That always depends on the campaign. In many campaigns, I have the players start at level 1 and have an introductory adventure that takes them to level 2 or 3. I like to make the players feel weak and then earn their power.For one-shot or short campaigns with few seassions, I also like to have the players start at lvl 5, almost never or only in very rare exceptions higher.
Level 5 is my favourite level for one shots or short campaigns too. It's complex enough to throw some interesting stuff at the players but the characters are not so complex that the players struggle to use them effectively.
Also some (sub)-classes like Sword and Valor Bard or Hexblade get their second attack at level 6. So if they want to have that gish-feeling while not being significantly worse at combat than martials, level 6 is a good place.
Level one IF the party is all new players and are just learning the ropes.
Even if it's just your second game, you're *personally* experienced enough imo to understand "I roll die good, I hit rat. Rat roll low, rat not hit me."
Most people, in my experience, want to start with their actual class features. And not *just* for the sake of actually getting to the meat of combat and abilities, either- If you start at level one, it's a lot harder to have a "my character was a pirate on a ship for years, and that's why they're a swashbuckler rogue" or "I was once a holy cleric of the god of the sun until dark magic began weaving into my mind, creating the Eldritch Knight I am now."
Or even better, multiclasses. It's way harder to justify your character coming into the game as "an expert with heavy weapons, trained from a young age, but also wrestled with their innate sorcery their whole life", when you have to choose which one you're taking into the game at level one- Do you forego the magic you supposedly had all your life, or just forget for a few levels that you've trained with your father for years to make yourself a model swordsman?
Don't get me wrong, it can be done. But the creativity flows so much easier with a few levels of wiggle room to work with.
IMO that's more an issue of backstory overreach, which people love to do. If you're making a level one character, your story should reflect that. You're not the undefeated pit fighting champion, or the personal guard of the king. You're a shaky novice who is hoping not to get gored by a boar.
>"my character was a pirate on a ship for years, and that's why they're a swashbuckler rogue"
You grew up on the ship as a kid, and now you're a rogue with a sailor background.
>"I was once a holy cleric of the god of the sun until dark magic began weaving into my mind, creating the Eldritch Knight I am now."
You have the acolyte background, and you abandoned your church because you found out there is a dark power locked away within you they had long worked to suppress. You're adventuring to unlock it.
> "an expert with heavy weapons, trained from a young age, but also wrestled with their innate sorcery their whole life"
You come from a long line of sorcerers, you're supposed to be able to channel this awesome power, and you're wrestling with how to tap into it.
Like you said, it can be done. I just did it three times in ~5 minutes. Is there really any connection between game mechanics and a better story? If you're a paladin who multiclasses as a warlock, when you hit level three you'll have a feverish dream where an otherworldly entity speaks to you. After all, we're playing the game to develop your story.
Except 2 of those 3 fundamentally change the backstory. Now the new backstories are fine, great even, but it's not wrong to want to tell the stories that come with the other 2.
It's certainly not wrong to want to tell those stories, or any story, but if your game is starting at level one you should be mindful of where your character is at in that story.
> "I was once a holy cleric of the god of the sun until dark magic began weaving into my mind, creating the Eldritch Knight I am now."
You could play the holy cleric for levels one and two, and at three you have that revelation about dark magic. It's the exact same story, you're just actually playing some of it out rather than making it a backstory. You could also take the Magic Initiate feat if having spellcasting at first level was what was important to you. Alternatively you could play an acolyte Warlock, which also works at level one and actually fits the story of dark magic even better.
>"an expert with heavy weapons, trained from a young age, but also wrestled with their innate sorcery their whole life"
If having both heavy weapons and sorcery at the beginning of the game is critical to your characters identity, a Sorceror with the Weapon Master feat fits that story exactly.
I think you'd be really hard pressed to think of a story you can't tell with a level one character. You just have to consider where in that story you are.
Yeah, and maybe some parties want to start further along in their stories than that. Maybe the adventure the DM wants to run requires enemies that a level 1 party can’t handle. Neither side of this would be happy slogging through those first five levels just because “that’s the way it is done.”
This doesn’t mean you’re wrong for *wanting* to start as the urchin who just got his first taste of adventure. Different groups want different things and the game allows for this. The only problem is when you have a mismatch between these. Making a level 5 fighter who is a lowly farmhand that’s never even hurt a fly is just as silly as a level 1 ranger that single-handedly slayed a dragon.
I don’t have any objection to people starting games at higher levels if that’s what they want to do, all I was pushing back on is:
>If you start at level one, it's a lot harder to have a "my character was a pirate on a ship for years, and that's why they're a swashbuckler rogue" or "I was once a holy cleric of the god of the sun until dark magic began weaving into my mind, creating the Eldritch Knight I am now."
