• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

WHat level should newbies start at?

  • Same level as the current players, b/c that's fair!

    Votes: 88 83.0%
  • Start'em at 1st, the current players had to start there!

    Votes: 12 11.3%
  • Start them at first, but give them XP bonus to catch up!

    Votes: 6 5.7%

  • Poll closed .

ad_hoc

(they/them)
I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. Technically you already missed your chance to progress in the story, because you weren't there. On top of that, your level is lower. What part of levelling is where you get the fun from? I assume the fun is from the game itself, the story itself, so missing the session is the real enemy here. Just going from level 4 to 5 means little other than potentially new abilities. It's the adventure you go on that adds to your story.

It is everything. The character's abilities aren't just stats. They are part of who that character is. The character should fight better and be better at tracking because that is what they did, not because their friends did some things.

I believe this is the real disconnect.


I am definitely starting to see that. A tarokka deck and rolling random stats in order. Can't say I've heard of that combo before.

It is certainly a unique way of creating characters. Besides character creation, our games are very baseline 5e. I mean, we run the published adventures. We don't alter them to have less combat.

Though I will say, a 5th level martial melee character in a party of level 11s would have a pretty rough time all around, unless the next few adventures are all exploring, him staying back, or the party fighting really weak monsters.

Not only is that not likely to happen, but I also disagree. This would be true in 3.x but I just don't think it is true in 5e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Pvt. Winslow

Explorer
Not only is that not likely to happen, but I also disagree. This would be true in 3.x but I just don't think it is true in 5e.

I suppose if there's a published Adventure path out there with sections for 11th level PC's, we could test the theory and see what kinds of combats they'd likely face, then see if the 5th level character (who isn't support, as it's obvious how they'd contribute) would fare.
 

ad_hoc

(they/them)
I suppose if there's a published Adventure path out there with sections for 11th level PC's, we could test the theory and see what kinds of combats they'd likely face, then see if the 5th level character (who isn't support, as it's obvious how they'd contribute) would fare.

I will let you know if it happens.

I do know that the first half of Out of the Abyss is written as a sandbox. Characters from levels 3-7 can all encounter the same things depending on where they go first.

There is then a divide into the 2nd half of the adventure.
 

the Jester

Legend
This falls into what I said before about having to tailor your encounters to include things for the lower levels to do. If you don't take the extra step to do this, the low levels are in peril.

Well, I'm not tailoring the encounters. The encounters are the same whatever the pcs are. If they go to the dungeon that's run by bullywugs, there are the same 2 bullywugs guarding the entrance whether the pcs are 1st or 20th level. Likewise, if they go to the Burning Mountain, the same four CR 13 robots are guarding the entrance, no matter who or what level the pcs are. The pcs use their knowledge of the local area, rumors they have heard and obvious clues ("nobody lives within 20 miles of Bile Mountain" vs. "the abandoned monastery is just out of town; whatever is in there can't be too nasty or people would know/be dying") to choose their own adventures.

I really do run a classic style sandbox in which I focus on setting instead of plot.

Also, fireball is honestly just an example, there's plenty of worse spells, and low level characters actually have worse saves, meaning they'll be affected by the bad stuff more often, potentially taking them out of the fight.

Also, I notice your examples for how low levels contribute were mostly armoured, tough defender types. What about the squisher characters like rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, etc? They could be forced to stay back and plink away at range, which would certainly suck for the rogue if his player wanted to make a dualist or swashbuckler or something.

Well, I will use last night's game as an example. I'll focus on the two lowest-level pcs. The party was:

Dzedz (pronounced roughly "Zed" unless the next word starts with a vowel, in which you hear the final "z"), 7th level evoker wizard
Seraphine, 5th level arcane trickster
Morsado, 7th level bard of lore
Bruford, 4th level battlemaster fighter
K-Wild, 1st level rogue
Lygress, 3rd level warlock (with Harriet, a pseudodragon familiar)

So a party of 1st to 7th level pcs. They started off just outside a dungeon they had delved last game. It was after dark and they were pretty wounded. They set up camp and had one random encounter with a giant poisonous snake during the night; a quickie, if you will. This was before the 1st level pc had met up with them and was a single-hit kill, but did some damage to the arcane trickster.

