At what character level do you prefer to start play?
- Thread starter CanadienneBacon
- Start date
Storyteller01
First Post
I prefer starting 1st or 2nd level. We are starting an open immortals campaign though. EVeryone is starting at 14th level. We'll see how it goes.
Lord Pendragon
First Post
I haven't responded to the poll yet, because for me it depends on the expected life of the campaign.
If the campaign can be expected to run long enough to hit the high levels, I'm happy to start from 1 and work my way up.
If the campaign is only likely to last a few months before degenerating for whatever reason, I'd prefer to start in the mid-level range. I'm tired of starting at level 1 and never getting to see a character's developmental path pay off.
If the campaign can be expected to run long enough to hit the high levels, I'm happy to start from 1 and work my way up.
If the campaign is only likely to last a few months before degenerating for whatever reason, I'd prefer to start in the mid-level range. I'm tired of starting at level 1 and never getting to see a character's developmental path pay off.
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
5.
To me, 3.5 D&D is a very good game at level five and stays that way up to around level ten.
Anything lower and you can't realize a wide enough variety of character concepts (not to mention the characters themselves are less mechanically interesting), anything higher and you're missing out on part of the best part of the system's play.
If advancement were changed/slowed (either slowed to around 1/4 its present speed or, better yet, to 1/10th its present speed but with additional feats and perks woven in) so that you could stay 'effectively' in the 7-12 range for much longer, I might say 7 instead of 5.
I don't particularly enjoy high level play and would be reluctant to start with a character over 12th level, feeling I'd missed the best part of the game. I can't see most PCs that would interest me spending their 'early years' (levels 1-4) adventuring, so I hate starting at low levels and am more likely to ask to wait until a game has reached 5th level (which doesn't normally take too long) before jumping in.
As a GM, I've started 3.5 campaigns at 2nd, 3rd and 5th level; the players arguably seemed to prefer the 3rd level start.
To me, 3.5 D&D is a very good game at level five and stays that way up to around level ten.
Anything lower and you can't realize a wide enough variety of character concepts (not to mention the characters themselves are less mechanically interesting), anything higher and you're missing out on part of the best part of the system's play.
If advancement were changed/slowed (either slowed to around 1/4 its present speed or, better yet, to 1/10th its present speed but with additional feats and perks woven in) so that you could stay 'effectively' in the 7-12 range for much longer, I might say 7 instead of 5.
I don't particularly enjoy high level play and would be reluctant to start with a character over 12th level, feeling I'd missed the best part of the game. I can't see most PCs that would interest me spending their 'early years' (levels 1-4) adventuring, so I hate starting at low levels and am more likely to ask to wait until a game has reached 5th level (which doesn't normally take too long) before jumping in.
As a GM, I've started 3.5 campaigns at 2nd, 3rd and 5th level; the players arguably seemed to prefer the 3rd level start.
pawsplay
Hero
Generally 1st. In theory I like starting at 2nd level, but I usually GM, and that starts the equipment wrangling and people have already made characters and so forth. For one shots, I usually say 6th level.
A nitpick: since breaking level 21 introduces new rules, which are considered optional, shouldn't 17-20 and 21+ have been separate options?
A nitpick: since breaking level 21 introduces new rules, which are considered optional, shouldn't 17-20 and 21+ have been separate options?
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
If I am trying to start a campaign, I like to start things off somewhere from 1st to 3rd level. It largely depends on what I am going to try to have them do early on, but as a DM that enjoys the tactical part of the game, 1st level can be just a bit too fragile. There is just not much of a margin for DM error at 1st level with fights. You cannot really make the party fear for their lives without actually killing them.
I dont have any reason to dislike the higher levels, but I have not had the chance to run a game that hit those levels.
END COMMUNICATION
I dont have any reason to dislike the higher levels, but I have not had the chance to run a game that hit those levels.
END COMMUNICATION
Angel Tarragon
Dawn Dragon
I prefer to play characters that don't start higher than 4th level (ECL +3).
Sound of Azure
Contemplative Soul
I prefer 1st or 2nd level to begin at. 3rd is pushing it somewhat. The recent game I started gaming in started at 6th level, because it's assumed our PCs are fairly mature already (in their mid-late 20s or older), so it made sense to be higher.
As others have stated, it depends on t he expected life of the campaign, and also... the expected flavour. When ever I run a Dragon World game, it's nearly always 12th to 15th level because it's a high-powered, high fantasy environment. When I'm running my grittier, low-magic variants like Selan, levels 1-9 are best, so we start low.
I'm fascinated by the suggestions of beginning at 0th level. What is this? You have a commoner level temporarily?
As others have stated, it depends on t he expected life of the campaign, and also... the expected flavour. When ever I run a Dragon World game, it's nearly always 12th to 15th level because it's a high-powered, high fantasy environment. When I'm running my grittier, low-magic variants like Selan, levels 1-9 are best, so we start low.
I'm fascinated by the suggestions of beginning at 0th level. What is this? You have a commoner level temporarily?
I prefer to start low-to-mid. My favorite level to start is around 5 or so. While character development is always preferred, I also like to live long enough to get there. When DMing 1st-level characters, they are so very fragile it's sometimes frustrating. The DM and players both have a very narrow margin for error to avoid player death (assuming a campaign with a moderate level of combat), and it's less believable to get players involved with anyone above a certain rank.
How can characters that can be killed by your typical lucky housecat have amassed the skill and reputation to rescue the princess from the dragon? I mean, there's only so many orcs and dire rats a sane mind can fight.
Yes, I know people can get creative with things other than combat, can scale down monsters, and can search alternate sources for more low CR combat challenges, but you get my drift.
Besides, I like to beat up on my players' characters from time to time, and I know some players prefer to be able to give their opponent a good solid thumping. And being able to do this without keeping track of hit-points like a penny-pinching miser makes the game more fun for me.
How can characters that can be killed by your typical lucky housecat have amassed the skill and reputation to rescue the princess from the dragon? I mean, there's only so many orcs and dire rats a sane mind can fight.
Yes, I know people can get creative with things other than combat, can scale down monsters, and can search alternate sources for more low CR combat challenges, but you get my drift.
Besides, I like to beat up on my players' characters from time to time, and I know some players prefer to be able to give their opponent a good solid thumping. And being able to do this without keeping track of hit-points like a penny-pinching miser makes the game more fun for me.
Similar Threads
