Low-levelled newbie

[SnowleopardVK]

I once had a DM make me bring my monk in at first level when the rest of the party was seventh now that sucked and was no fun.

Yeah, that happened to a sorcerer of mine. Not enjoyable.

Meh, well, one level lower isn't that much of an issue but why bother with that difference anyways. At least in a case where probably none of the other players care if the newbie's levels weren't "earned".

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, that happened to a sorcerer of mine. Not enjoyable.

Meh, well, one level lower isn't that much of an issue but why bother with that difference anyways. At least in a case where probably none of the other players care if the newbie's levels weren't "earned".

As others have said it may be just a hold over from older gaming styles. It just maybe the way this DM likes to do things. I don't think it is that big a deal but you should ask your DM why they want to do this.

Did your sorcerer live very long? I finally just hid during every encounter and then ran out and poured healing potions down my fellow party members throats. Eventually several other PCs died and had to start over at level 1 so I was not the lowest any longer.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

As others have said it may be just a hold over from older gaming styles. It just maybe the way this DM likes to do things. I don't think it is that big a deal but you ask your DM why they want to do this.

Did your sorcerer live very long? I finally just hid during every encounter and then ran out and poured healing potions down my fellow party members throats. Eventually several other PCs died and had to start over at level 1 so I was not the lowest any longer.

I gave her magic missile, a 0th level ray spell (or something... Forget which spell exactly), and a bow so I could at least shoot things from behind the people who were doing actual, useful things, and I put ranks in whatever few skills nobody in the party had.

She made it almost to the end of one dungeon by just hanging back (probably would have gone up a level or two if we were doing exp updates on the fly), and then got eaten by a young green dragon in the dungeon's final fight.

 

[Elf Witch]

I gave her magic missile, a 0th level ray spell (or something... Forget which spell exactly), and a bow so I could at least shoot things from behind the people who were doing actual, useful things, and I put ranks in whatever few skills nobody in the party had.

She made it almost to the end of one dungeon by just hanging back (probably would have gone up a level or two if we were doing exp updates on the fly), and then got eaten by a young green dragon in the dungeon's final fight.

Ouch. A first or second level character is going to find a young green dragon kind of hard to live through. Especially a sorcerer with a D4 hit die.

My monk lived and the funny thing was the only survivor of a near TPK.

 

[S'mon]

A 1 level lower character in 3e is perfectly viable and will soon catch up, not sure about Pathfinder due to the different XP system.

I take a different approach depending on edition, eg:

4e: Party XP, everyone is the same level.
3e: Usually 2 levels below highest party level. All PCs are at least that level.
1e: Start at 1st level.

 

[steeldragons]

My standard operating procedure is the same as Elf Witch's...more or less.

If the party is low level, say, most of the party is up to 3rd level. Then yeah, I have them come in at 1st.

But anything higher than that, I have them start at the bottom of whatever level the lowest level party member is. So, if the party spread is something like 1 7th, 2 6th and a 5th...the new PC comes in at the starting XP for 5th. Will they be as useful/powerful as the other PCs? No, they won't. But they won't be (and hopefully don't feel) useless/out of their depth.

That said, as S'mon points out, it really is somewhat edition/system relative as to what would work best. And if it is 3e, and this is a new player unfamiliar with the game, starting at 1st so as to be able to get their feet on the ground and figure out how they want to "build" their character might not be a bad thing.

In my own 1-2e hybrid houseruled game, noone has had any complaints about coming in as the "low man on the totem pole" XP-wise...since/but they are still on the totem pole....as opposed to coming in at 1st level with a 5th level party where the new PC is more standing behind the totem pole, looking at it, saying "Well, isn't that nice. Have fun stormin' the castle! I'll be over here weaving a basket or something."

Given I still use the 1e XP charts, having a party at all the same level at one time is not a common occurance, but everyone is generally within 1 or 2, at the max, level(s) of each other.

Have fun and happy gaming.
--Steel Dragons

 

[howandwhy99]

I think S'mon has it. Earlier versions of D&D were designed for multiple level play within a party and the rules bear it in mind. Later versions are based on other design assumptions. In fact, most every other RPG isn't designed for this kind of play, so I wouldn't go this route unless you are both running a game with such a design intact and know why it works.

To try and put it into perspective, imagine a video game where higher level abilities are gained with the understanding that the player already is proficient in the game world and its system. If you gain an ability that takes you to "Gamora" and can "flash the ice bomb twice", then the player already needs to have learned what those are, where they are, how they hold meaning in the game, and why such things would be considered valuable at all.

Starting out at 80th level isn't impossible, it's simply too much to read prior to play. Imagine a video game's "starting area" with 100 powers or spells. The game is no longer success via learning through play, but read, read, read. Such a high learning curve isn't usually successful - either for the designers or for the fun of the players.

 

[Herobizkit]

I believe it is a grognard thing, as this is what I've always done with new players to my groups. I think it may even be recommended in the 2nd (?) edition DMG.

Starting the character one level lower gives the player less information to sweat over. If he's coming in as the Healer, he's got enough problems to deal with (mostly spell juggling, unless he plays a spontaneous caster like an Oracle or Inquisitor - both of which are Full Of Win in my book).

Also, it gives the DM time to ease the character into combat by seeing both how the player and the character performs with the group. If the character is a poor fit, no big - new character at the same XP level, try it again. If the player is a poor fit... well, you don't lose that much manpower and you carry on without him.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm not a fan of artificially penalizing a new player and effectively giving a party an in-game penalty for an out-of-game reason. Bringing the new character in at the level of the lowest level member of the party is fine.

Lower than that, depending on editions, can have unintended consequences. You may be making the party more fragile, since you have a character who is less survivable compared to the others.

Plus what message are you sending the new player? "We don't trust you, out of game, since you're new, so we'll give you an in-game penalty"? Would you want to be treated that way as an experienced player joining a new gaming group?

It's a game -- give the newbie the benefit of the doubt and let his character be on par with the others.

 

[saskganesh]

I have a newbie, oldschool, game where the average party level was 2nd, including "party" NPC's. I just acquired 4 new players, so I started them all at 2/3 of the way through first level. I fundamentally prefer the conceit of earning levels, but at the same time, I didn't want the new players to be "punished" for showing an interest in playing a tabletop game.

It's going very well. The new players are now almost at second (next session they will certainly all break) and they are excited at this achievement. It was a good carrot.