During the next day's journey, and with their new 1st level pal, they were attacked by a fairly massive wolfpack during a period of extremely dense fog (20' visibility). During this fight, due to the terrain and the limited visibility, the wolves didn't all get close enough to attack until round 3 (though most could attack by round 2 or 3). The rogue did his part, sneak attacking effectively. The warlock used her eldritch blast to good effect. Both contributed, and I think that the warlock took a little damage (like 1 hit's worth IIRC).

After that, they encountered a needletooth drake swarm- a custom CR 6 monster converted from the 3e MM3 IIRC. This was a nasty encounter that nearly took Seraphine out. The warlock did her part, but in this one, the rogue did a lot of quaking in fear because the character had seen a swarm of them eat a bunch of children from his tribe in the past, so he was terrified and roleplayed it. So in this case, the pc didn't contribute much tactically, but did do some great roleplaying.

Their next encounter was a chase/pursuit/tailing encounter. They didn't know it at the time, but their quarry was a doppelganger. They caught him changing form with a crystal ball and chased him halfway through a city before he managed to give them the slip. This was followed by some investigation and the slowly-dawning realization that Dzedz' mom was a werewolf.

Then they were ambushed by a cadre of 8 doppelgangers in the street. This was a vicious battle, although the 1st level guy was now 2nd. The party came really close to losing this one; by the end, Seraphine and Bruford were both dying (Bruford had 2 failed death saves), and only a combination of good tactics and really poor damage rolls on my part on several hits that really ought to have dropped one or another of them kept them from going down as a group. In this fight, the lvl 2 guy (now a rogue/monk) did a good job of making sure he landed his sneak attack almost every round (using a dagger with his bonus action attack as a monk). The warlock made good use of her eldritch blast again, though she had a rough couple of rounds when two of the doppelgangers mashed her from either side. (Wise decision time: she Disengaged.) Though neither one dealt the same amount of damage as the wizard or fighter, they both definitely contributed, and each one dropped at least one of the doppelgangers (well, the pseudodragon familiar of the warlock got one; I don't recall whether she got one herself, but I would count a familiar's kill for her). One major element of this fight was that, once the evoker dropped a big bomb, about half the doppelgangers moved to focus on him, almost killing him but allowing the other pcs to focus their own fire a little bit better.

The last combat encounter of the night was another big burly one, with the pcs getting attacked by two giant apes while in the forest (looking for Momma Werewolf). Again, both low-level pcs contributed; the warlock got smashed down by one of the giant apes and dropped, but lived through it. The rogue kept lucking out and getting missed (and, of course, not every one of the apes' attacks was aimed at these two by any means; the fighter moved out front to engage them first, and held against them for several rounds before dropping).

Maybe it is partly our gaming styles. I use casting type enemies in nearly every encounter. I find that's the best way to balance the fun and usefulness of every character and class. It makes sure that AC doesn't become the only thing a character worries about, but their saves as well. So I guess if you almost never use mages, or when you do, you make sure you never aim at the rogue annoying your mage by shooting him in the back, you wouldn't see my concern.

I only use mages/casters when appropriate. In this case, the pcs were engaged with enemies who were not heavy on the spellcasters. Had things gone a little differently during/after the chase, they certainly could have ended up in battle with spellcasters, however.

But I don't have many wizards as wandering monsters in the forest or in largely uninhabited hills/mountains. I usually have a good clue where such npc types are to be found.

That said, when a party encounters a hostile spellcaster, I absolutely don't pull punches (unless the npc would do so for some reason). But you are probably right that using spellcasting foes relatively sparingly probably has an effect on survivability in a mixed-level group.
 

the Jester

Legend
I'm earnest when I ask about this stuff, because I'm trying to find where the true divide is. It feels like there's another factor at play here that draws people to bringing chars back at low level. Whether it's sandbox vs story arc, low combat games, or something else.

