Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 6397007" data-attributes="member: 6779310">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. 12Note 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.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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification