Level 1 Start - The Poll

[hollyfant]

Although "fairness" is silly in this context (it's not a race you know? ) I would imagine giving existing as well as new characters the same free xp will avoid a lot of grumbling. They don't need it, but who wants to be the Santa that only gives presents to some of the kids?

[Rotku]

t who wants to be the Santa that only gives presents to some of the kids?

I say we make a list of those existing PCs who have been naughty or nice. Give the nice ones a XP boost, and those PCs who have been naughty get nothing.

[Ksiel]

Absolutely yes. Starting level should be level 2.

So many background stories of pc's would benefit from a level 2 start. Not to mention the chance of being able to survive a few days longer. The Gods forbid we might live long enough to enjoy our PCs.

Let us look at it by the numbers. The largest benefit is you will have another level to add some hp to your character. A secondary benefit if you are playing a fighter is you will have another feat. (Rule lawyers please correct me if I am wrong here.)

All of you who say, "What about those who are already past level 2 who woul not benefit." I say give them the extra 1000 exp and send them on their way.

[Brokenbone]

While I do not think the suggestion was replied to in the brainstorming thread, would a LOAN of 1000xp (or some other figure) solve the "everyone else wants compensation" fear?

Example: You start off your dwarven fighter/wizard (intended to be a tough guy magic arms/armor dealer) as 1/1, and he has an IOU for negative 1000xp, either to be hand managed by a DM later, or to have a script associated to automatically eat his first earned1000xp (which is more complex than just asking a DM to remove XP from you before your next level).

*shrugs*

[Kirin]

I know I'm new here, but...

The primary argument for being level 2 at start seems to be is that DnD characters have too little HP at level one, and can be killed by a stiff breeze. I agree with that!

Why not treat that specific symptom? Let all new characters start with a "Traveler's Amulet" that gives +10 HP. NWN2's item properties let an item grant actual hit points rather than CON, with no other bonuses.

If +10 is too high, even +5 will help early levels. And if you really don't want these items in circulation long-term, the could be a "Nearly-Depleted Traveler's Amulet" that loses it's magic by level 3. (easily done by a few lines of code in the OnLevel script)

[ElCadaver]

I know I'm new here, but...

The primary argument for being level 2 at start seems to be is that DnD characters have too little HP at level one, and can be killed by a stiff breeze. I agree with that!

Why not treat that specific symptom? Let all new characters start with a "Traveler's Amulet" that gives +10 HP. NWN2's item properties let an item grant actual hit points rather than CON, with no other bonuses.

If +10 is too high, even +5 will help early levels. And if you really don't want these items in circulation long-term, the could be a "Nearly-Depleted Traveler's Amulet" that loses it's magic by level 3. (easily done by a few lines of code in the OnLevel script)

Good original idea.... just make it non-equippable by anyone over lvl 1 and make it an OOC thing never spoken about in game

[Veilan]

Not that I've made my mind up on whether I like the idea, but wouldn't a feat work better for those purposes?

Bonus HP of any sort devalue toughness / mind over matter as starting feats, and you already effectively have 10 extra hit points the moment you bring a buddy: You don't die at 0 but at -10.

Remember those loading screen messages .

[hollyfant]

It's shaping up to be a close-run race, so a) we should do something and b) it should be inobtrusive.
Maybe an optional XP loan with interest?

[Rotku]

With interest? I like this! So we give 1000xp on character creation. When the PC has reached 2000xp, we take away 1500xp! And then the profits made can go to my PC!

[Blindhamsterman]

I really dont like the idea of giving PCs a feat or item that grants additional hp, because it will devalue actual level ups (an item giving +10hp only wearable at level1 for a mage means at 1st he has 14-16hp at 2nd he has 8-12hp... ) It also seems odd considering theres no real RP reason for it, and plenty of people have survived 1st level and up without such an item.

On the other hand a level 2 start (or rather +1k exp to starting PCs going forward (don't really see why those of us already past 'the hard part' NEED an extra 1k exp) isn't a bad idea, a level 2 start opens up a lot more in character backgrounds, my fighter wizard PC for instance would actually have been able to cast a spell or two to back up his claims when he started out. It also adds the surivability that some people feel is lacking right now.

So, if an item is the way forward in peoples minds, my vote changes to no, it its +1k exp to new PCs then sure I'm all for it (and don't even think a loan is totally needed)

[Veilan]

It's shaping up to be a close-run race, so a) we should do something and b) it should be inobtrusive.

See, I entirely disagree with that conclusion.

Playing in Exodus is certainly a perfectly feasible option if someone wishes a level 3 start, and it doesn't even require a new app considering our shared membership.

Something for every taste! Trying to make a mingle-mix-soup of muddied compromising is just bound to piss off everyone and void us of choices.

If it's so massively important to increase starting hit points, then maybe we could make the toughness feat start with +5 and start progression only at 6th, so people worried could take it for a feat pick - real currency.

[I-KP]

Playing in Exodus is certainly a perfectly feasible option if someone wishes a level 3 start, and it doesn't even require a new app considering our shared membership.

Wow. That's a pretty divisive thing to say to 45% of the player base.

[Veilan]

How so? Pointing out that we have both at the moment, which is far superior and more inclusive than having to choose between either or, is probably less divisive than trying to force project A to be like project B, in effect eliminating all choice.

[Mick]

Would it be technically feasible to turn off the bleeding script for the first two levels of a PC's life? That way, you can still be beat up as normal, but you just lay around unconscious until you recover but don't automatically die from blood loss, even if you get critted. Monsters will often lose interest once you go down and go back to their route walking or whatever, then a PC could get up, limp away and come up with a RP reason for being spared. It is a bit of a stretch of "realism", but so are a lot of other things that occur in the engine.

[I-KP]

How so? Pointing out that we have both at the moment, which is far superior and more inclusive than having to choose between either or, is probably less divisive than trying to force project A to be like project B, in effect eliminating all choice.

Perhaps this is where we differ in our interpretation of the results. To me '45%' indicates that some form of compromise might be in order; to you it seems to say 'go and play something else.'