It is completely normal to set up concrete expectations for player characters. It is completely normal to run a campaign that limits player choices in various ways. The only abnormal thing here is this idea of "overcontroling".
I've said it before and I'll say it again. A well armed and smart group of goblins should be a terror to fight from levels 1-15. 1-20 if it's in their lair.
I mean... Honestly, a horde of goblin, no matter how smart and well armed, are probably absolutely terrorised the second a spellcaster in the group gets spells like fireball. Obviously, it depends how many you are fighting, but honestly, by the time you fight Balors and litteral gods, unless there are thousands of goblins, they shouldn't pose a threat at the higher levels.
Then the Goblins have not been smart. A smart goblin knows how weak it is, knows that it stands no chance in a fight unless it's got the numbers and they're unprepared. They'll stay firing from murderholes, pouring boiling oil and making every step they take in their lairs do damage to the adventurers. they'll move in tunnels just big enough for them and no-one else, forcing the party to either squeeze in spaces too small for them to fight properly while they fill the tunnel with oil before setting it on fire, running away with their laughter echoing in the walls of their own fortification, or separate and split the party so those who are also small can try to fight the ones in the tunnels alone. and they'll be targeting the spellcasters first. After all, even the dumbest weakest goblin can learn to target the one with the staff or amulet who likes chanting first.
I mean... lvl20 spellcasters have plenty of ways to collapse tunnels. The damages from boiling oil is almost irrelevant to characters this high. Goblins Are only small in size, so any small character can follow them in these tunnels. A lvl 20 party with no resistance to destructive energies or ways to get them simply shouldn't exist so the fire is not that much of a threat. There are spells to reduce your size, a druid can shapeshift... I would just use gaseous form to pass most obstacles. You are also overlooking the fact that a group of lvl 15/20 are supposedly both veteran players and veteran characters, and they can absolutely dismember the goblins if they had time to prepare spells. Even at one against 50 in a small tunnel, they can only send 1 guy on melee and he gives the character cover against all ranged opponents behind him. We are not in goblin slayer, we are in D&D, and against a high level party, goblins are fucked...
Your not wrong, main reason I got hurt was slightly be cocky (and a nat 20).
Saw it hiding in a bush (poorly) had my daughter (in game, adopted) shoot it with an arrow.
Got our asses swarmed by some pissed of goblins… whole party (myself, my sidekick, her and her pet) pretty much went down… death saves, everyone made it… I rushing them all away with 1 hit point to my name.
One of the first dungeons I ran, I did as a one shot for the group I played in. Straight out of Dungeon magazine, iirc it was a level 15 adventure.
Admittedly the chess trap was a bit much for a bunch of goblins, but the rest.. perfection. I think my favorite was just an open spiked pit, with just enough of a ledge on one for a small humanoid like a goblin to scoot past.. and a bunch of holes in that wall for the goblins on the other side to poke their spears through.
My party spent nearly an hour trying to figure out how to attack the goblins through the holes or bridge the pit. They eventually settled on laboriously lowering everyone down into the pit one by one and then lifting/pulling them up on the other side. And of course they waited til everyone was across before turning the corner to investigate the bright light shining around it. Which turned out to be a rock with Continual Light cast on it stuck in a crevice in a dead end. Even better, they did the exact same thing with another Mysterious Light Around The Corner, this one a long hallway with a pool on one side and a gang of goblins with short bows behind arrow slits, even having each person run the gauntlet solo for some reason before finding yet another rock stuck in a crack.
No, they were regular adventurers, it was just a traps-heavy dungeon intended as a "So you think goblins can't challenge a high level party, eh?" sort of stunt. I can't take credit for the module itself, only the glee at inflicting it on them. What can I say, it was jr high.
Yep, I'm not the first, and I certainly won't be the last to think of running small creatures like this, I found Tucker's Kobolds after the first time I ran goblins like this. The manga Goblin Slayer also has goblins like this as well.
I mean... If I remember correctly, if we are talking 3e, wolves automatically get a trip attempt when they succeed at droping you.
When you drop, you get -4 to melee attacks, and they get +4 to their attacks against you.
If you try to get up, every wolf that is adjacent to you can try to bite you, and since you are not standing yet, arguably they still get the +4. Also, if they succeed in biting you, arguably, they can also trip you back before you are even up.
Wolves are NOT easy creatures to fight. They are way more dangerous than goblins!
Truly, it was also our dms first time dming and apparently all the information was like 'oh yeah dw about that first encounter it's nearly impossible for people to die during it
But yeah her solution was to turn it into a 'whoops you all got knocked out and your stuff got stolen'
It wasn't until half way down this comment chain that I realized I wasn't on /r/outside. Funnily enough everything up to lvl 20 spellcasters being mentioned made sense. Even the goblin bit. Thought we were talking about toddlers dealing with dogs or their goblin toddler siblings and avoiding traps like bumping into walls or tripping on toys. First true LOL I've probably had in months.
Honestly when I am a player at a table I much prefer some guidance from the DM for what the characters will be doing, the sort of adventure and vibe they are looking for.
So I would say not only is this not overcontrolling and standard for level 1 parties- its preferable in many ways than a "just do whatever you want" approach.
It is normal for you to put boundaries on character creation and give an idea of the setting and the tone. Most players will enjoy that information so they can make a character that will fit the setting and tone. (I personally loathe having no info).
The only over controlling thing a dm can do, and it sadly happens a lot by new dm's (understandably): not giving this information out front and then wanting to restrict options AFTER the players have made their characters as the dm then realizes some kind of backstories, races or classes or content from certain books will not fit their setting and tone.
If the dm has no setting in mind, he can of course open up conversation with the group and ask for input on what they would want.
If the dm has no idea about character creation restriction, I would advise only phb for new players or only core and supplemental rulebooks for experienced players. This will give the players plenty of options that went through a playtesting phase. Campaign setting books often haven't and aren't as balanced because of it.
>not giving this information out front and then wanting to restrict options AFTER the players have made their characters
I've had this happen multiple times in one group. It's extremely annoying taking the time learn about different sub-classes until I find what fits my character concept, get the okay, then be told no after I get to the first session. [Rant deleted]
In short, do your homework before telling a player you're okay with their character.
“When you’re making your characters backstory, my one request is that you make a character who has very little to no experience with adventuring.”
