Level One ReRolls

[ekarney]

I've been contemplating, and once my current campaign is over about running a very traditional style game, players permitting of course.

And I've heard tales of DM's who when characters die, have them reroll at level 1 as opposed to the parties current level and I was wondering how other people handle rerolling at level 1.

Do you have them tag along with the party and gain exp form watching or what?

[Flickerdart]

In older editions, doing this made some small amount of sense, because characters didn't scale as much (especially in the higher levels) and it took way more XP to advance later on than earlier on.

In 3.5, this is an unworkable idea. A level 1 character can't contribute to anything above maybe a CR 5 challenge. And there's no in-universe reason for asking him to. Why would a party of heroes replace their fallen ally with a useless peasant-tier guy?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Rerolling a level behind the party is fine-- the penalty is about the same as if you resurrected your old character, you catch up soon, and in the meantime the perfectly customized WBL you start with gives you enough of a leg up compared to existing characters and their more piecemeal gear that you don't feel too far behind. Two levels is cruel, and you shouldn't do it, but you can at least sort of contribute.

Level 1 (assuming the rest of the party isn't level 2-3) is ridiculous. Level 1 is evil. Level 1 is saying "you don't get to play for awhile." Level 1 is saying "**** you, you're a minion now." It's leaving the player with nothing to do, no way to meaningfully contribute, and-- in all probability-- leaving them dead again after the first combat. I would literally stand up and leave if someone told me that was how new characters worked in their game.

[Bronk]

The other problem is that beyond a certain level gap, a first level character wouldn't be earning any XP from the actions of their more advanced teammates, and would basically be stuck at that level indefinitely.

[Jay R]

In AD&D, if a 1st level joined a party of 7th levels, he'd be 7th level about the time the rest of them were 8th. It made much more sense then.

Also, a lower level character is not as out of balance as people believe, if he's played like a lower level character. The first level character in the party should not be in the middle of the melee.

A first level wizard should fire his one spell and then hide. A lower-level fighter should shoot arrows from the bushes. The bad guys will be spending their time trying to stop the serious threats.

It's actually a fun challenge, for a creative player.

[ComaVision]

In AD&D, if a 1st level joined a party of 7th levels, he'd be 7th level about the time the rest of them were 8th. It made much more sense then.

Also, a lower level character is not as out of balance as people believe, if he's played like a lower level character. The first level character in the party should not be in the middle of the melee.

A first level wizard should fire his one spell and then hide. A lower-level fighter should shoot arrows from the bushes. The bad guys will be spending their time trying to stop the serious threats.

It's actually a fun challenge, for a creative player.

There isn't much of a visual difference between a level 1 character and a level 7 character. As a designated evil baddy currently not engaged in the main melee, why would I not target the guy with, presumably, weaker armour first? If you have some sort of agreement with the DM then sure but I can't see it working otherwise.

[torrasque666]

There isn't much of a visual difference between a level 1 character and a level 7 character. As a designated evil baddy currently not engaged in the main melee, why would I not target the guy with, presumably, weaker armour first? If you have some sort of agreement with the DM then sure but I can't see it working otherwise.
Because they aren't a threat and you have people who very much pose one to deal with? Any rounds that you waste dealing with the guy who poses no threat is a round that those who can​ hurt you are doing so.

[Flickerdart]

Because they aren't a threat and you have people who very much pose one to deal with? Any rounds that you waste dealing with the guy who poses no threat is a round that those who can​ hurt you are doing so.
First of all, many monsters don't think that way - an animal, vermin, or spawn-creating undead is much more interested in weaker targets followed by escape than it is in fighting to the bitter end. Organized monsters such as hobgoblins may want to kill the weakest member first to sow discord and lower the morale of the enemy. Monsters with AoEs accidentally blow up the 1st level guy and nobody notices.

Second of all, why does the party want this useless tagalong again?

And finally, even if the party does decide to bring him, and the monsters somehow don't kill him, his attacks do nothing. He's just a spectator.

[TheIronGolem]

In AD&D, if a 1st level joined a party of 7th levels, he'd be 7th level about the time the rest of them were 8th. It made much more sense then.

