At which level do you start your campaigns?

[Amiel]

What it says on the tin, at which level do you start your campaigns?

[Eldariel]

Lowest on 3, highest on 21. My preferred range is 6-20. I try to never run level 1-2 games if I can avoid it.

[Britsky]

Almost all the campaigns I've ever been a part of have started at level 1, which is a bit annoying since they always end before we get to any fun high level stuff.

[nrg89]

Level 5, and we usually stop around the tweens.

There's an argument to be made that the 1st level teaches your characters to be humble since they can potentially die from any threat, but I feel there's better systems for that, and I would argue that whatever lesson they learned about humility is thrown right out the window once the characters learn that they don't have to fear anything but the most powerful of enemies. There's another argument to be made that progressing from 1st to 20th level would live on as an epic story forever in the player's memory, and having played a character from 1st to 15th I can see the point, but I mostly remember how the game became something completely different. At 15th level I could kill dragons with the gear on my back without the likely threat of death and I sort of missed the tension of the 1st level.
And, restarting a campaign at 1st level, I missed all the powers I had at 15th level from time to time and was mostly looking forward to that. But then the game died, as usually happens, and my hunger for power was left unsatisfied.

So on the occasions I do play D&D I do it because I want to feel powerful. If I want Sword & Sorcery types of games, where death is more likely, the plot is simpler and the stakes are lower I use other systems. They're both fun types of games, but they are vastly different and once you've crossed a certain threshold the odds of you dying against the common threat is slim. At best. Then the stakes need to be super high.

Just my grain of salt.

[AslanCross]

I like Lv 3. Characters don't die in one hit and have enough abilities to feel specialized. There is enough room to put together some viable but not-so-insane combos.

[Andezzar]

Usually 4-6. That way people can take a couple of LAs and still have class levels.

[Chronikoce]

My personal favorite place to start is level 3 with maybe a single session intro (possibly 1 on 1) with the PCs at level 2.

I usually have my games run from 3-12. I find it is a nice range where you can start useful and grow in power to challenge some big baddies but the game wraps up before I have to try and deal with more of the problems of high level d&d

[Calthropstu]

I start all campaigns at level 1

DIE MAGGOTS!

[Tiri]

I start my campaigns at level 1, but the first few challenges usually catapult the characters up the levels pretty quickly.

[Deadline]

I've been playing with mostly the same folks for years. And all of us are thoroughly sick of playing level 1 characters. There aren't any surprises that level 1 holds for most of us any more. We've tended to start anywhere from 3-10 these days. Barring a specific type of campaign (like a commoner campaign, or the Halo themed convention game I ran where everyone played expendable, 1st level UNSC marines that you could generate in about 30 seconds), I'm not sure I'll ever start games at level 1 again.

[The Insanity]

At least 3rd unless I specifically want the PCs to suck and be weak.

[nedz]

1st level - because a large part of the attraction of the game is aspirational and it helps develop the characters. The DM has to know what they are doing though otherwise it's not going to be fun.

[DrBloodbathMC]

Either 1 or three in my opinion, depending on the feel I'm going for. I'm working on a campaign loosely based of the Avengers where they're going to start at 3 so they can already be heroes in their own right before a central organization unifies them.

[Zancloufer]

Generally start my games at level 2. Though part of that reason is that the way I build my settings 75% of the population usually hits level 2 by adulthood. The while "80% of NPCs are level >3" never appealed to me. Makes no sense to use a system that has 20+ levels for PCs, but at the same time almost never hands out double digit levels to NPCs. Also I fin that throwing in a not insignificant number of NPCs with class levels helps temper murder-hoboing. Also I woudl think someone who did they same thing for 40+ years and was good at it (advancing an age category or three) would probably gain a few levels.

So anyone who would be "an adventurer" would probably have to be at least level 2 and let's people make some degree of backstory to. I mean you CAN say that your character went to some sort of college, or did a thing before the campaign but IMHO it makes no sense that they would still only be level 1 after that.

