What Levels Do You Start At?

[Solaris]

A question was raised in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?397573-The-most-far-reaching-bad-descisions-in-RPG-design&p=18792527&viewfull=1#post18792527), and it's one I've wondered about myself from time to time.

Whether you be a DM or a player, what level range do you prefer to begin play at? 1st? 3rd-5th? 10th? 20th? Epic? Please post your starting level preference, and if you care to your reasoning (though it's not necessary).


Level 01: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Level 02: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Level 03: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Level 04: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Level 05: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Level 06: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Level 07: XXXXXXXX
Level 08: XXXXXXX
Level 09: XXXXXX
Level 10: XXX
Level 11: XXX
Level 12: XXXXXX
Level 13: XXX
Level 14: XX
Level 15: XXXXX
Level 16: XX
Level 17: XX
Level 18: X
Level 19: X
Level 20: XX
Epic-Level: XX

[Flickerdart]

I like three different levels:
3: You just graduated from "fewer hit dice than greatsword damage," you got your second feat, and class features that advance every odd level (and boy there are a lot of them!) just ticked up. Next level, you have a +1 to an ability score to look forward to. You have enough wealth to cover a basic kit and maybe even have a magic item, so loot is very special.
6: You just got your third feat! And maybe an iterative attack, or a prestige class, if you're lucky. Sorcerers and their ilk just got 3rd level spells. There's a reason E6 stops here - level 6 is when you're awesome without worrying about 50 different immunities. And next level things get even better as the floodgates of 4th level spells burst open - you're on the cusp of mid-levels, and everything is exciting.
15: A hell of a jump from 6, no? Well, that's sort of the point. 15 levels of planning still leaves you with a healthy 65 encounters before you hit 20th, and you've got more than enough build resources by this point to bring your A-game. Melees have long since run out of frontloaded features and should be picking up some nifty PrCs for those sweet sweet level-appropriate moves. Casters have enough spells to sling them around all day without having to be Elven Domain Generalist Wizards With Real Kung Fu Grip. Everyone is swimming in gold to buy their dream magic items instead of hounding the DM for very specific loot as soon as the dice stop rolling.

[Tryxx]

9th-12th is the ideal spot merely because most builds have the potential to come "online" at that point, or at least resemble their end goal. I feel like the levels before that are really just setting the foundation of your character, which I find less fun than actual improvements to an already functioning character concept. Most of this probably comes down to the limited amount of feats available and a character not yet being able to do what you want it to do.

[YossarianLives]

Most of the members in my group like to start the players at 3-5 levels. It's still fairly low level and the PCs start out with a decent level of power without them being gods, yet.

I prefer to start out (both as a player and a DM) at level one. When I'm a player I like starting out basically being a peasant and as a DM I run exclusively E6 so it doesn't make sense for the game to start out at later levels.

[Zytil]

As a DM i have a tendency to start at 5th level.
Most of the players in my group are fairly inexperienced, and starting much higher than 5th results in them not actually wanting to go through the process of making characters, or makes the characters themselves too complicated to manage sometimes. Starting lower gets them killed by stray crossbow bolt crits and that one orc with a greataxe who rolled too high. 5th level generally provides a good balance between complexity and survivability for them.

As a player i have no real preference for level, i can manage with anything.

[TheCountAlucard]

Fifth or higher, here. High enough that you can start thinking about prestige classes out of the box, have little chance of dying from an unlucky critical, and have enough "room" for even two characters of the same race and class to feel pretty different; it's also still low enough that they are unlikely to make your plot cry or ascend to godhood.

[DigoDragon]

All my campaigns have started at 1st. Something about that level really helps set-in what kind of personalities and experiences the PCs want their characters to have. It's heavy on the RP and within two sessions they advance to 2nd and start adventuring together.

[VincentTakeda]

Depends on the system. I'm not a fan of 'waiting 2 years to get the powers that I build myself around' or 'the long arduous journey to completing a feat tree' so in systems that have that, I prefer starting at higher levels... like 17 for pathfinder is a fine starting point for me.

Other systems like palladium where you get all your variety right out of the box at character creation and all levels really do is make you better at those things.... I think its fine to start at level 1. For me its all about avoiding the 'I'm a low level so my options are limited' or the 'thing I really want to do wont arrive until the game is almost over already' capstone problem.

[Ephemeral_Being]

Okay. I DM for the most part.

Most campaigns I've run, I'm teaching people to play D&D. We'll start at level 1 and get up to around 5-6. There's always people who want to learn so you can easily find players, and it gets them a chance to try the system out without a huge commitment.

My personal preference is to start at level 7. It lets people play races with a LA, they have a good selection of magic and skills, and can take prestige classes if they want to. You can get to around level 10 in a semester. But starting there with people who have never seen the system before is bad. They build useless classes, get confused buying gear, and end up weak and dead.

[SangoProduction]

Personally, I tend to find games that have a very long-winded focus to want to be of a lower level than those with shorter stories. This is because you want meaningful progression throughout your campaign, but also probably don't want people who should, by RAW, be able to kill gods before your campaign is finished. (Of course, stats can easily change on the fly, but once players catch on, it kind of tends to kill some of their passion for the mechanical progression of their character...and so few seem to embrace the idea of actual character development.)
Also, player customization and group experience does begin to factor in. If they are new players, I often start at level one. It's extremely basic, and gives the players a grounding point. Conversely, if you have a group that really likes being their own special little snowflakes...well I would recommend not playing D&D, but if you did, then play at a higher level to unlock more customization options.

[Afgncaap5]

I start at level 1, personally. All the GMs in my group tend to go this route, too. We get more levels of adventure that way. (And the GMs who don't plan for high-level magic have a while to wait and watch how a character winds up playing.)

[GreatDane]

Campaigns in my group usually start in the levels 1-3 range. Not because we enjoy low-level play, but because we like our campaigns to stretch out over the spectrum of levels. There's almost nothing in D&D as gratifying as seeing a character grow from a level 1 mook into a level 15 hero.

[Troacctid]

My go-to starting level is level 6. It's kind of like the prestige class version of level 1.

[endur]

I prefer level 1 for starting a new campaign. If I'm using a published setting that starts at higher than level 1, I'll either create an intro scenario for the missing levels, or I'll just lower the EL on the initial encounters so that a 1st level party can handle them.

If it is a one-shot adventure, I'm fine with starting at a higher level. I might also resurrect an old campaign at higher than 1st level.

I understand the feelings about wanting to try complicated builds and prestige classes, but I feel that is better for a one-shot adventure than a campaign.

I think role-playing works better when you start at 1st level. Players also get a better feel for their character's abilities, particularly spell casters.

[Denver]

To me, I think the party dynamics that can evolve and unfold by starting at level 1 contribute to later game play quite a bit. Certainly not in any mechanical way, but in the way the party interacts, and the history they share. And while that can (and often does) develop in a party no matter what level they start at, I think that kind of characterization provides more "entertainment" throughout the low levels, with the possibility of long-running inside jokes or establishing roleplaying motifs.

So, I like to start at level 1.

