Starting Levels?

[JoeGKushner]

So does everyone use the standard 1st level to start off with? I'm looking through Oathbound a bit and while I'm not getting into details, just overlooking, I see mention of 7th level being a standard starting place. Reminds me of Fading Suns with its 7th level start.

Much fiction doesn't start off with weaklings but rather powerful, fully competent characters. Even Croaker of the Black Company, despite being a 'nobody' is a deadly shot with a bow as well as having lots of precious historical knowledge that holds power and promise.

For my mercenaries campaign that I'm brewing I'm thinking of starting characters at 5th level. Anyone have any experience with this?

 

[DarkJester]

My games vary. At first we did level ones, but after we started two groups from the ground up (Both ending in TPK's eventually) we started a game with 12th level characters. The charactes made it to around 16-17 level before we ended that one.

One of my friends is going to run a game and start the characters at 20th level. I warned him against this, he has a good grasp of the rules but not strongly enough I think. He also is giving everyone like 2 million gold to. I'm not sure I'm even going to play in that one......

 

[Phowett]

Vote: 1st Level. Just funner for me.

 

[Cedric]

I kind of like 3rd level for beginning/newer players. For experienced players, I prefer 1st level...although doing something around 12th level isn't unheard of.

Cedric

 

[Xaltar]

Players tend to have much better association with their characters when they start at lower levels. Even when they die and come in later on, the group tends to be more well founded.

Wizards and Fighters tend to have more in common at the lower levels, and that shared experience of helping each other allows for greater roleplaying and acceptance at later levels.

Now if you start a moderately low level, say 3rd, then you can have some more interesting and diverse characters (non-standard races), and work some very minor adventures into their starting histories.

 

[BluWolf]

It really depends. Is it a new campaign? First level.

A one shot or a few sessions? Depends on the adventure being run.

 

[Garmorn]

1st for a more standard game but for Dragonstar of some others as high as 4th so that the nonstandard race can be used.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I wanted to say 4th level, but it was strangely not an option

I voted 5th.

We've been playing long enough that the experience of playing really fragile "heroes" isn't anyting new or exciting

 

[Fictionaut]

One of my friends is going to run a game and start the characters at 20th level. I warned him against this, he has a good grasp of the rules but not strongly enough I think. He also is giving everyone like 2 million gold to. I'm not sure I'm even going to play in that one......

Yeah, the group I play with did that to introduce the Epic rules. Most of us are pretty experienced and comfortable with the rules, but even still we were all changing unused feats and items well into the third or fourth session...it's VERY difficult to see how such a character will function without having advanced there from a lower level. Almost everyone had a glaring weakness that would have been obvious at least a few levels earlier.

I favor third for most campaigns, as it gives some durabilty to the characters and allows for ECL races. Plus, the classes seem more balanced at third than to first, in my experience. I've started games as high as seventh without the party being overwhelmed with options.

 

[War Golem]

Always 1st for a campaign. Just have found much more sense of ownership, and, as a DM, I prefer the twists and turns the characters take as they develop over the course of their careers.

Starting at 1st level is like being the biological birth mother. Any level after that is like being an adopive mother - there's love, but maybe not that "special" bond?

Cheers,

-War Golem