D&D 5E Everyone Starts at First Level

[Wrathamon]

There are really three main schools of thought:

1. every new PC starts at 1st level (for reasons like immersion, there's no penalty for death if everyone just starts at the higher level anyway, etc)\
2. every new PC starts at level 2, 3, or 4 for instance. This is usually for people who prefer PCs to be somewhat competant, but not auto-high level like other PCs may be
3. every new PC starts at the same level as the rest of the party (convenience

We did a different approach from AD&D and basic all the way through 3rd but soon dropped it during 3rd because it started to not be fun.

You start 1 level lower than the lowest party member or 1st level which ever is higher.

This was later modified during 3rd edition to 1 level lower than the lowest party member but with xp equal to just needing 1 more point of xp to level (so basically you have one session of being one level lower). To finally we just dropped it and said you start at the same level as everyone else but at the lowest xp value, and eventually we just dropped tracking XP and said everyone levels when the dm says to level, which has carried through till now.

I can see us going back to the 1 level lower again in 5th and it not really dramatically changing play as much as it did in the past.

 

[Aura]

1st level PC gets killed by any area effect attack on the party, doesn't matter if he saves.

This is the issue I have run into most over the years with highly mixed-level parties, and it remains the lens through which I view the idea.

 

[Iosue]

This is also something that I didn't realize I'd missed until it came back. One pro is that you can introduce someone new to the game into a group of veterans and let them learn their character as they go along, without having to get a handle on a whole bunch of class features and the like.

So, some numbers...
In terms of catching up, the largest disparity possible is 1st level and 5th level. The 1st level character will reach 5th level before the rest of the party gets to 6th. Afterwards, the late-starter will alternate between catching up and being a level behind. If the party is at 6th level, the 1st level character will never catch up, as they will get to 7th before he or she gets to 6th. The advancement curve is much more steady after that, with no jump to another level being big enough for the late-coming character to catch up. OTOH, they'll only ever be 1 or 2 levels behind.

If you start at the lowest level for a particular tier, the late-comer can at least momentarily catch-up with a party that starts a level ahead, but otherwise will always be behind at roughly the same disparity as when starting. On the whole though, there's never more than 1 point difference in proficiency, and maybe 1 point difference in primary ability bonuses, maybe two with the fighter, given their greater number of ability boosts.

In the most extreme case, with a late-comer joining a 19th level party, if the late-comer starts at 1st or 5th level, they'll reach 9th level before the party gets to 20. If the late-comer starts at 11th level, they'll get to level 13. If they start at 17th level, they'll get to level 18.

Interestingly, if one looks at this table, in AD&D once a character hits a certain level (9th level for Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, and Clerics, 11th level for Wizards and Thieves), it takes the same amount of XP to reach the next level as it took to reach that particular level, 9th or 11th. So if you start a fighter at 1st level in a group of 9th level fighters, he'll reach 9th when they reach 10th, and then stay at that disparity from then on.

 

[SoulsFury]

We played like this when we were teenagers back in 2nd Edition for the most part. We would let people start at 2nd level but they would still start at zero experience.

 

[Kalshane]

When we originally started playing back in the 2E days we always had new characters start at 1st level, and yeah, it generally meant that player was making another new character within a session or two. I want to say one of the blue DM's splatbooks suggested starting new characters no lower than two levels lower than the lowest-level member of the party. Once I read that and we started incorporating it into our games, things went a lot smoother and while death still sucked, it wasn't a completely crippling "Why am I even bothering" event like starting back at level 1 was.

I'd probably do something similar in my 5E games (though it may tough to win the players over at getting so used to "everyone is the same level" from 3E on.)

 

[Piratecat]

Nope nope nope n... huh. I... huh. Interesting.

Maybe.

EDIT: I wonder how much this disincentivizes death-defying heroics and noble sacrifices. If I'd have to bring a 1st lvl PC into the 15th lvl party, you can bet I'll think twice before heroically sacrificing myself, and that seems like a shame.

 

[Elric]

EDIT: I wonder how much this disincentivizes death-defying heroics and noble sacrifices. If I'd have to bring a 1st lvl PC into the 15th lvl party, you can bet I'll think twice before heroically sacrificing myself, and that seems like a shame.

"Guess we won't be taking on that Trillich today, guys. Maybe we'll graduate from ogres to minotaur pirates when we hit level 13..."

 

[apathyward]

I fully support this decision of yours. I'd consider doing this for all my future games. I joined a group already in progress in a campaign as level 8. The rest of the group except 1 other has magic items from earlier in the campaign before we joined. The other player recently proclaimed she

deserves

magic items since the rest of the party already has them. I'm sure many other people have heard of this happening in other games, but it was a first for me. I almost guffawed -- and no one uses that word lightly. No <<thank you for letting me start at level 8>>. She simply skipped straight to <<Give me priceless objects that require effort for free>>.

 

[Uchawi]

I typically don't stagger player levels that much as a DM, so my biggest disappointment is the disparity of choices classes receive. Where casters have more at first level and other classes have to wait a few levels. And they never get close overall, i.e. casters always have more spells to select. I would prefer all classes start of with the same level of complexity.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I would prefer all classes start of with the same level of complexity.

Wow. Each to his/her own, of course, but I hate that idea. To me, different classes having different levels of complexity is absolutely a feature, not a bug. I want each class to be a different play experience, and that includes the choice of "Do I want to be making major decisions every round, or do I just want to hit stuff?"

On the larger topic...

I'm glad 5E provides this option for those who want it, but I have never liked the idea of new characters coming in much below the rest of the party. And it's a strong enough dislike that I'd probably leave a campaign that had replacement PCs start at 1st.