At what level do you start your games?

[Firechanter]

As it says on the tin. Do you go through the level 1 bone-mill, do you start a bit higher, or do you jump in right at mid- or high levels?

Me, I prefer starting on level 3 or so. Character is out of the wood by then and doesn't get squished by an angry badger anymore, is halfway competent at what s/he is supposed to do, and still there is plenty of room for character development.

I guess by now I would simply refuse to start playing on level 1. Either the DM plays "normal" which means you have only about 25% chance to ever see 3rd level, which is unappealing to me; or he wraps you in cotton to make sure you don't die, in which case the whole exercise is meaningless and you could just as well skip the exercise and start on a level where you can hold your own.

[Malevolence]

Depending on various factors, any level between 3 and 15, inclusive. At levels 1 and 2, everyone randomly drops dead regardless of character choices. Starting at levels higher than 15 doesn't leave room for much development, and if much higher doesn't leave much room for anything.

3 is the lowest level decisions matter, which is important. So small scale type stuff, it will start at 3. If the game is meant to be more epic the starting level will be 6-10, or even higher.

[Volos]

For me it all depends on what I'm trying to do with the story and what concepts the players have given me. I haven't started from 1st level in a long while, though it used to be my norm to go from 1st through and/or past 20th. Now I tend to start at one of a few levels. 5th, 8th, 13th, or 15th. Just based on the usual class features of different character achetypes as well as levels that characters can be expected to prestige, I've come up with those levels as good starting points. Though when I run Pathfinder no one tends to multiclass or prestige, ever.

[McSmack]

I typically start my PC's off at either lvl 3 or 5 depending on the campaign I plan on running. Three is about the level where I don't have to handle them with kid gloves any more, but combat still runs quickly and smoothly since they still only have a few abilities/attacks.

I don't have a problem with DM's starting players off at level 1, though, and some of my best gaming moments come from level 1 or 2 characters. The nice thing about level 1 is players are as emotionally involved with the characters, for the most part they're nothing more than fleshed out concepts. It's the low level stuff, in my opinion at least, that really defines the characters and makes them fully realized.

I also tend to end games around level 12-14, because high end games tend to get bogged down, and become less fun, in my experience at least.

[Sims]

Usually a high number before 10. Like 7,8, or 9.

Once in a while I'll do level 25 Gestalt. But thats when I sick my custom beasts on them.

[Thefurmonger]

The last 4 campaigns I have been in started at 1.

[Amphetryon]

Anywhere from 500xp in (to avoid the "how did we all meet up" drudgery and to minimize the time frame of "it's a chicken! RUN AWAY!") up to just above 6th level; in almost all cases, I give a starting XP total rather than a starting level.

[Warlawk]

Our group most consistently starts at level 1. As long as your DM isn't a moron you can still have an interesting game without script immunity. It just means avoiding 2 handed weapons and high str monsters, and requires that your players be smart.

That said, I don't like it. I think 3rd is the sweet spot. Your character is actually good at his job, and people are less likely to up and die from a stray crit.

[amoeba]

Almost always level 1 and stop before level 15 as even 1 or 2 rounds of combat just slows down to a crawl at that point due to the multitude of contingencies, spells, effects, that you have to calculate and wade through.

[Blackjackg]

I've never played in or run a game that didn't start at level one. A lot of people say level 3, and that makes a lot of sense-- by 3.x rules, a single level doesn't always (doesn't often?) tell you much of what a character's about, and no one likes to waste sessions playing half the character they intended.

[Cespenar]

Most games I encounter here in the forums happen to be starting in the 5-9 range. At least, the ones I take an interest in. It's a good choice, I think.

[~Nye~]

When I play a game we normally start somewhere between level 1 and level 5. This is usually because our PCs want to feel like their character grows and they feel they have a direction they want to take their character. Having played a character in a campaign setting you really get a feel for where you want to go with that character.
Personally I like starting at level 3 or level 5 because your character is a more reliable asset to the team and it's good for initial character interaction when they start showing off their skills... Level 1 is unforgiving, but somehow it always feels refreshing when you roll a new character and create a concept and you lol at how pitiful they are... In some cases I like being squishy.
My first encounters are often dialogue based or skill check based anyways at lvl1. Try playing a capture the flag teambuilding game if your PCs are army recruits. That was an awesome session.

