A DM's Decision? [Archive] - Wizards Community

A DM's Decision? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Shoren
04-06-05, 01:14 AM A person whom is a character under my DM has asked: if all of the players are at level 4 can he make a new character entering the game at level 4 instead of starting out at level 1. I said no, because I wanted my players to earn their experience and levels. So, I thought I should ask other DM's about this, to see how many people DM'ing would do this for their players and get outside opinions.
SnowbearK
04-06-05, 02:36 AM Generally speaking, a character more than 2 levels behind the rest of the party has but one use: Mine Detector.

Rather than risk the Rogue and valuable time searching for traps, toss the chump down the hallway as hard as you can, any traps he sets off should make it quite safe for the rest of you, and his new character will be about the same power.

I recommend said player invest in Xerox.

And while somewhat humorous, I am being dead serious. My own houserules on new/replacement character creation run thusly:

Brand spankin' new characters enter the campaign 1 level below the lowest member of the party. Since the rest of the party is almost always the same level (or within 1-2 sessions of levelling), this doesn't cause a problem.

Replacements, no matter what the reason (boredom, retirement, death, etc) are treated exactly the same as if it were the character himself dying and being Raised. 1 level loss.

The first ensures that the newbie at least has a fighting chance to die by his own fault, the second keeps people from whimsically killing off their characters or continually switching characters.
Shemeska the Marauder
04-06-05, 02:38 AM I think you'll find the general consensus would be to have new players enter the game at one level lower than the party average generally speaking.

I'd personally add him in at the same level as the other players. Of course I'd need there to be a legitimate way for them to meet up with and join up with the current PCs already in the game, and to do that they might have to wait a session or two.

Noone ever said you absolutely have to start at level 1 (though you'll generally get better character development, and player appreciation for the characters, if they start out lower level and work their way up to higher levels). I've started my last campaign at level 10 or equivalent ECL and it lasted around three years *points to Storyhour link in sig*, and the one I just started had the PCs enter at level 8 or equivalent ECL.
ieattrollsforbreakfast
04-06-05, 07:12 AM In general I start a new player at the same level as the rest of my PCs, but thats mostly because of a pooled experience system I use, which keeps all PCs level anyway. I think its a bad idea to start the character at 1st level. A character 3 levels behind the other characters wont find much use.
Shoren
04-06-05, 12:41 PM some Dm's I have talked to belive allowing a player to just skip ahead in levels is cheating. They tell me it takes the fun away from their Dming. Othere players become annoyed that they had to work for there experiance.
They would rather take a player aside an lv. them up on side quests untell they are usefull to the party. That way the Dm and player have a better sence of the charactor.
farghal
04-06-05, 12:54 PM we always want to keep it fun for everybody and i can't tell you it's not fun walking with about 9 or 10 hp (if lucky) with a little sword or whatever while the rest of the group is starting out with great spells small magic items and cool feats and moves.

with us you start at the same level but lose the XP you've gained extra for that level (so if you have 17000 at lvl 6 you start at lvl 6 with 15000)

this way it's fun for everybody and you still have some downside for the dieing (or replacing your char).

if i would have to start at lvl 1 while the rest is at lvl 4 or 5 i would quit and look for another DM.

but everybody has it's own methods ofcourse and your free to have them. but i wouldn't agree.

good luck ;)
aleph_woodenglenn
04-06-05, 01:14 PM I can appreciate wanting players to start their characters at lvl1. However it is very difficult when their character level is significantly lower than the party's. I might let a first level character join a third level party, or even higher, but I would strongly suggest the player to play up the noviceness. (ie the 1st level character would be a lot less fearless than his third or fourth level counterparts) I would even go so far as to give them some XP for surviving even if they mostly spent the whole time trying to get into a safe attacking position, or whatever without significantly contributing to the battle. Alternatively, creating situations for getting the lowest characters away from the rest of the party is a handy way to level them up with a dangerous enough to get good XP, but not dangerous enough to kill them encounter IS a fair idea, but can be tedious.
Also, if you have generous higher level characters that have extra equipment, that can help level the field (though for roleplaying sake, there ought to be a good reason).

frankly, I think it doesn't hurt too terribly much to have a character start in above lvl 1, but bringing a lvl1 character into a party much above lvl3 is just begging for an untimely death, or lots of fights with rediculously weak foes for the rest of the party that may make for dull game play (although I've always kinda wondered why my characters only run into small bands of low level kobolds at the start of their careers, I mean kobolds are just as evil and likely to be in a small band when my characters are higher level....they just aren't around?)
CzarGarrett
04-06-05, 01:21 PM A level 1 in a party with an average level of 4 is a hinderance to the entire party.

