Contributor
|
So for my campaign I'm beginning to consider starting PCs at 4th level instead of 1st. Why 4th? Because we're going to use the gestalt character rules from Unearthed Arcana, with one class a d20 Modern class and one class from D&D. And since the d20 Modern basic classes suck I'd like the PCs to have a chance to start off with an advance class, which they can qualify for at 4th level.
But is starting at a level higher than 1st robbing my players of something? I personally dislike DMing 1st-level characters, because I tend to kill them or bore them, but I can imagine some players who absolutely love playing weaklings.
What do you think? :)
If your gaming group consists of more experienced gamers, then it shouldn't matter. In 3.5 the first couple of levels are a blur anyway, so I don't see a problem at starting off at 4th.
Director of Narrative
|
Personally I enjoy the low-levels. They are generally much more gritty and realistic which evokes great creativity and resourcefulness from the players. SOme of my proudest moments was when I had pulled off something with a firstie that would have been tough for a even a 3rd. I think the low levels of a campaign generally set the mood and build relationships with the party, because they have to work together at that point, and those that don't have the "for the team" attitude are easily spotted.
But it all depends on the game. If you start them off at fourth just make it hard for them so they still have that 1st level "feeling".
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
First level characters are definitely too fragile. They die from one hit and it's not as if they're coming back after that point.
I'm probably going to start my next campaign at 2nd level with max hp for both levels. I figure that should provide a bit more of a cushion.
The nice thing about low level play though is that because you are basically useless, most of your character's personality is built on those handful of things you can do. As you utilize those things, you build the character. Those early uses of Bluff or creative use of Dancing Lights set the tone for the character - particularly when they are the only tricks you have access to. I'd be wary of skipping all the way to 4th level and missing that.
I'd also be worried if you or your players haven't used gestalt rules before or d20 modern. A regular 4th level character has a lot of abilities. A 4th level gestalt character has even more, and if half those abilities are from a different set of rules, you all have a lot to learn. I'm guessing your crew is on the (significantly) more experienced side of the equation, but it's still something to take into account.
My recommendation would be to start at 2nd level, but ramp up the xp to breeze through 3rd and into 4th. That will give the players a chance to learn their abilities and increase their chances of survival. Plus, it allows them room to organically grow their characters.
|
The last time I actually wanted to play a first-level character was probably 1977. When I'm running a game for experienced roleplayers, I start them at 2nd level.
The reason I don't go higher is that characters that grow through play are usually very different from characters created out of whole cloth. They tend to have more personality, a more interesting backstory, and a more idiosyncratic feat, spell, and skill point selection than insta-heroes. (FWIW, I would expect this to be even more true of gestalt characters than of standard characters.)
Also, there's a huge difference in effectiveness between a character that's been played for months to get to 10th level and a character that's been created at that level. While the latter is more likely to be designed coherently, the player hasn't had the time to figure out interesting tricks that work well for that character by himself or as a part of a group. (Again, this would likely be even more of a problem with gestalt characters.)
The upshot is that I wouldn't start with 4th level gestalt characters.
That said, if it works for you, please report on your experience. It would be interesting to find out how you got around the problems I see.
My experience has been that nobody likes to start at 1st level, myself included. In addition to the reasons already mentioned, it's just really appealing to start play with the ability to kick butt!
Wow, Mike's asking us for advice? Whoa...
Anyway, I would do it, but the players would have to have a shiny pretty backstory to go with their levels. Even at fourth level, you've done something interesting, even if it is "save the barmaid from the groping guy."
my general rule whenever starting a campaign with everyone above first level, yeah, sure, no problem..but everyone starts at the same level, and everyone starts with 0 xp. makes you really earn that next shift.
4 is a little high for my tastes; just my gut feeling.
I did do it once for an evil campaign to allow for level adjustments, and it worked out ok.
I like level 2, which is a little better than 1, and it means lvl 3 and that feat is on the horizon; it also makes multiclassing easier. 3 Gives a little more ability to build.
Generally, not being level 1 produces a different problem. There are feats that are not great right away, and a player has to kind of suffer with them for a while until they pay off. Higher level makes it easy to ignore the work one has to do to get somewhere.
I don't think 4 is a stretch, though; an experienced DM can pull it off easily, and players get to come up with more backstory.