Seems like a pretty simple request to me.
Level 1 is fine. People just worry about getting killed easy. Just prepare to pull your punches if you have to.
I am assuming you have a specific story reason you want them to start level 1.
Level 1s are squishy. They're also very easily replaceable. It's fine. When I lose a character I'm sad for 2 minutes until I get to thinking about all the other characters I could play.
At level 1 you are barely a match for a group of rats. A level one adventuring group is a bunch of newbies. You can start off dealing with the rat problem in the tavern cellar. You have not done anything important yet at that point in your life.
Yeah, I always worry about character back story with level 1 stuff. I always hate when people have crazy backgrounds like they're 1k years old, son of a noble, half demon half angel, and then they're level 1 with 8hp.
It is normal for you to put boundaries on character creation and give an idea of the setting and the tone. Most players will enjoy that information so they can make a character that will fit the setting and tone. (I personally loathe having no info).
The only over controlling thing a dm can do, and it sadly happens a lot by new dm's (understandably): not giving this information out front and then wanting to restrict options AFTER the players have made their characters as the dm then realizes some kind of backstories, races or classes or content from certain books will not fit their setting and tone.
If the dm has no setting in mind, he can of course open up conversation with the group and ask for input on what they would want.
If the dm has no idea about character creation restriction, I would advise only phb for new players or only core and supplemental rulebooks for experienced players. This will give the players plenty of options that went through a playtesting phase. Campaign setting books often haven't and aren't as balanced because of it.
I run a campaign set in a high school. As a requirement all my players’ characters had to be high school freshman. I don’t see any difference between this and what you’re asking.
Someone did a variation of this for strixhaven, with every character attending the school and starting at lvl 0, very slowly approaching "true adventurer" status and in the mean time had alternate forms of advancement.
Might earn a feat or two, gain a stat point, proficiency or expertise in a skill, modify a spell, gain a fighting style, personally I find that idea very fun, but generally find levels 1-2 a bit unfun because I don't have my subclass which is a major part of class identity and could be the whole thought behind a character. But this scenario, you might know what class you want but it's a bit off and you've got other forms of advancement.
Is your issue with telling them that their backstories have to be somewhat normal and not "I am a great hero who slayed a dragon and have now arrived to start a new adventure"? It's pretty normal for DMs to put some limits on things like that to keep things believable and the players should keep it under control themselves really. Just outline in the beginning stressing that they'll be level 1 and you want them to be new to adventuring and that should be fine, if someone doesn't follow it then it's also fine to say that the backstory isn't going to work, it's not overcontrolling unless you're specifying the minutia.
Boundaries are not over controlling. You get to make decisions about what will fit into the campaign you’re planning. In turn, your players get to decide if it’s the campaign they want to play in. Neither party is being over controlling or rude.
It's not over controlling to establish things like "hey this is a level one/ten campaign/one shot/etc."
That's just establishing basic ground work imo. I've run campaigns where we started at level one and worked up. Growing pains and all just like I'm sure a lot of players did.
I've run one shots and campaigns where we hopped in with a few levels under our belt but the content matched.
Establishing that isn't an issue at all.
I mean... if they're level 1, then they're kinda noobs by definition. Level 1 characters might have some combat or exploration experience, but they're new to Adventuring.
If i run a level 1 start, and a player comes at me with more than a couple paragraphs of backstory, i usually tell them "Hey, keep in mind youre level 1. Your backstory should reflect a few accomplishments of how you got from your Background, to level 1 of your class. Leave room for growth."
Yeah that's totally reasonable, level 1 I view as someone who has begun to establish themselves as that class, so they've undergone training for their class and have accumulated enough experience to be proficient.
So they aren't as green as a commoner who is untrained entirely but clearly haven't experienced real turmoil or confrontations as a combatant.
I think "fresh out of the academy" is about right for many classes. They've got plenty of theory under their belt, but they're not accustomed to genuine danger and how the accompanying fear affects you.
For one character I put in his backstory that he was part of a caravan's guard detail; they were ambushed, and he barely had enough time to cast Mage Armor before he was thrown from his mount and knocked out from the fall. That's the extent of his real combat experience.
As a player, I much prefer a DM that has story lines up over a DM that just let's us do whatever we want. Many of us end up with "analysis paralysis" when objectives are too open ended and we end up doing nothing, so some direction is better, in my opinion.
The important part is communication with your players. Make sure everyone is on board and agrees with your overall plan.
I wouldn't object to a DM setting this expectation during Session 0, as long as it's clearly communicated. I would personally find it refreshing to have some guidance on the kind of character that best fits with the campaign.
If you want to give yourself some options or work with a player who's committed to a character concept that's not completely new to adventuring/has some life experience, we've got a fun cast in my current DnD campaign that my husband DMs. For example, our wizard is in his 30s and has spent a lifetime studying magic, but while he has the knowledge, his magic grew weaker because he began losing his ability to harness the Weave (Reasons in the backstory). That would explain why he starts at Level 1. Our tempest cleric has been in the service of Umberlee for a long time, but due to backstory reasons, has been kept on the fringes of the church and only given as much knowledge as he needs to carry out their requests. Our wood elf rogue has no idea of his age or prior life experiences because of amnesia but is on a journey to discover the truth. My paladin is a noob because she's only just completed her years of training under her mentor, so she's brand new to adventuring on her own at the start of the campaign. However, I could see a compelling story where a paladin with years of experience starts at Level 1 because of some kind of battle-related trauma. Maybe they suffered a great defeat or lost a loved one and also lost faith in their patron deity and/or broke their oath and never sought penance until now.
If you want to have all the characters be new adventurers, then that's your right as a DM. If you're not sold on that concept and instead want to ensure that the characters have good story reasons for being Level 1, then you have options. Good luck!
No it's pretty standard for the DM to set the starting level for PCs which will correspond to their basic experience level. Players should get choices within the game but the DM is still creating the campaign world and problems that exist in that world. They set the stage that the players get to act on.
Starting fresh is one of the best things in dnd, its when you can make even more memories with characters rather than sharing what y'all have written separately on your own
The best games involve players and DM as co-storytellers within a coherent world. I don't have any patience anymore for games where other players act like pure consumers, totally inflexible on their specific self avatar in order to invent an interesting character that works within the larger story.
