Starting Level

[kjones]

Hello everyone,

I'm new to the forums but have been lurking for some time. I'm starting this thread because I'd like to discuss something that I've been kicking around in my head for some time, as it comes up frequently within my own campaign.

My experience is, I'm sure, common for anyone who runs a weekly game of any sort. It's tough getting a group of people together week after week. Some leave, and hopefully, newcomers take their place. My dilemma is always this: Do I start them at first level, or at party level?

Additionally, a player in my game grew tired with his character and wants to retire her and start a new one. I don't want him to play a character he doesn't like, but I don't want to "encourage" people to switch characters mid-campaign by giving them what equates to a few thousand free XP. So, I face the same question. Should his new character start at first level, or at party level?

Finally, I am putting together an article on this subject; I may post it once I hear some other people's thoughts.

[Jasdoif]

If an existing player wants a new character, start them at a level behind their old character. They'll be behind for a bit, but they'll catch up enough since they'll get more XP for the same encounters the rest of the party is in. They also won't die the moment a monster so much as thinks about attacking them, which will be a problem for a 1st level character if the rest of the party is much higher.

If you're adding a new player to the campaign, start them at the party's average level. No need to penalize them for not having been there for the whole campaign, is there?

[ghost_warlock]

I usually start new PCs at the party level, generally equal with experience points equal to the lowest current PC's XP total. Starting higher will definitely make the other players feel cheated and lower will make the newcomer's character suck in comparison with his new party (and noone wants their character to truly suck). Another issue is that, if a new character is too low level in comparison with the others, he/she won't really be able to contribute in any meaningful way to the party.

If an existing player is just swapping characters, I usually just transfer XP total directly from the old character to the new. It may also be helpful to calculate how much gp the old character's equipment is worth and give the new character a like amount - that way it isn't starting with more or less gear than the rest of the group can be expected to have, either (although it does involve more math). I've encountered players in the past who tried to manipulate the new-character system I've used in the past to get more/better gear than the character they're removing from the game. And then they tried to bring the old character back in with new gear after the party levelled... Ugh!

[Mr the Geoff]

My group's consensus is that new characters start 1 level below the lowest level in the party. Not high enough that it's "free retraining and free xp", but high enough that you don't just get flattened first encounter.

For instance our mostly level 9 party got a cloudkill in the face from a wizard (along with some other nasty effects) 2 weeks ago. Try that with some poor sod's level 1 character around and it's instant game over. However the Paladin's level 7 cohort survived the initial damage and managed to get the hell out of dodge.

In fact a level 1 character wouldn't have got TO the wizard fight, the first room with the archers would have taken him down in the time it took our sorceror to remember she had wind wall (a few rounds)

[Fourth Tempter]

Never start characters at level one. Ever. Even if you are starting a new game.

If you do it in a game where everyone else is higher level, well, it is roughly analogous to a punch in the face.

[LotharBot]

Starting new characters at level 1 makes them entirely unplayable. It's no fun for anybody to have a level 1 character walking around with your level 14 party.

The DMG recommends that if someone switches characters they should start 1 level behind where they were, and if someone new comes in, they should start 1 level behind the current lowest level character (of those that are active; someone here once wrote about how they had someone leave their campaign at level 3 so the DM kept making new characters start at level 2 even though everyone else was near epic. That's lame.)

[Seffbasilisk]

[joke]Well think of it. A level 1 with some level 14's. You shoot a single arrow, the beast ignores it, when the rest of the party kills it, you suddenly find that you have a divine connection, can cast spells, have a companion, learned a new fighting style, have another set of training skills, etc....

[/joke]

I usually go with the 1 level below the lowest-level party member. Doesn't make'm useless, but doesn't encourage character swapping too soon. If a character swaps out or dies out before they level with that character (and I think they deliberatly killed'm), then I drop'm another level down for the next one.

[Fourth Tempter]

Forcing people to be lower-level for dying rubs me the wrong way. What--losing a character is not penalty enough?

[Telonius]

We usually do the lower total of the following: a) One level behind the party average, minimum XP for the level, or b) 1 XP behind the lowest XP-total party member. The character isn't far enough behind to totally suck, and can catch up quickly; but there's still a penalty for switching characters.