Also, a lower level character is not as out of balance as people believe, if he's played like a lower level character. The first level character in the party should not be in the middle of the melee.

A first level wizard should fire his one spell and then hide. A lower-level fighter should shoot arrows from the bushes. The bad guys will be spending their time trying to stop the serious threats.

It's actually a fun challenge, for a creative player.

I'm a creative player, and I don't consider that a fun challenge at all. I consider it tedious, frustrating busywork that has been needlessly put between me and my enjoyment of the game.

If I wanted to play a guy who fires arrows from the bushes, I would have made an archer with stealth skills.

[ZamielVanWeber]

In AD&D, if a 1st level joined a party of 7th levels, he'd be 7th level about the time the rest of them were 8th. It made much more sense then.

Also, a lower level character is not as out of balance as people believe, if he's played like a lower level character. The first level character in the party should not be in the middle of the melee.

A first level wizard should fire his one spell and then hide. A lower-level fighter should shoot arrows from the bushes. The bad guys will be spending their time trying to stop the serious threats.

It's actually a fun challenge, for a creative player.

He will also constitute a massive drain on resources, assuming he even gets a slice and CR assumed he will.
If the party is, aside from him, averaging over level 10 then level appropriate encounters may not grant experience. Assuming they do not at maximum rate he will gain a level an encounter, eventually that will slow down. He is going to be a useless for level-2 encounters. If they are lower level it will take him a lot longer to catch up.

Also I feel the need to note that the caster's spells will have incredibly low DCs and last for very short periods. They will struggle to make meaningful contributions. Firing arrows from a bush while maintaing your hidden status requires taking a 20 penalty to hide. A 1st level character is not going to be able to keep that up, if they stick their original hide at all.

[nedz]

It made sense, at low to mid levels, in earlier editions: you would rip through the levels and catch up quickly. This was because the xp tables where exponential until high level, also levels where less important. In high level games though this didn't make quite so much sense since you would probably die again before you got to catch up.

In 3.5 levels are much bigger jumps and being more than 4 levels behind means you will probably fail to do anything relevant. Just having them create a new character which is the same level as the rest of the party is probably the best approach. Losing a character, with all of their connections and history, is enough of a punishment without dropping them a level. Also: it's less fun for the player so what is the point ?

[BowStreetRunner]

Most games I've played in have stuck with the advice given on page 42 of the DMG - the player brings in a new character "at the beginning of the level lower than the player’s previous PC." In some games the DM went with the option of a new character 2 levels lower than the previous character, making the level loss associated with raising a dead character still preferable, and of course True Resurrection an even better option.

In all cases I would take a look at the experience table on page 38 of the DMG and NEVER allow a character whose level is so far below the CR of upcoming adventures that they would receive no experience for participating. (For instance, a CR 11 encounter gives no experience to characters below 4th level.) This generally means no character 8 or more levels lower than the CR of the adventures the party will be facing.

[P.F.]

Most games I've played in have stuck with the advice given on page 42 of the DMG - the player brings in a new character "at the beginning of the level lower than the player’s previous PC." In some games the DM went with the option of a new character 2 levels lower than the previous character, making the level loss associated with raising a dead character still preferable, and of course True Resurrection an even better option.

This is roughly where I fall on the issue. In my group the ability to customize all a character's gear and not to have to pay for a raise so greatly outweighs the loss of connections and history, even coming in one level lower, that players prefer to get themselves killed. This results in total party turnover on a regular basis and leaves essentially zero campaign continuity. However, coming in even as little as two levels lower represents a substantial disadvantage to both the new character and the group as a whole.

[eggynack]

From a player perspective, I think that a caster, most likely a wizard, is the only feasible way to have any sort of impact when put into this position. Assuming wizard, you take abrupt jaunt to cut your fragility by a lot, because it's a level independent defense, and then you cast spells that remain good even late and which don't have important save DC's. That list includes stuff like enlarge/reduce person, protection from X, identify, silent image, grease, alarm, and so on. The goal is adding decent amounts of utility while not dying, and I think the build does reasonably well at that. And, of course, such a build scales up very well, getting more and more meaningful spells as you level until you're doing the normal wizard awesomeness thing.