Worst case scenario, I'd allow the new character to start at level 2, with 2/3 the XP needed for level 3. Best case would be 3/4 XP to Level 4.
Viper3220
04-06-05, 02:25 PM I let my characters start off at 1 level below everyone else, or if the party is 100-1000 or so xp away from level 7 I'd let the character start at level 6. I understand being penalized for death... but it shouldn't make the game unbearable for the player whose character died.
making a player start a character at level 1 when the rest are level 6 is just plain being a bastard.
Yaeri
04-06-05, 02:48 PM Level 1 party members make good familiars for high level mages.

They would rather take a player aside an lv. them up on side quests untell they are usefull to the party. That way the Dm and player have a better sence of the charactor.

Really I don't know what those DM's sidequests involve, but my sidequests are of equal high CR's as the main assignments, just shorter and more optional :D. If I gave my level 6-7 PC's sidequests consisting of hunting dire rabbits, I wouldn't be very entertaining.

I would let the newcomer start at 1 or 2 levels lower than the lowest party member. With the d&d XP system he/she/it'll quickly catch up. The newcomer stands a chance, the older gamers are still strongest... I see no problem.
Andrew_980
04-06-05, 04:32 PM i put new PCs, be they new players or just new replacement characters, one level behind. near enough to be usefull but not too much unearned stuff
Slumbersigh
04-06-05, 05:57 PM some Dm's I have talked to belive allowing a player to just skip ahead in levels is cheating.
Those DMs are incorrect. And I am glad for that.
They tell me it takes the fun away from their Dming.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how starting a player at a level above “1” would detract from a DM’s enjoyment. What aspect of DMing is it, I wonder, that requires a player to start at level 1 lest all enjoyment be sucked clean from the game?
Othere players become annoyed that they had to work for there experiance.
These “othere players” you speak of sound as if they have no problem watching as their friend stumbles along as useless player who cannot contribute or participate fully in the group’s action. In addition, these “othere players” appear blind to how detrimental it is to their group to drag around a member of significantly lower level.
They would rather take a player aside an lv. them up on side quests untell they are usefull to the party.
Yes, I, too, recall being 13 and unemployed, gifted with hours and hours of free time I could devote to such endeavors.

Thank god those days are over.
Viper3220
04-06-05, 06:19 PM Those DMs are incorrect. And I am glad for that.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how starting a player at a level above “1” would detract from a DM’s enjoyment. What aspect of DMing is it, I wonder, that requires a player to start at level 1 lest all enjoyment be sucked clean from the game?

These “othere players” you speak of sound as if they have no problem watching as their friend stumbles along as useless player who cannot contribute or participate fully in the group’s action. In addition, these “othere players” appear blind to how detrimental it is to their group to drag around a member of significantly lower level.

Yes, I, too, recall being 13 and unemployed, gifted with hours and hours of free time I could devote to such endeavors.

Thank god those days are over.

Omg... I couldn't have said it better myself...
weasel fierce
04-06-05, 10:38 PM Due to the rapid escalation in enemy threat when levels go up, I'd say, not too far apart. I'd make it 2 levels though.
Gwendilyn
04-07-05, 04:13 AM I guess I would accept a character a lv3 if it was a average lv4 party. I origionally thought it would be no fun, but I now see that it would be hard and you would probably die fast. I have been a very strict DM when it comes to those kind of things, but I would definatly do a side quest in my spare time. I know not everyone has that option, but that could be a fun way to bring a new character into the game.
Syrus The Red
04-07-05, 05:22 PM I agree that no member of the party should be 1st lvl while the main party consists of 4-6th lvl characters. If you are concerned about this new player's experience at roleplaying perhaps you should take him/her aside and have a "mini-campaign" to get him leveled up to the current party. That is only recommended if you have the time to expel on such an endevor, and only if it truly concerns you to have him/her ready for the current adventure. Every level you aren't there for is less experience for the player. :fight!:
Wizard
04-07-05, 05:30 PM I agree with most of the opinions DM's have stated so far, and I usually bring in new players at the same level as the rest of the party.

