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 ) did not do this, and has been much closer to the supposed pace that 5e tells its GMs to run.

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.

 

[greymist]

My games always start at Level 1. And I have increased the XP required to attain Levels 2 and 3; so the lowest levels last longer!

I’ve played D&D for a long time and I still find the most exciting sessions are at low level when the PCs have no magic items and a hand-me-down sword to take on the villains.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Given I started something like 10, maybe even 20 campaigns in a single year (several years ago now) trying to find any table I could join that wouldn't fold before session 7-or-equivalent, I imagine it's one factor, but it's not the only one, nor is it overwhelming.

Because I've never liked starting at rock-bottom level. 4e and 13A are the only systems where I wouldn't have a problem doing it...even though I would still prefer to start at something like level 3 or 4. In 3e and PF, it's just a painful painful slog to be ALLOWED to play your core concept. In earlier editions, it's just a painful slog to be allowed to play at all without being utterly crushed beneath the weight of ultramax lethality. And in non-D&D systems where "level" isn't really accurate, but something loosely analogous is (e.g. rank in W:tA, or karma total in SR5), I know there's this HUGE emphasis on starting and keeping things at the lowest of the lowest of the low, and I just find that so. gorram. boring.

I want to actually get to play with the cool toys! I want to see what I can do with them! I want to see what kinds of shenanigans our group can survive (or wreak...) That doesn't mean I want no setup at all. I just don't want the setup to be "So you are literally a fetus about to be born...", which is what low-level D&D feels like to me. It feels like the worst possible hybrid of a dull bookkeeping exercise and an unending parade of jumpscares perfectly tailored to never let you get used to it. I hate both of those things with a passion, so....I genuinely do not want to have to go through that if I don't have to.

And then 5e made me do it. Over and over and over and over and over again.

 

[Horwath]

boring.

this is THE key problem.
roleplay can good or bad, depending on group and you, at any level, that is what you make of it.

But, mechanically, low level characters are simply boring as hell.

Maybe wizard should know 10 1st level spells and have 10 1st level slots and 10 cantrips. you would probably still default to 2-3 cantrips and 2-3 1st level spells most of the time, but it's fun and interesting to have contingencies.

maybe every martial, depending on class could know 3-5 maneuvers and have 5-10 maneuver dice right from the gate.

That would make combat interesting.

 

[BenjaminPey]

I don't find the first levels boring at all. I get why you wouldn't play them because of their lethality, but otherwise, they are very tight, well-designed piece of gameplay with great on-boarding aspects, both mechanically and roleplay-wise. They're also your last chance to face some challenges that higher levels will simply erase from the game, when the main appeal of games with levels in my mind is exactly this: changing the challenges you face throughout. Finally, I never fully know my character (or other people's characters for that matter) before at least two or three sessions in. I like this phase where they're still in construction.