Players: Do you have a minimum starting level?

[Jon_Dahl]

What is the minimum level you want to start your games at? I'm sure that everyone would start from the 1st-level if the story is fabulously good, but if the campaign setup is interesting enough but you don't think it sounds like the most interesting campaign ever, what would be your minimum starting level?

I would say that my minimum is the 2nd level because I may want to have a multiclass character right from the start. It may be vital for the character concept. It also makes it easier to have races that have +1 level adjustment.

[TuggyNE]

Generally, I'm not fond of starting below 3rd level in principle; when I introduced a friend of mine to PbP DMing, we settled on starting at 7th. :smallwink: (Partly this was so our resident LA +4 could have a few actual HD with which to survive.)

[Malachei]

No. I prefer starting 1st level.

[Hyena]

I am surely not a huge fan of dying after a single dagger stab, so the third level it is.

[Roclat]

I always start at 1. It gives me time to get into the story a bit before I get excited and start complicated fights, and gives everyone time to gel a bit. If everything goes well quickly, you can just hand out some free xp or accelerate the process to the level desired.

Side note: I hate character intro, I'm infamously known for starting everyone naked, together in different situations, I've used a boat crash before, the game I started Saturday, everyone was a slave.

[CaladanMoonblad]

We tend towards 1st and 2nd level starts.

I will echo Roclat- character intro is difficult for the first session, but I too prefer a "rescue" session to introduce new characters to the game, such that for an ongoing group I will include the new characters among the prisoners just freed, or among the barely living among a group of victims, etc, if only to create a sense of debt to the new player added to the gaming group.

In our game world, we use a labor union to painlessly assign team members and explain player absences throughout the campaign. Having an external organization with in game benefits (like being a temp) is motivation for most of our players to work together, because adventuring groups who operate without access to the Adventuring Guild's resources are just sad.

[Karnith]

I generally start at 3rd or 4th level, because I find that the game really just isn't fun to play at lower levels - everyone is too squishy, combat is really swingy, and bonuses to most rolls are so low that no one really feels competent at anything. A few levels in, though, the numbers advance to the point that it feels like they make a difference, and some basic competence sets in with access to more feats, class features, and the like.

[AmberVael]

After many years of playing, I have pretty much lost interest in lower level games. I generally don't have much interest in anything that starts below 12, though there are of course exceptions. An appropriately made Epic 6 game would probably appeal to me.

[Rahdjan]

3rd level is the best starting place. I like encorporating the first couple levels into the back story. Also, casters wont feel like their playing a cast cast hide character.

[Shining Wrath]

I leave this up to the DM. They know what they have planned. I'm pretty flexible about what I play.

[ddude987]

I do not prefer to start at first level as it is so easy to simply die from a lucky crit or a good damage roll. I have found at first level either you get one shot or you one shot them first and I am not a fan of that style of play, especially for a character I just rolled up.
My preferred level is 6th just because I finally probably have access to the PrC I wanted.

[some guy]

My minimum starting level would be level 0, I always wanted to try to play in a DCC style of Character Funnel (everyone starts with 4 level 0 smucks in a deadly dungeon, the survivors turn into level 1 characters).

And I guess I would have trouble with starting at a level higher than 9, the idea of those first few battles with everyone checking what their abilities/spells do and doing ages over 1 turn seem horrid to me.

[Ashtagon]

Lowest I'd start at is 1st, highest I'd be comfortable starting at is 3rd. Otherwise, you get the "I can do that???" issues, and builds that are rule-breakers in some way or don't allow for the fact that the character didn't get all his gold in one go, or have no meaningful backstory.

[Karnith]

[...]or have no meaningful backstory.
Sorry, how does starting at a higher level preclude you from having a meaningful backstory? Or even influence it at all?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I generally start at 3rd or 4th level, because I find that the game really just isn't fun to play at lower levels - everyone is too squishy, combat is really swingy, and bonuses to most rolls are so low that no one really feels competent at anything. A few levels in, though, the numbers advance to the point that it feels like they make a difference, and some basic competence sets in with access to more feats, class features, and the like.
Pretty much exactly this. No-one really has anything mechanically interesting going on at first level; by 3rd, there's enough room to actually distinguish Fighter Bob from Ranger Frank.

