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

[Elf Witch]

Normally I like starting at first level and going up from there and getting the chance to watch a character grow and change.

But I have played in a 3E game where the DM ruled that all new characters coming in had to start at first level no matter what the level of the party. In that game I played a monk who was with the rest of the party who were ninth level. It was really not fun when we got into battle. I could not effect anything. Most of the time I took cover and threw shurkins. Or I spent a lot of time praying that I stablized before I hit -10. Because if I died I would start at first level again.

Sure it could be a role playing challenge but as a player to sit there half the night unable to do anything whle the rest of the people played was not fun. I brought a book and read a lot.

I also think depending on what story you want to tell is a good gage at what level to start. If you want to tell an epic level why slog through through 20 levels to get to the meat of the story.

The character I am playing right now in our Kalamar game started at 10 level. She is a replacement character. I put a lot of thought into what she has been doing to be this high a level and there is no way I could have developed this character from first level in game. She is an ex commander of a legion, 32 years old married with a 14 year old son. Its going to be fun to play this gritty woman.

 

[diaglo]

the only person you are cheating when you start above lvl 1 is yourself.

 

[Psion]

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.

I had a pair of players that were like that. But the player's ain't the books, and the only other source of rules is the DM. So no, it's not cheating. Tradition perhaps in some circles, but not cheating.

 

[Pseudonym]

As others have said, I prefer to start my games at 3rd level, allowing for greater survivability, and a low ECL should a player want that option.

I've yet to meet a player who could come up with a decent back story for a level 1 character who could not extend the same story up to level 3. None of my players have felt cheated by starting at 3rd.

In general the games I run aren't low level stories, because the group I game with has been playing for decades, and we've gotten past the thrill of low end gaming. Perhaps a novice player would feel cheated, but I don't usually play with those who have just started gaming.

 

[Faraer]

A major convention of D&D is the development of PCs from inexperienced youths to heroic veterans. If you don't use this convention, such as for a short-term campaign, starting at higher level might well be sensible. The convention is one of many D&Disms that other games have taken on, sometimes without thinking. If you do use that convention, starting above 1st level will cheat you of some of the most important experiences you could have had with that character.

 

[thundershot]

My take: If the campaign is ongoing, and the characters are already 10th level, then the new person should be the same level, or the average, or maybe average minus one.

On the other hand, when you start a NEW campaign, it should start at 1st level. Those first couple levels are what eventually defines a character. When you first start to get a feel for what you want this character to be like. When people start campaigns at higher levels, it feels like cheating, because you LOSE that ground... Hell, a new group one of my players witnessed.. none of them ever played D&D before, and they wanted to start at TENTH LEVEL! ARGH! The baby steps.. the feeling of mortality.. yes.. I love the low levels...

Of course, I'm also the DM



Chris

 

[Synchronicity]

I like starting games at between 2nd and 4th level; it means that you're a little experienced, so you can have done a bit more in your backstory as opposed to being just another 'farmer's son who just left the farm with his dad's sword and a suit of leather armour.' I don't like starting much above that, because it does encourage tweaked levelling, allowing you to optimise your character in a way you couldn't have done (or couldn't have done so easily) if you'd actually had to play through those levels. However, I dislike level 1 in general because of the 'OK, you have a roughly 1 in 4 chance of landing a good blow on the orc. You swing, you miss. You swing, you miss. The orc criticals you with his greataxe. You take 30 points of damage. You die.' or 'OK, you cast magic missile. The orc takes 3 damage. You hide behind the fighters and do nothing else for the next 7 hours, until you can rest again and get your paltry 2 1st level spells back.'

So; not cheating. In many ways, I prefer it. Having said that, my D&D campaign at the moment began from 1st level; we're now 4th, and it's the most fun I've had in ages. Political intrigue, world-dooming prophecies..you name it, we've got it! In that case, our characters are wet behind the ears (in the case of the half-aquatic elf, perhaps literally..), and only one character seemed out of place at 1st level: the veteran ranger, survivor of many battles. Still, it's been a lot of fun, and the early levels have shaped my character.

1st level can work sometimes; I'm just more hesitant to make people begin that weak because a lucky hit can kill them and I'm not in the habit of fudging rolls. It seems a shame to waste the hours the player put into creating their character's persona and backstory because one goblin got lucky, hence beginning at a higher level for advanced survivability.

 

[spectre72]

This is a hotly debated topic in our group.

I agree with many others on this topic that a character created at 6th level is entirely different than one played from 1st level to 6th.

The one built at 6th level is usually more optimally built than the one played since the player does not have to make choices as time goes by and instead can chose what works best for a 6th level character.

Also, with the ever changing rule set that is D20 a character built today has more choices and combinations than one built when 3E first came out.

More choices combined with a goal in a character means more power.

In our current game we have PC's from 6th to 10th level, and if one dies they come in at approximately 1/2 of the experience of the highest character.

Now for a new game I still start characters at 1st level, and probaly always will.

Of course it is not cheating to start past 3rd level, but it is not the desire of our group to do so unless the power level of the game warrants it.

 

[Desdichado]

I never start PCs at 1st level. I think 3rd level is a good starting place. I also would never start a new character in an established group at any level lower than the rest of the group.

 

[Pseudonym]

I don't understand the notion that starting a character at a higher level would lead to a more min-maxed or optimized character, while working from 1st would create a loveably flawed character, especially given that most PrCs require you to accumulate skill ranks and feats from your earliest levels.

For example, a wizard starting at level 1 with the goal of becomming a loremaster and a wizard 5/loremaster 2 created from whole cloth at 7th level are going to have nearly the same feats and maxed rank skills. How is one more optimized?

Now I suppose this holds true for a player who has just cracked open his first PHB, and would be inclined to take Endurance for his 1st level rogue, but for experienced players, I don't see how starting at a higher level than 1st are missing anything, or more inclined to optimization.