[ArmorArmadillo]

This isn't WoW, decent players don't change characters as a trick, or to exploit mechanics, but because they'd like to play a different character. They shouldn't be punished for it.

[kjones]

Well, it seems that public opinion will be unanimously opposed to me, but here's the article I mentioned previously. I wrote it in an attempt to apply to any RPG, but it obviously applies to D&D. Feel free to tear it apart.

(I was considering submitting it to Knights of the Dinner Table, which is why there are a few KoDT references.)

Integrating New First Level Characters into an Ongoing Campaign

Integrating a new character into an ongoing campaign is always a challenge, but the first question a GM must ask himself is, “Should this character start at first level? Party level? Somewhere in between?” I have always believed that a new character should always start at first level. First, it promotes fairness and preempts claims of favoritism. Current players will rightfully feel that starting at 5th level, nets a cool 10,000 XP bonus, and that they deserve it just as much as the new character. Second, rewards (experience and treasure) are more meaningful when earned, rather than given. Giving a character a +1 longsword without the need to surmount some obstacle cheapens its value, and experience points are no different. Second level never looked so sweet after you’ve clawed your way up a mound of kobold bodies to make it past first. By giving a starting character free XP, they are denied the rewarding experience of gaining levels on their own.

Nevertheless, a first-level character in a higher-level party faces unique challenges, as does the GM running the game. With this in mind, I’ll share some of the things I’ve learned that may be of use to both players and GM’s.

Players:
1. Choose your character wisely. The first decisions come during the character creation process. Throughout this process, design your character with the recognition that you will be a small fish in a big pond. As Stevil said to Gordo, “The only math you need to know is that your hit points minus my damage is less than zero!” When rolling up your character, these are words to live by. Any character based on front-line combat is right out, unless you count on being extremely lucky or have friends who are very generous in chipping in for resurrection costs. A character based on ranged combat is certainly feasible, but even then, you may not want to be in a position where you will be subject to counter-fire. Getting noticed is tantamount to death; as a small fish, you must rely on your enemies not considering you to be a big enough threat to waste any effort or resources destroying you. Playing a spellcaster is your best bet, but even then, not just any spellcaster will do; offensive spells draw just as much attention as arrows, so you’ll want to focus on spells that help your party rather than harming your opponents.

2. Buffs are best. First of all, a spellcaster staying behind the lines casting buffs is less likely to draw attention (and, by extension, death) from your foes. Second, at higher levels, your foes will have saving throws or spell resistance that are nigh unto insurmountable for your puny little first-level self; this is not a problem when casting buffs. Third, the buffs will simply be more useful. Which will your party appreciate more, the offensive spell that did a few measly damage, or the boost to your fighter’s strength that allows him to do a few more points of damage every attack, every round? Do the math.

3. Teamwork above all… I’ve deliberately left out rogues and their ilk from the previous sections because while they face the same problems as other classes in combat, their strengths in this context lie elsewhere. Rogues and other skill-monkeys can really shine in a supporting role; rather than trying to open that lock or disarm that trap by themselves, they can assist the real rogue in doing so. Face it; until you get some HP on your bones, you’re going to be playing Robin to everyone’s Batman. This doesn’t just apply to skill-monkeys, or skills. In combat, don’t be the big hero. Provide flanking bonuses or covering fire. Set ‘em up so the real heroes can knock ‘em down. In the tavern, be the wingman that chats up the ugly chick so the real men get the babes. Smirk knowingly to yourself, satisfied with the fact that they couldn’t have done it without you.

4. …Except yourself. Hanging around with the big damn heroes sure makes you want to become one yourself, doesn’t it? Well, you never will if you find yourself having to roll up new characters again, and again, and again… You must acquire an acute sense of the appropriate time to get the hell out of Dodge. There’s no shame in backing down from challenges that are way above your level. Buddies going off to fight Rot Gut the Swack Iron Dragon? Well, somebody has to stay behind and watch the horses, right? They’ll appreciate it when they need someone to come back for the bodies.

