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

[Older Beholder]

In recent times I mostly DM for people that are new to the game. So having them start at level 1 is a better way to slowly introduce the players to all their abilities.

Personally I like starting at level 1 as a player too. You get a chance to roleplay your background a bit more before fully becoming your class.

 

[Lyxen]

We almost always start at level 1, because we like to play our characters for as long as possible, we think that they make better heroes if you start building them when they are really beginning.

That being said, we rarely do more than one or two sessions at level 1, and not much more at level 2.

 

[S'mon]

I started my most recent campaign (Odyssey of the Dragonlords) at level 3, and I definitely think that works best for "you are a competent adventurer". My multi-party Faerun Adventures sandbox also currently has new PCs starting at 3, while the highest level PCs are 5th in one party & 6th in another, after 14 months of play. Again, 3 works very well and avoids the random pointless deaths you get with 1st level PCs in a 4th level party. Some Backgrounds like 'folk hero' make a lot more sense at 3rd than 1st.

But starting a group as 1st level novice adventurers also works fine. Just be aware they really are novices, and extremely squishy even by 1e-3e standards!

In my Stonehell deeper levels campaign, I started new PCs at 5th. I feel this didn't work very well, the characters lacked depth commensurate with their powers. Starting at 3rd doesn't seem to get in the way of developing interesting characters, and you get that epiphany moment when they hit 5th level - "You're a Hero!"

 

[S'mon]

level 2 or 3. Multiclass start as multiclass, everyone else gets their subclass, or are just about to.

unless I intend to stop at lvl 5, then level 1 start it is.

Good point about multiclassing - much less problem with suspension of disbelief when they start multiclass.
Same goes for several subclasses/paths - a Fighter-2 becoming an Eldritch Knight can strain disbelief, unless they're a High Elf maybe. Start at 3rd and they can have trained for years to become an EK.

 

[Thunder Brother]

I alternate between 1st and 3rd level, generally preferring the latter overall.

 

[Lyxen]

I started my most recent campaign (Odyssey of the Dragonlords) at level 3

We started that campaign at level 1 and it was heroic enough, we felt...

And the DM will take us to level 20, which is another parameter to consider.

 

[Shiroiken]

Really depends on the group and campaign I want to run. If there's any new players, I will always start at level 1. If everyone's experienced, but I want the party to meet during the first session, then I'll probably start at level 1. If the group's experienced and I don't feel fiddling with group introductions will improve the campaign, I'll start at level 3 with the group having already traveled together for a year or so.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

High level. Not interested in watching people grow in power.

EDIT: Also, my experience is probably different in that I do Play-by-Post, and everything is slow as heck, plus games often implode without warning. Not enough time to do any of the learning and growing other people have cited; in my opinion, such games should start at or near where they want to end up.

 

[MarkB]

3rd level is my minimum for a new campaign, and sometimes I'll go with 5th.

 

[Oofta]

We start at 1 because we like to establish the campaign setting, relationships between the PCs and the surrounding community when the group is essentially nobodies. Heck, I started my 4E campaign at level 0 with the PCs as kids (I did similar in previous editions as well) and then played to 30th.

We focus more on the RP aspects of the game at the very beginning and because the initial story arcs are all local it helps get a feel for what the group wants to do when their influence starts to expand.