Low-levelled newbie

[GSHamster]

I think this general idea also stemmed from the fact that resurrection spells used to have penalties like gold cost and a loss of Con back in 2nd Ed.

So when a character died, many DMs set up a choice like:

1. Have your current character resurrected at the same level, minus some gold, and missing 1 point of Constitution.
2. Make a new character, but she starts one level lower.

This made the time and effort of getting a character resurrected seem like a better alternative to simply rolling up a new character. And then to go along with this, completely new players just started in with option 2, to match an existing player rolling a new character.

Maybe in your game, no one rolls new characters very often, so you've forgotten why the practice started.

 

[Rechan]

As a DM I ensure all characters are the same level - even absent characters level up with everyone else.

As a player I'd be insulted to be asked to start lower than everyone else.

 

[GreyLord]

IN 3.X I'd keep the characters at the same level...sucks to be the guy left behind and catching up can take a lot longer overall than previous systems in relation to how the others level.

AD&D and D&D (pre-3e) I can perfectly see starting someone at 1st level. By the time the others reach their next level, that 1st level character will be at the level right under them...as each level typically needs as much XP to go up a level as all the others prior to it needed, at least up to name level.

In 4e, probably characters at the same level once again.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I can see one level back, but not a lot more. It kinda sucks for the new guy to be useless in a campaign.

Of course at higher levels, this is not so true, but from level 1-5 it is in my experience.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Maybe in your game, no one rolls new characters very often, so you've forgotten why the practice started.

I'd say it's less of a "forgotten" and more of a "didn't know in the first place" (hence me asking what was up with that).

It is true however that there's generally very little rolling up of new characters midway through our games.

 

[Imperialus]

One thing to note though is that in the older editions if a 1st level character joined a higher level party they leveled up damn fast. They'd also typically get kitted out with some pretty badass magic items just by pawing through the higher level characters 'castoffs' and be able to rely on the services of a high level spellcaster.

Just as an example. Say I'm joining a 1st ed campaign where I want to play a fighter. I'm starting at 1st level and joining a party where they all have around 20,000 XP. That means that the party includes a 5th level fighter a 6th level thief, a 5th level cleric and a 4th level Magic User.

Now by the time the newbie has earned 18,000 exp, enough to become a 5th level fighter the rest of the party is at 38,000. That means we've got a 6th level fighter, the thief is still stuck at 6th, the cleric is 6th and the magic user is 5th.

One of the other balancing factors in the older editions was the fact that alot of parties made extensive use of henchmen. This means that if a new player took over a henchman at the beginning he'd have 10,000 and be 4th level pretty well regardless of class.

 

[haakon1]

From what I can tell it's an old-school grognard ideal that you have to earn your levels; leveling is a reward for playing smart enough to stay alive. Therefore starting above level 1 is cheating.

As one who does this, yes, that's close.

I have four reasons for doing this:

1) Levels mean more if you have to earn them, instead of receiving them "for free" from the DM. Means more to the new player, and means more to the existing players (doesn't cheapen the value of their experience).

2) For a true newbie player, D&D is complicated. It's much easier to run a low level character than a high level character, so it's better for learning the game rules.

3) For a true newbie player, D&D is confusing and opaque. They don't really know what options to choose, what will work well together and what won't, until they've actually played a bit. Given a choice of telling them what to do (taking the fun of developing a character away), letting them stumble in the dark and create a character that "doesn't work" as they intended, or letting them try with a simple 1st level character (limited in how much you can mess it up), the last choice seems best.

4) Danger is good and fun in D&D. "Balance", such as trying to nerf some classes so they are all the same, ensure HP are high enough that there's a grind instead of a chance of quick destruction (ahem), or ensuring by rule that PC's get enough treasure and can choose the specific treasure they want, is lame IMHO. Worker safety rules and worrying about income distribution are fine in real life, but a sense of prevailing against the odds and living by your wits on the edge of disaster in D&D is really great fun, especially since there's no actual danger to it. If you're auditing for equal opportunity treasure for all, wrongbadfun IMHO.

I actually give new player to my games three choices:
1) Start with a brand new first level character.

I find, for 3.5e, a 1st level character, particularly if a fighter-type or cleric, can survive well enough with a 3rd or 4th level party. I've seen a PC die from this, and I have seen PC's thrive. In a current campaign, a guy joined as 1st level when 3 party members were 3rd and one was 4th. Now 4 have just gained 5th, and he gained 4th. As a paladin, he's been doing his job (melee basher) well all along.

If campaigns were higher level, I'd point out that you can run a 1st level character with a higher ECL race, a race with ECL of -1 level to the PC party average (so 1st level, but same effective levels as the average for the others).

