D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?

[Umbran]

Cool story bro.

We expect EN World users to *show respect* for each other. In the first sentence of the post, and you have failed in that regard. This is not cool, story or otherwise, bro.

We strongly suggest that you not start a post with disdain and dismissal, unless you *want* to get the hairy eyeball from moderators. If you can't manage to show respect, we expect you to disengage until such time as you can. If that's "never", we are good with that.

I hope that's clear. If not, please take it to e-mail or PM with a member of the staff. Thanks.

 

[rollingForInit]

In our main campaign, we level by milestone. So same level is required; there's no option. Which works really nicely, since we don't do a lot of combat there.

Even in campaigns where we do have a lot of combat, we tend to progress slowly, and so starting a lower level means it'd take quite a long time to catch up, meaning the lower level character will have less to contribute mechanically for a long time. So I always prefer to keep the party even.

When we played 4e, we used to have a rule that said if you gave up your character willingly, you got to start at the lowest party level minus 1. If your character died in battle, your new character got to start at the same level as the old one. We ended this while transitioning to 5e, partially because we started with milestones, and partially because at that point we'd realised that we were more motivated to play if we really liked our characters, and punishing players for wanting to change characters didn't feel like a great way to encourage role-playing. We don't change characters excessively, however.

 

[the Jester]

Our 4-man party makes it to 15th, and then the tank buys the farm. No problem, I'll create another tank. After all, with Bounded Accuracy, 3rd level PCs can do the job just as well as 15th level PCs, right?

I'm probably the strongest advocate of ES@1 on this board- and neither I, nor anyone else that I am aware of, has made this (admittedly ridiculous) claim. What we've said is that the new guy can still contribute meaningfully. That's a world apart from "do the job just as well as 15th level PCs".

 

[the Jester]

Thanks, wanna hear it again? I don't think you need to go to those lengths, but why deal with it? Why invite it? Why create a situation where it might come up? Players who specifically want that kind of thing, and competitions are very good reasons as other posters have mentioned, but besides those situations? Why even bother with the potential of all that nonsense when an incredibly easy solution is right there.

The problem is, for those of us who like ES@1 (or even just "start at lower level than the party") games, it's not a problem in need of solution; it's a style choice.

So far, your arguments against it seem to amount to "Watch out for hurt feelings, and you can't trust people to tell you how they feel". To me, that's a sign that you're playing with the wrong group. It's not your responsibility to make sure the shy girl has a gaming group at all, much less one that she's comfortable with. Not that there's anything wrong with doing so; you just seem to be emphasizing that over the actual game. For me, it's the other way around. If my players aren't enjoying the game, I trust them to communicate it to me; if there are irreconcilable differences in our preferred styles, I trust them to step away from my table. If they aren't willing to speak up when they need to, that's on them. Maybe that seems harsh, but you aren't responsible for anyone's fun but your own.

 

[Arial Black]

As a player I don't see it as "suffering" if the new character I'm bringing in to an established party is a level or two below the average. I'm the new recruit, after all; the rookie on the team who while having some experience and training still has some ropes to learn, and so I'd better get on with learning them. Using someone's football analogy for a moment, if my team is losing Peyton Manning as its QB (let's say for these purposes I don't have a backup ready to jump into the starting role) I'm going to be replacing him with either a draft pick right out of college or some other team's cast-off. Either way it's almost certainly going to be a downgrade for a few years until and unless the new guy learns the game and becomes the next Peyton.

The Peyton analogy was mine. If the 15th level party lost a guy, and he was replaced by, say, a 12th level guy, this is like Ostweiler replacing Manning. But if you enforce 1st or 3rd level replacements, this is like forcing Denver to play a high school QB.

Let's use a soccer analogy instead: Chelsea legend Didier Drogba has retired after many years of faithful service. Chelsea need to find a replacement for this world class striker, so the get Diego Costa.

If Drogba was 15th level, what level is Costa? 15th? 12? He's certainly not 1st or 3rd! Chelsea aren't forced to call up an unknown schoolboy.

If the 15th level party are doing the appropriate stuff, lake saving the world, why would they take a farm boy? Why would they take a village talent, when surely they want to recruit the best guy they can, and if the best guy available simply can't cut the mustard then leave him at home where he won't get in the way, die, or mooch XPs.

 

[Nytmare]

The Peyton analogy was mine. If the 15th level party lost a guy, and he was replaced by, say, a 12th level guy, this is like Ostweiler replacing Manning. But if you enforce 1st or 3rd level replacements, this is like forcing Denver to play a high school QB.

