Is it cheating to start a PC above 1st level?

[dead]

One of my players refuses to start a PC at anything but 1st level. They say that the character is *incomplete* if you start it above 1st level.

Now, in a fashion I agree with them. It's great to say: "Yeah, I've played Ye Olde BlackFlame from 1st level; now she's sitting on a cool 20th level!". But at the same time, Levels are just a game mechanic and if you start at, say, 10th level, then you've just got a bit more background to prepare, that's all.

What do others think?

 

[Crothian]

Is it cheating? No.

Do I like to do it? No, I perfer to start at 1st to have character growth, but I have started with higher level characters before. It is neither wrong or right, its just choice.

 

[haiiro]

I've been playing with my current group for years, and unless everyone's in the mood for the "one hit from nearly anything can kill my character" stage of things, we rarely start at 1st level. The last two campaigns I've run have both started out at 3rd level, which I've always liked as a nice balance of having some sense of your character but still leaving room for development.

It's also nice to be able to choose a magic item or two that's perfectly suited to your character, as that tends to be the last time that'll happen for awhile.

I certainly don't think it's "cheating" to start higher than 1st level.

 

[MerricB]

Yes, it is cheating. Why do you ask?

Gary Gygax had a section on this in the original DMG. His advice generally boiled down to this:

* Neophyte players should always start at 1st level, preferably in a group with no experienced players, so that they can experience the game with new eyes and everything will be a surprise.

* More experienced players joining an existing campaign should start at a higher level, a few levels below the main group. Of course, with the 1E experience system, they would quickly catch up in actual play, and the differential in power vs. monsters may not have been as great.

Honestly, starting every PC at 1st level is a lovely goal, but very impractical in the real world. Most people don't play the game on a daily basis (which seems how the game was played when Gary was writing it), so the advancement from 1st to 10th level (say) may be quite slow.

Alternatively, is it cheating for a 1st level character (who is going to be rather ineffective) to sponge XP off a group of 10th level players?

If there's a two or three level differential, things might be fine, but that period quickly passes.

Cheers!

 

[howandwhy99]

Oh, absolutely it's cheating. I can't tell you how long I have spent self-GMing the NPCs up to appropriate levels.

 

[JDJarvis]

It isn't cheating but having a 20th level character that started adventuring at 10th level just isn't the same thing as having a 20th level character that started out at 1st level.

In my current campaing we have PCs adventuring together of levels 3-12 the higher level charcter do tend to rule the day and bring along the less experienced characters in thier wake - just like experienced veterans do so with neophtyes in the real world.

 

[The LMS]

I haven't Dm'd or played in a game that started at 1st lvl since the 2nd adventure I participated in for 3e, right after it came out. Why do you ask? Cause often times we don't play long running campiagns, mostly we play single shot adventures, or short campiagns, and it'd get boring quick if you always played 1st level.

Also, it's hard to explain some things at first level, if you plan on going multiclass it seems wierd for you to suddenly gain wizard training when you've been wandering through the forest of despair, but if you start at even 2nd lvl this issue is avoided as the wizard training simply becomes more character history.

 

[maddman75]

One of my players refuses to start a PC at anything but 1st level. They say that the character is *incomplete* if you start it above 1st level.

Now, in a fashion I agree with them. It's great to say: "Yeah, I've played Ye Olde BlackFlame from 1st level; now she's sitting on a cool 20th level!". But at the same time, Levels are just a game mechanic and if you start at, say, 10th level, then you've just got a bit more background to prepare, that's all.

What do others think?

In RPGs, its only cheating if one player does it and no one else does. If everyone does it it isn't cheating, its a house rule.

I myself have totally falled out of love with the D&D paradigm of 'start as a n00b who barely knows what end of the sword goes in the squishy bits and develop into a god amoung men'. Bleh. I want the story. If the story is for 7th level characters, let's make 7th level characters. And I really could care less about them gaining power.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In my current campaing we have PCs adventuring together of levels 3-12 the higher level charcter do tend to rule the day and bring along the less experienced characters in thier wake - just like experienced veterans do so with neophtyes in the real world.

How on earth do the level 3's contribute ANYTHING to the campaign?

I mean really - they don't even get experience from most fights.

 

[heimdall]

I don't consider it cheating. I started my players at 2nd to open up the option of +1 LA races and also to enhance their survivability in the initial stages of a campaign.