I would be more worried about the gestalts. I have never run them personally, but I have heard a load of horror stories. Just a heads up.
But is starting at a level higher than 1st robbing my players of something? I personally dislike DMing 1st-level characters, because I tend to kill them or bore them, but I can imagine some players who absolutely love playing weaklings.
What do you think? :)
In the game I'm currently GMing I started the players off at 1st level, but used a homebrew armor as DR system which, to my mind, added a couple of levels to their effectiveness in a situation where they had better armor than their opponents for a good while. My own personal theory is that combat should always have a threat of grave bodily harm and death, but be used sparingly. Thus, every combat encounter becomes a character building exercise. Obviously, this sort of peril is easier to feel at low-levels. Even the guy in the alley with a knife is a deadly threat to a 1st level character.
That's why I halved all character hitpoints in my homebrew. :) This totally unbalances mages, among many other things, so I make no claims to its usefulness for anyone else, but it's worked pretty well to make combat rare and, when it happens, to keep that feeling of peril. :)
Personally, I hate starting at first level because it puts me in the ugly position of having to decide between the risk of having wasted my time "fleshing out" a Red Shirt and the risk of being flat-footed in the roleplaying scenes.
Granted, there are aspects of playing a first level character that are refreshing, once in a while (such as the vaguely annoying "oh, yeah... I can't draw a weapon while I'm moving. First level. Right.") and there's plenty about creating a first level character that can be fun -- the gambling of "which pieces of adventuring material am I least likely to die from not having?" can be a twisted sort of fun.
I'd be pretty wary of starting off with Fourth Level Gestalts -- a Human Fighter/Fast Hero 3, Fighter/Martial Artist 1, for example, will gain three feats and a Talent at first level, two feats at second level, a feat and a Talent at third, and another feat and an increase to his melee damage at fourth. (That's seven feats in all. Three General, Three Fighter, and one Fast Hero) This is, of course, in addition to the Class Defense bonuses and the standard "overlap" of skills, hit dice, BAB and Base Saves. In other words, there's a lot to try and piece together.
That's not to say it can't be done right, or even that you can't (with a little foresight and planning) go into the first session and play that character smoothly. It's just something I'd go into with my eyes open, ready to take twenty searching my manuals, if there was anyone present unfamiliar with basic D&D, d20 Modern, or Gestalting. Most of the horror stories about Gestalting stem from improper understanding or application of the variant -- for example, taking one level as a Fighter/Rogue and then leveling as a Fighter-Ranger, and increasing the Base Fort Save anytime either class would gain an increase rather than just taking the "better" progression.
If it's generally an experimental game (experimental in the sense that the rulesets in play are generally unfamiliar), my suggestion would be either to start at level two and increase the experience output until level four, as was suggested above, or to start at level three with players "on the cusp" of their advanced classes. Then, I've never DMed d20 Modern either -- only played.
Heh. :) I almost never DM, so I always like to get tips from experienced DMs before I start a campaign. There're still lots of DMing tricks for me to learn. :)
My standard advice to inexperienced DMs is to keep it simple.
As for the specific example you gave, I would say that starting at 4th level will probably cause minimal headaches, using Gestalt classes will cause a great many more, and mixing d20 Modern with D&D will cause exponentially more.
I'm curious just what you're aiming to achieve by mixing the two games? Despite sharing the same underlying system, they are very different games, with very different feels to them. Mixing the two seems... odd.
As regards Gestalts, it's a variant of which I am not fond. In general, I discard variants that exist to make the PCs more powerful at a given level, since my preference would be to just play at a higher level. Further, as with many of the variants in Unearthed Arcana, I don't feel the rules given are sufficient in themselves; the DM really needs to flesh them out (although perhaps only in play as the gaps are found).
However, the Gestalt rules do have a use. Specifically, I would consider using them if I was short of players, as they seem to 'fit' better than having players try to run multiple characters at the same time.
Finally, about the d20 Modern basic classes sucking: I'm of the opinion that that game should really have dropped classes altogether, and gone instead to a more generic character building system, as used in Mutants & Masterminds. I feel this would have better suited the 'toolkit' nature of that game. I'm certainly not a fan of the Basic/Advanced/Prestige class arrangement in d20 Modern.
In a campaign I expected to run with for a fairly long while, I'd never start my group at 4th level. Too high. The realm of everyday experience, in my games, runs from 1st to 5th level (meaning it's not very hard to find NPCs of that level; all guards are Ftr 1 or higher, for example, because I hate the Warrior class, but that's another thread...).
