If I were the player, I'd certainly want to start at the same level as everyone else. If I were the GM I would also let the player start at the same level unless for some reason the player wanted the experience of being underpowered. Be a fan of your players, even if that means a little extra work on your part.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We always start new players and/or characters at the same level as the rest of the party. Starting at a lower level isn't fun for anyone (the player, the GM or the rest of the party).
With all due respect to your GM, in this case he's incorrect. Trust me, start the new player at the same level unless you want a lot of aggravation for little or no payoff
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont use XP anymore and am not a big fan of differing levels in the party. That said, this is probably close to end of being able to have a PC start at level 1 otherwise they are probably going to get wiped out right from the start. Adventuring around with that handicap often is going to be super annoying. Is this how it will be going forward or is this a one time arrangment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same level. I've come to the conclusion that it's generally best for all PCs to have the same amount of XP at all times in Pathfinder--it's just plain easier, and the party enjoys leveling up more when they do it together.
Something to keep in mind is equipment. If you follow Wealth by Level and give the new PC unfettered access to equipment equal to their Wealth by Level, she will invariably have better equipment simply because she got to choose it all whereas the existing players will have some of their Wealth by Level represented by found items. Whether any of this matters to you is, of course, a matter of GM preference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is better to have them at the same level and being 3 levels behind is too much. Your GM also needs to remember that unlike 3.5 which gave you more XP if you were at a lower level Pathfinder gives a flat amount, so they will never really catch up.
My suggestion is to start them at the parties level but with xp that just gets them to that level. As for wealth, I start new PC's at one level lower wealth by level. In your case the new player would get 3rd level gp. For example, they would have 9000 xp and 3000 gp.
My suggestion is to start them at the parties level but with xp that just gets them to that level. As for wealth, I start new PC's at one level lower wealth by level. In your case the new player would get 3rd level gp. For example, they would have 9000 xp and 3000 gp.
Yep, same level, a little less wealth. A LOT less wealth if the party is allowed to loot the dead PC' in your campaign.
It prevents the new player from buying gear that outshines the other party members. Oh I also restrict their spending to no more than 25% one one single item.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM:
"Hey, wouldn't it be great if the new guy was "The Load", and poor, and could never catch up in power, and stay that way forever? I am such a clever DM for thinking of this."
Player:
"No, this idea sucks. If you don't want any new players, just say so."
I have seen slightly less gold and down a level to start. Then after 2 or so levels they get to catch up. My group did not track XP, you leveled up at relevant points in the story so being back for a level or two wasn't an issue. I think it helped with merging them into the group.
I keep all party members the same level at all times. Just not worth the hassle to do otherwise, IMHO.
I wouldn't start them at level 1. I might start them a single level behind. Then give +50% experience until they catch up.
But usually not, it is just too much hassle. Same level as the others.
-------------------------------
I will note that starting at level 1 is a hold over from how many/most played the early editions of D&D. Most people (other than the GM) hated it back then. And there wasn't as much of a difference in power by a few levels back then. If you were careful, and luck, and the group tried to protect you; you had a decent chance of surviving and catching up pretty quickly.
In PF you have almost zero chance of surviving if you are several levels lower and you will never really catch up unless given some sort of bonus to make sure you do catch up.
My suggestion is to start them at the parties level but with xp that just gets them to that level. As for wealth, I start new PC's at one level lower wealth by level. In your case the new player would get 3rd level gp. For example, they would have 9000 xp and 3000 gp.Yep, same level, a little less wealth. A LOT less wealth if the party is allowed to loot the dead PC' in your campaign.
Could also let them pick half their WBL in stuff and have the GM pick the other half. Sorta simulates a prior adventuring career.
If they're looting the dead PC's stuff, just take it out of their upcoming treasure until it balances out--again, if WBL is important to the group.
We generally start the new party member at whatever the average party level is. It usually works out in the end.
In one campaign we don't use individual xp, just a group xp. If someone doesn't make it, they still have the same xp as everyone else. This keeps all players relevant even it they can't make it to every session. Also makes book keeping easier.
In another campaign we don't use xp, the gm just tells us when we level and we are all the same level.
