PDA

View Full Version : Starting level



Avor
2009-01-30, 09:23 PM
What starting level do you like, as DM and PC?

As a player, I like starting at level 1-3
As DM, I like starting the players at level 1-3

I just enjoy low level gameing more, the game is more life and death, since you are weak every victory you claim means more, and I feel more pride from a level 10 character I did from 1 ro 10, than one where I started at level 6.

As DM, i like starting my players at low level, it keeps them modest. When players start at anything over level 5, they have a sense of power, and since they didn't realy earn it, they miss use it.

Assassin89
2009-01-30, 09:28 PM
As a PC, I prefer starting at level 1-3. As my group plows through some parts of an adventure, facing something meant for 6 level characters is actually an accomplishment.

Alleine
2009-01-30, 09:40 PM
We almost always start at lvl 1.
I would kill to start at a higher level though so that I could play my strange and not-very-useful-at-low-levels characters and actually have them be useful right from the get go.

Starscream
2009-01-30, 10:16 PM
I like starting at the beginning. It's more fun that way. I prefer to DM campaigns that start there as well, although if I'm doing something I know will be short lived (just a couple of sessions), then I'll start everyone at whatever level they need to be for the story I want to tell.

It's just hard to tell an epic story where the ending is "You defeat the kobold with two levels in Rogue. Now the countryside is safe". If it's a long term campaign then I can make the villain whatever I want, and just let them slowly approach his level of power. Y'know, like in OOTS.

Draz74
2009-01-30, 10:19 PM
I really don't find Level 1 very fun at all. I'd much prefer to start at 2 or 3. They're already a huge improvement, where you're not likely to die from one CR-appropriate crit and you can actually afford some masterwork equipment.

monty
2009-01-30, 10:20 PM
I'm preparing for a 1-30 campaign. There's just something more satisfying about playing a character that you built from the ground up.

On the other hand, at high levels you get to do the truly heroic stuff like stopping demon invasions and whatnot. So it's good to balance both.

Nohwl
2009-01-30, 11:17 PM
level 5 or level 6 is a good place to start. i'm able to cast more than one spell during combat at those levels.

Bad Situation
2009-01-30, 11:38 PM
My group almost always starts at Level 1. We love the lower playing tiers, because at our mid to high levels, usually around 7-15, it becomes harder for our DM to challenge us.

Of course, the games usually get to epic levels before we're through. It's fun but gets utterly ridiculous and hard to keep track of.

RebelRogue
2009-01-30, 11:43 PM
It depends a lot on the experience of the players and/or DM and the edition used. Higher level PCs have a lot of options open to them. Likewise, as a DM it is generally harder to predict the possible outcomes of the actions and options of higher-level characters and the way it may spoil what you've planned. In general, you'll want to be able to roll with it as much as possible, which could be harder for less experienced DMs. In general, I'd say higher levels makes it harder on DMs than players, but all in all, this unpredictability could be exactly what your group likes. In 4ed this tendency is generally downplayed, as characters have way fewer "game-wrecking" abilities available, so it will generally be less problematic to play at higher levels.

Vortling
2009-01-30, 11:53 PM
For 3.5e I prefer to play and DM starting at level 3-5 since you have enough hp to not die and some distinguishing powers. For 4e I prefer to start at least at level 11.

Morandir Nailo
2009-01-30, 11:59 PM
Level 1 baby, down and dirty. I'm not interested in saving the world, I'm just interested in slaying and looting and drinking and wenching, and when you've only got 8 hp people tend to look elsewhere for those Save The World jobs.

Mor

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-31, 12:18 AM
What starting level do you like, as DM and PC?
The higher level that everyone is comfortable with, the better. Since games rarely get to higher levels, and they rarely start at higher levels, I take every chance I get to start as high as possible. As a DM and a player.

I don't have anything in particular against low levels, but I've played them to death.

TS

RTGoodman
2009-01-31, 12:33 AM
Eh, depends on how I'm feeling. I don't particularly LIKE starting at 1st level, but occasionally when I'm DMing (especially for newer groups) I tend to start there. In general, though, I prefer starting at somewhere around 3rd level if I'm DMing, or around that level or slightly higher if I'm playing.

Raenir Salazar
2009-01-31, 12:35 AM
I second the level 5 or 6 thing. Level 1 can be rough.

Avor
2009-01-31, 01:45 AM
I second the level 5 or 6 thing. Level 1 can be rough.

That's why me and my DMs always give full HP at level one. Rolling a 2 on d8 at level 1 realy blows.

Anybody else do that?

Draz74
2009-01-31, 01:53 AM
Er ... I think that's a relatively rare problem, since max HP at Level 1 is actually a standard rule, right in the Core books.

BobVosh
2009-01-31, 02:11 AM
Actually, anyone actually roll hp for first level? Never really met anyone who did, outside of 1st ed player.

I like 3+

Although I get a big desire to play 13+ after a while of no higher level games.

And we have an epic game like 3 times a year.

AslanCross
2009-01-31, 02:15 AM
Yeah, the core rules say that first level HP is always maxed out.

