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

[Maxperson]

The 3.0 DMG had an option for 1st level multiclass characters, and it rocked. But they removed it in 3.5.

You talking about the gestalt PCs?

 

[Ath-kethin]

Huh. I remember not liking it.

The problem, to my mind, is the a la carte leveling system. It makes creating a character that seems truly blended very challenging.

The option from the 3.0 DMG didn't solve this problem. But it DID allow multi-classing at 1st level, which helped a lot with the "blended character" feel.

 

[Ath-kethin]

You talking about the gestalt PCs?

No. I'm mean 1st level multi-classing, which was an option in the 3.0 DMG. From 2nd level up, multi-classing world the same way it did otherwise, the option just allowed for an actual multiclass 1st level character instead of the normal one-then-the-other approach.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I fully understand why and how they designed the low levels in 5e. I just don't like it.

I'm in the minority and I know it, but that's fine.

FWIW, I doubt you're in the minority.

 

[Ath-kethin]

FWIW, I doubt you're in the minority.

Perhaps not, but my specific reasons for disliking it seem to be in the minority. At least to judge from the edition's ridiculous sales figures.

 

[Oofta]

FWIW, I doubt you're in the minority.

FWIW, I don't think anyone here has a clue what's popular. If you follow standard guidelines, the first couple of levels take no time to get through. You can always start at higher levels.

It depends on what your focus is and what you want out of the game. I like how leveling works, it's worked well for campaigns I've been in.

 

[Dausuul]

I prefer to start at level 3, but move the party along fairly quickly to 5. I'd also consider just starting at 5. I'm almost never going to start at level 1.

Things change so dramatically at level 5, particularly for spellcasters, that it's almost a different game at that point. I do appreciate having levels 3 and 4 as a sort of introductory period, but I don't want to linger there.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I definitely like the level 1 starts. I just wish everyone got their subclass at that level.

I like the entire 'zero to hero' story arc. Some unremarkable people going on an adventure and growing over the course of it. I don't like starting as characters who can already wipe an entire villages worth of commoners in a few turns. Just kills the fun for me.

 

[Ashrym]

I feel like I haven't played the full character if I don't start at 1st level.

 

[HammerMan]

I have been starting my players' characters at level 3 since fairly early in 3e. Occasionally I started them at 5.

This... 3rd to 5th I wish I never had to play 1st level ever again (unless we went back to 4e)