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

[EzekielRaiden]

On occasion. With reluctance.

I strongly dislike the play experience of levels 1-4 in 5e. I can tolerate starting at 3rd if I have to, and I will endure starting at 1st if that is what the GM tells me to do. I just really really really really really don't like having to if I have any alternative.

Part of why I dislike it so much is that I have been forced to play through it over and over and over, without seeing any meaningful progress for multiple weeks. As in it is not uncommon to spend 3+ sessions of 3-4 hours apiece still at level 1. I am profoundly thankful that my current 5.5e GM (the indomitable @Hussar ).

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?

Because they're trying to serve at least three different, contradictory masters with the same set of rules.

1-2 (and to some extent even 3 and 4!) are "training wheels" levels for brand-new players, having (relatively) few choices, (relatively) reduced overhead, (relatively) low complexity, etc.
1-2 (and to a MUCH lesser extent 3) is the "meatgrinder" level range for early-edition fans who want the grueling, ultramax lethality they recall from the games they preferred.
1-2 (and to some degree 3, and a bit 4) is the "organic growth" level range, where later-edition fans who want the organic, built-through-choices growth experience can see that happen.

All three of these want incompatible things. WotC believes they can perfectly serve all three masters. They cannot. As a result, these levels all have serious stumbling blocks for all three groups, which cannot be dislodged without making worse stumbling blocks for at least one of the others, and possibly both.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Exactly. As I have more than once said, D&D 5e is missing something like 11-12 class-fantasy archetypes from its roster (at maximum; some might dispute some and whittle it down to like 8-ish extras). Some of those archetypes are pretty fresh mechanically speaking, like Warlord, or are things that have only gotten thematic representation in the past like 20-ish years, e.g. the Avenger perfectly capturing the feel and ethos behind Ezio Auditore/Assassin's Creed, since ironically Ezio is not an Assassin in the classic D&D sense. Others are longstanding concepts like a nonmagical battle engineer/mechanist that just haven't been given the chance to spread their wings yet.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

I wonder if there isn't a correlation between the number of times someone starts a campaign and the inclination to starting at higher levels. I'm a forever DM, so, on the rare occasion I actually get to pay, it's a bit of a treat to start at 1st level. In the past ten years, I've actually been a player in maybe 4 campaigns. And 3 of those 4 actually went a significant distance, so, playing 1st level isn't much of a task to me. For one, because I almost never get to be a players, it actually takes me a while to learn what a PC can do.

And, having played with some pretty newbie players over the past few years, starting them out at 3rd level would be overwhelming. They have enough trouble with their 1st level PC.