GMs:
1. Make them useful. No player, regardless of level, likes feeling useless. However, coming up with situations that are interesting for high-level characters without being beyond the realms of low level characters, or vice versa, is challenging. So, be creative. Find out what unique qualities the low-level character brings to the table, and play to them. Does he speak a language that nobody else knows? Suddenly, he’s playing a vital role as interpreter. Is he a midget/Halfling? Have the rest of the party keep baddies off his back while he crawls down the tunnel too small for anyone else. In the aforementioned encounter with the dragon, if there is nothing for the newbie to do but hide and hope for some XP to trickle his way, then the GM is not doing his job.

2. Be nice. Even if the low-level character makes his save against the dragon’s breath, that means he only takes 47 damage instead of the full 94. Be careful with area effects, or with anything that affects the entire party on a nonselective basis. It is within your power as the GM to control this. If they insist on running into the line of fire every single time, then you’ll be doing them a favor by putting them down, but to a player, nothing is as frustrating as an unavoidable, undeserved death.

3. Be fair. Although it is your responsibility to run the game, it is the player’s responsibility to remember that he is a small fish in a big pond. You do him no favors by fudging results in his favor; this only encourages him to believe that he is invincible, and he will be even less careful in the future. Going easy on the fireballs is not the same as coming up with excuses for why everyone is horribly burned except for Ned the Newb.

[Jasdoif]

Forcing people to be lower-level for dying rubs me the wrong way. What--losing a character is not penalty enough?

I see the reasoning as two-fold.

First (and this one applies to returning a dead character to life), it discourages players from being needlessly reckless with their characters, because dying after charging a wyrm with Combat Reflexes costs your character more then just a bunch of diamonds that the rest of party must come up with; the XP needed to catch up aren't so easy to find and recover as money is.

Second, it prevents a player from considering whether creating a new character at the same level is better then having their character raised at one level lower. Pitting RP vs mechanics in the player's mind isn't conducive to the campaign if you're trying to have both in the game.

[Telonius]

This isn't WoW, decent players don't change characters as a trick, or to exploit mechanics, but because they'd like to play a different character. They shouldn't be punished for it.

I'm generally of the opinion that rules shouldn't be written with decent players in mind. Decent players will work together to make the campaign work, no matter what the rules are. Rules are barely needed for them, and their campaigns are mainly self-correcting anyway. It's the munchkins that I'm concerned about, and having some sort of a penalty involved with character death or switching characters can discourage at least some acts of munchkinism.

[prufock]

Forcing people to be lower-level for dying rubs me the wrong way. What--losing a character is not penalty enough?

Well, if they were subject to a Raise Dead spell, they'd lose a level anyway, so it's not entirely unfair. I see your point, but not everyone gets attached to their characters, and would prefer to start a new one than lose a level being raised.

That said, to answer the OP's question:
When new players join, I start them at the lowest party member's level. I don't use average, because the player who has put considerable effort into a character but lost some XP (crafting items, casting spells, dying, or some other reason) might feel shafted that "the new guy/girl is more powerful!"
As for switching characters, give them a level lower than their previous character, and let that accumulate each time they switch. That will dissuade a lot of character swapping. Same deal when they die (since Raise Dead would cause them to lose a level anyway.

[Rigel Cyrosea]

In my opinion, starting a character at level one in a high level party is very, very unfair!

1. Choose your character wisely. The first decisions come during the character creation process. Throughout this process, design your character with the recognition that you will be a small fish in a big pond. As Stevil said to Gordo, “The only math you need to know is that your hit points minus my damage is less than zero!” When rolling up your character, these are words to live by. Any character based on front-line combat is right out, unless you count on being extremely lucky or have friends who are very generous in chipping in for resurrection costs. A character based on ranged combat is certainly feasible, but even then, you may not want to be in a position where you will be subject to counter-fire. Getting noticed is tantamount to death; as a small fish, you must rely on your enemies not considering you to be a big enough threat to waste any effort or resources destroying you. Playing a spellcaster is your best bet, but even then, not just any spellcaster will do; offensive spells draw just as much attention as arrows, so you’ll want to focus on spells that help your party rather than harming your opponents.

