would you roll op pcs to skip low levels?

[newguydude1]

i found a way to get a c4 minion at 1st level.
cliff notes: changeling->assume the form of a yak folk-> assume supernatural ability:command genie

my dm is raw or die so i made a thread here about it to make sure it was legal, and it was. some people were vehemently against it but my dm read through the whole discussion and he found the opposition's arguments to be really ludicrous so he concluded it was legal.

so now it was time to talk about using this in a real game. he said hed only allow this in a solo campaign and not with other players. because a cr4 minion while everyone is 1st level, games not gonna work.

so then randomly the discussion came up about how everyone hates low level d&d. everyone dies in a hit. combat is literally just luck cause you roll badly and miss like 2 or 3 times your dead. you cant do anything because lack of spell slots, spell knowns, class features, stuff like that. but everyone loves mid level d&d cause you get your prcs, their iconic class feature comes online, and you have a freaking blast.

so then i suggested, how about next time we all roll something ridiculously op at 1st level and then just blitz through levels 1-6 in a single session so we essentially start playing at level 7. and we all laughed and are seriously considering it. because we all hate low levels so much.

im for this. i totally would roll some bat**** crazy op 1st level character that can take on cr 6 creatures solo all by himself and just sky rocket to the extremely fun mid levels.

how about you? would you do that or would you rather play through the low levels like normal?

edit: changed should to would, and changed ruin elemental to janni.
edit2: what if skipping low levels was not an option?

[icefractal]

I mean, if everyone's doing it that's fine, but ... why not just skip low levels? There's no rule that you have to start at 1st level, in fact there's official rules for not doing so, so "RAW or die" is not an issue.

I'd say a majority of the games I've been in that reached 20th level started in the double digits. One game started at 20th, and that has the advantage that a wider variety of backgrounds make sense. On party member took a hundred years to reach this point, another did it in ten, and another is a cosmic avatar who was born like this? No problem. It also avoids the ridiculously fast progress in terms of IC time, which makes sense for some characters but not all.

[newguydude1]

I mean, if everyone's doing it that's fine, but ... why not just skip low levels? Start the game at 10th?

I'd say a majority of the game I've been in that reached 20th level started in the double digits. One game started at 20th, and that has the advantage that a wider variety of backgrounds make sense. On party member took a hundred years to reach this point, another did it in ten, and another is a cosmic avatar who was born like this? No problem. It also avoids the ridiculously fast progress in terms of IC time, which makes sense for some characters but not all.

it breaks immersion for all of us if we dont see our characters from birth to starting adventuring level.

like we would roll characters whose feats and spell selection thats perfect for 10th level only for us to think how the hell did we get to 10th level? we need to see our guys retrain stuff and pick spells good at low levels.

i say we but its probably just most of us and not all of us.

[Particle_Man]

But you don’t actually play your character from birth. First level characters are youngish adults so they already have years of backstory behind them. Starting them at higher level adds to the backstory but there was already in played backstory.

[newguydude1]

But you don’t actually play your character from birth. First level characters are youngish adults so they already have years of backstory behind them. Starting them at higher level adds to the backstory but there was already in played backstory.

you dont kill any monsters in your backstory to get 1st level. you just train. i mean sure if you want to you could say you slain a dragon as a child, but in any case, you reach 1st level just from training so thats where we start. after training.

writing birth to 1st level backstory makes it feel like weve played our character since birth.

[Particle_Man]

But I can and have written backstories up to 6th level, for example. I just add monsters I fought that would be appropriate. Heck sometimes it can even be more thematically shaped than it would be otherwise.

[Khatoblepas]

i found a way to get a permanent cr10 minion at 1st level.
cliff notes: changeling->assume the form of a ruin chanter-> assume supernatural ability call:ruin elemental

my dm is raw or die so i made a thread here about it to make sure it was legal, and it was.

If they were RAW or die, you'd only be able to summon a ruin elemental:

When interlopers invade the ruins you call your home.
You are AWARE of said interlopers.
At the location of the ruins you call home.


So if your home isn't a ruin, you weren't at home, or aware of interlopers, you wouldn't be able to summon one. And anyone you invite is also not an interloper. It also takes an hour and makes a huge storm centered on your ruin, so doing it in a newly ruined building in a city will get the city watch to take you out, since you're just a level 1 changeling, and it'd be difficult to get interlopers in a more secluded place. I'd love to know how you'd engineer that scenario without controlling the NPCs.

[newguydude1]

If they were RAW or die, you'd only be able to summon a ruin elemental:

When interlopers invade the ruins you call your home.
You are AWARE of said interlopers.
At the location of the ruins you call home.


So if your home isn't a ruin, you weren't at home, or aware of interlopers, you wouldn't be able to summon one. And anyone you invite is also not an interloper. It also takes an hour and makes a huge storm centered on your ruin, so doing it in a newly ruined building in a city will get the city watch to take you out, since you're just a level 1 changeling, and it'd be difficult to get interlopers in a more secluded place. I'd love to know how you'd engineer that scenario without controlling the NPCs.

interesting. ill have to look over it again. but at first glance you might be right. it might actually be a requirement rather than just a description of what a ruin chanter would do.

[afroakuma]

I've had plenty of fun with D&D at all levels, including several games that were highly enjoyed at lower levels. If a group wants to play at a higher level, we simply start there. So to answer your question, no, I would not do this.

As for your exploit, I do not believe it works by RAW, even going by the nebulous wording of the feat. Changelings do not have an ability similar to polymorph self. They have an ability similar to disguise self.

I'm sure you don't care for my ruling in the slightest, but to each their own. Regards.

[Gruftzwerg]

i found a way to get a permanent cr10 minion at 1st level.
cliff notes: changeling->assume the form of a ruin chanter-> assume supernatural ability call:ruin elemental

my dm is raw or die so i made a thread here about it to make sure it was legal, and it was. some people were vehemently against it but my dm read through the whole discussion and he found the opposition's arguments to be really ludicrous so he concluded it was legal.


So you DM is playing with "healing while drowning"? Either that or he just pretends to be "RAW or DIE".
If yes, don't forget to keep your bucket of water for emergency heals!

And it's rude to laugh about other peoples argument, especially if your DM doesn't seem to have a clue how RAW works. We don't care, about "your DMs feelings about xyz", only how he would rule for your table is important for us or if he does have any new RAW arguments.

1. "Polymorph Self" got converted to Polymorph in 3.5
2. The Polymorph spell is referred to by some effects, while others just refer to overall form changing effects. These terms are not equal. Compare ASA with the Warshaper PRC abilities. Warshaper can work with different types of formchanging abilities and calls out a few ways. ASA does sole mention "Polymorph-like" and thus it only works with effects that refer to Polymorph (e.g. Polymorph, Polymorph any Object, Shapechange..).
RAW is obviously against your interpretation.