[Solaris]

Alright, added in everybody so far. If you've given a range, I put in everything within that range.

[Crake]

I'm going to add my vote in for level 1. A long time ago, when I first started playing dnd, we used to make characters of all range of levels to play in, but within the last few years, I've grown to appreciate the low levels for their character development. Having a character at level 1 as a blank slate, and doing a whole bunch of amazing things by level 6 or so is just so much more gratifying than starting at level 6 and making up a backstory that never really happened.

[Milo v3]

My group starts at least at 5th level, though next campaign we're starting at 15th level. We prefer to consider level 3 as the average population level for commoners and such.

[Der_DWSage]

I'm going to have to throw a vote in for 3rd level as well-that's the level when you stop worrying about dying to a lucky Kobold with a critical hit, casters feel like they can actually contribute to more than one fight per day, and most people have class features or feats that they particularly needed. (Of special mention is that Rogues are able to get Weapon Finesse at this point.)

It also allows for some multi-classing, so it's infinitely less odd when you go from being a first level Fighter...to being a first level Fighter that also casts spells that he never mentioned studying in the first place. Instead, you're just a Wizard 2/Fighter 1, or other multiclass of choice.

[Kaidinah]

I prefer to start at level 3. I don't like level 1 because its too easy to get suddenly killed because most 2-handed power attack characters have more static damage than you have HP. Nothing sucks more than having everyone create real backstories with meaningful connections only to have half the party die to a max damage roll from a badguy, or from a random crit from a goblin. Really kills storytelling.

Level 2 is not much better, since its just a bit more HP.

Level 3 is ideal, since you have a feat, a new class feature, and enough HP to survive a few blows.

[DEMON]

Preferably level 3, or level 6.

Starting at first level, in my opinion, kills character concepts, especially for multiclass characters. Unless the DM is willing to give you the time to pursue the chosen career mid-campaign (which, in turn, kills the pace of the game).

[Greenish]

I like starting at lower levels (1-6) since proper beatsticks tend to still be relevant, and you don't have to juggle a million magic items. Plus you can get away with shorter backstory since your character hasn't been through a lot. 1 and 2 are pretty fun as long as you're not too attached to your character.

Higher levels are occasionally fun for more power (at the expense of more effort), though.

[Sam K]

I prefer to start at a level where I can "see my concept coming together" without having to gimp it: for example, for a tiefling fighter/wizard that would be ECL 3 because at that level the character is a fighter and a wizard (as well as a tiefling). For a bardsader it would be level 5 because taking crusader levels before taking your 4 levels of bard would be distinctively sub-optimal, and you're not actually a bard-sader if you're not a bard and a crusader.

While first levels can be great fun from the history building, it's also rather frustrating because the sheer lack of options and the (very) high risk of death due to a single bad roll. It works better for low combat games, obviously, but I tend to play to swing spells, cast greatswords, seduce orcs and slay barmaids!

Still, 3-6 are usually the sweet spot for me. Enough build options that you can make meaningful choices and most concepts are starting to get viable, but you don't need to spend days planning how to use your WBL or prepare spell lists.

[Yael]

1st most of the time, my games (where I'm in, or I DM) last until 13th or so.

4th for flavor into characters.

9th for campaigns that I know the challenge is way too high for low-levels, so I'm kinda permisive with that.

[Amphetryon]

It varies greatly.


Some games, we've started at 1st level, with just enough XP that 'you all meet up in a bar' has already happened off-screen
Some games, we've started around 3rd level, having become roughly competent adventurers
Some games, we've started between 6th and 8th level, having just started our Prestige Classes
Some games, we've started at 12th - 13th level, having reached close to the apex of where the 3.5 engine doesn't need a master mechanic to avoid throwing a rod

The mood the DM is trying to set, the preference of the Players, and the luck of the dice have all factored in to these decisions, depending.

[Kurald Galain]

I also prefer to start at 3-5; first-level characters are nice for first-time players, but otherwise I find them too limited in choice and ability.

[Sewercop]

3 level (3-5) is what we often start at. Not dead by a random arrow every time, competent to actually matter some, and it allows the player to have some skills and abillities that he wants.

And still low enough that skills and feats can grow organicly based on how the group goes. Often level 15+ groups are so perfect in their builds it seems unnatural.

But hey, i dont mind high level gaming.

[Toilet Cobra]

DM here. I like to start my players at 1 mostly because I like the early game best. When you're still counting every gold piece and using a scroll of Protection from Arrows is a major tactical choice. I'm a big fan of E6 style concepts.

Of course, I play a pretty casual, low-optimization group, so people generally don't mind not getting their builds up and running for a while. If there was demand for it, I'd happily run a group at 12 just so they could jump right into complex, optimized builds right away.

[Curmudgeon]

Level 12 lets characters have enough distinguishing characteristics to be interesting, and the front-loaded classes have evened out.

For the more complex games, I prefer to start at low Epic levels.

[Vhaidara]

A few starting points
1: Newbie time! This is mostly for published APs and the like
2: For cully custom campaigns, this is the lowest I like to go. Not as swingy as first, but you're still not hot **** yet.
5: Getting ready to enter your first PrC (3.5), and the latest that a lot of PF builds achieve basic functionality. Good if we want to RP entering a PrC
6. First level in a PrC

I don't generally start higher. If I want more power, I'll run it with free LA or make it Gestalt (or both)

[Malimar]

When I DM, I'm comfortable starting my games anywhere from 1st to 5th level; never beyond 5th.

I have one low-powered setting where NPCs adhere loosely to E6, and only kings and popes even hit level 7. In this setting, I don't like PCs to start as the most legendary adventurers in the world, though I'm fine with them organically growing into that rôle over time, so everybody starts at level 1.

In other settings, like my Spelljammer game, I'm comfortable starting PCs off at 4th or 5th level, which bypasses the super-squishy earliest levels without bypassing the 5-10 range, which are the levels that I and my players find most fun to play (where you have enough power and options to be interesting, but things haven't gotten completely absurd yet).

As a player, I usually enjoy starting around level 4 or 5, for the same reason.

[kellbyb]

I personally like starting at 5. It's a point where characters have left the "very fragile" phase and can be assumed to be fairly reliable in combat, but still have to fight their way to the power spike that is level 6, where certain essential feats and prestige classes become available.

[big teej]

I do not know if my answer is in the spirit of the thread, but here we go.


I have no real preference for what level play starts at as a player or a DM.

over the course of my gaming career however, the overwhelming number of campaigns have started between levels 1 and 5, and I could be remembering wrong, but I would say it's heavily weighted on starting at level 1 or 3.


I ran a single one-off dungeon crawl where the party started at..... I believe level 15.

it got silly fast, and we didn't even make it through the whole dungeon before the party started killing each other. :smallsigh:



I just started/in the process of starting 3 new dnd games.

with my campus group, I had everyone vote on starting level (between 1 and 5) and we ended up starting at level 2.4

with my 1-on-1 game, I had the player start at level 1, to ease the learning curve

with my small-group game, I also have them starting at level 1, for the same reason.