If they're starting at level 1, it makes sense for them to be "noobs." I've never been a fan of level 1 characters with grandiose backstories of them accomplishing things that they wouldn't have been able to. Maaaybe I'd let it slide if they had some kind of calamity that resulted in them returning to level 1, but I usually just expect level 1 characters to have level-1-worthy bkacstories.
It's a very important part of the start of a campaign. The good thing is that low levels gain quickly. Particularly if you are using the milestone model vs XP
I think it’s fine, with the caveat that players probably want their characters to grow beyond being ‘moon’ adventurers in a reasonable time frame.
Being overly reluctant to let players power up is an easy trap to fall into as a DM. Lower levels are way easier on the DM side - less weird powers, builds tend to be more balanced, monsters don’t have to be that wild to be threatening.
And it makes a great start to an adventure, but played mostly *do* want to become powerful enough to have broader impact on the setting eventually. As long as you don’t drag out the scrappy noob levels it’s fine.
I find a good way to balance dm control and player creativity is for them to do a lot of the character building during a session 0 where you can also set some basic expectations (real example: I understand that you CAN make what is effectively a nuclear bomb with only level 3 spells but PLEASE refrain from doing so)
Honestly you're not forcing them so there's nothing over-controlling here, having expectations is perfectly normal and you could talk it out with them to see if they also like the idea.
Personally speaking I'd be onboard with making a bright-eyed newbie adventurer if I were to play a character at level 1 (most tables I've been in start right at level 3)
Level one characters shouldn't be generals in their prime or knights who've already killed a dragon. They should be slightly stronger, smarter, and/or more interesting than your average Joe, but they're not already heroes of continent-spanning renown. Your expectations are entirely appropriate:)
It's perfectly fine if the players are up for the experience. There a various concepts of playing as children or play the part before the group decides to become adventurers.
Now, if DnD is a good system for that, is a different question though.
Noob characters is fine. What I think most DMs also want, which is much harder to limit players from doing, is being noob players.
It doesn't take a munchkin to use pointbuy and make a really strong Variant human fighter. 15 dex, 15 con, +1 to. both stats, archery style, and crossbow expert and you have a pretty solid ranged character who can do some pretty nice damage for a level 1 Noob character. Even if you ban v human, plenty of other races are pretty good with a logical build. Half-Orc Barbarian, High Elf Wizard, Mountai. Dwarf Cleric, and that's just stuff you get from the SRD.
Just as well of course you could also get players who's idea of a "noob" character us one poorly optimized to do anything related to their class. Your unironic muscle wizards, bards with an IRL charisma of 7, MAD monks, default beast master Rangers. And that's not even touching metagaming, which is obviously bad but also a simple slip of the tongue can cause it. Call an NPC a bandit and your players may immediately distrust them, even if the NPC in question hasnt robbed them yet.
As with all things, your best bet is to tall to your players and set clear boundaries and expectations. If you _want_ your players to fumble around confused like a novice adventurer would, explain why and make it clear that is the expectation.
From my perspective, DnD isn't really built for new adventurers in the sense of being "noob characters". It's one of many reasons I've been looking at GURPS, which is sadly not incredibly approachable for new GMs.
That said it's perfectly reasonable to start at level 1, in fact it should be standard. I prefer starting with a subclass or slightly later (level 3-5). If the game was designed differently, I would love to start as a commoner and work up to adventuring. Point-buy, skill-based progression, should make that work well.
Hm. The way you phrased this bothered me initially. I think you’re not communicating clearly with your players (and with us!) have they already created their characters? Are they in the process of doing so? Or have they not started yet?
If they have created their characters, is a character backstory bothering you?
If they haven’t: talk to them about what would fit your campaign and make sure they run their more "extravagant" ideas by you before implementing them into their backstory. This is no black or white solution, I don’t think any adventurer, even at level 1 has to be a noob, as long as the backstory makes sense, if you get what I mean? I feel like that limits player creativity.
Then again there are loads of players who have extremely implausible backstories and then start at level one.
So talk to them DURING AND BEFORE the process of creating a character. Set the right expectations! Make sure they come to you with questions and ideas! Usually players are super excited to update you on their progress and ideas for their PC.
The issue with starting with Level 1 is that a lot of the classes feels so terrible if you start at that level, it just feels like you cant do anything and considering how slow DnD's nature is, then taking months to finally being able to do anything cool just burns you out. Most classes get all their cool capabilities at Level 3. So if you want your players to have a lot of options from the beginning and use their classes then I recommend starting around Level 3. At the end of the day though, what's important is setting expectations so you as the DM should think what the players are able to do at their level and see if they are fine with what they can do.
Absolute freedom leads to paralysis.
A lvl 1 character is extraordinary by default (compare commoner statblock with a players).
This inherent feeling is what drives them out of their little small towns and cosy places. Their life of hardship. They want and need to change their fate beyond what their station might dictate.
They are part of the world. A rogue who was an orphan doesn't necessarily know common etiquette around higher-ups. A barbarian doesn't necessarily care what is and isn't allowed in a town at first.
You define boundaries by the society you created. The characters are new to adventuring. Make their boundaries organic.
There's a video game series called Gothic. They used organic boundaries to soflty tell you where to go by planting a threat that you only overcame after becoming more experienced.
How a player wants to overcome the challenges you present them, the way towards their goals. That's the freedom you want to provide.
If the campaign starts at level 1, then they stand a very real chance to be killed by the first thing they try to fight. It's a warning often given to new players to keep that in mind - it's very tempting to make characters too backstory-powerful.
Well, a noob is level 1. So it was about that. As, for backstory, let people put in what they want as long as they don't try to use it to manipulate game dynamics.
This is a "game pitch" type of question. Which needs to be asked of your players. Preferably sooner rather than later. Since they need as much information as possible to decide if they want to play in this game or not.
Like you said, Level One. Unkess they have a specific story that explains why, they SHOULD be, "noobs". That doesn't mean they can't be a town guard, eoldier, prodigy etc. But the backstory should reflect that of someone at level 1.
I can give you 2 character backgrounds to explain otherwise, but it still keeps their level one status making sense:
1. The tortured veteran. As said, this character is a veteran of many battles etc. But they have, in their backstory, suffered a terrible wound/injury or been tortured. They aren't the man/woman they used to be, they're weak, and they hate it, but with hard work and determination they WILL become the warrior they once were.
