Everyone starts at 1st level

[the Jester]

How would you need to change the game to keep it fun for everyone if you wanted all pcs to start at 1st level, even if the party was significantly higher level?

How much do you need to flatten the math curve for this to be viable?

How many hit points should a 1st level pc fighter have in this scheme? What about a 10th level fighter? 20th level?

Gathering opinions- I'm working on a project that includes this design philosophy. What would YOU do? What can you suggest?

 

[Rechan]

I'd suggest using the level 1 PC as a shield.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Make sure that there's only two levels.

Seriously, a huge level disparity is basically a huge mechanics disparity: your party mates are hitting things you could never hit, are taking blows you could never take, and are dodging things you could never dodge. If you throw "lower-level" challenges at the party, they aren't actually challenging for anyone (since the higher-level people clean them up).

You'd need to have a basically flat (or only 5-15% variation) mechanics curve for that to remain fun without some serious DM Fiat.

 

[Crothian]

We did this back in 1e and I heard someone on the board (diaglo maybe) that still does this. If the first level character survives the fights they do tend to level faster.

 

[Gog]

Al I can think of would be that any attack from or on a creature gets adjusted for the lower level pc bu HP stay the same for the bad guy. For instance;

PC -15 lvl Bad Guy - AC 30 Atk +22 (2d6 +33)

PC -1 lvl same Bad Guy as above - AC 18 Atk +2 (2d6 +3)

The HP are still 200 or whatever, lowering the HP for the 1st lvl would make it easier for him to kill the bad guy but I think that's a little unfair to the higher levels. The problems I see with this are at a certain level there are tons of spells to deal with (depending on the system) and it would require more work for the DM.

For XP I would give them the xp for the lower CR (or whatever it is called) plus a bonus of some sort based on the difference between the lower CR and the upper CR. The upper level PC would get xp based on the upper CR and would not include the 1st level guy in anyway in that calculation.

I would think getting them closer to the average level of everybody else fairly quickly would be a good idea.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Depends on the system. I don't think its viable past a certain point in any system. If the party is level 10, I don't think adding a new character at 1st level is ever going to work out well. Making new characters start out lower depends on the system.

Old School(OD&D through 2E, and retro clones)--I think the game can bear a bit of disparity. I'd say that a 1st level character can be added to a party as high as level 4 without hassles, and if the DM doesn't advance the difficulty of the game it can go a bit higher.

3E--3E has a higher power curve and encounter power curve than Old School or 4E, so lower level characters are less viable here.

4E--RPGA adventures allow for a 3 level difference(1st level through 4th level) and I think this would be the guideline. Anything more and you run into serious balance/encounter issues.


I'd say the guideline would be at most 3 levels lower. The second consequence of doing this would be catching up xp wise, which is easy in Old School and much harder in 3E/4E and would require some sort of DM fiat.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

What game?

D&D would be hard to do this with.

Vampire, much easier.

In a game where power levels multiples better (e.g. 2nd level is nearly twice as good as first. 3rd level is more than 3 times better than first), you'd need to either:

1. Do a LOT of changing to the game.

2. Do a lot of changing to "first level" which would take away the whole point.

3. Expect that new characters are:
a. completely ineffective (which might be ok)

b. super min/maxed as much as possible for survival

c. all sneaky long ranged types to both survive and contribute



If you're talking D&D, i'd NEVER expect a defender / fighter who wasn't focused on ranged attackes to fulfil that role as 1st level among a group of 4th level and up characters.


Maybe cap the game at 4th level?



BTW. I don't mean to threadcrap, I just mean to point out that there are some really extreme challenges built into your question...BUT it could be done by changing EXPECTATIONS of players going into the game...sorta like in a Cthulhu game, you expect to lose/die.

One other ramification:
This will encourage selfish behaviors of survival among players who are higher than 1st level (and possibly suicidal behavior among new 1st level guys). Higher level guys will be LOATHE to die, while new 1st level characters will pale in comparison to the old character (and hence, players will not be invested in them).


One question: what is the reasoning behind your wanting to do this? I ask this because there may be other ways to reach your goal.

For instance, if you want a feeling of continuity, here is one way for players to introduce "new" characters:
1. Have hirelings in many adventures. These (or other NPCs) are statted out by players...heck, even the "bad guy" turned good could be used in this way. (This might also be a good way for you to alleviate some of your dm responsibilities). When a player dies, the hireling (usually of a level 3 or less than the pcs) becomes the new player character. Do this, and you have a "pool" of potential new pcs from which to draw, and it makes sense that they "step up" to join the party.

 

[Mallus]

Step 1: As DM, design combat encounters that contain level-appropriate opponents for each PC.

Step 2: During the combat, match up the level-appropriate combatants (this is common in superhero comics, let's call it the "X-Men Effect")

Step 3: Profit!

This works using any edition of D&D.

Alternately, you could allow PC's to try combat maneuvers that are not described mechanically ("I through my cloak over the dastard's head so he can't see!"). Resolve these by pure DM Fiat. This also works in any edition of D&D.

As for a mechanics-based solution? I got nothing that wouldn't make the concept of "level" meaningless.

 

[the Jester]

Consider this speculative comparison between a hypothetical 1st and 10th level dwarf fighter, let's call him "Boldo". I'm using a few assumptions here regarding magic item distribution and monetary resources.

Does it look like these guys could adventure together, and the 1st level guy would be viable standing next to the 10th level guy? Obviously, he's not as burly, but would these guys be playable together?

BOLDO (1st level)
HP: 22
AC: 16 (+3 chain mail, +1 helm, +2 heavy shield)
Fort: +3
Ref: +0
Will: +2
Attack with axe: +5 vs. AC; 1d8+2
Coolest Attacks: Sweep- make one attack each at up to three adjacent targets; +1 vs. AC for 1d8+2.
Push- add a secondary attack on a melee hit; +3 vs. Fortitude; Hit: push enemy 1 square.


BOLDO (10th level)
HP: 51
AC: 20 (+6 full plate +1, +1 helm, +2 heavy shield, +1 class)
Fort: +4
Ref: +1
Will: +3
Attack with axe: +12 vs. AC; 1d8+3.
Coolest Attacks: Sweep- close burst 1; +9 vs. AC; 1d8+3.
Rapid Strike- 2 attacks on the same target; +7 vs. AC; 1d8+3.
Push- add a secondary attack on a melee hit; +10 vs. Fortitude; Hit: push enemy 1 square.

 

[Mallus]

Does it look like these guys could adventure together, and the 1st level guy would be viable standing next to the 10th level guy? Obviously, he's not as burly, but would these guys be playable together?

The 1st level guy looks durable enough... but either the 10th level guy is going to hit nearly all the time or the 1st level guy is going to be the Prince of Whiffs.

Neither are desirable outcomes.