However.

I would dearly love to join a 5th-level party as a 1st-level character. Hard? Definitely. But you're riding the xp gravy train. It should only take two or three encounters to get you to level 2, where you'll have enough xp to take a hit and still live.

I wouldn't suggest this for novice players. But I'd appreciate the chance to try it for myself, anyway.
Mercurius
04-07-05, 06:38 PM In my last campaign, I made new PCs start at the minimum XP needed to be the level of the lowest member of the party. If the party was all 5th level, the player would start with just enough XP to be 5th level. If the party was 5th + 6th level, the new PC would still only have enough XP to have just hit 5th level. It made sense to me, and my players didn't complain.

"But they had to 'work' for their XP!" I don't really think playing through several levels of gaming should be considered "work" unless the campaign isn't worth playing in. Starting higher is nice for a new player, but I don't think that it should be something that long running players should have a problem with.
Shoren
04-07-05, 06:47 PM Nothing is more irritating than finding out that you have been playing your charictor wronge the whole time. Like cross classing a monk back and forth with a sorcer. Often this is a problem you cannot fix. So trash your charictor. This can be dicouraging to start again. Yet It would be better if you can start you fixed charactor at the same lv as the old. If the quest befor hand had already ended, is their a problem with alowing the new additon to waltz in to fill the olds shoes?
This is a case of making a mistake and fixing the problem with a new charactor.
Gwendilyn
04-07-05, 06:48 PM [QUOTE=Wizard]I would dearly love to join a 5th-level party as a 1st-level character. Hard? Definitely. But you're riding the xp gravy train. It should only take two or three encounters to get you to level 2, where you'll have enough xp to take a hit and still live.
VadersEvilTwin
04-15-05, 10:32 AM I start them 2 levels lower, but with 90% of the XP so that they soon start to catch up and don't feel like a spare part in the game. A good reasoned argument may persuade me to make it 1 Level lower with 10-30% XP. :evillaugh
Cog
04-15-05, 11:23 AM The group I am with all agree to start any new characters on one level lower than the lowest party member's level - above all the game is supposed to be fun, and what is fun about struggling about doing nothing because your character just can't deal with the encounters?
Anthus_Longblade
04-15-05, 11:25 AM some Dm's I have talked to belive allowing a player to just skip ahead in levels is cheating. They tell me it takes the fun away from their Dming.

Trying to DM for a party of characters with large level differences will take the fun away from DMing faster than you can say "Challenge Rating."
Nytmare
04-15-05, 01:36 PM The only time I saw a game where it really "worked", was when the new character was a young noble (1st level Aristocrat) that the other party members were hired to protect. It created a host of interesting conflicts, the biggest one being that the stuck up little 1st level character was in charge of a 7th level party. I think the only reason why it worked however was because the 1st level character forced the focus of the combat to be about protecting him without making the other PCs feel as though they had been sidled with a handicap.

I think that there are probably a lot of parties who wouldn't even be able to find a good reason to take the hot off the presses 1st level character with them. If you're making daily excursions into some demon infested swamp, dragging some kid with delusions of grandeur along for a trip is as good as killing him.

It really depends on the kind of game. A heavy combat game, where the new character has to prove their worth by working the front lines is a death sentence. Also, the mechanics involved in bringing new characters in at first level means that CRs have to remain scalable. Party level runs the risk of dropping significantly as players die and are replaced. If you're running a printed adventure, strictly by the book, you may find that a few, mid game player deaths have made the final fights impossible.

My campaign currently uses a percentile roll compared to the highest PCs XP. You get that percentage of XP, bottoming out at two levels lower than the party average.
PurdueDave
04-15-05, 05:48 PM Bottom of the average party level. I don't see any reason to shaft the new player just because he's new. It's not like he got his PC killed or anything. Same rules as everyone else though, so if other folks don't have +LA races neither can the new player.
allenchan
04-15-05, 06:26 PM Half a level lower, That is to say if the party is 4th level, the new person should start out at 3rd level with half the xp necessary to reach 4th.

Or the same level..