If you DM houserules otherwise fine. But pls stop saying that, because your DM pretends to be "RAW or DIE" and has ruled "xyz", is like an argument that would have any kind of weight here for forum purposes. It's not an argument if you laugh over other arguments/opinions, it's just rude and provocative.

That aside, as said, you DM may rule as he sees it fit. ;)



But you don’t actually play your character from birth. First level characters are youngish adults so they already have years of backstory behind them. Starting them at higher level adds to the backstory but there was already in played backstory.

I support this. Why start as "nobody"? Start as "somebody"! A 5th lvl character has some adventure to tell and might be recognized in some local areas. Further, some multiclass characters are hard to explain when you pick up e.g. a caster classes while adventuring.
"You're in the middle of the desert and gained a lvl. You pick your 1st lvl as wizard now and a spellbook falls from the sky and a "5 minute guide to arcane casting"-school appears (including a Planar Bubble to make those 5minutes count as a few years..) for a few minutes near you. Then it pops away as fast as it popped in..."
A 5th (or higher) lvl character has most of the time already set the fundamental for his build. Therefore you have less fluff problems to explain new abilities in the middle of an adventure since they build on the fundamentals you have already set.

[newguydude1]

If they were RAW or die, you'd only be able to summon a ruin elemental:

When interlopers invade the ruins you call your home.
You are AWARE of said interlopers.
At the location of the ruins you call home.


So if your home isn't a ruin, you weren't at home, or aware of interlopers, you wouldn't be able to summon one. And anyone you invite is also not an interloper. It also takes an hour and makes a huge storm centered on your ruin, so doing it in a newly ruined building in a city will get the city watch to take you out, since you're just a level 1 changeling, and it'd be difficult to get interlopers in a more secluded place. I'd love to know how you'd engineer that scenario without controlling the NPCs.

so i looked it over and i think your right. it is a requirement.

so ill change my strategy to
changeling->yak folk->assume supernatural ability: command genie

only cr 4 so i dont think i can blast through low levels. welp, ill see what my other players come up with and see how good they are at this.

[Khatoblepas]

so ill change my strategy to
changeling->yak folk->assume supernatural ability: command genie.

You can't turn into a Yak Folk using Minor Change Shape. Yak Folk are Large, and disguise self only lets you be within your own size category. In addition, Disguise Self doesn't let you "assume the form" of a creature, only Alter Self does that. And if that means Racial Emulation doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Even if it did work, you are not a Yak Folk.


Once per day, a yak folk can summon and command a janni of evil alignment, but it can never have more than one janni under its control at one time.
The janni is a slave bound to serve until the second sunrise after the summoning. The yak folk are greatly disliked by all genies, but for reasons lost in antiquity, no genie can attack a yak folk. Genies sometimes work to thwart the yak folk’s plans or disrupt their lives in other, indirect ways, but even this is done cautiously because the genies know that if they antagonize the yak folk too much, the lives of enslaved jann will only become worse and their tasks more onerous.

The genie doesn't go away at the end of the summoning. It's still there, and once again, you are not a Yak Folk. So enjoy your two sunrises of genie time, because after that it will kill you. If you can find a loophole to summon a genie, the genie can find the very gaping, obvious loophole that you are a changeling that looks like a yak folk.


Proof Minor Change Shape doesn't "assume the form" - it functions as disguise self:

You make yourself—including clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment—look different. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller, thin, fat, or in between. You cannot change your body type. Otherwise, the extent of the apparent change is up to you. You could add or obscure a minor feature or look like an entirely different person.

Not Alter Self:

You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form.

Not even the doppleganger's Change Shape assumes forms:

Change Shape

A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities.

[Crake]

I've had plenty of fun with D&D at all levels, including several games that were highly enjoyed at lower levels. If a group wants to play at a higher level, we simply start there. So to answer your question, no, I would not do this.

As for your exploit, I do not believe it works by RAW, even going by the nebulous wording of the feat. Changelings do not have an ability similar to polymorph self. They have an ability similar to disguise self.

I'm sure you don't care for my ruling in the slightest, but to each their own. Regards.


You can't turn into a Yak Folk using Minor Change Shape. Yak Folk are Large, and disguise self only lets you be within your own size category. In addition, Disguise Self doesn't let you "assume the form" of a creature, only Alter Self does that. And if that means Racial Emulation doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Even if it did work, you are not a Yak Folk.



The genie doesn't go away at the end of the summoning. It's still there, and once again, you are not a Yak Folk. So enjoy your two sunrises of genie time, because after that it will kill you. If you can find a loophole to summon a genie, the genie can find the very gaping, obvious loophole that you are a changeling that looks like a yak folk.


Proof Minor Change Shape doesn't "assume the form" - it functions as disguise self:


Not Alter Self:


Not even the doppleganger's Change Shape assumes forms:

This was all discussed in depth, and these points all brought up in this thread here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625660-Does-Assume-Supernatural-Ability-only-work-with-polymorph) It seems like OP's DM has made their own choice in the matter, as much as many of us disagree, but if you wanna continue that discussion, I'd recommend going to the old thread rather than derailing this one.

With regards to using this trick to "skip" low levels, my main question would be: How did your character learn about this creature, study them to the point where they can turn into one, and then learn how to use their ability.... all before level 1?

To me, doing such a thing before level 1 in your backstory is more immersion breaking than including a few steps post training in your backstory and simply starting at a higher level. Alternatively, adopt some optional rules that make low-level play more palatable.

My second point of contestion is: If an encounter is trivial to your characters because you can summon a CR10 creature, then "RAW or die" says you shouldn't get any xp for it. Seems to me like this trick just makes you need to fight higher level creatures to actually gain any xp, and since higher level creatures are more easily able to kill you off, you're actually just making things more difficult for yourself.

[Gruftzwerg]

This was all discussed in depth, and these points all brought up in this thread here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625660-Does-Assume-Supernatural-Ability-only-work-with-polymorph) It seems like OP's DM has made their own choice in the matter, as much as many of us disagree, but if you wanna continue that discussion, I'd recommend going to the old thread rather than derailing this one.

With regards to using this trick to "skip" low levels, my main question would be: How did your character learn about this creature, study them to the point where they can turn into one, and then learn how to use their ability.... all before level 1?

To me, doing such a thing before level 1 in your backstory is more immersion breaking than including a few steps post training in your backstory and simply starting at a higher level. Alternatively, adopt some optional rules that make low-level play more palatable.

My second point of contestion is: If an encounter is trivial to your characters because you can summon a CR10 creature, then "RAW or die" says you shouldn't get any xp for it. Seems to me like this trick just makes you need to fight higher level creatures to actually gain any xp, and since higher level creatures are more easily able to kill you off, you're actually just making things more difficult for yourself.
Totally agree with this post.

To make it clear. I've no intention to derail the thread. I just had my problems with the provocative form of the post. If he had just said: my DM had ruled this, everything would have been fine for me.