[Eldariel]

I'd almost never start under level 3 (unless the game really promises to be worth it). Now, I don't really have a cap level (I'll even do Epic if there are sufficient rules in place for it) but anything under 3 means I can't really realize many character concepts and that some PCs will just die due to a single unlucky crit from an Orc (an Orc Warrior with a Greataxe crits for x3 and does 3d12+12; average 31 damage - that's enough to drop a Raging 20 Con Barbarian to -11 and instant death).

And I loathe it when DMs pull punches or avoid PC deaths so I'd rather have characters start on a level where they don't need divine intervention to survive. IMHO the DM's job is running the world while the PCs fend for themselves. Level 1 PCs have a really hard time fending for themselves against anything more challenging than Rats.


IMHO the game just gets plain better by level 3-6 for anything except Russian Roulette. I prefer playing high level games but it's rare to find a DM with both, the competence and the time to run one of those properly.

[thompur]

I like starting at first level. I enjoy the possibility of not surviving, of having to consider other alternatives to combat. It also helps to develop a feel for the character and the class. On the other hand, I prefer to start at the level the DM feels most comfortable.

[molten_dragon]

What is the minimum level you want to start your games at? I'm sure that everyone would start from the 1st-level if the story is fabulously good, but if the campaign setup is interesting enough but you don't think it sounds like the most interesting campaign ever, what would be your minimum starting level?

I would say that my minimum is the 2nd level because I may want to have a multiclass character right from the start. It may be vital for the character concept. It also makes it easier to have races that have +1 level adjustment.

I prefer to start no lower than 3rd level. 5th is ideal to me.

I'll play 1st level characters, but I don't really enjoy it that much, and I like to get through those levels pretty quickly.

[Yora]

My minimum would be 1st, since I think level 0 characters or starting as a commoner and having to earn your first level is not a great idea.
But if I were playing with a GM who really thinks it is neccessary for the campaign he has in mind, I'd just sit through that for 3 games and then we'd all have 1st level characters anyway.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I don't like low levels, far to swingy and class abilities are either passive or quite restricted. I prefet to start at level 5-6, high enough that some tricks are coming online; but with enough levels left so you actually feel you are becoming stronger.

[Krobar]

We usually start at level 5. That way the characters have enough hit points to survive more than one round of combat, and their abilities start to come in to play.

[Keneth]

Third edition D&D (3.0, 3.5, and PF) is the kind of system where things are ridiculous at very low levels and even more so at very high levels. So ideally I like starting at 3rd level or higher, when the luck of the die is mitigated by one's defenses to average out over time, and I like to finish a campaign at around 15th level when things are still somewhat managable.

[Flickerdart]

3-6 is a nice range of starting levels. Before that, people are just eager to get on with the game so that they can get their real abilities. My character concepts don't end at level 1, and I want to play my character as soon as I can, instead of slogging through the mud as a farmhand's apprentice until I've "earned" the right to start having fun.

[Prince Zahn]

I'm happy starting at levels 5 or higher, my DM normally doesn't like me liking that.:smalltongue:
This is generally so I can have some creative room on my character sheet to match the expanding creativity of my concept:smallbiggrin:

See, I like writing detailed backgrounds for my complex/rounded characters, where it is evident that my character has had a life before adventuring - be it family, schooling, marriage, liberation from slavery, etc. I feel more complete when my character's story did not begin with "that one fateful day at the tavern".

No doubt it is an essential turning point in my character's life - but I think or the most part it should not be the first and only.

[Hendel]

1st level or whatever the DM says the starting level will be.

I understand this is difficult for the min/max types out there, but if you just forget about being the biggest, baddest guy with the just so perfect combination of abilities and powers for a moment, you can have fun with the game and its other aspects.

