PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Start at 4th level



Altair_the_Vexed
2009-11-26, 03:18 AM
I've heard it said that starting play at 1st level in D&D isn't as much fun as having slightly higher level characters. 1st levellers are very squishy. There tends to be a high mortality rate. You don't feel heroic.

(On the flip side, there's the satisfaction of surviving through 1st level to gain the almost 100% power increase of becoming 2nd - but let's assume that 1st level sucks and it would be good to mitigate its problems, for the sake of the discussion.)

Also, as everyone In the Playground knows, there are imbalances between the classes. Full casters are more awesome at high level than the fighting classes.

Plenty of groups I've played with had a house rule that campaings started at 3rd or 4th or 5th level (sometimes higher). The MCWoD d20 rules start characters out at effectively 4th level.

Here are some house rule proposals to start play with some of the benefits of 4th level, and also to boost the combat classes a little.

At 1st level, all classes start with: 4 x listed HD (including CON adjustment) 8 x listed skill points max ranks = level + 5 2 feats

Base Attack Bonuses
Good BAB classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin) gain +3 BAB
Medium BAB classes (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue) gain +2 BAB
Poor BAB classes (Sorcerer, Wizard) gain +1 BAB

Other Features
All other class features progress as RAW.

Other changes
As we are calling this starting level "1st level", most rules remain unchanged.
Challenge ratings, however, need to be adjusted.

Reduce all CRs by 2. CRs of 1 or less are halved.


Reasoning
In the usual game, spell progression is what makes the caster classes become more awesome than other classes. Other class features outstrip the humble fighter.
Starting with more BAB, and more HP favours the combat classes, and the pure combat classes more than those with other class features.
Keeping the skill points lower than 16 x listed stops the rogue from outstripping the other classes.

Ashtagon
2009-11-26, 05:09 AM
If you want to start play at 4th level, just play at that level. The lower levels exist to accommodate a different style of play (something more akin to GW's warhammer world, or possibly even Call of Cthulhu). Similarly, the extreme high levels exist to accommodate yet another style of play.

The fallacy at work here is the idea that a campaign must run through levels to 20 with no gaps or omissions. That really isn't essential for a satisfying campaign, so much as having a good story well-told.

As for the issues you highlighted:

Spell-caster progression: At higher levels (past level 9 or so), this is just plain broken. Nothing short of a full caster class re-write will really fix this.

More BAB and hp: This will make it harder for a high-level fighter to kill a high-level wizard. Assuming he won initiative and got his melee attacks in, the fighter was always going to hit anyway (BAB progresses that fast). Only now, the wizard has a bigger hp shield.

Skill points: I think you have misinterpreted how many skill points a rogue would have gotten normally. A 4th level rogue under RAW would have a total of (7 x (8 + Intelligence modifier)) skill points, which is actually lower than what you are proposing (if I have understood your terms correctly).

Friend Computer
2009-11-26, 05:53 AM
Um... if you really want to 'fix' the squishyness, I would suggest these changes instead:
Replace starting HD and BAB with the following:
Starting HP: HD+Con mod+Con Score
Starting BAB: +2 (for good BAB), +1 (for med BAB), +0 (for fail BAB)

Keep skill points, saves, and other stuff as a normal 1st lv char of that class.

onthetown
2009-11-26, 07:35 AM
It's an interesting idea, but isn't the point of 1st level that your characters are squishy? If you're at the lowest level of anything, then you're not as skilled in it as somebody who's been doing it for longer. 1st level is the start of their career... if you want to play as a character who's been in their career for longer, why not just start at 4th or higher?

A good application I see this for, though, is somebody who's just starting their career but has been training for longer. A wizard who's been studying for years but never adventured, or a fighter who trained all his life but only managed to get a very dull guard duty. That said, they would still be squishy-ish because of the lack of actual experience...