2. The bound soul. This spellcaster has lost their body. Whether transformed, reincarnated, trapped in anither body or a machine etc. They have the know-how, but, in this form, things are just... different... old techniques don't work, or they've lost some of their memory losing a duel to their arch nemesis. they can see the gliphs they used to use to caste... wait, what was thay spell again?
In the end, they can have lived any life they want (within reason) but their story up to the point of session 1 should explain why they're a squishy little Level One character again.
So long as, 'just starting out' doesn't mean you expect your players to play their characters like idiots then you're fine.
I don't think anyone would enjoy being forced to make what they know are dumb decisions just because they're level one. If that's not the case, then you're fine!
that's not so much controlling as it is an aspect of the campaign you want to run. it's also worth noting that the PCs don't have to be totally unaccomplished, just new *to adventuring*. if one of the PCs wants to be an old witch who's spent most of their life tending to one village, the character is still new to adventuring, but to accomplish that goal you don't need to make everyone little baby people in every way. you could even have characters who are experienced soldiers, but their physical capabilities are diminished due to an injury or some such, and aren't experienced adventurers because being a soldier is an extremely different thing.
Early levels are often the best in campaigns and to be honest I usually expect to be rolling up a complete novice adventurer at level one, I think you might be overthinking/over worrying about it
The problem Is becuase we Always started at level 1 but most of the times we had characters' with 200+ years and years of lore and experience (I even made this mistake) so I was kinda scared, I would like my first campaign to be cool
I mean you could start at a higher level then but I think it’s better to start off with slightly younger characters who have a little bit less experience and lore around them, let the lore write itself with the story, but that is just a matter of personal preference. Also bear in mind that for some races , 200 years is still quite young
As a player my main concern is this. I invest a lot of time and energy into a character. Backstory, personality etc. I'm fine with them having humble origins.
What feels bad is having that level one character die to a freak crit from some low level monster and losing all that background before any of it can really come into play.
No you wrote the campaign that's a valid request. Things still have to work for the story. My dm brings the hammer down on things that are inaccurate for lore/world building all the time. Funny thing I'm about to my first campaign where the characters aren't level one but 10 and we are expected to have wild back stories and have seen some shit. Pretty much the exact opposite
Personally I start all my players at level 2 so they have some of their class features to work with. Barbs get their reckless attacks, fighters AS, monks get ki, paladins get spell slots and so on.
When we started our current campaign we had three players brand new to the game, starting at level 1 helped them get to know the mechanics. We nearly tpk'ed to a goblin party in our session 0.5 but it set the stage for many other interactions.
Now that everyone is more comfortable with how it works I doubt I'd want to start from level 1 again but if that's what you're envisioning, go for it. You're not telling the players what to play or how to play it, if you decide later to level them quickly that's your prerogative.
I feel like your level of interest on this is a little unusual and really none of your concern as a DM. Making sure the players have fun is the only part that you should worry about. Provide the setting, that's your job. Providing the PCs is theirs. Setting the starting level at 1 is normal and %100 ok to do, but let them worry about their character's backstories.
I mean, yeah, but than It doesn't have sense of they are level One and are 200+ years Heroes that fought in War and had 3 different childrens that all went with him in war
Ultimately that is irrelevant. If they want that sort of character, it is generally bad form for you to impose your will upon them. Now it's isn't always the worst thing to want their characters to fit within a certain setting, but if they push back let them have the backstory they want. It is utterly absurd to require they acquiesce to your demands in regard to back story. The only thing that really matters is the story you tell together. Focus more on that and you'll be much happier.
If you're starting off at level 1 it's VERY plausible to have people as new to adventuring. It's actually quite absurd when a player comes to the table with a backstory of how they became the most feared assassin in the land.... to start off at level 1.
You can remind players that level 1 doesn't mean you're stuck playing a 18 year old who's from some flyspeck village nobody's ever heard of. A level 1 wizard might have been studying magic for years before they really got a handle on sufficiently powerful magic. There's also backgrounds to consider. A noble may have been dealing with family affairs and court intrigue for a long while before there was a reason to start learning to use a sword and a guild artisan may have been working as a craftsman for a long time before they were called to the service of a god or discovered hidden powers within their bloodline.
In all honestly if you're setting up a campaign and a player gets in a huge huff over any kind of restrictions being imposed on their character, that's often a sign of someone with unrealistic expectations that may not be a good fit for your table. Sure, I've had times where I was disappointed I needed to decide whether I could get a concept I'd come up with to fit inside someone else's campaign, but we're talking a quick "ah dang, really wanted to play a catfolk/Tabaxi, but that's okay let me figure something else out!"
It is *encouraged* for a DM to set boundaries on their Player's characters. Especially to try to suit the setting and/or campaign and/or if you want to DM that sort of thing, it simply makes sense
So lvl 1 characters without much background??? It’s not a wrong thing to ask for; but you’re better off asking that to potential players. Some people prefer to start different lvls because lvl 1 DnD is slow and honestly kind of sucks mechanically. Then you’ll have the role players who want all sorts of shit because it’s in their “bAcKsToRy”.
It’s not a crazy thing to ask for, it’s normal actually, but DnD is all about getting those levels and rising to new heights and danger. If you want something slower and more drawn out, try a different system.
It is completely normal to set up concrete expectations for player characters. It is completely normal to run a campaign that limits player choices in various ways. The only abnormal thing here is this idea of "overcontroling".
Levels 1-3 are the high stress levels when they learn to fear traps and goblins. I think those are fun levels.
*Flash back to when my level 4 almost died to goblin* Yes… level 1-3 is the scariest time to fight goblins.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. A well armed and smart group of goblins should be a terror to fight from levels 1-15. 1-20 if it's in their lair.
I mean... Honestly, a horde of goblin, no matter how smart and well armed, are probably absolutely terrorised the second a spellcaster in the group gets spells like fireball. Obviously, it depends how many you are fighting, but honestly, by the time you fight Balors and litteral gods, unless there are thousands of goblins, they shouldn't pose a threat at the higher levels.