First level... that makes me laugh :rofl: .
Ourph the Mingol
04-15-05, 07:49 PM I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with the horde. I don't see a problem with a 1st level PC in a group where the average level is 4th. Of course the player running the 1st level character will have to compensate for his relative weakness until his level catches up a little with the rest of the group by playing conservatively, but that's certainly not the travesty that some people are making it out to be. In fact, for some players it would probably be a valuable learning experience (what....you mean I can't just waltz up to the front line and start beating on things 'til they fall over???? THE HORROR!!!! :eek: ) Of course, this assumes PC death is something the players in the group don't faint at the mere mention of. I'm willing to admit that, even though it's doable, there is a reasonable chance that even playing conservatively, the lower level PC will die before he can advance to equality with the rest of the group. I'm looking at this from my group's perspective, where we all pretty much accept that PC death is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of playing a game where the dice decide most outcomes (we don't fudge).

It's not like that situation will last forever. By my calculations (which I think are correct) if we assume the rest of the party are all exactly 4th level (6000XP), by the time the rest of the party advances to 5th level, the new guy will be 3rd. By the time the rest of the group advances to 7th, the new guy will be 6th. So the "lower level" PC will catch up fairly quickly.

If the level difference were larger (say 1st level in a party where the average is 6th or 7th) I might think differently, because then you're talking about a campaign where the player would be facing high damage, area affect spells pretty often (something a 1st level player just can't survive) and the time period where the PC will be more than 1-2 levels lower than the rest of the party is quite a bit longer.

YMMV.
wordserpent
04-15-05, 08:33 PM The differnces between first and fourth level are relatively minor and a first level character can catch up with his teammates pretty quickly. A difference of more than three or four levels can be a problem.

Also one must take into account whether or not the incoming player is experienced with the D&D rules. I have a problem giving levels to a player who is not framiliar with the rules only because that player would miss out on the opportunity to learn how to play his character effectively.

On the other hand I see no problem with starting an experienced player out a level below the lowest party member. I would be restrictive on giving that character magic items however allowing him or her to purchase only minor items based on his level.