For my campaign, it's the sandbox aspect. My game is currently set in a city- the last (known) city that's civilized. The situation is pretty unsustainable, with a ton of dangerous tribes of goblinoids, lizardfolk, orcs, gnolls, etc in the surrounding areas. The players eventually end up with 'stables' of characters as different groups arise and adventure. For instance, the guy who plays Buford, the fighter I mentioned in my post above, also plays Haji (a monk 7, currently deep in the local megadungeon with another party) and Bling (a cleric 13, just plane shifted with his party to Pandemonium to try to rescue a pc who drew the donjon from a Deck of Many Things). The players who run Morsado and Seraphine are, respectively, someone who only lives in the area part time and the newest player in the group she's' in; they both only have one because that's how circumstances have worked out. Sometimes they swap pcs around; the guy playing Haji and Bling recently swapped the groups they are adventuring with because Bling has a 'condition' and the party Haji was in had the city's only registered and licensed necromancer. Upon hearing about him, Bling sought him out, while Haji went off to engage in a different adventure.

Each pc only has what he or she has earned in play (or in downtime). Each pc develops separately (though usually alongside) the rest and has his or her own adventures. It adds depth to the setting, and helps the players feel like their characters are in a big place with lots going on (one pc might be engaged in the army's politics, while another might be ensconced in a local noble house or work for one of the dwarven factions). The monk paths have rival monasteries and act like rival monasteries would in a kung fu flick, so they might be caught up in agendas completely outside those of other groups. Some pcs are tied in to the bankers' guild, to the secret society called the Illuminati, etc. Like I saidupthread, I focus on setting, and the 'stable of pcs' effect feeds into that. And my players seem to love it. Early on in the 5e lifespan, several of them expressed doubt about the whole ES@1 idea, but since they've seen it in play nobody has had any issues with it.
 

Pvt. Winslow

Explorer
Well, I'm not tailoring the encounters. The encounters are the same whatever the pcs are. If they go to the dungeon that's run by bullywugs, there are the same 2 bullywugs guarding the entrance whether the pcs are 1st or 20th level. Likewise, if they go to the Burning Mountain, the same four CR 13 robots are guarding the entrance, no matter who or what level the pcs are. The pcs use their knowledge of the local area, rumors they have heard and obvious clues ("nobody lives within 20 miles of Bile Mountain" vs. "the abandoned monastery is just out of town; whatever is in there can't be too nasty or people would know/be dying") to choose their own adventures.

I really do run a classic style sandbox in which I focus on setting instead of plot.

Sounds interesting. To a degree though, do you pick adventures that are appropriate for the party level? I assume you wouldn't add clues and hooks to a level 12 adventure when average party level is still 5. Would you agree that in a way, that's a bit of tailoring not the encounters, but the adventure itself to their capabilities?

Well, I will use last night's game as an example. I'll focus on the two lowest-level pcs...

Those are some good examples and definitely sounds like fun. To dive a bit deeper into it - how often would you say either the rogue or the Warlock became the focus of a particular monster? Were they ever singled out at all, other than the time with the two Dopplegangers? I suppose it's kind of a no brainer that low level PC's will die fast if you specifically target them, but I'm just curious if they were able to stay out of their enemies attention somehow, or if you might have avoided them at times knowing they would die?

I only use mages/casters when appropriate. In this case, the pcs were engaged with enemies who were not heavy on the spellcasters. Had things gone a little differently during/after the chase, they certainly could have ended up in battle with spellcasters, however.

But I don't have many wizards as wandering monsters in the forest or in largely uninhabited hills/mountains. I usually have a good clue where such npc types are to be found.

That said, when a party encounters a hostile spellcaster, I absolutely don't pull punches (unless the npc would do so for some reason). But you are probably right that using spellcasting foes relatively sparingly probably has an effect on survivability in a mixed-level group.

I think this may have a lot to do with our different experiences. I definitely use tons of mages and magical enemies, or even just monsters with special abilities. Sometimes I'll even add them if the monster otherwise would have nothing to do but a normal attack. I like to mix saving throws, skill checks, and attack rolls all in the same combats.

However, I understand where you're coming from on a published adventure. Sometimes you don't have a lot of free time to tweak the adventure and add casters or whatnot to battles, so you run as is. Generally I've found that adventures predominantly focus on melee monster types, and don't often use many casters. I wonder how things would have progressed if that were not the case?
 

the Jester

Legend
Sounds interesting. To a degree though, do you pick adventures that are appropriate for the party level? I assume you wouldn't add clues and hooks to a level 12 adventure when average party level is still 5. Would you agree that in a way, that's a bit of tailoring not the encounters, but the adventure itself to their capabilities?