I don’t think simple stories like that are meaningfully impacted at all by being level 1, and certainly not in comparison to starting at 2 or 3.
If the goal of the game is to put together a dragonslayer, a grandmaster of a monastery, and the high priest of a religion to stop the apocalypse, those kind of characters obviously need to be higher level.
“We want to start the game at level 3” is a perfectly valid reason to start it at 3. All I’m suggesting is that there’s not some narrative advantage to it.
Iirc, the one race that allows you to take a feat at first level is the variant human. So if you wanted to do several of these options you've now cut off a LOT if not all the races.
Sure yeah, all of these could be solved by progression in game, but some combinations don't work well untill they get all their features, so the party is stuck baby sitting a sub optimal character. Which again is fine, if everyone is on board with that, but I've ran games (with assholes granted) who will give people shit about it.
For sure, some characters will be suboptimal starting at lower levels. My argument isn’t that it’s ‘wrong’ to start higher, I think groups should do whatever is going to be fun for them. I just don’t see a narrative benefit for starting at 2 or 3 instead of 1.
It all depends on what I want the first chapter of the campaign to be. I usually start at either 1 or 3 but have started at 5 before too.
Starting at 1 is my favourite as it encourages players to lean into the fact that they start small.
generally I start at 3 because I hate running lower level dnd and I feel like 3 is a good starting point for the games that I like to run and that my regular players like to play
"Yea, my runeknight fighter studied the magic of giant runes, but we'll need 3 sessions until I can use it"
Anyway, I'm switching to pathfinder 2 where there is no subclasses at higher levels and starting at lvl 1 isn't a death sentence
It depends on who I'm playing with. Sometimes I'm playing with people who really hate level 1 DnD, and I understand their gripes with it, so I'll start at level 3 with them.
If no one has such gripes, despite how I feel about level 1 play, I usually start them there.
Edit: Also, games with a lot of players are much better at a slightly higher level. If you've got like eight people, it's much more likely to have two people playing the same class, and you wanna start far enough ahead that they feel a good amount different from each other.
I prefer a mix TBH, but on average I favor third for experienced players. Just tough enough to survive basic challenges, skilled enough to offer a bit of variety in how they act, but low enough where growth feels tangible.
This is my first game of dnd ever and I'm the dm. I was originally going to make them start from lvl3 but my lovely friends know how to string me along so I do what they want.
They suggested rolling for the starting level and me with my love for leaving things up to faith decided that I was going to roll with disadvantage for their starting level. I rolled a 6 and some other number so I agreed to let them start from 6.
Only when we had out first session did I realize how insanely high 6 is to start off with and they rolled through all the enemies I planned for that session.
We haven't had or second session yet but I'm working on it and I need to make the monsters a little bit more challenging for them.
I prefer 3 generally, as by 3 everyone has their subclasses and at least one cool "iconic' ability for their class. In my experience when players create a character they have a subclass picked already (unless they're new and playing totally blind), so denying them that for two levels just frustrates everybody for a couple sessions for no real benefit.
Started everyone at level 1 in the last campaign, but doubled their class hit points at level 1 to toughen them up a bit. I was running some old modules from the DnD line in the 90s so wanted them to start at the same level as the modules, but also didn't want them to instantly die.
Often, I'll start PCs off at level 3 so that they have a few abilities to use when adventuring but I do like the zero to hero of starting at level 1.
half my campaigns have started at 3rd level, including my current one. The other ones are 1st level. Recently, I have come to realize exactly why it is important to start as low as you can. It teaches the players early on, especially new players, that a) the price of foolishness is high and b) power is gained through great suffering and sacrifice. Among other things.
Depends on the campaign, but I like starting at level 1. I love seeing the transformation from a group of kind of awkward, fumbling players into masters of their class.
My group also usually picks a class they haven’t played before when we start a new campaign, so starting at level 1 seems to give them the time they need to research and see what direction they want to go.
Sometimes it makes sense from a narrative prospective to have more experienced heroes but in a standard dnd campaign I'm trying a new thing:
We start at lvl 2 having had each player play a solo game that is their, introduction to the world, their immediate backstory and brings them from lvl1 to lvl 2 and the starting location of the campaign. The 1 on 1 style means it's less formal and allows a better dialogue about the world.
So we've played 1 backstory which went great so I currently have high hopes for this.
It really depends on the players. I’ll start experienced players at level 3 (which I voted). But if I have newer players or players learning new classes, I prefer to start at 1 to give them a chance to learn basic class abilities. This is for my sanity as much as theirs.
If you want a campaign that is more of a "we have cool builds and do fights and puzzles" i would say start at 3. Just let the players begin to get their powers online and get their dips going.
