D&D 5E What level do you like to start at?

[Minigiant]

3.

I feel that you have to be at least lvl 3 to do heroic plots. If you want no heroic plots, 5e doesn't have enough levels dedicated to it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I voted 1st, but it was a close call between 1st and 3rd. 1st has the advantage of allowing more low-level play, which offers some distinct character-building opportunities and gives more wiggle room to grow into the pc's rather than needing them pre-defined. I find this especially true for more experienced players - if you know what your doing it's a lot easier to build an overtuned 3rd level character who doesn't need the rest of the party.

But I understand all the people who said 3rd.

I've played in one game that started at 2nd - it was a really good compromise between the advantages of 1 and 3, actually, but I wouldn't argue fir it unless there was a split about where to start with a new game.

 

[jgsugden]

If you follow the advice in the DMG for experience, encounter creation, etc... the time spent at levels 1 and 2 are minimal. You advance right through them in a session or two each. You can see it in last Mine of Phandelver. You advance to level 2 after the first inside location, and then to 3 after the second. That takes about 12 hours of gaming for most groups (I've DMed it several times now, and played in it a few times as well).

 

[Vaalingrade]

I thought about that, but the game is 25% over at that point. Only 15 levels left.

One past the lower levels, we tend not to be in such a rush to level, honestly.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Always 1st. The first level or two are vital for character development IME.

A major flaw of 5e, as far as I'm concerned, is the subclasses starting later. The more I play and design for the edition, the stranger a design decision that seems.

 

[Oofta]

Always 1st. The first level or two are vital for character development IME.

A major flaw of 5e, as far as I'm concerned, is the subclasses starting later. The more I play and design for the edition, the stranger a design decision that seems.

I understand the complaint, just not sure I agree. If you're a newbie player you're not that familiar with the way the game plays, or what the options mean. Having a couple of sessions under your belt before you make that decision gives you a feel for what you might need.

Even with experienced players, it's not always obvious how the group is going to work together and what subclasses will work together best.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Always 1st. The first level or two are vital for character development IME.

A major flaw of 5e, as far as I'm concerned, is the subclasses starting later. The more I play and design for the edition, the stranger a design decision that seems.

Actually, it's the decision I understand the most from 5e, even if I don't agree:

WotC knows from 3e that a huge number of people skipped to 3 due to a number of reasons. That's why the power floor in 4e was raised so characters were survivable and competent at level 1. But then people wanted a Level 0 to get 'starter' PCs back, so 5e's levels 1 and 2 are level 0s (relative to 4e) for that purpose. And because people complained about there being system transparency in 4e, they didn't tell us and let us discover it ourselves.

 

[MarkB]

And because people complained about there being system transparency in 4e, they didn't tell us and let us discover it ourselves.

They didn't? I remember there being a lot of talk about how levels 1-2 were essentially 'apprentice' levels during 5e's release.

 

[Maxperson]

One past the lower levels, we tend not to be in such a rush to level, honestly.

I've slowed down leveling for 5e. 3e was almost a mad rush for levels. I was referring more to content.

 

[Oofta]

Actually, it's the decision I understand the most from 5e, even if I don't agree:

WotC knows from 3e that a huge number of people skipped to 3 due to a number of reasons. That's why the power floor in 4e was raised so characters were survivable and competent at level 1. But then people wanted a Level 0 to get 'starter' PCs back, so 5e's levels 1 and 2 are level 0s (relative to 4e) for that purpose. And because people complained about there being system transparency in 4e, they didn't tell us and let us discover it ourselves.

The PHB explicitly states "If you’re already familiar with the game ... your DM might decide to have you begin at a higher level".

Seems pretty transparent to me. They also discussed it quite a bit when the game was released.