D&D 5E Everyone Starts at First Level

[Joddy37]

Starting a 1st level character won't be much issue if you award more xp to the character than his higher level party members. For example I would treat the character as two members when dividing xp to the party if there is at least 3 level difference. If there is at least 6 level difference then I would make the guy count as 3. In other words, my xp division will always be biased towards the low level guy. More than 6 level difference is indeed huge, so I prefer to have the player start from milestone levels like 3 or 5 or 9.

 

[the Jester]

Starting a 1st level character won't be much issue if you award more xp to the character than his higher level party members. For example I would treat the character as two members when dividing xp to the party if there is at least 3 level difference. If there is at least 6 level difference then I would make the guy count as 3. In other words, my xp division will always be biased towards the low level guy. More than 6 level difference is indeed huge, so I prefer to have the player start from milestone levels like 3 or 5 or 9.

This is an interesting tangent to the main topic.

In 3e, the default xp rules gave you more xp for fighting the same monster if you were lower level. (This made figuring xp for mixed-level parties take a little extra work, but so it goes.) In every other edition, this same effect handles itself by a combination of escalating xp values for higher level monsters and escalating xp costs to achieve higher levels. I've generally let it handle itself, and it usually does. However, I see the merits of your method. I'll probably consider giving bonus shares (or maybe half-shares) to the lowest level pcs in certain cases (basically when it feels right to me).

 

[Greyline]

Because it's a campaign playstyle thing, not an individual decision. I don't ask each player if they want to roll stats or use point buy, either; in my campaign, everyone rolls.

Fair enough. But it seems to be a rare opportunity where you could accommodate two different playstyles at the same time. Players who like to play fresh-from-the-farm types up against long odds could start at level 1, and players who prefer to play competent characters from the get-go could start closer to the rest of the party's level.

Or alternatively, it's a chance to accommodate different character concepts.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I always played where you start a new character at the same level as the group if you die. For a while I worried that it trivialized character death, but I quickly realized that players who care about their characters are already plenty punished by losing them without paying any additional penalty, and players who don't care about their characters are usually already focused (perhaps too much so) on winning in combat.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm the opposite. I have no interest in playing in a game where characters can't die. That takes away the challenge.

Who said anything about PCs that could not die?

 

[KarinsDad]

The modern obsession with "balance" between classes has never made sense to me, but a lot of people are very concerned with it. That doesn't make either of us wrong.

I'm with you on this. 4E was a pizza and beer game. Everyone shined a lot. 5E, more like 2E. My 3rd level wizard rarely shines. The moment I want him to do something, the combat situation changes, my plan goes for naught, and I'm stuck casting cantrips. That and the fact that he misses even with True Strike and almost never rolls above a 4 on a D6 or D8.

 

[Tormyr]

I'm with you on this. 4E was a pizza and beer game. Everyone shined a lot. 5E, more like 2E. My 3rd level wizard rarely shines. The moment I want him to do something, the combat situation changes, my plan goes for naught, and I'm stuck casting cantrips. That and the fact that he misses even with True Strike and almost never rolls above a 4 on a D6 or D8.

Dude, your dice are cursed. There is only one solution. You need to go buy more dice.

 

[Elric]

Decades of experience belies this... dare I say it... theorycrafting...

1. I literally ALWAYS have a waiting list of people who want into my games.

4. The most contentious pc death I have seen was in my 4e game, just a few sessions ago, when the epic wizard died through an unexpected power of a monster while on a mission for the epic vampire. The wizard player keeps telling the vampire player that she killed his character, but it's all in good fun. Anyway, the point is that ES@1st has never caused real contention that I've seen, but "Damn, now I have to spend six hours building a new character at 25th level" has.

Good GMs can make plenty of not-so-good in general ideas work, and people's preferences differ as well.

How did the new 1st level PC fit in with the 4e epic level characters?

 

[KarinsDad]

Dude, your dice are cursed. There is only one solution. You need to go buy more dice.

These ARE new dice.

I think I need to take back my original dice from the DM and let her have these.

 

[Tormyr]

These ARE new dice.

I think I need to take back my original dice from the DM and let her have these.

MOOOOAAAAR DIIIIIICE!

But I like your solution too. A cunning plan.