I handle bringing a new player into the game on a case-by-case basis and if there is really an issue with the levels I simply have that player generte a 1st level character and play a few low level adventures to bring them up to speed.
75RD Drum Clip
04-15-05, 08:36 PM I don't have a rock solid rule concerning new character level. In general, I will allow a player to bring in another PC if they have one available who can be reasonable placed or linked up with the party. If a new PC must be rolled up, tend to rule that the new PC must be at least equal or lower in level to the lowest level PC currently in the party.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shoren 04-06-05, 01:14 AM	A person whom is a character under my DM has asked: if all of the players are at level 4 can he make a new character entering the game at level 4 instead of starting out at level 1. I said no, because I wanted my players to earn their experience and levels. So, I thought I should ask other DM's about this, to see how many people DM'ing would do this for their players and get outside opinions.
SnowbearK 04-06-05, 02:36 AM	Generally speaking, a character more than 2 levels behind the rest of the party has but one use: Mine Detector. Rather than risk the Rogue and valuable time searching for traps, toss the chump down the hallway as hard as you can, any traps he sets off should make it quite safe for the rest of you, and his new character will be about the same power. I recommend said player invest in Xerox. And while somewhat humorous, I am being dead serious. My own houserules on new/replacement character creation run thusly: Brand spankin' new characters enter the campaign 1 level below the lowest member of the party. Since the rest of the party is almost always the same level (or within 1-2 sessions of levelling), this doesn't cause a problem. Replacements, no matter what the reason (boredom, retirement, death, etc) are treated exactly the same as if it were the character himself dying and being Raised. 1 level loss. The first ensures that the newbie at least has a fighting chance to die by his own fault, the second keeps people from whimsically killing off their characters or continually switching characters.
Shemeska the Marauder 04-06-05, 02:38 AM	I think you'll find the general consensus would be to have new players enter the game at one level lower than the party average generally speaking. I'd personally add him in at the same level as the other players. Of course I'd need there to be a legitimate way for them to meet up with and join up with the current PCs already in the game, and to do that they might have to wait a session or two. Noone ever said you absolutely have to start at level 1 (though you'll generally get better character development, and player appreciation for the characters, if they start out lower level and work their way up to higher levels). I've started my last campaign at level 10 or equivalent ECL and it lasted around three years points to Storyhour link in sig, and the one I just started had the PCs enter at level 8 or equivalent ECL.
ieattrollsforbreakfast 04-06-05, 07:12 AM	In general I start a new player at the same level as the rest of my PCs, but thats mostly because of a pooled experience system I use, which keeps all PCs level anyway. I think its a bad idea to start the character at 1st level. A character 3 levels behind the other characters wont find much use.
Shoren 04-06-05, 12:41 PM	some Dm's I have talked to belive allowing a player to just skip ahead in levels is cheating. They tell me it takes the fun away from their Dming. Othere players become annoyed that they had to work for there experiance. They would rather take a player aside an lv. them up on side quests untell they are usefull to the party. That way the Dm and player have a better sence of the charactor.
farghal 04-06-05, 12:54 PM	we always want to keep it fun for everybody and i can't tell you it's not fun walking with about 9 or 10 hp (if lucky) with a little sword or whatever while the rest of the group is starting out with great spells small magic items and cool feats and moves. with us you start at the same level but lose the XP you've gained extra for that level (so if you have 17000 at lvl 6 you start at lvl 6 with 15000) this way it's fun for everybody and you still have some downside for the dieing (or replacing your char). if i would have to start at lvl 1 while the rest is at lvl 4 or 5 i would quit and look for another DM. but everybody has it's own methods ofcourse and your free to have them. but i wouldn't agree. good luck ;)
aleph_woodenglenn 04-06-05, 01:14 PM	I can appreciate wanting players to start their characters at lvl1. However it is very difficult when their character level is significantly lower than the party's. I might let a first level character join a third level party, or even higher, but I would strongly suggest the player to play up the noviceness. (ie the 1st level character would be a lot less fearless than his third or fourth level counterparts) I would even go so far as to give them some XP for surviving even if they mostly spent the whole time trying to get into a safe attacking position, or whatever without significantly contributing to the battle. Alternatively, creating situations for getting the lowest characters away from the rest of the party is a handy way to level them up with a dangerous enough to get good XP, but not dangerous enough to kill them encounter IS a fair idea, but can be tedious. Also, if you have generous higher level characters that have extra equipment, that can help level the field (though for roleplaying sake, there ought to be a good reason). frankly, I think it doesn't hurt too terribly much to have a character start in above lvl 1, but bringing a lvl1 character into a party much above lvl3 is just begging for an untimely death, or lots of fights with rediculously weak foes for the rest of the party that may make for dull game play (although I've always kinda wondered why my characters only run into small bands of low level kobolds at the start of their careers, I mean kobolds are just as evil and likely to be in a small band when my characters are higher level....they just aren't around?)
CzarGarrett 04-06-05, 01:21 PM	A level 1 in a party with an average level of 4 is a hinderance to the entire party. Worst case scenario, I'd allow the new character to start at level 2, with 2/3 the XP needed for level 3. Best case would be 3/4 XP to Level 4.