2) Bring in an existing PC that you played from 1st level in another campaign, subject to DM approval (to prevent Monty Haulism being imported from some other campaign).

I only saw one player go with this option, and it was fine as is (similar treasure and stats to what he'd have had in my campaigns).

3) Adopt an existing NPC that the PC's know in the campaign, typically up to the same level as the average for the PC's.

This has actually been the most popular option.

 

[Elf Witch]

As one who does this, yes, that's close.

I have three reasons for doing this:
1) Levels mean more if you have to earn them, instead of receiving them "for free" from the DM. Means more to the new player, and means more to the existing players (doesn't cheapen the value of their experience).

2) For a true newbie player, D&D is complicated. It's much easier to run a low level character than a high level character, so it's better for learning the game rules.

3) For a true newbie player, D&D is confusing and opaque. They don't really know what options to choose, what will work well together and what won't, until they've actually played a bit. Given a choice of telling them what to do (taking the fun of developing a character away), letting them stumble in the dark and create a character that "doesn't work" as they intended, or letting them try with a simple 1st level character (limited in how much you can mess it up), the last choice seems best.

I actually give new player to my games three choices:
1) Start with a brand new first level character.

I find, for 3.5e, a 1st level character, particularly if a fighter-type or cleric, can survive well enough with a 3rd or 4th level party. I've seen a PC die from this, and I have seen PC's thrive. In a current campaign, a guy joined as 1st level when 3 party members were 3rd and one was 4th. Now 4 have just gained 5th, and he gained 4th. As a paladin, he's been doing his job (melee basher) well all along.

2) Bring in an existing PC that you played from 1st level in another campaign, subject to DM approval (to prevent Monty Haulism being imported from some other campaign).

I only saw one player go with this option, and it was fine as is (similar treasure and stats to what he'd have had in my campaigns).

3) Adopt an existing NPC in the campaign.

This has actually been the most popular option.

I agree that in parties where you the rest are only third or fourth you can bring in a first level character but when you start getting higher it becomes harder for the player to have any fun. I know this from my own experience.

I also agree that a newbie will have issues with a higher level character which is why I won't allow a newbie into a game with higher level characters over say around eighth.

I don't agree that you have to play a character from first to be attached to it. One of my favorite characters came into the game at 12 level and I had a really great background for her that I could not have done starting at first.

I usually don't go for characters from other games unless the setting is the same otherwise it is hard to make sense. I have seen a few rimes where it worked we had a PC come from Dragonlance into a Forgotten Relams game and it role played it very well.


I also don't like them taking over an NPC I have seen that happen and from a role playing point of view I have never seen it work well. It is like the NPC has undergone a complete personality change. It can really ruin the immersion for me when that happens.

 

[haakon1]

One thing to note though is that in the older editions if a 1st level character joined a higher level party they leveled up damn fast. They'd also typically get kitted out with some pretty badass magic items just by pawing through the higher level characters 'castoffs' and be able to rely on the services of a high level spellcaster.

This is true in my 3.5e campaigns too.

At the beginning of Adventure 3, I believe they were 3 4th level (in the party from the start), 1 3rd level (joined for Adventure 2 which was very long), and 1st level character (newbie character, total newbie player), though with plate armor, a +1 sword, and some potions donated by the others.

By Adventure 4's conclusion, they were 4 5th level, 1 4th level. That's partially because level 1-3 earn XP faster for the same CL, at least as I calculate it. (CL at each level/divided by party members).

 

[haakon1]

I agree that in parties where you the rest are only third or fourth you can bring in a first level character but when you start getting higher it becomes harder for the player to have any fun. I know this from my own experience.

I also agree that a newbie will have issues with a higher level character which is why I won't allow a newbie into a game with higher level characters over say around eighth.

I haven't tried it with higher levels than 5th, except as a one-shot "guest star" character (who took a high ECL monster race anyhow).

I don't agree that you have to play a character from first to be attached to it.

I don't think I made that claim. Anyhow, how your first ever D&D character -- which is what I mean by a true newbie, and I've introduced the game to a lot of people -- I do think 1st level is the best way to start.

I usually don't go for characters from other games unless the setting is the same otherwise it is hard to make sense. I have seen a few rimes where it worked we had a PC come from Dragonlance into a Forgotten Relams game and it role played it very well.

I've seen it work, but only from old-school Greyhawk to a different old-school Greyhawk game.

I also don't like them taking over an NPC I have seen that happen and from a role playing point of view I have never seen it work well. It is like the NPC has undergone a complete personality change. It can really ruin the immersion for me when that happens.

I can think of 5 PCs in my two current campaigns who started this way. I've never seen a problem with it. But in every case, the NPC wasn't all that well known to the PC's anyhow, and I thoroughly brief the new player on every interaction the other players had had with the NPC.