I also agree with your concerns about XP and difficulty.
____________________________

I would suggest to either rush the early levels with some random easy encounter if you really wanna have that rush feeling. Other than that, it would be easier to just start at a higher level.

[newguydude1]

You can't turn into a Yak Folk using Minor Change Shape. Yak Folk are Large, and disguise self only lets you be within your own size category. In addition, Disguise Self doesn't let you "assume the form" of a creature, only Alter Self does that. And if that means Racial Emulation doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Even if it did work, you are not a Yak Folk.

enlarge person solves the size issue. i thought that was obvious.
here's rule text that says you do assume the form of the creature.

When you use your minor change shape ability to assume the form of a humanoid creature, you can also emulate any of that humanoid's subtypes.


Not even the doppleganger's Change Shape assumes forms:

and heres rules compendium that says it does

CHANGE SHAPE
A creature that has this special quality can assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its original physical qualities. Changing shape results in the following changes to the creature.
• The creature retains the type and subtype of its natural form. It gains the size of its assumed form.
• The creature loses the natural weapons and movement modes of its natural form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its natural form not derived from class levels.
• The creature gains the natural weapons, movement modes, and extraordinary abilities and attacks of its assumed form

crake linked the wrong thread. this is where all the stuff really happened
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625756-deleted
the discussion actually spanned 3 threads. the one crake linked was the 2nd thread and no one posted there. i linked the 3rd thread.

anyways i wrestled with people long enough with this issue and i dont want to wrestle it again, so if you
1. ignore rules compendium that explicitly says when you assume the appearance you also assume the form
2. try to change rule text of racial emulation by arbitrarily calling it a dysfunction even though theres no dysfuction and is inline with rules compendium
3. try to say the "similar effect" assume supernatural ability requires is anything other than assuming the form of a creature magically (post 43 of that same thread i linked explains it very well https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24896266&postcount=43, also, a mask of a thousand faces is a copy and paste of minor change shape and its in the same section as all the other polymorph stuff in rules compendium)
im not gonna respond.

but if you make other points like you did with the ruin elemental, i will respond. cause you were right about that, that doesnt work the way i thought it would.


The genie doesn't go away at the end of the summoning. It's still there, and once again, you are not a Yak Folk. So enjoy your two sunrises of genie time, because after that it will kill you. If you can find a loophole to summon a genie, the genie can find the very gaping, obvious loophole that you are a changeling that looks like a yak folk.

its a summon not a calling, so he does go away. all summons follow the general rules for summons unless explicitly said otherwise like halasters fetch.

if i am wrong though ill just make the genie kill itself before the second sun rise. its summoned so my commands are absolute and it wont "die" from the suicide.

[afroakuma]

also, a mask of a thousand faces is a copy and paste of minor change shape and its in the same section as all the other polymorph stuff in rules compendium)

Ironically, it's in that section to remove itself from that qualification. The original 3.5 PHB rules had it working like alter self, which is a cognate of the Change Shape abilities described on p.24, and the Rules Compendium is updating it to say "no, it does not do that, it's actually subject to the limitations of disguise self rather than alter self."

Regardless, as noted, this is tangential to the stated query in the thread, as are discussions of OP's planned build. The question in the first post was whether anyone else besides OP endorsed the idea that "everyone" should kick off games from 1st level with deliberately overpowered builds so that they can rapidly sail through the low levels of the game in order to quickly reach mid-level without simply writing those events into a character's backstory. My answer was "no," and I don't believe there's an argument to be made that "everyone" should follow the same playstyle.

[newguydude1]

The question in the first post was whether anyone else besides OP endorsed the idea that "everyone" should kick off games from 1st level with deliberately overpowered builds so that they can rapidly sail through the low levels of the game in order to quickly reach mid-level without simply writing those events into a character's backstory. My answer was "no," and I don't believe there's an argument to be made that "everyone" should follow the same playstyle.

i meant to say would not should so ill change the first post and title.

[Quertus]

How did your character learn about this creature, study them to the point where they can turn into one, and then learn how to use their ability.... all before level 1?

To me, doing such a thing before level 1 in your backstory is more immersion breaking than including a few steps post training in your backstory and simply starting at a higher level.

Eh, being a "trained" class (ie, not a Sorcerer or their ilk) and *not* being taught clever tricks / introduced to cool forms by your mastery is the most immersion breaking of all, for me.


My second point of contestion is: If an encounter is trivial to your characters because you can summon a CR10 creature, then "RAW or die" says you shouldn't get any xp for it. Seems to me like this trick just makes you need to fight higher level creatures to actually gain any xp, and since higher level creatures are more easily able to kill you off, you're actually just making things more difficult for yourself.

We're you fighting that opponent in terrain that have it advantage or disadvantage? No? Then, by RAW, it is worth the standard amount of XP.

"Being smart" does not change your XP earned.

[afroakuma]

i think everyone should roll some bat**** crazy op 1st level character that can take on cr 6 creatures solo all by himself and just sky rocket to the extremely fun mid levels. how about you?

This is the presentation of the question as it stands, if you would like to adjust that. Regards.

[JNAProductions]

To answer the thread title...

No. No I wouldn't. For two main reasons:

1) There's a good chance an OP PC at low levels will REMAIN OP at higher levels, and I generally like having a challenge.
2) If I wanted to skip lower levels, I'd just... Skip lower levels. No need to make it complicated-if the game doesn't really start properly till level 8, just start at level 8.

[InvisibleBison]

I wouldn't use an OP character to skip low levels, because I find the idea of playing an OP character to be aesthetically displeasing and if I wanted to skip low levels I'd just skip low levels. I don't have any objection to creating a higher-leveled character.

[Quertus]

I guess it depends on your objectives.

Once upon a time, there was a girl who, before she got hit by a car, was very fast.

Being very fast was all that she needed in order to be good at sports. So her coach did not push her to develop other skills.

As she grew older, "being very fast" was no longer good enough to make her competitive by itself. She grew frustrated by her inability to keep her competitive edge.

So, it would make a good background for a frustrated former "expert".

Or a good background for a Paragon who just always excels, even at higher level.

You could enjoy playing the "I'm so awesome" BDH party, that transitions into a "normal" party. Either as a perversion of the normal expectations of getting stronger as you level, or as the "Superman JLA" effect of "we need to take these guys seriously".

Or you could set yourself up for hugely disproportionate abilities at higher level.

-----

So, *would* I do this? Sure… if I thought that the group had enough of a clue to have thought things through.

[newguydude1]

what if skipping low levels was not an option? would you blast through the low levels or play normal through the period of the game where you cant do anything fancy or fun and have 15minute adventuring days?

[JNAProductions]

what if skipping low levels was not an option? would you blast through the low levels or play normal through the period of the game where you cant do anything fancy or fun and have 15minute adventuring days?

I'd talk to the DM. If the DM has different expectations on what makes a fun game, that's something that should absolutely be discussed.