Viper3220 04-06-05, 02:25 PM	I let my characters start off at 1 level below everyone else, or if the party is 100-1000 or so xp away from level 7 I'd let the character start at level 6. I understand being penalized for death... but it shouldn't make the game unbearable for the player whose character died. making a player start a character at level 1 when the rest are level 6 is just plain being a bastard.
Yaeri 04-06-05, 02:48 PM	Level 1 party members make good familiars for high level mages. They would rather take a player aside an lv. them up on side quests untell they are usefull to the party. That way the Dm and player have a better sence of the charactor. Really I don't know what those DM's sidequests involve, but my sidequests are of equal high CR's as the main assignments, just shorter and more optional :D. If I gave my level 6-7 PC's sidequests consisting of hunting dire rabbits, I wouldn't be very entertaining. I would let the newcomer start at 1 or 2 levels lower than the lowest party member. With the d&d XP system he/she/it'll quickly catch up. The newcomer stands a chance, the older gamers are still strongest... I see no problem.
Andrew_980 04-06-05, 04:32 PM	i put new PCs, be they new players or just new replacement characters, one level behind. near enough to be usefull but not too much unearned stuff
Slumbersigh 04-06-05, 05:57 PM	some Dm's I have talked to belive allowing a player to just skip ahead in levels is cheating. Those DMs are incorrect. And I am glad for that. They tell me it takes the fun away from their Dming. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how starting a player at a level above “1” would detract from a DM’s enjoyment. What aspect of DMing is it, I wonder, that requires a player to start at level 1 lest all enjoyment be sucked clean from the game? Othere players become annoyed that they had to work for there experiance. These “othere players” you speak of sound as if they have no problem watching as their friend stumbles along as useless player who cannot contribute or participate fully in the group’s action. In addition, these “othere players” appear blind to how detrimental it is to their group to drag around a member of significantly lower level. They would rather take a player aside an lv. them up on side quests untell they are usefull to the party. Yes, I, too, recall being 13 and unemployed, gifted with hours and hours of free time I could devote to such endeavors. Thank god those days are over.
Viper3220 04-06-05, 06:19 PM	Those DMs are incorrect. And I am glad for that. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how starting a player at a level above “1” would detract from a DM’s enjoyment. What aspect of DMing is it, I wonder, that requires a player to start at level 1 lest all enjoyment be sucked clean from the game? These “othere players” you speak of sound as if they have no problem watching as their friend stumbles along as useless player who cannot contribute or participate fully in the group’s action. In addition, these “othere players” appear blind to how detrimental it is to their group to drag around a member of significantly lower level. Yes, I, too, recall being 13 and unemployed, gifted with hours and hours of free time I could devote to such endeavors. Thank god those days are over. Omg... I couldn't have said it better myself...
weasel fierce 04-06-05, 10:38 PM	Due to the rapid escalation in enemy threat when levels go up, I'd say, not too far apart. I'd make it 2 levels though.
Gwendilyn 04-07-05, 04:13 AM	I guess I would accept a character a lv3 if it was a average lv4 party. I origionally thought it would be no fun, but I now see that it would be hard and you would probably die fast. I have been a very strict DM when it comes to those kind of things, but I would definatly do a side quest in my spare time. I know not everyone has that option, but that could be a fun way to bring a new character into the game.
Syrus The Red 04-07-05, 05:22 PM	I agree that no member of the party should be 1st lvl while the main party consists of 4-6th lvl characters. If you are concerned about this new player's experience at roleplaying perhaps you should take him/her aside and have a "mini-campaign" to get him leveled up to the current party. That is only recommended if you have the time to expel on such an endevor, and only if it truly concerns you to have him/her ready for the current adventure. Every level you aren't there for is less experience for the player. :fight!:
Wizard 04-07-05, 05:30 PM	I agree with most of the opinions DM's have stated so far, and I usually bring in new players at the same level as the rest of the party. However. I would dearly love to join a 5th-level party as a 1st-level character. Hard? Definitely. But you're riding the xp gravy train. It should only take two or three encounters to get you to level 2, where you'll have enough xp to take a hit and still live. I wouldn't suggest this for novice players. But I'd appreciate the chance to try it for myself, anyway.
Mercurius 04-07-05, 06:38 PM	In my last campaign, I made new PCs start at the minimum XP needed to be the level of the lowest member of the party. If the party was all 5th level, the player would start with just enough XP to be 5th level. If the party was 5th + 6th level, the new PC would still only have enough XP to have just hit 5th level. It made sense to me, and my players didn't complain. "But they had to 'work' for their XP!" I don't really think playing through several levels of gaming should be considered "work" unless the campaign isn't worth playing in. Starting higher is nice for a new player, but I don't think that it should be something that long running players should have a problem with.
Shoren 04-07-05, 06:47 PM	Nothing is more irritating than finding out that you have been playing your charictor wronge the whole time. Like cross classing a monk back and forth with a sorcer. Often this is a problem you cannot fix. So trash your charictor. This can be dicouraging to start again. Yet It would be better if you can start you fixed charactor at the same lv as the old. If the quest befor hand had already ended, is their a problem with alowing the new additon to waltz in to fill the olds shoes? This is a case of making a mistake and fixing the problem with a new charactor.
Gwendilyn 04-07-05, 06:48 PM	[QUOTE=Wizard]I would dearly love to join a 5th-level party as a 1st-level character. Hard? Definitely. But you're riding the xp gravy train. It should only take two or three encounters to get you to level 2, where you'll have enough xp to take a hit and still live.
