Hey I'm playing a game where the PC have about 2000 xp, and I'm letting in another player. Now I know the differences isn't that great, but still a character at that rank IS better than a starting one, so to be fair I want to give out some more starting xp for him. What do you think is fair in relation to the rest of the PCs? Let him start at the same rank? Same xp -x?

Oh and same for equipment, the Acolytes have managed to get decent armor and weapons. a bolt pistol with some ammo, and even 2 power blades!

So do you think a lump sum is fair and if so, how much? I don't recall atm but I think the PCs have about 2000 xp each (rank 3)

When a new PC joins the group, I usually start him off at the same rank as the others, with the minimum amount of xp required to reach that rank. As for equipment, that's a little more complicated. If the PC has a particular background, I'll usually give him background appropriate equipment. For example, a few months ago two new characters joined one of my groups. One was an Imp Guardsman, another an Imp Navy Intelligence Officer. The Guardsman started off with fairly standard Imp Guard equipment - Flak Armour, lasgun etc. The navy officer started off with a flak coat, irontalon pistol etc.

However, if my games their Inquisitor tends to give the PCs equipment appropriate to the mission they are about to begin. They have just returned to Scintilla to pick up some extra gear, so the two new guys will quickly be brought up to the same level as the others. If that isn't something you do in your games, you might want to let the new characters start off with more equipment than I do, so as to keep them on the same level as the rest of the group.

What I've done is started new players at 5/9ths of the maximum XP in the group (there was originally a reason for that, explained to me by one of the GMs I used to play with, but by now it's tradition, or an old charter, or something), and either 2 or 3 months' wages at whatever rank they end up at (70% chance of 3 months', rolled by me). I find it works rather well, although it is a bit of a faff (although not that much of one, compared to character generation as a whole).

Alternatively, the player and I will sit down and discuss what sort of equipment fills their backstory (and character creation choices), and I'll give them appropriate gear to their job and 1/2 a month's wages for extras

macd21 said:

That is exactly how I would do it either. Including in the case a character of the group dies and the player is rolling a new one.

Furthermore, the rank term/description often gives a good hint about the possible and fitting equipment. But I would always only give equipment the character is able to use; so an Armsman (Guardsman rank 3) could chose between a Flamer and a Grenade Launcher as a substitute for his Lasgun (to represent the Armsman as an weapon specialist in a squad), but only if he has taken the respective skill. I even made a list for most careers just for that reason.

Friend of the Dork said:

My table usually starts new players out at 1/2 to 3/4 of base. This usually accounts for missed roleplay bonus xp.

How bad would it be to let new players / characters start with the basic 400XP and let them work their way up?

As long as the others have far more, it would be very bad. Just imagine a classical situation, a fight against a cult and its magos. The GM must make it interesting for the players so the Magos is a hard opponent even for the experienced PCs. While the experienced PCs can shred dozens of cultists within some rounds and then engage the Magos, the PC with only 400XP should be glad to not be overwhelmed by the simple cult members. And if the Magos gets down to attack him, he will probably need lots of fate points in order to avoid instant death.

Just think about Armour and Toughness. An advanced character can easily have a TB of 4 and AP 4. A starting character will very probably have a TB of 3 and maybe AP 2. In comparison the latter one takes 3 wounds more with every single hit.

I know of a D&D group that tried to do similar things with a level 1 and several level 3 to 4 characters. They told me it simply didn't work.

Well, it probably would be a bit harder for the 400 xp character as described above, but that's assuming he also is kitted out like a starting character 9with the ap of 2 as opposed to 4). In this game, I find that equipment makes a hell of a difference and a character properly equipped but lacking in skills and talents can still hold their own when teamed with higher rank characters. I've had rank 1's teamed up with a rank 5 and 6 before and it worked just fine. Granted, he was properly equipped for the mission. In the two combats that this team fought, the other characters tended to score more hits and down enemies faster, but it was actually the rank 1 who saved the day and downed an assassin that was tearing the team a new one. When both the rank 6 scum and rank 5 adept hit the dust (the adept didn't even see the blow coming), the rank 1 scum took the assassin out with a nice PB full auto burst (and he was still heavily wounded from the last altercation they were in too).

macd21 said:

I also do this for experience. For equipment, I usually average the value of the other players' characters equipment so I have an idea of how well-equipped the new player should be. Sometimes I give 'em more because it fits the story/character/situation at hand. Overall, though, it works out really well. I haven't had any players complain about the new guy getting better gear.

Infernal Teddy said:

At 2000 xp, the 1600xp deficit wouldn't make it awful. You could toss them an extra Fate Point and let them work their way up. However, I don't think it would be fun for most players.

At 4000xp, it would be suicide for the 400xp player.

I personally think overall group experience is best. At one point in my first campaign when I was still learning the ropes, I thought 75% of the highest experience would be good. But, it turned out to be the opposite, because only one survived on a consistent basis and refused to die. Roll of die was for him, and against me. His insanity would be the means to his end though, when he tried to explain what the hell was going on with the Lord Inquisitor.

No one listened of course.

Ok guys, thanks for your input. I know the difference in power levels between ranks in DH is alot less than in D&D (imagine a rank 4 acolyte having almost 4 times the wounds of a starting character!), but there is still a significant difference in what a newbie character is able to achieve, not to mention what kind of weapon talents he can have.

So I've decided to go for the ca. 1/2 xp route and gave him 1000xp and 3 months pay. This makes him of equal rank as the rest but still the others have a significant head start on xp (and they have the insanity points and burnt FPs to pay for that head start).

One option is to give him extra xp in exchange for insanity or corruption points... oddly enough none of my players have ever considered it a good deal

macd21 said:

Bah the cowards. I would gladly take 10 insanity points for 1000 xp. A one for one point would be stupid though

It takes quite alot of insanity points to make a character unplayable, and on the way it surely makes a character more interesting . Besides, depending on the generosity of the GM, a player could easily rack up that many insanity points in a few sessions worth 1000xp.

One of our players lost his character (after smashing into a group of cultists in a hot wired (and rigged to explode) Enforcer skimmer - you had to be there) and I decided not to give him any additional XP.

The other players at the time were high end Rank 2 to mid rank 3 and I figured that a Rank 1 character wasn't too much of a difference. Plus the guy wanted to play an Arbirator and as we didn't have one (infact there wasn't anyone who came close to a "social" character (since the cleric and scum had both shuffled off the mortal coil) his skills and talents would be valuable and not overshadowed by teh existing characters. I *did* however give him a few extra bits of gear.

I figure that as a GM it's easier to control awards of gear (it jams, gets stolen, left behind, runs out of ammo or power etc.) while you can't remove xp or unlearn skills, talents and abilities so easily.

I think it all comes down to managing teh group as a whole and maintaining balance and a perception of fairness.

Nerd King said:

Would giving him some xp unbalanced him compared to the others? I agree that it is fair that survivors will should have some advantage (people should want to burn some fate points), but a few hundred xp makes alot of difference for a new character. At 400xp you'll probably lack many essential skills you'll want your character to have, but at 1000 you got your base covered and only wait for the ability to get tougher guns, bonus to your skills, and those new skills and talents that complements your abilities further.

Friend of the Dork said:

No - I agree that 1k of xp wouldn't have unbalanced him but a starting (400xp) character, freshly recruited by their Inquisitor and stuck in the group to monitor the "vetereans" and keep tabs on them for their master made sense to the narrative at the time, it fit the concept the player wanted to play and the status quo of the group as a whole.

My points were I *prefer* to give gear than XP but that every situation is different - I don't think you can put down hard and fast rules.