It's not the worst situation to be in, but it's not ideal, and the fact that you're essentially shoehorning the player into a role approximately like that is a problematic thing. I mean, they could run a barbarian, and just run away from all confrontations while doing piddly damage, but that's not fun for anyone involved. By my way of thinking, even if you can plausibly escape from the worst of the problems with such a system, it's still just worse than most other approaches to the problem of bringing in new characters. It's a method that holds few advantages, and numerous disadvantages, especially if the character chooses to take a path not tailored to the situation.

[Kantolin]

I have consciously played a level 1 character in a level 7ish game. My character was a sneak who rarely engaged in combat and spent most of his time scouting and being a messenger.

That was fun!
Precisely once.

It sure wouldn't be fun constantly. It wouldn't be fun if what I wanted to do was play a heroic paladin, since if you're level 1 in a level 7 game, you cannot charge into combat. You cannot do much of anything really. If your character concept is 'doesn't do much of anything', that is fine!

If your character conecpt is anything else, then starting at level 1 basically means 'Sorry, you get a time out for a rather long time'.

Nevermind that wolves really should get you, gnoll and drow like to be malicious and thus are /more/ likely to go after someone who isn't threatening, an enemy caster or dragon or something can line up a lightning bolt / breath weapon so it clips you too, etc. I'd in fact say that most enemies /not/ attacking someone shooting arrows at them are breaking versimilitude there - this guy is /shooting arrows at you/. I mean, if that archer in the bushes was level 7 and you had a clear line to him you'd want to do that and nip this 'being shot at' problem in the bud - why would this change if the archer is level 1?

Edit: It also encourages disproportionate optimization. As in order to survive at level 1, you will need to optimize well above the encounters (Abrupt Jaunt conjurer with flaws and early entry tricks?) But if that is 'standard optimization for the table'... then the game is based around level 7 characters with that kidn of optimization, so now the level 1 guy is dying as a swift action in the surprise round. :P

So it encourages 'Go find a survivable internet build that works at level 1 and is theoretical optimization or at least way crazier than the rest of the table', and not 'I want to be a swashbuckler'

[eggynack]

Edit: It also encourages disproportionate optimization. As in order to survive at level 1, you will need to optimize well above the encounters (Abrupt Jaunt conjurer with flaws and early entry tricks?)
Dunno that you even need flaws and early entry tricks. I mean, what are you trying to get with these extra feats? I guess early fiery burst is a thing, but that's not even all that exciting against high level opponents. I think that you really just need that barrier of abrupt jaunt, and spells of that sort. The trick, I think, is being as non-numerical as possible. A high level character will pretty much always have higher numbers, so competing in that arena is a fool's errand. Instead, you want to pick things that have as little connection to the quantitative as possible, preferably angled towards buffs so that you can apply power multipliers to your more powerful team mates.

[Kantolin]

I think that you really just need that barrier of abrupt jaunt, and spells of that sort. The trick, I think, is being as non-numerical as possible.

The catch is that Abrupt Jaunt utilization results in a particular optimization level.

I mean, it's very strong against charging book listed orcs and goblins and stuff. Regular things. But since it's /very strong/ against those, that fulfills being above the normal level of optimization expected by the monsters (Generic orcs and goblins are probably being used 'so you go stab them while thy're stabbing you', not for abrupt jaunt areas of potency).

So if you /are/ in a game where Abrupt Jaunt is standard operating procedure, then odds are the enemy is built to deal with basic tactics like that. Fell drain magic missiles are the same way - in a higher optimization game, people are used to dealing with things like that or Uberchargers dealing N! damage or the like. Your cute abrupt jaunt just identifies you as a threat, not because it is bad, but because at level 1 you won't have the capabilities of a level 7 equally as optimized character.

Whereas if you're in a game where enemies totally cannot handle Abrupt Jaunt, then you're gold... and way ahead of the curve. Like level 1 characters with 4d6 damage reserve feats. :P

(Although if you're drawing fire, then I guess at least you /did/ something until something gets through your 'that is it' defenses. :P The level 1 paladin who takes a move-to-attack from the enemy Balor at least, I suppose, cost the balor a turn. That's better thank a blank spot on the field! Outside of greater consumptive field or something)

Now, if you /are/ in that circumstance, you're going to be comparatively moot... but yeah, you should definitely focus on buffing or no-save things (Mount!). There are things you can do at level 1, they just may not fit every character's intent and come with a lot of baggage. ironically, that also tends to nudge people into powerful options, as it encourages battlefield control and generally being a newbie god-wizard over being a comparatively less optimized blaster.

