D&D 5E Everyone Starts at First Level

[Elf Witch]

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>>.

I have mixed feelings on this. The whole attitude of I deserve would send warning bells off in my head. I really don't like players with huge entitlement issues.

On the other hand I have joined into games already in progress and the lack of magical items can effect my PC negatively. Especially if I am playing a mundane character who depends on magical items to boots my abilities. So I allow a few magic items based on level.

 

[diaglo]

From the very earliest days of my gaming career, from way back in the pre-1e Basic days, I always had new pcs begin at first level. Your party is wandering along and you get eaten by a giant spider/turned to green slime/choked to death on yellow mold? Make a new first level pc. Doesn't matter what everyone else's level is; the new guy, always, starts at the start.

(There was one noteworthy exception- if I ran a one-shot adventure or module, I'd let the pcs start at whatever level was appropriate to the adventure. So, if I ran Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, everyone starts at level 8-12. But I'm talking about campaign play here.)

I maintained this through Basic, 1e and 2e. I only changed when we hit about 4th level in 3.0, when it became apparent that this approach was utterly unworkable in 3e. The numbers disparities were too great; a 1st level pc simply couldn't survive, much less keep up, with a higher-level group. This held true through 3e and 4e.

5e, though, looks like it will support mixed-level play pretty well. The math is flattened/constrained enough that a low-level pc can contribute to a higher-level party, even if he or she can't really take a hit. But clever play, a good mix of foes including low-level enemies (which can still be relevant to a higher-level group of pcs) and the bounded accuracy will really enable me to bring back one of my favorite playstyle elements.

I'm sure that a lot of you guys are asploding with nope right now, and that's fine. I get that "everyone starts at 1st" isn't for everyone. But I am totally excited that 5e will re-enable it. I feel like it also re-enables larger, troupe-style play (either larger groups of players or players with multiple characters) by virtue of it being so fast, especially in combat.

So here's a toast to 5e re-enabling a lot of classic playstyle elements!

holy cow. does it do 3d6 in order too?

i might have to reconsider and let someone buy it for me.

 

[aramis erak]

holy cow. does it do 3d6 in order too?

i might have to reconsider and let someone buy it for me.

the PH specifies 4d6k3, roll all 6 and place as desired, but it also specifies to pick race and class first...

It will make the balance formula a bit off, due to lower expected stats, but should still work OK with 3d6 in order...

 

[KarinsDad]

I do not think that we ever played a game where the PC coming in was not either the same level, or one level lower.


I do know how I felt in a GURPS game when I joined and my low skill PC couldn't do much of anything while the heavy hitter 3+ years old PCs were the stars of the show. It sucks to be unimportant.

I think that there is a line in the sand between DMs who want the game to be fun for everyone, and DMs who want to enforce strange little house rules like this.

Will it be fun for a new player to have his first level wizard cast practically no worthwhile spells per day while the 8th level PCs are doing 20 or 30 points of damage on rounds they hit? Probably not.

Will it be fun for a new player to have his first level fighter rush up to protect and fall unconscious quickly in most encounters? Probably not.


Could someone explain the rationale for this house rule? What does it do for the players at the table? How does it make the game fun?

Or is the goal not fun for everyone in this case?

I can definitely see that the DM wants to incentivize the players into smart play so that their PCs do not die, but this seems like a fairly punitive way to accomplish that goal. Just having the PC with fewer (or even no) magic items/wealth and two levels lower than the party would accomplish that.


What's so special about level one that a DM would want a player to feel like he is not contributing that much to certain aspects of the game?

 

[diaglo]

the PH specifies 4d6k3, roll all 6 and place as desired, but it also specifies to pick race and class first...