[LoyalPaladin]

I generally start my players at 1, 6, 15, or 20. Very rarely will I start somewhere else. Usually it's because they've requested it.

[BWR]

I like starting at 1st level, both as player and GM. Surviving to a point where you actually start getting a bit tough is an achievement. Starting off as a nobody and hopefully surviving long enough to become a somebody is a major part of my enjoyment in the game. Starting off strong(er), while it has it's uses, e.g. for running premade adventures, isn't nearly as fun. When my character is high level I want stories and personality to go with it, stuff s/he's actually experienced and done in play.

[Vhaidara]

I like starting at 1st level, both as player and GM. Surviving to a point where you actually start getting a bit tough is an achievement. Starting off as a nobody and hopefully surviving long enough to become a somebody is a major part of my enjoyment in the game. Starting off strong(er), while it has it's uses, e.g. for running premade adventures, isn't nearly as fun. When my character is high level I want stories and personality to go with it, stuff s/he's actually experienced and done in play.

To me, this is the level 2 start. Level 1 is "Oop, that orc rolled max damage and you're dead before you take a turn". Or "the archers all fire at you and. Three arrows for good damage. Sorry you only had 8 health, you're dead dead."

[LoyalPaladin]

To me, this is the level 2 start. Level 1 is "Oop, that orc rolled max damage and you're dead before you take a turn". Or "the archers all fire at you and. Three arrows for good damage. Sorry you only had 8 health, you're dead dead."
That's part of the fun! Its what separates the heroes from the commoners!

[DrK]

I'm in the level 3-5 camp. Or for a higher level romp ~9. Anything above that the builds are too optimised with class or feat combos that you know would have really struggled in the early game and equipment is all "perfect" rather than the hodge podge of random stuff, some of which you carry for sentimental reasons.

Also I've found people are less high op if the character is built organically through actual play rather than theory fu.

[Andreaz]

That's part of the fun! Its what separates the heroes from the commoners!If I wanted to play a commoner, I'd roll a commoner.
There's this basic assumption that whatever characters I play have something that separates them from the rest. That spark of luck and competence that says "this one might level up!".
So even if I'm at starter level, I'm kinda, you know, expecting my character will not die because of a banality?
Separating heroes from commoners happens the moment you write the name of your character on your sheet.

My games usually start at level 4 or 5. If we still want to have a story where the characters start at "zero" in the zero-to-hero bar, we start underequipped, not underleveled. A level 4 character in level 1 gear is in the right spot for that kind of story.

[ElenionAncalima]

Almost every game I have played has started at level one, with a few exception:
-One full campaign started at level 3
-A short two session game started at level 4
-A horrible mess of a campaign, that fell apart almost immediately, started at gestalt level 8 or level 16.
-I joined a game at level 2, but it started at level 1

As a player, I think I like starting around level 3-5, as that gives you a lot of flexibility to build the character, but keeps things from getting too crazy, too fast.

As a GM, I started both my campaigns at level 1. I wanted to keep things simple for my first campaign and my second campaign was a pre-written adventure path that started at level 1 (but has already reached level 3 in two sessions). However, I would certainly consider starting at a higher level in the future, especially for a short game.

[jjcrpntr]

Most campaigns I've played in have started at 1. One dm (who's run about 2 games) likes to start at 3 or 5.

In the games I run, I like to start at level 1 as people have said it builds the characters story together. My players all seem to prefer level 3.

For me if I start them at 1 I'm going to move them up to 3 pretty quickly.

[ScottyDoo42]

Level 1

You can get to know your character in and out, develop relationships built from the start, and truly structure who you want to be with that Ranger, or that Fighter etc... For some of us long time players, level 1 may be a bit rough, but in my experience the characters i brought up from 1 are the most remembered.

[MorgromTheOrc]

My group has started at 3, 5, and 8. 5 being the most common because we feel it allows moderate power considering we don't to play often and start a lot of new campaigns.

[atemu1234]

I usually like to go from 1-30. But I usually can't.

[Sam K]

That's part of the fun! Its what separates the heroes from the commoners!

Depends a bit on what you think is fun. To me, combat is fun if I feel I have a chance to seriously influence the outcome. Winning (or losing) because of pure luck or DM fiat takes away much of the fun to me. Lvl 1 characters have quite few abilities (some martial adepts could be exception here), and very little gear, so meaningful options are limited. You CAN make fun combat for level one characters but it takes more of the DM. To me, it either feels random (chuck some dice around and whoever rolls the most 20s win) or very rigged ("The young goblins attack with primitive tiny daggers. One at a time. Please don't die, we don't have time to watch you make another character!")

That being said, my most memorable character ever was a lvl 1 drow fighter/thief in AD&D 2nd ed. His small band of lvl 1 drow managed an ambush on a group of mind flayers and kill them all, with no losses. I went to lvl 2/3 from that fight. Ofcourse, we had equipment benefitting a noble house, so we had more choices in combat than most characters starting out. Still, backstabbing 2 mind flayers with enchanted longswords, and having them both succumb to drow sleep poison? That WAS epic. But anyway, sorry, rambling!

[Vhaidara]

To me, this is the level 2 start. Level 1 is "Oop, that orc rolled max damage and you're dead before you take a turn". Or "the archers all fire at you and. Three arrows for good damage. Sorry you only had 8 health, you're dead dead."


That's part of the fun! Its what separates the heroes from the commoners!

I bolded the part that is a problem. When you die in the surprise round, that means you literally wasted however long it took you to make a character. For me (and I think I'm relatively fast) that can be between half and hour and an hour after deciding what to build, depending on how nuts I go on weird extras (A&EG ftw), with another hour or two possible for backstory (and more, if I get really into it).

To have to throw all of that away because someone rolled a 20 is stupid. Especially since it sidelines me until I can write another character (probably without a good backstory, since that means I'll miss at least half the session).

[Magesmiley]

I always start campaigns that I DM at level 1. I've found that it helps balance out the wizards in particular. A lot of the players who have only played wizards at high level in other campaigns suddenly seem to gain a newfound respect for the other classes when they have to start at 1st level. It also makes players consider their optimization plans a lot more carefully (and force a better balance between short and long-term effectiveness). Not being able to skip over the 3-5 levels where your optimization plans sucks before you get to the cool stuff makes you think much harder.

[Mystral]

I prefer Level 6. You have enough levels to build anything you want, can reach most prestige classes and can have a nice loadout of items and spells. And it is still easy to manage and there is room for improvement.

[j_spencer93]

My players love level 2-3. I do not know why but that is what they always ask to start at

[bulbaquil]

I generally prefer to start at level 2 or 3 as a player. It gets past the "insta-death by unfortunate critical" phase while still being low enough level that the character can develop organically rather than having to be pre-locked into a "build." Starting at higher levels just adds unwanted complexity.

For a similar reason, I usually prefer to start the players at 2-3 while GMing, particularly with an unfamiliar group as it allows me to better gauge optimization/tactics level, particularly with regards to mages: Are they preparing and using the "optimal" low-level spells (e.g. Color Spray), "blaster-type" low-level spells (e.g. Magic Missile), or flavor/fluff/RP-type spells?

