Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shaga 10-29-07, 08:13 AM	I am pretty sure this post will draw some flame but I had some talks recently with other players-dms and I had to ask if others feel like I do. Its about character levels. Let me start by saying that I love high level campaign. I love being a dm on high level players (12+ lvl) and even though I never played a character more than level 12 I am sure I would love playing one. My difference is that I want to earn those levels and not get (give) them for free. A 12 level character that started 12 level is for me fake and can never be compared with a 12 level character that played those levels. There many reasons why that’s true and the least of all is that the player actually overcame the challenges – encounters necessary to reach 12 lvl. The most important reason for me is that the player came session after session along with 2 (at list) more players and played hour after hour managing to escape from deaths in game and out of game (we all know how easy is for a game to just stop). Now that alone for me is enough. That character and player has actually a story to tell, from the 1st lvl to the last. Maybe he had a prestige class in his mind from the beginning maybe he didn’t but even if he had there lots of things in the course of the game that could have change his mind. In fact I am sure the final character is much different from the character in the beginning and the character the player might vision in high levels. But there are other reasons as well, more practical. Look at a made character, look at his gear, skills, feats and spells. A character that played his levels will probably find a lot of junk magic items. Items that are magical and have some use but are not the perfect fit for the character. If he sells them he gets half the price so many players use such items, if only until they find something better suited, but some players end up likening it and changing there character to better use them. Despite what the player chooses to do (use them, sell them, use them then sell them, use them and change his character for better use) he will always have at list 30% of his wealth on items that are circumstantially useful like potions, scrolls or resistance items and even some coins. On the other hand a made character will use all his wealth on items that he uses the most and is highly unlikely he will start with such items. Now look on the character skills, feats and even levels. All players plan there progression in some extend but things happen that may change his plans. A particular number of sessions find the players stranded on the wilderness and he decides to take some survival or an encounter inspires a player to do some great roleplaying and he later decides to take some related skills. A player gets in contact with an in game organization and has now access to feats and class that he didn’t know exist or simple sees one npc use a weapon or style and likes it. All those small things end up making a played character unique. Now look at the made character again, maybe the player did some research and has found some obscure feat on a source book and even though up of a background story that ties him to an organization already, still its not the same…. Now I now that starting form 1st - 2nd level doesn’t allow for a really cool background like a higher level would and races with level adjustment are not playable so I give some room and say that characters must start at the most level 4 and if a player wants a race with bigger la the dm can make a progression table for it (not as cool I know). ….. do I make sense or am I just rambling? Whats your thoughts
Sarella Starshine 10-29-07, 09:20 AM	You are kinda right, starting at higher levels sometimes seems it does have an advantage over starting at lower levels in terms of skills and feats. But... there is nothing preventing a character starting at higher levels to take quirky items/skills/feats to represent adaptation to an adventuring life. Usually the people who don't do that with a starter higher level character ususally won't do it if the character started at a lower level and work thier way up to the higher level. Those types of people also will rarely have quirky magic items that 'don't fit' either. The reasons you brought up are in fact why most (by most I mean 99.9% of the people on these boards) rarely start new campaigns beyond level 3, with a majority of those doing level 1. A lot of those DMs who start at those low levels feel the same way as you. Most will agree, that overall, playing a character to a higher level is better than starting at a higher level, especially if you are teaching a new person. (One of my first 3.0 games was after I took a small break from the game because I moved away, but came back, I was a 12th level wizard (the party needed an arcanist). I was swamped with everything I needed to know.) I would go on more, but alas, my time is short.
Lokathor 10-29-07, 09:41 AM	Everyone I play with hawks anything and everything they can to get coin for the items they really want. In 3rd edition I've never purchased a potion past my first 3.0 character, and I've never purchased a scroll for any reason other than for copying directly into a spell book. The rest is spot on though.