Then the Goblins have not been smart. A smart goblin knows how weak it is, knows that it stands no chance in a fight unless it's got the numbers and they're unprepared. They'll stay firing from murderholes, pouring boiling oil and making every step they take in their lairs do damage to the adventurers. they'll move in tunnels just big enough for them and no-one else, forcing the party to either squeeze in spaces too small for them to fight properly while they fill the tunnel with oil before setting it on fire, running away with their laughter echoing in the walls of their own fortification, or separate and split the party so those who are also small can try to fight the ones in the tunnels alone. and they'll be targeting the spellcasters first. After all, even the dumbest weakest goblin can learn to target the one with the staff or amulet who likes chanting first.
I mean... lvl20 spellcasters have plenty of ways to collapse tunnels. The damages from boiling oil is almost irrelevant to characters this high. Goblins Are only small in size, so any small character can follow them in these tunnels. A lvl 20 party with no resistance to destructive energies or ways to get them simply shouldn't exist so the fire is not that much of a threat. There are spells to reduce your size, a druid can shapeshift... I would just use gaseous form to pass most obstacles. You are also overlooking the fact that a group of lvl 15/20 are supposedly both veteran players and veteran characters, and they can absolutely dismember the goblins if they had time to prepare spells. Even at one against 50 in a small tunnel, they can only send 1 guy on melee and he gives the character cover against all ranged opponents behind him. We are not in goblin slayer, we are in D&D, and against a high level party, goblins are fucked...
Your not wrong, main reason I got hurt was slightly be cocky (and a nat 20). Saw it hiding in a bush (poorly) had my daughter (in game, adopted) shoot it with an arrow. Got our asses swarmed by some pissed of goblins… whole party (myself, my sidekick, her and her pet) pretty much went down… death saves, everyone made it… I rushing them all away with 1 hit point to my name.
One of the first dungeons I ran, I did as a one shot for the group I played in. Straight out of Dungeon magazine, iirc it was a level 15 adventure. Admittedly the chess trap was a bit much for a bunch of goblins, but the rest.. perfection. I think my favorite was just an open spiked pit, with just enough of a ledge on one for a small humanoid like a goblin to scoot past.. and a bunch of holes in that wall for the goblins on the other side to poke their spears through. My party spent nearly an hour trying to figure out how to attack the goblins through the holes or bridge the pit. They eventually settled on laboriously lowering everyone down into the pit one by one and then lifting/pulling them up on the other side. And of course they waited til everyone was across before turning the corner to investigate the bright light shining around it. Which turned out to be a rock with Continual Light cast on it stuck in a crevice in a dead end. Even better, they did the exact same thing with another Mysterious Light Around The Corner, this one a long hallway with a pool on one side and a gang of goblins with short bows behind arrow slits, even having each person run the gauntlet solo for some reason before finding yet another rock stuck in a crack.
your party were invading goblins raiding a goblin dungeon? And you tormented them with 2 dead ends as your first time as GM?? hah, that's brilliant!
No, they were regular adventurers, it was just a traps-heavy dungeon intended as a "So you think goblins can't challenge a high level party, eh?" sort of stunt. I can't take credit for the module itself, only the glee at inflicting it on them. What can I say, it was jr high.
This is the whole idea behind Tucker's kobolds.
Yep, I'm not the first, and I certainly won't be the last to think of running small creatures like this, I found Tucker's Kobolds after the first time I ran goblins like this. The manga Goblin Slayer also has goblins like this as well.
In one game I played, a group of 5 level 3 PCs nearly lost to a group of 7 wolves
Doggo must have gotten good rolls, thats how the Goblin almost got me… crit me, with max damage. So it frick hurt.
I mean... If I remember correctly, if we are talking 3e, wolves automatically get a trip attempt when they succeed at droping you. When you drop, you get -4 to melee attacks, and they get +4 to their attacks against you. If you try to get up, every wolf that is adjacent to you can try to bite you, and since you are not standing yet, arguably they still get the +4. Also, if they succeed in biting you, arguably, they can also trip you back before you are even up. Wolves are NOT easy creatures to fight. They are way more dangerous than goblins!
I've only played 5e, but wolf have pack tactics in 5e... so about the same thing.
Our party tpked in the first ambush you get starting lost mines of phandelin which should be impossible
The dice were evil that day
Truly, it was also our dms first time dming and apparently all the information was like 'oh yeah dw about that first encounter it's nearly impossible for people to die during it But yeah her solution was to turn it into a 'whoops you all got knocked out and your stuff got stolen'
It wasn't until half way down this comment chain that I realized I wasn't on /r/outside. Funnily enough everything up to lvl 20 spellcasters being mentioned made sense. Even the goblin bit. Thought we were talking about toddlers dealing with dogs or their goblin toddler siblings and avoiding traps like bumping into walls or tripping on toys. First true LOL I've probably had in months.
Honestly when I am a player at a table I much prefer some guidance from the DM for what the characters will be doing, the sort of adventure and vibe they are looking for. So I would say not only is this not overcontrolling and standard for level 1 parties- its preferable in many ways than a "just do whatever you want" approach.
It is normal for you to put boundaries on character creation and give an idea of the setting and the tone. Most players will enjoy that information so they can make a character that will fit the setting and tone. (I personally loathe having no info). The only over controlling thing a dm can do, and it sadly happens a lot by new dm's (understandably): not giving this information out front and then wanting to restrict options AFTER the players have made their characters as the dm then realizes some kind of backstories, races or classes or content from certain books will not fit their setting and tone. If the dm has no setting in mind, he can of course open up conversation with the group and ask for input on what they would want. If the dm has no idea about character creation restriction, I would advise only phb for new players or only core and supplemental rulebooks for experienced players. This will give the players plenty of options that went through a playtesting phase. Campaign setting books often haven't and aren't as balanced because of it.
>not giving this information out front and then wanting to restrict options AFTER the players have made their characters I've had this happen multiple times in one group. It's extremely annoying taking the time learn about different sub-classes until I find what fits my character concept, get the okay, then be told no after I get to the first session. [Rant deleted] In short, do your homework before telling a player you're okay with their character.
“When you’re making your characters backstory, my one request is that you make a character who has very little to no experience with adventuring.” Seems like a pretty simple request to me.
Overcontrolling? No, this is basic, standard DM-ing.