It will make the balance formula a bit off, due to lower expected stats, but should still work OK with 3d6 in order...

oh well. i'll stay on the sidelines then. they only make it to 1978

diaglo "eternal optimist" Ooi

 

[pickin_grinnin]

In any level-based game that I DM/GM, everyone starts at first level. Period. I have never made an exception to that. I always make sure that the early adventures are suitable for that level, so they are no more vulnerable at that point than they are at higher levels.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The advantages could be:

1) Immersion: it's kind of odd in a game when, whenever a character dies, they are immediately replaced by a character of exactly the same level. Now, I have played like that plenty before, and it's not a huge deal, but it's still a thing. This can also have the effect that character death doesn't really seem very meaningful.

In the game I'm prepping right now, the game will be a series of expeditions into a lost island with a rotating cast of characters. In this sort of game, it just sort of feels right to have everyone start off at the same level (in this case level 3) as brand new arrivals to the island. If they survive, they level up. If they die, they're gone, and can't necessarily be easily replaced.

2) RP opportunities: it provides a new roleplaying opportunity to play a fresh arrival going out and learning from seasoned veterans. Since I'm giving large XP bonuses to lower leveled characters, it doubly makes sense to rp the whole new arrival, still learning the ropes thing. It also lets the players of more experienced characters feel cool when they get to be the mentor to new adventurers.

3) Friendly competition: when death means you come back at the starting level, there is a built in reward for managing to survive lots of sessions, which can create a sense of friendly competition among the players of the game. It can also make sacrifices and risks feel more meaningful, since it isn't just the character but also the player who stands to lose from a poor outcome.

Now, none of the above means you have to play that way. I typically don't, but I'm looking forward to pushing the system and seeing if this approach works for us.

In addition,

4) Low level play always seems to form the foundation of a character's personality ans style. This way you don't skip it entirely.

5) Characters optimized for the level they start at are stronger than ones that were optimized at each level as you go along. This avoids having the new PCs significantly stronger than the old ones.

6) Death is not just a speed bump

7) Players get to learn the new PCs tactics and abilities over time rather than all at once

8) Less disruptive to the party social dynamic. PCs have a chance to get used to the new guy a bit at a time

Back in my AD&D days, I did every starts at 1st for a long time. I had no particular problem making the game fun when PCs ranged fro 1st to 10th level. As someone else said, if it's a problem for your game, then it's a DM issue. After the PCs hit about 12th, I instituted a rule that new PCs come in 4 levels below the lowest PC in the party. This retained most of the benefits, and it only took about 5 sessions for the new guys to catch up in level.

And yes, it's cool that 5E looks like it will support this.

 

[was]

I remember the old "earn yer spurs approach" and I don't have a problem with those who still embrace it.
However, it does tend to either seriously affect the party CR, and encounters, or quickly burns through the low-level pcs who are ill-equipped to survive higher level encounters. IME level 1 pcs in say, a party of 5th level adventurers, end up being a drag on the party and becomes an unpleasant experience for the group.

We usually start new pcs one level behind the group average. That was house-ruled by the group. That way they are not too underpowered and it doesn't much affect the CR of encounters. Given that we are usually missing a player or two for some reason, levels balance out fairly quickly and new pcs can still feel that they can contribute to the group.

 

[Daern]

I joined a group last night that was all 3rd while I was first. I was knocked down to zero once but still useful. And I gained a level! It's fun to catch up fast.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I don't think we ever played this way, even in 1e, but I've heard of tons of other groups do it. We haven't used xp in years and everyone sticks to the same level for convenience.

To me, always starting at level 1 harkens back too much to the 'beating the dungeon' type of Old School play, wherein you go into the dungeon to get treasure and see how far you can level up before getting killed off. It can certainly be a fun way to play, but it's a style I just can't take seriously. Not that we're doing pretentious Shakespearean tragedy or anything, but we do like a bit of believability amidst our flying monsters and magic fireballs.

I will agree that always starting at level 1 is probably equally valid in 5e as it was in pre-3e, or close enough to count. As before, the primary disparity is hit points more than anything. And a dick DM that actively targets lower-level PCs (or even determines targets randomly) will pretty much ruin this method of play.