I'm creating a 20th level...
I'm new to 4e, how do I make the best 12th lvl (insert class here)?
We are starting a campaign at 7th lvl...
And so on..
Does anyone ever create a 1st lvl character and work themselves up from there? Figuring out by trial and error, what powers and equipment work best for their playstyle? I rarely see a character sheet, rubbed raw by eraser and barely legible. Players who have a certain attachment to their character that can only be received by hundreds of hours sitting around the table with your fellow treasure hunters. The satisfaction of reaching that last lvl after years of grinding at the bit. The feeling of pride AND sorrow as you retire that character, followed by the excitement of starting the entire cycle over again with a new character.
An occasional "mach" level up to see what MAY be possible in the future, is not without it's place; but in reading countless posts, it almost seems like I'm a dinosaur in a futuristic world. So many: Why isn't there a feat for... How can I make my fighter do 1 point more of damage... Hands down, THIS is the only way to build a (insert class here) ...
I guess this more of an ode to the grind than a discussion, for what it's worth I know they are out there and keep chomping at the bit!
I'm not quite so sure why people worry so much about having super-optimized characters in 4E - they give you retraining options so if you screw up, you can fix it.
I'm not quite so sure why people worry so much about having super-optimized characters in 4E - they give you retraining options so if you screw up, you can fix it.
You cant retry ability scores, and you cant get scimitar dance if you sudenly discover you didnt like axes unless you have 17 in dex.
Now that we've started playing 4e I like that the low levels of the game are designed to have longer lives (as in more starting HP) so for the first time ever we are starting a campaign with 1st level characters.
It can be entertaining to play the low level, starting from scratch 'green' character. But not all games want to bother with that sort of narrative. Some want to have higher stakes, and tell more important and epic stories than is rationally possible with low level protagonists, in D&D.
Besides, 'earning' is entirely subjective. Despite the guidelines in the book, no two groups handle challenges and XP exactly the same. If you really enjoy the feeling of earning your way up, and ownership, I highly recommend RPGA games like Living Forgotten Realms. It's a lot of fun, but it's arduous, and very 'official.' It sounds perfect, given what you describe.
Low level characters don't fit all stories.
This.
I like campaings that last long, but sometimes starting at lvl 1 is not right. If you dont want to follow the Lord of the Ring trope ("regular folk that started in a small town and saved the world") then you probably need to start at higher level. For example, if you are going to recreate a story about the Argonauts, it's stupid making characters to be 1st lvl. They should be real true heroes of renown, probably starting in paragon.
Story>character development.
Story>character development.
While the above stated is true, sometimes Story=Character development. An example of this would be Belgarion, who start as a village-dork and ends up killing a god (even though he was chosen from the beginning, but thats what marks a PC as well sort of)
Following Conans stories holds true for this as well, although he would probably end at Paragon.
However, with 4e, I have found the characters have a much higher survival rate, so we've always made new guys at level 1 in 4e.
D.
Just made it to 6th and are loving it. In fact, we regularily start at 1st. However, not always. Sometimes we want to jump in a little higher. Like others said, it is all about the story. I DMed a "magical summoning of great heroes" campaign recently. That required a higher start. I like all levels of play but we mustn't think that those who start campaigns at variying levels are cheating or missing out on anything.
It's the "help with my first 4E character--Level 12 Swordmage" threads that make me wonder. I've been playing DnD for years, and am a very quick learner. That said, I can't imagine picking up 4E for the first time and starting in the Paragon Tier would've been the best way for me to get acclimated to the new rules. To each his own, though.
In 3.5E, we almost always started between 2nd and 4th level. The characters were more durable, and we had a complete understanding of what each class/build could do. We were low-level enough not to cheat ourselves of the up-and-coming stage, but durable enough to reach that point.
With 4E, we've started at 1st level. That first level is much more fun in 4E than in any previous incarnation, in my opinion. Previous editions were brutal. Sometimes you were afraid to get attached to a PC because there was a good chance s/he wouldn't survive to 2nd level. I think 4E has corrected that issue.
Our preference for starting at low-levels has frequently condemned us to relatively low-level play, however. In recent years, it's been tough keeping campaigns going due to real-life happenings. Starting at higher level would guarantee us an opportunity to taste Paragon-Tier play, for instance, down the road.
I agree in previous versions in was almost a necessity...
Round 1 - I cast magic missile
Round 2 - I cast magic missile again
Round 3 - I sit in the corner sucking my thumb, because I have no better action to take.
Low levels can only be boring if you let them. Yes, less variety in powers, but more interaction involved with how to make the most of what you got.
Of course, I do play RPGA. Big surprise.
I don't really look at higher level starts as "cheating", It's just another "immidiate gradification" that our society seems to "need".
This is an archaic attitude. RPGs are about storytelling, not about 'earning your way up.' Low level characters don't fit all stories. Not to mention they're much more boring to play, and have less options.
It can be entertaining to play the low level, starting from scratch 'green' character. But not all games want to bother with that sort of narrative. Some want to have higher stakes, and tell more important and epic stories than is rationally possible with low level protagonists, in D&D.
