When you brought in a new character, the character was the average minus three or something. When the party was 8th, i could bring in a 2nd level char.
Does anybody else find this bizarre?
:OMG! 
That about sums it up. I cannot figure out how it's reasonable to force such a huge level discrepancy. Or what thinking is behind it. I understand some games might avoid players constantly changing characters by making new ones a level or two lower. (Don't agree but I understand and won't stop others playing how they see fit.) But that's rediculous.
I would however like more details on how this was worked out but understand the DM may not have explained it to their own players.
Especially at heroic tier, being substantially lower than the rest of the pack means you have about half the powers they have and your missing out on about +3 to hit compaired to them. In paragon tier and epic you'd still be behind in damage and hit, but atleast you'd still have some fancey attacks.
I seriously advise you to talk to your DM. With that level gap you will never catch up, atleast not until epic tier (i could probably crunch some numbers).
If characters start 3 levels lower the the party average and your highest in the group is 8th level and you are starting at level 2 then the party average has to be 5 with characters strung out from 2 to 8, which is IMO unmanageable. There really is no way to make a chalenging encounter for that sort of party. Really would need more presice details to comment on your situation.
Also, "average -3" is even more ridiculous, since it will punish the players that die the least or play 1 char the longest more than anyone and generally insure that any risk will result in your party never really getting anywere.
I just wanted oponions on a house rule that used in a game that i played with.
When you brought in a new character, the character was the average minus three or something. When the party was 8th, i could bring in a 2nd level char.
Does anybody else find this bizarre?
So, if I were to join your campaign tomorrow as a new player I would have to create a 2nd level character to adventure with 8th level characters? I would not even unpack my dice or crack a book. I'd pick up my stuff and walk right out fast enough for the screen door to miss me.
If it would be intolerable to inflict that kind of nonsense on a new player it is no less intolerable to inflict it on someone who is NOT a new player. I'd have a serious talk with the DM - or even better with the other players who can then all inform the DM that whatever concerns he had to create such a rule are woefully misplaced.
1. 3.5: This game used 3.5 rules. It was before 4e was even announced.
2. Game was played 2004/5-2005/6. The game is no longer running and has not for 3 or more years.
3. It was enforced by the other dm running games. He said that was how they did it. I brought a 4th level wizard into his group since they were towards 20th in level.
4. when i mentioned about the party being 8th level, i meant each character was 8th level.
5. The other players frankly didn't care.
I am mostly kept going to that game cause i couldn't find any other games. I ended up getting moved into another game. Later the current games ended and a new series of games began in waterdeep. Strangely enough, the rule disappeared then.
There were 9 total characters with one been played by the dm who was higher level than us. Several of the other players found it very entertaining.
I wasn't very experience then since it was when i started really playing 3.0/3.5 and so i didn't know alot. Later I made the choice to use the rule of bringing in characters (whether they died or not) at the same level as the rest of the party. If the other chars were 5th and you were making a new character, that char came in as 5th level.
Neither of the two DMs (before the other one showed up) explained their reasons behind it. They simply said thats how they did things.
Thinking back i remember the lead dm saying something like this about the rule (summing up, since don't remember fully): From 1st to like 4th or 5th, when your character died you can bring in new char at 1st level. at 8th and like to 12th (i think) new chars come in at 2nd level. at 16th level, could be 3rd level. at 20th could be 4th. It may be that at 16th it was 4th and so 3rd at 8th and then 2nd at 4th or 5th.
On a side note, the lead dm said that players went unconc at neg con mod and died at neg con score. Also that players got actions to use, but none would stop you from dying.
I liked some of the people i played with, but when i finally quit i wasn't sorry at all to have left.
I'll try to remember more and answer any questions people have to the best of my memory.
This game used 3.5 rules
fwiw: in the 3.5, even a 6 level gap could be mostly closed after a few adventures (since the lower level character would be earning much more XP in each encounter). 4e has no such provision
Still not saying it's right even in 3.5, but at least it was eventually self correcting.
eventually self correcting.
How would it self-correct?
How would it self-correct?
