D&D 5E Starting level

[RevelationMD]

I voted for 1st lvl, although i wouldn't minded to start as 0lvl and slowly through the initial story learn the first basics of your class.

My old group did this on occasion (rare occasion). Didn't always work quite as well as we'd hoped as normally players like to write up interesting back stories that justify their choice of class - often these were more interesting than the group wide 0 level adventure. But that was just my experience.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My characters don't feel truly mine if they began any higher than 1st level....

I...don't even know how to process this. How can they not be yours? Your imagination is the only reason they exist.

As for me, it's been either 1st or ~5th level for basically every campaign I've played, regardless of edition. So I guess 3rd is an acceptable average point even though I've never actually played one that started at that level!

The vast preference for always starting at 1st level, regardless of what the designers expect you to start at, is why I had advocated against making 1st-level characters intentionally "feature-incomplete." There should've been a series of progressively closer "zero" (or "pre-adventure") levels instead. But that's a battle I've long ago lost.

 

[Imaculata]

I always have my players start at first level. Those early levels can be quite exciting. Everyone still has a low health pool, and even minor monsters can be quite deadly.

 

[Azurewraith]

5e I tend to start at 3rd mainly because the first few levels are so quick and between the 6 of us there's 1phb so it just saves the book shuffel twice in as many weeks

 

[Savevsdeath]

I said 5th, but the answer is actually '5th or 7th' since all of my 5E play is via persistent online chat, particularly one I run, and the players are allowed multiple characters - one of which starts at 7th level, the rest of which must be 5th. This is because in the persistent chat medium people put a lot of time and effort into making detailed character concepts and usually want to skip the boring low levels when a detailed history can't be easily supported by the abilities of a level 1 character, and unlike a weekly tabletop game these people play their characters sometimes daily for at least a few hours and so get to know them and form relationships. As may be easily guessed random, pointless death is not well-received by them. This is also why we use a 33 point-buy (my new standard for TT 5e regardless of where i run it - it makes PC's feel so much more competent and heroic).

I've not encountered anyone having difficulty grasping their character or playing them well, and thus far there have been zero character deaths, though a group of 5th to 9th-level characters fighting Flameskulls in Sharn's City of the Dead a few days ago came VERY close (Including my own character. I was not Dm'ing this particular adventure).

Flameskulls. CR 4 my ass - they fireballs.

 

[delericho]

Both my 5e games, and actually every campaign I've started in the last five years or so, have started at level 1.

However, that's not a solid rule - I wouldn't hesitate to start at the start of any of the tiers, as appropriate to the campaign (so 1st, 5th, 11th, or 17th in 5e; 1st, 6th, or 13th in 3e; or 1st, 11th, or 21st for 4e).

 

[JonnyP71]

I...don't even know how to process this. How can they not be yours? Your imagination is the only reason they exist.

(

I'm not sure how you can't understand? My own feeling is that unless the character begins their adventuring career 'properly' they are somewhat incomplete.. I like the formative levels, the ones where they are new, fresh, basic, and learning the adventuring life, I like playing the sense of wonderment, naivety and inexperience and basing some of their later personality on those early experiences.

If I start a character at a higher level they feel more disposable, like a character for a one-shot scenario.

Not that long ago I joined a 2E campaign - everyone else was 4th/5th level already - I started at 1st.

 

[Waterbizkit]

I leave the choice up to my players, usually discussed during "session zero" where we're trying to hash out all of the details about what type of campaign they want to play. Interestingly enough they've always opted for a 1st level start. Their reason is typically that they feel it allows them to better learn the game mechanics as they go. So while I always leave the option on the table for starts above 1st it's my players that make the call for starting at the "beginning".

 

[Uchawi]

3rd makes the most sense to start with a level playing field when considering the logic behind training, career, etc. for classes. Why does a fighter have to be a simpleton at first, where other classes like a wizard are making meaningful choices with spells, etc. But in retrospect, even before 5E existed, I tended to start at higher levels just to grant the players a chance to survive. I never played in a campaign with zero level characters, and 4E was the only edition that favored advancement from first level when I was a DM or player.

 

[Li Shenron]

I only started 3 campaigns in 5e, and all at 1st level.

But in the 3e era, after a while I settled to starting at 3rd level to have more PC variety since the start (and only secondarily, increased survivability), and I thus I have reasons to believe I will eventually do the same in 5e.