D&D 5E Everyone Starts at First Level

[aramis erak]

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.

1. it wasn't a house rule for most of D&D's existence. It was pretty explicitly the default...

If you have an existing campaign, with the majority of the players being already above 1st level, it might be better to allow the few newcomers to begin at 2nd level or even 3rd or 4th in order to give them a survival chance when the group sets off for some lower dungeon level. I do not personally favor granting unearned experience level(s) except in extreme circumstances such as just mentioned, for it tends to rob the new player of the real enjoyment he or she would normally feel upon actually gaining levels of experience by dint of cleverness, risk, and hard fighting.

It has been called to my attention that new players will sometimes become bored and discouraged with the struggle to advance in level of experience, for they do not have any actual comprehension of what it is like to be a powerful character of high level. In a well planned and well judged campaign this is not too likely to happen, for the superior DM will have just enough treasure to whet the appetite of players, while keeping them lean and hungry still, and always after that carrot just ahead. And one player’s growing ennui can often be dissipated by rivalry, i.e., he or she fails to go on an adventure, and those who did play not only had an exciting time but brought back a rich haul as well. Thus, in my opinion, a challenging campaign and careful refereeing should obviate the need for immediate bestowal of levels of experience to maintain interest in the game. However, whatever the circumstances, if some problem such as this exists, it has been further suggested that allowing relatively new players to participate in a modular campaign game (assuring new players of characters of higher level) would often whet their appetites for continued play at lower level, for they can then grasp what it will be like should they actually succeed in attaining proficiency on their own by working up their original characters and gaining high levels of experience. This reasoning seems sound, and provided there is a separation of the two campaigns, and the one isn’t begun until new players have had some number of expeditions as 1st level characters, it is not destructive to the game as a whole.​

AD&D 1E DMG p. 12

Note that this was written by Gygax in 1st person voicing. In other words, Gygax is providing direct, almost as if face to face, advice to novice DM's. And it's clear the expectation is that everyone starts at 1st level, but that for experienced players, it may be acceptable to boost a few levels.

Likewise, in AD&D 2e, in the Dark Sun boxed sets, the character tree system makes it clear that it's deviating from the "everyone starts at 1st" mode.

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?

How one deals with adversity in the early days really helps define how they're going to do so in later ones. A 5th level character is fairly easily kept alive by smart play. A first level isn't. It's not so much that every character should be played from 1st level up, as much as it is that every player should have to experience those 1st couple levels where anything can kill the character. Likewise, in learning a new class, or new edition, it really really helps to shape suitable play to have those formative levels.

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.

Actually, there are a lot of disparities in 5e between 1st level and, especially, 5th level. At 5th, the fighters double in power due to two attacks, 3rd level spell slots become available, several cantrips gain extra damage, everyone's either taken a feat or an ability score increase (2@+1 or 1@+2), the proficiency bonus has gone up, and everyone is into their subclass packages. Most classes have, by 5th, gotten to 5 class features. The increases in hit points become less significant every level, but even to third, they're still impressive gains in capability.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

1. it wasn't a house rule for most of D&D's existence. It was pretty explicitly the default...

If you have an existing campaign, with the majority of the players being already above 1st level, it might be better to allow the few newcomers to begin at 2nd level or even 3rd or 4th in order to give them a survival chance when the group sets off for some lower dungeon level. I do not personally favor granting unearned experience level(s) except in extreme circumstances such as just mentioned, for it tends to rob the new player of the real enjoyment he or she would normally feel upon actually gaining levels of experience by dint of cleverness, risk, and hard fighting.

It has been called to my attention that new players will sometimes become bored and discouraged with the struggle to advance in level of experience, for they do not have any actual comprehension of what it is like to be a powerful character of high level. In a well planned and well judged campaign this is not too likely to happen, for the superior DM will have just enough treasure to whet the appetite of players, while keeping them lean and hungry still, and always after that carrot just ahead. And one player’s growing ennui can often be dissipated by rivalry, i.e., he or she fails to go on an adventure, and those who did play not only had an exciting time but brought back a rich haul as well. Thus, in my opinion, a challenging campaign and careful refereeing should obviate the need for immediate bestowal of levels of experience to maintain interest in the game. However, whatever the circumstances, if some problem such as this exists, it has been further suggested that allowing relatively new players to participate in a modular campaign game (assuring new players of characters of higher level) would often whet their appetites for continued play at lower level, for they can then grasp what it will be like should they actually succeed in attaining proficiency on their own by working up their original characters and gaining high levels of experience. This reasoning seems sound, and provided there is a separation of the two campaigns, and the one isn’t begun until new players have had some number of expeditions as 1st level characters, it is not destructive to the game as a whole.​

AD&D 1E DMG p. 12

Note that this was written by Gygax in 1st person voicing. In other words, Gygax is providing direct, almost as if face to face, advice to novice DM's. And it's clear the expectation is that everyone starts at 1st level, but that for experienced players, it may be acceptable to boost a few levels.