[Jay R]

At level 1. That's kind of what "start" means. If we begin play at any other level, we aren't starting the campaign; we're coming in in the middle.

[Quertus]

Start a campaign? Hmmm... I guess the answer I'd have to give is "any".

Although, with a campaign, instead of an adventure, there's probably some expectation that at least one of the PCs will survive, so I'd better amend that to, "any level above second". I'm murder on low level characters.

Historically, I think I've started campaigns in the level range of 1-17.

[Honest Tiefling]

Going to start a new campaign at level 3, which is probably fairly low. Usually, it's been around 3-5. I feel as if it's a good level because the characters aren't going to die to a lucky crit, and they have some training/skill under their belt.

Sometimes I feel like starting at level 1 is probably better if the characters are all from the same region, because level 1 characters aren't going to be very inclined to travel far.

[J-H]

I like level 4. Everyone has a decent amount of HP, and the differences between each class are well-established, but we're not into PRCs quite yet.

Why 4 instead of 3? Because WOTC hates spontaneous casters, and level 3 favors wizards only.

[Calthropstu]

I like level 4. Everyone has a decent amount of HP, and the differences between each class are well-established, but we're not into PRCs quite yet.

Why 4 instead of 3? Because WOTC hates spontaneous casters, and level 3 favors wizards only.

Let's entirely skip all the levels where martial characters shine so we can get to the "I cast, it dies" faster!

Bah, you guys are totally roll players.

[Eldariel]

Let's entirely skip all the levels where martial characters shine so we can get to the "I cast, it dies" faster!

Bah, you guys are totally roll players.

Amusingly this complaint seems like it can't stand on its own legs from either the crunch perspective or the imagined roleplay/rollplay divide.

If by "martials shining" you mean "martials can't melee without a ~10% chance of death per turn due to a crit", you're about there. Hell, first level martial characters can't even afford Composite Bows with strength-ratings making their ranged combat rather comical 1d8-rally in spite of their significant strength modifiers. The very reason I don't like playing the first two levels is that martials are at an unfair risk compared to anyone who fights through proxies (e.g. Druid's Animal Companion) or at range (basically any spellcaster).

Plus, the first levels casting is superefficient: stuff like Color Spray, Sleep, Grease, Ice Slick, etc. offer AOE encounter disablers which compared to what any non-caster can do is immensely powerful. Like, whereas a warrior has about 50% chance of killing a single enemy, a caster can disable 3-4 of them with ~70% probability.


Also, the "rollplayer" complaint is a bit silly when we're specifically talking about the crunch. I don't think it quite captures what you're trying to say. The fact that somebody knows the rules of the game has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to roleplay; a subset of the Stormwind Fallacy (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22250/what-is-the-stormwind-fallacy).

[Amiel]

Whoa, seeing a lot of love for starting campaigns at 3rd level and beyond. Is this also the level where you'd like to start your play-through in (as a player)?

So, is 3rd level and beyond that sweet spot where more class features go on-line and become more effective and the GMs can throw more challenges at their players?

[ekarney]

I usually run 1 - 20, but I take the first levels pretty easy, or 1 - 6 if it's e6

[BWR]

Always 1st level.
Working one's way up from zero (well, One) is an important part of the D&D experience I like and like to give others.

[Eldariel]

Whoa, seeing a lot of love for starting campaigns at 3rd level and beyond. Is this also the level where you'd like to start your play-through in (as a player)?

So, is 3rd level and beyond that sweet spot where more class features go on-line and become more effective and the GMs can throw more challenges at their players?

