D&D 5E Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"

[Retreater]

Last night a player commented: "Levels 1-4 are just training wheels. The game doesn't even start until 5th level. Unless you're playing D&D for the first time, you should just start at 5th level."

Now, she hasn't been playing for ages - probably just around 5 years. I would expect it to take longer than that to become that jaded to low-level play.

Do you agree? If not, how do you address this? Start at 5th level? Speed through Levels 1-4? House rules to give more power or better options?

 

[payn]

I thought level 1-2 were the training wheels in 5E and that level 3 is where it all begins?

I've heard such in every edition of the game, but its variable.

 

[Mordhau]

I also thought it was 1-2. Everyone gets their subclass by 3rd level so that's a natural place to start and avoids the weird stuff like bards suddenly learning how to use shields and better armour at 3rd level for no good reason.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd say that at least the levels one and two are novice levels. And personally I like playing through them, as I like the whole from zero to hero aspect of D&D. But if your players don't, and want to start with more competent characters, you can easily just skip them.

 

[dave2008]

Last night a player commented: "Levels 1-4 are just training wheels. The game doesn't even start until 5th level. Unless you're playing D&D for the first time, you should just start at 5th level."

Now, she hasn't been playing for ages - probably just around 5 years. I would expect it to take longer than that to become that jaded to low-level play.

Do you agree? If not, how do you address this? Start at 5th level? Speed through Levels 1-4? House rules to give more power or better options?

I don't agree. Our group typically starts out at level 0 (in 5e that is no class, just race and background) so we can stretch low level even more. In our current campaign I think we spent a whole year in levels 0-4. However,...

...if that was our opinion: I would probably just start the game at 3rd level. I think everyone has there subclass by that point. In fact, IIRC, that is exactly what WotC recommends and their adventures often really start around that level as well.

 

[Li Shenron]

If she has played 5e before (not just D&D) then I don't see anything wrong with starting at a level she has reached before.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Playing as glorified commoners at level one is a core principle of D&D. 4th Edition veered away from that and look what happened to it!

 

[Jer]

Now, she hasn't been playing for ages - probably just around 5 years. I would expect it to take longer than that to become that jaded to low-level play.

Do you agree? If not, how do you address this? Start at 5th level? Speed through Levels 1-4? House rules to give more power or better options?

5 years is actually longer than I'd think it would take for a player to come to the realization that levels 1-4 are training wheels. Because levels 1-4 were designed by Wizards to actually be the "training wheel" levels. Character capabilities are doled out slowly, ramping up the complexity and power level of characters until they hit level 4 and they have learned most of the game's systems. You can also see it in the DMG where they break down the tiers of play and level 5 is the transition point where players move from being "Local Heroes" and into the tier where they are "Heroes of the Realm".

What your player is probably actually telling you is that she has a preference for playing at the more heroic tier of play than a starting character. That she wants to play at the level where wizards are slinging fireball spells and fighters have two attacks per round, not at the level where you could be killed by a swarm of rats.

EDIT: And I do mean that Wizards designed 5e this way on purpose. It was a reaction to 4e where they started the characters out at the more Heroic tier and took a lot of flak for it from the folks who like to start their characters as dirt farmers and go from zero to hero. So they put the zero to hero levels in and then put signposts in place for those of us who actually don't care for that play style to explicitly say "hey, it's ok to skip these levels if you want and start at level 5".

 

[commandercrud]

It needs slowed down if anything.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Last night a player commented: "Levels 1-4 are just training wheels. The game doesn't even start until 5th level. Unless you're playing D&D for the first time, you should just start at 5th level."

Now, she hasn't been playing for ages - probably just around 5 years. I would expect it to take longer than that to become that jaded to low-level play.

Do you agree? If not, how do you address this? Start at 5th level? Speed through Levels 1-4? House rules to give more power or better options?

Interesting. To me the first few levels are the most fun. Like @dave2008 we added a level 0 (prologue) also just race and background, and enjoy the challenge low-level play brings.

Another thing is we slowed down advancement so we are in those low-levels longer. It takes us 25000 xp to reach level 5, for example.

Personally, I find higher level play a bit boring because there are too many powers and options for the players to use to solve problems instead of playing them through.

A question for you @Retreater is "how often are you playing levels 1-4 compared to levels 5 and higher"? If you barely get to levels 7+ before you start over with new characters, the player might become frustrated with that?

Also, a simple houserule (more part of our system) now that might appeal to your player is what I call "faster features". You remove the ASI's at levels 4, 8, etc. and slide up the table all the other features (just features, not spells, etc.) so you have them all by level 15 instead of 20. Here's a sample for Fighter, with some new features I made up thrown in:

Without the ASI at level 4, for instance, Extra Attack is moved up into the gap from 5th to 4th level.