D&D 5E Followup on "Everyone Starts at First Level"

[Sunseeker]

Also, as a different take on the 1st level PC: why is he always portrayed as the sidekick? The literature sports plenty of "green" commanders (the first that springs to my mind is the Gan Orrin, fro The Legend Of The Drenai). He could become attached to the party because they are after all an irregular squad in the army, and he got there a) by raccomandation, because where the PCs are, there is the glory (or maybe because it was supposed to be safe, not knowing that are the troubles that look for the PCs, not the other way around) b) by drawing the short straw stem, earning what seems to be a short trek toward the afterlife c) he has to do at least one field mission before going back to a career behind the desk (which of course he will never see again, starting instead down the adventuring path).

My disagreement with these is that they are all very top-down approaches. They are essentially the DM (taking on the role of the Commander, the God, the person-in-charge) telling the green player what to do and at the same time, what the party has to do. These are fairly unfitting for more free-form groups. Outside of an organization of some kind, there's no incentive to take a substantially less-capable, less experienced, less skilled person into the fray. The only real reason a non-organized party would do this would be if they were short a man and the newest person was the only one within a reasonably safe distance they could pick up, but even then, short of this person filling the utmost of vital roles, the party could simply pass them over.

I'm not saying these are bad reasons, I'm just saying they only provide solutions to a very specific grouping of adventures.

For the, what I would presume are the more typical "we all met in a bar one eventful night" types of parties, I can think of few reasons why they would take on "raw" party members.

This is why I usually introduce new party members not as sort of dime-store trinkets you pick up while you're at the market, but as persons of reasonable interest (even if low level) while out adventuring (often trapped in a prison of some kind for mysterious reasons).

To OP:

I've been doing the same thing, but in an earlier version of D&D. My suggestion would be to allow the Players to choose where they go (in terms of level of the dungeon), which encounters they confront and which they try and evade, and basically allow them to assess and create their own party abilities for those choices based upon how they learned to work together. I do this by starting a campaign in level one and letting them explore from there. Also, think about giving new players/characters the option to begin later in a session once the playing party retreats back to a level one area or thereabouts.

I rate area/dungeon levels like I rate everything else, so even if a band of Fire Giants marched down from the mountains there would be consequences to be experienced the whole way. Something that signified that changing power level of the area. Maybe that's a high level human encampment (i.e. a city, not Epic-level people) at the mountain's base, or at least that city's patrolled territory. If the PCs are allied with the humans, or even just pretending to be, they will likely be warned the incursion long before they see the first Giant.

That's all about the shifting of dungeon level ratings though based on contents. Something that Dungeon! doesn't do. But maybe it's time for those high level PCs to go raid that Fire Giant Hall for treasure, huh? Or maybe they have some commitment to the people of the invaded land they don't want to lose? (another kind of treasure).

I would like to touch on this because I actually had to speak with my DM about this exact issue. He runs a largely sandbox campaign with a couple central "issues" that can be handled in a variety of ways (civil wars, plagues, lich lords and undead armies, etc...). Some of these are more appealing to certain players than others, and there was an unfortunate time a couple sessions ago where we had almost reached one, only to get a "DM hint" that it was WAY above our current abilities. This was incredibly disappointing, especially since we had no warning ahead of time that this was the case, in fact we had no indication of the potential danger levels of any of the things could potentially deal with. To which I explained to him my disappointment and suggested that he simply have whatever NPC informs us of these troubles give us some indication of their difficulty. I didn't ask him to flat out tell us if we could handle them, just a general idea of having the informant size us up and say "I think you could handle this quest." or "Our best tried their best and they were much better than you."

If quests come available before your group is actually skilled enough to handle them, it doesn't take much to add a friendly in-game warning that you might be out of your league. Otherwise the only fair alternative is to simply NOT make those quests available.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If quests come available before your group is actually skilled enough to handle them, it doesn't take much to add a friendly in-game warning that you might be out of your league. Otherwise the only fair alternative is to simply NOT make those quests available.

I stole an idea from Brandon Sanderson and gave my PCs a magic bird which warns you if danger by rating a threat with magic visions: the deadlier the threat, the more copies of your own corpse you see near you, killed in a variety of horrible ways.

They promptly gave the bird to a PC who was quickly shuffled offscreen (due to character trees) so it hasn't seen much play, but the idea was to be able to warn them of threats in exactly the manner you propose. Oh well. So far they're all still alive.

 

[Sunseeker]

I stole an idea from Brandon Sanderson and gave my PCs a magic bird which warns you if danger by rating a threat with magic visions: the deadlier the threat, the more copies of your own corpse you see near you, killed in a variety of horrible ways.

