A sacred cow to slay: starting at 1st level

[Nivenus]

!e DMG p12.

You don't have to start experienced players at level 1. Or even new players if the situation warrants.

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.

It's also not terribly obvious to players, so unless the DM just mandates the group starts at a particular level (which may be met with "huh?") it's not likely to come up.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Start at 2nd level.

Make 1st level starting a special masochists option (Like 0 level starting in 1E/2E)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeOXsA8sp_E"]"These go to eleven" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dagredhel]

Steal some inspiration from Star Wars Saga Edition.

Seperate the 'starting package' of class abilities from the level progression.

A starting character of class X would get (a choice of) appropriate distinguishing features.

In addition, the character would also receive a selection of an additional ability (or small number of abilities) for being 1st level.

A character multiclassing into the same class would not receive any of the 'starting package' features, but would only gain the '1st level' abilities.

This would remove the advantage of 'level dipping', because many of the benefits tied to a beginning character would only apply to a character just starting out.

A Wizard 1/Fighter 1 would be different from a F1/W1 (which makes alot ofsense to me.)

An NPC with the Fighter class' 'starting package' but without the 1st level abilities could represent a 'zero level' 'man-at-arms'.

 

[mhensley]

I do think they should look at rebalancing first level. The higher starting power was a good idea in 4e. I always thought it odd that 3 foot tall kobolds and goblins were an even match for 1st level humans that were twice their size. Plus, 1st level pc's in old editions are just too fragile. Just give 1st level pc's a second hit die and that would take care of those problems. There is some precedent for this as starting rangers used to get 2 hit dice at 1st.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Not to be the eternal contrarian, but I just don't see a towering need to slay sacred cows (nor add ever more layers of complexity) in a unity edition of D&D.

Though simply adding a Con score of extra hit points to a 1st-level (1e/2e/3e) character is substantially enough to make a character survivable in lower levels. Doesn't slay a sacred cow, nor does it add the complexity of needing to calculate all the repercussion of extra levels throughout the character sheet.

 

[Greg K]

The problem is a lot of players want to start at 1st level AND be powerful. Meaning gritty simple players are screwed and all because those heroic players can't get it round their noodles that they can start at a higher level and screw the rest of us who might like some 0 to hero.

Yep. It is a powergaming issue.

 

[Greg K]

A character multiclassing into the same class would not receive any of the 'starting package' features, but would only gain the '1st level' abilities.

This would remove the advantage of 'level dipping', because many of the benefits tied to a beginning character would only apply to a character just starting out.

A Wizard 1/Fighter 1 would be different from a F1/W1 (which makes alot ofsense to me.)

Yeah, this is something I wanted in 3.5 and, again, in Monte's Book of Experimental Might 2. Monte thought it was a good idea when I mentioned it on his boards.

I would also like to see some way to require mult-iclassing characters characters to a 0-level spells before they can gain access to 1st level spells (if a system like 1-3e is used)

 

[Incenjucar]

Eh. Go ahead and add level 0 rules to the DMG, but people already have a strong concept of "Start at level 1" from gaming in general, and starting as a Pig Farmer is unlikely to be attractive to the general audience.

 

[Lanefan]

Yep. It is a powergaming issue.

I think it's more an entitlement issue.

That said, it's relatively easily solved within the rules by having the game be designed to start at any of about 5 different peg-points - with all of them called 1st level! Here's how it could work:

You'd have a number of different tracks - commoner track, veteran track, standard track, heroic track, power track (feel free to mess with these names, I'm making them up as I type here) and each would jump in at a different place, something like

1 - this is 1st level, commoner track - the lowest level the game has; PCs are commoners
2
3 - 1 - this is 1st level, veteran track; the PCs know how to use a weapon or cast a spell or two
4 - 2
5 - 3 - 1 - this is 1st level, standard track; about the same as a 3e 1st or a maxed-out 1e 1st
6 - 4 - 2
7 - 5 - 3 - 1 - this is 1st level, heroic track; getting close to a 4e 1st.
8 - 6 - 4 - 2
9 - 7 - 5 - 3 - 1 - this is 1st level, power track; much like a 4th or 5th in 1e.

The DM decides what track her campaign will use and that determines what the level numbers mean, and all the other tracks are discarded for that campaign. All game rules use the same track (I'd suggest commoner as it has the most range) for consistency, each DM has to adjust to suit for her campaign much like those of us on the west coast always having to adjust for things scheduled as if we're in the eastern time zone.

The only difference to the players would be having to state track along with level: "I'm a 4th level Fighter, heroic track", or "I'm a 7th level Thief, commoner track", and so on.

The experience points progression would be the same for each track, for eaxmple it'd take 1500 ExP to get to 2nd level Fighter no matter which track you're on. (this would still allow for different progressions by class, if desired)

It's hard to explain and still rough around the edges - but what do you all think of this?

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

 

[Recidivism]

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what OP is getting at, but I'm going to take a stab at a response.
I feel like this is purely an issue from your vision of your setting contradicting the implied setting of D&D.

I see no problem with say (3E), your peasant being a level 1 character, the farmer being a level 2+ expert, the militia man being a level 3+ expert/warrior, the bandit being a level 4+ expert/warrior/rogue, and the veteran soldier being a level 5+ warrior. In an ideal campaign I'd prefer for these to be even higher numbers.

However the implied setting of D&D, especially say in 4E, goes with the idea that you can be fighting supernatural evils and running around with magic codpieces from level 1. It's pretty silly, because the trajectory is from "Superhuman" to "Godlike" at 20th-30th level. I have never seen a game go to high level where players attained that much power and the game didn't self-destruct narratively.

I am very much in favor of a more G. R. R. Martin implied setting, where even the most skilled swordfighters might only be marginally better (not say, 20x better) than another and fighting the animated dead is a terrifying thing, not "Oh, a horde of level 1 skeletons & zombies. Snore!"