Low-levelled newbie
- Thread starter SnowleopardVK
- Start date
Barastrondo
First Post
My biggest concern would be that if you're starting him at lower levels and hoping he'll create a dedicated healer or front-line fighter -- a role that nobody else in the group has opted for -- those two elements will stack poorly. The one-two punch of "please take this role none of the rest of us want to play" and "you don't get the same levels we do" seems like it would say very distinctly that the new player is a second-class citizen, and the other three players are the rockstars.
One or the other is always potentially problematic with a new player. If both is a possibility, I'd definitely bring that concern up to your GM.
One or the other is always potentially problematic with a new player. If both is a possibility, I'd definitely bring that concern up to your GM.
SnowleopardVK
First Post
Meh, well, it was mostly just a hope. It wouldn't be fair to force him into a role just because none of us took it after all. He seems to be going for an Alchemist.
My approach would be to bring a new character in at the same level as the rest of the party. I might not give her any magic items, or just a bare minimum, depending on how item-dependent the edition I'm running is.
If your character dies and you make a new PC, then you get dinged with a level penalty--though still no more than 1 level behind the lowest-level party member. (I don't allow resurrection except by special dispensation.)
If your character dies and you make a new PC, then you get dinged with a level penalty--though still no more than 1 level behind the lowest-level party member. (I don't allow resurrection except by special dispensation.)
Last edited:
Noumenon
First Post
I'd bring him in at +1 APL. Recruitment is hard and the barriers to learning D&D are very hard. He's going to make a lot of poor character build and play choices, and he needs an extra level to compensate for that. Your goal is for him to feel like he shines at least once in a session and all too often new characters just suck.
If not an extra level (the complexity argument is a good one) give him a secret special something like Zak did for Justine Jolie in I Hit it With My Axe (Her character was secretly the medusa queen's daughter and revealed her half-stoning ability at the proper moment).
If not an extra level (the complexity argument is a good one) give him a secret special something like Zak did for Justine Jolie in I Hit it With My Axe (Her character was secretly the medusa queen's daughter and revealed her half-stoning ability at the proper moment).
SnowleopardVK
First Post
Added some clarification to the OP. He's not new to Pathfinder itself, as some people seem to have assumed. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
was
Adventurer
In my experience, a DM brings in a new player at a single level lower to show respect/fairness to the previous players in the group. If those players want the new guy/gal in at the same level, I don't see the problem. Additionally, having members of differing levels makes it more difficult in calculating balanced encounters. So asking your DM to bring in the new player at the same level actually creates less work for him/her.
Barastrondo
First Post
Cool, glad that's accounted for.
SnowleopardVK, our situations certainly are a bit different.
My problem is usually the reverse of yours--for Pathfinder/D&D, I typically have parties of six to eight players (sometimes more). In bigger parties, the GM's main challenge is in actually challenging the party with an encounter that's still balanced. In smaller groups... It can be a challenge to make an encounter that's meaningful and threatening without being a potential TPK.
Keep in mind that the APL in a small party is reduced by 1 if it's three players. Furthermore, your GM should certainly take the party's capabilities into account when designing encounters (undead are more of a threat without a cleric, rogues have to work harder to get flanking with fewer allies to flank with, and so forth).
One design philosophy that I've stuck to (and surprised that it's not more popular) is in mixing up encounter composition. For example, a dire lion (CR 5) is a reasonable challenge for a party with an APL of 5. So is a band of twelve orc warriors (at CR 1/3). In such a situation, the orcs have the advantage of numbers, but even a small party can take them on if they use smart tactics like bottle-necking them. Furthermore, the characters get to have a "moment of awesome" because they so easily outclass the low-CR critters. They'll hit more often and get hit less often, and it's pretty cool to get that sense of scale as you level up.
As for your particular situation... If there are only three players and you're determined to have a game, I'd probably allow the players to run two characters each. Not only would it make the party more survivable and versatile, but players don't feel like they're getting hosed with a character they don't like.
My problem is usually the reverse of yours--for Pathfinder/D&D, I typically have parties of six to eight players (sometimes more). In bigger parties, the GM's main challenge is in actually challenging the party with an encounter that's still balanced. In smaller groups... It can be a challenge to make an encounter that's meaningful and threatening without being a potential TPK.
Keep in mind that the APL in a small party is reduced by 1 if it's three players. Furthermore, your GM should certainly take the party's capabilities into account when designing encounters (undead are more of a threat without a cleric, rogues have to work harder to get flanking with fewer allies to flank with, and so forth).
One design philosophy that I've stuck to (and surprised that it's not more popular) is in mixing up encounter composition. For example, a dire lion (CR 5) is a reasonable challenge for a party with an APL of 5. So is a band of twelve orc warriors (at CR 1/3). In such a situation, the orcs have the advantage of numbers, but even a small party can take them on if they use smart tactics like bottle-necking them. Furthermore, the characters get to have a "moment of awesome" because they so easily outclass the low-CR critters. They'll hit more often and get hit less often, and it's pretty cool to get that sense of scale as you level up.
As for your particular situation... If there are only three players and you're determined to have a game, I'd probably allow the players to run two characters each. Not only would it make the party more survivable and versatile, but players don't feel like they're getting hosed with a character they don't like.
If this was a 4e game I'd agree. But even in 4e one level difference doesn't matter a lot. In our current Dark Sun campaign our grognard DM has insisted on granting xp based on participation but with a cap: level difference may not be more than two.
If Pathfinder is anything like D&D 3e, starting one level lower is no problem at all. Note that dying and being resurrected also results in a character suddenly being a level lower than the rest of the party!
Back in 2e new players started at half the level of the group average in our groups.
In AD&D & BECMI it was: everyone starts at level 1. We also had to walk through knee-deep snow to get to our DM - uphill - both ways!!!
If Pathfinder is anything like D&D 3e, starting one level lower is no problem at all. Note that dying and being resurrected also results in a character suddenly being a level lower than the rest of the party!
Back in 2e new players started at half the level of the group average in our groups.
In AD&D & BECMI it was: everyone starts at level 1. We also had to walk through knee-deep snow to get to our DM - uphill - both ways!!!
