Everyone starts at 1st level

[the Jester]

I'd ask "what was the point of revamping the system?"

To make it so that nobody needs a bitchin' artifact to be viable when adventuring with characters of significantly differing levels.

So guys within 1-2 levels of each other being viable in combat is not the same effect as guys withing 1-10 levels of each other being viable in combat? I'm not sure I follow.

The difference is, in your scenario, starting new or replacement characters at 1st level is likely to be a frustrating and sucky experience, if the party is above 1st level. In my scenario, the new character is a little shaky compared to the dead 10th level pc you had previously, but you know that he'll be able to contribute.

 

[howandwhy99]

Based upon the original post's questions:

I guess I'd have to ask, which game? I figure you mean D&D, but D&D hasn't been the same game throughout its' history. I think most rules would need to be changed within the current version.

However, I believe 4E did go back to a flatter "curve" reminescent of earlier pre-d20 versions of D&D. The progression slope is lower than 3E. This could work, but not for 30 levels. It might work if all new PCs started at the starting level for a tier (the lowest level of the tier). ...and no PCs in the party spread across two tiers. Essentially the whole party retires and ends the game after one tier and then begins the Paragon or Epic game.

How many hit points per level? At least 1 HP for starting level PCs. At least 10 for 10th level. Hit Die works as well for greater variation and enjoyment for the players. 20th level fighters? Way out of bounds unless you half again the progression slope. And giving half a hit point per level is a little sketchy IMO.

Suggestions? I suggest every PC have a base chance for failure and a base chance for success regardless of their level for ALL class related challenges. (Ignoring gear, assistance, negotiation, etc.) fighters have a 5% chance of success at 1st level against a 10th level monster and 50% against a 1st level monster. The success chance becomes completely inverted upon reaching 10th level: 95% chance of success against 1st level monsters, 50% against 10th level monsters.

D&D does (or did) this full progression across one die, one die roll being the simplest. Think THAC0 progression. Do you need an 11 to defeat the enemy or a 20? A 2 or an 11? Are they the easiest to defeat or the hardest? As always the difficulty of the game depends upon one's level bonuses earned so far.

Of course going up against a 10th level challenge makes little sense even if it is possible at 1st. The key factor for why players wouldn't normally take such foolishly low odds for success is failure would likely mean they would begin the game again with zero points and level 1 bonuses. As one goes up in level the amount of effort lost upon failing to beat a challenge goes up too. So players will almost certainly become more cautious at higher levels. A good thing, if the point is to stay alive and retain one's XP total. However this desire to stay alive is mitigated by the player's desire to actually gain more XP and access to even higher bonuses, so I think it works out well in the end.

In terms of XP rewards, I'd award players for roleplaying well enough to overcome the challenges with a similarly progressive XP chart. Those playing 1st level PCs receive very big ##'s for overcoming a 10th level monster, those playing 10th level PCs receive very small ##'s for overcoming a 1st level monster and those who overcame a level equivalent monster receive the level standard. But as levels go up, so must the standard point reward for any given level. Therefore we get a logarithmic XP reward progression for monsters / challenges. And because of this a logarithmic progression is best for level requirements too. This also helps those with lower level PCs catch up as, with XP charts which double each level, the highest level PC is only going to advance a single level in the same amount of time it takes for everyone else to attain that high PC's level when they began play. (I hope that makes sense) Of course, this is all depends upon individual play results too.

Our group has been playing with every PC starting at 1st level for over 5 years now and the game has worked well throughout. We've had young to old, very experienced to complete newbie players. No one has really had a problem with it either as so much of the game is about personal success even in the midst of working together as a team.

I find it's best to remember that players are not in competition with each other, but against the game. Just because someone has more points or a higher level PC does not mean they are beating you. I've seen 1st level 1 hp PCs do things my 5th level PC never could as their players outwit high level monsters (not to mention my PC on occasion - a "monster" to the other PCs technically anyways).

 

[jursamaj]

This sort of issue is one of many reasons that I'm not interested in class/level based games anymore. Especially ones that blather on about "balance". I like Traveller or RuneQuest, where you can have characters spanning a few generations in a party. Everybody doesn't have to be close to some combat challenge level.

Because let's face it, that's what levels are about: combat balance. Keeping the whole party "viable" against a certain group of enemies. But some of the funnest role-playing has nothing at all to do with combat. (Often not even anything to do with anybody but PCs!)

Don't get me wrong. The occasional fight can be fun too. But fighting is only 1 set of PC skills.

 

[the Jester]

So not long after the last previous post in this thread, I moved and was without regular Intarweb access for a while, and I let the project I was working on- which I have been referring to as "D&D Jazz Edition"- recede to the back of my mind for a while.

Now that I'm living in the middle of nowhere and am what we jokingly call "funemployed", I have lots of time to think about it again.