I am amazed at how much fun we had in AD&D or even Basic D&D when one fighter was really just like any other fighter except for some minor differences, etc. It is not always about what my character can do (but that is a fun and important part of the game, too).

[Ravenica]

I've started below first level and the game was great. I actually enjoy the low levels the most as a dm because your players tend to be more creative with their solutions instead of "yawn fireball" or other simple goto spells and slogging through encounters by brute force

[Karnith]

I understand this is difficult for the min/max types out there, but if you just forget about being the biggest, baddest guy with the just so perfect combination of abilities and powers for a moment, you can have fun with the game and its other aspects.
It's not so much that I want to be the best at what I do when I play a character (although that's certainly part of it), it's that I don't find that dying randomly and having my character (build) choices not matter to be terribly fun. Both of which characterize the games I've played through at first and second level.

Sure, ingenuity and proper planning/tactics matter more than they do at higher-level play, but that's mostly because first-level characters are so mechanically weak and incompetent that they'll probably fail at a "fair" challenge or a stand-up fight.

[killem2]

I do not mind starting at level 1, if the DM in question can balance properly. As a dm I also allow flaws, just about anything under the sun made for 3rd edition d&d as well.

Most of the time, the level 1's in our sessions are probably on par with a core 2nd or 3rd level person with no frills

[turbo164]

3rd works well for me. Less first-fight-one-shots, extra feat for people to be less generic, wealth for a backpack AND a horse AND armor better than Leather, more than 2 Magic Missles, Rangers have a Combat Style, Pallies have Lay on Hands, summons last longer than their cast time, can still save farmers from Kobolds but they might have a class level or two, 2/1 multiclass available, etc.

Seems to be a good spot for "still feel like you're starting an adventure" while making people feel like real characters.

[Kasbark]

I prefer first level. I would not be opposed to starting at 2nd or 3rd, but higher than that and it would have to be a damned good GM to entice me.

[chainer1216]

3rd, i'll play lower if the DM/group wants to, but when asked i always choose 3rd, theres enough of a buffer that a single bad choice or roll wont ruin me, but i still need to play smart.

[Immabozo]

I like level 5. It's just before you can enter PrC's (barring early entry cheese), but you are not useless.

[Prince_Ornstein]

there was only 1 time, out of all the campaigns, that we started at first level and i really enjoyed it. although i enjoyed it more because we had never started out at anything other then 3 so it was new and fresh to me. i am sure if the rolls were reversed and we had always started at nothing but 1 i am sure i would feel different about it.
I guess the main point was i like things to feel new and fresh so i guess changing the starting levels is pretty fun every once in awhile

[Hyde]

Third level minimum, fifth or sixth preferred.

[cosmicAstrogazr]

As a player, I am just so. Incredibly. Bored. With low-level games. I've been playing for so many years that it feels like there's nothing worth doing or exploring mechanically, and it's been a long, long time since I've played a game that felt interesting or different storywise at low levels.

That said, I'll play as low as 3rd, or maaaayyyybe 2nd to start, if the premise is interesting enough, but I prefer to start higher. And though I've been playing for a long time (twenty-three years), I've so seldom had a chance to play a higher level game that it still feels new and interesting, mechanically speaking.

And honestly, I don't really want gritty realism in my pretendy funtime games. I just don't find it fun. *shrug* YMMV, but I prefer to both play and run higher-level, epic-in-scope games (I've really, really, really, really wanted to run an actual epic campaign, where the PCs start at or near epic levels, and there are magnificent shenanigans, but it's hard to find players who want to do that, for some reason), where the PCs actions could have consequences across not just the world, but the entire cosmology for the given setting.

Finding a way to, say, end the Blood War has a lot more appeal to me than saving $local village from kobolds. Again. And while it's entirely possible to go from that latter point to the former one in the scope of a single campaign - and I'd even accept the argument that it'd make, ultimately, a richer campaign to do it that way - I've just been in too many campaigns that fell apart before they got anywhere near the interesting bits, to the point where low-level play tends to make me impatient and irritable. :smallsigh:

(...not to denigrate low-level play; I understand that a lot of people really enjoy it, even if I don't really understand why.)