Likewise, in AD&D 2e, in the Dark Sun boxed sets, the character tree system makes it clear that it's deviating from the "everyone starts at 1st" mode.

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?

How one deals with adversity in the early days really helps define how they're going to do so in later ones. A 5th level character is fairly easily kept alive by smart play. A first level isn't. It's not so much that every character should be played from 1st level up, as much as it is that every player should have to experience those 1st couple levels where anything can kill the character. Likewise, in learning a new class, or new edition, it really really helps to shape suitable play to have those formative levels.

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.

Actually, there are a lot of disparities in 5e between 1st level and, especially, 5th level. At 5th, the fighters double in power due to two attacks, 3rd level spell slots become available, several cantrips gain extra damage, everyone's either taken a feat or an ability score increase (2@+1 or 1@+2), the proficiency bonus has gone up, and everyone is into their subclass packages. Most classes have, by 5th, gotten to 5 class features. The increases in hit points become less significant every level, but even to third, they're still impressive gains in capability.

 

[KarinsDad]

1. it wasn't a house rule for most of D&D's existence. It was pretty explicitly the default...

Second edition was the first edition where not starting at first level is sometimes recommended if mixing old PCs with new PCs (page 21 DMG).

So yeah, for 15 years (and I'm not even sure there was a rule for this in the first 4 years), "only first level" was the default (but was often houseruled away) and for 25 years "only first level if the PCs are low level" was the default.

There are a lot of old obsolete rules that no longer make sense. This is one of them. It's not that a starting PC has to be the same level as the other PCs, but having a large difference in level is harking back to the real old days when some rules were just plain bad, regardless of whether Gygax wrote them.

 

[Elf Witch]

I can see starting a brand new player at first level give them a chance to experience building a character from first level also it is easier for them than handing them a character sheet with so many options.

I have been playing since 1E and I have found that I really dislike first level it is a grind to get through I have experienced more than enough how hard it is to survive and and it is no longer a learning experience. I do it while impatiently waiting to get to higher levels. So if I had a DM who said if you die back to first I would not find it fun. I don't think I would chose to play.

I have played characters built at higher levels and enjoyed them as much as characters built from first. Especially if I was already playing in the campaign.

There are other game systems where it works better when we play Shadowrun a new character is always built using the points we all started with so yes you are behind in some ways and you don't have the same about money and equipment upgrades. But since it is not a level based game the difference in skills is not as wide.

I have not played fifth yet so I don't know how spells work an how much more powerful say a tenth level character is over a first. But from playing Pathfinder and 3.5 I know that a first level character is handicapped it is damn hard to actually accomplish anything. If you are a wizard most of the spells are not going to have much impact on higher CR threats. Plus higher CR threats will have better saves. Fighters with such low BABs are going to have to hit higher ACs and are going to miss a lot. And as others have said a well placed area effect spell is going to kill a first level character most of the time.

As the DM what do you do? Do you pull your punches with the first level PC do you lower the CR threat so they can contribute? It seems like a lot of extra work for the DM when planning encounters.

 

[KarinsDad]

Decided to do a bit of math on this system. I used the XP tables from the PHB.

Making the assumption that PCs gain a level every 3 gaming sessions (i.e. one third level of XP of the higher level PCs per session), here is how long it takes for the first level PC to catch up to one level lower than the rest of the PCs. The columns are level, followed by session 1, session 2, session 3, etc.

So at level 2 for the rest of the PCs, the first level PC is already one level lower. At level 3 for the rest of the PCs, the first level PC is one level lower after one gaming session. At level 6, the first level PC almost catches up to one level level lower in session 3, but then does not really do so until session 5 because while he is leveling, so are the other PCs.

2 Already there
3 2.50
4 3.20
5 3.89  4.61
6 4.08  4.87 5.33  5.82  6.26
             (7)

...