The advantage of 3rd level is thus:
- Characters have some HP. A 1st level character, can get oneshot by a single lucky crit from an average Orc Warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) (CR½ encounter, should be trivial). The crit averages 4d4+8 or 18 damage which can outright kill many characters and even drops a 20 Con Barbarian to -1. And those guys have Falchions so their crit range is 18-20. On 3rd level, even a 14 Con Wizard has 15 HP without accounting for spells like False Life; they may very well be able to facetank attacks of that calibre (and our 20 Con Barbarian has 40).
- Characters have some options. Basic class combinations are now possible, many classes gain their signature abilities on 2-3 (Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Duskblade's Channeling, Swashbuckler's Int to damage, 2d6 Sneak Attack, Paladin's Divine Grace and Lay on Hands, etc.) and you can also be e.g. Ranger/Wizard or whatever in preparation for a future mixed PRC. Compared to 1st level, a lot more personality can be expressed on the 3rd.
- Everyone still gets to play and the game is relatively balanced. Martials spike around 3-6 where they are the closest to casters; they are durable, they can afford proper equipment (1st level characters can't dream of Fullplate or Mw. Composite Longbow; and the party lacks a Wand of Cure Light Wounds/Lesser Vigor so they need someone wasting all their slots on healing spells to stay alive) and some of their bigger feat chains come online (Improved Trip, Knock-Down, Dungeoncrasher, etc.).
- 2nd level spells are game making the caster player's life a world more interesting. Well, unless you're a spontaneous caster (though I houserule spontaneous casters to have the same progression as preparing casters since it's just dumb otherwise).

Basically, it's a sweet spot far as options and balance in the lower end go. 1st level characters are barely just half a character and higher up things get crazy and complex really fast but the 3rd-6th is a good starting spot for many kinds of campaigns.

And yeah, it's also better from the DM's side; you can throw stuff at the PCs without fretting it too much. They've got tools by this point to escape, talk or fight with most things, so they're free to roam the world as they please and you're free to throw whatever makes sense in that environment at them. No need to fear PCs constantly dying and no need for silken gloves.

[Zanos]

I personally start at level 1, as I like the character growth. I love to play with high level toys, but it feels kinda hollow unless I earn them. I do jump into ongoing campaigns at higher levels, though.



Let's entirely skip all the levels where martial characters shine so we can get to the "I cast, it dies" faster!

Bah, you guys are totally roll players.
Not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic. Level 3 isn't high enough to make martial characters bad, and caster resources are still limited enough that they cant stomp. I don't think you'll get a lot of support for saying that other people's playstyles are objectively bad.

[weckar]

3, 6 or 8 depending on group makeup and campaign outlook.

The only time I ever still play 1st level games is when I do demos at the Friendly Local Game Store.

[Feint's End]

Whoa, seeing a lot of love for starting campaigns at 3rd level and beyond. Is this also the level where you'd like to start your play-through in (as a player)?

So, is 3rd level and beyond that sweet spot where more class features go on-line and become more effective and the GMs can throw more challenges at their players?

Pretty much. To be honest even 4th level would still be OK due to being fairer to spontaneous casters.

IMHO it is the best level to start no questions ask. Classes are diverse and interesting at that point (compared to fairly boring at level 1), you don't die from one lucky hit

Also
@ one poster I don't wanna name; Martials can still be good at higher levels if build properly .... or you just use PoW and enjoy gaining levels like casters instead of fearing the day they inevitably surpass you.(besides ... as has been stated melee characters are almost more screwed at level 1 than casters)

Also calling everybody here rollplayers is not only insulting but also might fall under trolling and could get flagged. So I would be a little more careful with your wording.

[sepik121]

Level 5 works pretty well. Gives each player enough room to have a decent backstory as they're experienced in what they do, but also low level enough that they're still learning what all they can do. It's worked pretty well every time

[ATalsen]

My current game started at 7th and is 10th now; it is Pathfinder base, and allows PoW/Psionics, and 3.5 material.

I figured if I wanted to play at high levels and most games don't go more than 5 to 10 levels, I'd better start at a higher level to begin with. 7th is where most character concepts can be strongly made (2 levels of your chosen Presteige Class, if going that route, for example).

I'd want to participate in high level games as both a DM and player, so starting at 7th is great in either case for me.

[ComaVision]

I always start my games at level 1. I usually have a new player or a player that hasn't been in one of my games before, and it gives me a chance to see what the group dynamic is like before the stakes are too high.