Here, you are restricting the type of character that is viable for the newcomer to play, which none of the other players had to deal with.

3. Teamwork above all… I’ve deliberately left out rogues and their ilk from the previous sections because while they face the same problems as other classes in combat, their strengths in this context lie elsewhere. Rogues and other skill-monkeys can really shine in a supporting role; rather than trying to open that lock or disarm that trap by themselves, they can assist the real rogue in doing so. Face it; until you get some HP on your bones, you’re going to be playing Robin to everyone’s Batman. This doesn’t just apply to skill-monkeys, or skills. In combat, don’t be the big hero. Provide flanking bonuses or covering fire. Set ‘em up so the real heroes can knock ‘em down. In the tavern, be the wingman that chats up the ugly chick so the real men get the babes. Smirk knowingly to yourself, satisfied with the fact that they couldn’t have done it without you.

You are also forcing this poor newcomer to be just a sideshow to the real party. Nobody enjoys that, and as a new player, this person could easily get turned off DnD forever by your actions.

Second, rewards (experience and treasure) are more meaningful when earned, rather than given. Giving a character a +1 longsword without the need to surmount some obstacle cheapens its value, and experience points are no different. Second level never looked so sweet after you’ve clawed your way up a mound of kobold bodies to make it past first. By giving a starting character free XP, they are denied the rewarding experience of gaining levels on their own.

Though this is true, characters will gain experience and magic items at any level. And also, a first level character who actually manages to survive for a while will probably gain a level every fight! If that doesn't cheapen expeirience gained, nothing does.

First, it promotes fairness and preempts claims of favoritism.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning: By handicapping a player to a massive degree, you are being fair? You are engaging in favoritism, of your previous players.

Current players will rightfully feel that starting at 5th level, nets a cool 10,000 XP bonus, and that they deserve it just as much as the new character.

It is not a bonus! It is to keep the game balanced and fair. If your players have a problem with that, they don't have a good sense of fairness.

[LotharBot]

it promotes fairness and preempts claims of favoritism. Current players will rightfully feel that starting at 5th level, nets a cool 10,000 XP bonus, and that they deserve it just as much as the new character.

You've had players complain that "if he gets 10,000 free XP I should too"? Sounds like a really lame complaint, not something they would "rightly" feel. My response would be to laugh in their face. Having a player start at a level where they can contribute (without the DM having to rig things too much) is better for everyone at the table. They don't need to start right at party level, but starting not too far behind and maybe a bit underequipped is a perfectly reasonable solution.

If someone really wants to complain, ask if they're offering to DM a solo adventure for the new player to bring them up to party level.

rewards (experience and treasure) are more meaningful when earned, rather than given.

That's true. But being forced into a role where your sum total of contributions in a night is less than what everyone else at the table contributes every round is, I would think, a worse fate than being denied the opportunity to earn your rewards.

If the rest of the party is level 3, starting at level 1 isn't that bad. You can still contribute a little bit, and you'll hit level 2 soon enough. But if they're level 10, your level 1 character is going to be a liability. As your own article states, you're essentially forcing people to play a buffer-caster or what amounts to a masterwork tool (+2 aid another bonus). What you described simply doesn't provide the player with the opportunity to play the character he wants to play without being relegated to an extreme backup role, possibly for a very long time. And a lot of players won't enjoy that style of game at all -- they will RIGHTLY say that they don't fit in and it doesn't make sense for their level 1 character to be running around with a bunch of level 15 heroes.

It just makes a whole lot more sense to bring new players in at the bottom of the pack, but not so far behind that the DM has to consistantly nerf encounters, pull punches, and give them busy work to do while the real characters handle the real encounters.

[Theodoxus]

Relegating newly created players - for whatever reason - as 1st level buffers blows majorly. I joined an ongoing game in December where the party was just leveling to 6. If I had been forced to play a 1st level cleric or buffing wizard, I wouldn't have stayed. I wanted to play a rogue - and thank god I got to.