Anyway, level 2 seems golden. Your character is far less likely to die from one hobgoblin's critical hit (sorry about that one, DragonNerd), but is deffinately still in danger. You've got the stats to back up your supposed role as a hero. You've got more room to experiment with multiclassing. You can play a race with a +1 level adjustment with no rules or party balance tinkering.
You can start with masterwork weapons and decent armor and maybe even a few scrolls and potions. Sometimes, it's fun to struggle to get those things, but typically, that struggle doesn't last long and your character is VERY vulnerable during that time. 2nd level gets that out of the way and gets your character into the action quicker. You can actually contemplate taking on that whole goblin cave or kobold mine, although it's far from a cakewalk, still.
I'm not familiar with gestalt mechanics, but I've heard of them many times, and from the way they are mentioned, I don't know if I want to be familiar with them. Also, I too wonder why one would wish to mix d20 Modern and D&D. Then again, I have absolutely no drive to play anything even resembling d20 Modern. I liek sword and sorcery. Leave all assault rifles, gatling guns, antimatter missiles, or whatever, at the door, thank you very much. Pick up a damned bow and sword. But that's just me.
2nd level is a great starting point. 4th is too high in my eyes, but it certainly could work for you. Give it a shot.
Sebastian, that's a great idea about maxing both HD for 2nd level characters. I'll think about snagging that for my games, as well.
So for my campaign I'm beginning to consider starting PCs at 4th level instead of 1st. Why 4th? Because we're going to use the gestalt character rules from Unearthed Arcana, with one class a d20 Modern class and one class from D&D. And since the d20 Modern basic classes suck I'd like the PCs to have a chance to start off with an advance class, which they can qualify for at 4th level.
But is starting at a level higher than 1st robbing my players of something? I personally dislike DMing 1st-level characters, because I tend to kill them or bore them, but I can imagine some players who absolutely love playing weaklings.
Heh, shouldn't you be asking the players who you are going to be playing the game with what they want to do? It really depends on what kind of games and campaigns you all like to play. If you all want to develop characters long term and take them to 20th level and above, then start out at first level and you'll have that many more levels for character, plot, and roleplaying development. If all your group likes to do is squish monsters or be squashed by them, it doesn't matter one lick what level the PCs start out at.
As ever,
ACE
Upon further thought, starting out at anything beyond 1st is something I would only do with experienced roleplayers - not those new to the game. Most of the experienced roleplayers I've encountered can usually handle the advanced startup in stride, while a lot of new players get the "OMG! I wanna be Billy BadAss!" when you give them too many options.
|
We are using the Gestalt rules in our AoW campaign, although we aren't mixing in d20 Modern. Gestalt rules, in my opinion, already give you some better than average characters, even at first level. That said, I agree with what F2K said about those first few levels going real quick. Before the PCs realize they'll probably be 3rd or 4th level anyway.
As far as low level play goes though, a DM who is capable enough can challenge a low level party without demolishing them. Although this is easier when you have experienced players, it's not impossible to do with newbies.
Either way, Mr. McArtor, you should let us know what the ultimate decision is and how it works out for your game.
Mike, I think you know my thoughts on this, but I'll share with everyone. For d20 Modern, using the Lv. 4 jump off point is ideal.
The difference, I think, was in how the game was designed. You can ask d20 Modern co-creator Jeff Grubb the next time you see him to confirm this (cuz I could be way off here), but D&D characters come to the table -- even at first level -- with a supposed host of life experiences that prepare them for the adventuring life. That's why most classes have nifty special abilities at first level to reflect training and such.
But d20 Modern seems to take character creation back the beginning. First level characters in d20 Modern really seem not to have these class defining abilites. However, the advanced classes, most of which can be taken after 3 levels, do. So in my mind, a 1st level D&D character is the equivalent to the 4th level Modern character -- not in terms of power -- but in the things that define what is special about that character's role -- making it much more desirable to play.
I think Lillith has a good point, though. A shiny background from each player would be nice.
Shiny? Time to dust off the Firefly videotapes ...
I dislike playing the first couple of levels, or the "killed by a housecat" levels as I like to call them.