[Temotei]

As a player, I tend to prefer anywhere between 3 and 9, though I'm okay with anything, really.

As a DM, I prefer anything 3+, though for our group, I think the sweet spot might be around 5.

[Benthesquid]

I like level two, in Pathfinder. Rogue's get their first talent, Barbarians their first rage power, alchemists their first discovery, Fighters pull ahead of non-fighter humans in number of feats. Good stuff.

[Solaris]

I've tabulated all responses so far. Thanks for the help, fellas. If you haven't posted an answer yet (or want to change your answer), then by all means post it up; more data is better.

[Greenish]

When you die in the surprise round, that means you literally wasted however long it took you to make a character. For me (and I think I'm relatively fast) that can be between half and hour and an hour after deciding what to build, depending on how nuts I go on weird extras (A&EG ftw), with another hour or two possible for backstory (and more, if I get really into it).See, now, there's your problem. You shouldn't give your character a name before it hits level 2, or backstory until the MM orc warrior 1 can no longer one-shot it. :smalltongue:

[nyjastul69]

I usually, and prefer, to start at the beginning, level 1. Ocassionally 3rd or 5th level will be a starting point. I'm pleasantly surprised at how many people like starting at 1st level.

[Tragak]

I like to start at 10-15 (if you have to pick one: 12).

The math hasn't collapsed yet and you can play for a long time before it does, but you still have lots of cool options available in the meantime.

[Doctor Awkward]

As a DM, I prefer to start my games around level 7, since I find that's when the truly interesting large-scale fantasy stories can be told, but I'm perfectly fine starting anywhere between there and level 15.

As a player, I generally pass on games that start at levels lower than 4, or 3 depending on the build I'm allowed to play. I get especially leery if I'm required to come up with a detailed history of a character that starts off that low. If I'm putting numbers on paper just to try out the mechanics, that's one thing, but when I get myself invested in a character like that, I get incredibly annoyed and deterred when he goes from full health to dead because of an orc that happened to crit with a greataxe.

Variant systems like E6 are another story, as the folks I've gamed with who run them are largely far less lethal than in a normal game, for some reason.

[Coidzor]

What Levels Do You Start At?

Typically level 1. Though next most commonly are level 3 and then level 6.


Whether you be a DM or a player, what level range do you prefer to begin play at? 1st? 3rd-5th? 10th? 20th? Epic? Please post your starting level preference, and if you care to your reasoning (though it's not necessary).

Now, my preference is different. I'm honestly kind of sick of starting at level 1, it's old hat.

As a player, I prefer starting somewhere between 4th and 6th level, I think, partially because I can have more of my character's shtick online at those levels. Not sure for DMing, since things haven't worked out well on that end for multiple reasons, largely unrelated to the game itself. Probably similar to my preference as a player, though.

Pain in the butt building a proper spellcaster the higher level it is, though, but that's largely from lack of practice, I think.

[Seerow]

Usually either 1st level, or anywhere in the range from 5th to 8th. My group played E6 for a couple years, during that period we started at level 1 always. In normal games, we occasionally start from level 1 just because some players really dig that low level vibe. My personal preference is at least 7 (though that could be E6 fatigue talking), but anywhere between 5 and 8 is fine. Below that and I feel like I'm just waiting for what I really want to play to come online, and above that tends to cause the first few sessions to be really slow (in my experience) as everyone learns their way around their high level character, with lots of time wasted on page flipping, references, and just generally trying to remember "what does that do again?". When easing into a higher level character by playing them from a lower-mid level, that happens significantly less.

[Alent]

My group prefers starting at 3~5, usually. It's just not fun watching level 1 or level 2 characters go squish.

My personal preference is to start at 3. Just enough HP to not go insta-squish, but still low enough that the christmas tree only needs a few ornaments on it.

[Arbane]

Last three PF games I were in started at level 1, level 2 and level 4. I think I'd rather start at 2 or 4, just to get a certain baseline of competence (and hit points).

[talonhawk01]

I like starting at 5. Plenty of room to get things going enough to have a functional build for a character and a cool yet reasonable backstory.

With my current group, I would like to start at 7. We have a terrible problem of starting at 5 or lower and never get past 8 because the DM gets "sidetracked by other things" (ie got bored) even when we level every other session or so. Starting at 7 seems like we could get to level 9 and actually PLAY with it.

My current game started at level 1 because my players are sadists who insisted on torturing me with trying to keep such squishy little things alive long enough to not need outside help vs hot dice (And they're at 6th level now!).

[TheCrowing1432]

I find 6-8 to be the sweet spot

[Madhava]

I prefer starting at level 2.

My group starts at either level 1 or 2.

By, say, level 5 or 6, most any character has seen some pretty amazing things, & had some remarkable triumphs and failures. I can't say I care much for game play at level 1 or 2... but there's something to be said for playing out a the entire length of a given character's adventuring career.

To me, it feels more authentic than deciding 'my character spent his early years in the militia and fought giants, therefore he starts at level 5', et al.

As I see it, starting at level 2 could represent extensive training, & possibly getting into a few scrapes in or around one's hometown.

[Akisa]

21 them Epics!

[sideswipe]

level 3-5 is standard for us. ending below 10 usually. our current is 8 start and all the way up to epics i think.

level 3 is when you can stop dropping to a single lucky commoner or wolf as any class.

[Peebles]

I like to start out at Level 1, both as a GM and player, so whilst I'm finding my feet with the character, it's also finding it's feet as an adventurer. There are obvious pitfalls to starting at the base level, but they're easily worked around. Level 3 is a good alternative/compromise, where dumb luck starts being a little less vital to PC survival as HP starts to ramp up.

Having said that, I've never actually been involved in a campaign that's gone further than Level 12, so I don't have a complete experience to draw from. A near TPK in a skirmish with a couple of Frost Worms kind of ground the game to a halt.

[HammeredWharf]

As a DM, levels 2-6, depending on how powerful the characters are supposed to be. I find high-level campaigns annoying to DM for, as the amount of prep time increases and everything takes forever when players have access to dozens of spells and magic items. As a player, I don't really care. However, I've found that I put more thought into my low-level characters, as I usually get frustrated somewhere down the line when trying to make a high-level build work perfectly. Yes, I've got some perfectionistic tendencies.

[Kymme]

My favorite would probably be 6, 9, and 12. If I had to choose, I'd honestly go with level 12 as an ideal starting point.

[JaminDM]

1, usually...

[Solaris]

Results have been tabulated up. So far 1st level has a clear lead, followed by 3rd and 5th levels. It seems 3rd level is popular for being less squishy and having that second feat, while 5th level is just before you start qualifying for prestige classes.

[Vhaidara]

I feel it's worth noting that first level gets a bias because of prewritten adventures that start the players at level 1.

[Amphetryon]

Results have been tabulated up. So far 1st level has a clear lead, followed by 3rd and 5th levels. It seems 3rd level is popular for being less squishy and having that second feat, while 5th level is just before you start qualifying for prestige classes.

