What level do you generally start your campaigns at?

[haiiro]

I'm gearing up to start a new campaign when 3.5e comes out, and I'm currently trying to decide what level to start the PCs out at.

On the one hand, starting them out at 1st level lets them grow as a group from the beginning. There's a few levels of struggle to deal with (one good swat from an orcish barbarian and you're gone, etc.), and not everyone likes that. With 3.5e coming in, it also lets us see how the revised classes work from level one.

On the other hand, starting with slightly higher level PCs allows for specialization and more developed concepts, as well as some selected magic items (which can't be counted on once the game begins). This can create gray areas ("Do I know what a mind flayer is?"), and bypasses the "struggling heroes" aspect of things.

In the past, I've done both. In recent years, the PCs have generally started out at 3rd-6th level. Particularly in 3e, this is nice because it also allows for ECL +x races (which starting at 1st level does not). Without knowing how long the game will last (due to scheduling problems, people moving away, etc.) -- and with slower levelling under 2e, which I ran for a long time -- starting at slightly higher levels just made more sense to me.

So how about it -- what level do you generally start your campaigns at, and why?

(Note: I made the lower levels individual options because there are clear individual differences between them, and because I suspect most campaigns start somewhere in the 1st-6th level range.)

(Edit: clarification.)

 

[Mordane76]

Honestly, I like third level.

Characters have enough extra power from levels to feel capable, but they aren't powerhouses, and they don't have lots money for magical items. They also have plenty of room for advancement...

 

[Ed Cha]

I like starting players out at 1st-level. There's a sense of a true beginning and a "freshness" to it all. It seems most DMs start their players out at 2nd-level to avoid easy PC deaths, but all I do is just give them an additional 1d6hp and a special ability and they do just fine. It doesn't unbalance the game later down the road either.

In fact, I have an adventure setting/starter kit coming out called 1A The Hamlet of Thumble (July release) that has a DM Tips section called "How To Avoid Killing 1st Level PCs"!

 

[A'koss]

We like to start at 3rd level quite consistantly. The odd time we may decide to start out at second level, but it's been years since we've started at 1st.

This allows me (or whomever DMs) some leeway in how intelligently we play the opposition. For example, a group of PCs rousting a dungeon full of monsters will usually face stiff, coordinated oppostion unless they take great pains in attacking with stealth. You virtually never have the luxury of "cleaning" a dungeon/locale room by room...


A'koss.

 

[Carnifex]

Generally I prefer to start with 1st level.

Especially if the group has anyone new to D&D...

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I start my games off at 1st level usually. My players and I have come to like the sense of danger and it creates a lot of teamwork to stay alive. Though I have started one game at 10th level...but that was to get a feel for some higher level things.

 

[mystraschosen]

I prefer 1st level as well,everybody should have to fear an orc or skeleton at one point or another.Not to mention that it helps the player become more attached to their character when they have to face adversary as they slowly build their character up and earn everything.

Although starting at higher levels is acceptable at times if you have a certain storyline or idea setup.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

First level of course, well on occasion I have started the party at 2nd level but that is it.
ken

 

[Stalker0]

I like 3rd, I feel that I can really push a certain character concept by then- and its still low level enough to keep teh characters fearful

 

[Corinth]

Always 1st level.