Starting Your Players at Higher Levels

[Techcaliber]

Hello! So, I'm planting a campaign and have been toying around with the idea of starting my players above level 1, specifically at level 3. I was just wondering, how good of an idea is this? What are the pros and cons? Does it add to the game or does it take away? Thanks in advance.

[HappyDaze]

It only takes away if your players enjoy level 1-2 play or if they need it to learn how their characters' abilities work (mostly for new players, sometimes for more experienced players trying something very different). I've started several games at level 3, and they play very well despite not playing out the very beginning of the heroes' tales.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Starting at level 3 is fine in my opinion. It doesn't feel as lethal as level 1 (which is fun, don't get me wrong) and your players can define their characters a bit more since they'll all have their subclasses online by then. It's still low enough level though that you can have quite mundane things like zombies or bandits who feel like legitimate threats, and the PCs still have to be quite careful about conserving resources.

[BurgerBeast]

I’d base it off of player experience. Levels 1-2 are so short in terms of table time that they really just serve to introduce the game. Experienced players can easily just jump in at level 3.

I prefer to start at Level 1 because I’m in the apparently minority opinion that 5e is actually overly complicated at level 1, but there are a lot of benefits to starting at level 3. One of them is the ability to reach higher levels earlier in the narrative and before burn-out/boredom sets in.

The only reason I’d say no is if I thought players would lose the ability to play optimally out-of-the-gate because they were unaware of all of their characters’ abilities.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I start all of my games at level 3, because I want the characters to start off past the "trainee" phase, which 1 and 2 really are. My players all really appreciate that, and they've done the same when they run. It works great. I often toss an extra 50 gold at them for the few levels, but it's not really necessary

[False God]

I generally do this for experienced players. The early levels (1-5) are really the training-wheel levels, and for people who've played for a long time, unless the setting specifically calls for them to be complete and total adventure noobs, I'll start players at level 3-5. Otherwise I just end up blowing through the levels so quickly with experienced players they might as well have skipped them anyway.

So, I'd say if your players are experienced in the system, go for it.

If its just that the game you're looking at running is a little harder than usual, I'd try to figure out how to include some more starter-level content than start players higher up.

[Laserlight]

Last summer I had a couple of "brand new to D&D" players; I started them at L1. A couple of the people I game with have difficulty paying attention, so I might start them at L1 just so they can ease into the class. For my players who have been with me for years, I'd start at 3 minimum, probably 5 or 6 (6 so you can do 5+1 multiclass).

However, if you're not that experienced as a DM, you may want to start them at L1. If I did that, I'd probably give them some extra hit points.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I start all of my games at level 3, because I want the characters to start off past the "trainee" phase, which 1 and 2 really are. My players all really appreciate that, and they've done the same when they run. It works great. I often toss an extra 50 gold at them for the few levels, but it's not really necessary
Same here. The first level or two just feel too limited-- you don't have all your defining class features, what abilities you do have you can't use often enough to be fun, and there's not really enough room on the GM side to build interesting encounters without overwhelming the party. Level 3 is still plenty low enough to kick off a zero-to-hero storyline.

[Daphne]

I think 3rd-level is a great place to start if you already have played for while. Everyone will be starting with their archetype and have unique abilities.

[Pex]

Level 3 is a good place to start. Everyone has their subclass. Spellcasters have fun with 1st level spells and conserve 2nd level spells for special moments. Sorcerers get metamagic. Warlocks get their Pact invocation instead of having to waste 2nd level with one they don't want to trade up. Warriors have the hit points to be in melee. Players have the fun of being what their class is supposed to be. Crits from monsters are still nasty, but it's no longer one crit, or even one regular hit, your character is dead. It's a comfort.

[MrStabby]

I think 4th level is the best place to start. There are two main things that can define a character from an early level (other than race and class) - subclass and important feats. 4th level lets players start with both of these - essentially putting their style in place. Sure there are some weird multiclass things that won't work but you can accommodate 90% of character differentiation at this level. You are simple enough to pick up but have enough HP that one single unlucky roll of the dice is not likely to TPK the party. Level 5 is a big step up and is just round the corner so you start your campaign off with a heightened level of anticipation.

[J-H]

Level 3 is a good starting point. Less swingy and everyone has their subclass. I think it's a common starting level.

[Samayu]

Just make sure you give them ample opportunities for RP.

[HappyDaze]

Level 3 is a good starting point. Less swingy and everyone has their subclass. I think it's a common starting level.

Depending on players and setting, I've started my games at either Level 3 or Level 5. Only our first 5e campaign started at Level 1.

[Crucius]

I generally also recommend starting at level 3, where everyone has their subclass so you are not just any barbarian, but a ancestral guardian for example. Makes you much more distinct flavor wise.

The only trade-off I can think of is that it can be nice to incorporate getting your subclass into the story. For example for a paladin to be directly addressed by a god to come into their service, and pledge their oath in roleplay rather than off-screen at some level up. So if you don't run a player-focused game, just start at level 3, otherwise it might be something to consider if you want to tie someones background/subclass into the story in a more direct manner.

[Techcaliber]

I wanted to thank everyone for the responses, I like knowing that I have chosen a good starting point that for players who aren't brand new helps the game. Thanks again for your feedback!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Hello! So, I'm planting a campaign and have been toying around with the idea of starting my players above level 1, specifically at level 3. I was just wondering, how good of an idea is this? What are the pros and cons? Does it add to the game or does it take away? Thanks in advance.

Only time I start people off at level 1 is if they ask for it, or they're new to D&D, otherwise I'm starting them off at 3 to 5. Level 1 and 2 can get boring as a player and DM.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Hello! So, I'm planting a campaign and have been toying around with the idea of starting my players above level 1, specifically at level 3. I was just wondering, how good of an idea is this? What are the pros and cons? Does it add to the game or does it take away? Thanks in advance.