Since (in 3.5), lower level PC's earn more XP* in each encounter than higher level PC's, they eventually become the same level as the higher level PC's.
* And the larger the disparity between levels, the more XP the lower level PC will get.
Since (in 3.5), lower level PC's earn more XP* in each encounter than higher level PC's, they eventually become the same level as the higher level PC's.
* And the larger the disparity between levels, the more XP the lower level PC will get.
Not if they get killed before they can, but it should work.
I just wanted oponions on a house rule that used in a game that i played with.
When you brought in a new character, the character was the average minus three or something. When the party was 8th, i could bring in a 2nd level char.
Does anybody else find this bizarre?
If it was a 3.5 game, I can somewhat understand the reasoning behind this rule. In 3.5, when you die and get resurrected, you lose a level and it costs some gold. This can result in some characters being a few levels behind others. If you choose to build a brand new character, you are penalised a little bit more because bringing in a new character does not cost any gold or XP (if a PC cleric does the resurrecting) compared to raising a dead PC. That penalty is usually at least one level more.
In 3.5, lower level characters do catch up to higher level characters because they earn more XP and they need less XP to gain a level. Eventually, you will end up about a level behind the average if you are behind. You will generally be the lowest level character unless characters higher than you start dying off.
In 3.5 games, one rule for new/rebuilt characters is that they start off 1 level less than the lowest level character that is currently in the campain. If the existing characters are levels 7, 8, 9 and 10, Any new player will be level 6. In this situation it would be like average level (8.5 -> 9) minus 3.
In 3.5 death of a PC has consequences for the player (and party). The rule you experiences is probably some form of the way to make sure a new character does not inherently gain advantages over existing ones. One thing about new characters is that in 3.5 (and in 4E) the rules for equipping your character seems to allow a lot of customisation in that you can get to choose specific magical items. If you play, you only get what the DM gives in the form of treasure (unless you have item creation feats).
There reason i find it so bizarre is that when the other pcs are 5th level and slightly higher, i must come in with a character to replace dead ones (or ones that i chose to replace) at a max level of 1 or 2. The other dm, the lead one or something, said that at 16th level or something that i would be able to bring in a new character at 4th level max. That was how it was, not your setup; which i would have liked it to be like.
get no exp at all.
If i did particapate and live, my character would get exp.
Sadly, in the extreme examples of a level difference of 10 or more, this is not actually the case. The lower level PC would be considered a spectator, not a participant, and get no exp at all.
I find no where in the rules where this is stated or implied.
I just wanted oponions on a house rule that used in a game that i played with.
When you brought in a new character, the character was the average minus three or something. When the party was 8th, i could bring in a 2nd level char.
Does anybody else find this bizarre?
Personally I think that at most a new character should be one level behind everyone else.
I find no where in the rules where this is stated or implied.
I think he was talking about 3.5
The relevant page is 3.5 DMG pg 38. If say you were lv 3 and you beat a CR 11 challenge, you get no XP, or rather you don't get your XP from reading off the table but from DM discretion.
I just wanted oponions on a house rule that used in a game that i played with.
When you brought in a new character, the character was the average minus three or something. When the party was 8th, i could bring in a 2nd level char.
Does anybody else find this bizarre?
Thats average Xp (not level) of the party divided by 2. Thats the old norm we used to use.
Sadly, in the extreme examples of a level difference of 10 or more, this is not actually the case. The lower level PC would be considered a spectator, not a participant, and get no exp at all.
Or run into the "can't gain more than one level per session" cap. The 14th level characters gain 8,000 xp. The 1st level character gains 2999, just enough to put him one xp below 3rd level.
Lvl -1 is a penalty, but you can still adventure with the group. Lvl -2 is harsh and you'll be noticeably underpowered. Lvl -3 makes you an actual hindrance to the group, like an 2 year old trying to play with 5 year olds, he needs protection or he'll get hurt.
1 or 2 levels isn't bad, as you will earn more XP and catch up quickly enough. Anything more is really a detriment to not only yourself, but also punishes the group as a whole by having too weak a member for support.