Besides, 'earning' is entirely subjective. Despite the guidelines in the book, no two groups handle challenges and XP exactly the same. If you really enjoy the feeling of earning your way up, and ownership, I highly recommend RPGA games like Living Forgotten Realms. It's a lot of fun, but it's arduous, and very 'official.' It sounds perfect, given what you describe.
I don't think the original poster was trying to say that it should never be ok to start at a higher level. He even said it in his post. I think he meant that it seems like on these boards that almost EVERYONE starts at higher levels. Your response to his post seems to me to be exactly his point. A first level PC is already much better off than the average person, considering powers and higher than average stats. WOTC even went out of it's way to make sure that 1st level players lasted longer this time around.
It seems to me like a lot of people want to skip the grind it out part where you learn your skills and such, the roleplaying aspects where the character gains his abilities and learns that he is special, and the trial and error parts of building a character from the ground up, and go straight to the big finish. They want the glory without the guts. Many of these posts about the higher levels and starting in the middle seem to want the movie montage that shows the character learning stuff, so that they can get to the epic fight sequences. I would say that the lower level challenges can be just as exciting. While it's not the epic quest for the golden fleece, the the fight against the orcs to retrieve your stolen horses can be just as fun and challenging.
It IS about storytelling, and it seems that lots of people want the archenemies and nemeses every time, when sometimes the story is just as compelling at lower levels. If both the DM and players work together to tell a great story, the level shouldn't matter. Some people (many previously mentioned posters) just seem obsessed with those higher levels and powers to help with the story.
2 1st level characters (both doing KotS).
1 8th level Wizard (continuing an Eberron Campaign from 3rd Ed)
1 11th level Warlock (continuing the WLD Campaign from 3rd Ed)
1 14th level Fighter (one shot adventure with people in from outoftown)
My first 2 characters were the level 1s. We did it to try the new system and see the changes and how the thought process worked. When we felt we had a grasp (as a group), we moved into more advanced characters to pick up old campaigns that had been "on hold" from 3rd Ed.
When we did the 14th level game, we did have 3-4 people who hadn't played 4th ed before. It was partially as an intro to the system (for them), as well as to have a good time. So, the point is, it can happen that the first time you play, can be a high level adventure/campaign, in which the group is experienced, and you are not (joining a group after its started out).
I will say as a DM, 4th is the first edition (in some time) that I've actually started the players as a true 1st level party (the last 3rd ed campaign I ran I started the party out at 2nd level, but with 0 xp). Part of that is I always hated starting HP for 1st level characters.
But once the players are above 1st level, do I restart the campaign for a new player, or have them come in when they do at the higher level?
Does anyone ever create a 1st lvl character and work themselves up from there?
Out of the several groups I currently DM and play in, all of us have started at 1st level. Right now, some are mid-paragon, some are still heroic, and one is epic. The heroic one, actually, already completed one play-through from 1st to 30th and have started over. That's a lot of people, and all of us hit the ground at level one. To be honest, I haven't DMd or played a PC that started above level one in about 10 years.
As an addendum: If we are playing, and a new person wants to sit in for a game or two, I will let them roll a PC equivalent to what everyone else is in regards to level. This is not very common, but it does happen.
Earlier editions were difficult to start at 1st level (HP, etc) but 4th makes it easier and more interesting for low level play.
Now that I am a little older and can't play as much, I don't mind. If we were to be strict it will take a couple years to get to 30th. So we started as 1st with our main campaign, and the players are making up epic level characters to use for an adventure here and there and they will probably make up paragon characters too.
In the end it's just a game and there is a whole world of game play that we would have little or no access to if we didn't do it this way.
Even so, there's nothing like reaching level 20 when you know you've battled your way there. I'm involved with a few games over teh intertubes and none of them have us starting out higher level. One of them features our DM arbitrarily leveling us up (level 5 so far) to get to the higher content faster, but we are still going through each level at least.
I found one of my old 1e characters from back in the 80's, one of my favorites back in High School, I plan on recreating him for 4e and I'm not going to start him at first level...
D.
I don't have any problem with starting higher, but a major part of the fun for me is the acquisition of new abilities and new stuff, and if I have a 20-level or 30-level plan, then as far as I'm concerned, I might as well not play the character - I've already seen the arc of that character's career, and he or she is no longer all that interesting.
So yeah, I plan all my 4e adventures to start at lvl 1. The only limitation ATM is a shortage of low level monsters to throw at the party, but I'm sure that will let up as more monster manuals are released.
Plus, I find that the journey and growth of a character is just as fun, and important as the story.
It's the "help with my first 4E character--Level 12 Swordmage" threads that make me wonder. I've been playing DnD for years, and am a very quick learner. That said, I can't imagine picking up 4E for the first time and starting in the Paragon Tier would've been the best way for me to get acclimated to the new rules.
My thoughts exactly. If you're familiar with the game, it's cool to jump to the chase by starting at higher level. That said, I don't understand folks trying to learn the game at a higher power level.
This.