Caldarin
2009-11-26, 07:53 AM
See, I personally love the squishyness of 1st level characters, the whole "oh ****! I JUST TOOK 6 POINTS OF DAMAGE I'M GONNA DIE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" sounds you get when the kobolds rush them...

Kumori
2009-11-26, 08:07 AM
I've considered many-a-times running a campaign wherein players started at 1st level in whatever class but with 3 levels of commoner sort of hiding in the back ground. The players still start with 0 XP, but as they gain the first few levels they "switch out" the commoner level for whatever other class it is they want to take.
I haven't actually tested this, however, but personally I think it'd work decently enough.

Ashtagon
2009-11-26, 08:22 AM
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558998/Commoner_Campaign?num=10&pg=1

This linked thread shows just how much fun you can have with the squishiest of the squishies - a 1st level commoner. They have played that guy through to 4th level so far, I think. The character is no tank, for sure, but I'd love to be playing in that campaign.

It's all about adjusting your style to the character level, or else agreeing to start at a different level. Changing the rules so that all levels have the same playing style removes half the fun.

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-11-26, 09:06 AM
I specified in the OP that I recognise the position that 1st level squishiness is its own kind of fun, and that for the sake of this discussion, there was no point debating it. :smallsmile:

The reason I'm suggesting this method, rather than simply starting characters at 4th by the RAW, is that this method gives a boost to the mundane classes, while not giving the same boost (or a lot less of a boost) to the casters.
Is that not a worthy suggestion?

Grumman
2009-11-26, 09:36 AM
Here are some house rule proposals to start play with some of the benefits of 4th level, and also to boost the combat classes a little.

At 1st level, all classes start with: 4 x listed HD (including CON adjustment) 8 x listed skill points max ranks = level + 5 2 feats

Base Attack Bonuses
Good BAB classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin) gain +3 BAB
Medium BAB classes (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue) gain +2 BAB
Poor BAB classes (Sorcerer, Wizard) gain +1 BAB

Other Features
All other class features progress as RAW.
Why would anyone not take a one-level dip in Ranger, Barbarian, Crusader or Warblade to start with, under this house rule? You're granting too large a benefit just for being one level behind on your spellcasting progression. Taking barbarian over wizard at 1st level grants you +2.5 B.A.B., +16 skill points, +16 hit points, pounce and rage, in exchange for waiting one more level before you get the cooler spells.


Reasoning
In the usual game, spell progression is what makes the caster classes become more awesome than other classes. Other class features outstrip the humble fighter.
Starting with more BAB, and more HP favours the combat classes, and the pure combat classes more than those with other class features.
Keeping the skill points lower than 16 x listed stops the rogue from outstripping the other classes.
Your solution is flawed. Yes, you have made fighters & co stronger relative to spellcasters, but you did it at 1st level, when fighters & co are already stronger than spellcasters.

Latronis
2009-11-26, 09:39 AM
Uh casters are almost never a problem at that point.

In fact most of the time they are the ones that could do with a boost.

Frog Dragon
2009-11-26, 09:44 AM
I didn't want the squishy so I started my IRL game (for total newbies) at level 2. If you wan't them to be a bit tougher from that too then just max HP for both levels. Problem solved.

lesser_minion
2009-11-26, 10:29 AM
This is what True20 basically does. It works well, but that's True20 for you.

Here, it feels like it could be troublesome. Give people a fixed hit die type for the three extra levels, and don't give them any skills or BAB (or possibly give them +1 BAB).

Mulletmanalive
2009-11-26, 04:45 PM
This is what True20 basically does. It works well, but that's True20 for you.

Here, it feels like it could be troublesome. Give people a fixed hit die type for the three extra levels, and don't give them any skills or BAB (or possibly give them +1 BAB).

Yeah, i liked the look of True20 until we started playing it. I think it was the fact that in order to be able to fight, everyone became masterful tumblers and sneaks because they made Dex into even more of a God-stat.

Got to the point that one of the most impressive edifices in our campaign was a temple dedicated to Dex...