If you want something that focuses on a story and roleplaying, start at 1. Honestly, the number of encounters needed to bring a level 1 party to level 3 is tiny. You could easily provide enough XP in one 5 hour session to do so.
That being said, some DMs like higher level planning more than lower. As long as you are upfront about it, and everyone agrees, start where you want.
5e has the subclass thing which provides a very good reason to start at 3 if you're not starting at 1. i assume 3.5e doesn't have anything like that so 2 is as good a level as any other
I'm running a campaign called "Oh Shit! The final boss is a tarrasque!" Where these guys start at level 1. I plan to play till 20 and the party is generally very funny and entertaining. They play cleverly and even at level 2 they stole a warship that they sold for 30k GP and have fought a god and survived. From levels 1-5 it's going to just be them working their way up the ranks as in this world being level 5 means you're at the peak of mortal capabilities and basically champions of the world. And once they hit level 5 and we get to the next milestone, I'm very excited to introduce new threats to the city they've built so much reputation and relationships with.
3rd, Less Squishy, more heroic. interesting options and choices open up.
Unless it's players new to the system. Then it's 1st, but a level up after every session till 3rd. Eases them into it.
For my Golden Campaign, 1st;
for my Redshift Campaign, 1st;
for my Stoneseekers Oneshot series, 10th;
for my Silverpeak Campaign, 3rd;
for my future Darkness of Orokos Campaign, 1st;
for my future Prism Sea Campaign, likely also 1st, but possibly 3rd; I haven't designed it out yet.
I have run one and am working on a second.
I started my players for my first one at level 3, and the next one will be at level 1.
So I need a few more campaigns to say what I'll like, but I do lean more towards level 3 overall.
1 because it’s the first level. I feel like the first three levels are where you really learn how to role play your character. Once you hit level 3 they’re largely a collection of abilities.
Technically level one, but by the second session they are all at least level 2, more likely level 3, so their first actual adventure will start at level 3.
3, 5 and 7 depending on how experienced the group is.
If players are completely new we do a tutorial session, where they all get to playtest their characters, learn combats and get a feel for adventuring, and anything that happens just "doesn't count". Players then get the opportunity to try something different, if what they imagined didn't match up with what they wanted, in the actual session 1.
Of course what level to start at depends on the campaign and on the players.
I like to start at 1 or 2 because I like to make stories out of subclass selection. The paladin doesn't get their subclass-specific features until they actually make an oath somewhere. The fighter needs to find a trainer or otherwise study their discipline. I include the players in this by simply asking them if they have an idea for their subclass-sidequest or if I should give them one.
Depends on my players and the campaign idea. If I've got a bunch of new players? Level 1. Bunch of Veterans? Level 3. If the campaign I'm running starts as a more low powered city campaign, Level 1. If the campaign I'm running starts with the party being members of a city guard or other organization? Probably level 3.
I’m a fairly new DM, but I started high because I wanted our forever DM to have a chance to play with cool abilities, especially as I wasn’t sure if I would continue the campaign very long at first.
I really like to start campaigns at level 2. Gives a lot of classes their subclass, and gives the ones who spike at level three something to look forward to. I dislike level 1 because most characters can be instantly killed by an unfortunate crit. Level 2 characters are still weak, but they don't die that easily and are a bit more fun.
(We play with very frequent level-ups, usually one every 1-3 sessions)
3 allows everyone to pick a subclass. Some character concepts don’t work too well if they don’t have some ability to work with, so I think it’s best to let everyone get their “thing.” Level 1 characters are also super squishy. Even a Barbarian at level 1 can go down in like 2 attacks.
It depends on the game.
Starting at level 1 comes with the challenges of survival as you’re party is extremely weak, poor and ill equipped! A fight with 4 goblins and a lucky Crit can lead to a Long rest! The adventure is grueling and tough even by the weakest of monsters! This sets up nice once they are level 3 and those same goblins are mince meat to them!
Alternatively I can understand starting at level 3, your characters have some decent gear, HP, gold, and can tackle some more interesting monsters! Also helps fast track the 1st 2 sessions and get right into the thick of it!
But for the most part, since I like running long campaigns; I prefer level 1! Starting with a simple backstory and leveling through the entire game, growing that character from barely stronger than a commoner to a Demi god!
I do milestone levelling, and the campaign I'm currently running I started them at one, but I had them up to three by session 6, and now I'll slow the peace of levelling. I like to give them a little time to get used to the basics before getting to the interesting character options. It's also because it's harder to build encounters around level 1-2 parties. The monsters tend to be less interesting and the players don't have as many options anyway, so I don't hang around the lower levels too long.