BW0222 10-29-07, 09:50 AM	shaga, Fair enough. There are big differences between playing to 12th and starting at 12th. One of the biggest ones which I notice is that folks starting at 12th-level often have little idea of tactics, abilities, spells, use of items, cooperation between PCs, ways to handle missing roles, etc. because they haven't played all those levels leading up. If you have played through 12th-level, you aren't suddenly surpirsed to find out that no one can open a lock, that fireball is pretty worthless, or that wirlwind attack isn't that great when most combats at APL 12 are vs. single or small numbers of (usually large) opponents with a lot of hit points. Folks who have played through the levels leading up to 12th are likely to realize that certain tactics or spells become much less effective. The wizard becomes aware that many creatures have SR and/or great saves and begin selecting spells without saves or SR. A fighter realizes that reach is a killer. A rogue that scent is a significant issue. The cleric realizes that the fighter is going to take 50hp of damage per round and that he needs to be healing him almost continously. I know I've seen combats where the players looked like deer in the headlights as their tactics just weren't going to work. Worse, many players make entire builds up relying on these tactics.
runestar 10-29-07, 10:02 AM	Despite what the player chooses to do (use them, sell them, use them then sell them, use them and change his character for better use) he will always have at list 30% of his wealth on items that are circumstantially useful like potions, scrolls or resistance items and even some coins. On the other hand a made character will use all his wealth on items that he uses the most and is highly unlikely he will start with such items. This has actually be addressed somewhat in the rules. If you do the math, you will find that a PC who plays it from 1st lv to 12th lv actually gets more in total wealth than a 12th lv PC created right off the bat. This excess is to account for consumables your PC will use, and other misc housekeeping matters. However, the discrepancy is only about 10+%. I don't disagree with you, but I feel that it is inevitable, as not everyone has the time to build up every character from scratch. Nor may they want to. For example, say I find a cool 1-shot lv21 adventure. I could just play a lv21 party off the bat. There is simply no reason for me to spend 3-4 months of solid gaming just so I can play it.
Grumman 10-29-07, 10:09 AM	For a 12th level campaign, perhaps instead of buying everything in one go, ask the players to spend 9,000 gp to fully equip themselves (as if making 5th level characters), then an additional 40,000 (advancing from 5th to 10th), and then another 39,000 (advancing from 10th to 12th). You would have to rely on the players to make their intermediate choices without metagaming, but it would let you get straight to the high-level play with characters who do have some old junk floating around. I'd also recommend getting the group together before the first game so that people can sketch out their characters' backgrounds and what they'd been doing for the past 11 levels. It would also give you some time before the first campaign session to fit them into the campaign world, instead of springing fully formed from the brow of Zeus.
shaga 10-29-07, 10:43 AM	I am sure someone can simulate a made character to look like it was played, if the dm does some work I am sure he can even make a story that tails the character all the way to the first level, but its never the same as the real. I know from personal experience that playing a character can create some extraordinary, cool and fantastic stories for the character, maybe not as “epic” as the pre made background of a made character but things that even the dm didn’t expect to happen, happen when the dice rolls.. and that’s something no made character can simulate. Even if the player knows the tactics and abilities because he has played high level before its still not the same. I know some people don’t have the time to play all those lower level and just want to have some fun and play a high level adventure and I don’t thing that’s bad, but they also have to understand that its those long hours a player – dm spend that really make his/her character real and the made up ‘fake’ and i dont mean that as a bad word, but as a distinction.
albinomonkeyking 10-29-07, 11:27 AM	I agree, there is a difference. Clearly any character who has played through from 1-12 will be different from just 12. I think a 1-12 would probably have more adventures, because he had to play every level, whereas starting at 12 will probably have a more 'cool' or something of the sort. I'm completely for starting at low level to preserve this, I will say, however, that low levels suck. Particularly 1-4. My players convince me almost everytime we play to simply let them start at 4, which I can't argue much against. I've seen too many low lvl players go down from a lucky hit.
