Starting at high levels

[D20ragon]

I personally prefer starting at 1st or 2nd level,but I know some players enjoy starting at high levels.
Opinions ?

[Flickerdart]

I like level 3 as a starting level - you are still identifiably weak, but the amount of options you have by this point (at least 2 feats, enough wealth to afford decent gear, and enough HP not to die from a random orc, and at least one defining class feature like the Totem Chakra) allows you to have a character that is identifiably unique and competent. Level 6 is the next starting point I would consider, with characters already qualified to enter a PrC and having enough feats to scrape a combo together.

Levels 1 and 2 are too low, in my opinion, to have a meaningfully competent or unique character - either because your daily resource of choice that enables you to play the character you want is too limited, or because you don't meet basic prerequisites. Playing a Rogue before level 3 when you can qualify for Weapon Finesse is a huge pain.

[RFLS]

I'll agree with Flickerdart on this one; 1 and 2 can be a little dicey to play at. I personally enjoy the 4-10 range for starting. Characters have a very nice range of options, but things have not quite gotten stupid at that point.

[Curmudgeon]

I prefer to start above level 10. There's just too much "grinding" to get past the low levels, where everyone has a chance of being killed due to unfortunate dice. I want to start where the build choices I make for the character have much more to do with them surviving/dying than random roll results.

[Flickerdart]

My main issue with starting at such high levels is that characters of level 10+ are world-scale figures, with long and elaborate backstories and books worth of admirers, foes, and rivals. Only a very limited amount of threats are appropriate for heroes of this calibre, and very few of them overlap with the standard "bunch of guys run around basements, dungeons, forests, and towers killing individual orcs for fun and profit" concept that D&D does well. Then there's the issue of increasing optimization disparity that comes along with an increase in available choices, action economy rears its ugly head, and the whole thing really starts rattling apart.

[QuintonBeck]

My very first 3.5 game I played in we started at Level 6 and while it was tough to build my first character up to that level it was also the most enjoyable game I've played in (also to be attributed to a good DM who had to leave for RL reasons unfortunately)

Every other game I've played in started at Level 1 and the frailty is a little much. In the only two games I've run I started the party at 1 and quickly found myself having to pull punches to not annihilate the party with a group of goblins

The next game I plan to run will start at level 6 or 8 and have bigger, more fun encounters like we eventually got to in my Level 1 games. Why delay the fun and danger you encounter out those level for so long I say.

[RFLS]

My main issue with starting at such high levels is that characters of level 10+ are world-scale figures, with long and elaborate backstories and books worth of admirers, foes, and rivals. Only a very limited amount of threats are appropriate for heroes of this calibre, and very few of them overlap with the standard "bunch of guys run around basements, dungeons, forests, and towers killing individual orcs for fun and profit" concept that D&D does well. Then there's the issue of increasing optimization disparity that comes along with an increase in available choices, action economy rears its ugly head, and the whole thing really starts rattling apart.

In a game where this is true, I absolutely agree. Starting as world-renowned figures is obnoxious on occasion. However, not all worlds (Tippyverse) scale that way.

[limejuicepowder]

I agree with Flicker, and I'll also add in this: I hate writing back stories for level 1 characters. Because the level is so low, I feel obligated to 1) make the character as young as the race allows, and 2) not include anything besides "well I just left home, and I really want to be better." I just don't feel that the experience allows for anything else. How can a grizzled soldier who just was just discharge from the army after 10 years of service possibly still be level 1? Especially considering he's probably going to increase his power by a factor of 10 in the next 6 months?

By starting at level 3-5 (my preferred start levels), I can write an interesting back story that includes tales of hardship, explanations for the current situation, and strong motivations for the DM to use as plot hooks.

[Flickerdart]

In a game where this is true, I absolutely agree. Starting as world-renowned figures is obnoxious on occasion. However, not all worlds (Tippyverse) scale that way.
Even in high-powered campaign settings, a level 10 start brings along with it a big pile of abilities (like flight, teleportation, and scrying to name a few) that change what challenges are viable for such a party.

[RFLS]

Even in high-powered campaign settings, a level 10 start brings along with it a big pile of abilities (like flight, teleportation, and scrying to name a few) that change what challenges are viable for such a party.

I will absolutely agree with that. I was just pointing out that notoriety is entirely dependent on the setting.

It definitely takes a lot more legwork to challenge a tenth level party than it would for a fifth level party (more than twice as much, as far as I'm concerned).

[D20ragon]

Yeah,I do have a problem with charecters being 10th level and up to start off. I tend to feel like:my charecter is this powerful?! Where was I for this?


http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg (http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm)

[Katana1515]

Games starting at level 9-10 are probably as high as i would like to go with a totally new character (though more for reasons of complexity than RP reasons i suppose). I prefer levels 5-6, the new character feels suitably well developed, as well as powerful enough to be classed as heroic and you have enough options in the form of feats/spells known to be unique. the hard scrabble through levels 1-3 can be fun of course, but it also has the potential to be very unfun as you run away from goblins or drop dead at a poor roll in round 1 of a combat. the fragility of characters can make balancing encounters a little tough for new DMs as well.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Even in high-powered campaign settings, a level 10 start brings along with it a big pile of abilities (like flight, teleportation, and scrying to name a few) that change what challenges are viable for such a party.
Which is... you know... sometimes nice. The game is different at high levels, true, but sometimes that's what you want.