[Curmudgeon]

12th level is about the minimum for me.

[Malachei]

I've played until level 36, and when you look back, you'd really miss these first levels. It would almost feel like missing your character's early life.

And the first levels rush by so quickly...

[Roclat]

It surprises me how many people hate lvl 1. I got a real sense of history, character and satisfaction going 1-28 over 2&1/2 years. I know most games don't go that well but a short attention span fixes that!

[NotScaryBats]

I don't like starting at level 1 because one lucky sword swing will kill my character.

I don't like starting at level 5 because one lucky ubercharge will kill my character.

I don't like starting at level 10 because one failed saving throw will kill my character.

I don't like starting at level 15 because losing initiative will kill my character.

I don't like starting at level 20 because nothing can kill my character.

D&D is just 'too swingy' of a game, because it will always come down to one lucky dice roll one way or another and boom you're gone forever -- anything less than that and the DM is just pandering you until she can take out the really cool monsters; unless you're fighting beholders everytime at level 10, having to survive disintegration ray after disintegration ray, you are playing with someone who basically thinks you are a baby and can't handle Real Dungeons and Dragons.

HAPPY APRIL FOOL'S DAY, EVERYONE!!

[Siosilvar]

Minimum? Level 1, of course, but I'm usually leery of anything below 3rd.

And there's never enough feats to do more than one thing unless I'm 12th, so that's another breakpoint, I guess. I like Pathfinder's "feats every odd level", if nothing else.

[cosmicAstrogazr]

It surprises me how many people hate lvl 1. I got a real sense of history, character and satisfaction going 1-28 over 2&1/2 years. I know most games don't go that well but a short attention span fixes that!

I don't hate level one, I'm just bored to death of it. There's a difference. I mean, I'd be willing to do it again, if it was a sufficiently interesting premise. But it'd have to be a) really really really interesting, and b) have the possibility of going past level 10.

[Karnith]

It surprises me how many people hate lvl 1. I got a real sense of history, character and satisfaction going 1-28 over 2&1/2 years. I know most games don't go that well but a short attention span fixes that!
Honestly, I have never felt that I've missed part of my character's progression by starting out at level 3 rather than at level 1. I've gone from 3 to 16 in one campaign and from 1 to 12 in another. Both characters started out weak nobodies and gradually grew in power and accomplishment in both games, and I got plenty attached to both. I just didn't have to slog through the painful low levels in the former game.

[Roclat]

Well, I'm not really the target audience either, I've played exactly 3 sessions as a player since 2006. I Always GM, probably has a lot to do with why I'm not burnt out with level 1.

I always start my groups at 1, but often I have 0 fights between 1-2. I like to plan out my games in 3 stages, short, mid and long range. rarely do I have concrete plans ahead of time(Which any GM will tell you is wise) so I start with an intro planned and those first few crap games/levels give me time to plan a lot more out, gives the players time to get into the story too.

Nothing says it can't be done higher I guess, I've just always done it at 1. Nothing against starting at whatever level people want, I was just a bit surprised by how few people like to start at the beginning, that's all I meant.

[Eldariel]

It surprises me how many people hate lvl 1. I got a real sense of history, character and satisfaction going 1-28 over 2&1/2 years. I know most games don't go that well but a short attention span fixes that!

Well, my characters are practically always adults so they've already had the past anyways and thus they usually don't start level 1 in my books. The fact that level 1 is mechanically boring leads to me just treating level 3 as level 1.

[Arskanator]

I like to start around 3th or 4th level, mostly for the same reasons several people have already stated, 1st level characters being so fragile etc. Kinda depends on the game too, if it's going to be a long campaign, starting at 1st level isn't that bad, but for one-shot games I'd like to have the chance to try out some new builds and prestige classes.

[Humble Master]

I always start at 1st level. Don't have any particular reason, just seams the easiest and most natural to me. Also I like the challenge of surviving with only 5 or 6 hit points as a wizard.

