A sacred cow to slay: starting at 1st level

[steeldragons]

I think it's more an entitlement issue.

Most definitely. (Which, at the risk of delving into armchair psychology, I would posit is at the root of "powergaming" as an issue, so GregK is also onto something with that.) I wouldn't be surprised if the new game introduced a new grouping of extra-planar entities called "the millenials" who are out to conquer the gaming world (and will some day succeed).

If you have a group of experienced players and/or a particular adventure/campaign idea and want to start your game at 4th...6th...10th...whatever, there is absolutely no reason you can't do that. Never has been in any edition.

I've "started" play in groups where we drew up characters of any/all levels...highest I think was the DM wanted to run the Drow series without tons of adventure/game time beforehand. So we all needed to make, I think it was (if I'm remembering the module/s correctly) 10-12th level characters out of the gate. But we were all well-experienced players at that time.

Always fun to do that, you can have a lot more creativity (since your PC has had a lot more "time" in the game world) with your backgrounds, spell choices, magic items (DM approved, of course) that you could start with, etc...

But certainly not a way to "start" the game as an introduction with new players.

For the introduction into a game for people who don't know, why on earth wouldn't they start at 1st level?...and as Zaukrie points out, even if they went with this suggestion, whatever level the game starts at is the FIRST level...so you're gonna be stuck with a 1 on your character sheet anyway.

Is this just "hatin' on the #1"? The Count will be most disapproving (Bwa-ha-ha.).

Level 0 is all well and good for people who want that flavor of startign from absolute scratch, "yes, I just walked off of my farm (probably leaving my hard working family in a lurch) and decided killing dragons would be a better way to make money."...some people like it, personally, I don't see it as being "realistic" or aiding in "immersion" in any fashion.

And, as someone just stated upthread, "I'm a pig farmer!" doesn't really get ye olde imaginative juices for a heroic fantasy game flowing...least, not for me.

Lan-"if I had this system to use I'd likely run on the veteran track"-efan

<raises goblet of fine elvin wine> "TO THE VETERANS!" <big gulp>
--SD

 

[Dice4Hire]

Maybe a module is best for this idea. I rarely start games below 3rd level, but not having a 1st level is just silly. What 1st level means is a good question though. Saying adventurers usually start higher might be possible, but I cannot see if being done. This is best for 3PP. I hthink.

 

[IronWolf]

You're missing one of the key points, though: one of the main reasons people want this to be more obvious is so that the first few levels can be more rough and tumbley and those who want to start more "heroically" still have the option. As is, being able to start at a later level doesn't make a difference to this crowd.

Wasn't there a Dragon article recently about 0-level characters?

 

[trancejeremy]

It should probably depend on what "normal" people are.

In AD&D, average people, even men-at-arms were 0-level with 2-5 hit points at most (for active people). So level 1 was a step up from them, unless you were a magic-user.

In 3e, everyone pretty much had a level, just that NPCs had wimpier classes. So in some cases, it didn't mean that much. A 1st level Fighter wasn't that much tougher than a 1st level Warrior, or an 1st Level Expert vs Rogue.

I do think it makes a certain sense for classes to start off higher than 1st.

For instance, I used to play a wizard that had apprentices. Did he let his apprentices run off when they were only 1st level? No, they pretty much stayed until they were 6th or so (he was a little overprotective, but if you spent years training someone, you likely would be, too).

Same would go for a squire working for a knight - until he had proved himself - probably 2nd or 3rd level, he probably wouldn't be released/promoted.

But anyway, the nice thing about levels is you can simply pick where to start. But if you start shifting the baseline (1st) then it causes problems.

There should be something discussing starting levels, though. Like if you want a neophyte campaign, start them at level 0, somewhat skilled 1, competent at level 3, and so forth.

 

[Hassassin]

Did this cow rise as a zombie? There are clear rules for starting at level 2+ in 3.5 DMG.

If a certain level of wealth wasn't tied to character level by default, 5e could include those rules in PHB.

 

[tuxgeo]

It should probably depend on what "normal" people are.

In AD&D, average people, even men-at-arms were 0-level with 2-5 hit points at most (for active people). So level 1 was a step up from them, unless you were a magic-user.

In 3e, everyone pretty much had a level, just that NPCs had wimpier classes. So in some cases, it didn't mean that much. A 1st level Fighter wasn't that much tougher than a 1st level Warrior, or an 1st Level Expert vs Rogue.

I do think it makes a certain sense for classes to start off higher than 1st.

