Starting Level?

[Professor P]

If the problem is survivability at first level, why not just give some bonus HP at first level?

A house rule, I've been thinking about was to give each PC either 1d4 or just 4 HP to add to whatever that character's normal roll would be at generation (i.e. a fighter would get 1d8+1d4 (or 4)+CON bonus at first level. My rationale is that 0-level characters have 1d4 HP, so a first level character should get that 1d4 from starting at 0 level and then also gain their first level HD.

This would give some additional viability for first level characters, but not really lead to a great boost later on.

[Rogahn's Bluff]

Thinking on it I also realised I'd unconsciously slotted into the old B/X, AD&D divisions. "For character levels 1-3" was a strong and consistent implication of the limits of low level play, and that's a feeling I'm keen to retain when starting a campaign. 2nd level seems hardly worth it and 4th will always be "Expert" in some corner of my brain, so 3rd it is.

[Rogahn's Bluff]

If the problem is survivability at first level, why not just give some bonus HP at first level?

A house rule, I've been thinking about was to give each PC either 1d4 or just 4 HP to add to whatever that character's normal roll would be at generation (i.e. a fighter would get 1d8+1d4 (or 4)+CON bonus at first level. My rationale is that 0-level characters have 1d4 HP, so a first level character should get that 1d4 from starting at 0 level and then also gain their first level HD.

This would give some additional viability for first level characters, but not really lead to a great boost later on.

It's a cool idea (and something I've considered myself), but survivability isn't the whole of it. I'm approaching this as an exercise in genre emulation; finding that spot where PC competence is similar to the characters found in the fiction that inspires me. I find levels to be a great scaling mechanic so I'm trying to stay with them as-written rather than adding anything extra.

[Professor P]

If the problem is survivability at first level, why not just give some bonus HP at first level?

A house rule, I've been thinking about was to give each PC either 1d4 or just 4 HP to add to whatever that character's normal roll would be at generation (i.e. a fighter would get 1d8+1d4 (or 4)+CON bonus at first level. My rationale is that 0-level characters have 1d4 HP, so a first level character should get that 1d4 from starting at 0 level and then also gain their first level HD.

This would give some additional viability for first level characters, but not really lead to a great boost later on.

It's a cool idea (and something I've considered myself), but survivability isn't the whole of it. I'm approaching this as an exercise in genre emulation; finding that spot where PC competence is similar to the characters found in the fiction that inspires me. I find levels to be a great scaling mechanic so I'm trying to stay with them as-written rather than adding anything extra.

That makes sense. I suppose it depends on where you want your PCs to start compared to the particular story in the literature. Using Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser as an example, I would argue that in Swords and Deviltry they are both first level, maybe second in I'll Met in Lankhmar, albeit with very high stats. Of course, in other stories they are higher level.

[Rogahn's Bluff]

If the problem is survivability at first level, why not just give some bonus HP at first level?

A house rule, I've been thinking about was to give each PC either 1d4 or just 4 HP to add to whatever that character's normal roll would be at generation (i.e. a fighter would get 1d8+1d4 (or 4)+CON bonus at first level. My rationale is that 0-level characters have 1d4 HP, so a first level character should get that 1d4 from starting at 0 level and then also gain their first level HD.

This would give some additional viability for first level characters, but not really lead to a great boost later on.

It's a cool idea (and something I've considered myself), but survivability isn't the whole of it. I'm approaching this as an exercise in genre emulation; finding that spot where PC competence is similar to the characters found in the fiction that inspires me. I find levels to be a great scaling mechanic so I'm trying to stay with them as-written rather than adding anything extra.

That makes sense. I suppose it depends on where you want your PCs to start compared to the particular story in the literature. Using Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser as an example, I would argue that in Swords and Deviltry they are both first level, maybe second in I'll Met in Lankhmar, albeit with very high stats. Of course, in other stories they are higher level.

Indeed, but they also had authorial fiat as protection. Compared to that starting at 3rd is small potatoes.

[Professor P]

Indeed, but they also had authorial fiat as protection. Compared to that starting at 3rd is small potatoes.

True enough. Of course, as the DM, you could always change your rolls to keep a PC alive.

[bat]

1st level. The world is a meatgrinder, they had better get used to it.

[Old Guy]

I always start groups out at 1st level. For me as DM, I find it the most fun. But also because, for some reason, players tend to bond and build a background for 1st level characters more readily than when they start with higher level characters. At least that's been my experience.

[Lord Kilgore]

1st level. The world is a meatgrinder, they had better get used to it.

In my heart this is how I see it. When PCs hear rumors about "adventurers who never returned" or go into a labyrinth and see the blood and remains of those who have gone before, I want the players to FEEL the danger. And when they manage to survive until 3rd or 4th level, they will have earned every bit of it.

In practice, however, my players are sick of their PCs biting it and I'm getting tired of GMing a constant stream of 1st-level characters. Some can be blamed on inexperienced play, some on an apparent assumption that monsters are there to be fought (and not avoided), and some on just plain bad rolling at times on their part. But in the end it doesn't matter. No one is having much fun anymore and that's the bottom line.

We've given max hit points at first level and I've toned down a number of things slightly. We've toned up a few things for PCs slightly. It's helped, but the idea that 1st-level PCs should be one bad roll from death, which is as I think it should be, means that, well, they're one bad roll from death. In the course of a game, most of them die most of the time.

The fun is almost gone and that has to change.

We're working on a B/X/LL-based homebrew and are trying to address this in our design. That homebrew effort has spawned an offshoot project which will also have starting PCs significantly increased in power. If we were to play LL by the book again, and I'm sure we will at some point, we'd start at 3rd level.

I've been rolling all dice in the open all the time and I must admit that when we were kids we must have fudged a lot more rolls than I remember.

[finarvyn]

Personally, I like to start characters off at 3rd level but with 0 XP. This means they stay at 3rd for a while before they get to advance, but they get the advantage of not being near-death from the onset. Sometimes 1st level games can be fun, but at the same time the players know that they could be a single bad die-roll away from death. I think that 3rd level gives them a little leeway before they reach that "single bad die-roll away" point.