I like campaings that last long, but sometimes starting at lvl 1 is not right. If you dont want to follow the Lord of the Ring trope ("regular folk that started in a small town and saved the world") then you probably need to start at higher level. For example, if you are going to recreate a story about the Argonauts, it's stupid making characters to be 1st lvl. They should be real true heroes of renown, probably starting in paragon.
Story>character development.
Me personally I like starting my characters at 1st level because I don't like picking up their story somewhere in the middle, begin at the beginning is my preference. However the poster I quoted above makes a fantastic point about why it may make more sense at times to start at higher levels.
The heroic one, actually, already completed one play-through from 1st to 30th and have started over. That's a lot of people, and all of us hit the ground at level one.
Wow, you must play ALOT. Seriously, my games happen every week since the core books dropped any my party is almost level 15.
My game is much more about fun combats and testing out and mastering the system than storytelling and drama. We started at level one and have been working our way up ever since. It's perfectly normal for players to build and introduce new characters to the party and phase out old ones in this game. XP totals are the same for all PC's so new characters get built at higher levels. Everyone involved is fine with this since the premise of the game is to explore the rules.
To the OP as well, how do YOU deal with a character that is dead and can't be raised for whatever reason? If the rest of the group is 14th level, would you force the player who lost his character to roll up a 1st level one and join that group because he has to 'earn' his character? I hope not, because chances are that 1st level character is going to die, or wost case, cause the rest of the party to be overwhelmed and killed.
Sometimes you have to play a higher level character for whatever reason. Some other posters have said this, some stories don't work at low level, for instance a lot of planar hopping and fighting demon lords, can't be done at 1st level. Well it could, but they'd be pretty crappy demon 'lords'. I mean if demons just let anyone become a 'lord' or 'lady' if you must, then there's not prestige in that. Heroic tier is good for fighting cultists worshiping scientology.. err... Orcus I mean, while epic tier is for actually fighting Xenu.. err.. Orcus himself. Different threats call for different heroes. Commissioner Gordon doesn't call Batman to catch a local pickpocket, but when the Joker shows up, guess who gets the call.
Great fun, and thanks to the new game system (never thought I would hear myself saying that), challenging without being either overpowered or too weak.
So, yeah, my players do earn their characters, and to be honest, I don't think they (or I) would want it any other way - especially now the first few levels aren't as dangerous as they used to be* :D
* Please note: So far we have had one PC death (blame the poison filled zombies and venom glyphs). ;)
that being said, some people just like higher level play. when i DM'ed 3rd ed, i always started the PCs off at level 3 (mostly due to the low HP values of levels 1 & 2), i feel a bit more comfortable with 4th's 1st level. that might change later, it might not.
Low level characters don't fit all stories.
This.
Also, if you're joining an existing group whose characters are already higher than first level you probably want a character that can survive along with them. You can have a character who is a level or two lower but starting a character at first level when the game is at 10th is just going to lead to a dead character, unless they spend their time cowering in fear behind the others.
So far we have played a 4E campaign from 1 to 6 to get to know the rules and our current campaign which started at 1 and should hit 8 tonight. I have told my DM I want to keep up the campaign for as long as possible, but I am not sure we will make it to epic since one of the other players wants to try his hand at DMing a new campaign and our regular DM wants a break for a while since he is about to be a new dad.
If I ever DM for our group again I may encourage them to start at paragon levels now that we are more familiar with 4E.
I don't think starting at a higher level is 'cheating', but I do feel as though you don't get the same feeling when you create a level 12 character as you do by playing a character for a few months and going from level 1 to 12...
I found one of my old 1e characters from back in the 80's, one of my favorites back in High School, I plan on recreating him for 4e and I'm not going to start him at first level...
D.
I let my party find the remains of my very first character (Borg the Bold, b.1981, d. ten minutes later). They took the bones to resurrect him (they need information from centuries ago and hope this guy can fill them in), and then I get to restat him to 4e!
Sometimes, you're joining a game that's already been going on for a while. If the rest of the party is 8th level, then that's what level the new PC should be. Throwing a 1st level character into a party of 8ths means he's going to be a) useless and b) dead.
Similarly, if you're playing a 12th level character and he dies, your replacement character will also be 12th level.
Even ignoring the entirely-correct 'not all characters are right for all stories', there are other valid reasons to need to create a higher-than-1st level character.
The concept of having to somehow 'earn' you character in a game is thankfully dying an agonizing death in a back alley.
This.
Also, let's consider who needs to post for character creation help and who doesn't. I doubt we'll ever see very many, "Help me make a level 1 Paladin!" threads.
I'm jumping to the end of the thread after a skim, but there's something I don't think anybody's mentioned yet.
Sometimes, you're joining a game that's already been going on for a while. If the rest of the party is 8th level, then that's what level the new PC should be. Throwing a 1st level character into a party of 8ths means he's going to be a) useless and b) dead.
Similarly, if you're playing a 12th level character and he dies, your replacement character will also be 12th level.
Even ignoring the entirely-correct 'not all characters are right for all stories', there are other valid reasons to need to create a higher-than-1st level character.
Especially true for those places where there is only one game available. Your only choices may be to join the higher level game or play by yourself (which can get boring).