When I have the chance to actually play a game rather than DM, it's usually level 1 or 3. I'm fine with it but it really sucks that most of them end up getting cancelled because I often play builds that don't get into their groove until level 6 or so.

[Strigon]

Level 1, but not necessarily out of preference. I'm usually the DM, so we play in the campaigns I write - and out of habit, I start writing the opening locations for level 1 characters. Because that's what we play. Because that's what the campaigns are designed around because that's what I'm used to because that's what we play...

You get the picture.

[Yahzi]

What it says on the tin, at which level do you start your campaigns?
0. That's zero; or rather, 1st level commoner. You have to earn a real level.

[Milo v3]

"Generally" 3 or 4. Every couple of campaigns I want to do a game that starts at 11 or 15 though. Only ever start games at level 1 if it's someone's first time playing. My players and I would rather play as heroes rather than commoners :smalltongue:

[Calthropstu]

I always start my games at level 1. I usually have a new player or a player that hasn't been in one of my games before, and it gives me a chance to see what the group dynamic is like before the stakes are too high.

When I have the chance to actually play a game rather than DM, it's usually level 1 or 3. I'm fine with it but it really sucks that most of them end up getting cancelled because I often play builds that don't get into their groove until level 6 or so.

Yeah, I hate that. Especially when it takes MONTHS to go from level to level.

[Elkad]

1. It's also where I prefer to start as a player.

The crit problem can be mitigated as the DM.
First, I use "death at negative con", not -10. Which gives basically everyone at least a few extra rounds before dying.
Second, I manage crits by managing monster weapons. Give those orcs simple weapons with smaller die, smaller multipliers, or both. Or just use goblins instead.
And I may even stoop to fudging critical rolls in extremis

I do kill PCs. But at level 1&2 they have to be foolish, not just unlucky.

[martixy]

4-6, not including the occasional free LA.

Allows people to take LA, write more interesting backstories.

I mean at some point you just get tired of elves and humans or their various derivatives and the whole zero-to-hero shtick.
Sometimes you just wanna get straight to kicking ass and chewing Devilweed. And sometimes you're all out of Devilweed.

[Zakerst]

Usually at level 3, it gives enough levels to have a different char than everyone else at the table but not so many that the char can't change with the game.

[Telonius]

If there are any players new to the game, I start it at Level 1. Otherwise, usually around 3 or so.

[Pugwampy]

I always DM campaigns from level 1 . I go very easy with level 1 dudes
My kid gloves come off from level 2 and up . Never taken a campaign beyond level 12 or 13 . I think noobs have it easier starting from level 1 . My first ever game was as a level 7 Orc Barbarian . I was beyond confused .


I usually play at level 4 and up . None of the other DM,s like to play level one .

[Wolfkingleo]

Depends on who is playing with me.

If there is an novice among us, then we don't see any problem in starting on lvl 1, otherwise lv 3 - 6. If I'm DMing, I like to set in lvl 4 so all the classes can start showing their true tricks and stuff.

Cheers

[Calthropstu]

I always DM campaigns from level 1 . I go very easy with level 1 dudes
My kid gloves come off from level 2 and up . Never taken a campaign beyond level 12 or 13 . I think noobs have it easier starting from level 1 . My first ever game was as a level 7 Orc Barbarian . I was beyond confused .


I usually play at level 4 and up . None of the other DM,s like to play level one .

I know guys that ONLY play lvl 1. No leveling, no major treasure, no special stuff. And when they get bored, they make a new character.

[Calthropstu]

1. It's also where I prefer to start as a player.

The crit problem can be mitigated as the DM.
First, I use "death at negative con", not -10. Which gives basically everyone at least a few extra rounds before dying.
Second, I manage crits by managing monster weapons. Give those orcs simple weapons with smaller die, smaller multipliers, or both. Or just use goblins instead.
And I may even stoop to fudging critical rolls in extremis

I do kill PCs. But at level 1&2 they have to be foolish, not just unlucky.

You should really look into pathfinder. That is literally what pathfinder does, and they made a lot of nifty fixes to combat. And nearly all super cheese has been removed.