Low-levelled newbie

[SnowleopardVK]

Our current (Pathfinder) game looks like we may be getting a new member soon, thus bringing our party from 3 members to 4, and (hopefully) giving us a proper healer or frontline fighter. The GM seems to be toying with the idea of bringing in the new guy a level lower than the current members of the group however.

What's with doing that? I've seen a lot of GMs do that to players, and it generally doesn't seem to do much but make them less useful. I've even experienced joining a 6th level party and being told "you have to start at 1st level like everyone else did". I don't really see the point. It's less fun for the new player to be constantly behind, and the other players are likely going to see them as being not useful due to their perpetually lower level.

So I'm planning to try and talk our GM out of it and just let the new guy come in at the same level as the rest of us. Otherwise it seems like it'd be unfair to the new player. Like punishing him just because he was out of the loop when the four of us were planning a game.

Does anyone have any convincing points that might help me talk to our GM about this with? Or does anybody have any arguments supporting doing it? (I am kind of interested in knowing why so many GMs I've known do something that, to me, seems so wrong.)

--EDIT: Just to clarify, by "new" I mean new to this particular party, not new to the game or group. He's played PF before, and he's played with the rest of us before, he just wasn't aware that we were organizing this particular game back when it was in the planning process.

 

[Rechan]

From what I can tell it's an old-school grognard ideal that you have to earn your levels; leveling is a reward for playing smart enough to stay alive. Therefore starting above level 1 is cheating.

 

[Dark Mistress]

There is a few reasons for it, One Rechan covered. The other which I have also seen is other players sometimes get annoyed about it. Saying they earned their xp, so should the new guy.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Pros: Easier character builds (especially for new players). Less for the GM to check. Zero chance of accidentally letting a ridiculously unbalanced build into the game. Almost no chance that the weak new guy will disrupt the party dynamic significantly. 3.x was designed to get low-leveled characters within 1 level of the rest of the party (which is why the experience tables work the way they do).

Cons: New characters are weak - making them a drain on party resources and more likely to need protecting rather than being a combat asset. The player feels like his character is weak, which usually makes his character not fun. The other player characters will often look at the new guy and say, "why did we bring this guy along? Sure, he's funny, but so's Rando the town drunk. We don't bring him along, and we know Rando can last a couple of rounds in a bar brawl." Which just makes the whole thing way too meta for my tastes (though tastes differ).

 

[Dykstrav]

When I GM and a new player comes in, I usually have the new character come in at APL-1. Here's why.

For starters, not everyone in the party is exactly at the APL--in a group where the APL is 5, for example, maybe one or two people that attend every session will be at 6th level, and one or two of the irregular players might still be at 4th (or even 3rd). About half the group will be exactly at 5th level and the rest of them are a level behind or up, depending on attendance, but it still equals out to 5th level.

Starting a new character at APL-1 puts them on even footing with the irregular players, yes. But it also skews the APL back toward the average to account for those people that are subtly raising it by being slightly ahead.

Besides the raw math, there's a few other points to consider. They relate to personal taste, so keep in mind, "in matters of taste, there is no dispute."

By having new players bring in APL-1 characters, I'm not "punishing" them for being new--I'm rewarding the regular players that have put in the time and carried the weight of the current campaign.

Furthermore... I'm pretty much dead-set against the idea of evenly allocated x.p. awards across the party. I honestly believe that a player earns their x.p. It's not a "participation trophy." If a player has their character sit out of a combat or social encounter or whatever, they don't get x.p. for it. If they sit there like a bump on a log and roll dice when prompted... They get some x.p., but not as much as if they took the initiative to do something.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Not only is it less fun (which is the entire point of having a game), but a new 1st-level cleric or fighter isn't going to be able to contribute. Why call for a healer who can't heal?

 

[SnowleopardVK]

[MENTION=40522]Dykstrav[/MENTION]: Fair enough. I can see that making sense for a bigger group. As a party of three, we don't have irregular players. If someone can't make a session, we don't have a session. So nobody's ever really sitting out of anything, nobody really just sits there rolling dice on their turn, and levels tend to stay rather even because of it (I think I've fallen a couple hundred xp behind the other two at some point, but that's it).

I don't anticipate the other two players having a problem with it either. I think I may talk to them first. If we all approach the GM with "we don't mind (and would in fact prefer) the new guy starting at the same level as the rest of us" it might make a more convincing argument.

 

[jonesy]

Just one level lower? What is the level of the characters already in the party? If it's a party of seventh level characters and a sixth level character joins them it's not such a big deal.

Does anyone have any convincing points that might help me talk to our GM about this with?

What is the in-game reason for the new character? If the party is out recruiting for new blood shouldn't they choose the best person they can get?

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Just one level lower? What is the level of the characters already in the party? If it's a party of seventh level characters and a sixth level character joins them it's not such a big deal.


What is the in-game reason for the new character? If the party is out recruiting for new blood shouldn't they choose the best person they can get?

We're fourth level, might possibly hit fifth before getting a chance to recruit.

The biggest reason for the new guy is the in-game loss of our party's commander (actually happened a while ago back at 1st level), an NPC leader who directed us on the jobs we took. He didn't really do much, and disappeared while we were in our first dungeon and he was guarding the entrance. Recently our characters have been discussing that we were originally (technically) a 4-person team, even though we never actually fought alongside our leader, and we're considering recruiting a 4th member to fill the gap as we keep searching for what happened to him. (We're not looking to fill the leader role though. Our wizard has been doing that, unofficially.)

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't see an issue with one level lower. Usually they get more XP so they catch up in no time.

When a new player comes into a game I have them come at at the same level as the lowest player but they start right the amount needed for the level.

In the one game I play in several players had EL adjustments so they have always been behind myself and another player and I never seen it make any real difference.

I once had a DM make me bring my monk in at first level when the rest of the party was seventh now that sucked and was no fun.