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

[BenjaminPey]

That can be done at level 3 every bit as easily as level 1. All the time it takes to learn those things as you go from level 1 to level 3 can be done when you start at level 3. The character growth decisions you make as you learn your character don't hinge on character level.

You mean you don't choose your subclass at level 3?

And even excluding that, I don't know about you, but personally I'm not in the same mental state when playing a starting, fragile, not yet fully realized character for whom every fight could very well be the last, even with the local drunk. It's part of the process. For me, an important part. You won't persuade me otherwise. It's even strange you're trying. Did I suggest your perspective is wrong, that you shan't start at level three? I don't think so.

 

[Maxperson]

You mean you don't choose your subclass at level 3?

Subclass = level 1. The designers have said this straight out. They broke up level 1 into 3 levels. Personally, playing level 1 for 3 levels is boring as hell. Just start me at level 1(3rd level) and let me progress to level 2(4th level).

And even excluding that, I don't know about you, but personally I'm not in the same mental state when playing a starting, fragile, not yet fully realized character for whom every fight could very well be the last, even with the local drunk. It's part of the process. For me, an important part. You won't persuade me otherwise. It's even strange you're trying. Did I suggest your perspective is wrong, that you shan't start at level three? I don't think so.

Yes. I already said that. Fragility is the only thing you really miss out on when starting at level 3, but really, if you're looking for fragility, 5th edition isn't the ideal game. 1st-3rd edition is where you get that fragility at level 1.

 

[BenjaminPey]

You simply don't get it, do you?

The challenges. Your character's perspective on life. The troubles they're facing. Is having to gather ingredients for your uncle the herbalist the same thing as traveling across the country to fight in the name of your lord?

 

[Reynard]

Is having to gather ingredients for your uncle the herbalist the same thing as traveling across the country to fight in the name of your lord?

I think it is a mistake to think that the "help your uncle gather ingredients" is somehow locked to low level. What if your uncle is an archmage and the ingredients are in the feywild? And a 1st level character can get conscripted and have to march across the country in order to fight under their lord's banner. It happens all the time in fantasy literature.

The scale and kind of stories we want to tell with D&D can be based on their level, bit it isn't inherent. People would do better, IMO, to think beyond the tropes and cliches and embrace things like scope regardless of level.

 

[Maxperson]

You simply don't get it, do you?

The challenges. Your character's perspective on life. The troubles they're facing. Is having to gather ingredients for your uncle the herbalist the same thing as traveling across the country to fight in the name of your lord?

Is there a reason you can't gather herbs for your uncle at level 3? Why are you traveling across the country to fight for your lord at level 3 and not at level 7 or 10? No particular reason is why.

Other than fragility and struggling with rats instead of wererats, there's nothing about level 1 that's different than level 3.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is a mistake to think that the "help your uncle gather ingredients" is somehow locked to low level. What if your uncle is an archmage and the ingredients are in the feywild? And a 1st level character can get conscripted and have to march across the country in order to fight under their lord's banner. It happens all the time in fantasy literature.

The scale and kind of stories we want to tell with D&D can be based on their level, bit it isn't inherent. People would do better, IMO, to think beyond the tropes and cliches and embrace things like scope regardless of level.

Exactly. People are tying things to levels 1 and 2 that simply are not tied there. The ties are only in their own imaginations. They are tying themselves down.

 

[BenjaminPey]

The scale and kind of stories we want to tell with D&D can be based on their level, bit it isn't inherent. People would do better, IMO, to think beyond the tropes and cliches and embrace things like scope regardless of level.

And what about "people would do better to play the way they like, emphasizing what they want?

You asked a question, at what level do you like to start, I gave my answer. I wasn't expecting to be told how my way to pretend to be an elf is not the good way.

 

[Distracted DM]

We often start at 1, yes, unless I want a particularly heroic start to the game. Those first couple levels are delightfully gritty. That's when the players are actually looking at their mundane inventories and scrambling for whatever they can make use of to get every advantage in a situation.

 

[BenjaminPey]

Is there a reason you can't gather herbs for your uncle at level 3? Why are you traveling across the country to fight for your lord at level 3 and not at level 7 or 10? No particular reason is why.

Because that way I can do other things at level three. Maybe more important things. You know, changing things up a bit. As a game with levels tend to be fitted for.

 

[kigmatzomat]

My sorcerer 1/cleric 1/paladin 1/bard 1/rogue 1/druid 1/ranger 1/wizard 1 strenously objects to the idea he's obnoxious.

Ahhh, Cantrip McUpcast. I've heard of you.