[eggynack]

The catch is that Abrupt Jaunt utilization results in a particular optimization level.

I mean, it's very strong against charging book listed orcs and goblins and stuff. Regular things. But since it's /very strong/ against those, that fulfills being above the normal level of optimization expected by the monsters (Generic orcs and goblins are probably being used 'so you go stab them while thy're stabbing you', not for abrupt jaunt areas of potency).
I guess I'm just inclined to think that abrupt jaunt is a different sort of thing from flaws and early entry stuff. It's a great option, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's so far ahead of the curve that it actively shifts the optimization level of the game. It's just, y'know, a good defense in a world where good defenses are particularly difficult to come by. In any case, I suspect that this is still up there where options are concerned even without abrupt jaunt. Yes, you're likely to die quickly if targeted, but that's never not going to be the case, and your impact on the game is greater than it'd otherwise be. I definitely don't think that enlarge person is going to take you from awful to awesome, but it's definitely one of the most potent things a first level character can provide for a higher level group.

[Kantolin]

I guess I'm just inclined to think that abrupt jaunt is a different sort of thing from flaws and early entry stuff.

That's fair. :smallsmile: Everyone has their bars they hold to.

I guess the overgoal becomes to optimize up to that bar, whatever it is, without necessarily going over. Where things sit on that bar may waffle a bit.

I don't find Abrupt Jaunt /overpowered/ per se, but I do find it to be an extremely strong option that tweaks the game a bit around it. Other people may not. But if you go way over the bar...

I also agree that buffs are the way to go, particularly non numeric ones. Although if the party wizard gets dispelled, replacing his mage armour with an hour-long mage armour may make him happy. :P

[Quertus]

A lot of this has been said already, but...

I've had great fun - in 2nd edition - playing the level 1 character in the level 7 party, who later was the level 14(isn) character joined by the last round of new 1st-level recruits. But I've never gotten to play in a game like this in 3e - probably because 3e has much stronger concepts of game balance than previous editions. To accepting the concept of "start over at 1st level" is to throw game balance out the window. Which is fine - games don't have to be balanced to be fun, just realize that these go hand-in-hand, and plan accordingly.

Although it can be at times frustrating, I can roleplay not knowing all of the party history; some of the people I gamed with couldn't. A lot can be said about resurrection making for a much more cohesive game.

Yes, XP / levels worked differently in 2e than in 3e - but this is where I think people are missing a few things.

First off, what high-level adventures don't include low-level creatures that the party doesn't earn XP for any more? What world doesn't include random encounters with low-level monsters? Certainly not a realistic one.

In a world that magically custom-tailors itself to the party (you know, like most D&D worlds that provide "level-appropriate challenges"), you have options. Even if the party is level... 15?... when the new 1st-level character joins, they can all earn XP from a CR 8 monster. They are worth (one share of) 5,400 to the 1st-level character, and (one share of) 375 to the rest of the party. So the low-level character will still level exponentially faster in 3e, just like they did in 2e (less than 1 encounter vs over 150 encounters, based on a party of 4).

On the off chance you are adventuring in one of those rare worlds that *doesn't* magically scale to the party, you still have options. Yes, 3e may seem harder than 2e, but, honestly, even in 2e, the 1st-level characters could be killed by AoEs, and couldn't stand toe-to-toe with more powerful monsters. Even in 2e, monsters could have tactics. And, in 2e, you rolled for HP, so the 1st-level fighter could start with 1 HP! So one could even try to argue that it is actually easier to keep low-level characters alive in 3e. You don't have to have the world suddenly change to accommodate the new characters - you IN CHARACTER seek out appropriate challenges (you know, like the ones you handled when you were 1st level). And don't try and give me some "proper roleplaying" "but we don't know the XP table" BS: a) if you didn't talk to and test out the skills of the new recruit (especially after one of your members just died) that's kinda silly; b) if you sent an obviously exponentially weaker 1st level character against even a CR 8 monster that's probably kinda silly.

