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

[Rl'Halsinor]

I second Crothian's postion. While it isn't cheating I can understand your player's position in that if you are going to invest in a character you want to start them out right from the beginning. The way I read it is that the "incompleteness" he voices is the gaining of levels without working for them. Where is the history involved? True, the option is right there to make up a history, but for many players history is created as you play.

 

[drothgery]

I think it really depends on the type of game you're playing, and what a level X character is in your world.

When I DM, 1st-level commoners are children. 1st-level anything else (or 2nd-level commoners) are teenage kids (or the nonhuman equivalent thereof); people with just enough experience to be trusted on their own for short periods of time. The average man on the street is 3rd-5th level. So unless I want the game to be, at least at the beginning, about teenagers becoming young adults, I'll start at a higher level. If I want competent young adults, the game might start at level 3. If I wanted some characters to start with a PrC, the game might start at level 6 (for example -- in a d20 Wheel of Time game, I might want an initiate PC to start as Aes Sedai so that I didn't have to make excuses for her to be out of the Tower). If I wanted to start the PCs with quests that affected the fate of nations and move up, I might start at 10th level.

 

[jeffh]

I don't have a problem with it. However, the player in question might be getting at one point that I do think is valid. A character who was created at, say, 9th level is likely to look a bit different from one who was created at first level and adventured his way up to 9th, especially if given the option to choose all his own equipment. (I start new characters with less equipment than the existing ones they're joining to compensate for the advantage of getting to choose all of it).

For example, the character created at 9th level is more likely to have chosen a then-useless Feat early in his career to meet a PrC requirement than one that was legitimately played up from 1st level; my players, at least, seem reluctant to make "short-term pain for long-term gain" choices when they advance through actual play, but have no problem with doing so when creating higher-level characters.

Not saying you shouldn't do it, just pointing out one thing to be aware of when you do allow it.

 

[BASTON!!!]

not cheating

""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""


Well, I would never play in that kind of unbalance game. And I can speak for my friends too. I think it would be so frustrating to play a PC that is useless, it would simply be a burden for all the higher levels PCs. And in fact, in all the games that I have played in, this would be impossible.

It is not cheating to start at a higher level to adapt to a particular adventure. I played and GM games that it was necessary.

Of course, starting a character at level 1 and play it all the way to higher levels add something special. Right now, I am shoping for material to GM a campaign from first level to 20.

I hope the characters will survive long enough to achieve level 20. But in a decade of playing D&D, I never saw that. In our games, playing a PC from level 1 to level 20 would be a miracle. There is not too many chance that I see that with my own eyes.

And now, with the higher cost of Raise Dead and Resurection... Players have the choice to make another character one level lower than the others. Or, if they can afford Raise dead and they want it, they keep the same level but before continuing advancement with XP, they must pay a debt equal to the "should be" level lost from the spell.

But hey, that is my opinion. What's important is to adapt the game to the needs of the gamers to simply have fun. And everytime someone starts a new campaign, there's always some modification to our house rules.

Ciao!

BASTON!!!

 

[Greylock]

Char leveling related stuff - I haven't played tihs game for almost twenty years. Had the roughest, toughest, most hard-core DM in the world back when. Now I'm about to enter my fourth? session in current rules and my char has just hit 3rd level.

My brain is going to explode. It is a little bit of an adjustment. The old and decrepit, withered and bitter DM I had back when, I forget his name but surely the DnD gawds remember, well, Old Dude Back When made sure ya got to third level around about the second campaign year. Real time.

That's it. It's gonna blow...

Bit of an adjustment.

 

[Wombat]

Under the 3.Xe rules, I have yet to run a game where I started the characters at 1st level.

As GM, you are allowed to start characters as high or as low powered as you so desire.

 

[WildWeasel]

*shrugs*
Is it really any different than a GURPS campaign that starts GURPS characters at 250 points instead of a 100? Or an Exalted character with 30 bonus points instead of 15?

Create characters as the DM thinks is appropiate for the game he wants to run. Who else cares?

 

[Dogbrain]

It's not cheating. The fundamental structure of D&D might actually require it. Consider a campaign wherein the PCs are levels 9-11. Throw in a first-level character, and it's just ground meat, or it just hangs around to do nothing. D&D piles on so much additional power per level that mixed levels are not viable without a lot of finagling. This is unlike GURPS, at least in my experience. I've run campaigns wherein PCs who started at 100 points but made it up to 200 or so can viably accompany starting characters of 100 points. This is because the effect of gaining an additional 100 character points, bit by tiny bit, is generally a great deal less than the effect of gaining 9-10 levels in D&D. It's been my experience that the 100+100 point GURPS character has a great deal more breadth of ability without becoming able to laugh at things that would kill a 100 point character. They would have a better chance of success, but they wouldn't be able to just blow such challenges off.

Consider:

One 1st-level character vs. an ordinary ogre.
One 10th-level character vs. an ordinary ogre.

In GURPS, the ogre equivalent would still pose a risk to the 100+100 point character. However, in GURPS, a true 200-point character (gets 200 points to start with) would generally be significantly more powerful than a 100+100 point character.

 

[Ibram]

Its hardly cheating to start a character at 2+ levels, as long as everyone else starts has the same starting level.

Honestly I dont even run 1st level games anymore, my games usualy start at 3-4 levels (I'm one of those who sees 1st level as being the realm of punk kids).

As others have pointed out I cannot realy see how much impact a 1st level character would have in a party of 10 level characters. He cannot tank for the party because most CR 10 creatures have little trouble dooing 20 damage in a round (which is more then most 1st level characters could have). He cant be fire support with missiles or spells becaues the armor and saves of a CR 10 creature is more then enough to ingore a 1st level spell or attack. He cant even be a buff/healing charcter: his buff spells wont last long and he wount be able to do enough healing (I cast all my healing spells so you get back 14hp! oh ok, then I'm still down 90 hp).

thats not to say that if a player came to me and said that they wanted to play a 1st level I'd automaticly say no. I'd just be very careful to explain the difficulties posed by being a punk kid following a group of master swordsmen.

 

[Particle_Man]

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?

There is a way to solve the problem of "weak character in strong party" AND "make the player happy". Just have the character have only one class level, but be of a race with an ECL high enough that it is balanced with the rest of the party. So for instance, you could have a beginning character that happens to be a beginning half-dragon (or whatever -- it depends on what level the rest of the party is, after all). It is still a beginning character, story-wise, after all.

Mind you, there are some who feel that the ECL characters are a bit weak, and who might recommend starting with a character race with an ECL higher than the party average. But that is your call. The point is that the character could still be a 1st level wizard, or 1st level fighter, or whatever.