I can understand your desire to bring forth a more realistic playstyle - but that isn't the way to do it. Think of it from the other players perspective - who in their right mind would want their little brother tagging along, even if they were cool enough to provide a bit of healing or a bless now and then. A party of 6th level folk is like a band of high school seniors, and a first level wanna be is like a 5th grader. No way would I want to 'hang' with someone like that - and certainly not be babysitting them, which is essentially what they'd be doing.

6th Fighter: "Don't get too close to that troll, Johnny, he'll bite your head off."
1st Johnny: "Yeah right, Derek. He's kinda cute, I'm gonna bring him home to mom."
Derek: "crap, now I have to save your stupid hide."

In the end, it's fun for no one. Give me the basic level -1; treat it as a raise dead. It's simplest and the most fun all around.

[Dark Tira]

Relegating newly created players - for whatever reason - as 1st level buffers blows majorly. I joined an ongoing game in December where the party was just leveling to 6. If I had been forced to play a 1st level cleric or buffing wizard, I wouldn't have stayed. I wanted to play a rogue - and thank god I got to.

I can understand your desire to bring forth a more realistic playstyle - but that isn't the way to do it. Think of it from the other players perspective - who in their right mind would want their little brother tagging along, even if they were cool enough to provide a bit of healing or a bless now and then. A party of 6th level folk is like a band of high school seniors, and a first level wanna be is like a 5th grader. No way would I want to 'hang' with someone like that - and certainly not be babysitting them, which is essentially what they'd be doing.

6th Fighter: "Don't get too close to that troll, Johnny, he'll bite your head off."
1st Johnny: "Yeah right, Derek. He's kinda cute, I'm gonna bring him home to mom."
Derek: "crap, now I have to save your stupid hide."

In the end, it's fun for no one. Give me the basic level -1; treat it as a raise dead. It's simplest and the most fun all around.

QFT.

Not to mention that if the experience table in the DMG is being used the 1st level character in a mid-high level party won't even get experience for participating in a CR 11 encounter or higher.

[ArmorArmadillo]

I'm generally of the opinion that rules shouldn't be written with decent players in mind. Decent players will work together to make the campaign work, no matter what the rules are. Rules are barely needed for them, and their campaigns are mainly self-correcting anyway. It's the munchkins that I'm concerned about, and having some sort of a penalty involved with character death or switching characters can discourage at least some acts of munchkinism.

I'd like to respectfully disagree; the rules should be tools for respectful players to create their optimal environment.

The problem with Munchkins is that they will always find ways to abuse the rules, and trying to play catch up with rules will only lead to a power struggle that should have been ended simply by either not inviting such a player to your game, or working things out with him outside the game respectfully.

[Jayabalard]

Always start characters at level one if at all possible... Especially if you are starting a new game.

Depending on how much turnover you have at one time, you might want to put the current campaign on hold, and start up an alternate one at level 1 to get everyone used to playing with each other.

If you do it in a game where everyone else is higher level, well, it is roughly analogous to a punch in the face.

Depends on how high of a level... whether by "higher" you mean "high" or actually do mean "higher" (ie: higher than level 1)

if everyone else is under level 5 it's not an insurmountable problem... and it's doable even at higher levels unless the only thing you do in games is kick in the door and kill random_monster_184623

[Quietus]

My general rule is :

When creating a new character (due to retiring an old one, or death), the new character gets 1/2 of the previous one's experience, but a minimum of one level below where they were. So for the first two or three levels, when you die, you're still level 2ish, while the party is around 3-3.5. At higher levels, when that 12th level fighter didn't stop and think before charging the PC-levelled dragon, he'll start his new character at level 11. Same as you'd end up with if he were raised.

I've never run a game where True Ressurection became an option, if it did I might allow them to start a new character at the same level as the old one, but take the 25,000 gold out of their new character's gear as a balance. Their choice, of course - if they'd rather have the gold, they lose the level instead.

When bringing new characters into a game, I'll start them at a level lower than the lowest-level character in the party. That way the "old guard" doesn't feel that the time they spent levelling is cheapened, and the new character is capable of adding something to the party.

[kjones]

Wrote a long response, then lost it when I closed the window... Argh.

Suffice to say for now that you've all given me a lot to think about, and I'm reconsidering my stance of "everyone starts at first level" as too harsh. Thank you all for making me feel welcome.