Frugal 10-29-07, 11:29 AM	I think what you mean rather than being more "real" is that the character that was built up from 1st to 12th lvl feels more "organic". As you discussed, it's quite common to start out with a plan at 1st level but have that change over time. Related to this, in 3ed there's plenty of situations where certain "builds" require you to make immediate sacrifices for a payoff down the road. Obviously this type of build is way more effective if you just start at 12th level with the end effect and don't "pay" for it over several levels. Related to this, there's some abilities that can be very good at low levels but not as useful at higher levels. A great example is cleave, at low levels it's pretty easy to drop an opponent with 1 or 2 hits and getting that extra attack is pretty cool. But once you get up a few levels it's just not as common, and iterative attacks start to come into play so it's not as big a deal to see that extra attack come up. Sure, it still happens every now and then but it turns into being more about getting a chance to whittle down the other guy a little bit when you drop the other guy rather than at low levels where it's really cool to drop 2 opponents in 1 round. And great cleave? Well by level 12 you might as well forget about it. Then there's stuff like equipment. Depending on how much you allow for buying and selling equipment a 1st to 12th level character's gear can be very different from a 12th level character just starting out. All in all, I'd say you're pretty much bang on the money with what you're saying.
Puritan13 10-29-07, 12:21 PM	I start most campaigns off at 5th level. I find lower level characters boring. 5th is when they really start being able to do something. I'll run a group of 1st level characters, but only if the group proposes it.
CCS 10-29-07, 12:58 PM	You won't get any heat from this DM.... I enjoy starting campaigns out at 1st level. I like to see how the party grows, adapts, & evolves during those early adventures. Even if there's some higher level plot/story I really want to throw at the group. For ex; In the Dragonlance game I'm running I fully intend for the players to become involved in the plot of the original modules. But that really can't happen untill they hit about lv.5 or so. They just attained 3rd lv this past week. So about Jan. :) I've also just taken over DM duties for my Sunday evening game (completely different players). I had a vauge idea of an adventure path, based upon the existing players personalities. But, due to adding 3 brand new players (to the hobby!) & losing 2 existing ones (for awhile) it looks like I'll instead put that on hold & be running a "boot camp" throughout Nov./Dec. Not quite what I'd had in mind, but a necceccity. By Jan. I expect both groups will be "ready". The DL guys will be prepared to explore Xak-Tsaroth & fight a black dragon. And the Sunday group will be ready for a continuing campaign set in Greyhawk.
Drag0nUL 10-29-07, 02:58 PM	Although I have no problem with starting off at high level, I really enjoy playing a character all the way form the 1st level. I really feel more connected to the personality of a level 10 character I have been playing for a couple of months, than to the personality of a 10th level character I've just made up. Also, playing until high level(as opposed to starting high level) gives you a better understanding regarding what your character/other party members can do. In most games I've played in, if we start form level 1 the party starts functioning really well in combat after only 2-3 encounters. There aren't too many variables to take into account at low level and, as you progress, you employ your new abilities in an already familiar environment. In contrast, I have started an 8th level game a few weeks ago, and , after a full 3 sessions we are still making pretty serious adjustments to our spell lists/realize stuff we needed and didn't buy(like a ring of counterspells for my buff-happy cleric/divine oracle).
Senevri 10-29-07, 03:36 PM	I can't help but think the expression OP is looking for is "Viability". A character build which is viable from level 1 onwards can do this, while some builds would be incredibly weak in their pre-teens - hopefully due to the fact they're hunting a later-age power. That being said, almost anything can manage by clever roleplaying. Actually, organic high-level characters are often more powerful than characters built to the level, according to guidelines and rules. A character grown will gain allies, resources, various magical knick-knacks and whatnot over their career.
High Octane 10-29-07, 04:16 PM	You make LOADS of sense. I've seen character builds that would NEVER have made it during low levels, and didn't become useful until 11th level or later. Take toughness the feat for example. Most agree that as a feat that it is quite bad later, but at level 1 a wizard with a low con could consider it a lifesaver. People tend to forget that in order for their character to attain the build they dream of, they have to survive that long. A sign of a true character with real feeling behind it is one with feats and skills that may now be useless but at one time would have been useful. How valuable is diehard at level 4? Very. At level 15? Virtually worthless. I totally understand your desire to start a character at low levels. I often feel that is the only way to play a character. Otherwise you don't really get a feel for how he has developed this way.
