D&D 5E (2024) 5e GMs: Do/Have/Would You Start Above 1st Level? (Note: Cannot change your vote.)

[Benjamin Olson]

I'll start campaigns intended to be short at whatever level is appropriate to the sort of threats the characters are facing.

If it's going to be a "grand campaign" I usually want to start at level 1. Though even then if players had character concepts that required a little multiclassing to properly represent or didn't really make sense until they had their subclass I might start higher. The issue is less pronounced in 2024 5e than in 5e classic though since everyone starts with a feat now (usually the issue was wanting to tie magic to a character background but having to do a few levels before they actually had any magical ability. Now they can just start as a magic initiate).

 

[payn]

I think an equally relevant question: How long do your groups STAY at level 1 or even levels 1-3?

Usually a good solid 4 hour session takes us from 1 to 2. Then, its likely two 4 hour sessions to get to 3. After three its usually 2-3 sessions until about level 5 and then it becomes 3-4 sessions. After about a year or two of play call it quits around 12-14.

Some groups power through the early levels fast - say a few sessions. Others take longer to MUCH longer. I've seen a group play for 2 years (around 2 sessions a month) and still not hit level 5 - as that was the DMs preference.

Personally, I prefer to go through the lower levels as quickly as possible as the mid-high levels just hold much more interest for me.

I was an E6-E8 kinda guy in 3E/PF1 days. I could sit in the level 5-10 range forever.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thinking about a level 12 sart for small game.

 

[delericho]

To date I've only ever started at 1st level. While that remains my preference, it's not set in stone - for the right campaign I'd happily start later. (It's just that I'm less likely to be running that "right campaign" - when I prepare them for myself, I default to 1.)

 

[Distracted DM]

Agreed. I prefer lower power games anyway (in the beginning at the very least), and see no inherent value in starting at a higher level. Anyway, Level Up classes are more complex than vanilla 5e, so I like to ease players into them.

That being said, I can imagine a specific campaign concept that would benefit from starting higher.

I've only started Level Up A5E characters at levels 1 or 2 because they get so many features! I've started 5e games at lvls 5-7 before, but A5E is another beast...

 

[DragonLancer]

1st level every time. Under previous editions we have tried starting at 3rd but it is unpopular with my group. My players and I feel that you lose out on a better understanding of your character and it's capabilities to jump up, especially in a campaign where you start higher than that. Personnel preference but I'd never start a campaign higher than 1st.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I've only started Level Up A5E characters at levels 1 or 2 because they get so many features! I've started 5e games at lvls 5-7 before, but A5E is another beast...

5.5 characters start way smoother due to the background feat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've only started Level Up A5E characters at levels 1 or 2 because they get so many features! I've started 5e games at lvls 5-7 before, but A5E is another beast...

Starting at level 1 has more benefits in A5e than in vanilla 5e, but even with the official game I only start higher if it makes the best sense for the campaign. I usually just don't see a good reason to do it.

 

[Mort]

I was an E6-E8 kinda guy in 3E/PF1 days. I could sit in the level 5-10 range forever.

2nd tier has always been a D&D sweet spot, certainly is for 5e.

Though, with an experienced DM AND experienced players I still prefer 11+. With the caveat that the game needs to change by those levels (different rewards, different stakes). If that doesn't happen, it does tend to get stale and repetitive.