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

[Reynard]

Why would it "fall flat"? You yourself in this very thread quoted the other words "My games tend to advance slower and last longer than average". Wotc. Mayhave excessively sped the advancement rate but you are kinda showing how unreasonable it was for them to design against slower progression to the point that someone couldn't even conceive of anything but the default for simple discussion purposes.

Certainly you didn't think I was the only gm to ever consider and choose to slow advancement? I think at least one other poster has talked about doing similar slowing at their table

I am not sure if we are talking past each other or what.

I was saying that with the default advancement rate that there was not enough time for those low level experiences to matter much, because after 2 fights with goblins those normal joe PCs are on their way to Seal Teamism. And then I immediately acknowledged that if it takes longer to reach level 2, then it makes sense.

But this is entirely besides the point of level 1 and 2 being specifically designed as training wheels -- which is ONLY true in 5E. In no other edition is character generation only complete after hitting 3rd level.

I don't care how you run your game. I am talking about the game as it is designed.

 

[tetrasodium]

I am not sure if we are talking past each other or what.

You skipped the question you quoted. I could see how not noticing it might have led to this pondering.ill try with more detailed questions about your post.

I was saying that with the default advancement rate that there was not enough time for those low level experiences to matter much, because after 2 fights with goblins those normal joe PCs are on their way to Seal Teamism. And then I immediately acknowledged that if it takes longer to reach level 2, then it makes sense.

But this is entirely besides the point of level 1 and 2 being specifically designed as training wheels -- which is ONLY true in 5E. In no other edition is character generation only complete after hitting 3rd level.

I don't care how you run your game. I am talking about the game as it is designed.

Why does the default advancement rate matter so much?

Multiple posters have noted doing so at their tables,did it not occur to you that a gm could advance PCs slower than the default advancement to fill out those early levels with more adventuring?

Are you implying that a gm choosing to slow advancement to a rate slower than default is some kind of abhorrent choice to violate the default advancement?

 

[Reynard]

Why does the default advancement rate matter so much?

Because the post I was responding to made a claim about the value of 1st and 2nd level as experiences for the character. That poster was not you, so I am not sure why you are arguing about this as if I had disagreed with you.

Multiple posters have noted doing so at their tables,

I was not talking to those other multiple posters either. I was responding to one poster. one post, even.

Are you implying that a gm choosing to slow advancement to a rate slower than default is some kind of abhorrent choice to violate the default advancement?

I don't know what argument you have constructed in your imagination that you want to have, but this wasn't one I ever made. Maybe find the poster that was trying to say this and argue with them instead?

 

[tetrasodium]

Because the post I was responding to made a claim about the value of 1st and 2nd level as experiences for the character. That poster was not you, so I am not sure why you are arguing about this as if I had disagreed with you.

I was not talking to those other multiple posters either. I was responding to one poster. one post, even.

I don't know what argument you have constructed in your imagination that you want to have, but this wasn't one I ever made. Maybe find the poster that was trying to say this and argue with them instead?

Got it. Thanks for demonstrating out the obvious flaw in wotc's "we did it this way to make it easy to homebrew" combined with rules that can only be hombre wed by nerfing PCs or dialing it past 11.

Why does the default matter should be a simple question to directly answer unless the answer undermines the position being made once it gets raised

 

[MoonSong]

Personally, whatever suits the themes and purpose of the campaign. Sometimes first level, sometimes third or even higher. But if I ever where to play/run 5.5, I would refuse to play first and second, maybe not even third. No way. Better to start with a fully realized party than having to go through growing pains just to have the party dynamics we want.

 

[Ancoulainn]

It depends on what the campaign is and how it is structured.

I like to start campaigns at level 1 when the party is supposed to grow together over the adventures of the first few levels. The example with Phandelver that you mention is a great example for this.

In other cases, Curse of Strahd for example, I like to start at level 3 because the early stuff like the House of Death - or if you want to play House of Lament instead - is simply too difficult. And I want it to become more difficult over the course of the campaign, but if you start like that, the next step up would be a TPK. Also, in this case, I don't really need the party to grow together because they just happen to be thrown together as they are dragged into the mists.

Another example would be Descent and while I agree that the early stuff is mostly filler, I like to incorporate something before things really get going. Usually I start the characters in Elturel before things go south and then what happens depends on who the characters are. I once had a Kobold Warlock, so I kept the stuff with the gold in, but moved the place to Elturel. Similarly to CoS, the characters are in Elturel for different reasons and do not need to know one another. And then at level 5, the characters experience the fall of the city first hand and have to work together to make things happen.

 

[guachi]

I started my current campaign at level 0 (literal Zero to Hero!) because I always wanted to run N4 Treasure Hunt. After about 8 months of 4 hour weekly sessions in the past 9 months the players are now halfway to level 6. I guess that's about 34 sessions. I don't think the players think they are advancing slowly but that seems to be far below the average advancement speed.

It was 3 sessions to level 1, 3 to to level 2, about 6 or something to level 3, maybe 8 to level 4, 8 to level 5 and then 3 more to get the two players who joined late to level 5. They got a ton of XP in one fight and the original 4 players moved a large distance to level 6.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

My reaction to the whole "1 and 2 are not real levels" is honestly the whole "these go to 11" scene from Spinal Tap. If you're meant to start at level 3...it should be level 1.

 

[Horwath]

Subclass = level 1. The designers have said this straight out. They broke up level 1 into 3 levels. Personally, playing level 1 for 3 levels is boring as hell. Just start me at level 1(3rd level) and let me progress to level 2(4th level).

Yes. I already said that. Fragility is the only thing you really miss out on when starting at level 3, but really, if you're looking for fragility, 5th edition isn't the ideal game. 1st-3rd edition is where you get that fragility at level 1.

how about?

you have 5th level features or 3rd level or whatever, but you have 1st level HPs.
then every session or two, you gain 1 level worth of HPs.

 

[DammitVictor]

I would if the class system in 5e didn't defer class identity to 3rd level with the same cockeyed and cackhanded multiclassing rules in 3e. Current game started at 6th level, and that's way too high, but I just don't have a solution to it beyond not running modern D&D anymore.

There are good alternating multiclassing rules out there, but all the ones I've seen involve patching it so that it works better at higher levels; nothing addresses the fact that the rules do not adequately support multiclass character concepts at earlier levels.