A sacred cow to slay: starting at 1st level

[NN]

Start at 2nd level.

Why?

Because in 1-2-3E (cant speak for 4E), too much granularity is crammed into 0th thru 1st level. Theres not enough to differentiate between, say: the utterly helpless / the pathetic peasant / the burly farmer / the militia man / the bandit / the veteran soldier.

Make 1st level starting a special masochists option (Like 0 level starting in 1E/2E)

 

[NN]

No magick cheez pleez

5E Designers: rule of thumb

Assuming a moderate level of civilisation and local resources, the magical way of doing something should always be more expensive than the mundane.


(cf: Wall of Iron)

 

[the Jester]

There's nothing stopping you from starting at 2nd level now, if that's how you want to run your game.

If you're suggesting that there shouldn't be a 1st level, you're talking essentially about the way 4e approached 1st level. I'd rather have it in the game with the option to skip it than not really have it at all.

 

[hanez]

I dont know that this is a sacred cow. Weve started at all sorts of levels (up to level 10), and dead players always start at the level of the lowest PC.

Our group has found that starting PCs at later levels is less rewarding, and more frustrating. Its easier to get used to a char as you level with him. Id suggest just doing one level (or two) a session until your at your desired level.

Just fudge the XP and bump em every time you meet if you wanna go faster

 

[Nivenus]

I generally agree with this sentiment. It would solve the big problem of "should early level PCs be heroic or mundane?" Simple solution: the first few levels are mundane, the next few are the start of the heroic tier.

Actually, I read a suggestion that D&D Next should have a starter set and a core rulebook somewhere, with the starter set really only supporting levels 1 through 3 and rulebook supporting most of the levels thereafter (with a possible supplement for epic rules). In theory, the core rulebook could provide rules for starting at level 4, 5, or whatever is generally agreed to be the beginning of the "okay, your heroes aren't just a bunch of idiots with swords anymore" stage.

Alternatively, just provide rules for starting at whatever level you want in the first rulebook.

 

[Tony Vargas]

3e and 4e both had explicit, workable rules for starting at levels higher than 1, so I don't think it's an issue. I'm sure 5e will have such rules, as well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's always been common and feasible to start above level 1.

There is room for a shift in tone in the DMG to suggest it more. That would hopefully mitigate some of the complaints about 1st level PCs.

 

[Nivenus]

3e and 4e both had explicit, workable rules for starting at levels higher than 1, so I don't think it's an issue. I'm sure 5e will have such rules, as well.

The rules are there, but they're not obvious. I'm not sure how obvious they should be, but I think it's pretty easy to miss them and assume 1st level is the natural starting point for every group.

 

[Mercurius]

I dont know that this is a sacred cow. Weve started at all sorts of levels (up to level 10), and dead players always start at the level of the lowest PC.

 

[Tallifer]

There's nothing stopping you from starting at 2nd level now, if that's how you want to run your game.

If you're suggesting that there shouldn't be a 1st level, you're talking essentially about the way 4e approached 1st level. I'd rather have it in the game with the option to skip it than not really have it at all.

Especially with the Character Builder (for which there will certainly be a new and improved Fifth Edition version).

With the Fourth Edition Character Builder, I can quickly build a 30th level character just to see what it looks like. I can make a well-designed higher level character in hardly more time than it takes to create a 1st level character. This is of course also has a lot to do with the elegant beauty of the Fourth Edition, but I expect even more transparency for the core system under the Fifth Edition.