D&D 5E Everyone Starts at First Level

[Boarstorm]

Fair enough. But it seems to be a rare opportunity where you could accommodate two different playstyles at the same time. Players who like to play fresh-from-the-farm types up against long odds could start at level 1, and players who prefer to play competent characters from the get-go could start closer to the rest of the party's level.

Or alternatively, it's a chance to accommodate different character concepts.

This is interesting. I wonder, who would be opposed to bringing in characters whose level is based on their backstory?

IE -- Farmer with big dreams, joining up at the local tavern -- level 1. Hardbitten mercenary who has seen a decade of war -- level 6. Etc.

 

[Tormyr]

This is interesting. I wonder, who would be opposed to bringing in characters whose level is based on their backstory?

IE -- Farmer with big dreams, joining up at the local tavern -- level 1. Hardbitten mercenary who has seen a decade of war -- level 6. Etc.

This has started bouncing around in my head as well. As my campaign progresses, new logical backgrounds open up to my players as they learn more of the world. Then it follows that the player and I could work out a reasonable starting level for the character.

 

[SteveC]

I'm the opposite. I have no interest in playing in a game where characters can't die. That takes away the challenge.

I agree totally with you here: no risk equals no challenge. I'm fine with that.

The issue is that if you do lose a character, the penalty should be (in my opinion) that you lose all of the stories you were hoping for them, all of the goals you had for them won't come to pass.

The notion that you also are going to be a sidekick for the rest of the campaign is what I'm not interested in. Once you get to a certain level, starting over becomes an exercise in playing second fiddle, which I honestly have better things competing for my time.

I get that some people absolutely love that style of play. Not for me, and to each their own.

 

[KarinsDad]

MOOOOAAAAR DIIIIIICE!

But I like your solution too. A cunning plan.

Been DMing longer than her.

 

[Quartz]

I've skipped most of the thread, but I would suggest a house rule if you're going this route: something along the lines of 'damage after a successful save (vs whatever) cannot reduce you below 1 HP'. This prevents the problem of the low-level character being killed by the high-level effect even if she saves.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've skipped most of the thread, but I would suggest a house rule if you're going this route: something along the lines of 'damage after a successful save (vs whatever) cannot reduce you below 1 HP'. This prevents the problem of the low-level character being killed by the high-level effect even if she saves.

Seems like a bad workaround to a bad rule.

Do we seriously want to treat one PC differently than other PCs?

 

[Elric]

I've skipped most of the thread, but I would suggest a house rule if you're going this route: something along the lines of 'damage after a successful save (vs whatever) cannot reduce you below 1 HP'. This prevents the problem of the low-level character being killed by the high-level effect even if she saves.

In 5e, the Adult Red Dragon (CR 17)'s Fire Breath is a 60 foot cone that does an average 63 damage with a DC 21 Dexterity save for half.

The typical level 1 PC has between a +0 and +5 Reflex save (and this save does not progress quickly; the typical level 3 PC will have the same Reflex saves and a level 5 PC would have +0 to +7), so the vast majority of low level PCs would fail such a save in any case.

 

[the Jester]

How did the new 1st level PC fit in with the 4e epic level characters?

I don't know if you missed it in the OP, but I think I stated pretty clearly that ES@1st doesn't work at all in 3e and 4e, at least not above the first few levels. Both editions have rather specifically unbounded accuracy, with 3e making the belated realization that you have to reign those discrepancies in numbers in at epic levels, and 4e doing so from the start, but neither one doing so in a way that enables mixed-level groups. In fact, this whole thread is me rejoicing at being able to return to that playstyle after two full editions.

 

[the Jester]

Fair enough. But it seems to be a rare opportunity where you could accommodate two different playstyles at the same time. Players who like to play fresh-from-the-farm types up against long odds could start at level 1, and players who prefer to play competent characters from the get-go could start closer to the rest of the party's level.

Or alternatively, it's a chance to accommodate different character concepts.

I actually played in one game where the DM let you choose what level to start at. I found it very strange, but then I also find games where you choose your stats vs. generating them to be weird, and some groups favor that, too.

Though this is a valid choice for some campaigns, it rather undermines everything I like about ES@1st. It also feels like some players are getting special treatment (the ones starting above 1st level). So I probably won't do it; but it's a fine idea in principle.

 

[Kaychsea]

While the competence of characters makes them able to contribute to the party more than previous versions, the new reliance on hit points makes 1st level a hard place to be when facing anything with real grunt.