Starting at 1st level with a higher group

[Quasqueton]

During an unrelated thought exercise, I calculated how far behind a PC would be if he had to start at 1st level when the other PCs were higher level. Here's how it turns out.

If the PCs are gaining the same XP (for every 1,000xp the higher PCs get, the new PC gets 1,000 -- the "3.0 way"):

Main party at level 2, new PC comes in at level 1
2 - 1
3 - from here on, 1 level behind

Main party at level 3, new PC comes in at level 1
3 - 1
4 - 3
5 - from here on, 1 level behind

Main party at level 4, new PC comes in at level 1
4 - 1
5 - 3
6 - 4
7 - 6
8 - from here on, 1 level behind

Main party at level 5, new PC comes in at level 1
5 - 1
6 - 3
7 - 5
8 - 6
9 - 7
10 - 8
11 - 10
12 - from here on, 1 level behind

Main party at level 6, new PC comes in at level 1
6 - 1
7 - 4
8 - 5
9 - 7
10 - 8
11 - 9
12 - 10
13 - 11
14 - 12
15 - 13
16 - 15
17 - from here on, 1 level behind

Main party at level 7, new PC comes in at level 1
7 - 1
8 - 4
9 - 6
10 - 7
11 - 8
12 - 10
13 - from here on, 1-2 levels behind

Main party at level 8, new PC comes in at level 1
8 - 1
9 - 4
10 - 6
11 - 7
12 - 9
13 - 10
14 - 11
15 - 13
16 - from here on, 2 levels behind

Main party at level 9, new PC comes in at level 1
9 - 1
10 - 4
11 - 6
12 - 8
13 - 9
14 - 11
15 - from here on, 2-3 levels behind

Main party at level 10, new PC comes in at level 1
10 - 1
11 - 5
12 - 7
13 - 8
14 - 10
15 - 11
16 - 12
17 - 14
18 - from here on, 3 levels behind


If the PCs are getting scaled XP (for every 1,000xp the higher PCs get, the new PC gets more -- the "3.5 way"):

Main party at level 10, new PC comes in at level 1
10 - 1
11 - 7
12 - 10
13 - 12
14 - from here on, 1 level behind


I didn't do the calculations of scaled XP for any other levels -- it just takes too long. But doing it for 10th level shows the basic idea that the new PC will gain a little faster, and close the gap faster.

What does this show? What can be taken from this? It looks like a new 1st-level PC starting with an established 5th level group can catch up quickly enough to work. By the time the 5th level PCs gain two levels, the new PC is just two behind. 2 levels difference is not bad in a normal party. With scaled XP, the new character could probably start with a 7th level group and do just as well.

If a low-level character is smart, and knows how to avoid getting in over his head with a higher group, he can catch up relatively quickly. Especially if the DM is awarding scaled XP per the "3.5 way."


Because I'm interested in comparing newer D&D with older D&D, I also calculated the numbers for AD&D1 characters (really, just the fighter). In AD&D1, a character will catch up to even or 1 level behind in the time the higher level characters gain 2 levels. This is the case all the way up to name levels for the higher PCs. But if the higher characters are in the name levels (9 and 10+), the speed of gain for the lower character, and the difference is a tad greater (1 and 2 levels diff).

Anyway. I did the numbers for myself, but since I have them anyway, I figured I'd put them in this forum for anyone else with any curiousity on the subject.

Quasqueton

 

[WarlockLord]

Ok, but this assumes a L1 PC will survive the same as the others. If you throw a level 1 PC in a level 5 group, he will be fried by opposing fireballs.

 

[Quasqueton]

Ok, but this assumes a L1 PC will survive the same as the others. If you throw a level 1 PC in a level 5 group, he will be fried by opposing fireballs.

If a low-level character is smart, and knows how to avoid getting in over his head with a higher group

Quasqueton

 

[JDJblatherings]

Ok, but this assumes a L1 PC will survive the same as the others. If you throw a level 1 PC in a level 5 group, he will be fried by opposing fireballs.

Only if he stands there waiting for them to fry him. How many are there going to be anyway? 1 - 2 ...more then 2 and a 5th level party is probably left with a rogue and a fighter with less then half his hp.

 

[Flynn]

This gives me a whole new idea on how to add in some "old school" feel into a v3.5 campaign...

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[rowport]

If a low-level character is smart, and knows how to avoid getting in over his head with a higher group, he can catch up relatively quickly. Especially if the DM is awarding scaled XP per the "3.5 way."

I disagree with the "smart" premise; that entirely depends on the character's class and role within the party. Unless the party is willing to carry the extra baggage of an utterly useless member that just plain hides to avoid getting killed (which, as an aside would not be fun for most players of said character, either), then that character needs to find a useful role. With such a large level disparity, it is not clear to me what role that could be. A rogue could avoid combat, but his skill ranks would be too low to open locks/disable traps, or even use diplomacy effectively. A wizard would be killed too easily, and low-level spells have little utility. Fighters or clerics would have the most survival chance, assuming that they focused solely on ranged attacks and minimized danger, but still, are they useful to the party? I doubt it.

D&D is not just about individual survival, but also about group dynamics. "Smart" play in this context essentially just means hiding in combat and using no skills. Meh.

 

[Storminator]

I disagree with the "smart" premise; that entirely depends on the character's class and role within the party. Unless the party is willing to carry the extra baggage of an utterly useless member that just plain hides to avoid getting killed (which, as an aside would not be fun for most players of said character, either), then that character needs to find a useful role. With such a large level disparity, it is not clear to me what role that could be. A rogue could avoid combat, but his skill ranks would be too low to open locks/disable traps, or even use diplomacy effectively. A wizard would be killed too easily, and low-level spells have little utility. Fighters or clerics would have the most survival chance, assuming that they focused solely on ranged attacks and minimized danger, but still, are they useful to the party? I doubt it.

D&D is not just about individual survival, but also about group dynamics. "Smart" play in this context essentially just means hiding in combat and using no skills. Meh.

Certainly the lower level PC would be the weak link, but that doesn't make them useless. Ray of Enfeeblement is a good spell no matter what level the foe and what level the caster. Bardic Music or a Bless spell still adds +1, and being able to use the Wand of CLW (if no one else in the party can...) is extremely valuable. A low level thief can still scout vs mooks and Aid Another with a reach weapon can help anyone.

None of these tactics are going to make anyone forget you're 1st level, but you could definitely make a play with these.

I think that kind of scrappy desperation would be fun for a while.

PS

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Ok, but this assumes a L1 PC will survive the same as the others. If you throw a level 1 PC in a level 5 group, he will be fried by opposing fireballs.

Q.F.T.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

also keep in mind, you could really only level up once a session unless that was house ruled.

 

[Plane Sailing]

What does this show? What can be taken from this? It looks like a new 1st-level PC starting with an established 5th level group can catch up quickly enough to work.

I can't draw that conclusion from your data.

I think that 1 level below is the milestone that you've got to reach for 'effective and equal fun' play, not 2 levels below - and the 5th level party will be 11th level by the time that happens. They went from throwing their first fireball through 4th and 5th level spells to throwing disintegrates. That is pretty much HALF of every campaign I've played in to date!

The raw 'levelling up' information here just confirms my gut feeling that starting new people (or dead guys) at 1st level is a maximum unfun approach. Heck, we find that even with some party members 2 levels below the party average it is difficult for them to avoid dying.