[Malevolence]

Our group most consistently starts at level 1. As long as your DM isn't a moron you can still have an interesting game without script immunity. It just means avoiding 2 handed weapons and high str monsters, and requires that your players be smart.

That said, I don't like it. I think 3rd is the sweet spot. Your character is actually good at his job, and people are less likely to up and die from a stray crit.

Which means you deliberately must play enemies stupid to not get random kills. And they still happen. Not as often, but often enough. That's the point. You can't even start fighting intelligent enemies until level 3. Even though there are some at lower levels.

[Jamini]

To outright kill a player with a crit you need to deal upwards of 11 damage to them while they are still consious, even at level 1. Too many players equate getting KOed as getting killed, when really it is only "mostly dead if you don't have help."

I find most players who prefer to avoid low-level fighting tend to play spellcasters or like to build up somewhat specialized charcters that depends on ability X, Y and Z to function. Ratehr than focusing on actually developing an interesting character.

Quite frankly, I find levels 1-5 to be the most interesting. A lucky hit can mean the end of a PC, so combat needs to be taken carefully (or else the players deserve to die) and tactics like flanking, attacks of opprotunity, and going prone matter. The difference between frontline, backline, and skillmonkey classes is very noticable at this point, and with good roleplaying everybody can contribute to the group in a meaningful way.

[Gnaeus]

I like 2-3. Minimizes rocket tag, and allows +1 LA races.

[Malevolence]

To outright kill a player with a crit you need to deal upwards of 11 damage to them while they are still consious, even at level 1. Too many players equate getting KOed as getting killed, when really it is only "mostly dead if you don't have help."

Or hit their AC of 1 + armor a second time, which means unless the enemy rolls a natural 1 they finish the job. And moreso than any other level, at level 1 you are more likely to be fighting multiple opponents due to fractional CR. For example, two Orcs. One KOs, one kills. And only two of them at a time is meant to be easy. If you'd prefer it can be four kobolds all throwing fire flasks. They're going to focus fire, and their target is going to die, and that's that. And for all the talk of how dangerous Orcs are the kobolds using a simple alchemical item pose more of a threat.


I find most players who prefer to avoid low-level fighting tend to play spellcasters or like to build up somewhat specialized charcters that depends on ability X, Y and Z to function. Ratehr than focusing on actually developing an interesting character.

Raging Barbarians still suffer from random death, despite having the highest HP of any possible level 1 character. You'd think there would be a difference between 6 HP and 16, but both randomly explode without any recourse.


Quite frankly, I find levels 1-5 to be the most interesting. A lucky hit can mean the end of a PC, so combat needs to be taken carefully (or else the players deserve to die) and tactics like flanking, attacks of opprotunity, and going prone matter. The difference between frontline, backline, and skillmonkey classes is very noticable at this point, and with good roleplaying everybody can contribute to the group in a meaningful way.

That would be true if you had the actual abilities to play well. But since you don't, there's nothing you can do to avoid being targeted and randomly taken out.

[Safety Sword]

I like to start at Level 1. Throw the players into the table and say "OK, tell me how your characters know each other".

I then usually have a session and a bit that's a bit light on combat until it becomes apparent that house cats and angry badgers aren't going to kill characters outright.

[Firechanter]

BTW, I also don't mind starting at a level higher than 3. But usually that's the best compromise with players who want to start as low as possible.

For example, one game (Conan) we started on level 3 and then the GM fast-tracked us with 1 levelup per session until we were level 7 or 8, then the progression slowed down to a normal rate. The fast-track was announced beforehand, because he felt the sweet spot of the system lies around levels 7-13. (Note, Conan doesn't have XP per kill, but "ad hoc" or story-driven awards only.)

The danger I see in starting low-ish is that the campaign often loses steam before you reach the high levels, or you simply can't suspend your own disbelief over how far your character has come since the start of the game. While highlevel D&D can be a bitch, I still say that also the high levels are there to be played, or they wouldn't be there.