[newguydude1]

I'd talk to the DM. If the DM has different expectations on what makes a fun game, that's something that should absolutely be discussed.

im not talking about forcing this on an unwilling table.

lets say the dm gives his or her blessing, and would only do this if all the players are on board. are you a player who would blast through the early levels, or are you a player who does enjoy the low levels and so would prefer everyone plays normal and no blasting?

it sounds like a weird hypothetical but its not. at my table a lot of my fellow players treat low levels as something to just get it over with.

[Batcathat]

it sounds like a weird hypothetical but its not. at my table a lot of my fellow players treat low levels as something to just get it over with.

That's an understandable opinion, the fact that your table also don't want to just start at a higher level is a little odd.

I mean, I guess I can see your point about it being more immersive to follow the character from the start of their career but speeding through it in a session or two doesn't seem like it would be more immersive than just recapping it in the background and start at a higher level.

[Nifft]

you dont kill any monsters in your backstory to get 1st level. you just train. i mean sure if you want to you could say you slain a dragon as a child, but in any case, you reach 1st level just from training so thats where we start. after training.

writing birth to 1st level backstory makes it feel like weve played our character since birth.

Killing monsters itself is NEVER what results in leveling.

You get XP by overcoming challenges -- and the challenges you overcome may include monsters, but in this edition you're never required to kill them for XP.

Also, I can totally kill monsters in my backstory. You cannot stop me from doing so. The mountains of skulls on display in my character's portrait shows how just many foes I have mercilessly slaughtered in my brutal climb to level 1.

Then from level 1->5 we had a training arc, where we had to overcome the obstacles presented to us by our teachers. No killing, just puzzles granting XP and then leveling. And then it was the tournament arc, which also didn't involve killing, but was more about non-lethal combat against specific powerful NPCs (who were effectively combat-puzzles).

In summary:
- Orc-in-a-Barrel stopped being sold in 3.x because it's not a challenge, so you get no XP from stabbing it.
- Combat-as-backstory is fine; veteran is a valid level 1 archetype.
- Starting above level 1 is legal RAW.

[JNAProductions]

im not talking about forcing this on an unwilling table.

lets say the dm gives his or her blessing, and would only do this if all the players are on board. are you a player who would blast through the early levels, or are you a player who does enjoy the low levels and so would prefer everyone plays normal and no blasting?

it sounds like a weird hypothetical but its not. at my table a lot of my fellow players treat low levels as something to just get it over with.

Why even play through the lower levels, then?

That's the thing-if you don't want to play the low levels, just don't play them. This is not a videogame, where you have to lose to Metal Face and get Fiora ganked before you can properly use the Monado. You can just plain start at higher levels.

[afroakuma]

what if skipping low levels was not an option? would you blast through the low levels or play normal through the period of the game where you cant do anything fancy or fun and have 15minute adventuring days?

I'd dispute that you "can't do anything fancy or fun". Low levels force you to try tactics and solutions that prompt creativity and discussion. If the only choice was between "play through all levels normally" and "blast through lower levels with overpowered characters," I would choose the former, as I trust in my group to make it fun.

[newguydude1]

Why even play through the lower levels, then?

That's the thing-if you don't want to play the low levels, just don't play them. This is not a videogame, where you have to lose to Metal Face and get Fiora ganked before you can properly use the Monado. You can just plain start at higher levels.

personally, me, i dont feel complete.

when i play nwn, i only enjoy hotu (level 15 start). but i always start with sou no matter how much i find it a slog on repeat playthroughs. the only time i start with hotu without playing sou is if i use a character that previously cleared sou.

cant speak for other players at my table but thats me. i wanna play my entire character and not just half of him.

[Quertus]

That's an understandable opinion, the fact that your table also don't want to just start at a higher level is a little odd.

I mean, I guess I can see your point about it being more immersive to follow the character from the start of their career but speeding through it in a session or two doesn't seem like it would be more immersive than just recapping it in the background and start at a higher level.


Why even play through the lower levels, then?

That's the thing-if you don't want to play the low levels, just don't play them. This is not a videogame, where you have to lose to Metal Face and get Fiora ganked before you can properly use the Monado. You can just plain start at higher levels.

Backstory just isn't the same as time played.

"Low level" is the worst, because you can't do much, many concepts haven't "come online" yet *and* your character doesn't have developed play time.

"High level" is the best, because you've got an established character, with history, connections, and cool abilities and options.

"Starting at high level" is… a mixed bag. You've got cool abilities and options, your concept has almost certainly come online, but… it's actually *less* likely that your character will get as much *total* play time as one that started at 1st, and will therefore end their played career *less* developed.

"Blasting through low level" seems like it should provide the full opportunity for creating connections in the world, and let you always have options. On the down side, you're limiting your total play time before "level X", where X is the highest level of play that the character will see.

It seems to me that the *optimal* solution would be to start with frickin' cool abilities, and play through the low levels at *close* to a normal pace (despite roflstomping all opposition). Always have cool abilities, no threat of "low level dumb TPK from lucky orc crits", full connection to the world, maximize the time that you get to play an established character.

That's what looks like the win to me: totally OP 1st level characters, leisurely roflstomping their way through low-level challenges, building history and connection to the world.

[Crake]

"Starting at high level" is… a mixed bag. You've got cool abilities and options, your concept has almost certainly come online, but… it's actually *less* likely that your character will get as much *total* play time as one that started at 1st, and will therefore end their played career *less* developed.

I disagree. The campaign's over when the story's told, not when the players hit some artificial level barrier, and if you're just blitzing through low levels just for the sake of it, it's unlikely that there's going to be much character development in that time anyway, since your characters can just waltz in and solo all the issues, so while said 1st level character might have more total play time, there's far less OPPORTUNITY for character development. You're basically making a mary sue.

[Faily]

I disagree. The campaign's over when the story's told, not when the players hit some artificial level barrier, and if you're just blitzing through low levels just for the sake of it, it's unlikely that there's going to be much character development in that time anyway, since your characters can just waltz in and solo all the issues, so while said 1st level character might have more total play time, there's far less OPPORTUNITY for character development. You're basically making a mary sue.

Yeah agreed.

And also, if you do have to limit yourself to a level barrier, a slower XP progression (but starting at higher level) is a good way to extend the playtime of a campaign/character. It took one of my groups several years to go from level 1 to level 20 in PF1 with Slow Progression (mind you, even if we play weekly, we're pretty slow at clearing the content overall xD).

I've also had GMs in 3.5 give us half-XP to slow our progression, though with the reason of keeping us at lower level... not to extend the playtime of the characters.

[Particle_Man]

I do find it odd that the players have no trouble having OP powers at chargen but have trouble with being 5th level at chargen.

That said, another solution might be to start the character with some race with a high level adjustment and some bloodline levels. Thus they can be “first level” in a particular class while having extra perks from their extra abilities that raise their character level equivalent.