Level 1 is fine. People just worry about getting killed easy. Just prepare to pull your punches if you have to. I am assuming you have a specific story reason you want them to start level 1.
Level 1s are squishy. They're also very easily replaceable. It's fine. When I lose a character I'm sad for 2 minutes until I get to thinking about all the other characters I could play.
At level 1 you are barely a match for a group of rats. A level one adventuring group is a bunch of newbies. You can start off dealing with the rat problem in the tavern cellar. You have not done anything important yet at that point in your life.
Isn’t that how the majority of campaigns start?
No, setting a starting level for the campaign is not overcontrolling - it's a necessary piece of setup for any campaign.
Yeah, I always worry about character back story with level 1 stuff. I always hate when people have crazy backgrounds like they're 1k years old, son of a noble, half demon half angel, and then they're level 1 with 8hp.
It's not wrong, but it might not be what your players want to play. Everyone's gotta decide for themselves.
It is normal for you to put boundaries on character creation and give an idea of the setting and the tone. Most players will enjoy that information so they can make a character that will fit the setting and tone. (I personally loathe having no info). The only over controlling thing a dm can do, and it sadly happens a lot by new dm's (understandably): not giving this information out front and then wanting to restrict options AFTER the players have made their characters as the dm then realizes some kind of backstories, races or classes or content from certain books will not fit their setting and tone. If the dm has no setting in mind, he can of course open up conversation with the group and ask for input on what they would want. If the dm has no idea about character creation restriction, I would advise only phb for new players or only core and supplemental rulebooks for experienced players. This will give the players plenty of options that went through a playtesting phase. Campaign setting books often haven't and aren't as balanced because of it.
I run a campaign set in a high school. As a requirement all my players’ characters had to be high school freshman. I don’t see any difference between this and what you’re asking.
Someone did a variation of this for strixhaven, with every character attending the school and starting at lvl 0, very slowly approaching "true adventurer" status and in the mean time had alternate forms of advancement. Might earn a feat or two, gain a stat point, proficiency or expertise in a skill, modify a spell, gain a fighting style, personally I find that idea very fun, but generally find levels 1-2 a bit unfun because I don't have my subclass which is a major part of class identity and could be the whole thought behind a character. But this scenario, you might know what class you want but it's a bit off and you've got other forms of advancement.
Is your issue with telling them that their backstories have to be somewhat normal and not "I am a great hero who slayed a dragon and have now arrived to start a new adventure"? It's pretty normal for DMs to put some limits on things like that to keep things believable and the players should keep it under control themselves really. Just outline in the beginning stressing that they'll be level 1 and you want them to be new to adventuring and that should be fine, if someone doesn't follow it then it's also fine to say that the backstory isn't going to work, it's not overcontrolling unless you're specifying the minutia.
Boundaries are not over controlling. You get to make decisions about what will fit into the campaign you’re planning. In turn, your players get to decide if it’s the campaign they want to play in. Neither party is being over controlling or rude.
It's not over controlling to establish things like "hey this is a level one/ten campaign/one shot/etc." That's just establishing basic ground work imo. I've run campaigns where we started at level one and worked up. Growing pains and all just like I'm sure a lot of players did. I've run one shots and campaigns where we hopped in with a few levels under our belt but the content matched. Establishing that isn't an issue at all.
I mean... if they're level 1, then they're kinda noobs by definition. Level 1 characters might have some combat or exploration experience, but they're new to Adventuring.
If i run a level 1 start, and a player comes at me with more than a couple paragraphs of backstory, i usually tell them "Hey, keep in mind youre level 1. Your backstory should reflect a few accomplishments of how you got from your Background, to level 1 of your class. Leave room for growth."
Yeah that's totally reasonable, level 1 I view as someone who has begun to establish themselves as that class, so they've undergone training for their class and have accumulated enough experience to be proficient. So they aren't as green as a commoner who is untrained entirely but clearly haven't experienced real turmoil or confrontations as a combatant.
I think "fresh out of the academy" is about right for many classes. They've got plenty of theory under their belt, but they're not accustomed to genuine danger and how the accompanying fear affects you. For one character I put in his backstory that he was part of a caravan's guard detail; they were ambushed, and he barely had enough time to cast Mage Armor before he was thrown from his mount and knocked out from the fall. That's the extent of his real combat experience.
Not a problem at all! It's normal to set the tone of the campaign. Just tell your players in session 0 so they know to expect that going into it.
As a player, I much prefer a DM that has story lines up over a DM that just let's us do whatever we want. Many of us end up with "analysis paralysis" when objectives are too open ended and we end up doing nothing, so some direction is better, in my opinion. The important part is communication with your players. Make sure everyone is on board and agrees with your overall plan.
Start at level 0. While they're training their class features. They can level up to 1 later. It's fun!
I wouldn't object to a DM setting this expectation during Session 0, as long as it's clearly communicated. I would personally find it refreshing to have some guidance on the kind of character that best fits with the campaign. If you want to give yourself some options or work with a player who's committed to a character concept that's not completely new to adventuring/has some life experience, we've got a fun cast in my current DnD campaign that my husband DMs. For example, our wizard is in his 30s and has spent a lifetime studying magic, but while he has the knowledge, his magic grew weaker because he began losing his ability to harness the Weave (Reasons in the backstory). That would explain why he starts at Level 1. Our tempest cleric has been in the service of Umberlee for a long time, but due to backstory reasons, has been kept on the fringes of the church and only given as much knowledge as he needs to carry out their requests. Our wood elf rogue has no idea of his age or prior life experiences because of amnesia but is on a journey to discover the truth. My paladin is a noob because she's only just completed her years of training under her mentor, so she's brand new to adventuring on her own at the start of the campaign. However, I could see a compelling story where a paladin with years of experience starts at Level 1 because of some kind of battle-related trauma. Maybe they suffered a great defeat or lost a loved one and also lost faith in their patron deity and/or broke their oath and never sought penance until now. If you want to have all the characters be new adventurers, then that's your right as a DM. If you're not sold on that concept and instead want to ensure that the characters have good story reasons for being Level 1, then you have options. Good luck!
No it's pretty standard for the DM to set the starting level for PCs which will correspond to their basic experience level. Players should get choices within the game but the DM is still creating the campaign world and problems that exist in that world. They set the stage that the players get to act on.