[ericgrau]

My group always does 4-5. I've done level 1 before and I like it though I try not to get too attached to my character until level 3.

[TentacleSurpris]

We've started at level 1 for the last few years, but we have a tradition of 10 bonus hit points at level 1. That way people don't explode from any one hit.

[Gavinfoxx]

Third level, minimum, barring rare exceptions.

[prufock]

Regardless of the level at which we start, I'll always be wishing it was just a level higher so I can flesh out my build. So it doesn't really matter to me where we begin. I like levels 3-12 the best.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I don't have a minimum at the moment, but if I play 4 straight games starting at level 1, that don't go anywhere, I may change my mind on the issue.

[Jon_Dahl]

I don't have a minimum at the moment, but if I play 4 straight games starting at level 1, that don't go anywhere, I may change my mind on the issue.

Haha, I've had players complain about my game "skyrocketing" because they level up each 3rd or 4th session. Really.

[Mithril Leaf]

I don't mind starting at first level, I'm generally pretty glass cannon anyway, so it doesn't bother me as much that things are so swingy. 3rd level is better in general though.

[nobodez]

As a player I like starting at 1st level, plus it's much easier to build a replacement 1st or 2nd level character and fit them into the group that a 7th or 10th level replacement.

As a GM, while I run v.3.5/PF games, I prefer to give my players 4E style hp (triple HD plus Con score), to give them a little padding. In my next campaign I'm also thinking of using VP/WP instead (VP being slightly easier to heal than hp, and WP being harder), but it'll be a few years before that happens (we just started CotCT, and just finished RotRL, and that took 2 1/2 years because of our play shcedule).

[Dark.Revenant]

As a DM I always start the party at level 3, because that's also the NPC class level of the lowest-ranked trained soldiers in the proper armies that I stat up (Lieutenants are level 5-6 PC classes, etc.) Level 1 characters are equivalent to deadbeats on the street who lack proper job training and have no place in an adventuring group.

Seriously, a level 1 character is about as tough as a teenager pulled from your local high school's fencing club.

I'll start at higher levels with groups I am familiar with, though.

[HunterOfJello]

Level 50 Tristalt minimum. No exceptions.

[TypoNinja]

I feel like the longer you have a character (and a campaign) going the more of a life of their own they take on, this is the majority of the fun to me so its always a plus.

On the other hand, starting around 3 or 4 can be nice to, it gives you a lot more options, templates, monstrous races, that kind of thing. Enough WBL to grab a couple of goodies outta the gate. I find at the lowest levels you tend to end up needing to bail outta the adventure to go back and heal up and go shopping to buy all the crap you couldn't afford at character creation.

Either option I find acceptable, certainly starting level would never be a game breaker for me.

[mcv]

My recent exposure to OSR thought has led me to consider level 0 the minimum acceptable starting level.

I don't like starting too high. I recently backed a kickstarter for a megadungeon and was very disappointed to learn that PCs would have to start at level 13. Though starting at level 5 or so would be fine.

I really like the ideas behind E6, though I've never played like that yet.

[Rejusu]

Minimum third, preferred sixth. Third gives you some actual character options (everyone will have minimum two feats) and avoids the wild inconsistencies of first level play. It also enables people playing LA +1 characters to have two hit die, again avoiding the death trap that's level 1. I don't know about everyone else but it would bother me to have to make a new character after the first session because a lucky crit killed me outright.

I like sixth level because that's around the point you can start realising most character concepts. A lot of PrCs have their entry point around this level. There's a few builds I'd love to play but would hate to level at the beginning. Starting at sixth avoids this tedium.

[Kristinn]

I agree with a lot of what has been said. Lvl. 3 is minimum. Lvl. 6 is nicer. Lvl. 10 is fun if you have a build you want to go to town with, but doesn't function under a certain level.

[Killer Angel]

My minimum starting level is 1, and ('til now) my max start lev. is 17.
Both have their pros and cons, but at lev. 1, we tend to level up quickly (no more than 5 sessions and you're lev. 3).