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

[Saeviomagy]

Yes I was referring to 3.0. I was not aware they changed the XP procedure in 3.5. IMO that seems like a mistake, as the averaging of party level for XP is one of the things that made low level PCs in a high level group playable, as the low level PC would tend to catch up with the rest of the group quickly.

How does that make the PC's playable? What does a 3rd level character in a party with a 14th level character actually DO apart from die to the first area of effect spell to go off?

None of the PCs in my campaign is useless everyone gets a chance to shine.
sure a 3rd level character can't hope to always defeat a threat that requires the might of a 12th level character but while the 12th level character is battling the previously mentioned giants mounted on dragons the less experienced fellows are making an end run for the scenarios objective or dealing with troublesome goblin skirmishers.

What stopped the 12th level character from killing all the goblins in a single action?

What stops the dragons from breathing, instantly annihilating almost everyone but the 12th level character? What stops them from stomping the character making the end run?

Are these fights always going on at physically seperate locations or somthing? Are you in effect running two seperate games?

High level characters that appear to join the party are:
a) survivors of parties that got wiped out.
b) individuals who've been 'soloing' minor challenges for a long time and only just got into the whole saving the world schtick
c) monsters
d) not relevant to the story - the camera was on YOUR player's characters.

 

[Rawwedge]

[That kind of depth and history cannot be written for a new character starting at higher levels. Perhaps you'd get close to that if you started at 3rd or so and went up to 20th - but even then, there's tons of stories in those first few levels.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. I've had to create higher level characters in order to fit into an existing 3.0 campaign with some new gaming buddies and one in particular was well fleshed out. Qayath-Otuph-ibn Phyk was a high level monk that I generated a rich narrative background for and various background material to figure out who he was and where he came from.
Granted he lacked the detailed history generated by countless gaming sessions but he was still much more than simple crunch and I knew him very well before I began playing him.
In a perfect world I always prefer to play up from low levels but that isn't always easy or practical when gaming opportunities are few and far between.

 

[Ourph]

And on the other side of this I say: SO a group of experience people are supposed to accept a bubmling neophyte into their group for no reason? Making people replace high level characters with much lower level characters very much stretches credibility in the game when they are allowed into the party for no reason other than "they are Bobs new character"

Yeah, I mean, why would a high level half-elf ranger, a high level elven archer, a high level human fighter, a high level dwarven fighter and a high level half-celestial wizard ever accept four bumbling 1st level hobb...I mean halfling fighters into their group? There's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to make that particular scenario make sense!

 

[shoplifter]

I tend to start my players at 2nd level, if only to increase their survivability ever so slightly. New players/characters can come into the game 3 levels lower than the average PC level of the party, but no lower than 2.

I've been using the UA exp. rules, and we've been very pleased with them. At the end of each session, the group votes for an MVP, based on how much they contributed both in character and in fun at the table. That character gets 10% of the total XP needed to reach the next level from the lowest XP point in their current level (ie 4th level is 6,000-9,999 and receives 400xp bonus.)

 

[Alhazred]

I love starting my PC at 1st level. In fact, I find low level adventuring to be the best part of a campaign. You're carefree, not concorned what impact your actions will have (since the impact is so minimal), goblins are something to fear... nothing beats it.

 

[FireLance]

Yes I was referring to 3.0. I was not aware they changed the XP procedure in 3.5. IMO that seems like a mistake, as the averaging of party level for XP is one of the things that made low level PCs in a high level group playable, as the low level PC would tend to catch up with the rest of the group quickly.

Actually, the 3.5 change makes lower-level PCs catch up even faster because each earns XP based on his level (instead of average party level) divided by the number of PCs in the party. Say, you get a 3rd-level PC, a 4th-level PC, a 6th-level PC and a 7th-level PC who together overcome a CR 7 encounter.

Under the 3.0 system, xp would be awarded for a party of average 5th level, and each character gets 750 xp.

Under the 3.5 system, the 3rd-level character gets 900 xp, the 4th-level character gets 800 xp, the 6th-level character gets 675 xp and the 7th-level character gets 525 xp.

Thus, the lower-level characters close the gap with the higher-level characters faster in 3.5 than in 3.0.

 

[coyote6]

But back to JDJarvis' point: in some types of campaigns you have to ask "Where did this high-powered character come from and why haven't we heard of them before?" This is especially important when the characters are world-shakingly powerful (which may be anywhere from 12th to 20th or higher in your campaign) or where the campaign setting suggests that there are a finite and very limited number of "heroes" (such as Midnight). You have to come up with an explanation for how the hero was previously unknown or unnoticed despite their long string of heroic feats necessary to gain that high level.

