D&D 5E (2014) Everyone Starts at First Level

[Pickles JG]

Also, it's not the DM's job to take it easy on new PCs. It's the DMs job to be impartial and run his NPCs and monsters as they would normally act. It's the party's job to protect each other because each PC will add some value or contribution at some point where other PCs may not be able to. An investment so to speak.

My view is the DM's job is to expedite the fun of the other players, though that's a high level role.

Why would a bunch of hardened veterans want to take a scrubby new guy along with them? It did not go well in Expendables 2....

 

[aramis erak]

What are the Pro's of doing this?

I can clearly remember a few Con's from back in the good old days.

• 1st level PC sits in the back during any dangerous situation twidling thumbs for multiple game sessions
• Either the DM takes it easy on the new PC or he pretty much just dies to the higher level threats.
• The new PC levels up pretty fast anyway from the huge amounts of XP, so why bother.

None of those happened in my AD&D 1E, AD&D2E, BX, BECMI, nor Cyclopedia games.
Dead by area effect did happen a few times.

If they happened in yours, I suspect you need to think about the DM running them, more than the mechanics.

Now, it did happen in 3.x, that even a 3 level difference was a major problem in power level.

Then again, one or two encounters suitable for a 5th to 7th level party in AD&D or Cyclopedia would just about level up a 1st level character to 2nd... and another couple to 3rd... They'd never catch up, but they'd never stay 5-7 levels behind.

In one AD&D 2E game I ran, at one point I had a 9th level psionicist, a 6/4 Fighter-mage, a couple 7th level fighters, a 5th level thief, a 0-level PC mage (apprentice to the F-MU), an 8th level cleric, and a 1st level Flesh Golem fighter. The 0-level didn't stay that way, and was actually quite useful in combats. The 1st level fighter was soon 4th level. Yes, he was at risk. But that campaign was also largely humanoid opponents, rather than "big bad monsters", and thus his part to play wasn't hampered by being 6 levels lower than the high level fighters.

And Untie cantrips have exquisitely fun combat uses...

 

[Stalker0]

My thought would be, how about level 2?

That gives them just a little bit more durability to handle higher level challenges.

Or maybe just give them the hit points for 2nd level "early" but keep them at 1st level.

 

[Vic Ferrari]

I do like that 5th Ed is conducive to mixed level parties, we could see a return of adventures/modules with "4-7 characters, levels 5-9"

 

[practicalm]

I was bringing new players and dead players in at level 1 and they would level very quickly. Once the highest level was 7 though, I started bringing in new players and replacement characters at level 3.
Not too much of a difference but it lets players come in with their subclass features and just feels better to me.

So far we've only had a few deaths of the low level PCs mostly do to getting too close to the heavy hitter. My encounter designs incorporate 1 main bad, a few lieutenants, and then minions. Example. Commander (dwarf fighter level 7), with a chimera and a greater barghast, then a bunch of warriors and mastiffs. The low level characters fought the chimera and the mastiffs while the high level characters focused on the barghast and the fighter. The ranger's spike growth did some nice battlefield terrain control and made for a great finale when the fighter was pushed and pulled through the spike growth multiple times.

 

[doctorhook]

I've started all my 5E players at 1st level, except that I let them start with the hit points of whatever level is the party average. For example, when we added a new player to my 3rd-level party, the new character started at level 1...but with 3rd-level HP. As he leveled up, he got no new HP until reaching 4th level.

 

[Kaychsea]

When I started D&D (1e AD&D) there were two main groups, the Bright Empire were high level powergamers and new joiners started at 1st level. I can't remember anybody surviving a session. One of my few experiences with them ended when the party's wizard cast Cloudkill "because the party could take it."

 

[RhaezDaevan]

If I were running a game I would probably start new characters at the bottom of the current tier of play. (Level 1,5,11, or 17)

This goes along with how the Adventurer's League works, which is set up to allow mixed level play, and you can only play in adventures that are designed for the tier that your character is in.

I was just about to suggest this, until I noticed it was already said. +1

 

[Elf Witch]

I am of the school that death is punishment enough. I used to hate this in AD&D. I felt that my PC never really did much expect hide and run over and administer healing potions to the PCs who were the big guns.

And of course it was completely horrible in 3E because you couldn't effect anything if there was to big a level difference.

I much prefer to change how raise dead works it should not be a walk in the park there should be some kind of consequences to it.

I don't see it leading to healthy playful competition what I see is hidden resentment when it the actions of another player gets your PC killed.

This is one of those things that is a table preference so it is good that 5E can allow both.

 

[Mercule]

I think one of the reasons why "start at 1st level" worked in 1E is because of the screwy XP tables and awards (gold, magic items). You really weren't able to directly track level or XP directly against other players, anyway, so the illusion of "catching up" was a bit easier.

On the other hand, I do think 5E looks like it would handle uneven characters much better than 3E (didn't play enough 4E to comment). In 1E, I let an experienced player have a 10th level mentor (usually magic-user) in a low-level party. I've actually thought that I could do that in 5E, as my wife and I teach the kids to play, which is something I'd never have considered in 3E.

Those two may be close enough, for your purposes. To me, they're subtly different. Not breakingly so, though.