In any case, I like starting around 5. I started my own campaign at that level. Eyes of the Lich Queen and Red Hand of Doom also start thereabouts.

ArtifexFelicis
2009-01-31, 02:23 AM
After losing a battle at level one to three wolves, I prefer to start at level 2 or higher. It's not terribly bad, but it really really sucks when the following exchange occurs.

"Okay, starving, half dead wolf 1 goes first. He crits! Full Damage! That's X, what are you at?"

"-2..."

"Well maybe the cleric can heal before you, oh wait."

hiryuu
2009-01-31, 02:33 AM
After losing a battle at level one to three wolves, I prefer to start at level 2 or higher. It's not terribly bad, but it really really sucks when the following exchange occurs.

"Okay, starving, half dead wolf 1 goes first. He crits! Full Damage! That's X, what are you at?"

"-2..."

"Well maybe the cleric can heal before you, oh wait."

Well, to be honest, wolves are hardcore, attacked humans like crazy in those time periods, and are especially nasty when they're starving. People in middle ages Scotland were so scared of wolves they built small shelters every hour or so down the road called spittals.

However, I do prefer level 2-4 to start. Gives me an opportunity to take enough flavor feats to round out what I want the character to be able to do and lets me fill out a fun backstory.

Ascension
2009-01-31, 02:55 AM
Five. I've started higher and lower, and I've generally found that, personally speaking, level five seems like a sweet spot in every d20-esque system I've encountered so far. This usually means I have three levels of class X and two levels of class Y, since I have a hard time not multiclassing.

...although the greatest game that barely was (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86463) started at 1/2, and I'd give a pancreas for the chance to play a game like that again.

Atamasama
2009-01-31, 03:19 AM
Always gotta start at level 1. The lower levels go by faster anyway, and it gives you more of a feel for things before you have to make choices. I hate starting at a higher level with a character and having to make choices for feats and skills when I don't really know yet what I'm going to want to use with that character in that campaign. I can't tell you how many times I've planned a character out levels ahead and changed my mind along the way based on what I encountered in the game.

JonestheSpy
2009-01-31, 03:33 AM
As a DM, I always start campaigns at level 2 - max hit points for both levels. It's good to be able to run an adventure where the players don't have to retreat and rest after the two or three encounters.

expirement10K14
2009-01-31, 03:52 AM
DM- 1-3, as the people I normally play with are all terrible at creating characters (no, you can't play a front-line bard or a wizard/monk). I usually can expect them to overcome a house cat by level 5.

Player- 5+, leaving me with room for RP and OP feats.

mostlyharmful
2009-01-31, 03:54 AM
Level five, you are less likely to be mauled by a passing housecat but you still aren't so redonkulous thatt he barb can faceplant the ground from a 200 foot cliff and walk away.

The fighters are still vaguely relivent, the casters have enough juice to have a choice in what to cast and how much per combat, the skillmonkies have enough ranks to outclass random farmer Bob-types but nothings taking too long to work out, the random static bonuses aren't too many and the character sheets might be as little as three or four pages.:smallamused:

Before 5 why is anyone thinking of you as an adventurer, you're just a bunch of mooks, above about 11 and it just gets silly.

Iliad
2009-01-31, 03:59 AM
After losing a battle at level one to three wolves, I prefer to start at level 2 or higher. It's not terribly bad, but it really really sucks when the following exchange occurs.

"Okay, starving, half dead wolf 1 goes first. He crits! Full Damage! That's X, what are you at?"

"-2..."

"Well maybe the cleric can heal before you, oh wait."
Which reminds me of how my level 2 ranger paired up with a level 2 rogue fought and defeated eight wolves which for some reason all charged at us. It ended with my ranger on 0 hp, and the rogue on 1 :smallamused::smallamused:

SydneyLosstarot
2009-01-31, 04:28 AM
i like 3-5 for both playing and DMing(not that i have a lot of chances to play anyway)

the characters don't die if you snore on them and their capabilities start to flesh out
also the generation process isn't as tiresome as it would be for lvl 8, for instance

bosssmiley
2009-01-31, 06:10 AM
Level 1 baby, down and dirty. I'm not interested in saving the world, I'm just interested in slaying and looting and drinking and wenching, and when you've only got 8 hp people tend to look elsewhere for those Save The World jobs.

"It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue shanked by a kobold." :smallbiggrin:

I start new players at level 1 (it let's them get to know the system from the ground up). More experienced players start at whatever level the setting requires.

Eldariel
2009-01-31, 06:45 AM
I'd never let any game start under level 3 - in fact, if I were rewriting PHB, I'd just state that "all PCs are experienced enough to be at least level 3; levels 1 and 2 are reserved for people in training and second-rate NPCs". 3+ anything goes depending on what we're looking for in that particular game. Any game that requires a new character after each critical just isn't for me. And that's what level 1-2 game is.

I probably wouldn't play much over level 50 though. A bit too much work. So levels 3-50 seem about right.

Triaxx
2009-01-31, 07:04 AM
Starting higher than one has always seemed silly to me. How are we supposed to have humble origins if we started out as gods. Of course, given the Overpower we end up with, and the fact that level 40 is not an uncommon ending level...