I do find starting at 1st is best but I'll level them up quick if I want the story to progress with them at higher level. I just give them enough encounters to get used to the new powers. It might be one combat then level up. Just enough to see where they want to go. This gives the players time to retrain. Not so good if I need them at 8th level for story and they make 8th level characters that they don't like after they start play. Now if I take them from 1st to 8th with an encounter or two each level the players can retrain as they get to 8th level and the real story begins. Also it's not like they go from 1st to 8th in one day. I do more like a flash back in preparation to the real story where I have them fight key battles. So for example a fight between them and some goblins done as reference to the group taking on the goblin hoards back some 8 years ago where they go to be known as heroes. Fast forware 2 years and there was the fight against X monster. Each fight ends with a level up till they are at the level I need them to be. You get much better liked character than just starting with 8th level characters and you fill in a back story with each battle.
Well, as I stated in a previous post.. I believe that the large portion of gamers come from primarily single player video game experiences.. or, insular table topping with friends. Friends, who felt ostracized by the outside world. Gaming (both solo-video games and table-topping) provided people with a means to feel as "bad ass" as those people that ostracize them in school(life). ((Ever notice that D&D is a game where you "pretend" you're an uber-athlete? Seems a touch of irony.))
SO, when solo video gamers and self-indulgent friends played their games. They always won them. They congratulate themselves (or the video-game says YOU WIN in bold letters.) and they feel good. Winning becomes kinda like an opiate. And many get lost in it. They also never learn how to "lose" with grace (much like the athletes they're pretending to be).
So, that is why death and failure of any sort in RPing has become increasingly obsolete. Because the game has become an excercise in self-indulgence. People who do not have satisfying real lives.. "escape" to a fantasy world where they can be showered with accolades.
Anyway, a million and one people on here who don't want to admit something like this, or genuinely feel this is not true, will say "No, it's a game and I should have fun. And dying isn't fun, and losing isn't fun, and my real life is hard so games shouldn't be. Etc. etc"
Is there a wrong way to play D&D? Nope. So save yourself the keystrokes.
Earning a character.
Well, as I stated in a previous post.. I believe that the large portion of gamers come from primarily single player video game experiences.. or, insular table topping with friends. Friends, who felt ostracized by the outside world. Gaming (both solo-video games and table-topping) provided people with a means to feel as "bad ass" as those people that ostracize them in school(life). ((Ever notice that D&D is a game where you "pretend" you're an uber-athlete? Seems a touch of irony.))
SO, when solo video gamers and self-indulgent friends played their games. They always won them. They congratulate themselves (or the video-game says YOU WIN in bold letters.) and they feel good. Winning becomes kinda like an opiate. And many get lost in it. They also never learn how to "lose" with grace (much like the athletes they're pretending to be).
So, that is why death and failure of any sort in RPing has become increasingly obsolete. Because the game has become an excercise in self-indulgence. People who do not have satisfying real lives.. "escape" to a fantasy world where they can be showered with accolades.
Anyway, a million and one people on here who don't want to admit something like this, or genuinely feel this is not true, will say "No, it's a game and I should have fun. And dying isn't fun, and losing isn't fun, and my real life is hard so games shouldn't be. Etc. etc"
Is there a wrong way to play D&D? Nope. So save yourself the keystrokes.
That's because some people have busy schedules and we currently live in a society which demands instant gratification. Hence why many people desire to start at a higher level to make that uber character they want.
I would go on about "true" D&D but some of the fluff of this fantasy adventure game has disappeared with the current and newer generations. The Old School who played Chainmail, D&D and AD&D remember the satisfaction of starting with a fresh, young character and being the driving force that makes who that character is be it an embodiment of yourself, what you fantasized of becoming or a whole seperate personality hidding within your subconscious.
D&D has changed from "go-getter peasant with a sword" (which it never was in my mind) to "adept hero with a sword" (which it always was IMO).
in 4th you still have to work to get that "hero" rep. you still have to slay the darned dragon to get the princess. you still need to seek out the ancient smith to make the Godslayer weapon as it's powers are far beyond your current abilities.
you still got to work for the prestige, honor, fame & fortune. the difference is the odds are not entirely stacked against you and you've got a few tricks from the get-go.
I rarely see a character sheet, rubbed raw by eraser and barely legible.
Well my old sheet was getting unreadable so when I got the new 'landscape' sheats I made myself a new one but its still the same character.
I try to get my players to start at Level 1. If I've got a grand heroic story that's going to need some serious levels, I've usually plotted things out to get them there at the right level, at the right time.
Fully agree.
The trick comes in that I don't pull punches. Not even in wandering monster/throw away encounters. I've got no qualms about killing characters. So if the dice kill you....
Thus if I've got something "planned", new characters (assuming the old character couldn't be raised etc for some reason) enter with whatever xp the dead character had. Always assuming a plausable entry of course.
The concept of having to somehow 'earn' you character in a game is thankfully dying an agonizing death in a back alley.
Yeah, if I wanted to have to earn being high level by grinding, I'd play a MMORPG.
In older editions of the game, we would typically start campaigns with characters between 3rd and 5th level, mainly because it really sucked to have to deal with people dying because of a stupid move after a few hours were invested into the character.
