D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?

[abirdcall]

So you do agree in a sense that starting a character off at a low level when they die isn't always the best idea, especially if you're saying you up the level they start at depending on the level of the party.

No, low level does not need to equal 1st level. The first 2 levels are designed to last a session each. Levels 3 and 4 are also designed to only last 3 to 4 sessions.

Not having 1st level characters in a group of 20th level ones does not also mean that it is bad to have 3rd level characters in a group of 6th level ones.

Also, if you don't tailor your challenges, then how do you avoid killing a 3rd level PC with an errant fireball? Do you not use mages as foes often? Or do your players know to hide and stay in the back after they make a new character until they level up from just being in the party?

I think we probably look at the game differently.

It's not the new characters that must look out for the mage, it is all of the characters. Characters can take on an archmage at level 3 if they want to. I don't change anything to ensure their victory.

This is why it puzzles me when people in this thread have said that the mentality of having characters at different levels is similar to a video game and that as a social game that isn't concerned with power levels all characters must be the same level. I come to the opposite conclusions.

This might be one of those Combat as War vs Combat as Sport playing style things. I was completely turned off by 4e and I like the style of 2e gaming if that helps you understand where I am coming from.

 

[the Jester]

In some cases I can sympathize with not wanting to lose out on the fun of gaining levels, but in the other hand I mostly DM and I know the pain of trying to DM mixed level parties. You have to tailor the challenges far more than if the party is the same level. If the rest of the party is level 9 and you make characters always start at 1st, a single fireball or even magic missile will kill them.

The ways around this are to ignore that character or not put in fireballs, but that means in both cases you have to change your encounter tactics or abilities because what would normally be challenging to your PC's becomes certain death for one of them.

Depends on your playstyle. In mine, the pcs very much choose their challenges. One group found an imprisoned death knight and met some religious forces urging them to slay it, but they were 5th to 6th level, so they declined. Another recently made the choice to go as deep in the local megadungeon as they could.

But again, 5e has an amazing amount of options for helping low-level pcs survive in high level parties. I've already mentioned aid, which is the best example I've seen so far, but there are also things like the barbarian's DR while raging, the fighter's ability to Second Wind, the protection fighting style, etc. I haven't had any need to pull any punches or plan encounters any differently than I would for any other group.

The assumption that low-level pcs always die in adventures with higher level monsters simply isn't true in 5e, at least not in my (pretty considerable, so far) experience. Nor is the assumption I sometimes see that they can't meaningfully contribute. In last night's game with a mix of 3rd through 13th level pcs, the 4th level guy was probably the one who shone the brightest. Sure, the 13th level cleric threw a couple of big, fight-changing spells, but the fighter was in the middle of a bunch of barbed devils and hell hounds soaking up the attacks, preventing a TPK.

So you do agree in a sense that starting a character off at a low level when they die isn't always the best idea, especially if you're saying you up the level they start at depending on the level of the party.

Also, if you don't tailor your challenges, then how do you avoid killing a 3rd level PC with an errant fireball? Do you not use mages as foes often? Or do your players know to hide and stay in the back after they make a new character until they level up from just being in the party?

I'd hate to be that character, doomed to an existence of constant deaths and hiding until the other players kill enough monsters for you to level up on their scraps.[/QUOTE]

They don't encounter fireball throwing monsters or villains every time they step out of the city walls. Their ability to choose the challenge they face is a big part of any old-school sandbox. That doesn't mean they couldn't find a fireball-throwing wizard on the first level of a dungeon or hiding with a kobold tribe, but it does mean that they have a strong influence on the likelihood of encountering something that can kill them with a single attack or spell.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

No, low level does not need to equal 1st level. The first 2 levels are designed to last a session each. Levels 3 and 4 are also designed to only last 3 to 4 sessions.

Not having 1st level characters in a group of 20th level ones does not also mean that it is bad to have 3rd level characters in a group of 6th level ones.

Alright, but how low do you put new characters then? Half level of party? 1/3rd? The fact that you raise the level at all shows you understand at least a bit of what I mean on low level chars in a high level party are in danger, else why start them past 3 at all?

I think we probably look at the game differently.

It's not the new characters that must look out for the mage, it is all of the characters. Characters can take on an archmage at level 3 if they want to. I don't change anything to ensure their victory.

I'm kind of calling bs here. Sure a party might be able to take on an archmage, but characters of 3rd level can and will die if the mage gets a few good AoE spells off. The monster manual archmage has cone of cold as his 5th level spell. Woe to any 3rd level character who takes that to the face.

This is one of the reasons I prefer to keep levels of characters the same. It prevents a player from feeling like they have to come up with ways to contribute without actually getting into combat, since they're likely to die to what their fellows can shrug off.

Have you really never had a player die multiple times with his low level characters? If so, how do they keep surviving? I'd love an example so I can compare it to my own experiences.

This might be one of those Combat as War vs Combat as Sport playing style things. I was completely turned off by 4e and I like the style of 2e gaming if that helps you understand where I am coming from.

It might be, especially if your answer to my above question revolves around plotting how to avoid combat, ambush everything that moves, and just wait until your XP from that levels you up.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

They don't encounter fireball throwing monsters or villains every time they step out of the city walls. Their ability to choose the challenge they face is a big part of any old-school sandbox. That doesn't mean they couldn't find a fireball-throwing wizard on the first level of a dungeon or hiding with a kobold tribe, but it does mean that they have a strong influence on the likelihood of encountering something that can kill them with a single attack or spell.