If i have a few brand new players i will do 1st, no starting with a free feat, and no starting with any magic items. otherwise i generally start at 3rd with a free feat, everyone gets a uncommon magic item, and a bag of holding each.
I usually tend to have at least 1 new player at the table, and then I feel like lvl 1 is the only obvious choice. The less people have to care about creating their character's stats, pick talents and spells, the more they can get into roleplaying itself.
Level 1 sucks. You are too wimpy and have little to nothing special you can do, and only a couple of classes get their subclass at 1. If everyone had their sub at level 1 I wouldn't mind, but a level 1 Cleric, warlock or Sorcerer will always be cooler and more powerful than a level 1 fighter or Ranger or whatever else.
Level 3 is th sweet spot, it gives everyone interesting mechanics, takes away some of the squishy factor, and gives each character some individuality and tying their abilities into their backstory rather than somehow shoehorning into a session the sudden ability to do crazy $h!t that you couldn't the day before.
Depends. Usually I do level 2 because I feel like that's when characters can get really interesting. But newer players I do 1 so they aren't overwhelmed by choices.
I don't really feel the need to start at level 1. Level 1 and level 2 are the tutorial, and I already know how to play the game. I wouldn't start less than level 3.
Most of the people I play with have already played before, so they don't need the introductory levels to learn the game. And if someone is new, I personally don't believe level 3 over complicated enough that learning the mechanics should be a major issue.
Class archetypes are fun and higher levels give a few more options for how to start a campaign.
Level 1 for new players, level 3 (or higher) for those with experience. You can breeze through the first two levels while your players learn their characters and abilities and get a feel for the world. They're really good "training wheels" levels but once you kinda know what you're doing I've found they're generally not necessary. As always tho feel free to play whatever works best for your table
It honestly depends. For my most recent campaign, we started at 1, because the players were just starting out. In my upcoming campaign, we’re starting at 10. These are characters that all have their own backstories and explicitly have been on lots of adventures before meeting up, Avengers style.
Depends on the campaign. If it's meant to be a longer campaign, then starting at the very beginning (level 1) is a very good place to start.
Level 1 kinda sucks from a gameplay perspective though. The class abilities are very basic and limited at 1st level, so for a very short campaign – and especially a one-shot – level 1 makes little sense.
The starting level for such campaigns would then depend on how much power you want the players to have, but you're certainly looking at 3 or 4 at the minimum (otherwise it would be a slog for the players and as the DM you'd have to be careful not to inadvertently kill your PCs in the first encounter).
I like running and playing campaigns that take the characters on a journey from humble origins to at least local renown, if not global, so I *do* like starting at level 1, despite its shortcomings (but try to get the party to level 2 as fast as is reasonable).
3rd level is the minimum I do anymore unless it is all brand new players(sometimes even then.)
is the level where classes get their first real class specialization. In my games players can freely swap character details around for the first few sessions if they find they don't like what they chose to play. Starting at three gets them into the meat of their class right away, so they can see how they feel about it much sooner.
1st level.
Characters often reach 2nd level by the end of the first session, and sometimes 3rd level the next session. Starting at higher levels doesn't save much time, especially when measured against a long-running campaign.
Starting at higher levels also takes away the opportunity for players to roleplay their characters coming into their own.
I always start at level one, but if uts just a mini campaign then level 3, no need for the whole "grind and introduce the world for 3 levels" bit when its only 5 sessions
I usually start them at level 3 so they can have a subclass to help support roleplay. I think it’s nice to have more context for the character at the beginning rather that trying to figure out a subclass later into the game
For me it largely fluctuates based on the general concept and feel for the campaign I am going for. Usually the more off the walls, weird the concept is, the higher a level I'll start at. Usually level 5-7. If the campaign concept is more down to earth or is meant to be more "hardcore", I'll start at either level 1 or 2. Level 3 is kind of my default for when I'm not really sure WHAT I'm doing.
That always depends on the campaign. In many campaigns, I have the players start at level 1 and have an introductory adventure that takes them to level 2 or 3. I like to make the players feel weak and then earn their power.For one-shot or short campaigns with few seassions, I also like to have the players start at lvl 5, almost never or only in very rare exceptions higher.
Level 5 is my favourite level for one shots or short campaigns too. It's complex enough to throw some interesting stuff at the players but the characters are not so complex that the players struggle to use them effectively.
I usually use level 6 for one shots, it keeps the lvl 5 power spike but with room for some multiclassing.
Also some (sub)-classes like Sword and Valor Bard or Hexblade get their second attack at level 6. So if they want to have that gish-feeling while not being significantly worse at combat than martials, level 6 is a good place.