BoringInfoGuy 10-30-07, 02:28 PM	Myself, I really prefer starting at lower levels. Much of that preference comes from the first group started gaming with. They had been playing for much longer than I had, and hated low level characters. They had "paid their dues" already, and would always want to start at the levels where the game was fun for them - epic or almost so. It was years before I was able to really play a 1st level character, which is how I like to start my characters even today. So I relate very well to the OP's view. But those guys I started with are not wrong in their view either. High level play is what they enjoyed. If that's where the game is fun for them, then there is really no reason for them to force themselves to play through levels they found dull. True, there are the problems that the OP mentioned when starting off at higher levels. But those problems are not insurmountable. Start at high levels often enough, and you should be able to recognize and deal with those problems fairly easily at character creation. The best thing about D&D is that you are not stuck to one play style. Whatever style suits you and your group is just as good as anyone else's.
Asmodeur 10-30-07, 06:18 PM	I haven't read through all the responces, so bear with me if this has already been suggested. If I were to start my players at a higher level, I would gather them all together, and spend a night making these characters. I would first tell them to make a level 1 character (probably in advance, so that they would have some time to think about what they wanted, and a plan for the future) Then, as soon as they had their toons ready, I would tell them to add a level. When that is done, tell them to add another. That way, they wont know when the character will be "done" and thus will select skills and feats from a more realistic perspective, instead of creating some of the characters you see especially on the charops, which are basically unplayable until level 15+, and thus would never appear in a campaign starting at lower level. Of course, this wont create characters that have the real experience etc etc, but you will get better rounded ones. Aside from that, it really comes down to how familiar you are with the rules. A really good player (rulewise) can much more easily pick up a level 12+ character of any class and play him, while someone with a lesser grasp will have trouble, if he doesnt play him up from scratch.
Cifer 10-30-07, 07:53 PM	While the argument is more or less valid, I'm going to disagree here, for a simple reason: Level 1 (or any level for that matter) is an arbitrary point. If you understand how a character plays at level 1, you will also have an understanding how he plays at level 2 and probably level 3, although that's where the first changes (2nd level spells, new feat, possibly multiclassing?) come in. On the other hand - why not go further back? While there's nothing before the first level regarding the rules only, I often feel I don't really know my character at the point I start playing. How did he get where he is now? I know I've thought up a background, but I haven't played it. And, more importantly, despite having a common background with other characters (say, a brother), I don't know them as well as my character should. So why not play the years before the character reached level 1? And the years before that? As soon as we're getting to play "diapers and dairymen", I say we went a little too far. It's certainly a matter of player experience and I highly recommend running a few pre-campaign combats where PCs can try out their tactics together to see if they work as planned, but in general, I don't really think there's anything inherently valuable about having played a character from first to twentieth level. Neither is there anything much better about a character who can survive the not-played levels than one who couldn't. The reasons you brought up are in fact why most (by most I mean 99.9% of the people on these boards) rarely start new campaigns beyond level 3, with a majority of those doing level 1. I very much doubt that statistic. Assuming about 10000 D&D board users, you think only 10 of them would start campaigns beyond level 3?
High Octane 10-30-07, 08:26 PM	I believe that a character is simply fleshed out at creation, a simple concept, barely more than an alignment race and class, but after 3 or 4 levels he becomes more organic and tends to develop a personality. I think that the same happens whether you start at level 1 or 10 or 17. MECHANICALLY however, characters started at level 1 and played to 15 are incredibly different from characters started at level 15. The characters are designed without any emphasis on living til level 15 since they get it for free, so feat/multiclass combos that would leave a character underpowered for several levels become viable, when they would never be tolerated in a normal game from levels 1-15. As I mentioned before, characters are hard to really get a feel for until you play the game for a while with them. In the game I DM, I decided to try something. I told everyon that the first session was non-canonical. Meaning that what they did (which was a flat out dungeon crawl) didnt actually happen (though they kept the items and XP from it) and the characters actually got introduced at the next session, where everything REALLY began. I think it was a success, I think the players hopped into their characters easier when the story began, and thus got the awkwardness of "breaking in" their characters done with before the actual story and introductions.
