D&D 5E Starting level

[R_J_K75]

I give players XP after every battle, though, instead of waiting until the end of the session, so they could potentially level up more than once in the session, but very rarely would be able to level up twice all at once.

I can remember one instance where we ended a session and I had gained enough xp to gain 2 level but my DM only allowed me to gain 1 level and put me 1 xp short of the next level. Typically in our games then xp was only given at the end of a session at best, at worst after we completed an adventure. I had to make it through a whole other session to get 1 xp.

 

[The Green Hermit]

Some of the quest turn-ins can potentially do that, if there is a check-list of various things people can get XP for, but only if somebody is fairly far behind the rest, in which case I would look at it as the newbie learning quickly.

 

[Oofta]

If I add new PCs to an ongoing campaign, I always have them start at whatever level the party is with similar equipment.

I use story/plot XP advancement, so there wouldn't really be a way for anyone to catch up. In addition, while my preference is to go organically from 1 to 20 levels for the reasons I stated above, from a story perspective level is just a way of telling a different part of the story. In many campaigns at lower levels the group is dealing with street level petty criminals. They slowly go up rungs, fighting the gang leaders, then crossing mob bosses. Eventually they stumble across a city-spanning organization or even a plane-spanning threat.

In other words, I want PCs appropriate to the current story. That and I don't use meta-game things to reward players, I reward PCs based on what they achieve in the campaign world.

 

[R_J_K75]

I find levels 1 and 2 sort of pointless for veteran players, particularly for a group that has a session zero or can otherwise communicate about their character concepts before starting. There's little mechanical variety at those levels so the game aspects of the game tend to be pretty samey from one party / adventure to another. It's useful to run those levels for new players so they don't have too much to keep track of, but in a group of people who know what they're doing, I'd start at 3rd -- maybe even 5th if I expected leveling to be slower or if I expected the campaign to have a limited number of sessions.

From a story perspective I can see starting at 0th or 1st so the characters can become adventurers, but if this is an important part of the narrative, I'd use quite fast leveling up to 5th.

I find those early levels can really set the tone of things to come and help define the player/party dynamic no matter how long the group has played together or whats agreed upon in a session 0. Just my observations from my experiences.

 

[Esker]

I find those early levels can really set the tone of things to come and help define the player/party dynamic no matter how long the group has played together or whats agreed upon in a session 0. Just my observations from my experiences.

What is it about being low level that makes that particularly true, do you think? As opposed to saying that the first few sessions define the dynamic, independent of starting level?

 

[prabe]

What is it about being low level that makes that particularly true, do you think? As opposed to saying that the first few sessions define the dynamic, independent of starting level?

In 5E, there's at least the possibility that after seeing the party in play, someone will change their mind about subclass (or other advancement choice). That could be tactical thinking, or it could be a role-playing thing. There's also something to be said for getting the various features gradually instead of as a bolus. Those are my main reasons for preferring to start at 1st level, anyway.

 

[R_J_K75]

What is it about being low level that makes that particularly true, do you think? As opposed to saying that the first few sessions define the dynamic, independent of starting level?

I think its a characters limited ability at first level which promotes the group to work together more, (or not). When a character/party actually pulls something off truly heroic at 1st or 2nd level it seems to mean more than at higher levels. I have friends Ive know pretty much all my life then friends Ive only known 10-15 years. Doesnt mean that I like any of them less but rather that theres a bond with the people Ive known since I was young that can never be established with people Ive met later in life. Kind of hard to articulate but somewhat along those lines.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

More than 5 levels, though, can create serious problems if you are running a long campaign.

What are these "serious problems", in your experience?

 

[prabe]

What are these "serious problems", in your experience?

I played in a campaign where a 1st-level character joined a party of 4th-ish level, and he got insta-killed by the first trap (which the DM didn't intend to be an insta-kill trap). I have to believe that's even more possible with five or more levels' difference. Does that count?

 

[The Green Hermit]

That's what I was talking about. I would still probably start an absolutely new player that was joining our game at 1st level, but if their character died, I would jump them to the next plateau of decision making when they rerolled and continue that until they were at least within 5 levels of the rest of the party. (We all know that some levels don't really give you anything new to learn.)

For an experienced player, I would have them join/reroll at a predecided amount of levels below party level -- usually bottom of current tier or just below current tier, depending on party level.

For my husband, we just roll our eyes and let him join in when he wants to/we need the extra umph.