14 5.24  6.30  7.18  8.07  8.79  9.44  10.05  10.52  11.00  11.89  12.58  13.25  13.92  14.47  15.00  15.56  16.11  16.67
               (15)              (16)                (17)                 (18)                 (19)                 (20)

The numbers in parenthesis are the new level of the higher level PCs.

At level 14, he never does get to one level lower. The best he does is level 16 when the other PCs reach level 20 (although he does make this milestone while they are still level 19).

If PCs gain a level every six gaming sessions, then this table just stretches further to the right twice as far. The 1st level PC still makes level 16 after the 14th level PCs make level 19, etc.


The other aspect of this is that the first level PC makes up a lot of levels after the first session, and then tends to make a level every session or two. If stretched out to a level every six gaming sessions, then it would typically be every 2 to 4 sessions that he makes a level compared to the once per 6 sessions of the other PCs.

At lower levels, the PC does eventually spend time at the same level as the other PCs. For example, if he is only one level behind, then most of the time, he is the same level and only very rarely once he catches up is he one level behind (almost never for this example).

At mid to high levels, the PC might never catch up to the same level and as illustrated by level 14, he never even catches up to one level behind. 3 levels behind is the best he basically does when he starts when the other PCs are level 14.


Now the problem with this is the death spiral. If the DM throws area effect spells or Dragon breath weapons at the higher level PCs, it could easily be save or die for this guy (or even don't save and still die at some levels). If he dies and he does not get raised, then he is back again at 1st level, but even further behind than before.


I just don't think that this is the way to treat a new player (or even a player that's been around for decades) at one's table. It's excessively harsh and punitive.

Just because a DM has played this way for years and just because Gygax thought up the idea, does not necessarily make it a good idea.

Frankly, it sucks to be the PC henchman for many real world months on end. If you enjoy doing this to your fellow players as a DM, all the more power to you. Personally, color me unimpressed with this gaming style.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed. You failed to consider the XP table, and that the # of required XP to gain a level is not the same from level to level, which your analysis is dependent on.

If you have a group of PCs that just hit 4th level, they're gonna have 2,700 XP, needing 3,800 more (total 6,500) to hit level 5. A 1st level PC joins the group, and they go through a session. If you're assuming 3 sessions for every level, then the group would have gotten roughly 1,260 XP each (1/3rd fo 3,800). That 1st level PC is now level 3 while everyone else is level 4. After the full 3 sessions, the level 4 party hit level 5, and the new guy is now at 3,800 XP himself, which puts him at level 4, halfway to level 5.

It doesn't take long to catch up, and that 2,700 XP initial deficit between the new PC and the group becomes increasingly insignificant as they all level up.

And I certainly wouldn't penalize a level 1 PC for living through an adventure of tough monsters and challenges by only giving him 300xp when everyone else gets 3,800 for doing the same adventure and living through the same challenges. This is why using XP, rather than a flat "everyone gains 1 level every 3 sessions" is important.

*edit* and once again, I ask you sincerely, please ease back on the hyperbole. It's not helping your argument. No player is a henchmen for months on end. That level 1 PC is only 1 level behind (level 3) after one session. Not for months. And even if they are one level behind for a while, a level 9 PC is not some low contributing member in a group of level 10 PCs.

 

[KarinsDad]

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed. You failed to consider the XP table, and that the # of required XP to gain a level is not the same from level to level, which your analysis is dependent on.

If you have a group of PCs that just hit 4th level, they're gonna have 2,700 XP, needing 3,800 more (total 6,500) to hit level 5. A 1st level PC joins the group, and they go through a session. If you're assuming 3 sessions for every level, then the group would have gotten roughly 1,260 XP each (1/3rd fo 3,800). That 1st level PC is now level 3 while everyone else is level 4.

Which is exactly what the chart shows:

The chart shows what you claim: 4 3.20.

After the first session, the 1st level PC gets to level 3, just like you claimed.

Maybe you should go back and reread more carefully.

It doesn't take long to catch up, and that 2,700 XP initial deficit between the new PC and the group becomes increasingly insignificant as they all level up.

Yup. I said that too:

At lower levels, the PC does eventually spend time at the same level as the other PCs. For example, if he is only one level behind, then most of the time, he is the same level and only very rarely once he catches up is he one level behind (almost never for this example).

Once the difference is level 9 and level 1, the level 1 guy never does catch up because the delta is larger than one level's worth of XP required at the highest level.