[Savannah]

Fairly low. As a rule, no higher than 5th level (although one of my 5th level ones is a solo with an ECL 7ish character, so I suppose that's more like 7th level....) and I do start at level 1 quite a bit. I'm more familiar with playing and DMing at low levels, so I'm much more comfortable at those levels. I'm gradually moving the level I'm willing to start the game at upward, though.

[KillianHawkeye]

I've played in so many games that started at level 1 that I wouldn't run anything starting lower than 5th anymore. Level 1 is B O O O O O R I N G !

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Level 1 is simpler for new players. You have to put the kid gloves on (kobolds with spears instead of alchemist fire and traps, orcs with axes and shields instead of greataxes) but if the players are new they're probably not going to notice the kid gloves anyway.

Otherwise, it depends on the feel of the campaign. Sometimes a potential DM has a story concept that requires humble beginnings. Sometimes it's about powerful, influential people from the get-go. Personally I like the mid levels in D&D, but "working my way" up toward those levels has its own reward, so long as I actually end up getting there. I find the big problem with starting so low is that the campaign ends at low levels. Implied is that, all else equal, one must start higher to get to the higher levels.

[Lord Vampyre]

Personally, I prefer starting at 1st level.

Sure kid gloves are necessary, but I find them necessary at any level. As the DM, I could kill the party if that was my goal no matter what their level is. However, I find that characters that start at 1st level tend to have more depth than the ones that were made at a higher level. Unless they have been carried over from another campaign. And yes, I will allow a player to carry a character over from another campaign if it fits within my current setting.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The problem with 1st is that there's more variance, at least when it comes to the HP mechanic. A couple of orcs with greataxes could be a cakewalk, or they could kill party members, so it's hard for a GM to anticipate how hard an encounter is going to be without seriously altering the structure of encounters, at any expected difficulty - this is what I mean by "kid gloves." Just a couple of levels' HP later, the DM can set up an overwhelming encounter (if he wants) and at least expect the party to run away before anyone dies.

[true_shinken]

I like starting at level 6.
Levels 6-12 are those I'm more comfortable with.

[Firechanter]

Note: for "kid gloves", better give your Orcs Maces Morningstars rather than Battleaxes. Look just as brutal, but don't have such a nasty crit multiplier.

[Blisstake]

My DM generally likes us starting at level 1, though we've started at other levels before. The way he plays the game, we're about as likely to die during any of level of the game, rather than especially at early levels. Charaters die with some frequency, and it makes us treasure the characters that survive even more.

[HunterOfJello]

I like starting at 1 and having all of the characters develop around one another before getting into more difficult and complex situations.

I would love to run an E6 game where everyone started as level 0 commoners or something similar, but the people I play with are highly interested in high-level characters. :smallfrown:

[Sacrieur]

I played as Sorcerer in an extremely slow leveling game at level 1. That stuff was the single most boring experience I've ever had the pleasure of playing.

---

I also played as a level five cleric. He died soon later. (I usually play at level 5)

[LordBlades]

I prefer 4-5 + for a couple of reasons:

At very low level living or dying is all about the dice roll, unless your DM is treating you with kid gloves. I've seen lvl. 1 chars one-shotted less than 10 minutes into the first session.

Some chars are really not fun to play at level 1 (Erudite is the first that comes to mind; 1 power/day).

Some character concepts are impossible(or very hard) to make at level 1; take most multiclass concepts for example (gish, rogue/wizard, monk/cleric etc) are impossible to play at that level. Maybe I want to play a Gish that doesn't suck (so no duskblade) and I'd like to RP a guy that has trained hard to blend casting and magic; I can't do that at lvl 1.

[Firechanter]

I'll allow myself a minor offtopic here: I thought Duskblades were considered a quite solid Gish incarnation?

[Malevolence]

I'll allow myself a minor offtopic here: I thought Duskblades were considered a quite solid Gish incarnation?

Duskblades are half decent damage dealers. Gishes do so much more than this. A Bard works better than a Duskblade.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I prefer starting at lower levels, about level 3 or so. My players like playing at higher levels, though, so I end up starting level six and up, though.

