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

[pukunui]

I voted sometimes - I prefer not to, I like starting at level 3 or higher. But it depends on the campaign I am going to run. Sometimes it makes more sense to start at level 1.

 

[tetrasodium]

Its odd folks worry about this. Even in 3E it was fine. It was prestige classes that were an issue.

I'm going to agree with raynard and others but to a step further. The really bonkers prx combos tended to require very narrow very specific feat chains and occasionally painful skull choices. They simply were not that big of a deal because they were so obvious and the gm could ask why Bob is investigating so heavily in $wierdSkill then plan for it or shoot it down. 5e does away with all that in order to lower the bar far enough to ensure abserd is both trivially possible and effective with a multi attack matching straight fighter thanks to one of those classes.

The early levels are the only ones where the insane hexadin and similar builds aren't yet doable,l. Skipping those levels to make it even easier to build them right out of the gate is a big negative

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Way more often, we start at 3. Level 1 is for when the dm has a specific level 1-3 story to tell, or we are introducing new players.

 

[cbwjm]

Usually level 1, but have also started at level 2 or 3 for a bit of added survivability or just so that everyone can have their subclass and so feel a little more complete. I do like starting at level 1 though.

 

[James Gasik]

Level 2 for newer players, 3 otherwise. Makes encounter balancing easier for me, and it's not like you'd be at level 1 for long anyways if you're using xp.

 

[Horwath]

Level 3 or 6 as starting, L3 for new players. Usually with a bonus feat so character concepts go online sooner.

 

[Horwath]

Always. We recently finished a campaign at level 20 that I honestly hated for the last six months. Going back to level 1 and generally to lower levels is very refreshing. Completely different emotions and problems. I really missed that.

high levels can get broken real fast.
One solution that I like is capping classes at 11th level. Later just multiclass
Most classes get a nice capstone at 11th level, except Hunter ranger, that 11th level is beyond sad...

full casters get single 6th level slot.

or if I just want to ban 6+level spells for casters, just use this table for spell slots:

table on the right is modified for cap at 5th level spell slots.
Or just use spell points and again cap at 5th level slots.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. I don't mean "Why is there a first level?" I mean "Why is first level training wheels?" 5E is the only edition to ever do that. Obviously character got more powerful and more complex as they leveled in previous editions, but no edition besides 5E has said "Character generation isn't done until 3rd level." It is kind of bonkers.

I think it's because...

1) A ton of new players don't do starter sets and just start with the books, and...
2) WotC went overboard on simplifying the game, and splitting 1st level up into 3 levels in order to make the classes easier to learn is one of the examples where they went too far.

 

[Scott Christian]

Most of the time. I personally think it helps the players feel a greater sense of growth, especially since most of our campaigns do not go past 12th level.

 

[Milieu]

There is an easy solution to that: eliminate it.

I think multiclassing is a huge mistake.

I don't think you need to entirely eliminate it. Just eliminate the dipping. Either you're a rogue/cleric hybrid from the start and keep them at equal levels, or you're a 7th level rogue who decides to become a cleric, and you have to spend your next 3 (or so) levels on that before you can choose which class to level. Or, heck, make the so-called "tiers of play" a more formal structure, and you can only change classes on a per-tier rather than per-level basis.

Either way, you don't have to design classes around level dipping, and levels 1 and 2 don't have to be training wheels.

Dipping for class features via multiclassing is the problem. Just make a Gish class.

Or, yeah, a proper Gish class would greatly reduce the demand for multiclassing.