Yeah, 1st level characters in previous editions of the game:
"A gnome throws a carrot at you, you die."
So, that is why death and failure of any sort in RPing has become increasingly obsolete. Because the game has become an excercise in self-indulgence. People who do not have satisfying real lives.. "escape" to a fantasy world where they can be showered with accolades.
Actually, my life is so awesome that I play D&D to escape into misery. My characters are always wretched peasants who stumble from crisis to crisis and invariably fail to overcome the least challenge. Without this, I would lose my humility.
I have played so many low level games since starting in 2000 that it is nauseating. I have never gotten past 6th level. Games either fall apart or DMs are so cheap with xp or scared of high level play that I always got stuck at 6th. I am pretty sick with the whole low level deal. Anytime I play in a game I try and ask to at least begin at 3rd level just to speed things up.
I started this year and I'm already feeling this way!
I love our Keep on the Shadowfell game because we're up to level 4 and things are getting really interesting tactically speaking.
One thing I wish I could do though is a Paragon level game. All those Paragon path with cool features and we NEVER got to try them out yet dangit!
Whoops. Wait, no, that was crazy person talk.
And I have zero problem with dying (I usually enjoy it to be honest) or "losing D&D" as some have implied is the case here and I doubt it's true for others either. I just don't always want to play levels 1-10 and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
This just sounds like more elitist BS, certainly something the game doesn't need, especially since it has resumed it's growth over the last 8+ years. No one has the right to tell others how to play their game, regardless of how long they have been playing or what their name is. Gary Gygax could say I was doing it wrong and I'd tell him to shut his pie hole.
Gary Gygax could say I was doing it wrong and I'd tell him to shut his pie hole.
That, sir, is a fantastic quote in the making.
Whoops. Wait, no, that was crazy person talk.
In otherwords, you said it? :P
Just joking with ya. Merry Christmas to you and all the other people on these forums who make me want to kill them/send them chocolate everyday. What else would I do with my time?
And I have zero problem with dying (I usually enjoy it to be honest) or "losing D&D" as some have implied is the case here and I doubt it's true for others either. I just don't always want to play levels 1-10 and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I do not have a problem with characters dying either as long as it is not senseless bad DMing that causes them to die and the death is reasonably heroic/advances a sotryline, since in our group you just recreate a new character of equivalent level and equipment and join the party. I always have more ideas for characters than I get a chance to use anyways.
I also sympathize with wanting to start at higher levels since a campaign can take a long time to progress to higher levels, especially for those who do not play that often. We started our current campaign in August, meet 3 or 4 times times a month, and just last night hit level 8. We started playing 4E the week it came out and still have yet to play in paragon.
I often post builds on the boards that are built to 10th level, right before paragon, or 11th right as they begin their PP. I could easily post one as high as 21st. Guess what level that character is right now: 3rd. I'm posting because I'm thinking ahead, and I want feedback on the direction I'm heading.
I also want to echo those that never get to play high level. I have one steady group that keeps ploddin along on the same campaign, and some day I'll play high level, but really, it takes forever, cause we don't meet every week. We played for two years in 3.5, and my dude ended at 14th lvl, I think. It kills me. My other groups are much more flighty, and tend to fizzle in and out. So if we want to play a high-level campaign, knowing that it will only last a few levels, then so be it! "Don't judge me!"
I never started a character lower than level 1 unless my character dies.
Okay, now you've piked my curiosity. Let's say your character did die; how did you start your character at level >1?
To those who say "you can't be powerful and important at level one," I say "because your DM doesn't want you to FEEL powerful at level one."
I started my home-brewed world Campaign at level one two months ago. It's a world in which society has fallen, and only recently began to reasemble itself ('points of light'). The game started with the explanation "you're the heroes of this story because you're the best. No one person is more powerful than you as a group. There is no twelth level wizards hanging out in the bar. The king isn't an epic warrior from a time long past. You're the world's most important people, and you're the heroes from this point out."
At level one, the party met, fought, and killed the BBEG for our entire heroic tier. It was a goblin called Ras Abdla, and I explained that in this world, Goblin's are fairies that cannot be killed, but instead are reborn in the feywild, and that if the party wants to kill him, they're going to have to find an unorthadox way to do it. The party hates Ras Abdla! They hate the fact that they can't shove him in a box so he can't escape, because he can teleport! They hate the fact that he can't be killed! They hate the fact that he can magically change his appearance! They're paranoid that everyone they talk to might be him! They hate the fact that he eats children, and that no matter how many times they stop him he'll come back! In short, I've created the perfect BBEG; he's powerful, but in a way that doesn't dwarf the party. He's a plot element that's easily accessible to the party. He's fightable, and stoppable, but it doesn't interfere with the plans at whole.
At level two, the party became the trusted advisors to an evil Duke, and then assassinated him at the perfect time, and were called heroes for doing so! The whole city loves them! They're heroes and rebels, and already going down as part of that nation's history!