Then again I am playing a first level character right now and having a blast, so aside from being living proof that not *everyone* has a problem with being first level I may not be the person that can solve the issue at the OP’s particular table.

[Quertus]

I disagree. The campaign's over when the story's told, not when the players hit some artificial level barrier, and if you're just blitzing through low levels just for the sake of it, it's unlikely that there's going to be much character development in that time anyway, since your characters can just waltz in and solo all the issues, so while said 1st level character might have more total play time, there's far less OPPORTUNITY for character development. You're basically making a mary sue.


Yeah agreed.

And also, if you do have to limit yourself to a level barrier, a slower XP progression (but starting at higher level) is a good way to extend the playtime of a campaign/character. It took one of my groups several years to go from level 1 to level 20 in PF1 with Slow Progression (mind you, even if we play weekly, we're pretty slow at clearing the content overall xD).

I've also had GMs in 3.5 give us half-XP to slow our progression, though with the reason of keeping us at lower level... not to extend the playtime of the characters.

Although I might want to agree…

1) when's the last time either of you ran a 50th level game? While I might not be a fan of GMs shying away from such things, these "artificial level limits" are, sadly, a thing at real tables. Even when stated differently (ie, "let's play 'Halls of the High King' (and then never touch those characters again)", that artificial level limit still exists.

2) I kinda covered examples of what "blitz" character development could look like. If you cannot imagine character development in those scenarios - especially after I've already pointed some types out - then that says more about you than about such scenarios.

3) If you go back and read carefully, I believe that you'll find a) that I in no way implied that one wouldn't have "slow XP progression" at higher levels and b) that I was actually advocating slow XP progression at all levels:



"Starting at high level" is… a mixed bag. You've got cool abilities and options, your concept has almost certainly come online, but… it's actually *less* likely that your character will get as much *total* play time as one that started at 1st, and will therefore end their played career *less* developed.

"Blasting through low level" seems like it should provide the full opportunity for creating connections in the world, and let you always have options. On the down side, you're limiting your total play time before "level X", where X is the highest level of play that the character will see.

It seems to me that the *optimal* solution would be to start with frickin' cool abilities, and play through the low levels at *close* to a normal pace (despite roflstomping all opposition). Always have cool abilities, no threat of "low level dumb TPK from lucky orc crits", full connection to the world, maximize the time that you get to play an established character.

That's what looks like the win to me: totally OP 1st level characters, leisurely roflstomping their way through low-level challenges, building history and connection to the world.

Further, since the OP / their group isn't willing to just "skip" the low levels, advice of "start at mid level" isn't really useful to them; I just included and evaluated it for completeness.

0) "if he's dead, he can't learn nothing" Low level - with sudden death crits and limited access to resurrection tech - is often quite antithetical to character development.

[Crake]

Although I might want to agree…

1) when's the last time either of you ran a 50th level game? While I might not be a fan of GMs shying away from such things, these "artificial level limits" are, sadly, a thing at real tables. Even when stated differently (ie, "let's play 'Halls of the High King' (and then never touch those characters again)", that artificial level limit still exists.

The rules originally stopped at 20th level, and you could just keep playing your 20th level characters. Rulesets like e6/8/10/12 etc all exist. There's nothing saying that once you hit the "level cap" of your campaign that you have to stop, nor that you have to keep leveling.


2) I kinda covered examples of what "blitz" character development could look like. If you cannot imagine character development in those scenarios - especially after I've already pointed some types out - then that says more about you than about such scenarios.

Just because character development can happen, doesn't mean it will. If you go from 1-6 in 2 sessions because your characters can easily defeat challenges way above their level, then really how much character development time is there in 2 sessions, if you're spending the majority of the time solving encounters so you can hurry up to the higher levels. Better to simply start at level 4 instead, and level up to 6 normally, and simply say your characters were prodigies or something, and that's why they managed to get to level 4 in their "training" backstory.


3) If you go back and read carefully, I believe that you'll find a) that I in no way implied that one wouldn't have "slow XP progression" at higher levels and b) that I was actually advocating slow XP progression at all levels:

I dunno about you, but mary sueing your way through low levels doesn't really facilitate much character development.


Further, since the OP / their group isn't willing to just "skip" the low levels, advice of "start at mid level" isn't really useful to them; I just included and evaluated it for completeness.

0) "if he's dead, he can't learn nothing" Low level - with sudden death crits and limited access to resurrection tech - is often quite antithetical to character development.

Actually, you'll find that the OP isn't looking for advice. The OP is literally a question, asking how other people feel about it: "would you roll op pcs to skip low levels?"

[Quertus]

The rules originally stopped at 20th level, and you could just keep playing your 20th level characters. Rulesets like e6/8/10/12 etc all exist. There's nothing saying that once you hit the "level cap" of your campaign that you have to stop, nor that you have to keep leveling.



Just because character development can happen, doesn't mean it will. If you go from 1-6 in 2 sessions because your characters can easily defeat challenges way above their level, then really how much character development time is there in 2 sessions, if you're spending the majority of the time solving encounters so you can hurry up to the higher levels. Better to simply start at level 4 instead, and level up to 6 normally, and simply say your characters were prodigies or something, and that's why they managed to get to level 4 in their "training" backstory.



I dunno about you, but mary sueing your way through low levels doesn't really facilitate much character development.



Actually, you'll find that the OP isn't looking for advice. The OP is literally a question, asking how other people feel about it: "would you roll op pcs to skip low levels?"

Interesting.

But not quite where I was going. Let me try again.

OK, suppose I said, "you're running this character through 'Rise of the Rune Lords' or 'Red Hand of Doom' (or some other module) - and *only* that module".

1) would you accept the notion of "upper level limit", of "definite end to their time played" then (even if you might not be able to answer what level that upper level was until *after* the character was retired)?

Suppose further that, for the first half of the module, the GM simply narrated your characters' success in any combat encounters instead of actually rolling them out.

2) would you agree that the character still had exactly the same amount of opportunity to interact with the non-combat portions of the world, to talk to NPCs, make connections, etc?

3) do you agree that this would be *faster* than actually rolling all the dice for combat?

4) do you agree that, compared to orc crit fatalities in combat, that this would allow for characters to get more development, more playtime, before their potential death (give or take noncombat threats, like traps)?

4½) if the narration started when "Resurrection" was not on the table, but Resurrection *was* a possibility by the time that the "combat narration" ended, such that no character was ever "retired" due to inability to be resurrected, would this change your perception of events?

5) would you feel that the characters' opportunity for character growth per session played would be the same as, greater than, or less than that of characters whose players rolled all the combat dice?

6) would you feel that the characters' opportunity for character growth per module played would be the same as, greater than, or less than that of characters whose players rolled all the combat dice?

[Gnaeus]

stuff?