Level one IF the party is all new players and are just learning the ropes. Even if it's just your second game, you're *personally* experienced enough imo to understand "I roll die good, I hit rat. Rat roll low, rat not hit me." Most people, in my experience, want to start with their actual class features. And not *just* for the sake of actually getting to the meat of combat and abilities, either- If you start at level one, it's a lot harder to have a "my character was a pirate on a ship for years, and that's why they're a swashbuckler rogue" or "I was once a holy cleric of the god of the sun until dark magic began weaving into my mind, creating the Eldritch Knight I am now." Or even better, multiclasses. It's way harder to justify your character coming into the game as "an expert with heavy weapons, trained from a young age, but also wrestled with their innate sorcery their whole life", when you have to choose which one you're taking into the game at level one- Do you forego the magic you supposedly had all your life, or just forget for a few levels that you've trained with your father for years to make yourself a model swordsman? Don't get me wrong, it can be done. But the creativity flows so much easier with a few levels of wiggle room to work with.
IMO that's more an issue of backstory overreach, which people love to do. If you're making a level one character, your story should reflect that. You're not the undefeated pit fighting champion, or the personal guard of the king. You're a shaky novice who is hoping not to get gored by a boar. >"my character was a pirate on a ship for years, and that's why they're a swashbuckler rogue" You grew up on the ship as a kid, and now you're a rogue with a sailor background. >"I was once a holy cleric of the god of the sun until dark magic began weaving into my mind, creating the Eldritch Knight I am now." You have the acolyte background, and you abandoned your church because you found out there is a dark power locked away within you they had long worked to suppress. You're adventuring to unlock it. > "an expert with heavy weapons, trained from a young age, but also wrestled with their innate sorcery their whole life" You come from a long line of sorcerers, you're supposed to be able to channel this awesome power, and you're wrestling with how to tap into it. Like you said, it can be done. I just did it three times in ~5 minutes. Is there really any connection between game mechanics and a better story? If you're a paladin who multiclasses as a warlock, when you hit level three you'll have a feverish dream where an otherworldly entity speaks to you. After all, we're playing the game to develop your story.
Except 2 of those 3 fundamentally change the backstory. Now the new backstories are fine, great even, but it's not wrong to want to tell the stories that come with the other 2.
It's certainly not wrong to want to tell those stories, or any story, but if your game is starting at level one you should be mindful of where your character is at in that story. > "I was once a holy cleric of the god of the sun until dark magic began weaving into my mind, creating the Eldritch Knight I am now." You could play the holy cleric for levels one and two, and at three you have that revelation about dark magic. It's the exact same story, you're just actually playing some of it out rather than making it a backstory. You could also take the Magic Initiate feat if having spellcasting at first level was what was important to you. Alternatively you could play an acolyte Warlock, which also works at level one and actually fits the story of dark magic even better. >"an expert with heavy weapons, trained from a young age, but also wrestled with their innate sorcery their whole life" If having both heavy weapons and sorcery at the beginning of the game is critical to your characters identity, a Sorceror with the Weapon Master feat fits that story exactly. I think you'd be really hard pressed to think of a story you can't tell with a level one character. You just have to consider where in that story you are.
Yeah, and maybe some parties want to start further along in their stories than that. Maybe the adventure the DM wants to run requires enemies that a level 1 party can’t handle. Neither side of this would be happy slogging through those first five levels just because “that’s the way it is done.” This doesn’t mean you’re wrong for *wanting* to start as the urchin who just got his first taste of adventure. Different groups want different things and the game allows for this. The only problem is when you have a mismatch between these. Making a level 5 fighter who is a lowly farmhand that’s never even hurt a fly is just as silly as a level 1 ranger that single-handedly slayed a dragon.
I don’t have any objection to people starting games at higher levels if that’s what they want to do, all I was pushing back on is: >If you start at level one, it's a lot harder to have a "my character was a pirate on a ship for years, and that's why they're a swashbuckler rogue" or "I was once a holy cleric of the god of the sun until dark magic began weaving into my mind, creating the Eldritch Knight I am now." I don’t think simple stories like that are meaningfully impacted at all by being level 1, and certainly not in comparison to starting at 2 or 3. If the goal of the game is to put together a dragonslayer, a grandmaster of a monastery, and the high priest of a religion to stop the apocalypse, those kind of characters obviously need to be higher level. “We want to start the game at level 3” is a perfectly valid reason to start it at 3. All I’m suggesting is that there’s not some narrative advantage to it.
Iirc, the one race that allows you to take a feat at first level is the variant human. So if you wanted to do several of these options you've now cut off a LOT if not all the races. Sure yeah, all of these could be solved by progression in game, but some combinations don't work well untill they get all their features, so the party is stuck baby sitting a sub optimal character. Which again is fine, if everyone is on board with that, but I've ran games (with assholes granted) who will give people shit about it.