And yet, 29 out of 176 (reported) does not read as a majority by my understanding of the common usage of that term. Nor does this fairly unscientific, hardly representative sample seem to indicate that 'most play takes place in the 1st to 3rd level range', or that the 'vast majority of characters being played never reaches 5th level.'

[Verikus]

I'm lvl 1 for PC and DM.

For me D&D is 80% RP/Characters, 20% numbers and coming up with crazy combos from RAW. As a DM it's fun designing early scenarios that won't 'oops you're dead my bad', and it honestly isn't hard to have some difficult enough encounters that push your party to later levels rather quickly without a whole lot of risk. My players' first encounter in my current campaign had 6 of them outsmart and kill about 20 bandits (CR 1/2-1) over about 2 hours of careful planning, in-character debates, and thinking diagonally (things you can't do in video games, like telling a wolf to carry the severed arm of another bandit run out of the camp to pull the bandits into separate groups). It really helped them flesh out their characters and how and why they operate as a party

For me it is very, very important to have early levels in a campaign because my campaigns revolve around story and how those characters (not their stacked dice rolls) affect the world through their decisions, personalities, faults, personal agendas, etc.

I never thought about doing a 1-off adventure to try out some crazy builds though, that might be pretty fun.

[Dire Moose]

I prefer to start at level 1, but I don't like staying there for long. In the campaign I'm running now, I had a brief level 1 adventure at the start to help the players learn the system, then jumped to level 2 when the plot actually got started.

In other cases, I have started at level 2, which might be preferable. Still good for a long campaign, but the characters are not as easily killable.

So put me down as 1-2 for "brief level 1 stuff to learn the ropes, then level 2 for the actual campaign"

[Coidzor]

I prefer to start at level 1, but I don't like staying there for long. In the campaign I'm running now, I had a brief level 1 adventure at the start to help the players learn the system, then jumped to level 2 when the plot actually got started.

In other cases, I have started at level 2, which might be preferable. Still good for a long campaign, but the characters are not as easily killable.

So put me down as 1-2 for "brief level 1 stuff to learn the ropes, then level 2 for the actual campaign"

AKA The Tutorial Level: TTRPG Edition. :smallamused:

[Urpriest]

I tend to like 4 or 6, depending on how self-sufficient I want the players to be. 2 if it's really "starting from nothing". I don't tend to start at level 1 these days, if only because there are so many LA +1 races.

[Solaris]

And yet, 29 out of 176 (reported) does not read as a majority by my understanding of the common usage of that term. Nor does this fairly unscientific, hardly representative sample seem to indicate that 'most play takes place in the 1st to 3rd level range', or that the 'vast majority of characters being played never reaches 5th level.'

Yeah, it's a plurality, and not a very strong one.
A follow-up to this could be to see what levels characters end at when they're retired. Most of my campaigns have run out of steam by 8th-10th level after starting at 3rd level, but I have a serious flaw with my short attention span when it comes to campaigns.

[Vhaidara]

Yeah, it's a plurality, and not a very strong one.
A follow-up to this could be to see what levels characters end at when they're retired. Most of my campaigns have run out of steam by 8th-10th level after starting at 3rd level, but I have a serious flaw with my short attention span when it comes to campaigns.

You'd have to have a special rule for PbP. Otherwise I could contribute about thirty characters who were retired before they levelled because the game died.

[McThunderpants]

When I DM, I tend to start my campaigns at a higher level than most, usually around 12, mainly because my players like doing crazy things with their characters and I enjoy watching them do crazy things, so I tend to have to start that high. I think that levels 8-12 are a good starting point though. It gives players a chance to play more than just the standard PHB races and also have some cool abilities as well. I also like ending my campaigns on level 19 or 20, so that's another reason I start kind of high.
As for me as a player, I suppose around the same levels, for the same reasons.

[Suteinu]

Level 1 or level 3, usually 1. I like lever 6 or so for short campaigns or weekenders, but the early levels appeal to me strongly. Maybe because advancement feels quicker, maybe because those characters tend to be young and hopeful and I am approaching middle-age, maybe 'cause they're easier to handle, but there it is.

P.S.: I'me sure you meant, "At What Levels Do You Prefer to Start?" Sorry; I'm a teacher at an elementary school. :smallbiggrin:

[lsfreak]

P.S.: I'me sure you meant, "At What Levels Do You Prefer to Start?" Sorry; I'm a teacher at an elementary school. :smallbiggrin:
If that's a dig at the stranded preposition, that was never a rule in English and, much like people who decry passive voice or vocal fry, you probably use it regularly without noticing because it's utterly engrained in the English language.

Most of the times I've played I've started at 4th level, and if we're leveling slowly I'd prefer 6th. There's simply not enough for the characters to do in a normal game to keep me entertained at lower levels, there's only so many times I can cast the same spell spell again or declare I make a standard melee attack before I get bored. But I'm starting a muchly-homebrewed E6 game as DM with new players, because I *like* the feel of low levels, there's just not enough to do without the homebrew.

[nedz]

9001

Nah — only kidding.

One group always starts at level one.

The other group: level 1 or 2 (50/50).

Basically the low levels are more traumatic and so you get more drama and thus more character development.

[atemu1234]

Jokes aside, it's sometimes fun to play an epic-level campaign and pit the players against 1d4 Paragon Tarrasque Wizard 20s.

[RoboEmperor]

Level 1

Our group of 4 adventures start at level one. Those who die make new characters, and the cycle continues until we start winning encounters with none of us dead. After that our party members start talking to each other and share backstories. That way we can say that the character we intended to play was the last survivor and all the other dead level 1 PCs were not their character.

Not that hard actually, each level 1 character has their full WBL, and the survivor gets to loot them all.

Beware of player killing. If a player counts on the death of his teammates for the money, DM says word got out about how much of a bastard the player was, and the new batch of level 1 PCs decapitates that player, who has to restart from level 1 with the standard WBL.

Kind of needs trust though for not abusing the WBL system. DM adjusts treasure rewards to make sure WBL goes back to their original values in the next 2-3 levels.

[ericgrau]

3-5 usually. In my other group it was 1.

Current group likes to have rookies without the extreme danger of level 1. In my old group the DM considered that a bonus. He did average a PC death every session or two even at higher level.

[johnbragg]

Something that helps level 1 play is for the DM to really keep in mind that the monsters are just as squishy as the PCs, and as CR <1 monsters, have generally survived by running away from danger. So if 3 of 8 goblins have taken damage, they're outtahere, even if 1 of 4 PCs is down.

That, and 1/2 XP for losing-but-surviving.

And of course, at-deaths-door rules.

[molten_dragon]

Levels 3-6 are my favorite place to start a game. I don't like anything below 3 because you're just too squishy and can't do enough.

I don't mind starting above 6, but mostly I like to do longer campaigns, and 6th level still lets you run a nice long campaign before you cap out at 20.

Unfortunately we run a lot of Pathfinder adventure paths now, so we end up starting at level 1 all the time. We've started fudging the XP curve though so that levels 1 and 2 go by extremely quickly, sometimes we'll hit level 3 in a single session.