I don’t think building op characters to blast through x levels is going to give you remotely the same opportunity for RP as you would normally have, and the DM narrating your background (although why aren’t you doing that) would be a way more realistic background than you will get from superdude.

If you are blasting through the first 7 levels by a trick, your relationships with anyone won’t be remotely the same as if you were actually struggling or in fear of death. Instead of “wow, thanks man. You are a lifesaver. Thank you so much for that 6 charge CLW wand and dagger +1. It meant everything” your interaction would be “yeah, whatever guy. That was easy and I don’t care about your vendor trash.” And when you finished OP mode, your natural reaction would be that the rune lords are a minor inconvenience and that basic precautions are a complete waste of time because you squash all opposition under your heel. It’s worse for character development in every way than the DM telling you how you heroically defeated the goblin tribe after a tough battle and almost died in the quasit fight but at the very end you killed it with farmer Joe’s +1 dagger when you had nothing else that would harm it.”

[Firebug]

Personal experience with organized play, specifically Pathfinder Society:

Most of the players I tended to play with the most were looking forward to mid levels when their 'trick' came online(ie, got past the required feats and finally do what they want), or would GM to get scenario credit(ie XP and Gold) to apply to a character that was a late bloomer. Effectively skipping the lower levels or being useless, or running a normal character that doesn't rely on anything.

You get a free rebuild between levels 1 and 2, and whatever you play at 2 is locked in (though there are some retraining rules), consumables are still used up. However, you can only get credit for playing an adventure once (outside evergreen adventures) and also GMing an adventure once. A normal scenario (single session adventure) was worth 1 xp, and a module (typically multiple sessions) was worth 3 xp and it was 3 xp to each level.

One tactic was to run a specific adventure (Emerald Spire 1) that was an evergreen module (can be repeated on different characters, worth a full level) and was entirely combat with goblins (and a few other things). If everyone was paying attention and knew what to expect you could complete it very quickly. I think our record time was 16 minutes for the level. Part of this was that you just had to make sure that you had a couple people who, whenever they hit would do enough static damage to kill the regular goblins.
So a couple of players would have a 'non-standard pregen' for level 1 that is really effective especially for that adventure. I think the other players tended to go for a (race with darkvision) Bloodrager with Power Attack and just 2h swing at things. I liked going with a Human Medium that also got enough damage to one-shot the goblins, but also had some minor spells.Human [Adoptive Parentage(Tengu)] for Weapon Focus(Longsword), consider Fey Magic for Low-light vision and a few spell-likes in a specific terrain
Medium 1(No archetype)
Favored Class Bonus: +1 HP
16 Str(+2 race), 14 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 10 Wis, 12 Cha
Trait: Chosen of Iomedae: Light 1/day as a spell like, free MW Longsword and when you cast light on the longsword (not just the spell-like) its radius and duration are doubled.
Trait: Arodenite Sword Training: Weapon Proficiency with Longsword, so we can use it even if we switch spirits and can channel a lesser spirit in Champion for more 1d6 rolls.
Feat(Race): Weapon Focus(Longsword)
Feat: Spirit Focus(Champion): Can go with Legendary Influence to swap up whatever feats you want for each spirit. Something likebrew potions(at 3rd) for heirophant, scribe scroll for Archmage, Skill Focus(something) for Trickster, etc.
Spirit Surge 1d6 (costs 1 point of influence, but if we channel a lesser spirit from Champion, we get 2 uses for free): add 1d6 to a failed fortitude save or attack roll (or strength check, but we don't care)
Spirit Bonus +1(another +1 w/Spirit Focus): +X to attacks, non-spell damage rolls, fortitude saves, strength checks
Seance Bonus: +2 non-spell damage rolls
Knacks(Cantrips): Pick 2, recommend 1 is light since we have the synergy already. Runner-ups would be Message (aka short range walkie-talkies), Dancing Lights (for when you need light over there), Detect Magic, Daze, etc.
Equipment (assuming 150gp):
Four Mirror Armor(125gp)
Alchemical Acid 1-2 (10 gp/ea): Note, the Spirit and Seance Bonus apply as its not spell damage (1d6+4 acid damage)
MW Longsword(Free)
Couple of Javelins (1gp/ea): Not terribly accurate at +4, but 1d6+8 damage when they hit.
Starting HP is maxed for PFS so
18 AC; 11 hp
+4 Fort; +2 Ref; +2 Will
+8 to hit for 1d8+10 damage with Longsword (2h)
Any mostly combat adventures would get stomped fairly safely, as if you die at low levels in PFS, that character can't really afford to get resurrected. So upwards of a level 5 character(ie: 12 scenarios at 3-5 hours each!) having a bad adventure and dying and having to start over at level 1.

[Quertus]

stuff

What I heard was, "Quertus, your example is inapplicable to the scenario". Is that a valid summary of your post?

[gijoemike]

To the OP question of would I roll an OP char to skip low level. Hard no.

Through my many years of role play and roll play. The moments that form the character have always happened at low level. That is because at high level "we can just use magic to bypass that" is the default response. Magic can save the town and rescue the kids from the bandits, oh the mage can take care of that in a few mins, Billy died huh ( 15 minutes later) K, Billy is back and we also fixed his lame leg.

In most of those scenarios a low level character has to make a meaningful choice that will impact development. Specifically because they don't have their super trick come online yet. This failure or shortcoming is what drives them to obtain more power. Hand waving "magic will fix it" isn't great character development.

How you choose your character to handle these tough in game/moment decisions prior to magic coming online is a major driving force behind the personality.

To the OP comment about "No one likes low level". That is flat wrong. E6,E10, and low magic settings and campaigns are a thing. I have spent much more time in levels below 12 than above. Almost everyone in several game circles and shops in my area stay below 15. And I say almost because I don't know every single one of the thousands of people that covers. Most modules want you to play the first 2 parts below level 6. So, no one liking level lower level is a very far stretch.

Also, the 15 minute adventuring day is worse at high level because at high level the party has to have a mage/divine caster at 100% before an appropriate level CR fight. It is suicide if the wizard/cleric cannot pre-buff and then nova during the fight. But at lower level, the impact isn't as big. Sometimes the party can squeeze out 1 more encounter or room as the wizard wouldn't have made a large difference anyway.

How to start at higher level is in the rules. And how can starting at level 2 be immersion breaking? You need not alter the backstory AT ALL. Just start with a few extra skills and HP. Maybe add 1 year to the age and call it done.

[icefractal]

Had some thoughts about this, assuming a context where all players (including the GM) were on board -
The question is really: would you want to play a character whose power started out growing rapidly and then semi-plateau'd?

And IMO, that depends on the type of game:
In a total sandbox, I might. It would mean spending the most time in a mid-range of power, which might be a good thing.
In a campaign where CR at all correlated to PC level or plot progress, no. It would effectively give you the feeling of backward progression, where you start out relatively very powerful against the opposition and then fall until it's a struggle. Not saying nobody would want that, but I wouldn't.