At level three, they defended a city from an elven invasion. At the walls of the city they took their defensive positions, and faced off against monsters the likes of which they'd never encounted (actually just an elephant trained for war), and in the middle of this immense battle one of the characters jumped from a crumbling defensive tower onto an elephant's back, which was crashing through the gates of the city, and killed the elven archers on its back. She then coaxed the horrible beast into the heart of the frey, and used their weapon against them! She's been given the moniker "Ciena of the War Beast" by the men who were there that day.
By level four, the party should be for the first time poised to explore the Feywild, and be ready to bring the good fight to Ras Abdla, the Goblin King, and any other evil fey that get in their way. I told them they'd be powerful.
In short, my players wanted to be important to this world, and, they were! From level one they'd been fighting evil forces beyond their ken, being heroes, and shaping the history of the world! I've never once said, "no, you're not powerful enough to do that." I've only said, "roll the dice, and see if you can." So far, no one has tried to fly, run faster than light, or do any other unreasonable activities.
Eventually, when they're paragon levels, they'll be leading armies instead of just fighting with them, founding nations, and slaying dragons.
At epic levels, they'll fight gods, be worshipped by followers, and travel to planes of existance unknown.
That said, some stories, and some adventures are only suitable for higher level characters, and some DMs want to start at a higher level, because they want to get right to the story that they want to tell, rather than having to build up to it.
It's not a matter of "earning" a high level character, and always starting from 1st level is not an "elitist" thing to do... it's just what the DM decides will best serve the adventure.
I never pre-plan a PC.
I might have a general goal, such as "good with a sword" (AD&D), or "wants to be a senior naval officer" (Star Trek), or "Rich trader with a merchant fleet" (Traveller).
But sometimes those don't happen.
If I find out at level 10 I can't have X feat, so what? It's the story of a tragic figure that never achieved much, and died in obscurity, other than to the NPCs he saved, the treasures found, and his / her comrades bearing witness to his courage.
Nobody is gonna say at his grave, "Yeah, that dumb ass, he didn't take the right feats to allow PrC XYZ, what a moron."
As for it (playing as you go) being archaic attitude, yeah, perhaps.
Polite conversation is archaic, too.
What I'm getting at is.. why do you have to have any stats at all to tell a story? The numbers.. and the spells, and the feats.. have zero to do with a story. SO, why must someone be high level to tell a story?
Playing the video-game called Neverwinter Nights in a persistant world was very revealing. Many people felt that skyrocketing to 20 and THEN roleplaying.. was the best way to go. However, once they were 20 they felt that had ever right to trash the roleplay of people who had tried to roleplay since level 1. Building social bonds with NPCs since their 1st level instead of waiting until they were 20 (or 40.. whatever).
I played a character who lingered at the level 14 for nearly three years, but was amongst the most influential people on the server. There were plenty of people who surpassed me in level, but none of them "mattered" in the sense of the gaming world because they hadn't even talked with one person since entering the server.
THEN there were characters, as the server matured.. who became extremely relevant at 3rd, or 7th, or 12th. Far surpassing any 20th level character who, again, did little to no roleplay.
What interests me is why people associate "power" with the capacity for the character to have relevance. It's not like a million other gamers didn't optimize their elf ranger to be JUST like yours. The numbers, or powers won't EVER make the character unique.. or interesting (at least not to me).
It's the part of the game that has no rules that makes a character interesting (to me, since I'm sure I'll have to repeat that for all the "How dare you tell me how to play!" people). It's your character's past.. what he/she does in the present.. and the future of where we go as a party that interests me.. the STORY.
Not "I do 23 DMG, with Feat X, to Kobold 12-43-A."
So when someone says "Earn", levels, and powers, and gear (especially gear), don't really register for me. Earning a character is through story.. and whatever level you are, has zero relevance to the story.
The DM could make 1st lvl giants that you could fight.. if he REALLY wanted to tell a story with giants. Or dragons, or demons.. or the Devil himself.
The DM could make 1st lvl giants that you could fight.. if he REALLY wanted to tell a story with giants. Or dragons, or demons.. or the Devil himself.
Exactly.
i.e. BEAT THIS GUY, cause he actually might kill someone.
No adventurer should go forth without a healthy fear of death, on most if not all combats. That's just one of my core DMing philosophies.
It was much easier to do this style in older systems when it didn't take a few days to generate a character (due to all the options these days in most systems.)
Four months later, no character deaths, we're sitting at level 5, just about to turn 6.
So I guess the answer to your question is: Yes.
My current game that I am running started at level 1, we are now around level 10. However only 2 of the original characters are still alive, this is attributed to numerous deaths, a player not being satisfied with their PC and a new player joined us. All of which resulted in PCs being made that were above level 1.
I'm new to 4e, how do I make the best 12th lvl (insert class here)?
This is from the OP and is the one that gets me, especially if the person asking has no previous experience in D&D, WoW, or any other RPG genre (and there are some folks like this). To me it's like "I just got my learner's permit. Can I have a Ferrari?" Granted, nobody's killed themselves by playing D&D too fast, but it seems to carry an air of "I don't want to bother with having to learn anything. I want it NOW." There are reasons for a total newbie to do this, such as the only game in town being of a higher level, but for my
I just don't think it's the best way to learn to play.My first experience with fourth edition was playing my Dwarf guardian fighter in Keep on the Shadowfell. And I had so much fun with it, even at first level.
