal single-handed with a rust monster and they are just plain fun.

[Nerbert]

Alright. So, is it better to add new characters at the XP level of the rest of the group, or always start at level one?

[Kagetenshi]

Given the degree of power difference between levels, I'd say probably at the approximate XP level of the rest of the group—a Level 8 character is going to be bored by anything a Level 1 character can help against, and even a Level 4 or 5 character is probably going to be awkwardly shuffling his or her feet a fair bit.

~J

[Nerbert]

I found that playing a Monk meant a lot of ineffectual attacking of heavily armored foes and being ignored or dying hideously in one or two hits.

[Kagetenshi]

Jumping off of your previous question, was there a significant XP difference between your character and the rest of the party at the time?

(Microsoft has ruined the phrase "XP" for me forever)

~J

[Nerbert]

No. I was pretty even with them the whole time.

Don't get me wrong, while my monk was off fighting for his new level I played a venerable age half elf Druid and had a lot of fun. He was 250 years old, had a mastodon for an animal companion, and was constantly chasing our Cleric's skirt.

[Kagetenshi]

Mmm, skirt-chasers :)

I don't know what's up, then. It's been too long since I last played 1e, but I definitely remember Monks being nastier than you describe.

~J

[Nikoli]

So, what you are saying is that playing a monk isn't for you. That's cool, not every class is fun for every player, certainly true of Shadowrun. (Yes there are classes in SR, just 2 very loose ones :Mundane with cyber/bio options, Awakened, with cyber/bio options)

[Fortune]

I've been playing (or mostly DMing) D&D (AD&D. AD&D2, D20) since the mid-seventies, and I haven't started a 1st level game since I was a newbie. There's no point, and it isn't really either realistic or enjoyable.

What wizard is going to spend four or more years training an apprentice just to send him out on his own with the capacity to cast one spell per day? What temple is going to send out one of their hard-won faithful without first making sure he can use more than one or two prayers?

I usually start games around 5th level, but anywhere between 3rd and 7th is more reasonable than 1st.

As for adding characters to an already established group, there are two trains of thought. If the player wants to play a already experienced character, they can come in at the same level as the lowest PC. If, on the other hand, they want to start a new character, and link up with the veterans, starting them at the beginning (3rd to 5th) isn't too much of a disadvantage, because at the rate the higher PCs earn experience, it doesn't take long for the new character to blow through three or four levels and narrow the margin. As long as they survive, which if played right, they have a good chance of doing.

[Fortune]

[Nerbert]

Thanks Fortune, thats some good information.

Unfortunately, the guy DMing it doesn't have a lot of experience. This game will be his big push into it.

We've recommended that he start us at a higher level, and I think I'm going to emphasize that that would be a good idea.

[Aku]

i would say thers a few things to remember (regardless of system really).

if the DM is new to it, don't push too incrediablly hard for a higher level, a better idea might be to let you get a couple sessions under his belt, and see how he does, if he handles everything fluidly, at the end of the first adventure bring it up again, something like "Why don't we all go our own seperate ways for a few months/years, and then track each other down, meet <here>" and in the process, level up a few times, and pick up the new story from there.

Secondly, as has been said, not every class is for every person, experiment a bit to see what fits you. You can even take hints from what you play in other genre's to guide you.

[Bigity]

Bah, starting at higher levels then 1st is cheating ;)

[Nikoli]

And one of the things I love about 3.5 is that caster don't start with 1 spell/day. They can actually buff and do damage on the same day without resorting to scrolls.

[Bigity]

Specialists (Illusionists in 1st) can start with more then one spell per day.

Although I much prefer SR's system of casting until you aren't willing to risk death/damage much better.

[Nikoli]

Yes, but almost nobody I've ever played with used the 'buffs' printed with the game until they got some way to maintain them without penalty, forget reducing penalty.

[Shadow]

As a DM I always start my player (if they have never played before) out at 1st level. Then I try very hard to give them a challenge without killing them (because at first level a stiff breeze will kill you.)

And then once they have got the basics down I try to aim it so that they get a level every (or every other) session. I find that it gives them something toll look forward to and keps interest.

As they approach tenth level it becomes once every four sessions, and even less as they get higher. I am not sure after 14 cause I never DM'd a game that went past 14. Though I have played a number of characters who were that high.

I totally recommend D&D3 as apposed to 1st ed. It will be a lot more fun than trying to figure out what the 1st ed rules mean when they say ' as opposed to " when they really mean " not '.

[Kagetenshi]

Remember, chopsticks deal 1d3 points of damage.

~J

[Nerbert]

Sadly, the #1 character type I play in every other genre is social and noncombat oriented.