I'll be posting a new thread on the topic of my D&D Jazz Edition and the thoughts that I've had about it, but I wanted to bump this one too, because the "everyone starts at 1st level" thing is a HUGE part of the design goal. Back in the day- which is to say, as late as early 3.0- that was a strict part of my policy when I dmed. My experiences with it in 3e proved that it was no longer viable; 1st level pcs starting off in a 4th level party just plain weren't fun any more.

(I know someone is gonna argue that they weren't fun before that; I strongly disagree, and played with that approach as well as dmed with it for many years. It worked fine in 1e and 2e, imho and ime.)

Sadly, since my move placed me about 3 hours from the group that had done some moderate amounts of playtesting of the system, I have not had the chance to do any further testing of it. We haven't gotten to the "Mixed level" tests yet, so I'm not sure if it works.

However, the playtesting, and my subsequent thinking about it, did reveal that there were a few things that weren't working as intended with other parts of the system; primarily, character generation should take 10-20 minutes, and it didn't; it took much too long. This was because I had too many choices in the character generation process: feats, exploits, etc.

I am going to largely do away with these things... and instead, allow all characters a limited menu of mix and match abilities that they can trigger at will with action points. One of the big differences between a low level and a high level pc will be how many action points they get.

So, for instance, a pc might be able to push an enemy 5' by spending an action point on a hit. A pc might be able to knock an enemy prone by spending 2 action points on a hit, with the enemy getting a save; or knock them prone, no save, for 4 action points.

Part of what will make a high-level fighter cool will be the ability to layer more special effects on an attack because they have more APs, rather than more feats that allow them to do so. Yes, the fighter 10 will have more hps than a fighter 1; yes, he'll have a better chance to hit. But the REAL difference will lie in his ability to do more cool things in combat by having more action points. Also, action points will have mechanisms to let them refresh in combat; for instance, maybe a fighter will get an action point whenever he drops an enemy or scores a critical hit.

More to come... prolly in a new thread.

 

[Dausuul]

Bit late to the conversation, but it's a fascinating subject for me so I'll throw my two cents in...

IMO, the key to making this concept work is to focus character advancement on breadth over depth - granting more options instead of more powerful ones. So instead of your attack and defense numbers going up, you get different types of attacks and defenses. You become a more versatile combatant but not a markedly more powerful one.

A little depth-advancement is fine, but it should be quite limited IMO. I think breadth-based advancement is generally far preferable to depth-based for many reasons:

• It allows the aforementioned "everybody starts at 1" approach.
• Characters start out simple and gain complexity as they level, allowing the player to master new options one at a time (and since everybody starts at 1, you need never make a leveled-up character to fit into an established campaign).
• The DM can build a campaign around a particular monster type as an opponent, without having to worry about the PCs "out-leveling" the monsters and without having to supply an increasingly implausible series of leveled-up versions.
• It puts far less of a strain on suspension of disbelief. Depth-based level schemes usually result in characters who go from wet-behind-the-ears novice to world-shaking-empire-smashing-god-slaying lord of destruction in a matter of months.
• Players who like to explore new "builds" and character types don't have to make new characters to do it - they can just take their old characters in new directions.

 

[ashockney]

I am going to largely do away with these things... and instead, allow all characters a limited menu of mix and match abilities that they can trigger at will with action points. One of the big differences between a low level and a high level pc will be how many action points they get.

So, for instance, a pc might be able to push an enemy 5' by spending an action point on a hit. A pc might be able to knock an enemy prone by spending 2 action points on a hit, with the enemy getting a save; or knock them prone, no save, for 4 action points.

Part of what will make a high-level fighter cool will be the ability to layer more special effects on an attack because they have more APs, rather than more feats that allow them to do so.

Very cool idea the Jester!

I like the aspect of quicker char gen, and agree this would work. It would be cool to be able to do "anything" that your character wanted with narration and AP spends. I can imagine that there would be certain "thresholds" of cool abilities that would be available by spending more AP's intially to try it, but then once you've successfully completed the maneuver, you could do it more easily. This would create "pathways" for characters of "likely" tactics without limiting their imagination.

Please be sure to check out the thread on re-writing "original/1e" D&D. It certainly seems like this is the feel you're really reaching for, and if you're going to go there, I think you'd need to roll it all back.

 

[Coldwyn]

At least in 4E, a good compromise would be to give the new guy BAB, Saves and HP accourding to teh rest of the groups level, but have him work up from Lvl1 Powers and w/o Paragon Path with regular experience.
This would represent some noob with a lot of potential but without any actual experience to it.
This characters At Wills would be en par with the rest, but he´ll be lacking the better Encounetr and Daily powers for a while.

 

[Aramax]

How about giving the 1st levels wildly inapropriate magic items(Legacy ,inheritance,divine)tied to the game