I often start my players at level 5, it gives more space for players to realize their character concept. I've yet to have problems, though it can mean that new players might require a bit of assistance putting everything together.

[GusPorterhouse]

I start my players at level 3 with 900xp "debt" that must be earned back before any further advancement. This allows characters to be played to subclass/concept pretty immediately, smooths out the swinginess of low-level combat, and gives them a few sessions to internalize their mechanics before things start to change. We like it.

[elyktsorb]

I actually go out of my way to avoid dnd games that start out at lvl 1 these days. I'd prefer to start at lvl 3, which is when things start getting a bit more interesting for all classes, and also when I get into a fight at 3rd lvl, I actually feel like I lose based on my mistakes, and 1st and 2nd lvl a few errant die rolls can screw you pretty hard, where is by 3rd lvl you have enough health and options to mitigate low rolls and contribute decently all the time.

Not to mention starting at higher levels is just more fun since a lot of campaigns never get much higher than around lvl 10 if you start at lvl 1

[Nifft]

Level 3 is my go-to for most 3.x and 5e games.

Level 1 was playable in 4e, and I didn't know any better back in oD&D / 1e days.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I (unlike other people here i guess) prefer to start things at level 1. I greatly enjoy the zero-to-hero aspect, as well as being reasonably able to run scenarios or set pieces that work best at those levels before moving on. It also represents a relatively larger part of a 1-10 or 1-13 game, which is what i prefer to aim for.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I (unlike other people here i guess) prefer to start things at level 1. I greatly enjoy the zero-to-hero aspect, as well as being reasonably able to run scenarios or set pieces that work best at those levels before moving on. It also represents a relatively larger part of a 1-10 or 1-13 game, which is what i prefer to aim for.

We get the zero-to-hero aspect from the story, not really from the mechanics, IMO.

Though in my games, it's usually zero-to-still pretty much zero. Heroes are propaganda, everyone dies the same under the devastation of artillery. ;)


Anyway, I like to start people around level 5. It gives them options, and most importantly is when extra attack is online for martials and level 3 spells are online for casters, so they feel different and special to their players.

[NorthernPhoenix]

We get the zero-to-hero aspect from the story, not really from the mechanics, IMO.

Though in my games, it's usually zero-to-still pretty much zero. Heroes are propaganda, everyone dies the same under the devastation of artillery. ;)


Anyway, I like to start people around level 5. It gives them options, and most importantly is when extra attack is online for martials and level 3 spells are online for casters, so they feel different and special to their players.

I get the impression you run a very different kind of game than what is generally expected...

[Lupine]

Hello! So, I'm planting a campaign and have been toying around with the idea of starting my players above level 1, specifically at level 3. I was just wondering, how good of an idea is this? What are the pros and cons? Does it add to the game or does it take away? Thanks in advance.

In my current campaign, I've started two players into the group mid-game. They had no significant loss, despite starting at level 12. Starting at level 3 shouldn't be an issue, and it helps avoid the early game hyper-squish. Do with this what you will.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I get the impression you run a very different kind of game than what is generally expected...

It was a joke. I can count the number of times I've shelled my PC's with heavy artillery on one hand [and it goes without saying that I haven't killed any of them with heavy artillery. I've only killed 3 PC's, and all were killed the plot or by their own actions [or both]].

That said, "Heroic" is not an adjective I would apply to any of my players. Maybe "Incompetent", or "Asset for the Other Side", or "Every Time We're Off The Main Plot, Cities Get Burned Down". They seem to revel in this distinction, too.

[MagneticKitty]

Level 1
Pros: a humble beggining, can start close to being a commoner. Your story is just beginning.
Survival is less trivial. Later most of the perils of just surviving the outside (bear attacks, finding water and food, starting a fire) can be easily skipped with spells. Here you can have a section of wilderness survival that feels like an adventure.
Players can pick their favored enemy/terrain or subclass depending on what has happened actively in the campaign.
Can be more humbling starting so fragile, sometimes avoids players getting cocky ("We're like gods, it'll be fine" mindset)

Level 3
pros: less swingy. Enemies are less likely to steam roll them.
They can have more of a past adventuring, a story that already started. Old enemies and friends that are adventurers too. A more expansive backstory.
They have their trademark thing (subclass)
More impressive enemies

[Eldariel]

I definitely prefer starting on level 3. I just had an introductory encounter that would've been a TPK had the party been level 1 (even scaled down to level). Of course, if you're into AD&D style "character sheets fly off the table and new ones come in", that's not a problem but if the players put a lot of effort into their characters, it'll feel kinda lousy to just die the first encounter where dice happen to go bad (which is 1st level in a tin can). Level 3 gives them some leeway and also avoids the awkwardness of most classes not having their subclass yet leaving your arcane rogue without arcane and your swords/valor bard without weapon/armor proficiencies and such.

Generally the first 3 levels give you what makes the class feel like itself: Druids get their Wildshape and spells, Barbarians get their Reckless Attack and Totem, Rogues get their Cunning Action and archetype, Bards get their Inspiration and their "class-specific" use for it, everyone has all their proficiencies, etc. A level 3 character finally feels "whole" while many level 1-2 characters can be missing some extremely key abilities that make their class what it is: what's a Warlock without a Pact or Invocations? Or a Monk without Ki and their supernatural quickness? Sorcerer without metamagic is hardly a Sorcerer as well, and what's a Paladin that can't Smite?

There's a place for level 1 but I'd rather those characters be cheap pregens, the game be a one-shot or perhaps a "characters in training"-kind of deal. Level 3 is a better grounds for a longer duration campaign with more serious and well-developed characters.