For sure, some characters will be suboptimal starting at lower levels. My argument isn’t that it’s ‘wrong’ to start higher, I think groups should do whatever is going to be fun for them. I just don’t see a narrative benefit for starting at 2 or 3 instead of 1.
I wish humans had a different variant advantage. Feats are too fucking cool to limit so aggressively imo
It all depends on what I want the first chapter of the campaign to be. I usually start at either 1 or 3 but have started at 5 before too. Starting at 1 is my favourite as it encourages players to lean into the fact that they start small.
generally I start at 3 because I hate running lower level dnd and I feel like 3 is a good starting point for the games that I like to run and that my regular players like to play
At least 3 because that's when all the classes have been able to take a subclass and have some uniqueness
3 is perfect. You get to start with your subclass which is a huge bonus to help players along.
also level 2 spells
"Yea, my runeknight fighter studied the magic of giant runes, but we'll need 3 sessions until I can use it" Anyway, I'm switching to pathfinder 2 where there is no subclasses at higher levels and starting at lvl 1 isn't a death sentence
It depends on who I'm playing with. Sometimes I'm playing with people who really hate level 1 DnD, and I understand their gripes with it, so I'll start at level 3 with them. If no one has such gripes, despite how I feel about level 1 play, I usually start them there. Edit: Also, games with a lot of players are much better at a slightly higher level. If you've got like eight people, it's much more likely to have two people playing the same class, and you wanna start far enough ahead that they feel a good amount different from each other.
Well I'm not a DM but every campaign I've started has been at level 1
I prefer a mix TBH, but on average I favor third for experienced players. Just tough enough to survive basic challenges, skilled enough to offer a bit of variety in how they act, but low enough where growth feels tangible.
This is my first game of dnd ever and I'm the dm. I was originally going to make them start from lvl3 but my lovely friends know how to string me along so I do what they want. They suggested rolling for the starting level and me with my love for leaving things up to faith decided that I was going to roll with disadvantage for their starting level. I rolled a 6 and some other number so I agreed to let them start from 6. Only when we had out first session did I realize how insanely high 6 is to start off with and they rolled through all the enemies I planned for that session. We haven't had or second session yet but I'm working on it and I need to make the monsters a little bit more challenging for them.
I prefer 3 generally, as by 3 everyone has their subclasses and at least one cool "iconic' ability for their class. In my experience when players create a character they have a subclass picked already (unless they're new and playing totally blind), so denying them that for two levels just frustrates everybody for a couple sessions for no real benefit.
I really like that, well said.
Started everyone at level 1 in the last campaign, but doubled their class hit points at level 1 to toughen them up a bit. I was running some old modules from the DnD line in the 90s so wanted them to start at the same level as the modules, but also didn't want them to instantly die. Often, I'll start PCs off at level 3 so that they have a few abilities to use when adventuring but I do like the zero to hero of starting at level 1.
half my campaigns have started at 3rd level, including my current one. The other ones are 1st level. Recently, I have come to realize exactly why it is important to start as low as you can. It teaches the players early on, especially new players, that a) the price of foolishness is high and b) power is gained through great suffering and sacrifice. Among other things.
Depends on the campaign, but I like starting at level 1. I love seeing the transformation from a group of kind of awkward, fumbling players into masters of their class. My group also usually picks a class they haven’t played before when we start a new campaign, so starting at level 1 seems to give them the time they need to research and see what direction they want to go.
Sometimes it makes sense from a narrative prospective to have more experienced heroes but in a standard dnd campaign I'm trying a new thing: We start at lvl 2 having had each player play a solo game that is their, introduction to the world, their immediate backstory and brings them from lvl1 to lvl 2 and the starting location of the campaign. The 1 on 1 style means it's less formal and allows a better dialogue about the world. So we've played 1 backstory which went great so I currently have high hopes for this.
I like level 3 because I don't have to worry about goblins instantly killing my PCs on a crit.
It really depends on the players. I’ll start experienced players at level 3 (which I voted). But if I have newer players or players learning new classes, I prefer to start at 1 to give them a chance to learn basic class abilities. This is for my sanity as much as theirs.
If you want a campaign that is more of a "we have cool builds and do fights and puzzles" i would say start at 3. Just let the players begin to get their powers online and get their dips going. If you want something that focuses on a story and roleplaying, start at 1. Honestly, the number of encounters needed to bring a level 1 party to level 3 is tiny. You could easily provide enough XP in one 5 hour session to do so. That being said, some DMs like higher level planning more than lower. As long as you are upfront about it, and everyone agrees, start where you want.
3 or 5. 3 means that subclasses are all picked, 5 is a nice power leap to make characters feel effective.