Hsien 10-30-07, 08:48 PM	Although knowing the basics of how to play a particular class is important, that's simply an issue of player experience. For me what makes a character fake or not is the personality behind it; a character that is just numbers for combat for me is a fake character. A good personality, even by an experienced player of that character type, is much more real. Character success really depends on the player, character concept and party interaction that really defines if its "fake" or not. Try thinking of that in terms of movies or books; I'll go w/ movies. They basically really on the character concepts, building chemistry between characters, plot and visual imagery. All that to get you to invest some sense of interest into whats going on. Characters are the same way. You can be 3rd or 12th level and but whether it's good or not is really a matter characters, party interaction, campaign/gameplay and the DMing. I've had characters I've started and eventually dumped because they just didn't fit with the party well ( despite not overlaping anyone's abilities from a tactical viewpoint ) and I've had characters that became favorites because of the personality I gave them had immediate chemistry with the party. My long winded way of saying, imo, level really doesn't matter. Whereas the initial character intro and first game can go a long way.
jdhartucus 10-30-07, 11:30 PM	I've never played anything less than level 15. My DM loves power, and wants us to have it too. Most of the time we're at least pre-epic around 18-20.
Frugal 10-31-07, 08:44 AM	I believe that a character is simply fleshed out at creation, a simple concept, barely more than an alignment race and class, but after 3 or 4 levels he becomes more organic and tends to develop a personality. I think that the same happens whether you start at level 1 or 10 or 17. The thing is though, starting at higher levels implies more of a back story. How did the character get to level 17? Not to mention that having the much larger slew of abilities means you have to focus way more attention on them rather than developing your character. If you start at level 1 then by the time you get to that point you've had plenty of time to develop your character while he was simpler to run so that by the time you get to having to manage all the extra stuff you have a sense of who your character is.
Frugal 10-31-07, 08:44 AM	I've never played anything less than level 15. My DM loves power, and wants us to have it too. Most of the time we're at least pre-epic around 18-20. That's a real shame. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that style of play, it's just that low level play has a very different feel and I'd really recommend that everyone at least try it at some point.
lastknightleft 10-31-07, 10:17 AM	I start most campaigns off at 5th level. I find lower level characters boring. 5th is when they really start being able to do something. I'll run a group of 1st level characters, but only if the group proposes it. I think 1st level play is some of the most exciting and interesting play to be had. People tend to have much more interesting characters when they fear that one hit might be a crit. In fact, I'd love for 1-5 level play to last longer than it does in most campaigns. Starting out 5th level actually bothers me, because it suggests that you never want to be afraid of what might happen to you.
Frugal 10-31-07, 10:32 AM	I think 1st level play is some of the most exciting and interesting play to be had. People tend to have much more interesting characters when they fear that one hit might be a crit. In fact, I'd love for 1-5 level play to last longer than it does in most campaigns. Starting out 5th level actually bothers me, because it suggests that you never want to be afraid of what might happen to you. Exactly, I find there's a way better sense of danger and excitement from that. Not to mention that you have to manage your resources so much more ("gee, this is our 1 potion of CLW, should we really use it?"). I just find that at that level of play everything is so much more, I don't know, meaningful? At higher levels I feel there's just not the same level of risk or danger because while the challenges are stronger the party has so many more resources to bring to bear on the encounter or to recover from it after it. Maybe it's just the group I've played with but I just find that the whole feeling of danger and risk vanishes and things feel far less heroic because it feels like our success is a foregone conclusion, it's just a matter of rolling the dice to get there.
Sunic_Flames 10-31-07, 10:35 AM	I borrowed this from another forum. http://www.myth-weavers.com/showpost.php?p=641647&postcount=27 Sums it up well.
Cifer 10-31-07, 10:53 AM	I think 1st level play is some of the most exciting and interesting play to be had. People tend to have much more interesting characters when they fear that one hit might be a crit. In fact, I'd love for 1-5 level play to last longer than it does in most campaigns. Starting out 5th level actually bothers me, because it suggests that you never want to be afraid of what might happen to you. This can work the other way around too: I'd hesitate to invest too much in a character when I know he can simply die (and at that level: die permanently, without a chance of revival) due to a bad roll. When I'm just one battle-axe crit away from taking out the 4D6, that doesn't really endear the character to me.