*Edit* By the by, you have a higher chance of dying at higher levels...lower levels all you really have to worry about is crits, higher levels you start getting into the save or die line type of spells, different aura's and devastatingly powerful AoE attacks. For those who are saying they're character/campaign has more story from starting at level 1 then someone who starts at level 10...ever consider that might just be because that person is just starting while you obviously had a bunch more sessions then that person to get up to that level? Say for example that it takes you one session to level up for simplicity sake. You started at level 1, getting to level 20 takes 20 sessions. The person who started off at level 10 got to level 20 in only 10 sessions...half of the amount of the other person, so yeah, having 10 sessions on someone else means you're going to have a bit of an edge. I had a campaign that started off at level 7...lasted a little over a year ending at 17 or 18. Compare it to a campaign that started at level 1 and maybe ended at level 12 or 13 or something that lasted the same amount and I'm sure we'd have the same amount of story/character backstory etc...you don't have to be low level to have a story, nor do you need to be high level, that has nothing to do with it.
We like starting higher level because after playing through literally a good 15 or 20 campaigns that end up stopping around 6 or 7 it can get a little repetitive. It's not like D&D wasn't meant to use high levels too...I mean, they are right there. Say I really like the star wars series (which I do) my favorite one is empire strikes back...if I want to watch it, does that mean I have to start at Phantom Menace (ugh) and work my way up to it each time I want to watch it?
Novacat, do you think there is a difference between the "Story a DM wants to tell." and "The Game the DM wants to play?" Are the two mutually exclusive.. do they HAVE to both balance with one another?
What I'm getting at is.. why do you have to have any stats at all to tell a story? The numbers.. and the spells, and the feats.. have zero to do with a story. SO, why must someone be high level to tell a story?
Playing the video-game called Neverwinter Nights in a persistant world was very revealing. Many people felt that skyrocketing to 20 and THEN roleplaying.. was the best way to go. However, once they were 20 they felt that had ever right to trash the roleplay of people who had tried to roleplay since level 1. Building social bonds with NPCs since their 1st level instead of waiting until they were 20 (or 40.. whatever).
I played a character who lingered at the level 14 for nearly three years, but was amongst the most influential people on the server. There were plenty of people who surpassed me in level, but none of them "mattered" in the sense of the gaming world because they hadn't even talked with one person since entering the server.
THEN there were characters, as the server matured.. who became extremely relevant at 3rd, or 7th, or 12th. Far surpassing any 20th level character who, again, did little to no roleplay.
What interests me is why people associate "power" with the capacity for the character to have relevance. It's not like a million other gamers didn't optimize their elf ranger to be JUST like yours. The numbers, or powers won't EVER make the character unique.. or interesting (at least not to me).
It's the part of the game that has no rules that makes a character interesting (to me, since I'm sure I'll have to repeat that for all the "How dare you tell me how to play!" people). It's your character's past.. what he/she does in the present.. and the future of where we go as a party that interests me.. the STORY.
Not "I do 23 DMG, with Feat X, to Kobold 12-43-A."
So when someone says "Earn", levels, and powers, and gear (especially gear), don't really register for me. Earning a character is through story.. and whatever level you are, has zero relevance to the story.
The DM could make 1st lvl giants that you could fight.. if he REALLY wanted to tell a story with giants. Or dragons, or demons.. or the Devil himself.
I'm not going to go and say this isn't a fun way to play...but it isn't D&D. D&D is about earning levels and powers and gear...that's why it exists, that's why it's in the rules. You are right, the stats, feats, spells, etc. have nothing to do with telling a story...but in playing dungeons and dragons they do. D&D isn't about telling a story...it's about making one. When you tell a story, the hero can defeat the villain, when you're making one...the heroes could lose to the villain, or end up joining him, or ignoring him all together and going off and doing their own thing. Sure, you can do a campaign without stats, feats, spells, etc. but then you aren't actually playing D&D.
Again, there's nothing wrong with the type of style you've suggested, I used to do it with a small group from the old black isle forums and if anyone is familiar with the website mystic realms on there too though that was years ago before it was terrible.
We were playing 3.5 so we all got cohorts at level 6. These started off at various levels of course and were converted to 4.0. But they're now deemed NPCs, occasional use characters, or back-up characters should our primaries die.
Anyway, yeah, my current team and I all started at level 1. In every game I ever played except 1 that was the case, and the one where we started at higher level sort of sucked.
So, why would I be afriad of the Tarrasque? If I were not metagaming what a Tarrasque is... it would be because my character knows the creatures deeds. It has destroyed nations.. it sleeps for decades/centuries.. and when it awakens it takes the most powerful people of that age to put it back to rest. The story elements are what my character would respond to.
However.. if the DM were to say "Unique Creature, LVL X, Hit Points Y" My character wouldn't respond with the same amount of reverence that the "Tarrasque" would get because.. "Unique Creature, LVL X, Hit Points Y" hasn't done anything in the gaming world.. (And likely never will after my party kills it.) It remains just another in a series..