4th-level is a great starting level. Players could pick up to a +3 LA race, have an extra feat and an ability score increase, and could have a good idea of where they'd like to take the character.
And since the d20 Modern basic classes suck ..
Let an old man -- and regular DM -- offer some friendly advice, Ninja-lover.
Because I know you're at the gaming table with one of d20 Modern's co-creators, posts like that one could have one of several unintended effects ...
> You could be stuck with the pizza tab every night for a month.
> XP? You can forget that ...
> Every monster targets your character first ...
> A LOT of failed Spot checks are in your future ...
> If another PC says they've got your back, don't believe them ...
> Your PC is always the one that steps into quicksand ...
So repeat after me: D20 Modern Base classes don't suck. They're challenging to play. Yeah, that's the word: challenging.
Just trying to keep you out of the doghouse man.
|
I started my campaign at level 4. There were a couple of mitigants:
1. They had no equipment at that point.
2. I tend to use high ELs (say 3 or 4 higher than party average) and fewer encounters. A fourth level party is much more likely to survive an EL 8 encounter than a first level party an EL 5 encounter.
I feel that if you start them off at 4th or so - they dont really feel they have earned the character and he starts semming a bit like a playing piece to them.Kinda Cardboard.
Low level is good because you can spectacularly kill a PC and the guy dosent cave in too hard- not having the time to get attached.
And the others start paying more attention.
I like putting 1st level charcters in on adventures with 18th + characters and dont ever let any one start at a higher level just because everyone else is.
The High level guys have to try desperatly to keep their Noob friends ALIVE ! And its funny to watch.
Also its "Realistic" in a, "why dont 1st level PCs ever meet trolls" sort of way.
I let them Rocket up the levels if the survive the adventures though.
Dont you try this though guys.
Its not for you.
I like putting 1st level charcters in on adventures with 18th + characters and dont ever let any one start at a higher level just because everyone else is.
The High level guys have to try desperatly to keep their Noob friends ALIVE ! And its funny to watch.
Okay...
Also its "Realistic" in a, "why dont 1st level PCs ever meet trolls" sort of way.
In so far as anything involving 18th level characters can be called 'realistic'?
I let them Rocket up the levels if the survive the adventures though.
Dont you try this though guys.
Its not for you.
You're right - it most definately is not for me.
The problem with that approach is that even if the new PC gains a level a session, he's still going to take about 14 sessions before he's even remotely useful to a group of 18th level PCs. If you play once a week, that's three months of playing a character who is essentially useless. That sounds like an awful lot of 'not fun'.
Upon further thought, starting out at anything beyond 1st is something I would only do with experienced roleplayers - not those new to the game. Most of the experienced roleplayers I've encountered can usually handle the advanced startup in stride, while a lot of new players get the "OMG! I wanna be Billy BadAss!" when you give them too many options.
I would add to Lilith's comment "played together" one of the things I have learned from this board is that there are lots of different styles of play. Starting at first puts everyone one firm ground with each other and grow as a group.
But then I like the challenge of getting thru the low levels.
I feel that if you start them off at 4th or so - they dont really feel they have earned the character and he starts semming a bit like a playing piece to them.Kinda Cardboard.
Low level is good because you can spectacularly kill a PC and the guy dosent cave in too hard- not having the time to get attached.
And the others start paying more attention.
I like putting 1st level charcters in on adventures with 18th + characters and dont ever let any one start at a higher level just because everyone else is.
The High level guys have to try desperatly to keep their Noob friends ALIVE ! And its funny to watch.
Also its "Realistic" in a, "why dont 1st level PCs ever meet trolls" sort of way.
I let them Rocket up the levels if the survive the adventures though.Dont you try this though guys.
Its not for you.
I did throw rather dangerous encounters at my 1st -3rd level players. In fact, I pride myself on challenging encounters as a new DM. I mitigate the hell out of the encounter by having staggered opponent introduction, etc. Not everyone in an attack group attacks at once. THAT said, the heavy hitters might still be hiding in the dark...
I did put my recently 2nd level barbarian up against a Wyvern, and he would have died, but he had help from an actively fighting 2nd level ghost dwarf fighter npc, (incorporeality, yes, +ghost touch weapon, made him a tough bastard to kill, but HE almost died.) but luckily for both the npc and the pc had back up from a 9th level cleric/sacred purifier.
|
Upon further thought, starting out at anything beyond 1st is something I would only do with experienced roleplayers - not those new to the game. Most of the experienced roleplayers I've encountered can usually handle the advanced startup in stride, while a lot of new players get the "OMG! I wanna be Billy BadAss!" when you give them too many options.