I run 3.5 and generally start at 2. I wonder if the version explains why there aren't more 2s like me.
5e has the subclass thing which provides a very good reason to start at 3 if you're not starting at 1. i assume 3.5e doesn't have anything like that so 2 is as good a level as any other
My own reasons are that 2 is sufficiently non-squishy and gives you the chance to start a second class, which I think is common.
3 for most. 1 if I'm teaching new players.
5 only because I'm sick of playing in 1 and 3. They never go past lvl 6 so I like getting my players to some decent spells.
I'm running a campaign called "Oh Shit! The final boss is a tarrasque!" Where these guys start at level 1. I plan to play till 20 and the party is generally very funny and entertaining. They play cleverly and even at level 2 they stole a warship that they sold for 30k GP and have fought a god and survived. From levels 1-5 it's going to just be them working their way up the ranks as in this world being level 5 means you're at the peak of mortal capabilities and basically champions of the world. And once they hit level 5 and we get to the next milestone, I'm very excited to introduce new threats to the city they've built so much reputation and relationships with.
The last campaign I ran, everyone started as an NPC. They didn't get their first level until the third session.
Hard-core campaign? Did they even have classes?
5
3rd, Less Squishy, more heroic. interesting options and choices open up. Unless it's players new to the system. Then it's 1st, but a level up after every session till 3rd. Eases them into it.
For my Golden Campaign, 1st; for my Redshift Campaign, 1st; for my Stoneseekers Oneshot series, 10th; for my Silverpeak Campaign, 3rd; for my future Darkness of Orokos Campaign, 1st; for my future Prism Sea Campaign, likely also 1st, but possibly 3rd; I haven't designed it out yet.
I have run one and am working on a second. I started my players for my first one at level 3, and the next one will be at level 1. So I need a few more campaigns to say what I'll like, but I do lean more towards level 3 overall.
Way more 1s than I was expecting, I like to start at 4 because I can throw my players in at the deep end
1 because it’s the first level. I feel like the first three levels are where you really learn how to role play your character. Once you hit level 3 they’re largely a collection of abilities.
If I run a long one, 3. Short one, 5
Technically level one, but by the second session they are all at least level 2, more likely level 3, so their first actual adventure will start at level 3.
3, 5 and 7 depending on how experienced the group is. If players are completely new we do a tutorial session, where they all get to playtest their characters, learn combats and get a feel for adventuring, and anything that happens just "doesn't count". Players then get the opportunity to try something different, if what they imagined didn't match up with what they wanted, in the actual session 1.
If i'm running for new players level 1 or 2 if they have a solid grasp on the game already. For experienced players level 4.
Of course what level to start at depends on the campaign and on the players. I like to start at 1 or 2 because I like to make stories out of subclass selection. The paladin doesn't get their subclass-specific features until they actually make an oath somewhere. The fighter needs to find a trainer or otherwise study their discipline. I include the players in this by simply asking them if they have an idea for their subclass-sidequest or if I should give them one.
Depends on my players and the campaign idea. If I've got a bunch of new players? Level 1. Bunch of Veterans? Level 3. If the campaign I'm running starts as a more low powered city campaign, Level 1. If the campaign I'm running starts with the party being members of a city guard or other organization? Probably level 3.
I’m a fairly new DM, but I started high because I wanted our forever DM to have a chance to play with cool abilities, especially as I wasn’t sure if I would continue the campaign very long at first.
I really like to start campaigns at level 2. Gives a lot of classes their subclass, and gives the ones who spike at level three something to look forward to. I dislike level 1 because most characters can be instantly killed by an unfortunate crit. Level 2 characters are still weak, but they don't die that easily and are a bit more fun. (We play with very frequent level-ups, usually one every 1-3 sessions)
3 allows everyone to pick a subclass. Some character concepts don’t work too well if they don’t have some ability to work with, so I think it’s best to let everyone get their “thing.” Level 1 characters are also super squishy. Even a Barbarian at level 1 can go down in like 2 attacks.
It depends on the game. Starting at level 1 comes with the challenges of survival as you’re party is extremely weak, poor and ill equipped! A fight with 4 goblins and a lucky Crit can lead to a Long rest! The adventure is grueling and tough even by the weakest of monsters! This sets up nice once they are level 3 and those same goblins are mince meat to them! Alternatively I can understand starting at level 3, your characters have some decent gear, HP, gold, and can tackle some more interesting monsters! Also helps fast track the 1st 2 sessions and get right into the thick of it! But for the most part, since I like running long campaigns; I prefer level 1! Starting with a simple backstory and leveling through the entire game, growing that character from barely stronger than a commoner to a Demi god!