In a situation where you're defining a 15th level character as a first string athlete, a 1st level character as a child, and adventuring as playing a professional sport, then yes, it doesn't make any sense. But not everyone playing D&D is going to be playing the game like that.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't really understand the whole "We earned this, it's not fair that you are our level" mentality. Perhaps my group and I are too laid back that such things don't bother us, perhaps because we don't see it as earning our levels so much as having fun playing a game. It should be noted that any new PCs do start with basic equipment, perhaps with slightly higher starting money, but no magical items. Meanwhile, the original players have had the fun of playing the previous games, their PCs have magical items, the wizards have additional spells in their spellbooks, and they may even have contacts or boons from local leaders that the new player doesn't have. The new PC may be the same level but they do not have all the same benefits as the original PCs.

I think it stems from seeing leveling as two different things. Some see leveling up as a reward, and others treat it more as a pacing mechanic.

For me, leveling up is a way to pace the game. It goes from simpler to more complex. You start out fighting weaker enemies like goblins or orcs, but move up to more epic battles with fiends and ancient dragons. You have more things, more hp, more gold, more spells, more options.

So, leveling isn't about rewarding someone for doing whatever. It's about evolving the game over time. And, if the game is evolving so that it's about being bigger heroes doing bigger things, it makes absolutely no sense to say one player character is big and impressive and another isn't.

To this end, I also 1) keep everyone at the same level and 2) call for leveling up when I feel like it as the DM based on how I want the game to move. Both of these things detract from level as any kind of reward. It's hard to feel like you earned a level, I would suppose, when everyone gets it on DM whim instead of tracking it based off of some, in theory, neutral manner such as XP for monsters defeated. In this kind of case, level being a pacing mechanic is painfully clear and it is weird to even think about it as a reward. When that happens, having PCs at different levels would feel like a penalty or at least arbitrary.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm probably the strongest advocate of ES@1 on this board- and neither I, nor anyone else that I am aware of, has made this (admittedly ridiculous) claim. What we've said is that the new guy can still contribute meaningfully. That's a world apart from "do the job just as well as 15th level PCs".

A 5-man party with a level 1 fighter has a CR/APL of 12.2, which is 3 Helmed Horrors. Each one will have a base 60% chance to hit on a fighter with an AC of 18. They get two attacks per round. The fighter has at best, 15 HP, assuming max con, no feats. I beg the question: how does he meaningfully contribute when the monsters are more likely to hit him than he is to hit them?

 

[Tectuktitlay]

I think it stems from seeing leveling as two different things. Some see leveling up as a reward, and others treat it more as a pacing mechanic.

For me, leveling up is a way to pace the game. It goes from simpler to more complex. You start out fighting weaker enemies like goblins or orcs, but move up to more epic battles with fiends and ancient dragons. You have more things, more hp, more gold, more spells, more options.

So, leveling isn't about rewarding someone for doing whatever. It's about evolving the game over time. And, if the game is evolving so that it's about being bigger heroes doing bigger things, it makes absolutely no sense to say one player character is big and impressive and another isn't.

To this end, I also 1) keep everyone at the same level and 2) call for leveling up when I feel like it as the DM based on how I want the game to move. Both of these things detract from level as any kind of reward. It's hard to feel like you earned a level, I would suppose, when everyone gets it on DM whim instead of tracking it based off of some, in theory, neutral manner such as XP for monsters defeated. In this kind of case, level being a pacing mechanic is painfully clear and it is weird to even think about it as a reward. When that happens, having PCs at different levels would feel like a penalty or at least arbitrary.

This is precisely what I do. Leveling is not where players get their rewards for good play. I do not hand out XP at all; I decide when the whole party levels up, period. New players, or new characters by existing players, come in at the same level as everyone else, with an appropriate level of wealth for their level. Levels are strictly a pacing mechanism, nothing more, nothing less, and I make that clear to players when the campaign starts.

The rewards system is completely compartmentalized from the leveling system. Rewards might be monetary. This includes gear, or magic items, or simply cash. They might be mechanical bonuses such as a freebie permanent +1 to a skill they have consistently used brilliantly, training in a skill, tool, or language it would make sense for them to learn. It might come in the form of roleplaying bonuses, such as favors from NPCs or factions, ownership of land, titles, papers or badges giving them increased access and/or authority within a specific city or country, and so on.

 

[Halivar]

A 5-man party with a level 1 fighter has a CR/APL of 12.2, which is 3 Helmed Horrors. Each one will have a base 60% chance to hit on a fighter with an AC of 18. They get two attacks per round. The fighter has at best, 15 HP, assuming max con, no feats. I beg the question: how does he meaningfully contribute when the monsters are more likely to hit him than he is to hit them?

One would have to assume, first, that the party works as a team. If you have that, then the level 1 fighter has access to defensive and offensive buffs and synergistic actions and feats from his or her party members. I had a level 1 rogue join a party at 8th level. Not only did the rogue survive, but he got the killing blow on the night's BBEG and received 3 levels at the end of his first session. That's how I run it, and it works for my table.