Same would go for PCs or NPCs that did nothing but interact through the mechanics. If "Eladrin, Rogue, LVL 30th" joined the group I wouldn't care who he was.. if, after twenty gaming sessions of him "Backstabbing for X dmg, or Stealth Check Y" without ANY character developement.. I still wouldn't care about the character. ((Though it's very likely that even the mechanics would provide a minimum of storytelling capacity to generate some reaction from my PC))
And, as a note.. I am ALL for the "failure" of a PC as dictated by the dice. So I am, have been, always will be for "making stories". Like the fine arts... often, it is the mistakes (the unexpected die rolls) that inspire a masterpiece.
I wasn't suggesting free form roleplay (( not to use the stats, powers, etc.)) ChaosTurtle.. what I was saying was. My character, when roleplayed.. would NOT consider someone important just because he saw them cast a particular spell, employ a particular power. Someone's +20 to Melee Attack isn't something that registers. Instead "That man seems more than capable of using his weapon with deadly efficiency." Fortunately.. so is the Tarrasque.. so someone's swordsmanship alone would be irrelevant to my character.
So, why would I be afriad of the Tarrasque? If I were not metagaming what a Tarrasque is... it would be because my character knows the creatures deeds. It has destroyed nations.. it sleeps for decades/centuries.. and when it awakens it takes the most powerful people of that age to put it back to rest. The story elements are what my character would respond to.
However.. if the DM were to say "Unique Creature, LVL X, Hit Points Y" My character wouldn't respond with the same amount of reverence that the "Tarrasque" would get because.. "Unique Creature, LVL X, Hit Points Y" hasn't done anything in the gaming world.. (And likely never will after my party kills it.) It remains just another in a series..
Same would go for PCs or NPCs that did nothing but interact through the mechanics. If "Eladrin, Rogue, LVL 30th" joined the group I wouldn't care who he was.. if, after twenty gaming sessions of him "Backstabbing for X dmg, or Stealth Check Y" without ANY character developement.. I still wouldn't care about the character. ((Though it's very likely that even the mechanics would provide a minimum of storytelling capacity to generate some reaction from my PC))
And, as a note.. I am ALL for the "failure" of a PC as dictated by the dice. So I am, have been, always will be for "making stories". Like the fine arts... often, it is the mistakes (the unexpected die rolls) that inspire a masterpiece.
Ahh...my bad, but umm...*shrugs* well, I think that's common sense...nobody is saying that's how you should play campaigns, and high or low level that isn't going to happen and if it is occurring then you're clearly not in a group that cares much for rp.
I disagree with the Eladrin part though, if after twenty sessions of watching this guy prove himself to be an incredibly powerful warrior, why wouldn't you acknowledge it? I mean, he is interacting within the world and he's proven himself to be strong/skilled and whatever...he might be a bit on the dull side but *shrugs* there are those "strong silent" types out there, or he could just be an incredibly guarded individual, it just strikes me as poor rp on your part...if he suddenly starts telling you about his poor sister who died in a fire causing him to have an unnatural fear of fire, would you then acknowledge the fact that he's a skilled warrior?
Obviously you wouldn't respond to just hearing about some random guy...and I sincerely doubt you'd ever be playing with a dm who introduces someone by name then goes on to say their level and hp since that's pretty much an immediate sign that the dm has no idea what they're doing...as for fear of the tarrasque well...just look at it! It's not exactly a creature that *doesn't* inspire fear...doesn't it actually have a fear aura? It's like saying you wouldn't be afraid of an ancient dragon because you never heard of it slaughtering whole towns and burning heroes to death. Of course I think that was more or less just a poor example...if it was something that looked alot less intimidating, like a ghoul for example it would make sense not to be afraid...all you see is a dead guy who appears to be nothing more then a glorified zombie, unless you've heard stories about adventuring bands who've been defeated previously by the ghouls paralyzing touch, or heard about how the ghouls like to paralyze and then eat their prey...though this might be another poor example since it is hard to identify a ghoul from a zombie, but you'd at the very least be more cautious.
In any event...this has nothing to do with levels so *shrugs* It's not like rp just stops because you start at level 5 instead of level 1.
I currently run a campaign that's been going for nine and a half years. It started at level one and now the characters are around 19th level and it feels like a massive achievement. Sure, some of the original characters have died and been replaced by characters of a level that matched what the party was at at the time, but the fact that we have progressed a series of characters and played all that way is awesome.
Having said that though, after the campaign finally wraps up in a few sessions time when the characters save the world from being pulled into hell, i'm thinking of running a one of adventure with the characters at 30th level. By now, they all have grand ambitions and the power to fulfil them, and to skip ahead into the future and see how that pans out would be cool. Over the course of the campaign the PCs have evolved and their alignments have diverged and they'll quite possibly be sending armies against each other for the control fo their plane. It'll be exciting stuff.
This is not true all the time, but with a new edition it is. As some others did, we have started at higher levels before to avoid the levels where a single unlucky blow can kill a PC.
But we have never started higher than level 5 before in an actual campaign. All of us here have now and then created higher level characters to see what an idea could look like, but not for play, just the theory.