Frugal 10-31-07, 11:42 AM	I agree that 1st level might be a little too deadly as it's written in 3ed but I still like the more low key feel to the playing (incidentally, this is why I've given up playing D&D, the power curve is way too steep for the style of play I enjoy). Supposedly 4ed is fixing things so that 1st level characters will be more durable so that could be a big improvement.
lastknightleft 10-31-07, 03:55 PM	Okay I can understand that it sucks when your lvl 1 character falls, so you know what I do, have 3-4 concept characters ready, if my character falls at lvl 1, then i may roll up concept two and try it, then if that one dies at level 3 then I move on to char concept 3 at lvl 2. Basically I prepare for char death, not with several gens already crafted, but with 3 ideas waiting to burst onto paper. If a character dies early then your ready to get a new, and I've never lost even my first. To those who say it sucks that your character dies early and can't get risen and you've put all this time into creating it, then put it in a folder and you have a level 1 character ready to go at your next campaign. So you don't even have to put in the work.
Cifer 10-31-07, 04:24 PM	Supposedly 4ed is fixing things so that 1st level characters will be more durable so that could be a big improvement. Assuming Star Wars Saga Edition is any judge (and it's pretty much presumed to be the 4.0 beta test), that's pretty much the case. Okay I can understand that it sucks when your lvl 1 character falls, so you know what I do, have 3-4 concept characters ready, if my character falls at lvl 1, then i may roll up concept two and try it, then if that one dies at level 3 then I move on to char concept 3 at lvl 2. Basically I prepare for char death, not with several gens already crafted, but with 3 ideas waiting to burst onto paper. If a character dies early then your ready to get a new, and I've never lost even my first. Please tell me again how a draft-block mentality furthers attachment to and identification with characters.
Phrennzy 10-31-07, 04:30 PM	I start my campaigns at 1st. I also understand that 1st level kind of sucks. This current campaign has modified level markers. 2nd level is hit at 500xp, with similar reductions in what you need for 3rd-5th. After that it levels off and progresses by the book. This was done by general consensus, as everyone wanted to start at 1st level to learn their character.
solbergb 10-31-07, 06:53 PM	While there are some organic differences in build between a created character and a played character, I find that these tend to be adaptions to the campaign and playstyle more than anything more concrete. A campaign with a lot of undead will have more holy water, more anti-undead weapons/spells and possibly a feat or PRC that is helpful vs undead or what they do. A party that has plenty of melee capacity may result in the cleric not bothering to upgrade armor, invest in offensive feats or rack divine power/righteous might, even though his basic 'build' might allow for being a decent melee. To me the real difference between the "fake" L12 and "real" L12 characters is PLAYER experience. The build may have holes in it that might have been plugged if the character was played in the earlier levels yes, but more importantly the player didn't build on these capabilities one feat/spell/char level at a time and then play a dozen encounters getting used to it before adding on more abilities. A L12 character that got that way the hard way usually has a player who understands all of its capabilities and uses them reflexively. A brand new L12 character has a player who has only theoretical knowledge at best of what the char is capable of, which may or may not have much bearing on reality. If the char is similar to one they've played before of that power level, the gap is likely less. I've had a L13 wizard whose "build" and spell selection were heavily influenced by campaign events, limitations and party mix. I've got a L13 sorceress whose "build" and spell selection were influenced by her history and campaign somewhat, but still more or less resembles what I might have built "from scratch" if you said "build a telekenetic themed sorceress with this much cash and access to the same items she had access to in actual play to buy". While the character sheet might look the same on the sorc, I wouldn't be nearly as good at playing her as I am with several years of slow growth in her capabilities. My "new stuff" is mostly what I use now, but when the situations come up where her "old tricks" are the perfect thing to do, using those is automatic. I don't have to "discover" them.
High Octane 10-31-07, 10:51 PM	The thing is though, starting at higher levels implies more of a back story. How did the character get to level 17? I've seen backstories for level 1 characters that were fitting for near epic level characters. People seem to forget level 1 characters should have little to no battle experience, yet I hear stories of their level 1 characters being survivors of many battles with a checkered past and being the most epic swordsman ever.
Mock26 11-01-07, 12:01 AM	I wouldn't call a character with a starting level of 12 as being fake. I'd merely say that it doesn't have as much depth as a 12th level character who started at level 1. This is a simple truth as the character who started at 2st level can't help but have more depth as the player has played him through twelve levels. That character has lived for 12 levels. A character who is started at level 12 has just been born and hasn't yet lived. This isn't to say that that character created at level 12 can't or won't develop the same depth over time, just that he is starting out "late" when compared to a character who starts at 1st level.