[NullAshton]

The first DM I had always started new characters off at one level lower than the lowest party member. I thought that was fair. It's not as harsh as at first level(especially if everyone else is nearing epic levels!), but at the same time people will commonly lose several levels, unless they're the lowest level party member.

It also gives some XP variation to the group, in a long lasting campaign. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as with point buy it adds more variation of power levels. Not to mention the wizards tend to lag a few levels behind the rest of the group naturally, due to making magical items and stuff.

[Mad Wizard]

I would never start off a new character at level 1 (unless the rest of the party were level one or two), and am frankly surprised that people do. The person who is forced to start out at level one with a bunch of high level people will not have fun, as they won't be able to do anything, and will likely get killed if they try. I generally have people who died come back one level lower, and new people come in at the same level as the rest of the party. I don't see how it's "free xp," it's just putting them at a level where they can actually make a difference in combat and help the party.

[kjones]

Two other questions about starting level come to mind, then.

1. At what level do you start your campaigns? With the plethora of playable races with LA >0 available, many see a campaign that begins at level 1 a hinderance to player options. Me, I'm not so hot on non-PHB races in the first place, so my campaigns usually start at level 1, especially because I find that many things break down at higher levels.

2. How do you handle equipment when starting a character at level >1? That is, what do you let him have right off the bat? Is he naked in the desert? (I probably wouldn't be that harsh.) First level equipment? WBL wealth equivalent? If so, is he allowed to go through and pick anything off the equipment lists? Magic items? If not, what's allowed and what's not?

I'm considering starting my next campaign at ~level 3 or so, so this will be a big help.

[Kemper Boyd]

I prefer to start campaigns at level two. Level two characters are much sturdier than level one characters, and don't tend to die in the first adventure due to one unlucky dice roll. Also, this allows people to start off multi-classed.

[LotharBot]

1. At what level do you start your campaigns?

I've started at anywhere from level 1 to level 12, just depending on the specific campaign. Right now my wife is working on setting up a campaign starting at level 8, and a friend is working on a level 1 campaign where everyone gets a free LA+1 race.

Remember that, as the DM, you're still in control of what races are available -- even if you start at level 15, you can ban non-PHB races.

In terms of "stuff breaking down at higher levels", I've found the game doesn't start to break down until about level 13 (7th level spells), and it doesn't really break down until level 17 (9th level spells.) And most of that stuff you can deal with as a DM. Of course, this can change depending on what books are available.

2. How do you handle equipment when starting a character at level >1?

I give them WBL, scaled by some amount if I'm playing a low-powered or high-powered campaign. In general, no more than 1/3 can be spent on any single item. I let them get anything off of the DMG magic items list (no artifacts though!), and stuff from outside books is subject to DM approval.

[Citizen Joe]

How about all Player generated characters start at 1st level, but DM generated characters can be whatever level he wants (typically party level -1).

This could encourage a couple things:
1. Players make multiple characters and swap them out often to try keeping them all at 'fighting level'
2. Players encourage NPC's to join them to make sure they are at 'fighting level' just in case. Plus added benefit of advising them as to how to advance.

[Saph]

Like most people, I start new characters at one level below the average level of the party, with enough XP to be halfway to the next. So if the party is level 4, a new player starts with 8,000 XP, halfway to level 5.

It's equivalent to what you'd have with a Raise Dead / Resurrection, and it's a good compromise. If you start characters two or more levels behind, it's going to be hard for them to catch up, but if you start new characters at the same level, then you're encouraging players not to be raised.

As for starting a campaign, anything from levels 1-6 is best IMO, with 3rd level being my favourite.

- Saph

[Ditto]

Average leve minue one is standard and well-reasoned.

Starting games fresh at first level is incredibly frustrating. Commoners with bigger-than-normal sticks should not be called adventurers. I'd suggest level three as a minimum - a few more hitpoints, interesting baddies to fight, a feat, shiny. I would never start at level one, except for breaking in newbies. I think level five is a great place to start off - feat, level 4 bonus, and you have a few tricks under your belt from your class now.