[goto124]

Not that hard actually, each level 1 character has their full WBL, and the survivor gets to loot them all.

This sounds fun.

[Coidzor]

Level 1

Our group of 4 adventures start at level one. Those who die make new characters, and the cycle continues until we start winning encounters with none of us dead. After that our party members start talking to each other and share backstories. That way we can say that the character we intended to play was the last survivor and all the other dead level 1 PCs were not their character.

How many iterations of this do you generally go through per campaign?

[Nibbens]

I've got to chime in on this one!

Personally, it's level 2 for me.

I recently queried my PCs about this and I got the following numbers:

Level 1 - because that's when PC ingenuity really makes a difference in combat and roleplay.
Level 15 - because we never get to see higher end stuff.
Level 15 - because I can create a PC so monstrous that I roll XdX dice every time I attack.
Level 5 - because we have just enough power to start dealing with harder things - more memorable monsters, but still have room to grow.

[Aka-chan]

Most of the games I've played in started at Level 1, although the one I'm currently in started at Level 2. I don't know if there's any specific reason for it other than "it's easier for the party to get used to working together when each character only has a couple of abilities to take into account."

The one game I've GMed so far started at Level 1, because I wanted to start things off simply for my first time behind the screen. I'm currently planning a new campaign, and I'm intending to start that one at Level 5.

[RoboEmperor]

How many iterations of this do you generally go through per campaign?

Can't say. We win most of our encounters, but there's always casualties. It's usually the party fighter or wizard. Party fighter because he needs to tank with his 1d10 hit die, and party wizard because he got no shield or mage armor spell to keep him alive in all 4 encounters. If the encounters are not ranged heavy, wizard survives.

Once one spell caster hits level 3 (usually the cleric because he has a full plate and a heavy shield to keep him alive, unlike the wizard), he "carries" the team until everyone is level 3.

All the encounters are winnable, we just gotta ensure that our cleric survives every battle.

Our DM is very good. He runs an open-world campaign, so we can pick and choose our CR (to some degree). Of course if we take too long we "lose" because the nearby village is overrun by monsters, or we failed to save the lord, or rescue the prisoners before they're sacrificed, etc. Also, when a mandatory high CR encounter arrives and we're not up to par because we spent most of our time killing low CR opponents, we gotta beg for mercy, just die, side with them and be evil for a while which kills our reputation, etc.

On a normal campaign, this respawn system is just in case any of us get a bad die roll. On a hard campaign where we get TPK quite often, we all suicide to grow our cleric until he can carry us. Those hard campaigns are usually a massive invasion and we're all banding together just to survive until we get strong enough to fight back. He gives us XP for retreating, based on the CR of the monsters we slew. Hard campaigns progress quite quickly since the sheer number of attackers we have to kill to survive with the most high-op strats give us crazy XP.

[justiceforall]

Level 1 both as player and as GM


Level 1 offers the least complexity to let everyone figure out if the game is going to work or implode (we have a lot of games implode).

Additionally as a player I love the feel of the rookie slowly over time developing into the champion/villain.

[Qwertystop]

I'm in a couple of PBPs on here at the moment - haven't leveled up in any yet, and the levels are 1, 5, 5, 6, and 7. I don't particularly look for starting level when I look for a game (except for not wanting epic-level games), but that's what I've gotten into.

[squiggit]

Level 3 or 4 usually.

A lot of classes just don't get tools they need to operate for a few levels and your first two levels are ridiculously swingy.

[johnbragg]

Late to the party, but I don't think it's thread necromancy yet, just thread potion of longevity.....45 days, I'm good.

1st level, mostly for roleplaying reasons. I like my characters to be shaped by their early experiences, which include luck and random dice rolls. I like roleplaying "my guy" from those early, high-risk high-lethality encounters where he learns to be an adventurer. (Even if, metagaming, I know it's not as high-risk high-lethality because we've built in mechanical buffers. My guy knows he's strong and tough, or knows he's pretty fit for a wizard, etc but he doesn't know he has max HP for first level.)

[Maglubiyet]

I greatly prefer 1st level. Every time I've started at anything higher than 5th the campaigns collapse very quickly.

People end up making their dream uber-build and then get bored with them after they've proved the concept. It becomes a round-robin of character design concepts, "ooh, instead I wanted to try..." Play comes to a halt to accommodate the ever-rotating cast of characters, game nights become munchkin brainstorming sessions, and the world dies a silent unplayed death.

[Amphetryon]

Late to the party, but I don't think it's thread necromancy yet, just thread potion of longevity.....45 days, I'm good.

1st level, mostly for roleplaying reasons. I like my characters to be shaped by their early experiences, which include luck and random dice rolls. I like roleplaying "my guy" from those early, high-risk high-lethality encounters where he learns to be an adventurer. (Even if, metagaming, I know it's not as high-risk high-lethality because we've built in mechanical buffers. My guy knows he's strong and tough, or knows he's pretty fit for a wizard, etc but he doesn't know he has max HP for first level.)

Is there a Character level at which 3.5 ceases to be high-risk, high-lethality rocket tag?

[Vhaidara]

Is there a Character level at which 3.5 ceases to be high-risk, high-lethality rocket tag?

Actually, low levels.

At low levels, there's a lot of chance that you or an enemy will gib each other.

At high levels, there is no chance. Only certainty.

[Qwertystop]

Is there a Character level at which 3.5 ceases to be high-risk, high-lethality rocket tag?

Somewhere in the middle. At the bottom, everyone is squishy. At the top, there's really big magic. In the middle, everyone has enough HP to survive a couple of hits and the really crazy spells aren't spammable yet.

[Jay R]

First level. Yes, it can be a little frustrating to run from kobolds, but a 6th level character who grew up from 1st level is deeper, better developed, and more a part of the world than a 6th level beginning a campaign. His character is what he's done, not just what I made up. His position in the culture is one he actually grew into.

If I'm going to play a character, I want to play the entire character.

[johnbragg]

Is there a Character level at which 3.5 ceases to be high-risk, high-lethality rocket tag?

It's a lot more so if you're an NPC Warrior 1 with 6 hp and average stats than if you're a PC Fighter 1 with max hp and PC stats, is my point. And at 1st level, your character doesn't yet know that he's a cut above his buddy the NPC Warrior 1 and doesn't act like it.


EDIT: And what Jay R said.

[Amphetryon]

Somewhere in the middle. At the bottom, everyone is squishy. At the top, there's really big magic. In the middle, everyone has enough HP to survive a couple of hits and the really crazy spells aren't spammable yet.

I believe you if you're saying this is your experience. It is definitely not mine. I cannot think of a level where it isn't reasonable to expect to be facing Save-or-Lose spells and/or bruisers capable of doing enough damage in a single Round to take a full HP, exclusively d12 Tank to Negative Dead.


I greatly prefer 1st level. Every time I've started at anything higher than 5th the campaigns collapse very quickly.