I must say, however, that the best campaign I ever ran started at level 1... with NPC classes.

My girlfriend's group, however, starts everybody at level 1... even if you join when the rest of the group is level 9, 7, 5, 5, and 4. :smallsigh:

[molten_dragon]

Lately I've been running and playing in a lot of 1-20 adventure paths, so we've been starting at level 1. I don't really like starting that early though. My preferred level range for starting a game is 3-5.

[Firechanter]

My girlfriend's group, however, starts everybody at level 1... even if you join when the rest of the group is level 9, 7, 5, 5, and 4. :smallsigh:

OMG. :smalleek: I guess that topic has thoroughly been discussed before, so I'll just say... *facepalm*
I'd never play in such a group, neither as high- nor as lowlevel character.

[Telonius]

If there's more than one first-time gamer in the group, I always start out at Level 1. I've found that the experience of leveling up those first couple times can be extremely helpful to newer players. The first few encounters are fairly softball ones, with no character deaths, ever; then scale up the danger as they get more comfortable with the rules and what their character can actually do.

For more experienced players, I start out at level 3 or 6, depending on how strong the plot demands the characters to be. The exception is published adventure paths; those always start at level 1 no matter what.

[Crossblade]

I start at level 2. It allows for low LA templates if wanted or startings of multiclassing and gives more acceptable gold amounts to better outfit a character.

[Fitz10019]

I prefer starting at level 2, and HRing skill points x2 for level 1, and x2 for level 2, in case of multiclassing.

[Magesmiley]

Level 1 always. And no kid gloves either - I play the monsters as intelligently as their scores dictate.

My players don't consider the casters overpowered compared to the melee types for some strange reason too. It might have to do with the amount of work to get a caster through the low levels.

[Aricandor]

1-3 usually, sometimes upwards of 5-6 depending on what sort of thing I intend to run.

[Telasi]

Well, the campaign I'm currently running started at level 2. I tend to start at level 1, but sometimes it's nice to start higher. When I'm playing, I like starting at level 1, maybe as high as 5.

[The Dark Fiddler]

OMG. :smalleek: I guess that topic has thoroughly been discussed before, so I'll just say... *facepalm*
I'd never play in such a group, neither as high- nor as lowlevel character.

Apparently it works for them, even though people don't show up for every game making the level differences even worse. But yeah, that pretty much made me say "No, I'm not playing with your group <.<", even if the distance wasn't a problem.

[DMBlackhart]

I normally fit my games starting level to the concept or story I have planned out. That being said, I have lately been clinging to 1st level. That is not to say the game remains at first level, but for me I've never seen the "squishiness" that so many others claim 1st level is plagued with. And I do not mercilessly protect my players either.

Really it just depends on what sort of story me and my players feel like weaving at the time.

[LordBlades]

I'll allow myself a minor offtopic here: I thought Duskblades were considered a quite solid Gish incarnation?

Duskblades lack quite a few of the best buff spells in the game (Alter Self, Polymorph, Bite of the Werewhatever, Displacement, Mirror Image, Haste etc.); also, good Gishes have almost full casting from Wizard spell list (usually no more than 1-2 CL lost) not half casting from a very limited list.

[faceroll]

Duskblades are half decent damage dealers. Gishes do so much more than this. A Bard works better than a Duskblade.

Duskblades can fly and turn invisible while swinging a sword and wearing armor. I think that's pretty cool and gishy.


Duskblades lack quite a few of the best buff spells in the game (Alter Self, Polymorph, Bite of the Werewhatever, Displacement, Mirror Image, Haste etc.); also, good Gishes have almost full casting from Wizard spell list (usually no more than 1-2 CL lost) not half casting from a very limited list.

That's not a gish. That's a wizard using spells to replicate someone else's class features.

[VirOath]

My mindset is always at level 1 for starting. But I hate the D&D death rules with a passion, having ripped them out for a flavor of my own. Mostly, First level gives HD+Con twice, or your Con stat, which ever is higher. Levels past first are unaffected.

And you can go your hitpoints into the negatives before you die, and once more again before your body is no longer a complete corpse. Thing is, nothing but a miracle or wish brings back the dead, and even that is rare and has a backlash. Raise dead and the line of spells return people in the negatives to positives, more effective with the higher spells.