100%ly agreed!
Mike: I guess that your fellow players are experienced. So letting them start at higher levels shouldn't pose a problem.On the other hand e.g. my group is even after five years of D&D quite inexperienced (a mixture of DMs and players whose whole D&D experience consists of our monthly D&D evenings).
You can guess that my players started at first level. The inexperienced of them never knew the difference, and the more experienced ones understood the sense of starting low.
I'd start experienced groups at 2nd level, too.
So in short: Adjust starting levels to your players' experience.
Greetings,
Günther
So for my campaign I'm beginning to consider starting PCs at 4th level instead of 1st. Why 4th? Because we're going to use the gestalt character rules from Unearthed Arcana, with one class a d20 Modern class and one class from D&D. And since the d20 Modern basic classes suck I'd like the PCs to have a chance to start off with an advance class, which they can qualify for at 4th level.
But is starting at a level higher than 1st robbing my players of something? I personally dislike DMing 1st-level characters, because I tend to kill them or bore them, but I can imagine some players who absolutely love playing weaklings.
What do you think? :)
I am inclined, whenever it is next I run, to start the PCs off as follows :
2nd level character, standard character races (no races with innate HD & NO "ECL" races), maxxed 1st and 2nd HD, 1st level starting wealth / gear ... and mandatory GM-observation of ALL PC's attribute generation die rolls, should do the trick nicely.
1st level characters are quite squishy. Depending on the attribute rolls, race chosen and class(es) chosen, I've seen characters at 5th and 6th level with less than 20 hit points. They tend to be a mite cowardly and inclined to be ... less than effectively contributive to smooshing the BBEG's than thier more aggressive comrades-at-hacking would appreciate.
If this doesn't work, I suppose it's back to the 1st level drawing board...
|
|
(...) 1st level characters are quite squishy. Depending on the attribute rolls, race chosen and class(es) chosen, I've seen characters at 5th and 6th level with less than 20 hit points. They tend to be a mite cowardly and inclined to be ... less than effectively contributive to smooshing the BBEG's than thier more aggressive comrades-at-hacking would appreciate. (...)
I think this discussion is quickly turning into the usual debate about role/ roll playing.
If you think first level to be a good starting point to find your place in D&D, to gradually find out what your PC's abilities are (see my posting above), and that even heroes are mortal, then 1st level is a good starting point.
If you priorize role playing over just one fight after another, if you don't concentrate on your fellow PCs' fighting skills, but their personalities, their quick wits, and a less action filled plot, levels don't matter that much.
If you want to fight big evil guys right from the start, I agree: everything between 1st and 5th level would feel "underpowered" then. ;-)
But in this case we'd discuss the benefits of low level vs. medium/ high level play. That would be a different topic, though...
Greetings,
Günther
And a topic that we've gone over before and certainly don't need to rehash again, especially on this thread.
If you think your players will be fine making characters at that level and won't miss playing the low levels anyway, go for it.
Yeah, what the above 2 posters said. That's the ticket ...
Just some food for thought.
If you were set on requiring the PCs to develop their characters from the ground up, you could always start at first level, but accelerate the leveling up process.
Say, after each session, your characters improve one level. That way the players are still forced to "grow" their characters -- but you aren't devoting too much time doing so. If your group is filled with experienced players anyway, maybe this is the ticket.
Personally, I think every campaign I've done with my current game group start out at 3rd. Since most of the time, classes get some type of big feat or ability around 4th, it lights a match under thier butt to hustle to that next level.
Though one of the best campaigns I ever played started out with us all being Halflings (2nd edition, when the Halfling/Gnome book came out) and we ended up hiding in a rotted log from a Badger after he seemingly viscerated our mage while we were clearing goblins from a city sewer system. As we sat in the log, hearing the growls of the badger:
"YOU go outside, your the fighter"
(hands the sword to the cleric)
"Well now you're the fighter!"
"No, you!"
"NO, you!"
and so on.
As a DM of such light weights you have to weigh options and even fudge dice ( I do) so that they can still feel suspense, but at the same time, players don't get too cocky ( like a certain halfling mage!)