People end up making their dream uber-build and then get bored with them after they've proved the concept. It becomes a round-robin of character design concepts, "ooh, instead I wanted to try..." Play comes to a halt to accommodate the ever-rotating cast of characters, game nights become munchkin brainstorming sessions, and the world dies a silent unplayed death.
Really? My experience is that - when Characters don't get slaughtered in the rocket tag - Players often get bored with the limited options available to them at low levels within less encounters than it would take to get from 1st to 5th, and are chafing at the bit to either see their concept actually work as they envisioned it, or to move on to something else just to get some variety from the low-level game.

[sonofzeal]

Depends.


Low: 3. Your 2nd feat is online, 3/4 BAB and 1/2 BAB have finally differentiated, there's a meaningful difference between trained and untrained skills, and most characters won't just up and die on one poor roll in melee combat.

Medium: 7. This seems to be the point when characters are really rolling. Builds are really coming together, you've got some solid wealth to work with, you've had a chance to explore PrCs or multiclassing, you've got 4th level spells and iteratives, and you're generally in a solid but not overbearing place. It's hard to break the game at 7th level, but easy to feel powerful within your niche.

High: 12. Twelth level is usually where I cap out games. It's about as high as you can get before spellcasters become completely unmanageable, even when played reasonably. Bookkeeping also becomes onerous after this point, since any given character has a dozen magic items or more. Still, with higher levels comes increased options and some things only work at that level.

[General Sajaru]

Depends upon the players I'm working with; if they're new, then 1-3, if they know their stuff, then minimum 6, with 7 or 12 preferable. I've run a couple of games starting at 15th that went well (although people weren't really going for any super-optimized builds) and one 25th one-time game that was interesting.

As a player, I don't like starting at anything less than 6th level. Call me easily bored, but I'd like to get more than one attack per round; there's nothing worse than rolling four 2s in a row before you get gnawed to death by that rat.

[Abithrios]

Is there a Character level at which 3.5 ceases to be high-risk, high-lethality rocket tag?

A combination of high ability scores and low optimization can make mid levels less like rocket tag.


First level. Yes, it can be a little frustrating to run from kobolds, but a 6th level character who grew up from 1st level is deeper, better developed, and more a part of the world than a 6th level beginning a campaign. His character is what he's done, not just what I made up. His position in the culture is one he actually grew into.

If I'm going to play a character, I want to play the entire character.

I have seen several different people make this comparison, but I don't think it the most relevant. Of course a level 6 character will be more fleshed out if it is the result of a dozen sessions of play rather than brand new.

I think it would be more fair to compare the characters when they are both new or when they each have a dozen sessions behind them. In the latter case, there probably is not much difference --back story has become less relevant than in game action.

On the other hand, if you start at level 1, then it really limits how much back story you can have. You can't be much of a hero at level 1, so you can't have engaged in much heroics.

I prefer about level 6 or so. You can start with a functioning build and turn it into something more awesome.

[Tindragon]

So the short answer really is, 5th as my favorite spot when DMing...

BUT, it really depends on players and campaign.

Keeping newbies a non issue (always 1 for them).

If the campaign is meant to be long term, and the characters are going to work themselves into a defining role, I like 5th. Not quite the 2nd feat, lots to develop yet, see how they work together, and grow reputation organically.

If the players are all experienced, and we understand each other, and they come up with a good working together back story, I'll go 8th (like my current campaign)

All of the campaigns (not 1 off adventures) that have started higher than that (did one at 12th once) have ended in TPK quickly. Someone always thinks they are IT and get themselves, and the party, into more than they can handle too quickly. When players develop a character from lower levels up, they have more respect and are less likely to be rash. When they think they can just bring in any ole munchkin crunched tier 1 at a whim, they quickly seem to deteriorate into hulk smash consequences be damned mode.... (in my experience).

[Doxkid]

Level 1 or any level above 6.

Between level 1 and 6 you hit those awkward levels where you aren't good at anything unless you are game-grudgingly better than expected at it.

[Mithril Leaf]

I strongly cast my vote for level 3. You are no longer automatically dead if the dice don't favor you a single time, but still have plenty of time to grow into your character.

[Terazul]

Very much in the range of 3-6. Some of my friends who DM just love to start at 1, and I can never really enjoy it; There's not enough to really distinguish myself in terms of abilities or class features (unless you're a spellcaster) from everyone else. Either you have a weak ability that is on all the time/is highly situational, or you have a middling potency ability that you can use once. It's more fighting the dice than actually playing the character you were interested in. I'm not in this to be a commoner, I get enough of that in real life.

By 3, as many pointed out, you've got at least two feats under your belt, probably a second class feature/advancement, and maybe a magic item or two. You start having options as to what you can do in and out of combat, and are way less likely to die to a lucky orc hit. This is what I try to swing for on my DM friends who typically don't go for my ideal of 5-6.

5-6 is just perfect. Prestige classes are coming online, class features are usable a few times a day/encounter, 3rd level spells/maneuvers/powers are around, feat chains are becoming synergistic, skill specialties/synergy bonuses are online. Characters in terms of their abilities start feeling like full packages/archetypes, as opposed to a cup of hit points with 2 more skill ranks in some skills than each other. You're already good at something, now you can focus on becoming amazing at it.

Higher than that can be acceptable (though I get iffy around 15 or so), but 5-6 is just really where it's at, followed up by the 9-12 Sweet Spot Second Coming of completed/near finished prestige classes, magic item loadouts, and overall style competency.

[Naez]

The groups I play with generally start at around 4-6 unless we want to run a one shot module or something then it's whatever the recommended starting level for the module is.

[Solusek]

I always like to start at 1st level. I want to work my way up from the very beginning. I want to play through that origin story for my character.

[Jay R]

I have seen several different people make this comparison, but I don't think it the most relevant. Of course a level 6 character will be more fleshed out if it is the result of a dozen sessions of play rather than brand new.

Don't be silly. What matters to me is certainly relevant when I'm explaining what matters to me.


I think it would be more fair to compare the characters when they are both new or when they each have a dozen sessions behind them. In the latter case, there probably is not much difference --back story has become less relevant than in game action.

More fair, but less accurate and less fun (for me, at least). A sixth level character should have backstory in the sense of adventures he's actually had, and enemies he's actually made. These are the real stories of the character.

The specific point I'm making is that the "backstory" of a starting sixth level is made-up adventures that don't have as much emotional effect, because they didn't happen. They often have no effect at all, because the DM never knew them well, and the player forgot them.

OF COURSE back story is less relevant than in-game action - that's my point. That's why I want my sixth level characters to have had in-game action, rather than mere back-story.


On the other hand, if you start at level 1, then it really limits how much back story you can have. You can't be much of a hero at level 1, so you can't have engaged in much heroics.

Exactly. The "backstory" of a starting 1st level is primarily background, and goals and dreams that he will now try to make come true. The "backstory" of a starting 6th level is a set of fake D&D adventures that didn't really get played. He's "visited" places on the map that the player knows nothing about, or fought in battles that the player doesn't remember, or slain monsters that the player doesn't know how to slay.

But the backstory of a 6th level who grew up from 1st level is the adventures he's really had. Both the player and the DM know them, know the people and places and rivalries involved.

