What's a good starting level for a "You are mighty heroes" campaign?

[S'mon]

Say I want to run a campaign where the PCs start as the Knights of King Arthur, the champions of the realm, as mighty warlords, and so on. What do you think is the best starting level in standard 4e rules? It seems to me that while higher = more powerful, complexity increases at higher level; in particular Paragon tier brings in more bells & whistles. And starting lower gives more space to grow. But start too low and the PCs are too squishy to be mighty heroes. I recently started a Conanesque swords & sorcery campaign at level 3, and that worked very well for a "you are bad-ass mortals" feel. It seems to me that is probably too low for a "you are established major heroes" feel, though. What do you think?

 

[Pentius]

I voted level 1. Most characters have the vital parts of their character concept expressed mechanically at level 1, and power level is entirely relative to the opponents. I could easily see and even agree with an argument for starting at a higher level, but if i were running it, I'd start at 1 and just match the setting/situation details to the concept.

 

[S'mon]

I voted level 1. Most characters have the vital parts of their character concept expressed mechanically at level 1, and power level is entirely relative to the opponents. I could easily see and even agree with an argument for starting at a higher level, but if i were running it, I'd start at 1 and just match the setting/situation details to the concept.

Do you think this would be viable for a full campaign? Would you rescale the world as the PCs leveled up?

I took this approach for my last 3e campaign; PCs started at 1st level as 'heroes of the realm', the issue I faced was that having statted out a world where most people were 1st level NPC-class and major heroes were 3rd level NPC-class, I had to adjust as the campaign progressed to keep challenging the PCs, and it was hard to justify where new (eg) 6th level PCs came from.

In 4e the equivalent would be starting with a world where orcs were mostly 1st level minions, orc chiefs might be 4th level (I've used the MM orc berserker as an orc chief for newbie PCs), but then as PCs level up the orcs become higher level minions, level 4 orcs become sub-chiefs then just ordinary orcs, chiefs become 8th level elites, then 10th, and so on. Likewise for humans and other common foes.

It seems to me that starting at higher level allows for much less reality-warping? Or would you keep the orc & humans as min-1s and use different threats?

 

[Pentius]

Do you think this would be viable for a full campaign? Would you rescale the world as the PCs leveled up?

I think it would be viable. I would absolutely rescale as necessary.

I took this approach for my last 3e campaign; PCs started at 1st level as 'heroes of the realm', the issue I faced was that having statted out a world where most people were 1st level NPC-class and major heroes were 3rd level NPC-class, I had to adjust as the campaign progressed to keep challenging the PCs, and it was hard to justify where new (eg) 6th level PCs came from.

In 4e the equivalent would be starting with a world where orcs were mostly 1st level minions, orc chiefs might be 4th level (I've used the MM orc berserker as an orc chief for newbie PCs), but then as PCs level up the orcs become higher level minions, level 4 orcs become sub-chiefs then just ordinary orcs, chiefs become 8th level elites, then 10th, and so on. Likewise for humans and other common foes.

It seems to me that starting at higher level allows for much less reality-warping? Or would you keep the orc & humans as min-1s and use different threats?

I stat opponents on the criteria of "How much of a threat should these opponents be to the PCs?" I don't consider restatting to be reality warping, because the forementioned question comes first, the stats are just the answer. In a "start as heroes" campaign, I'd scale threats slower, so as not to reach epic flavor too soon, though.

 

[Jack99]

Considering the baseline for the tiers in 4e, Paragon level sounds the most suited, and in that case, I would start them at level 11, for the most well-rounded experience.

While I understand the desire of scaling a campaign by the players' level, I have tried it, and it made for (warning, personal opinion) for a horrible campaign, that I never could really get "into", because it broke my immersion more than anything have ever done before, yes, even more than square fireballs

 

[S'mon]

Considering the baseline for the tiers in 4e, Paragon level sounds the most suited, and in that case, I would start them at level 11, for the most well-rounded experience.

While I understand the desire of scaling a campaign by the players' level, I have tried it, and it made for (warning, personal opinion) for a horrible campaign, that I never could really get "into", because it broke my immersion more than anything have ever done before, yes, even more than square fireballs

I tend to agree re immersion.