I find it works well.

[Asheram]

In my group we usually start at level 4.
Which means that in one level, you get something special. (5)
And the next level (6) is there for some early prestige classing.

Fewer dead levels that way and you feel that your character is growing for something epical.

[Dumbledore lives]

In my group we generally start at level 2, because at level one a small gust of wind will kill characters, and there are little to no abilities. I would start harder but the players prefer the gradual progression to instant satisfaction.

[Firechanter]

Apparently it works for them, even though people don't show up for every game making the level differences even worse. But yeah, that pretty much made me say "No, I'm not playing with your group <.<", even if the distance wasn't a problem.

I can't find the exact quote now, but on another forum I frequent we also discussed that topic, and one guy got it in one. Roughly:
"Why should any highlevel party take on any level 1 character? A cheap magic item will do the same trick more reliably and is more durable."
:smallbiggrin:

[LordBlades]

That's not a gish. That's a wizard using spells to replicate someone else's class features.

In my vision, a Gish is a character that augments his fighting ability by using magic (as in buffs himself and then goes melee); Duskblade has very few things going for it in this regard as it has access to very few buffs(and most of those are pretty weak). Duskblade's shtick is more along the lines of casting damage spells while swinging a sword.

Also, high STR, high attack and high defenses aren't anyone's class features.

[Malevolence]

Duskblades can fly and turn invisible while swinging a sword and wearing armor. I think that's pretty cool and gishy.



That's not a gish. That's a wizard using spells to replicate someone else's class features.

No, it's a gish. Anyone without mirror image, displacement, etc is super squishy. So the Wizard gish can melee fine, and the Duskblade gets splatted for the same reason the normal beatsticks do.

Not to mention, being able to fly and turn invisible is a term that describes any decent high level character, and many of the mid level ones regardless of class.

[Tyndmyr]

Almost invariably first. I'm cool with long campaigns, tho.

And yeah, wizard gishes work out pretty well. Im playing one now. They're squishy until they hit PrC levels(though human paragon can alleviate that), but the buffs are solid, and you're only a coupla bab behind the straight melee types. Bulls strength alone overcomes most of that, magic weapon is also a fine choice.

I only see my power growing exponentially as I continue to level. Once I hit Abjurant Champion, everything is wonderful forever.

[FMArthur]

Level 3 is when things stop being rocket tag with attacks. Level 6 is when the most options for specializing a character become available. Level 10 is often when those specializations really come into their own. But I prefer level 6.

[Sarco_Phage]

You know, if you think about it, level 1 actually really captures what it would be like to be an adventurer just starting out.

There's a reason powerful adventuring parties are so rare in most worlds, and sometimes that reason is 1d3 Ghouls on both ends of a dark crypt with no space to maneuver.

[FMArthur]

You know, if you think about it, level 1 actually really captures what it would be like to be an adventurer just starting out.

There's a reason powerful adventuring parties are so rare in most worlds, and sometimes that reason is 1d3 Ghouls on both ends of a dark crypt with no space to maneuver.

That's something everyone already understands, though, and demonstrating it firsthand is probably not good campaign design unless the campaign is intended to be a one-encounter-long nihilistic art piece of the DM's, like one of those waste-your-audience's-time art films that is missing all the parts that make a story interesting.

[big teej]

I tend to start my games at level 1
most recently because I was the only one in the group who knew what I was doing (in hindsight, so did the paladin, but I didn't know that at the time)

however, typically I start at 1 because I've observed FAR more character development in characters that do rather than characters who were fast tracked to a 'sweet spot' or just started there.

I also just enjoy low-level play.

if I ever had a one off adventure I wanted to run, sure I'd start them at whatever level is appropriate (or 1 lower given the size of my group)

/ramble

[jiriku]

Level 1 if we're looking for the "standard" D&D experience, level 6 if we're looking to move immediately into a high-powered game.

It's worth mentioning that I grant all characters (and monsters) their entire Con score as additional bonus hit points at level 1, so the low levels in my games are not as fragile and flukey as you might expect.