I don't think they have to be unknown or unnoticed. How often to the players (note I said players) know of every powerful person in the world, NPC or not, well-known or not? The PCs in most games IME know more about the world than the players do -- it's just not possible for a GM to describe every single person a character will know, from their whole life (forget starting at first level, you'd have to start PCs at first day).

Thus, it's usually possible for a GM to introduce a new NPC as a well-known person that just hasn't been mentioned before (or not long before) -- say, the PCs meet the King's Champion on the road, when said individual hasn't been previously named. The GM can say, "Make a Knowledge (nobility & royalty) roll. 22? Ah, yes, you recognize the knight's banner -- it is no less a personage than Lord Arik Tallaxe, Champion of the Rift, and Champion of the High King!"

The same technique ought to work just as well with a PC -- "Hey, that's Raknar, the Hero of Agnar's Crossing -- he killed two legates while holding the pass while the dwarven refugees escaped. I thought he was dead!" New PC: "I get that a lot. Say, why are you all covered in bloody mud, and why are those orcs charging towards you?"

Alternatively, there are undoubtably famous people in the world that any individual (or even small group of individuals) have never heard of. For instance, I'm sure a soccer (football, whatever) fan could rattle off a list of world-famous players, and neither I nor anyone in my group will have heard of 'em. Or name off members of some bands. Etc. Thus, it's entirely possible that the average group of PCs will have not heard of someone, even if they're relatively famous.

 

[LostSoul]

Once my brother and I played in a game started at 1st level. My character was a young guy who hadn't done much else other than grow up and live through a harsh winter. He was a Ranger. That made sense.

My brother's character was supposed to be a middle-aged guy who had been living in a monestary or something, studying and writing. He started at first level as well, and his character didn't make any sense. His knowledge skills were too low to explain his character's background. Once he did start gaining levels, his rapid rise in those knowledge skills (if he had invested in them - I think we stopped the game at 2nd level) would not have made any sense. He's out fighting kobolds and sorcerers instead of studying at the university, but in two months he's learned more about ancient history than in his previous 20 years?

He should have had a few levels of Expert or Aristocrat.

You are restricted in your choice of character if you have to start at first level. If you start at 3rd, you have a much greater range:

-you can make a fighter who has been a veteran of a war or two, instead of someone fresh off the training ground
-you can have a ranger who lived in the wild for many years, hunting his favourite enemy (plot hook right there)
-a barbarian who has been in a battle or two, and has more than just peach fuzz on his face
-a 100 year old elf with more skills than a 20 year old human
-etc.

I find that starting at 1st level is almost always too limiting for me.

 

[Ourph]

Actually, the 3.5 change makes lower-level PCs catch up even faster because each earns XP based on his level (instead of average party level) divided by the number of PCs in the party. Say, you get a 3rd-level PC, a 4th-level PC, a 6th-level PC and a 7th-level PC who together overcome a CR 7 encounter.

Under the 3.0 system, xp would be awarded for a party of average 5th level, and each character gets 750 xp.

Under the 3.5 system, the 3rd-level character gets 900 xp, the 4th-level character gets 800 xp, the 6th-level character gets 675 xp and the 7th-level character gets 525 xp.

Thus, the lower-level characters close the gap with the higher-level characters faster in 3.5 than in 3.0.

Hmmm. OK, I think I misunderstood Pseudonym's original post then. I was thinking you would add all those #'s together (900+800+675+525 = 2900) then give each party member 1/4 of that total (725 each), thus slightly cheating the low level players. Thanks for explaining further.

 

[JDJarvis]

How does that make the PC's playable? What does a 3rd level character in a party with a 14th level character actually DO apart from die to the first area of effect spell to go off?

The PCs in my camapign tend to avoid standing in clumps waiting to die.

What stopped the 12th level character from killing all the goblins in a single action?

The NPCs tend to avoid standing in clumps waiting to die. but on occasion they do and sometimes the high level PCs actions can put the rest of the party in jeopardy: one fellowrecently let off a cloudkill spell at a poorly chosen moment forcing many of his companions to flee desperately lest they die.

What stops the dragons from breathing, instantly annihilating almost everyone but the 12th level character?

The PCs in my camapign tend to avoid standing in clumps waiting to die.

What stops them from stomping the character making the end run?

The high level characetrs in the party.

Are these fights always going on at physically seperate locations or somthing? Are you in effect running two seperate games?

All the fights don't always happen in the same small area and the PCs have learned the benefits of mobility a long time ago. The parties in my campaing tend to be large by modern standards the PCs group contains 7 regular PCs, 5 semi-active PCs and about 2 dozen NPCs (hirelings,followers and cohorts). Everyone doesn't go on every adventure and at times they can be weeks apart in travel time but the seperate parties aren't split by level but by who is following thier own goals.