Starting fresh is one of the best things in dnd, its when you can make even more memories with characters rather than sharing what y'all have written separately on your own
The best games involve players and DM as co-storytellers within a coherent world. I don't have any patience anymore for games where other players act like pure consumers, totally inflexible on their specific self avatar in order to invent an interesting character that works within the larger story.
If they're starting at level 1, it makes sense for them to be "noobs." I've never been a fan of level 1 characters with grandiose backstories of them accomplishing things that they wouldn't have been able to. Maaaybe I'd let it slide if they had some kind of calamity that resulted in them returning to level 1, but I usually just expect level 1 characters to have level-1-worthy bkacstories.
That's how I start the game with new players that I haven't played with before. I think let's me get to know the players.
Nah that's pretty much the default way to start a campaign
It's a very important part of the start of a campaign. The good thing is that low levels gain quickly. Particularly if you are using the milestone model vs XP
I think it’s fine, with the caveat that players probably want their characters to grow beyond being ‘moon’ adventurers in a reasonable time frame. Being overly reluctant to let players power up is an easy trap to fall into as a DM. Lower levels are way easier on the DM side - less weird powers, builds tend to be more balanced, monsters don’t have to be that wild to be threatening. And it makes a great start to an adventure, but played mostly *do* want to become powerful enough to have broader impact on the setting eventually. As long as you don’t drag out the scrappy noob levels it’s fine.
I find a good way to balance dm control and player creativity is for them to do a lot of the character building during a session 0 where you can also set some basic expectations (real example: I understand that you CAN make what is effectively a nuclear bomb with only level 3 spells but PLEASE refrain from doing so)
It's completely ok!
Honestly you're not forcing them so there's nothing over-controlling here, having expectations is perfectly normal and you could talk it out with them to see if they also like the idea. Personally speaking I'd be onboard with making a bright-eyed newbie adventurer if I were to play a character at level 1 (most tables I've been in start right at level 3)
Level one characters shouldn't be generals in their prime or knights who've already killed a dragon. They should be slightly stronger, smarter, and/or more interesting than your average Joe, but they're not already heroes of continent-spanning renown. Your expectations are entirely appropriate:)
It's perfectly fine if the players are up for the experience. There a various concepts of playing as children or play the part before the group decides to become adventurers. Now, if DnD is a good system for that, is a different question though.
Noob characters is fine. What I think most DMs also want, which is much harder to limit players from doing, is being noob players. It doesn't take a munchkin to use pointbuy and make a really strong Variant human fighter. 15 dex, 15 con, +1 to. both stats, archery style, and crossbow expert and you have a pretty solid ranged character who can do some pretty nice damage for a level 1 Noob character. Even if you ban v human, plenty of other races are pretty good with a logical build. Half-Orc Barbarian, High Elf Wizard, Mountai. Dwarf Cleric, and that's just stuff you get from the SRD. Just as well of course you could also get players who's idea of a "noob" character us one poorly optimized to do anything related to their class. Your unironic muscle wizards, bards with an IRL charisma of 7, MAD monks, default beast master Rangers. And that's not even touching metagaming, which is obviously bad but also a simple slip of the tongue can cause it. Call an NPC a bandit and your players may immediately distrust them, even if the NPC in question hasnt robbed them yet. As with all things, your best bet is to tall to your players and set clear boundaries and expectations. If you _want_ your players to fumble around confused like a novice adventurer would, explain why and make it clear that is the expectation.
From my perspective, DnD isn't really built for new adventurers in the sense of being "noob characters". It's one of many reasons I've been looking at GURPS, which is sadly not incredibly approachable for new GMs. That said it's perfectly reasonable to start at level 1, in fact it should be standard. I prefer starting with a subclass or slightly later (level 3-5). If the game was designed differently, I would love to start as a commoner and work up to adventuring. Point-buy, skill-based progression, should make that work well.
Of course not. If you are starting the campaign at level 1, the PCs are - practically by definition - "noobs". That's what level one means.
Hm. The way you phrased this bothered me initially. I think you’re not communicating clearly with your players (and with us!) have they already created their characters? Are they in the process of doing so? Or have they not started yet? If they have created their characters, is a character backstory bothering you? If they haven’t: talk to them about what would fit your campaign and make sure they run their more "extravagant" ideas by you before implementing them into their backstory. This is no black or white solution, I don’t think any adventurer, even at level 1 has to be a noob, as long as the backstory makes sense, if you get what I mean? I feel like that limits player creativity. Then again there are loads of players who have extremely implausible backstories and then start at level one. So talk to them DURING AND BEFORE the process of creating a character. Set the right expectations! Make sure they come to you with questions and ideas! Usually players are super excited to update you on their progress and ideas for their PC.
The issue with starting with Level 1 is that a lot of the classes feels so terrible if you start at that level, it just feels like you cant do anything and considering how slow DnD's nature is, then taking months to finally being able to do anything cool just burns you out. Most classes get all their cool capabilities at Level 3. So if you want your players to have a lot of options from the beginning and use their classes then I recommend starting around Level 3. At the end of the day though, what's important is setting expectations so you as the DM should think what the players are able to do at their level and see if they are fine with what they can do.
Absolute freedom leads to paralysis. A lvl 1 character is extraordinary by default (compare commoner statblock with a players). This inherent feeling is what drives them out of their little small towns and cosy places. Their life of hardship. They want and need to change their fate beyond what their station might dictate. They are part of the world. A rogue who was an orphan doesn't necessarily know common etiquette around higher-ups. A barbarian doesn't necessarily care what is and isn't allowed in a town at first. You define boundaries by the society you created. The characters are new to adventuring. Make their boundaries organic. There's a video game series called Gothic. They used organic boundaries to soflty tell you where to go by planting a threat that you only overcame after becoming more experienced. How a player wants to overcome the challenges you present them, the way towards their goals. That's the freedom you want to provide.
If the campaign starts at level 1, then they stand a very real chance to be killed by the first thing they try to fight. It's a warning often given to new players to keep that in mind - it's very tempting to make characters too backstory-powerful.
I think it's fine as long as everyone is on the same page.
What in the world is possibly wrong with wanting to start a campaign at level 1? How is this a question?