[Quertus]

The question is really: would you want to play a character whose power started out growing rapidly and then semi-plateau'd?

Although the rest of your post makes a great argument, I think you have this part backwards: instead of D&D's steep power curve, you've largely flattened the *lower* levels (to be much higher, much more in line with mid level).


The moments that form the character have always happened at low level. That is because at high level "we can just use magic to bypass that" is the default response. Magic can save the town and rescue the kids from the bandits, oh the mage can take care of that in a few mins, Billy died huh ( 15 minutes later) K, Billy is back and we also fixed his lame leg.

In most of those scenarios a low level character has to make a meaningful choice that will impact development. Specifically because they don't have their super trick come online yet. This failure or shortcoming is what drives them to obtain more power. Hand waving "magic will fix it" isn't great character development.

How you choose your character to handle these tough in game/moment decisions prior to magic coming online is a major driving force behind the personality.

Bolded for emphasis.

This is a tough one. Yes, I know that this seems like an obvious truth… but is it?

Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, felt the pain of being a 1st level Wizard, getting exactly 1 spell. These days, the party encounters a locked door, or a hoard of demons, he just sits there and lets the muggles handle things, perhaps with a mumbled, "you got this? Good." as he reads his book. The only times he bothers to act are if they *don't* "got this", or if there is something to be learned by acting (oh, a new type of never-before-seen ooze? How does it respond to fire? Ice? Acid? Wall of Stone? Can it eat through metal? Fascinating. <Makes notes>)

As I recall, Ikou the Valent Hero got his start with a barbarian hoard coming to attack the town. He took a rooftop position, discerned the bandit leader, and shot him dead. The second in command attempted to rally the troops, to the same result. The 3rd in command screamed, "burn the village!" as he fled. Ikou, not able to fight off an entire barbarian hoard, likewise fled. To this day, Ikou will single out enemy leaders as his primary target.

Is Quertus more defined by what low levels taught him ("muggles can mug all day; Wizards have finite resources"), by his inability to grasp that his limits are much less… limiting now, or by his "opportunity to learn" attitude?

Is Ikou more defined by inability to solo the hoard, his ability to snipe the leader, or his "I'm the hero" attitude?

Also, "Billy is dead" sounds like it will still pose the exact same challenge and opportunity for growth for the OP's table as for "normal" 1st level characters. Does that mean that you consider the OP to be advocating a technique that will *not* stifle their characters' growth?

Lastly, gaining the motivation "desire for more power" is one form of character growth… but certainly not the only one. I would contend that gaining *any* motivations would promote growth.

[Gnaeus]

What I heard was, "Quertus, your example is inapplicable to the scenario". Is that a valid summary of your post?

No. It’s applicable. It’s just that writing a backstory about your time as adventurers is going to give a lot more character development, and more importantly, more realistic character development, than spending weeks of play as Superman trivially defeating muggers. Especially if, as in the PFS example, you are Superman defeating muggers as played on fast forward. Now I get why the PFS guys would do that. Their games tend to be pretty railroaded anyway so character motivation isn’t key. And they have an organization telling them they can’t just build a 3rd or 5th level character. So they goblin murder at top speed with characters that aren’t the ones they will play later. But any non organized play group can still just say “start at level 2 or 3 so orc crit deaths aren’t an issue.” As Joe says, starting at 2 need not change backstory at all

[Calthropstu]

I have started numerous characters in numerous games. I have started at lvl 1, I have started at level 20. The only levels I have not started at, come to think of it, is 8 and 13. Not sure why. The biggest problem with this suggestion of OP is if you start with an overpowered chasis, your "super fun mid levels" will... have an overpowered chasis. And "it's cool cuz everyone will be op" doesn't exactly cut it. Not everyone will have the same system mastery, so "OP" has different meanings. If we start breaking into TO territory with one character while the others get mid to high PO, the TO is going to steal the entire show.

[magicalmagicman]

I have started numerous characters in numerous games. I have started at lvl 1, I have started at level 20. The only levels I have not started at, come to think of it, is 8 and 13. Not sure why. The biggest problem with this suggestion of OP is if you start with an overpowered chasis, your "super fun mid levels" will... have an overpowered chasis. And "it's cool cuz everyone will be op" doesn't exactly cut it. Not everyone will have the same system mastery, so "OP" has different meanings. If we start breaking into TO territory with one character while the others get mid to high PO, the TO is going to steal the entire show.

That's not true. Even the example in the OP, it's front loaded trick that becomes worthless as the game goes on. There's lots of things like that. Fiery burst is another front loaded thing that becomes worthless as the game goes on. Animal companions in general. The Geodite from elemental envoy. So once the front loaded stuff becomes worthless you retrain them out to normal options.

[Nifft]

That's not true. Even the example in the OP, it's front loaded trick that becomes worthless as the game goes on. There's lots of things like that. Fiery burst is another front loaded thing that becomes worthless as the game goes on. Animal companions in general. The Geodite from elemental envoy. So once the front loaded stuff becomes worthless you retrain them out to normal options.

At higher levels, Fiery Burst becomes a thing you do while polymorphed into a small bird, or plink-damage to SR-invincible enemies, or to repair your Iron Golem, or to burn your way through some annoying undergrowth or the enemy's supply-train, or whatever else benefits from unmetered (Su)pernatural fire damage.

Just because it's not a go-to combat action doesn't make it worthless.

[Crake]

That's not true. Even the example in the OP, it's front loaded trick that becomes worthless as the game goes on. There's lots of things like that. Fiery burst is another front loaded thing that becomes worthless as the game goes on. Animal companions in general. The Geodite from elemental envoy. So once the front loaded stuff becomes worthless you retrain them out to normal options.

Well, actually, if you read the threads in question arguing about this, these same people are advocating for being able to use a changeling's minor change shape and the assume supernatural ability feat to change into a zodar at level 1 and have access to wish. So there's front loaded, and then there's front loaded.

[newguydude1]

Well, actually, if you read the threads in question arguing about this, these same people are advocating for being able to use a changeling's minor change shape and the assume supernatural ability feat to change into a zodar at level 1 and have access to wish. So there's front loaded, and then there's front loaded.

lots of things give free wishes. anyone can say pazuzu three times to get three free wishes. first wish is explicitly negative consequence free. so i fail to see your point. none of the things that give free wishes are banned at my table. only the free wishes itself are banned. and only up to level 16. from 17 on free wishes are fair game.

[Crake]

lots of things give free wishes. anyone can say pazuzu three times to get three free wishes. first wish is explicitly negative consequence free. so i fail to see your point. none of the things that give free wishes are banned at my table. only the free wishes itself are banned. and only up to level 16. from 17 on free wishes are fair game.