So, when the party gets an influx of new blood, they should, unless they are D&D Evil and enjoy watching them suffer, try to find challenges appropriate to their weakest link, and help train them. Buffing spells, loans of items, etc., can go a long way towards improving the new character's ability to survive. The challenge for the party is no longer just about the monsters, it's about how to keep the new member alive. Learning to hold an action for Benign Transposition instead of nuking the monsters etc can make for interesting tactical training for the higher-level party members - and, perhaps, help teach some of the players about limelight sharing. YMMV.

Of course, one possibility to help keep the new blood alive is to allow/encourage the new characters to utilize a greater level of defensive optimization. Makes some sense IC and OOC - even if they didn't think in terms of "optimization", most players aren't going to / don't want to repeat the same "mistakes" that got their character killed in the first place, and often tend to think this way anyway. And, having just lost one of their "founding" members, the group might be actively looking for someone that they can keep alive. Being Trollblooded, for instance, doesn't let the character do more than other characters, it just means that HP Damage generally reduces him to unconscious instead of dead. Having one dead character be replaced by his black-sheep-of-the-family trollblooded cousin, who would like to earn fame / acceptance by finishing what his family started, can be interesting, and probably not break the game. Keeping defensive characters credible when half the party dies, however, might start to strain belief.

But, honestly, having the group come up with reasons why they keep accepting new 1st-level characters and keep training the up might be difficult, depending on the characters and players in question. And might start to feel repetitive for the party (wasn't my experience in 2e; YMMV). So, again, resurrection might be the easier answer.

But if you do get a group to play in a game like this (without just going back to 2e), I'd love to hear what rules you used, and how it turned out.

[ZamielVanWeber]

As a brief response: the party should not be mandated to do things specifically because your character died. Taking un severely underleveled challenges as a party because one of you is level 1 is boring. I play this game to RP and be challenged, not to be punished because someone else died.

[nedz]

First off, what high-level adventures don't include low-level creatures that the party doesn't earn XP for any more? What world doesn't include random encounters with low-level monsters? Certainly not a realistic one.

In a world that magically custom-tailors itself to the party (you know, like most D&D worlds that provide "level-appropriate challenges"), you have options. Even if the party is level... 15?... when the new 1st-level character joins, they can all earn XP from a CR 8 monster. They are worth (one share of) 5,400 to the 1st-level character, and (one share of) 375 to the rest of the party. So the low-level character will still level exponentially faster in 3e, just like they did in 2e (less than 1 encounter vs over 150 encounters, based on a party of 4).

A lot of this is about play-style.

I ran AD&D for ~20 years so we have done all of this, so it's old.

3.5 doesn't do balance but it is higher powered than AD&D, well AD&D had a power creep going on throughout it's history.

D&D worlds are not realistic, the word you are looking for is verisimilitude.

Having the high level characters hang back when the party encounters a low level random encounter, just so the low level hangers on have something to do, is meta-gaming.

Having random encounters which are too tough for the party require them to run away or die, ones which are too weak are tedious to run. One can, and probably should, edit the encounters to those which are fun to play. Also some monsters in AD&D were deliberately given slow speeds so that the PCs could leg it, this isn't true in 3.5

[prufock]

Simply put, except for a small subsection of players and games, this would be un-fun.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So, when the party gets an influx of new blood, they should, unless they are D&D Evil and enjoy watching them suffer, try to find challenges appropriate to their weakest link, and help train them. Buffing spells, loans of items, etc., can go a long way towards improving the new character's ability to survive. The challenge for the party is no longer just about the monsters, it's about how to keep the new member alive. Learning to hold an action for Benign Transposition instead of nuking the monsters etc can make for interesting tactical training for the higher-level party members - and, perhaps, help teach some of the players about limelight sharing. YMMV.
It's also doubling down on the plot disruption of a new character. Not only is a stranger joining mid-story, the story has to be derailed for... quite possibly a few months of real-time so that he can level up to the point when he can contribute again.