VadersEvilTwin 04-15-05, 10:32 AM	I start them 2 levels lower, but with 90% of the XP so that they soon start to catch up and don't feel like a spare part in the game. A good reasoned argument may persuade me to make it 1 Level lower with 10-30% XP. :evillaugh
Cog 04-15-05, 11:23 AM	The group I am with all agree to start any new characters on one level lower than the lowest party member's level - above all the game is supposed to be fun, and what is fun about struggling about doing nothing because your character just can't deal with the encounters?
Anthus_Longblade 04-15-05, 11:25 AM	some Dm's I have talked to belive allowing a player to just skip ahead in levels is cheating. They tell me it takes the fun away from their Dming. Trying to DM for a party of characters with large level differences will take the fun away from DMing faster than you can say "Challenge Rating."
Nytmare 04-15-05, 01:36 PM	The only time I saw a game where it really "worked", was when the new character was a young noble (1st level Aristocrat) that the other party members were hired to protect. It created a host of interesting conflicts, the biggest one being that the stuck up little 1st level character was in charge of a 7th level party. I think the only reason why it worked however was because the 1st level character forced the focus of the combat to be about protecting him without making the other PCs feel as though they had been sidled with a handicap. I think that there are probably a lot of parties who wouldn't even be able to find a good reason to take the hot off the presses 1st level character with them. If you're making daily excursions into some demon infested swamp, dragging some kid with delusions of grandeur along for a trip is as good as killing him. It really depends on the kind of game. A heavy combat game, where the new character has to prove their worth by working the front lines is a death sentence. Also, the mechanics involved in bringing new characters in at first level means that CRs have to remain scalable. Party level runs the risk of dropping significantly as players die and are replaced. If you're running a printed adventure, strictly by the book, you may find that a few, mid game player deaths have made the final fights impossible. My campaign currently uses a percentile roll compared to the highest PCs XP. You get that percentage of XP, bottoming out at two levels lower than the party average.
PurdueDave 04-15-05, 05:48 PM	Bottom of the average party level. I don't see any reason to shaft the new player just because he's new. It's not like he got his PC killed or anything. Same rules as everyone else though, so if other folks don't have +LA races neither can the new player.
allenchan 04-15-05, 06:26 PM	Half a level lower, That is to say if the party is 4th level, the new person should start out at 3rd level with half the xp necessary to reach 4th. Or the same level.. First level... that makes me laugh :rofl: .
Ourph the Mingol 04-15-05, 07:49 PM	I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with the horde. I don't see a problem with a 1st level PC in a group where the average level is 4th. Of course the player running the 1st level character will have to compensate for his relative weakness until his level catches up a little with the rest of the group by playing conservatively, but that's certainly not the travesty that some people are making it out to be. In fact, for some players it would probably be a valuable learning experience (what....you mean I can't just waltz up to the front line and start beating on things 'til they fall over???? THE HORROR!!!! :eek: ) Of course, this assumes PC death is something the players in the group don't faint at the mere mention of. I'm willing to admit that, even though it's doable, there is a reasonable chance that even playing conservatively, the lower level PC will die before he can advance to equality with the rest of the group. I'm looking at this from my group's perspective, where we all pretty much accept that PC death is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of playing a game where the dice decide most outcomes (we don't fudge). It's not like that situation will last forever. By my calculations (which I think are correct) if we assume the rest of the party are all exactly 4th level (6000XP), by the time the rest of the party advances to 5th level, the new guy will be 3rd. By the time the rest of the group advances to 7th, the new guy will be 6th. So the "lower level" PC will catch up fairly quickly. If the level difference were larger (say 1st level in a party where the average is 6th or 7th) I might think differently, because then you're talking about a campaign where the player would be facing high damage, area affect spells pretty often (something a 1st level player just can't survive) and the time period where the PC will be more than 1-2 levels lower than the rest of the party is quite a bit longer. YMMV.
wordserpent 04-15-05, 08:33 PM	The differnces between first and fourth level are relatively minor and a first level character can catch up with his teammates pretty quickly. A difference of more than three or four levels can be a problem. Also one must take into account whether or not the incoming player is experienced with the D&D rules. I have a problem giving levels to a player who is not framiliar with the rules only because that player would miss out on the opportunity to learn how to play his character effectively. On the other hand I see no problem with starting an experienced player out a level below the lowest party member. I would be restrictive on giving that character magic items however allowing him or her to purchase only minor items based on his level. I handle bringing a new player into the game on a case-by-case basis and if there is really an issue with the levels I simply have that player generte a 1st level character and play a few low level adventures to bring them up to speed.
75RD Drum Clip 04-15-05, 08:36 PM	I don't have a rock solid rule concerning new character level. In general, I will allow a player to bring in another PC if they have one available who can be reasonable placed or linked up with the party. If a new PC must be rolled up, tend to rule that the new PC must be at least equal or lower in level to the lowest level PC currently in the party.