Starting at 1st Level

[jeffx]

In another thread it was mentioned that it is difficult to get players to agree to start at 1st level. I "always" start at first level. Is starting at first level something that really bothers players?

[Mira]

I have to say that made me wonder as well, like you, I've always started at 1st level unless it was a 'one-shot' adventure, where it wasn't about role-play but how clever the players were. (we did those every once in a while, with the 'competition' modules) And usually those one-shots weren't all that fun compared to the real adventures. To me, it's much easier to flesh out your character's personality by having real adventures to back up the character's level rather than imaginary ones. (and yes, I realize that it sounds weird to talk about 'real' vs imaginary in such a game! )

Mira (Always yield to temptation, because it may not pass your way again)

[Minstrel]

I've found players often ask to start at 2nd. I don't really like that myself, but I've tended to compromise by giving out a lot more xp at first level than the rules would dictate.

[McDeath]

DF had a thread talking about this and how they "beef-up" characters. I personally enjoy the basic 3d6 in order, choose race, class, and roll for hp. Many seem to like to give maximum hp for a level or two or discount 1s or even 2s, 3s, 4s rolled (depending on class). If players like to do that and the DM has no problem, then what can I say. I haven't been in an active session of role-playing (in person) for over 10 years so I know I'm rusty, but I'd definitely have no problem playing a first-level character.

Now, when I test a scenerio or adventure I've created I naturally put my test characters up to the lowest level I have set up. Stats are average 9s for most classes unless there is a minimum required, in which they get that. Hit points are rolled normally but I also figure out the average hp allotment per class per level. I take the lower of the two. I test the adventures two ways: one with players finding most secrets to test all encounters, and the other with regular rolls. Sometimes I test through scenerios several times (tedius).

In my earlier years I was often lax and didn't work encounters, spells, magic items right and would either end up with TPKs or montey hauls.
To this day I look at some of my works and go "good friggin grief."

[Zherbus]

I don't mind it once and a while. In particular, I like feeling I know my character from the beginning instead of having this cloud over him of obscurity until I picked him up. But our group got in a pattern of FINALLY getting somewhere and being able to take on more impressive things, then wham - let's start over. We were a victim of circumstance, but it got old to start fresh, stricter dice rolling, no nifty toys, etc.

In short, it's fine but there's only so many level 1-3 adventures I can play in a few decades.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

I generally enjoy starting at 1st level, but in my last campaign we started at 6th. It does bring up some challenges (ie the need to develop a history and backstory, etc), but I'll usually only do this with experienced players. I most enjoy the 7th - 14th level games, so that's the "sweet spot" for me. The faster I can get there, the better!

I like that range simply because it gives me so much more freedom since the PCs aren't so weak and low level that they can't survive much, yet neither are they so powerful that it's difficult to challenge them with just about anything. I just think that's the most flexible level range.

[Hegel]

I always started my games with characters at 1st level because I think it's a lot better, like Mira told, to play the backstory than to imagine a backstory. To me, things start to go better on 4th level until 7-8th level, because then stupidity takes control over my players and they start to think they're invincible, usually leading to that characters' deaths. I always used the 4d6 method, I think it generates pretty good characters but not superheros (only once it did, the guy got S18 D15 C16 I12 W14 Ch17 and became the first paladin in my group and he lasted until 8th level if I remember correctly). I also let them have maximum HP at 1st level but they roll normally thereafter.

[Algolei]

I always have my players start at 1st level.

When my players complained that 1st level characters didn't have enough hp to survive, I came up with two rules quicky houserules: Racial HD and minimum hp for creatures determined by size.

Racial HD is simply 1d6 hp for being a human, elf, dwarf, etc. Then you add your Class HD on top of it.

Minimum hp for creatures determined by size is simply this: Small-sized creatures have to have a minimum of 2 hp (excluding Constitution modifiers), medium-sized creatures have a minimum of 3 hp (excluding Constitution modifiers), and large-sized creatures have a minimum of 5 hp (excluding Constitution modifiers).

When you combine the two houserules, you get this: Roll 1d6 for your Racial hit points, and 3 is the minimum (unless you're small, like a halfling for example, in which case the minimum is 2). Those are the hps your character had before becoming 1st level, at which time they gained their first level hps on top of that.

So you get this range of hps for a medium-sized character:

MU/mage -- 4-10 hps, avg. 6.5 hps
Thief/rogue -- 4-12 hps, avg. 7.5 hps
Cleric/priest -- 4-14 hps, avg. 8.5 hps
Fighter/warrior -- 4-16 hps, avg. 9.5 hps

The major problem with this is, if you do it once, your players will always want to do it forever after. Also, do they get their Constitution modifier twice or not?

[Xyzchyx]

I always have my players start at 1st level.

When my players complained that 1st level characters didn't have enough hp to survive, I came up with two rules quicky houserules:

Better still would be to point out to them that the assertion is plainly wrong. First level may appear to not have as much of a margin for error as higher level characters, but this generally only reflects survivability to the extent that the character is handled intelligently or unintelligently, as the case may be.

[Algolei]

...this generally only reflects survivability to the extent that the character is handled intelligently or unintelligently, as the case may be.

Haha! Haha! Hahahahahahahahaha! [/maniacal laughing]


Oh, wait. You've never met my nephews, of course. They each have their own mottos:

Richard: "It's always more heroic when the building is on fire."

Ian: "I'll try it anyway even though the DM says it will automatically fail and my character will die a horrible horrible death."

Andrew: "Let's see if I can survive this! *jump*"

Jessica (okay, technically she's my niece): "But I don't want to hurt the nice goblin!" (Oddly enough, she's always the lone survivor when she plays.)

[Torctref Spleenkiller]

In another thread it was mentioned that it is difficult to get players to agree to start at 1st level. I "always" start at first level. Is starting at first level something that really bothers players?

Most of the time we start at 1st level and go from there...That is just the way that we have always done it.

But I also must admitt that there have been times that we have started with PCs that were higher levels from the start. Personally, I'm not as attached to these PCs, as I am with one that has gone the full distance.

But it has never been a problem with my group to start at 1st level.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Torctref Spleenkiller wrote:

But I also must admitt that there have been times that we have started with PCs that were higher levels from the start. Personally, I'm not as attached to these PCs, as I am with one that has gone the full distance.

Very good point! I do notice a stronger attachment to the characters I raised from 1st level. If I believe we have a strong campaign that will last, I always prefer starting at 1st level. But when the campaign is one that I doubt will last very long at all, it's more fun to just dive into the higher action. Otherwise, I get stuck at 1st-3rd level characters if that, and that's not as exciting.