They promptly gave the bird to a PC who was quickly shuffled offscreen (due to character trees) so it hasn't seen much play, but the idea was to be able to warn them of threats in exactly the manner you propose. Oh well. So far they're all still alive.

That's a very creative idea. Perhaps I will add something like that of my own to my next campaign. An intelligent, and slightly annoying, magical *thing* that has a terrific fear of death and the closer at hand death feels the more impressive the mental projections of that death it feeds to the players.

 

[TarionzCousin]

That's a very creative idea. Perhaps I will add something like that of my own to my next campaign. An intelligent, and slightly annoying, magical *thing* that has a terrific fear of death and the closer at hand death feels the more impressive the mental projections of that death it feeds to the players.

Esme is a dust mephit from Necromancer Games' module Grey Citadel. She isn't afraid of death; instead, she is obsessed with it. She follows the PC's around because she can sense lots of murder and death associated with them.

I really enjoyed portraying her when I ran parts of that adventure.

 

[MasterTrancer]

My disagreement with these is that they are all very top-down approaches. They are essentially the DM (taking on the role of the Commander, the God, the person-in-charge) telling the green player what to do and at the same time, what the party has to do. These are fairly unfitting for more free-form groups. Outside of an organization of some kind, there's no incentive to take a substantially less-capable, less experienced, less skilled person into the fray. The only real reason a non-organized party would do this would be if they were short a man and the newest person was the only one within a reasonably safe distance they could pick up, but even then, short of this person filling the utmost of vital roles, the party could simply pass them over.

I'm not saying these are bad reasons, I'm just saying they only provide solutions to a very specific grouping of adventures.

For the, what I would presume are the more typical "we all met in a bar one eventful night" types of parties, I can think of few reasons why they would take on "raw" party members.

This is why I usually introduce new party members not as sort of dime-store trinkets you pick up while you're at the market, but as persons of reasonable interest (even if low level) while out adventuring (often trapped in a prison of some kind for mysterious reasons).



I would like to touch on this because I actually had to speak with my DM about this exact issue. He runs a largely sandbox campaign with a couple central "issues" that can be handled in a variety of ways (civil wars, plagues, lich lords and undead armies, etc...). Some of these are more appealing to certain players than others, and there was an unfortunate time a couple sessions ago where we had almost reached one, only to get a "DM hint" that it was WAY above our current abilities. This was incredibly disappointing, especially since we had no warning ahead of time that this was the case, in fact we had no indication of the potential danger levels of any of the things could potentially deal with. To which I explained to him my disappointment and suggested that he simply have whatever NPC informs us of these troubles give us some indication of their difficulty. I didn't ask him to flat out tell us if we could handle them, just a general idea of having the informant size us up and say "I think you could handle this quest." or "Our best tried their best and they were much better than you."

If quests come available before your group is actually skilled enough to handle them, it doesn't take much to add a friendly in-game warning that you might be out of your league. Otherwise the only fair alternative is to simply NOT make those quests available.

Yes, it is a very specific scenario (and was conceived reading about the whole "squad going to fire the trebuchets").

I disagree instead on the "the DM is actually telling people what to do": if the commander is a rookie in regard to actual combat, that doesn't mean he hasn't studied what to do. I don't know your experiences, but for what I know it's very common that, say, a Lieutenant is much less experienced than a Sergeant, but he is who's giving the orders.

And I beg your pardon, but also finding a 1st level PC fully equipped inside of a cell block is quite specific (and a little weird). ;-)

 

[aramis erak]

The point is, (ES@1 or otherwise) no idea or house rule is a good rule if it doesn't meet the needs of everyone at the table. Glad to hear things are working out better in your group! If ES@1 is what you and your players want, you'll be fine.

ES@1 isn't the house rule - doing away with it is.
ES@1 is the RAW.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e's & its developers are pretty clear about not intending 'RAW' to carry the weight that it bizarrely acquired in 3.x, in spite of the explicit Rule 0.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

ES@1 isn't the house rule - doing away with it is.
ES@1 is the RAW.

I think RAW is neutral on this question. Why else would the DMG have explicit guidelines for starting out at higher levels, complete with recommended magic items per magic level?

 

[Sunseeker]

I think RAW is neutral on this question. Why else would the DMG have explicit guidelines for starting out at higher levels, complete with recommended magic items per magic level?

That aside, I don't think the book specifies AT ALL what level you should start at. I'm fairly confident that I can say, without reading the PHB or th DMG that there is no written requirement that one must start at first level. I do believe there is some statement to the effect of 1st and 2nd level being the "training level" and that more experienced players and DMs should start at 3rd.

 

[aramis erak]

I think RAW is neutral on this question. Why else would the DMG have explicit guidelines for starting out at higher levels, complete with recommended magic items per magic level?

Because the DMG is almost entirely optional rules.