If you spent more time carefully reading and less time arguing just to argue, people would take you more seriously.

 

[Tormyr]

It doesn't take long to catch up, and that 2,700 XP initial deficit between the new PC and the group becomes increasingly insignificant as they all level up.

And I certainly wouldn't penalize a level 1 PC for living through an adventure of tough monsters and challenges by only giving him 300xp when everyone else gets 3,800 for doing the same adventure and living through the same challenges. This is why using XP, rather than a flat "everyone gains 1 level every 3 sessions" is important.

These questions are directed at [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], but I would appreciate everyone's feedback.

You might have already answered this question, but what about when the party is level 10 or higher? The new character will never catch up until everyone is at level 20. By the time it is level 10 everyone else is level 13. By the time it is level 13 everyone else is 15. By the time it's 15, everyone else is 17. And so on.

I am running a 3.5 AP conversion, and the experience has not been lining up very well between what was expected in the AP and 5e. So I level up the party at the midpoint of a chapter and the beginning of a new chapter to keep the party on the level recommendations for each chapter (i.e. chapter 1 level 1-2, chapter 2 levels 3-4, etc.). What would you think about leveling up the character once a session to catch up? Near the end of the AP I probably just drop new characters in at the party's level as there would not be enough sessions to get to level 20 before the finale, and there would sensibly be other heroes coming in from around the land to help.

Finally, to help avoid repeated untimely character deaths at higher level play, what do you think about giving the new characters the hp/hit dice they would have at the level of the rest of the party? All other abilities and features would kick in as the character leveled up, but they would not gain more hp/hit dice until they reached the level of the party when they started. That way they could wade in and help as normal and not worry about getting dispatched by a crit or fireball. (Although I did like the idea about attacking minions while the rest of the party takes on bigger enemies.

 

[SteveC]

This is one of those issues that really make or break a game for me. If death is something that's on the table, and the punishment is essentially starting over, it's not a game I'm interested in.

I've said it many times as I've gotten older: gaming is something that has to compete with a lot of other things in a limited time budget. I have no time to invest in a game where I'm going to have to pretty much caddie for the rest of the group and hope against hope that I just don't die randomly.

Back when I was in college and was playing way more than I should have, it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem, but now? Thanks but no.

(Of course if that's the way you like to game, hey: more power to you).

 

[Sacrosanct]

These questions are directed at [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], but I would appreciate everyone's feedback.

You might have already answered this question, but what about when the party is level 10 or higher? The new character will never catch up until everyone is at level 20. By the time it is level 10 everyone else is level 13. By the time it is level 13 everyone else is 15. By the time it's 15, everyone else is 17. And so on.

I am running a 3.5 AP conversion, and the experience has not been lining up very well between what was expected in the AP and 5e. So I level up the party at the midpoint of a chapter and the beginning of a new chapter to keep the party on the level recommendations for each chapter (i.e. chapter 1 level 1-2, chapter 2 levels 3-4, etc.). What would you think about leveling up the character once a session to catch up? Near the end of the AP I probably just drop new characters in at the party's level as there would not be enough sessions to get to level 20 before the finale, and there would sensibly be other heroes coming in from around the land to help.

Finally, to help avoid repeated untimely character deaths at higher level play, what do you think about giving the new characters the hp/hit dice they would have at the level of the rest of the party? All other abilities and features would kick in as the character leveled up, but they would not gain more hp/hit dice until they reached the level of the party when they started. That way they could wade in and help as normal and not worry about getting dispatched by a crit or fireball. (Although I did like the idea about attacking minions while the rest of the party takes on bigger enemies.

I guess my answer to this would be a couple of parts, based on my own experiences.

Once you start getting into higher levels (9+), the access to raising spells/scrolls/services is pretty common. so it never becomes an issue because that PC would most likely have been raised.

Secondly, on those occasions where a PC is always a level or 2 below the others, it wasn't an issue either and they never felt they couldn't contribute. Sometimes I was that player and I never felt like I couldn't contribute because I was level 5 and there was a level 7 or 8 PC in the party. This probably comes from the fact that AD&D is my preferred edition and has been since 1981 and rarely were all PCs in a group the same level anyway. This is even reinforced further as a non-issue in 5e because of bounded accuracy.

Thirdly, and I fully admit I'm probably not the best person to ask re: high levels, is that rarely did any PC ever get higher than level 12-14 in any of our campaigns. By that time they typically retired and we started a new one.