Starting above 1st level - player reaction?

[A'koss]

For core D&D games I usually like to start them around 2nd to 3rd level. I think it also makes more sense to do so on a campaign level as characters now have enough training (and typically some experience with a larger army, etc.) to venture out on their own with a little more confidence. As GlassJaw points out, at 1st level characters are just a bit too fragile. As a DM I have to "cheat" a lot more at lower levels to keep the PCs alive, but if they start at 3rd level I can play up the PC's opponents with a modicum of intelligence.

Just my 2 bits...

 

[Darkness]

I generally wouldn't start any character below than 6th level, though I might go as low as 4th for some campaigns.

That's at campaign start, mind. Obviously, characters of new players entering an existing campaign start at a level slightly lower than the existing characters - whatever that might be.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I normally start PCs at 3rd. We tried an 11th lvl start with a different DM and most of the charcters were built for power. It took a long time to get used to our powers etc as most of us had never played to 13th before.

I did a players survey and a suggested start of 1st or 6th but most wanted to start at 3rd or 4th, with one player voting 9th. We started the new campaign at 3rd, and said that everyone had had one major experiance before starting, please provide details.

For cash they said they wanted a higher level of magic so I started them with DMG expected wealth. (it didnt work very well) I would suggest instead you assign each pc 1 magic item, and let them spend the remainder as they wish. I have done this before and it worked better.

 

[Galethorn]

Where I start PCs depends entirely on the campaign, system, and what adventure I want to start with.

For my longest-running game (almost a year so far...and everybody enjoys it even more with each session), I started the PCs at level 2 to run almost a sort of introductory adventure. Then, they leveled up quickly, and really started the campaign in earnest at about level 4. Now, they're level 8 and starting to become a serious threat to anybody who they go after.

For the off-weekend game I run, I started the PCs off at level 5 so I could start things off with a particular adventure (the Mysterious Tower, by Goodman Games, if anybody wanted to know), and it worked quite well.

For the at-school game I run once a week, I started the PCs off at level 2, and it's also going pretty well.


What I've learned is some general guidelines for what starting level corresponds to the kind of campaign you want to run...

Level 1 if you want the classic 'slogging it to the top' sort of game, where adventuring is a lifestyle, and the PCs start from nothing.

Level 2-4 if you want PCs that don't quite know their place in the group/campaign/world, but are competent in their own right.

Level 5-8 if you want PCs that may have been around the block a few times, and already have a fair amount of their life behind them, but still have most of it ahead. (This is where I like to start as a player)

Level 9+ if you want seasoned veterans; characters who know who they are, what they want, and how to get it, and aren't afraid of anything.

Now, it can depend greatly on the DM and how they run (and/or build) the setting. Those are just my experiences.

 

[pogre]

The time between 1st and 4th level goes so quickly I cannot imagine creating higher level characters unless you are going directly to 5th. A solid dungeon delve should get your crew to third in just a couple of sessions - getting to know the characters is usually worth it in my book.

 

[domino]

As a player, I HATE first level. If you're a mage, or bard, or sorceror, and you loose initiative, you have a fair chance of getting killed IN ONE ROUND, by a DOG. A dog with better AC and more HP than you do.

A DOG.

 

[painandgreed]

Best camapign I ever ran was started at 8th level for most. One guy had played from 1st level with his character and wanted a dungeon adventure so I had friends make up characters and we went at the GDQ series.

Currently, we started at 6th because we wanted to experiment with LA character races. We hit the ground running and have been going strong ever since.

 

[S'mon]

IRL an attack dog is far more dangerous than a typical human.

In my last campaign PCs were started at high levels, 9th up to 15th at the end. In most cases this didn't work very well, for various reasons some of which people have listed, but the hardest thing was getting into the high-level mindset where your character _starts_ as a famous hero.

In my current Lost City of Barakus game, PCs started at 1st & after 3 sessions they're all now 2nd. I'm enjoying this pace a lot. I'm using Fate Points to prevent arbitrary PC death, so far 1 character has spent 2 of his 3 starting points thanks to a choker and a raging orc barbarian, the others are still on 3/3.

Previously I'd had trouble with 1st level PCs always dying, using a published scenario, plus Fate Points, plus 6 PCs, plus 2 of the players are veterans of my playing style, have all helped a lot.

 

[the Jester]

Both as a dm and as a player, I vastly prefer starting at 1st level. Even if it means I die a couple of times before the character who's going to last gets generated. I love knowing that I've made it through the 'delicate' period by my own means rather than via dm fiat.

 

[Crothian]

As a player, I HATE first level. If you're a mage, or bard, or sorceror, and you loose initiative, you have a fair chance of getting killed IN ONE ROUND, by a DOG. A dog with better AC and more HP than you do.

A DOG.

How does a dog that only does 1d4+1 damage kill a bard with at least 6 HP in one round? For that matter how does a dog who can only do 10 points of damage maximium with a crit kill a Wizard that has to suffer 14 hitpoints of damage to die (4 HP, taken to -10 to die). Heck, that;s assuming the dog hits with its mighty +2 attack roll.

So, nope, a dog cannot kill any of these classes in one round.