[Vhaidara]

Exactly. The "backstory" of a starting 1st level is primarily background, and goals and dreams that he will now try to make come true. The "backstory" of a starting 6th level is a set of fake D&D adventures that didn't really get played. He's "visited" places on the map that the player knows nothing about, or fought in battles that the player doesn't remember, or slain monsters that the player doesn't know how to slay.

Or it lets you play someone who used to be important. I've used a higher level start to simulate a disgraced general, who went into exile after a horrific defeat costing thousands of lives.

It also allows you to start out multiclassed. I had one player who was a pit slave for decades (Warblade level) before he was bought by a wizard who saw the potential of the warrior. The Wizard trained him in magic, and ultimately in the ways of the Runesmith (Build was Warblade 1/Wizard 4/Runesmith 1 at the time). That kind of background doesn't work when you have to choose either the martial training to represent the time as a slave or the magical training to represent being an apprentice.

[Coidzor]

Or it lets you play someone who used to be important. I've used a higher level start to simulate a disgraced general, who went into exile after a horrific defeat costing thousands of lives.

It also allows you to start out multiclassed. I had one player who was a pit slave for decades (Warblade level) before he was bought by a wizard who saw the potential of the warrior. The Wizard trained him in magic, and ultimately in the ways of the Runesmith (Build was Warblade 1/Wizard 4/Runesmith 1 at the time). That kind of background doesn't work when you have to choose either the martial training to represent the time as a slave or the magical training to represent being an apprentice.

Indeed, starting at level one only allows for the most simple and straightforward of character origins.

Want your character to have studied magic and swordplay? Well, you'd better want to deal with being a Duskblade if you're starting at level 1.

Edit: It's fine if you want to only ever start off as the (bumbling) apprentice wizard who just got kicked out the door and is still completely wet behind the ears, but don't tell us that's the proper way to play or what we should want.

[Vhaidara]

Starting at level one only allows for the most simple and straightforward of character origins.

Want your character to have studied magic and swordplay? Well, you'd better want to deal with being a Duskblade if you're starting at level 1.

...I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. That was exactly my point, but it read (to me) like you were correcting me.

[Talyn]

For one-shots, starting at level 5 (or, oddly, 12) has been okay. But for campaigns, start me at 1st level, baby!

[Vrock_Summoner]

Is it okay if I'm never allowed to play at these levels?

Because Epic is just... Unnngh. It makes me happy. But only if anything resembling effective character building is tossed out the window. I just love the number of options available for both characters and encounters once early Epic rolls around.

With a higher level of optimization, I really prefer to start at like 4 and never go higher than 12. The lack of options sucks, but at least you aren't immune to everything yet. I mean, honestly, the immunity game is not what I came to play. (This is also why Epic stops being fun if you optimize it more.)

[Coidzor]

...I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. That was exactly my point, but it read (to me) like you were correcting me.

Sorry, just wanted to offer up some alternate phrasing.

[Jay R]

Or it lets you play someone who used to be important. I've used a higher level start to simulate a disgraced general, who went into exile after a horrific defeat costing thousands of lives.

It also allows you to start out multiclassed. I had one player who was a pit slave for decades (Warblade level) before he was bought by a wizard who saw the potential of the warrior. The Wizard trained him in magic, and ultimately in the ways of the Runesmith (Build was Warblade 1/Wizard 4/Runesmith 1 at the time). That kind of background doesn't work when you have to choose either the martial training to represent the time as a slave or the magical training to represent being an apprentice.

Sure, but why stop there? If you want your character to have any adventures that you make up, instead of playing, you have to start at a higher level. I prefer starting at first level because I want to play out his adventures, not make them up.

As I said in my first post, "If I'm going to play a character, I want to play the entire character."

I agree completely that if you want make up years or decades of adventures that aren't the DM's plot, you'll need to start at a higher level. And I hope you have fun with it. I just don't want to do that. It feels like the opposite of what I play the game for.


Indeed, starting at level one only allows for the most simple and straightforward of character origins.

You are using "origin" to mean "origin plus back story". All characters have a simple and straightforward origin.

Aragorn's origin is that he was born the son of Arathorn II, who was killed when Aragorn was 2, so he was raised in Rivendell. It's simple and straightforward.

His backstory includes meeting Arwen, traveling to Rivendell, meeting and becoming friends with Gandalf, serving in the armies of Rohan and of Gondor, fighting the corsairs of Umbar, traveling to Far Harad, guarding the shire, tracking and capturing Gollum, all before we first meet him in Bree.

All characters start with the most simple and straightforward of character origins. What you mean is that starting at level one only allows for the origin, not his backstory, and you will play out his adventures. Starting at higher levels means making up a simple origin plus lots of backstory adventures to get him to his current condition.


... but don't tell us that's the proper way to play or what we should want.

I didn't. My post, which is the last one supporting first level, said that starting at higher levels as "less fun (for me, at least)". I never said other people had to agree with me, or that it was the "proper way to play". This thread is titled, "What levels do you start at?", not "What levels do people think you ought to start at?"

[Abithrios]

Sure, but why stop there? If you want your character to have any adventures that you make up, instead of playing, you have to start at a higher level. I prefer starting at first level because I want to play out his adventures, not make them up.

As I said in my first post, "If I'm going to play a character, I want to play the entire character."

I agree completely that if you want make up years or decades of adventures that aren't the DM's plot, you'll need to start at a higher level. And I hope you have fun with it. I just don't want to do that. It feels like the opposite of what I play the game for.



You are using "origin" to mean "origin plus back story". All characters have a simple and straightforward origin.

Aragorn's origin is that he was born the son of Arathorn II, who was killed when Aragorn was 2, so he was raised in Rivendell. It's simple and straightforward.

His backstory includes meeting Arwen, traveling to Rivendell, meeting and becoming friends with Gandalf, serving in the armies of Rohan and of Gondor, fighting the corsairs of Umbar, traveling to Far Harad, guarding the shire, tracking and capturing Gollum, all before we first meet him in Bree.

All characters start with the most simple and straightforward of character origins. What you mean is that starting at level one only allows for the origin, not his backstory, and you will play out his adventures. Starting at higher levels means making up a simple origin plus lots of backstory adventures to get him to his current condition.


I think this really illustrates where our opinions differ. I would rather play as the Aragorn we meet in Bree than as the 20 year old who was just told how special he really is. I would prefer to be able to refer to incidents from my past even in the first session.

I also prefer the mechanics of mid level play more than low level play.




I didn't. My post, which is the last one supporting first level, said that starting at higher levels as "less fun (for me, at least)". I never said other people had to agree with me, or that it was the "proper way to play". This thread is titled, "What levels do you start at?", not "What levels do people think you ought to start at?"

I saw several people stating similar opinions and quoted the most recent one. Sorry if it came across as anything more than a difference of opinion.

[BootStrapTommy]

As a DM, I find 1st level encounters predictable and boring. There is little creative which can be done at 1st. So I generally let players start at 3rd, where things start to get interesting.

Also allows the room to write better, more specific back stories, since it can include their past exploits.