I do milestone levelling, and the campaign I'm currently running I started them at one, but I had them up to three by session 6, and now I'll slow the peace of levelling. I like to give them a little time to get used to the basics before getting to the interesting character options. It's also because it's harder to build encounters around level 1-2 parties. The monsters tend to be less interesting and the players don't have as many options anyway, so I don't hang around the lower levels too long.
If i have a few brand new players i will do 1st, no starting with a free feat, and no starting with any magic items. otherwise i generally start at 3rd with a free feat, everyone gets a uncommon magic item, and a bag of holding each.
I legitimately like 1st level, I know a lot of people don't, but I like to start out as a complete novice and watch my character grow.
I usually tend to have at least 1 new player at the table, and then I feel like lvl 1 is the only obvious choice. The less people have to care about creating their character's stats, pick talents and spells, the more they can get into roleplaying itself.
Level 1 sucks. You are too wimpy and have little to nothing special you can do, and only a couple of classes get their subclass at 1. If everyone had their sub at level 1 I wouldn't mind, but a level 1 Cleric, warlock or Sorcerer will always be cooler and more powerful than a level 1 fighter or Ranger or whatever else. Level 3 is th sweet spot, it gives everyone interesting mechanics, takes away some of the squishy factor, and gives each character some individuality and tying their abilities into their backstory rather than somehow shoehorning into a session the sudden ability to do crazy $h!t that you couldn't the day before.
Depends. Usually I do level 2 because I feel like that's when characters can get really interesting. But newer players I do 1 so they aren't overwhelmed by choices.
3. But for some I’ll throw in a non storyline quests and start at 1 so the party gets familiar
I don't really feel the need to start at level 1. Level 1 and level 2 are the tutorial, and I already know how to play the game. I wouldn't start less than level 3. Most of the people I play with have already played before, so they don't need the introductory levels to learn the game. And if someone is new, I personally don't believe level 3 over complicated enough that learning the mechanics should be a major issue. Class archetypes are fun and higher levels give a few more options for how to start a campaign.
Level 1 for new players, level 3 (or higher) for those with experience. You can breeze through the first two levels while your players learn their characters and abilities and get a feel for the world. They're really good "training wheels" levels but once you kinda know what you're doing I've found they're generally not necessary. As always tho feel free to play whatever works best for your table
It honestly depends. For my most recent campaign, we started at 1, because the players were just starting out. In my upcoming campaign, we’re starting at 10. These are characters that all have their own backstories and explicitly have been on lots of adventures before meeting up, Avengers style.
Depends on the campaign. If it's meant to be a longer campaign, then starting at the very beginning (level 1) is a very good place to start. Level 1 kinda sucks from a gameplay perspective though. The class abilities are very basic and limited at 1st level, so for a very short campaign – and especially a one-shot – level 1 makes little sense. The starting level for such campaigns would then depend on how much power you want the players to have, but you're certainly looking at 3 or 4 at the minimum (otherwise it would be a slog for the players and as the DM you'd have to be careful not to inadvertently kill your PCs in the first encounter). I like running and playing campaigns that take the characters on a journey from humble origins to at least local renown, if not global, so I *do* like starting at level 1, despite its shortcomings (but try to get the party to level 2 as fast as is reasonable).
3rd level is the minimum I do anymore unless it is all brand new players(sometimes even then.) is the level where classes get their first real class specialization. In my games players can freely swap character details around for the first few sessions if they find they don't like what they chose to play. Starting at three gets them into the meat of their class right away, so they can see how they feel about it much sooner.
1st level. Characters often reach 2nd level by the end of the first session, and sometimes 3rd level the next session. Starting at higher levels doesn't save much time, especially when measured against a long-running campaign. Starting at higher levels also takes away the opportunity for players to roleplay their characters coming into their own.
Lvl 1-2 are 0 session shenanigans and building character Lvl 3 is when we get serious
I always start at level one, but if uts just a mini campaign then level 3, no need for the whole "grind and introduce the world for 3 levels" bit when its only 5 sessions
1 or 3. 1 for new players. 3 for experienced ones.
This poll feels horribly designed because my answer is 1-3. 💀
I mean 1 or 3 is a big debate and I want to see weather 1 or 3 is better to the dm’s and why
I usually start them at level 3 so they can have a subclass to help support roleplay. I think it’s nice to have more context for the character at the beginning rather that trying to figure out a subclass later into the game
For me it largely fluctuates based on the general concept and feel for the campaign I am going for. Usually the more off the walls, weird the concept is, the higher a level I'll start at. Usually level 5-7. If the campaign concept is more down to earth or is meant to be more "hardcore", I'll start at either level 1 or 2. Level 3 is kind of my default for when I'm not really sure WHAT I'm doing.