There's a difference between giving yourself infinite free wishes, which comes with no repercussions, and outsourcing those free wishes to other entities which may come back to bite you in the ass at a later date. Also, you'll find that not anyone can just say pazuzu's name three times, he only appears to those that can be corrupted, and rolling a good character just to say pazuzu three times and get some free wishes, at my table at least, would have the DM walk around to your character sheet, erase your alignment, and replace it with CE, then have pazuzu not appear.

[newguydude1]

There's a difference between giving yourself infinite free wishes, which comes with no repercussions, and outsourcing those free wishes to other entities which may come back to bite you in the ass at a later date. Also, you'll find that not anyone can just say pazuzu's name three times, he only appears to those that can be corrupted, and rolling a good character just to say pazuzu three times and get some free wishes, at my table at least, would have the DM walk around to your character sheet, erase your alignment, and replace it with CE, then have pazuzu not appear.

sure. a once a year wish on a creature that requires extreme knowledge optimization to know at level 1 and requires you to rule lawyer that constructs and skeletons have the same body type as living creatures results in infinite wishes because you just have to use infinite wish loops with assume supernatural ability

and all the other things that can start infinite wish loops are totally balanced and acceptable because you don't use infinite wish loops with them.

you made your position really clear when you decided to ignore both rules compendium and d20srd when both say assuming an appearance also results in you assuming a form so you can declare a perfectly functional rule text as dysfunctional so you can change the words in it in the name of "intent" to "fix" it all the while also ignoring the term "natural form" in mcs to get the ruling you want.

i got it. you really hate this combo and you will never allow it at your table. now please stick to the topic at hand instead of expressing your opinion on just how "ridiculous" using assume supernatural ability with minor change shape is.

[Crake]

sure. a once a year wish on a creature that requires extreme knowledge optimization to know at level 1 and requires you to rule lawyer that constructs and skeletons have the same body type as living creatures results in infinite wishes because you just have to use infinite wish loops with assume supernatural ability

and all the other things that can start infinite wish loops are totally balanced and acceptable because you don't use infinite wish loops with them.

you made your position really clear when you decided to ignore both rules compendium and d20srd when both say assuming an appearance also results in you assuming a form so you can declare a perfectly functional rule text as dysfunctional so you can change the words in it in the name of "intent" to "fix" it all the while also ignoring the term "natural form" in mcs to get the ruling you want.

i got it. you really hate this combo and you will never allow it at your table. now please stick to the topic at hand instead of expressing your opinion on just how "ridiculous" using assume supernatural ability with minor change shape is.

None of what I said was off topic. We were talking about how frontloading tricks eventually peter off in value as a campaign goes on, and I brought up the fact that you can frontload so heavily that the trick will never lose value even in the highest level of games.

[Quertus]

I don’t think building op characters to blast through x levels is going to give you remotely the same opportunity for RP as you would normally have, and the DM narrating your background (although why aren’t you doing that) would be a way more realistic background than you will get from superdude.

If you are blasting through the first 7 levels by a trick, your relationships with anyone won’t be remotely the same as if you were actually struggling or in fear of death. Instead of “wow, thanks man. You are a lifesaver. Thank you so much for that 6 charge CLW wand and dagger +1. It meant everything” your interaction would be “yeah, whatever guy. That was easy and I don’t care about your vendor trash.” And when you finished OP mode, your natural reaction would be that the rune lords are a minor inconvenience and that basic precautions are a complete waste of time because you squash all opposition under your heel. It’s worse for character development in every way than the DM telling you how you heroically defeated the goblin tribe after a tough battle and almost died in the quasit fight but at the very end you killed it with farmer Joe’s +1 dagger when you had nothing else that would harm it.”


No. It’s applicable. It’s just that writing a backstory about your time as adventurers is going to give a lot more character development, and more importantly, more realistic character development, than spending weeks of play as Superman trivially defeating muggers. Especially if, as in the PFS example, you are Superman defeating muggers as played on fast forward. Now I get why the PFS guys would do that. Their games tend to be pretty railroaded anyway so character motivation isn’t key. And they have an organization telling them they can’t just build a 3rd or 5th level character. So they goblin murder at top speed with characters that aren’t the ones they will play later. But any non organized play group can still just say “start at level 2 or 3 so orc crit deaths aren’t an issue.” As Joe says, starting at 2 need not change backstory at all

I'm glad I asked - I should hate to have been tilting at men of straw.

For me, time spent actually playing the character is... not the same as writing backstory. The character is more... well, is more from time played. If I created a new epic Wizard whole-cloth, they just wouldn't feel the same as Quertus - or, more to the point, if I took a half-dozen mid-level characters I'd played up, and a half-dozen mid-level characters that were newly created, *I* would feel the difference, regardless of whether or not any particular other person at the table would.

And the ones that were actually played are "better".

So the question becomes, what if we want to change the way that those characters got to mid-level - would they still be "better"?

-----

You say that, if you "blast through X levels", you won't have "the same opportunity for RP as you would normally have", and that "your relationships with anyone won’t be remotely the same as if you were actually struggling or in fear of death".

Presumably, most of us live in 1st world countries, with electricity, internet, running water. Our concerns are less "am I going to get the necessities that I need to survive to see tomorrow?", and more, well, "first-world problems". Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't feel that that makes our opportunities to form relationships and exist meaningfully as people to be any less. So I'm inclined to disagree with the assertion that "death-threat challenge" and "having a personality" are causally related.

"Blast through" may be an issue - I am uncertain whether any scholarly research has been done on how the time lapse between the same X events ("meeting lame Billy", "Billy died", etc) may affect the potential for character growth.

-----

You claim that a fabricated background would be "a way more realistic background than you will get from superdude", and that it would be "more realistic character development, than spending weeks of play as Superman trivially defeating muggers".

This presupposes that Superman a) isn't realistic, and b) isn't capable of realistic character development. I disagree on both counts. Plenty of characters in fiction - including Superman himself - are OP for their setting, and it is perfectly realistic (versamilitudinal?) for such to exist. And such characters are perfectly capable of forming attachments, gaining motivations, lamenting poor lame Billy's death, etc.

I... really can't imagine why you would hold an opposing stance here to even begin to figure out how to bridge our differences.

-----

You claim that such characters' "relationships with anyone won’t be remotely the same as if you were actually struggling or in fear of death".

Here I completely agree.

Quertus' relationships are not the same as Armus' relationships, are not the same as Ikou's relationships, are not the same as... you get the idea.

I think this is a feature, not a bug, that the details about the character give them the Agency to form relationships differently.

-----

You claim that these characters will believe that "basic precautions are a complete waste of time". And that is certainly one possibility - and one that gives great opportunity for character growth when they learn that they are wrong.

-----

So, other than the possible question of, "is X sessions enough for the player to register these events with the same gravitas as they would in a 'normal' game", I'm not buying any of your suppositions as providing clear impetus to avoid the OP's suggested scenario - and I'm not completely sold on the validity of that one potential issue, either.

But, because it is a potential concern, I continue to feel that a leisurely roflstomp would be the optimal solution.