Cifer 11-01-07, 12:22 PM	People seem to forget level 1 characters should have little to no battle experience, yet I hear stories of their level 1 characters being survivors of many battles with a checkered past and being the most epic swordsman ever. That is highly dependant on the setting. In Eberron, veterans of the last war often are merely warrior 1 or 2. A fighter1 may be rightly considered elite there.
Frugal 11-01-07, 01:18 PM	I've seen backstories for level 1 characters that were fitting for near epic level characters. People seem to forget level 1 characters should have little to no battle experience, yet I hear stories of their level 1 characters being survivors of many battles with a checkered past and being the most epic swordsman ever. True, which is something I've never gotten. I mean I want to play the character who slays powerful beasts or overcomes difficult challenges, not the guy who slew powerful beasts and overcame difficult challenges. I mean I can sort of understand the desire to play the big hero type of guy but who cares when that all happened "off screen"?
weasel05 11-01-07, 08:20 PM	In our campain the character with the least back story and personality has bee there the longest, his character hasnt changed since 1st level he still just gets drunk and runs into battles, even though we are no 9-12 level (he has died so often that he is the 9th although he has been there the longest). and in other campains we have had a 1st level character that took on an ancient red dragon :confused:
CaptainPicard 11-02-07, 12:02 AM	I really don't have the option of choosing not to start at various levels over the course of the game, and I'm surprised you guys don't have the same problems. My current campaign started at level 1, sure, and one character is still left over from that time. However, over the course of the game, I've had all but one (the one remaining) of my original players quit and two others come in at various points. The first guy came in at level 3 and still has his character around from then, but the other guy showed up at level 8. Since then, various other characters traveling with the party have come and gone (killed, kidnapped, or just left) and two characters have been retired due to the players simply not liking them anymore or party issues. A couple of times characters have been rebuilt for a new sourcebook, since we realized the character in question was an attempt to ape what the new book embodies. So I'm wondering what your solution would be to the problems of people leaving the game, people joining the game, and characters being lost, retired, or updated. As far as I can tell, there's no option but to simply make a new character at the party's level.
BoringInfoGuy 11-02-07, 01:02 AM	You do have another option. Start a new player / character at 1st level, regardless of the level of the rest of the party. I didn't say it was a good option. I tried it *once* in a game. Never again. And I apologized.
CryoSilver 11-02-07, 01:11 AM	WHen I DM, I like to start the game at level 3. Level 3 allows for LA characters, andfor a more diverse backstory. You can only have fought in just so many campaigns, or protected the queen for just so many years before the fact that you're level 1 becomes unbelievable. A level 3 character has 2 feats, and is 3 levels into a class, which provides a defnite "direction" for later builds. He is also less likely to die in 1 hit (I've accidentally killed over a dozen level 1 PCs with unlucky crits). That said, I've played in games starting from level 1, through level 20. My favorite characters were played from levels 3-5 on. I don't really care for level 1 characters, and in fact, in my homebrew setting most commoners are level 2-3, with level 1 being for apprentices and children.
Sunic_Flames 11-02-07, 08:08 AM	WHen I DM, I like to start the game at level 3. Level 3 allows for LA characters, andfor a more diverse backstory. You can only have fought in just so many campaigns, or protected the queen for just so many years before the fact that you're level 1 becomes unbelievable. A level 3 character has 2 feats, and is 3 levels into a class, which provides a defnite "direction" for later builds. He is also less likely to die in 1 hit (I've accidentally killed over a dozen level 1 PCs with unlucky crits). That said, I've played in games starting from level 1, through level 20. My favorite characters were played from levels 3-5 on. I don't really care for level 1 characters, and in fact, in my homebrew setting most commoners are level 2-3, with level 1 being for apprentices and children. I concur. 90% of my games started at 3-5. I tried 1 once. I had to constantly fudge the dice to avoid a TPK. This was against heavy optimizers. Popular demand is now leaning me towards scaling a level 1 adventure up to 3. Which is for the better, as I'd have to try really hard not to slaughter them otherwise.