I have a follow-up question re starting at Paragon - given that Paragon is more complicated than Heroic, if running a campaign for less experienced players, how should the DM deal with that? What approach should I take to sources for PC generation? Would it be better to eg restrict characters to Essentials, or does the game need to be broader for long term play, eg you need to choose a Paragon Path at 11th, so should a wide variety of Paragon paths be available at chargen?

 

[Kerranin]

I would suggest a high-heroic starting level. I've voted 7th since this gives an extra encounter power.

My thinking behind this is that for anyone who isn't extremely proficient with 4e, starting with a Paragon tier character is a major leap. A high-heroic character gives the players time to learn how to play their class, and what they want to focus upon for a paragon path.

If you're really concerned about the characters not being mighty enough, I would suggest a house rule to give the characters additional feats. This should have the advantage of increasing power without massively increasing in-play complexity. (There are other possible ways of doing this ofc)

 

[delericho]

With the way the 4e tiers are set up, it should be 11th level - the start of the Paragon tier.

However, the way 4e is actually set up, it really doesn't matter since everything's relative. So, start the PCs at any level you want, and hype the level of the menaces accordingly. I would recommend going for the lower end of the level scale, as this makes for a simpler game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Say I want to run a campaign where the PCs start as the Knights of King Arthur, the champions of the realm, as mighty warlords, and so on.

It really depends on the scope of the game you want to run. If you want the PCs to basically be defending (or holding together) a Kingdom for the whole campaign, you're looking at Heroic & Paragon. The playground is actually too small for Epic.

4e characters are functional from 1st level on, so that's not really an issue.

What do you think is the best starting level in standard 4e rules?

In general, 1st. A first level character doesn't have to be inexperienced, in fact, given the things even first level adventurers can do, it'd be quite reasonable for them to be seasoned veterans, full knights and the like. That's a change from earlier eds with 'name levels' and 'late blooming builds,' that pigeon holed 1st level characters as rank amatures.

It seems to me that while higher = more powerful, complexity increases at higher level; in particular Paragon tier brings in more bells & whistles. And starting lower gives more space to grow.

Very true. Unless your players have a lot of experience with Paragon, you probably don't want to start a game at that tier. Heroic works a lot better.

It seems to me that is probably too low for a "you are established major heroes" feel, though. What do you think?

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King." The heroes are as major as the NPCs they're protecting are minor. Gaining levels is supposed to show growth, though. What sorts of threats do you want the heroes overcoming when the campaign starts? What sort do you have in mind for them to face as it's wrapping up?

Another thing to consider is that while gaining levels is a cornerstone of D&D, it's not exactly a cornerstone of fantasy fiction or myth. If you want the PCs to face about the same 'level' threats throughout the story arc of a campaign, you may not need to give out a lot of experience or have them gain many (or any) levels. You could have them gain treasure and re-training opportunities instead of experience, for instance, and have them be a convenient level - like 10th - the whole campaign. Radical, I know, but such options are open to you if you want.

I have a follow-up question re starting at Paragon - given that Paragon is more complicated than Heroic, if running a campaign for less experienced players, how should the DM deal with that?

Have them spend a long time at 11th, until they finally get to know their characters. Give them lots of opportunities to re-train - maybe even at ever extended rest, so they can get the character into the shape they'll be comfortable playing. If you want to do that without restricting experience, that'd mean a lot of underlevelled encounters - which would further establish them as relatively 'mighty.' Maybe bandits or orcs or whatever fits your campaign.

What approach should I take to sources for PC generation?

If you want to restrict it, I'd do it by source - which also gives your campaign a definite feel. For an Authurian feel, for instance, you could have the PCs be primarily Martial, with Divine a possibility for one or two at most (probably a Paladin), and things arcane left to the NPCs and bad guys.

Would it be better to eg restrict characters to Essentials, or does the game need to be broader for long term play, eg you need to choose a Paragon Path at 11th, so should a wide variety of Paragon paths be available at chargen?

Essentials is OK at low heroic, but gives very little choice or customization (which is ideal for completely new players or returning AD&Ders starting at 1st level). If you really are thinking of the players being 'knights' of the kingdom, for instance, the Knight class does not deliver a lot of unique character options. A party of Fighers and Warlords of different builds, OTOH, could be quite varied.

 

[Tony Vargas]

*delete?*