D&D 5E (2014) Do You Start At Level 1?

[Maxperson]

(Note: this is a 5E question broadly and I don't think 5.0 vs 5.5 really matters here)

When you start a new campaign, do you usually start at level 1? Why or why not? If not, what level do you usually start at?

I've been starting my players off at level 3 since the early 2000's.

During 3e it was because my players and I didn't want PCs to start out as putzes who flailed around hoping they hit stuff with their low attack bonuses and few spells.

During 5e it's because 3rd level is actually 1st level. We've been playing the game too long to want to play through the training wheels levels.

 

[Reynard]

I generally start at level 1, but the progression to level 3 is pretty rapid. I will generally get a group to level 2 after ~4 hours of play, and level 3 after an additional ~8 hours. Thereafter, levels every 12-18 hours of play.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the benefit of those levels when they go by so quickly?

 

[Artamo]

Did they? Was there a portion of the playtest that actively asked "Should levels 1 and 2 be useless to everyone but the newest players?"

Would you ever really phrase a question that way as a company or designer? I highly doubt it.

I think it’s more along the lines of should the Player’s Handbook have introductory levels that act as a tutorial or on-ramp for new players? Would you prefer this information in a separate product targeted just for new players?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Always at level 1. I've done campaigns with advanced starts, and something often feels off with the characters' development. Missing out on those early levels skips a vital part of the experience. I also tend to find higher levels less interesting, so I'm in no rush to get there.

 

[Reynard]

Would you ever really phrase a question that way as a company or designer? I highly doubt it.

I think it’s more along the lines of should the Player’s Handbook have introductory levels that act as a tutorial or on ramp for new players? Would you prefer this information in a separate product targeted just for new players?

The real question I am asking is why aren't levels 1 and 2 worth playing through for everyone? Why make them training wheel levels? It seems a waste. Players that need training wheels will have the starter sets (of which there are what, 5 now?)

 

[Artamo]

The real question I am asking is why aren't levels 1 and 2 worth playing through for everyone? Why make them training wheel levels? It seems a waste. Players that need training wheels will have the starter sets (of which there are what, 5 now?)

I think that’s fair - there could be a better way of making levels 1 and 2 feel more like of a buildup to the level 3 subclass, possibly including some sort of training, rite of passage, or inciting event type of mechanic.

 

[Maxperson]

I’ll have to wait until I get home, but I thought the 2024 PHB recommended 3 as the starting level.

The 5.5e PHB recommends starting at level 3 if your group is experienced. Pg. 43.

"STARTING AT HIGHER LEVELS

Your DM might start your group's characters at a level higher than 1. It is particularly recommended to start at level 3 if your group is composed of seasoned D&D players."

 

[Maxperson]

Page 43 (as pointed out by @billd91 ) says "It is particularly recommended starting at level 3 for seasoned players."

I find this interesting. If they know that level 1 and 2 are training wheels, why are they in the PHB and not just part of the starter set? What is the point of having 2 useless levels?

I think they are in the PHB because many, many, MANY players don't bother with starter sets. I jumped straight into AD&D 1e and skipped Basic entirely. And also because a lot of folks want to start at the beginning of something.

 

[djotaku]

Always at level 1. Part of it is the fact that I'm almost always running adventure paths and they always start at level 1. (I have not yet played a Paizo, WotC, or KP AP that starts at a higher level, but I know Paizo has some that run 11-20)

My main tables are my kids (who have been playing for ~5 years at this point) and my co-workers who are brand-new to D&D. So playing levels 1 and 2 before getting a subclass helps learn the basics of the class before things start getting nutty.

As some people have said, from a story point of view (if you're a more RP table - which both of mine are), there's something awesome about going from level 1 newbies to adventuring to demi-gods. Or as @DragonLancer put it so well: " Some of us like that build up from facing goblins and spiders under the tavern cellars to making our way through haunted forests, forgotten ruins and finally braving the Temple of Elemental Evil as fully competent heroes."

All that said, I do have a campaign I'm planning for the future where the characters are already pretty experienced when we pick things up - so there I might be starting at level 3 or higher. We'll see - that's many months (if not a few years) away after we finish some other campaigns.

 

[Uta-napishti]

I feel the zero to hero thing is generally the most interesting part of D&D, and the first few levels have the richest source of this. I generally speed up leveling after 6, but take it nice and slow through levels 1-5.