Nope! The hooks for the high level stuff is out there. A good example is the party of 6th level pcs (with one lower level character) who had the opportunity to engage a death knight.

Those are some good examples and definitely sounds like fun. To dive a bit deeper into it - how often would you say either the rogue or the Warlock became the focus of a particular monster? Were they ever singled out at all, other than the time with the two Dopplegangers? I suppose it's kind of a no brainer that low level PC's will die fast if you specifically target them, but I'm just curious if they were able to stay out of their enemies attention somehow, or if you might have avoided them at times knowing they would die?

When I run a monster, I try hard to run it as it would behave in the world. The wolf pack attacked using pack tactics, moving out of the mist to engage the pcs that they could. The needletooth drake swarm went for the biggest concentration of meat, in other words the place where it could attack the most pcs at once.

I believe that the warlock got a bit of focus from some wolves, but between her own attacks and the other pcs' assistance, she came out fine. And the rogue avoided concentrated focus most because the other pcs were bigger threats; specifically in melee, the fighter kicked a lot of ass.

I can't reiterate or emphasize enough how much the 5e version of aid helps parties with a cleric in them, too, although that wasn't the cast with this specific group.

I think this may have a lot to do with our different experiences. I definitely use tons of mages and magical enemies, or even just monsters with special abilities. Sometimes I'll even add them if the monster otherwise would have nothing to do but a normal attack. I like to mix saving throws, skill checks, and attack rolls all in the same combats.

However, I understand where you're coming from on a published adventure. Sometimes you don't have a lot of free time to tweak the adventure and add casters or whatnot to battles, so you run as is. Generally I've found that adventures predominantly focus on melee monster types, and don't often use many casters. I wonder how things would have progressed if that were not the case?

For clarity, while I do use some canned modules, none of that stuff was published material.

It has nothing to do with having time to tweak the adventure and everything to do with staying loyal to the setting. Basically, I ask, Would there be a spellcaster here? In my campaign setting, spellcasters are rare, and powerful spellcasters even more so. The answer is usually no. And I know who the high level npcs in the area are; there simply aren't dozens of guys capable of casting fireball out there in the world.
 

ad_hoc

(they/them)
It has nothing to do with having time to tweak the adventure and everything to do with staying loyal to the setting.

This is important.

Tweaking the world and adventure to suit the characters takes away player agency. It means that their choice of character didn't matter because they were going to have the exact skills and abilities to succeed on the tasks laid out for them no matter what they do.

I find this to be a major sticking point with a lot of people. Just because you took Polearm Master doesn't meant there will be a magical Polearm for you in the next dungeon.
 

Iry

Hero
Tweaking the world and adventure to suit the characters takes away player agency. It means that their choice of character didn't matter because they were going to have the exact skills and abilities to succeed on the tasks laid out for them no matter what they do.
When your players choose those skills or abilities they are literally telling you "GM? I want you to have scenes where I do X amazingly!". If you are not providing those scenes at least some of the time, you are potentially invalidating their choices. Every game you run should be tailored to the skills and abilities of your party, unless your gaming group specifically wants to challenge themselves against a module.
 
Last edited:

the Jester

Legend
When your players choose those skills or abilities they are literally telling you "GM? I want you to have scenes where I do X amazingly!". If you are not providing those scenes at least some of the time, you are potentially invalidating their choices. Every game you run should be tailored to the skills and abilities of your party, unless your gaming group specifically wants to challenge themselves against a module.

That's a fine approach for certain playstyles, but it's awful in a true sandbox. In a true sandbox, the player chooses his or her pc options and then makes the most of them.

I think you'll find that sandbox dms tend to be the same ones who threw out the whole idea of the magic item wishlist, magic item shops, easy access to npc spellcasting and the like, too. Sandboxes don't serve softballs tailored to the party; by their very nature, there's no magic polearm just because you took Polearm Master- but there might be one somewhere even if you don't.
 

Remove ads

Top