This falls into what I said before about having to tailor your encounters to include things for the lower levels to do. If you don't take the extra step to do this, the low levels are in peril. Also, fireball is honestly just an example, there's plenty of worse spells, and low level characters actually have worse saves, meaning they'll be affected by the bad stuff more often, potentially taking them out of the fight.

Also, I notice your examples for how low levels contribute were mostly armoured, tough defender types. What about the squisher characters like rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, etc? They could be forced to stay back and plink away at range, which would certainly suck for the rogue if his player wanted to make a dualist or swashbuckler or something.

Maybe it is partly our gaming styles. I use casting type enemies in nearly every encounter. I find that's the best way to balance the fun and usefulness of every character and class. It makes sure that AC doesn't become the only thing a character worries about, but their saves as well. So I guess if you almost never use mages, or when you do, you make sure you never aim at the rogue annoying your mage by shooting him in the back, you wouldn't see my concern.

 

[was]

..None of the listed choices....We start new characters one level below the party.

 

[Nytmare]

We almost always do something different than the previous campaign. We only rarely go with "everyone has the same XP" though because our games tend to adopt the idea that people with 'class levels' are really rare and that anyone who is as powerful as the PCs would be hard to explain.

We didn't have any deaths in the last 4th Ed campaign I ran, but prior to that in a 3.5 game, the rule we played with was that a player would roll percentile dice and take that percentage of the lowest leveled player's XP total, bottoming out 3 levels lower.

If I were running a 5th Ed campaign, that might be what we would play with, depending on what the campaign and game world were like.

 

[MG.0]

Everyone starts at first.

My players ALWAYS have multiple characters they switch in and out of use so levels are all over the place all the time. This session "Bob" may be playing his 16th level paladin and next session he may be a level 3 rogue.

I've never seen anything to be gained by shoehorning everyone into the same level.

 

[abirdcall]

I'm kind of calling bs here. Sure a party might be able to take on an archmage, but characters of 3rd level can and will die if the mage gets a few good AoE spells off. The monster manual archmage has cone of cold as his 5th level spell. Woe to any 3rd level character who takes that to the face.

I never said they would win. They are allowed to fight whatever they find in the game. They are also allowed to lose.

This is one of the reasons I prefer to keep levels of characters the same. It prevents a player from feeling like they have to come up with ways to contribute without actually getting into combat, since they're likely to die to what their fellows can shrug off.

Have you really never had a player die multiple times with his low level characters? If so, how do they keep surviving? I'd love an example so I can compare it to my own experiences.

We have a new player to the game who has a negative constitution modifier. The character is 3rd level and has 13hp.

This informs how she plays (she currently has Aid up for 18hp) as well as the rest of the party. As a Trickery Cleric she is by far the best one in the party to enable stealth and contributes to combat with valuable buffing and such.

It might be, especially if your answer to my above question revolves around plotting how to avoid combat, ambush everything that moves, and just wait until your XP from that levels you up.

Our game is pretty even between exploration, social interaction, and combat. The combat part really isn't that important. The current campaign, Out of the Abyss, has a large focus on exploration.

The whole party avoids combat in general, though it happens.

I don't look at encounters and the party's capabilities and look at whether they are balanced. They are what they are. I roll for random encounters, sometimes they are difficult, sometimes they aren't, and sometimes there aren't that many.

As an aside, characters tend to be different levels in our games anyway as people are busy and don't always make the sessions. So there is a gradual spread of character levels.

It's not like there is one level 3 character and 3 or 4 level 11 characters. The current campaign is still early on, but it would not be unlikely for us to end up with 4 characters of levels 4, 6, 6, and 8 at one point.

Whatever happens, happens.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Everyone starts at first.

My players ALWAYS have multiple characters they switch in and out of use so levels are all over the place all the time. This session "Bob" may be playing his 16th level paladin and next session he may be a level 3 rogue.

I've never seen anything to be gained by shoehorning everyone into the same level.

Kind of an odd way of phrasing it. Shoehorning. As if you're forcing them to be higher level. Do your players resent the idea of coming back the same level without having 'earned' it?

I'm curious as well for how your encounters go with such a diverse party. Are yours similar to ad_hoc in that combat is rare or avoidable? Or do your players hide with their low level characters?

I'm earnest when I ask about this stuff, because I'm trying to find where the true divide is. It feels like there's another factor at play here that draws people to bringing chars back at low level. Whether it's sandbox vs story arc, low combat games, or something else.

My own players seem to be the opposite of a few here. They would feel penalized if I made them reroll as 1st or even just lower level, because they enjoy levelling up and taking on bigger challenges. Challenges don't just mean combat. It could mean intrigue or espionage or saving a Kingdom. They like having more abilities and capabilities, so they'd never be happy with that kind of cost for death.

 

[abirdcall]

My own players seem to be the opposite of a few here. They would feel penalized if I made them reroll as 1st or even just lower level, because they enjoy levelling up and taking on bigger challenges. Challenges don't just mean combat. It could mean intrigue or espionage or saving a Kingdom. They like having more abilities and capabilities, so they'd never be happy with that kind of cost for death.

Maybe a solution would be to start out at 20th (or some other high) level then?

If the desire is to be super powerful then that is trivially easy to accomplish.

I also don't think my games are low combat. We run published adventures. 5e is designed to be 1/3 combat, and we are around that mark. I would say our games are average for 5e. Maybe you are just running super high combat games?