Grail
2009-01-31, 07:08 AM
it depends on the game, but generally if i'm starting a long-term campaign, I start them at level 2. They're not bunnies in the headlights, but they don't get a free leg up (spellcasters still only have access to 1st level spells).

Kiero
2009-01-31, 08:08 AM
At least 3rd. As a player I hate playing 1st level characters, as a GM I can't stand the boring adventures you have to create to cater for 1st level characters.


Starting higher than one has always seemed silly to me. How are we supposed to have humble origins if we started out as gods. Of course, given the Overpower we end up with, and the fact that level 40 is not an uncommon ending level...

What a wonderfully false dichotomy. 3rd level is hardly "starting out a god". Besides which, not every game is about having "humble origins".

potatocubed
2009-01-31, 08:36 AM
As I GM I usually start at level 1. I don't find it difficult to create enjoyable adventures for low-level characters, although I concede that I really hit my stride between levels 5-8.

I also find that the low levels in 3.5 tend to whoosh by very quickly, although the 4e game I'm running is crawling by comparison so maybe I'll start future 4e games at 11th level or something - kick right into the paragon tier.

I haven't actually played a game in so long that my preferred starting level is irrelevant. :smalltongue:

kamuishirou
2009-01-31, 08:50 AM
With 3.x I always liked starting and letting my players start at 3rd. It gave them some options and let people play ECLs. Though my favorite 3.5 game, we started at level 10. It was all the DM, but it was so much fun. I'll never forget that campaign.

With 4th edition, 1st level is so much fun now. We fought a dragon through one adventure before we even hit 2nd. It was an epic fight and a lot of fun. It's one reason I like 4th so much. You can fight a Dragon in the Dungeon :). Sure it was just a 'little' dragon. But it was a dragon non the less :).

small pumpkin m
2009-01-31, 08:52 AM
Level 3 was the baseline for ages, anything below that, and the game just doesn't work properly for me. It's mostly the hp, but there are other things. There's one guy is the group who tends to want to start higher simply because our games tend to self destruct after about 5 levels, so these days we tend to start around four or five.

Cheesegear
2009-01-31, 09:02 AM
Level 3, is also a +1 from me.

As a player; It's not difficult and doesn't take too long to roll up a level 3 character. Since there are hardly any PrCs to get at that point, and base-classes are all rather simple. For me, its all about speed. I'm also not a 6 hit-point squishy, where a well-placed arrow could kill me.
It also means that I can level according to the campaign. Nothing sucks more than rolling a level 13 character who is good at X, only to find that the DM is never even including X. It's very rare that the DM will actually tell you what to expect.
If I had started at level 3, and went through the campaign, I would know what to expect. And I would level appropriately.

As a DM; Level 3 doesn't contain too much cheese, and I don't have to be looking over their shoulder while my players try and create Ultra-Mega Powerzord. I find that at level 3, there's a few options they can have, but, still, not enough power-creep that it gets out of hand (although there are some low-level combos). And as my players level up, I can see where they're going and how they got there.
It also means I can test-run the characters as they level up. I know their tactics, I know their abilities, they can handle what I throw at them (and then they die :smallamused:)
Rather than them presenting me with a 15th level 5-times'd multi-classed character who seems to be churning out xDy* damage/checks/etc. every round. That gets annoying pretty fast.

*Where x = at least 15, and y = at least 8.

Eldariel
2009-01-31, 09:17 AM
Another thing is that level 3 generally allows for a realisation of most concepts. Like, on level 1 a Fighter/Wizard eerily seems the same as a pure Fighter (or a Wizard if that's what he opted to start with instead), but on level 3, he'll already clearly be a mix of the two. Of course, some concepts need PrCs to be realized (for example, you won't be much of a Dervish before you gain the ability to actually...y'know, dance in combat), but most are pretty clear from just the 3 first levels; that'll include two classes, generally highlight which is the primary, or even if there'll be more than two.

Triaxx
2009-01-31, 06:18 PM
Well, if given the choice, my players would start at level 11, so yeah...

Anyway, starting humble, makes them keep it real.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-31, 06:35 PM
Actually, anyone actually roll hp for first level? Never really met anyone who did, outside of 1st ed player.
3e is the only edition that has players max their 1st level hit points, though it was a fairly common house rule in earlier editions.


Of course, given the Overpower we end up with, and the fact that level 40 is not an uncommon ending level...
Ehm...you're joking right? :smallconfused: If not, can I play with your group? :smallsmile:

TS

horseboy
2009-01-31, 07:02 PM
I'm a fan of apprenticeship. Given that it's a rare system where a level 1 character is competent I tend to start at least level 2 equivalent. Then depending on the system maybe more.

Kiero
2009-01-31, 07:52 PM
Well, if given the choice, my players would start at level 11, so yeah...

Anyway, starting humble, makes them keep it real.

I could quite happily play a game that starts at 11, and never advances from that point. Yes, one where we ditch the advancement rules and simply play out those same characters for the entire game.

Curmudgeon
2009-01-31, 09:00 PM
Level 1. The game provides different aspects of play at different points, and I like to experience all of them.