I'd say that 3 is my bare minimum, "would-probably-say-no-if-it-was-any-lower" starting level. 6 is better; 8-10 is great. To me, the feel of 3.5, the reason I'd play it and not, oh, Savage Worlds or M&M, has a lot to do with the option-glut and rocket-tag that start to kick in at mid-to-high-levels.

[ericp65]

Only when a DM says to write up a character above first level do I do so. All the rest of my characters I start at first level (or lowest ECL in the case of LAs). It's easier for me to write a backstory for a beginner than for a veteran, and leaves options for advancement more open.

[Curmudgeon]

Even in high-powered campaign settings, a level 10 start brings along with it a big pile of abilities (like flight, teleportation, and scrying to name a few) that change what challenges are viable for such a party.
Absolutely! As a DM, I want to be challenged, too.

[CockroachTeaParty]

The highest level I'd be comfortable starting with is about level 9; powerful enough that the party is pretty self-sufficient, but there's still lots to look foreword to. It's a good level to start adventures in other planes and dimensions, where such characters will still be pretty small fish in a much larger pond.

I think a sweet spot to start in general is level 5. A decent amount of power and survivability, but still able to make a challenge out of classic foes like trolls.

I'll say this, though: I'd much rather start a character at high level than play a level 1 gestalt 55 point-buy kind of game. If you're going to play a demigod, why not just start in the teens rather than have low-level lunacy?

[nobodez]

I enjoy 3-4, enough to be an expert among the mundanes, but still challenged by the classic lower level foes (orcs, kobolds, goblins) without absurd numbers or character levels.

Mind, I love to start with a larger pool of resources (such as 4e style HP at first level, extra starting gold, etc.) but having the bonuses still be a bit lower.

[Talionis]

One solution, I have not played but seen suggested is to play the first levels as non-combat, grant a lot of of experience for training in a militia or just studying, allowing the characters to be introduced into a small town. Give them back story and basically get them at combat ready level of say six in one night of backstory roleplay with no real combat to kill characters.

I think this would be ideal for people who haven't played a lot of D&D, get them into roleplaying without combat and help them level. But even for experienced players it sounds like it would work pretty well.

[erikun]

I prefer starting games at 2nd level. This gives characters a bit more survivability than at 1st, and allows a bit of customization. However, they're still at a low enough level that one fight can still be a hazard, and they don't have access to higher level magic. (Yet.)

[AttilaTheGeek]

I like level 3 as a starting level - you are still identifiably weak, but the amount of options you have by this point (at least 2 feats, enough wealth to afford decent gear, and enough HP not to die from a random orc, and at least one defining class feature like the Totem Chakra) allows you to have a character that is identifiably unique and competent. Level 6 is the next starting point I would consider, with characters already qualified to enter a PrC and having enough feats to scrape a combo together.

Levels 1 and 2 are too low, in my opinion, to have a meaningfully competent or unique character - either because your daily resource of choice that enables you to play the character you want is too limited, or because you don't meet basic prerequisites. Playing a Rogue before level 3 when you can qualify for Weapon Finesse is a huge pain.

As I read over the OP, my thought process went like this. "Hmm, that's interesting. Probably level three, so give a decent amount of customization without being overwhelming and giving just enough HP to not die to bad dice." And then, as I got to your post right underneath, I thought "Oh, of course. Flickerdart nailed it again." This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

[Flickerdart]

Absolutely! As a DM, I want to be challenged, too.
Honestly, I find low levels more challenging for DMs, since the consequences of unbalanced encounters are much more severe

[Curmudgeon]

Honestly, I find low levels more challenging for DMs, since the consequences of unbalanced encounters are much more severe
The challenge at higher levels is to engage all the PCs, including Monks and Wizards.

[cerin616]

I prefer a lower level to start a full campaign, and a higher level to do like scenarios and oneshots and such.

[137beth]

The challenge at higher levels is to engage all the PCs, including Monks and Wizards.

Yep, I find high level much harder to write and DM for, because writing plots is easier if you have some sense of what the players are likely to do. By 21st level, the players can do a million things that you'd never expect, and planning becomes much harder. At the same time, winging things also becomes harder, due to the substantially increased complexity in stat-blocks. I can wing a low-level encounter by giving all the monsters a few numbers (attack bonus, damage bonus, AC hp, speed). For high level monsters or encounters, it is a huge amount of work to build on the fly, and hard to write in advance due to a ton of player options.

Now, I like high level games more than low level ones. They happen to be harder to run, but I find them more fun....

I will say that starting at level 1 is easier in Pathfinder than 3.5, since you get a little bit more survivability at levels 1-2.
Ultimately, for long-running games, I prefer to start in the 6-11 range. I have on occasion started a game at 21st level, usually with characters based on characters from earlier games, but this can be very hard to handle, as the players can expect their characters to have hundreds of contacts who neither the players nor I have firmly established before the game. It's usually easier to build up to epic levels from mid levels.