For instance, I used to play a wizard that had apprentices. Did he let his apprentices run off when they were only 1st level? No, they pretty much stayed until they were 6th or so (he was a little overprotective, but if you spent years training someone, you likely would be, too).

Same would go for a squire working for a knight - until he had proved himself - probably 2nd or 3rd level, he probably wouldn't be released/promoted.

But anyway, the nice thing about levels is you can simply pick where to start. But if you start shifting the baseline (1st) then it causes problems.

There should be something discussing starting levels, though. Like if you want a neophyte campaign, start them at level 0, somewhat skilled 1, competent at level 3, and so forth.

Another wrinkle to add to these various fine concepts and takes on the subject: instead of having separate tracks (such as "commoner," "veteran," etc.), have separate levels of Zero. I think that three levels of zero might be enough:

Level 000 -- "Clueless Newbie":
_ Racial modifications: Full.
_ Ability scores: Build as a Level 1 character, but then subtract 1 point from each of the two highest ability scores; those two "lost" points are to be regained when the character eventually rises to Level 1. (This is the same span of levels as in 4E, where a Level 1 PC gains 2 points of ability score after having risen 3 levels to Level 4.)
_ Hit Points: 1d6 + half of Constitution score Hit Points
_ Starting gold: 5
_ Class features: None.
_ Weapon proficiencies: Dagger, quarterstaff. (Peasant's weapons.)
_ Armor proficiencies: Cloth
_ Starting equipment: One set of clothing, one backpack, one water flask, one dagger, one quarterstaff. No armor.

Level 00 -- "Bumbling Beginner":
_ Racial modifications: Full.
_ Ability scores: [same as Level 000, above]
_ Hit dice: 2d6 + half of Constitution score Hit Points.
_ Starting gold (if you start here instead of at Level 000): 20
_ Class features: You have gained very elementary experience through adventuring, so gain the two or three most basic features of the class you are working toward -- nothing that varies depending on build within class, because the general stuff is assumed to come first.
Examples =
= a Level 00 wizard would gain Cantrips, Spellbook, & Ritual Casting, while a Level 00 Mage would gain Cantrips, Spellbook, & Magic Missile.
= a Level 00 rogue would gain Leather Armor Proficiency, Weapon Proficiency with Sling and Hand Crossbow, and Sneak Attack.
= a Level 00 fighter would gain proficiency with all Light Armors, plus proficiency with all Simple Weapons (which is quite a lot).
= a Level 00 warlord would gain proficiency with all Light Armors, plus proficiency with all Simple Weapons (which is quite a lot).
(. . . and other classes would get similar fractional class benefits.)
_ Starting equipment (if you start here instead of at Level 000): One set of clothing, one backpack, one water flask, 5 days of field rations, one piece of armor with which you are proficient, and either one weapon or one implement with which you are proficient.

Level 0 -- : "Hopeful Applicant"
[ follow the same sort of pattern as above ]

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, aside from the fact that there can be no second without a first, I don't understand the problem.

In any edition you could begin play at whatever level was agreed upon. I predict that 5E will be robust enough to handle this just as well.

 

[steeldragons]

Well, aside from the fact that there can be no second without a first, I don't understand the problem.

In any edition you could begin play at whatever level was agreed upon. I predict that 5E will be robust enough to handle this just as well.

Can't Xp you for a while, it seems (if anyone would care to do the honors?)

But, yeah. This.

--SD

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another option (which I'm passing on from another thread where I saw it mentioned) was to just reset the numbers as characters reached each tier, rather than the numbers going up from 1-30.

So you'd numbers them as:

Gallant Tier levels G1 - G5
Heroic Tier levels H1 - H10
Paragon Tier levels P1 - P10
Epic Tier levels E1 - E5

Most established players/campaigns start playing at Level H1, but the Starter Set for newer players starts at G1 (with much of the more advanced module material held back until Heroic Tier).

 

[Li Shenron]

Starting at 1st level is not a sacred cow.

It's what people do when they first play a new edition, so that they don't have too many spells/powers/options to choose from and keep in mind, hence it's easier for learning the rules.

Soon after, players will probably start already a little higher in level to reach what they call "the sweet spot". Nothing in the rules prevents this.

Later, some gaming group go back to play 1st level (or low-levels) for a variety of reasons: maybe they miss the grim'n'gritty feel, or because the DM has less time to write adventures that must be teleport-proof, invisibility-proof, divination-proof, fly-proof etc...

Of course the nature of what level 1 is, is a matter of debate. I want to point out however that through the editions IMHO the trend has been to make 1st level characters slightly stronger and stronger...