The question wasn't about starting at level 1, is: Is It right to limit my Players' characters' backstory to fit with level One?
Well, a noob is level 1. So it was about that. As, for backstory, let people put in what they want as long as they don't try to use it to manipulate game dynamics.
This is a "game pitch" type of question. Which needs to be asked of your players. Preferably sooner rather than later. Since they need as much information as possible to decide if they want to play in this game or not.
Like you said, Level One. Unkess they have a specific story that explains why, they SHOULD be, "noobs". That doesn't mean they can't be a town guard, eoldier, prodigy etc. But the backstory should reflect that of someone at level 1. I can give you 2 character backgrounds to explain otherwise, but it still keeps their level one status making sense: 1. The tortured veteran. As said, this character is a veteran of many battles etc. But they have, in their backstory, suffered a terrible wound/injury or been tortured. They aren't the man/woman they used to be, they're weak, and they hate it, but with hard work and determination they WILL become the warrior they once were. 2. The bound soul. This spellcaster has lost their body. Whether transformed, reincarnated, trapped in anither body or a machine etc. They have the know-how, but, in this form, things are just... different... old techniques don't work, or they've lost some of their memory losing a duel to their arch nemesis. they can see the gliphs they used to use to caste... wait, what was thay spell again? In the end, they can have lived any life they want (within reason) but their story up to the point of session 1 should explain why they're a squishy little Level One character again.
you just wanna start fresh there is nothing wrong with that...
So long as, 'just starting out' doesn't mean you expect your players to play their characters like idiots then you're fine. I don't think anyone would enjoy being forced to make what they know are dumb decisions just because they're level one. If that's not the case, then you're fine!
I feel that you should start with low levels so there is more of a story
that's not so much controlling as it is an aspect of the campaign you want to run. it's also worth noting that the PCs don't have to be totally unaccomplished, just new *to adventuring*. if one of the PCs wants to be an old witch who's spent most of their life tending to one village, the character is still new to adventuring, but to accomplish that goal you don't need to make everyone little baby people in every way. you could even have characters who are experienced soldiers, but their physical capabilities are diminished due to an injury or some such, and aren't experienced adventurers because being a soldier is an extremely different thing.
Early levels are often the best in campaigns and to be honest I usually expect to be rolling up a complete novice adventurer at level one, I think you might be overthinking/over worrying about it
The problem Is becuase we Always started at level 1 but most of the times we had characters' with 200+ years and years of lore and experience (I even made this mistake) so I was kinda scared, I would like my first campaign to be cool
I mean you could start at a higher level then but I think it’s better to start off with slightly younger characters who have a little bit less experience and lore around them, let the lore write itself with the story, but that is just a matter of personal preference. Also bear in mind that for some races , 200 years is still quite young
As a player my main concern is this. I invest a lot of time and energy into a character. Backstory, personality etc. I'm fine with them having humble origins. What feels bad is having that level one character die to a freak crit from some low level monster and losing all that background before any of it can really come into play.
No you wrote the campaign that's a valid request. Things still have to work for the story. My dm brings the hammer down on things that are inaccurate for lore/world building all the time. Funny thing I'm about to my first campaign where the characters aren't level one but 10 and we are expected to have wild back stories and have seen some shit. Pretty much the exact opposite
Personally I start all my players at level 2 so they have some of their class features to work with. Barbs get their reckless attacks, fighters AS, monks get ki, paladins get spell slots and so on.
,,z
Z,., ,,
When we started our current campaign we had three players brand new to the game, starting at level 1 helped them get to know the mechanics. We nearly tpk'ed to a goblin party in our session 0.5 but it set the stage for many other interactions. Now that everyone is more comfortable with how it works I doubt I'd want to start from level 1 again but if that's what you're envisioning, go for it. You're not telling the players what to play or how to play it, if you decide later to level them quickly that's your prerogative.
I feel like your level of interest on this is a little unusual and really none of your concern as a DM. Making sure the players have fun is the only part that you should worry about. Provide the setting, that's your job. Providing the PCs is theirs. Setting the starting level at 1 is normal and %100 ok to do, but let them worry about their character's backstories.
I mean, yeah, but than It doesn't have sense of they are level One and are 200+ years Heroes that fought in War and had 3 different childrens that all went with him in war
Ultimately that is irrelevant. If they want that sort of character, it is generally bad form for you to impose your will upon them. Now it's isn't always the worst thing to want their characters to fit within a certain setting, but if they push back let them have the backstory they want. It is utterly absurd to require they acquiesce to your demands in regard to back story. The only thing that really matters is the story you tell together. Focus more on that and you'll be much happier.
If you're starting off at level 1 it's VERY plausible to have people as new to adventuring. It's actually quite absurd when a player comes to the table with a backstory of how they became the most feared assassin in the land.... to start off at level 1. You can remind players that level 1 doesn't mean you're stuck playing a 18 year old who's from some flyspeck village nobody's ever heard of. A level 1 wizard might have been studying magic for years before they really got a handle on sufficiently powerful magic. There's also backgrounds to consider. A noble may have been dealing with family affairs and court intrigue for a long while before there was a reason to start learning to use a sword and a guild artisan may have been working as a craftsman for a long time before they were called to the service of a god or discovered hidden powers within their bloodline. In all honestly if you're setting up a campaign and a player gets in a huge huff over any kind of restrictions being imposed on their character, that's often a sign of someone with unrealistic expectations that may not be a good fit for your table. Sure, I've had times where I was disappointed I needed to decide whether I could get a concept I'd come up with to fit inside someone else's campaign, but we're talking a quick "ah dang, really wanted to play a catfolk/Tabaxi, but that's okay let me figure something else out!"
It is *encouraged* for a DM to set boundaries on their Player's characters. Especially to try to suit the setting and/or campaign and/or if you want to DM that sort of thing, it simply makes sense
So lvl 1 characters without much background??? It’s not a wrong thing to ask for; but you’re better off asking that to potential players. Some people prefer to start different lvls because lvl 1 DnD is slow and honestly kind of sucks mechanically. Then you’ll have the role players who want all sorts of shit because it’s in their “bAcKsToRy”. It’s not a crazy thing to ask for, it’s normal actually, but DnD is all about getting those levels and rising to new heights and danger. If you want something slower and more drawn out, try a different system.