Keeping everyone the same level keeps everyone happy.
Yes, this is what all my games are currently doing.
What I've done in my campaigns typically is to start a newly starting character at about 75-80% of the xp of the highest xp character in the party. Most times this puts them at the same level or just one level below. I just feel that that's more fair to a player that's been there for the long haul, as opposed to someone that's just come along. It's not disruptive, it doesn't make the new character seem like a burden, and generally, they catch up in a few encounters.
Starting at 1st especially when you are high level is really a bad idea. The reason is the the character would stopping game time as they level up after every encounter. Talk about a why to kill game time only rush a character through levels in over of few encounters only to end up 1 level below the party.
Same level unless you're that rare person that likes the escort missions in video games. :)
Proper level is the same level as the party. In terms of wealth, if people can freely obtain the kinds of magic items they want, it should be the same wealth level as the party average. If the party generally only finds what they can, or is low wealth for their level, the gm should give items manually in line with what other players have, and then give an amount of gold to bring the player close to the party average.
Pathfinder is designed from the ground up that all PCs, at all times, will have the exact same XP total, no exceptions. One of the best changes made from D&D really.
Meanwhile, on the cash front, if you're sticking with WBL guidelines (APs generally do), go with that. If you're not (or if you are, and don't mind the extra bookkeeping), work out the net worth of the average net worth of the existing PCs, give the new one that much cash.
If you're replacing a dead/retired character, you really want to do that instead of swiping everything from the outgoing character. Theoretically, it would work out to just give all their stuff to their replacement, but why force your new alchemist to make due with your old wizard's hand-me-downs?
Theoretically, it would work out to just give all their stuff to their replacement, but why force your new alchemist to make due with your old wizard's hand-me-downs?
Assuming your new guy can actually use your old guy's stuff. If, say, my Ninja dies and I replace him with, oh, an oracle, that's not going very far.
Start them at 2 levels below party level since at later levels that wouldn't be a crippling disadvantage.
You should start them with Basic NPC stats and wealth and 1 level in commoner. ;P let them know what useless means and how fragile life is!
If the dm starts the player off at a lower level, then that player should get somthing to make them helpful, like a wand of lighting blot of a high level caster, magic armor, or some campaign maguffin that is worth the loss of levels, otherwise, they are just going to fell useless, and that's no fun,
Pros for starting at same level: balance, ease of integration, player experience (how the game feels to them)
Cons: less organic character development than the rest of the party?
Pros for starting at 1st when they are at 4th: It can lead to interesting party dynamics & story (the apprentice working with the wizard, the man-at-arms working with the knight, etc).
Cons: The game is balanced for equal levels, not significant differences in level. More work for both the GM and the group. I've seen this work best when the difference was 2 levels or less, not 3 or more.
Our group has been playing a long time (early 70s) and we do have the hold-over from D&D of having new characters come in at lower levels. Our GM provides side-quests both for story reasons and to allow lower level characters a chance to get catch-up experience. It's extra work, and the players and GM have to have the joint mind-set to accommodate it, but it can be fun. We generally have an existing character take the new one under his or her wing, and provide equal shares, which means higher than normal wealth by level for the character as well.
Looking at the advancement tracks (fast/medium/slow), if someone starts at level 1, they'll be one level behind when the 4th level group makes 7th level and stay that way every time the general group hits a level advancement milestone (absent any way for them to pick up extra experience). So if your group does go with this, side adventures or bonus Exp are a necessity to allow the character to catch up.
I would also be in the same level, control the equipment group.
Pathfinder shares the same problem as older versions of D&D, the level advancement gives huge jumps in capability.
If the GM doesn't agree and you have the information, go back over the last 2-3 sessions and find out how many encounters a level 1 PC could have survived one hit without going down. Also track how many cases it would have caused a Save And Die situation. Then mention all the reasons why you aren't supposed to multi-class casters and point out the new guy would be even more crippled than that.
What I do, is this:
* New Player joins the campaign at the Average Party Level.
* Replacement character is at average party level -1, but can spend their starting gold to 'train' (per Ultimate Campaign) to level up to the party's level.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon